The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

applehunter

NuMarvel wrote: »

Do you have anything constructive to add or are you occasionally wandering in here just to try and get a rise out of people?

Criticizing John McGuirk is constructive, praising John McGuirk is not. Got ya.

"Wandering in here"

I will post whenever and whatever I want.

swampgas

I saw my first pro-repeal posters in Cork yesterday - it cheered me up after a difficult day.

seamus

Ush1 wrote: »

Do you accept it's not as simple as saying it's their bodies? Do you think people would be as concerned and stirred if women were wanting to legally chop off their legs?

You've unintentionally chosen a rather excellent analogue there.

There is currently no constitutional provision which requires that the law punishes people for removing their limbs.

If such a provision did exist, it would make surgical treatment a rather complicated affair to ensure that the removal of any body parts was fully in compliance with the law as set out.

It would also result in many poor, or late clinical decisions being made because of the same legal restrictions, and unsurity over the same. People would die because surgeons couldn't operate on them in time to remove a body part which later progressed to a serious complication.

So yes, if the constitution contained a provision providing explicit protection to your leg and requiring that people who remove legs should be punished with 14 years in jail, then I think you'd find quite a lot of people "concerned and stirred" about tying surgeon's hands and endangering patients through constitutional provisions.

Ush1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

is that something common that i am not aware of?

It is simply this. Women must be allowed to make the best choice for themselves. Or do you suggest they should martyr themselves for the betterment of society? what societal issues that are caused by abortion override the health and wellbeing of a woman?

It's fine if you can't or won't acknowledge what I'm saying. Have a nice Friday.:)

seamus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

in the sense that he is doing the repeal sides job for them i totally agree.

Which is ironic, because a month ago on his Facebook page he suggested that the pro-life campaign should sit back and just let Simon Coveney do all the work for them.

John is the new Simon.

baylah17

applehunter wrote: »

I will post whenever and whatever I want.

Please do, we could all do with a good laugh!

Repeal the 8th

Ush1

seamus wrote: »

You've unintentionally chosen a rather excellent analogue there.

There is currently no constitutional provision which requires that the law punishes people for removing their limbs.

If such a provision did exist, it would make surgical treatment a rather complicated affair to ensure that the removal of any body parts was fully in compliance with the law as set out.

It would also result in many poor, or late clinical decisions being made because of the same legal restrictions, and unsurity over the same. People would die because surgeons couldn't operate on them in time to remove a body part which later progressed to a serious complication.

So yes, if the constitution contained a provision providing explicit protection to your leg and requiring that people who remove legs should be punished with 14 years in jail, then I think you'd find quite a lot of people "concerned and stirred" about tying surgeon's hands and endangering patients through constitutional provisions.

I dare say quite a few less than an abortion debate, which shows the point I'm making.

Legs don't produce children, but of course we all know that.

Timberrrrrrrr

Ush1 wrote: »

...and wider society.

Do you accept it's not as simple as saying it's their bodies? Do you think people would be as concerned and stirred if women were wanting to legally chop off their legs?

Happens all over the world for various reasons.

It wasnt me123

Ush1 wrote: »

Your eggs and mens sperm by themselves won't create a human life. You know this, a fertilized egg obviously eventually will(barring complications). That's the relevant part.

No my body is the relevant part. MY body. Women want body autonomy, the same way men have body autonomy - equal playing field.

Not every fertilised egg eventually makes a baby - thousands never do - what are you going to do about those.

Hannibal_Smith

Ush1 wrote: »

I dare say quite a few less than an abortion debate, which shows the point I'm making.

Legs don't produce children, but of course we all know that.

I think you've lost track of the point you are making.

seamus

Ush1 wrote: »

I dare say quite a few less than an abortion debate, which shows the point I'm making.

Perhaps. Though such a provision would affect all of us. And there'd be considerably less opposition to a repeal movement, which would require considerably less energy and noise for the repeal movement to succeed.

This is where your analogue falls down; it's already legal to remove legs and there is nobody trying to ban it. So why would anyone be worked up about it?

In the event that it was illegal, and you had a significant vocal minority trying to keep it illegal, I think you'd find the movement to legalise it very noisy. Because everyone would have a family member or friend whose medical treatment was compromised by it.

