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

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Maybe you should see if I can argue it rather than simply declare I can not? If you want to challenge it do. Words are easy to say, but harder to make stick, so if you want to declare it to be "shady" then by all means explain HOW it is rather than merely assert THAT it is.

Because what IS shady, is merely declaring an argument to be shady, without arguing how it actually is.

Absolutely not arguing that you know what you're saying or can't argue it, in fact I find your posts most interesting.
We may not agree on things but that doesent lessen my value of your opinion, which as all opinions, should be considered on their merits.
The I'm right you're wrong attitude is always too prevalent in these type of debates.

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

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

Maybe its the same lads who were in people's faces in the Same sex marriage referendum and put off loads of non religious moderate folks from voting for sodomy?

I heard a lot about them.

NuMarvel

Widdershins wrote: »

Interesting comment, thank you.

I haven't followed the campaign lately, has the wording been published? I need to know what I'm voting on before I can really be sure.

The precise wording won't be decided until it's gone through the full Oireachtas, and I don't know what the timetable on that is. But if the intention is to hold the referendum in May, it'll have to be done be done by sometime in April at the latest.

If the Oireachtas follows the lead of the Committee, the wording will be along the lines of "Do you agree with the proposal to remove Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution" (this is the article that contains the 8th Amendment). The Oireachtas will then legislate afterwards, probably along the lines of the Committee's recommendations.

If the Marriage Equality and Children's referendums are anything to go by, a draft of the intended legislation will be released prior to the referendum as well, so people will know what will happen after repeal. It won't be on the ballot paper, because that's solely about what's in our Constitution. And both the Citizens Assembly and the Committee on the 8th both agree the Constitution isn't the right place for our abortion laws.

Widdershins wrote: »

It doesn't really make sense for some reason. A medical abortion with pills is quite a quick process, obviously not invasive,and far, far cheaper.
But I believe the medical option is not as well known about.

I take it you're referring to 78% statistic for surgical abortions in England. I'm hypothesising as to the reason, so I could easily be wrong. But the statistic itself is solid; 78% of Irish women having an abortion in England have a surgical abortion, compared to 38% for English women. That's a massive variance that can't be explained alone by the higher likliehood of a later term abortion for Irish women. Some other factor is influencing that decision.

NuMarvel

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Can somebody clear something up for me.
Whilst we haven't had any wording for the referendum yet are we basically voting to allow abortion up to 12 with in all circumstances?

Assuming the Oireachtas legislates along the lines of the Committee's and Assembly's recommendations, then yes. Access to abortion after that will be for specific reasons.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Maybe its the same lads who were in people's faces in the Same sex marriage referendum and put off loads of non religious moderate folks from voting for sodomy?

I heard a lot about them.

Not just in their face, but ramming it down their throats too!

We would have won it if it wasn't for them!

Widdershins

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Maybe its the same lads who were in people's faces in the Same sex marriage referendum and put off loads of non religious moderate folks from voting for sodomy?

I heard a lot about them.

Not sure if I should ask, but, what?

freshpopcorn

NuMarvel wrote: »

Assuming the Oireachtas legislates along the lines of the Committee's and Assembly's recommendations, then yes. Access to abortion after that will be for specific reasons.

Thanks.
I'm not sure how this referendum will go to be honest. I thought a few years ago it might pass but the result of the marriage referendum made me unsure.

Zubeneschamali

Widdershins wrote: »

Not sure if I should ask, but, what?

During the SSM campaign, we heard from lots of non-religious moderate people who have no problem with the gays and would totally vote for same sex marriage only Panty Bliss is over the top and in your face so they voted the way the bishop said instead.

Totally Pantys fault.

Odhinn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

During the SSM campaign, we heard from lots of non-religious moderate people who have no problem with the gays and would totally vote for same sex marriage only Panty Bliss is over the top and in your face so they voted the way the bishop said instead.

Totally Pantys fault.

Him bein all gay in their face. They seemed to have a thing about people bein gay in their faces.

Not that I judge, of course.

