The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

baylah17

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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

A parrot standing on the carton that detergent comes in?

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

I cannot understand how people can try and argue that it isn't human.

It is not that you "cannot understand" it at all. It is that you do not agree with the explanations you have been offered multiple times, so you instead wholesale ignore the posts in which it was explained.

You claim over and over to not understand it, ignore the posts as if they did not happen where people explain it, and then continue to claim you do not understand it. To the point a moderator has had to ask you to stop asking over and over the same question that has been answered many times.

But even if you refuse to engage with that topic in good faith, there are users who join this thread periodically to whom we can offer an explanation should they require it.

So an explanation for people who might actually want it, even if HB patently and demonstrably doesn't:

1) The word "Human" has different definitions in different contexts. It does not mean the same thing in philosophy as it does in, say, taxonomy. HorseBurger and similar posters wish to conflate all the different contexts into one so as to take implications from one context into any other where it suits them.

2) No one, despite HorseBurger feigning ignorance in this regard, is arguing that it is not "argue that it isn't human" in any biological or taxonomy sense. Hence the repeated mantra about "What is it given it was created by a human man and human woman" and other such disingenuous and egregious deflections of the actual point being made.

3) Rather what is ACTUALLY being argued is a point that HorseBurger ignores because he can not even remotely rebut it. That is that the fetus is not "Human" in terms of more philosophical notions such as consciousness, sentience, humanity, personhood and so forth.

4) Human concepts such as morality, ethics, rights are intrinsically and inextricably linked with consciousness and sentience. With personhood and humanity.

5) Therefore no one, least of all HorseBurger, appears able to construct an argument as to why we should afford rights, or harbor moral and ethical concerns, towards an entity that is not sentient or conscious, never has been, and is quite a distinct period of time away from even forming the pre-requisite faculties to ever be such.

6) Which leaves him and his cohort with only two approaches that they can even pretend are valid, even though they can not defend them as valid. That being either A) should the word "Human" at the problem a lot in order to repeat the conflation described in point 1 above or Try to ignore what the fetus IS and instead appeal to what the fetus might BECOME, in the hope that rights and moral concerns it could have in the future can be brought forward in time and applied in the present.

To call those two moves desperate is an understatement. To call them in any way defended or substantiated or coherent would be a fantasy. They are two moves constructed solely and subjectively to defend a conclusion the speaker already holds and is now desperate to validate.

Sofiztikated

robarmstrong wrote: »

@horseburger - ICYMI

He won't answer. I've asked twice already, and he quoted me in a reply, ranted about Mattie McGrath, and left out the question in the quote.

horseburger

baylah17 wrote: »

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.

Sensitive little soul aren't you!:)

And the difference in the human status of a human foetus and human being is what?

It is human bit that's critical is it not, considering the living being is developing as part of its human life cycle before birth and after birth?

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

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

yes altered by referendum to include 2 new articles in the constitution. The right to travel for abortion and the threat of suicide being reasonable grounds for abortion.

The 2013 legislation endeavoured to clarify the circumstances under which abortion could be performed, but is still bound by the 8th amendment and so can not impinge on the constitutional right to life given to the unborn.

Constitutional amendments are not the same as legislation. In the legal hierarchy constitution trumps all

Zubeneschamali

horseburger wrote: »

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

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act of 2013 did not 'alter it', it simply enacted the 8th Amendment in accordance with the judgment in the X case (rather late, but...).

The risk of suicide also did not 'alter it', the Supreme Court ruled that the 8th always meant that suicide was a valid reason for an abortion.

NuMarvel

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.

Clarity has been provided on this numerous times, the most recent example being just a few days ago when petalgumdrops made a similar comment. Here's my response to her at the time:

NuMarvel wrote: »

petalgumdrops wrote: »

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

Absolutely, categorically, not. TDs have tried at least twice in the last number of years to legislate for FFA under the 8th, and each time they were told that the Attorney General said it would be unconstitutional.

kylith

Sofiztikated wrote: »

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

Sorry to hear that.

Edward M wrote: »

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?

I'm pregnant. I won't consider myself a mother until I have a child in my arms. Before that 'mother' is shorthand for 'biological material donor'.

What is there to parent before birth? I can try lay down the law, but it's like the blasted things ears don't even work yet. On the plus side grounding it is dead easy.