Your point is that "this is an issue for all of society because pregnancies are involved", but that's only from the pro-life side, who've chosen to declare themselves as the guardians of birth (but not children, clearly). If there was no religious voodoo involved about souls and gods, the volume of debate about whether women should have control over their own bodies would be minimal.

No, not all pro-lifers are religious. But the non-religious are a tiny minority.

ohnonotgmail

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I think you've lost track of the point you are making.

i still cant figure out what exactly that point was.

Ush1

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

No my body is the relevant part. MY body. Women want body autonomy, the same way men have body autonomy - equal playing field.

Not every fertilised egg eventually makes a baby - thousands never do - what are you going to do about those.

This is the gender politics angle I find odd.

As I said, I'll likely be voting yes.

Shadowstrife

'And you get an Anti-choice poster and you get an anti-choice poster!' Anti choice posters everywhere.

Could be worse though. I heard that the 80's referendum posters were visually much worse.

Ush1

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I think you've lost track of the point you are making.

No I think my point is being proving again and again funnily enough.

ohnonotgmail

Ush1 wrote: »

It's fine if you can't or won't acknowledge what I'm saying. Have a nice Friday.:)

what are you saying then? you asked should societal considerations be given any weight and i responded with quite a straightforward question. Clearly you dont want to answer that question because it completely undermines any point you might be attempting to make.

Ush1

seamus wrote: »

Perhaps. Though such a provision would affect all of us. And there'd be considerably less opposition to a repeal movement, which would require considerably less energy and noise for the repeal movement to succeed.

Which proves my point, the contention is clearly procreation, not "bodily autonomy".

seamus wrote: »

This is where your analogue falls down; it's already legal to remove legs and there is nobody trying to ban it. So why would anyone be worked up about it?

That's not the point I was making at all. It actually further reinforces that fact that people are worked up because it's about reproduction.

seamus wrote: »

In the event that it was illegal, and you had a significant vocal minority trying to keep it illegal, I think you'd find the movement to legalise it very noisy. Because everyone would have a family member or friend whose medical treatment was compromised by it.

Yes but not as noisy as abortion....

Delirium

Ush1 wrote: »

No I think my point is being proving again and again funnily enough.

- compares abortion to chopping off legs

- response shows that the constitution doesn't prevent that nor does a 14 year prison sentence potentially apply for cutting off legs

- legs can't have babies

- wut?

JDD

Ush1 wrote: »

Well you've shown me! See what I mean?

Yes it's their bodies that are carrying another body/potential body. Like it or not only women can procreate, mean can't, so you should be able to see why men would have an interest also.

Put it this way. We are at a crossroads. The majority view in this country - up until I would say 10 or 15 years ago - was that the right to life started at conception. This was mostly a cultural view that stemmed from the vast majority of the country being raised with the catholic faith.

A more questioning view has arisen since then, and I think the majority view now is that there is no automatic right to life from conception. Debate remains, and rages, over what time limit should be placed on terminations. That is for another debate.

The question we are being asked now is, as a society (and clearly that includes men), do we agree that the full right to life no longer begins at conception, but begins at some later point (to be determined by widespread debate and ultimately legislation)? And following on that, before that later point occurs, we agree that a termination of a pregnancy is a choice that remains solely with the pregnant person, who happens biologically femaie? The majority of our society, including the men, have to agree that this change has occurred. So you have a very central place in this debate.

Don't be surprised though if a pro-choice poster tells you that you should not have a say in whether a termination does or does not occur before the time limit placed on terminations. That is the pro-choice position. That's not to say that you don't have a place in the debate, to change a constitution which reflects the will of the people, male and female.

As an aside, I have read the policy paper on the draft legislation. It's not like draft legislation at all, it's just bullet points. It so vague, but I don't think they could have made it much more detailed. The detail is for Dail debate, and they can't do that while the 8th is in place.

I think the 12 week time limit will stay but I think there will be huge debate over the 12-24 week period whereby a termination can be availed of if two doctors agree there is a threat to the health of a woman. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if that 24 week limit got dropped to 20. And I wouldn't be surprised either if terminations between 20 and 30 weeks will only be performed if a committee agrees that there is a significant threat to the life or health of the mother. There's huge room to maneuver on that draft legislation.

