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

conorhal

Beyondgone wrote: »

I'd say (but then I'm a halfwit) that common sense should apply.
2 weeks pregnant? Yes.
1 month? Yes.
6 months. No.
Baby has congenital defects? Yes.
You were raped? Yes.

Apart from them few, I'm very pro life. But then I'm male, and as such, I consider that it is none of my business what a woman does with her body, because "not a woman". Pretty much.

Well here come the hard questions, and abortion asks them.

6 months no, why?
What constitutes a congenital defect? Are you talking about fatal fetal abnormalities or survivable conditions?
Rape is a difficult one granted, but after 6 months does that context nullify the right to life? The baby is no less viable. I get that it's a tough one, but should that baby have less rights then one conceived in a one night stand?

AtomicHorror

Beyondgone wrote: »

I'd say (but then I'm a halfwit) that common sense should apply.
2 weeks pregnant? Yes.
1 month? Yes.
6 months. No.
Baby has congenital defects? Yes.
You were raped? Yes.

Apart from them few, I'm very pro life. But then I'm male, and as such, I consider that it is none of my business what a woman does with her body, because "not a woman". Pretty much.

Why 6 months no?

Like, consider the scenarios where someone's seeking an abortion at 6 months:

Wanted pregnancies that have gone badly wrong somehow (FFA, etc) - in my view anything that must make a mother want to end a wanted pregnancy so late must be a catastrophic change in circumstances.
Unwanted pregnancies where somehow the mother was unable to access an abortion for 6 months - if we allow earlier term pregnancies this should be almost impossible, so how would this happen? Some sort of weird coma scenario or abduction or false imprisonment?

cinnamony

I am pro choice but I must admit I'm not sure as to what extent the accidental pregnancy/contraception failed excuse holds in a country like Ireland.

You are usually recommended to use 2 forms of contraception and from what I know (please correct me if I am wrong) contraceptive pills/shots implants etc... are not only easily available but free on the medical card.
Condoms are easily available too in stores etc..

So in these cases I'm not sure if there's a pro choice argument to be made barr that people should be able to do what they want with their bodies..

njs030

infogiver wrote: »

So the journey through the vaginal canal confers personhood?
While the thing in the womb is fully grown, sucking its thumb, sometimes having a bowel movement, reacting to stimulus, reacting to sounds like the sound of its mothers voice, it's not a baby, not a person, not a human being and if it's mother chooses she can decide to kill it, but once it passes through an inches long canal and emerges then it becomes a baby a person a human being and she can no longer kill it.
Why? I mean why can she now not kill it?
Because she can see it?

You've asked this same question to at least 3 different people now and it's been explained to you very clearly that despite your attempts at emotive language, fetus is a medical term as is embryo.

oneilla

Deleted User wrote: »

Everyone on here arguing either for or against the 8th were once a clump of cells>foetus>baby etc. Evferyone is unique. There will never be a satisfactory solution to all of this IMO......

I'm no fan of absolute statements like this but you've got :
a) people arguing that ending a pregnancy ie. after implantation, is killing babies
b) people arguing for autonomy over what happens within women's own bodies and
c) people claiming ignorance along the lines "oh but what about the sensible average undecided moderate middle ground".

IMO at least one of the three are ignorant of facts around ending a pregnancy and at least one is arguing in bad faith.

AtomicHorror

So the picture emerging since the 3rd ballot is "repeal and replace", but with the replacement text being an explicit requirement that the Oireachtas is empowered to legislate for abortion, and on the relative rights of the mother and unborn.

Which seems to me to be functionally the same as deleting 40.3.3, aka repealing the 8th.

What am I missing here? What's the difference?

It would take a second referendum to strip the Oireachtas of their power to legislate for abortion and the rights of the unborn?

Beyondgone

I'd say (but then I'm a halfwit) that common sense should apply.
2 weeks pregnant? Yes.
1 month? Yes.
6 months. No.
Baby has congenital defects? Yes.
You were raped? Yes.

Apart from them few, I'm very pro life. But then I'm male, and as such, I consider that it is none of my business what a woman does with her body, because "not a woman". Pretty much.

conorhal

gizmo81 wrote: »

I did not give you consent to put words in my mouth. Is consent that alien of a concept to you?

AHhahahahhahahhahah...awww..... AHhahahahhahahahah

conorhal

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No, till then its continued life is dependant on a risk to the health or life of another person, the mother.

Well so is a baby five minutes later, or several years later for that matter. What's your point?

infogiver

gizmo81 wrote: »

When the mother gives birth.

So the journey through the vaginal canal confers personhood?
While the thing in the womb is fully grown, sucking its thumb, sometimes having a bowel movement, reacting to stimulus, reacting to sounds like the sound of its mothers voice, it's not a baby, not a person, not a human being and if it's mother chooses she can decide to kill it, but once it passes through an inches long canal and emerges then it becomes a baby a person a human being and she can no longer kill it.
Why? I mean why can she now not kill it?
Because she can see it?

