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

Zubeneschamali

Academic wrote: »

So what happens next? (I'm not asking what people would like to happen next, a question on which we already know there are deep differences so there's to need to re-hash that. I'm asking what people think will happen next.)

Next a Dáil committee will appoint a subcommittee to look at the recommendations, then the chairman will resign and they'll start again, then an election will happen and they'll start again, then they'll report to the full committee, then an election and a new committee, then they'll report to the Minister, then the minister will ask them to look again, then they'll report again, then an election and a new committee. Then they'll report to the new minister, who will bring the report to cabinet, and the Government of the day will commit to adding something to their manifesto for the next election. Then they will lose the next election. Next the responsible Department will be merged with the Dept. of Fisheries and Space Travel, and the incoming minister will commit to studying the report of the committee, but he is new and there are many things higher on his priority list.

This will continue for about 30 years or so.

kunst nugget

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Probably not, but do you not think you're conflating some stuff here? We can feel sad for the necessity of a given abortion or abortions generally but be happy that women will no longer need to fear the intrusion of the state into their health and life.

I think it's fairly human to have some conflicting emotions about it all. I'll be relieved and glad if the 8th amendment gets removed as it was an absolute disaster for that to be included in our constitution but I can't imagine feeling the need to celebrate on the streets when it happens.

seamus

Game Face MCGee wrote: »

but I genuinely get a real pang or guilt or sadness when I think about the child/fetus (whatever side of the fence you sit) being terminated. I just cant shake it

Ultimately that's down to personal feelings. Although I'm pro-choice, I'm not going to say, "yeah whatever", when it comes to the loss of a foetus, be that naturally or through choice. There was a potential there, no doubt about it.

But for me, if one looks at the developing foetus dispassionately, that's all it was, potential. There wasn't yet a living, breathing individual with thoughts and feelings, with the ability to grow and learn independently.

I don't think it's possible for anyone to tell you how or what you should feel about it. All you can really do is think about how you feel about it, examine why you feel that way and decide if that's a reasonable way to feel about it, or if you're allowing your judgement to be clouded.

And FWIW - if it helps to "judge" where I'm coming from while you read my post - I'm a father of 2, and one miscarriage.

when people "celebrate" and are "overjoyed" about getting closer to legal abortion I just feel upset and think "how can you be so happy about this"
not sure if I'm in the minority on this??

They're happy about being given the choice. About freedom. The problem is that the two sides in the debate are not

"We want to save foetuses" -v- "We want to abort foetuses"

or

"We want to tell women what they can with their bodies" -v- "We want freedom of choice for women about reproduction".

It's

"We want to save foetuses" -v- "We want freedom of choice for women about reproduction".

Because these are not directly opposing viewpoints (a person can both oppose abortion and support choice, for example), then confusion reigns when they're placed side-by-side.

If you're pro-life, seeing people happy about a step towards abortion can appear like they're celebrating the opportunity to kill foetuses.

If you're pro-choice, then someone fighting against the right to choose abortion appears to be an inhumane fascist.

AtomicHorror

Game Face MCGee wrote: »

I really can't get my head around this whole debate.
I've no religious affiliation and I'm a father of 3
I can totally see why people want abortions, be it economic, not the right time, situational etc... I totally get why a woman would consider it as a solution. I'm logical in my though process.
but I genuinely get a real pang or guilt or sadness when I think about the child/fetus (whatever side of the fence you sit) being terminated. I just cant shake it, and when people "celebrate" and are "overjoyed" about getting closer to legal abortion I just feel upset and think "how can you be so happy about this"
not sure if I'm in the minority on this??

Probably not, but do you not think you're conflating some stuff here? We can feel sad for the necessity of a given abortion or abortions generally but be happy that women will no longer need to fear the intrusion of the state into their health and life.

AtomicHorror

infogiver wrote: »

Well, we'll all be dead before the possibility of a referendum is even discussed in the Dail

Nope. They're not quick, but don't kid yourself.

infogiver wrote: »

and another poster was wondering what will be next and I thought gender quotas and another poster disagreed and said that gender quotas are not relevant to progressive liberals but euthanasia is.
Its all about individuals deciding when life begins and ends, it seems, the way forward for the brave new Ireland...

The term you're looking for is "bodily autonomy".

ohnonotgmail

infogiver wrote: »

Well, we'll all be dead before the possibility of a referendum is even discussed in the Dail and another poster was wondering what will be next and I thought gender quotas and another poster disagreed and said that gender quotas are not relevant to progressive liberals but euthanasia is.
Its all about individuals deciding when life begins and ends, it seems, the way forward for the brave new Ireland...

