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

blanch152

Murrisk wrote: »

Non-religious, pro-life folk piping up does not negate the fact that the countries most vehemently opposed to abortion have large Catholic populations. Anecdotes are not useful, one needs to look at things on the population level. Of course there exists some atheist anti-abortion folk but it's no conincidence that the countries most opposed to abortion are traditionally Catholic.

It is not just a Catholic view.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/abortion.shtml

"Traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a life.

Buddhists regard life as starting at conception."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_abortion

"The sacred texts of Hindus have a clear stance against abortion. The Vedas represent abortion as morally reprehensible and it is listed with the most heinous actions"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion

"In Islam, the foetus is believed to become a living soul after four months of gestation,[1] and abortion after that point is generally viewed as impermissible"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_Christianity#Eastern_Orthodox_Church

"The Eastern Orthodox Church believes that life begins at conception, and that abortion (including the use of abortifacient drugs) is the taking of a human life"

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes elective abortion based on a belief in the "sanctity of human life."

"Despite their general opposition to abortion, fundamentalist churches that include the conservative evangelical, Non-denominational, Southern Baptist and Pentecostal movements, do not have a consensus doctrine regarding abortion. While these movements hold in common that abortion (when there is no threat to the life of the mother) is a form of infanticide, there is no consensus as to whether exceptions should be allowed when the mother's life is in mortal danger, or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Some argue that the lives of both the mother and fetus should be given equal consideration, in effect condemning all abortion including those performed to save the life of the mother. Others argue for exceptions which favor the life of the mother, perhaps including pregnancies resulting from cases of rape or incest"

njs030

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not just a Catholic view.

"Traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a life.

While "traditional Buddhists" may say one thing, modern day Buddhists have no view.
You left that out....on purpose??

Are you aware can write a Wikipedia page? I could go and amend all of those now with quotes that suit my agenda and post them here.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

I've already covered why I support keeping it. I don't think the rights of the unborn is something that should be used as a political football.

You don't think it is odd that you, a lapsed Catholic who does not take moral direction from the Church, agrees with exactly one Irish church on the subject of the 8th?

Not the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterians, the Quakers? Just a coincidence that you happen to agree with the Roman Catholic Church on this one?

Because I certainly don't think it is.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

notjustsweet wrote: »

While "traditional Buddhists" may say one thing, modern day Buddhists have no view.
You left that out....on purpose??

Are you aware can write a Wikipedia page? I could go and amend all of those now with quotes that suit my agenda and post them here.

Organised religions don't like abortion, how is that an objectionable thing to say?

Not that the Hindu or Buddhist lobbies have much clout in Ireland though.

Zubeneschamali

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Not that the Hindu or Buddhist lobbies have much clout in Ireland though.

Or India? Nepal? Thailand? Bhutan?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or India? Nepal? Thailand? Bhutan?

What?

eviltwin

Most organised religion also has problems with homosexuality and thinks women are less than men so that says all we need to know about the views of organised religion.

AnGaelach

notjustsweet wrote: »

Refusing women choices is always saying no. So it's always putting the lives of a fetus above the walking, talking human mother so you obviously are not pro ALL lives.

But I agree with allowing abortion where it's a threat to the life of the mother (and indeed I can be persuaded into abstaining from voting on the grounds of foetal abnormalities and the like).

My thinking the rights of the unborn to life coming before the wants of a woman doesn't mean I don't value the life of the woman - it means I value the right to life above the "right" to have an abortion.

You can twist the words all you want, or try to paint me as cruel, but that's not going to change my mind.

AnGaelach

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You don't think it is odd that you, a lapsed Catholic who does not take moral direction from the Church, agrees with exactly one Irish church on the subject of the 8th?

Not the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterians, the Quakers? Just a coincidence that you happen to agree with the Roman Catholic Church on this one?

Because I certainly don't think it is.

My happening to agree with them on something does not mean that I'm affiliated with them. I disagreed with the Church on gay marriage, does this mean I'm taking direction from an LGBT group?

I don't get what's so hard about this for you to understand.

NuMarvel

AnGaelach wrote: »

My thinking the rights of the unborn to life coming before the wants of a woman doesn't mean I don't value the life of the woman - it means I value the right to life above the "right" to have an abortion.

How do you reconcile this with the current constitutional position that the unborn's right to life is secondary to a woman's right to travel for an abortion and to access information about abortion services overseas? To be consistent, should pro-life people not be seeking repeal of the 13th and 14th Amendments?

blanch152

notjustsweet wrote: »

Refusing women choices is always saying no. So it's always putting the lives of a fetus above the walking, talking human mother so you obviously are not pro ALL lives.

To take your example to the extreme, you are suggesting that if a woman, 38 weeks pregnant, suddenly changes her mind and wants her fetus dead, that is ok, even though the fully healthy fetus would survive if delivered?

You see, it is not so simple as pro-choice. If pro-choice was an absolute right as you seem to demand, there would be no limits. A person could choose to have any medical procedure just like that.

In reality, like every other choice, there are limits. Whether it is a time-limit like 12 weeks as in most Islamic countries, or other limits such as reasons, there is no completely unfettered pro-choice regime in the world.