Sweetemotion

Thirdfox wrote: »

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

Thirdfox. I want to apologise for my good night princess comment. That was out of order and unnecessary.

kylith

end of the road wrote: »

it's necessary as we recognise that someone has a right to make the decisian over donating their organs. when it comes to abortion however we are insuring that the right of the unborn to live is protected and upheld where possible. i can see where you are coming from but there is a difference.

But in each case the rights of the living are less important than the rights of the not born and the dead.

The unborn and the dead will never know one way of the other. In both cases it's the living who suffer.

end of the road

kylith wrote: »

But in each case the rights of the living are less important than the rights of the not born and the dead.

The unborn and the dead will never know one way of the other. In both cases it's the living who suffer.

but both cases are different. in the case of the organ transplant issue we have a recognition that someone has the right to choose to or not to donate their organs, that it is full bodily autonomy, because while someone will sadly be effected via the choice via less potential for an organ, the organs do belong to the body they are in and the person had the right to make a decisian not to donate them. + there is potential for other donors.
in the case of abortion however there is an unborn life who will receive the full effect of the decisian to have an abortion by having their life taken and their right to life removed against their will, so full bodily autonomy can't be given in that circumstance as it's not the actual body being effected but the unborn life inside.

markodaly

Been thinking of this more and to be honest I am going to be voting no if the proposal in its current form goes before us, unless there are constitutional safegards put in place to protect the life of the unborn. Also, its too wide as someone can get an abortion for any reason.

kylith

end of the road wrote: »

but both cases are different. in the case of the organ transplant issue we have a recognition that someone has the right to choose to or not to donate their organs, that it is full bodily autonomy, because while someone will sadly be effected via the choice via less potential for an organ, the organs do belong to the body they are in and the person had the right to make a decisian not to donate them. + there is potential for other donors.
in the case of abortion however there is an unborn life who will receive the full effect of the decisian to have an abortion by having their life taken and their right to life removed against their will, so full bodily autonomy can't be given in that circumstance as it's not the actual body being effected but the unborn life inside.

Exactly. A corpse has more right to bodily autonomy than a woman who has become pregnant.

A fetus is not capable of making a decision because it is not fully alive. It has no will to go against. The only will that should matter is that of the woman who is pregnant: the sentient one capable of expressing desires and being affected.

markodaly

kylith wrote: »

Exactly. A corpse has more right to bodily autonomy than a woman who has become pregnant.

A fetus is not capable of making a decision because it is not fully alive. It has no will to go against. The only will that should matter is that of the woman who is pregnant: the sentient one capable of expressing desires and being affected.

Babies in the womb can feel pain, that is an indisputable fact.

ancapailldorcha

markodaly wrote: »

Babies in the womb can feel pain, that is an indisputable fact.

Seems not:

Foetuses cannot feel pain because it requires mental development that only occurs outside the womb, says a report in the British Medical Journal.

Dr Stuart Derbyshire, of the University of Birmingham, said a baby's actions and relationships with carers enabled it to process the subjectivity of pain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4905892.stm

end of the road

kylith wrote: »

Exactly. A corpse has more right to bodily autonomy than a woman who has become pregnant.

A fetus is not capable of making a decision because it is not fully alive. It has no will to go against. The only will that should matter is that of the woman who is pregnant: the sentient one capable of expressing desires and being affected.

i'm afraid that can't happen as the unborn life has a right to live and a right to be protected from harm. when it is having it's life taken it is the one who is fully effected by that, as it is being killed. it is about to be sentient also, so there is a will to go against.

markodaly

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Seems not:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4905892.stm

Nope, that article is taking one doctors word on it, seems he as no research published on the matter and is just pushing an agenda.

Meanwhile, peer reviewed research, states that babies can feel pain.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900087/

For the first time it was demonstrated that the human fetal stress response was attenuated by the administration of a narcotic. Long-term effects of fetal stress have also been described. Independent groups have implicated fetal stress to exaggerated pain responses in eight week-old infants and have also implicated the fetal stress response as a contributor to pre-term labor.

kylith

markodaly wrote: »

Babies in the womb can feel pain, that is an indisputable fact.