Yeah its terrible that people should be allowed make these choices for themselves.

infogiver

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Euthanasia? Oh does this mean the abortion debate is finally concluded? I expected it would go on a bit longer. I have all these logical points prepared. And retorts, so many retorts. What will I do now?

Well, we'll all be dead before the possibility of a referendum is even discussed in the Dail and another poster was wondering what will be next and I thought gender quotas and another poster disagreed and said that gender quotas are not relevant to progressive liberals but euthanasia is.
Its all about individuals deciding when life begins and ends, it seems, the way forward for the brave new Ireland...

Game Face MCGee

I really can't get my head around this whole debate.
I've no religious affiliation and I'm a father of 3
I can totally see why people want abortions, be it economic, not the right time, situational etc... I totally get why a woman would consider it as a solution. I'm logical in my though process.
but I genuinely get a real pang or guilt or sadness when I think about the child/fetus (whatever side of the fence you sit) being terminated. I just cant shake it, and when people "celebrate" and are "overjoyed" about getting closer to legal abortion I just feel upset and think "how can you be so happy about this"
not sure if I'm in the minority on this??

Cosmicfox

professore wrote: »

So basically your mum was swayed by not wanting to be grouped with pro life religious types - I feel the same, they are disgraceful and irrational, but that doesn't make them totally wrong.

Your other family member was swayed by self interest - I have to say that's a very poor reason for changing your mind on something.

She was swayed because after just accepting the pro life stance for years she went did some proper research ,not just reading a youth defence leaflet, on what it really involves and why women would choose to do it. It might have pro-lifers acting stupidly that motivated her to do it but having more knowledge on the topic and then changing her opinion based on that knowledge seems reasonable to me

And I don't know what debate she watched, but they may not have been religious at all. Many pro-lifers aren't and it gets tiresome to hear them all labelled as Ned Flanders types. They can still behave just as badly. You can have pro-choice religious people as well.

So what if she was? As good a reason as any. Her circumstance could have changed and it was a wake up call to actually learn about it and that this isn't a topic that just affects other women. Could well have been her booking that flight.

seamus

infogiver wrote: »

Why is euthanasia a no brainer?

That's a separate thread

AtomicHorror

Euthanasia? Oh does this mean the abortion debate is finally concluded? I expected it would go on a bit longer. I have all these logical points prepared. And retorts, so many retorts. What will I do now?

ohnonotgmail

infogiver wrote: »

Why is euthanasia a no brainer?

if somebody is of sound mind and they want to end their life should they not be let do it with some dignity?

infogiver

seamus wrote: »

No, gender quotas is a separate matter that divides all sorts of groups. It is by default an anti-liberal and anti-equality measure, but it does have some benefit when applied in limited circumstances.

Progressives don't consider it a particularly important topic.

The two big topics after abortion are the right to euthanasia, which should be an easy no-brainer, and a more rational approach to drug controls.

Why is euthanasia a no brainer?

seamus

infogiver wrote: »

There wont be very much left but I imagine gender quotas here, there and everywhere will be next.

No, gender quotas is a separate matter that divides all sorts of groups. It is by default an anti-liberal and anti-equality measure, but it does have some benefit when applied in limited circumstances.

Progressives don't consider it a particularly important topic.

The two big topics after abortion are the right to euthanasia, which should be an easy no-brainer, and a more rational approach to drug controls.

infogiver

A Little Pony wrote: »

You do wonder what the next crusade will be for the progressives who seek to ruin everything and anything.

There wont be very much left but I imagine gender quotas here, there and everywhere will be next.
The very idea that I got a job or a promotion or anything just because an employer had a gender quota to fill and im the right gender is just so nauseating to me I think ill have to retire from this life altogether.

kunst nugget

A Little Pony wrote: »

You do wonder what the next crusade will be for the progressives who seek to ruin everything and anything.

They're going to cancel Christmas and force you to wear a dress…

A Little Pony

You do wonder what the next crusade will be for the progressives who seek to ruin everything and anything.

pilly

kunst nugget wrote: »

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning

Very good, I didn't know about that one either.

ohnonotgmail

kunst nugget wrote: »

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning

I see. Not what i thought it was at all.

kunst nugget

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

sea lions?

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning

ohnonotgmail

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And more sea lions than Dublin Zoo.

sea lions?

AtomicHorror

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

There are enough strawmen in this thread to fuel Moneypoint for a year.

