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

thee glitz

AtomicHorror wrote: »

64% support from the CA for abortion on demand. Surely, this could not possibly have gone better for the Repeal camp?

I did 20 seconds research and calculate it as 59.8%.

AtomicHorror

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Legalise abortion without restriction?

Put that to the people and see how it gets on

Again, the opposition not understanding what's happening.

This won't be put to the people. The referendum will be whether to amend 40.3.3 to allow the Oireachtas to legislate.

Then the Oireachtas will legislate for abortion without restriction! Haha, yeah right. No, they're spineless and they'll take a much safer path, at least to begin with.

eviltwin

anna080 wrote: »

Have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the feminazi's on Twitter who yesterday lambasted the very idea of a Citizens Assembly, like omg the fact that they even matter is disgusting, how dare you have a say over what I do with my body bla. Now today omg thank god for the citizens assembly today is a good day woo girl power.

And today the anti choice groups are saying the CA was rigged.

I understand people being upset or angry at the result but to spout blatant rubbish like that is just sour grapes.

Parchment

eviltwin wrote: »

And today the anti choice groups are saying the CA was rigged.

I understand people being upset or angry at the result but to spout blatant rubbish like that is just sour grapes.

If they got their way they would say the CA was watertight.

AtomicHorror

thee glitz wrote: »

I did 20 seconds research and calculate it as 59.8%.

That's still a majority, but anyway my figure comes from reason 13- abortion to be allowed with no restriction as to reason.

No: 29

Yes, up to 12 weeks: 25
Yes, up to 22 weeks: 23
Yes, with no restriction on time: 4

No opinion given: 6

The CA counts based on those who express an opinion, and the sum of the yes votes is 52 out of a total of 81, which is 64%.

retro:electro

eviltwin wrote: »

And today the anti choice groups are saying the CA was rigged.

I understand people being upset or angry at the result but to spout blatant rubbish like that is just sour grapes.

Ya I agree. There is hypocrisy on both sides to be fair.

masculinist

somefeen wrote: »

...can you tolerate them from men? Because I can guarantee that reading the above increased the testosterone levels in my blood by a significant level.
If this is the way you speak then its fairly obvious that any argument you have for/against abortion or a father's choice to take or not take responsibility is based purely on your own sexism.

Your white knighting is very sexist and infantilizes the person I was trying to have a rational discussion with . To answer your question , I don't tolerate idiots unless they are well meaning idiots. I'm discussing the rights of an unborn baby not to be murdered under the law and all you care about is attacking me personally which doesn't make you well meaning and certainly makes you look like a person who is not serious or credible.

Outlaw Pete

notjustsweet wrote: »

I think the person who is currently alive and can walk and talk and has feelings should be our priority.

They already are a priority when it comes to risk of life, including suicide:

Risk of loss of life from physical illness
Two physicians, one an obstetrician and the other a specialist in the field of the relevant condition, must concur. For example, if the woman has cancer, the two physicians would be an obstetrician and an oncologist. Where relevant, the specialists must also consult the woman's general practitioner (GP). The termination would be an elective procedure performed at an appropriate institution.

Risk of loss of life from physical illness in emergency
In a medical emergency, a single physician must both provide the diagnosis and perform the termination.

Risk of loss of life from suicide
Three physicians must concur; an obstetrician, a psychiatrist with experience treating women during or after pregnancy, and another psychiatrist. At least one of them should consult the woman's GP with her consent. The termination would be an elective procedure performed at an appropriate institution.

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.

The 'bundle of cells' argument is, and has always been, absurd, do we always have to have it on these threads? Technically we all just a bundle of cells. A fetus has a heartbeat and brain waves. To describe them as just a bundle of cells just shows a desire to dehumanize fetuses so as to diminish the act of abortion.

circadian wrote: »

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

A fetus is not a part of a woman's body, they are human beings with their own bodies and nobody should be able to chose to pull the limbs off their bodies, still their heartbeat and brainwaves just because their life is inconvenient to them. The one person a developing human being should be able to count on to protect them is their "mother".

On one thread I find myself arguing that a man was harshly treated by receiving six years in prison for kissing and intimately touching a 15-year-old girl and yet here some of those same people, who found my opinion on the other thread so shocking, seemingly have no problem with a defenseless baby in the womb having it's body pulled apart and it's bloody remains binned. What a fcuking world.

