The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

petalgumdrops

petalgumdrops wrote: »

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

How can this be the case, you decided to continue to carry to term.

Even if the 8th is repealed and a case if FFA is presented to a pregnant woman they can still decide to continue to carry to term, as you did by choice as you could have decided to have an abortion in the U.K. If you so decided in getting the diagnosis.

The only difference if repeal is successful it just means that women will be able to decide and not have to travel.

Or are you trying to say that if the 8th is repealed then women will be forced to have abortions?

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

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?

I do believe that this was already answered for you several times. Also, you say you never said anything about murder but, seeing as you also patronisingly gave dictionary definitions before, you could look up the definition of murder.

Mind answering my questions now?

NuMarvel

petalgumdrops wrote: »

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?

That's precisely what's being proposed - legislation allowing abortion as a matter of choice up to 12 weeks, and in cases of risk to health, life, or of FFA afterwards.

You're arguing against the very thing you're looking for.

Trasna1

CeilingFly wrote: »

I was doorstepped by a "no" advocate yesterday. He was a little excited and played the "did you know that 90% of babies with a disability are aborted in the UK line"

I said his figures are factually incorrect and that it was substantially lower. He wasn't accepting that, and went on a rant about health and housing as well - so I threw a curveball that had him reeling...

..."The average disabled person costs the taxpayer in excess of €20m* throughout their lifetime, so if 90% of disabled babies were aborted, that would see billions saved and allow for substantially extra funding for health and housing - hence if YOU voted yes, you'd be ensuring massive additional funding for housing and health"

He threw a few expletives at me and walked on.





1. *the €20m is made up.

2. The above is not an argument I'd ever use, and its as insulting and degrading as the no side's argument saying that 90% of babies with a disability are aborted. But they don't seem to like anyone giving a similarly but opposite disgusting argument.



Even my mother who would have been very much against abortion has decided not to vote as she cannot vote for groups that use such emotive and wrong statements. She won't vote yes for her own personal reasons and you may have many of the older generation doing similar when they hear the hatred of these hardline groups.

It's not 90% of babies with disabilities but 90% of babies with a pre birth diagnosis of downs syndrome.

Ave Sodalis

petalgumdrops wrote: »

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

And yet, the wonderful maternity staff we have in this country, on an official level at least, are pro-repeal.

Madscientist30

horseburger wrote: »

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?

But what exactly is your concern? You are saying it is the deliberate ending of a human life. But you are balking at calling it murder? What do you consider the difference to be between murder and "the deliberate ending of a human life"?

I see it as the ending of a "potential human life". And I believe if the woman growing that potential life does not feel that she can continue to move that potential towards reality, then there justification for forcing her to continue. Saying "but....but.....but.....LIFE!" is not a justification. It's not like we can even claim that society will happily provide for that needs and other rights of that life even if the woman cant, we have 6000 unwanted children in care in Ireland, not to mention a homeless crisis.

If you really want to live in a society where creating life is privileged over any sort of quality or suffering then maybe you should have a look at the countries in the world with the highest fertility rates and consider moving to one of them?

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

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.

You seem incapable of answering questions and just repeat yourself ad nauseaum

petalgumdrops

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

Abortions under the 8th for FFA are not permissible. Think you are referring to when I said I would like an amendment to make separately to allow for them.

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

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

You are point hopping. We have already discussed numerous times that it is a biological human fetus. But YOU brought up the subject of pain and now we are talking about that.

This dodge a lot duck a lot tactic of yours is not likely to win you points with anyone but yourself.

horseburger wrote: »

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.

For the second time you are taking the course of telling outright lies about what I have said. Why is that do you think?

No one here, least of all me is denying that the fetus is biologically human.

No one here, least of all me is denying abortion terminates the life of that fetus.

So when you say I am unwilling to accept this, when I have outright SAID IT MYSELF multiple times on the thread, you are simply lying. To me. To yourself. And to everyone else here.

And you know what? That is great! It serves my agenda on this thread very well indeed when you people start outright blatantly and transparently lying. Please do not stop soon.

horseburger wrote: »

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.

If you are speaking in a biological context it should be assigned "human status" at EVERY state of development. Has anyone here denied that? I know I have not. Maybe some voices in your head have? Who knows.

However if you are talking personhood and humanity in the context of philosophy, morality, ethics and rights then I simply see no basis for affording it such a status. And.... Quelle Suprise........ in a long string of posts from today alone you have manage to avoid ANY attempts to have you explain to us why we should. I would stake quite a lot of money with my local Bookmakers that you are not going to any time soon either.

horseburger wrote: »

How can a foetus be anything other than human?

You are running away from not just my points now, but also your own. YOU brought up pain not me. And you shot yourself in the foot doing so because nearly 100% of abortions occur at a stage in fetal development when there is no one there to feel any pain. The fetus has no more sentience in it and capability to experience actual pain than a mannequin does.

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I do believe that this was already answered for you several times. Also, you say you never said anything about murder but, seeing as you also patronisingly gave dictionary definitions before, you could look up the definition of murder.

