The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Zubeneschamali

Anne1982h wrote: »

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...

Well yes, but we know this. How many "pro-life" posters have come into this thread and said they are OK with travel to the UK? I don't think a single one has ever said they were opposed to the 13th amendment and would like it repealed, not one.

Votes for the 8th in 1983: 1,265,994
Votes for the 13th in 1993: 1,733,821

Some of these had to be the same people. I have never seen anyone admit to being one of the 600,000+ who voted against the 13th.

Anne1982h

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

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.

Well I suppose it’s because it’s a win-win. Obviously people with the money and means to access abortion if they need it so their lives won’t be put as risk but then voting to retain the 8th means they can feel good about voting against abortion and sure sod everyone else - they’ll have to just get on with it. Who cares about their lives or the kids they have to raise sure!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

horseburger

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The people who have a fundamental difficulty with abortion, are not happy with abortions taking place anywhere.

I think they fundamentally have a problem with abortion being the deliberate ending of human life.

In what other circumstances is it argued by anyone can take someone else's life, where the person being killed, has not consented to their life being deliberately ended?

NuMarvel

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We not only don't have a problem with it, we've gone so far as to say in our constitution that the unborn's rights can't impede on the freedom to travel elsewhere for an abortion!

I can't imagine any other circumstance where the people would vote to protect the freedom to travel to carry out an act that's a crime here. I can't even think of one where such a referendum would be suggested.

ohnonotgmail

horseburger wrote: »

The people who have a fundamental difficulty with abortion, are not happy with abortions taking place anywhere.

I think they fundamentally have a problem with abortion being the deliberate ending of human life.

In what other circumstances is it argued by anyone can take someone else's life, where the person being killed, has not consented to their life being deliberately ended?

an embryo or a foetus is not a person.

Yeah_Right

horseburger wrote: »

The people who have a fundamental difficulty with abortion, are not happy with abortions taking place anywhere.

I think they fundamentally have a problem with abortion being the deliberate ending of human life.

In what other circumstances is it argued by anyone can take someone else's life, where the person being killed, has not consented to their life being deliberately ended?

Mate read the post by Nozz. Its a few before your's. You might learn something.
He (she?) counters all your arguments quite eloquently. In fact some might say you get schooled

Anne1982h

horseburger wrote: »

The people who have a fundamental difficulty with abortion, are not happy with abortions taking place anywhere.

I think they fundamentally have a problem with abortion being the deliberate ending of human life.

In what other circumstances is it argued by anyone can take someone else's life, where the person being killed, has not consented to their life being deliberately ended?

They must not have a fundamental problem with abortion being the be deliberate ending of a human life if they are willing to have an abortion themselves. If that was the case then those such as the poster of that thread should be saying I would be willing to die and leave my children without a mother rather than have an abortion or in any way harm the unborn. I cannot in any circumstances deliberately end a human life.

I think the majority of people have a problem with abortion - I know I do - but recognize that it is necessary to have one in alot more circumstances than you would think. Which is why I’m voting to repeal. If I needed an abortion (and I hope to never be in that position) I could travel for one as I have the means and money to do so but I know that lots of women wouldn’t have this option and I don’t think they should be denied the same options I have to do what is best for them.

horseburger

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.



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?



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.



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.



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.

Any confirmed pregnancy, involving an unborn human being, created as a result of a male human sperm and female human egg, is human, is it not?

What else would an unborn human being do, other than grow and develop in the womb, if the pregnancy continues?

The debate about abortion, centres around the question on whether is right or wrong to deliberately end human life.

Using trees to make newspapers does nothing to address the question of the justification to end an unborn human life.

What circumstances are you referencing when you argue that life is ended all the time.

Isn't it the case, that with abortion without restriction, that there will be circumstances where the life being ended, has a healthy life to look forward to, after birth, if the pregnancy continues.

As opposed to a very ill person receiving medication to alleviate pain and suffering, in cases of terminal illness, where no medication can cure that person of terminal illness.

SusieBlue

horseburger wrote: »

The people who have a fundamental difficulty with abortion, are not happy with abortions taking place anywhere.

I think they fundamentally have a problem with abortion being the deliberate ending of human life.

