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

freshpopcorn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No

I would probably guess 20-30% are convinced pro life and 20-30% are convinced pro choice and that there is about 40-60% who can be swayed

That's interesting to know most people I know are one way or the other or simply don't care.

ohnonotgmail

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That is impossible

i think they were being sarcastic.

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

So in summary: you're against abortion on demand but you're not against abortion on demand, and you're not against the freedom to travel but we must protect the unborn even if it only works in one case, except in that one case where stopping someone travelling worked because we can't stop people travelling even when we did and something something something abortion on demand!!!

Here's a simple yes or no question: Would you vote Yes or No in a referendum to repeal the constitutional protection of the freedom to travel for an abortion?

i'm against abortion. however there are some circumstances where it is necessary whether i agree with it or not. such as the threat of life or where the baby is unable to be caried to full term. i also recognise that i cannot stop someone leaving the country to procure an abortion. i can however vote to keep what protections the irish state has in the knowledge that they protect some unborn babies.
there are going to be variables on the pro-life side as well, variables aren't something that isn't only availible to those who are in favour of abortion on demand, but are also availible to those of us who are pro-life as well, whether those in favour of abortion on demand like it or not.

c_man

sbsquarepants wrote: »

A lot of pro lifers tend to stop giving a rats arse about what happens to the lives they "save" once they are actually born.

it's really cringe-worthy to see people re-hashing imported nonsense statements from the states.

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Do people here think that everybody has almost made up their minds on the matter once they know what their voting on?
Most people I know who'd go out and vote seem to have their minds made up now once they know it's abortion up to 12 weeks and no amount of debating will change it.

No

I would probably guess 20-30% are convinced pro life and 20-30% are convinced pro choice and that there is about 40-60% who can be swayed

Annasopra

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I will vote against a referendum to change the constitution unless it includes a clause stipulating that the constitution must remain exactly the same...

That is impossible

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

it's actually not fine, but we have to be realistic. people can't be stopped from traveling abroad.

Of course they can. Ms X was stopped. Many migrants cannot travel because of their visa conditions. As I said the line - "oh well they can travel" is hypocrysy

freshpopcorn

Do people here think that everybody has almost made up their minds on the matter once they know what their voting on?
Most people I know who'd go out and vote seem to have their minds made up now once they know it's abortion up to 12 weeks and no amount of debating will change it.

SusieBlue

eviltwin wrote: »

I've decided I'm not debating this issue anymore. I've been debating it for 25 years, I'm done. I know we have long way to go but we are finally getting a referendum and I trust the Irish people to make the right choice. I've seen a real change in attitude in this country since marriage equality, people are no longer afraid of change and there seems to be a desire to take control of our society and make it what we want it to be, not what we are told it should be.

I'm going to vote for repeal because I think Irish women deserve better. I'm going to vote with compassion and empathy, not judgement and condescension. I hope everyone can think of their sisters or daughters and what they would feel if she told them she was considering an abortion and what choice she should have. I don't believe there are many who would force her to continue a pregnancy against her will.

Have followed this thread without posting, as I feel I've said as much as I can on previous threads and didn't want to become an echo chamber.

I couldn't agree with this any more if I tried. I support every Irish woman in her decision without judgement and can only hope my fellow citizens will do the same.
We should each be the master of our own fate, in every possible way. I want every woman to have a choice, whatever that choice may be.
With each passing referendum, Ireland is getting closer to the 21st century, and thank goodness for that.

nozzferrahhtoo

eviltwin wrote: »

it's a rehash of every other abortion thread with the same people over and over again. What's the point?

I know that was a rhetorical question but allow me to answer it all the same.

Yes abortion threads seem for the most part to be the same arguments, and often with the same people, as you say.

But the people READING those threads, rather than those posting on them, seems to change all the time. And I have been told quite often, both in threads and in private messages that I have indeed changed minds.

Politics is discourse, and even if it does not feel like it.... every one of us who calmly enters that discourse and makes our points clearly, and with decorum, influences others. Whether they contact you to tell you so, or not.

sbsquarepants

eviltwin wrote: »

. I don't believe there are many who would force her to continue a pregnancy against her will.

There are plenty who would do just that unfortunately.

eviltwin

applehunter wrote: »

So you have debating 25 years and we finally get to the point where your debating may make a difference and you quit.

Brilliant.

I will discuss, not debate. There is no point trying to change a person who is deeply pro life, look at this thread for example - it's a rehash of every other abortion thread with the same people over and over again. What's the point?

I am more than willing to discuss the issue with anyone not sure of how to vote or who needs more clarification on various things.

But I'm not going to debate with people who just want to sling misinformation and insults.

applehunter

eviltwin wrote: »

I've decided I'm not debating this issue anymore. I've been debating it for 25 years, I'm done. I know we have long way to go but we are finally getting a referendum and I trust the Irish people to make the right choice. I've seen a real change in attitude in this country since marriage equality, people are no longer afraid of change and there seems to be a desire to take control of our society and make it what we want it to be, not what we are told it should be.