Mind answering my questions now?

I already answered you.

You smart assedly presumed I thought a particular way on this issue.

I never called anyone murderers. It is not helpful in debating this issue to call anyone murderers.

I stated that the main issue around abortion is the question of whether it is deemed acceptable to end a human life.

That does not mean that I called anyone murderers.

petalgumdrops

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

And yet, the wonderful maternity staff we have in this country, on an official level at least, are pro-repeal.

I prefer to debate/discuss in terms of tangible evidence based facts. To state maternity staff are all in favour is hyperbolic.

There is no consensus amongst any one group. A matter for each and every persons conscience.

Spanish Eyes

The sperm donors need to be outed also. I do recognise that some are ok, and will stand by the pregnancy. But most need a kick but just disappear.

Ah but it is always the women. That needs to change big time now really.

It will never be men that are affected by abortion, at the end of the day they can walk away.

Ave Sodalis

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Abortions under the 8th for FFA are not permissible. Think you are referring to when I said I would like an amendment to make separately to allow for them.

So you're saying you believe the 8th saved your childs life (disputable by the fact that abortions will not be compulsory but anyways), but you would be happy to have an amendment to take away the "protection" you are arguing for?

petalgumdrops

gctest50 wrote: »

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 ?

Is this meant to be a question?

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

I already answered you.

You smart assedly presumed I thought a particular way on this issue.

I never called anyone murderers. It is not helpful in debating this issue to call anyone murderers.

I stated that the main issue around abortion is the question of whether it is deemed acceptable to end a human life.

That does not mean that I called anyone murderers.

I didn't mention murders in my questions. You never answered my questions.

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

I stated that the main issue around abortion is the question of whether it is deemed acceptable to end a human life.

And I have explained to you multiple times that that assertion from you is false. Your response to that was to run away, ignore the rebutal, and to simply repeat the error again multiple times since.

The central arguments and issue around abortion is NOT about the acceptability of ending human life. The central argument around abortion IS whether there are any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you can offer (none it seems) to establish a basis for affording a 12/16 week old fetus a right to life.

Wanna ignore that again and run away to recite your mantra? I bet you do.

horseburger

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I have explained to you multiple times that that assertion from you is false. Your response to that was to run away, ignore the rebutal, and to simply repeat the error again multiple times since.

The central arguments and issue around abortion is NOT about the acceptability of ending human life. The central argument around abortion IS whether there are any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you can offer (none it seems) to establish a basis for affording a 12/16 week old fetus a right to life.

Wanna ignore that again and run away to recite your mantra? I bet you do.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are point hopping. We have already discussed numerous times that it is a biological human fetus. But YOU brought up the subject of pain and now we are talking about that.

This dodge a lot duck a lot tactic of yours is not likely to win you points with anyone but yourself.



For the second time you are taking the course of telling outright lies about what I have said. Why is that do you think?

No one here, least of all me is denying that the fetus is biologically human.

No one here, least of all me is denying abortion terminates the life of that fetus.

So when you say I am unwilling to accept this, when I have outright SAID IT MYSELF multiple times on the thread, you are simply lying. To me. To yourself. And to everyone else here.

And you know what? That is great! It serves my agenda on this thread very well indeed when you people start outright blatantly and transparently lying. Please do not stop soon.



If you are speaking in a biological context it should be assigned "human status" at EVERY state of development. Has anyone here denied that? I know I have not. Maybe some voices in your head have? Who knows.

However if you are talking personhood and humanity in the context of philosophy, morality, ethics and rights then I simply see no basis for affording it such a status. And.... Quelle Suprise........ in a long string of posts from today alone you have manage to avoid ANY attempts to have you explain to us why we should. I would stake quite a lot of money with my local Bookmakers that you are not going to any time soon either.



You are running away from not just my points now, but also your own. YOU brought up pain not me. And you shot yourself in the foot doing so because nearly 100% of abortions occur at a stage in fetal development when there is no one there to feel any pain. The fetus has no more sentience in it and capability to experience actual pain than a mannequin does.

Do you think it is ok to end its life on the basis of it being at an earlier stage of development?

If you are against later term abortions, what concerns you about later term abortions, considering either way, the intention remains the same - to end the life?

Ending the life at an earlier stage of development is still ending a life.

Madscientist30

horseburger wrote: »

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.

Haven't heard you considering anything "for" it yet really Clearly you do consider such private matters your business anyway. Repeal will allow women to make the best choices for themselves. So what you really have to decide is do you think your fellow humans are capable of making reproductive decisions without you getting a say. Realistically most of them are probably as smart as you or I if not more so. So on balance I dont think I need to be involved in their decision processes. Do you? And if you think humans are inherently not to be trusted, then why are you advocating bringing more of them into the world

NuMarvel

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Abortions under the 8th for FFA are not permissible. Think you are referring to when I said I would like an amendment to make separately to allow for them.

Nope. You specifically said FFA could be legislated for without repealing the 8th:

petalgumdrops wrote: »

The surprising thing is is that the government could have legistated for FFA years ago without repealing the 8th.

Perhaps you confused legislation with a new constitutional provision. But that's still contradictory, because you're saying the 8th stopped you from having an abortion because of an FFA, yet think abortions for FFA should be allowed.

Ave Sodalis

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I prefer to debate/discuss in terms of tangible evidence based facts. To state maternity staff are all in favour is hyperbolic.

There is no consensus amongst any one group. A matter for each and every persons conscience.

It's a good job I said on an official level then so, which is an evidence based fact. The Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are pro-repeal on this matter. In fact, they had a hand in drafting the legislation.

ohnonotgmail

horseburger wrote: »

Do you think it is ok to end its life on the basis of it being at an earlier stage of development?

If you are against later term abortions, what concerns you about later term abortions, considering either way, the intention remains the same - to end the life?

Ending the life at an earlier stage of development is still ending a life.

you just continue to ask questions that have already been answered.

horseburger

DubInMeath wrote: »

You seem incapable of answering questions and just repeat yourself ad nauseaum

You didn't answer what I asked you.

horseburger

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you just continue to ask questions that have already been answered.

What I asked has not been answered.

Why be concerned about abortion at a later stage, but be ok with it at an earlier stage, when the intention of abortion is the same - to end a life?

petalgumdrops

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

So you're saying you believe the 8th saved your childs life (disputable by the fact that abortions will not be compulsory but anyways), but you would be happy to have an amendment to take away the "protection" you are arguing for?

My baby was born healthy with a misdiagnosis of a ffa or didn't you read that. The problem I faced was that I could not travel. I would like women with a ffa to be allowed to induce their pregnancies here in our materity hopsitals, on demand to 12 weeks but not unlimited abortion which repealing the 8th will provide

Why is it I was asked to look at the 100s of stories in - In her Shoes and you didn't dare dispute that their stories show how the 8th hurts women. Yet I say the 8th saved my child and you question it. Respectful tactic would be to acknowledge my experience -disagree if you like but please if something doesn't suit your narrative say nothing rather than dispute a horrific experience that I went through.

And people have you believe that this referendum is all about trusting and supporting women..... that should also be amended to..... "supporting and trusting women if it fits my narrative"

NuMarvel

horseburger wrote: »

You didn't answer what I asked you.

Oh, the irony...

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

What I asked has not been answered.

Why be concerned about abortion at a later stage, but be ok with it at an earlier stage, when the intention of abortion is the same - to end a life?

Viability.

Can you answer my questions now?

Spanish Eyes

Do not stress yourselves.

Every country in Europe has abortion.

Even Italy OMG such a Catholic country.

And the Pope will be here in August.

Bollix IMV.

Ireland needs to accept the reality, it might not be nice but the Pope has no problem!

ohnonotgmail

horseburger wrote: »

What I asked has not been answered.

Why be concerned about abortion at a later stage, but be ok with it at an earlier stage, when the intention of abortion is the same - to end a life?

you need to spend more time reading and less time posting.

petalgumdrops

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Is this meant to be a question?

Could you perhaps answer my question?

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

Do you think it is ok to end its life on the basis of it being at an earlier stage of development?

To answer your first question here...... I think it is ok to end the life of ANY entity for ANY reason, including a 12 week old human fetus, that A) Entirely lacks the faculty of sentience and has never at any stage had the faculty of sentience in any way.

Do you have an argument as to why an entity lacking that faculty and always having lacked that faculty should have a right to life? Or can I simply assume that you actually believe shouting the word "Human" at that question over and over and over and over again actually answers it in some magical la la land way?

horseburger wrote: »

If you are against later term abortions, what concerns you about later term abortions, considering either way, the intention remains the same - to end the life?

If you understand the answer to the first question, you will already know the answer to this question. If you find you do not though, feel free to let me know and I will answer it happily.

horseburger wrote: »

Ending the life at an earlier stage of development is still ending a life.

So is killing cows to obtain meat, or chopping down trees to make paper. We end life all the time. No one here AT ALL is denying we are ending life. Yet you keep saying it over and over like you are telling people something they either do not know, or have been denying.

The point that you are so DESPERATE to dodge however is that you seem entirely ignorant about where the line is, and what the line is, between life we end all the time and life we should not end. You just shout the word "Human" over and over because you think that is the line, yet you can not even begin to explain why.

horseburger wrote: »

What I asked has not been answered.

The third outright lie I have caught you at now. The questions you just asked me were almost word for word the questions you asked earlier today and everyone here saw me answer you.

Lying in person is one thing, and people do it often. But lying when the truth is right beside the lie in black and white.... that takes some gall.

horseburger wrote: »

Why be concerned about abortion at a later stage, but be ok with it at an earlier stage, when the intention of abortion is the same - to end a life?

Because at 12/16 weeks we are ending the life of an entity that is not and never has been sentience or conscious. At much later stages however, we would be ending the life of a human sentience.

The two are therefore not comparable, even though you want to pretend they are. Pretence, alas, being the main substance of pretty much everything you have written here today.