Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 14, 2019, 01:24:40 am
News: 2020 U.S. Senate Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderators: TG, Torie, Associate Justice PiT)
  Ireland's abortion referendum
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Poll
Question: Would you vote to repeal the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland?
#1Yes  
#2No  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 98

Author Topic: Ireland's abortion referendum  (Read 2633 times)
TDAS04
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,243
Nepal


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 24, 2018, 08:21:34 pm »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

Yes of course I'd vote for repeal.  Stop the needless deaths of pregnant women.
Logged
DC Al Fine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,864
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2018, 08:59:26 pm »

No obviously.


Strange. I thought something died during the procedure...
Logged
TDAS04
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,243
Nepal


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2018, 09:56:01 pm »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

I don’t like abortion, and I can understand why someone would want to outlaw it.  Pro-life views are respectable if driven by the right reasons—concern for the unborn, rather than desire to control women.

I used to be pro-life, in favor of outlawing abortion in most cases.  Now I understand the dangers that abortion restrictions create for mothers.  There was that case in Ireland.

Then there are countries like El Salvador that imprison women for miscarriages.  There is something going on down there that goes beyond compassion for the unborn.  El Salvador is clearly misogynist.  Now I am not calling all pro-lifers misogynist, so settle down if you think I am.  Even most pro-lifers—I would think—would oppose El Salvador’s draconian policies toward women.
Logged
Speaker YE
YE
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,508


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2018, 10:02:10 pm »

I use to be radically pro-choice but now I understand why people are not comfortable with abortion. I'm probably somewhere between pro-choice and pro-life (which means given that I'm a Dem, I guess I'm pro-life but if I was a GOPer I'd definitely be considered pro-choice). Regardless, I'd vote for a repeal. I favor a ban at viability (so basically 22 weeks), however.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,387
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2018, 11:57:04 pm »

Ireland has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world.  They might need some tweaks to the law for additional protections for women's health for rare cases, but to write out all protection of the unborn from the Constitution and open the way for killing them would be a grave injustice.
Logged
Parrotguy
Wyman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,403
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2018, 02:17:00 am »

Obviously yes. Call me radical, but I believe in science and know that embryos aren't human beings Roll Eyes This is honestly one of the least pleasant issues to debate, it's basically pushing against a stubborn wall of people who religiously believe that embryos are humans that can be murdered are refuse to let go. But the problem with religiously believing in something here, is that you want to translate your beliefs into theocratic laws. On economic issues, for example, debating and respecting each other's views is crucial because there's just no definitive proof that onw side is right, but when people want to oass theocratic laws because of unscientific beliefs, I can't and won't "respect" that, sorry.
Logged
DavidB.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,971
Finland


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2018, 03:56:34 am »

Clear unambiguous no.
Logged
DC Al Fine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,864
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2018, 04:52:50 am »

Obviously yes. Call me radical, but I believe in science and know that embryos aren't human beings Roll Eyes This is honestly one of the least pleasant issues to debate, it's basically pushing against a stubborn wall of people who religiously believe that embryos are humans that can be murdered are refuse to let go. But the problem with religiously believing in something here, is that you want to translate your beliefs into theocratic laws. On economic issues, for example, debating and respecting each other's views is crucial because there's just no definitive proof that onw side is right, but when people want to oass theocratic laws because of unscientific beliefs, I can't and won't "respect" that, sorry.

I find it interesting that you bluster about science and religion without actually showing how science proves that an embryo isn't human.

Now I'm just a dumb fundamentalist but it seems obvious that an embryo is genetically speaking:

a) human
b) not it's mother

For all your talk about science it's rather difficult to get around these facts. Me thinks the pro choice emperor has no clothes.
Logged
mvd10
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,754


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: -2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2018, 05:05:51 am »

Yes. I'm not really comfortable with abortion but I don't believe an embryo truly is a human being and I think it definitely should be allowed if the mother's life is at risk. It's just cruel to force someone to go through with something potentially life-threatening against her will (though I guess opposing it makes sense if you believe an embryo is a human being).

