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

Widdershins wrote: »

How could 'one' take abortion lighter? I think it's none of your business how lightly I take it.

Again I did not say it was. You seem to be hearing a lot of what you want to hear, and none of what is actually being said. This is however a public discussion forum and I can reply to anything you post on it. And I was replying to this.......

Widdershins wrote: »

Not religious but now anti abortion. In no small part due to the incredibly immature attitudes of public spokeswomen for abortion legislation.

......... to point out that allowing your position on the rights and wrongs of an important issue to be influenced by someone espousing on the issue being immature is about as "lightly" as one can take it.

Not to mention the selection bias inherent in missing that for every poor personality on one side, you are likely to find it's equal on the other. The Anti Choice campaign is far from short of it's immature loud mouths.

So all I did was point out that I personally tend to vote based solely on the issue itself, rather than the personalities of people speaking about it. Nothing more. Why this bothers you, I can not say.

NuMarvel

Widdershins wrote: »

Yeah and what's the difference between you, and me, when I replied to say I would vote with MY conscience irrespective of what the church's position is?

I tend to take into account when the campaigning proponents of a vote are not trustworthy. This will affect future outcomes and future legislation. Their manner, lack of gravitas and inability to calmly articulate facts, doesn't inspire confidence. They will continue to push for more permissive laws and that goes against my conscience and my wishes. I'll thank you to respect that as I respect others vote.

I don't have to justify my vote to you by the way.

Who specifically are you talking about here? Because that doesn't sound like any of the spokespeople I've seen or heard.

Widdershins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which I also tend to do, by fact checking their claims and testing their veracity. Not by judging whether I personally find them mature people or not.

YMMV of course, but I do not vote on important issues based on the personalities of people promoting them. Especially if it is an issue I presume to go around telling people not to "take lightly", because I can think of few ways that one COULD take it lighter.

Then you will be over joyed, I am sure, to find that nowhere did I ever suggest you do??

Yes, I've done that, thank you. If you've never been impelled to dig deeper based on the disagreeable manner someone displays in their campaigning, then maybe you should learn to take it as a useful clue.

Neither do I.

How could 'one' take abortion lighter? I think it's none of your business how lightly I take it.

Widdershins

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you give more weight to who is saying it rather than what is said? weird.

No. You'd have to completely ignore my concerns about their motives to think that. And focus on what suits you. Which of course you did. Predictably.

nozzferrahhtoo

Widdershins wrote: »

I tend to take into account when the campaigning proponents of a vote are not trustworthy.

Which I also tend to do, by fact checking their claims and testing their veracity. Not by judging whether I personally find them mature people or not.

YMMV of course, but I do not vote on important issues based on the personalities of people promoting them. Especially if it is an issue I presume to go around telling people not to "take lightly", because I can think of few ways that one COULD take it lighter.

Widdershins wrote: »

I don't have to justify my vote to you by the way.

Then you will be over joyed, I am sure, to find that nowhere did I ever suggest you do??

ohnonotgmail

Widdershins wrote: »

Yeah and what's the difference between you, and me, when I replied to say I would vote with MY conscience irrespective of what the church's position is?

I tend to take into account when the campaigning proponents of a vote are not trustworthy. This will affect future outcomes and future legislation. Their manner, lack of gravitas and inability to calmly articulate facts, doesn't inspire confidence. They will continue to push for more permissive laws and that goes against my conscience and my wishes. I'll thank you to respect that as I respect others vote.

I don't have to justify my vote to you by the way.

so you give more weight to who is saying it rather than what is said? weird.

Thirdfox

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

none of those sites or stats are irish. the traditional dominance of the catholic church make the irish situation different.

I'd argue the dominance of the Catholic church is well and truly over looking at church attendance levels (from what I hear) and the fact that pretty much every Irish person uses contraceptives. Also - transubstantiation...I'd suggest most Catholics are actually Protestants on that stance alone

And I had stated already in my post that none are Irish - I wasn't suggesting that they were but rather pointing to the existence of non-religious opposition to abortion. And actually, if we were to compare religious-ness of a country I'd have thought that the US would be much more religious than Ireland nowadays - both from a "faithful" African-American and Latino community and remaining white Protestants.

Widdershins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I tend to vote based on what I think is morally and ethically right thing to do, not because I want to stick it to someone who's personality subjectively irks me.

