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

noaddedsugar

AnGaelach wrote: »

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".

So they do have a reason, so 'for no reason' isn't accurate. I'm all for women not having to sit being judged as to whether or not their 'reason' is deemed good enough by a group of strangers.
Can I ask why you think a group of strangers would be in a better place to decide whether or not a woman should have an abortion than the woman herself?

pilly

Icemancometh wrote:

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?

I don't agree that any of those groups you mention have no thoughts or awareness of their surroundings.

What makes you think an infant doesn't have awareness? Why would they look around so? They're very aware.

Icemancometh

pilly wrote: »

I don't agree that any of those groups you mention have no thoughts or awareness of their surroundings.

What makes you think an infant doesn't have awareness? Why would they look around so? They're very aware.

In what way does an infant display awareness? In what way does someone with a severe acquired brain injury display awareness or thoughts?

It's been a long time since I studied neurophysiology, but I've never seen any evidence to suggest that a newborn is any way sentient.

pilly

Icemancometh wrote:

In what way does an infant display awareness? In what way does someone with a severe acquired brain injury display awareness or thoughts?

Icemancometh wrote:

It's been a long time since I studied neurophysiology, but I've never seen any evidence to suggest that a newborn is any way sentient.

You didn't say newborn though. You said an infant up to a few months old. They look at things, they recognise voices and faces, they have plenty of thoughts.

You didn't say someone with severe brain injury either. You actually said intellectual disability. People with extremely low intellectual capacity definitely have thoughts.

I may not have studied neurophysiology but I know someone just throwing crap out there for the sake of it.

Don't believe for one moment that you're pro-choice.

And as previously stated I'm now torn on the issue but your ramblings wouldn't sway me one way or the other.

Icemancometh

pilly wrote: »

You didn't say newborn though. You said an infant up to a few months old. They look at things, they recognise voices and faces, they have plenty of thoughts.

You didn't say someone with severe brain injury either. You actually said intellectual disability. People with extremely low intellectual capacity definitely have thoughts.

I may not have studied neurophysiology but I know someone just throwing crap out there for the sake of it.

Don't believe for one moment that you're pro-choice.

And as previously stated I'm now torn on the issue but your ramblings wouldn't sway me one way or the other.

Ramblings is a bit unfair, and I believe you're engaging in quite a bit of bad faith. My reason for being pro-choice is to with regard to the autonomy of women over their own bodies, and the right to determine their own fate. You can take or leave that if you like, your choice.

I was responding to several posters' suggestions on the rights or not of foetuses, and why they didn't believe those rights to exist. Perhaps I didn't word my response as perfectly as you would like. But let's limit things for a moment. Let's imagine and all too common scenario, where someone has suffered a catastrophic brain injury, say a severe haemorrhage following a fall. This person has no cognitive function, no thoughts, and no ability to perceive the world around them. According to the logic expressed earlier, this person now has no right to life. I believe this is a conclusion most will reject, and thus, the logic used cannot be applied consistently.

ohnonotgmail

Icemancometh wrote: »

Ramblings is a bit unfair, and I believe you're engaging in quite a bit of bad faith. My reason for being pro-choice is to with regard to the autonomy of women over their own bodies, and the right to determine their own fate. You can take or leave that if you like, your choice.

I was responding to several posters' suggestions on the rights or not of foetuses, and why they didn't believe those rights to exist. Perhaps I didn't word my response as perfectly as you would like. But let's limit things for a moment. Let's imagine and all too common scenario, where someone has suffered a catastrophic brain injury, say a severe haemorrhage following a fall. This person has no cognitive function, no thoughts, and no ability to perceive the world around them. According to the logic expressed earlier, this person now has no right to life. I believe this is a conclusion most will reject, and thus, the logic used cannot be applied consistently.

