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

MrPudding

Thirdfox wrote: »

The same reason I imagine people don't have problems with letting people talk about marijuana usage despite it being illegal here in Ireland.

If "murder" is legal elsewhere in the world then unfortunately no, you wouldn't be able to stop a murderer talking about his legal experiences in Ireland. You would be able stop him if he commits a "murder" here in Ireland though.

So I don't see why you would be confused about the issue here.

Well, that is just wrong. The reason they are not arrested is that, irrespective of what you think, an abortion is not considered murder. Simple as that. Even where a person breaks the law here and procures an abortion, that is still not murder.

It is not just that abortion isn't considered murder in the jurisdiction that it took place, but also that it is that abortion is not considered, in law, to be murder here.

There are a number of acts that can be committed in a country where that act is legal, but one can be prosecuted in one's home country. Not sure in Ireland, but in the UK bribery and having sex with children is a criminal offence, even where those acts are committed in another jurisdiction where they may be legal.

We get that you think abortion is murder, but the law doesn't.

MrP

Zubeneschamali

Hoboo wrote: »

Reread what I said.

Yes, those people are toeing the Roman Catholic line on fetuses.

Perhaps you are also unaware that Holles St. had (until recently) a Catholic Ethos meaning save the baby first, where the Rotunda had a Protestant ethos meaning save the woman first.

Historically, this difference is based on the importance of baptism in saving babies from Limbo, which may read like fairy tale nonsense to lots of non-religious folks (and even a lot of Catholics these days since Limbo has been closed, apparently), but this nonsense had the real effect of killing women.

Still kills a few today.

kylith

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

To illustrate the first question, think about the second.

When someone suffers a brain injury, they sometimes end up in a state where they are alive in the sense that their heart is beating, their lungs breath in and out, but there is no higher brain activity at all.

We call that brain death, and commonly turn off life support and cut them up for spare parts.

There in that hospital bed is a unique human life, and we terminate it.

IDK if you can do that if they haven't signed an organ donor form.*

Funny how you can't use the organs from a corpse to keep sentient, suffering people alive without their consent, but you can force a sentient, living woman to use her entire body to keep alive an insentient fetus that is incapable of suffering.

*Has that now been changed to the saner 'opt out' system?

Hoboo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, those people are toeing the Roman Catholic line on fetuses.

Perhaps you are also unaware that Holles St. had (until recently) a Catholic Ethos meaning save the baby first, where the Rotunda had a Protestant ethos meaning save the woman first.

Historically, this difference is based on the importance of baptism in saving babies from Limbo, which may read like fairy tale nonsense to lots of non-religious folks (and even a lot of Catholics these days since Limbo has been closed, apparently), but this nonsense had the real effect of killing women.

Still kills a few today.

Have I missed something or were people on the committee openly saying 'as per our RC beliefs and doctrine'? (I stand corrected and appalled if they did) Or are they forming their own opinion from their education, experience or personal beliefs. You can have similar or same opinions as the RC, and not toe the line of the RC. Thats like saying everyone who wishes to repeal the 8th is following Church of Ireland doctrine.

Zubeneschamali

Hoboo wrote: »

Have I missed something or were people on the committee openly saying 'as per our RC beliefs and doctrine'? (I stand corrected and appalled if they did)

Of course they didn't say that out loud.

MrPudding

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I wouldn't trust my brakes if I knew I did something that might make them fail...

You mean using them? Using them might make them fail. That is the point.

MrP

Hoboo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course they didn't say that out loud.

So they weren't toeing the RC line. To toe the line is to accept the authority, policies, or principles of a particular group, especially unwillingly.. Unless they have openly referred to their stance being directly attributed to RC doctrine it is wrong to say so.

My point is it is wrong/insulting to use the RC whip on people who don't wish to repeal the 8th, just because the RC holds the same or similar beliefs.

Zubeneschamali

Hoboo wrote: »

My point is it is wrong/insulting to use the RC whip on people who don't wish to repeal the 8th, just because the RC holds the same or similar beliefs.

Even though ONLY the RC church, of all christian churches, holds similar beliefs?

Even when the people in question are actually members of the RC church?

Even when they vocally supported the unpopular RC church line in the same sex referendum?

