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

Grayson

cnocbui wrote: »

So he's scum for being right and stating the uncomfortable truth?

It's a clear lie that he said. Savita wanted to be pregnant.

Grayson

cnocbui wrote: »

So she would be alive today if she had bad the termination she asked for?

Probably.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/eighth-amendment-played-major-role-in-savita-s-death-1.3261037

and if that's not enough, go read the HIQA report. It's very clear in the report. It can't be guaranteed that she would have lived but it was guaranteed that she'd die without a termination.

January

cnocbui wrote: »

So she would be alive today if she had bad the termination she asked for?

Yes. She would be. As stated several times by many health care professionals who've reviewed her case.

The 8th amendment killed Savita.

cnocbui

rainbow kirby wrote: »

She had a wanted pregnancy and only asked for a termination when she, a healthcare professional herself, knew it was failing.

So she would be alive today if she had bad the termination she asked for?

Akrasia

January wrote: »

Savitas pregnancy was planned and wanted. They only requested termination when they knew that the foetus was not going to survive. It disgusts me that Ronan Mullen can get away with such comments. Vile cretinous man.

Its the smug way he lies that gets me.

January

cnocbui wrote: »

So he's scum for being right and stating the uncomfortable truth?

Savitas pregnancy was planned and wanted. They only requested termination when they knew that the foetus was not going to survive. It disgusts me that Ronan Mullen can get away with such comments. Vile cretinous man.

rainbow kirby

cnocbui wrote: »

So he's scum for being right and stating the uncomfortable truth?

She had a wanted pregnancy and only asked for a termination when she, a healthcare professional herself, knew it was failing.

PopePalpatine

Grayson wrote: »

The man is scum.

It reminds me of when the RCC canonised a woman who died as a result of her pregnancy. Mullen probably thinks, "That's one less infidel to complain about a lack of godless schools!"

cnocbui

Grayson wrote: »

Just to update with what onne of our senators said today.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ronan-mullen-strongly-criticised-for-comments-on-savita-1.3262015

The man is scum.

So he's scum for being right and stating the uncomfortable truth?

cnocbui

spookwoman wrote: »

The whole system needs to be overhauled. They need to bring in maintenance, I also believe that women also need to take responsibility if they choose to go through with the pregnancy.

They get to choose?

If only!

Grayson

Just to update with what onne of our senators said today.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ronan-mullen-strongly-criticised-for-comments-on-savita-1.3262015

Independent Senator Ronan Mullen has been strongly criticised for comments he made today on the circumstances in which Savita Halappanavar died.
Mr Mullen claimed Ms Halappanavar would not have been in hospital and would not have died if abortion had been available in Ireland when she died in 2012.
Mr Mullen made the comment in response to questions on RTÉ’s Today with Sean O’Rourke about whether Ms Halappanavar would still be alive if she was given a termination when she asked for one.
The Senator replied: “If there was abortion on demand she wouldn’t have been in the hospital because she wouldn’t have been pregnant and she wouldn’t have been having a miscarriage.”
Ms Halappanavar (31) died on October 28th, 2012 at Galway University Hospital, one week after she presented with back pain and was found to be miscarrying her 17-week pregnancy.

The man is scum.

spookwoman

The whole system needs to be overhauled. They need to bring in maintenance, I also believe that women also need to take responsibility if they choose to go through with the pregnancy.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sheeps wrote: »

Ryan Air flights to the UK for an abortion would probably be a lot cheaper than getting an abortion here, just saying.

As if money was the only thing in consideration though?

Firstly this is basically an invasive surgery. Which can come with all kinds of side effects and emotions. Do you not think a woman might prefer to be in familiar and comfortable surroundings?

Secondly a lot of women change their mind. However since the time and effort to travel to the UK is high for some women in financial or other duress..... some may feel compelled by thinking "Well I am here now, I best go through with it" because they know they might not be able to come back again if they RE change their mind.

Third I am not convinced it even WOULD be cheaper. Ryanair and low fares airlines have us thinking flights are cheap, but when you add up all the associated costs, accommodation, foods, travel from isolated airports no where near the city they are named for and so forth.... it can really add up.

Fourth who even cares what is cheaper? The question is should we as a nation be offering this service at all, or not. That is a stand alone moral and ethical question and to hell with the costs of getting it elsewhere.

