The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

ohnonotgmail

another woman dead because of the 8th.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-died-after-abortion-clinic-sent-her-home-despite-vomiting-and-swaying-36825436.html

amdublin

If anyone is looking for reasons women need to access abortion the In Her Shoes page on Facebook is a super resource.

I hate that it has to exist though.

Why do women need to spill their guts and share their trauma to convince people that this horrendous 8th sinply must be repealed.

Zubeneschamali

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I fail to understand the argument that just because everybody else is doing it we should be doing it also.

But that is not the argument about the 13th amendment at all.

The 8th states that the State guarantees to protect the unborn. So, in the X case, the Attorney General got a court order to stop a raped girl getting an abortion in England. It worked, the unborn was saved, and X came back to Ireland without having an abortion. It was, if you like, proven to be perfectly practicable to defend the unborn this way.

So we passed a specific amendment to prevent the State from ever doing that again.

This is not a case of us saying oh well, we can't do anything about it. The AG proved he could do things about it, and we told him to knock it off, let the women travel and the unborn die, same as it ever was before the 8th.

Purest hypocrisy.

BarleySweets

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Again with the marginal cases to prove the broader argument. Would you be in favour of abortion if the baby was healthy?

I’ll jump in here to answer this because I’m sick of all these hushed up implications that there’s something shameful or immoral potentially about to happen; note that I said implications, because the accusers are too scared themselves to come out and say what they really want to say: “that sluts should be shamed and deserve everything they get”:

I wouldn’t have any opinion because it’s the pregnant woman’s choice and, because she is a functioning adult, I’ll grant her the courtesy of assuming that she has chosen the best action for her and her family.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Again with the marginal cases to prove the broader argument. Would you be in favour of abortion if the baby was healthy?

I am in favor of that CHOICE, within certain time constraints and regulation.

Please do not conflate that with being in favor of abortion however. I would much prefer no one had abortions and time, for any reason, ever. But they do. And I am in favor of people having that choice.

And aside from shouting the word "human" at me, the anti choice campaigners do not seem to have a single reason on offer as to why I should not be in favor of that choice. Yourself being absolutely and entirely no exception.

baylah17

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Certainly.

Sinéad Fia goes to the doctor and is told she's pregnant. That is someone else's pregnancy.

Later a test says there is a 33% chance that the pregnancy will result in a child who has cerebral palsy, bilateral blindness, total deafness and will require 24 hour care for his or her short life, with a 50% chance of death within a year and only a 10% chance they will live to age 5. That is someone else's pregnancy.

Sinéad and her doctor discuss options, and agree that the best course is to terminate the pregnancy. That is someone else's pregnancy.

Obviously Sinéad lives in England, since the 8th makes such terminations subject to 14 years in jail here for both Sinéad and her doctor. That is not someone else's pregnancy - that is your fault if you vote No.

Again with the marginal cases to prove the broader argument. Would you be in favour of abortion if the baby was healthy?

Oh the smell of desperation from the Iona bot
Same constant questioning that horse****t*er has been engaging in
Deflection and feigned puzzled concern
Pathetic
Predictable but pathetic

Rogelio Tinkling Cue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

People are travelling to Amsterdam to take legalised drugs in that country therefore we should we should legalise drugs in Ireland???

Is there anywhere in the constitution that protects the rights of people to do that? No.
But there is a right to travel for abortion

Zubeneschamali

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Again with the marginal cases to prove the broader argument.

Is this some rule of logic which I missed in class? Perhaps you can tell me exactly which step is faulty:

1) Sinéad should be allowed to have an abortion.

2) She can't have one here because of the 8th.

3) Therefore we must repeal the 8th and legislate to allow it.

seamus

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Again with the marginal cases to prove the broader argument. Would you be in favour of abortion if the baby was healthy?

That question is irrelevant in the context of the eighth.

This is not a referendum on the termination of apparently uncomplicated pregnancies.

"Healthy" pregnancies are the marginal cases in this discussion. The pro-life side constantly attempt to narrow the debate down to one aspect of the eighth, when its implications are far more wide-ranging than the marginal cases of women choosing not to continue with a pregnancy.

There are plenty of people I know voting Yes to repeal the eighth who don't support abortion on demand, who only support it in cases of rape, FFA and health risk. But they have the wherewithall to recognise that this vote is not just about the 12 week limit. That is one small aspect of a massive issue.

zedhead

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Again with the marginal cases to prove the broader argument. Would you be in favour of abortion if the baby was healthy?

