Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP
Options
Comments
-
Ave Sodalis wrote: »Here we go again...
You're clearly not listening to the reasonable point made by Donal Lynch.
If Ruth Coppinger canvassed on the issue of the referendum, having stated in the Dáil on 7th March 2017, that a pregnant woman is not a mother until the baby is born, despite the obvious care given and precautions taken by a pregnant woman in ensuring the pregnancy develops - and Donal Lynch canvassed on the issue of the referendum, I would very much expect that a person who is not sure what way to vote - having considered different aspects of the debate - would be far more receptive, and likely to be swayed, by the perspective given by Donal Lynch, on the arguments for a wider availability of abortion, than by Ruth Coppinger's arguments.
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=34782&&CatID=130&StartDate=01 January 2017&OrderAscending=0
https://media.heanet.ie/player/0eab3802edbaf59f7899ee8bd971cdad
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2017030700050?opendocument0 -
Thank you for your replies and thank you to those who are supporting my original post. I did not intend to cause such a stir.
Due to the amount of replies I will not be able to reply to you all individually, (the leaving cert is fast approaching) but I do not want to be seen as running away from the situation so I will write this final post in response to some of the points raised.
"The legislation won't allow DS and cleft palette babies to be aborted." - Under proposed legislation any baby can be aborted up to 12 weeks without a specific reason and after this time limit, there will be no gestational limits in cases of a foetal condition or on grounds of risk to health. Down syndrome and Cleft palette fall into this category.
"What about the health/rights of pregnant women?"- It's already present in the constitution that a woman's life will always be the priority when pregnant. She will never be refused medical treatment when she needs it.
"Until 17 weeks heart cells beat spontaneously" - My point was always that the heart is beating, spontaneously or otherwise, it's beating.
"Read some 'In her shoes accounts" - I have. Do I think these people are awful people? Of course not but still, it would be hypocritical of me to say that I agree with abortion.
"Do I have a right to tell women in crisis pregnancies what is right for them?" No, but should we give an abortionist the right to end a life? Personally, I don't think so.
"Does a fertilized egg have a right to life?" If it's actively growing and maturing as humans do, then yes.
"What if the baby/foetus will die anyway?"- No doctor can ever diagnose a 0% chance of survival. They have to use the term "life -limiting condition" because they simply do not know if a life will last 5 seconds or 5 years after birth. There are always miracle children. (Please watch a few videos from the YouTube channel "Special books for special kids")
"Why the heart? Why not talk about the spleen or liver" - By all means, substitute whatever organ you wish instead of the heart. The same principle applies.
As I said, this has to be my final post for now as I have to study for the LC, but please remember, it's not too late to change your stance.0 -
I know it is not the ending of a viable human beings life
Twist that anyway you like
A human life nonetheless. It is not arguable that any newborn baby is viable either, on the basis that it cannot survive on its own.
It needs someone else to care for it and ensure its survival.
Dependency of the baby, on at least one person, does not end when birth takes place.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
You don't have to agree with abortion to be pro choice0
-
Advertisement
-
Fred Swanson wrote: »Nope. We make available means to dispose of these. Pro lifers have no problem with the administration of drugs that dispose of fertilised eggs.
I'm sorry if I was unclear. A fertilized egg inside the womb is actively growing and maturing as I stated in my post.
A fertilized egg outside of the womb is another issue, as it cannot grow and mature.0 -
"The legislation won't allow DS and cleft palette babies to be aborted." - Under proposed legislation any baby can be aborted up to 12 weeks without a specific reason and after this time limit, there will be no gestational limits in cases of a foetal condition or on grounds of risk to health. Down syndrome and Cleft palette fall into this category.
Neither of which are diagnosable before 12 weeks"What about the health/rights of pregnant women?"- It's already present in the constitution that a woman's life will always be the priority when pregnant. She will never be refused medical treatment when she needs it.
Unfortunately, this is not really true and entirely too subjective and is often left until the last possible moment. Reading the aforementioned In Her Shoes, you'll see that many women get diagnosed with an illness and go to England so they can come back for treatment instead of waiting until they are actively dying.
Why is that important? Genuine question."Until 17 weeks heart cells beat spontaneously" - My point was always that the heart is beating, spontaneously or otherwise, it's beating.
How so?"Read some 'In her shoes accounts" - I have. Do I think these people are awful people? Of course not but still, it would be hypocritical of me to say that I agree with abortion.
