The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

kylith

horseburger wrote: »

Isn't it still all part of the human life cycle and human development?

Who decides which stage of human life is less important, or less worthy of sustaining, than another stage of human life?

So was that miscarriage I had a few years ago, but no-one gets worked up about that.

Repealing the 8th allows people to make their own decision about what stage of development they feel worthy of sustaining.

swampgas

horseburger wrote: »

Isn't it still all part of the human life cycle and human development?

Who decides which stage of human life is less important, or less worthy of sustaining, than another stage of human life?

Surely the woman who is pregnant should have the biggest say? After all, she will endure the pregnancy, and will presumably be expected to raise the resulting baby/child afterwards.

If a woman isn't ready to be a mother, or isn't ready to be a mother again, or right now, surely she is based placed to make that decision? After all, it affects her more than anyone else.

What's your alternative to a woman getting to choose? Enforced pregnancy?

Do you really think it is okay to FORCE women to continue a pregnancy that they really don't want?

Can you imagine telling your sister or daughter or niece that her crisis pregnancy is not hers to deal with - the rest of the country want to decide for her instead?

horseburger

blanch152 wrote: »

The same people that decide on the age of consent, the age for qualification for a pension, the age of voting etc.

What's your view on the issue?

horseburger

swampgas wrote: »

Surely the woman who is pregnant should have the biggest say? After all, she will endure the pregnancy, and will presumably be expected to raise the resulting baby/child afterwards.

If a woman isn't ready to be a mother, or isn't ready to be a mother again, or right now, surely she is based placed to make that decision? After all, it affects here more than anyone else.

What's your alternative to a woman getting to choose? Enforced pregnancy?

Do you really think it is okay to FORCE women to continue a pregnancy that they really don't want?

Can you imagine telling your sister or daughter or niece that her crisis pregnancy is not hers to deal with - the rest of the country want to decide for her instead?

I never said anything of what you are implying.

seamus

horseburger wrote: »

I did not say anyone should be charged with miscarriage as you well know.

I was responding to someone - who asked why women aren't charged with miscarriage - by including a link to an item that details that miscarriages are a natural unfortunate occurrence.

To use your own words:
"Who decides which stage of human life is less important than another stage of human life?"

So if feel that every "stage of human life" should be cherished equally, then if you're being intellectually honest, you would say that every miscarriage should be investigated and documented, just like every sudden death is.

The coroner should be involved in interviewing and examining all women who have miscarried.

Right?

Or are you saying that a miscarriage is of less importance than the sudden death of a six-month-old?

reubenreuben

horseburger wrote: »

I never said anything of what you are implying.

So, what are you saying then?

horseburger

seamus wrote: »

To use your own words:
"Who decides which stage of human life is less important than another stage of human life?"

So if feel that every "stage of human life" should be cherished equally, then if you're being intellectually honest, you would say that every miscarriage should be investigated and documented, just like every sudden death is.

The coroner should be involved in interviewing and examining all women who have miscarried.

Right?

Or are you saying that a miscarriage is of less importance than the sudden death of a six-month-old?

I never made any judgement about cases of miscarriage. I included a link to an item that details that it is an unfortunate natural occurrence.

Madscientist30

horseburger wrote: »

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.

So then do you consider abortion to meet the definition of murder?

horseburger

reubenreuben wrote: »

So, what are you saying then?

I am asking how people can describe what is growing in the womb, as anything other than human life.

horseburger

Madscientist30 wrote: »

So then do you consider abortion to meet the definition of murder?

It is the deliberate ending of a human life. Would you accept that abortion is the deliberate ending of a human life?

here is an interesting discussion where a campaigner for repeal is reluctant to concede that abortion is the deliberate ending of a human life:

amdublin

Hey just my take guys. Let horseburger vote whatever way he or she wants.

Don't waste your energy discussing with someone who is not for turning.

I'm going out canvassing for the first time tomorrow. I'm hoping to speak with people who are undecided and open to considering the option of repealing the 8th.

seamus

horseburger wrote: »

I never made any judgement about cases of miscarriage. I included a link to an item that details that it is an unfortunate natural occurrence.

So is SIDS.

That doesn't answer my question.

You would, like every reasonable person, support laws which require that the sudden death of every person is thoroughly investigated and explained. The vast majority of deaths are "unfortunate natural occurrences", but it would be remiss of us as a society to not ensure that they're all accounted for.

But when it comes to miscarriages, you seem happy to just accept that, "Ah sure, it happens". Why is that? Why do you not feel that foetal deaths are deserving of the same basic due diligence that other deaths are?

Could it be the very simple fact that you do not value a foetus as much as a born person, no matter how much you claim the opposite?

gctest50

BabysCoffee wrote: »

I read some of the reasons why donations are being made to Together for Yes to my mother who is not internet savy (and also had forgotten her glasses when I met her for coffee today).

This was the one that I broke down in tears to as I read aloud:

That must go on every single month that

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

What question did you ask?

