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

Thirdfox wrote: »

One question I wonder about from the pro-choice side (and some of my pro-choice friends confirmed it to me) is if medical science advances forward so that a 10, 8, 6, X week old foetus is viable independently

I am pro-choice but nothing about my pro-choice position is predicated on "viability". And while I have met other pro-choice campaigners who DO predicate it on that, they have in my experience been a minority.

So the progress of medical technology......... which as you suggest is likely to eventually remove the requirement for wombs at all.............. is not an issue for my position on abortion.

Thirdfox wrote: »

I'm trying to help you see that your argument of "you don't do it but let others who want to go ahead" doesn't work in actual fact.

Well the argument does AND does not work, depending what the argument is actually being used against. Context determines the strength of the argument here.

I think where this argument is strong is where people have nothing but a PERSONAL bias against abortion. They have no moral or ethical arguments to indict it, they just feel like it is wrong and therefore no one should have one.

The "you don't do it but let others who want to go ahead" argument works very well in THAT context.

Whereas with murder, to use your analogy, we DO have good moral and ethical arguments against people doing it. So the "Well if you do not want to murder dont, but leave those of us who do alone" argument would indeed be weak in that context.

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. The scientific view is one that throws up 1 of my 2 key problems with abortion - that of imposing an arbitrary limit on the availability of abortions.

I do not see that as a "problem" at all. Arbitrary limits are built into a lot of our laws by necessity of the fact we do not live in an ideal world where we can consider each individual case on it's own merits.

Take the arbitrary age limits on sexual consent and purchase of alcohol for example. What is it about a specific birthday that somehow means a person 1 week before it is capable of consenting to these things, but 1 week after they are not. Especially given in some countries a child can go to war years before they can purchase a beer.

I have considered the moral and ethical arguments around abortion by choice for many years now and I have noticed that the arguments that would make me iffy about termination of a fetus do not kick in until around 22-24 weeks gestation.

The near totality (in the area of 98% consistently around the world) of people who CHOOSE abortion do so in or before week 16 of gestation.

That is one hell of a buffer, to the point that while one might moan a 16 week cut off is "arbitrary".... it caters for the near totality of demand that is actually placed on abortion services in the real world.

So your issue does not seem an issue at all except for the "If it can not be done 100% perfect lets not do it at all" style of thinking that does seep into the conversation on rare occasion and usually from a single user who is not you.

Thirdfox wrote: »

for human life - I find this arbitrariness highly troubling. Why is a 12 week 0 day 0 hour 0 minute 1 second foetus "unabortable"?

It is not. Rather I think the arguments say that in reality it is closer to 24 weeks. But what you seem to miss is that there are two ways to argue it. Purely philosophically is one. And when you do this you get figures around 24 weeks.

But when someone suggests cut offs in the REAL world, one has to factor in all kinds of other things. What is the actual demand on the system? What are the risks of complications at later abortions? What are the political implications of trying to campaign for abortion at 12 weeks rather than 24 weeks. What are the costs of maintaining different systems. And much much more.

And what one has to do is balance what people actually want/need, with what we feel we can provide, and with the complications providing it might result in.

And then in the end one comes up with a balanced figure born of mediating for ALL those individual concerns. And for me that is 16 weeks. But if I woke up in an Ireland tomorrow with abortion by choice at 12 weeks, or 20 weeks, I would lose absolutely no sleep over either.

And none of the final figure is predicated on the no-true scotsman thinking that lies behind a "What has intrinsically changed from 1 second ago that made this "thing" deserving of legal protection" narrative on parsing it.

Thirdfox wrote: »

Another thing I generally find myself in agreement with with pro-choicers is that we all want to minimise abortions as much as we can.

I love that you included this and I wish many more people would. Many people not only miss that common ground, but some even actively ignore it and hide it. Usually behind trolling emotive terms like "pro murder" and "pro abortion" and similar rhetoric.

Abortion is a divisive topic already, we do not need to make it more so by missing the fact that there is a massive lump of common ground between most people on most sides. Pretty much all of us would ideally like to live in a society where no abortion happens. We just differ on our paths towards that ideal.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Why are all these people who don't want to get pregnant not getting pregnant?

As a user already told you, some people think they were protected and the protection failed them. Some people even use 2 or 3 protections in parallel, and it still fails them.

But not all pregnancies come from unprotected sex. Some are from rapes. And not all rape victims are aware they were raped either.

