The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

SusieBlue

stockdam wrote: »

Ok let's agree then that's murder. I was exploring what is ok after birth and before the chord is cut. You are saying that once the baby is outside of the mother then it's murder. Fine.......is it ok 5 minutes before birth? When does the child begin to have a right?

This was brought up literally only about 2 days ago. Read back on the thread.

stockdam

robarmstrong wrote: »

Dunno what you're pitching here, it's all irrelevant unless you're directly insinuating that repealing the 8th will lead to abortions right up to birth.

Didn't say that ....... I asked when do you think the child starts to have rights. It's a simple question and forget about what is law or not law. When is your cutoff point when the child starts to have a right?

Ave Sodalis

stockdam wrote: »

Yes you are putting words into my mouth. I never once jumped to the conclusion nor implied it. Your argument is based on what you think I think.

You literally said it in your first post:

stockdam wrote: »

An abortion will terminate its existence/life.

robarmstrong

stockdam wrote: »

Didn't say that ....... I asked when do you think the child starts to have rights. It's a simple question and forget about what is law or not law. When is your cutoff point when the child starts to have a right?

It doesn't matter when I think the child starts to have rights, you cannot forget what is law and what is not law, law dictates that the only right the unborn has is the right to life, nothing else until they are born.

Does it make sense to award a developing fetus rights equivalent to that of an existing citizen? Absolutely not so again, you aren't making sense.

stockdam

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Mostly because that has been done to death, and a quick search over this thread will give you an answer.

Secondly, you were complaining of a strawman argument, and then immediately launched into one of your own.

And finally, I'm tired. Tired of the same arguments, tired of the head in the sand, tired of the complete and utter ignorance to the reality of what the 8th does to people.

Have a look back, read robs situation, he's a guy, that wants a baby with his wife, but a freak of nature means that if/when his wife gets pregnant, the risk of miscarrying is high, due to where it gets implanted. So rather than being able to take charge of it, and terminate the (much wanted) pregnancy if it goes tits up (again) they're forced to wait.

Read In Her Shoes, there's a million different reasons why someone might need access to an abortion.

Its been happening since day dot, pints of gin, hot baths, falling down the stairs, coathangers, trips to England, ordering pills online, whatever.

I'd just prefer if women could do it, with less risk, and without fear of imprisonment.

So stop reading what I post.

Firstly you have zero idea of what I have been through.....zilch. I have had to face a difficult decision and I am not implying for one second that there is one black and white answer. I have been there so let's stop this rubbish of pretending that you are in any way better. Just stop reading and asking questions.

Yes I'll use a strawman in reply to a strawman to show how utterly pointless it is.

stockdam

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

You literally said it in your first post:

Ok so go on.........you then came to a "logical conclusion" which is your belief and not mine. You are now mixing up what I said and your conclusion of what you believe that it means. What's your point?

robarmstrong

stockdam wrote: »

So stop reading what I post.

Firstly you have zero idea of what I have been through.....zilch. I have had to face a difficult decision and I am not implying for one second that there is one black and white answer. I have been there so let's stop this rubbish of pretending that you are in any way better. Just stop reading and asking questions.

Yes I'll use a strawman in reply to a strawman to show how utterly pointless it is.

I'll bite, what have you been through, and what was the difficult decision you had to face?

Generally a decision is based off of a selection of options, i.e a choice.

stockdam

robarmstrong wrote: »

It doesn't matter when I think the child starts to have rights, you cannot forget what is law and what is not law, law dictates that the only right the unborn has is the right to life, nothing else until they are born.

Does it make sense to award a developing fetus rights equivalent to that of an existing citizen? Absolutely not so again, you aren't making sense.

So no answer then......I thought it was a debate but you expect me to answer your questions but you avoid answering mine.

Wrongway1985

stockdam wrote: »

It really comes down to belief. I believe that is is not right to terminate a fetus and would therefore vote accordingly.

Nobody is suggesting terminations are in any way right, unfortunately they may be necessary and they occur anyway, the 8th restricts these women whose lives may be at risk, if you think about the living breathing women in your life, would you actually believe the rights of a recently fused egg and sperm are to be of an equal footing?

stockdam

robarmstrong wrote: »

I'll bite, what have you been through, and what was the difficult decision you had to face?

Generally a decision is based off of a selection of options, i.e a choice.

That's personal and nothing to do with you.

captbarnacles

stockdam wrote: »

So if you don't believe that something is right then your only solution appears to to be to use force to stop it? Nobody is pretending that it is easy to "solve".