These ones:

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Even if the miscarriage was caused by drink etc.? It's not an abortion if it was accidental.

Do you mind answering the rest of those questions? And the post before that?

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I know this has been asked a million times but if this was true, why isn't a miscarriage manslaughter? Why isn't drinking when pregnant considering negligence. Why is travelling for an abortion allowed?

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Alters their routine and financial circumstances, yes. They aren't rights though. As it stands, the 8th means a woman is not given the right to be free from suffering. The woman is not given the right to life, despite what the 2013 Act says. The woman is not given the right to medical treatment. They are not given the right to bodily autonomy.

Heck, so long as the 8th is in place, even the foetus and subsequent baby are okay to suffer and die a preventable and painful death because, regardless of whether or not you agree with abortion for FFA, the 8th prevents it.

The funny (not really) thing is is that if the child needs an organ donation or a blood donation to save its life after it's born, you cannot take the organ or blood from the mother without her permission. Even if the baby will die without it.

Are you telling me you'd be quite happy to stand in front of Susan Hodger's family, in front of Savita Halappanavar's family, in front of Anne Lovett's family... and tell them that their family member would have lost rights when the baby was born anyway so don't worry about them.

horseburger

seamus wrote: »

So is SIDS.

That doesn't answer my question.

You would, like every reasonable person, support laws which require that the sudden death of every person is thoroughly investigated and explained. The vast majority of deaths are "unfortunate natural occurrences", but it would be remiss of us as a society to not ensure that they're all accounted for.

But when it comes to miscarriages, you seem happy to just accept that, "Ah sure, it happens". Why is that? Why do you not feel that foetal deaths are deserving of the same basic due diligence that other deaths are?

Could it be the very simple fact that you do not value a foetus as much as a born person, no matter how much you claim the opposite?

Isn't the deliberate procedure of abortion, different to a miscarriage?

Hannibal_Smith

kylith wrote: »

So was that miscarriage I had a few years ago, but no-one gets worked up about that.

Repealing the 8th allows people to make their own decision about what stage of development they feel worthy of sustaining.

This is the point I was trying to make in another thread on the Christian forum. People have been brainwashed so much into believing abortion is killing babies that that's what they think is being aborted at 12 weeks.

As I said elsewhere, if a foetus up to 12 weeks is has the same rights as the mother and a living baby, then why are their deaths not marked by society in Anyway? Why is there no funeral? And why does all medical care start at 12 weeks? Surely if it was a living being it's life should be monitored from day 1 by the medical professionals?

It's because everyone knows that a 12 week foetus is not the same as a living person. And is never treated as the same in any way, no one gives a hoot about it, until abortion is mentioned.

Hannibal_Smith

horseburger wrote: »

I never made any judgement about cases of miscarriage. I included a link to an item that details that it is an unfortunate natural occurrence.

But if a baby suddenly dies, or an adult suddenly dies, there is a post mortem, maybe an inquest, some sort of investigation into what happened. If a 12 week foetus is of same value, why are there no calls for inquests and post mortems?

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

These ones:

I haven't made any judgement about occurrences of miscarriage.

I didn't make any comment justifying not making abortion available.

I asked how abortion can be justified on the basis that abortion involves the deliberate ending of a human life.

The first post I responded to, suggested that the foetus is not a living person.

I asked why that justifies ending that life, considering that the foetus is human and will otherwise undergo human development, if it is not aborted.

Madscientist30

horseburger wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In biological terms I 100% agree with when YOU say it begins.

In terms of philosophy, ethics, morality, rights, personhood and so forth I do not know 100% when it begins but I do not think it begins until the faculty of consciousness and sentience comes on line.

At 12 weeks not only is it not online, it has not even been BUILT yet. This is human it is not a Human. Please do learn the difference for us. And stop feigning ignorance of something I have explained to you four times in as many posts.

Isn't the main issue that no matter at what stage an abortion takes place, it is fundamentally the ending of a human life, where someone else has decided to end another human life?

I often hear the argument that it is more acceptable to carry out an abortion when pain is not felt.

It was asked by participants in the Citizens Assembly.

Why is there a concern about pain being felt, when the abortion procedure results in the ending of life.

Ending life is much more severe than inflicting pain.

So you think that only life is important, and not the quality of that life, the experience that the living person has, the pain, the suffering? Do you feel that the world would be a better place if all conceived "humans" are forced into the world against the will of the women carrying them?

Madscientist30

horseburger wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In biological terms I 100% agree with when YOU say it begins.

In terms of philosophy, ethics, morality, rights, personhood and so forth I do not know 100% when it begins but I do not think it begins until the faculty of consciousness and sentience comes on line.

At 12 weeks not only is it not online, it has not even been BUILT yet. This is human it is not a Human. Please do learn the difference for us. And stop feigning ignorance of something I have explained to you four times in as many posts.

Isn't the main issue that no matter at what stage an abortion takes place, it is fundamentally the ending of a human life, where someone else has decided to end another human life?

