The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

professore

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

But just because I believe something is wrong, doesn't mean it is wrong though it's just my opinion, and why should my opinion on how others live their lives be a deciding factor.

(I don't think abortion is wrong btw)

That's how democracy works. So to use my analogy, would you vote to legalise FGM in Ireland?

professore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they are not of an age where they can give consent.

Neither is an unborn baby. Also males are circumcised at birth for non medical reasons, babies are baptised, etc Plenty of life changing stuff happens without consent.

Triceratops Ballet

professore wrote: »

That's how democracy works. So to use my analogy, would you vote to legalise FGM in Ireland?

I'm aware of how democracy works, I'm saying it's not intellectually dishonest to say you wouldn't do something yourself but will vote in favour of others being allowed to do it.

I'd vote against FGM in cases where it was performed without consent/on minors or both. Though how this is relevant, is beyond me.

professore

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I'm aware of how democracy works, I'm saying it's not intellectually dishonest to say you wouldn't do something yourself but will vote in favour of others being allowed to do it.

I'd vote against FGM in cases where it was performed without consent/on minors or both. Though how this is relevant, is beyond me.

Well at least your position is consistent. So therefore not intellectually dishonest.

robarmstrong

professore wrote: »

I see your point - a rock and a hard place, right?

If the choice was between allowing abortions in medical cases for women like your partner, FFA and a more liberal regime how would you vote in that case?

I'd still go for the liberal regime, there can be many legitimate reasons for a woman to seek an abortion, just because I don't see the reasons as legitimate, does not mean they are not legitimate.

professore

robarmstrong wrote: »

I'd still go for the liberal regime, there can be many legitimate reasons for a woman to seek an abortion, just because I don't see the reasons as legitimate, does not mean they are not legitimate.

Fair enough, I have to say if it was any more liberal than is proposed I would probably vote No. Although it is difficult as most of the reasons I would vote Yes would be blocked off to women like my daughters.

By voting Yes you are responsible and complicit in what you are voting for, regardless if you don't directly do that thing yourself.

It really is a difficult question.

robarmstrong

professore wrote: »

By voting Yes you are responsible and complicit in what you are voting for, regardless if you don't directly do that thing yourself.

Nah, not at all.

I am not responsible nor complicit in what I am voting for, if that's the case, No voters are responsible for refusing women rights that are offered to them in other civilised countries, which I do not believe they are directly responsible or complicit in.

AudreyHepburn

I have to be honest and say I am getting a bit sick of the whole debate at this point - I wish the referendum would happen tomorrow so we can all have done with it.

I’ve had my fill of the sniping and malice being shown on both sides now - I especially don’t like the attempts to silence the No side.

You can’t claim to be pro choice if you then mock and ridicule those who choose a different side to you. You cannot attempt to silence them or try to stop them campaigning even if you don’t like the way they go about it. That’s not what being pro choice is about.

robarmstrong

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have to be honest and say I am getting a bit sick of the whole debate at this point - I wish the referendum would happen tomorrow so we can all have done with it.

I’ve had my fill of the sniping and malice being shown on both sides now - I especially don’t like the attempts to silence the No side.

You can’t claim to be pro choice if you then mock and ridicule those who choose a different side to you. You cannot attempt to silence them or try to stop them campaigning even if you don’t like the way they go about it. That’s not what being pro choice is about.

If they are campaigning via the usage of falsehood and lies, they do deserve to have those falsehood and lies outed publicly in order to encourage honest and genuine campaigns.

_Dara_

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I have to be honest and say I am getting a bit sick of the whole debate at this point - I wish the referendum would happen tomorrow so we can all have done with it.

I’ve had my fill of the sniping and malice being shown on both sides now - I especially don’t like the attempts to silence the No side.

You can’t claim to be pro choice if you then mock and ridicule those who choose a different side to you. You cannot attempt to silence them or try to stop them campaigning even if you don’t like the way they go about it. That’s not what being pro choice is about.

Pointing out the many lies told by some No campaigners is not an attempt to silence. Just FYI.

Tell a lie, campaigners? Don't whinge or play the victim when someone points out that it's a lie.

Useful.Idiot

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You can’t claim to be pro choice if you then mock and ridicule those who choose a different side to you. You cannot attempt to silence them or try to stop them campaigning even if you don’t like the way they go about it. That’s not what being pro choice is about.

It's inevitable that there will be activity like this from both sides given how emotional people are about the issue but let's not act like this is only a pro-choice campaign issue. There's many cases around the country of pro-choice events being silenced/dismantled by the pro-life side due to threats to hosting venues.

