Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

8th Amendment

1…910121415…65

Comments

  • #332
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    We permit people to travel to other less christian countries to avail of legal killing.
    If I had my way this wouldn't be the case.
    Can we vote to make this a secular country whilst we're at it?


  • #333
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,435 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    I edited the post to remove that reference after I posted it.
    What's ignorant about my post though? Surely a pregnancy followed by giving a child up for adoption is better on a person's soul/health/mental state than knowing there was a life (or foetus, whatever word you want) growing inside them that she created and then ended.



    I know. Democracy sometimes doesn't work but hey them's the rules. Best have it in another country which will reduce the numbers of Irish that can avail of the abortions. I recall a statistic that it was 1:4 ratio between Irish and UK people haviung abortions.


    They are correct. It's the same as the anti-life side using the scientific words for the opposite reason. To remove peoples emotional connection to their potential unborn offspring.
    Anti-life?

    There we go!


  • #334
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,435 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Can we vote to make this a non-Christian country whilst we're at it?

    Sure we do that each and every Sunday.


  • #335
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Why stop at weeks? Why not years?
    Abortions on anything under 10 years.

    Got an unruly child, why not remove it legally with an abortion?
    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Well that's assuming we have repealed the 8th and replaced it with lets murder all our children if we want
    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Neither should be terminated, morally. Any society which allows it should have it's notional head examined.

    Mod:

    As per the previous mod warning the above type of stuff doesn't help the thread and doesn't do much for your arguement either! Tone it down please or you'll end up banned from the thread. Thanks.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #336
    Glenman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 978 ✭✭✭Glenman


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    It should be lawful to terminate an embryo for any reason.
    It should be (and is) lawful to terminate a human for specific reasons.

    It's not a difficult thing to comprehend. Can you give the lawful reason why a 10 year old child should be terminated? I can give you a lawful reason why a foetus should be terminated.

    Calling an unborn baby a "foetus" seems to be a way of dehumanising the unborn and justifying abortion. When do you believe a "foetus" becomes a baby, it it once he or she is born?


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Glenman wrote: »
    Calling an unborn baby a "foetus" seems to be a way of dehumanising the unborn and justifying abortion. When do you believe a "foetus" becomes a baby, it it once he or she is born?
    A foetus is simply an unborn baby. Regardless of religious belief, there are scientific truths/definitions at play here.


  • #338
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    Glenman wrote: »
    Calling an unborn baby a "foetus" seems to be a way of dehumanising the unborn and justifying abortion. When do you believe a "foetus" becomes a baby, it it once he or she is born?

    In the words of George Carlin = "Well, if a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come when there's a miscarriage they don't have a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say "we have two children and one on the way" instead of saying "we have three children?" People say life begins at conception, I say life began about a billion years ago and it's a continuous process."


  • #339
    kerry4sam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,127 ✭✭✭✭kerry4sam


    Huntergonzo wrote: »
    Correct, if she got due care = the abortion she needed then she probably would be alive today.
    ...
    ec18 wrote: »
    Didn't the inquiry conclude that based on medical evidence available an abortion would have saved her?

    Yes.
    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Got a link to that?

    The link is right here from 2013
    There is no other way to summarise yesterday’s main testimony to the Savita Halappanavar inquest other than that, in the view of an expert witness, restrictive Irish abortion laws cost Ms Halappanavar her life.
    .

    According to our Taoiseach, the referendum on Abortion will be for after the next GE, see here.

    So no issues with a Referendum for Same Sex Marriage where they knew the YES campaign would win out ; but the 8th Amendment where they know they would have a battle on their hands, gets brushed off for the next to take power.

    Hope the Labour Party push this before the next GE ; or maybe they will use this contentious issue to help their own campaign.
    Will he next GE-campaign will be tied up into the views of our candidates on the 8th Amendment I wonder?

    Thanks,
    kerry4sam


  • #340
    Icepick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    kerry4sam wrote: »
    Hope the Labour Party push this before the next GE
    The risk here is we could lose because of the idiots known as protest voters.


  • #341
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,435 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Icepick wrote: »
    The risk here is we could lose because of the idiots known as protest voters.