If that is your conclusion then you have misunderstood what was said.

dav3

I still don’t understand why people in this country misuse the term liberal. This isn’t America, it’s not liberals and conservatives or whatever bastardised version fox news came up with that particular week.
When you place a group of people in a room and present actual facts to them from experts and debate in a rational and reasonable manner, a liberal outcome is exactly what you would hope for.
I think when people spend most of their time in echo chambers on facebook or on the comments sections of websites, it may give a distorted view of Ireland or even the entire world. When you don’t have a headbanger from youth defence pretending to be 58 different people, or organisations propped up and funded by donors in america and the vatican, whose sole purpose is to spread misinformation and muddy the waters in a debate, then a liberal outcome split right down the middle should not be that big of a shock to anyone.
Abortion will become legal in Ireland at some stage in the future, it’s inevitable. Whether it happens next year, or in ten years’ time, or we kick it down the road for the next generation to make legal, it will happen. Hopefully a debate can happen in a calm and balanced manner, just like the citizens assembly.

pilly

Icemancometh wrote:

I was responding to several posters' suggestions on the rights or not of foetuses, and why they didn't believe those rights to exist. Perhaps I didn't word my response as perfectly as you would like. But let's limit things for a moment. Let's imagine and all too common scenario, where someone has suffered a catastrophic brain injury, say a severe haemorrhage following a fall. This person has no cognitive function, no thoughts, and no ability to perceive the world around them. According to the logic expressed earlier, this person now has no right to life. I believe this is a conclusion most will reject, and thus, the logic used cannot be applied consistently.

Okay so now you're limiting it to a very specific case and I'll give you an honest answer and say that in that case I feel no they don't automatically have a right to life and there have been cases when feeding has been withdrawn from people in such a situation and I think that's kinder.

I still fail to understand where you're coming from.

You can't keep coming up with different examples because your other ones have been proven wrong.

The logic can be applied consistently when it comes to foetus because they're all the same.

Akrasia

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 just means the woman doesn't have to explain herself or get permission. There is always a reason, even if it's just that she doesn't want to be pregnant.

Akrasia

Icemancometh wrote: »

Ramblings is a bit unfair, and I believe you're engaging in quite a bit of bad faith. My reason for being pro-choice is to with regard to the autonomy of women over their own bodies, and the right to determine their own fate. You can take or leave that if you like, your choice.

I was responding to several posters' suggestions on the rights or not of foetuses, and why they didn't believe those rights to exist. Perhaps I didn't word my response as perfectly as you would like. But let's limit things for a moment. Let's imagine and all too common scenario, where someone has suffered a catastrophic brain injury, say a severe haemorrhage following a fall. This person has no cognitive function, no thoughts, and no ability to perceive the world around them. According to the logic expressed earlier, this person now has no right to life. I believe this is a conclusion most will reject, and thus, the logic used cannot be applied consistently.

If someone suffers a catastrophic brain injury with the loss of all cognitive ability or awareness of surroundings then what use is his life to him anymore. That person is dead. If that ever happened to me I would hope my relatives will have my organs donated and pull the plug.

volchitsa

Icemancometh wrote: »

Ramblings is a bit unfair, and I believe you're engaging in quite a bit of bad faith. My reason for being pro-choice is to with regard to the autonomy of women over their own bodies, and the right to determine their own fate. You can take or leave that if you like, your choice.

I was responding to several posters' suggestions on the rights or not of foetuses, and why they didn't believe those rights to exist. Perhaps I didn't word my response as perfectly as you would like. But let's limit things for a moment. Let's imagine and all too common scenario, where someone has suffered a catastrophic brain injury, say a severe haemorrhage following a fall. This person has no cognitive function, no thoughts, and no ability to perceive the world around them. According to the logic expressed earlier, this person now has no right to life. I believe this is a conclusion most will reject, and thus, the logic used cannot be applied consistently.

But nobody has suggested that people should be allowed to kill fetuses because they're too expensive or they're fed up with pregnant women getting the reserved seat on the bus or whatever.

The onlÿ person allowed to end the fetus' life is the woman inside whose body it is, and that is only because she's actually allowed to end her own pregnancy.

So it's nothing like someone killing a brain damaged person, unless that person is physically attached to them.

Icemancometh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If that is your conclusion then you have misunderstood what was said.

I had a quick glance back through the thread, and I noticed two things. One, there was less people suggesting what I thought they were when I read it earlier, so I've probably taken up the wrong end of the stick. And two, this has largely been discussed earlier too.

Nevertheless, here's a couple of quotes that illustrate what I was getting at.

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.

Also, I support abortion before life (the ability to have independent thoughts) begins but not after.

