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

nozzferrahhtoo

I do not see how giving an accurate representation of my experiences on the forum can be considered trolling but I believe there are procedures in place if you think it is.

The simple fact is however that any termination of a pregnancy at very late stages that intends the death of the baby means that magically somehow the baby in question has a right to life at one end of the birth canal and not at the other. So rights are purely a matter of location. A position I have heard espoused but never morally defended.

When I queried the basis for such a weird position I got from one user nothing, and from another user some appeal to the opinion of Hilary Clinton. And nothing else. That was MY experience of talking to such users. So what relevance a link to a conversation you had with someone who was not me has.... is not clear to me at all. But that link does not answer the query.

However it does of course pay to be VERY clear what one is advocating. When someone says the simple phrase "abortion without term limits" for example, one is not being clear exactly what that means. If one is advocating terminating the pregnancy for example, that is very different to advocating terminating the baby. The former being, usually, intended to produce a healthy living baby. The latter, not so much.

It would appear, as unclear as the user is being, that "The Legend Of Kira" is discussing the latter.

But needless to say that "The woman is pregnant and would rather not be" is not an argument or justification on ANY level for terminating the life of a baby in view of the finishing line of the gestation process.

uptherebels

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The Queensland story has been in other media outlets too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3642611/At-27-babies-survived-late-term-abortions-Queensland-year-left-die.html

https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/27-qld-babies-born-alive-after-failed-abortions-le/3044778/

These were 27 obviously failed abortions, as the 27 babies survived the abortions, likewise I heard about this case that happened in Poland after watching Maria,s speech at the citizens assembly 6.10 into the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4j08-_6j_U

After I heard Maria mention the case from Poland I google searched what she said & found the story in different media outlets.

http://theliberal.ie/a-national-abortion-debate-has-re-opened-in-poland-after-a-down-syndrome-baby-born-alive-during-an-abortion-dies-unaided-screaming-for-an-hour/

http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/baby-born-alive-after-failed-abortion-left-to-die/

In reference to the cases of failed abortions that happened in Poland + Queensland, anyone who,s in favour of abortion without restrictions .

Q ) when in cases a baby survives a failed abortion, what legal rights ( if any ) should that baby have under the law in your opinion ?

wow you actually ignored every point I made. Babies are not left to die. Foetuses still have "life signs" immediately after an abortion is performed.

Linking to members of the iona institute and online far right opinion rags doesn't do anything to further your argument. If anything it detracts from it.
To add from your dailymail link - "Live-births after late-term abortion are very uncommon, however in some cases women who have a procedure to terminate their pregnancy in the womb after the 18th week will give birth to a live fetus that can survive for a short amount of time. "

The Legend Of Kira

Deleted User wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

It happened in Oxford, the relevance being it was a meeting on the topic of Ireland,s abortion laws with some speakers from Ireland .

The relevance of my question was that you asked "in Ireland"

I was replying to this post asking for proof about pro life groups getting meetings canceled .

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105151656&postcount=1990

The Legend Of Kira

NuMarvel wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I have only heard this week- about what happened in Queensland/Australia regarding babies surviving late term abortions being left to die.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-15/babies-of-late-terminations-left-to-die-without-care/7512618

This was even discussed on Australian political shows, ( see link ) .

https://www.facebook.com/abcqanda/videos/10153496754451831/?hc_ref=ARQIwuuKZkfq_M5QdVgSSYnX0VhBys7i50c4BfGpWmGsW8iPlX8IByxK3c-rQZByGsk&pnref=story

Here is my question to anyone who believes in a full repeal of the 8th/abortion without any restrictions, ( Q ) when in cases a baby survives a late term abortion, what legal rights ( if any ) should that baby have under the law in your opinion ?

I think we should do the same as in Queensland which is, to quote the Queensland Health Minister from the article:

"Care of a baby following birth is individualised to the specific circumstances, and informed by the choices of the family. In line with clinical guidelines, a range of pre and post terminal cares are provided.

