The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

sean635

erica74 wrote: »

So when I was a child and was being sexually abused by my brother, you don't think I should have had access to abortion here in Ireland if I needed it?

I maintain that the child in your womb would have moral worth regardless of your circumstances.

MetalDog

david75 wrote: »

Lot of pro life posters seem to be new accounts out of nowhere.

They probably forgot the login details for the ones they used during the marriage referendum....

sean635

kylith wrote: »

And how would we ascertain that? Would there need to be a board of psychologists and a conviction for the rape, which could take years, or would her word be taken, and how would that differ from abortion on request?

For her to have a legal abortion under the 2013 law, a psychiatrist would need to accertain if she’s suicidal, which wouldn’t take years.

SusieBlue

sean635 wrote: »

How do you define personhood? And how do you define viability?

Various ways, mainly involving sentience. Sentience occurs somewhere between week 18 and 22. Most babies born around the 24 week mark have a good chance at survival and would be considered viable.
So I would say after on or after 18 weeks gestation I’d be willing to afford some rights.

These are my personal feelings on the matter and I have no intention of justifying them to you.

erica74

sean635 wrote: »

I maintain that the child in your womb would have moral worth regardless of your circumstances.

Right, goodbye.

Personhood
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/personhood

MilesMorales1

sean635 wrote: »

I maintain that the child in your womb would have moral worth regardless of your circumstances.

What a load of rubbish.

Viability
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/viable

sean635

SusieBlue wrote: »

Various ways, mainly involving sentience. Sentience occurs somewhere between week 18 and 22. Most babies born around the 24 week mark have a good chance at survival and would be considered viable.
So I would say after on or after 18 weeks gestation I’d be willing to afford some rights.

Therefore would you regard someone in a coma as not being a person since their not sentient?

kylith

sean635 wrote: »

What I think is that they have moral worth and should be given every chance to live. Countless women have given birth to child who had so called “fatal foetal abnormalities” that lived long lives. It’s not an exact science predicting these things and I think an unborn child deserves every chance at life.

And I think that the decision to take that chance should rest with the parents.

MilesMorales1

sean635 wrote: »

Therefore would you regard someone in a coma as not being a person since their not sentient?

What? How is that possibly the same thing?

B0jangles

sean635 wrote: »

I maintain that the child in your womb would have moral worth regardless of your circumstances.

It's incredibly easy to stand right the hell back from harsh, painful reality and cling to abstract morality when you'll never have to deal with that reality yourself.

SusieBlue

sean635 wrote: »

I maintain that the child in your womb would have moral worth regardless of your circumstances.

There are no words. Absolutely disgusting. It’s all about control. People like you are dangerous.
Thank goodness you are in a minority.

I hope you regret what you said to Erica and I hope some day in the future, when the 8th has been repealed and the health/life of someone you hold dear is impacted by pregnancy, you will be glad people like me voted Yes for people like you.
You don’t have a clue.

kylith

sean635 wrote: »

For her to have a legal abortion under the 2013 law, a psychiatrist would need to accertain if she’s suicidal, which wouldn’t take years.

But in your scenario she would have to prove the rape also, or are you happy for establishment of suicidality the be the criterion?

SusieBlue

sean635 wrote: »

Therefore would you regard someone in a coma as not being a person since their not sentient?

I’m not going down that road it’s been done to death a thousand times on these threads. I don’t have to justify myself to you.

If you can’t see the difference between a pre 12 week gestated fetus and a living person in a coma I’m afraid I can’t help you. Google is your friend.

pitifulgod

sean635 wrote: »

For her to have a legal abortion under the 2013 law, a psychiatrist would need to accertain if she’s suicidal, which wouldn’t take years.

So if the mental trauma of going through the pregnancy against will doesn't make her suicidal, then it's fine?

sean635

sean635 wrote: »

I don’t believe in scare tactics but facts. And I’ve been 100% intellectualy consistent in all my posts. Please point out where you think I’ve been inconsistent.

You said the 13th amendment was unnecessary for the right to travel for an abortion, it's what it was enacted for.

sean635

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

What? How is that possibly the same thing?

Both are human beings and neither have sentience according to the poster. Why is it therefore acceptable to kill one but not the other if there’s a chance both will gain sentience in a matter of months?

My point being that sentience is not required for personhood. I believe being an individual human being does.

david75

sean635 wrote: »

Morality is an objective standard of what is right and what is wrong. The law in any good society should be based on a moral standard. To determine if abortion is right or wrong, it must be determined if a foetus is a person and therefore worthy of rights. If that determination is made, the law ought to reflect it and it should be enforced to the fullest extent.

Do you keep up with the news at all? Last week 7 judges in the Supreme Court filed that the rights of the unborn do not supercede that of the mother.
This was necessary to sort out before we have this referendum and by extension gives the mother final say in her decision over her own choices.

Morals don’t come into this. At all. You can not impose your morals on another

The state has just said it’s not imposing these laws or some made up morals on women’s bodies or decisions about what happens in their bodies.

sean635

DubInMeath wrote: »

You said the 13th amendment was unnecessary for the right to travel for an abortion, it's what it was enacted for.

