The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

expectationlost

dudara wrote: »

I was looking at a lot of new Anti-Choice posters that have gone up around work. I can’t see any names and addresses on the posters, either of the publisher or printer. Does this mean they’re technically illegal? Surely they can’t be making a mistake as simple as that?

are you sure there no name on the posters I've seen people claim that and then its pointed out to them that it just really really small

seamus

AmNotADude55 wrote: »

"Child destruction is the crime of killing an unborn but viable foetus; that is, a child "capable of being born alive", before it has "a separate existence"."


"People have been convicted of the offence for injuring a heavily pregnant woman in the abdomen, such that her foetus dies"


So if 8th ammendment gets dropped - do we decriminalise this and if someone attacks pregnant woman and she has miscarriage - they only get charged for assault? Because according to certain posters here - fetus isn't a living human.

It would be a special form of assault; causing through intentional or negligent actions, and without the consent of the pregnant person, the miscarriage of a pregnancy to occur.

I wouldn't just apply to assaults designed to cause a miscarriage, but potentially to car accidents, food poisoning, etc.

I think most people would agree that pregnancy itself is a "special" state, worthy of recognition and a certain degree of specific legal protection.

The fact that the foetus is not a legal person doesn't mean that we should pretend pregnancies don't exist.

LimeGreenBean

LimeGreenBean wrote: »

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.

I'm all for repeal but I don't think that logic follows. A fetus will grow into an entirely different entity. I think its a different kettle of fish to a kidney. I disagree with the "my body, my choice" argument. Its not as black and white as that.

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

I was pointing out that by your posting here, you would be less likely to sway any undecided voters, than for example, by the way Donal Lynch makes his arguments in his interviews and writing on the issue.

And that is pretty important if you are hoping people will vote the way you'd like them to.

Is that all you were saying?

horseburger wrote: »

I think you might be thinking that it was you that I might be referencing when I said some posters have an attitude.

Well done. At least you now know that because of your arrogance, that you'd be useless canvassing on this issue.

That, to me, sounds very like you're worried about how I may or may not sway posters here alright.

gmisk

expectationlost wrote: »

are you sure there no name on the posters I've seen people claim that and then its pointed out to them that it just really really small

I think some of them have printers on them....but you would literally need an electron microscope to see the details.

horseburger

B0jangles wrote: »

100% pre-repeal, I think I've been pretty clear on that throughout.

Yours?

I haven't decided yet. I thought this thread would be useful in helping me consider the various for and against arguments.

I am concerned about legislation ending up being more wide ranging in the future, in that there might be abortion in cases where the child would live an otherwise healthy life.

I am also concerned about the issue that sometimes babies will live longer, than diagnosed by doctors before birth, in cases where conditions have been diagnosed. If abortion is carried out, it will never be known how long a life will live.

That's a difficulty.

Could there have been provision made before now, for cases where there is no chance of survival after birth, for example in this item, Sarah McGuinness from Termination for Medical Reasons, speaks about anencephaly, and the very sad prognosis made, and the situation she described of having to carry on with the pregnancy, with very little chance of life, for very long after birth.

I wonder why anencephaly wasn't covered before now.

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Is that all you were saying?




That, to me, sounds very like you're worried about how I may or may not sway posters here alright.

Not really.

baylah17

horseburger wrote: »

I haven't decided yet. I thought this thread would be useful in helping me consider the various for and against arguments.

I am concerned about legislation ending up being more wide ranging in the future, in that there might be abortion in cases where the child would live an otherwise healthy life.

I am also concerned about the issue that sometimes babies will live longer, than diagnosed by doctors before birth, in cases where conditions have been diagnosed. If abortion is carried out, it will never be known how long a life will live.

That's a difficulty.

Could there have been provision made before now, for cases where there is no chance of survival after birth, for example in this item, Sarah McGuinness from Termination for Medical Reasons, speaks about anencephaly, and the very sad prognosis made, and the situation she described of having to carry on with the pregnancy, with very little chance of life, for very long after birth.

I wonder why anencephaly wasn't covered before now.

I call Bull****, you've well decided, as your constant linking of anti choice anti woman videos clearly shows.
Personally i think you've reached the End of The Road with this charade!

