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

TheQuietFella

Geuze wrote: »

Do we all have the right to do what we like with our bodies?

Should we?

If I walk into the hospital and ask for my leg to be cut off, should that be done?

The rules though in every sense do not apply to women!

Sofiztikated

monnies wrote: »

how would you like to have been aborted yourself, i bet you wouldn't have liked it one little bit, so kindly verpiss dich

I've got a medical condition, that usually presents along with spina bifida, but didn't, in my case. I've had 15 + corrective surgeries. I have scar tissue from above my bellybutton (which I don't actually have) to the base of my penis. When I was 15 I underwent a surgery that, at the time, was longer than open heart surgery, and one of the first properly successful ones conducted in Ireland.

One night a while ago, my 75 year old mother admitted that if she had known about the condition, she would have considered an abortion. As it happened, it wasn't spotted until birth.

I'm perfectly ok with the fact that I could have been aborted. She's been through more stress and worry, sleepless nights, working night shifts so she could be there for me during the day, fighting with a health system that didn't understand my condition, fighting with a school system that didn't understand the condition. This comes after her dealing with a society that wanted to take her first child of her because she had the absolute gaul to get pregnant out of wedlock, 2 miscarriages, 7 other healthy children.

She's a brilliant, strong woman, who would have made a hard decision. And I ****ing respect her decision.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

Da Boss wrote: »

Yes, the Hawe situation is deeply regrettable and wrong, commiserations to the family, but yeah abortion is similar as it also involves the murder of innocent defenseless children. Murder- the act of killing someone , precisely what abortion is, simple truth

I had an abortion. Do I deserve to be in prison?.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Sorry, I refuse to engage you any more.

because you cannot argue against what has been said. you know abortion on demand is wrong. i know it is wrong. everyone knows it is wrong. refusing to debate me won't change that fact.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You are like a broken record at this stage.

i'm really not. i have throughout given my viewpoint on the topic from a number of sides. however ultimately it will come back to insuring that protections for the unborn remain, as i believe that is the right thing to do.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Your opinion on abortion is not supriour to another woman's rights and bodily autonomy.

i never once said it was, i said it was superior to the view that abortion on demand should be allowed within the irish state. which it is .
abortion on demand is not a right and the state refusing to provide it does not go against a woman's bodily autonomy or her rights. refusing to provide it where there is a threat to her life would go against her right to live and that is why i am accepting of such provision.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Nothing you say will change my mind on that.

i'm not here to change minds. i know i'm not going to change minds. however, i do want to remind people or try to get them to see that the unborn have rights, and that removing those rights would be damaging to society. the unborn have a right to be protected as much as everyone else, and that abortion on demand not being provided within the irish state is a good thing for society and does not go against one's rights. one does not have a right to kill the unborn bar very extreme circumstances.
not legislating for abortion on demand would go a huge way to insuring the 8th could be repealed, as there are many like me who would vote repeal if abortion on demand wouldn't happen.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Funny how so many of those most vocal against abortion are men, isn't it? I wonder if they'd be singing the same tune if they had to deal with pregnancy themselves.

I'm not saying men shouldn't have a voice in this debate, of course they should, and I'm a man myself. Does it not strike you as a bit odd though that those most vocal about the subject are those who can literally just run away from a pregnancy if it suits them?

the vast majority of those men likely have children, or want to have children, and do not wish to allow a situation where they are at greater risk of having that child aborted in the future. granted they can't stop their partner going to england, but there is always that chance of an abortion not being proceeded with while the current system exists.

Loafing Oaf

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It is none of your business what decisions another woman makes for her body, her life, her family, her future, her self. Absolutely none.

I beg to differ. He/she is DA BOSS!

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

when it involves someone harming someone else or a would be someone else, we have a right as a society to dictate that such should not be allowed to happen in our country unless it's absolutely necessary, AKA that someone is under threat of death. so when a woman wants to kill her unborn baby, we have to insure that does not happen within the state unless absolutely necessary, as in she is under threat or the baby is going to pass away. society has a duty to stand up for the moral good and the opinion that the unborn shouldn't be killed unless there is a danger to life is a superior opinion to those who want abortion on demand. sorry but it is

agreed. however when she is harming someone else or a would be someone else such as the unborn, it very much is society's business, especially as we are being asked to vote on this, which has made it our business. we have a duty to insure the state doesn't allow abortion on demand to happen within it. that is why repeal will hopefully fail, because while it's repealing would sort other issues that do need to be sorted, it cannot be at the expence of removing protection for the unborn.