'In favour' is a bad choice of words here. Regardless of the health of the fetus, abortion is a decision to be made by the woman and her doctor. It is not up to anyone else to decide if her reasons for requiring an abortion are 'good enough'.

I would not encourage someone with a health pregnancy to choose abortion, however I would absolutely defend their right to make the decision that is best for their situation and would not be arrogant enough to believe that I know whats best for a strangers life, body and pregnancy than they do themselves.

January

Another reason the 8th needs to be repealed. This woman could not travel, she could not afford to and even if she could have afforded it she would not have been able to. What were her options? Answer me that Tickers, this isn't a minority case, this is the reality for a lot of women trying to access abortion, they either cannot afford or cannot travel because they haven't got the right documentation, nobody to mind their already born children while they do travel. Answer me that instead of deflection.

I came to Ireland 3 years ago with my 2 kids because where we were living was not safe for us. Now we live in a small room together in a Direct Provision centre. I have been taking birth control pills because I don’t want to have more children while we have to live in this place. Direct provision is no place for children. They have no place to play, especially when it is cold and raining outside. I didn’t think I would become pregnant because I was taking my pills everyday, but then I missed my period. I took a pregnancy test and it was positive.

I asked a friend who I trusted what I should do, because I had heard that abortion was illegal here. Many women I know talk about how dangerous it is to have a baby in Ireland and they try to go home to have their babies if they can. In my home country abortion is legal. I could walk into a doctor and get one.

I was very scared and I could not have another child to take care of in this centre. I was very nervous about the whole thing because I knew I could not tell anyone, not even a doctor if something bad happened. I felt embarrassed for getting pregnant, but I had taken my birth control everyday. A friend helped me to get abortion pills and I took them quickly because I just wanted to stop worrying about everything. I had to have the abortion in secret. I was living in the same room as my children. I couldn’t tell anyone why I was sick for fear of someone finding out and it effecting my status. We are already treated as criminals living in this prison of Direct Provision. Then they make us criminals because we don’t want to have more children in here."

In Her Shoes - Women of the 8th Amendment

B0jangles

Just saw this on facebook - a leaflet from 1982 warning about the possible effects the 8th would have on women's healthcare






The dangers were known long before it came into effect but 35 years later we're still trying get to rid of it.

Shameful.

SusieBlue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Again with the marginal cases to prove the broader argument. Would you be in favour of abortion if the baby was healthy?

What about the wants, needs, and rights of the born living woman who is carrying this child?
Whose life and health will be altered the most from the unwanted burden of motherhood? What of her?

We should be looking after the living, breathing people we have before affording potential people rights at their expense.
Its nonsensical to suggest otherwise.

Dead people currently have more rights than pregnant woman regarding bodily autonomy in this country. That's an absolute disgrace.

Bannasidhe

gmisk wrote: »

But surely you must concede if this is repealed it is the end of days?!?!

Did you miss the sky falling down after same sex marriage was brought in here??

Well it has rained a lot.
We had to buy a bigger, pinker, gazebo and waterproof fairylights for our big Gay BBQs.

ELM327

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

People are travelling to Amsterdam to take legalised drugs in that country therefore we should we should legalise drugs in Ireland???

Ignoring the fact that we as a country voted to allow a woman to travel specifically for an abortion? The 13th amendment?
Before that, the state could and did detain women and prevent their travel.
You cannot travel specifically for illegal purposes (Traficking, paedophila, probably euthanasia).

Bannasidhe

SusieBlue wrote: »

These arguments are all sounding very familiar, I’m sure I’ve heard them before....

Deja Poo.

swampgas

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Again with the marginal cases to prove the broader argument.

Every "marginal case" is an actual, living breathing woman. What's the phrase hurled by pro-life fanatics, "dehumanise then kill" ? Is that your approach to women killed because of the 8th?

Are you one of those people who thinks that anyone who dies because they wanted an abortion deserved it anyway?

January

ELM327 wrote: »

Ignoring the fact that we as a country voted to allow a woman to travel specifically for an abortion? The 13th amendment?
Before that, the state could and did detain women and prevent their travel.
You cannot travel specifically for illegal purposes (Traficking, paedophila, probably euthanasia).

Wasn't there a court case recently about travelling or helping someone travel for euthanasia?

v638sg7k1a92bx

SusieBlue wrote: »

What about the wants, needs, and rights of the born living woman who is carrying this child?
Whose life and health will be altered the most from the unwanted burden of motherhood? What of her?