AtomicHorror

conorhal wrote: »

So 'it's fair game' till then? That's sociopathic.

No, till then its continued life is dependant on a risk to the health or life of another person, the mother.

gizmo81

I did not give you consent to put words in my mouth. Is consent that alien of a concept to you?

conorhal wrote: »

So 'it's fair game' till then? That's sociopathic.

conorhal

volchitsa wrote: »

But I didn't equate them, did I?

I'm just saying that you're assuming that because your position is commonplace, in Ireland, it's normal. But that isn't necessarily the case, as Saudi Arabia shows : people there think their views about women are normal. That doesn't mean they're right.

And not long ago, having a vasectomy was almost as shocking in Ireland as having an abortion. It was certainly illegal. So your belief that only a lunatic fringe thinks different from you isn't nearly as logical as you imagine. If you'd lived 50 years ago you'd think differently about vasectomy.

And like I say, Ireland's position on abortion is seriously out of whack with the rest of the democratic world and with human rights organizations. I think that's evidence that the traditional Irish view is probably wrong.

Like Saudi Arabia - but I still didn't say it was the same as Saudi Arabia. Like Puh-lease.

If I lived fifty years ago, a dead baby would still be a dead baby. Opinions and social mores may change, reality doesn't. The reality of abortion isn't an opinion.

Larbre34

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Everyone on here arguing either for or against the 8th were once a clump of cells>foetus>baby etc. Everyone is unique. There will never be a satisfactory solution to all of this IMO......

How about letting people have the option to choose the course of action for inside their own bodies for themselves?

Nobody in a liberalised abortion regime is going to force the pro-lifers to change the course of action they would always have followed for themselves or their loved ones, why shouldnt the reverse be true?

As regards todays outcome, I dont think it will change one bit what would have been put to the people, i.e. keep the status quo or repeal, replace and allow the Oireachtas to legislate for enlightened and compassionate reproductive rights. This nonsense of suggesting an amendment to a disfunctional amendment is unsatisfactory to everyone, every side.

conorhal

gizmo81 wrote: »

When the mother gives birth.

So 'it's fair game' till then? That's sociopathic.

volchitsa

conorhal wrote: »

I was typing a response and then realised, 'Ireland = Saudi Arabia'... Yeah, sooo not worth bothering really...unless you can explain to me how a vascetomy and an abortion are in anybody's universe the same thing? You seem to be making the semantic strawman argument that my position on abortion indicates I should somehow think they are.
Nobody equating the two is rational, and by definition, a lunatic is an irrational person, a bit likes somebody equating Ireland with Saudi Arabia.

But I didn't equate them, did I?

I'm just saying that you're assuming that because your position is commonplace, in Ireland, it's normal. But that isn't necessarily the case, as Saudi Arabia shows : people there think their views about women are normal. That doesn't mean they're right.

And not long ago, having a vasectomy was almost as shocking in Ireland as having an abortion. It was certainly illegal. So your belief that only a lunatic fringe thinks different from you isn't nearly as logical as you imagine. If you'd lived 50 years ago you'd think differently about vasectomy.

And like I say, Ireland's position on abortion is seriously out of whack with the rest of the democratic world and with human rights organizations. I think that's evidence that the traditional Irish view is probably wrong.

Like Saudi Arabia - but I still didn't say it was the same as Saudi Arabia. Like Puh-lease.

gizmo81

When the mother gives birth.

infogiver wrote: »

When is it a baby gizmo?

infogiver

gizmo81 wrote: »

It's not a baby!

When is it a baby gizmo?

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

You made an assumption that was incorrect, i merely pointed that out, continue to dig if you please but my point has been made.

An assumption from a hypothetical scenario cannot be incorrect if a post-hoc fact was never made explicitly clear in the first place. You're picking at a scabby point in an effort to point score and if point scoring is more important to you than making an actual point based upon statistical evidence, then well done you.

I'll unsubscribe from this thread now and let it descend into the usual echo chamber that these threads do.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, that's not what I said. Statistics would suggest that more women who have abortions are unmarried mothers. There wasn't anything more to it than that, though it'd be remiss of me if I pretended that I wasn't aware of the social stigma that Jacinta would more likely face that Sorcha wouldn't, for fear of offending Sorcha and her husbands sensitivities.

If I'm only one person, and I know as many as I do know, that would suggest there's more than a select few, but if you want to play that down too, fine by me. I also already explained what they were grieving for, but the terms wouldn't suit you as you wouldn't regard the unborn as a child. I wouldn't be the kind of arsehole that's going to contradict them though given their circumstances.

You made an assumption that was incorrect, i merely pointed that out, continue to dig if you please but my point has been made.

[Deleted User]

Everyone on here arguing either for or against the 8th were once a clump of cells>foetus>baby etc. Everyone is unique. There will never be a satisfactory solution to all of this IMO......

Hellrazer

me_right_one wrote: »

That's a pure scumbag attitude. Please don't tell me you're serious

Please don't resort to calling people names.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

Statistical evidence would show that all women experiencing unplanned pregnancies are unmarried mothers? I used inverted commas as you described them as such. The hypothetical women being discussed, you said "as unmarried mothers", they were not presented as unmarried mothers.

