The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Ave Sodalis

Madscientist30 wrote: »

You are avoiding the question. Is it murder? Or not? Should women that have abortions be charged with murder?

He still hasn't answered my questions either

professore

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Do you trust our government with any of our laws and legislation?

I do believe, and some major organisations would agree with me, that it is far too complicated a situation to be put into constitution.

The stats don't support my argument? My argument was that it took deaths and suffering before they even considered changing the 8th. These deaths have already happened as a direct result of the 8th. Have you seen the state of what women need to be in before the legal terminations can happen? Do you realise how much it is open to interpretation?

Absolutely nobody has said that abortion would cure every ill.

Are you doing anything to support these women?

I don't think anyone is suggesting to put the minutiae of it in the constitution. Just a position on the rights of the unborn child in relation to the mother - so no future governments can make abortion legal up to birth or ban it entirely. A guideline to prevent bad legislation.

For example - up to 12 weeks the fetus has no rights. A non viable fetus has no rights. The mother has the right to decide if they wish to abort this fetus. Something along those lines.

NuMarvel

Madscientist30 wrote: »

You are avoiding the question. Is it murder? Or not? Should women that have abortions be charged with murder?

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

He still hasn't answered my questions either

Nor mine. And the irony is there was an anti-repealer in here a few days ago saying it was the Yes side who avoided questions :rolleyes:

horseburger

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope. I did not. Why are you now adding outright lies to everything else? Before quoting dictionaries at people who know the language better than you do, why not look up the words "nothing" and "anyone" and learn the difference between them. Then go read my post again. You do not get to lie about what someone said and then pretend it is THEM that needs a dictionary.

Did you not state the following? Anyway when I mentioned the issue of pain, I was not talking about at the 12 week stage. I already stated twice that I mentioned that it was a question raised at the Citizens Assembly.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.



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

horseburger wrote: »

Did you not state the following?

I did. Now keep reading it until you find that nowhere there did I use the word "nothing" or suggest or imply there was "nothing" there.

Then go read that dictionary like I told you, learn what the word "anyone" means.

Then read my post one final time and you will at that point likely have the tools required to understand that I said there is not ANYONE there to receive, or experience pain.

Man, at least some minimum standard of English comprehension would be nice in conversation.

horseburger wrote: »

Anyway when I mentioned the issue of pain, I was not talking about at the 12 week stage.

Nice ninja edit. Anyway we are talking about abortion on this thread. And over 92% of abortions happen by week 12. Very near 100% by week 16. So while YOU might not be talking about the 12 week stage, the rest of us very much are. You talk about abortion, then 12 weeks, actually 10 mostly, IS what you are mostly talking about. Whether that suits your agenda or not.

petalgumdrops

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Do you trust our government with any of our laws and legislation?

I do believe, and some major organisations would agree with me, that it is far too complicated a situation to be put into constitution.

The stats don't support my argument? My argument was that it took deaths and suffering before they even considered changing the 8th. These deaths have already happened as a direct result of the 8th. Have you seen the state of what women need to be in before the legal terminations can happen? Do you realise how much it is open to interpretation?

Absolutely nobody has said that abortion would cure every ill.

Are you doing anything to support these women?

The protection of life in pregancy act is very clear on the obligation of a doctor to act. 25 legal terminations happened here in 2016 so doctors are acting. It is the interpretation of doctors that causes issues.
Dr. Peter Boylan, when pushed, could only name one death he believed was as a direct result of the 8th - by that standard more women have died accessing safe abortions.

Ave Sodalis

professore wrote: »

I don't think anyone is suggesting to put the minutiae of it in the constitution. Just a position on the rights of the unborn child in relation to the mother - so no future governments can make abortion legal up to birth or ban it entirely. A guideline to prevent bad legislation.

For example - up to 12 weeks the fetus has no rights. A non viable fetus has no rights. The mother has the right to decide if they wish to abort this fetus. Something along those lines.