A couple of examples of people relating the right to life with the ability to form thoughts, ie consciousness. I think this is a particularly nebulous form of reasoning, as there may be categories of people who society considers have a right to life, and further, I don't think we understand very well what the ability to form thoughts looks like. Indeed, when do we begin to form thoughts? I've no idea.

I'm probably being unfair in decoupling the idea of consciousness from the context of developing in the womb, and applying it to those who already born (for want of a better term). I just think the focus on the idea of consciousness isn't rigorous, and it certainly isn't measurable.

Icemancometh

Akrasia wrote: »

If someone suffers a catastrophic brain injury with the loss of all cognitive ability or awareness of surroundings then what use is his life to him anymore. That person is dead. If that ever happened to me I would hope my relatives will have my organs donated and pull the plug.

And I would support you in that choice.

Akrasia

It's to do with personhood. A brain dead person is basically dead because the mind no longer exists. A foetus is not a person because the mind has yet to form.

People are not our bodies. You can chop off any part of a person without killing him and he is still himself. But if you damage the wrong parts of his brain his body might live, but that person is dead

Icemancometh

volchitsa wrote: »

But nobody has suggested that people should be allowed to kill fetuses because they're too expensive or they're fed up with pregnant women getting the reserved seat on the bus or whatever.

I don't think I said or suggested any of this, and I certainly didn't mean to. Sorry if I implied it.

volchitsa wrote: »

The onlÿ person allowed to end the fetus' life is the woman inside whose body it is, and that is only because she's actually allowed to end her own pregnancy.

So it's nothing like someone killing a brain damaged person, unless that person is physically attached to them.

I completely agree.

Icemancometh

Akrasia wrote: »

It's to do with personhood. A brain dead person is basically dead because the mind no longer exists. A foetus is not a person because the mind has yet to form.

People are not our bodies. You can chop off any part of a person without killing him and he is still himself. But if you damage the wrong parts of his brain his body might live, but that person is dead

I can see that. I suggested in a previous post that I was probably wrong to decouple the argument away from the context of the developing foetus, and I think that's a good explanation why. Cheers.

NuMarvel

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.

The amendment proposed by the Assembly won't do that. The Assembly made two sets of recommendations:

1) That we amend Article 40.3.3 of our constitution (which is where the 8th Amendment sits) to say that abortion and related matters about the rights of the unborn and pregnant women are for the Oireachtas to deal with. The precise wording won't be decided until later this year, but that's the gist of it. That's what we will be voting on. There will be no specifics about abortion in the constitution, because the CA is recommending we get away from that.

2) They then decided on a number of recommendations about how abortion should be legislated for afterwards. NONE of these will be in the constitution, they will only be in legislation. What ever is in the legislation can be changed at a later date; we won't need to go through this rigmarole again.

Outlaw Pete

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You're right, nobody believes that.

Exactly, nobody believes that... but they would need to believe that if they TRULY believed in body autonomy in the context --- that's.the.point --- and so not sure what the gotcha tone of your post is all about given that confirming that nobody believes that (as you did) just reinforces the point.

noaddedsugar wrote: »

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.

lol. Love how this post got so well thanked. This thread is effectively an echo chamber at this stage.

Oh and some of those who thanked your post knew well that wasn't my suggestion either

Look, the point I was making is that IF someone truly believed that women should be able to do what they want with a fetus given that it is "their body" (the infamous body autonomy argument) then they would have to support women aborting babies at ANY stage of their pregnancy. The point is not made to suggest that there are hordes of women that want to abort babies at 39 weeks for heaven sake and so arguing against that notion is pointless, as that's not an argument I'm making.

In short: EVERYBODY with a view on when a healthy woman should be legally able to abort a healthy baby comes down to at what stage of development they feel it is morally and ethically justifiable. NOBODY on Planet Earth (barring the insane) bases their abortion beliefs on body autonomy. It's just a hollow right-on mantra.

Four or five years ago in these abortion threads I said that if the pro-choice would just argue for abortion for FFA and and up to 12 weeks then they would have my (and many others) support but they never have. Even up until very recently they were marching and covering themselves in blood, whinging on abort how Ireland cares more for cattle than them, 'get your rosaries off our ovaries', etc etc but now finally this week their hand was forced and now at last we are actually hearing talk about FFA and early stage abortions rather than body autonomy bollox.

