Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Options
1144145147149150325

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    The central question obviously is the argument on whether it is acceptable to end a human life, where that human, whose life is being ended, has not given consent to end that life.

    In cases of euthanasia, the person dying gives consent.

    so you object to switching off the life support of a person who have not given their consent?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,017 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Trasna1 wrote: »
    I've already been of the opinion that if you vote a certain way to stick it to a.n. other or a particular group you are just hunting for reasons for your decision

    For example, if someone said to me "I'm going to change their vote Yes to get one over on those God botherers" then they were always going to vote Yes. Conversely if someone said they were going to vote change their vote to No to get one over feminazis they were never going to vote the other way. Just looking for justification, and poor justification at that

    How are things in Nebraska?
    A human foetus is human, unless you think that a pregnancy that results from the union of a male human sperm and female human egg, can result in anything other than human.

    It is the human definition that is central to the question about whether it is correct or not to deliberately end human life.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization
    It contains human DNA and the potential for life.
    As does a frozen ovum.
    Should those have more rights than women, too?
    Life obviously begins before birth, unless you think that the human growing in the womb is not living for nine months before birth.

    Ah. "Obviously". That's one step before "Fact".
    It is potentially a human.

    Key word, potentially. You do not even get a death certificate before 22 (AFAIR) weeks as it is not capable of independent life.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Poor attempt at avoiding the issue.

    dunno - in your body micro-organisms outnumber human cells 10 to 1


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Trasna1


    The central question for the referendum is whether it was right or wrong to try and settle this question in the Constitution back in 1983.

    The fact that the amendment compelled the Dail to make abortion legal here for the first time, the exact opposite of its authors intent, is a hint that the answer is "wrong". We should fix that mistake by deleting it.

    Then we can move on to what the legislation should say. Feel free to write to your TD on the subject. It seems to me that the prolife crew are dropping the ball here, betting everything on defeating the amendment, and nothing on lobbying for less liberal grounds for abortion after they lose.

    Perhaps they plan to just sulk until the euthanasia debate or the transgender toilets debate or whatever the next ireland-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket debate is about.

    I don't think it's a realistic position to take to say that abortion wouldn't be legal in Ireland if there was no 8th. It's an almost certainty that you would have abortion regime similar to other European states were it not for the 8th by now.

    The original 8th campaign mobilised opposition groups to that change and those groups have been sustained by the challenges to the 8th over the years. Had proponents for accessible abortion had been able to wait until the mid 1990s (83 ref forced them to take the issue much sooner than society was ready for at the time) amidst the scandals in the Catholic Church it's likely the opposition to abortion would never have been able to coalesce to a significant pressure group. Getting the 8th passed in 1983 was an extremely clever move by a group who could foresee their influence waning


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭horseburger


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Nope. The referendum isn't about if women can access abortion. They already do, and nobody, including those on the No side, wants to stops them. It's about how women access abortion. A No vote just means abortions keep happening, and they'll tend to be later and at a higher risk to the woman. On the other hand, a Yes vote at least means abortions will be earlier and safer.

    What you are saying does nothing to alter the main reason why people have difficulty with abortion.

    The fundamental issue is whether or not it is justifiable to end a human life.

    Anyone who opposes the idea of abortion is not happy with it taking plave anywhere else, so I don't think it can be argued that they are happy for the procedure to be available abroad.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭PhoenixParker


    The central question obviously is the argument on whether it is acceptable to end a human life, where that human, whose life is being ended, has not given consent to end that life.

    In cases of euthanasia, the person dying gives consent.

    Am I ending someone's life because I'm not a blood door? A bone marrow door? A kidney door?

    Real live humans die because I don't donate my organs, am I killing them? Do they sign the consent form for the removal of my organs?

    No, because that's a patently ridiculous idea.

    Consent only comes into it when a body is capable of being autonomous. The woman can consent to her womb being inhabited by a baby or she can withdraw that consent.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,099 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    The central question obviously is the argument on whether it is acceptable to end a human life, where that human, whose life is being ended, has not given consent to end that life.

    In cases of euthanasia, the person dying gives consent.

    How would you propose getting a fetus' consent?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭horseburger


    ELM327 wrote: »
    How are things in Nebraska?


    It contains human DNA and the potential for life.
    As does a frozen ovum.
    Should those have more rights than women, too?



