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

jaja321

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I wouldn't get too excited about what was achieved yesterday. Convincing less than 100 people to vote a certain way, in a very controlled environment by exposing them to one side and refusing to grant proper access to the other side is no big feat.

The bias, the ignorance of the truth, and the lies being told by the Pro-Choice side is staggering.

For example, in the last few minutes on the Marian Finuncane Radio Show Marian was using the Savita Halappanavar case to justify abortion which is total rubbish as all three enquiries into that case found that it wasn't the absence of abortion that caused her death it was medical mismanagement.

This was pointed out by a male guest and immediately afterwards a female guest on the show stated that it was the absence of clarity which was the problem. That is also rubbish. It's well known that her death had absolutely nothing to do with any absence of clarity. The medical team failed to monitor and diagnose her condition. According to the HIQA report, there were 13 different occasions on which a potentially life-saving intervention could have been made but it didn't happen because they didn't know she was seriously ill.

The biggest indictment of abortion is that people who are in favour of it know it will never be legislated for unless they tell lies about it.

Have you watched all the sessions of the citizens assembly?

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

I don't want to either. It's tiresome and it just goes round in circles so as they say on Dragons Den, I'm out.
Unfollowing.

This didnt last I see :P

B_Wayne

So far the citizens assembly voting has voted in favour of legislating for abortion in far broader circumstances than before. More votes to go. But passed in favour so far.

PopePalpatine

B_Wayne wrote: »

They were spoken to by both sides. So it's dishonest to claim that only one side spoke. It's just indicative of one side not being very convincing.

I take it Youth Defence & co. weren't allowed to bring in pictures of miscarriages this time?

me_right_one

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The second ballot seemed to rule out repeal (triggering this thread) but the third ballot seems to indicate the CA will recommend something functionally the same as repeal.

The Repeal movement wanted deletion of 40.3.3, which would by default mean the Oireachtas has to legislate on the rights of the unborn and abortion.

The third ballot proposed replacing 40.3.3 with a statement that... the Oireachtas has to legislate on the rights of the unborn and abortion.

The CA voted in favour of this.

Am I missing something big here? Isn't this exactly what the Repeal movement wanted?

eviltwin wrote: »

The repeal movement want the amendment removed. This is not just because of abortion but mainly because it impacts maternity care. The current development may pave the way for more access to abortion but won't address the maternity system which affects all women not just those in need of termination.

The repeal side wanted to remove the 8th so that Ireland would have an abortion-on-demand system. They didnt realise that repealing it would not automatically lead to such a system, but they were correct insofar as it would be a step towards it.

The outcome from yesterday means that the unborn still have EQUAL right to life as anyone else. This rules out abortion-on-demand completely. It is now off the table.

What is left to decide is when it will be ok to abort for reasons other than medical (which was legalised in 2013). The CA will likely recommend a referendum on an amendment to the 8th which will allow lawful abortion in certain non-medical cases, ie incest and rape.

I am pro-life. I do not see this as a good outcome, although at least it smashes any ambitions of abortion-on-demand ever being legal. I would rather see children conceived in rape being adopted, and having adopted a child myself, I would have no problem saving that person from a death that was not of their making, and which they had no choice in.

B_Wayne

Me_right_one, the "rights of unborn" would no longer be in the constitution with the change. It would be handled legislatively. Today's votes so far have passed even with "socioeconomic" grounds to be legislated for. The eight amendment will be gone as we know it, thankfully.

njs030

me_right_one wrote: »

....and which they had no choice in.

Yet the other innocent victim is ignored, the one who is actually living, walking and talking and can think, has feelings and a whole life of her own.

She also had no choice and was violently attacked, stripped of her rights and dignity but all you see is an incubator?

Pro life....but not for supporting those who are currently living.

me_right_one

notjustsweet wrote: »

Yet the other innocent victim is ignored, the one who is actually living, walking and talking and can think, breathe and isnt reliant on anyone else foreverythinh.

She also had no choice and was violently attacked, stripped of her rights and dignity but all you see is an incubator?

Pro life....but not for supporting those who are currently living.