Totally consistent. If the 13th hadn’t been brought in, a woman would still have the right to travel. It wasn’t necessary to ensure that right but it helps to have it for the sake of legal certainty

MilesMorales1

sean635 wrote: »

Both are human beings and neither have sentience according to the poster. Why is it therefore acceptable to kill one but not the other if there’s a chance both will gain sentience in a matter of months?

My point being that sentience is not required for personhood. I believe being an individual human being does.

You mean the difference between a human with a life and thoughts and consciousness, and a feutus in the womb? Can't see the difference there no?

crustybla

How is he still allowed to post on this thread? I'm all for healthy debate, where we might learn from each other, or food for thought with the odd barney thrown in but this is too way out there. He's insulting, insensitive and is obviously a bit doolally. Even the prolifer's must see his 'points' specifically on rape and carrying a poor child with very little chance of surviving outside the womb to term are out of line.

Mods, really??

Don't bother replying Sean, I won't see it.

sean635

david75 wrote: »

Do you keep up with the news at all? Last week 7 judges in the Supreme Court filed that the rights of the unborn do not supercede that of the mother.
This was necessary to sort out before we have this referendum and by extension gives the mother final say in her decision over her own choices.

Morals don’t come into this. At all. You can not impose your morals on another

The state has just said it’s not imposing these laws or some made up morals on women’s bodies or decisions about what happens in their bodies.

Wrong. That ruling said that the constitution doesnt grant any right to the unborn and other than the right to life. Therefore repealing the 8th is all that is necessary to legalize abortion.

sean635

crustybla wrote: »

How is he still allowed to post on this thread? I'm all for healthy debate, where we might learn from each other, or food for thought with the odd barney thrown in but this is too way out there. He's insulting, insensitive and is obviously a bit doolally. Even the prolifer's must see his 'points' specifically on rape and carrying a poor child with very little chance of surviving outside the womb to term are out of line.

Mods, really??

Don't bother replying Sean, I won't see it.

Why am I being demeaned simply for having the opinion that children conceived through raped still have a right life? I’m not ridiculing and demeaning anyone else for their opinion. This is very unfair now.

sean635

sean635 wrote: »

Totally consistent. If the 13th hadn’t been brought in, a woman would still have the right to travel. It wasn’t necessary to ensure that right but it helps to have it for the sake of legal certainty

No they wouldn't
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland


In Attorney General v. X, commonly known as the "X Case", the Attorney General had secured an injunction in the High Court preventing a 14-year-old girl who had become pregnant from rape from obtaining an abortion. While the Supreme Court reversed this injunction in March 1992, on the grounds that there was a risk to her life from suicide, they held that it would otherwise have been lawful. This amendment addressed this, so that the constitutional protection of unborn life could no longer restrict the freedom to travel. The Amendment was adopted in November 1992 in a referendum.[1]

On the same day, the Fourteenth Amendment was approved, allowing freedom of access to information with respect to abortion. Another proposal, the Twelfth Amendment, which would have held that the possibility of suicide was not a sufficient threat to justify an abortion, was rejected. These referendums were held on the same date as the 1992 general election.

sean635

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

You mean the difference between a human with a life and thoughts and consciousness, and a feutus in the womb? Can't see the difference there no?

Let me say this clearly: I believe a person is defined as an individual human being.

eviltwin

sean635 wrote: »

Why am I being demeaned simply for having the opinion that children conceived through raped still have a right life? I’m not ridiculing and demeaning anyone else for their opinion. This is very unfair now.

If you ever find yourself pregnant as a result of rape and you decide to continue with the pregnancy I'd say everyone here would support you in that. It's your insistence that every other woman or girl pregnant by rape should be forced to follow your moral code is what people can't accept.

MilesMorales1

sean635 wrote: »

Let me say this clearly: I believe a person is defined as an individual human being.

So you mean, the thing an unborn foetus isn't? Good glad we cleared that up.

sean635

DubInMeath wrote: »

No they wouldn't
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland


In Attorney General v. X, commonly known as the "X Case", the Attorney General had secured an injunction in the High Court preventing a 14-year-old girl who had become pregnant from rape from obtaining an abortion. While the Supreme Court reversed this injunction in March 1992, on the grounds that there was a risk to her life from suicide, they held that it would otherwise have been lawful. This amendment addressed this, so that the constitutional protection of unborn life could no longer restrict the freedom to travel. The Amendment was adopted in November 1992 in a referendum.[1]

On the same day, the Fourteenth Amendment was approved, allowing freedom of access to information with respect to abortion. Another proposal, the Twelfth Amendment, which would have held that the possibility of suicide was not a sufficient threat to justify an abortion, was rejected. These referendums were held on the same date as the 1992 general election.

Exactly, the Supreme Court overruled the injunction. This can be used as a legal basis to ensure the right for every other woman to travel for abortion. Again, the 13th wasn’t necessary but it helps with legal certainty. Note I never said in any post that it was a bad thing to have it.

sean635

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

So you mean, the thing an unborn foetus isn't? Good glad we cleared that up.

From the moment of conception it is a separate organism with it’s own separate DNA. It is absolutely an individual human being and absolutely a person.