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

end of the road

spookwoman wrote: »

How is someone you don't know, never met, not even a relation having an abortion going to affect your life? Don't want an abortion then don't have one.

someone murdering someone else doesn't effect me. doesn't mean they aren't wrong. it doesn't have to effect one directly for it to be wrong. if someone is aborting their child based on the sex they are a nutjob, we don't tolerate sexism for children and adults so it should be the same for the unborn.

Crea wrote: »

The logical conclusion of your argument is to force women to remain pregnant when, for whatever reason, they really don't want to be.

sometimes hard choices have to be made to protect others. in the case of abortion on demand, we have to protect the life of the unborn as much as is practical, so we don't allow it bar extreme circumstances. when it comes to someone doing harm to others, we have a duty to step in as society where practical and stop that from happening. so if it is a choice between allowing someone do harm to the unborn because the unborn is inconvenient, or protecting the unborn as much as it is possible, then the unborn should be protected.

LirW wrote: »

Which means that you rather want a woman to stay pregnant with all the mental and physical implications carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and gladly take the risk of her suffering from trauma and depression? Even a wanted pregnancy can be the opposite of a walk in the park and leave you in pieces. Nevermind how this would be when it's unwanted.

the other option is the allowing of the killing of the unborn. as i said, hard choices do have to be made, and while i can safely say none of us do want people to suffer, we do have to decide ultimately which of the situations must be prevented more. for me it is where killing will take place, as much as is practical to do so. yes people are traveling abroad or taking pills here, but there are abortions which are stopped by the 8th.
there are other issues caused by the 8th of course, and i think if there was a guarantee that no abortion on demand would be legislated for in ireland, the referendum to repeal it would definitely get a yes vote.

maxsmum

LirW wrote: »

They do come for a price though and they aren't made for the gender assessment but ruling out FFAs and disabilities. The gender assessment is a nice bonus from it.
The normal public patient won't find out until a scan shows.

True and I don't think the normal public patient is even offered it, which is another day's work. Listen I don't think for a second that people will be have sex-selective abortions but it is an important test that is available and few people seem to know about it - although I have known 6 pregnant women the last 1 and half years or so and 5 of them had it. 2 were public patients and paid out of pocket.

The friend who didn't have it done out of interest said she wouldn't because she would never have an abortion so didn't want to know if there were any abnormalities - there you go - choice in action!

LirW

They do come for a price though and they aren't made for the gender assessment but ruling out FFAs and disabilities. The gender assessment is a nice bonus from it.
The normal public patient won't find out until a scan shows.

maxsmum

LirW wrote: »

Not necessarily true. You'd get offered to assess it at the big scan around 20 weeks. Anything from week 30 onwards is actually more difficult to assess, because there is less space and they might have the cord between their legs.

A blood test from Mum from 9 weeks is available here and tells you sex if you want to know. Google the Panorama or Harmony tests. It's a chromosomal test so 99.9% accurate. I had it and plenty of women I know did too.

LirW

First, sex is a human instinct and people can suffer mentally and physically from abstaining from it. People have sex since the beginning of time and people never had less sex. Abortion is around since the beginning of time and the shadow number of abortion was pretty high as well as the death of the woman undergoing one.

Secondly women who don't wish to be pregnant are on contraception. Yet no contraception is 100% safe.
I mentioned it earlier today, if your BC is 99.9% safe, each time you have sex the chance you'd get pregnant beside being on it is 1:1000. Which is pretty small but not eradicated.

You've ever taken painkillers or had a local anesthetic? They also have very small chances of serious side effects, in the worst case amputation or death. Yet the majority of people choose to take them.

Women are effectively doing what they can to not get pregnant. But sometimes life goes wrong and it happens.

Captain Obvious

spookwoman wrote: »

How is someone you don't know, never met, not even a relation having an abortion going to affect your life? Don't want an abortion then don't have one.

Pointless argument as it ignores the core belief of pro-choice people i.e. that the unborn is a life deserving of protection.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hoboo wrote: »

Sounds like a very serious situation to risk putting yourself in for the sake of sex. No? I certainly wouldn't have sex if it meant a risk of trauma, depression and leaving me in pieces.

LIFE runs the risk of trauma, depression and leaving us in pieces. We all seem content to keep on living however

The constituent parts of life however, see us making balanced decisions between our desires, and such risks, all the time. You get in a vehicle, you run those risks. You go out for a party, you run those risks.