And more sea lions than Dublin Zoo.

ohnonotgmail

There are enough strawmen in this thread to fuel Moneypoint for a year.

Aseth

professore wrote: »

Your first sentence is factually incorrect. It's a distinct body with 50% of someone else's DNA not your body. By your logic you should be free to kill your adult children as "it's your body". It's as ridiculous and unscientific as the ancient Jewish belief that each sperm contained a fetish which simply grew inside the womb.

You have avoided to answer my question coming up with ridiculous argument of killing adult children which is cheap rhetorics at best.

Akrasia

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

one can be pro choice and aware you're aborting a potential baby. i wish people would stop arguing over at what stage it's a baby or not. If you are trying for a baby then a positive pregnancy test means you have one in your belly. Sadly a positive test can be extremely bad news for some people for many many complex reasons and it's those people we are trying to legislate for.

A miscarriage is a huge personal loss to a couple who are trying for a baby and my deepest sympathies are with them if it occurs. In the case of a miscarriage, the tragedy is because of the pregnancy was tied up with so many positive hopes and aspirations for a baby that is wanted and would have been a treasured family member.

A miscarriage at very early stage of an unplanned pregnancy (before the woman even knows she is pregnant) is not a tragedy, there is no sense of loss, there is no harm. Which is good, because some studies say that about half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, mostly before the woman ever knows she is pregnant. If we were to mourn for all of these miscarriages, it would lead to a lot of needless anguish.

AtomicHorror

thee glitz wrote: »

The CA gave poll results, statistics. You gave a potentially misleading interpretation of same. I don't know if you need a lesson in stats or not, but any useful analysis requires a closer look.

I said that 64% of the CA voted in favour of AOD. They did.

If you want to respond with comments about the caveats, I'm all good with that. I'll agree. There were non-opinions/non-voters (who won't count in a referendum either). There was AOD under different time limits. Nonetheless, 64% voted for AOD.

If you want to call it 50-something percent because of the non-voters, then be my guest. You can re-interpret the referendum result when that comes along too. Won't change the fact that referenda results are expressed in terms of who voted yes or no. The percentages presented in terms of the total yesses or nos. Not the non-voters, not the "dunnos", not the spoiled votes.

In the nit-pickers analysis, 37.4% of voters wanted to leave the EU, if you count the people who didn't vote. What does it matter? They're still leaving because that's not how you count votes in a referendum.

Which is maybe why the CA chose to count and present their results in the same way- whether people abstain, spoil or put in a ballot which expresses no opinion, they are not and cannot be counted in the total. They have ruled themselves out.

So call it 50-whatever percent in the CA. But if you're going to act like that's somehow more valid than the percentage I presented and which the CA themselves resented, I'll call horse****.

Patronise me about uncritically swallowing sources like the Indo (which I didn't)? Accuse me of (mis)interpreting the exact stat present by the source themselves? I've no time for that crap and you shouldn't either.

Now can we please cut this nit-picking crap and move on?

pjohnson

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Wait, is abortion NOT a hilarious topic? If Louis CK can find the humour in it, so can I.

Are people just going to go round in circles in abortion debates?

I think the most offensive thing is the idea that anyone can find Louis CK funny.

Frank O. Pinion

pilly wrote: »

No I think someone quoting a comedian should step away from a thread debating abortion.

Wait, is abortion NOT a hilarious topic? If Louis CK can find the humour in it, so can I.

kunst nugget wrote:

Are you just going to keep quoting comedians?

Are people just going to go round in circles in abortion debates?

pilly

kunst nugget wrote: »

Relax, he's quoting a Louis CK bit. But if it really does offend you, you probably should step away from a thread debating abortion.

No I think someone quoting a comedian should step away from a thread debating abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo

professore wrote: »

Every time i drink I consent to ingesting alcohol but I don't consent to getting drunk. Your statement is equally logical.

Well a difference there being that drinking alcohol WILL inebriate you. Having sex MIGHT make you pregnant. So not quite the same thing.

A better comparison might be that any footballer who goes out on a pitch to play soccer, consents to the possibility they might obtain an injury.

But we do not withhold medical treatment for them because they "knew what the risks were". We offer them all the options to deal with their injury whether or not we want to pretend they "consented" to obtain one or not.

I think abortion is similar. Someone having sex is consenting not to get pregnant, but to take the risk of getting pregnant. And that they knew the risks is not relevant to whether or not they should be precluded from dealing with their pregnancy should one occur.