The above is a fetus at 24 weeks (legal to murder them at this stage in the UK) and it'll be said that well the majority of abortions happen long before that, as if that somehow makes the others okay. It doesn't. Sentience, viability, ability to feel pain etc etc... are all red herrings. A fetus is a human being. They are alive. We declare death on the absence of a heartbeat and therefore we should accept that the presence of one means a life has begun.

osarusan

January wrote: »

These are the results from the vote today -

1. No restriction for real and substantial physical risk to life of woman.
2. No restriction for real and substantial risk of suicide.
3. No restriction for serious risk to physical health of woman.
4. No restriction for serious risk to mental health of woman.
5. No restriction for serious risk to health of woman.
6. No restriction for risk to physical health of woman.
7. Up to 22 weeks for risk to mental health of woman.
8. Up to 22 weeks for risk to health of woman.
9. Up to 22 weeks in cases of rape (tied vote with deciding vote cast by Judge Laffoy).
10. No restrictions in cases of FFA.
11. Up to 22 weeks in cases of non-fatal foetal abnormality.
12. Up to 22 weeks for socio-economic reasons.
13. No restrictions of any kind - up to 12 weeks.
14. No distinction between physical and mental health.

Just going from memory, but a 12-week limit would probably be in line with most of the posters on here who were tentatively accepting of abortion on demand as long as the limit was early. I think 14 weeks was a commonly mentioned limit.

AtomicHorror

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The above is a fetus at 24 weeks (legal to murder them at this stage in the UK) and it'll be said that well the majority of abortions happen long before that, as if that somehow makes the others okay.

In what scenarios will a 24 week fetus be aborted?

I can tell you one- denial of access to early term abortions, as happens in Ireland. Aside from that, by 24 weeks you're only looking at termination of wanted pregnancies, which will be for some pretty catastrophic circumstances.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It doesn't. Sentience, viability, ability to feel pain etc etc... are all red herrings. A fetus is a human being. They are alive. We declare death on the absence of a heartbeat and therefore we should accept that the presence of one means a life has begun.

By this definition, brain-dead patients on respirators also have an equal right to life. "We" (who, are we exactly? not doctors I suspect) do not have that simplistic views of life and death.

Those "red herrings" are scientifically measured, real and relevant facts.

January

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

They
The above is a fetus at 24 weeks (legal to murder them at this stage in the UK) and it'll be said that well the majority of abortions happen long before that, as if that somehow makes the others okay. It doesn't. Sentience, viability, ability to feel pain etc etc... are all red herrings. A fetus is a human being. They are alive. We declare death on the absence of a heartbeat and therefore we should accept that the presence of one means a life has begun.

2% of abortions happened after 20 weeks in Australia in 2015, 53 of those 2% (of which the total number was 96) were for probable or actual fetal abnormality.

0.01% of abortions in England and Wales happened after 20 weeks, again 2015.

Those are the latest statistics available. Late term abortions either happen because of threat to the mothers health or for FFA.

January

Oh and again, it doesn't state of the ones that were not for FFA if it was termination of pregnancy, which could have lead to a live birth or if it was termination of fetus.

AtomicHorror

RTE with a measured coverage featuring stock photo of a faceless and heavily pregnant woman who wouldn't be permitted an abortion under any scenario recommended by the CA.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0423/869681-citizens-assembly-reaction/

pjohnson

January wrote: »

2% of abortions happened after 20 weeks in Australia in 2015, 53 of those 2% (of which the total number was 96) were for probable or actual fetal abnormality.

0.01% of abortions in England and Wales happened after 20 weeks, again 2015.

Those are the latest statistics available. Late term abortions either happen because of threat to the mothers health or for FFA.

You cant just use facts on those who view women as incubators.

January

Cora Sherlock is on something... 'the first thing the new Oireachtas Committee charged with looking at the issue must do is examine how the Citizens' Assembly was allowed to operate in such a one-sided and chaotic way'

HA.

thee glitz

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The CA counts based on those who express an opinion, and the sum of the yes votes is 52 out of a total of 81, which is 64%.

I agree - it's still a majority. That's not what you said originally - beware statistcs from disreputable sources, esp the Indo.

pjohnson

AtomicHorror wrote: »

RTE with a measured coverage featuring stock photo of a faceless and heavily pregnant woman who wouldn't be permitted an abortion under any scenario recommended by the CA.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0423/869681-citizens-assembly-reaction/

I remember Cora Sherlock was on Matt Cooper on TodayFM claiming the CA was rigged from the very start because it allowed "abortionists" the same time to talk as their own ilk. As can be seen in this thread they can dish out all the "think of the babies" talk but when any opposition or facts come into it they loose their minds.