What are you on about? That isnt the issue. Of course the rape victim should be helped / supported / compensated. Nobody's saying they shouldnt

njs030

me_right_one wrote: »

What are you on about? That isnt the issue. Of course the rape victim should be helped / supported / compensated. Nobody's saying they shouldnt

You are saying they should have no choice and they should be forced to carry the baby of their attacker.

That's very much the issue actually.

me_right_one

notjustsweet wrote: »

You are saying they should have no choice and they should be forced to carry the baby of their attacker.

That's very much the issue actually.

So killing the baby is your solution?

CzechChick

good

volchitsa

me_right_one wrote: »

What are you on about? That isnt the issue. Of course the rape victim should be helped / supported / compensated. Nobody's saying they shouldnt

If necessary by strapping her down and force feeding her for a few months until the pregnancy is over though. Right?

I hope no-one I care about ever needs help from any pro lifers.

Kitsunegari

me_right_one wrote: »

So killing the baby is your solution?

Yes, she should have that choice as bringing a child of rape to full term can have serious mental consequences for the mother.

Women should have the right to do what they want with their bodies. There is a generation of people that still exist that think that everybody should be forced to live by their own beliefs.

I don't believe in a free-for-all abortion system but I find it quite sick the mentality of those that want to force their belief system onto others knowing the long term damage such a mentality has. It's quite disgusting that these holier-than-thou types still exist in such large droves. I'm not sure why you think you have the moral authority over what a woman can do with her body.

volchitsa

pilly wrote: »

I've never understood why abortion is not allowed in the North actually?

Religion.

Fundamentalist Protestants are as homophobic and misogynistic as anything that Catholic Church has to offer. Maybe more so. Paisley's Save Ulster from Sodomy campaign was the envy of the Catholic Church in the north. If he'd wanted their active cooperation he'd have had it, but he neither wanted nor needed them for it.

njs030

me_right_one wrote: »

So killing the baby is your solution?

I think the person who is currently alive and can walk and talk and has feelings should be our priority.
I genuinely can't understand how anyone can call themselves pro life but not care about the lives of women who have suffered a life altering attack, but care more about a bundle of cells.

Sofiztikated

me_right_one wrote: »

The repeal side wanted to remove the 8th so that Ireland would have an abortion-on-demand system. They didnt realise that repealing it would not automatically lead to such a system, but they were correct insofar as it would be a step towards it.

The outcome from yesterday means that the unborn still have EQUAL right to life as anyone else. This rules out abortion-on-demand completely. It is now off the table.

What is left to decide is when it will be ok to abort for reasons other than medical (which was legalised in 2013). The CA will likely recommend a referendum on an amendment to the 8th which will allow lawful abortion in certain non-medical cases, ie incest and rape.

I am pro-life. I do not see this as a good outcome, although at least it smashes any ambitions of abortion-on-demand ever being legal. I would rather see children conceived in rape being adopted, and having adopted a child myself, I would have no problem saving that person from a death that was not of their making, and which they had no choice in.

The Repeal side wanted the 8th Amendment removed, so that abortion could be legislated for. The details of said legislation would have then had to be worked out. You'll find that Repeal supporters would have differing opinions as to what the legislation would have said.

You're the one saying Repeal = Mandatory abortions.

Sofiztikated

me_right_one wrote: »

So killing the baby is your solution?

Having the choice would be the solution.

If the rape victim wanted to carry the pregnancy to term, they would still be able to.

If the rape victim wanted to terminate the pregnancy, they would be able to.

masculinist

Barbie! wrote: »

For the record if it comes to a vote I'll vote to repeal it cause I think women should have a right to choose what they do with their own bodies.

So you think its your body right up until the day you give birth ? I see two bodies. If that second body was put there through rape or molestation .i.e against the will of the first body, or if it was endangering your life then I can understand the need to remove it and I'd not blame you. However if that second body , that second life was put there due to the consenting behavior of the mother then I'm not convinced because I see a life there for whom you'd be fully ethically responsible in my view.