If the pro-choice would just stfu about women being oppressed and quit making abortion abort their fight against the patriarchy (and the church) as so many of their campaigns have so disingenuously done, then they would have far more people on their side. It's the scurrilousness nature of their actions over the past decade, or more, that has put a spoke in their wheels far more than any one on the pro life side of the debate could have done.

Hotblack Desiato

Easy isn't it to tell people to 'stfu about being oppressed' when the law in that regard has zero effect on you and never will.

And I don't believe for a millisecond any of these 'I'd vote yes if only they'd...' posters. They were all over the place for the marriage equality referendum too. 'I'd have voted yes if only them quares weren't so pushy about it.' FFS.

Zubeneschamali

notjustsweet wrote: »

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.

My point was that a 5 minute chat at a clinic in England is far, far easier than convincing a board of 2 psychiatrists and a doctor that you will kill yourself if they don't allow your elective abortion.

As I said, i imagine the six women in 2014 and 15 who went through that here were in prison or Direct Provision.

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

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

Why on earth would someone undergo an elective medical procedure for no reason?

This isn't a game of Operation.

Zubeneschamali

Akrasia wrote: »

There is always a reason, even if it's just that she doesn't want to be pregnant.

Notice that the one case where elective abortion is legal here today, risk of suicide, the woman doesn't need a reason.

She just has to convince the inquisitors that she'll kill herself if she doesn't get an abortion. There is nothing in the legislation or constitution saying she needs to give a reason.

Zubeneschamali

Icemancometh wrote: »

I don't think we understand very well what the ability to form thoughts looks like. Indeed, when do we begin to form thoughts? I've no idea.

It is not very well understood, but we do know that a brain is required. A well-developed one.

charlietheminxx

I know this is an emotive topic and I've seen every perspective argued time and again on Boards since I joined about 8 years ago.

Does the endless pro-life v pro-choice debate not seem a bit pointless? You will generally never convince either side to be otherwise because their views on the topic are too radically different.

The fact of the matter is, women in Ireland who need an abortion (medically or otherwise) usually will travel to have one. Abortions happen, they are a part of life whether you agree with them or not. Does it not make sense that those services are available here rather than acting like this is up for debate? Minimise the trauma for the woman, ensure proper continuity of medical care. Providing local access to services can mean earlier term, less invasive procedures.

Anyone who is pro-life now will still be pro-life when this happens, you can still disagree with a woman seeking out these services but it's happening anyway, in different ports and airports around the country there are women waiting to travel right now.

Joshua Steelhammer

Whatever about the merits of abortion, anyone who uses the "bodily autonomy" argument is a group think lemming. It is such a stupid argement.

And then you have people who think that because you don't want abortion to be legal at say 23 weeks that you think the fetus deserves more rights than the Mother.

This is isn't a question of the mother's right to life versus the fetus' right to the life.

It is a question of the Mother's right to abort the pregnancy versus the fetus' right to life.

So just because you want the fetus protected does not mean you think the fetus is more important than the Mother.

I'm somewhat undecided on the issue of abortion, I think it should be legal up to around 12-16 weeks, I don't see why it should be legal much later than that.

volchitsa

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Exactly, nobody believes that... but they would need to believe that if they TRULY believed in body autonomy in the context --- that's.the.point --- and so not sure what the gotcha tone of your post is all about given that confirming that nobody believes that (as you did) just reinforces the point.

lol. Love how this post got so well thanked. This thread is effectively an echo chamber at this stage.

Oh and some of those who thanked your post knew well that wasn't my suggestion either

Look, the point I was making is that IF someone truly believed that women should be able to do what they want with a fetus given that it is "their body" (the infamous body autonomy argument) then they would have to support women aborting babies at ANY stage of their pregnancy. The point is not made to suggest that there are hordes of women that want to abort babies at 39 weeks for heaven sake and so arguing against that notion is pointless, as that's not an argument I'm making.

Four or five years ago in these abortion threads I said that if the pro-choice would just argue for abortion for FFA and and up to 12 weeks then they would have my (and many others) support but they never have.

If the pro-choice would just stfu about women being oppressed and quit making abortion abort their fight against the patriarchy (and the church) as so many of their campaigns have so disingenuously done, then they would have far more people on their side. It's the scurrilousness nature of their actions over the past decade, or more, that has put a spoke in their wheels far more than any one on the pro life side of the debate could have done.