Do you really believe it's the ending of a life? Would you give "abortionists" jail time if you had the choice? Would you prevent them from traveling? What about the fact that abortion is already happening?"Do I have a right to tell women in crisis pregnancies what is right for them?" No, but should we give an abortionist the right to end a life? Personally, I don't think so.
So you disagree with IVF?"Does a fertilized egg have a right to life?" If it's actively growing and maturing as humans do, then yes.
No. Just no. I'm sorry but I cannot be respectful of this. There are exceptions to everything. It does not excuse allowing women to suffer just because there is a tiny chance of live birth. What about the pain the birthed baby will be in until it dies? If they're lucky, they'll die within a minute or two. They can survive for hours or days though."What if the baby/foetus will die anyway?"- No doctor can ever diagnose a 0% chance of survival. They have to use the term "life -limiting condition" because they simply do not know if a life will last 5 seconds or 5 years after birth. There are always miracle children. (Please watch a few videos from the YouTube channel "Special books for special kids")"Why the heart? Why not talk about the spleen or liver" - By all means, substitute whatever organ you wish instead of the heart. The same principle applies.
Again, why?As I said, this has to be my final post for now as I have to study for the LC, but please remember, it's not too late to change your stance.
I'm afraid you'll have to come up with a more convincing argument than what you have to change my stance.
I realise you said you will not be posting again, but this is for the benefit of anyone reading over the thread.0 -
horseburger wrote: »Do you think abortion isn't the ending of a human life?
Words like "human" and "life" mean many things depending on context.
Does abortion end a human life? Yes and No. Yes, it's a tiny human entity that may (with luck) develop into a baby, a child, a teenager, an adult. No, it's not a "human life" the same way you are. It's just not as developed, it doesn't have much history, it is lacking sentience, memories, thoughts, personality.
Is an embryo or foetus a human life with more value than the independence of the woman carrying it? I would argue not. Certainly not before 12 weeks. Probably not before 24 weeks.
Remember that the pregnant woman is human too, and has a life, and her health, happiness and autonomy all have a lot of value to her and her family.
So please stop banging on, and on, and on, and on, about abortion "ending a human life". Everyone here understands what abortion is and how it does, in a small sense, end a human life, but it is more important to protect grown women than it is to try to force every conception to birth.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Also, I can't stress this enough:
When contraception is free & abortion is Legal, the abortion rates fall dramatically.
Saving the 8th will not stop abortion. It will happen with the same regularity it always has, but swept under the rug in illegality.0 -
Advertisement
-
I did not intend to cause such a stir.
You didn't. This thread is 1000s of posts long and your input and the replies to it have been pretty low by general standards. It might feel like a stir to you. It is average to those of us who have been here awhile.Down syndrome and Cleft palette fall into this category.
I trust you have citations to back this claim up?"Until 17 weeks heart cells beat spontaneously" - My point was always that the heart is beating, spontaneously or otherwise, it's beating.
And despite claiming you do not want to been seen as running away, you are running away from my DIRECTLY asking you why you think the heart is at all important. Why do you pick it over any other organ, and why do you think any organ should be the mediation point for when and why to afford this entity moral and ethical concern?"Does a fertilized egg have a right to life?" If it's actively growing and maturing as humans do, then yes.
That is a hell of an assertion. I trust you can back it up with.... well..... something?There are always miracle children.
No. There is not "always". There is very rarely. That is why they describe it as a miracle. If it was happening often it would not be miraculous, it would be mundane. The thing is though we should not be mediating our laws and morality for the majority of people, the majority of the time off the back of hoping for the occasional miracle."Why the heart? Why not talk about the spleen or liver" - By all means, substitute whatever organ you wish instead of the heart. The same principle applies.
Yeah and the "principle" in question appears to just be listing organs arbitrarily. You are avoiding the question on why any given organ should be important however. Especially as we end life with those organs all the time. Such as when producing meat.As I said, this has to be my final post for now as I have to study for the LC, but please remember, it's not too late to change your stance.
If you give me any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to convince me that a 12 week old fetus deserves rights, or moral and ethical concerns, then I will change my mind instantly. Without hesitation, embarrassment, reservation or bias. I will instantly switch from being pro choice with regards abortion to be entirely anti choice.
