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

Consonata

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is not true at all.

It also stops women in the care of the State like in prison or mental institutions, women in direct provision with asylum status, women like Savita who are in a late medical crisis...

Because those are the people we need to stop like.

Not nimbys from D4 clearly

*sarcasm*

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

maybe so, but at least there is some sort of barrier, there is no access to abortion on demand within the irish state, and the unborn have some protections and rights. what exists now in terms of protection is better then the little that will exist should the 8th be repealed and abortion on demand brought in.

"Abortion on demand" makes it sound like you think these women are just running down to the shops for a haircut.

Have you any idea how difficult it is to have an abortion? 70+% of women who do have an abortion only have 1 in their whole life, because of how traumatic it is.

Yet you think its fine and dandy to stop people who cant afford the flight to birmingham to have an abortion, and nimbys who send their kids to private school can.

frag420

January wrote: »

Je. Sus. Don't be giving them ideas will you not.

Its like the time they proposed to picket Dublin and Shannon Airport with giant posters and offering to refund the flight costs if women didn't travel to procure abortions.

I hear you! My point is that people like EOTR can never address the issue of women going abroad for terminations, they are forever citing the practicalities of stopping them.

If a solution as above was put forward to help with these practicalities I am curious to see if people would be brave enough to use them to stop women travelling for terminations.

I am going to edit my post as a ‘whistleblower charter’ may not be the best term to use as I think if you believe in something strong enough as the pro birth lobby do then you should stand by your beliefs and give your name and details when grassing up someone....

nice_guy80

abortion on demand?
very powerful statement.
do you think that the women involved won't consider everything thats best for them and the foetus, if born?

its not like they are getting a tooth out

pilly

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I have complained about this in feedback.

No response.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

the point is that it does go some way to protecting the life of the unborn via not allowing abortions to be caried out within the state bar extreme circumstances.

How many abortions did the 8th stop last year?

mrkiscool2

NuMarvel wrote: »

How many abortions did the 8th stop last year?

Just the ones of women who couldn't afford the travel and clinic costs in the UK cause they live paycheck to paycheck.

NuMarvel

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Just the ones of women who couldn't afford the travel and clinic costs in the UK cause they live paycheck to paycheck.

Not necessarily. The number of abortion pills being ordered online has risen over the last few years, and there are other, more extreme steps someone can take (there was an article about this a few months back, but I can't find it!)

And there's research that shows that there is little difference in abortion rates in countries that have restrictive abortion laws vs countries that don't.

Yet, End of the Road keeps telling us the 8th stops at least some abortions. Hence my question to him about how many it stopped last year. If someone's going to make a statement like that, I'm expecting them to back it up with at least some kind of facts or statistics.

CruelCoin

For those of you who are worried about abortion on demand, even with the 12 week window they're looking at, there will not be "Abortion on demand".

Most women don't know untill week 8. And then with the time it will take in the Irish system to get an appointment, referral, consultation, etc, you'll sail past that 12 week mark.

People will still travel for abortions, as the system will just not be fast enough here.

CruelCoin

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yet, End of the Road keeps telling us the 8th stops at least some abortions. Hence my question to him about how many it stopped last year. If someone's going to make a statement like that, I'm expecting them to back it up with at least some kind of facts or statistics.

I never agree with EOTR but he is right there.

You cannot just say that 100% of people who want an abortion travel for one.

That is a lazy argument.

There are obviously a certain amount who will not travel, and that validates his opinion that the 8th stops some abortions. There is no proof needed for such a simple claim.

January

CruelCoin wrote: »

For those of you who are worried about abortion on demand, even with the 12 week window they're looking at, there will not be "Abortion on demand".

Most women don't know untill week 8. And then with the time it will take in the Irish system to get an appointment, referral, consultation, etc, you'll sail past that 12 week mark.

People will still travel for abortions, as the system will just not be fast enough here.

Under 12 weeks the abortion can be performed with pills. All that will take is a gp appointment.

Also its very rare a woman doesn't find out she's pregnant until week 8. Week 5/6 is the usual time.

NuMarvel

CruelCoin wrote: »

I never agree with EOTR but he is right there.

You cannot just say that 100% of people who want an abortion travel for one.

That is a lazy argument.

There are obviously a certain amount who will not travel, and that validates his opinion that the 8th stops some abortions. There is no proof needed for such a simple claim.

I think I addressed this in the parts of my post that you edited out:

Not necessarily. The number of abortion pills being ordered online has risen over the last few years, and there are other, more extreme steps someone can take (there was an article about this a few months back, but I can't find it!)

And there's research that shows that there is little difference in abortion rates in countries that have restrictive abortion laws vs countries that don't.

SusieBlue

Consonata wrote: »

"Abortion on demand" makes it sound like you think these women are just running down to the shops for a haircut.

Have you any idea how difficult it is to have an abortion? 70+% of women who do have an abortion only have 1 in their whole life, because of how traumatic it is.

