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

pjohnson

farmer john8 wrote: »

the nazis were responsible whether the jews lived or died the same as the mother carrying the baby. why cant the woman who decides to end the life of her unborn baby be allowed to press some device set up by the doctors to end the babys life and take full responsibility for her actions

farmer john8 wrote: »

i used to be very opposed to the liberal agenda but over the years i have mellowed quiet a bit .
1 abortion if people want to kill their unborn children let them the kids would only turn out like their parents anyway
2 gay if they wish hence no procreation
3 Euthanasia then they can go and kill themselves
all this will only insure that there are less lefty atheists around in the future

Emm

frag420

The_Valeyard wrote: »

As can be the hysteria from the pro-death side.

Yeah the Irish Undertakers Society are always hysterical!!

The_Valeyard

pjohnson wrote: »

Bahahahahahaha hahahaha

Oh well I have to say the consistently well educated views from the anti-choice is certainly entertaining.

As can be the hysteria from the pro-death side.

farmer john8

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Everyone including you knows abortion is not murder. Look it up. Never was, never will be.

the nazis were responsible whether the jews lived or died the same as the mother carrying the baby. why cant the woman who decides to end the life of her unborn baby be allowed to press some device set up by the doctors to end the babys life and take full responsibility for her actions

pjohnson

sean8carthy wrote: »

6 million jews killed in the second world war. a terrible attrocity and is still being talked about today seventy years later.
40 million american babies killed by abortion since the seventies to today and only very few people care! where has the compassion gone?

Bahahahahahaha hahahaha

Oh well I have to say the consistently well educated views from the anti-choice is certainly entertaining.

Zubeneschamali

sean8carthy wrote: »

6 million jews killed in the second world war. a terrible attrocity and is still being talked about today seventy years later.
40 million american babies killed by abortion since the seventies to today and only very few people care! where has the compassion gone?

Everyone including you knows abortion is not murder. Look it up. Never was, never will be.

NuMarvel

professore wrote: »

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.

It took 20 years, a case being brought to the ECHR, and public outcry to the death of a pregnant woman for our politicians to legislate just for abortions when there's a real risk to a woman's life.

I do not consider it at all likely that our politicians will do a complete 180 on the matter and allow abortion without any restrictions as to reason or gestation. Some of them are already balking at the recommendations of the CA, so we'll be lucky if even those passed.

Most countries manage to legislate for abortion without resorting to constitutional provisions. And out of those countries, I can't think of any where politicians have gone on to allow "late stage abortions on demand". There is not reason to believe Ireland would be any different, and every reason to believe we won't be.

sean8carthy

6 million jews killed in the second world war. a terrible attrocity and is still being talked about today seventy years later.
40 million american babies killed by abortion since the seventies to today and only very few people care! where has the compassion gone?

B0jangles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Here's a neonatal surgeon and during an operation, and multiple times afterwards, he refers to the baby as a baby (oftentimes when the mother is not around).

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

That is not an answer to the question I asked, nor was the question directed at you.

Outlaw Pete

B0jangles wrote: »

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'?

Here's a neonatal surgeon and during an operation, and multiple times afterwards, he refers to the baby as a baby (oftentimes when the mother is not around).

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

pjohnson

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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

Maybe you lot should stop trying to use terms ya'll cant understand.

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

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".

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.

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'?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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?

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?

[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.

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]

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: »

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: »

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

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.