Each of us balances what we want in life, and the risks of pursuing it, all the time. Sex should certainly be no different.

Hoboo

LirW wrote: »

Which means that you rather want a woman to stay pregnant with all the mental and physical implications carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and gladly take the risk of her suffering from trauma and depression? Even a wanted pregnancy can be the opposite of a walk in the park and leave you in pieces. Nevermind how this would be when it's unwanted.

Sounds like a very serious situation to risk putting yourself in for the sake of sex. No? I certainly wouldn't have sex if it meant a risk of trauma, depression and leaving me in pieces.

nozzferrahhtoo

AnGaelach wrote: »

Don't want to tax evade? Then don't tax evade. Don't want to kill someone? Then don't kill someone. Don't want to inject heroin? Then don't shoot up.

As I explained to another user earlier this afternoon however, the difference between "Do not like murder, then do not kill people" and "Do not like abortion, then do not have one" arguments is that in the former case we have moral and ethical arguments against murder.

With abortion however no one, including yourself, are presenting moral or ethical arguments against abortion. You do not PERSONALLY like abortion then? Fine, then do not have one! But that line of thinking can not be made analogous in murder because there are genuine moral and ethical reasons why no one should murder, rather than a handful of vocal cranks being personally against it.

LirW

Which means that you rather want a woman to stay pregnant with all the mental and physical implications carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and gladly take the risk of her suffering from trauma and depression? Even a wanted pregnancy can be the opposite of a walk in the park and leave you in pieces. Nevermind how this would be when it's unwanted.

AnGaelach

spookwoman wrote: »

How is someone you don't know, never met, not even a relation having an abortion going to affect your life? Don't want an abortion then don't have one.

Don't want to tax evade? Then don't tax evade. Don't want to kill someone? Then don't kill someone. Don't want to inject heroin? Then don't shoot up.

The thing is, while you think that soundbit might sound witty, it isn't very persuasive. We live in a society, and we all agree what is condoned in this society. Of course I'm going to care about what you do, because we're both members of this society and the "stop caring about people!!" shíte is a ridiculous libertarian stance. One that should have been left in America rather than imported here by pseudo-intellectuals, capitalists and the self-obsessed.

Crea

AnGaelach wrote: »

This is the logical conclusion of what the pro-choice lobby are campaigning for. Aborting a life simply because you want to, no qualified reason required. Don't like the gender of your child? Just abort it and start a new one!

The logical conclusion of your argument is to force women to remain pregnant when, for whatever reason, they really don't want to be.

LirW

AnGaelach wrote: »

This is the logical conclusion of what the pro-choice lobby are campaigning for. Aborting a life simply because you want to, no qualified reason required. Don't like the gender of your child? Just abort it and start a new one!

But this is not how pregnancy works. It is not a linear thing that you either like or not. People decide to have abortions because of a variety of reasons. A woman that chooses to do so has usually different problems. You abort because you don't wanna have or can support a child.
If you want a child, no matter what, you are starting to get attached to it.

We're not living in a society where the wrong sex could mean existential problems for you and your family.
Could that mean that people from extreme minorities or parallel societies opt for a gender-based abortion? Yes, but they'd find a way to do so anyway.
Same with everyone else really that wants a specific one.
This would be a very marginal problem and is just a fearmongering because the real problem falls flat, which is that women don't have safe access to abortion when they can't afford to travel and the maternity care implications that the 8th brings.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

it's irrelevant why people believe in the right to life. it's whataboutery.

In other words you do not want to, or maybe can not, answer the question. So you want to dismiss it. Whether the fetus should have a right to life or not is CENTRAL to the entire abortion debate, so you can not just dismiss it and dodge.

And if people can not come up with an argument as to why a fetus at 12/16 weeks should have any such right, then that is important to highlight.

end of the road wrote: »

because it's irrelevant. they believe in the right to life for the unborn, why doesn't matter.

Of course it matters. We are a social species and we decide on our laws and morality and ethics in a process of ongoing discourse and our ability to persuade each other about what is, or should be, true about the world.

If you want to merely declare at people that X has right Y, but will not or simply can not offer a SINGLE argument as to why that is the case..... then it pays to highlight that lack where it arises.

