Eighth Amendment poll

Started by Farrandeelin, May 01, 2018, 03:36:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Are you in favour of repealing the 8th amendment?

Yes
47 (21.8%)
Yes but have no vote
73 (33.8%)
No
40 (18.5%)
No but have no vote
36 (16.7%)
Undecided
20 (9.3%)

Total Members Voted: 216

Voting closed: May 24, 2018, 03:36:55 PM

omaghjoe

Quote from: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 07:51:51 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 05:56:13 PM

I am talking of your proposal to kick the issue of the proposed legislation down the road when we know what the legislation will be and which you have expressed direct support for. It is an attempting to gerrymander the issues. Your moving the goalposts on what people should vote on.

Some people do vote on single issues, most don't. And as I said with a parliamentary democracy which is currently governed by 25% of the vote, along with party whips, political bargaining, proportional representation etc etc and single issues like this are like a needle in a haystack.

This referendum is an opportunity for all the electorate to do just that

And what would your attitude be if there was no proposed legislation?

I can tell you straight up what the attitude of most No suporters would be.

They would be making it a major campaign issue and accusing the Government of dishonesty, underhand tactics, and "an attempt to hoodwink the Irish people into a regime of baby murder", and other such bullshit like that.

You wouldn't be calling it a single issue campaign.

You'd be screaming from the rooftops about "why should we trust politicians".

Oh wait, you're doing that already.

The bottom line here is that the No supporters will find any excuse to muddy the waters, outright lie and create as much fear and scaremongering as possible, and they would have been the exact same thing anyway had there been no proposed legislation.

Meanwhile, they completely fail to deal with the proven serious issues that the 8th Amendment has brought. They have no solutions to them.

Your talking about a scenario that is not this situation so really your just speculating. Tho I am amazing to see how well you know how the entire opposite side of the fence is thinking impressive stuff, but I suspect (open to correction of course) your just making it up to demonise those who think differently just like you have done with me.
The Government have been straight up and honest about what will happe so people can know what the consequences of a yes vote will be

I haven't said anything about trusting politicians about this issue, tho only an eejit would trust a politician in general.

Your the one mudding the waters, going over old ground, telling lies, not answering questions, digressing and with virtually every sentence playing the man.

None of this tho takes away from the central question of:

Since the vast majority of abortions will be carried out on healthy babies should such babies have no right to life? and should the mother's right to choose always supersede any right of the child?

Syferus

#241
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 09:36:22 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 07:51:51 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 05:56:13 PM

I am talking of your proposal to kick the issue of the proposed legislation down the road when we know what the legislation will be and which you have expressed direct support for. It is an attempting to gerrymander the issues. Your moving the goalposts on what people should vote on.

Some people do vote on single issues, most don't. And as I said with a parliamentary democracy which is currently governed by 25% of the vote, along with party whips, political bargaining, proportional representation etc etc and single issues like this are like a needle in a haystack.

This referendum is an opportunity for all the electorate to do just that

And what would your attitude be if there was no proposed legislation?

I can tell you straight up what the attitude of most No suporters would be.

They would be making it a major campaign issue and accusing the Government of dishonesty, underhand tactics, and "an attempt to hoodwink the Irish people into a regime of baby murder", and other such bullshit like that.

You wouldn't be calling it a single issue campaign.

You'd be screaming from the rooftops about "why should we trust politicians".

Oh wait, you're doing that already.

The bottom line here is that the No supporters will find any excuse to muddy the waters, outright lie and create as much fear and scaremongering as possible, and they would have been the exact same thing anyway had there been no proposed legislation.

Meanwhile, they completely fail to deal with the proven serious issues that the 8th Amendment has brought. They have no solutions to them.

Your talking about a scenario that is not this situation so really your just speculating. Tho I am amazing to see how well you know how the entire opposite side of the fence is thinking impressive stuff, but I suspect (open to correction of course) your just making it up to demonise those who think differently just like you have done with me.
The Government have been straight up and honest about what will happe so people can know what the consequences of a yes vote will be

I haven't said anything about trusting politicians about this issue, tho only an eejit would trust a politician in general.

