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

markodaly

Maybe we can legalise it up to say 10 weeks but also commission ads that show the graphic and true nature of having an abortion, kinda like those drink driving ads and smoking ads.

splinter65

markodaly wrote: »

Maybe we can legalise it up to say 10 weeks but also commission ads that show the graphic and true nature of having an abortion, kinda like those drink driving ads and smoking ads.

You are joking.
Your talking about people who objected to a child living with Downs Syndrome being at the Citizens Assembly as it may have been hurtful for women who had aborted a DS baby.
Your talking about people who refer to an unborn baby of 24 weeks as a clump of cells.
And so on and so forth.
In order to be “pro choice” you have to convince yourself that an unborn baby is not the young of a human being.
These are not people who are about to face up to the mechanics of an abortion.

uptherebels

markodaly wrote: »

Maybe we can legalise it up to say 10 weeks but also commission ads that show the graphic and true nature of having an abortion, kinda like those drink driving ads and smoking ads.

how graphic is a first trimester abortion?

LirW

uptherebels wrote: »

how graphic is a first trimester abortion?

Pretty unspectacular, medical abortion is like a strong period and there's not much that you'd see from the outside of a mechanical one.

I was just thinking of this nonsense graphic that went around on Social media for a while where a late term abortion is shown where they rip the baby apart and first remove single legs and then hands and arms until the head only is left and then they pull it out. It's so stupid it makes me laugh. I think that's the morbid splatter fantasy that people like to use to scare others.
That's not how it works anyway.

Hoboo

uptherebels wrote: »

how graphic is a first trimester abortion?

Eh, very. Very very. Plenty of photos online.

uptherebels

Hoboo wrote: »

Eh, very. Very very. Plenty of photos online.

you realise that a first trimester abortion would be via pills or an aspiration abortion neither of which would be graphic ......right?

LirW

A lot of the "first trimester" abortion pictures are pictures of miscarriages, ectopic or fallopian pregnancies taken out of context. They'd usually be quite well documented because the embryos are kept for further research if there was something wrong with them because it could indicate that there's a genetic issue with the mother or father.

splinter65

LirW wrote: »

Pretty unspectacular, medical abortion is like a strong period and there's not much that you'd see from the outside of a mechanical one.

I was just thinking of this nonsense graphic that went around on Social media for a while where a late term abortion is shown where they rip the baby apart and first remove single legs and then hands and arms until the head only is left and then they pull it out. It's so stupid it makes me laugh. I think that's the morbid splatter fantasy that people like to use to scare others.
That's not how it works anyway.

What does a 3rd trimester abortion look like then?

Hoboo

uptherebels wrote: »

you realise that a first trimester abortion would be via pills or an aspiration abortion neither of which would be graphic ......right?

Aspiration, no, unless you show what has been aspirated, but will have been ripped apart anyhow. Pill/chemical abortion, yes, it can be graphic.

Taken from womenonweb.org.

'At nine weeks, you might be able to find a sac in the blood and it is possible that you might see the embryo. With a pregnancy of 8 or 9 weeks, the embryo is about 2,5 cm. This can be distressing.It is best to flush everything down the toilet or to wrap the sanitary pads in a plastic bag and throw them away'.

Or take a photo and put it on billboards, if its not that graphic as you say, you would surely not object?

LirW

I know how it's done where I come from: If you decide to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks because of a FFA for example, there will be an injection into the fetus abdominal area that lets the fetus die pretty much instantly. Once there's no heartbeat anymore, the woman gets medication that initiates labour and she gives birth to the dead fetus.

Hoboo

LirW wrote: »

A lot of the "first trimester" abortion pictures are pictures of miscarriages, ectopic or fallopian pregnancies taken out of context. They'd usually be quite well documented because the embryos are kept for further research if there was something wrong with them because it could indicate that there's a genetic issue with the mother or father.