_Dara_

professore wrote: »

I find the argument of being against abortion yourself but voting yes so as to not restrict others from doing it is intellectually dishonest.

Let's say it was a referendum on legalising FGM. Would people who are against it be fine with voting Yes to allow it, as they would never allow it themselves but respect the rights of others to do it?

And just saying "they are different" is not an answer - for genuine No voters they feel at least as strongly about abortion as others would about FGM.

And as I said before, I am going to vote Yes and take responsibility for it - this is not some kind of back handed No argument.

I just don't believe you are a yes voter. Earlier today I did briefly. But after reading this post - nah.

professore

robarmstrong wrote: »

Nah, not at all.

I am not responsible nor complicit in what I am voting for, if that's the case, No voters are responsible for refusing women rights that are offered to them in other civilised countries, which I do not believe they are directly responsible or complicit in.

I have to disagree. Referenda like this shape the kind of society we live in. For the same sex marriage referendum I enthusiastically voted yes - because although I am boringly straight myself, I have no problem at all with gay people having the same rights as I do. That one was easy.

This one I struggle with, since I find abortion on demand morally wrong, but I do recognise that there are hard cases like rape, incest, underage, FFA and cases like your wife that don't fit in the box. Therefore I am OK with 12 weeks and non viable (or unable to live to term) fetuses. I also recognise that there will be lots of abortions for purely lifestyle reasons on a sliding scale which I am not OK with but there isn't a whole lot I can do about it. I know other people strongly disagree with me on this, and that's their opinion, and I'm happy to respect the democratic will of the people.

professore

_Dara_ wrote: »

I just don't believe you are a yes voter. Earlier today I did briefly. But after reading this post - nah.

It doesn't matter if you believe me. I've truthfully outlined my position here and you can take it how you want. What surprises me is how anyone can have black and white views on abortion. It isn't a black and white issue for me, it's a very murky grey one.

RobertKK

Bit of an unfortunate poster by the socialist feminist movement/Rosa, given what it looks likes...

kylith

professore wrote: »

I have no issues whatsoever with abortion being available to your wife. To me that's an open and shut case.

But you can acknowledge, surely, that his wife's case falls outside your the conditions you have previously said you find acceptable: There is no FFA, her life is not at risk. It's simply a matter of ending the pregnancy sooner rather than later. This in itself shows that the terms you would prefer to see enshrined in the constitution do not actually cover all the occasions where you yourself would be ok with abortion taking place.

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

The point is about supporting a law in a country that you claim to be against yourself to allow others freedom of choice.

I believe it is wrong to cheat on my wife.

I do not think there should be a law against it.

I double plus do not think there should be a clause in the Constitution insisting that it should be illegal.

professore

kylith wrote: »

But you can acknowledge, surely, that his wife's case falls outside your the conditions you have previously said you find acceptable: There is no FFA, her life is not at risk. It's simply a matter of ending the pregnancy sooner rather than later. This in itself shows that the terms you would prefer to see enshrined in the constitution do not actually cover all the occasions where you yourself would be ok with abortion taking place.

I do acknowledge this. I believe I mentioned a viable fetus. If not then this could be reformed too. I really believe something constitutional could be arrived at that would work. There could be some proviso for difficult unforeseen cases. You are going to have the same problem with legislation anyway.

professore

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I believe it is wrong to cheat on my wife.

I do not think there should be a law against it.

I double plus do not think there should be a clause in the Constitution insisting that it should be illegal.

Cheating on your wife isn't a fundamental human right. The point at which you become a person with full rights is.

kylith

professore wrote: »

I do acknowledge this. I believe I mentioned a viable fetus. If not then this could be reformed too. I really believe something constitutional could be arrived at that would work. There could be some proviso for difficult unforeseen cases. You are going to have the same problem with legislation anyway.

I'm afraid that I disagree. I don't think that it is possible to have a proviso for everything in the constitution, and having to amend the constitution every time another issue with it is found would just be nightmarish. Much better to constitutionally allow for legislation which, at least, does not require an enormously expensive referendum every time something has to be changed.

professore

Below are the kinds of things that are in the constitution. Surely where these rights begin and how they apply or don't apply to an unborn child is a pretty important thing to specify?