The constitution is still no place for it. If we applied that logic to any other law or legislation, it would make no sense.

Spanish Eyes

Control the women. They are always the culpable.

Harlots and murderers.

Where are the men in all this, it takes two to tango surely. But no, it is just the incubator who is the villain. Always.

Ave Sodalis

petalgumdrops wrote: »

The protection of life in pregancy act is very clear on the obligation of a doctor to act. 25 legal terminations happened here in 2016 so doctors are acting. It is the interpretation of doctors that causes issues.
Dr. Peter Boylan, when pushed, could only name one death he believed was as a direct result of the 8th - by that standard more women have died accessing safe abortions.

Actually, it is not very clear. It is entirely open to interpretation, as demonstrated when a women was sanctioned instead of being allowed an abortion, which she was legally entitled to as a result of the Act.

There are several situations related to the 8th which prompted the referendum.

Have you read the In Her Shoes page on Facebook to realise the impact the 8th has? Your last line seems to suggest that you think the 8th has very little impact.

petalgumdrops

NuMarvel wrote: »

On a point of order, the UK rate is 8.76, not 9.5, as per the most recent Confidential Maternal Death Enquiry report:



That's also the rate cited by MBRACE in their most recent report.

9.5 is from 2014 perhaps. Still though without Abortion we have an excellent MMR

horseburger

Madscientist30 wrote: »

You are avoiding the question. Is it murder? Or not? Should women that have abortions be charged with murder?

I never said anyone should be charged with murder.

I did not call anyone murderers.

Why are you asking me that?

I did not call it murder. I just stated that no matter what ones views on abortion are, there is no avoiding the issue that it is the deliberate ending of a human life, and that that is the central issue in the debate for and against abortion.

Are you going to suggest that it is something other than the ending of a human life?

Do you not think it is acceptable to have concerns about abortion, considering the way there are arguments for and against it?

petalgumdrops

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Actually, it is not very clear. It is entirely open to interpretation, as demonstrated when a women was sanctioned instead of being allowed an abortion, which she was legally entitled to as a result of the Act.

There are several situations related to the 8th which prompted the referendum.

Have you read the In Her Shoes page on Facebook to realise the impact the 8th has? Your last line seems to suggest that you think the 8th has very little impact.

Everyone has their own personal stories. I happen to believe the 8th saved my child.

horseburger

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I did. Now keep reading it until you find that nowhere there did I use the word "nothing" or suggest or imply there was "nothing" there.

Then go read that dictionary like I told you, learn what the word "anyone" means.

Then read my post one final time and you will at that point likely have the tools required to understand that I said there is not ANYONE there to receive, or experience pain.

Man, at least some minimum standard of English comprehension would be nice in conversation.



Nice ninja edit. Anyway we are talking about abortion on this thread. And over 92% of abortions happen by week 12. Very near 100% by week 16. So while YOU might not be talking about the 12 week stage, the rest of us very much are. You talk about abortion, then 12 weeks, actually 10 mostly, IS what you are mostly talking about. Whether that suits your agenda or not.

What's there if it isn't human and at 12 weeks of development?

Madscientist30

horseburger wrote: »

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?

No I dont think that life should be the goal at all costs. Why does it have to be known how long a child would have lived for? Do you think in a case of FFA the pregnancy should be forced to continue just so it can be stated with certainty how long the child would live for after birth? With no regard for whatever suffering that would bring to the parents and baby? That seems pretty sick to me, sorry.

Why is it so important for you to get involved with such decisions? If a team of medical specialists are telling a woman the heartbreaking news that their child may pass away before birth or shortly afterwards, then can we not trust them and the woman involved to make the best decision? I have heard of cases where, devastating as it is to think about for too long, women have terminated pregnancies early in the case of FFA so that they could have a chance to meet their baby alive.

How much of an interest do you usually take on a day to day basis in what strangers you dont know are doing in their personal family lives? Do you think that is any of your business? Or is it just because you and these foetuses you dont know are the same species that you think you are entitled to a say?