I'm going to vote for repeal because I think Irish women deserve better. I'm going to vote with compassion and empathy, not judgement and condescension. I hope everyone can think of their sisters or daughters and what they would feel if she told them she was considering an abortion and what choice she should have. I don't believe there are many who would force her to continue a pregnancy against her will.

So you have debating 25 years and we finally get to the point where your debating may make a difference and you quit.

Brilliant.

January

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm going to vote for repeal because I think Irish women deserve better. I'm going to vote with compassion and empathy, not judgement and condescension. I hope everyone can think of their sisters or daughters and what they would feel if she told them she was considering an abortion and what choice she should have. I don't believe there are many who would force her to continue a pregnancy against her will.

This. In a nutshell.

eviltwin

I've decided I'm not debating this issue anymore. I've been debating it for 25 years, I'm done. I know we have long way to go but we are finally getting a referendum and I trust the Irish people to make the right choice. I've seen a real change in attitude in this country since marriage equality, people are no longer afraid of change and there seems to be a desire to take control of our society and make it what we want it to be, not what we are told it should be.

I'm going to vote for repeal because I think Irish women deserve better. I'm going to vote with compassion and empathy, not judgement and condescension. I hope everyone can think of their sisters or daughters and what they would feel if she told them she was considering an abortion and what choice she should have. I don't believe there are many who would force her to continue a pregnancy against her will.

Odhinn

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think that's correct. For a start Irish families were traditionally very large because more children meant better chances surviving old age by having kids to support their parents.

The religious stuff is incidental and that argument is always pushed to try to make it only a religious choice.

While that bit about the families is true, catholicism is noted for its insistence that sex without reproduction (with a few caveats) is sinful.

NuMarvel

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think that's correct. For a start Irish families were traditionally very large because more children meant better chances surviving old age by having kids to support their parents.

I think Irish family sizes had more to do with the lack of easy access to contraception more than anything else. And that lack of access was driven by Catholic church teachings on sex and contraception.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The religious stuff is incidental and that argument is always pushed to try to make it only a religious choice.

It's not really incidental though. Especially when you look at the main people opposed to repeal; Ronán Mullen, David Quinn of the Iona Institute, Cora Sherlock of the Pro Life Campaign. All have strong religious connections, especially Mullen and Quinn.

I'm not saying that alone is reason to dismiss their arguments, but it can't be dismissed out of hand either.

Zubeneschamali

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think that's correct.

Look up the ethos of the Rotunda vs. Holles street back in the day. Rotunda, Protestant, save the mother. Holles St., Catholic, save the baby.

It is a religious difference and it is based in theology.

Which is why the Catholic Church was the only Irish Christian Church arguing for the 8th back in 1983 - the Church of Ireland were against it (although still anti-abortion).

jimmycrackcorm

Zubeneschamali wrote:

The whole Irish pro-life thing has its roots in old-fashioned Catholic theology. It was important to deliver each baby alive so that they could be baptized and saved from Limbo. This was more important than saving the mothers life (since she was already baptized and could go to heaven).

I don't think that's correct. For a start Irish families were traditionally very large because more children meant better chances surviving old age by having kids to support their parents.

The religious stuff is incidental and that argument is always pushed to try to make it only a religious choice.

Many of not most pro life people consider that they were also once a fetus and are therefore distinctly attuned to the idea that killing a fetus is killing a person.

Loafing Oaf

markodaly wrote: »

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.

I will vote against a referendum to change the constitution unless it includes a clause stipulating that the constitution must remain exactly the same...

Zubeneschamali

sbsquarepants wrote: »

A lot of pro lifers tend to stop giving a rats arse about what happens to the lives they "save" once they are actually born. Sure isn't a life of misery better than no life at all!

The whole Irish pro-life thing has its roots in old-fashioned Catholic theology. It was important to deliver each baby alive so that they could be baptized and saved from Limbo. This was more important than saving the mothers life (since she was already baptized and could go to heaven).

Shenshen

end of the road wrote: »

the life of the unborn has to be protected. i believe that is right and just.
if i vote yes to repeal then i would be completely endorsing the taking of the life of the unborn regardless of circumstances. i'm not going to do that as i don't agree with it.
if repealing the 8th didn't bring abortion on demand to ireland then i would vote to repeal it.

Well, not by your answers - you said you're borderline about the girl who didn't know about contraception, for example, and in the case of the woman in the abusive relationship.
Why would in those cases the life of the unborn be less deserving of protection?

sbsquarepants

NuMarvel wrote: »

You need to read the constitution, because you're wrong on both counts. A woman's freedom to travel has greater status than her right to bodily autonomy during pregnancy. And last year at least 3265 women made a decision that affected the unborn's rights, and the constitution makes sure the 8th can't interfere in that.

As I said before, the unborn's right to life is already subject to exceptions. I see no reason why bodily autonomy early in a pregnancy can't be another one.

As far as I can see basically any Irish woman who wants an abortion, whether that reason is the often quoted fatal foetal abnormality, rape / incest or she just doesn't fancy the idea of stretchmarks or would rather go backpacking for a year than sit in minding a baby, she already gets that abortion. All this pointless amendment does is make it a more arduous and expensive undertaking.