I often hear the argument that it is more acceptable to carry out an abortion when pain is not felt.

It was asked by participants in the Citizens Assembly.

Why is there a concern about pain being felt, when the abortion procedure results in the ending of life.

Ending life is much more severe than inflicting pain.

So you think that only life is important, and not the quality of that life, the experience that the living person has, the pain, the suffering? Do you feel that the world would be a better place if all conceived "humans" are forced into the world against the will of the women carrying them?

kylith

horseburger wrote: »

I haven't made any judgement about occurrences of miscarriage.

I didn't make any comment justifying not making abortion available.

I asked how abortion can be justified on the basis that abortion involves the deliberate ending of a human life.

The first post I responded to, suggested that the foetus is not a living person.

I asked why that justifies ending that life, considering that the foetus is human and will otherwise undergo human development, if it is not aborted.

If your sister said to you that she had had a miscarriage at 10 weeks would you feel tha same as if she said her 2month old baby had died?

Spanish Eyes

If only those who are pro birth at any cost put half their energies into insisting on the guaranteed life long care of those who ARE born with or without disabilities, that would be so great.

Seems all the pro birth evangelism ends once the child is born. But that is success for that cohort. That's my thinking on the matter.

Oh, along with the fact that it is a private matter between the pregnant woman and her medical advisers or internet pill provider too. But I suppose some pro birth people just cannot trust women at all to make their own decisions. Control and control more.

horseburger

Madscientist30 wrote: »

So you think that only life is important, and not the quality of that life, the experience that the living person has, the pain, the suffering? Do you feel that the world would be a better place if all conceived "humans" are forced into the world against the will of the women carrying them?

I did not state what you are implying.

I expressed a concern that if there is a diagnosis of an illness, or unfortunate condition, that it can't be stated with certainty how long a life will last, unless the pregnancy continues through to birth.

I said that if an abortion is carried out, it will never be known how long the child would have lived, after birth.

Would you accept that, as a valid concern, just as valid as concerns about the quality of life, of the parents and the baby, if the baby lives for an amount of time after being born?

erica74

I really hate the "babies will die" antichoice posters. It's so inaccurate, as if a yes vote will mean people will run out and start murdering babies.

Spanish Eyes

horseburger wrote: »

I did not state what you are implying.

I expressed a concern that if there is a diagnosis of an illness, or unfortunate condition, that it can't be stated with certainty how long a life will last, unless the pregnancy continues through to birth.

I said that if an abortion is carried out, it will never be known how long the child would have lived, after birth.

Would you accept that, as a valid concern, just as valid as concerns about the quality of life, of the parents and the baby, if the baby lives for an amount of time after being born?

Why would that be your concern if you are not the pregnant woman in question though?

Control agus control agus control go leor.

kylith

horseburger wrote: »

I did not state what you are implying.

I expressed a concern that if there is a diagnosis of an illness, or unfortunate condition, that it can't be stated with certainty how long a life will last, unless the pregnancy continues through to birth.

I said that if an abortion is carried out, it will never be known how long the child would have lived, after birth.

Would you accept that, as a valid concern, just as valid as concerns about the quality of life, of the parents and the baby, if the baby lives for an amount of time after being born?

Again I ask: whose should the decision to take the risk be? Especially given that I f the child does not beat the odds their life will be short and pain filled.

What is the cut off for allowing termination before birth? Is ok to terminate if they’ll live for an hour, but not if they’ll live for a day? Ok for a day, but not a week? If you _could_ know in advance how long they would live how long is long enough to justify their pain and their parents’ heartbreak?

baylah17

horseburger wrote: »

reubenreuben wrote: »

So, what are you saying then?

I am asking how people can describe what is growing in the womb, as anything other than human life.

Easily actually
It is certainly potential human life but until it is born it is not "human life".

horseburger

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

If only those who are pro birth at any cost put half their energies into insisting on the guaranteed life long care of those who ARE born with or without disabilities, that would be so great.

Seems all the pro birth evangelism ends once the child is born. But that is success for that cohort. That's my thinking on the matter.

Is it not problematic to suggest that abortions should be carried out due to lack of services available to the parents and children that is born?

Surely in that argument, the case should be made that improved services should be made available, rather than arguing for abortion, for example, on the basis that current health services and child care services are not adequate?

Spanish Eyes

horseburger wrote: »

Is it not problematic to suggest that abortions should be carried out due to lack of services available to the parents and children that is born?

Surely in that argument, the case should be made that improved services should be made available, rather than arguing for abortion, for example, on the basis that current health services and child care services are not adequate?

Fine, show me where pro birth people have advocated for that? I haven't seen it anyway. Once there is a birth, that is a success for them no matter the consequences for the BORN child afterwards really.

horseburger

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Why would that be your concern if you are not the pregnant woman in question though?

Control agus control agus control go leor.

Is it not a logical concern, to consider that the life might last longer than predicted?

There has been cases where the child has lived longer than predicted. Peadar Toibin cited one example in his recent address to the Dáil.