Main Constitutional rights

Equality before the law

Right to life

Personal liberty

Freedom of expression

Freedom of assembly

Freedom of association

The right to fair procedures

Bodily integrity

Trial by jury

Religious liberty

The right to privacy

The right to earn a livelihood

Freedom to travel

Inviolability of a citizen's dwelling

Property rights

The rights of the family
The right to marital privacy. This means that couples may make their own decisions about family planning.
The right to consort together, to enjoy each other's company and to procreate. This right may be limited or restricted where a family member is in prison or where one spouse is not an Irish citizen. You can read more about prisoners' rights here.
The right of parents to be the main and natural educators of their children. The State must respect your right as parents to provide for the religious, moral, intellectual, physical and social education of your children. The State cannot oblige you to send your children to school or to any particular type of school but it may require that children receive a certain minimum education.
The right to free primary education - this means that the State must pay for your children's primary education. State aid for schools must not discriminate between schools of different religions.
The right to decide the religion of your children. The State cannot interfere with this right.
There is a constitutional principle that married parents have equal rights to and are joint guardians of their children. If the parents separate or divorce, the courts may decide who will have custody of the children. The paramount consideration is the welfare of the children.

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

Bit of an unfortunate poster by the socialist feminist movement/Rosa, given what it looks likes...

It's pretty much the international socialist feminist symbol as used in many countries. The venus symbol traditionally used to identify women, with the raised clenched fist used by most socialist movements as a method of identity, with a pretty much accurate request, what's unfortunate about it.

professore

professore wrote: »

Below are the kinds of things that are in the constitution. Surely where these rights begin and how they apply or don't apply to an unborn child is a pretty important thing to specify?

Main Constitutional rights

Equality before the law

Right to life

Personal liberty

Freedom of expression

Freedom of assembly

Freedom of association

The right to fair procedures

Bodily integrity

Trial by jury

Religious liberty

The right to privacy

The right to earn a livelihood

Freedom to travel

Inviolability of a citizen's dwelling

Property rights

The rights of the family
The right to marital privacy. This means that couples may make their own decisions about family planning.
The right to consort together, to enjoy each other's company and to procreate. This right may be limited or restricted where a family member is in prison or where one spouse is not an Irish citizen. You can read more about prisoners' rights here.
The right of parents to be the main and natural educators of their children. The State must respect your right as parents to provide for the religious, moral, intellectual, physical and social education of your children. The State cannot oblige you to send your children to school or to any particular type of school but it may require that children receive a certain minimum education.
The right to free primary education - this means that the State must pay for your children's primary education. State aid for schools must not discriminate between schools of different religions.
The right to decide the religion of your children. The State cannot interfere with this right.
There is a constitutional principle that married parents have equal rights to and are joint guardians of their children. If the parents separate or divorce, the courts may decide who will have custody of the children. The paramount consideration is the welfare of the children.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Are you arguing that a foetus should have the right to travel, to work etc.

professore

professore wrote: »

Cheating on your wife isn't a fundamental human right.

I know a few people (men and women) who believe it is.

professore

DubInMeath wrote: »

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Are you arguing that a foetus should have the right to travel, to work etc.

A newborn baby has at least some of these rights. Clearly they don't have the right to say get married but they have some rights.

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

Cheating on your wife isn't a fundamental human right.

In the analogy, that would mean abortion is not a fundamental human right. I'm cool with that, too.

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

A newborn baby has at least some of these rights.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that no, a fetus is not a child and does not have any of those rights.

It has exactly 1 constitutional right, and not for long.

kylith

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In the analogy, that would mean abortion is not a fundamental human right. I'm cool with that, too.

I think it would fall under bodily autonomy.

RobertKK

DubInMeath wrote: »

It's pretty much the international socialist feminist symbol as used in many countries. The venus symbol traditionally used to identify women, with the raised clenched fist used by most socialist movements as a method of identity, with a pretty much accurate request, what's unfortunate about it.

Just think what non socialist feminists might think it looks like in an abortion referendum. You can disagree but just saying it is unfortunate...

NuMarvel

professore wrote: »

I do acknowledge this. I believe I mentioned a viable fetus. If not then this could be reformed too. I really believe something constitutional could be arrived at that would work. There could be some proviso for difficult unforeseen cases. You are going to have the same problem with legislation anyway.

The difference is a problem with legislation can be fixed pretty quickly, whereas a problem with the constitution would take an absolute minimum of 32 days to fix (assuming no objections or delays whatsoever) and almost certainly still needs new legislation anyway. That's a minimum of 32 days that whoever is suffering because of the problem has to wait.

If it was one of your daughters, would you really be happy that they had to wait that month (or longer), just because someone wasn't completely satisfied with the normal legislative process?