nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Strike For Repeal?

fatknacker

Anyone gonna? I've the day off anyway but I probably wouldn't have stroked if I hadn't, although I would like everyone to have abortions. Whoops, I mean, choice for abortions.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

20Cent

The eigth has to be repealed for any type of abortion. I think the majority of people are for it in the case a fatal fetal abnormalities. Having to carry and give birth to a dead child is plain cruelty. Once it has been repealed then the argument about how many weeks or other circumstances start.

Richard Hillman

Just seen the pictures on the news. The crowd looked exactly like the type of people that would attend such a march. Not exactly a great advertisement.

snowflaker

Any pictures from the anti abortion demonstration at the Central Bank?

Cupcake_Crisis

You see, as much as I do want to support the repeal side, and I am very much pro choice, I'm getting so tired of the debate. Every angle has been beaten to death and we still haven't gotten anywhere.

I can see why strike for repeal came about, gather as many people as possible and make as much noise as possible to try and be heard. But the reality is that we are heard, so are the pro life side, we're just not being listened to.

The entire thing is just a mud slinging match now. There's no regard for the middle ground, for those who want pro choice/life within reason. The extremes of both sides are the only ones being heard and it belittles the debate.

snowflaker

jameorahiely wrote: »

Does wanting "bodily autonomy " mean you support abortion up to 39 weeks? It kind of has to...

No, if the child can exist outside the womb it would not be aborted

jameorahiely

Does wanting "bodily autonomy " mean you support abortion up to 39 weeks? It kind of has to...

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What's with the lightening strike? Are they trying to be Harry Potter or something?

Some genius seen a connection beteen a strike and a lightning strike seemingly unaware of its use by various fascist groups and right wing parties.

retro:electro

So Louise O Neill, one of the spearheads and social media anchors of the campaign, didn't even attend the march. But it's okay because she had a doctors appointment- and her doctor is a woman, woo girl power.(it's not like this march has been organised for months, right?) Basically she justifies not marching because she had meetings all day with women- so only leave your workplace and march if your boss is a man cos men are bad m'kay. "Do as I say, not as I do", eh.

The Legend Of Kira

MightyMandarin wrote: »

This is why I can't, in good conscience, vote to allow abortion, except in cases of fatal fetal abnormality, rape and where the mother's life is at risk.

I feel the arguments of weeks are just semantics; the real question is whether the right to life of an unborn child is any less than that of a child who's been born, and I just don't think it is.

The arguments on the contrary are compelling, but at the end of the day, nothing has convinced me to change my opinion on the central point of the debate thus far.

Id be against a straight up repeal of the 8th as Id fear future UK too liberal abortion type laws being introduced in the future,, I could vote for reform/replace of the 8th or an amendment to the 8th to allow for difficult hard cases such as ( 1 ) Rape & ( 2 ) No chance of survival outside the womb & ( 3 ) threat to the life of the mother .

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It's a difficult question to answer, but I feel this debate is about a balancing of interests and rights of both the mother and child. I feel that in a case where the mother has been raped, some compromise has to be made in her interest and the pregnancy aborted if she desires.

I will try my best to phase this as to why I think there should an exception in difficult hard cases of ( 1 ) rape , some of us may or may not have read about this recent gang rape story.

Five men have been arrested in connection with a gang rape that happened in December.

The men, who are aged between 17 and 20, were all arrested on Wednesday evening by detectives following an ongoing investigation.
It's been reported that a 17-year-old woman was raped by five men in December. She was brought to a location in a vehicle by a man she knew and was raped by other men when she arrived.

https://www.joe.ie/news/five-men-arrested-connection-gang-rape-midlands-579893

Now lets say for arguments sake she might be pregnant, she has being raped by 5 different guys- that,s obviously a huge violation , but the question poses if she is pregnant as a result of being gang raped is that a 2nd violation ? as I am a guy & not female I can,t answer that question, I think only someone who is female & has gone through such an ordeal can answer.

I also remember about these cases of girls who has being abducted by Isis who has being raped by their Isis captors, who managed to escape their captors later having abortions , once again I can,t begin to imagine the level of Trauma they had to go endure, so I don,t think or feel I can judge them in any way .

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-pregnant-girls-aged-9-5587288

On exception for cases

( 2 ) No chance of survival outside the womb

I read this case about this woman who had whose pregnancy had no chance of succeeding & had to wait for to die inside her for a month.

