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

Sin City

NuMarvel wrote: »

See, wasn't so hard, now was it?

As I said earlier I am working
So I could only now email your link to myself and read it now

One eyed Jack

frag420 wrote: »

Not really as paying your tv licence is not saving a potential human lives, it’s just feeding tubridy and co!

If EOTR shops them he can still be happy in the fact he saved a potential life, if a bit of ribbing from the local community is not worth a babies life and he is willing to let a potential life be aborted so he doesn’t get embarrassed down the local post office when picking up his pension then his argument for life is bogus and fake and he cares more about himself that the unborn!!

As for the dishonesty part, true if he was pro choice but he ain’t so I dont see how it would be dishonest?

See where I am going here?

What in the name of sweet baby jesus...

No, I don't see where you're going with this because the premise of your hypothesis was so utterly stupid and contemptible from the outset that it bore absolutely no relationship with reality.

As has been pointed out to you already, anyone who is concerned that they may be aware of a potential criminal act being committed, is free to call a Garda hotline that already exists in confidence.

Secondly, "wouldn't want to be known as a grass", what? Nobody in this discussion is 12 years old, which is exactly where that sort of silly sentiment belongs - not in the post office but on the school playground, because that's the level of maturity required to actually make someone feel guilty for doing the right thing. In the last number of weeks, thousands, literally thousands of victims of sexual assault and horrific crimes have come out on social media and "grassed" on the perpetrators, and one woman was driven to suicide by people who felt no shame or guilt for what they did, harassing and hounding her until she took her own life, and anyone, anyone who would try and shame a person like that, is scum. End of.

Thirdly, there's no stigma among adults at least towards anyone who believes in the right to life, hell, this is one of the things that gets on my tits - people who are pro-choice don't want women to have abortions, they'd much rather women didn't have to have abortions, and people who are pro-life are exactly the same, and it's only immature fcukwits who can only see the world in black and white engage in the kind of finger pointing nonsense and trying to use every guilt trip in the book (and even some that aren't in the book, like the daft hypothetical you presented) to try and paint anyone whom they disagree with as unreasonable!

I've kept my views on abortion to myself where and when it's been necessary to do so, not for my own sake, but for the sake of others, like when I sit down to dinner with my friends family and her incredibly wealthy parents are giving it welly about the hot button social topics of the day, and abortion has come up more than a few times. Suffice to say, what they'll never know won't hurt them, but it's a constant kick in the gut for their daughter that she has to keep it a secret from them. I could certainly take her parents "gentle ribbing" as you put it, but their daughter couldn't.

Anyone who actually knows me, knows and understands my views on abortion, that it isn't just a black and white "pro-life/pro-choice" whatever the latest labels are, issue. It's a complicated and murky issue for anyone who's ever given it any more than a passing thought, and this idea that anyone would be worried about being embarrassed for being called a grass, jesus, adults don't do that shìt. The sad individual in that scenario is the idiot who thinks anyone else would give two fcuks what they thought, and that's all I see when I see the finger-pointing nonsense and condemnation and feigned offence that goes on around this issue in threads like this. I really don't understand the purpose of it other than like my friends parents - to have their peers think they're great people altogether :rolleyes:

Cian_ok

Sin City wrote: »

Just skimmed through it there on my phone

It doesnt say where it gets its applicants for the polls

For example is it a poll for the whole of Ireland or was it just a few Dubs that were surveyed

Also the age demographic was what ? Late teens to early 20s 30 to 40s above or a healthy mix

Im not disagreeing with the findings btw
Just all cards on the table here is needed about those surveyed

18 and over isnt a clear demographic

"Ireland Thinks interviewed a random sample of 1,144 adults aged 18 and over by telephone between Thursday December 14 and Friday December 22. "

mrkiscool2

Cian_ok wrote: »

"Ireland Thinks interviewed a random sample of 1,144 adults aged 18 and over by telephone between Thursday December 14 and Friday December 22. "

Yeah, that's not a proper one. However, there was a poll a few weeks ago that had it at 62% with 13% giving no opinion, so around the same. Again, I think it is going to be very similar to Trump in America where people don't want to admit what they are really voting, but a 2:1 difference would be too much for that to overcome. I think what's before the people in May is the best way to pass it. The liberals are happy as it's some form of abortion on demand, the conservatives are relatively happy it isn't until 24 weeks.

Consonata

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What in the name of sweet baby jesus...

No, I don't see where you're going with this because the premise of your hypothesis was so utterly stupid and contemptible from the outset that it bore absolutely no relationship with reality.