We already have abortion in Ireland - in the case of the woman's life in immediate danger. Therefore, the argument is no longer about demonising the Catholic Church, or protecting the sacred life of the unborn, as most people get caught up in. Rather, we should be discussing, as a mature society, what type of limits we should be putting on the choice to have an abortion.

However, that doesn't even work in Ireland. Instead we get arguments about how we should have an extremely liberal regime where anyone can have an abortion up to 30 weeks for any reason? Or should we have an extremely conservative regime where abortion is only possible where the woman's life is in immediate danger?

If the debate is to mature properly, we need to look at whether we allow abortion for specific reasons (physical health, mental health, rape, abuse, deformity etc.) or only for a specific time (12, 16, 20, 22, 24 weeks etc.). It is incumbent on people who want change to move on and create this mature debate.

[Deleted User]

blanch152 wrote: »

To take your example to the extreme, you are suggesting that if a woman, 38 weeks pregnant, suddenly changes her mind and wants her fetus dead, that is ok, even though the fully healthy fetus would survive if delivered?

You see, it is not so simple as pro-choice. If pro-choice was an absolute right as you seem to demand, there would be no limits. A person could choose to have any medical procedure just like that.

In reality, like every other choice, there are limits. Whether it is a time-limit like 12 weeks as in most Islamic countries, or other limits such as reasons, there is no completely unfettered pro-choice regime in the world.

We already have abortion in Ireland - in the case of the woman's life in immediate danger. Therefore, the argument is no longer about demonising the Catholic Church, or protecting the sacred life of the unborn, as most people get caught up in. Rather, we should be discussing, as a mature society, what type of limits we should be putting on the choice to have an abortion.

However, that doesn't even work in Ireland. Instead we get arguments about how we should have an extremely liberal regime where anyone can have an abortion up to 30 weeks for any reason? Or should we have an extremely conservative regime where abortion is only possible where the woman's life is in immediate danger?

If the debate is to mature properly, we need to look at whether we allow abortion for specific reasons (physical health, mental health, rape, abuse, deformity etc.) or only for a specific time (12, 16, 20, 22, 24 weeks etc.). It is incumbent on people who want change to move on and create this mature debate.

A termination of pregnancy is just that, a termination. It has already happened in this country that a woman who wanted a late termination had a c-section & the baby was delivered perfectly & then fostered/adopted.
In reality, it doesn't happen, how many women do you think get to 28+weeks of a pregnancy & then change their minds?
It's a non issue, it doesn't happen.

blanch152

bubblypop wrote: »

A termination of pregnancy is just that, a termination. It has already happened in this country that a woman who wanted a late termination had a c-section & the baby was delivered perfectly & then fostered/adopted.
In reality, it doesn't happen, how many women do you think get to 28+weeks of a pregnancy & then change their minds?
It's a non issue, it doesn't happen.

I am against late-term abortions of healthy fetus. Many premature babies suffer problems in later life, sometimes serious ones. A wait of a few weeks for the woman in such cases to allow a baby go to term is a small price to pay for a lifetime of better health for the baby.

For that reasons I am in favour of a time-limit on terminations. What should it be? Not sure, but am interested in the medical view.

[Deleted User]

blanch152 wrote: »

I am against late-term abortions of healthy fetus. Many premature babies suffer problems in later life, sometimes serious ones. A wait of a few weeks for the woman in such cases to allow a baby go to term is a small price to pay for a lifetime of better health for the baby.

For that reasons I am in favour of a time-limit on terminations. What should it be? Not sure, but am interested in the medical view.

I don't think there is anyone looking for late term terminations?

blanch152

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't think there is anyone looking for late term terminations?

There is at least one poster arguing that a woman's right to choose trumps all, that is an argument for late terminations. And that means termination not birth, after all, if you don't want it, why let it live?

Sitting in the middle, I have no time for the unreconstructed Catholics who wave posters of aborted fetus but I also have no time for the flag-wavers and cheerleaders of Repeal the 8th who give the impression they don't care at all for the unborn.

A balance is necessary in all this, but modern politics seems to like the extremes.

[Deleted User]

But, as I said earlier, termination is a termination of pregnancy.
There was a case here last year or the year before where a woman looked for a late termination, she had a c-section & the baby was fostered or adopted.
No one is advocating killing babies! A termination of pregnancy is just that, termination.

Hotblack Desiato

AnGaelach wrote: »

I've already covered why I support keeping it. I don't think the rights of the unborn is something that should be used as a political football. I don't think the Oireachtas should have legislative power over that right, just as how it doesn't have legislative power over your right to association or your freedom of religion.

We're not the UK. Parliament is not sovereign here, the people are.

Can you define 'the unborn' please?

volchitsa

blanch152 wrote: »

There is at least one poster arguing that a woman's right to choose trumps all, that is an argument for late terminations. And that means termination not birth, after all, if you don't want it, why let it live?

I haven't seen anyone arguing for killing healthy term or near term babies.
I think you're making that up.

Also, weren't we told that Ms Y got a termination? Her baby's alive, right?