Further it is an error to assume that everyone seeking an abortion is someone who got pregnant against their will. Some people get pregnant willingly but then their circumstances change and their desire to be pregnant changes. So the "If you did not want to be pregnant why did you get pregnant" narrative simply does not fit for them.

Further you seem to think "if protection does not always work then take the MAP every time" is a useful approach to this. Do you know what that drug does? Do you know anything about the results of consistent use of it rather than one off periodic emergency use of it?

Further, you might also be in danger of making the assumption that it too is 100% effective. Do you think that is a safe assumption? If contraceptives, even when used in parallel in multiple forms, can statistically sometimes fail........ then do you not suspect that emergency after measures even if taken consistently might not also have a failure rate?

And if so, you would STILL end up with unwanted pregnancies. So you would basically be left in a position of having to argue for abstinence only approaches to contraception. And history has shown how well THAT has gone for us.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

It's better than the advice you are giving. Sure why use protection at all we will soon have abortion available.

Strange I thought I was reading the thread closely. I must have missed where the user advocated that position. Could you perhaps cite or link the post where this occurred? After all, I would hate to think you simply made it up and shoved your words into their mouth in order to mis-represent them. You would not stoop to that level I guess?

maxsmum

Has anyone read Freakonomics by the way? Crime rates in the States fell drastically 20 years after abortion became legal through Roe Vs Wade. Maybe some people who become pregnant through accidents or lack of education could do with having access to abortion.

Belfast

Will it be illegal to have and abortion based on the gender of the fetus like it is in Britain.

Is it illegal to terminate due to financial/social needs or based on gender?

The law does not state that a doctor has to take into account a woman’s environment when deciding whether she can legally abort, but they may choose to do so.

For example, a woman’s economic and social situation may impact on a her health if she continued with the pregnancy.

There have previously been campaigns to make sex-selective abortions legal in the UK, but it remains illegal.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/3782462/uk-abortion-laws-termination-ireland-uk/

LirW

If abortion on demand up to 12 weeks would be legalized, you won't find out the sex of your baby that early. You could only via tests, and these aren't accurate or shouldn't be taken that early. So in that case, this issue can be avoided.

NuMarvel

Belfast wrote: »

Will it be illegal to have and abortion based on the gender of the fetus like it is in Britain.

Going by the Committee's recommendations, it would be legally permissible in the first 12 weeks, but I don't know enough about fetal development to say if it's possible to determine gender in that timeframe. From what I've briefly googled, gender is usually determined by ultrasound from about week 16 onwards. There are blood and genetic tests that can determine gender from week 10 but I haven't a clue about the accuracy or risks of those tests, or of their availability in Ireland.

The Committee also recommended that after 12 weeks, abortion can only be accessed for specific reasons (eg FFA, risk to health or life), and gender isn't one of those reasons.

Odhinn

maxsmum wrote: »

This is exactly it. This is really all it comes down to. I find the image of men curled up in their beds at night worried that maybe some women somewhere might have an abortion so weird!

For a lot of them, it help takes their mind off worrying what two, three or more men may be doing in bed together.

maxsmum

LirW wrote: »

If abortion on demand up to 12 weeks would be legalized, you won't find out the sex of your baby that early. You could only via tests, and these aren't accurate or shouldn't be taken that early. So in that case, this issue can be avoided.

Panorama or harmony tests are done from 9 weeks, I had one as did my sister, so we knew the sex that early. Only available privately but becoming more widespread.

Vronsky

maxsmum wrote: »

Has anyone read Freakonomics by the way? Crime rates in the States fell drastically 20 years after abortion became legal through Roe Vs Wade. Maybe some people who become pregnant through accidents or lack of education could do with having access to abortion.

Correlation doors not imply causation.

Hooks Golf Handicap

I spent last night trying to get my head around the real argument.

So, if the 8th is not repealed then about 5,000 women will source abortions.
If the 8th is repealed then about 5,000 women will source abortions.

So really the whole debate comes down to whether the state has a duty of care to Irish women.
That best medical practice is followed by not forcing them to travel or take unsupervised medication.

That makes it a no brainer for me.

Zubeneschamali

Vronsky wrote: »

Correlation doors not imply causation.

I think the correllation with lead in petrol and paint is better.

Hooks Golf Handicap

Do you remember when we had to vote on women's right to information.
Now you can Google "abortion clinics Liverpool", takes about 20 seconds.

Remember when you then had to travel on the Slattery's Abortion bus & all the associated costs.
Now you can go online & order 2 pills from Holland & job done.

The internet has granted Irish women freedom, not the state.
We should be ashamed it's taken technology to nullify dogma & we inflicted this on our female population unnecessarily.