If we're talking about Ireland's current referendum I'd also vote yes, but a lot less enthusiastically.
Logged
Parrotguy
Wyman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,403
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2018, 05:52:49 am »

Obviously yes. Call me radical, but I believe in science and know that embryos aren't human beings Roll Eyes This is honestly one of the least pleasant issues to debate, it's basically pushing against a stubborn wall of people who religiously believe that embryos are humans that can be murdered are refuse to let go. But the problem with religiously believing in something here, is that you want to translate your beliefs into theocratic laws. On economic issues, for example, debating and respecting each other's views is crucial because there's just no definitive proof that onw side is right, but when people want to oass theocratic laws because of unscientific beliefs, I can't and won't "respect" that, sorry.

I find it interesting that you bluster about science and religion without actually showing how science proves that an embryo isn't human.

Now I'm just a dumb fundamentalist but it seems obvious that an embryo is genetically speaking:

a) human
b) not it's mother

For all your talk about science it's rather difficult to get around these facts. Me thinks the pro choice emperor has no clothes.

An embryo is just an early stage of development into humanity, like a fertilized egg. 90% of abortions occure in the 1st trimester, when it's not even close to viable outside of the womb, it doesn't even feel pain, it's not a person. Yes, for the other 10% there are some moral issues (though mostly for the increasingly tiny percentages at the farther side of the spectrum), but the fact is that, whatever the case, embryos and fetuses are less human than the woman who carries them. I oppose later term abortions, but even then, when a woman was raped, she can't be forced to carry that potential life, and when it risks her own life, an already viable and existant life, she always should win. Your side, mostly consisting of the Christian Right, wants to ban access to abortion because of beliefs mostly stemming from religion, ignoring the statistics of all the women who die because they can't have a legal, safe abortion. I cannot respect that, just like I cannot respect most of the other homophobic\mysogenic views of the Christian Right.
Logged
Torie
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38,047
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2018, 06:00:43 am »

Obviously yes. Call me radical, but I believe in science and know that embryos aren't human beings Roll Eyes This is honestly one of the least pleasant issues to debate, it's basically pushing against a stubborn wall of people who religiously believe that embryos are humans that can be murdered are refuse to let go. But the problem with religiously believing in something here, is that you want to translate your beliefs into theocratic laws. On economic issues, for example, debating and respecting each other's views is crucial because there's just no definitive proof that onw side is right, but when people want to oass theocratic laws because of unscientific beliefs, I can't and won't "respect" that, sorry.

I find it interesting that you bluster about science and religion without actually showing how science proves that an embryo isn't human.

Now I'm just a dumb fundamentalist but it seems obvious that an embryo is genetically speaking:

a) human
b) not it's mother

For all your talk about science it's rather difficult to get around these facts. Me thinks the pro choice emperor has no clothes.

An embryo is just an early stage of development into humanity, like a fertilized egg. 90% of abortions occure in the 1st trimester, when it's not even close to viable outside of the womb, it doesn't even feel pain, it's not a person. Yes, for the other 10% there are some moral issues (though mostly for the increasingly tiny percentages at the farther side of the spectrum), but the fact is that, whatever the case, embryos and fetuses are less human than the woman who carries them. I oppose later term abortions, but even then, when a woman was raped, she can't be forced to carry that potential life, and when it risks her own life, an already viable and existant life, she always should win. Your side, mostly consisting of the Christian Right, wants to ban access to abortion because of beliefs mostly stemming from religion, ignoring the statistics of all the women who die because they can't have a legal, safe abortion. I cannot respect that, just like I cannot respect most of the other homophobic\mysogenic views of the Christian Right.

Another post of yours that I agree with almost word for word (and probably better written than whatever similar statement I would have made), except that this time, as to rape, it seems to me reasonable that the mother abort the fetus early on, so there is no good reason to accommodate a late term abortion. I also oppose late term abortions if there is not a material physical health risk to the mother. Claiming depression or something more intangible, just won't cut it with me.