    Ah. "Obviously". That's one step before "Fact".
    It is potentially a human.

    Key word, potentially. You do not even get a death certificate before 22 (AFAIR) weeks as it is not capable of independent life.

    What do you think it is - considering it has been created as a result of the union of a human egg and human sperm - if you think it isn't human?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Anyone who opposes the idea of abortion is not happy with it taking plave anywhere else, so I don't think it can be argued that they are happy for the procedure to be available abroad.

    The 13th amendment passed by 1,035,308 votes to 624,000.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭CeilingFly


    I was doorstepped by a "no" advocate yesterday. He was a little excited and played the "did you know that 90% of babies with a disability are aborted in the UK line"

    I said his figures are factually incorrect and that it was substantially lower. He wasn't accepting that, and went on a rant about health and housing as well - so I threw a curveball that had him reeling...

    ..."The average disabled person costs the taxpayer in excess of €20m* throughout their lifetime, so if 90% of disabled babies were aborted, that would see billions saved and allow for substantially extra funding for health and housing - hence if YOU voted yes, you'd be ensuring massive additional funding for housing and health"

    He threw a few expletives at me and walked on.





    1. *the €20m is made up.

    2. The above is not an argument I'd ever use, and its as insulting and degrading as the no side's argument saying that 90% of babies with a disability are aborted. But they don't seem to like anyone giving a similarly but opposite disgusting argument.



    Even my mother who would have been very much against abortion has decided not to vote as she cannot vote for groups that use such emotive and wrong statements. She won't vote yes for her own personal reasons and you may have many of the older generation doing similar when they hear the hatred of these hardline groups.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,474 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Am I ending someone's life because I'm not a blood door? A bone marrow door? A kidney door?

    Real live humans die because I don't donate my organs, am I killing them? Do they sign the consent form for the removal of my organs?

    No, because that's a patently ridiculous idea.

    Consent only comes into it when a body is capable of being autonomous. The woman can consent to her womb being inhabited by a baby or she can withdraw that consent.

    I see your point but it's slightly different from a moral relativity point of view.

    In the donor scenario, the person dies if you do nothing.
    In the abortion one, the child will be born if you do nothing. So the abortion involves intervening.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    What do you think it is - considering it has been created as a result of the union of a human egg and human sperm - if you think it isn't human?

    It is human but it is a not A human. the difference is key. In the case of a pregnant woman you have somebody that is a human and something that is not yet a human growing inside her. the rights of the woman far exceed the rights of the ovum/embryo/foetus growing inside her.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭horseburger


    How would you propose getting a fetus' consent?

    That's the issue, in abortion, the human foetus is being killed at its most defenseless state of its human existence.

    The human foetus has no ability to ensure protection, if someone else decides to end the life of that human foetus.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Trasna1


    CeilingFly wrote: »
    I was doorstepped by a "no" advocate yesterday. He was a little excited and played the "did you know that 90% of babies with a disability are aborted in the UK line"

    I said his figures are factually incorrect and that it was substantially lower. He wasn't accepting that, and went on a rant about health and housing as well - so I threw a curveball that had him reeling...

    ..."The average disabled person costs the taxpayer in excess of €20m* throughout their lifetime, so if 90% of disabled babies were aborted, that would see billions saved and allow for substantially extra funding for health and housing - hence if YOU voted yes, you'd be ensuring massive additional funding for housing and health"

    He threw a few expletives at me and walked on.





    1. *the €20m is made up.

    2. The above is not an argument I'd ever use, and its as insulting and degrading as the no side's argument saying that 90% of babies with a disability are aborted. But they don't seem to like anyone giving a similarly but opposite disgusting argument.



    Even my mother who would have been very much against abortion has decided not to vote as she cannot vote for groups that use such emotive and wrong statements. She won't vote yes for her own personal reasons and you may have many of the older generation doing similar when they hear the hatred of these hardline groups.

    It's not an argument you'd ever use, but you did use it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Poor attempt at avoiding the issue.

    You are using vague language to try and say something, but I cannot tell what it is.

    I'll guess that you think an angel gives a blastocyst a tiny soul when the parents DNA combines at fertilization?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Anyone who opposes the idea of abortion is not happy with it taking plave anywhere else, so I don't think it can be argued that they are happy for the procedure to be available abroad.