Fifth, it might be cheaper for her to travel ALONE to the UK. But why do we want her to be alone when electing for such a procedure. Might she not want people with her? What of the costs of that?

Sixth, you assume the procedure goes well. What if it does not. Said women is then in a foreign country, suffering from medical complications. Would she not be better off at home near her own hospitals, and on her own medical insurance and so forth?

Should I go on, or is this enough to show just how poorly thought out your comment was?

January

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I can imagine how lonely a journey that must be over to the uk for a procedure like that

just because its prohibited in Ireland

Yeah often they can't afford to pay for another person to travel with them, so have to travel alone. Which presents its own set of problems also, if one becomes unwell while travelling then they've no one to look after them.

nice_guy80

I can imagine how lonely a journey that must be over to the uk for a procedure like that

just because its prohibited in Ireland

January

Sheeps wrote: »

Ryan Air flights to the UK for an abortion would probably be a lot cheaper than getting an abortion here, just saying.

For those who can travel, it costs over 600 euro to get an abortion in England, that's without travel costs, accommodation, the cost of taking time off work, and that's just costs in euros. There's also the hassle of having to get other children minded, actually taking that time off work (making up an excuse at short notice to your boss) etc.

And that's just for an abortion before 16 weeks, for FFA you're looking at double that cost.

mahamageehad

seamus wrote: »

There is no provision in law or the constitution for a "preferendum", it's not legally possible to do.

At best you could hold a non-binding plebiscite to ask the public which wording they would prefer to then have a referendum on. But that seems wasteful - especially when the government could just ignore the outcome and choose their own wording.
The citizen's assembly has already done the selection of the wording by proxy, and that's the way it should go really.

It probably will - when you have a committee where all of the experts are on one side making the same recommendation and the only committee members proposing anything else are two religious ignoramuses with no expertise in the area, it's clear what needs to be done.

Yeah I saw that clarified earlier today that a preferendum would be unconstitutional. This guy gives a good legal rundown on the options, 1 and 6 being easiest to implement. https://medium.com/@WilliamQuill/referendum-should-take-abortion-out-of-the-courts-4abb791614ed

eviltwin

Sheeps wrote: »

Ryan Air flights to the UK for an abortion would probably be a lot cheaper than getting an abortion here, just saying.

Not for an FFA. It would be free here as opposed to the thousands it costs to go to the UK. The money is just one aspect though, even if you can afford to travel its still a physically demanding trip that involves unnecessary surgery. There is no aftercare when the woman returns. It is a ridiculous situation.

mahamageehad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

1 was my preference until the Citizen's Assembly report, now I like 6, their recommendation.

Based on what I heard of the comments after the vote yesterday, most seem to prefer option 1, despite the CA recommendations. There was a worry about inserting anything else into the constitution and it has been suggested that perhaps the legal burden of certainty was stressed too heavily in the CA. It'll be interesting to see how the conversations progress.

Sheeps

Ryan Air flights to the UK for an abortion would probably be a lot cheaper than getting an abortion here, just saying.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Outlaw Pete

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

10 thanks this post got (and counting). Sums this thread up.

Go and read the user's post again, particularly the line you didn't quote:

keano_afc wrote: »

Your turn. I like this game where we throw wild accusations and assumptions around.

You see? They didn't get it anyway. It was a DELIBERATE "wild accusation".

January

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course it's a happy ending. Both human beings involved are alive. We can work from there. If two people were in a car crash and both were saved and someone said that was a happy ending, wouldn't you think it bizarre for someone to suggest it may not be a happy ending?

Ah, forced birth at its finest.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What pathetic nonsense.

Except it is really not. YOU are declaring it to be a happy ending SOLELY because two people are alive. Nothing else.

Think of the potential other narratives beside your own so limited one.

She has been made suicidal, become the mother to a child she did not want, she might have to alter her entire life plan, she now has to face the struggles of finding a partner in life as a single parent, and much more. Not to mention having to parent a child created in circumstances we will not go into here.

The child is the child of a single parent, one that is potentially suicidal, starting life as entirely unwanted, and with a father that a relationship with is likely to be..... dubious.

They could potentially BOTH be very very miserable for the rest of whatever their lives are to be. But sure they are both alive so at least YOU are happy huh? That's all that matters really. To you at least.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I fail to see how killing a healthy baby solves anything.

Had she been living in a country with choice based abortion with term limits she would not have "killed a healthy baby". She would have terminated a fetus before it formed into what can meaningfully be described as a healthy baby.

Tearing up a blue print is very different to knocking down a house.

cnocbui

The only sensible proposition would be to just remove any mention of abortion from the constitution whatsoever. Fealty to the Catholic Church also, while you're at it.

Outlaw Pete

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm sure all the pro-life people who are delighted with her happy ending will also be happy that she might never get to go to college now, might never get to pursue her dreams and might end up as a single mother receiving welfare until the child is old enough that she can get part time work and eek out a survival that way.

What pathetic nonsense. Lots of young single mothers get to do those things. I went to school with a few. I see their children regularly. Now adults. This is not Sub Saharan Africa. We have help in place for young pregnant mothers and if we need more, lets get more. I fail to see how killing a healthy baby solves anything.

seamus wrote: »

Well, typically they would prefer that she didn't receive welfare. Usually a strong correlation between being pro-life and anti-welfare. Many are driven less by concern for the unborn and more by the belief that people should be punished for mistakes as fully as possible.

More drivel. Only the other day I was highlighting on a thread in AH how people on welfare / disability live on less than people think given that a large chunk of it goes towards paying undeclared rents (given that the caps are so low). To suggest people who are against abortion (be that always, just late stage or only when they are carried out for non-therapeutic reasons) would typically "prefer that she didn't receive welfare" is a ridiculous agenda saturated rubbish.

A few of you are showing your true colours with these statements. What's wrong? Your arguments not holding up to much scrutiny and so you have to start attacking and discrediting those who disagree with you? I guess so.

rainbow kirby

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This. The 8th is an extremely blunt instrument and doesn't take into considering a multitude of grey areas, even in wanted, planned pregnancies. Having a very slow miscarriage? Let's just wait even longer rather than performing that D&C. Feck the risks, as long as there's the tiniest of foetal heart tone detectable we won't finish out the inevitable. Suffer a complication which permanently affects your health but probably won't kill you? Tough, the Irish system doesn't care about the effect that it might have on your existing family and on your overall health. Serious mental health difficulties? We'll just lock you up and use delaying tactics, we might even force feed you if you go on hunger strike because the system has screwed you over already.

There is no regard for women and their wishes in the Irish system. While the 8th is in place the law treats us as mere vessels.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

"Happily ambled" up suicidal?? Wtf. That's prochoice logic right there, folks.

Wow that was quite a distance you just missed the point by. For example would she have been suicidal IF she had had the OPTION to amble up and obtain an abortion at will? Or was her suicidal status caused or compounded by the pointless red tape she had to crash through to get even close to where she probably wanted to be?

You are trying to PRETEND I was putting "happily" and "suicidal" in the same person at the same time or something? Your desperation if fetid. No, I was suggesting one might not have been as bad, or not been there at all, had she had the other option.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Anyway, she was 25 weeks pregnant. Even your 'fuzzy moral regard' for devolving human babies kicks in before then.

Nothing fuzzy about my position save for your understanding of it it seems. But she was 25 weeks at the point in question. I am suggesting that it is possible, in a country where she had a choice up to 12 or 16 weeks, that she never would have reached the point she was at at 25 weeks..... having to present as suicidal, get multiple evaluations, fall into the media eye, and more.

Do not pretend she just suddenly materialized out of thin air, at 25 weeks, with no back story or narrative that led up to that point. A narrative that potentially could have been HEAVILY altered in the context of a society with choice based term limited abortion.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

She could have instead happily ambled up to a clinic and CHOSEN to have an abortion without having to prove herself to be suicidal to do it.

"Happily ambled" up suicidal?? Wtf. That's prochoice logic right there, folks.

Anyway, she was 25 weeks pregnant. Even your 'fuzzy moral regard' for devolving human babies kicks in before then.

I mean, aren't you on record as saying you'd support laws that would make procuring non-therapeutic abortions at that stage of a pregnancy illegal? So in the context of this particular case you are not prochoice at all, are you? Assuming rape, ffa mother's health etc are not factors of course.