Like by basing your position on peoples personalities rather than the relevant arguments about the issue itself, for example?

Yeah and what's the difference between you, and me, when I replied to say I would vote with MY conscience irrespective of what the church's position is?

I tend to take into account when the campaigning proponents of a vote are not trustworthy. This will affect future outcomes and future legislation. Their manner, lack of gravitas and inability to calmly articulate facts, doesn't inspire confidence. They will continue to push for more permissive laws and that goes against my conscience and my wishes. I'll thank you to respect that as I respect others vote.

I don't have to justify my vote to you by the way.

ohnonotgmail

Thirdfox wrote: »

It seems to me that Z still holds on to the view that all people who oppose abortion must be religous in some manner. I'm not trying to "score points" as you state (and if I were it wouldn't be cheap ) but like I said I'm trying to prevent people from espousing the ignorant (yes and I do mean that) view that all those who oppose abortion are religious. It is open to Z to correct the statement if s/he so wishes and not for you to infer what his statements mean.

I included that guy for balance - though I have no idea if s/he is actually pro-life or just a troll.

I don't attend rallies because I'm generally too busy and find them less useful for enacting change. I'm usually quite politically inactive (beyond considering the issues in the privacy of my own home). But yes I'm sure if we're only looking at rallies to judge what kind of people are pro-life then many will apparently be religious (though aren't the religious Irish hypocritical in using contraceptives when the RC are against them - or has that stance changed - I have no idea because I don't follow their news too closely). I would think that there are others like me out there who aren't "motivated" enough to rally for a cause (because I find rallies silly for influencing change) but still hold anti-abortion opinions (which, because they are not dogma based, are open to being changed).

Just following on from Seamus's post I did do a quick search on secular pro-life organisations and found a few (none are Irish):
http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/

http://www.secularprolife.org

And one which looks at abortion from a humanist and non-religious view (neither advocating pro or anti abortion):
https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/humanism-today/humanists-talking/humanist-discussion-on-abortion/

So obviously there are people who are secular and hold anti-abortion beliefs - I think the wiki article even puts some polling numbers on it 25%(?) of secular people - and if it is 25% then that's certainly not an "outlier" number:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life

none of those sites or stats are irish. the traditional dominance of the catholic church make the irish situation different.

nozzferrahhtoo

Widdershins wrote: »

Not religious but now anti abortion. In no small part due to the incredibly immature attitudes of public spokeswomen for abortion legislation.

I tend to vote based on what I think is morally and ethically right thing to do, not because I want to stick it to someone who's personality subjectively irks me.

Widdershins wrote: »

It's not an issue to take lightly

Like by basing your position on peoples personalities rather than the relevant arguments about the issue itself, for example?

Thirdfox

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

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

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.

It seems to me that Z still holds on to the view that all people who oppose abortion must be religous in some manner. I'm not trying to "score points" as you state (and if I were it wouldn't be cheap

) but like I said I'm trying to prevent people from espousing the ignorant (yes and I do mean that) view that all those who oppose abortion are religious. It is open to Z to correct the statement if s/he so wishes and not for you to infer what his statements mean.

I included that guy for balance - though I have no idea if s/he is actually pro-life or just a troll.

I don't attend rallies because I'm generally too busy and find them less useful for enacting change. I'm usually quite politically inactive (beyond considering the issues in the privacy of my own home). But yes I'm sure if we're only looking at rallies to judge what kind of people are pro-life then many will apparently be religious (though aren't the religious Irish hypocritical in using contraceptives when the RC are against them - or has that stance changed - I have no idea because I don't follow their news too closely). I would think that there are others like me out there who aren't "motivated" enough to rally for a cause (because I find rallies silly for influencing change) but still hold anti-abortion opinions (which, because they are not dogma based, are open to being changed).

Just following on from Seamus's post I did do a quick search on secular pro-life organisations and found a few (none are Irish):
http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/

http://www.secularprolife.org

And one which looks at abortion from a humanist and non-religious view (neither advocating pro or anti abortion):
https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/humanism-today/humanists-talking/humanist-discussion-on-abortion/

So obviously there are people who are secular and hold anti-abortion beliefs - I think the wiki article even puts some polling numbers on it 25%(?) of secular people - and if it is 25% then that's certainly not an "outlier" number:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.