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

Faugheen

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

It's allowed to happen because of this thing we have called 'democracy'.

gctest50

me_right_one wrote: »

Well educate yourself then. .....

Please provide a link/source (done in humans ) to educate us

AtomicHorror

AtomicHorror wrote:

me_right_one wrote: »

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?

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?

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.

This whole exchange undermines your opinion hugely tbh.

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.

IVF is used for animal breeding. An egg fertilised in a dish and then implanted. Never have I heard of an embryo or fetus being transferred out of one womb and into another, and if that technique existed it would be remarkably risky for mother and unborn both. Far more so than natural birth.

sjb25

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.

Whaaat

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

One eyed Jack wrote: »

About the same time as pro-life morphed into anti-choice.

Not true actually, pro-choice came about after anti-abortion activists decided to brand themselves as pro-life after Roe vs Wade, the clear implication being that those who advocated for abortion rights were anti-life.

'Pro-choice' came into usage as a direct response to being called anti-life.

There can be a lot of petty vindictiveness from both sides in this debate, but in this case pro-life actually did start it. Don't let facts stop you getting a dig in though jack, good man.

Cupcake_Crisis

padd b1975 wrote: »

At what stage of pregnancy does science usurp choice?

In your opinion.

I don't think abortion with no limits will ever be passed in Ireland and I'm perfectly happy with.

However, my personal beliefs should not dictate the actions of others.

Ken.

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?

I am not pro abortion. That's the funny thing. I'm pro choice. If a woman gets pregnant by her own choice and then decides to get rid of it that's her choice. If a rape victim decides to keep her rapists baby that's also her choice.

[Deleted User]

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.

Are you talking about embryo transfer?

Embryo transfer happens in humans too, but it has an exceptionally tight window of availability. You can't just plonk a 12-week foetus into another woman whenever you like, let alone into a test tube. The situation has to be carefully managed from the first stages of pregnancy. I've seen it go wrong with cattle, even with the best will in the world.

Is this a wind-up?

me_right_one

Barbie! wrote: »

I am not pro abortion. That's the funny thing. I'm pro choice. If a woman gets pregnant by her own choice and then decides to get rid of it that's her choice. If a rape victim decides to keep her rapists baby that's also her choice.

Why do you pro-abortionists insist on not giving the baby an anesthetic first? Is there any particular reason for this?

AtomicHorror

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Are you talking about embryo transfer?

Embryo transfer happens in humans too, but it has an exceptionally tight window of availability. You can't just plonk a 12-week foetus into a woman, let alone a test tube. The situation has to be carefully managed from the beginning. Ive seen it go wrong with cattle, even with the best will in thr world.

Isn't that just a step in IVF? I've seriously never heard of in vivo fertlized embryo being extracted for transfer.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

me_right_one wrote: »

Why do you pro-abortionists insist on not giving the baby an anesthetic first? Is there any particular reason for this?

We just really enjoy insisting on it. First thing in the morning before I even have a cup of tea, I try and insist at least three times that anesthetic isn't used on a baby. Sets me right up for the day.

What is actually the matter with you?

gctest50

me_right_one wrote: »

Why do you pro-abortionists insist on not giving the baby an anesthetic first? Is there any particular reason for this?

Why won't you answer this question first ?

me_right_one

Well educate yourself then. .....

gctest50

Please provide a link/source (done in humans ) to educate us

Annasopra

GarIT wrote: »

I completely support repeal but how is this a legitimate vote when the option "Keep it as it is" wasn't allowed?.

No.

It was allowed.

The first ballot was
1 Keep as is
2 Repeal or amend

There was then a second ballot

AtomicHorror

me_right_one wrote: »

Why do you pro-abortionists insist on not giving the baby an anesthetic first? Is there any particular reason for this?

Ask a doctor who does terminations.

Ready to link us to information on your fetus transplant technology yet?

Sofiztikated

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?

You're thinking of IVF, mate. Completely different kettle of fish.

And most doctors, OB-GYN and such, you know, experts, agree on the consensus that a fetus doesn't have the capability to feel pain until the 3rd trimester.

pjohnson

me_right_one wrote: »

Why do you pro-abortionists insist on not giving the baby an anesthetic first? Is there any particular reason for this?

Do you mean a human baby or a calf baby? Or is it interchangable?

Cupcake_Crisis

me_right_one wrote: »

Why do you pro-abortionists insist on not giving the baby an anesthetic first? Is there any particular reason for this?

You keep saying that as though the average person on the street has ANY input intohow a medical procedure is carried out?

pjohnson

Sofiztikated wrote: »

You're thinking of IVF, mate. Completely different kettle of fish.

And most doctors, OB-GYN and such, you know, experts, agree on the consensus that a fetus doesn't have the capability to feel pain until the 3rd trimester.

I wouldnt mention fish, hes already confused cattle and women

Toots

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.

On Borg Cubes.....

I'm not an expert on abortions, but I'm pretty sure that "whisking to liquid" isn't a part of the procedure.

conorhal

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Not true actually, pro-choice came about after anti-abortion activists decided to brand themselves as pro-life after Roe vs Wade, the clear implication being that those who advocated for abortion rights were anti-life.

'Pro-choice' came into usage as a direct response to being called anti-life.