Annasopra

horseburger wrote: »

What restriction is inherent in this statement?


"supports a woman’s right to make her own decisions regarding reproduction, including the right to free, safe, and legal abortion"

There is no detail there but none of the TDs you quoted explicitly said they support "no restrictions abortion". You are trying to twist statements to say they did.

Zubeneschamali

horseburger wrote: »

And the difference in the human status of a human foetus and human being is what?

The law recognises human beings, they have rights, can be citizens and so forth.

The human fetus has no rights in law except the one the 8th gave it, and that one not for long.

Annasopra

seamus wrote: »

Dublin City Council runs the register for the DCC area. There are 31 city or county county councils in Ireland, each who make up their own rules for managing the register in their location.

Blame the poor journalism.

horseburger

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

yes altered by referendum to include 2 new articles in the constitution. The right to travel for abortion and the threat of suicide being reasonable grounds for abortion.

The 2013 legislation endeavoured to clarify the circumstances under which abortion could be performed, but is still bound by the 8th amendment and so can not impinge on the constitutional right to life given to the unborn.

Constitutional amendments are not the same as legislation. In the legal hierarchy constitution trumps all

thanks for your reply.

Are most people in this thread just leaning towards the perspective of repeal, do you reckon, or can they understand the perspectives of those that have concern about abortion?

I've been watching discussions about abortion this last number of months, and can understand arguments on both sides.

Ush1

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.

This argument has come up already and they aren't the same.

In the donor scenario, you do nothing and the person dies.
In the abortion scenario, you do nothing and the baby lives.

Abortion requires you to actively participate, which is different from a moral point of view.

kylith

horseburger wrote: »

Sensitive little soul aren't you!:)

And the difference in the human status of a human foetus and human being is what?

According to the OED: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens

As it is not a child* until it is born it cannot be a human being. QED.

* A child is biologically between birth and puberty.

horseburger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act of 2013 did not 'alter it', it simply enacted the 8th Amendment in accordance with the judgment in the X case (rather late, but...).

The risk of suicide also did not 'alter it', the Supreme Court ruled that the 8th always meant that suicide was a valid reason for an abortion.

Hi

I didn't mean alter as such, I probably should have written the circumstances that it covers to allow for abortion.

Thanks for your reply.

ohnonotgmail

kylith wrote: »

According to the OED: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens

As it is not a child* until it is born it cannot be a human being. QED.

* A child is biologically between birth and puberty.

you wasted your time posting that. they will jut ignore it like they have every time it has been explained to them.

Sofiztikated

horseburger wrote: »

I've been watching discussions about abortion this last number of months, and can understand arguments on both sides.

And the arguments in favour of Repeal? What are they?

Zubeneschamali

horseburger wrote: »

Are most people in this thread just leaning towards the perspective of repeal, do you reckon, or can they understand the perspectives of those that have concern about abortion?

There's a poll at the top of the page that shows Yes:No:Don't Know running at

73:20:7

So far, I have had difficulty understanding the perspectives of those that have concerns about abortion, because they seem to be inconsistent and illogical when not actively hypocritical.

SusieBlue

horseburger wrote: »

thanks for your reply.

Are most people in this thread just leaning towards the perspective of repeal, do you reckon, or can they understand the perspectives of those that have concern about abortion?

I've been watching discussions about abortion this last number of months, and can understand arguments on both sides.

Not really. I mean I can understand why its an easy, almost lazy option to be in the "save da baybeez" camp.
Sure wouldn't we all love to just choose life and love both. In an ideal world this is what we'd all be choosing.
But that isn't reality of what life today is like, and its extremely naive to assume otherwise.

I can see why someone might not like the idea of abortion, I myself wouldn't have one. But it isn't all about me and my beliefs.
The pro-life side just comes across as really narrow minded and selfish.

And I fundamentally believe we need to look after health, wellbeing, wants and needs of born, living citizens, such as women, before we look after the potential unborn ones.
I could never and will never be in favour of assigning rights to the unborn at the expense of the woman carrying it.

horseburger

kylith wrote: »

According to the OED: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens

As it is not a child* until it is born it cannot be a human being. QED.

* A child is biologically between birth and puberty.

You know what I meant though, surely?