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

Not really.

Then why feel the need to mention it? Especially in the way that you did.

Edward M

Sofiztikated wrote: »

My wife had a miscarriage, am I a father? Is she a mother?

Firstly, I'm very sorry for that. You were imo yes, A parent to that child.
Do you not think so yourself and if not why not?

swampgas

horseburger wrote: »

I haven't decided yet.

For someone who claims to be undecided your posting style is indistinguishable from someone who is 100% anti-repeal.

You seem to be primarily concerned that a viable foetus might be aborted. What if that viable foetus is in the body of 14 year old rape victim? You know the 8th says she should be forced to continue the pregnancy, right?

At what point will you stop fixating on the foetus and stop for 5 minutes to consider the well-being of the women (and girls) who find themselves with crisis pregnancies?

How about you tell us how your "undecided" stance might be swayed by your concern for the plight of women who are affected by the 8th?

horseburger

baylah17 wrote: »

I call Bull****, you've well decided, as your constant linking of anti choice anti woman videos clearly shows.
Personally i think you've reached the End of The Road with this charade!

Anti woman videos?

You mean the video I just referenced which included three women discussing the issue?

Do you mean the video I posted with four women discussing the issue, two for and two against?

Are women who have a fundamental difficulty with abortion to be termed as being anti woman?

Zubeneschamali

horseburger wrote: »

I wonder why anencephaly wasn't covered before now.

Because of the 8th amendment.

You may have heard of it, it's this thing with law-type words.

horseburger

swampgas wrote: »

For someone who claims to be undecided your posting style is indistinguishable from someone who is 100% anti-repeal.

You seem to be primarily concerned that a viable foetus might be aborted. What if that viable foetus is in the body of 14 year old rape victim? You know the 8th says she should be forced to continue the pregnancy, right?

At what point will you stop fixating on the foetus and stop for 5 minutes to consider the well-being of the women (and girls) who find themselves with crisis pregnancies?

How about you tell us how your "undecided" stance might be swayed by your concern for the plight of women who are affected by the 8th?

The reason I mention the foetus is because its going have its life ended and I cannot understand how people can try and argue that it isn't human.

So what if a foetus isn't as fully developed as it would grow to be. The intentional death of born lives, where those lives haven't consented to their deaths, aren't justified on the basis of being at an earlier stage of human development, than later in a human life cycle.

ohnonotgmail

horseburger wrote: »

The reason I mention the foetus is because its going have its life ended and I cannot understand how people can try and argue that it isn't human.

nobody has said that it isn't human. You have asked this question several times already and received an answer several times already.

horseburger wrote: »

So what if a foetus isn't as fully developed as it would grow to be. The intentional death of born lives, where those lives haven't consented to their deaths, aren't justified on the basis of being at an earlier stage of human development, than later in a human life cycle.

how can you describe a foetus as a "born live"

Sofiztikated

horseburger wrote: »

The reason I mention the foetus is because its going have its life ended and I cannot understand how people can try and argue that it isn't human.

So what if a foetus isn't as fully developed as it would grow to be. The intentional death of born lives, where those lives haven't consented to their deaths, aren't justified on the basis of being at an earlier stage of human development, than later in a human life cycle.

Again, if you are undecided, what do you think the benefits of Repeal might be?

baylah17

horseburger wrote: »

The reason I mention the foetus is because its going have its life ended and I cannot understand how people can try and argue that it isn't human.

So what if a foetus isn't as fully developed as it would grow to be. The intentional death of born lives, where those lives haven't consented to their deaths, aren't justified on the basis of being at an earlier stage of human development, than later in a human life cycle.

A FETUS IS NOT A HUMAN BEING!

horseburger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Because of the 8th amendment.

You may have heard of it, it's this thing with law-type words.

Smart ass.

As I understand it, provision could have been made in legislation to cover for it before now.

If anyone can clarity, I'd appreciate that.

captbarnacles

baylah17 wrote: »

A FETUS IS NOT A HUMAN BEING!

He thinks a fertliised egg is human being so.........

Zubeneschamali

horseburger wrote: »

As I understand it, provision could have been made in legislation to cover for it before now.

If anyone can clarity, I'd appreciate that.

Sure: you don't understand it.

You're welcome.

pitifulgod

horseburger wrote: »

Smart ass.

As I understand it, provision could have been made in legislation to cover for it before now.

If anyone can clarity, I'd appreciate that.

It could not have. Would require yet another amendment. You don't seem remotely on the fence...

robarmstrong

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Again, if you are undecided, what do you think the benefits of Repeal might be?

@horseburger - ICYMI

NuMarvel

AmNotADude55 wrote: »

"Child destruction is the crime of killing an unborn but viable foetus; that is, a child "capable of being born alive", before it has "a separate existence"."


"People have been convicted of the offence for injuring a heavily pregnant woman in the abdomen, such that her foetus dies"


So if 8th ammendment gets dropped - do we decriminalise this and if someone attacks pregnant woman and she has miscarriage - they only get charged for assault? Because according to certain posters here - fetus isn't a living human.

Before we ask if removing the 8th decriminalises this, can we first have a source for it currently being a criminal offence? Because what you've quoted is a Wikipedia page that primarily talks an act passed in the UK in 1929.

Is there a equivalent or similar law in Irish statute?

horseburger

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nobody has said that it isn't human. You have asked this question several times already and received an answer several times already.



how can you describe a foetus as a "born live"

Someone has just shouted at me that a foetus is not human, having already stated it eariier on.

baylah17 wrote: »

A FETUS IS NOT A HUMAN BEING!

baylah17 wrote: »

How many times do you need it explained , a fetus is NOT a living human being.
Get over it and move on.

Here's a video of a guy being asked, at the eight minute mark, if he would accept being told that the person he was talking to is a bobcat. He said he would.

I suppose if you say it to yourself over and over, it's possible to believe anything. I guess if you convince yourself that a living being that was created by two separate human beings, and is growing in one of the two separate human beings, is not human, if you say it to yourself often enough.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

Smart ass.

As I understand it, provision could have been made in legislation to cover for it before now.

If anyone can clarity, I'd appreciate that.

The right to life of the unborn is constitutionally enshrined in the 8th amendment, no legislation can be made that contravenes the constitution.

So no it is not possible to legislate for abortion in any circumstances while the 8th amendment is in existence, which is why it needs to be repealed.

horseburger

pitifulgod wrote: »

It could not have. Would require yet another amendment. You don't seem remotely on the fence...

Fair enough so, thanks for your courteous reply,

horseburger

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

The right to life of the unborn is constitutionally enshrined in the 8th amendment, no legislation can be made that contravenes the constitution.

So no it is not possible to legislate for abortion in any circumstances while the 8th amendment is in existence, which is why it needs to be repealed.

Was it not altered with out a referendum in 2013, and also altered to allow for risk of suicide?

Zubeneschamali

horseburger wrote: »

Here's a video of a guy being asked, at the eight minute mark, if he would accept being told that the person he was talking to is a bobcat.

I must admit that I sometimes get the feeling that I am talking to a parrot.

baylah17

horseburger wrote: »

Someone has just shouted at me that a foetus is not human, having already stated it eariier on.





Here's a video of a guy being asked, at the eight minute mark, if he would accept being told that the person he was talking to is a bobcat. He said he would.

I suppose if you say it to yourself over and over, it's possible to believe anything. I guess if you convince yourself that a living being that was created by two separate human beings, and is growing in one of the two separate human beings, is not human, if you say it to yourself often enough.

How dare you misquote me for your own twisted ends, I did not say a fetus is not human, I said a fetus is not a human being!
More drivel from you and your ilk, misrepresent, deflect and lie.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

Someone has just shouted at me that a foetus is not human, having already stated it eariier on.





Here's a video of a guy being asked, at the eight minute mark, if he would accept being told that the person he was talking to is a bobcat. He said he would.

I suppose if you say it to yourself over and over, it's possible to believe anything. I guess if you convince yourself that a living being that was created by two separate human beings, and is growing in one of the two separate human beings, is not human, if you say it to yourself often enough.

Human ie being of human genetic material is different to a human being

If a swap is taken from my mouth and analysed and compared to that of a chimp the scientist will mark mine as human but it is not a human being. I by contrast am a human being