In what other circumstances is it argued by anyone can take someone else's life, where the person being killed, has not consented to their life being deliberately ended?

Why are they not campaigning to repeal the amendment in our constitution that specifically allows women to travel to procure abortions, if that were the case?

They aren't doing so because the don't care. They aren't bothered about the 4k Irish women forced to travel in tragic circumstances every year.

Once its not in their backyard, its not their problem. And they can proudly proclaim that Ireland is a good catholic country free of abortion, ignoring the reality that is right in front of them.

My advice to such people would be to stop worrying and soapboaxing about the bedroom activities and uterus's of other people, and to mind their own business.

ohnonotgmail

horseburger wrote: »

Any confirmed pregnancy, involving an unborn human being, created as a result of a male human sperm and female human egg, is human, is it not?

What else would an unborn human being do, other than grow and develop in the womb, if the pregnancy continues?

The debate about abortion, centres around the question on whether is right or wrong to deliberately end human life.

Using trees to make newspapers does nothing to address the question of the justification to end an unborn human life.

What circumstances are you referencing when you argue that life is ended all the time.

Isn't it the case, that with abortion without restriction, that there will be circumstances where the life being ended, has a healthy life to look forward to, after birth, if the pregnancy continues.

As opposed to a very ill person receiving medication to alleviate pain and suffering, in cases of terminal illness, where no medication can cure that person of terminal illness.

all of this has been answered many, many, times before. Most recently in the last few pages.

horseburger

SusieBlue wrote: »

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.

It is human, no matter if it is born or unborn. That is the central issue of the abortion discussion.

In what other circumstances is it argued that it is justifiable to deliberately end human life, where that human life has not given consent.

Delirium

horseburger wrote: »

It is human, no matter if it is born or unborn. That is the central issue of the abortion discussion.

In what other circumstances is it argued that it is justifiable to deliberately end human life, where that human life has not given consent.

Brain dead patient.

NuMarvel

horseburger wrote: »

The people who have a fundamental difficulty with abortion, are not happy with abortions taking place anywhere.

So explain this:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How many "pro-life" posters have come into this thread and said they are OK with travel to the UK? I don't think a single one has ever said they were opposed to the 13th amendment and would like it repealed, not one.

Votes for the 8th in 1983: 1,265,994
Votes for the 13th in 1993: 1,733,821

Some of these had to be the same people. I have never seen anyone admit to being one of the 600,000+ who voted against the 13th.

SusieBlue

horseburger wrote: »

It is human, no matter if it is born or unborn. That is the central issue of the abortion discussion.

In what other circumstances is it argued that it is justifiable to deliberately end human life, where that human life has not given consent.

They are not born citizens. The rights of the unborn should not be upheld at the expense of the woman carrying them. I am not denying that its human. But it isn't a born human. The pregnant woman is a born citizen.

You keep bringing up consent as if its some sort of "gotcha!" finding - how do you propose we get consent from the unborn?

reubenreuben

horseburger wrote: »

It is human, no matter if it is born or unborn. That is the central issue of the abortion discussion.

In what other circumstances is it argued that it is justifiable to deliberately end human life, where that human life has not given consent.

How could a fetus give consent ?

horseburger

Delirium wrote: »

Brain dead patient.

Isn't the difference in that case, that the life would be ended on the basis of no chance of recovery of that brain dead person?

Whereas with abortion without restriction, the human being aborted, very often has a healthy life ahead, if the pregnancy continues?

ohnonotgmail

horseburger wrote: »

It is human, no matter if it is born or unborn. That is the central issue of the abortion discussion.

In what other circumstances is it argued that it is justifiable to deliberately end human life, where that human life has not given consent.

this has already been answered for you. you keep ignoring replies.

horseburger

reubenreuben wrote: »

How could a fetus give consent ?

By your argument, because a human foetus can't give consent, that makes it ok to deliberately end life?

Don't we all instinctively defend ourselves when another person makes contact with us, in a way which endangers our ability to live?

Why would that be any different to an unborn human being?

Why would we consider a possibility that an unborn human would give consent for that life to be ended?

horseburger

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

this has already been answered for you. you keep ignoring replies.