"These may include physiological support of the baby to relieve potential for suffering, and psychological support for families including bereavement counselling."

BTW, you seem confused about abortion laws in Queensland. Abortion without restriction isn't available there. Instead it's only lawful to prevent serious danger to the woman's physical or mental health. And I think it's fair to assume that if a woman is having an abortion after the halfway point of her pregnancy, then there's a serious danger to her health.

And there's no basis for your assumption that repeal of the 8th equates to abortion without restriction. Ireland didn't have abortion without restriction before the 8th was introduced; quite the opposite what with us having an absolute ban on abortion since 1861. So there's no reason to think that repeal of the 8th would lead to that situation. The most that would happen is that politicians would legislate in line with the Citizens Assembly proposals, which certainly couldn't be described as without restrictions.

If the 8th is fully repealed, there is nothing to stop a future government repealing the 1861 act to legalise for abortion further then the citizen assembly proposals, to quote one of the speakers from the choice march in Dublin over a month ago

"" At the minimum we want the citizen assembly proposals "" .

Ok if that,s what they want at the minimum , I question what exactly do they want at the maximum ?

ohnonotgmail

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If the 8th is fully repealed, there is nothing to stop a future government repealing the 1861 act to legalise for abortion further then the citizen assembly proposals, to quote one of the speakers from the choice march in Dublin over a month ago

"" At the minimum we want the citizen assembly proposals "" .

Ok if that,s what they want at the minimum , I question what exactly do they want at the maximum ?

If a future government decide to repeal the 1861 act it is because they have a mandate to do so.

The_Valeyard

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If a future government decide to repeal the 1861 act it is because they have a mandate to do so.

What mandate?

The Legend Of Kira

uptherebels wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The Queensland story has been in other media outlets too.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3642611/At-27-babies-survived-late-term-abortions-Queensland-year-left-die.html

https://www.northernstar.com.au/news/27-qld-babies-born-alive-after-failed-abortions-le/3044778/

These were 27 obviously failed abortions, as the 27 babies survived the abortions, likewise I heard about this case that happened in Poland after watching Maria,s speech at the citizens assembly 6.10 into the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4j08-_6j_U

After I heard Maria mention the case from Poland I google searched what she said & found the story in different media outlets.

http://theliberal.ie/a-national-abortion-debate-has-re-opened-in-poland-after-a-down-syndrome-baby-born-alive-during-an-abortion-dies-unaided-screaming-for-an-hour/

http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/baby-born-alive-after-failed-abortion-left-to-die/

In reference to the cases of failed abortions that happened in Poland + Queensland, anyone who,s in favour of abortion without restrictions .

Q ) when in cases a baby survives a failed abortion, what legal rights ( if any ) should that baby have under the law in your opinion ?

wow you actually ignored every point I made. Babies are not left to die. Foetuses still have "life signs" immediately after an abortion is performed.

Linking to members of the iona institute and online far right opinion rags doesn't do anything to further your argument. If anything it detracts from it.
To add from your dailymail link - "Live-births after late-term abortion are very uncommon, however in some cases women who have a procedure to terminate their pregnancy in the womb after the 18th week will give birth to a live fetus that can survive for a short amount of time. "

If they were denied live saving treatment in Queensland, as in treatment that could of saved their lives- they were not properly cared for to the point of intervention to save their lives post abortion after surviving the abortion.

The reason I linked to the citizens assembly video is Im being specific about where exactly I first heard about the failed abortion case that took place in Poland.

The Legend Of Kira

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Queensland, anyone who,s in favour of abortion without restrictions .

I am not sure what your point here actually is however.

Firstly, repealing the 8th has very little at this time to do with late term abortions.