No, that's not what I said. Statistics would suggest that more women who have abortions are unmarried mothers. There wasn't anything more to it than that, though it'd be remiss of me if I pretended that I wasn't aware of the social stigma that Jacinta would more likely face that Sorcha wouldn't, for fear of offending Sorcha and her husbands sensitivities.

Fair point about my comment re not considering themselves to be mothers. There are a select few that would I guess. Although grieving for a what if is not always grieving for a child as a mother, but you are correct in what you're saying in general terms.

If I'm only one person, and I know as many as I do know, that would suggest there's more than a select few, but if you want to play that down too, fine by me. I also already explained what they were grieving for, but the terms wouldn't suit you as you wouldn't regard the unborn as a child. I wouldn't be the kind of arsehole that's going to contradict them though given their circumstances.

One eyed Jack

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Oh for god's sake. I said pro-life people should spend more time campaigning for education, social inclusion, healthcare etc (show me thousands of them marching every year), and that people at a lower point in the socio economic scale are more affected by the lack of availability of abortion in Ireland.

You came back with some random shíte about the Church (which I never mentioned) providing hospitals, and the differing plights of unmarried mothers (who I never mentioned).

This post hoc rationalisation is not AT ALL convincing. You either didn't read the post, or read things into it that weren't there.

It's not post hoc rationalisation at all. You made the point in your first paragraph as to what you suggested people who are pro-life should be doing. I made the point that they do it already, and were doing it for a long time before the recent pro-choice numbnuts were collecting on O' Connell bridge wearing pussy hats and carrying signs demanding that Enda stay out of their uterus.

The thing is, when any of my friends tell me they're pro-choice, I don't immediately question why they aren't at such behaviour, not particularly because I know they have more class, but because I know they're no different than myself - more interested in the education and welfare of people who are socioeconomically deprived so that their children don't experience second and third generation poverty.

Other people are so far up their own ideology that they can think of nothing else but their own point of view.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Statistical evidence would suggest otherwise. I'm not sure why the inverted commas around "unmarried mothers" either?

Hypothetical arguments are predicated upon assumptions being made. You didn't see me get so precious about the names and locations electro used to make her point. That's because I understood where she was coming from and didn't care to be so precious about it.

You assume you can speak for the minds of all women who have had an abortion? Well while your assumptions would conveniently support your argument, I know enough women who have had abortions who grieve for their unborn, to know different. I don't have to make assumptions in that regard.

Statistical evidence would show that all women experiencing unplanned pregnancies are unmarried mothers? I used inverted commas as you described them as such. The hypothetical women being discussed, you said "as unmarried mothers", they were not presented as unmarried mothers.

Fair point about my comment re not considering themselves to be mothers. There are a select few that would I guess. Although grieving for a what if is not always grieving for a child as a mother, but you are correct in what you're saying in general terms.

njs030

Calhoun wrote: »

Yes but in the context of this discussion we are not talking about emotionally or physically. The only way we can try and maintain some objectivity in this discussion is if we stick to the law.

You used the word legally responsible. A fathers legal responsibility if he chooses to leave his child is financial.

I was clarifying that there is nothing more than that.

Calhoun

notjustsweet wrote: »

I think the word you're looking for is financially. Yes they can be forced to hand over money.

Emotionally and physically, yes some do abandon their children.

Yes but in the context of this discussion we are not talking about emotionally or physically. The only way we can try and maintain some objectivity in this discussion is if we stick to the law.

Calhoun

gizmo81 wrote: »

And they can sign away their parental responsibility to avoid maintenance.

They can but they can also still be forced to pay maintenance it really depends on what the mother of the children wants.

Here we go

Zaph wrote: »

Couple of flaws in that plan. First it assumes that the rapist is known, and has been caught so that their sentence could be increased and their access rights removed. Second there's the problem that if the rapist is caught and imprisoned they're not going to have any income for the duration of their incarceration, so there'd be nothing to give to the mother. I'm sorry, but the option for women who become pregnant through rape to have an abortion if they so wish has to be available. Anything else is needlessly cruel and inhumane.

I take your points and yes each case is different in cases where rapist isnt known the extra torture a victim may occur of the DNA donar taking them to court to see child wouldn't be an issue and as much as I'm in favour of rapists being jailed for longer then 18 years unfortunitly they get out what seems excessively early here so any income they make the child is under 18 should be taken and given to child also some may already have money and this should be sold and used to help child again I'm not trying to under state rape just that it seems like a ethical fudge I'm pro life I belive the child to be there own person but if it's from the evil act by some scum we can be ok with it the child is still it's own person it had no act in said vial act

njs030

Calhoun wrote: »

Not legally they don't, you have to take them to court but in the eyes of the law they are responsible and can be taken to court by the mothers.

I think the word you're looking for is financially. Yes they can be forced to hand over money.

Emotionally and physically, yes some do abandon their children.