AnGaelach

Honestly, the Committee recommending abortion "without reason" up to 12 weeks has made me sure that the referendum will be defeated. I think there's a strong current of voters who are uncomfortable with such a proposal and it's where the pro-life side of the debate will focus its attention while Repeal will have people who are uncomfortable with it but can't simply brush it off as "a matter for the legislature to decide". This is no longer about simply repealing the amendment or further amending it, it's about how willing the public is to support abortion "on demand".

AnGaelach

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

I spent last night trying to get my head around the real argument.

So, if the 8th is not repealed then about 5,000 women will source abortions.
If the 8th is repealed then about 5,000 women will source abortions.

So really the whole debate comes down to whether the state has a duty of care to Irish women.
That best medical practice is followed by not forcing them to travel or take unsupervised medication.

That makes it a no brainer for me.

The State also has a duty of care to the unborn, which is where the entire pro-life side is focused on.

Pretending you can't understand why pro-life might oppose abortion doesn't discredit the view

Captain Obvious

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

So really the whole debate comes down to whether the state has a duty of care to Irish women.

Yes, that is the debate as far as pro choice people are concerned. For prolife people it's whether the state has a duty to protect the unborn child.

Hooks Golf Handicap

AnGaelach wrote: »

The State also has a duty of care to the unborn, which is where the entire pro-life side is focused on.

Pretending you can't understand why pro-life might oppose abortion doesn't discredit the view, it just makes you look like a bit of a simpleton

One post of pure logic was enough for you to get triggered & resort to name calling, one post !!!.
Can't see you lasting the 4 month debate.

AnGaelach

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

One post of pure logic was enough for you to get triggered & resort to name calling, one post !!!.
Can't see you lasting the 4 month debate.

Anyone who uses the term "pure logic" tends to be a bit on the slow side.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

AnGaelach wrote: »

The State also has a duty of care to the unborn, which is where the entire pro-life side is focused on.

Pretending you can't understand why pro-life might oppose abortion doesn't discredit the view, it just makes you look like a bit of a simpleton

Do you think that duty of care is being met right now, when thousands of foetuses are aborted in and outside of Ireland every year and nobody is prosecuted?

It's not arguing that he can't understand why pro-life opposes abortion, it's why they support keeping the 8th. Read a post properly before you call people simpletons.

NuMarvel

AnGaelach wrote: »

Honestly, the Committee recommending abortion "without reason" up to 12 weeks has made me sure that the referendum will be defeated. I think there's a strong current of voters who are uncomfortable with such a proposal and it's where the pro-life side of the debate will focus its attention while Repeal will have people who are uncomfortable with it but can't simply brush it off as "a matter for the legislature to decide". This is no longer about simply repealing the amendment or further amending it, it's about how willing the public is to support abortion "on demand".

An opinion poll last month show the public supports access to abortion up to 12 weeks without reason. 60% overall, with a sizeable proportion in favour of it being available after 12 weeks.

AnGaelach

NuMarvel wrote: »

An opinion poll last month show the public supports access to abortion up to 12 weeks without reason. 60% overall, with a sizeable proportion in favour of it being available after 12 weeks.

Yeah, Amnesty is a completely unbiased source... The same lads who took a 130k donation from a foreign entity and lied about it to SIPO and who threatened to challenge SIPO's decision to make them pay it back after the donor admitted it was exclusively for political donations...

AnGaelach

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Do you think that duty of care is being met right now, when thousands of foetuses are aborted in and outside of Ireland every year and nobody is prosecuted?

It's not arguing that he can't understand why pro-life opposes abortion, it's why they support keeping the 8th. Read a post properly before you call people simpletons.

So, you can't want to keep the 8th if you don't also have sufficient numbers to campaign in order to ban women going abroad? That's a false dichotomy.

AnGaelach

Tayschren wrote: »

Bet you 50 euro it will get repealed.

I've had money on it for about a year now. I should've waited because Paddypower just offered better odds.

Tayschren wrote: »

It's about choice,

The referendum will be won because only backwards brainwashed mentally deficient gob****s would vote to control the choice of woman to decide their own path. And luckily enough there has been a lot of education taken away from the church in the past 20 years effectively reducing the number of said mentally impaired slaves

Another string of babble, everyone will support "progressivism" because the Church is evil and so on, ad nauseum. I'm not religious, I'm pro-life. Most of the people I know who are pro-life aren't religious.

You're trying to reduce things into a simple black-and-white narrative because it's easier for you to consume yourself, not because it's going to provide some great insight into the argument.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

AnGaelach wrote: »

So, you can't want to keep the 8th if you don't also have sufficient numbers to campaign in order to ban women going abroad? That's a false dichotomy.

God forbid you answer a simple yes or no question. Go ahead and make up false dichotomies for yourself instead, I guess.

AnGaelach

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

God forbid you answer a simple yes or no question. Go ahead and make up false dichotomies for yourself instead, I guess.

You loaded the question with the following statement. It wasn't a simple yes or no, it was designed to bait a person into reacting.

Simplifying a nuanced scenario like abortion into "yes or no" questions isn't conducive to anything except you wanting to dog-pile someone with a differing opinion and hear your own voice.

RayM

conorhal wrote: »

I think what you actually mean is that your pompous declaration was at odds with reality and now you don't want to talk about it because the fact that the majority of abortions are lifestyle choices to illiminate a minor inconvenience is a fact that you don't want to acknowlege because it's a hard PR spin.

Seriously, you accuse me of making a "pompous declaration" (that lads who claim that abortion "will be used as a form of contraception" have a low opinion of women)... and then you confidently spout a load of shite about an unwanted pregnancy being a "minor inconvenience". Take a good look at yourself.

NuMarvel

AnGaelach wrote: »

Yeah, Amnesty is a completely unbiased source... The same lads who took a 130k donation from a foreign entity and lied about it to SIPO and who threatened to challenge SIPO's decision to make them pay it back after the donor admitted it was exclusively for political donations...

The poll was commissioned by Amnesty, but was conducted by Red C, who are a reputable polling company, and the poll used the Citizens Assembly recommendations as the basis for the questions.

That sounds a lot more unbiased than your opinions, but obviously I don't expect that, or anything else, to change your mind.

AnGaelach

NuMarvel wrote: »

The poll was commissioned by Amnesty, but was conducted by Red C, who are a reputable polling company, and the poll used the Citizens Assembly recommendations as the basis for the questions.

That sounds a lot more unbiased than your opinions, but obviously I don't expect that, or anything else, to change your mind.

This was posted yesterday

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/eighth-amendment-polls-suggest-middle-ground-will-be-decisive-1.3326371

Polls conducted by Ipsos/MRBI for The Irish Times this year, last year and in 2013 have consistently found that a majority of voters do not favour the legalisation of abortion on request, along the lines of the British model.

It should be said that other polls, commissioned by Amnesty, one of the leading organisations campaigning for abortion law reform, have returned different findings. But Irish Times polls have been pretty consistent in their findings about where public opinion stands on the matter.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

AnGaelach wrote: »

You loaded the question with the following statement. It wasn't a simple yes or no, it was designed to bait a person into reacting.

Simplifying a nuanced scenario like abortion into "yes or no" questions isn't conducive to anything except you wanting to dog-pile someone with a differing opinion and hear your own voice.

You stated that the most important issue for pro-life people is the duty of care towards the unborn, as opposed to the duty of care towards the pregnant, insofar as it relates to whether or not to repeal the eighth.

All I asked you is whether, with the eighth in place, you think that duty of care is being met seeing as...how can I put this in a way that won't seem like a loaded pro-choice tricksy question....thousands of the unborn are being murdered every year, many of them in Ireland, with no prosecutions.

If you feel you can't answer that question then fine, keep ranting instead. Rephrase the question to your liking. Rant. Whatever.

Belfast

AnGaelach wrote: »

Honestly, the Committee recommending abortion "without reason" up to 12 weeks has made me sure that the referendum will be defeated. I think there's a strong current of voters who are uncomfortable with such a proposal and it's where the pro-life side of the debate will focus its attention while Repeal will have people who are uncomfortable with it but can't simply brush it off as "a matter for the legislature to decide". This is no longer about simply repealing the amendment or further amending it, it's about how willing the public is to support abortion "on demand".

I was surprised they proposed such a radical change.
I think a more gradual approach of amendment the 8th amendment would stand a better chance of passing.

NuMarvel

AnGaelach wrote: »

This was posted yesterday

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/eighth-amendment-polls-suggest-middle-ground-will-be-decisive-1.3326371

The key phrase being: "along the lines of the British model."

What the Assembly and the Committee has recommended is not along the lines of the British model. It's more akin to the continental European model, which is typically abortion as a matter of choice the first 10 to 13 weeks and for specified reasons after that.

The Irish Times polls don't contradict the Red C poll, because the polls ask different questions.