And as to insulting, we are talking about Ronan Mullen and Mattie McGrath here, I would find it hard to say anything worse about them than they have said in their own words.

keano_afc

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Even though ONLY the RC church, of all christian churches, holds similar beliefs?

Even when the people in question are actually members of the RC church?

Even when they vocally supported the unpopular RC church line in the same sex referendum?

And as to insulting, we are talking about Ronan Mullen and Mattie McGrath here, I would find it hard to say anything worse about them than they have said in their own words.

To be honest its juvenile and ignorant to think only members of the RC church are in favour of retaining the right to life.

Hotblack Desiato

No. But you can't overlook that they are RCs and taking the strict orthodox RC line.

Zubeneschamali

keano_afc wrote: »

To be honest its juvenile and ignorant to think only members of the RC church are in favour of retaining the right to life.

No, it isn't. I gave a list of Christian churches above who opposed passing the 8th. That list includes every Christian church in Ireland at the time except the RC church.

I see that the Reformed Presbyterian church also support the 8th, and there are several of them in the Republic, but they are a tiny group.

meanwhile the RC bishops:

Her is the Catholic Church telling the Government not to hold a referendum as recently as last August.

Here is the Church of Ireland a year ago:

‘While the Church of Ireland has consistently expressed the view that abortion should be confined to situations of strict and undeniable medical necessity, it has also since 1983 publicly questioned the wisdom of addressing such complex moral problems by means of amendments to the Constitution.

‘Indeed unfolding events and a range of tragic human cases over the past three decades have demonstrated the deficiencies of the constitutional approach. However, we would wish to emphasise that to review or question the value of the Eighth Amendment at this time is not by implication to call for easy access to abortion. Rather, it is to suggest that those complex and hopefully rare situations in which medical necessity might require termination of pregnancy would be more suitably addressed through nuanced legislation. The Church of Ireland offers its good wishes and prayers to the Assembly in its weighty duty of striving to find a way forward in this sensitive matter, so that the rights of both mothers and the unborn may be duly balanced and careful reflection may take place regarding the place of the Constitution in addressing complex moral and social matters.’

The Muslims and Jews likewise say abortion is permissible in certain circumstances, and not the ones the 8th accidentally allowed.

seamus

nice_guy80 wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pro-life-tds-quit-eighth-amendment-committee-in-protest-464494.html

throwing the toys out of the pram

This was always going to be the outcome. Following the recommendations of the constitutional convention, the Iona Institute and their mouthpieces and associates like Ronan Mullins knew that one way or another there was going to be a referendum to repeal the 8th.

They are not interested in a discussion. They don't care what medical best practice is, or what the best outcomes are for mothers and children. They have the line of the RC church and there is nothing anyone can say that will waver them from it.

All they have been doing on the committee is noisemaking and dramatics, in preparation for the legal challenges they will launch if the referendum passes. The pro-life side deliberately refused to attend the committee to give evidence. They storm out in protest when democratic votes don't go their way.

What they are doing is creating a victimisation narrative. They are going to spend months and months playing the poor mouth, claiming that they were "not allowed" to speak at the committee, that it was "biased" and that the "unborn was not given a voice". Because they stacked it up that way by refusing to engage with it.

Ronán Mullins is probably the most dishonest, disingenuous, disgusting individual I have personally witnessed in Irish life. This is the same man who unapologetically defended child abusing priests, now claiming to be standing up for the rights of the unborn.

Anyone who voted for him in NUI elections should be ashamed of themselves.

Edward M

The RC church and its public reps will toe the line and oppose any legislation that gives a right to abortion, probably of any description.
Though the churches influence is weaning and the amount of people not practicing any religion people are rising, people still have consciences based on early teaching and here in Ireland that still leaves a lot of catholic derived morals and beliefs.
Its easy to stigmatise the church for its beliefs, but it openly flouts these beliefs and it still expects its followers to toe this line
The problem is really ,that despite what we might like to think, that people even voting with their consciences alone might still oppose any abortion change

Thirdfox

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it isn't. I gave a list of Christian churches above who opposed passing the 8th. That list includes every Christian church in Ireland at the time except the RC church.…

I'm agnostic leaning to atheist and come from a country that is athiest in nature and I don't support abortion.