If someone punched a pregnant lady in the stomach and she had a miscarriage , I'd fully believe that person to have committed murder. Similarly I would have a dim view of someone pregnant who was drinking , smoking and taking various drugs etc. How would you view this ? Its a big nothing if the baby is born with fetal alcohol syndrome with disabilities and significantly lower IQ ?

jaja321

me_right_one wrote: »

The outcome from yesterday means that the unborn still have EQUAL right to life as anyone else. This rules out abortion-on-demand completely. It is now off the table.

This is not the case. In fact abortion with out restrictions as to the reason is one of the options being voted on today in terms of recommendations to the oireachtas.

njs030

masculinist wrote: »

So you think its your body right up until the day you give birth ? I see two bodies. If that second body was put there through rape or molestation .i.e against the will of the first body, or if it was endangering your life then I can understand the need to remove it and I'd not blame you.

So you do believe it should be amended.

masculinist

notjustsweet wrote: »

So you do believe it should be amended.

Don't selectively quote me.

As a male , if someone came along, hit me over the head and I woke up with a strange baby inside me through some sort of alien technology , I'd be under considerable stress, want it taken out asap and morally I would view the responsibility for this as being fully on the shoulders of the criminal who did this. Now you see the thought experiment, therefore I would agree with any victim of rape or molestation where the life created was not chosen being given that choice.

However I do not agree with opening the floodgates,e.g abortion being given on demand to promiscuous women or otherwise who happily choose to take the risk in a country where many types of contraception exist. I have no problem with promiscuity. I am very thankful to the many promiscuous women I have met in my life. However when a life is created , then its time to behave like a responsible adult. We all wish we could live life without consequences. It would be great craic indeed but I can't get away from the fact that murder is murder. And many of the sjws and feminists and the funding for such people comes from an ideology which fully supports on demand abortion right up to the 9th month.
And if a woman decides to keep the baby and approach a man for child support, the typical feminist response is that its ''her body'' but not ''his wallet'' and to tell him to ''keep it in his pants'' , a command which can easily backfire as you might see.

njs030

masculinist wrote: »

Don't selectively quote me.

As a male , if someone came along, hit me over the head and I woke up with a strange baby inside me through some sort of alien technology , I'd be under considerable stress, want it taken out asap and morally I would view the responsibility for this as being fully on the shoulders of the criminal who did this. Now you see the thought experiment, therefore I would agree with any victim of rape or molestation where the life created was not chosen being given that choice.

However I do not agree with opening the floodgates,e.g abortion being given on demand to promiscuous women or otherwise who happily choose to take the risk in a country where many types of contraception exist. I have no problem with promiscuity. I am very thankful to the many promiscuous women I have met in my life. However when a life is created , then its time to behave like a responsible adult. We all wish we could live life without consequences. It would be great craic indeed but I can't get away from the fact that murder is murder. And many of the sjws and feminists and the funding for such people comes from an ideology which fully supports on demand abortion right up to the 9th month.
And if a woman decides to keep the baby and approach a man for child support, the typical feminist response is that its ''her body'' but not ''his wallet'' and to tell him to ''keep it in his pants'' , a command which can easily backfire as you might see.

I replied and then deleted it because wow.

Promiscuous women?? But you're happy to have sex with them.
Hypocrite.

somefeen

We've been arguing about this for what, 20 years now?

At this point I just want the government to make SOME decision other than carry on as usual.
Pick an option, run with it. If people aren't happy modify it later.

masculinist

notjustsweet wrote: »

I replied and then deleted it because wow.

Promiscuous women?? But you're happy to have sex with them.
Hypocrite.

Lets be logical here now . What exactly is your problem ? Are you judging promiscuous women ? Because I was not. I even went so far as to praise them. However if a life is created through a consensual action then its time to be an adult and take responsibility. And that is very different from a non consenting situation. And why the name calling ? I have never been a hypocrite. Not even once.
This is why sjws and feminists are so difficult to have a logical discussion with. They only see what they want to see. And when they cant find a logical argument , they resort to name calling.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Every time I have sex, I consent to sex only, not with the condition this may produce a child. To say "well she had consensual sex, now let her live with it", is kind of punishing a woman, no?

njs030

masculinist wrote: »

Lets be logical here now . What exactly is your problem ? Are you judging promiscuous women ? Because I was not. I even went so far as to praise them. However if a life is created through a consensual action then its time to be an adult and take responsibility. And that is very different from a non consenting situation. And why the name calling ? I have never been a hypocrite. Not even once.
This is why sjws and feminists are so difficult to have a logical discussion with. They only see what they want to see. And when they cant find a logical argument , they resort to name calling.