I also think under current SCOTUS law, restricting late term abortions as described would be upheld under the O'Connor undue burden to the mother standard.
Logged
Parrotguy
Wyman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,403
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2018, 06:07:23 am »

Obviously yes. Call me radical, but I believe in science and know that embryos aren't human beings Roll Eyes This is honestly one of the least pleasant issues to debate, it's basically pushing against a stubborn wall of people who religiously believe that embryos are humans that can be murdered are refuse to let go. But the problem with religiously believing in something here, is that you want to translate your beliefs into theocratic laws. On economic issues, for example, debating and respecting each other's views is crucial because there's just no definitive proof that onw side is right, but when people want to oass theocratic laws because of unscientific beliefs, I can't and won't "respect" that, sorry.

I find it interesting that you bluster about science and religion without actually showing how science proves that an embryo isn't human.

Now I'm just a dumb fundamentalist but it seems obvious that an embryo is genetically speaking:

a) human
b) not it's mother

For all your talk about science it's rather difficult to get around these facts. Me thinks the pro choice emperor has no clothes.

An embryo is just an early stage of development into humanity, like a fertilized egg. 90% of abortions occure in the 1st trimester, when it's not even close to viable outside of the womb, it doesn't even feel pain, it's not a person. Yes, for the other 10% there are some moral issues (though mostly for the increasingly tiny percentages at the farther side of the spectrum), but the fact is that, whatever the case, embryos and fetuses are less human than the woman who carries them. I oppose later term abortions, but even then, when a woman was raped, she can't be forced to carry that potential life, and when it risks her own life, an already viable and existant life, she always should win. Your side, mostly consisting of the Christian Right, wants to ban access to abortion because of beliefs mostly stemming from religion, ignoring the statistics of all the women who die because they can't have a legal, safe abortion. I cannot respect that, just like I cannot respect most of the other homophobic\mysogenic views of the Christian Right.

Another post of yours that I agree with almost word for word (and probably better written than whatever similar statement I would have made), except that this time, as to rape, it seems to me reasonable that the mother abort the fetus early on, so there is no good reason to accommodate a late term abortion. I also oppose late term abortions if there is not a material physical health risk to the mother. Claiming depression or something more intangible, just won't cut it with me.

I also think under current SCOTUS law, restricting late term abortions as described would be upheld under the O'Connor undue burden to the mother standard.

Thanks Smiley You're probably right, and I do think that, logically, most women who were raped would've aborted their fetuses very early. However, there are some fringe cases when pregnancies are discovered late, or maybe the woman couldn't have an abortion early, or couldn't speak out about the attack she went throguh and so on. So I think that late-term abortions should be mostly prohibited, but generally judged on a case-by-case basis.
Logged
DC Al Fine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,864
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2018, 07:34:46 am »

Obviously yes. Call me radical, but I believe in science and know that embryos aren't human beings Roll Eyes This is honestly one of the least pleasant issues to debate, it's basically pushing against a stubborn wall of people who religiously believe that embryos are humans that can be murdered are refuse to let go. But the problem with religiously believing in something here, is that you want to translate your beliefs into theocratic laws. On economic issues, for example, debating and respecting each other's views is crucial because there's just no definitive proof that onw side is right, but when people want to oass theocratic laws because of unscientific beliefs, I can't and won't "respect" that, sorry.

I find it interesting that you bluster about science and religion without actually showing how science proves that an embryo isn't human.

Now I'm just a dumb fundamentalist but it seems obvious that an embryo is genetically speaking:

a) human
b) not it's mother

For all your talk about science it's rather difficult to get around these facts. Me thinks the pro choice emperor has no clothes.

