Eighth Amendment poll

[magpie seanie]

Bunreacht na hÉireann recognises the fundamental personal rights of citizens and there is no right more fundamental than the right to life. The purpose of the eight amendment to the constitution is to protect and vindicate the right to life of the unborn. The right to life is not just another civil right – because it will be matter of life or death for perfectly healthy human embryos there is every justification for this right to be built into our constitution.

Re. the argument that women should have autonomy over their own bodies and therefore have the right to choose abortion – where one stands on this depends on each person's beliefs and value system. Personally it goes against my beliefs but I am not moralising to others – I'm just trying to explain the "No" side of the argument. I accept that a sizeable proportion of the electorate (of every religious denomination and none) with vote Yes in good conscience. However I would worry that a sizeable number of voters might cast their vote without proper consideration of the consequences of a successful vote for repeal.

From Two Lives, One Love :
Where a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment which may, as a secondary effect, put the life of her baby at risk, such treatments are always ethically permissible provided every effort has been made to save the life of both the mother and her baby.

It is offensive and wrong for the Yes side to suggest that No voters are / will be denying women healthcare.

No it is not. It is clearly happening. The vast majority of the medical professionals involved in this field and their professional organisations completely disagree with your statement. Perhaps you are actually correct but the evidence of so many women and the expertise of the professionals is what I'd go along with.

When basic facts like this are being flagrantly denied or contested it's difficult to maintain a conversation.

[omaghjoe]

Bunreacht na hÉireann recognises the fundamental personal rights of citizens and there is no right more fundamental than the right to life. The purpose of the eight amendment to the constitution is to protect and vindicate the right to life of the unborn. The right to life is not just another civil right – because it will be matter of life or death for perfectly healthy human embryos there is every justification for this right to be built into our constitution.

Re. the argument that women should have autonomy over their own bodies and therefore have the right to choose abortion – where one stands on this depends on each person's beliefs and value system. Personally it goes against my beliefs but I am not moralising to others – I'm just trying to explain the "No" side of the argument. I accept that a sizeable proportion of the electorate (of every religious denomination and none) with vote Yes in good conscience. However I would worry that a sizeable number of voters might cast their vote without proper consideration of the consequences of a successful vote for repeal.

From Two Lives, One Love :
Where a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment which may, as a secondary effect, put the life of her baby at risk, such treatments are always ethically permissible provided every effort has been made to save the life of both the mother and her baby.

It is offensive and wrong for the Yes side to suggest that No voters are / will be denying women healthcare.

No it is not. It is clearly happening. The vast majority of the medical professionals involved in this field and their professional organisations completely disagree with your statement. Perhaps you are actually correct but the evidence of so many women and the expertise of the professionals is what I'd go along with.

When basic facts like this are being flagrantly denied or contested it's difficult to maintain a conversation.

If it is reasonable to do that then it is even more rationale to depict the Yes side as aiding and abetting prenatal culling.

I don't think either is a reasonable depiction BTW.

But if woman are denied healthcare it is to protect the life of another.
What do the medical professional say about the healthcare provided to the child? oh it doesn't get any.... in fact we take undertake the action of ending his/her life

[sid waddell]

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 like 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.

[easytiger95]

Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

A parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite it involves multiple issues.

This however is a plebiscite on the 8th amendment and the consequences of it being removed of which the main one is the introduction of legislation for elective abortions for no medical reason at 12weeks.

To try and paint this referendum as anything else is either completely niave or just plain old dishonesty.

Still the sharpest knife in the drawer I see Joe.

That must leave you as the butter knife Tiger

I am talking about the fact that if this referendum is passed, the legislation that will follow can be changed, by the wishes of the electorate by....you guessed it, voting out those who passed the legislation and voting in those with new, more draconian policies. So I wasn't actually talking about the process of the referendum, as I qualified at the start. I was talking about the subsequent democratic process.

You can apologise for your naivety or dishonesty at your leisure.

I wouldn't be walking around with sharp scissors if I were you.

