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

pilly

Sorry, that's not true of a private clinic. Don't know about the NHS.

Outlaw Pete

notjustsweet wrote: »

There's no such thing as a no-questions abortion in England...

As good as.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/12/crackdown-hospitals-abortion-one-doctor

njs030

pilly wrote: »

Sorry, that's not true of a private clinic. Don't know about the NHS.

The law applies to everyone, private or public. The only difference being private patients pay.
https://www.mariestopes.org.uk/women/abortion/abortion-facts/what-uk-law-abortion

pilly

notjustsweet wrote: »

The law applies to everyone, private or public. The only difference being private patients pay.
https://www.mariestopes.org.uk/women/abortion/abortion-facts/what-uk-law-abortion

And where does it say there that inconvenience is not a valid reason?

Take from someone who's been there, it's a 5 minute chat, in and out. There may be a requirement for 2 doctors to sign a piece of paper but you don't see 2 doctors.

pjohnson

notjustsweet wrote: »

The law applies to everyone, private or public. The only difference being private patients pay.
https://www.mariestopes.org.uk/women/abortion/abortion-facts/what-uk-law-abortion

Be careful you'll get blocked next.

njs030

pilly wrote: »

And where does it say there that inconvenience is not a valid reason?

Take from someone who's been there, it's a 5 minute chat, in and out. There may be a requirement for 2 doctors to sign a piece of paper but you don't see 2 doctors.

Pilly why are you arguing with me? My point was that people do have to have a reason and was made to the person making smart comments about hopping on a boat for a no reason abortion without the "inconvenience" of speaking to doctors.

BabyCheeses

pilly wrote: »

Congratulations guys on converting a yes voter to no voter.

I'm definitely out on the basis that people seem to think that not only is it a right to have abortion on demand, it's a right to have it free.

At the moment even the morning after pill is not free and there's a reason for this.

It will encourage carelessness and a devil may care attitude.

I am slowly beginning to understand why people get so riled up by this issue. I can not believe the sense of entitlement around it.

You want to get rid of child benefit as well then? Can't support carelessness can we.

We already have abortion for those who can pay and take the time off already.

pilly

notjustsweet wrote: »

Pilly why are you arguing with me? My point was that people do have to have a reason and was made to the person making smart comments about hopping on a boat for a no reason abortion without the "inconvenience" of speaking to doctors.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you that your statement was incorrect.

ohnonotgmail

pilly wrote: »

I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you that your statement was incorrect.

his statement wasnt incorrect. Where you both differ is that your experience of this doesnt match what the law allows.

infogiver

pjohnson wrote: »

Its more emotional manipulation and perpetuating a myth. Odd to bring your child anyway.

Perpetuating what myth? What on earth are you talking about "odd" ?

Sofiztikated

infogiver wrote: »

Perpetuating what myth? What on earth are you talking about "odd" ?

We're still waiting on a source for that claim, by the way.

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

Perpetuating what myth? What on earth are you talking about "odd" ?

The favourite myth of the anti choice side that abortion will 100% lead to the complete extinction of Down Syndrome. What is hilariously ignored is that could only happen if a policy of COMPULSARY abortion was enforced. No one in this entire thread is demanding compulsary abortion yet ye lot are up in arms over it.

Its just odd to bring a child to such a meeting to wave about as being some kind of token anyway.

Icemancometh

Feel like I should this as a disclaimer; I'm personally pro-choice, and fully believe in women's autonomy over their own bodies.

Several people here have posted that the foetus should have no protection, because it has no thoughts, no awareness of its surroundings and no sense of self. But this logic also applies to infants for the first few months of life. It applies to those with severe intellectual disabilities, whether congenital or acquired. It also applies to those with severe dementia. Why don't we apply the same logic to these groups, as we seek to apply to the foetus?

January

Icemancometh wrote: »

Feel like I should this as a disclaimer; I'm personally pro-choice, and fully believe in women's autonomy over their own bodies.

Several people here have posted that the foetus should have no protection, because it has no thoughts, no awareness of its surroundings and no sense of self. But this logic also applies to infants for the first few months of life. It applies to those with severe intellectual disabilities, whether congenital or acquired. It also applies to those with severe dementia. Why don't we apply the same logic to these groups, as we seek to apply to the foetus?

The difference being the other groups mentioned aren't living in the wombs of another person.

Icemancometh

January wrote: »

The difference being the other groups mentioned aren't living in the wombs of another person.