An embryo is just an early stage of development into humanity, like a fertilized egg. 90% of abortions occure in the 1st trimester, when it's not even close to viable outside of the womb, it doesn't even feel pain, it's not a person. Yes, for the other 10% there are some moral issues (though mostly for the increasingly tiny percentages at the farther side of the spectrum), but the fact is that, whatever the case, embryos and fetuses are less human than the woman who carries them. I oppose later term abortions, but even then, when a woman was raped, she can't be forced to carry that potential life, and when it risks her own life, an already viable and existant life, she always should win. Your side, mostly consisting of the Christian Right, wants to ban access to abortion because of beliefs mostly stemming from religion, ignoring the statistics of all the women who die because they can't have a legal, safe abortion. I cannot respect that, just like I cannot respect most of the other homophobic\mysogenic views of the Christian Right.

This is what I'm talking about:

You talk about science, but when pressed, fall back on an ethical/philosophical question. Science and ethics are two different things. An embryo is unable to feel pain. We agree on that. I merely posit that that fact (or a creature's development or lack thereof) is insufficient to declare someone a non-person.

Your logic around late term rape cases is also suspect. You talk about an early term baby being "undeveloped" but then call a late term baby, whose preemie counterparts are living outside the womb "a potential life". How did you support that logical pretzel?

Then you cap your post off with a silly ad hominem. Again, it seems that a movement that ostensibly supports science and logic is quite willing to ignore them when it doesn't suit them.
Logged
Priest of Moloch
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,003
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -4.87

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2018, 08:15:08 am »

on demand without apology
Logged
Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,896
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2018, 08:16:25 am »

Proud No vote. I stand with the unborn, not with the abortion industry!
Logged
Torie
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38,047
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2018, 08:52:23 am »

"I merely posit that that fact (or a creature's development or lack thereof) is insufficient to declare someone a non-person."

DC, your point of view is Manichean. You are either a person or not, with no shades of grey. Parrot and I view it more as a continuum, and never the twain shall meet as to our respective points of view. It is not as if one of us is right and the other wrong. In my view, the matter is mostly subjective, after we agree on the basis underlying facts about the stages of fetal development. So I don't really see how further parry and thrusts on this move the ball much, unless there are new facts to adduce.

Does that make any sense to you?
Logged
¢®🅰ß 🦀 ©@k€ 🎂
CrabCake
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16,715
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2018, 11:06:00 am »

The curious thing about how science relates to abortion is that the advancement of advanced medicl techniques and modern embryology theory really allows the pro-life movement to exist as it does today. The ancients and the  scholars of the Renaissance largely believed life egan with the quickening: the first movement of the foetus, which represented the soul entering the child. It was the development of ultrasound that really allowed the previous black box of the womb to be opened up, to reveal the "baby" within, that gave abortion an emotional weight which it lacked before.

The big problem biologically is that although we can identify various biological markers - conception, implantation, segmentation, heart beat, lower brain function, higher brain function, viability etc. - at the end of the day the concept of "personhood" is an abstraction that can have various definitions.
Logged
Mike88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,635
Portugal


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2018, 11:14:42 am »

Yes to the repeal. It's curious how my views on abortion, and others social issues, changed in the last decade. In the 2007 Portuguese Abortion referendum, i was a strong NO supporter but, now, my position has changed 180 degrees. The more older i get, the more liberal, on social issues, i'm becoming.
Logged
Gass3268
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,269
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2018, 11:20:58 am »


Amen brother!
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,648
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2018, 11:24:57 am »

I'd vote yes on the repeal, even though abortion is not an issue that concerns me a lot (except late-term abortion, which is controversial).

I used to shift around quite a bit over the years on this topic, but I generally support abortion rights until the 10th week or so, where it's just a clump of cells with the brain not developed at all.

But women definitely need to have the right to choose what's best for them and their bodies and their future.
Logged
Ses
jk2020
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,290


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 25, 2018, 11:25:34 am »

Obviously yes. Call me radical, but I believe in science and know that embryos aren't human beings Roll Eyes This is honestly one of the least pleasant issues to debate, it's basically pushing against a stubborn wall of people who religiously believe that embryos are humans that can be murdered are refuse to let go. But the problem with religiously believing in something here, is that you want to translate your beliefs into theocratic laws. On economic issues, for example, debating and respecting each other's views is crucial because there's just no definitive proof that onw side is right, but when people want to oass theocratic laws because of unscientific beliefs, I can't and won't "respect" that, sorry.