AtomicHorror

thee glitz wrote: »

I agree - it's still a majority. That's not what you said originally - beware statistcs from disreputable sources, esp the Indo.

My stat was from the CA itself. Of course abstainers are not counted. Please stop patronising me.

PopePalpatine

January wrote: »

Cora Sherlock is on something... 'the first thing the new Oireachtas Committee charged with looking at the issue must do is examine how the Citizens' Assembly was allowed to operate in such a one-sided and chaotic way'

HA.

Salty communion wine? :pac:

January

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Salty communion wine? :pac:

:pac::pac:

eviltwin

January wrote: »

Cora Sherlock is on something... 'the first thing the new Oireachtas Committee charged with looking at the issue must do is examine how the Citizens' Assembly was allowed to operate in such a one-sided and chaotic way'

HA.

I'd say she and her followers are really shaken by the recommendations. They weren't expecting it at all.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd say she and her followers are really shaken by the recommendations. They weren't expecting it at all.

I'm f*ckin shaken tbh. Very pleasantly surprised in my fellow Irish men and women. The sense of momentum in the repeal movement has been striking and great to witness, but I wasn't sure to what degree it was reflecting wide spread changing attitudes.

I'm sure Cora and Leo and all the other 'orrible ***** will piss and moan and spread their hate to the end of their days, but this is another nail in the coffin of everything those fundy shítheads stand for. I'm delighted.

somefeen

masculinist wrote: »

Your white knighting is very sexist and infantilizes the person I was trying to have a rational discussion with . To answer your question , I don't tolerate idiots unless they are well meaning idiots. I'm discussing the rights of an unborn baby not to be murdered under the law and all you care about is attacking me personally which doesn't make you well meaning and certainly makes you look like a person who is not serious or credible.

Ah don't make me laugh.
You're not trying to have a rational discussion with anyone. If you were you might cut the nonsense and spell out your point in a few simple sentences, you certainly wouldn't claim another poster was hormonal (Somehow that's not a personal attack, but me telling you that you are a sexist is?)

Now you are trying to call me an idiot but also wrapping that up in nonsense in the hope you can get away with it.
If white knighting is the act of being a man and pointing out the sexist language and behaviour of another man well, then yep, guilty as charged. Somehow in your logic this makes me sexist.

Its annoying actually because you could have gotten a debate going on an interesting topic i.e if abortions are available on demand should men be allowed shirk responsibility. Buuuuut no. You were more interested in running around in circles with your "logic" and using provocative and sexist language to make a.....emmm..I was gonna say make a point...but y'know.

I'll let you continue to 'discuss' now without my input. Hope the aul' red pill didn't taste to bad.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

pjohnson

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd say she and her followers are really shaken by the recommendations. They weren't expecting it at all.

The poor things. Getting dragged into reality against their will.

Calhoun

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

I'm f*ckin shaken tbh. Very pleasantly surprised in my fellow Irish men and women. The sense of momentum in the repeal movement has been striking and great to witness, but I wasn't sure to what degree it was reflecting wide spread changing attitudes.

I'm sure Cora and Leo and all the other 'orrible ***** will piss and moan and spread their hate to the end of their days, but this is another nail in the coffin of everything those fundy shítheads stand for. I'm delighted.

It could be exactly what they want, they now get to play the full on narrative they have been running with.

If it goes to a referendum it is now crystal clear that is full on abortion rather than the middle ground of the medical item.

Its going to be an interesting and pretty divisive item when the referendum does hit.

RobertKK

There will be a referendum, and it is going to be war from all sides.

volchitsa

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd say she and her followers are really shaken by the recommendations. They weren't expecting it at all.

I'm so happy and relieved this evening. I just really hope now that the rest of the country shows the same willingness to think about the issues and not follow the bloody bishops!
But I have a lot more hope that they will than I did even a couple of years ago.
I was in despair after the Ms Y fiasco. Today I'm relieved and hopeful that my country won't continue to shame itself over its unforgivable treatment of women.

Calhoun

Yah the behavior on both sides will be the determining factor, who ever keeps a cool head and debates in a reasonable manner should carry it.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Calhoun wrote: »

It could be exactly what they want, they now get to play the full on narrative they have been running with.

The one where the gay neoliberal feminists will be having abortion parties 3 days before their due date if we give an inch or the one where people aren't agreeing with them so the whole thing is obviously unfair and imbalanced?