Ok since I'm the one getting all the questions then let's start to balance it up.

Do I have the right to hold a belief that the child and father have rights? If so then do I have right to vote whichever way I feel is right? Does that lead to me agreeing that a woman should be put into jail?

Yes, yes and yes.

Your vote is effectively only for a principle (because you do not care that it is enforced and is happening anyway) that consequently causes harm and suffering to pregnant women.

robarmstrong

stockdam wrote: »

That's personal and nothing to do with you.

Right so let me get this straight.

You've come on ranting and raving, have asked ridiculous questions and made outright strange assumptions, you make a statement about something you've been through, and a difficult decision you had to make yet you don't want to share it at all despite it more than likely being relevant to the discussion at hand.

Yep, seen this before.

stockdam

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting terminations are in any way right, unfortunately they may be necessary and they occur anyway, the 8th restricts these women whose lives may be at risk, if you think about the living breathing women in your life, would you actually believe the rights of a recently fused egg and sperm are to be of an equal footing?

No I don't. I said the fetus does have rights. It cannot just be because the mother doesn't want the child. I also said that the father also has a right to be able to bring up a child.

I also said that it becomes a difficult debate unless you remove all rights other than the mothers.

robarmstrong

A fetus doesn't have rights, it has one right. Singular, not plural.

stockdam

captbarnacles wrote: »

Yes, yes and yes.

Your vote is effectively only for a principle (because you do not care that it is enforced and is happening anyway) that consequently causes harm and suffering to pregnant women.

The third yes is your view and not mine.

amdublin

tunguska wrote: »

I went to a discussion on the 8th ammendment at the weekend. Myself and another person where the only ones there who were planning on voting Yes, the rest were all voting No. Without exception these people were open, patient and kind. They listened to what I had to say, they didnt try and convince me I was wrong, they didnt try to shout me down. They didnt try and cloud my views with lies, and most of all, they werent concerned in any way with taking away anyones choice. They were concerned with life, thats all. There was no conspiracy to control anyone in anyway. I learned a lot by listening to them and not being so attached to my own views. So you just dont know what you might learn by being open, not being so attached to your own views and letting go of antagonism.

What kind of discussion did you go to? I'm thinking it was one hosted by the anti choice side? Like I haven't heard of any that are not facilitated by one side. Or the other.

Anyway. So they are concerned with life. Please share your learnings. Did you learn why it feels like they only care about the life of the unborn? And care nothing about the actual living woman?

So I'm pro life. I'm.assuming you are too? Who isn't actually?
And I'm also pro choice.
I wonder could the anti choicers learn from that?

Do you think they learnt anything from you at this strange and unique little discussion where you and your friend were the only two yes voters with all those no voters / anti choicers?

Ave Sodalis

stockdam wrote: »

Ok so go on.........you then came to a "logical conclusion" which is your belief and not mine. You are now mixing up what I said and your conclusion of what you believe that it means. What's your point?

It's not a belief.

You claim abortion is termination of life. Abortion is illegal ergo abortion is an unlawful termination of life. The unlawful termination of life is murder. Murder means jail time, and I don't think many people would disagree with sending a murderer to jail. People would also not be allowing people to go overseas to murder.

None of this is a belief. And yet, if you believe abortion is murder (which is what an unlawful termination of life is. There's no ifs, buts, or maybes about it), then it stands to reason that you believe women should be jailed for murder. This is not a strawman. None of this is a strawman. It is taking what you said and applying the exact same logic to a different situation, and getting different outcomes. It's getting you and other pro-life supporters to see where they logical fallacy is.

Wrongway1985

stockdam wrote: »

No I don't. I said the fetus does have rights. It cannot just be because the mother doesn't want the child. I also said that the father also has a right to be able to bring up a child.

I also said that it becomes a difficult debate unless you remove all rights other than the mothers.

You don't seem to get it...if the mother doesn't want the child if she has the means/money she can seek abortion in the U.K. or if not the means (poor most likely) and forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy or possibly criminal charges from buying pills online or other methods. People want their troubled relatives to not have to go underground and be ignored by their own country in times of crisis.

People are not advocating repeal as a means of contraception which is what you seem to suggest.

Fathers role in a childs life is nothing to do with the 8th amendment.

Ave Sodalis

I'm just thinking about those new No posters. It says in it's justification (not on the posters obviously, that's far too limiting for the public to see) that the 6 months they're referring to is under mental health ground. It was pointed out earlier in the thread that that's what's happening now anyway. However, just to add to that, I had a look at the statute and there isn't actually a time limit on the current Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. So the proposed legislation is actually more restricted and conservative in that regard than what's currently in place.