It is ignorant to suppose all people who do support the 8th to be Roman Catholic or even religious. All it takes is one example (myself) to disprove your statement. And while I suspect many of the people who support the 8th may be religious, I'm quite sure I'm not a unique case of being agnostic and supporting it.

ohnonotgmail

Thirdfox wrote: »

I'm agnostic leaning to atheist and come from a country that is athiest in nature and I don't support abortion.

It is ignorant to suppose all people who do support the 8th to be Roman Catholic or even religious. All it takes is one example (myself) to disprove your statement. And while I suspect many of the people who support the 8th may be religious, I'm quite sure I'm not a unique case of being agnostic and supporting it.

all the organisations who support the 8th do so from a religios perspective. A roman catholic religious perspective. you are very much an outlier.

Zubeneschamali

Thirdfox wrote: »

I'm agnostic leaning to atheist and come from a country that is athiest in nature and I don't support abortion.

As I noted, the other Christian churches do not "support abortion", but they opposed the 8th amendment.

NuMarvel

Thirdfox wrote: »

I'm agnostic leaning to atheist and come from a country that is athiest in nature and I don't support abortion.

It is ignorant to suppose all people who do support the 8th to be Roman Catholic or even religious. All it takes is one example (myself) to disprove your statement. And while I suspect many of the people who support the 8th may be religious, I'm quite sure I'm not a unique case of being agnostic and supporting it.

The original comment wasn't about all people, it was about members of the Committee. As far as I'm aware, the 3 members who voted against any change in the law are Roman Catholic.

seamus

Thirdfox wrote: »

And while I suspect many of the people who support the 8th may be religious, I'm quite sure I'm not a unique case of being agnostic and supporting it.

You might find this useful: https://twitter.com/AtheistsFor8th

However, I would caution that there is no information about who runs the account (i.e. no actual organisation called "Atheists for 8th"), and the feed consists almost exclusively of retweets from pro-life sources, many of them with a religious slant. Go back far enough and you'll see support for Katie Ascough who is associated to the Iona Institute.

So it's almost certainly a sock puppet being run by a religious organisation, but worth a start if you want to find relatable discussion.

Thirdfox

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

all the organisations who support the 8th do so from a religios perspective. A roman catholic religious perspective. you are very much an outlier.

So you support my statement that it is indeed ignorant to state that all those who support the right to life are members or adherents of the RC faith?

But I see this is just a repeat of the X case sniping earlier in the thread - the bickering over semantics doesn't help the actual issue to hand. It's an emotive issue issue already without people like Z here coming out with blanket statements which are patently false. Equally I can just ignore these meaningless statements in the first place because at the end of the day it's no skin off my nose.

Zubeneschamali

Thirdfox wrote: »

It's an emotive issue issue already without people like Z here coming out with blanket statements which are patently false. Equally I can just ignore these meaningless statements in the first place because at the end of the day it's no skin off my nose.

My statement is not false, and apparently you cannot ignore it.

Odhinn

Thirdfox wrote: »

So you support my statement that it is indeed ignorant to state that all those who support the right to life are members or adherents of the RC faith?

.

Thats not what was being stated. The RC, in its official capacity, representing itself, wanted the legislation. The rest of the churches on that committee didn't.

Thirdfox

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

My statement is not false, and apparently you cannot ignore it.

Quote: keano_afc
To be honest its juvenile and ignorant to think only members of the RC church are in favour of retaining the right to life.

No, it isn't. I gave a list of Christian churches above who opposed passing the 8th. That list includes every Christian church in Ireland at the time except the RC church.

∆ the statement above isn't false? Then I must be unknowingly a secret RC member, despite never being baptised or believing in the existence of a god(s)? Besides the noodly-holiness of the FSM of course.

ohnonotgmail

Thirdfox wrote: »

So you support my statement that it is indeed ignorant to state that all those who support the right to life are members or adherents of the RC faith?

But I see this is just a repeat of the X case sniping earlier in the thread - the bickering over semantics doesn't help the actual issue to hand. It's an emotive issue issue already without people like Z here coming out with blanket statements which are patently false. Equally I can just ignore these meaningless statements in the first place because at the end of the day it's no skin off my nose.

Ignorant. absolutely not. you need to read things in context. the original post referred to all the members of the committee who supported the 8th. Clearly you were too quick trying to score cheap points to spot that.

keano_afc

Odhinn wrote: »

Thats not what was being stated. The RC, in its official capacity, representing itself, wanted the legislation. The rest of the churches on that committee didn't.

