Planet Rugby Forum

Bullettyme wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:
However it is obviously true that killing future taxpayers is a massive cost to the Irish state

I think it's a ridiculous argument with a silly amount of assumptions that doesn't really hold water tbf. I was going to start going on about johnnies and pulling out and whatever else but it's not something I'm willing to get into on a Friday afternoon at 4pm

It is clearly not a silly argument at all.

Why do you think Germany and Russia are so panicked over their falling birthrate? Putin is talking about paying people to have children.

People = taxes

CM11 wrote:rfurlong

Well, I suppose if we assume that the abortion will happen anyway but either illegally or abroad then yes, it is an extra cost. Otherwise, I can't agree with you there. Overall cost to the state assuming a not insignificant percentage of those not aborted never work would be much higher.

Sorry, what exactly is your point? Are you seriously arguing that while unrestricted abortion is disappointing, on the bright side, it saves the taxpayer money?

I don't want to pay for elective abortions for people who are too lazy to use contraception .... its a point of principle grounded in both economic and moral considerations. Saying that I'm wrong because (in your view) I'll end up paying more if the baby is born, totally ignores the point that I was making ...... i.e. let the woman buy the pills herself or abort the baby in England AT YOUR HER OWN COST, if the pregnancy is such an inconvenience.

why should taxpayers cover the cost of elective abortions?

rfurlong wrote:

CM11 wrote:rfurlong

Well, I suppose if we assume that the abortion will happen anyway but either illegally or abroad then yes, it is an extra cost. Otherwise, I can't agree with you there. Overall cost to the state assuming a not insignificant percentage of those not aborted never work would be much higher.

Sorry, what exactly is your point? Are you seriously arguing that while unrestricted abortion is disappointing, on the bright side, it saves the taxpayer money?

I don't want to pay for elective abortions for people who are too lazy to use contraception .... its a point of principle grounded in both economic and moral considerations. Saying that I'm wrong because (in your view) I'll end up paying more if the baby is born, totally ignores the point that I was making ...... i.e. let the woman buy the pills herself or abort the baby in England AT YOUR HER OWN COST, if the pregnancy is such an inconvenience.

why should taxpayers cover the cost of elective abortions?

Welcome to my world

rfurlong wrote:

CM11 wrote:rfurlong

Well, I suppose if we assume that the abortion will happen anyway but either illegally or abroad then yes, it is an extra cost. Otherwise, I can't agree with you there. Overall cost to the state assuming a not insignificant percentage of those not aborted never work would be much higher.

Sorry, what exactly is your point? Are you seriously arguing that while unrestricted abortion is disappointing, on the bright side, it saves the taxpayer money?

I don't want to pay for elective abortions for people who are too lazy to use contraception .... its a point of principle grounded in both economic and moral considerations. Saying that I'm wrong because (in your view) I'll end up paying more if the baby is born, totally ignores the point that I was making ...... i.e. let the woman buy the pills herself or abort the baby in England AT YOUR HER OWN COST, if the pregnancy is such an inconvenience.

why should taxpayers cover the cost of elective abortions?

Look, I disagree with you on the economic argument but I never said you were wrong on the ethical/moral part of your argument. It's your opinion to have and I said so several times.

I'm not using any economic argument, btw, to argue for abortion. If anyone did so, it was you but I've already said that I misunderstood where you were coming from originally.

CM11 wrote:

rfurlong wrote:

CM11 wrote:Replacement wording in the constitution?

no

I want to see what legislation the government are planning to bring to the Dail in the event that the 8th is simply removed from the consitution

if the legislation is seen to be too open ended/unrestrictive, this will have an effect on how people vote in the referendum

You've misunderstood the question then. I was only asking about the referendum. If you were in charge, you would repeal and replace with wording to the effect that the Oireachtas could legislate on abortion?

yes ..... as per what I said in my opening post today.

I would repeal the 8th
I would legislate (in slightly different ways) for FFA and rape/incest
I would limit abortion to those categories
I would tell anyone outside those categories to fook off to England or buy some pills, as I wont be asking the Irish taxpayers to cover the costs of their elective abortions .... in the same way as I wouldn't be asking the Irish taxpayer to cover any other elective procedure, or self-diagnosed course of action.

rfurlong wrote:

CM11 wrote:

rfurlong wrote:

CM11 wrote:Replacement wording in the constitution?

no

I want to see what legislation the government are planning to bring to the Dail in the event that the 8th is simply removed from the consitution

if the legislation is seen to be too open ended/unrestrictive, this will have an effect on how people vote in the referendum

You've misunderstood the question then. I was only asking about the referendum. If you were in charge, you would repeal and replace with wording to the effect that the Oireachtas could legislate on abortion?

yes ..... as per what I said in my opening post today.