It wasnt me123

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That poll you're referring to has 47% support for Yes, 28% for No. Red C reported 56% for Yes, 26% for No last month, that's what has me worried about a "Shy No" rearing its head when the votes are counted.

I respect your view but I would think there would be just as many shy yes voters out there - this topic has touched most families in the State - the neighbours just don't know about it and so they would be reluctant be seen to support Repeal.

I actually still think it will be 70 / 30 for Repeal, I think those don't knows could be split between both camps and that will see Repeal win.

I'm not complacent, niave or any other adjective that I have been described here as - I'm a woman who is of an age that I have never been able to vote on this subject - and there are alot of us - and anyone with a shred of compassion will be voting repeal.

Annasopra

circular flexing wrote: »

None of the no side material has been fact checked - they are completely making stuff up. I hope people are waking up to this more and more.

Its gas. There is a save the 8th leaflet that quotes the Irish Times as a source. The source it refers back to is a newspaper article reporting the claim..

Annasopra

tunguska wrote: »

Me and a friend were leaving a restaurant sunday afternoon when we come upon a "Vote No" poster which someone had taken the liberty to write upon in black marker. What that person wrote seemed pretty ignorant and aggressive. Ive since come across a number of "No" posters that had been defaced or damaged. I have yet to come across one "Vote Yes" poster that had been interfered with. There seems to be an under current of aggression to this whole thing, coming from only one side I might add. Its the side that thinks its right and has the higher moral ground. But all this shows is that when someone doesnt agree with the majority view they are set upon. Respect peoples views please. Even if you dont agree with the other person respect their right to have a different outlook than you.
I'll be voting yes, but I still think that some folks on the Yes side of things need to grow up and stop being so aggressive. I noticed the same thing around the time of the Marriage referendum not so long ago. Like a liberal mafia going after anyone who dare to vote a different way to them. Have a civilised debate and be open minded, if you put aside your own anger you might actually learn something from someone who doesnt agree with you.

A lot of yes posters have been robbed or stickers put over them. Absolute drivel to say only no the campaign is the victim of dirty tactics.

NuMarvel

tunguska wrote: »

Me and a friend were leaving a restaurant sunday afternoon when we come upon a "Vote No" poster which someone had taken the liberty to write upon in black marker. What that person wrote seemed pretty ignorant and aggressive.

What's on most No posters is pretty ignorant and aggressive to begin with, so how could you tell the difference?

_Dara_

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

To be fair...You see a poster defaced, you're not going to Google to see what the score sheet is. Doesn't mean you don't care, just commenting on what you witnessed.

Well, I agree. I just assume there’s been some defacing on both sides. I’m just suspicious when people only focus on the misdeeds of one side.

amdublin

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

A lot of yes posters have been robbed or stickers put over them. Absolute drivel to say only no the campaign is the victim of dirty tactics.

Whoaaaaaaaaaa

The aggression there. Ouch











Lol
Jk
Playing the victim is fun

tunguska

BabysCoffee wrote: »

What did you learn?

Why dont you go and talk to some people from the No side, find out what you might learn yourself. Like actually listen to them instead of trying to win an argument.

amdublin

tunguska wrote: »

Why dont you go and talk to some people from the No side, find out what you might learn yourself. Like actually listen to them instead of trying to win an argument.

Why not just share with us here? You said you learnt stuff, now back it up and give us an idea of what you learned?


Ps. What kind of discussion meeting were you even at???

NuMarvel

tunguska wrote: »

Why dont you go and talk to some people from the No side, find out what you might learn yourself. Like actually listen to them instead of trying to win an argument.

We learn plenty from the spokespeople, like McGuire and Sherlock and Quinn. None of it is good.

tunguska

NuMarvel wrote: »

What's on most No posters is pretty ignorant and aggressive to begin with, so how could you tell the difference?

If youre defacing a poster it means youre a coward who hasnt got the courage to go talk to someone face to face.

iguana

tunguska wrote: »

Why dont you go and talk to some people from the No side, find out what you might learn yourself. Like actually listen to them instead of trying to win an argument.

No sorry, I'd really like to know what you have learned. You came on here to tell us you'd really learned something, so it would actually be really cool if you could share what you have learned. Because I might go and learn something but it might not be the same something, so I'd very specifically like to know what you have learned. It must have been something notable for you to have come on and told us that it had happened, so please share it.