The number of abortions prevented is likely negligible and those kids are likely born in to the worst possible scenarios, the poorest, the most abusive, the least capable of looking after them. Anyone with a bit of freedom and a few spare quid just jumps on a plane and gets the job done.

A lot of pro lifers tend to stop giving a rats arse about what happens to the lives they "save" once they are actually born. Sure isn't a life of misery better than no life at all!

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

Whether I would or not make a certain choice is hypothetical. Actually in that situation, I'd be subject to the same laws.

Hypothetical or not, defining "taking responsibility" as "not having abortions", which many people here do, is not people taking responsibility, but the speaker doing so for them.

Giving people options, and allowing them to choose the best one for them, is giving people the responsibility to take themselves. Not making, or unmaking, their choices for them.

If one wants to moan at people about personal responsibility, then GIVE Them the responsibility in the first place would be my thinking on it.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

that personal responsibility means them not making the choices YOU would not yourself make.

Whether I would or not make a certain choice is hypothetical. Actually in that situation, I'd be subject to the same laws.

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

Presumably you wouldn't start off with amputation though?

I would assume that would depend on the injury in question. But what we "start off with" is not my point. My point is that rather than lording our personal moral high horse of "You got yourself into this" we offer them all the options we can, and realize that "personal responsibility" does not involve them making the choices WE would make in that situation. Which is, functionally at least, essentially what you are espousing..... that personal responsibility means them not making the choices YOU would not yourself make.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

because there is no need for it as those who really wish to have an abortion on demand have the opportunity to avail of it elsewhere, and the irish state has a duty to insure there are rights and protections for the unborn. people traveling abroad doesn't make those protections less valid. we have laws in this country which people break but we don't scrap them because people break them. so just because people travel abroad for abortions doesn't mean that we need to scrap the protections for the unborn. if the protections work in 1 case then it's a good thing.

it's actually not fine, but we have to be realistic. people can't be stopped from traveling abroad.

So in summary: you're against abortion on demand but you're not against abortion on demand, and you're not against the freedom to travel but we must protect the unborn even if it only works in one case, except in that one case where stopping someone travelling worked because we can't stop people travelling even when we did and something something something abortion on demand!!!

Here's a simple yes or no question: Would you vote Yes or No in a referendum to repeal the constitutional protection of the freedom to travel for an abortion?

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So are most sports injuries. But we do not stand over them lording our moral high horse at them that they got themselves into this mess. Rather we stand with them, and tell them what their options to go forward are.

Presumably you wouldn't start off with amputation though?

The same should be true of pregnancy. Because that is what personal responsibility means. Assessing your current situation, your options, and deciding what is the best way for YOU to move forward.

Apparently,

wikipedia wrote:

Personal responsibility or Individual Responsibility is the idea that human beings choose, instigate, or otherwise cause their own actions. A corollary idea is that because we cause our actions, we can be held morally accountable or legally liable.

Say you knock someone off a bike one night in the middle of nowhere, and they're probably in a bad way. The best thing for You might be to get out of there asap and say nothing, so we have laws against that to disincentivise it.

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

Self-inflicted in fairness - matters of personal responsibility.

So are most sports injuries. But we do not stand over them lording our moral high horse at them that they got themselves into this mess. Rather we stand with them, and tell them what their options to go forward are.

The same should be true of pregnancy. Because that is what personal responsibility means. Assessing your current situation, your options, and deciding what is the best way for YOU to move forward.

nozzferrahhtoo

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

For the record I am pro choice. I don’t believe I have the right to dictate what another woman chooses to do with her body.

That being said I think a complete repeal of the 8th is unreasonable. I don’t want to end up in a situation where you can simply walk in off the street, demand an abortion and be given one then and there. There has to be proper legislation and guidelines in place.

Abortion is not just another form of contraception and I admit that I worry that is how many of the more militant pro choicers see it.

Well firstly abortion can not be a form of contraception because that is simply not what the word contraception means. If conception happens, one is already past the point of contraception.

However I find your position internatlly incoherent. If you are "pro choice" and "don’t believe I have the right to dictate what another woman chooses to do with her body" then when you say they should "simply walk in off the street, demand an abortion and be given one then and there" or when you worry about the reasons WHY they are having an abortion........ then that is exactly what you are doing......... dictating their choices.

The simple fact is that if you can not argue against X, then peoples reasons for doing X might bother you but that is irrelevant. For example I believe in your right to drink coke and eat McDonalds. If you told me you were specifically eating and drinking it because you intended to get so obese that you could claim disability........... while your motivation might disgust me I still believe in your right to do so.

I am sure people will seek abortions for reasons that disgust me personally. Such as, to take an example mentioned on the thread already, because they find out they are having a girl when they wanted a boy. But I have to realize the border between personal disgust.... and ACTUAL reasons for curtailing the rights and choices of others. The former, is not the latter. Nor should it ever be.