After 1000s of posts on the thread however this has not been done by anyone. So I trust you will not take offence at my suspicion you are not about to start now.0 -
I cannot justify destroying innocent human life.
I can't believe this is my first post, but I guess this is the crux of the pro-life movement and to be honest, it has just really started to bug me how often this statement has been glossed over in the last few months. Not to be disrespectful to anyone on this thread or the repeal movement in general, you have changed many people's views on abortion. Anyways, in response to this argument:
You justify destroying human life every single day. Have you ever donated blood, or bone marrow, or a lung? No, probably not. Are you a murderer because you haven't? Countless people die waiting on kidney transplants lists. And you could give them a kidney, you could keep them alive. Are you a terrible person because you don't? If you are involved in a car crash and you're brain dead will the doctors and nurses ravage your body for organs? No, they won't, they'll ask your family what you want and they will respect your wishes.
We don't force people to donate their bone marrow, even though it would save countless lives. We don't call people up to donate their kidney's like it's jury service. We don't label suicide victims as murders, even though their now useless organs could have saved many people's lives. If you somehow find a surgeon and ask him to remove a kidney so that you can keep it in a jar, you won't be charged with murder, even though that kidney could have saved someone's life. The surgeon also won't be charged with murder. We respect people's right to do what they want to their body regardless of whether someone else will suffer or die.
Except, in pregnancy. A woman's organs keep the baby/foetus/whatever-name-you-want alive, she sustains their life. Should she not get to decide how her organs are used? Should she not get to decide what happens to her body? We allow brain-dead people to decide what will happen to their body when they die. Think about it, we give fewer rights to pregnant women, than we do to brain-dead people, in this country.
When I was 18, (which was only 4 years ago) I felt the exact same way you did, honestly. I just want to give you a different slant on things. I hope you vote, this will probably be your first one.0 -
captbarnacles wrote: »At what point is it the ending of human life? fertilisation?
What do you reckon yourself?
Is an abortion not the ending of human life? I ask you this with reference to the fact, that if the pregnancy continues, that a life created by two human beings, a separate life that develops during pregnancy, isn't anything other than human.
I would have thought that fertilization, would more likely be described as the beginning of life - or at least one of the stages of early human life development - than the ending.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-human-fertilization-process-definition-symptoms.html0 -
As stated countless times by others repealing is about more then abortion.
Pregnant women deserve informed consent. We shouldn't have be subjected to episiotomies without our permission.
Women shouldn't be told they are having a miscarriage and then sent away for 10 days. That is inhumane.
Going back into abortion territory. Women's health should be an important consideration in antenatal care not just her life.0 -
MkaylaK wrote:"The legislation won't allow DS and cleft palette babies to be aborted." - Under proposed legislation any baby can be aborted up to 12 weeks without a specific reason and after this time limit, there will be no gestational limits in cases of a foetal condition or on grounds of risk to health. Down syndrome and Cleft palette fall into this category.
However they will not be aborted BECAUSE they have down syndrome or a cleft palate any more than they will be aborted because they have blonde hair rather than brownMkaylaK wrote:"What about the health/rights of pregnant women?"- It's already present in the constitution that a woman's life will always be the priority when pregnant. She will never be refused medical treatment when she needs it.
Do you know who Savita Halappanavar is? She was refused treatment and is dead.
Do you know that women can be forced to undergo treatment against their wishes because of the 8th?
Because of the 8th amendment the hse policy on consent excludes all pregnant women, you may remember the case of a brain dead woman kept on life support against her families wishes to keep her baby alive , they had to go to the high court to get life support turned off.
This is what the 8th amendment does and this is what we're voting on, I can't think of a single argument that can justify a constitutional article that has these consequences0 -
Thank you for your replies and thank you to those who are supporting my original post. I did not intend to cause such a stir.
Due to the amount of replies I will not be able to reply to you all individually, (the leaving cert is fast approaching) but I do not want to be seen as running away from the situation so I will write this final post in response to some of the points raised.
"The legislation won't allow DS and cleft palette babies to be aborted." - Under proposed legislation any baby can be aborted up to 12 weeks without a specific reason and after this time limit, there will be no gestational limits in cases of a foetal condition or on grounds of risk to health. Down syndrome and Cleft palette fall into this category.
"What about the health/rights of pregnant women?"- It's already present in the constitution that a woman's life will always be the priority when pregnant. She will never be refused medical treatment when she needs it.