There can be a lot of petty vindictiveness from both sides in this debate, but in this case pro-life actually did start it. Don't let facts stop you getting a dig in though jack, good man.

I'm pro-life, I have no issue with being called anti-abortion though, because I am against abortion (in most cases) so it's a far summation of my position. The 'pro-choice' crowd for some reason get pretty bent out of shape if you refer to then as pro-abortion, the reason being that the prefer to couch ugly things in euphimism because they don't like to present the bald reality of their cause least it loose them sympathy. Saying you favor 'choice' must be a good thing because who doesn't like choice? It's like saying I love freedom, because who doesn't love freedom! In which case who could argue with George W bringing 'freedom' to Iraq?

Sofiztikated

Toots wrote: »

On Borg Cubes.....

I'm not an expert on abortions, but I'm pretty sure that "whisking to liquid" isn't a part of the procedure.

Ever try sticking an egg beater into someones gooch, never mind up to the womb? They're usually not too receptive, abortion or no abortion.

One eyed Jack

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Not true actually, pro-choice came about after anti-abortion activists decided to brand themselves as pro-life after Roe vs Wade, the clear implication being that those who advocated for abortion rights were anti-life.

'Pro-choice' came into usage as a direct response to being called anti-life.

There can be a lot of petty vindictiveness from both sides in this debate, but in this case pro-life actually did start it. Don't let facts stop you getting a dig in though jack, good man.

I'm aware of the etymology of these terms and their political and social context, that's why I've never cared much for any of them, and I don't personally align myself with any of them on what to most people is such a complex issue that goes beyond a minority of peoples ideological positions.

It wasn't a dig at anyone though, but if I had wanted to I could merely have said that understanding of any ideology isn't helped by the minority of it's fundamentalist extremist adherents.

Ken.

me_right_one wrote: »

Why do you pro-abortionists insist on not giving the baby an anesthetic first? Is there any particular reason for this?

I'm not against it as long as its safe for the woman involved.

[Deleted User]

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Isn't that just a step in IVF? I've seriously never heard of in vivo fertlized embryo being extracted for transfer.

No, the embryo is (or rather, a number of these are) harvested from a donor uterus and transferred to the recipient cow.

http://www.merckvetmanual.com/management-and-nutrition/embryo-transfer-in-farm-animals/embryo-transfer-in-cattle

People are pooh-poohing that as an idea, but actually it does happen, that's not the problem.

The problem is that it is a cerfully managed technology. You can't just rock up with any pregnancy and transfer embryos at any stage of development. That's just stupid.

Cupcake_Crisis

conorhal wrote: »

I'm pro-life, I have no issue with being called anti-abortion though, because I am against abortion (in most cases) so it's a far summation of my position. The 'pro-choice' crowd for some reason get pretty bent out of shape if you refer to then as pro-abortion, the reason being that the prefer to couch ugly things in euphimism because they don't like to present the bald reality of their cause least it loose them sympathy.

So you have no problem being labeled anti choice. Which is what you are considering that you're really only pro life when it comes to the life of the unborn, not the living woman.

Ulysses Gaze

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.

This is complete bull****. I have googled this and nothing come up.

This is what I DID find. From someone with a medical background.

The fetus and placenta, and chorion, and umbilicus, and all the rest of the gestational materials, form a single semiallogenic or allogenic graft on the body of the pregnant woman which is usually attached to the lining of her uterus. The combined products forms a "reproductive graft" in mammals.

Like any graft a part of the material is recognized by the woman's body as foreign to her body (approximately 1% because most of the male contribution is still "human" like the woman and so is the same in both). The woman's body (immune system) tries to reject the graft but her immune system is dampened during pregnancy to prevent rejection.

In order to transplant from one uterus to another what would need to be done is to have the reproductive graft (all of it) and the part of the "donor" uterus it is attached to removed from the pregnant woman, and then this would have to be grafted onto the properly prepared uterus of the new "host". It would require anti-rejection drugs, of course, to prevent the "reproductive graft" graft from being rejected by the host and an almost instant vascular (blood) supply would be required for the placenta - which would be about the equivelant of transferring the NY phone exchange to Hong Kong and having it work.

The_Valeyard

Can we have a megathread on this please. I do not want AH clogged up with the abortion debate for the next few months.

jca

ciaradx wrote: »

Two people preferred to not state their opinion, so what's the point of them being part of the assembly? Like people who vote "I don't know" on opinion polls.

Exactly. Why would you accept the offer of being on the citizens assembly and then not vote?? It should be disregarded unless everyone votes.

gctest50

me_right_one wrote: »

while its heart is still beating.

Heart cells beating spontaneously in a petri dish

conorhal

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

So you have no problem being labeled anti choice. Which is what you are considering that you're really only pro life when it comes to the life of the unborn, not the living woman.

I do have a problem being labeled anti choice because it's not descriptive of any position. Am I anti all choices? Do I think ice-cream should by law only be available in vanilla? It's a stupid term that tries to conflate choice with abortion, which is not choice, its a specific choice I disagree with.
As for you BS strawman that if you don't support abortion you hate women and want them to die, that's not even worth dignifying with an answer. I am not now nor ever have been against a procedure that saves the life of a woman, abortion is rarely that procedure and when it is about 24 happen in this country a year.