We should be looking after the living, breathing people we have before affording potential people rights at their expense.
Its nonsensical to suggest otherwise.

Dead people currently have more rights than pregnant woman regarding bodily autonomy in this country. That's an absolute disgrace.

There is no "right to an abortion" that I am aware of. Additionally "rights" are not absolute when they impact the life of another person.

Ave Sodalis

http://www.donegaldaily.com/2018/04/20/donegal-doctors-grouping-back-no-campaign-in-8th-amendment-referendum/

It's good to see that my own doctor wasn't listed on this so I don't have to change.

Dr Cook, according to the comments, who is the first sig, also denies giving out the morning after pill so it's really no surprise.

swampgas

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

There is no "right to an abortion" that I am aware of. Additionally "rights" are not absolute when they impact the life of another person.

Just as well there isn't another person involved. Just the potential for one.

SusieBlue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

There is no "right to an abortion" that I am aware of. Additionally "rights" are not absolute when they impact the life of another person.

Unborn fetuses are not "persons". They are potential persons.
A fetus should not be of equal worth to a living breathing woman, unless she chooses so. A zygote should not have equal rights to the woman carrying it.

The rights I am speaking of is the right to bodily autonomy. Which all citizens have, except for pregnant women.

ELM327

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

There is no "right to an abortion" that I am aware of. Additionally "rights" are not absolute when they impact the life of another person.

Good thing that legally the status of "Person" is not conferred until a birth certificate is issued at birth.

January wrote: »

Wasn't there a court case recently about travelling or helping someone travel for euthanasia?

That rings a vague bell yes.

baylah17

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

SusieBlue wrote: »

What about the wants, needs, and rights of the born living woman who is carrying this child?
Whose life and health will be altered the most from the unwanted burden of motherhood? What of her?

We should be looking after the living, breathing people we have before affording potential people rights at their expense.
Its nonsensical to suggest otherwise.

Dead people currently have more rights than pregnant woman regarding bodily autonomy in this country. That's an absolute disgrace.

There is no "right to an abortion" that I am aware of. Additionally "rights" are not absolute when they impact the life of another person.

A clump of cells with the potential under certain circumstance to develop into a healthy human is not another person
It is a clump of cells paracitically existing in a host
Most times a willing host
Sometimes an unwilling host
Sometimes trying to kill the host

v638sg7k1a92bx

SusieBlue wrote: »

Unborn fetuses are not "persons". They are potential persons.
A fetus should not be of equal worth to a living breathing woman, unless she chooses so. A zygote should not have equal rights to the woman carrying it.

The rights I am speaking of is the right to bodily autonomy. Which all citizens have, except for pregnant women.

So at what stages does a fetus become a being with a right to life?

ELM327

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

So at what stages does a fetus become a being with a right to life?

Birth.
Medically it is a foetus (that's how we spell it in Ireland, cowboy), until birth.
Legally it is not a person until birth.

SusieBlue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

So at what stages does a fetus become a being with a right to life?

When its born, and/or has reached the point of being viable outside the womb.

Babies lost to stillbirth and miscarriages are not assigned death/birth certs if they are lost before 22 weeks.
Unborn babies are not assigned PPS numbers at conception.
We don't back date children's allowance payments to the date of the positive pregnancy test.
Why? Because as far as the government is concerned, they aren't people. They aren't living citizens.

Which is why its extremely hypocritical that they have an EQUAL right to life as that of the woman gestating them.

Zubeneschamali

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

So at what stages does a fetus become a being with a right to life?

Today, it gets its little right to life at implantation (which is a weird consequence of the stupid wording of the 8th amendment that no-one predicted because even the people who wrote it didn't understand what it meant) but it is not recognised in law as a human being, just a poorly defined "unborn".

The Supreme Court recently clarified that it has no other rights.

After we delete the 8th, it will have no Constitutional rights at all before birth, just the same as in 1982 before all this nonsense started.

v638sg7k1a92bx

ELM327 wrote: »

Birth.
Medically it is a foetus (that's how we spell it in Ireland, cowboy), until birth.
Legally it is not a person until birth.

But at what stage do you think it has a right to life?

AnneFrank

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

So at what stages does a fetus become a being with a right to life?

Apparently it's just a clump of cells up to 12 weeks, so any child lost before that due to miscarriage or abortion was only an idea of a child, and not actually a child going by what has been written on this very forum.