Yes... and I was telling you that a parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite. People will vote on how a range of issues, for example in West Tyrone if the Shinners somehow managed (they wont) to get the A5 built, sorted out Brexit, and got Stormont going again I MIGHT consider voting for them...(if I had a vote) in spite of their position on this issue!

Not to mention that the current government in the Dail got 25% of the popular vote... not exactly democratic, throw in party whips and proportional representation and single issues soon get mired.

In Indyref many Scots did not vote yes because the case of independence hadn't laid out the economic plan of independence. You cant make a decision if you don't know what the consequences will be.
And the consequences of voting Yes on the 8th have been made clear by the incumbent government and that is that healthy humans will have their lives legally ended without ever having a chance or choice.

Besides I dunno why your trying to reduce this to purely about the question asked, you've expressed support for those consequences havent you? So give your rationale for that instead of trying to narrow the remit on what people should be voting on in this referendum.

What are you talking about? I already gave my reasons for voting yes. Read back the thread.

People vote on single issues in general elections all the time - see 2nd amendment voters in the US, UKIP voters (now Tories) in the UK. I believe you are the one limiting choice by saying people cannot do so. Of course they can, if they choose to, at the expense of other issues.

All I was pointing out was that, should the referendum be passed, given we live in a parliamentary democracy, the legislation that is causing No voters such distress (and genuine distress I am sure) can be modified in the future by the election of a government with a mandate to do so. Which is one advantage of taking this issue out of the constitution.

It is a simple point.

Careful about the scissors.

[omaghjoe]

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

[Syferus]

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

Well you better get used to this brave new 'cruel' world where we let women have control over their own bodies, because it's happening with or without your permission.

[omaghjoe]

Quick constitutional primer for all involved -

If the referendum is passed and the government moves legislation legalising abortion that you don't like...you can vote them out.

During any election, you can always vote for the party with the most draconian proposal for facilitating abortion, and if they don't implement it...you can vote them out.

If any of your local TDs take a liberal stance on abortion, you can not give them a preference, in the hope they will be...voted out.

And if you think TDs are too stupid/gullible/unprincipled (fill in your own adjective) to be trusted with such an issue...you can vote them out.

The reason why the Constitution is the wrong place for this, and the Oireachtas is the right place, is that the science involved is constantly evolving, as are social attitudes. It is up to people to be active in that political process to influence it to their own position. Saying that the current reps are not good enough is a cop out. Run for office if you feel the system is letting you down. But don't let the perceived incompetence of legislators be a reason for denying women healthcare and autonomy over their own bodies in terrible situations.

A parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite it involves multiple issues.

This however is a plebiscite on the 8th amendment and the consequences of it being removed of which the main one is the introduction of legislation for elective abortions for no medical reason at 12weeks.

To try and paint this referendum as anything else is either completely niave or just plain old dishonesty.

Still the sharpest knife in the drawer I see Joe.

That must leave you as the butter knife Tiger

I am talking about the fact that if this referendum is passed, the legislation that will follow can be changed, by the wishes of the electorate by....you guessed it, voting out those who passed the legislation and voting in those with new, more draconian policies. So I wasn't actually talking about the process of the referendum, as I qualified at the start. I was talking about the subsequent democratic process.

You can apologise for your naivety or dishonesty at your leisure.

I wouldn't be walking around with sharp scissors if I were you.

Yes... and I was telling you that a parliamentary election is not a single issue plebiscite. People will vote on how a range of issues, for example in West Tyrone if the Shinners somehow managed (they wont) to get the A5 built, sorted out Brexit, and got Stormont going again I MIGHT consider voting for them...(if I had a vote) in spite of their position on this issue!

Not to mention that the current government in the Dail got 25% of the popular vote... not exactly democratic, throw in party whips and proportional representation and single issues soon get mired.

In Indyref many Scots did not vote yes because the case of independence hadn't laid out the economic plan of independence. You cant make a decision if you don't know what the consequences will be.
And the consequences of voting Yes on the 8th have been made clear by the incumbent government and that is that healthy humans will have their lives legally ended without ever having a chance or choice.

