The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Edward M

MkaylaK wrote: »

I'm sorry, I don't know what exactly you mean by saying that my 'sentences are wrapped up in tinsel'and not once did I label anybody a 'killer'.In fact, I never even thought of using that word.
I just asked what's the difference between deliberately ending an innocent life in the womb and ending it outside of the womb. If you can give me a significant difference, I'd honestly love to hear it. That is why it is phrased as a question.
As I've said, I'm remaining open minded on the issue.

How do you feel about the eighth amendment itself, leaving abortion on the side for a moment, we all know it has been and still potentially could be the cause of a woman's death and cause her health care to be seriously compromised?

thee glitz

Originally Posted by optogirl  
The Save the eighth crowd love people with DS so much that they would see nothing wrong in forcing a 12 year old with DS (or any 12 year old) who was raped & pregnant to go through with that pregnancy. Not only that but they think any alternative should be criminalised.

thee glitz wrote: »

Ye, criminalising people with DS - that's what pro-lifers stand for... this is beyond contempt and I genuinely feel sad for you. Unless you've any evidence of it of course.

How about the official position of the PLC regarding pregnant victims of rape and incest, and the fact that under the 8th anyone accessing illegal abortion can face 14 years imprisonment, the very thing (the 8th) the PLC and you wish to keep, is that evidence for you?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/victims-of-rape-and-incest-should-carry-babies-to-full-term-say-campaigners-1.3444429

amdublin

MkaylaK wrote: »

I'm 18 years old and pro-life. There are certainly some, but definitely not a lot of pro-lifers in my age group.

Firstly, I'd like to say that I truly believe, that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I think that discussion of this highly sensitive issue is important to ensure that everyone is fully informed on both sides of the debate, before they make their decision to vote yes or no....

....From reading this thread, I know many people will disagree with me and that's ok, but please stay respectful.

Have you read any of the women's accounts on the In Her Shoes page on Facebook?

Actually not any. Just one even. Why not go over there and read literally the very first one showing right now?

Respectfully,
Amdublin

NuMarvel

MkaylaK wrote: »

I just asked what's the difference between deliberately ending an innocent life in the womb and ending it outside of the womb. If you can give me a significant difference, I'd honestly love to hear it. That is why it is phrased as a question.
As I've said, I'm remaining open minded on the issue.

One happens very rarely (less than 50 times a year) but there's still political will and public support to prosecute those who carry it out, and it's generally regarded as one of the most serious crimes a person can commit.

The other happens hundreds of times a year here and thousands of people travel abroad to carry it out. There's little if any public support for prosecutions, to the point that we've protected the freedom to travel above all else. There's no political will for prosecutions, and even those opposed to it have called for the perpetrators of the act to be decriminalised. Some people say it's the most heinous act imaginable, yet are proposing we vote to maintain this status quo in the upcoming referendum.

Guess which one is which. Then tell me what you think the difference is.

Martina1991

MkaylaK wrote:

These are some of the reasons that I have chosen to be pro life. I cannot justify destroying innocent human life.

I hear and respect all your reasons for voting no.
I wish no woman felt they had to have an abortion, for any reason.

All your reasons are regarding the unborn foetus. But consider the woman's life. The living breathing woman who has to bear the pregnancy. She could be your sister, neighbour, best friend.

She might have been raped, abused, had failed contraception, she might be a child herself. She might already be a mother and another pregnancy would be fatal.

Women in these situations know they cannot physically or mentally carry a pregnancy or raise a child.

A foetus <12 weeks is 2 inches long. It's organs are not fully formed. It doesn't have a fully formed brain. The beating of cardiac cells is part of the biological development. It is not a fully formed beating heart. I do not think a foetus should trump the life of the woman around it.

Do you think you have the right to tell these women in crisis what is best for them.

thee glitz

DubInMeath wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

Ye, criminalising people with DS - that's what pro-lifers stand for... this is beyond contempt and I genuinely feel sad for you. Unless you've any evidence of it of course.

How about the official position of the PLC regarding pregnant victims of rape and incest, and the fact that under the 8th anyone accessing illegal abortion can face 14 years imprisonment, the very thing (the 8th) the PLC and you wish to keep, is that evidence for you?

The point was about people with DS.

thee glitz

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

3) 12 weeks was picked due to the high levels of natural miscarriage before this date

Ye - I saw this before, but it doesn't make any sense.

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

The point was about people with DS.

And under the 8th they could be criminalised if they or a guardian access abortion for them.

captbarnacles

MkaylaK wrote: »

I'm 18 years old and pro-life. There are certainly some, but definitely not a lot of pro-lifers in my age group.