I would repeal the 8th
I would legislate (in slightly different ways) for FFA and rape/incest
I would limit abortion to those categories
I would tell anyone outside those categories to fook off to England or buy some pills, as I wont be asking the Irish taxpayers to cover the costs of their elective abortions .... in the same way as I wouldn't be asking the Irish taxpayer to cover any other elective procedure, or self-diagnosed course of action.

Ok, so we're on the same page in terms of the constitution.

I have said before that your stance is a minimum for me. It has to happen and if that's all that happens then we'll still have come a long way.

However, IMO, even if you got what you wanted this year, it wouldn't be that long before we had unrestricted up to 12 weeks. Any vote which allows for abortion in legislation will see less restrictive legislation come in, whether it be now or in 5-10 years.

And I don't think you'd be able to vote out a party for suggesting it because, again IMO, there is already a majority opinion towards less restrictive abortion and there definitely will be in 10 years (do I need another IMO here just to be sure?!).

rfurlong wrote:

CM11 wrote:rfurlong

Well, I suppose if we assume that the abortion will happen anyway but either illegally or abroad then yes, it is an extra cost. Otherwise, I can't agree with you there. Overall cost to the state assuming a not insignificant percentage of those not aborted never work would be much higher.

Sorry, what exactly is your point? Are you seriously arguing that while unrestricted abortion is disappointing, on the bright side, it saves the taxpayer money?

I don't want to pay for elective abortions for people who are too lazy to use contraception .... its a point of principle grounded in both economic and moral considerations. Saying that I'm wrong because (in your view) I'll end up paying more if the baby is born, totally ignores the point that I was making ...... i.e. let the woman buy the pills herself or abort the baby in England AT YOUR HER OWN COST, if the pregnancy is such an inconvenience.

why should taxpayers cover the cost of elective abortions?

"Too lazy to use contraception"?

You do know it's not a guarantee in preventing pregnancy, right?

You do realise that the unrestricted 12 weeks largely consists of taking a pill under medical supervision?

Why is the cost an issue? It's a rather strange gambit.

And your continual attempt to portray the issue as a mere "inconvenience" hardly does it justice, does it? It's "such an inconvenience" kind of belittles anyone who's actually gone through with an abortion or is contemplating doing so.

rfurlong wrote:

CM11 wrote:

rfurlong wrote:

CM11 wrote:Replacement wording in the constitution?

no

I want to see what legislation the government are planning to bring to the Dail in the event that the 8th is simply removed from the consitution

if the legislation is seen to be too open ended/unrestrictive, this will have an effect on how people vote in the referendum

You've misunderstood the question then. I was only asking about the referendum. If you were in charge, you would repeal and replace with wording to the effect that the Oireachtas could legislate on abortion?

yes ..... as per what I said in my opening post today.

I would repeal the 8th
I would legislate (in slightly different ways) for FFA and rape/incest
I would limit abortion to those categories
I would tell anyone outside those categories to fook off to England or buy some pills, as I wont be asking the Irish taxpayers to cover the costs of their elective abortions .... in the same way as I wouldn't be asking the Irish taxpayer to cover any other elective procedure, or self-diagnosed course of action.

Fook off to England? Charming.

An "elective abortion", just like a boob-job then?

The sheer crassness and derision contained within your posts hardly gives the impression of someone who's taking the issue in any way seriously.

Or we could let everybody make up their own minds.

That way there'd be abortions for some and no abortions for those who don't want them.

Seems to me that once you've crossed the boundary to dismiss the 'rights' of foetal cells (e.g. FFA and rapey incest), then the only thing you're clinging onto is control and punishment.

message #2527204 wrote:Seems to me that once you've crossed the boundary to dismiss the 'rights' of foetal cells (e.g. FFA and rapey incest), then the only thing you're clinging onto is control and punishment.

I've tried that angle before, although not in so many words, to no avail. I just get silence in reply.

Mullet 2 wrote:

Bullettyme wrote:

normilet wrote:https://twitter.com/iAM_AM/status/961889432369590278

Didn't want to post the picture directly on the forum, supposedly taken outside the Department of Education yesterday.