    We had a referendum on pretty much this point 25 years ago, which passed by a two to one margin, and which put the freedom to travel over and above the unborn's rights in ALL cases. And in the time since, not a single pro life campaigner or politician, even those who campaigned for a No vote in that referendum, has called for that to be overturned. And when you ask posters here about it, most refuse to talk about it in any detail.

    I can't say whether people are happy about it, but I can certainly say they're not overly concerned about it.

    So if we've already said it's okay for women to have abortions elsewhere, and no one has expressed any desire to change that, what good reason exists for saying women can't have abortions here, where they will be earlier and safer?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,017 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    What do you think it is - considering it has been created as a result of the union of a human egg and human sperm - if you think it isn't human?
    It is human, but not a human.

    It's human DNA. But if I sneeze unhygenically and a piece of mucus lands on your jumper, that is also human DNA. Should that be preserved at all costs (including your life) too?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Ush1 wrote: »
    In the donor scenario, the person dies if you do nothing.
    In the abortion one, the child will be born if you do nothing. So the abortion involves intervening.

    I can hear the old Catholic upbringing in there somewhere.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,137 ✭✭✭horseburger


    It is human but it is a not A human. the difference is key. In the case of a pregnant woman you have somebody that is a human and something that is not yet a human growing inside her. the rights of the woman far exceed the rights of the ovum/embryo/foetus growing inside her.

    Humans are dependent on others after birth as well. Humans are dependent on others for many years after birth.

    I haven't heard anyone argue that the life of a born human should be deliberately ended, on the basis that children are dependent on others for many years after birth.

    Bríd Smith People Before Profit TD made a very poor argument on this issue last July, in a debate with Maria Steen and Caroline Simons, with Vincent Browne, at the 18 minute mark in the video below.

    I was surprised how poorly Bríd Smith argued her reasoning on this issue.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,474 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    I can hear the old Catholic upbringing in there somewhere.

    It's nothing to do with upbringing, it's a patently different scenario.

    Is watching someone drown in water, the same as stepping on their head while they're drowning?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 41,080 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    amdublin wrote: »
    Reading something on fb plus thinking about the video I watched yesterday about how the 8th was brought in got me thinking.

    Before contraception was brought in we were told it was bad (by the church). Is it though??
    And since contraception was legalised gas the sky fallen down? Has society fallen apart?
    No it has not.

    My convent education advocated that sex was only for "within the framework of marriage". I'll never forget that wording! And that sex outside out of marriage was bad. That left me with a 20 year history of dealing with guilt after sex and not enjoyable sex during. I have finally come to the realisation that sex is a good thing. We as human beings need human touch and need human feel good sensations. Sex is good for your physical and mental well being.
    Since sex outside of marriage has become the norm has the sky fallen down? Has society fallen apart?
    No.

    Divorce.
    Hello divorce goodbye daddy said the church. Putting the fear of god (literally) in me as a child.
    Since divorce is in has the sky fallen down? Is everyone getting divorced?
    No.
    Actually ireland has a low divorce rate.

    Same sex marriage
    Threatens marriage. Threatens family. A child needs a mother and father. Said the naysayers years later has the sky fallen down?
    No.

    Abortion in Ireland rather than England
    Abortion safely under medical care rather than in bedrooms in secret.
    Will society change?
    No.

    We cannot live under fear any more or believe, what frankly are, lies. We are good humans. We deserve human rights.

    Repeal the 8th
    The same people who fought contraception now say - use contraception. Deep irony there.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    The central question obviously is the argument on whether it is acceptable to end a human life, where that human, whose life is being ended, has not given consent to end that life.

    In cases of euthanasia, the person dying gives consent.

    Do we seek the consent or opinion of the unborn on any other matter? Vaginal birth or c-section? Breast or bottle?
    How do you propose we obtain such consent?

    I'll give you a hint. Its because the unborn are not a born citizen. The woman in the scenario, is a born citizen.
    And her needs, wants, and wishes should always trump that of a >12 week old fetus unless she CHOOSES otherwise.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Ush1 wrote: »
    It's nothing to do with upbringing, it's a patently different scenario.