    People tend to have their heads screwed on when it comes to votes of conscience. Take the recent referendum for example. No evidence whatsoever of a protest vote.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    Glenman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 978 ✭✭✭Glenman


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfh3f7q5Gg4


  • #343
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Glenman wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfh3f7q5Gg4

    Fantasist nonsense.

    You could replace that with a video showing a world without Hitler, Stalin, George Bush, Thatcher, to name but a few.


  • #344
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    Glenman wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfh3f7q5Gg4

    In fairness that's one of the stupidest videos I've ever seen, it shows us a reel of hypothetical people who done nice/great things. Of course it doesn't take into consideration that these things will almost certainly be done in the future anyway with or without abortion.

    Also where's the balance? It shows you hypothetical Leukemia researchers, All-Ireland winners, 1st female Taoiseach, ok there's a very small chance that abortion is temporarily denying us these people but it also could be denying us wife beaters, rapists, murders, pedophiles etc etc so why doesn't the video show any of those people I wonder because sadly they're even more likely to be born than a 1st Female Taoiseach.


  • #345
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    It would be quite ironic to have a woman as a Taoiseach, considering our constitution practically states a woman's place is in the home.


  • #346
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Glenman wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfh3f7q5Gg4
    Equally, let's insert babies with anencephaly, severe mental retardation, etc.


  • #347
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    It would be quite ironic to have a woman as a Taoiseach, considering our constitution practically states a woman's place is in the home.
    It doesn't really though.


  • #348
    Huntergonzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 ✭✭✭Huntergonzo


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    It would be quite ironic to have a woman as a Taoiseach, considering our constitution practically states a woman's place is in the home.

    That's what you get when an Archbishop basically writes your constitution.


  • #349
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    It doesn't really though.

    Article 41.2?
    - the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to
    the State

    - mothers shall not be obliged by
    economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.


  • #350
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Article 41.2?
    - the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to
    the State

    - mothers shall not be obliged by
    economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

    That does not say that she can't have a life outside of the home.


  • #351
    Glenman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 978 ✭✭✭Glenman


    This thread is quite pointless really. Those of us contributing to it are quite stuck in our views and no matter what people on the "other side of the debate" say our views will not be changed!


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    inocybe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭inocybe


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Article 41.2?
    - the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to
    the State

    - mothers shall not be obliged by
    economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

    except for single mothers who are no longer valued as parents when their youngest turns 7.


  • #353
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    traprunner wrote: »
    That does not say that she can't have a life outside of the home.

    I never said that.
    It says that a woman's duties are to be in the home and it's strongly implied that the man should be earning enough to cover both.


  • #354
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    inocybe wrote: »
    except for single mothers who are no longer valued as parents when their youngest turns 7.

    Yeah that's a bit of a pity.
    Wonder if someone could challenge it as unconstitutiuonal


  • #355
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    I never said that.
    It says that a woman's duties are to be in the home and it's strongly implied that the man should be earning enough to cover both.

    It says nothing or implies about a man (or nowadays another woman).


  • #356
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    traprunner wrote: »
    It says nothing or implies about a man (or nowadays another woman).

    How else does a woman stay at home to perform her duties without being obliged by financial necessity to find labour?
    check out constitution.ie - I cant post links


  • #357
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    How else does a woman stay at home to perform her duties without being obliged by financial necessity to find labour?
    check out constitution.ie - I cant post links

    Social welfare.


  • #358
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    I never said that.
    It says that a woman's duties are to be in the home and it's strongly implied that the man should be earning enough to cover both.
    It does not say that. It says that mothers who choose to work in the home shouldn't be forced to work outside the home.


  • #359
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    How else does a woman stay at home to perform her duties without being obliged by financial necessity to find labour?
    check out constitution.ie - I cant post links
    I have forgotten more about the constitution that you know tbh... :yawn:


  • #360
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,169 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    endacl wrote: »
    People tend to have their heads screwed on when it comes to votes of conscience. Take the recent referendum for example. No evidence whatsoever of a protest vote.

    TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if the "protest voters" used the presidential age referendum as their protest vote.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,435 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if the "protest voters" used the presidential age referendum as their protest vote.

    No way! That one went the way I voted. Can't have been anything wrong with that.

    Although I did feel a bit bullied. :mad:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement