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

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

RobertKK

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Keep it as it stands or change it to something else were the options on the first ballot (change won by a huge majority). We are looking at the second ballot, where repeal or a new amendment were tabled.

They are on the 3rd ballot, result due in the next 10 minutes.

infogiver

pjohnson wrote: »

Last I heard it was pro-choice. When did it morph to pro-abortion?

Pro choice is the PC term for being pro abortion.
Pro abortion "lites" don't like the word abortion because it conjures up mental pictures of dead babies ( dead babies are the result of abortions, biologically, mind you), so they refer to "termination of pregnancy", and reframe the expression "pro abortion " as "pro choice" to put a bit of a better spin on it.
The heavy hitting pro abortionists are less squeamish and some of the chief celebrity defenders of abortion (Sarah Silverman, that girl from the series "Girls" I can't think of her name, recently took a selfie of herself having a bowel movement while sitting on the toilet eating cake and posted it on social media) have recently pushed the boundaries even more by expressing a wish to actually become pregnant just so they could have an abortion.
How anyone thought that any of this plus the pussy hats and the rosaries/ovaries chants would help to get the 8th amendment repealed is beyond me.
Some of us are very in PC so we just say it as we see it. Pro abortion.

Edited to add: the woman on the toilet eating cake is Lena Dunham.

Ken.

judeboy101 wrote: »

Including FGM, prostitution and womb renting?

Any adult over the age of majority should have the right to do as they please with their bodies as long as its legal.

infogiver

GarIT wrote: »

No, definitely not.

Well I don't understand then how if your going to give a woman the choice to get rid of her unborn daughter because she's just a dependent "parasite" if you will, why you wouldn't then give her opportunity a few weeks later to have the same dependent "parasite" subject to FGM?
Surely it should be the mothers choice?

infogiver

Barbie! wrote: »

Any adult over the age of majority should have the right to do as they please with their bodies as long as its legal.

What about the body within their body?

AtomicHorror

infogiver wrote: »

Pro choice is the PC term for being pro abortion.
Pro abortion "lites" don't like the word abortion because it conjures up mental pictures of dead babies ( dead babies are the result of abortions, biologically, mind you), so they refer to "termination of pregnancy", and reframe the expression "pro abortion " as "pro choice" to put a bit of a better spin on it.

**** that's a big-ass straw man.

"Pro-abortion" implies that choice is somehow innately better, when obviously that's not the case. "Pro-choice" more accurately states what the repeal movement want- to allow choice, one way or the other.

Ken.

infogiver wrote: »

What about the body within their body?

Most of the time it's there by the woman's choice so if she doesn't want it there for whatever reason she shouldn't be made to keep it there.

me_right_one

Barbie! wrote: »

Any adult over the age of majority should have the right to do as they please with their bodies as long as its legal.

Even if that means killing someone else's body?

me_right_one

Barbie! wrote: »

Most of the time it's there by the woman's choice so if she doesn't want it there for whatever reason she shouldn't be made to keep it there.

Yea, but she doesnt have to kill it! Thats the point! Why are the only two options ever put forward either: A) full term pregnancy, or

pull the live baby apart limb from limb while its screaming in pain?

You do know we have the technology to implant the baby into another mother or even a test tube, right?

Ken.

me_right_one wrote: »

Even if that means killing someone else's body?

Woman's body-Woman's choice. The fetus is not a person till its born. Up to about 25 weeks it wouldn't survive without the mother so it is part of her and if she doesn't want that part of her anymore thats her choice.

AtomicHorror

me_right_one wrote: »

Yea, but she doesnt have to kill it! Thats the point! Why are the only two options ever put forward either: A) full term pregnancy, or pull the live baby apart limb from limb while its screaming in pain?

You do know we have the technology to implant the baby into another mother or even a test tube, right?

No we don't. What are you talking about?

infogiver

AtomicHorror wrote: »

**** that's a big-ass straw man.

"Pro-abortion" implies that choice is somehow innately better, when obviously that's not the case. "Pro-choice" more accurately states what the repeal movement want- to allow choice, one way or the other.

Ok. Are the Repeal movement pro abortion or ant abortion?

Ray Burkes Pension

So in the 1st ballot it was
Retain in full - 12
Replace or amended - 79
Totals votes 91

2nd ballot
Repeal - 39
Amend - 50
Abstain - 2
Total 91

Why are the 12 that vote to retain allowed to vote again what type of change it is.

If the vote was 1 motion instead of 2.
It would be
Keep it - 12
Amend - 38
Repeal - 39
Abstain - 2

me_right_one

Barbie! wrote: »

Woman's body-Woman's choice. The fetus is not a person till its born. Up to about 25 weeks it wouldn't survive without the mother so it is part of her and if she doesn't want that part of her anymore thats her choice.

Oh. My. God.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No we don't. What are you talking about?

Yes we do! Since the seventies! They even do it with endangered animals FFS!

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

AtomicHorror

infogiver wrote: »

Ok. Are the Repeal movement pro abortion or ant abortion?

Neither. Mother chooses at the time.

GarIT

infogiver wrote: »

Well I don't understand then how if your going to give a woman the choice to get rid of her unborn daughter because she's just a dependent "parasite" if you will, why you wouldn't then give her opportunity a few weeks later to have the same dependent "parasite" subject to FGM?
Surely it should be the mothers choice?

In something is in me and is a part of me I have control over it. When something detaches itself from me and is not inside me it has the right to autonomy IMO.

Also, I support abortion before life (the ability to have independent thoughts) begins but not after.

AtomicHorror

me_right_one wrote: »

Oh. My. God.

Yes we do! Since the seventies! They even do it with endangered animals FFS!

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

IVF.

How does IVF help a woman with an unwanted pregnancy?

GarIT

Ray Burkes Pension wrote: »

So in the 1st ballot it was
Retain in full - 12
Replace or amended - 79
Totals votes 91

2nd ballot
Repeal - 39
Amend - 50
Abstain - 2
Total 91

Why are the 12 that vote to retain allowed to vote again what type of change it is.

If the vote was 1 motion instead of 2.
It would be
Keep it - 12
Amend - 38
Repeal - 39
Abstain - 2

Just because you don't support change doesn't mean you should lose your say on how change happens.

hairyslug

Well i can see AH is gonna be a real trip for the next 18 months

Ken.

me_right_one wrote: »

Oh. My. God.

Yes we do! Since the seventies! They even do it with endangered animals FFS!

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

You are suggesting that if a woman got pregnant and didn't want it that it could be removed from here and put in another woman. That's impossible as far as I know.

On the first one, I have my opinion and you have yours. We are not going to agree ever I think.

Cupcake_Crisis

infogiver wrote: »

Ok. Are the Repeal movement pro abortion or ant abortion?

They're pro choice.

me_right_one

AtomicHorror wrote: »

IVF.

How does IVF help a woman with an unwanted pregnancy?

The technology exists to remove the baby ALIVE, and let the person develop outside the womb. But sure its cheaper to whisk it to liquid while its heart is still beating.

AtomicHorror

me_right_one wrote: »

The technology exists to remove the baby ALIVE, and let the person develop outside the womb. But sure its cheaper to whisk it to liquid while its heart is still beating.

Seriously, that technology does not exist.

Mena

AtomicHorror wrote: »

me_right_one wrote: »

The technology exists to remove the baby ALIVE, and let the person develop outside the womb. But sure its cheaper to whisk it to liquid while its heart is still beating.

Seriously, that technology does not exist.

Sure it does, indone saw it on Star Trek.

pjohnson

Gotta love AH.

Simultaneously they want to keep the Nuns away from womens to keep the women safe and not let nuns ethos affect the baby.

While still wanting the same ethos the nuns would have enforced on the women to still be enforced on them.

If the consensus is abortion = bad/murder then why was the backlash against nuns who would have preached the same. LOL.

me_right_one

Barbie! wrote: »

You are suggesting that if a woman got pregnant and didn't want it that it could be removed from here and put in another woman. That's impossible as far as I know.

On the first one, I have my opinion and you have yours. We are not going to agree ever I think.

Well educate yourself then. Its not impossible, its done on farms with purebred cattle all the time. This is literally life-and-death we're talking about here, its pretty important to know these things.

Just out of curiosity, why do you pro-abortionists insist on not giving the baby an anesthetic first? Is there any particular reason for this?

RobertKK

Ray Burkes Pension wrote: »

So in the 1st ballot it was
Retain in full - 12
Replace or amended - 79
Totals votes 91

2nd ballot
Repeal - 39
Amend - 50
Abstain - 2
Total 91

Why are the 12 that vote to retain allowed to vote again what type of change it is.

If the vote was 1 motion instead of 2.
It would be
Keep it - 12
Amend - 38
Repeal - 39
Abstain - 2

They have a right to vote again, just like the people who vote in the French elections and whose choice doesn't get through to the next round of voting will have the right to vote again in round two.

Hellrazer

me_right_one wrote: »

The technology exists to remove the baby ALIVE, and let the person develop outside the womb..

Sorry but I'm after spitting my lunch out laughing at this post.
Sounds like something out of a sci if movie.

pjohnson

me_right_one wrote: »

Well educate yourself then. Its not impossible, its done on farms with purebred cattle all the time. This is literally life-and-death we're talking about here, its pretty important to know these things.

Just out of curiosity, why do you pro-abortionists insist on not giving the baby an anesthetic first? Is there any particular reason for this?

Erm women and cattle are actually different spieces? You are aware of this right?

padd b1975

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

They're pro choice.

At what stage of pregnancy does science usurp choice?

In your opinion.