Source.

splinter65

LirW wrote: »

I know how it's done where I come from: If you decide to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks because of a FFA for example, there will be an injection into the fetus abdominal area that lets the fetus die pretty much instantly. Once there's no heartbeat anymore, the woman gets medication that initiates labour and she gives birth to the dead fetus.

Pro choice is all about semantics .
“Lets the fetus die”
As opposed to “kills the baby”.
Careful use of words to conceal the reality.

uptherebels

Hoboo wrote: »

Aspiration, no, unless you show what has been aspirated, but will have been ripped apart anyhow. Pill/chemical abortion, yes, it can be graphic.

Taken from womenonweb.org.

'At nine weeks, you might be able to find a sac in the blood and it is possible that you might see the embryo. With a pregnancy of 8 or 9 weeks, the embryo is about 2,5 cm. This can be distressing.It is best to flush everything down the toilet or to wrap the sanitary pads in a plastic bag and throw them away'.

Or take a photo and put it on billboards, if its not that graphic as you say, you would surely not object?

no i wouldn't object. The bigger question is why you would find a picture of blood with a sac in it, or an embryo graphic. Also why do you think it would somehow impede women who have decided to have an abortion.

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

Pro choice is all about semantics .
“Lets the fetus die”
As opposed to “kills the baby”.
Careful use of words to conceal the reality.

kinda like when they refer to a bunch of cells as a baby......oh wait:rolleyes:

LirW

I recently came across a few medical professionals online that post lots of medical stuff for educational reasons. Some of it are miscarriages. One of them if Mrs. Angemi, she has the ongoing problem that her content that involves pregnancies gone wrong are shut down from pro-life organisations or either are stolen.

I can't post you links to it right now because I'm on my pre-historic phone and it would take me ages. I'll do it tomorrow for you.

tigger123

Pretty amazing that both the Citizens Assembly and now the Oireachtas Committee having heard balanced, informed debate on the matter are opting to repeal the 8th.

The truth has a liberal bias.

splinter65

uptherebels wrote: »

kinda like when they refer to a bunch of cells as a baby......oh wait:rolleyes:

A 20+ weeks gestation unborn baby is not a baby?!? What is it then?

LirW

splinter65 wrote: »

Pro choice is all about semantics .
“Lets the fetus die”
As opposed to “kills the baby”.
Careful use of words to conceal the reality.

It kills the baby, yes. Then labour is induced. Outcome is the same, isn't it? No ripping apart in Sam Raimi splatter manner.
Maybe it's good to take into account that almost all of these abortions take place because the baby would be severely disabled and/or the chances are high that they wouldn't survive birth.
Not every woman has the strength to carry a pregnancy to term only to see the baby die during labour and I can't blame them a bit.

Hannibal_Smith

Hoboo wrote: »

Aspiration, no, unless you show what has been aspirated, but will have been ripped apart anyhow. Pill/chemical abortion, yes, it can be graphic.

Taken from womenonweb.org.

'At nine weeks, you might be able to find a sac in the blood and it is possible that you might see the embryo. With a pregnancy of 8 or 9 weeks, the embryo is about 2,5 cm. This can be distressing.It is best to flush everything down the toilet or to wrap the sanitary pads in a plastic bag and throw them away'.

Or take a photo and put it on billboards, if its not that graphic as you say, you would surely not object?

I had a miscarriage in the first trimester a number of years ago. I had to flush what came out of me down a toilet, much as it killed me.

It's not graphic. It is hard on the body having to expel it all. But i wouldn't describe it as graphic. A very heavy clotty period would be more like it. I was told it just died and it wouldnt have suffered, because it couldn't feel anything.

I didn't take pictures though. I didn't think it would be one for the family album

LirW

tigger123 wrote: »

Pretty amazing that both the Citizens Assembly and now the Oireachtas Committee having heard balanced, informed debate on the matter are opting to repeal the 8th.

The truth has a liberal bias.

Because the 8th is not only tied to the abortion issue but it heavily impacts the Irish maternity care. Early pregnancy care is pretty much non-existent in the public sector and there is a problem that women are not asked for consent for tests or procedures. They also often don't have a say during labour to what happens to them because a sentence many women hear is "it's dangerous for the baby".

Abortions in Ireland are happening, and they won't go away. They are around and there is a blackmarket for medication that you should take under medical supervision. It's about whether or not giving women a safe surrounding to have a termination or not, not only the women that have the money to travel to England.

splinter65

LirW wrote: »

It kills the baby, yes. Then labour is induced. Outcome is the same, isn't it? No ripping apart in Sam Raimi splatter manner.
Maybe it's good to take into account that almost all of these abortions take place because the baby would be severely disabled and/or the chances are high that they wouldn't survive birth.
Not every woman has the strength to carry a pregnancy to term only to see the baby die during labour and I can't blame them a bit.

Why did the poster not say “kills the baby”? If it’s the right thing to do then why shrink away from normal terminology? If you’ve made a considered desicion that the in utero killing of a disabled baby is justified and the desicion of the mother only, then why the need to use the word fetus?

splinter65

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess they said that because it's a fetus.

The sheer hypocrisy of a pro-lifer giving out about manipulation of language is laughable, when it's you lot who insist on calling a lump of cells a baby.

An unborn baby of 20+ weeks is a fetus if it’s being killed by injection before being delivered dead, and a baby if it’s delivered alive by a C Section to be treated in hospital?
How can you keep a lump of cells alive in an incubator to be discharged home eventually?

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

A 20+ weeks gestation unborn baby is not a baby?!? What is it then?

where did i mention 20+ weeks gestation? In your eagerness to be offended you aren't reading peoples posts properly.

gctest50

splinter65 wrote: »

A 20+ weeks gestation unborn baby is not a baby?!?

A 20+ weeks gestation fetus is not a fetus?!?11!!!!???

Much easier - less words, leaves no-one ( including non- native English speakers ) in doubt what yer on about

LirW

splinter65 wrote: »

Why did the poster not say “kills the baby”? If it’s the right thing to do then why shrink away from normal terminology? If you’ve made a considered desicion that the in utero killing of a disabled baby is justified and the desicion of the mother only, then why the need to use the word fetus?

Because it's the medical term? I also don't refer to a vasectomy as willy snip.
Anyway, I'm not going to argue about something like this now because we all get the point and I'm not wasting my time for some artificial outrage that I used the word fetus instead of baby.

splinter65

uptherebels wrote: »

where did i mention 20+ weeks gestation? In your eagerness to be offended you aren't reading peoples posts properly.

LirW’s post I was replying to. 20+ gestation. An injection into the uterus wall then delivered dead. Your the one not reading the posts properly.

splinter65

LirW wrote: »

Because it's the medical term? I also don't refer to a vasectomy as willy snip.
Anyway, I'm not going to argue about something like this now because we all get the point and I'm not wasting my time for some artificial outrage that I used the word fetus instead of baby.

I’m not outraged I’m just fascinated.
If abortion is essential for the cause of women’s healthcare then why the need to use careful sensitive terminology about the whole thing.
It’s ridiculous . A baby is a baby at 20+ weeks . It doesn’t matter wether you’ve had a c section and are holding its hand through the window on the incubator or giving it an injection to kill it through the wall of the uterus ! Get some backbone and stand by your convictions!

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

LirW’s post I was replying to. 20+ gestation. An injection into the uterus wall then delivered dead. Your the one not reading the posts properly.

but you quoted me?

splinter65

uptherebels wrote: »

but you quoted me?

Yes, but you quoted my response to LirW first, without reading LirW’s post.

LirW

Why would you take that I don't?
By the way, the earliest a baby can survive outside of the womb is 24 weeks and even then the chances it might not make it are quite high. There's a reason why 24 is a magic line for women, especially with troublesome pregnancies.
I do not think that I used sensitive terminology. I told about injections about the fetus' abdominal area, the fetus will die. Labour will be induced and the dead baby is born.

I had a look in my birth pass from my first that was issued back home, the baby is referred to as fetus right after birth. Medical term.