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

Sheeps

NuMarvel wrote: »

They wanted to imprison a pregnant girl and the father of her child even though neither of them appeared to have broken any laws. Those are not the opinions of rational people.

What was the pregnant woman's name?

freshpopcorn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We go again in 10 years when more 8th fans are dead.

You never know how the world will be in 10 years!

NuMarvel

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think wording will play a big part in this and that repealing with out knowing what exactly the 8th will be replaced with won't help the repeal campaign.

It's standard practice for governments to publish draft legislation when proposing a referendum. We saw that with both the Children's referendum and the marriage equality referendum, so I can't see why that wouldn't be the case here.

thee glitz

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think wording will play a big part in this and that repealing with out knowing what exactly the 8th will be replaced with won't help the repeal campaign.

Very true. I think many people would vote to repeal the 8th if it meant allowing abortion is limited cases only, likely a majority in the case of FFA.

Most pro abortion rights supporters seem to fail to realise this, or are unwilling to compomise on their wants to facilitate it.

Zubeneschamali

freshpopcorn wrote: »

What will happen if the repeal campaign fails?

We go again in 10 years when more 8th fans are dead.

January

uptherebels wrote: »

you have a source for those threats?

No they don't.

Meanwhile there's proof from captain Americas in blanchardstown that the anti choice movement tried to get a prochoice meeting cancelled by saying they would picket outside and boycott the restaurant if it went ahead. A meeting a week later in Douglas and kaldi Ashtown was cancelled because of similar claims, ditto a community centre in Tallaght and another out in the Dublin bay north area.

But it's the pro choice side playing dirty and being shrill.

thee glitz

January wrote: »

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't or cant happen.

It's the law that says it can't happen.

freshpopcorn

I think wording will play a big part in this and that repealing with out knowing what exactly the 8th will be replaced with won't help the repeal campaign.

What will happen if the repeal campaign fails?
If it's by a good few percent will people be saying it's a land slide No similar to people saying it was a landslide Yes with the marriage referendum?

uptherebels

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Over the last month we have seen 3 pro life public meetings get canceled due to pressure & threats,

you have a source for those threats?

January

thee glitz wrote: »

It's not true though.

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't or cant happen.

thee glitz

kylith wrote: »

It is simply the fact that, in Ireland in the 21st century, a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape and procures an abortion LEGALLY CAN be sent to jail for longer than the person who raped her. That is a despicable thing.

It's not true though.

January

https://twitter.com/roisiningle/status/920681077198544902

NuMarvel

Tigger wrote: »

clearly crazy people

They wanted to imprison a pregnant girl and the father of her child even though neither of them appeared to have broken any laws. Those are not the opinions of rational people.

Tigger

captbarnacles wrote: »

Had the first door to door campaigners this week from the save the 8th side and they were mostly pleasant, one walked off when I said I'd be voting to repeal and the other stayed to discuss. The discussion was mainly her trying to convince me abortions at 8 months plus happen all the time in England including for D babies. A man came over to join her after awhile. Both said they would imprison a suicidal girl if she wanted to go to England no matter how she became pregnant but they would send the offending father to jail forever as if that balanced it out?

clearly crazy people

Tigger

Billy86 wrote: »

That's the exact same argument that was made time and again during the SSM referendum to be fair, and we saw exactly how that turned out.

the ssm was obvious
everyone deserves to get married ots a social contract between adults

NuMarvel

SafeSurfer wrote: »

With respect I think that it is you who are entirely ignorant of the 8th amendment and it's criminalising effect.
Do you think someone can be jailed for breaking the 8th amendment?

You posted 4, yes 4 links which don't show anyone who was been criminalised by abortion law in Ireland.
The poster I was replying to said women were "being criminalised", not had the potential to be criminalised.

You appear to misunderstand the meaning of the word criminalise. It doesn't mean that someone has been prosecuted. It means that an activity is illegal and that someone engaging in that activity is breaking the law and can be prosecuted.

It's similar to how our laws on sexual activity between men are regarded as criminalising gay men. To the point that the change in the laws are referred to as homosexuality being decriminalised, even though no one had been charged under those laws for decades at that point.

So, to answer your question above (Do you think someone can be jailed for breaking the 8th amendment?), yes they can, and the fact that they can means they are being criminalised, even if no one has even been charged for breaking that law.