It's hilarious that you're complaining about being misrepresented and then in the very same post you go on to tell people what they must or should really think!

Plus all the rest of this complete rewriting of what the pro choice are doing wrong and should really do to get more support from pro life.

Oh wow. Lucky you came along to help us, especially as you're perfectly neutral about all this and only want to help.

BTW "Scurrilous nature"? Any examples? Because the only one you mention, covering themselves in blood - did that happen in Ireland? I heard it was some Opus Dei psychos in Argentina or somewhere. I certainly don't believe it was a pro choice campaign - why would they do it and then not publicize it? And pro life have form there, including in Ireland. Remember the Youth Defence girl marching with a fake, provocative pro choice banner?

funny you've never complained about their real tactics, you just make sh1t up about pro choice ones.

Joshua Steelhammer

volchitsa wrote: »

It's hilarious that you're complaining about being misrepresented and then in the very same post you go on to tell people what they must or should really think!

Plus all the rest of this complete rewriting of what the pro choice are doing wrong and should really do to get more support from pro life.

Oh wow. Lucky you came along to help us, especially as you're perfectly neutral about all this and only want to help.

BTW "Scurrilous nature"? Any examples? Because the only one you mention, covering themselves in blood - did that happen in Ireland? I heard it was some Opus Dei psychos in Argentina or somewhere. I certainly don't believe it was a pro choice campaign - why would they do it and then not publicize it? And pro life have form there, including in Ireland. Remember the Youth Defence girl marching with a fake, provocative pro choice banner?

funny you've never complained about their real tactics, you just make sh1t up about pro choice ones.

Can you define what bodily autonomy is?

pjohnson

Joshua Steelhammer wrote: »

Whatever about the merits of abortion, anyone who uses the "bodily autonomy" argument is a group think lemming. It is such a stupid argement.

And then you have people who think that because you don't want abortion to be legal at say 23 weeks that you think the fetus deserves more rights than the Mother.

This is isn't a question of the mother's right to life versus the fetus' right to the life.

It is a question of the Mother's right to abort the pregnancy versus the fetus' right to life.

So just because you want the fetus protected does not mean you think the fetus is more important than the Mother.

I'm somewhat undecided on the issue of abortion, I think it should be legal up to around 12-16 weeks, I don't see why it should be legal much later than that.

Well we saw yesterday that women can completely change their minds over a matter of minutes to go from a self proclaimed "proud abortionist" to anti-choice. While I'm pro choice seeing displays like that does make me wonder if its safe. You cant flip/flop or undo an abortion so if your a naturally indecisive person it should not be available to you.

me_right_one

NuMarvel wrote: »

The amendment proposed by the Assembly won't do that. The Assembly made two sets of recommendations:

1) That we amend Article 40.3.3 of our constitution (which is where the 8th Amendment sits) to say that abortion and related matters about the rights of the unborn and pregnant women are for the Oireachtas to deal with. The precise wording won't be decided until later this year, but that's the gist of it.

...within the bounds of the 8th. So I'd imagine the wording will change from the current "equal right to life as far as is practicable", which already allows for abortion where a pregnancy is non practicable, ie a health threat, to "equal right to life bar in the cases of rape, ffa, or health up to 12 weeks"... or something like that.

NuMarvel wrote: »

2) They then decided on a number of recommendations about how abortion should be legislated for afterwards. NONE of these will be in the constitution, they will only be in legislation. What ever is in the legislation can be changed at a later date; we won't need to go through this rigmarole again.

Maybe it'll be in a new, different section, eg 40.3.4, which says the Oireachtas can make exceptions in the cases of...

But either way, the 8th will be staying. Any changes the Oireachtas can make will still have to be constitutional.

Murrisk

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Four or five years ago in these abortion threads I said that if the pro-choice would just argue for abortion for FFA and and up to 12 weeks then they would have my (and many others) support but they never have.

Based on your own arguments in this thread, doesn't this make you as hypocritical as those you are criticising? Why would you be OK with abortions in the first 12 weeks if you feel like a fetus is a life from conception?

TBH, your opposition seems more to do with sticking it to the wimminz than anything else. An undercurrent in many of your posts across the site.