The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

ohnonotgmail

professore wrote: »

It might not be on the same level as murder but it's a crime at the moment under Irish law with pretty serious penalties.

so you agree that abortion is not murder?

ohnonotgmail

professore wrote: »

I agree. And that's why this imaginary line when a fetus becomes human - and let's face it it is imaginary - since babies are effectively helpless for several months after birth you could make an argument they aren't human either - but they are so "cute" ....

Make that call and write it into the referendum and put it in the constitution. End Of Debate.

What we are doing now people will still be fighting about the ins and outs of abortion in 10 years time.

you really couldn't. a state of helplessness is not relevant when we are deciding what is and isnt a person. Sentience is relevant.

SusieBlue

professore wrote: »

I'm sorry, it isn't about 12 weeks. That's factually incorrect. It's about some group of politicians imagining that's what MIGHT happen if they can all agree. Like the Bertie Bowl or the Dublin Metro. The Referendum Commission themselves say this.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/no-guarantee-a-yes-vote-will-lead-to-abortion-up-to-12-weeks-watchdog-36838099.html

I will probably vote yes. But am very unhappy about it.

We aren't going to go from being one of the most conservative countries in the world, to a free for all in the matter of a couple of weeks.
To suggest so is scaremongering.

It reminds me of the same sex marriage referendum... "This isn't just about lads wanting to marry lads, next they'll be wanting to marry their dog, or a tree, or the sofa, who knows what they MIGHT legalise on the back of this"....
Its all sounding very familiar.

professore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you agree that abortion is not murder?

For me personally? I think aborting a viable fetus is murder. If it's not viable, then it isn't murder. Something to be avoided if at all possible, but shouldn't be illegal.

ohnonotgmail

professore wrote: »

For me personally? I think aborting a viable fetus is murder. If it's not viable, then it isn't murder. Something to be avoided if at all possible, but shouldn't be illegal.

I meant as a matter of fact.

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

I completely agree.

But the argument that I was presented with was that there is no difference in a fetus right up until birth.

Legally there isn't. The only right the unborn has is the right to life. This right is the same whether they are 10 weeks gestated or 35 weeks gestated.
Currently, the right doesn't get any stronger or weaker, based on the gestation of the pregnancy.
So its true, there is no difference.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? Where are you getting this from? Maybe I'll actually learn something today.

"Person" is a legal construct. We don't all get to have an opinion on what a "person" is.

A "person" is whatever the law says it is. And law says that a person comes into existence at birth.

"Human being" is not a legal term, it's a nothing phrase really, it does not confer any legal rights or obligations. So discussing whether or not a foetus is a "human being" is an exercise in futility, since it matters not whether it is a "human being" or not. If we can agree it is, then that means nothing. If we can agree it's not, that means nothing.

professore

SusieBlue wrote: »

Well, yes, they are helpless, but any willing adult can take on said care and responsibility for that baby. It doesn't have to be the mother.
Unfortunately, you can't transfer a pregnancy to another person. Only the person pregnant can bring the baby to term.
So the scenarios there are quite different.

Putting things like this into the constitution is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.

If the fetus is viable outside the womb, the mother can induce pregnancy and then have it adopted. Sure it isn't pleasant, but either is caring for an old sick relative with say dementia.

And putting the 8th in the constitution reflected the opinions of people AT THE TIME. It worked extremely well for what it was designed to do.

.......

This post has been deleted.

PhoenixParker

professore wrote: »

I agree. And that's why this imaginary line when a fetus becomes human - and let's face it it is imaginary - since babies are effectively helpless for several months after birth you could make an argument they aren't human either - but they are so "cute" ....

Make that call and write it into the referendum and put it in the constitution. End Of Debate.

What we are doing now people will still be fighting about the ins and outs of abortion in 10 years time.

A helpless baby can have their needs met by any member of the community, they may even need machines to keep them alive.

A fetus on the other hand can only rely on one person and their body. It's a wholly different situation.

SusieBlue

professore wrote: »

For me personally? I think aborting a viable fetus is murder. If it's not viable, then it isn't murder. Something to be avoided if at all possible, but shouldn't be illegal.

There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" abortions.
To allow a woman make the heartbreaking decision to terminate a non-viable baby, you need to allow the mother who is on her own and can't cope with or afford another baby one too.

Its either a life and its a baby or it isn't. It doesn't stop being a life just because its the type of abortion you approve of.
So its either that all abortions are murder and shouldn't be allowed - which I disagree with but can get my head around, or it isn't and we allow women to have a choice in the first 12 weeks.

To be ok with it in some circumstances and not others is just hypocrisy.

professore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I meant as a matter of fact.

Since the legal penalties in this country are different, and it's not defined as murder here, then it isn't murder in the eyes of the law as far as I can tell.

SusieBlue

professore wrote: »

If the fetus is viable outside the womb, the mother can induce pregnancy and then have it adopted. Sure it isn't pleasant, but either is caring for an old sick relative with say dementia.

And putting the 8th in the constitution reflected the opinions of people AT THE TIME. It worked extremely well for what it was designed to do.

Please do some research on adoption in Ireland. Please. You don't have a clue.

ohnonotgmail

professore wrote: »

If the fetus is viable outside the womb, the mother can induce pregnancy and then have it adopted. Sure it isn't pleasant, but either is caring for an old sick relative with say dementia.

And putting the 8th in the constitution reflected the opinions of people AT THE TIME. It worked extremely well for what it was designed to do.

It worked so well we had 2 further referendums to correct problems caused by the 8th? I dont think you really understand this at all if you are making statements like that.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ELM327

SusieBlue wrote: »

Please do some research on adoption in Ireland. Please. You don't have a clue.

+1
Also proffering "adoption" as a solution does nothing for the health impacts on the mother in the case of the 8th - so it's not a solution anyway.

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

at least we got there in the end.

professore

SusieBlue wrote: »

There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" abortions.
To allow a woman make the heartbreaking decision to terminate a non-viable baby, you need to allow the mother who is on her own and can't cope with or afford another baby one too.

Its either a life and its a baby or it isn't. It doesn't stop being a life just because its the type of abortion you approve of.
So its either that all abortions are murder and shouldn't be allowed - which I disagree with but can get my head around, or it isn't and we allow women to have a choice in the first 12 weeks.

To be ok with it in some circumstances and not others is just hypocrisy.

Hold on ... you are not understanding me. A fetus in the first 12 weeks isn't viable. A fetus at 30 weeks is. I'm OK with 12 weeks. However I can see how some people might not be, and not just because their priest told them so.

SusieBlue

professore wrote: »

Hold on ... you are not understanding me. A fetus in the first 12 weeks isn't viable. A fetus at 30 weeks is. I'm OK with 12 weeks. However I can see how some people might not be, and not just because their priest told them so.

Those people need to keep their noses out of other people's uterus's and they'll have a much happier, peaceful life.

professore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It worked so well we had 2 further referendums to correct problems caused by the 8th? I dont think you really understand this at all if you are making statements like that.

This is because the 8th was very restrictive. Do you expect if we take the recommendations of the committee, write the guidelines into an amendment, and vote on those, and they pass by a large majority, that next year we will have people looking to extend abortion rights for healthy pregnancies at 40 weeks?

If you put 12 weeks in the constitution, it completely kills any pro life arguments about late term abortions (except for FFA). Now you are leaving the door wide open to them.

It's too late now either way. The 8th will probably be repealed, but expect a lot of pressure particularly from rural TDs to make the new laws very restrictive.

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

Have said all along that repeal was a stupid way to approach this, amending it to have basic outlines about when it is and isn't OK to have an abortion and let the public vote and put it in the constitution was the way to go.

It was a mistake to put the 8th into the constitution in the first place. The way to fix that is not to dick around with the wording, it is to delete it.

Now, it may be hard to get simple deletion passed a referendum. That's OK, if we fail we will try again. Failing is better than putting a new botch into the constitution and waiting for the inevitable deaths, hard cases, and supreme court rulings to decide in 10 years what the new botch really means.

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

It might not be on the same level as murder

Because it is not murder.

Again, this is a fact, not an opinion.

ohnonotgmail

professore wrote: »

This is because the 8th was very restrictive. Do you expect if we take the recommendations of the committee, write the guidelines into an amendment, and vote on those, and they pass by a large majority, that next year we will have people looking to extend abortion rights for healthy pregnancies at 40 weeks?

If you put 12 weeks in the constitution, it completely kills any pro life arguments about late term abortions (except for FFA). Now you are leaving the door wide open to them.

It's too late now either way. The 8th will probably be repealed, but expect a lot of pressure particularly from rural TDs to make the new laws very restrictive.