Your the one mudding the waters, going over old ground, telling lies, not answering questions, digressing and with virtually every sentence playing the man.

None of this tho takes away from the central question of:

Since the vast majority of abortions will be carried out on healthy babies should such babies have no right to life? and should the mother's right to choose always supersede any right of the child?

Even calling a twelve week-old embryo a 'baby' is an incredible push. Emotive language unmoored from any logic.

Like every other western country, we will get abortion in time like every other human right and the side who opposed the granting of that right will fade into a fringe group within a generation. More than anything the No side people are deeply frightened because they know their argument will never be good enough to reverse a Yes vote, but they know even a No vote will only realistically delay the inevitable.

The Iceman

I really hope your significant other doesn't experience the loss of a baby at 12 weeks...or any week.
I don't understand your outlook on this at all - I see no regard for life, no feelings or empathy for the baby and a strong aggressive push to bring elective abortion to Ireland and label it a human right and progress. You'll know in the end....
I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight

sid waddell

#243
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 09:28:21 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 07:40:36 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 05:28:46 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 04:45:02 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 02:49:08 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 12:55:33 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 09, 2018, 12:28:34 AM
We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.
I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence.

The nonsense I was taking about was your action of copy and pasting whole articles into this thread not that the actual stories ::)

I have discussed them, multiple times and I have said a better solution needs to be found for many of cases

Yes I am talking about real human rights, the first most basic right is the right to life, all other rights are subsequent to that primary right

I have laid out

Sure it was. Just admit that you don't people quoting articles from reputable sources and actual real life experiences because both have a habit of destroying your argument.

Here's Article 1 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Note the key word "born".

You don't get to impose your own, erroneous definition of human rights, thanks.

The UN also states that Ireland's abortion laws are "cruel and inhumane".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/un-denounces-ireland-abortion-laws-as-cruel-and-inhumane-again

"Cruel and inhumane" are not words that are associated with human rights.

I know its probably easier to depict me as an evil monster in your head, so with that depiction you probably know what I was thinking better than the real me does. Post a link like you did in this post.
You have barely addressed my arguments or questions, you just keep going around in circles with the same mantra.

Firstly "Born free" is a well used (American) phrase in the context of liberties I do not think that it is intended to be taken as literally at birth. All rights are not suddenly bestowed on a child at birth.. For example you don't even have the right to vote, work, drive, drink etc until much older, so we are not all equal in terms of rights at birth. Also the right to life before birth to some degree is guaranteed in law in virtually every member state of the UN. Using your interpretation a child could have its life terminated during labour with no legal consequences.
You using a well used phrase out of context as a legal justification.

As I said before Human beings lifecycle is defined at conception and it is from that point that the right to life must be bestowed. To end their life is cruel and inhuman

Of course, I could have well guessed you'd simply dismiss the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as you simply dismiss everything else.

We weren't talking about the right to drive or to work or to drink, but continue on down your rabbit hole by all means.

Of course the unborn are protected to some degree in every state - as they will be here if the proposed legislation is passed. In most states, they're called abortion laws. That's laws, whichare legislated for, as to opoosed to blunt, inflexible constitutional provisions like we have in Ireland.

The crux of the matter is this - we cannot afford the same right to life to the unborn that we afford to an actual born human, because that unborn is contained within an actual born human woman, who must always take precedence.

To afford the same right to life to an unborn as to the born, the reality is you must trample over the human rights of the actual born woman.

That's what Ireland did, and it predictably proved to be a disaster. It is that specific thinking which led to Savita Halappanavar's death and to cases like the Michelle Harte, the X Case and many, many others.

It is an utterly ridiculous point to maintain that a zygote should have the same right to life as the woman carrying it.

Can you tell me why that zygote should have the same right to life as the woman carrying it?

Can I also pose the same question to you specifically that I posed in general to No supporters earlier?

If a woman, say, takes an abortion pill that successfully works to abort an embryo or a foetus (abortion pills can work anywhere up to 12 weeks), should she face 14 years in jail?