" I had to wait for my baby to die inside me "

In a difficult hard case such as this I think there should be a exception , as a guy I will never be able to understand hurt/ trauma she went through - by prolonging a pregnancy in such cases only prolongs the pain for someone which I don,t see the point in or see what purpose it serves to further prolong the pain for someone in such a difficult hard case .

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-had-to-wait-for-my-baby-to-die-inside-me-k7c7mvbjlnm

[Deleted User]

What's with the lightening strike? Are they trying to be Harry Potter or something?

NegativeCreep

Had to get a taxi home because of these idiots. Students that couldn't care less about abortion or women's issues but instead are just falling over each other to be seen as more progressive and liberal as all their friends is all I saw there today. If they had jobs they wouldn't have the time to be posing on O'Connell street.

Little CuChulainn

RobertKK wrote: »

https://twitter.com/NicoleOConor/status/839515950688964608
https://twitter.com/nora__claire/status/839516265345609728
https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/839435333859176449

Quite crude.

Much like the pro legalising drugs crowd, the pro choice crowd seem to have a really issue understanding how to appeal to people who don't already believe in their cause.

humanji

RobertKK wrote: »

https://twitter.com/NicoleOConor/status/839515950688964608
https://twitter.com/nora__claire/status/839516265345609728
https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/839435333859176449

Quite crude.

Well at least they're not using dead foetuses to promote their argument.

RobertKK

https://twitter.com/NicoleOConor/status/839515950688964608
https://twitter.com/nora__claire/status/839516265345609728
https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/839435333859176449

Quite crude.

laserlad2010

MightyMandarin wrote: »

But I will not support any campaign to remove a constitutional amendment which protects the right to life for the unborn. It is far too important to be repealed.

I feel you have articulated my own opinions far better than I could :pac: however I feel that we could amend it to allow for fatal abnormalities and maternal emergencies.

I'll agree that the Constitution needs to be a framework. What I meant was that I want our principles on the right to life of the unborn - whether that be widespread access, restricted access or zero access - to be enshrined in the Constitution so that governments cannot revisit it every 4 years or whenever votes are needed.

Of course, our principles now may yet in 30 years be obsolete, as they are now, in which case I'd support a review of the Constitution.

Wibbs

kylith wrote: »

Have you seen the cases in this country with people shaking hands with rapists?

I wish someone would put this silly hobby horse back in the stables. 1) it was one case, not "cases", 2) it was more about the small town outsider nonsense than rape, 3) the whole country was in uproar with a damning consensus about those muppets and the rape victim was universally supported. So yeah, maybe we would do well to drop the bias and hysterics on that case. Singular.

snowflaker

RobertKK wrote: »

Self mutilation would have one locked away for their own safety.

Robert not if they were proven to be of sound mind

Prime Irish Beef

RobertKK wrote: »

https://twitter.com/irishtimes/status/839493491797463040

Hundreds...

The big one is at half 5 this evening.

pumpkin4life

Whoever designed the marketing behind this need to get their head checked.

Dress in black =reminds people of death/evil/depression. Makes the pro choice look better.

The lightning bolt on a black background. Looks like a fascist sieg heil symbol. Again, reminds people of death/evil/depression.

Organize it for a time that only Arts students living off the Dad can protest. Results in no one turning up; a crowd of ugly blue haired nutjobs shouting at people and stopping ordinary, working people from getting around the place. Which also reminds people of death/evil/depression.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/thousands-march-against-eighth-amendment-in-dublin-1.3002375#.WMAQ83UgSgQ.twitter

Dishonest pricks. Less than 1000 people actually turned up for the cult of death march.

Virgil°

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This always makes me laugh, whenever the pro-choice side of the debate attempt to turn rape exception around as if it was the pro-life that dragged rape victims into the debate. Historically though, it hasn't been, as it's very much been the pro-choice side of the discussion that have always sanctimoniously tried to use rape victims as pawns and so to imply that the pro-life care less about babies which are the result of rape is quite laughable.

I don't neccessarily have to agree with the mainstream opinion of the repeal the 8th or the arguments they use. I have my own. I notice you not berating the pro-life side here though for the same tactics that the pro-life side use?

In fact, you yourself back in the day even cited rape as an example of when you would be willing to see abortion go ahead at a stage of pregnancy which you'd be opposed to were the baby not the result of rape and so maybe it is YOU that should be telling us WHY a child conceived of rape is any less deserving of life than one that isn't.

Or have you conveniently changed your mind since back then?

The exact phrase was "Barring perhaps". Hardly a zealous declaration of my being convinced one way or another.
I don't have a link to the whole post. But sure if you've already found it then link it to me and i'll clarify or fess up. I'm open to changing my mind or admitting mistakes. Something I find sorely lacking in many posters i debate with.

RobertKK

mejulie805 wrote: »

Amended by IT

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/thousands-march-against-eighth-amendment-in-dublin-1.3002375

I guess Roisin Ingle was not happy and got it changed to make it look better.

Virgil°

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The tone of your post is yet more confirmation to me why the repealthe8th campaign is losing vast amounts of support from the public. You may not tell me, or anyone else for that matter, what I can or can't believe in, and I will absolutely make exceptions on matters based entirely on my own personal convictions, and I hope others do the exact same. I don't give a **** if you think my reasoning just "doesn't cut it", you have no right to tell me that.

The hysterics don't help you. Actually I have every right to tell you that I think your reasoning is wrong(And then i explained why). And I did. And I will do so again. I never told you what you can or cant believe. You can believe the moon is made of cheese for all i care. Just don't think that your opinion should be taken seriously when we go to make the lunar landing gear.

That said, the right of the unborn child is not any less in value than other children, in the case where the mother was raped; I just feel an exception must be allowed, because it is unconscionable to have a woman forced to give birth to a child conceived through unconsensual sex imo. You might not think that's not an adequate reason but in my books, it absolutely is.

Again - we can't draft our laws and constitution around what you FEEL is right. Or make exceptions because you FEEL uncomfortable that a child can be conceived of rape. A child with supposedly equal right to life of another. This isn't a trifling thing or a minor detail than can be overlooked because you personally feel squeamish about it.

The 8th Amendment is anything but stupid or unclear. The Constitution is not designed to deal with exceptions to certain rules or the logisitics involved in implenting them, that's what legislation is for, and that is what the 2013 bill does. If the repealthe8th camapaign wish to lobby for a bill which will provide exceptions to the 8th Amendment in the cases I mentioned, I will fully support them.

Sorry but reality just doesn't bear out your opinion on whether or not it is unclear and stupid. Which is why we've had the cases i mentioned previously. If it was concise and clear as you say these cases simply wouldn't have occured.

But I will not support any campaign to remove a constitutional amendment which protects the right to life for the unborn. It is far too important to be repealed.

Unless she is raped? Or any other cases you personally feel uncomfortable with and exceptions should be made for? I notice you didn't bother addressing the part where i described how a rape loophole wouldn't work or why it would be impossible to legislate for. Maybe you could see past your hysterics and rhetoric and have another try?

_Whimsical_

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It most certainly is.

If I told you that support for Repealing the 8th Amendment was purely down to the trendiness of the social media campaign and that one's decision to support it was made because of a couple of black jumpers and hastags, how would you react?

It might seem crazy, but people can be opposed to all of those things, and not be catholic. Just be mindful of that.

I agree with you. I can think of several people I've spoken to about abortion who are not brought up with any religion who oppose abortion for very personal reasons,most of them to do with an experience of pregnancy or a premature baby. Something that affected their view of when life begins. I was surprised to find though that the reasons are very personally held and if he pretty sure not religious in origin.

Outlaw Pete

Virgil° wrote: »

Why would the right to life of the unborn be lessened in the case of rape? Surely the child is not at fault?

This always makes me laugh, whenever the pro-choice side of the debate attempt to turn rape exception around as if it was the pro-life that dragged rape victims into the debate. Historically though, it hasn't been, as it's very much been the pro-choice side of the discussion that have always sanctimoniously tried to use rape victims as pawns and so to imply that the pro-life care less about babies which are the result of rape is quite laughable.

In fact, you yourself back in the day even cited rape as an example of when you would be willing to see abortion go ahead at a stage of pregnancy which you'd be opposed to were the baby not the result of rape and so maybe it is YOU that should be telling us WHY a child conceived of rape is any less deserving of life than one that isn't.

Virgil° wrote: »

I think abortion should be illegal at the point where the brain begins to develop the parts of it required for higher brain function and ergo the formation of consciousness. Aferwards i would err on the side of life in most cases.
Barring perhaps rape and the mothers life being endangered.....

Or have you conveniently changed your mind since back then?

MightyMandarin

Virgil° wrote: »

Well theres two things here to be addressed.

1. You haven't told me WHY a child conceived of rape is any less deserving of life than one that isn't. All you can say is that you feel it would be immoral and an exception should be made. I'm afraid that just doesn't cut it. If you're against repealing the 8th you either have to grant that the right to life of the unborn is greater than the right to bodily autonomy of the woman or it isn't(And thats just the starting point). You can't just go revoking that because you personally feel we should.