Your assumptions are appalling.

Promiscuous women want abortion on demand? So could married women get abortions? If someone was a virgin and got pregnant after her first time is she then allowed?

You're a hypocrite because you use the word promiscuous and "praise" them as if you have some kind of right to sit in judgement on women.
Yet you're happy to take what you want from them. That is hypocrisy.

I assume though that if one of these women you judge to be promiscuous but good enough to have sex with did get pregnant and didn't want to be a mother you'd pay all her bills, make sure she wasn't struggling because of your consensual actions and take the child away after birth? As it's time to be an adult.

[Deleted User]

It never ceases to amaze me how some people are obsessed with what others do with their bodies.

If you don't want to avail of abortion then don't. It doesn't mean others shouldn't be allowed to make that choice themselves.

masculinist

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Every time I have sex, I consent to sex only, not with the condition this may produce a child. To say "well she had consensual sex, now let her live with it", is kind of punishing a woman, no?

Every time you have sex , you know you risk creating a life. Knowing the consequences and taking responsibility for them is called being an adult.
Feminists have no problem telling a man on the hook for child support that he should ''keep it in his pants'' or ''man up'' . Adult women, particularly the feminists being offended at a requirement to ''woman up'' and take responsibility for their actions seem to be the hypocrites here.

volchitsa

notjustsweet wrote: »

Your assumptions are appalling.

Promiscuous women want abortion on demand? So could married women get abortions? If someone was a virgin and got pregnant after her first time is she then allowed?

You're a hypocrite because you use the word promiscuous and "praise" them as if you have some kind of right to sit in judgement on women.
Yet you're happy to take what you want from them. That is hypocrisy.

I assume though that if one of these women you judge to be promiscuous but good enough to have sex with did get pregnant and didn't want to be a mother you'd pay all her bills, make sure she wasn't struggling because of your consensual actions and take the child away after birth? As it's time to be an adult.

Why do I get the impression that only the promiscuous women get saddled with the baby by posters like the one you're replying to?

I bet he has no plans to force fathers to bring up the child if the mother doesn't want it, never mind do so himself!

As for "consensual sex" meaning consensual parenthood, it's laughable, or it should be. Are you consenting to get lung cancer every time you smoke? Or to get sunburn if you don't buy the most effective sun creams when on holiday and use them without fail? So if you get sun stroke or lung cancer, the doctor tells you to live with it? :rolleyes:

masculinist

notjustsweet wrote: »

Your assumptions are appalling.

Promiscuous women want abortion on demand? So could married women get abortions? If someone was a virgin and got pregnant is she then allowed? It's actually the worst argument against abortion I've heard.

You're a hypocrite because you use the word promiscuous and "praise" them as if you have some kind of right to sit in judgement on women.
It sounds like you're quite promiscuous yourself actually.

I assume though that if one of these women you judge to be promiscuous but good enough to have sex with did get pregnant and didn't want to be a mother you'd pay all her bills, make sure she wasn't struggling because of your consensual actions and take the child away after birth? As it's time to be an adult.

Again you only see what you want to see. You've created a false argument so you can argue with yourself. I have the right to judge anyone I want and vice versa. However I have not done so despite all your conniptions. Men are mercilessly judged all the time. Thankfully by not all women but theres a certain type of women who want all the benefits of living in a civilized adult society and none of the responsibilities. My children want for nothing. So less of the false accusations please eh ?
I can see now that victims of rape dont seem to be your main priority here otherwise you would have found some common ground. You are more concerned with abortion on demand of a life created by consent by a responsible adult. And I cannot support that.