"Until 17 weeks heart cells beat spontaneously" - My point was always that the heart is beating, spontaneously or otherwise, it's beating.
"Read some 'In her shoes accounts" - I have. Do I think these people are awful people? Of course not but still, it would be hypocritical of me to say that I agree with abortion.
"Do I have a right to tell women in crisis pregnancies what is right for them?" No, but should we give an abortionist the right to end a life? Personally, I don't think so.
"Does a fertilized egg have a right to life?" If it's actively growing and maturing as humans do, then yes.
"What if the baby/foetus will die anyway?"- No doctor can ever diagnose a 0% chance of survival. They have to use the term "life -limiting condition" because they simply do not know if a life will last 5 seconds or 5 years after birth. There are always miracle children. (Please watch a few videos from the YouTube channel "Special books for special kids")
"Why the heart? Why not talk about the spleen or liver" - By all means, substitute whatever organ you wish instead of the heart. The same principle applies.
As I said, this has to be my final post for now as I have to study for the LC, but please remember, it's not too late to change your stance.
This is incorrect. You're either ignorant of the proposals, or being willfully misleading.
Neither of those two can be positively diagnosed before 12 weeks, and the Oireachtas committee specifically voted against allowing disabilities to be a reason for termination after the 12 week limit.
Edit: if you're going to mention to mental health angle, it's been done. We already have provisions for the potential suicide of pregnant women in PLDPA 2013 and in '14, '15, and '16, all put together, there were only 7 terminations carried out under this provision. Irish women didn't flock to their doctors claiming mental health issues after '13. There's nothing to suggest they will if the 8th is repealed.0 -
After 12 weeks abortion will be permitted in cases of FFA or threat to the life of the mother. Down's syndrome or cleft palette is neither.MkaylaK wrote:Under proposed legislation any baby can be aborted up to 12 weeks without a specific reason and after this time limit, there will be no gestational limits in cases of a foetal condition or on grounds of risk to health. Down syndrome and Cleft palette fall into this category.
This is not true. Savitas case is the most obvious one. You said you looked at the in her shoes fb page.MkaylaK wrote:It's already present in the constitution that a woman's life will always be the priority when pregnant. She will never be refused medical treatment when she needs it.
Women have shared their stories of wanted pregnancies but had medical procedures performed on them without their knowledge or consent to speed up delivery.
There are no buts about it. You don't have the right to tell anyone what to do with their lives.MkaylaK wrote:"Do I have a right to tell women in crisis pregnancies what is right for them?" No, but should we give an abortionist the right to end a life? Personally, I don't think so.
Yes believe it or not doctors can diagnose a 0% chance of survival with the aide of scans, genetic tests, second opinions.MkaylaK wrote:"What if the baby/foetus will die anyway?"- No doctor can ever diagnose a 0% chance of survival. They have to use the term "life -limiting condition"... There are always miracle children.
You have no knowledge of the medical field.
The words always and miracle together are contradictory.0 -
Words like "human" and "life" mean many things depending on context.
Does abortion end a human life? Yes and No. Yes, it's a tiny human entity that may (with luck) develop into a baby, a child, a teenager, an adult. No, it's not a "human life" the same way you are. It's just not as developed, it doesn't have much history, it is lacking sentience, memories, thoughts, personality.
Is an embryo or foetus a human life with more value than the independence of the woman carrying it? I would argue not. Certainly not before 12 weeks. Probably not before 24 weeks.
Remember that the pregnant woman is human too, and has a life, and her health, happiness and autonomy all have a lot of value to her and her family.
So please stop banging on, and on, and on, and on, about abortion "ending a human life". Everyone here understands what abortion is and how it does, in a small sense, end a human life, but it is more important to protect grown women than it is to try to force every conception to birth.
Why is euphemistic language used, to avoid the fact of what abortion involves?
Why is the phrase 'ending of a pregnancy' used to describe abortion, considering that any birth can be described as an 'ending of a pregnancy'?
I haven't forgotten that the pregnant woman is human.0 -
There is a significant difference between dependence for care and biological dependence. Try feeding milk to a 10 week old removed foetus, let me know how it goes.horseburger wrote: »A human life nonetheless. It is not arguable that any newborn baby is viable either, on the basis that it cannot survive on its own.
It needs someone else to care for it and ensure its survival.0 -
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?