2. With regards to actually legislating. The 8th is an inherently stupid and unclear piece of our constitution. Which is why we've had Savita dying/ girls being force fed/ corpses being kept alive artificially and more i'm sure.

The tone of your post is yet more confirmation to me why the repealthe8th campaign is losing vast amounts of support from the public. You may not tell me, or anyone else for that matter, what I can or can't believe in, and I will absolutely make exceptions on matters based entirely on my own personal convictions, and I hope others do the exact same. I don't give a **** if you think my reasoning just "doesn't cut it", you have no right to tell me that.

That said, the right of the unborn child is not any less in value than other children, in the case where the mother was raped; I just feel an exception must be allowed, because it is unconscionable to have a woman forced to give birth to a child conceived through unconsensual sex imo. You might not think that's not an adequate reason but in my books, it absolutely is.

The 8th Amendment is anything but stupid or unclear. The Constitution is not designed to deal with exceptions to certain rules or the logisitics involved in implenting them, that's what legislation is for, and that is what the 2013 bill does. If the repealthe8th camapaign wish to lobby for a bill which will provide exceptions to the 8th Amendment in the cases I mentioned, I will fully support them.

But I will not support any campaign to remove a constitutional amendment which protects the right to life for the unborn. It is far too important to be repealed.

mejulie805

RobertKK wrote: »

https://twitter.com/irishtimes/status/839493491797463040

Hundreds...

Amended by IT

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/thousands-march-against-eighth-amendment-in-dublin-1.3002375

Virgil°

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The child isn't at fault, but I feel in a particular case such as this, the circumstances of conception have changed enormously and to not allow an exception be made for a woman who was the victim of a rape would be immoral.´Like I said previously, it's about rights and interests, and in this case a compromise should be allowed to allow the mother abort the pregnancy if she so wished.

Well theres two things here to be addressed.

1. You haven't told me WHY a child conceived of rape is any less deserving of life than one that isn't. All you can say is that you feel it would be immoral and an exception should be made. I'm afraid that just doesn't cut it. If you're against repealing the 8th you either have to grant that the right to life of the unborn is greater than the right to bodily autonomy of the woman or it isn't(And thats just the starting point). You can't just go revoking that because you personally feel we should.

2. With regards to actually legislating. The 8th is an inherently stupid and unclear piece of our constitution. Which is why we've had Savita dying/ girls being force fed/ corpses being kept alive artificially and more i'm sure.

If we were to actually implement a loophole for rape how would it work logistically? Do we just take it on faith that the woman in question has been raped if she says so? Do we wait until a rape conviction has been secured(keeping in mind this can take years)? What happens in this case if the rapist appeals? If you really think it through this system simply couldn't and wouldn't work. Which is why we can't legislate based on what you or anyone else personally feel uncomfortable with.

Calhoun

kylith wrote: »

Have you ever been sexually assaulted? Have you seen the cases in this country with people shaking hands with rapists? Women disbelieved because they had previously been promiscuous, or were 'asking for it' because of the way they were dressed? In order to do what you suggest it would have to be proved that she was raped which could take months.

Have you also seen the recent trend where certain sections of society have been perpetuating a myth of rape culture. They are going as far as trying to redefine rape after the fact when they get a bought of buyers remorse.

If people are that flaky when it comes to rape, your damned sure i believe they should have to prove it.

seamus

laserlad2010 wrote: »

Indeed, but there is a push for an amendment allowing wider access to abortion.

There's not actually. The only real push is for a repeal of the eighth amendment. This would not in any sense of the word allow wider access to abortion, not without a whole host of other things taking place too.

Personally I want it enshrined in the Constitution so that it does not become a political football.

I don't want any rules which restrict the rights of the individual to be enshrined in the constitution. The constitution should only describe the structure and functioning of the government, and the government's responsibility to its citizens.

Articles which aim to restrict the rights of the individual should be removed from the constitution, including bans on abortion and divorce. These are civil matters which can and do change over time and so should be written in law.

The only time the constitution should mention individual rights is when it is copper-fastening them to prevent them being manipulated in law - such as the right of everyone to marry.

kylith

MightyMandarin wrote: »

That said, I already said such a case would, presumably, involve the Gardai and so the mother/victim of the rape would hopefully report it. I really don't see what the problem is with having them report the crime.

Have you ever been sexually assaulted? Have you seen the cases in this country with people shaking hands with rapists? Women disbelieved because they had previously been promiscuous, or were 'asking for it' because of the way they were dressed? In order to do what you suggest it would have to be proved that she was raped which could take months.