Firstly, I'd like to say that I truly believe, that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I think that discussion of this highly sensitive issue is important to ensure that everyone is fully informed on both sides of the debate, before they make their decision to vote yes or no.

There is absolutely no need to belittle or disrespect somebody else simply because they have a different view to you. It's important to remain open minded in this debate to make sure that you choose what you believe is the right vote.

I'd also like to point out that the Catholic Church (or any church) has had no influence on my choice to be pro-life whatsoever. The notion that all pro-lifers are bible worshippers is simply untrue.

These are some of the reasons that I have chosen to be pro life.
I cannot justify destroying innocent human life.
I cannot understand why we would want to end the lives of babies after 12 weeks for conditions such as cleft palette and down syndrome etc.
I cannot understand what difference there is in a foetus at 11 weeks and 6 days than at 12 weeks and 1 day. Why does the 12 week mark hold such significance?
At the end of the day, for an abortion to be carried out, a heartbeat has to be deliberately stopped. We know what that is called outside of the womb, so what is the difference inside the womb?
Remember, the same heart beats in you today as it did when your mother was pregnant with you, the whole way throughout her pregnancy.

From reading this thread, I know many people will disagree with me and that's ok, but please stay respectful.

Taking that back to the start, do you believe a just fertilised egg to be a human being with a right to life?

Ave Sodalis

thee glitz wrote: »

Ye - I saw this before, but it doesn't make any sense.

What doesn't make sense about it?

AtomicHorror

MkaylaK wrote: »

I cannot justify destroying innocent human life.

What if the innocent human life will die anyway, but by continuing to exist puts a second innocent human life at risk of death?

MkaylaK wrote: »

I cannot understand why we would want to end the lives of babies after 12 weeks for conditions such as cleft palette and down syndrome etc.

The legislation won't allow for that.

MkaylaK wrote: »

I cannot understand what difference there is in a foetus at 11 weeks and 6 days than at 12 weeks and 1 day. Why does the 12 week mark hold such significance?

We can draw the line at conception, at birth, or somewhere in between. I consider 12 weeks to be largely meaningless, since birth is the only moment that really matters.

MkaylaK wrote: »

At the end of the day, for an abortion to be carried out, a heartbeat has to be deliberately stopped. We know what that is called outside of the womb, so what is the difference inside the womb?

About this time last year, I watched as my aunt's heart was stopped by various actions and inactions of medical personnel and our family. It was called mercy- since her choices were to hold on in an increasing state of suffering, or to let go. Context determines what stopping a heart is called.

Implying unkind things about those who have to make the hard choices in life is for small people. Don't be a small person.

MkaylaK wrote: »

Remember, the same heart beats in you today as it did when your mother was pregnant with you, the whole way throughout her pregnancy.

How can that be true? A foetal heart contains far fewer cells than and adult one. By mass, your own heart must be at least 90% new material.

Assuming this factoid were true, what would it mean? Your heart is just an organ like your kidneys, liver or stomach. It pumps blood. If you put someone else's heart in there, you don't become a different person.

Your brain is what matters, and you most certainly don't have the brain of a foetus.

MkaylaK wrote: »

From reading this thread, I know many people will disagree with me and that's ok, but please stay respectful.

You'll get respect so long as you show willingness to move from dogmatic positions to factual ones!

thee glitz

DubInMeath wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

The point was about people with DS.

And under the 8th they could be criminalised if they or a guardian access abortion for them.

I don't think they could be criminalised if forced to have an abortion. I'm not even sure they'd have much of a clue what was happening. How many people with DS do we have in prisons, for 14 years? This is nonsense...

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

What doesn't make sense about it?

How a window for allowing abortion without regard to necessity is related to that in which most miscarraiges occur.

baylah17

thee glitz wrote: »

DubInMeath wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

The point was about people with DS.

And under the 8th they could be criminalised if they or a guardian access abortion for them.

I don't think they could be criminalised if forced to have an abortion. I'm not even sure they'd have much of a clue what was happening. How many people with DS do we have in prisons, for 14 years? This is nonsense...

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

What doesn't make sense about it?

How a window for allowing abortion without regard to necessity is related to that in which most miscarraiges occur.

Same ****.e different day

Martina1991

I was just playing angry birds and ads come up every 2 mins. Usually they're ads for other games.

A "Love both " ad now keeps coming up.

How much did that cost.

ColdTurkey

Martina1991 wrote: »

Do you think you have the right to tell these women in crisis what is best for them.

This is the crux of the argument for me, what right do we have over women's bodies? The answer is none. None.

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't think they could be criminalised if forced to have an abortion. I'm not even sure they'd have much of a clue what was happening. How many people with DS do we have in prisons, for 14 years? This is nonsense...



How a window for allowing abortion without regard to necessity is related to that in which most miscarraiges occur.