The 8th was supposed to do a very simple job. it failed. any new amendment you propose would also likely fail. Writing constitutional amendments is hard. Much harder than you seem to realise.

professore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

at least we got there in the end.

You lot are really so smug about being right and winning some petty argument. Not interested in debate at all. I never even started the whole thing about abortion being murder.

I'm just interested in the facts and morality of this debate. If the No vote wins it will be due in large part to the smugness and arrogance of the Yes campaign.

The No campaign have huge issues too. In fact the most strident supporters of both campaigns have an awful lot in common, i.e. intolerance towards other people's viewpoints.

Both are more of a religious belief than an actual position.

ELM327

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It was a mistake to put the 8th into the constitution in the first place. The way to fix that is not to dick around with the wording, it is to delete it.

Now, it may be hard to get simple deletion passed a referendum. That's OK, if we fail we will try again. Failing is better than putting a new botch into the constitution and waiting for the inevitable deaths, hard cases, and supreme court rulings to decide in 10 years what the new botch really means.

+1
That;s the important thing that people need to remember. This will be like the Nice/Lisbon treaty referenda. If there's a "no" this time, there will be another referendum pretty soon. Ad nauseum until it's passed.

ohnonotgmail

professore wrote: »

You lot are really so smug about being right and winning some petty argument. Not interested in debate at all. I never even started the whole thing about abortion being murder.

I'm just interested in the facts and morality of this debate. If the No vote wins it will be due in large part to the smugness and arrogance of the Yes campaign.

The No campaign have huge issues too. In fact the most strident supporters of both campaigns have an awful lot in common, i.e. intolerance towards other people's viewpoints.

Both are more of a religious belief than an actual position.

there is no intolerance to your viewpoint. their is intolerance to your logic, or rather the lack of it.

professore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The 8th was supposed to do a very simple job. it failed. any new amendment you propose would also likely fail. Writing constitutional amendments is hard. Much harder than you seem to realise.

There was no problem with same sex marriage?

This is very likely to fail too. The Referendum Commission said so themselves. Basically no one really knows what the position will be after the 8th is repealed.

ELM327

professore wrote: »

You lot are really so smug about being right and winning some petty argument. Not interested in debate at all. I never even started the whole thing about abortion being murder.

I'm just interested in the facts and morality of this debate. If the No vote wins it will be due in large part to the smugness and arrogance of the Yes campaign.

The No campaign have huge issues too. In fact the most strident supporters of both campaigns have an awful lot in common, i.e. intolerance towards other people's viewpoints.

Both are more of a religious belief than an actual position.

The yes side are intolerant of the no side's position as the no side's position involves imposing their "NO" to every woman in the land.
The YES side still allows those on the NO side to not have an abortion ever, should they so choose.
The no side does not allow those on the YES side to have an abortion should they choose. That's the difference.

SusieBlue

professore wrote: »

You lot are really so smug about being right and winning some petty argument. Not interested in debate at all. I never even started the whole thing about abortion being murder.

I'm just interested in the facts and morality of this debate. If the No vote wins it will be due in large part to the smugness and arrogance of the Yes campaign.

The No campaign have huge issues too. In fact the most strident supporters of both campaigns have an awful lot in common, i.e. intolerance towards other people's viewpoints.

Both are more of a religious belief than an actual position.

The Yes side are tolerant towards everyone's beliefs. Its the No side that are restrictive and controlling.
You can vote yes and be against abortion and never avail of abortion services for the rest of your life - but you allow others who don't share your feelings get the healthcare they need.

The No side are telling lies, using emotional blackmail and using graphic posters to manipulate people into agreeing with them. Its a really aggressive and forceful campaign that they are running.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

So you value the life of the mother over the life of the unborn. I can get behind that.

So does everyone else. That's why we passed the 13th and 14th amendments, and rejected the 12th and 25th.

The majority who passed the 8th thought they were just guaranteeing that things would stay the same, the status quo would remain, and pro-choice people wouldn't get abortion legalised by the European Courts or some such.

They did not intend the AG to actually defend the rights of the unborn with injunctions. They did not intend information to be censored wholesale. And of course the womans life is worth more than a 6 week fetus, those things miscarry all the time, the world does not end.

But the prolifers who wrote the amendment intended far more than just keeping abortion legal - they wanted to establish positive rights for the unborn and then use them against women. It was always a terrible, terrible idea.