There are plenty of people who support the 8th amendment who are neither RC or a member of the other churches on that committee. I'm one of them. That list means absolutely nothing to me.

Odhinn

keano_afc wrote: »

There are plenty of people who support the 8th amendment who are neither RC or a member of the other churches on that committee. I'm one of them. That list means absolutely nothing to me.

He specially referred to Churches, in their official capacity, on a committee.....

Widdershins

Edward M wrote: »

The RC church and its public reps will toe the line and oppose any legislation that gives a right to abortion, probably of any description.
Though the churches influence is weaning and the amount of people not practicing any religion people are rising, people still have consciences based on early teaching and here in Ireland that still leaves a lot of catholic derived morals and beliefs.
Its easy to stigmatise the church for its beliefs, but it openly flouts these beliefs and it still expects its followers to toe this line
The problem is really ,that despite what we might like to think, that people even voting with their consciences alone might still oppose any abortion change

Yep, I'm one of those. Not religious but now anti abortion. In no small part due to the incredibly immature attitudes of public spokeswomen for abortion legislation. It's not an issue to take lightly and instagram posing in Repeal jumpers does nothing for their credibility, who is going to take their cue from teenagers who clearly haven't considered and weighed up the facts?

If medical (tablet form) abortion is ever up for vote I might vote for it. I now have reservations about the incredible mendacity of the abortion lobby, who want a 'foot in the door' and a path the expanded abortion 'rights'. They've been recorded admitting as much.

Zubeneschamali

Widdershins wrote: »

If medical (tablet form) abortion is ever up for vote I might vote for it.

The referendum will be next May or June, I believe.

Thirdfox

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Ignorant. absolutely not. you need to read things in context. the original post referred to all the members of the committee who supported the 8th. Clearly you were too quick trying to score cheap points to spot that.

Who's keeping tabs on points? Who's winning? If we were face to face in a room you probably won't be snide enough to say what you said to my face but the anonymity of the internet allows people to get all worked up over very little.

Why did I post in the first place? Because I see some (not all) posters here quite often self-congratulating themselves for being so high minded and casting off the shackles of the Catholic church in this echo chamber. Just as I see some bizarre guy talking about the pull out method a few posts back.

I posted again despite stating I'm out to correct a frame of mind I see quite often in these debates - that the people who support the 8th are either old, religious or socially conservative. I'd class myself as none of those 3.

@seamus - I don't do twitter (perhaps I am old after all

) and I don't know how involved I want to get on such a referendum campaign - maybe I can set up the first non-religious support the 8th organisation and see if maybe I am truly unique after all. People probably won't ever change their minds based on internet posts but I did have some meaningful conversations on thread and in PM with LirW at least. More light than heat...

ohnonotgmail

Thirdfox wrote: »

Who's keeping tabs on points? Who's winning? If we were face to face in a room you probably won't be snide enough to say what you said to my face but the anonymity of the internet allows people to get all worked up over very little.

I was pointing out your failed attempt at cheap point scoring. because that is all it was.

Thirdfox wrote: »

Why did I post in the first place? Because I see some (not all) posters here quite often self-congratulating themselves for being so high minded and casting off the shackles of the Catholic church in this echo chamber. Just as I see some bizarre guy talking about the pull out method a few posts back.

you do realise that guy was on the "pro-life" side, right?

Thirdfox wrote: »

I posted again despite stating I'm out to correct a frame of mind I see quite often in these debates - that the people who support the 8th are either old, religious or socially conservative. I'd class myself as none of those 3.

as i said earlier that makes you very much an outlier. take a look at a "pro-life" rally and tell me the people attending dont fit into one if not all of those groups.

NuMarvel

Widdershins wrote: »

Yep, I'm one of those. Not religious but now anti abortion. In no small part due to the incredibly immature attitudes of public spokeswomen for abortion legislation. It's not an issue to take lightly and instagram posing in Repeal jumpers does nothing for their credibility, who is going to take their cue from teenagers who clearly haven't considered and weighed up the facts?

Yeah, campaigners in jumpers have no credibility whatsoever

monkimage.php?mediaDirectory=am_cms_media&mediaId=4477830&fileName=michael-and-mattie-0-0-500-0.jpg