The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Spanish Eyes

horseburger wrote: »

I just saw this item online, an item about the pre budget submission by the Pro Life Campaign, dated September 2017.

https://prolifecampaign.ie/main/pre-budget-2018-pro-life-submission/

Ah yes, in fairness that is what anyone would want.

It is not happening though is it?

Seems to me that although hearts may be in the right place, the millions collected for posters/propaganda would be better spent in donations to children in need. You know, those who were born.

Ave Sodalis

yrreg0850 wrote:

Why do the posters and those on the campaign say "Repeal the 8th"

Because that's the important bit.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

kylith

horseburger wrote: »

Snip

Could you answer my question please? This is my fourth time asking it and I would very much like an answer:

Regarding [children living longer after a FFA diagnosis than expected]


But whose choice should it be to take that chance? Do 500 mother have to watch their child die an hour after birth for the 1 that will beat the odds? Answer the question, please!

Spanish Eyes

amdublin wrote: »

Crowd funding at €488k
It's a given we will reach half a million just a matter of when

To think when it went live on tuesday the initial goal was to raise €50k in a week

And here we are four days later at €488k

https://togetherforyes.causevox.com/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=cf1

I am a member of fora in the UK, and many are disappointed that they cannot contribute to YES because they are not citizens or residents of Ireland. I know they can buy stuff to contribute though instead.

I wonder if the same rules apply to the pro birth contributers, anyone know?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Yer Da sells Avon

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

As expected a small element of repeal have resorted to vandalising & Illegally removing no posters in different parts of the country totally anti democratic .

That absolutely stinks of a John McGuirk stunt.

Ave Sodalis

Hapax Legomenon wrote:

That absolutely stinks of a John McGuirk stunt.

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if this was the case.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

BabysCoffee

Less than €10,000 to go!!!!

http://crowdfund.togetherforyes.ie/

I'd say we will get to the €500,000 before midnight

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Spanish Eyes

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So one side is good re donations but the other may not be. Hmmm. Will there be any repercussions regarding foreign (US Fundamentalist) donations I wonder?

No, not asking you to answer, just thinking out loud here.

horseburger

kylith wrote: »

Could you answer my question please? This is my fourth time asking it and I would very much like an answer:

Regarding [children living longer after a FFA diagnosis than expected]


But whose choice should it be to take that chance? Do 500 mother have to watch their child die an hour after birth for the 1 that will beat the odds? Answer the question, please!

I already answered you. I haven't stated that people should be prevented from having an abortion.

I stated that I have a concern about the issue that it can't always be predicted definitively, how long a life will last, in cases where a diagnosis has been given that it will not live long after birth. I mentioned this because there are cases where the baby has lived longer than predicted by doctors.

Is that a fair enough answer for you?

It is possible to consider the various different arguments in this debate, considering we will be voting on it in less than six weeks time.

I stated that I find it concerning that people can try to justify abortion by arguing that what is being aborted is not human, or less of a human, than a human who is born.

I find it troubling that a foetus can be described as not human from the very start of its existence, considering it was created by two humans, one male human and one female human.

I find the argument that it is more acceptable to abort earlier in the pregnancy than later, problematic because no matter what stage of its development, the end result is the deliberate ending of a human life.

I find it concerning that in some of the arguments for repeal, statements can be made that defy logic.

Last year in Dáil Éireann, on 7th March 2017, Ruth Coppinger interrupted a statement by Eamon O'Cuiv, in response to an Anti Austerity Alliance / People Before Profit amendment bill.

Ruth Coppinger stated that a pregnant woman is not a mother until the baby, she is pregnant with, is born.

Eamon O'Cuiv had asked:

"Does one believe it is an independent human, even though it is in the mother's womb but independent in its life or does one believe it is the sole property of the mother?"

Ruth Coppinger said "A woman is not a mother unless she has a baby".

Can you imagine the criticisms that public representatives like Ronan Mullen, Danny Healy Rae or Mattie McGrath would receive, if they had made a comment like that?

They'd be accused of sexism, of devaluing women, and belittling the role and care that mothers give, to the life they nuture and care for, during pregnancy.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=34782&&CatID=130&StartDate=01 January 2017&OrderAscending=0

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2017030700050?opendocument

Spanish Eyes

All pictures of aborted foetuses should be banned.

Many a family are traumatised at the loss of their potential baby through miscarriage too.

Awful fkn propaganda IMV. No empathy at all with those who had no choice and have to see this. Jaysis.

Yer Da sells Avon

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if this was the case.

I'd be shocked if he hadn't orchestrated it. He specialises in cheap stunts and smears. Only a month ago, someone handed out banners containing the logo of the 1930s British Union of Fascists to unsuspecting teenagers at the Repeal march in Dublin. And then McGuirk conveniently got his hands on a photo of them...

https://twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/972059228834803713

Spanish Eyes

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Years ago I read a book by Emily O'Reilly (former Ombudsman, now gone to Europe), called "Masterminds of the Right"

Even then it gave me the shivers.

Everyone should read it.

January

The posters are illegal anyway. Printer on them doesn't exist. Not that it makes it right for them to paint over them. Fingal have removed some.from around here because they're too close to a junction and on a roundabout which contravenes the by laws around postering during referendum or elections. Esb have asked people to report any on electricity poles.

Hannibal_Smith

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Good point. Let us see how it is argued.

Still waiting for an answer to it in here and the other thread :pac:

Spanish Eyes

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Still waiting for an answer to it in here and the other thread :pac:

We have to keep trying though.

Too good a point to debate from others I reckon.