You do understand that this is already happening every single day in Ireland and isn't going to stop if No wins?

What is your answer to the thousands of Irish women that are taking abortion pills in this state?

I didn't dismiss the UN Bill of human rights merely pointing out your twisted interpretation of it for your own agenda, all the rights are not present at birth or for a good few years afterwards.

I have repeatedly said that the actual born woman takes precedence so please stop with that straw man.
Repeating a straw man does not make it rational or true.

Under the proposed legislation the unborn child will be afforded no legal protection.
This leads to abortion on request for children that have no health issues there needs to be some degree of legal protection for healthy unborn consensually conceived babies of which the vast majority of abortions will be carried out on.

The punishment should fit the crime and they differ for every circumstance. 14 years seems excessive but I am sure someone could point to a case where a child was naturally conceived where the abortion was carried out in a fit of rage to spite someone else, like a partner. Or because the child is a girl instead of a boy or something like that. In those cases 14years seems about right especially if its a repeat offence.
But 14 years seems excessive for the majority of the convenience abortions, I know a lot of woman are in crisis not thinking straight, bad influences etc etc. I believe women who abandon their babies aren't usually charged, or those suffering postpartum depression who hurt kill their babies are usually found not to be liable for their actions. Similar compassion should with abortion but of course it all depends on the circumstance.

I have answered yours questions so can you answer me this one which I have asked repeatedly...

Since the vast majority of abortions will be carried out on healthy babies should such babies (embyros/humans etc) have no right to life? and should the mother's right to choose always supersede any right to life of the child?
I didn't twist the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in any way.

You talked about the supposed "right to life" as a human right. The way you framed that was clearly as an absolute right. I've already explained why that shouldn't be offered to the unborn and why when it is, as in Ireland's case, it proves to be a disaster.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't offer it to the unborn and neither do other European countries. That doesn't mean the unborn don't have rights under abortion laws. They clearly do, that is why time limits are imposed for elective abortion.

If you believe the woman carrying an unborn takes precedence, then you believe the 8th Amendment must go as the 8th Amendment denies this.

As I said prevously, abortion is happening in Ireland right now. Thousands of Irish women abort using pills which work up to 12 weeks.

If you believe 14 years is an appropriate punishment, what should be done about these women? How do you plan to catch them and punish them? How do you plan to lock them up, because there are a hell of a lot of them and there isn't space in our prisons for them.

Why are the No campaign furiously denying they want to see any women locked up?

If a woman murders a (born) baby, she will almost certainly go to jail. See the link to the Jennifer Crichton case earlier. I absolutely agree that a woman who murders a baby should go to jail unless there are serious mental health issues at play.

But the so called pro-life side claim that an unborn, from conception, is a human being. Yet they say they don't want women to go to jail if they have an abortion. This doesn't make sense. One either believes that abortion is a human being or they don't, and if they do, why the difference in prescribed punishment, or lack of it, for killing a born baby versus an unborn foetus?

If there is a threat to health at any stage in the pregnancy, I believe the woman's right should always supercede that of the foetus, yes, and it should never ever be subservient in any circumstances. In practice, under the 8th Amendment, it is.

I firmly believe women all should have the right to choose up to a specified time limit. I'm happy with 12 weeks as the limit as it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now, ie. 0, but I would be happier with a higher limit, as I've said, previously, perhaps 16 weeks or 18 as Sweden have. Nevertheless, the fact is that the vast majority of abortions are carried out before 12 weeks. After that, as the foetus develops sentience in the post 20 week period it becomes a matter of balancing rights as is best possible. I'm happy with the provisions for up to 6 months for threat to health etc. After that in the rare cases where the pregnancy needs to ended it will become a case of inducing labour if necessary with the primary aim to save the mother, but also with the aim of delivering a healthy baby. The proposed legislation is a quantum leap forward for Irish women.

The question of possible "exceptions" has been brought up here.

Now, let's say the 8th Amendment is abolished, and legislators are free to frame legislation. The problem with legislating only for, say, rape and incest, is that it would place at least some burden of proof on the mother to prove she had been raped. Under normal circumstances, and as we saw so clearly in Belfast recently, rape is a very difficult crime to prove, and it will never, ever be proved in the time frame of a resulting pregnancy.

