The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

nozzferrahhtoo

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

But you have accepted that it is a life and I assume that you accept that it is wrong to end somebody else's life

Well firstly it is nice to see you are not ignoring and dodging ALL my posts. You finally deigned to reply to one.

However in your appraisal of my position you have failed to make a distinction which I just explained to you in the post you are replying to. Which is odd.

YOU are saying "somebody". There IS no somebody there. I explained that, yet here you are once again asking about "somebody else's life".

In a 12/16 week old fetus there is no somebody there, except in YOUR imagination.

January

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As I said, causation and co-relation is not the same thing. Just because a woman is pregnant does not automatically mean that the children will be condemned to poverty. There are numerous causes of poverty which I'm sure you already know.

I had the children I could afford, if I had another child it would have stretched us too far and we wouldn't have been able to afford to feed or clothe them adequately, let along pay for their school uniforms, school books, expenses like getting them to and from their many hospital, eye clinic, dentist, speech and language, occupational therapy, physio therapy appts, afford glasses for them all (they all wear them) every year. I could go on.

That's without getting into luxuries such as extracurricular activities and days out.

So yes, we couldn't afford another child, so I had an abortion. Basic family planning 101, if you can't afford a child don't have one.

.......

This post has been deleted.

BarleySweets

horseburger wrote: »

I guess you are one of the people, as described by Ian O'Doherty.

Ian O’Doherty complaining about other people acting morally superior?

Is that the same Ian O’Doherty who said on record that Muslims are never going to fit into Irish culture and shouldn’t be welcomed? The same guy who said the gay marriage referendum was a litmus test for the future of Ireland as a nation to scare listeners into voting against it?

v638sg7k1a92bx

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

So you think it's perfectly just then that someone be actively forced to live a life that they don't want against their will. If we pull your name out of the hat to go down the mines you'll just accept that?

I note you ignored my other reply about how being pregnant impacts on the rights of a pregnant woman.

Here it is in case you want to tell me how "wrong" I am :rolleyes:

I'm not sure what you're referring to but those don't appear to be "rights".

pitifulgod

horseburger wrote: »

I guess you are one of the people, as described by Ian O'Doherty.

Ian O'Doherty thrives on creating outrage and being outraged. Eg this is him on marriage referendum.
https://m.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/if-it-wasnt-a-matter-of-conscience-id-vote-no-just-to-annoy-the-chattering-classes-31158259.html

.......

This post has been deleted.

v638sg7k1a92bx

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just more confabulation. As your doctor and the dog in the street will tell you. Unless you are extremely unlucky there is no reason why you should get pregnant if you don't want to.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're referring to but those don't appear to be "rights".

if you have cancer and can't get treatment because your pregnant how is that not affecting your right to life?
If you are sliced open against your will leading to a long and painful recovery how does that not impact on your right to bodily autonomy?

you're literally just making stuff up now to suit your agenda!

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Just more confabulation. As your doctor and the dog in the street will tell you. Unless you are extremely unlucky there is no reason why you should get pregnant if you don't want to.

I assume you have a reference to back that up?

Rogelio Tinkling Cue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Just more confabulation. As your doctor and the dog in the street will tell you. Unless you are extremely unlucky there is no reason why you should get pregnant if you don't want to.

This is ridiculous. Do you even read the posts?

BarleySweets

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're referring to but those don't appear to be "rights".

You’re just being childish now. Triceratops was 100% correct here. A person being actively forced to live a life that they don’t want against their will is literally what the right to self determination prohibits.

kylith

January wrote: »

Basic family planning 101, if you can't afford a child don't have one.

Hmmm, isn't that what some people say when increases to child benefit are mooted?

zedhead

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Just more confabulation. As your doctor and the dog in the street will tell you. Unless you are extremely unlucky there is no reason why you should get pregnant if you don't want to.

So you are ignoring the facts now? If no contraceptive is not 100% effective, it means that literally a number of people will get pregnant despite using said contraception.
Yes they can be considered unlucky, but it does happen.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

if you have cancer and can't get treatment because your pregnant how is that not affecting your right to life?
If you are sliced open against your will leading to a long and painful recovery how does that not impact on your right to bodily autonomy?

you're literally just making stuff up now to suit your agenda!

As I've explained. Most rational people are in favour of abortion in circumstances where there is a serious threat to the mothers life or health.

horseburger

BarleySweets wrote: »

Ian O’Doherty complaining about other people acting morally superior?