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

My happening to agree with them on something does not mean that I'm affiliated with them. I disagreed with the Church on gay marriage, does this mean I'm taking direction from an LGBT group?

I don't get what's so hard about this for you to understand.

I understand it fine.

It's like all the religious folks who say their religion makes perfect sense from top to bottom, and is clearly true, and who just happen, by coincidence, to have been taught this one true religion as kids by the people they relied on.

You soak up stuff like this as a kid, and it sticks with you,. Even if you throw out this or that piece of mental furniture, you still live in that house.

I am not just lapsed Catholic, I am a materialist, a humanist and an atheist. But I'm a Catholic atheist.

Zubeneschamali

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't think there is anyone looking for late term terminations?

I am in favour of no time limits as in Canada.

Zubeneschamali

I believe it is a matter for a woman and her doctor, and we should completely remove the shadow of police and lawyers peering over the doctors shoulder. Let them do their jobs and deliver the best care.

Zubeneschamali

What do you propose to do about a case where a doctor decides to perform an abortion at 17 weeks? How do you propose we monitor all pregnant women to know if they at 16 or 17 weeks along? Will you ban travel to the UK? If not, what's the fecking point: same as today, create hard cases of women in institutions

Make a doctor tick a medical needs box? Make the woman claim rape?

All for what?

Woodville56

I've yet to hear an expectant mother talk of her unborn child as a feotus. Seems to me if it's planned or wanted , the unborn is a baby, if it's unwanted or an inconvenience it's a feotus or a "clump of cells" as described in these posts regularly. Personally, I'm also apprehensive about allowing the Oireachtas the power to legislate on this issue - it's much too important to entrust as a bargaining chip to a bunch of career politicians, whose sole purpose in life is to attain/ retain power and the cushy salary - pension. The people should always have the final say in this issue, irrespective of the number of referenda it takes to get the balance right between a restrictive and liberal abortion regime.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone arguing for killing healthy term or near term babies. I think you're making that up. Also, weren't we told that Ms Y got a termination? Her baby's alive, right?

I think we're usually told Miss Y didn't receive the termination of the life of her child in accordance with her wishes that some would prefer she be entitled to, rather than the termination of her pregnancy in accordance with the law she was entitled to.

I think all that wordplay really says is some people are prepared to be disingenuous when it comes to the use of the word termination (or abortion) pretending they think it's being applied to a pregnancy or life when it's generally readily apparent from their target's usage how they really intended it.... substituting apparent point scoring for their lack of a substantive argument for their position. A bit like the "What's your solution for women who don't want to remain pregnant" schtick.

professore

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am in favour of no time limits as in Canada.

This is why we need whatever replaces the 8th to be written into the constitution IMO. A lot of the people on here are taking a "sure it'll be grand - no one is talking about late stage terminations on demand" approach - but leaving it up to the politicians makes this a real possibility. If you are OK with that, great, but I'm not OK with it.

For people like Zubeneschamali too ... if the 8th is repealed and then the politicians just make the law reflect the status quo - also a possibility, especially if the likes of the Healy Raes hold the balance of power - then they will be very unhappy too - as I would be.

As for the doctors know best argument ... all you have to do is look at some of the horrific cosmetic surgeries or doctors prescribing their patients lots of addictive medication to see that this is not always the case at all. In fact the Savita case is a good example of this. They could have aborted the baby completely legally in that case, but chose not to. Not saying it would have made a difference but they legally could have done it.

B0jangles

Quick question, when you were pregnant infogiver , did you tell people ' I have a baby' or would you have said 'i'm expecting a baby'? Did you call yourself a 'mother' or an 'expectant mother'?

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

Well, she was using the correct terminology for her circumstances apparently.
If she's happy to be pregnant we will allow her to call the contents of her womb a "baby" , even though there is a risk that if she is overheard by someone who has had an abortion that that person might be offended and hurt and that's dreadfully unfair, seemingly.
However if she's unhappy then everyone must refer to the contents as a foetus or "bunch of cells" is acceptable too.
Also it's not an abortion it's a termination
zubenshemaile prefers if you use these terms for 40 weeks.
Despite you seeing a baby come out of your girlfriend, if she had chosen to abort it a few days before hand, as she is entitled to do in Canada (some posters here won't be happy till we have that here) then it wouldn't have been a baby at all, it would be a foetus.
It seems it's all about how you "feel" about being pregnant.

You really do have issues regarding the scientific vs. everyday terminology. Never seen anyone struggle this badly.

AnGaelach

infogiver wrote: »

If she's happy to be pregnant we will allow her to call the contents of her womb a "baby" , even though there is a risk that if she is overheard by someone who has had an abortion that that person might be offended and hurt and that's dreadfully unfair, seemingly.

What a stupid point to raise, "I made a decision and now I want to police what you say because it might inadvertently offend me".

Outlaw Pete

Here we have the remarkable story of where a blob of biological matter became a baby for a short while (just so it could be operated on) and then immediately went back to being a bunch of cells right after.

Amazing, must be some kind of mutant...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c70FBEwshrE