I find it interesting that you bluster about science and religion without actually showing how science proves that an embryo isn't human.

Now I'm just a dumb fundamentalist but it seems obvious that an embryo is genetically speaking:

a) human
b) not it's mother

For all your talk about science it's rather difficult to get around these facts. Me thinks the pro choice emperor has no clothes.

First of all, those two conditions alone don't work. A tumor satisfies both.


And even if you disregard the scientific definition of life and decide that an embryo is a human life, it's also

c) stealing the mother's resources without consent.

As a Republican, I'm assuming you oppose forcing taxpayers to give their hard-earned money as welfare to people who haven't done anything for it. Why, then, should mothers be forced to give not only their hard earned food but also their continuing labor (the embryo relies on the mother's heart, lungs, and various other organs to survive) as welfare to embryos and fetuses?
Logged
DC Al Fine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,864
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 25, 2018, 12:26:04 pm »

"I merely posit that that fact (or a creature's development or lack thereof) is insufficient to declare someone a non-person."

DC, your point of view is Manichean. You are either a person or not, with no shades of grey. Parrot and I view it more as a continuum, and never the twain shall meet as to our respective points of view. It is not as if one of us is right and the other wrong. In my view, the matter is mostly subjective, after we agree on the basis underlying facts about the stages of fetal development. So I don't really see how further parry and thrusts on this move the ball much, unless there are new facts to adduce.

Does that make any sense to you?


Torie, I don't think you quite understand why I'm annoyed. Parrotguy wrote a post (which you applauded) stating that my position on an ethical position was unscientific (despite the facts not being in question) and therefore unworthy of debate. This post also contained a logical contradiction ((calling a late term fetus a potential life) and derogatory remarks about my religion. Again, you praised this post.

Falling back on "our points of view are incompatible" doesn't address the problem here.

Obviously yes. Call me radical, but I believe in science and know that embryos aren't human beings Roll Eyes This is honestly one of the least pleasant issues to debate, it's basically pushing against a stubborn wall of people who religiously believe that embryos are humans that can be murdered are refuse to let go. But the problem with religiously believing in something here, is that you want to translate your beliefs into theocratic laws. On economic issues, for example, debating and respecting each other's views is crucial because there's just no definitive proof that onw side is right, but when people want to oass theocratic laws because of unscientific beliefs, I can't and won't "respect" that, sorry.

I find it interesting that you bluster about science and religion without actually showing how science proves that an embryo isn't human.

Now I'm just a dumb fundamentalist but it seems obvious that an embryo is genetically speaking:

a) human
b) not it's mother

For all your talk about science it's rather difficult to get around these facts. Me thinks the pro choice emperor has no clothes.

First of all, those two conditions alone don't work. A tumor satisfies both.


And even if you disregard the scientific definition of life and decide that an embryo is a human life, it's also

c) stealing the mother's resources without consent.

As a Republican, I'm assuming you oppose forcing taxpayers to give their hard-earned money as welfare to people who haven't done anything for it. Why, then, should mothers be forced to give not only their hard earned food but also their continuing labor (the embryo relies on the mother's heart, lungs, and various other organs to survive) as welfare to embryos and fetuses?

Roll Eyes

I'm a Red Tory you ignoramus.
Logged
Cath
Cathcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 24,373
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 25, 2018, 12:40:24 pm »

^Sigging when I get the chance.
Logged
Torie
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38,047
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 25, 2018, 03:03:43 pm »

Fair enough DC. Science cannot resolve the differences in what policy one prefers given the facts. I don't consider your position unscientific, rather it is your choice of categorization as compared to another.
Logged
Tana Mongeau for President
HillGoose
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,439
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.87, S: -5.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 25, 2018, 06:49:35 pm »

I'd vote to repeal it. I don't think the government has the right to ban abortion, it's up to society to ostracize and outcast the immoral, weak, irresponsible people who support abortion.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC