The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

jaja321

seamus wrote: »

It will be something along the lines of saying the Oireachtas will have the power to legislate in relation to abortion.

My understanding is that the legal experts determined that a straightforward repeal wouldn't give the government power to legislate. There would be other provisions in the Constitution on which abortion laws could be declared unconstitutional.

But by explicitly stating that the Government are permitted to legislate, you remove all question of whether abortion legislation would be unconstitutional.

This isn't actually a call to repeal, it's even better than that.

Thanks for explaining that. Its also likely that the referendum that would be needed to change the wording of 40.3.3. to something giving the Oireachtas power to legislate in relation to abortion, might more easily pass rather than straight repeal.

conorhal

notjustsweet wrote: »

I'm presuming youre a virgin then.
Anyone who says things like "make better choices" really has no place in this conversation.

Saying things like "make better choices" excludes you from debate? You are a very enlightened example of why the pro-abortion side frequently looks shrill and foolish.

pjohnson

conorhal wrote: »

Saying things like "make better choices" excludes you from debate? You are a very enlightened example of why the pro-abortion side frequently looks shrill and foolish.

I dont believe you adressed what you meant by being against abortion "in most cases" care to elaborate? Or just evade?

njs030

conorhal wrote: »

Saying things like "make better choices" excludes you from debate? You are a very enlightened example of why the pro-abortion side frequently looks shrill and foolish.

Yet your abuse telling me to make better choices was OK?? At no point have I said what my personal choice would be but you feel it's OK to make nasty personal comments and complain when they are returned?

No, I'm pro choice. Let people make up their own minds. We are adults here.

I won't be responding to you so save the drama.

gizmo81

This 'debate' is going on for longer than i have been alive. It's not a debate it's one part of society trying to control another part. I have not heard any reasonable debate.

Get over it. The world moves. Women have abortions.

Some women will want/need abortions. Allow them to make that choice.

We tried as a society to block abortion and the result of it was laundries, septic tanks etc That is not shutting down debate that is highlighting the results of a failed policy on abortion.

Calhoun wrote: »

This is why if it had of gone to a repeal referendum it might well have failed, the identify politic simplification of the argument and bringing it into an us versus them perspective is ignorant of the complex and nuanced problem that we have in Ireland.

We move on then to the collective blaming of anyone that doesnt agree with the SJW narrative, if you don't agree with me you want to see babies dead in a septic tank. Designed to shut down reasonable discourse, nice little tactic imported from the Americans.

If you want a reasonable debate on this i would suggest you change the tune. Otherwise you might not be happy with the result.

conorhal

notjustsweet wrote: »

Yet your abuse telling me to make better choices was OK?? At no point have I said what my personal choice would be but you feel it's OK to make nasty personal comments and complain when they are returned?

No, I'm pro choice. Let people make up their own minds. We are adults here.

I won't be responding to you so save the drama.

If there are better choices that a person can make in life to ensure the don't end up making tragic ones, they should probably examine the choices they make and try to make better ones, way controversial statement that.

As for you're whining attempt at to suggest I'm being abusive towards you,
Sorry snowflake, but disagreeing isn't abuse, and as you are to person wittily quipping "I'm presuming youre a virgin then.", you'll have to forgive me if I think that attempt at climbing up on a high horse is a wee bit laughable.

pjohnson

conorhal wrote: »

If there are better choices that a person can make in life to ensure the don't end up making tragic ones, they should probably examine the choices they make and try to make better ones, way controversial statement that.

As for you're whining attempt at to suggest I'm being abusive towards you,
Sorry snowflake, but disagreeing isn't abuse, and as you are to person wittily quipping "I'm presuming youre a virgin then.", you'll have to forgive me if I think that attempt at climbing up on a high horse is a wee bit laughable.

So no answer then. Standard

Calhoun

gizmo81 wrote: »

This debate is going on for longer than i have been alive.

Get over it.

Some women will want/need abortions. Allow them to make that choice.

We tried as a society to block abortion and the result of it was laundries, septic tanks etc That is not shutting down debate that is highlighting the results of a failed policy on abortion.

No no when you accuse people who dont agree with you of being advocates for the crap that happened in the mother and baby homes you are shutting down debate. The laundries were the result of another time altogether, abortion was one of the issues that created them but not the only one. To compare society today with back then is a huge stretch.

Yes it has been going on for longer than we both have been alive but the playground name calling is not going to make it finish any quicker.

You need to get over yourself and accept the nuanced approach that exists here because otherwise you are going to be very unhappy in the future.

gizmo81

gizmo81 wrote: »

This 'debate' is going on for longer than i have been alive. It's not a debate it's one part of society trying to control another part. I have not heard any reasonable debate.

Get over it. The world moves. Women have abortions.

Some women will want/need abortions. Allow them to make that choice.

We tried as a society to block abortion and the result of it was laundries, septic tanks etc That is not shutting down debate that is highlighting the results of a failed policy on abortion.

Get over it????? You have not heard any reasonable debate, so your answer is "get over it"?
Society in Ireland has also moved forward since the times you have mentioned
There is next to no stigma now with an unmarried woman having a child
There is also a lot more help and assistance for anyone having a child

You are right though, the world has moved on, thankfully

conorhal

pjohnson wrote: »

I dont believe you adressed what you meant by being against abortion "in most cases" care to elaborate? Or just evade?

I'm not being evasive, I have things to do today other then argue on the internet and parse every comment on a thread believe it or not.

I fundamentally disagree with abortion but we live in the real world, if a woman need chemo to save her life or a hystorectomy to save her life then the sad and inevitable consequence will be aborting the child.
As much as I dislike abortion I could also live with it in the case of fatal fetal abnormalities that would see that child suffer and die shortly after birth, there are alternatives like neo-natal hospice care that have many psychological benefits for grieving parents too, but I could understand ending a pregnancy in which the child never stood a chance anyway and foregoing the trauma of that birth for both the parents and the child.

gizmo81

I haven't used a playground name please point to it.

The laundries were a result of hiding the problem! The ferries are a result of hiding the problem.

How many more decades do you want to keep passing on the problem?

Calhoun wrote: »

No no when you accuse people who dont agree with you of being advocates for the crap that happened in the mother and baby homes you are shutting down debate. The laundries were the result of another time altogether, abortion was one of the issues that created them but not the only one. To compare society today with back then is a huge stretch.

Yes it has been going on for longer than we both have been alive but the playground name calling is not going to make it finish any quicker.

You need to get over yourself and accept the nuanced approach that exists here because otherwise you are going to be very unhappy in the future.

pjohnson

conorhal wrote: »

I'm not being evasive, I have things to do today other then argue on the internet and parse every comment on a thread believe it or not.

I fundamentally disagree with abortion but we live in the real world, if a woman need chemo to save her life or a hystorectomy to save her life then the sad and inevitable consequence will be aborting the child.
As much as I dislike abortion I could also live with it in the case of fatal fetal abnormalities that would see that child suffer and die shortly after birth, there are alternatives like neo-natal hospice care that have many psychological benefits for grieving parents too, but I could understand ending a pregnancy in which the child never stood a chance anyway and foregoing the trauma of that birth for both the parents and the child.

So you do want the 8th amended after all? Thats what I thought glad I cleared that up.

gizmo81

Because the neighbours are happy enough with the knocked up young wan next door we should force her to carry a baby for 9 months?

Deleted User wrote: »

Get over it????? You have not heard any reasonable debate, so your answer is "get over it"?
Society in Ireland has also moved forward since the times you have mentioned
There is no next to no stigma now with an unmarried woman having a child
There is also a lot more help and assistance for anyone having a child

You are right though, the world has moved on, thankfully

gizmo81

gizmo81 wrote: »

Because the neighbours are happy enough with the knocked up young wan next door we should force her to carry a baby for 9 months?

What?

conorhal

pjohnson wrote: »

So you do want the 8th amended after all? Thats what I thought glad I cleared that up.

I don't think it's necessary from my point of view, it would be acceptable to me however if it was amended to permit for fatal fetal abnormalities.

gizmo81

I read it that you said because there is no stigma for single mothers we should ban abortion?

"There is no next to no stigma now with an unmarried woman having a child
There is also a lot more help and assistance for anyone having a child"

Deleted User wrote: »

What?

Calhoun

gizmo81 wrote: »

I haven't used a playground name please point to it.

The laundries were a result of hiding the problem! The ferries are a result of hiding the problem.

How many more decades do you want to keep passing on the problem?

Don't play coy, i am pointing out to you that the tactic used in the same sex referendum will not work for this debate.

Your playground argument is turning the debate into an us versus them position, throwing out the misogyny card, you then double down on it by using a statement that tries to put anyone who disagrees with you into a seemingly defenseless position by throwing out the ultimate shut down, "if you dont agree with me you advocate for the mother and baby homes."

The laundries were the result of Ireland being entrenched in Catholic doctrine and also being very misogynistic in its approach to woman. In 21st century Ireland i would think we have moved on a bit from there.

Right now we don't per say have a real on the ground problem, as people who really want an abortion go abroad. This however fails the poor folk of this country who have fatal fetal abnormalities ect.

We do need to amend the legislation, it does not really belong in the Constitution. However the argument is not simplified, it is complex and nuanced. Paddy has a problem with changing it and having nothing in place, if you start treating him in a condescending manner throwing out lablels ect lets see where it lands.

pjohnson

conorhal wrote: »

I don't think it's necessary from my point of view, it would be acceptable to me however if it was amended to permit for fatal fetal abnormalities.

Yes so despite you histrionics regarding "pro abortionists" you are actually in favour of the amendment. Was an odd duopoly that you tried to sneak in unnoticed. Perhaps your admittance may show you that those who want choice dont actually want all babies mounted on pikes or have an insatiable abortion lust. People just dont want another Savita or to force women to endure giving birth to a baby destined to die.

gizmo81

gizmo81 wrote: »

I read it that you said because there is no stigma for single mothers we should ban abortion?