NuMarvel

professore wrote: »

I don't think anyone is suggesting to put the minutiae of it in the constitution. Just a position on the rights of the unborn child in relation to the mother - so no future governments can make abortion legal up to birth or ban it entirely. A guideline to prevent bad legislation.

For example - up to 12 weeks the fetus has no rights. A non viable fetus has no rights. The mother has the right to decide if they wish to abort this fetus. Something along those lines.

Saying a foetus has no rights up to 12 weeks or if they're non-viable, means a government could opt out of providing services to protect a foetus up to that point even if the mother requested it. This is highly unlikely of course, but considering it's also highly unlikely a 12 week legislative time frame will be changed, we must presumably treat all possibilities as being equally likely. I can also see the definition of non-viable ending up in court for clarity. And possibly resulting in another referendum if their decision is unsatisfactory.

Do you have examples of other countries putting this type of thing into their constitution? That would give us some sense of how it works in practice and the legal obstacles they faced.

Ave Sodalis

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Everyone has their own personal stories. I happen to believe the 8th saved my child.

And nobody is disputing that.

NuMarvel

petalgumdrops wrote: »

9.5 is from 2014 perhaps. Still though without Abortion we have an excellent MMR

And the UK, with abortion, also has an excellent MMR rate.

How does our rate compare to the European average?

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Everyone has their own personal stories. I happen to believe the 8th saved my child.

How so, if I may ask?

petalgumdrops

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

You didn't ask whether stillborn babies have a place in society. You asked whether the unborn have a place in society. So reel in your 'wow' and tell me what place in society does the UNBORN hold ?

I presume you have no problem with pregnant women smoking drinking or taking drugs?

And sorry if you say the unborn have no place in society you can row in you're seeming shock. Stillbirth suddenly makes a difference to you

horseburger

Madscientist30 wrote: »

No I dont think that life should be the goal at all costs. Why does it have to be known how long a child would have lived for? Do you think in a case of FFA the pregnancy should be forced to continue just so it can be stated with certainty how long the child would live for after birth? With no regard for whatever suffering that would bring to the parents and baby? That seems pretty sick to me, sorry.

Why is it so important for you to get involved with such decisions? If a team of medical specialists are telling a woman the heartbreaking news that their child may pass away before birth or shortly afterwards, then can we not trust them and the woman involved to make the best decision? I have heard of cases where, devastating as it is to think about for too long, women have terminated pregnancies early in the case of FFA so that they could have a chance to meet their baby alive.

How much of an interest do you usually take on a day to day basis in what strangers you dont know are doing in their personal family lives? Do you think that is any of your business? Or is it just because you and these foetuses you dont know are the same species that you think you are entitled to a say?

You seem to have a big problem with me considering the issues for and against, event though we will be voting on this issue next month.

swampgas

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Everyone has their own personal stories. I happen to believe the 8th saved my child.

I don't mean to be blunt, but surely you can see that the 8th isn't just about you? Just because you feel that in your case the 8th saved your child, that doesn't mean that you should insist that every other woman in the country should be subject to its restrictions. There are women who have died or been treated terribly because of the 8th.

Try to see the bigger picture.

Ave Sodalis

swampgas wrote: »

I don't mean to be blunt, but surely you can see that the 8th isn't just about you? Just because you feel that in your case the 8th saved your child, that doesn't mean that you should insist that every other woman in the country should be subject to its restrictions. There are women who have died or been treated terribly because of the 8th.

Try to see the bigger picture.

Prepare for her to zone in on the death bit, ignore the terribly treated part, tell you only one death occurred due to the 8th and that everything is going hunky dory.

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

What's there if it isn't human and at 12 weeks of development?

That is ALSO not what I said in the post you are quoting. Why are you dodging and even outright lying about what I said? What does this gain you exactly?