And you are not alone. I have studied this topic for over 2 decades. And of the many.... many many.... anti choice people I have met over those years not one of them has yet been able to explain why a fetus at 12/16 weeks should be considered to have a right to life.

If you merely want to assert, rather than defend, your claims that is of course your right. But let us not pretend that that is because the things you can not defend are irrelevant.

spookwoman

AnGaelach wrote: »

This is the logical conclusion of what the pro-choice lobby are campaigning for. Aborting a life simply because you want to, no qualified reason required. Don't like the gender of your child? Just abort it and start a new one!

How is someone you don't know, never met, not even a relation having an abortion going to affect your life? Don't want an abortion then don't have one.

AnGaelach

spookwoman wrote: »

Not very helpful calling someone a nutjob who might want an abortion because of the sex. Tbh people want the choice and it's really none of anyone's business why they choose to have one.

This is the logical conclusion of what the pro-choice lobby are campaigning for. Aborting a life simply because you want to, no qualified reason required. Don't like the gender of your child? Just abort it and start a new one!

NuMarvel

Crea wrote: »

Given that the recommendation is for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and it's impossible to ascertain the gender at that stage it is completely a non issue.
Another false flag being raised by anti abortion groups

I don't think it was even discussed as a reason during the Citizens Assembly. Certainly not in the last weekend anyway, when they were deciding on what to vote on.

For the purposes of keeping this thread someway coherent (but not wanting to backseat mod), maybe we should limit discussion to what the Committee will recommend to the Dáil. I can't see the Dáil wanting to add more exceptions after the 12 week mark, especially ones that haven't been discussed by the Assembly or the Committee.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well yes, and water is wet. But when we get passed stating the basic obvious stuff, the questions I asked still remain.

I asked "What is it you think "rights" are at the level of philosophy. How and why are they formed. To what exactly are they assigned and on what basis? "

Saying "they are decided on the basis of morality" leaves the question unanswered. WHAT moral arguments are used, in what way, to decide this.

it's irrelevant why people believe in the right to life. it's whataboutery. this debate operates on the basis of whether you
a. believe in the repeal of the 8th.
b. believe in abortion on demand or not, which would likely come in if the 8th was repealed..
c. believe that the unborn should or shouldn't continue to have the right to life as much as is practical, and that protection as much as is practical should or shouldn't remain within the constitution

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

When the topic of abortion comes up, the failure of the anti-choice campaigner tends to be that either A) they do not know what the philosophical underpinnings of rights are or should be or they think they know, but have not noticed that none of them give a single coherent reason as to why a fetus at 12/16 weeks should have them.

because it's irrelevant. they believe in the right to life for the unborn, why doesn't matter. they believe that the unborn have a right to life as much as is practical, that is all that ultimately matters.
i know you want to bring ridiculous deep essay style irrelevant whataboutery arguments over nothing into what admitidly isn't a simplistic debate, but people have better things to do then argue it because it's not relevant. whether the 8th is repealed or not will not be won on the basis of why rights are given to the unborn.
being against abortion on demand isn't "anti-choice" the unborn in this country have some bit of a voice and that is absolutely right in my view. the so-called pro-choice need to realise that it's not all about you as much as you want it to be. the unborn have rights as well in ireland.

spookwoman

LirW wrote: »

The problem of sex-selective abortions are very common in societies with high levels of poverty. Girls would be seen as a financial burden that a poor family can't afford. You'd want to have sons, they are strong, they can work, they can look after you when you're old.
It's not really a problem in the developed world though.

Abortion rates in the developed world went down a lot while it remains high in poor countries.

You'd most likely have a few nutjobs that would choose to do so. But I'd consider this as a very marginal problem really.

Not very helpful calling someone a nutjob who might want an abortion because of the sex. Tbh people want the choice and it's really none of anyone's business why they choose to have one.

Crea

LirW wrote: »

The problem of sex-selective abortions are very common in societies with high levels of poverty. Girls would be seen as a financial burden that a poor family can't afford. You'd want to have sons, they are strong, they can work, they can look after you when you're old.
It's not really a problem in the developed world though.

Abortion rates in the developed world went down a lot while it remains high in poor countries.

You'd most likely have a few nutjobs that would choose to do so. But I'd consider this as a very marginal problem really.