Is that the same Ian O’Doherty who said on record that Muslims are never going to fit into Irish culture and shouldn’t be welcomed? The same guy who said the gay marriage referendum was a litmus test for the future of Ireland as a nation to scare listeners into voting against it?

Why focus on his views on other issues, rather than discussing why he holds certain views about the various groups that are campaigning, on this issue of the repeal of the Eighth Amendment?

He is a newspaper columnist. It is hardly surprising, that depending on the issue being discussed, that he might explore a contrarian viewpoint on a particular issue, and examine the arguments for and against that contrarian viewpoint.

I disagreed with comments he made about bus services, during the Bus Éireann strike last year.

That doesn't mean that I disregard all the perspectives he takes, on other issues, about which he writes, in his role as a columnist in the Irish Independent.

.......

This post has been deleted.

amdublin

Amy Huberman has today tweeted her support for repealing the 8th amendment

v638sg7k1a92bx

zedhead wrote: »

So you are ignoring the facts now? If no contraceptive is not 100% effective, it means that literally a number of people will get pregnant despite using said contraception.
Yes they can be considered lucky, but it does happen.

As adults we understand that there are risks involved with being in sexual relationships and the consequences of those risks, regardless of the precautions we take.

BarleySweets

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Just more confabulation. As your doctor and the dog in the street will tell you. Unless you are extremely unlucky there is no reason why you should get pregnant if you don't want to.

Why would you think that? There’s plenty of reasons why pregnancy happens to a women who doesn’t want to get pregnant.

Unless you’re implying that it’s shameful for her to have sex without being on the pill or using condoms? Or unless you’re denying that contraceptives fail? Do you think that women who have recreational sex are shameful? Why?

.......

This post has been deleted.

amcalester

horseburger wrote: »

Why focus on his views on other issues, rather than discussing why he holds certain views about the various groups that are campaigning, on this issue of the repeal of the Eighth Amendment?

He is a newspaper columnist. It is hardly surprising, that depending on the issue being discussed, that he might explore a contrarian viewpoint on a particular issue, and examine the arguments for and against that contrarian viewpoint.

I disagreed with comments he made about bus services, during the Bus Éireann strike last year.

That doesn't mean that I disregard all the perspectives he takes, on other issues, about which he writes, in his role as a columnist in the Irish Independent.

Why don’t you answer the question that you dodged by quoting IO’D?

Are you going to vote yes/no and what restrictions would you like to see in place if it is passed?

zedhead

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As I've explained. Most rational people are in favour of abortion in circumstances where there is a serious threat to the mothers life or health.

With the 8th amendment in place this is not allowed for.

Only with serious and immediate threat to the life of the woman. Their deteriorating health is irrelevant until it gets to the the point that it is immediately life threatening.

Repeal the 8th amendment and then lobby your local politicians for the legislation you want. With the 8th in place nothing can happen.

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As I've explained. Most rational people are in favour of abortion in circumstances where there is a serious threat to the mothers life or health.

but we're talking about the right to life of the unborn, you wanted to know why the unborn didn't deserve to have this right, and the answer is because it interferes with the rights of the person carrying it.

and if it's the case that most rational people believe that then most rational people should be voting yes because without a yes result the 8th amendment remains and women can't get an abortion if there is a serious risk to their health.

you never told me what you would say to a couple that has to travel for an abortion for ffa should the 8th be retained?

robarmstrong

amcalester wrote: »

Why don’t you answer the question that you dodged by quoting IO’D?

Don't bother, when pushed on certain points the poster has declined to comment on questions asked. Not worth your time.

zedhead

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As adults we understand that there are risks involved with being in sexual relationships and the consequences of those risks, regardless of the precautions we take.

But you said before if you dont want to get pregnant you wont?

Now you're saying it can happen but if it does tough sh*t, deal with the health implications, life restrictions, financial limitations that you may not be able for.

Do we deny medical treatment to those who engage in high risk sports? They knew the risks so they should just deal themselves with the consequences right.

BarleySweets

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As adults we understand that there are risks involved with being in sexual relationships and the consequences of those risks, regardless of the precautions we take.

Bull****. So you want to tie people down to raising kids together just because they decided to have sex together? Who are you to force that notion onto anybody? What kind of society would that result in?

.......

This post has been deleted.

kylith

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As adults we understand that there are risks involved with being in sexual relationships and the consequences of those risks, regardless of the precautions we take.

So someone in a relationship who either does not want children or does not want more children should not have sex with their partner until after menopause? Which can be anything up to age 50.

ETA: I take it you would also criminalise men who abandon their children?