"There is no next to no stigma now with an unmarried woman having a child
There is also a lot more help and assistance for anyone having a child"

you brought up laundries and septic tanks, I was referring to the fact that Ireland has moved on, so your points are out of date. I did not say let's ban abortion as there is no stigma for unmarried women having children, you only quoted part of my post

conorhal

pjohnson wrote: »

Yes so despite you histrionics regarding "pro abortionists" you are actually in favour of the amendment. Was an odd duopoly that you tried to sneak in unnoticed. Perhaps your admittance may show you that those who want choice dont actually want all babies mounted on pikes or have an insatiable abortion lust. People just dont want another Savita or to force women to endure giving birth to a baby destined to die.

I'm sure in your mind you've caught a demagogue in some wonderful 'gottcha!' moment, but I've never said anything I consider inconsistent. What I meant (and perhaps is in need of clarification) was, I'm not in favor of a change in the constitution. If an amendment was passed by the electorate that allowed for abortion in the case of fatal fetal abnormality I could accept and understand that.
As somebody with a distaste for the commodification of life as yet another disposible product, I see no conflict in the ending of a life that would never survive, and my own personal morality, that objects to ending a life for the sake of convenience.

I don't characterize people who are pro abortion as slavering individuals who "want all babies mounted on pikes or have an insatiable abortion lust", that's just your sad projection of your own prejudices onto my mindset, and what would have saved your favorite strawman Savita Halapinaver's life was an ounce of logic and a competent doctor who bothered to read a chart or answer a page.

WHIP IT!

gizmo81 wrote: »

Because the neighbours are happy enough with the knocked up young wan next door we should force her to carry a baby for 9 months?

With every post you make, you push many undecided people further and further away from supporting your ideals... I'm not sure if you're aware of that - but you should be.

gizmo81

If they need to use me as an excuse that's fine. The weak have been using the strong to justify their weakness forever.

WHIP IT! wrote: »

With every post you make, you push many undecided people further and further away from supporting your ideals... I'm not sure if you're aware of that - but you should be.

Calhoun

gizmo81 wrote: »

If they need to use me as an excuse that's fine. The weak have been using the strong to justify their weakness forever.

Hahahah head in the sand missing the point but i am loving the militant stand point keep it up .

pjohnson

conorhal wrote: »

I'm sure in your mind you've caught a demagogue in some wonderful 'gottcha!' moment, but I've never said anything I consider inconsistent. What I said was, I'm not in favor of a change in the constitution. If an amendment was passed by the electorate that allowed for abortion in the case of fatal fetal abnormality I would accept that.
As somebody with a distaste for the commodification of life as yet another disposible product, I see no conflict in the ending of a life that would never survive, and my own personal morality, that objects to ending a life for the sake of convenience.

I don't characterize people who are pro abortion as slavering individuals who "want all babies mounted on pikes or have an insatiable abortion lust", that's just your sad projection of your own prejudices onto my mindset, and what would have saved your favorite strawman Savita Halapinaver's life was an ounce of logic and a competent doctor who bothered to read a chart or answer a page.

And now your rhetoric is back lol.

conorhal

pjohnson wrote: »

And now your rhetoric is back lol.

Yeah...rhetoric..what a terrible thing rhetoric is..... it should probably be banned!

rhetoric
ˈrɛtərɪk/
noun
noun: rhetoric

the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.


Actually, I don't even understand your statement, the weird, bitter, hollow tone of it sure, but the substance of it?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Well this went to shít quicker than usual

WHIP IT!

gizmo81 wrote: »

If they need to use me as an excuse that's fine. The weak have been using the strong to justify their weakness forever.

An excuse for what?

gizmo81

To vote against abortion

WHIP IT! wrote: »

An excuse for what?

WHIP IT!

gizmo81 wrote: »

To vote against abortion

That's the point you might be missing - I don't think people who are ready to vote "against abortion" are looking for, or need, an excuse... but those who are unsure are seeking clarity - and you provide none. This insistence that "Non Repealers are woman-hating God botherers" is doing the Repeal movement immeasurable harm.

Zillah

I've often wondered about pro-lifers' position on the rest of the political spectrum. It's really interesting that they're usually quite right wing - fiscally and socially conservative.

When it comes to paying taxes and those taxes being used to help poor families feed their children, clothe them for school, and give them a leg up for higher education they get quite upset and complain about freeloaders, scumbags, dole queues etc. They really only seem to care about the poor babies before they are born; the moment they enter the world and start living their lives they and their slut single mothers can go die in a tenement for all they care.

Which always leads me to suspect that it doesn't really have anything to do with caring about the poor foetuses. It's about punishing women. You dared to have sex and now you should suffer the consequences. Keep your legs closed next time.

It's the same reason they ranted about the poor children during the Marriage Equality referendum. You can't get away with calling them dirty faggots any more, they know that, so they find some moralistic highground they can get hysterical about and shout that to the world until the cows come home.

You can't tell women they should shut their mouths and wait for their husbands to get them pregnant, they know that too, so they go on about the poor babies, which in reality they couldn't give a fup about.

It's always Helen Lovejoy, essentially.