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

Isn't the main issue that no matter at what stage an abortion takes place

No that is not the issue and I have explained why it is not the issue AND what the issue actually is more than once already.

Is your usual approach to conversation to ignore what is said to you and then repeat the questions that the very thing you ignored had already answered?

Because if it is, then that is something useful to know about you and it tells us a lot.

horseburger wrote: »

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

When a 12 week old fetus is terminated it is not that pain is not felt, it is that there is not even anyone there TO feel the pain in the first place. Is that simple difference really such a complex one for you?

Why should anyone be concerned with "pain" when there is no one there actually feeling any? You are inventing the pain in your own imagination and then acting like we should be concerned by it.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

As expected a small element of repeal have resorted to vandalising & Illegally removing no posters in different parts of the country totally anti democratic .

On the marriage referendum there were two groups of disgusting people on EACH side, in the yes camp and the no camp.

The first is that on BOTH sides there were groups going around destroying the posters of the other side. Disgusting people in my view.

On BOTH sides there were also non-intellectuals with no relevant or interesting points to make in the SSM debate and could not string an argument together if their life depended on it..... who instead attempted to score cheap political points by pointing out the poster destroyers on the OTHER side but never their own.

They are even more disgusting and pitiful as people in my view than the poster destroyers themselves.

Anyway...... what were you saying again?

Spanish Eyes

If the Yes side posted pictures of just raped women in trauma and bloodied, bruised, traumatised and all the rest of it, would that be OK on a poster I wonder?

I very much doubt it. But why I wonder?

Ave Sodalis

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

If the Yes side posted pictures of just raped women in trauma and bloodied, bruised, traumatised and all the rest of it, would that be OK on a poster I wonder?

I very much doubt it. But why I wonder?

Or corpses of women. Or the courier deliveries of FFA who were terminated in the UK. Or women sitting on an airplane toilet as the cramps take over. Or pregnant children. How about a rotting corpse on a hospital bed? No?

petalgumdrops

I really wish the government had made this referendum easier by giving a clear clear limit for termination of heathy babies. I believe that women should have choice and while I wouldn't necessarily have a termination myself I do believe that a limit of 12 weeks should have been written into the constitution. If we repeal the 8th we hand over all power to move these limits to the government. what we vote for now may not be a reality in a couple of years. So many people assume that 12 weeks will be the limit for healthy babies but people need to know that this is far from the reality. Is there really a need for choice beyond 12 weeks for a healthy baby?

In relation to Fatal Fetal Abnormalities and illness/risk of the mother -physical or mental I agree with no limit and doctors should terminate at any point for the above.

I am in the unfortunate position that I have lived through a misdiagnosis of a FFA after a CVS due to a worrying scan. An amnio showed that the abnormality was in fact placental. The heartbreak that came with that has had a terrible impact on us and I for one believe that on that occasion the 8th amendment saved my child's life. I feel our government should be seeking better for women dignosed with FFA than abortion clinics. Special wings in our maternity hospitals shoud be available for women to choose when their Labour should be induced.

As it stands by repealing the 8th the supreme court have said that we take away all rights of the unborn which is not something that sits well with me. I am wondering if those who identify as pro-choice feel there should be any protection in the constitution for the unborn at all?

If repeal is passed the trouble is that unless the government replace it quickly it could be challeneged in the supreme court. Because the constitution will have changed , once the amendment is repealed the current legislation will be unconstitutional. Unless the government act quickly there could be uncertainty in the law.

The surprising thing is is that the government could have legistated for FFA years ago without repealing the 8th. A limit placed into the constitution of 12 weeks would ensure that we are giving women the choice they desire while also ensuring that rights are giving to the unborn.

Spanish Eyes

This issue should never have been in the Constitution.

Where is the guarantee in the Constitution that a "born" child has any rights regarding care for the whole of their lives? None.

That is what makes me a bit mad and sad.

petalgumdrops

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

This issue should never have been in the Constitution.

Where is the guarantee in the Constitution that a "born" child has any rights regarding care for the whole of their lives? None.

That is what makes me a bit mad and sad.

The 8th amendment gives rights specifically to the unborn.
A constitution is there to protect all the people. Born and unborn

petalgumdrops

petalgumdrops wrote: »

. I am wondering if those who identify as pro-choice feel there should be any protection in the constitution for the unborn at all?

Personally, no I don't believe there should be any protection in the constitution for the unborn. The reason is, that protection impacts on the rights of the living women in society.
I believe the constitution should protect the rights of all living members of society.
So not the unborn, no.

Hannibal_Smith

petalgumdrops wrote: »

So many people assume that 12 weeks will be the limit for healthy babies but people need to know that this is far from the reality.

What is the reality as you see it? How do you know what the government will legislate for?

I am wondering if those who identify as pro-choice feel there should be any protection in the constitution for the unborn at all.

No there shouldn't be any protection for it Why should there be? What would you be protecting it against?

gctest50

petalgumdrops wrote: »

The 8th amendment gives rights specifically to the unborn.

And if the woman has the money and is able ( time off etc etc etc ) to travel ( and all the disadvantages that go with that ) ?

petalgumdrops wrote: »

A constitution is there to protect all the people. Born and unborn

Ave Sodalis

petalgumdrops wrote: »

The 8th amendment gives rights specifically to the unborn.
A constitution is there to protect all the people. Born and unborn

Except it isn't. Only Ireland and the Philippines give constitutional protection to the unborn, equal to that of the women carrying them. The Supreme Court rules that the unborn have no other rights other than the right to life, as dictated by the 8th. The UN have already determined that our abortions laws violate human rights.