I saw those scumbags down at Independent House during the week. Absolutely shameless, and shows the depths that they'll sink. Shows that their arguments aren't really working either and they're getting desperate. Friend of mine has been getting death threats and, in an ironic twist, being called a murdering c**t.

Can't wait until this thing is done with.

Let's not have a rush to the moral high ground here from the anybody pro-choice.

I've seen some of the stuff John McGuirk and others are getting. And look at that cúnt Conspicous's and his attack on here.

Eh , attack? What exactly did I say ?

CM11 wrote:

message #2527204 wrote:Seems to me that once you've crossed the boundary to dismiss the 'rights' of foetal cells (e.g. FFA and rapey incest), then the only thing you're clinging onto is control and punishment.

I've tried that angle before, although not in so many words, to no avail. I just get silence in reply.

It deserves repeating and emphasising imo

anonymous_joe wrote:Or we could let everybody make up their own minds.

That way there'd be abortions for some and no abortions for those who don't want them.

Don't bring out the crayon argument.

Statto got a reply but as is his won't if he disagrees he just dismisses it from his mind.

Because he's a liar.

Mullet 2 wrote:

Bullettyme wrote:

normilet wrote:https://twitter.com/iAM_AM/status/961889432369590278

Didn't want to post the picture directly on the forum, supposedly taken outside the Department of Education yesterday.

I saw those scumbags down at Independent House during the week. Absolutely shameless, and shows the depths that they'll sink. Shows that their arguments aren't really working either and they're getting desperate. Friend of mine has been getting death threats and, in an ironic twist, being called a murdering c**t.

Can't wait until this thing is done with.

Let's not have a rush to the moral high ground here from the anybody pro-choice.

I've seen some of the stuff John McGuirk and others are getting. And look at that cúnt Conspicous's and his attack on here.

Forgot to get back to this post but you of all people should know what a sneaky lying toolbag McGuirk is.

He's after getting caught out claiming to have a mole on some Pro-choice WhatsApp group taking screenshots when he probably got his mum to send it to him.
https://twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status ... 0953929728

Take his stuff with a pinch of salt.

So who can vote in the referendum, is it the same as an election?

Have lived here In Ireland since Nov 2016, but not yet registered despite all the local TDs offering to 'sign me up' a few months after I got here during the election.

Only Irish Citizens can vote in a referendum.

So what's going on here then?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-a ... -1.3417970

Does this make it more difficult for repeal to be passed as it will strip away all constitutional rights for the unborn, or else it will be spun that way by "pro lifers"? How does this impact on the referendum?

It will mean that the unborn will have zero rights, read that again, zero rights should the 8th be repealed.

So at 14.53 on a Thursday the unborn has zero rights, one minute later it enters the world with all the rights that the constitution affords any of us. Absolutely mental stuff.

Liathroidigloine wrote:It will mean that the unborn will have zero rights, read that again, zero rights should the 8th be repealed.

So at 14.53 on a Thursday the unborn has zero rights, one minute later it enters the world with all the rights that the constitution affords any of us. Absolutely mental stuff.

Well I don't know if that's correct or if it is dishonesty. It essentially means that constitutionally the unborn does not have a right to life, outside the 8th. It never did essentially.

Why do you consider it so mental? It seems to be the norm in a lot of countries.

Liathroidigloine wrote:It will mean that the unborn will have zero rights, read that again, zero rights should the 8th be repealed.

So at 14.53 on a Thursday the unborn has zero rights, one minute later it enters the world with all the rights that the constitution affords any of us. Absolutely mental stuff.

I'm trying to figure out what rights, other than the obvious relating to the 8th, that you'd like them to have. Their rights are pretty much intertwined with the mother until born. What can you do to an unborn child (again apart from the obvious) that they would need rights for? Once separated from their mother and alive, they immediately gain rights, as you point out.

Just to be clear, I'm not asking or attempting to enter a repeal argument, just wondering what other rights you think they should have?

Bullettyme wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:It will mean that the unborn will have zero rights, read that again, zero rights should the 8th be repealed.

So at 14.53 on a Thursday the unborn has zero rights, one minute later it enters the world with all the rights that the constitution affords any of us. Absolutely mental stuff.

Well I don't know if that's correct or if it is dishonesty. It essentially means that constitutionally the unborn does not have a right to life, outside the 8th. It never did essentially.

Why do you consider it so mental? It seems to be the norm in a lot of countries.