Sofiztikated

Ush1, I'm not going to jump down your throat, but what societal problems do you foresee?

Ush1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what are you saying then? you asked should societal considerations be given any weight and i responded with quite a straightforward question. Clearly you dont want to answer that question because it completely undermines any point you might be attempting to make.

No I didn't ask that.

I'm saying exactly what I said in my first post in the thread.

Shadowstrife

As an inhabitant of Donegal, I fear that TogetherforYes will snub us with the usual -

'Ah sure Donegal is a lost cause, no point in putting up Repeal posters there. Sure is Donegal even in Ireland?'

ohnonotgmail

Ush1 wrote: »

No I didn't ask that.

I'm saying exactly what I said in my first post in the thread.

While I can see both sides have extreme elements I think it's disingenuous to say this is a womens issue and it's their body. It's clearly more complicated than that when there is another life/potential life growing inside them.

potential life. The rights of which (assuming it has any rights at all) are completely outweighed by the rights of the pregnant woman.

Also, issues such as abortion effect society at large so everyone should have an interest, man or woman. I would have never had to worry about slavery, it wouldn't have effected me but I still would have voted to get rid of it.

how exactly does abortion affect society at large?

seamus

Ush1 wrote: »

That's not the point I was making at all. It actually further reinforces that fact that people are worked up because it's about reproduction.

Pro-life people are worked up about it, because it's about God.

That's it, at the core. God gives you filthy harlots babies, how dare you take them away.

And I don't give a **** if you're not religious. All of those who will reply to this post claiming they're atheists but pro-life, can just **** off.

If there was no religion, there would be no campaign to keep the 8th. That is a fact. There is no irreligious pro-life campaign.

Ush1

Delirium wrote: »

- compares abortion to chopping off legs

- response shows that the constitution doesn't prevent that nor does a 14 year prison sentence potentially apply for cutting off legs

- legs can't have babies

- wut?

No I was demonstrating how they don't compare.

seamus

Shadowstrife wrote: »

As an inhabitant of Donegal, I fear that TogetherforYes will snub us with the usual -

'Ah sure Donegal is a lost cause, no point in putting up Repeal posters there. Sure is Donegal even in Ireland?'

https://www.facebook.com/DonegalTogetherForYes/

The campaign is broadly built of autonomous campaign groups with domain over each county rather than a single countrywide campaign run from Dublin. It's more of a guerilla tactic so that voters can see local people campaigning locally rather than it feeling like the lads from the big shmoke are sending out decrees to the shticks.

Ush1

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Ush1, I'm not going to jump down your throat, but what societal problems do you foresee?

I don't think there will be any, as I said I'm likely going to vote yes.

But things like abortion, same sex marriage etc... do alter the "moral zeitgeist" or whatever you want to call it, of a society. Often for the better, but it's changes none the less.

That's why I don't like when people try to solely frame this with gender politics in this strange adversarial way.

Bannasidhe

Ush1 wrote: »

This is the gender politics angle I find odd.

As I said, I'll likely be voting yes.

It's more a biological angle.

Only one gender gets pregnant therefore it is primarily a issue for/about that gender however, it is also an issue which affects the other gender albeit to a lesser, not physically intrusive, extent.

Can you explain how we can discuss an issue which primarily -and sometimes fatally - is focused on the bodies of one gender without it having a hint of gender politics about it?

As a wee thought experiment replace 'abortion' with 'vasectomy'* - it is illegal to have the snip. It is in the Constitution. Discuss without making it a gendered issue. Off ya go...


*not nearly an equivalent I know but I honestly couldn't think of something that would have as deep an impact on men's health care as the 8th has on women's.

_Dara_

Shadowstrife wrote: »

As an inhabitant of Donegal, I fear that TogetherforYes will snub us with the usual -

'Ah sure Donegal is a lost cause, no point in putting up Repeal posters there. Sure is Donegal even in Ireland?'

You know you can volunteer, right?

Bannasidhe

Shadowstrife wrote: »

'And you get an Anti-choice poster and you get an anti-choice poster!' Anti choice posters everywhere.

Could be worse though. I heard that the 80's referendum posters were visually much worse.

They favoured day-glo colouration back then. Garish and appalling was the order of the day.