So, how do you prove it? We know rape is a hugely underreported crime and in reality there are a huge number of rape victims out there who have never even reported it.

What burden of proof would be required? It would have to be reported for a start. Then a woman would presumably have to come before a panel a very short time after her rape and attempt to prove to some as of yet unknown burden of proof that she had been raped.

During and after Belfast many people talked about how it felt it was the complainant on trial, not the defendants. Legislating only for cases such as rape is a recipe for victims to be put on trial in order to obtain an abortion. I really don't think we want that.

I can get that people don't like abortion. Nobody "likes" abortion. Nobody is saying "go abortion!" But it is necessary for women's welfare for it to be available to all. The alternative is that a particular, narrow view of morality continues to be imposed on everybody. Whereas pro-choice campaigners are not attempting to impose their morality on anybody. Nobody would be forcing anybody to have an abortion.

The reality that No campaigners must face up to is, as I have already said, that abortion is already happening in Ireland. Anybody can buy abortion pills online. They work up to 12 weeks.

So we have thousands of women carrying out their own abortions (currently illegally, of course). Now these pills will generally be safe, but there is always the chance of something going wrong. Perhaps the mother has an underlying health condition which makes it unsafe for her to take an abortion pill.

What happens if something goes wrong? What if a woman has an adverse reaction to the pill and needs urgent medical help? She'll already have been in a vulnerable position given she is taking the pill to terminate her crisis pregnancy in the first place. What goes through her mind? If she goes to a public hospital, she'll have to tell the staff that she has had an abortion via a pill. And what if somebody on the staff is a strict Catholic and reports her? A 14 year prison sentence could hang over her.

So, should we leave women who encounter complications as a result of taking abortion pills to face a nightmarish dilemma between i) not seeking medical help, which could result in grave health implications, and ii) presenting at a hospital and possibly facing prison time?

Or do we face up to reality and legalise it, regulate it and make it safe for everybody?

Because, it is happening, a No vote won't mean it's not happening - it will be delusion, and it will be cowardice. We will just continue on as before, and the reality will be swept under the carpet.




sid waddell

Quote from: The Iceman on May 10, 2018, 12:19:41 AM
I really hope your significant other doesn't experience the loss of a baby at 12 weeks...or any week.
I don't understand your outlook on this at all - I see no regard for life, no feelings or empathy for the baby and a strong aggressive push to bring elective abortion to Ireland and label it a human right and progress. You'll know in the end....
The bit you write about having no regard for life or no feelings or empathy is absolute nonsense.

That is in fact what I see everywhere from No supporters - the lack of feelings and empathy for women, the vile hatred online, and scant regard for their lives.

Remember, just five years ago, the exact same people who are campaigning against this referendum - Cora Sherlock, Ronan Mullen, William Binchy etc., were all over the airwaves telling us why a suicidal woman should be forced to give birth against her will.

Put yourself in the shoes of a woman experiencing a crisis pregnancy who feels they need an abortion.

Or put yourself in the shoes of someone who has a loved one experiencing a crisis pregnancy and feels they needs an abortion.

See what your answer is.

I would strongly advise every person voting to do this.




magpie seanie

Quote from: macdanger2 on May 09, 2018, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 11:24:07 AM

Also, making rape an exception is a terrible idea.


I asked a question on this previously but didn't see an answer on it - what's the situation going to be in cases of rape under the proposed new legislation?

As I understand it there is no separate provision and I understand why. How would it work? Would the woman have the prove she was raped and how would she do that? How long would it take? Unpalatable and all as the elective 12 weeks might be if you really think about it then it's clear to see it's the only sensible approach. It provides for these cases and the vast majority of "trips to England" that are and have taken place for years and years.

longballin

It does seem the NO side have no regard for the physical or mental wellbeing of women. But that is how the Catholic Church traditionally treated women.

macdanger2

Quote from: magpie seanie on May 10, 2018, 09:28:20 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on May 09, 2018, 08:43:28 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 09, 2018, 11:24:07 AM

Also, making rape an exception is a terrible idea.


I asked a question on this previously but didn't see an answer on it - what's the situation going to be in cases of rape under the proposed new legislation?

As I understand it there is no separate provision and I understand why. How would it work? Would the woman have the prove she was raped and how would she do that? How long would it take? Unpalatable and all as the elective 12 weeks might be if you really think about it then it's clear to see it's the only sensible approach. It provides for these cases and the vast majority of "trips to England" that are and have taken place for years and years.

Yeah, I understand the problems around a woman having to "prove" she was raped if there were special provisions for it and I doubt there's any good solution to it. The 12 weeks limit doesn't fully solve the problem for women who are raped though as they may not know they're pregnant/ may not have told anyone about what happened/ may not have decided what to do with the baby. Many of these women will still have to go to England.

Personally I would be more comfortable with a lower general limit and a significantly higher limit for difficult cases although I appreciate it's not easy to accommodate this.

macdanger2

Quote from: longballin on May 10, 2018, 09:29:00 AM
It does seem the NO side have no regard for the physical or mental wellbeing of women. But that is how the Catholic Church traditionally treated women.

This type of attitude is not particularly helpful to the debate but it tends to be prevalent among most of those we hear in the media. So many seem to think that there are NO valid reasons for voting the other way and it ends up that the No side labels anyone thinking about voting Yes as a murderer while the Yes side labels anyone thinking about voting No as having no respect for women. The way it's developed reminds me of American politics and Brexit. Is the reality not that there are legitimate reasons for voting either way and it's a matter of weighing up those and making your own decision.

sid waddell

Until 1869, the Roman Catholic Church saw no problem with abortion up to 166 days, or almost 24 weeks.


Tubberman

Quote from: sid waddell on May 10, 2018, 10:38:06 AM
Until 1869, the Roman Catholic Church saw no problem with abortion up to 166 days, or almost 24 weeks.



Very little relevance to 2018!
I'm not religious at all (haven't been in a church outside weddings/funerals/christenings in 20 years I'd say) and still have major issues with repealing the amendment and the proposed legislation.
Don't make the lazy assumption that all No voters are bible thumpers. 
"Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall."

Rossfan

The "Roman" Catholic Church said Earth was the Centre of the Universe once and also said the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

sid waddell

Quote from: Tubberman on May 10, 2018, 10:50:54 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 10, 2018, 10:38:06 AM
Until 1869, the Roman Catholic Church saw no problem with abortion up to 166 days, or almost 24 weeks.



Very little relevance to 2018!
I'm not religious at all (haven't been in a church outside weddings/funerals/christenings in 20 years I'd say) and still have major issues with repealing the amendment and the proposed legislation.
Don't make the lazy assumption that all No voters are bible thumpers.
It has a lot of relevance in that a supposedly "unchanging" fact according to the Roman Catholic Church is in fact a relatively recent concept as far as they are concerned.

I mean, were abortions carried out in 1868 not murder but abortions carried out in 1870 murder?

Certainly I don't think there were any significant changes in biology during those two years.



sid waddell

Quote from: Rossfan on May 10, 2018, 10:55:16 AM
The "Roman" Catholic Church said Earth was the Centre of the Universe once and also said the Sun revolved around the Earth.
And until 2007 they said that "limbo" exists.

Does an unbaptised baby who was born and died in 2006 go to limbo, but an unbaptised baby which was born and died in 2008 go to heaven?

gallsman

Quote from: The Iceman on May 10, 2018, 12:19:41 AM
I really hope your significant other doesn't experience the loss of a baby at 12 weeks...or any week.
I don't understand your outlook on this at all - I see no regard for life, no feelings or empathy for the baby and a strong aggressive push to bring elective abortion to Ireland and label it a human right and progress. You'll know in the end....

You are such a pathetic, shit-stirring bellend.

Trying to draw equivalence between losing a child and abortion. Utterly embarrassing.

If your wife was raped and impregnated you'd be down the clinic in no time.