Nope it sounds like your dismissing what could happen based on the legislation as it stands due to it not suiting your agenda to be honest.

And no one said that they would be forced to abort, I certainly didn't.

Given that you have previously stated that rape victiums are just a happy coincidence for people supporting repeal, your ignoring that someone with down syndrome could fall under this case, while stating how foetuses who are diagnosed with having the condition will be aborted wholesale if the 8th is repealed

baylah17

Martina1991 wrote: »

I was just playing angry birds and ads come up every 2 mins. Usually they're ads for other games.

A "Love both " ad now keeps coming up.

How much did that cost.

Angry Birds

You mean like Cora Sherlock lookalikes lol

Ave Sodalis

thee glitz wrote: »

How a window for allowing abortion without regard to necessity is related to that in which most miscarraiges occur.

Due to the high uncertainty of viability anyway. In fact, the RCPI describe 12 weeks as a milestone exactly for that reason. If you send them an email, they might be able to give you a full and detailed description.

AtomicHorror

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't think they could be criminalised if forced to have an abortion. I'm not even sure they'd have much of a clue what was happening. How many people with DS do we have in prisons, for 14 years? This is nonsense...

So you would be happy to continue with the status quo? No abortions in Ireland by law, but no consequences for those who circumvent that law?

nozzferrahhtoo

MkaylaK wrote: »

I cannot justify destroying innocent human life.

We live in a society of "innocent until proven guilty". If you want to indict an action then by all means do so. But until you do so, no one needs to mount a defence or a "justification". The word justify implies there is something there TO justify. That is not an honest starting point in the discussion.

Nor is the word "innocent". That word brings implications and suggestions with it too. At 12 weeks in a fetus there is no ONE there to even BE "innocent" in the first place. The word is designed to import a humanization of the fetus before it is due. A philosophical humanisation that is, before our resident taxonomist rushes in to remind us it is human biologically.

MkaylaK wrote: »

I cannot understand why we would want to end the lives of babies after 12 weeks for conditions such as cleft palette and down syndrome etc.

That is ONE single reason out of the MULTITUDE of reasons women have for seeking abortion. If you are going to demand people "stay respectful" on this thread then it would pay to act in kind. Starting by not being reductionist in this way by distilling a HOST of motivations and diverse life narratives down to a one liner.

MkaylaK wrote: »

I cannot understand what difference there is in a foetus at 11 weeks and 6 days than at 12 weeks and 1 day. Why does the 12 week mark hold such significance?

What is different in a girl at 15 years and 364 days that prevents her from consenting to sex? What is so special about 16 years old where in many places she gains the ability yo consent?

What is different in a person at 17 years and 264 days that somehow the next day he is allowed buy and consume alcohol?

The difference is law. It might not make sense but we OFTEN write somewhat arbitrary time lines into laws. Because it is workable that way.

As for what is significant about 12 weeks..... it is similarly SOMEWHAT arbitrary, but in biology this denotes pretty close the border between trimesters. Which is why people gravitate towards it. But also very consistently worldwide the VAST majority of abortions happen in or before week 12. So the reason people go to 12 weeks as a cut off is that this cut off facilitates almost the totality of women who actually seek abortions.

MkaylaK wrote: »

At the end of the day, for an abortion to be carried out, a heartbeat has to be deliberately stopped.

We stop heart beats when we produce food like burgers and sausages too. Why in particular is a heart interesting to you? You seem to be bothered by the illusion of arbitraryness with regards "12 weeks" yet randomly picking one organ in the entire development process is about as arbitrary as it gets really. What is so special about the heart compared to, say, the spleen or the liver?

MkaylaK wrote: »

I'm sorry, I don't know what exactly you mean by saying that my 'sentences are wrapped up in tinsel'and not once did I label anybody a 'killer'.

I think the user was referring to your "We know what that is called outside of the womb" rhetoric, the implications of which is pretty clear.

Though feel free to be explicit about what word you were talking about, rather than this cloak and dagger stuff you engage in while demanding respect from others. Give respect to get respect would be my advice there.

Wrongway1985

MkaylaK wrote: »

At the end of the day, for an abortion to be carried out, a heartbeat has to be deliberately stopped. We know what that is called outside of the womb, so what is the difference inside the womb?
Remember, the same heart beats in you today as it did when your mother was pregnant with you, the whole way throughout her pregnancy

Yes which means for example that a child with zero per cent of survival in current circumstances a woman has to carry the child until clinically dead, can't even begin to imagine the added trauma that would cause.

You are saying you can't understand for such matters so decide for everyone else, the reality is abortion will still occur as it has done, personally haven't seen regular instances of people being criminalized for purchasing abortion pills or being forced to purchase flights to the UK. The unfortunate matter should be between a woman and her doctor. Not sure why we must persist with making things more difficult for those struggling it is beyond cruel imo.

horseburger

pitifulgod wrote: »

You want to remain respectful but do you think that you are respectful by shaming them or implying they're 'killers' for ending a pregnancy? You can wrap sentences up in tinsel but your implications are pretty clear.

Recognising that an abortion is not the end of a pregnancy, but in fact the ending of a life, does not mean that the poster to whom you replied, referred to people as 'killers'.

Every birth could be described as the ending of a pregnancy, since every birth coincides with the ending of a pregnancy.

This is the issue highlighted by Donal Lynch on an episode of Claire Bryne Live, on RTE One on Monday 5th September 2016.

He said that "the humanity of the foetus is denied even by people who want abortion on demand, like myself". He said that if advocates for a wider availability of abortion, continue to use phrases and euphemisms like the 'ending of a pregnancy' to describe the ending of the life of the human foetus, that they will have difficulty in helping people to understand their circumstances and their arguments for availability of abortion.

The Legend Of Kira

pitifulgod wrote: »

MkaylaK wrote: »

I'm 18 years old and pro-life. There are certainly some, but definitely not a lot of pro-lifers in my age group.

Firstly, I'd like to say that I truly believe, that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I think that discussion of this highly sensitive issue is important to ensure that everyone is fully informed on both sides of the debate, before they make their decision to vote yes or no.

There is absolutely no need to belittle or disrespect somebody else simply because they have a different view to you. It's important to remain open minded in this debate to make sure that you choose what you believe is the right vote.

These are some of the reasons that I have chosen to be pro life.
I cannot justify destroying innocent human life.
I cannot understand why we would want to end the lives of babies after 12 weeks for conditions such as cleft palette and down syndrome etc.
I cannot understand what difference there is in a foetus at 11 weeks and 6 days than at 12 weeks and 1 day. Why does the 12 week mark hold such significance?
At the end of the day, for an abortion to be carried out, a heartbeat has to be deliberately stopped. We know what that is called outside of the womb, so what is the difference inside the womb?
Remember, the same heart beats in you today as it did when your mother was pregnant with you, the whole way throughout her pregnancy.

From reading this thread, I know many people will disagree with me and that's ok, but please stay respectful.

You want to remain respectful but do you think that you are respectful by shaming them or implying they're 'killers'  for ending a pregnancy? You can wrap sentences up in tinsel but your implications are pretty clear.

The poster he/she is only stating facts when he/she said about a heartbeat being stopped,, why does the truth of the matter bother & offend you ?

AtomicHorror

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The poster he/she is only stating facts when he/she said about a heartbeat being stopped,, why does the truth of the matter bother & offend you ?

What specific truth was that? What is it called when someone stops a heart outside the womb?

horseburger wrote: »

Recognising that an abortion is not the end of a pregnancy, but in fact the ending of a life, does not mean that the poster to whom you replied, referred to people as 'killers'.

You're ignoring the start of the conversation, despite the fact that you thanked and presumably read it.

To refresh your memory:

MkaylaK wrote: »

At the end of the day, for an abortion to be carried out, a heartbeat has to be deliberately stopped. We know what that is called outside of the womb, so what is the difference inside the womb?

What label would you suggest MkaylaK is implying here?

pitifulgod

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The poster he/she is only stating facts when he/she said about a heartbeat being stopped,, why does the truth of the matter bother & offend you ?

Because women are routinely shamed over their abortions and I think it's yet another reason on why the eighth needs to be repealed.

erica74

Repeal the 8th.

horseburger

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What specific truth was that? What is it called when someone stops a heart outside the womb?



You're ignoring the start of the conversation, despite the fact that you thanked and presumably read it.

To refresh your memory:



What label would you suggest MkaylaK is implying here?

Mkaylak is recognizing that abortion is the ending of a human life.

Do you think abortion isn't the ending of a human life?

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

Mkaylak is recognizing that abortion is the ending of a human life.

Do you think abortion isn't the ending of a human life?

Here we go again...

captbarnacles

horseburger wrote: »

Mkaylak is recognizing that abortion is the ending of a human life.

Do you think abortion isn't the ending of a human life?

At what point is it the ending of human life? fertilisation?

baylah17

horseburger wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What specific truth was that? What is it called when someone stops a heart outside the womb?



You're ignoring the start of the conversation, despite the fact that you thanked and presumably read it.

To refresh your memory:



What label would you suggest MkaylaK is implying here?

Mkaylak is recognizing that abortion is the ending of a human life.

Do you think abortion isn't the ending of a human life?

I know it is not the ending of a viable human beings life
Twist that anyway you like