January

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/committee-votes-not-to-retain-eighth-amendment-in-full-1.3260573?mode=amp

Seconded by ff. After the ard fheis at the weekend this is surprising to say the least.

nozzferrahhtoo

captbarnacles wrote: »

The discussion was mainly her trying to convince me abortions at 8 months plus happen all the time in England

In that situation I would have said "This could indeed be compelling, would you mind coming back with official statistics on how often that happens, broken down preferably into how many of those abortions happened purely by choice and how many happened due to actual medical necessity".

Trust me, she would not have come back with the numbers or any official sources.

captbarnacles wrote: »

Both said they would imprison a suicidal girl if she wanted to go to England

So they would advocate stopping someone from doing something pretty much legal, by themselves committing a highly actionable offence punishable quite heavily by law? Yeah that makes sense. Shame we can not test it with a volunteer actor who could wander into their path somehow and suggest to them she was in fact the very girl they described. Be interesting to see if they actually would stage a kidnap or if they are, as I somewhat suspect, all bluster and talk.

Amazing how many people on the opposite side of arguments to me want to imprison young girls though. At one point I possessed a relatively large quantity of catholic crackers.

During this period I received quite a large number of emails from Catholics. And quite a few of them said the same thing in a number of ways to the effect of "How would you like it if I was going around kidnapping your daughter or little sister".

Not withstanding how poor a comparison that is to me possessing a cracker that was FREELY given to me.............. it is weird to me how the minds of these people go so quickly to a combination of kidnap, and small girls.

captbarnacles

Had the first door to door campaigners this week from the save the 8th side and they were mostly pleasant, one walked off when I said I'd be voting to repeal and the other stayed to discuss. The discussion was mainly her trying to convince me abortions at 8 months plus happen all the time in England including for D babies. A man came over to join her after awhile. Both said they would imprison a suicidal girl if she wanted to go to England no matter how she became pregnant but they would send the offending father to jail forever as if that balanced it out?

nozzferrahhtoo

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

Apologies as I am just new to this thread and just stubbled across your post but you really are mixing someone else's words around there to suit your angle.

If you say so, but having just joined the thread you might not be aware that the practice of declaring someone is doing something (mixing words, being dishonest, or whatever) without THEN showing how and where and why you think they are doing it........... is so common a move that I doubt anyone is fooled by it any more. I am not m ixing someone else's words solely because you have waltzed in and declared it to be so.

But I see nothing inaccurate in what I said, so do help me out with your thinking here.

When one is discussing the POTENTIAL life of a fetus, in the sense of "human life" or "person hood" then one is doing just that.......... discussing a potential.

If however one is discussing the potential that they might be imprisoned for a crime, then they are likely discussing an ACTUAL crime that is CURRENTLY in the legal doctrines. That is not a potential, that is something that is actual, current, and real.

Quite a difference, doncha think?

Birdie Num Num

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well I personally have not discussed what is or is not criminal, let alone dismissed it. But I would point out that the potential life is just that..... a potential. Whereas when one is talking about potential imprisonment in some context or other one is likely therefore talking about something that is currently ACTUALLY a crime, which is not a potential.

So I am not seeing any hypocrisy or double standards there. one is a potential, the other is a current actual.

Apologies as I am just new to this thread and just stubbled across your post but you really are mixing someone else's words around there to suit your angle.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

whoever vandalised this van is not doing their side any favours.

That would, possibly, depend on which "side" the vandal in question is on? I would certainly not assume it either way when we see, as we likely will, such "attacks" on the posters and properties of BOTH sides.

The Legend Of Kira

( Seen this photo elsewhere )

Over the last month we have seen 3 pro life public meetings get canceled due to pressure & threats, we also people tearing down pro life posters in Cork + Dublin, now a pro life van gets vandalised in the photo you can see white paint splashed over parts of the van + repeal painted on the van in white paint. whoever vandalised this van is not doing their side any favours.

nozzferrahhtoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Also the POTENTIAL life of the unborn has been dismissed by repealers while the POTENTIAL imprisonment of those procuring abortions is highlighted. To me this is hypocrisy and double standards.

Well I personally have not discussed what is or is not criminal, let alone dismissed it. But I would point out that the potential life is just that..... a potential. Whereas when one is talking about potential imprisonment in some context or other one is likely therefore talking about something that is currently ACTUALLY a crime, which is not a potential.

So I am not seeing any hypocrisy or double standards there. one is a potential, the other is a current actual.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I also find it interesting that whenever difficult questions are asked pro choicers fret about the thread being shut down, despite us directly discussing the 8th amendment as in the thread title.

Again as a pro choice person I have not fretted about any such thing myself on here. So be wary as you might come across as sweeping the brush a little two wide.

But since you bring it up, I am personally.... interested.... with how boards will choose to deal with the coming string of threads I expect the abortion debate to generate in the coming months. Will they shut it down? Merge it into a mega thread? Engage in extreme or no moderating?

I would be genuinely surprised if it is not a hot topic in the back rooms of the mod team as we speak.

sunshine and showers

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You cannot provide one example of anyone criminalised as a result of the 8th amendment.

How about a deal,

Pro choice posters stop dismissing late term abortions as irrelevant because they rarely happen and I will stop dismissing the emotive 14 year jail term argument because it NEVER happens.

Also the POTENTIAL life of the unborn has been dismissed by repealers while the POTENTIAL imprisonment of those procuring abortions is highlighted. To me this is hypocrisy and double standards.

I also find it interesting that whenever difficult questions are asked pro choicers fret about the thread being shut down, despite us directly discussing the 8th amendment as in the thread title.

Depends entirely on what you mean by "late term abortion".

SafeSurfer

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You cannot provide one example of anyone criminalised as a result of the 8th amendment.

How about a deal,

Pro choice posters stop dismissing late term abortions as irrelevant because they rarely happen and I will stop dismissing the emotive 14 year jail term argument because it NEVER happens.

Also the POTENTIAL life of the unborn has been dismissed by repealers while the POTENTIAL imprisonment of those procuring abortions is highlighted. To me this is hypocrisy and double standards.

I also find it interesting that whenever difficult questions are asked pro choicers fret about the thread being shut down, despite us directly discussing the 8th amendment as in the thread title.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

Whatever about the pro-choice side, it's the middle that needs to be won over. And the "shrillness" will cost votes if it continues. FFS I saw someone post a video with the title "The 8 most annoying things about being pregnant" with #RepealThe8th after it. Who is that going to win over?

That's the exact same argument that was made time and again during the SSM referendum to be fair, and we saw exactly how that turned out.

nozzferrahhtoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If you discovered a small malignant tumor would you ignore it because it is not a threat NOW

No because I am not ignorant of basic medical science and I know such a tumor IS a threat NOW. The clue is in the word "malignant".

But you are not getting the point I was conveying. I am not advocating ignoring everything about the future. That would be ridiculous.

But when it comes to affording moral and ethical concern to an entity that is in front of me, I need a basis to do so. And "it might be sentient some day" is just a statement that tells me it is not NOW. I do not see allocating rights NOW to something that MIGHT one day qualify for them as being coherent. Just as incoherent as me saying you should have no rights NOW because in all likelihood you will be long dead in the future. Why would I allocate it on the basis of potential rather than remove it on the basis of potential. Makes no sense to me.

And that is just in isolation. But the fetus is not in isolation. It is inside a moral agent for whom we SHOULD have moral and ethical concern.

So not only do I see no reason to give a fetus rights, I certainly do not see any reason to give it rights that over ride the right of choice of the mother.

.......

This post has been deleted.

SafeSurfer

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You seem entirely ignorant of the reality of the 8th Amendment - I respectfully suggest you educate yourself.

From here:

In this State, the 2013 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act repealed section 58 of the 1861 Act, replacing it with a prison sentence of up to 14 years for anyone unlawfully procuring an abortion here.
Anyone who helps a woman or girl to unlawfully procure an abortion can face a similar sentence.

Here:

It is illegal to procure an abortion in Ireland outside of the circumstances specified in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013.

Here:

You can get it here in the State, you can also get 14 years for procuring it, for taking it and for helping yourself to have an abortion at home.

Here:

People who procure an abortion in the State risk 14 years imprisonment.

If you need more information I suggest you use Google - plenty available.[/quote]

With respect I think that it is you who are entirely ignorant of the 8th amendment and it's criminalising effect.
Do you think someone can be jailed for breaking the 8th amendment?

You posted 4, yes 4 links which don't show anyone who was been criminalised by abortion law in Ireland.
The poster I was replying to said women were "being criminalised", not had the potential to be criminalised.

If someone told me breakfast was "being served" in the dining room and there wasn't a sausage in sight I would rightfully conclude they were mistaken.