AGAIN at 12/16 weeks there is no one there experiencing any pain, because there is NO ONE there. Not nothing. NO ONE. What part of that are you failing to parse? I know 6 year olds who would understand this sentence. Why can you not?

horseburger

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is ALSO not what I said in the post you are quoting. Why are you dodging and even outright lying about what I said? What does this gain you exactly?

AGAIN at 12/16 weeks there is no one there experiencing any pain, because there is NO ONE there. Not nothing. NO ONE. What part of that are you failing to parse? I know 6 year olds who would understand this sentence. Why can you not?

What's there at the 12/16 weeks?

If there is no one there at 12/16 weeks, what are you saying is there at the 12/16 week stage of pregnancy?

Ave Sodalis

Actually petalgumdrops, do you know that even if someone's pregnancy is diagnosed with FFA, that abortion in them cases is not compulsory?

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

What's there at the 12/16 weeks? If there is no one there at 12/16 weeks, what are you saying is there at the 12/16 stage of pregnancy?

A fetus. Everyone in the thread seems to know this. At 12/16 weeks however a fetus has not developed the faculty of, or any pre-requisites for, human consciousness. It is no more likely to experience pain than an amoeba is.

gctest50

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Everyone has their own personal stories. I happen to believe the 8th saved my child.

Don't be daft

And what if, in say 20 years time, your child accidentally drives into a bus queue of schoolkids and kills them all

Can we say the 8th saved them ?

NuMarvel

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Actually petalgumdrops, do you know that even if someone's pregnancy is diagnosed with FFA, that abortion in them cases is not compulsory?

What confuses me about Petal's statements is that she's said the 8th is why she didn't have an abortion after receiving a FFA diagnosis, yet she's also said that abortions for FFA are permissible under the 8th.

So if abortions for FFA are permissible under the 8th, then her decision not to have one can't be attributed to the 8th. It can, at most, be attributed to a lack of legislation, which is something completely different.

It's mostly moot anyway, because FFA can't be legislated for under the 8th. But she obviously believes it, despite the obvious contradiction.

Neyite

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I have family who have given birth to stillborn babies. The are very much people in my eyes with a name and a place within our family.

I've a question for you:
I've one six year old, had 4 miscarriages, and a chemical pregnancy. Would you consider me a mother of one, or a mother of six?

petalgumdrops

swampgas wrote: »

I don't mean to be blunt, but surely you can see that the 8th isn't just about you? Just because you feel that in your case the 8th saved your child, that doesn't mean that you should insist that every other woman in the country should be subject to its restrictions. There are women who have died or been treated terribly because of the 8th.

Try to see the bigger picture.

I genuinely think there is of course a better alternative but I just don't see repeal as it.

Why can't we legislate for everyone- those who want choice for healthy pregnancies(12weeks only), those who have illness and those who have ffa but protect the unborn st some point. Surely tat is reasonable?

Doctors in fetal medicine encouraged me to terminate at 14 weeks, they gave me their absolute assurance that my baby had a FFA that he would die when born. (My lab reports were done there) They offered to refer me to their personal friend who would "look" after me. In comparison here I wasn't met with that and my medical care was informed, strategic and with both myself and my Baby in mind. My amnio was clear.

My baby was born (before duedate) after necessary medical intervention to save the life of my child and me. The 8th protected me personally and I am forever indebted to the wonderful materity staff we have in this country.

I can see how others have their own stories

horseburger

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A fetus. Everyone in the thread seems to know this. At 12/16 weeks however a fetus has not developed the faculty of, or any pre-requisites for, human consciousness. It is no more likely to experience pain than an amoeba is.

A human foetus perhaps? A human at an earlier stage of development?

No matter what ones views are on abortion, ending a life at an earlier stage of development is still ending a human life.

You seem unwilling to accept that.

It seems bizarre to suggest that a living being that is created by two humans, one female and one male, cannot be assigned human status, at an earlier stage of development.

How can a foetus be anything other than human, considering it came into being through two other human beings?

It is the issue of it being human that is central to the arguments for and against abortion.