Yet you think its fine and dandy to stop people who cant afford the flight to birmingham to have an abortion, and nimbys who send their kids to private school can.

He knows all this, I've seen others try to explain this to him on maybe 3/4 previous threads to this. He doesn't care. He has his fingers in his ears. Save the unborn at all costs, f*ck everyone else, etc.

He is impossible to debate with because there is no reasoning to his opinions, which he states as if they are facts. He talks in riddles. Its extremely frustrating but it seems to be his posting style across boards.

You won't get any satisfaction out of him. There is unfortunately no point in even trying to reason with him cause he'll just reply with another blanket statement contradiction full of NIMBY-isms.

Edward M

I see this has become the attack EOTR thread, what happens to attack the post not the poster rule?
There is an ignore button I think!

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Consonata wrote: »

Is it really practical to discuss the philosophical points about abortion. A person who believes that life begins at conception is very very unlikely to have their opinion swayed by an internet post.

Perhaps, but I have had people tell me directly that me having such discussion with them, or where they have read along with them, is exactly what DID change their mind on the topic.

Plus discussing with people who believe "life begins at conception" does not automatically mean you are trying to change the minds of those people. Often when you enter into discourse and debate with another person, the target is not that person but the gallery. And it is usually from there that I am informed I have influences the most minds personally.

And quite often the arguments of one side in a debate are so egregiously bad and vacuous and even self contradictory (see the accusations being leveled against EOTR of late for example)........ that one of the most effective things you can do for your own side of the argument is merely to keep such people talking.

Consonata wrote: »

This is why I think, instead of coming to these voters on a philosophical level, which inevitably results in them returning to the trenches of Pro-Choice/Pro-Life, I think its more useful to discuss the legal implications of what they believe.

What I think however is that when campaigning on an issue such as this there is no utility in saying "instead of this.... do this" or "this is more useful than that". Rather what benefits a movement is to have a diversity of voices, each specializing in a diversity of approaches and arguments.

Those that know law better than me should be talking the law angle. Those who know religion and philosophy and biology and so forth better, as I do, should be coming from that angle.

And together we make a diversity of people and voices and arguments that hopefully will be even more than the sum of it's parts.

NuMarvel

The Oireachtas Committee on the 8th has published their official report - http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/eighthamendmentoftheconstitution/Report-of-the-Joint-Committee-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-web-version.pdf (opens in PDF).

I haven't read it yet, but I can't imagine there's any major changes from what was voted on last week.

This puts the matter back into the hands of government who'll now (presumably) draft a referendum bill to be debated by the Oireachtas, and start work on drafting proposed changes to legislation in the event of a referendum passing. In both cases, the government and oireachtas aren't bound by the Committee's recommendations, but I'd be surprised if those recommendations didn't form the basis of first drafts of the referendum and post-repeal bills.

mrsdewinter

CruelCoin wrote: »

For those of you who are worried about abortion on demand, even with the 12 week window they're looking at, there will not be "Abortion on demand".

Most women don't know untill week 8. And then with the time it will take in the Irish system to get an appointment, referral, consultation, etc, you'll sail past that 12 week mark.

People will still travel for abortions, as the system will just not be fast enough here.

What on earth are you talking about?
The point is not to keep abortion out of Ireland (that's been attempted via the 8th - it hasn't worked) but to help women who need an abortion get an abortion as early as possible, under the relevant medical supervision.
What proof have you got that the GP system will fall down at supplying abortion pills in a timely manner?

Zubeneschamali

12 week no-restrictions limit is still there, no higher limit for rape or socio-economic reasons (the assembly recomended 22 weeks).

I think this refusal to go with the Citizens Assembly recommendation guarantees that no matter what the Dail passes, we won't know what it means for sure until a case is appealed to the Supreme Court:

Having regard to the profound, and relatively unprecedented, effect a provision such as that recommended by the Citizens’ Assembly would have on the separation of powers as it is traditionally understood under the Irish
Constitution, the Committee is unwilling to recommend the removal of thisimportant supervisory jurisdiction of the Courts in an area which, without such a constitutional amendment, would so clearly fall within their jurisdiction.

Taking all of the above factors in to consideration, the Joint Committee is of the opinion that the Citizens’ Assembly recommendation arising out of ballot 3 would be more adequately addressed by way of simple repeal.

I like this bit: The Committee is of the view that no differentiation should be made between the life and the health of the woman. This is consistent with the evidence from medical experts made available to the Committee regarding the difficulty medical professionals have in defining where a threat to health becomes a threat to life.

Da Boss

This report is a biased report published by a biased committee established with the pre-determined goal to repeal the 8th. Not a single reference is made to the unborn child , this alone highlighting what Mullen McGrath Fitzpatrick have been saying for quiet some time. There minority report highlights all the failings of the committee

volchitsa

Da Boss wrote: »

This report is a biased report published by a biased committee established with the pre-determined goal to repeal the 8th. Not a single reference is made to the unborn child , this alone highlighting what Mullen McGrath Fitzpatrick have been saying for quiet some time. There minority report highlights all the failings of the committee

Shouldn't a minority report highlight the failings in the arguments made by the majority report, rather than criticizing the other members?