No it hasn't. The example given was a brain dead person.

Wouldn't the difference there be that the brain dead human would not have chance of recovery, whereas in abortion without restriction, the human has a healthy life ahead?

baylah17

horseburger wrote: »

ELM327 wrote: »

Some politicians are dangerously uninformed.
Foetus is the correct word for something which is developing towards but is not yet a human life. Same as embryo is the stage before, child is the stage after, the foetal stage

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

More twisting the truth to suit the anti woman anti choice mob.
REPEAL THE 8th

Sofiztikated

horseburger wrote: »

By your argument, because a human foetus can't give consent, that makes it ok to deliberately end life?

Don't we all instinctively defend ourselves when another person makes contact with us, in a way which endangers our ability to live?

Why would that be any different to an unborn human being?

Why would we consider a possibility that an unborn human would give consent for that life to be ended?

Did the fetus give consent to be there in the first place?

horseburger

baylah17 wrote: »

More twisting the truth to suit the anti woman anti choice mob.
REPEAL THE 8th

It's not human, event though it has been created by a female human and male human?

horseburger

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Did the fetus give consent to be there in the first place?

You are suggesting that because it didn't decide to become a living human being, that that human life should be ended?

NuMarvel

horseburger wrote: »

Whereas with abortion without restriction, the human being aborted, very often has a healthy life ahead, if the pregnancy continues?

Presumably that's the same in situations of abortion with restriction too, barring cases of fatal foetal abnormality.

So are you saying that abortion should only be allowed in cases where either the mother's life is at risk or the unborn is likely to die before or shortly after birth? Or are there other circumstances you think aborting a human being without their consent can be justified, eg serious risk to a woman's health, pregnancy resulting from rape.

horseburger

SusieBlue wrote: »

They are not born citizens. The rights of the unborn should not be upheld at the expense of the woman carrying them. I am not denying that its human. But it isn't a born human. The pregnant woman is a born citizen.

You keep bringing up consent as if its some sort of "gotcha!" finding - how do you propose we get consent from the unborn?

Why would you assign it lesser rights when it is unborn?

It is human before and after birth and is dependent on others for many years after birth.

horseburger

NuMarvel wrote: »

Presumably that's the same in situations of abortion with restriction too, barring cases of fatal foetal abnormality.

So are you saying that abortion should only be allowed in cases where either the mother's life is at risk or the unborn is likely to die before or shortly after birth? Or are there other circumstances you think aborting a human being without their consent can be justified, eg serious risk to a woman's health, pregnancy resulting from rape.

I am referring to the issue that the recommendation of the Oireachtas Committee is that abortion would be available without restriction for 12 weeks.

It isn't just abortion in certain circumstances that is recommended.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/eighthamendmentoftheconstitution/Report-of-the-Joint-Committee-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-web-version.pdf

http://www.thejournal.ie/committee-citizens-assembly-3749589-Dec2017/

reubenreuben

horseburger wrote: »

By your argument, because a human foetus can't give consent, that makes it ok to deliberately end life?

Don't we all instinctively defend ourselves when another person makes contact with us, in a way which endangers our ability to live?

Why would that be any different to an unborn human being?

Why would we consider a possibility that an unborn human would give consent for that life to be ended?

Maybe ask those questions to the almost 4k a year that travel outside of Ireland to abort.
Women living here are still having the abortions abroad , you do know that right?

Sofiztikated

horseburger wrote: »

No it hasn't. The example given was a brain dead person.

Wouldn't the difference there be that the brain dead human would not have chance of recovery, whereas in abortion without restriction, the human has a healthy life ahead?

The human might have a healthy life ahead.

The brain dead human might recover.

reubenreuben

horseburger wrote: »

I am referring to the issue that the recommendation of the Oireachtas Committee is that abortion would be available without restriction for 12 weeks.

It isn't just abortion in certain circumstances that is recommended.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/eighthamendmentoftheconstitution/Report-of-the-Joint-Committee-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-web-version.pdf

http://www.thejournal.ie/committee-citizens-assembly-3749589-Dec2017/

How are certain circumstances more important than others?. Is rape as important as a birth abnormality for instance?