Given that the recommendation is for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and it's impossible to ascertain the gender at that stage it is completely a non issue.
Another false flag being raised by anti abortion groups

LirW

The problem of sex-selective abortions are very common in societies with high levels of poverty. Girls would be seen as a financial burden that a poor family can't afford. You'd want to have sons, they are strong, they can work, they can look after you when you're old.
It's not really a problem in the developed world though.

Abortion rates in the developed world went down a lot while it remains high in poor countries.

You'd most likely have a few nutjobs that would choose to do so. But I'd consider this as a very marginal problem really.

Crea

Sorry it was a mis type which i corrected. Gender scans are given from 18 weeks. My argument regarding sex selective abortion still stands

LirW

Crea wrote: »

Up to 12 weeks it's not possible to assess the gender of a foetus by scan . In fact gender scans can only be done from 28 weeks onwards. Sex selective abortions cannot happen up to the 12 weeks recommended by the CA

Not necessarily true. You'd get offered to assess it at the big scan around 20 weeks. Anything from week 30 onwards is actually more difficult to assess, because there is less space and they might have the cord between their legs.

Crea

conorhal wrote: »

Abortion on demand requires no reasoning, as they have found in the UK, with a regime that tollerates abortion on demand it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions.

Up to 12 weeks it's not possible to assess the gender of a foetus by scan . In fact gender scans can only be done from 18 weeks onwards. Sex selective abortions cannot happen up to the 12 weeks recommended by the CA

NuMarvel

conorhal wrote: »

Abortion on demand requires no reasoning, as they have found in the UK, with a regime that tollerates abortion on demand it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions.

It's funny you use the UK to claim that it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions, when only earlier today someone linked to an article that said sex selective abortions are banned in the UK...

nozzferrahhtoo

conorhal wrote: »

And what about the societal effect? Or don't we do 'society' any more and abortion is just another narcisistic consumer option.

What effects do you envision?

LirW

conorhal wrote: »

And what about the societal effect? Or don't we do 'society' any more and abortion is just another narcisistic consumer option.

What societal effect should this have? We're not in China with some ridiculous One-Child policy.

LirW

conorhal wrote: »

Abortion on demand requires no reasoning, as they have found in the UK, with a regime that tollerates abortion on demand it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions.

No this is not true. Again at 12 weeks it is close to impossible to know the sex of an embryo. At least no Ultrasound is going to show because it looks the same at that stage in boys and girls.

The UK is a pretty unique example regarding abortion. Also the statistics speak that almost all abortions are carried out before 16 weeks gestation with an overwhelming majority before 12 weeks.

If this would be the new legislations it's nearly impossible to terminate because it's the wrong unless people have a sh1tload of money. And these people would find a way to terminate anyway.

conorhal

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see no reason why we really should ban such things anyway. If we can find no moral or ethical reasons to say aborting a fetus at 12/16 weeks is a bad thing in the first place.... and certainly no one on any boards.ie threads have yet......... then the reasons people choose to have one should be irrelevant to us.

The reasons some people do it might make us uncomfortable at times, but so the hell what? It does not mean they should not have the right.

For example, you have the right to eat mars bars. If you told me that you were eating 50 a day with the purpose of becoming morbidly obese.... your motivation might disgust me, but I still believe in your right to eat mars bars.

Similarly I might find someone wants to abort because they think the fetus is (fe)male. Their reasoning might be abhorrent to me, but it does not affect what I think their rights should be.

And what about the societal effect? Or don't we do 'society' any more and abortion is just another narcisistic consumer option.

nozzferrahhtoo

conorhal wrote: »

Abortion on demand requires no reasoning, as they have found in the UK, with a regime that tollerates abortion on demand it's impossible to ban sex selective abortions.

I see no reason why we really should ban such things anyway. If we can find no moral or ethical reasons to say aborting a fetus at 12/16 weeks is a bad thing in the first place.... and certainly no one on any boards.ie threads have yet......... then the reasons people choose to have one should be irrelevant to us.

The reasons some people do it might make us uncomfortable at times, but so the hell what? It does not mean they should not have the right.

For example, you have the right to eat mars bars. If you told me that you were eating 50 a day with the purpose of becoming morbidly obese.... your motivation might disgust me, but I still believe in your right to eat mars bars.

Similarly I might find someone wants to abort because they think the fetus is (fe)male. Their reasoning might be abhorrent to me, but it does not affect what I think their rights should be.