Did they make an argument, apart from the fact that the majority report doesn't mention the unborn child? (POLDP doesn't mention abortion, did they complain about that?)

NuMarvel

Da Boss wrote: »

This report is a biased report published by a biased committee established with the pre-determined goal to repeal the 8th. Not a single reference is made to the unborn child , this alone highlighting what Mullen McGrath Fitzpatrick have been saying for quiet some time. There minority report highlights all the failings of the committee

Yeah, those three are bound to produce an impartial and ubiased report. :rolleyes:

BTW, you should probably read the report before criticising it. Because the term "unborn child" is used 9 times by my count.

seamus

Da Boss wrote: »

This report is a biased report published by a biased committee established with the pre-determined goal to repeal the 8th. Not a single reference is made to the unborn child , this alone highlighting what Mullen McGrath Fitzpatrick have been saying for quiet some time. There minority report highlights all the failings of the committee

The lies and disinformation regurgitated straight from the Iona press office.

Do you routinely not form your own opinions, or are you being paid to not have them?

[Deleted User]

Any hope of short sensible debate on the issue, then the vote and that the end of the matter any chance of that what do you think.

What is really disturbing is hearing one of the masters of the maternity hospitals say although he has never mad a public comment on the issue he has been branded pro choice. Imagine how creepy that is there are people he does not know probing him dissecting his words watching everything he does, all the while the poor man is just trying to get on with his job.

Zubeneschamali

mariaalice wrote: »

Any hope of short sensible debate on the issue, then the vote and that the end of the matter any chance of that what do you think.

If we repeal the 8th and introduce sensible legislation as recommended by the Committee (or the Assembly) that will be the end of the matter.

Once they lose, the pro-lifers will mostly give up. You don't hear many people arguing to ban gay marriage, divorce or contraception these days - once the consensus moves on, these battleground issues become non-issues.

The Pro-Life movement will be no more important here than in the UK.

If we do not repeal the 8th, then that will certainly not be the end of the matter, and we'll go another few rounds and repeal it in 10 years time, or 20.

Zubeneschamali

I see Mullen wants another Citizen's Assembly - the last one evidently got their homework wrong, and it needs to be done over until they agree with him.

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I see Mullen wants another Citizen's Assembly - the last one evidently got their homework wrong, and it needs to be done over until they agree with him.

Just reading you're last two posts, seems they are of the same mindset as Mullen!
We must keep going till we get what you want?

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I see Mullen wants another Citizen's Assembly - the last one evidently got their homework wrong, and it needs to be done over until they agree with him.

No doubt he will say that they should be recruited solely from church congregations "to avoid bias". :rolleyes:

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

Just reading you're last two posts, seems they are of the same mindset as Mullen! We must keep going till we get what you want?

I am not saying we must keep going, I am saying we will keep going. This is a pattern, it's how things have gone all my life.

The campaign against the 8th started in the 1980s, and it won't stop until the 8th is gone. By contrast, the campaign against divorce ended abruptly when divorce was allowed. The campaign against civil partnerships stopped as soon as they were introduced. In fact, many of those campaigners suddenly thought civil partnerships were the bees knees in their efforts to stop SSM. But that resistance vanished as soon as SSM was passed.

The 8th is being propped up by reactionaries, people who imagine things were better in the 1950s. But they are conservative, resisting change, not actively trying to change us back. They are not campaigning to roll back SSM, civil partnerships or divorce, and once the 8th is gone, all but the lunatic fringe will lose interest, and society will, as usual, not go to the prophesied hell in a handbasket.

Abortion will become a private matter between women and their doctors.

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am not saying we must keep going, I am saying we will keep going. This is a pattern, it's how things have gone all my life.

The campaign against the 8th started in the 1980s, and it won't stop until the 8th is gone. By contrast, the campaign against divorce ended abruptly when divorce was allowed. The campaign against civil partnerships stopped as soon as they were introduced. In fact, many of those campaigners suddenly thought civil partnerships were the bees knees in their efforts to stop SSM. But that resistance vanished as soon as SSM was passed.

The 8th is being propped up by reactionaries, people who imagine things were better in the 1950s. But they are conservative, resisting change, not actively trying to change us back. They are not campaigning to roll back SSM, civil partnerships or divorce, and once the 8th is gone, all but the lunatic fringe will lose interest, and society will, as usual, not go to the prophesied hell in a handbasket.

Abortion will become a private matter between women and their doctors.

OK, that's fair comment I think.
Just thinking here though, they should be careful on the wording I feel, I'm probably wrong, but if they push for abortion for all without restriction it might fail this time, maybe block the whole repeal and set the process back by those good few years.
I'm a democrat and would abide by whatever decision is voted on, but there are activists on both sides that will never stop, there will be protests if it fails, there will be protests if it wins, but my thinking would be it may fail if too much change at once is sought.