Sorry, I refuse to engage you any more. You are like a broken record at this stage. Your opinion on abortion is not supriour to another woman's rights and bodily autonomy. Nothing you say will change my mind on that.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

If that's how you feel, then feel free to never have one yourself.
However, don't assume to believe you can dictate the choices another person makes about their own life. It's the height of arrogance to believe you opinion is so superior it should be applied to the whole country.

when it involves someone harming someone else or a would be someone else, we have a right as a society to dictate that such should not be allowed to happen in our country unless it's absolutely necessary, AKA that someone is under threat of death. so when a woman wants to kill her unborn baby, we have to insure that does not happen within the state unless absolutely necessary, as in she is under threat or the baby is going to pass away. society has a duty to stand up for the moral good and the opinion that the unborn shouldn't be killed unless there is a danger to life is a superior opinion to those who want abortion on demand. sorry but it is

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It is none of your business what decisions another woman makes for her body, her life, her family, her future, her self. Absolutely none.

agreed. however when she is harming someone else or a would be someone else such as the unborn, it very much is society's business, especially as we are being asked to vote on this, which has made it our business. we have a duty to insure the state doesn't allow abortion on demand to happen within it. that is why repeal will hopefully fail, because while it's repealing would sort other issues that do need to be sorted, it cannot be at the expence of removing protection for the unborn.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

thankfully however the state doesn't allow it's practice within it bar extreme circumstances.

Gee, that's the first time I've ever seen you say that

SusieBlue

Da Boss wrote: »

Well if you want my opinions you can have them. Firstly I’m of the belief that abortion is the worst of all murders, killing a defenseless child in a womb and denying it of its basic human rights such as to walk talk LIVE. Abortion is murder, that’s not debatable, it’s fact. Mullen McGrath and Fitzpatrick are men who take heed thier conscience and i applaud them in there fight to safe lives of so many.

If that's how you feel, then feel free to never have one yourself.
However, don't assume to believe you can dictate the choices another person makes about their own life. It's the height of arrogance to believe you opinion is so superior it should be applied to the whole country.

It is none of your business what decisions another woman makes for her body, her life, her family, her future, her self. Absolutely none.

end of the road

captbarnacles wrote: »

Worse than the Hawe case for example?

But it's not murder and has never been considered murder here.

thankfully however the state doesn't allow it's practice within it bar extreme circumstances.

ohnonotgmail

monnies wrote: »

how would you like to have been aborted yourself, i bet you wouldn't have liked it one little bit, so kindly verpiss dich

Probably the most stupid post on this thread.

captbarnacles

monnies wrote: »

how would you like to have been aborted yourself, i bet you wouldn't have liked it one little bit, so kindly verpiss dich

Wouldn't exist so wouldn't care one way or the other.

Da Boss

captbarnacles wrote: »

Worse than the Hawe case for example?

But it's not murder and has never been considered murder here.

Yes, the Hawe situation is deeply regrettable and wrong, commiserations to the family, but yeah abortion is similar as it also involves the murder of innocent defenseless children. Murder- the act of killing someone , precisely what abortion is, simple truth

captbarnacles

Da Boss wrote: »

Well if you want my opinions you can have them. Firstly I’m of the belief that abortion is the worst of all murders, killing a defenseless child in a womb and denying it of its basic human rights such as to walk talk LIVE. Abortion is murder, that’s not debatable, it’s fact. Mullen McGrath and Fitzpatrick are men who take heed thier conscience and i applaud them in there fight to safe lives of so many.

Worse than the Hawe case for example?

But it's not murder and has never been considered murder here.

Da Boss

Edward M wrote: »

OK, so if it take a couple of more mothers lives in the meantime to achieve it then so be it?

What about the authorized killing of the unborn?

monnies

uptherebels wrote: »

I wouldn't hold your breath. He only answers questions he deems "relevant" i.e the not hard/ pretend I haven't dug myself in a hole ones.

how would you like to have been aborted yourself, i bet you wouldn't have liked it one little bit, so kindly verpiss dich

Da Boss

seamus wrote: »

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?

Well if you want my opinions you can have them. Firstly I’m of the belief that abortion is the worst of all murders, killing a defenseless child in a womb and denying it of its basic human rights such as to walk talk LIVE. Abortion is murder, that’s not debatable, it’s fact. Mullen McGrath and Fitzpatrick are men who take heed thier conscience and i applaud them in there fight to safe lives of so many.

uptherebels

frag420 wrote: »

Welcome back EOTR, not sure if you missed my question a few days ago for you bit here is the link, would love to hear your thoughts! In case the link doesn’t work it was posted at 4:55 on Tue last...

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057732408/70/#post105600007

I wouldn't hold your breath. He only answers questions he deems "relevant" i.e the not hard/ pretend I haven't dug myself in a hole ones.

end of the road

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, you should both be able to get a tv gig during the run up like that gay guy against ssm

believe it or not gay people will have a different opinion to each other. including on topics like gay marriage. strange, i know. but there you go.