I get that bit, like I said I'm pro-choice. I'm not making the argument that the foetus shouldn't have rights for those reasons, others on this thread are. I'm just following the logic through.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Icemancometh

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Once again, I agree with women's right to autonomy. Euthanasia should be an active choice that individuals choose for themselves, so have to disagree with you there.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Icemancometh

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I've seen it plenty of times, should still be the person's choice to make. Failing a living will type scenario, I don't see any circumstances where it should be forced upon somebody.

Akrasia

pilly wrote: »

The morning after pill is not free at the moment. You do know that don't you?

Yes it is, to medical card holders.

Annasopra

Barbie! wrote: »

Local elections are due in the next few weeks. I wonder will they lump in a referendum with that vote or maybe it would be too soon. Either way I see a referendum being called because I believe it would be political suicide for any party to try legislate without going to the people.

As I said in my first post yesterday, I think any vote to bring in abortion will be defeat cause their is a far large silent majority than people think.

Edit to add I just seen January's post so running a referendum with the local elections is probably out of the question.

Huh?

Local elections are due in Ireland in about May/June 2019.

Outlaw Pete

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you truly believed that then you would believe a woman should have the right to kill her baby the week it's due to be delivered. Nobody in their right mind believes such a thing, unless the woman's own life is in danger of course, and so you can't believe a woman should have more rights than her unborn baby... without of course indulging in the usual cop out caveats.

ohnonotgmail

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If you truly believed that then you would believe a woman should have the right to kill her baby the week it's due to be delivered. Nobody in their right mind believes such a thing, unless the woman's own life is in danger of course, and so you can't believe a woman should have more rights than her unborn baby... without of course indulging in the usual cop out caveats.

You're right, nobody believes that.

noaddedsugar

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If you truly believed that then you would believe a woman should have the right to kill her baby the week it's due to be delivered. Nobody in their right mind believes such a thing, unless the woman's own life is in danger of course, and so you can't believe a woman should have more rights than her unborn baby... without of course indulging in the usual cop out caveats.

Have you ever been pregnant for 39 weeks? If you have you would know that no one of sound mind is going to go through a pregnancy for 39 weeks then go 'nah, sod this, I want an abortion'. It just isn't going to happen.

If someone does go to their Dr and at 39 weeks and says they want an abortion I would hope that they would be given proper supports in terms of their mental health, that if necessary they be would be delivered early(because as we all know at full term they can exist outside of the womb and don't need the woman to be a vessel anymore).

I certainly don't think that the woman should be forced to remain pregnant against her will, if she goes to her Dr at 39wks looking for an abortion then she is obviously suffering greatly.

AnGaelach

Honestly, I was shocked at how liberal this result was. I was even more surprised to learn it was Sinn Féin and not Fine Gael that took a potshot at the CA about being too liberal.

I could be tempted into voting (or abstaining from voting) for replacing the amendment with FFA/rape but constitutionally protecting a right to abortion up to 12 weeks "for no reason" at all is far far far too liberal for me.

I'll be voting firmly against any such measure.

noaddedsugar

AnGaelach wrote: »

Honestly, I was shocked at how liberal this result was. I was even more surprised to learn it was Sinn Féin and not Fine Gael that took a potshot at the CA about being too liberal.

I could be tempted into voting (or abstaining from voting) for replacing the amendment with FFA/rape but constitutionally protecting a right to abortion up to 12 weeks "for no reason" at all is far far far too liberal for me.

I'll be voting firmly against any such measure.

'For no reason' is that the actual phrasing? I don't think anyone out there has an abortion 'for no reason' do they? I would think it would be for 'any reason'.

AnGaelach

noaddedsugar wrote: »

'For no reason' is that the actual phrasing? I don't think anyone out there has an abortion 'for no reason' do they? I would think it would be for 'any reason'.

They don't have to give any reason so "no reason" fits better than "any reason".

noaddedsugar

AnGaelach wrote: »

They don't have to give any reason so "no reason" fits better than "any reason".

Oh ok it's just clunky phrasing then. Grand that they don't have to give a reason, but there certainly will be a reason that the woman is seeking an abortion.

.......

This post has been deleted.

AnGaelach

noaddedsugar wrote: »

Oh ok it's just clunky phrasing then. Grand that they don't have to give a reason, but there certainly will be a reason that the woman is seeking an abortion.

Well yeah, obviously the reason is they don't want to carry the child, that's a bit of a tautology isn't it? The fact is they don't have to give any opinion or reasoning on their decision. It's essentially just "I want it".