Second, of all the many MANY posts I have read on boards.ie on the subject of abortion I have only come to be aware of three (and one of them is pretty iffy) people who are advocating for abortion without any restrictions. One of them I am not sure even holds that position, one of them has given NO basis for that position, and the final one has given little more than pretending "Hilary Clinton agrees with me" as an argument for that position. So who is it you are really addressing any of this to?

Third, the near totality of abortions by choice are done in or before week 16. "Late" abortions tend to predominantly (with few cherry picked media exceptions around the entire globe) for medical reasons and necessity. And sometimes the goal is to terminate the pregnancy, not the baby, if at all possible. Quite often the baby is expected to die anyway, regardless of their temporarily having survived the termination of the pregnancy.

So really I can not extract much from your post other than a good argument for examining and improving our processes so that whatever the goal and intention of a given procedure actually is at the time...... we achieve it better without "failures".

But given the number of procedures, by choice or medical necessity, going on in the world at the moment.... let alone the total number of them historically........ that you can find a TWO DIGIT number of what YOU deem to be "failures" is not exactly a number of any significance.

If someone is favour of abortion being made available for any reason whatsoever, as in an abortion can be legally requested for any reason, without term limits- Id describe such a position as being in favour of abortion without restrictions, anyone who holds such a position that abortion should be legal on request regardless of term limits,

My question is aimed at them.

Q ) when in cases a baby survives a failed abortion, what legal rights ( if any ) should that baby have under the law in your opinion ?

ohnonotgmail

The_Valeyard wrote: »

What mandate?

you know, the mandate that politicians get from the people that elect them.

The_Valeyard

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you know, the mandate that politicians get from the people that elect them.

Meh. We have referendums to decide big issues like that.

gctest50

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If they were denied live saving treatment in Queensland, as in treatment that could of saved their lives- they were not properly cared for to the point of intervention to save their lives post abortion after surviving the abortion...........

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

as in treatment that could of saved their lives- ...........

There is no treatment that could of saved their lives - the hint is in the name - Fatal Fetal Abnormality

I'd imagine a few of the Anti-Choice crew don't want such pregnancies terminated just in case there is a flash of light and a miracle happens and the babies Fatal Fetal Abnormality just disappears

- not a religious thing, more a sunken-cost / self esteem issue - if this miracle could happen they would feel so good about themselves

- of course in their eyes if the 8th disappears there is even less of a chance of their fantasy miracle happening

.

NuMarvel

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If the 8th is fully repealed, there is nothing to stop a future government repealing the 1861 act to legalise for abortion further then the citizen assembly proposals, to quote one of the speakers from the choice march in Dublin over a month ago

"" At the minimum we want the citizen assembly proposals "" .

Ok if that,s what they want at the minimum , I question what exactly do they want at the maximum ?

There's nothing stopping the current or a future government increasing income tax to 99% either. But I've never heard anyone demand a constitutional provision to prevent that. And that's because we know it's not likely to happen, and if it did happen, that government would likely do a U-turn or risk being booted out (assuming public opinion was against it).

The same can be said about the prospect of future government legislating beyond the Assembly’s proposal. Especially when, historically, Irish governments like to stay as far away from abortion as possible. Look how long it took just to legislate for the X Case.

As a by the way, the 1861 Act has already been repealed and replaced with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. And that happened because of the 8th, not despite it. Once again showing that the 8th doesn't and can't even do the thing it's supporters want it to do.

January

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The Irish times reported about some choice meetings being canceled, not because of venues being pressured but because of venues adopting a " no politics " policy regarding political meetings being held in their venue- for the record I disagree with this as long as lawful group are willing to pay out their own money to hire a venue for an hour or two to hold a political meeting I don,t think a venue should be allowed refuse.

The thing is they knew exactly what these meetings were about when the meetings were booked. They knew they were pro-choice meetings, and took the bookings then cancelled them at the last minute.

That tells me that they're just trying to save face by saying what they've said to the newspapers, as another poster stated, they'd no problem letting the TD hold meetings there in the past, those were political meetings.

Hotblack Desiato

NuMarvel wrote: »

As an aside, it's interesting how both speakers have links with conservative Christian groups. Breda O'Brien is probably well known as a patron of the Iona Institute, and Lorcan Price is a director, alongside RonMullen and others, of Catholic Comment according to this press release.

But... we keep on being told that saving the 8th is nothing to do with religion, some of my best friends are atheists who oppose abortion, etc. etc.

Yet the correlation between anti-choice and extremist 1950s style catholicism is always there.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If someone is favour of abortion being made available for any reason whatsoever, as in an abortion can be legally requested for any reason, without term limits- Id describe such a position as being in favour of abortion without restrictions

I would be wary that you never fall into the trap of calling it "abortion without restrictions" just because it does not have any of the restrictions on YOUR list.

Time limit IS the restriction for many people. WITHIN that time limit however such people often think not many (any?) restrictions should apply. That would indeed be my position.

That time limit however tends to be one that you are not going to find, to use your words, "cases a baby survives a failed abortion". If you can find any 16 week fetuses that survived abortion I would be interested to see how common it is.

mahamageehad

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

From tearing down pro life posters to getting pro life public meetings canceled now we re at the stage where pro life public meetings can,t be held without disruption, speaks volumes of their confidence when they need to shout people with opposing views down.

You know what, I've seen this story a few times online and I simply don't believe it. Students apparently chanting for 40 mins and not one video or pic of the protest? I think this (and a few other choice pro-life events in recent times) are getting themselves "cancelled" or "disrupted" on purpose as they get way more coverage from that than they would for the actual event. Added bonus, they get to claim that they're being "silenced".

mahamageehad

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would be wary that you never fall into the trap of calling it "abortion without restrictions" just because it does not have any of the restrictions on YOUR list.

Time limit IS the restriction for many people. WITHIN that time limit however such people often think not many (any?) restrictions should apply. That would indeed be my position.

That time limit however tends to be one that you are not going to find, to use your words, "cases a baby survives a failed abortion". If you can find any 16 week fetuses that survived abortion I would be interested to see how common it is.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no case of a baby born at 21 weeks or before ever surviving.

Grayson

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Here is my question to anyone who believes in a full repeal of the 8th/abortion without any restrictions, ( Q ) when in cases a baby survives a late term abortion, what legal rights ( if any ) should that baby have under the law in your opinion ?

We've gone full hypothetical here haven't we.

I haven't heard of any groups in Ireland calling for abortion after 12-16 weeks. The citizens assembly didn't mention it. No political party is asking for it (And it'd be political suicide to do it).

So, what's the point of your question when you're asking what would happen in an impossible situation? Because it has absolutely nothing to do with the 8th which is what the thread is about.

rainbow kirby

mahamageehad wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge, there is no case of a baby born at 21 weeks or before ever surviving.

Correct, the earliest surviving gestation was a baby boy in Canada born at 21+5 and a girl in the US born at 21+6.

January

Grayson wrote: »

We've gone full hypothetical here haven't we.

I haven't heard of any groups in Ireland calling for abortion after 12-16 weeks. The citizens assembly didn't mention it. No political party is asking for it (And it'd be political suicide to do it).

So, what's the point of your question when you're asking what would happen in an impossible situation? Because it has absolutely nothing to do with the 8th which is what the thread is about.

The citizens assembly voted to have abortion under socio-economic reasons up until 22 weeks.

Ulysses Gaze

mahamageehad wrote: »

You know what, I've seen this story a few times online and I simply don't believe it. Students apparently chanting for 40 mins and not one video or pic of the protest? I think this (and a few other choice pro-life events in recent times) are getting themselves "cancelled" or "disrupted" on purpose as they get way more coverage from that than they would for the actual event. Added bonus, they get to claim that they're being "silenced".

I don't buy it either.

Look at these type of political events in the US - The Triggering for example - where there were mobiles filming the left wing protests.

If it did happen, it is inconceivable that no video footage has been released that would allow the Pro-Life campaign to shine a disparaging light on the Pro-Choice campaign.

.......

This post has been deleted.

keano_afc

mahamageehad wrote: »

You know what, I've seen this story a few times online and I simply don't believe it. Students apparently chanting for 40 mins and not one video or pic of the protest? I think this (and a few other choice pro-life events in recent times) are getting themselves "cancelled" or "disrupted" on purpose as they get way more coverage from that than they would for the actual event. Added bonus, they get to claim that they're being "silenced".

Well here's the link to a statement from WomCam, who organised the protest:

https://www.oxfordsu.org/news/article/6013/Right-to-protest-Right-to-choose/

And you're right, they didnt chant for 40 minutes. According to them, it was "almost an hour".

nozzferrahhtoo

keano_afc wrote: »

And you're right, they didnt chant for 40 minutes. According to them, it was "almost an hour".

Never did get into the idea of disrupting the talks and meetings for the people I disagree with. Never saw the point.

I want them to have MORE meetings in fact. Then perhaps they will finally come up with a coherent anti choice argument other than essentially "oooo look at it's little fingies and toesies" or "oooo look at it's tongue move in a way I can IMAGINE looks like talking".

Because that is all I have been getting personally for a couple of decades now. So by all means let them meet and talk and come up with better. Be about time.

keano_afc

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Never did get into the idea of disrupting the talks and meetings for the people I disagree with. Never saw the point.

I want them to have MORE meetings in fact. Then perhaps they will finally come up with a coherent anti choice argument other than essentially "oooo look at it's little fingies and toesies" or "oooo look at it's tongue move in a way I can IMAGINE looks like talking".

Because that is all I have been getting personally for a couple of decades now. So by all means let them meet and talk and come up with better. Be about time.

Indeed, when you consider they are up against claims that 4 million people are having mental health issues as a result of the 8th, they really need to up their game.

nozzferrahhtoo

keano_afc wrote: »

Indeed, when you consider they are up against claims that 4 million people are having mental health issues as a result of the 8th, they really need to up their game.

Certainly not an argument I have myself heard or used myself, I was talking about abortion itself though not the 8th specifically.

NuMarvel

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The other 50% voted for one of 3 other options (including no term limits), so I think it's fair to say that up to 22 weeks had the majority support in this instance.

[Deleted User]

I'd like to know from those who oppose repealing the 8th think of abortion for medical reasons. If the mother's life is at risk or if there is a fatal fetal diagnosis (e.g. Anencephaly) then surely it would be immoral and inhumane to not allow the mother the decision on whether to carry on with the pregnancy.

mahamageehad

keano_afc wrote: »

Well here's the link to a statement from WomCam, who organised the protest:

https://www.oxfordsu.org/news/article/6013/Right-to-protest-Right-to-choose/

And you're right, they didnt chant for 40 minutes. According to them, it was "almost an hour".

Thanks, that's the first time I had seen anything other than the post from the organisers. Fair enough, I stand corrected.

I am firmly in the pro-choice camp, but I have difficulty understanding the purpose of demonstrations such as this. I mean, I see what they were going for in that statement, I actually think they're damaging. We would likely never have heard of this event only for this. I mean, how many of the people in that room would really have been eligible to vote anyway?

keano_afc

mahamageehad wrote: »

Thanks, that's the first time I had seen anything other than the post from the organisers. Fair enough, I stand corrected.

I am firmly in the pro-choice camp, but I have difficulty understanding the purpose of demonstrations such as this. I mean, I see what they were going for in that statement, I actually think they're damaging. We would likely never have heard of this event only for this. I mean, how many of the people in that room would really have been eligible to vote anyway?

What I find hilarious is their claim that they werent there to stop free speech. A claim they validated by shouting for nearly an hour over people who were trying to speak.