Loafing Oaf

jackofalltrades wrote: »

While I think complex issues like this should be addressed by legislation rather than clumsy constitutional amendments.
I think having things in the constitution actually links our laws to the will of the people somewhat.
I'm uncomfortable with issues like this being left up to TD's and the all too powerful groups that lobby them.
And I'd apply that to both sides doing the lobbying.
Has there been any polling to support this opinion though?

http://www.newstalk.com/Poll-finds-majority-support-for-abortion-on-request

Yes I know it's an Amnesty poll, could be an outlier etc. but you did ask.

Zubeneschamali

DublinWriter wrote: »

There's plenty of atheist humanists like myself who object to abortion when the life of the mother is not at risk.

Yes, you should both be able to get a tv gig during the run up like that gay guy against ssm

Loafing Oaf

DublinWriter wrote: »

There's plenty of atheist humanists like myself who object to abortion when the life of the mother is not at risk.

And yet no-one can ever name a single genuine Irish example. Funny that...

jackofalltrades

seamus wrote: »

For the pro-choice lobby, the legislation that will come out after is somewhat irrelevant - once the 8th is removed, then there's no longer a requirement to convince the entire country to vote one way or another.
Campaigning on specific issues can be more focussed at legislators, and legislators' hands are also freed up to respond more readily to things like the ECHR.

While I think complex issues like this should be addressed by legislation rather than clumsy constitutional amendments.
I think having things in the constitution actually links our laws to the will of the people somewhat.
I'm uncomfortable with issues like this being left up to TD's and the all too powerful groups that lobby them.
And I'd apply that to both sides doing the lobbying.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think it wont be that small tbh.

Has there been any polling to support this opinion though?

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

i and even if the 8th is repealed there will likely be protests and attempts to overthrow any such abortion legislation.

Politicians' attitude to 'protests' like the 'Day for Life'

What sort of "attempts to overthrow any such abortion legislation"? Assuming the referendum passes and the successor legislation is deemed to be sound legally and constitutionally (and you'd have to assume it'll be proofed like no legislation has ever been before), then such challenges can only come about through the Dail. And with pretty much the entire left solidly in favour of 'liberal abortion', along with significant cohorts in Fiaana Fail and Fine Gael, I see no hope for their success.

Edward M

DublinWriter wrote: »

Apples and oranges dude.

The vast majority who opposed divorce did so on religious grounds.

There's plenty of atheist humanists like myself who object to abortion when the life of the mother is not at risk.

But the church of whatever must be to blame for your beliefs, pro choice won't believe anyone can form that opinion on their own!

DublinWriter

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, like divorce, which failed 36.5 to 63.5 in 1986, and only passed 50.3 to 49.7 in 1996.

Apples and oranges dude.

The vast majority who opposed divorce did so on religious grounds.

There's plenty of atheist humanists like myself who object to abortion when the life of the mother is not at risk.

frag420

Welcome back EOTR, not sure if you missed my question a few days ago for you bit here is the link, would love to hear your thoughts! In case the link doesn’t work it was posted at 4:55 on Tue last...

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057732408/70/#post105600007

Hotblack Desiato

Under the committee's proposals, women are still going to have to travel to Britain for abortions - fewer than now, but this doesn't go nearly far enough.

Once repeal happens and the bare minimum legislation is passed, the vast majority of politicians will not want to have anything to do with the issue for many years. They're cowards and will reinsert their heads in the sand as quickly as possible.

It's deeply unimpressive that 12 ministers are refusing to state a position - yes the report is only just out, but the report is in line with the majority position on the committee going back weeks now and came as no surprise to anyone.

end of the road

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, like divorce, which failed 36.5 to 63.5 in 1986, and only passed 50.3 to 49.7 in 1996.

Yet the campaign to keep divorce unavailable evaporated on the spot. There has been no, zero effort to gin up a campaign to ban divorce again since that narrowest of margins allowed it.

Exactly the same thing will happen if abortion is made available, even in a 50.1 to 49.9 squeaker - the pro-life campaign to keep an abortion ban in the Constitution will vanish.

i think you are very mistaken on that one. time will tell but there are a lot of people who disagree with abortion on demand, and even if the 8th is repealed there will likely be protests and attempts to overthrow any such abortion legislation. remember there are a lot in the north as well who are against abortion, and who would be willing to help support their southern counterparts in the aim of trying to keep abortion on demand out of ireland.
it would be in their interests to do so to stop people coming south to avail of it.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think it wont be that small tbh.

i guess time will tell but i don't think it's going to be a replay of the ssm referendum like some seem to be expecting.