    Nuns or brothers? :p


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,946 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    DabllDoYa wrote: »
    Someone in my local town put up a big board of pictures of dead fetuses' outside a primary school.
    I mean come on lads you're not doing much to help your side. :D

    I wish I had your optimism. :/


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,474 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Nuns or brothers? :p

    Neither! :D

    Sure I've already said I'm likely voting yes, doesn't mean people from the yes side can come out with poor arguments.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    The same people who fought contraception now say - use contraception. Deep irony there.

    I remember Iona opposing civil partnerships for gays, losing that one, and then saying same sex marriage was not needed because gays have those fine Civil Partnerships.

    Yeah, no thanks to you lot.

    Each time they lose, they fall back to the next trench and hope the trench they just abandoned impedes their enemies progress.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 7,099 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    That's the issue, in abortion, the human foetus is being killed at its most defenseless state of its human existence.

    The human foetus has no ability to ensure protection, if someone else decides to end the life of that human foetus.

    The human feotus doesn't even know it has a human existence. It doesn't even know what protection is. If the mother doesn't want to carry it...until you can create an incubator that can take her place...what should happen?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    But a foetus is a living human being. If not aborted it will grow and develop as part of its human life cycle, prior to birth and after birth.

    Firstly it is only a living human being in terms of taxonomy. In the context of abortion we are talking about rights and morality. These things are generally applied to "person-hood" not biology.

    Secondly you do not know "it will grow" at all. A significant portion of pregnancies terminate themselves by 12 weeks gestation. So do not talk about what "will" happen when you are applying nothing but mere guess work.
    No matter what stage his or her life is ended, there is no avoiding the fact that abortion is the deliberate ending of human life.

    And burgers are deliberately ending a cows life. And paper is ending a trees life. And vegetables require us to end the lives of insects in the 1000s. Our medical industry ends bacterial life in the billions. We end life all the time. So what is your point?
    expressing concern about the way the word foetus is regularly used as a replacement of other words, that give recognition to the humanity of the life that is ended when aborted is carried out.

    Then she has it entirely backwards I am afraid. It is other words that are often put as replacement to the word fetus. What other people then do is correctly REAPPLY fetus to places where it actually applies.

    The issue being that people willfully misuse words in order to "give recognition to humanity" before it is actually due or warranted. Calling a spade a spade when someone else is calling it a spoon is not replacing their words. It is stopping them replacing ours.

    So rather than moan about people using the word fetus to describe something that is ACTUALLY a fetus.... ask yourself why the people against abortion are AGAINST using that word.
    The central question about abortion is whether it is right or wrong to deliberately end a human life.

    I would say the central question about abortion is one of rights, and when in the human life cycle process a human can and should attain them.

    Thus far I have yet to see anyone put forward an argument that coherently explains why they thing a 12 week old fetus should have any rights, or deserve any of our moral and ethical concern.

    They just should "Human" at the issue as if that does the job for them. And then, quite often, run away.
    In cases of euthanasia, the person dying gives consent.

    Yes. Exactly. The PERSON. Not the "Human". The PERSON does this.

    Pointing out that the fetus is biologically HUMAN as you keep doing is therefore to miss the point. It is not biological humanity that mediates moral and rights issues. It is personhood.

    Which the fetus lacks. Entirely.

    You are leaping from biological facts to philosophical conclusions and not bothering to even build a bridge between the two.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 77 ✭✭Anne1982h


    So in what has rendered me completely SPEECHLESS a thread (which can’t be posted on for some reason) saying ‘ my reasons for saving the 8th’ a poster said they will be voting to save the 8th BUT and I quote ‘ if my life was at risk I would travel for an abortion as I have two kids to raise, simple as’.

    So there are actually people out there who will travel for an abortion if they need one but won’t vote repeal as sure sod all those mothers who can’t afford to travel and the kids they have to raise...

    Jesus H Christ!!!!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭Yer Da sells Avon


    Anne1982h wrote: »
    So in what has rendered me completely SPEECHLESS a thread (which can’t be posted on for some reason) saying ‘ my reasons for saving the 8th’ a poster said they will be voting to save the 8th BUT and I quote ‘ if my life was at risk I would travel for an abortion as I have two kids to raise, simple as’.

    So there are actually people out there who will travel for an abortion if they need one but won’t vote repeal as sure sod all those mothers who can’t afford to travel and the kids they have to raise...

    Jesus H Christ!!!!!!!

    And she got a whole load of thanks for that post too, which suggests that her fellow No voters either didn't read the post properly or share her lack of critical thinking skills.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement