The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

Not a foetus that is also human?

I and others answered you already on this. If you want I'll just reply neigh to your posting the same question as you don't like to answer people's questions when it doesn't suit you and that will lead to either you or I or both being thread banned. But since I'm here to discuss I'll probably just ignore you in most cases as its clear your not here for discussion.

Trasna1

NuMarvel wrote: »

If there is no case law, then what would a person challenging the law base their case on? It's not enough for someone to say they're challenging a law and there should be no term limits; they have to support their arguments.



I don't need to. The meaning of their post couldn't be clearer. There is no legal vacuum after a Yes win. The current law remains in place until it's changed.



Acts passed by the Oireachtas have the presumption of constitutionality, and that includes the 2013 Act after the 8th is replaced. It has to be proven that acts are unconstitutional, i.e. they contravene a provision of the constitution.

The law would be challenged on the basis of incompatibility with the Constitution, it would look to precedent with regards to bodily integrity. The very blog you linked earlier suggested strongly that significant provisions in 2013 act would be found unconstitutional following repeal of the 8th.

horseburger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Madscientist30 wrote: »

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

We are being asked to vote on this issue. There is nothing wrong with asking questions regarding the arguments in favour or repealing the Eight Amendment.

I have considered the yes arguments. I wouldn't be asking questions about the issue, if I hadn't considered the yes arguments.

Example:

Labour have posters up with the slogan "Compassion in a Crisis".

Response - Compassion for the mother but not the human that is being aborted?

People Before Profit have posters stating "Our Bodies Our Choices"

Response - What about the separate body whose life is being ended?

Would you prefer if I showed the same lack of curiosity, on the arguments for and against, as the people who gave answers in this vox pop below?

Yes, the guy asked intentionally provocative one sided questions, but that doesn't excuse the very poor responses, from the participants in the Repeal march, who were questioned in the vox pop.

Here is a debate for and against that I watched recently.

Have you seen it before?

horseburger

DubInMeath wrote: »

I and others answered you already on this. If you want I'll just reply neigh to your posting the same question as you don't like to answer people's questions when it doesn't suit you and that will lead to either you or I or both being thread banned. But since I'm here to discuss I'll probably just ignore you in most cases as its clear your not here for discussion.

Your answer was to suggest that a foetus doesn't have the right to be recognized as human, even though a foetus comes into being through two other human beings.

gctest50

petalgumdrops wrote: »

So you say that I dismissed every ither story and now yoy say it "seems" a dismissal.

Nobody's story is dismissed I said clearly consensus will never be met by Yes/No side and regardless of all the 100s of stories this is a matter of individual conscience.... but you seem to want to have the last word.

It's yes or no for repeal

There won't be a third option

[ ] Tick here to make abortions compulsory

Trasna1

horseburger wrote: »

.

In fairness, that video had been edited to push the agenda of rebel media. Indeed the people he interviewed are just protestors being put on the spot, not campaigners - and in every campaign you'll have hangers-on that only broadly understand the issue, or are simply just followers.

You could conduct interviews like that at any public rally and get brain dead answers among some of the participants. It's not representative.

Ave Sodalis

petalgumdrops wrote: »

So you say that I dismissed every ither story and now yoy say it "seems" a dismissal.

Nobody's story is dismissed I said clearly consensus will never be met by Yes/No side and regardless of all the 100s of stories this is a matter of individual conscience.... but you seem to want to have the last word.

Can you please stop with the word gymnastics? In what way have I implied I wanted the last word? What do you even mean by that?

You were implying that the 8th has had little effect on people, I suggested to read the Facebook page to see how it does have an effect on people, you replied saying everyone has a story which came very much across as a dismissal of those stories. What on earth has the rest of that got to do with it?

horseburger

Trasna1 wrote: »

In fairness, that video had been edited to push the agenda of rebel media. Indeed the people he interviewed are just protestors being put on the spot, not campaigners - and in every campaign you'll have hangers-on that only broadly understand the issue, or are simply just followers.

You could conduct interviews like that at any public rally and get brain dead answers among some of the participants. It's not representative.

No matter how one sided a vox pop is edited, the people vox popped could not have been recorded saying what they said, unless they said what they said.

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

Even if it is a question of viability, it is still the intentional ending of a life, if abortion occurs at a stage of unviability.

Can you answer my questions now?

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Can you answer my questions now?

Remind me again what you asked

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

Remind me again what you asked

These:

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.

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: »

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?

Trasna1

horseburger wrote: »

No matter how one sided a vox pop is edited, the people vox popped could not have been recorded saying what they said, unless they said what they said.

In a group of 100, there will always be at least 10 morons, and a few more who cannot perform when put on the spot. It reflects poorly on the individuals but the implied leap is that the protesters generally are witless sheep following the flow is a constructed narrative and nowhere near reality

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

These:

I answered that already

horseburger

Trasna1 wrote: »

In a group of 100, there will always be at least 10 morons, and a few more who cannot perform when put on the spot. It reflects poorly on the individuals but the implied leap is that the protesters generally are witless sheep following the flow is a constructed narrative and nowhere near reality

Morons or not, they weren't forced to say what they said.

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

I answered that already

No you didn't. You gave a brief over view of what was said way before I joined the conversation which was not in any way relevant to the questions. You also said that you hadn't made any references to miscarriage, to which I replied that that was the point.

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

No you didn't. You gave a brief over view of what was said way before I joined the conversation which was not in any way relevant to the questions. You also said that you hadn't made any references to miscarriage, to which I replied that that was the point.

What are you asking then?

I didn't bring up the issue of miscarriage, someone else did and I responded by suggesting that miscarriages are an unfortunate natural occurrence.

If you want to suggest that miscarriages occur othwrwise, answer your own question as to whether miscarriages should be investigated.

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

What are you asking then?

Exactly what I did ask.

1) In response to you saying that you parents lose their rights anyway (which they don't) so you don't see the difference in a pregnant woman's rights, I asked if you would be willing to tell that to the families of Susan Hodgers, Savita Halappanavar, and Anne Lovett and tell them not to worry because their family member would have lost some rights anyway.

2) If human life begins at conception, as the article you quoted was saying, then why wasn't miscarriage (even those accidentally caused by drink, falls etc) considered manslaughter?

3) If human life begins at conception, why isn't drinking and drug use not considered as, and charged as being negligent.

4) If human life begins at conception, why is it legal to travel for an abortion?

Trasna1

horseburger wrote: »

Morons or not, they weren't forced to say what they said.

Indeed, and as I said it reflects badly on the individuals - but these individuals were put on the spot. If any of the campaign spokespeople has given such rubbish answers then I'd be asking questions alright
The purpose of the video was to present an untrue narrative that the protesters were a cohort of easily led fools who didn't understand the issue but going with the flow.

What is telling us that when you exclude the bits where he is ****eing on he had three mins of footage with a handful of individuals from a rally that took half a day and had thousands of people at it.

petalgumdrops

petalgumdrops wrote: »

By that standard whether we terminate or not is all based on beliefs and personal decision?

I have no personal ethos on terminations bar that for healthy babies there should be a limit.

Abortion in ireland was not something that was offered to me. It did not inform doctors practice on how my case was dealt with at a time when I was at my most vulnerable. Had I have been in England and based on how fetal medicine there had pushed reccomendation for termination- I would have grabbed it with both hands . When you are told your baby is one if only 4 cases ever to be born alive then you can't tell me that the 8th didn't have an impact on my outcome. Simlarily like how I can't tell other women that the 8th didn't impact negatively on them. It seems that this group will pledge undying faith and will not question the stories that support their narrative. '
The depts of despair is all I can describe what we went through.
I know that women also mention that having full bodily autonomy in maternity care is also an issue related to the 8th. That interventions are carried out against their will.
I didn't want my birth to go the way it did, my baby was being born earlier than I wanted and fear and panic took over for me. If intervening in the way they did to save both my life and my childs then yes the 8th saved him. I didn't want the level of intervention I received but we are here.

Until you hear a doctor telling you that your baby has no chance of life, that death is certain that termination would be easier on you, that you can try again -all while not being able to do anything about it then you can tell me that I'm wrong.

The biggest travesty of these issues are public couselling waiting lists meant I suffered immensely because of it...... or maybe I didn't shout the loudest.

Leaving this thread now before I'm asked to produce my CVS and Amniocenthese reports

First off as said earlier I'm glad that your child was OK and was delivered safely.

Secondly the medical care you received would be the same in the cases where FFA was not incorrectly diagnosed, meaning as how things stand a woman who does not wish to continue with their pregnancy but cannot travel will endure the same treatment as you did due to the eight but unfortunately they won't have the happy outcome you did of having their child live. But if repeal is successful a woman who wishes to continue with their pregnancy in such a case still will have that option and receive the same treatment.

Thirdly personal beliefs do have a factor in determining if a person chooses to have an abortion or not. The same personal beliefs also can spill out into trying to decide for other people as well as in the case with the 8th as it stands and for most of the save the 8th side of the argument.

Finally as purposed the legislation is for 12 weeks unrestricted access. others maybe able to state if FFA can be determined by this time or not as I don't have the answer yet, but there are other valid reasons to request a termination that loved ones of mine have experienced that do not lessen their reasons to request a termination if needed to or they had so wished to, and the counciling services for what they went through are not as widely available as they should be either. Also I see your still posting and thanking posts so I hope you have decided not to leave the discussion as you stated.

petalgumdrops

RobertKK wrote: »

It is happening in the UK in minority communities.
There is now a blood test that can tell if a woman is having a boy or girl at 9 weeks gestation. So technically this would allow sex select abortions to happen in Ireland.

I know this is an old post but is called the Harmony test. Its NIPNT and is screening rather than diagnostic. It can be done from ten weeks. You can get results in about 4 days but generally 7 -10 days.

There is a thread on it here. I really don't see sex selection being an issue here though

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057594346

gctest50

petalgumdrops wrote: »

RobertKK wrote: »

POST #32

It is happening in the UK in minority communities.
There is now a blood test that can tell if a woman is having a boy or girl at 9 weeks gestation. So technically this would allow sex select abortions to happen in Ireland.

I know this is an old post but is called the Harmony test. Its NIPNT and is screening rather than diagnostic. It can be done from ten weeks. You can get results in about 4 days but generally 7 -10 days.
There is a thread on it here. I really don't see sex selection being an issue here though

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057594346

What is wrong with your internet ?

If you read down a few posts, you'd see this :

January wrote: »

POST #36

You're wrong. You're talking about the harmony test which can only be performed after 10 weeks and takes approx two weeks to come back. With the current proposal the cut off for abortion on request is 12 weeks. So that won't happen here.

Not to mention its prohibitivley expensive for a lot of people so they just can't afford it.

petalgumdrops

gctest50 wrote: »

What is wrong with your internet ?

If you read down a few posts, you'd see this :

You really are the salt of the earth.

I did see her comment but its 4-7 day turn around not 2weeks as stated.

Pretty pointless responding for the sole purpose of trying to be an ****

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Exactly what I did ask.

1) In response to you saying that you parents lose their rights anyway (which they don't) so you don't see the difference in a pregnant woman's rights, I asked if you would be willing to tell that to the families of Susan Hodgers, Savita Halappanavar, and Anne Lovett and tell them not to worry because their family member would have lost some rights anyway.

2) If human life begins at conception, as the article you quoted was saying, then why wasn't miscarriage (even those accidentally caused by drink, falls etc) considered manslaughter?

3) If human life begins at conception, why isn't drinking and drug use not considered as, and charged as being negligent.

4) If human life begins at conception, why is it legal to travel for an abortion?

I never said anything about parents losing rights.

I asked a question related to a central question about abortion, which is the issue of whether or not it is justifiable to end a human life.

I asked this in relation to the issue that a human growing during pregnancy is a separate being to the mother.

Eamon OCuiv asked a question on this issue last year and Ruth Coppinger interrupted him by stating that a pregnant woman is not a mother until the baby is born.

You can well imagine that if Ronan Mullen, Mattie McGrath, Danny Healy Rae or Peter Fitzpatrick had made that remark, that they would be accused of sexism, belittling women and devaluing the role of mothers with regard to the nuture and care they give to the human/child/ human foetus/ baby that is growing in the womb during pregnancy.

What exactly do you expect me to say about the issue of it being legal to travel for an abortion?

I never said anyone should be prevented from travelling for an abortion.

I don't know why miscarriages are not considered manslaughter. Maybe because miscarriages are an unfortunate, very sad, unplanned occurrence?

I do not know whether or not if it is currently the case that drinking and drug use, are considered offences, worthy of being charging a person with neglect.

Is it covered under the Public Health Alcohol Bill?

http://alcoholireland.ie/what-is-the-public-health-alcohol-bill/

This next item includes the following text:

"Although not often visible in public, alcohol’s harm to others within the family can have very serious consequences for the safety and well-being of family members, with children the most vulnerable. Life-long damage, through foetal development disorders, can also be caused to the unborn child by alcohol consumption during pregnancy.".

http://alcoholireland.ie/facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

Senator Frances Black is working on highlighting the issue of excessive alcohol use.

Have you contacted any TDs or Senators to highlight your concerns?

None of the things you are asking me prohibits the issues relating to the arguments for or against abortion, from being debated and discussed.

What did you reckon of the address to the Citizens Assembly by Dr Anthony Levatino?

horseburger

Trasna1 wrote: »

Indeed, and as I said it reflects badly on the individuals - but these individuals were put on the spot. If any of the campaign spokespeople has given such rubbish answers then I'd be asking questions alright
The purpose of the video was to present an untrue narrative that the protesters were a cohort of easily led fools who didn't understand the issue but going with the flow.

What is telling us that when you exclude the bits where he is ****eing on he had three mins of footage with a handful of individuals from a rally that took half a day and had thousands of people at it.

I did not avoid anything. I clearly wrote that the interviewer was one sided and being provocative in the way he asked the questions of the interviewees.

They weren't forced to say what they said.

JDD

Hi Robert KK and horse-burger. I’ve posted the below question before to pro-lifers on this thread, to Bertieinexile and pleas advise. Bertieinexile has neglected to answer (even though he/she said they were trying to get the time to answer in between posting other detailed posts). Pleas advise said the he/she would be happy for me to import the termination pill and was against me being criminalized for it - but was still going to vote no.

I’d appreciate your honest view. Please don’t make me constantly check your profiles to see if you’ve posted elsewhere while completely ignoring my question.

Previous post:

During my last pregnancy it was suspected I had placenta accretia (google it). Very luckily, in the end, I did not. However, I was informed that should I get pregnant again, I would have a 70% chance of it occurring.

Statistics on placenta accretia are hard to come by as it is historically a rare complication latterly on the rise. From my own research and from the discussions with my consultant I was told the condition has a 7% mortality rate, a 30% chance of permanent injury to my non-uterus internal organs and an 80% chance I would lose my uterus.

As a result I had a tubal ligation. But no contraceptive is a fail safe. What do YOU advise as my current course of action:

A. Refrain from having sex with my husband until go through the menopause;

B. Have sex with my husband but, should my contraception fail, accept that I would have a 1 in 20 chance of dying, and a 1 in 5 chance of suffering a serious life debititating injury should I bring the pregnancy to full term.

Bear in mind that I have three young children who would be left without a mother if the 1 in 20 chance came to pass.

Your beliefs mean my choice has to be A or B.

gctest50

petalgumdrops wrote: »

You really are the salt of the earth.

I did see her comment but its 4-7 day turn around not 2weeks as stated.

Pretty pointless responding for the sole purpose of trying to be an ****

petalgumdrops wrote: »

....

I did see her comment but its 4-7 day turn around not 2weeks as stated.

This little post here didn't make it clear that was your point ? :

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I know this is an old post but is called the Harmony test. Its NIPNT and is screening rather than diagnostic. It can be done from ten weeks. You can get results in about 4 days but generally 7 -10 days.

There is a thread on it here. I really don't see sex selection being an issue here though

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057594346

Seems to be a recurring thing, that vagueness, then pulling up on the reply post

Wouldn't be some form of say ...... trying to get posters a little antagonised

ShooterSF

horseburger wrote: »

What exactly do you expect me to say about the issue of it being legal to travel for an abortion?

I never said anyone should be prevented from travelling for an abortion.

People have been arrested for helping others travel for assisted suicide. Why should murder abroad, if it is a baby, be ok?

petalgumdrops

gctest50 wrote: »

This little post here didn't make it clear that was your point ? :









Seems to be a recurring thing, that vagueness, then pulling up on the reply post

Wouldn't be some form of say ...... trying to get posters a little antagonised

I have no idea whay you are smoking! I was reading from the start a thread that has 398 pages. Not eveything is a conspiracy.

gctest50

http://crowdfund.togetherforyes.ie/


€510,514

,

Madscientist30

horseburger wrote: »

DubInMeath wrote: »

I and others answered you already on this. If you want I'll just reply neigh to your posting the same question as you don't like to answer people's questions when it doesn't suit you and that will lead to either you or I or both being thread banned. But since I'm here to discuss I'll probably just ignore you in most cases as its clear your not here for discussion.

Your answer was to suggest that a foetus doesn't have the right to be recognized as human, even though a foetus comes into being through two other human beings.

A foetus is biologically human, that has already been said numerous times throughout the thread. It is not, though, a human being. A human being is defined as a man, woman or child. A foetus does not become a child until it is born. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning this "human" thing. Can you explain why you feel it is so important to continue to develop non-sentient human foetuses to ensure they are born, against the will of the woman carrying the foetud and regardless of the consequences? Do you have any proposals to alleviate the suffering and misery this would cause for many many people? Or do we not need to consider that because.....ehhhh.....it's human like. There is nothing at all behind your argument. Not one pro-lifer here has STILL ever answered the question about the fertility clinic on fire. Will you answer it?