A living being that starts life in the womb of a female human being, as a result of the joining of a human male sperm and human female egg, can't really be described as anything other than human.

SusieBlue

horseburger wrote: »

You know what I meant though, surely?

A living being that starts life in the womb of a female human being, as a result of the joining of a human male sperm and human female egg, can't really be described as anything other than human.

Would you ever stop with this nonsense, its been done to death by you already. We don't need to keep rehashing and going over this again and again.

Zubeneschamali

horseburger wrote: »

I didn't mean alter as such, I probably should have written the circumstances that it covers to allow for abortion.

So you probably should have written what exactly? This?

Was it not the circumstances that it covers to allow for abortion with out a referendum in 2013, and also the circumstances that it covers to allow for abortion to allow for risk of suicide?

No, I think you probably should not have written that.

baylah17

horseburger wrote: »

You know what I meant though, surely?

A living being that starts life in the womb of a female human being, as a result of the joining of a human male sperm and human female egg, can't really be described as anything other than human.

It can
It can be described and is described as a fetus.
You had the definition of a Human Being already Bertie so why keep asking the same question over and over?

ohnonotgmail

horseburger wrote: »

You know what I meant though, surely?

A living being that starts life in the womb of a female human being, as a result of the joining of a human male sperm and human female egg, can't really be described as anything other than human.

your failure to understand something that has been presented to you several times already is a problem only you can solve for yourself. We really cant make it any simpler for you.

Zubeneschamali

horseburger wrote: »

A living being that starts life in the womb of a female human being, as a result of the joining of a human male sperm and human female egg, can't really be described as anything other than human.

My appendix is human and alive, but it is not an individual human being with rights.

If my doctor says it has to come out, the Constitution has nothing to say on the matter, thank feck.

horseburger

Sofiztikated wrote: »

And the arguments in favour of Repeal? What are they?

As I already stated, one of the cases would be where there no chance of any kind of length of life after birth, like anencephaly.

horseburger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

My appendix is human and alive, but it is not an individual human being with rights.

If my doctor says it has to come out, the Constitution has nothing to say on the matter, thank feck.

Good stuff, I'm happy for you.

Was there something you expected me to say in response to you talking about your appendix?

horseburger

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

your failure to understand something that has been presented to you several times already is a problem only you can solve for yourself. We really cant make it any simpler for you.

That a human created by two separate humans, is not a human?

blanch152

horseburger wrote: »

thanks for your reply.

Are most people in this thread just leaning towards the perspective of repeal, do you reckon, or can they understand the perspectives of those that have concern about abortion?

I've been watching discussions about abortion this last number of months, and can understand arguments on both sides.

I cannot understand a single argument against repealing the amendment.

The constitutional amendment is a nonsense. It has created the X case, the Y Case, the C Case etc. and has had to be amended twice. It was supposed to ban abortions but has resulted in limited abortion being available. It has also at various times ensured that women have died in unpalatable circumstances.

No matter your view on abortion, the inescapable conclusion is that the 8th is just about the worst way in the world to deal with the issue. Hence, we are replacing it with a provision that provides for Oireachtas to legislate.

What happens next is a matter for the politicians we elect. Given the current Dail arithmetic, it is quite possible that we will have an election before any legislation on abortion is passed. That gives you and everyone else the chance to elect politicians who will legislate the way you want. Democracy in action.

In the meantime, the cursed 8th Amendment will have been repealed.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

thanks for your reply.

Are most people in this thread just leaning towards the perspective of repeal, do you reckon, or can they understand the perspectives of those that have concern about abortion?

I've been watching discussions about abortion this last number of months, and can understand arguments on both sides.

I think there is a difference in pacing in this thread, a lot of posters here like myself, have been thinking about this issue for a long time, so they have already listened to the arguments for and against and come to a conclusion.
I think people who have never considered the issue prior to the last few months/last year or are further behind on that thought process and it probably seems like the rest of us are all gung ho on choice without thinking, but trust me, it's been well considered.

I was born the year of the 8th amendment and I've been pro choice since I was in school. We were shown a video of an abortion, we had plenty of talks, I've had plenty of time to consider both sides. To a certain extent I can understand why people might be "pro-life" on a religious basis but I wholeheartedly disagree. I don't personally need to make further consideration on the topic.