Not before about 19 weeks as before that the the neurons in the spinal cord that transmit that signal up to the brain must are not developed. Although the neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks.

https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html

Sweetemotion

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Presumably all those in favour of keeping the 8th as it is have no issue with the government providing welfare as necessary for the resulting children, perhaps through their entire lives? Or does life stop being previous when it leaves the womb?

Those resulting children will be the adults of the day paying the taxes to pay your pension. Or does life stop at you?

Sweetemotion

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

There's only so many jobs that can exist, especially as we move towards a society where technology becomes more prevalent. More readily available abortion is going to reduce the numbers of people having children they can't afford. Given how much people like to complain about welfare scroungers getting benefits for their kids, surely people see that as a good thing?

There are always going to be people working and paying taxes, unless someone had sneakily slipped mandatory abortion onto the agenda?

That's genocide. People see that as a good thing?

Hotblack Desiato

Seriously - you want more children to be born to people who don't want to be parents (or, usually, parents AGAIN) in the first place...? Really? And you think this is some sort of underpants gnome economic model for society?

Seriously?

markodaly

kylith wrote: »

Not before about 19 weeks as before that the the neurons in the spinal cord that transmit that signal up to the brain must are not developed. Although the neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks.

https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html

Some research says 12 weeks, some say as early as 8, some say at 20 weeks. The fact remains a baby in the womb can feel pain.

Sweetemotion

kylith wrote: »

Not before about 19 weeks as before that the the neurons in the spinal cord that transmit that signal up to the brain must are not developed. Although the neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks.

https://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html

That source is very weak.

Hotblack Desiato

Widdershins wrote: »

It doesn't really make sense for some reason. A medical abortion with pills is quite a quick process, obviously not invasive,and far, far cheaper.
But I believe the medical option is not as well known about.

I understand it takes 24-36 hours, and to get abortion pills in Britain you must be registered with a GP i.e. must be a British resident. Usually you abort at home but you contact the GP in the first instance if there are any complications.

Irish residents (and, as I understand it, free abortions provided for NI residents will be the same) must either wait in the clinic for the medical abortion to complete - and I think that usually this option is not allowed or in any case would be cost prohibitive for a private patient as all ROI residents are - or else have a surgical abortion which can be completed within a couple of hours.

markodaly

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

There's only so many jobs that can exist?

A great argument for abortion, sure we cant support them all.

:rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

Post-independence for 40-ish years we tried the economic policy of having poor people give birth to as many children as possible and far more than they wanted or could reasonably support.

It didn't work well.

But hey, catholic teaching :rolleyes:

Sweetemotion

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Post-independence for 40-ish years we tried the economic policy of having poor people give birth to as many children as possible and far more than they wanted or could reasonably support.

It didn't work well.

Now we get to it.

You don't want poor people.

And a catholic bash :rolleyes:

end of the road

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Ah yeah, it's genocide, thats not hyperbole at all.

Do you always see things in such black and white terms?

it is black and white when it comes to abortion on demand.

Hotblack Desiato

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Now we get to it.

You don't want poor people.

And a catholic bash :rolleyes:

I want people to STOP being poor. So yes there will be no more poor people if we allow them to climb out of poverty.

One of the best ways of stopping people being poor is allowing them to control their fertility.

We have seen this in our own society and we see it all over the world.

The catholic church wants to prevent this, yet claims to promote both human dignity and environmental protection. There is no dignity in popping out a child every year when you don't want to, especially if you cannot afford to feed, clothe and educate them. The environment cannot continue to sustain uncontrolled human population growth. It doesn't compute, but then again, this is a religion we are talking about.

And yes it's perfectly justified to point out the damage that the catholic church has done and is (trying) to continue to do to our society. The RC church was the only church which campaigned for the 8th amendment so it's entirely on topic for this thread.

markodaly

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Do you always see things in such black and white terms?

Excuse me but your the one of stated that we cannot support more people as they will be a burden.
If the pro choice people have to go down a dystopian future argument akin to Logans run and population control, then they are deeply in trouble to convince people of backing their side.