Read the article. It says that the highest court in the land has ruled that the only right the unborn has is the right to life as contained in Article 8. They have no other rights. So should the 8th be repealed they will have zero rights.

I think it's mental that a live baby that can survive outside of the womb from about 24 weeks has no rights.

What rights would they need that would be separate to the rights of the mother other than issues surrounding right to life?

CM11 wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:It will mean that the unborn will have zero rights, read that again, zero rights should the 8th be repealed.

So at 14.53 on a Thursday the unborn has zero rights, one minute later it enters the world with all the rights that the constitution affords any of us. Absolutely mental stuff.

I'm trying to figure out what rights, other than the obvious relating to the 8th, that you'd like them to have. Their rights are pretty much intertwined with the mother until born. What can you do to an unborn child (again apart from the obvious) that they would need rights for? Once separated from their mother and alive, they immediately gain rights, as you point out.

Just to be clear, I'm not asking or attempting to enter a repeal argument, just wondering what other rights you think they should have?

The right to life, the right to adequate medical care independent of the mother, protection from intentional harm caused by the mother or third parties.

Bullettyme wrote:So what's going on here then?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-a ... -1.3417970

Does this make it more difficult for repeal to be passed as it will strip away all constitutional rights for the unborn, or else it will be spun that way by "pro lifers"? How does this impact on the referendum?

I must confess.

I haven't the faintest idea.

Just gonna . this cost he's answered above, which I think are mad.

Liathroidigloine wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:It will mean that the unborn will have zero rights, read that again, zero rights should the 8th be repealed.

So at 14.53 on a Thursday the unborn has zero rights, one minute later it enters the world with all the rights that the constitution affords any of us. Absolutely mental stuff.

I'm trying to figure out what rights, other than the obvious relating to the 8th, that you'd like them to have. Their rights are pretty much intertwined with the mother until born. What can you do to an unborn child (again apart from the obvious) that they would need rights for? Once separated from their mother and alive, they immediately gain rights, as you point out.

Just to be clear, I'm not asking or attempting to enter a repeal argument, just wondering what other rights you think they should have?

The right to life, the right to adequate medical care independent of the mother, protection from intentional harm caused by the mother or third parties.

That will take a lot of rights away from the mother then.

If I kick a 7 months pregnant woman in the stomach and the baby dies have I committed any crime against the baby or just the mother?

Liathroidigloine wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:It will mean that the unborn will have zero rights, read that again, zero rights should the 8th be repealed.

So at 14.53 on a Thursday the unborn has zero rights, one minute later it enters the world with all the rights that the constitution affords any of us. Absolutely mental stuff.

I'm trying to figure out what rights, other than the obvious relating to the 8th, that you'd like them to have. Their rights are pretty much intertwined with the mother until born. What can you do to an unborn child (again apart from the obvious) that they would need rights for? Once separated from their mother and alive, they immediately gain rights, as you point out.

Just to be clear, I'm not asking or attempting to enter a repeal argument, just wondering what other rights you think they should have?

The right to life, the right to adequate medical care independent of the mother, protection from intentional harm caused by the mother or third parties.

Third parties would come under the mother's rights although you raise a good point as to whether a baby who died in the womb as a result of a third party would be considered murder.

Right to life has already been put aside.

Medical care independent of the mother is impossible without being born.

Intentional harm by the mother is also a good point. Would that essentially not come under abortion legislation though?

Some or all of what you mention are possibly already in law or will you after the referendum.

You don't have to have constitutional rights to have rights.

Mullet 2 wrote:

Bullettyme wrote:So what's going on here then?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-a ... -1.3417970

Does this make it more difficult for repeal to be passed as it will strip away all constitutional rights for the unborn, or else it will be spun that way by "pro lifers"? How does this impact on the referendum?

I must confess.

I haven't the faintest idea.

Neither do I, I've seen some people crowing that it's "the last nail in the coffin for the 8th" and others argue that "it's going to be hard to argue for repeal now". Bit confusing.

Also, there's a bit of scope for nationality tourism again? (probably for a separate thread)

I suppose that there might be something in the line about "The 8th is now the only protection the unborn has" etc etc.

Issues like the one raised above could possibly swing some floating voters but who knows what it means.

I know I don't.

CM11 wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:It will mean that the unborn will have zero rights, read that again, zero rights should the 8th be repealed.

So at 14.53 on a Thursday the unborn has zero rights, one minute later it enters the world with all the rights that the constitution affords any of us. Absolutely mental stuff.