Besides I dunno why your trying to reduce this to purely about the question asked, you've expressed support for those consequences havent you? So give your rationale for that instead of trying to narrow the remit on what people should be voting on in this referendum.

What are you talking about? I already gave my reasons for voting yes. Read back the thread.

People vote on single issues in general elections all the time - see 2nd amendment voters in the US, UKIP voters (now Tories) in the UK. I believe you are the one limiting choice by saying people cannot do so. Of course they can, if they choose to, at the expense of other issues.

All I was pointing out was that, should the referendum be passed, given we live in a parliamentary democracy, the legislation that is causing No voters such distress (and genuine distress I am sure) can be modified in the future by the election of a government with a mandate to do so. Which is one advantage of taking this issue out of the constitution.

It is a simple point.

Careful about the scissors.

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

[laoislad]

I am torn on what way to vote on this.

On the one side I think there is a way that we could legislate for the rape cases and the fatal foetal abnormalities etc and still not bring in abortion on tap. It annoys me to see this being used as an argument. Very few people are against abortion in those cases but they will account for less than 1% of abortions so it seems outrageous to legislate for the whole based on those cases.

On the other hand I could easily have been caught out as a young buck in college or after getting a girl in trouble as they say. And if it happened to me (once we'd agreed) i'd have been on the boat over myself, so I'm not against it.

I do believe different people believe life starts at different points in time, a family member recently had a miscarriage and as her dad said "well that baby was alive to us" but looking at it from outside its loss isn't felt as much as if it had been born and died.

I can't ever remember an issue where I dislike both sides as much as I do this issue, both sides are so blinkered and dismissive of the other.

I'm currently leaning towards No, mainly because I wouldn't like abortion to be the contraception of choice, I would like people to take more responsibility and I have no issue with exporting our problem to Britain. But if I did decide to vote Yes it would be because I think people have their own values and beliefs on when life begins.

I wish they had given the option to legislate for the rare cases but still not have abortion

Good Post 👍

[sid waddell]

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?

[sid waddell]

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.

[screenexile]

See Cooper and some lad from the No campaign went at it this evening.

In fairness Cooper was grand until the No campaigner started engaging in whataboutery and was called on it. He seemed to think Google banning ads amounted to rigging the election in Yes' favour. Sounds like the No campaign realise they are doomed so are crying foul to save face!!!

[sid waddell]

See Cooper and some lad from the No campaign went at it this evening.

In fairness Cooper was grand until the No campaigner started engaging in whataboutery and was called on it. He seemed to think Google banning ads amounted to rigging the election in Yes' favour. Sounds like the No campaign realise they are doomed so are crying foul to save face!!!

That's that slimeball John McGuirk.

John wouldn't be a misogynist at all - no, no, never.

LIBERTAS'S main election spindoctor has described the party's failed Dublin candidate as "a psychotic bitch".
Press officer John McGuirk has taken a parting shot at the demoralised party, saying that Caroline Simons was the "worst candidate ever".

https://www.herald.ie/news/spindoctor-calls-libertas-poll-failure-simons-psychotic-bitch-27915407.html

[macdanger2]

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?

[screenexile]

See Cooper and some lad from the No campaign went at it this evening.

In fairness Cooper was grand until the No campaigner started engaging in whataboutery and was called on it. He seemed to think Google banning ads amounted to rigging the election in Yes' favour. Sounds like the No campaign realise they are doomed so are crying foul to save face!!!

That's that slimeball John McGuirk.

John wouldn't be a misogynist at all - no, no, never.

LIBERTAS'S main election spindoctor has described the party's failed Dublin candidate as "a psychotic bitch".
Press officer John McGuirk has taken a parting shot at the demoralised party, saying that Caroline Simons was the "worst candidate ever".

https://www.herald.ie/news/spindoctor-calls-libertas-poll-failure-simons-psychotic-bitch-27915407.html

The very boyo... you could hear the smugness in his voice as he started bringing up things just to annoy people!!

[omaghjoe]

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?