Of course it is. However, the "ending of a human life" is as morally meaningless a phrase as the "stopping of a heart". So if that was MkaylaK's implication, she merely implied one banality using another.
Seems unlikely to me, but I guess I'm biased towards assuming she was making a point.0 -
Advertisement
-
Shadowstrife wrote: »Also, I can't stress this enough:
When contraception is free & abortion is Legal, the abortion rates fall dramatically.
Saving the 8th will not stop abortion. It will happen with the same regularity it always has, but swept under the rug in illegality.
Wish some posts could be thanked more then once.
Reducing crisis pregnancy is key.0 -
horseburger wrote: »Why is euphemistic language used, to avoid the fact of what abortion involves?
Why is the phrase 'ending of a pregnancy' used to describe abortion, considering that any birth can be described as an 'ending of a pregnancy'?
"Ending a pregnancy" is actually pretty accurate for a first trimester pregnancy.
What you are trying to do is the opposite: conflate an embryo or foetus with a child or adult, as if they were equivalent. They really are not.
By banging on about "human life" you are refusing to acknowledge that there is a gradual and continuous process by which a fertilized egg becomes an adult. You can insist all you want that a sperm and egg that have just fused are "human life" and therefore just as important as the woman carrying it, but you would be wrong and you know it.
Human life is full of grey areas. Refusing to accept that such grey areas exist in human biology is just that - a refusal to accept reality.0 -
There is a significant difference between dependence for care and biological dependence. Try feeding milk to a 10 week old removed foetus, let me know how it goes.
Here is an interesting aspect of the question of the issue of whether what is growing during a pregnancy is human or not.
The interviewer asks people when they consider human life status should be granted:
0 -
horseburger wrote: »I haven't forgotten that the pregnant woman is human.
Not just human. A person. With thoughts, ideas, dreams, fears, hopes, with friends, with family. So much more than simply human.0 -
"Ending a pregnancy" is actually pretty accurate for a first trimester pregnancy.
What you are trying to do is the opposite: conflate an embryo or foetus with a child or adult, as if they were equivalent. They really are not.
By banging on about "human life" you are refusing to acknowledge that there is a gradual and continuous process by which a fertilized egg becomes an adult. You can insist all you want that a sperm and egg that have just fused are "human life" and therefore just as important as the woman carrying it, but you would be wrong and you know it.
Human life is full of grey areas. Refusing to accept that such grey areas exist in human biology is just that - a refusal to accept reality.
I'm just stating that I don't see how an embryo or foetus can be considered anything other than human, since an embryo or foetus came into being through two other humans, and will undergo human life cycle and development, before and after pregnancy.
Isn't it the case though, that many people who advocate for abortion, including Irish public representatives, like Ivana Bacik, Ruth Coppinger and Clare Daly, do so for a wider availability of circumstances for abortion, and for stages of pregnancy later than the first trimester and later than 12 weeks.
It seems that there is nothing definite about the recommendations of the Oireachtas Committee, being exactly what will be legislated on, if the Eighth Amendment is repealed.
It sounds like that no one really knows right now, what legislation will cover, in the event of a majority vote to repeal.
This item by Sarah Barden in the Irish Times includes the following line:
"Members of the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment have insisted they cannot compel the Government to accept their recommendations".
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas-committee-on-eighth-amendment-publishes-40-page-report-1.33336700 -
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
Fred Swanson wrote: »So how do the pro lifers reconcile themselves with the morning after pill?
In fairness many were against that too.0 -
So would you try to feed a 10 week old removed foetus, and if not - why not?horseburger wrote: »Here is an interesting aspect of the question of the issue of whether what is growing during a pregnancy is human or not.
The interviewer asks people when they consider human life status should be granted:0 -
Advertisement
-
horseburger wrote: »I didn't argue otherwise.
I can't see how anyone can support the 8th amendment, which prioritises a week-old embryo over an actual person.
Maybe I'm getting you wrong, but you seem to be saying that because an embryo or foetus is "human life" this means that it cannot be aborted, and to hell with the consequences for the pregnant woman.
What's proposed is to remove the 8th, and leglislate for abortions on request up to 12 weeks. That seems sensible to me. A woman should be able to decide for herself in the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy whether she wants to continue with it or not. After that the 8th should not be putting a woman's life at risk if the pregnancy goes wrong.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement