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

Kiwi in IE

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If I had known my brake line could have been the night before, do you think I would trust the brakes?

Would you?

I don't think we need to delve too deeply into that analogy. People trust that brakes, contraception, fridges, etc will work as intended. Sometimes they don't and unwanted consequences occur.

Sweetemotion

Consonata wrote: »

You do realise you cannot take the MAP after every sexual activity. That isn't remotely healthy.

Well then pull the feck out.

Thirdfox

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What?

Are you not fully aware of the X Case at all?

Go ahead - give me your interpretation then?

Consonata

Thirdfox wrote: »

You see that I addressed the age to vote time limit arbitrariness in my paragraph already? Mainly goes back to - missed the voting age by a day - the world isn't going to end (in all likelihood)...missed the abortion cut off date by a day/week/whatever leeway they give it - it could be the end of the foetus (or not).

No need for a capital L in lawyer - the profession isn't a proper noun - and indeed the only alternative to arbitariness is an even more unappealing subjectiveness i.e. at the discretion of the consulting physician or by some other arbitrary "human" definition - has the foetal heart started beating, brain activity etc.

But you may have missed my point which is I cannot distinguish when a human should be legally protected from abortion and when it should not - and that is one of the main reasons I am unable to vote for its legalisation.

And I should clarify - abortion obviously is already legal in Ireland (under the terms of the X case), but I currently cannot support the expansion of abortion.

I mean I'm not going to attempt to change your opinion on when life begins, because from my experience re-litigating philosophical points on the concept life is rarely useful.

If you believe that Abortion shouldn't be allowed in any circumstances then that is your view.

Sweetemotion

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I don't think we need to delve too deeply into that analogy. People trust that brakes, contraception, fridges, etc will work as intended. Sometimes they don't and unwanted consequences occur.

I wouldn't trust my brakes if I knew I did something that might make them fail or
I wouldn't trust my fridge if I left the door open.

Annasopra

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Well then pull the feck out.

Thankfully the Committee also agreed to reccomend improving sex education in schools. Badly needed when you see posts such as yours!

ohnonotgmail

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Well then pull the feck out.

yeah, because that method is foolproof :rolleyes:

Consonata

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I wouldn't trust my brakes if I knew I did something that might make them fail or
I wouldn't trust my fridge if I left the door open.

So since contraception isn't 100% effective, people shouldn't have sex using them.

Your argument is ridiculous.

uptherebels

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Well then pull the feck out.

wow....you know that's not 100% effective..?

Annasopra

uptherebels wrote: »

wow....you know that's not 100% effective..?

I wonder if sweetemotion knows much at all about sex reading these posts.

Sweetemotion

uptherebels wrote: »

wow....you know that's not 100% effective..?

If done right it is 100% effective.

LirW

Thirdfox wrote: »

And I too have tried to look at it from a scientific (with a humanist bent) view - spiritual doesn't fact in the argument at all in my household. ...

Sorry, had to shorten your post there because of wall of text reasons.

See I fully get where you're coming from.

I'm assuming that the 12 weeks time limit has to do with the proven medical facts. The first trimester of a pregnancy is the time where most things can go wrong. Up to 12 weeks almost half of all conceived pregnancies abort naturally, most of them so early that the woman never knows she was actually expecting.
While every embryo develops differently there are major milestones met around 13-14 weeks.
To put it in a stupid term, it's the most "humane" time to end a pregnancy.
Also taking into account that not every woman finds out in week 5 or 6 that she's pregnant but a good bit later.
It would be very unusual to not have found out by 12 weeks.

The reason why 24 weeks are in place for severe cases of FFA is that certain tests can only be carried out between 13 and 24 weeks. In week 13 is the best time to have a nuchal translucency and if that's abnormal you can go from there. The most accurate test can only be carried out at around 20 weeks which gives you a very good indication of what's most likely wrong with the baby. There are FFAs where the child wouldn't survive the birth or the first few hours after it, so this is the last time for parents to decide if they want to go ahead anyway or not. Again 24 weeks is the very earliest that a baby can be kept alive outside the womb. The chances that they'll make it are a lot lower than for example a preemie that's born at 30 weeks, in that case every day counts.
I believe that an ethical component is in fact the reason why these limits are set. They are not fully random but this is the best compromise from an ethical and medical point of view.

Regarding paternal rights, this is something where I wanna come back to another point you mentioned: Going ahead with a pregnancy that's unwanted.
See, a pregnancy takes a toll on every woman. Some are super happy and just seem to fly through it but others don't. It can have a horrible impact on your mental health even if your child is planned or not.
So if you're not in the perfect circumstances, the chances that this will take a toll is a lot higher.
While the infertility of one couple is incredibly tragic, it doesn't mean that another woman has to go ahead with a pregnancy that she doesn't want or maybe even resents. This can be incredibly distressing and traumatic up to a point where it can drive a woman suicidal.
So in order to protect the life of an unborn child we risk the mental and maybe physical health of an adult woman? This can be seen as punishment because in fact that means that the life of a bundle of cells has more value than the health and sanity of a living and breathing human-being that's a functioning part of society (ideally).

And this is where paternal rights come in and I agree that this is an extremely tricky one. De facto the father does not have a right or say what's going to happen. Now we need to take into account that the majority of men wouldn't want to raise a child on their own because the mother already decided she won't do it. But these men are there, I know a case of it personally. And these men depend on the grace of the woman. This is a very sh1tty scenario for all. The father will lose out on his own child. But again the toll the woman takes can be incredibly high.
No matter what, the woman would end up as some kind of baby machine against her will. And because she's the one that is pregnant and takes all the physical and mental side effects, that can vary widely, she's the one who has to decide what's going to happen. There is unfortunately no compromise on that one, as painful as it might be for a father that would be willing to raise a child on his own.
But there are no winners here because that's a sour scenario for everyone involved.

I personally still see it as wrong that a woman should be forced carrying a child against her will. I think the human rights agree with me on that point. This is why it is so difficult to imply the paternal rights for a child that is not born. The 8th at the moment overrules this by saying "Yeah well, your life as a grown woman is as important as the one of a cell blob and in in a scenario of doubt, we side with that cell blob, no matter what's up with you."

This enables so many problems. This also enables substandard pregnancy care and the overruling of consent during the pregnancy and birth. And no matter what, I think, in case of doubt, the adult woman or a living child or your auntie nell is more important than an embryo.

Consonata

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If done right it is 100% effective.

.... Should someone tell him.

Sweetemotion

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I wonder if sweetemotion knows much at all about sex reading these posts.

Yes joey your right I know nothing.

I've one kid who is now 18. I didn't want anymore and I don't.

It must be a miracle.

Sweetemotion

Consonata wrote: »

.... Should someone tell him.

Maybe you should.

LirW

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If done right it is 100% effective.

Like pulling out after 2 thrusts? What about pre-cum that in a lot of cases isn't felt by the man yet can still impregnate a woman?
I'm curious myself now.

Annasopra

Thirdfox wrote: »

Go ahead - give me your interpretation then?

You claimed the 8th did not prevent the girl from travelling to the UK. But it did. When they returned Ms X was injuncted from travelling. The High Court upheld that injunction. It was overturned by the Supreme Court but you really cant claim Ms X was not prevented from travelling when she was prevented from travelling. This isnt my interpretation. This is fact.

Annasopra

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Yes joey your right I know nothing.

I've one kid who is now 18. I didn't want anymore and I don't.

It must be a miracle.

It clearly is given your ridiculous posts above.

dudara

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If done right it is 100% effective.

100% effective means no pregnancies EVER. No form of contraception, or pulling out pre-ejaculation is 100% effective.

The only things that are 100% effective are never ever having sex, or having a hysterectomy.

gctest50

Consonata wrote: »

.... Should someone tell him.

That if you find pulling out 100% effective - yer sterile

and those kids aren't yours, she got a subcontractor in

Sweetemotion

LirW wrote: »

Like pulling out after 2 thrusts? What about pre-cum that in a lot of cases isn't felt by the man yet can still impregnate a woman?
I'm curious myself now.

Pre-cum the pill and a condom and still in doubt the MAP I'm pretty sure you wont get pregnant.

Sweetemotion

gctest50 wrote: »

That if you find pulling out 100% effective - yer sterile

and those kids aren't yours, she got a subcontractor in

See the gang up is now happening.

If you don't want to get pregnant you can.

kylith

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If done right it is 100% effective.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Pre-cum the pill and a condom and still in doubt the MAP I'm pretty sure you wont get pregnant.

You know the MAP is some serious sh!t, yeah? Not something you'd take regularly.

I hope to feck someone else gave that 18 year old of yours the safe sex talk.

Thirdfox

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You claimed the 8th did not prevent the girl from travelling to the UK. But it did. When they returned Ms X was injuncted from travelling. The High Court upheld that injunction. It was overturned by the Supreme Court but you really cant claim Ms X was not prevented from travelling when she was prevented from travelling. This isnt my interpretation. This is fact.

Ah I see where your misunderstanding arises now - I claim the 8th did not prevent the girl from travelling to the UK because - the 8th amendment was there and the girl travelled to the UK.

It was only at the bequest of the gardai after the fact that she returned to Ireland and then they decided to operate the 8th on her on her particular circumstances. It did not prevent her from travelling to the UK initially and thus this is why the 8th as interpreted by the SC would be unenforceable...clearly.

You can't say the 8th operated to prevent her from travelling to the UK when she was in the UK already. It certainly didn't prevent her from travelling there and only prevented her after she came back after letting the Irish police know that she was in the UK to procure an abortion and then actually complied with their request that she come back. If you can't see the difference there I can't help you anymore.

NuMarvel

Thirdfox wrote: »

What's hard to understand? The girl was in the UK already - the Gardai had no power to make her return to Ireland.

We must have different definitions of clearly indeed - isn't the fact that the X case came up a clear example that the 8th amendment (as understood by the SC in the X case) is unenforceable? The girl had already travelled to the UK so how does this show anything other than the unenforceability of the SC's interpretation of the 8th amendment?

The 8th didn't prevent the girl from travelling to the UK and the X case only went up to the SC because the family travelled back to Ireland voluntarily. Is it clearer to you now?

The enforceability of laws isn't so narrowly defined as to relate only to the action it's meant to prevent, but also the sanctions carried in the event of the action being carried out. By your logic, speeding laws are unenforceable because people break speeding limits. But clearly the opposite is true, because we have fines, and penalty points.

If Ms X didn't come back to Ireland she would have risked being found in contempt of court for breaching a high court injunction. So yes, it was enforceable, by virtue of the penalty she could have faced for not adhering to the injunction.

LirW

I'm taking BC that's supposed to be 99.5-99.9 effective. That is pretty high, isn't it? That means every time I mount my man the chances are around 1 in 1000 that I would get pregnant, which is also pretty damn low. If I would get pregnant that would be similar to winning Euromillions.
So the chance is pretty damn low, like really insanely low, yet it is there.
Same way that you have the risk of having a heart attack from taking Paracetamol. It's pretty damn low but it's here and you still take it I assume.

Also the MAP is a megaload of hormones and should not be used on a regular base because it can affect your health. This is strong medication and according to leaflet you shouldn't drive after taking it. It's emergency contraception for, as the name says it, emergency.

I think the way this is explained a 3yo would get it.

Annasopra

Thirdfox wrote: »

Ah I see where your misunderstanding arises now - I claim the 8th did not prevent the girl from travelling to the UK because - the 8th amendment was there and the girl travelled to the UK.

It was only at the bequest of the gardai after the fact that she returned to Ireland and then they decided to operate the 8th on her on her particular circumstances. It did not prevent her from travelling to the UK initially and thus this is why the 8th as interpreted by the SC would be unenforceable...clearly.

You can't say the 8th operated to prevent her from travelling to the UK when she was in the UK already. It certainly didn't prevent her from travelling there and only prevented her after she came back after letting the Irish police know that she was in the UK to procure an abortion and then actually complied with their request that she come back. If you can't see the difference there I can't help you anymore.

No

The family travelled back because they were also legally injuncted from arranging an abortion.

The 8th amendment did prevent this girl from travelling. That is a fact.

Sweetemotion

kylith wrote: »

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

You know the MAP is some serious sh!t, yeah? Not something you'd take regularly.

I hope to feck someone else gave that 18 year old of yours the safe sex talk.

No I tell them to never use protection.:rolleyes:

Annasopra

LirW wrote: »

I'm taking BC that's supposed to be 99.5-99.9 effective. That is pretty high, isn't it? That means every time I mount my man the chances are around 1 in 1000 that I would get pregnant, which is also pretty damn low. If I would get pregnant that would be similar to winning Euromillions.
So the chance is pretty damn low, like really insanely low, yet it is there.
Same way that you have the risk of having a heart attack from taking Paracetamol. It's pretty damn low but it's here and you still take it I assume.

Also the MAP is a megaload of hormones and should not be used on a regular base because it can affect your health. This is strong medication and according to leaflet you shouldn't drive after taking it. It's emergency contraception for, as the name says it, emergency.

I think the way this is explained a 3yo would get it.

Yep. It really does badly show up the need for education that posters are on here advocating regular MAP and Pulling out for contraception.

Annasopra

Sweetemotion wrote: »

No I tell them to never use protection.:rolleyes:

I hope they didnt get the advice you gave here!