I'm trying to figure out what rights, other than the obvious relating to the 8th, that you'd like them to have. Their rights are pretty much intertwined with the mother until born. What can you do to an unborn child (again apart from the obvious) that they would need rights for? Once separated from their mother and alive, they immediately gain rights, as you point out.

Just to be clear, I'm not asking or attempting to enter a repeal argument, just wondering what other rights you think they should have?

The right to life, the right to adequate medical care independent of the mother, protection from intentional harm caused by the mother or third parties.

Third parties would come under the mother's rights although you raise a good point as to whether a baby who died in the womb as a result of a third party would be considered murder.

Right to life has already been put aside.

Medical care independent of the mother is impossible without being born.

Intentional harm by the mother is also a good point. Would that essentially not come under abortion legislation though?

Some or all of what you mention are possibly already in law or will you after the referendum.

You don't have to have constitutional rights to have rights.

That's not the case. There are lots of instances where babies within the womb receive medical attention.

Mullet 2 wrote:If I kick a 7 months pregnant woman in the stomach and the baby dies have I committed any crime against the baby or just the mother?

Technically you commit all offences against society, but in reality, you'd be committing that offence against the mother anyway. That she was pregnant would be a serious aggravating factor.

anonymous_joe wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:If I kick a 7 months pregnant woman in the stomach and the baby dies have I committed any crime against the baby or just the mother?

Technically you commit all offences against society, but in reality, you'd be committing that offence against the mother anyway. That she was pregnant would be a serious aggravating factor.

But would you be charged with assault of the mother or murder of the child? The Omagh bombing resulted in the death of a mother and her unborn baby.

Liathroidigloine wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:It will mean that the unborn will have zero rights, read that again, zero rights should the 8th be repealed.

So at 14.53 on a Thursday the unborn has zero rights, one minute later it enters the world with all the rights that the constitution affords any of us. Absolutely mental stuff.

I'm trying to figure out what rights, other than the obvious relating to the 8th, that you'd like them to have. Their rights are pretty much intertwined with the mother until born. What can you do to an unborn child (again apart from the obvious) that they would need rights for? Once separated from their mother and alive, they immediately gain rights, as you point out.

Just to be clear, I'm not asking or attempting to enter a repeal argument, just wondering what other rights you think they should have?

The right to life, the right to adequate medical care independent of the mother, protection from intentional harm caused by the mother or third parties.

Third parties would come under the mother's rights although you raise a good point as to whether a baby who died in the womb as a result of a third party would be considered murder.

Right to life has already been put aside.

Medical care independent of the mother is impossible without being born.

Intentional harm by the mother is also a good point. Would that essentially not come under abortion legislation though?

Some or all of what you mention are possibly already in law or will you after the referendum.

You don't have to have constitutional rights to have rights.

That's not the case. There are lots of instances where babies within the womb receive medical attention.

That's not what I said. I said it's impossible to give an unborn child medical care independent of the mother.

In any event is this not covered in the legislation from a few years ago?

A quick search shows (from the States) that in respect to murder, legislation should really be in place before the inevitable court case. Not sure if it already is? Obviously the constitution can cover it currently but even then I'd have thought we'd need legislation to back it up?

anonymous_joe wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:If I kick a 7 months pregnant woman in the stomach and the baby dies have I committed any crime against the baby or just the mother?

Technically you commit all offences against society, but in reality, you'd be committing that offence against the mother anyway. That she was pregnant would be a serious aggravating factor.

So no?

I don't know that you can commit infanticide of an unborn child outside the context of an abortion tbh. Certainly never came up when I was studying.

CM11 wrote:A quick search shows (from the States) that in respect to murder, legislation should really be in place before the inevitable court case. Not sure if it already is? Obviously the constitution can cover it currently but even then I'd have thought we'd need legislation to back it up?

How can you murder something with no rights under the constitution?

It would seem according to AJ you can't. Well, that's depressing.

Mullet 2 wrote:

CM11 wrote:A quick search shows (from the States) that in respect to murder, legislation should really be in place before the inevitable court case. Not sure if it already is? Obviously the constitution can cover it currently but even then I'd have thought we'd need legislation to back it up?

How can you murder something with no rights under the constitution?

It would seem according to AJ you can't. Well, that's depressing.

Thankfully we don't have many cases of this (none I can think of but I'm sure there's been some) but it's an interesting question that you raise, can legislation be put in place to allow for something with no rights to be considered murdered?