As has been pointed out to you already, anyone who is concerned that they may be aware of a potential criminal act being committed, is free to call a Garda hotline that already exists in confidence.

Secondly, "wouldn't want to be known as a grass", what? Nobody in this discussion is 12 years old, which is exactly where that sort of silly sentiment belongs - not in the post office but on the school playground, because that's the level of maturity required to actually make someone feel guilty for doing the right thing. In the last number of weeks, thousands, literally thousands of victims of sexual assault and horrific crimes have come out on social media and "grassed" on the perpetrators, and one woman was driven to suicide by people who felt no shame or guilt for what they did, harassing and hounding her until she took her own life, and anyone, anyone who would try and shame a person like that, is scum. End of.

Thirdly, there's no stigma among adults at least towards anyone who believes in the right to life, hell, this is one of the things that gets on my tits - people who are pro-choice don't want women to have abortions, they'd much rather women didn't have to have abortions, and people who are pro-life are exactly the same, and it's only immature fcukwits who can only see the world in black and white engage in the kind of finger pointing nonsense and trying to use every guilt trip in the book (and even some that aren't in the book, like the daft hypothetical you presented) to try and paint anyone whom they disagree with as unreasonable!

I've kept my views on abortion to myself where and when it's been necessary to do so, not for my own sake, but for the sake of others, like when I sit down to dinner with my friends family and her incredibly wealthy parents are giving it welly about the hot button social topics of the day, and abortion has come up more than a few times. Suffice to say, what they'll never know won't hurt them, but it's a constant kick in the gut for their daughter that she has to keep it a secret from them. I could certainly take her parents "gentle ribbing" as you put it, but their daughter couldn't.

Anyone who actually knows me, knows and understands my views on abortion, that it isn't just a black and white "pro-life/pro-choice" whatever the latest labels are, issue. It's a complicated and murky issue for anyone who's ever given it any more than a passing thought, and this idea that anyone would be worried about being embarrassed for being called a grass, jesus, adults don't do that shìt. The sad individual in that scenario is the idiot who thinks anyone else would give two fcuks what they thought, and that's all I see when I see the finger-pointing nonsense and condemnation and feigned offence that goes on around this issue in threads like this. I really don't understand the purpose of it other than like my friends parents - to have their peers think they're great people altogether :rolleyes:

To cut through alot of this essay, there does seem to be a lot of strawmanning. I don't think you can correlate being a "grass" when it comes to sexual assault, and being a grass when it comes to reporting a young lady in a bad situation who has to go abroad for an abortion, as you seem to have done. :rolleyes:

In one case you have the report by the victim of a man brutally violating a woman which impacts them for the rest of their lives.

In the other case you have the report by a third party of a very sensitive procedure taken by a woman for what, for the sake of ideology?

Surely even you see the absolute insanity of this.

volchitsa

my views on abortion, that it isn't just a black and white "pro-life/pro-choice" whatever the latest labels are, issue. It's a complicated and murky issue for anyone who's ever given it any more than a passing thought,

No idea what most of the rest of that rather disjointed post was about, but this stuck out.

Murder is black and white, child abuse is black and white. The law in general requires things to be black and white in order to function properly. This is legal, that isn't. When it's illegal, we punish.

So. It's precisely because abortion, as you say, is not black and white that it can't be dealt with as though it was. And when we try to do that, we end up either with women imprisoned for miscarriage, like in Central America, or a 14 year prison sentence that even its supporters are terrified of seeing applied.

One eyed Jack

Consonata wrote: »

In the other case you have the report by a third party of a very sensitive procedure taken by a woman for what, for the sake of ideology?

Surely even you see the absolute insanity of this.

We can look at potential scenarios in an infinite number of ways, and we all apply our own form of one ideology or another, and there's absolutely nothing insane about that. The scenario put forward by the poster, and and even the scenario you present, don't even come close to mapping onto any reality, but we can look at a recent, real-life example which actually happened, and not one we just made up where we could pigeon-hole anyone who answered it in whatever way we liked.

Northern Irish woman given suspended sentence over self-induced abortion

In that case, the woman's actions were reported to the authorities by her housemates, and when the story broke, the housemates were vilified on social media by complete strangers. I would question the sanity of anyone who chooses to take it upon their self-righteous selves to intimidate, harass and generally make life a living hell, for anyone who reports a potential crime to the authorities, all because of their ideology, which makes them feel justified in their attitudes and behaviours towards another human being. Nobody has the right to appoint themselves the arbiter of someone else's actions. It's why we have a judiciary that exists in the first place, because without it, civilised society breaks down and mob justice rules, and social media makes us all feel important and allows us to feel justified in our actions when we circumvent the law and apply our own individual form of justice which is influenced by our own ideology.

I'm reminded of a meme I saw a few weeks back, and it's absolutely true - "People used have to walk for miles to call me a cnut". Nowadays they don't have to, because in a couple of keystrokes they can find a mob which shares their ideology, and go about making other peoples lives hell, all before tea-time, when they can step away from the keyboard and never have to give a second thought to the consequences of their actions, because there are no personal repercussions for their behaving like an utter dick to another human being who is a complete stranger to them.

Insanity is only a matter of perspective, quantitied solely by how much your ideology disagrees with someone else's, and then how far you're willing to go to circumvent laws which apply equally to everyone in society, to deter people from carrying out acts which are fuelled by their own individual interpretation of their own ideology.

Nobody, has any right to take the law into their own hands, no matter what way an individual may feel that the law is unjust and shouldn't, or doesn't apply to them, because either none of us have that right, or all of us have that right, in which case that's when you'll see what insanity really means.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

No idea what most of the rest of that rather disjointed post was about

Colour me cynical, as I don't believe that for a minute, but how and ever, we'll carry on...

Murder is black and white, child abuse is black and white. The law in general requires things to be black and white in order to function properly. This is legal, that isn't. When it's illegal, we punish.

No, the law requires the exact opposite, it is written with the idea of being applied with a fairly broad scope to encompass all manner of possibilities, probabilities and eventualities. That's why we have a judiciary, to interpret the laws as they are written and apply them fairly and justly to all people in a society. It's why when someone is accused of violating the law, they are entitled to the presumption of innocence and a fair and speedy trial by a jury of their peers, and any sentence if they are found guilty, is determined by an actual judge, appointed with the authority to do so.

That's why there are different degrees to a charge of murder for example, or why what you as an individual might consider child abuse, but by law, it actually isn't, because there is a difference between unlawful - those actions which can be justified, and that which is illegal, those actions which cannot be justified and are a strict liability offence. That's generally how the law works.

That's why for example abortion isn't unlawful in this country, but it is illegal for an individual to procure or provide one themselves.

So. It's precisely because abortion, as you say, is not black and white that it can't be dealt with as though it was. And when we try to do that, we end up either with women imprisoned for miscarriage, like in Central America, or a 14 year prison sentence that even its supporters are terrified of seeing applied.

It's regarded as a deterrent, and for a whole host of good reasons, the number one reason of course being the protection and vindication of the right to life of the unborn, no individual has the right to take it upon themselves to circumvent the law because they feel it is either unjust, or doesn't and shouldn't apply to them. If you allow for a society in which everyone does just that, then you end up with anarchy, which is the opposite of a civilised, progressive society. Society becomes a backwards, regressive hell-hole for everyone. It just depends on which side of the fence you're on in any given situation whether you will either be protected by the mob, or whether you'll be at the mercy of the mob, and mob justice generally isn't known for it's mercy, in which case you may imagine 14 years might be a better option rather than someone imagining they have the right to, and are justified in denying you your right to life.

MrPudding

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's why there are different degrees to a charge of murder for example, or why what you as an individual might consider child abuse, but by law, it actually isn't, because there is a difference between unlawful - those actions which can be justified, and that which is illegal, those actions which cannot be justified and are a strict liability offence. That's generally how the law works.

Unless it has changed reasonably recently, there are no "degrees" of murder. There is murder and there is not murder. It is also worth pointing out again that whilst abortion in Ireland is illegal, bar some limited circumstances, persons involved in an illegal abortion are not charged with murder, or even manslaughter. It is almost as if the law does not consider the foetus as something satisfies the requirements for a charge of murder or manslaughter to be made out. Odd that, don"t you think...?

Also, there are many offences that can't be justified, but are still not strict liability offences. I struggle to come up with a justification for raping an 18 month old child, but it still isn't a strict liability offence. I am not sure you understand what a strict liability offence is. Most criminal offences, which child abuse and hommicide obvilously are, require a mens rea. Any offence that requires a mens rea, by its very definition, cannot be a strict liability offence..

MrP

Loafing Oaf

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I think what's before the people in May is the best way to pass it. The liberals are happy as it's some form of abortion on demand, the conservatives are relatively happy it isn't until 24 weeks.

If it's purely about 'getting it passed', a referendum to legalise abortion in 'exceptional circumstances' would be a much surer thing. The only liberals voting against because it didn't go far enough would be a misguided handful.

The reasons we're (seemingly) not going down that road are, IMO:
1. It was the overwhelming conclusion of the committee and the CA that such 'limited liberalisation' is nigh-unworkable.
2. Most pro-choice people seem to regard such legislation as barely worth doing anyway.
3. There is growing confidence among pro-choice that 'abortion on demand' (within term limits) would be approved by the voters, something that seemed unthinkable even a couple of years ago...

One eyed Jack

MrPudding wrote: »

Unless it has changed reasonably recently, there are no "degrees" of murder. There is murder and there is not murder. It is also worth pointing out again that whilst abortion in Ireland is illegal, bar some limited circumstances, persons involved in an illegal abortion are not charged with murder, or even manslaughter. It is almost as if the law does not consider the foetus as something satisfies the requirements for a charge of murder or manslaughter to be made out. Odd that, don"t you think...?

I used the wrong word, I should of course have specified murder, manslaughter, abortion, because they are of course not regarded in law as the same thing and no, I don't think there's anything odd about that.

Also, there are many offences that can't be justified, but are still not strict liability offences. I struggle to come up with a justification for raping an 18 month old child, but it still isn't a strict liability offence. I am not sure you understand what a strict liability offence is. Most criminal offences, which child abuse and hommicide obvilously are, require a mens rea. Any offence that requires a mens rea, by its very definition, cannot be a strict liability offence..

MrP

In fairness, I said actions, because I do understand the importance of determining intent in order to determine whether or not someone is guilty of having committed a strict liability offence.

When I was thinking of the example of child abuse and whether or not an individual can claim it is child abuse, I'm sure you're no doubt aware of the number of times religious indoctrination has been regarded as child abuse on these very forums, or refusing to vaccinate your children, a handful of people regard that as child abuse and would want the State to force parents to vaccinate their children. In Ireland it's not compulsory for parents to vaccinate their children and it's certainly not illegal. Yet I've witnessed people claim that parents who choose not to vaccinate their children should be liable for murder!

Now that's odd. I wonder if I were to take a quick straw poll would there be a correlation between people's views on abortion, and their views on vaccination - it's entirely a woman's choice to have an abortion, but if she should choose not to vaccinate her children, then she should be charged with murder, which would mean her children would be taken from her anyway!

I guess we really haven't moved all that far from the Mother and Baby(less) homes after all, we've just switched Overlords (or at least those people who assume they can lord it over other people anyway).

MrPudding

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I used the wrong word, I should of course have specified murder, manslaughter, abortion, because they are of course not regarded in law as the same thing and no, I don't think there's anything odd about that.

Cool enough. Well, murder and manslaughter both fall under the general term of homicide, so that might be a better word to use as a general description of unlawful killing. Of course, abortion is not a homicide offence, even when it is an illegal abortion, so I don't think there is a collective noun that captures all three.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In fairness, I said actions, because I do understand the importance of determining intent in order to determine whether or not someone is guilty of having committed a strict liability offence.

No, I get where you are coming from, but strict liability offences do not require intent or any kind of mens rea, all that is required is the act. Strict liability, like the word murder, or the word rape, has a very specific meaning in law. It requires an actus reus, the guilty act, but does not require the mens rea, the guilty mind. The vast majority of criminal offences are not strict liability. Theft, burglary, rape, murder, manslaughter, assault, none of them are strict liability. All require an element of guilty mind.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When I was thinking of the example of child abuse and whether or not an individual can claim it is child abuse, I'm sure you're no doubt aware of the number of times religious indoctrination has been regarded as child abuse on these very forums, or refusing to vaccinate your children, a handful of people regard that as child abuse and would want the State to force parents to vaccinate their children. In Ireland it's not compulsory for parents to vaccinate their children and it's certainly not illegal. Yet I've witnessed people claim that parents who choose not to vaccinate their children should be liable for murder!

I have not made up my mind on the religious indoctrination being child abuse question, so I won't comment on that. The non-vaccination being murder is an interesting question. I presume the unvaccinated child would have to die... My view on that would be, even where the child dies, it is unlikely to be murder. I am quite attached to the definition of murder and not vaccinating a child, and that child subsequently dying is not murder for the same reason as abortion is not murder. It does not satisfy the requirement for murder, that a person unlawfully killed another human in being, and their intention was to kill that person, or cause them really serious harm.

A parent not vaccinating their child, whilst idiotic and negligent (possibly criminally so), is unlikely to intend to cause the child to die or suffer really serious harm, therefore it can't be murder.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now that's odd. I wonder if I were to take a quick straw poll would there be a correlation between people's views on abortion, and their views on vaccination - it's entirely a woman's choice to have an abortion, but if she should choose not to vaccinate her children, then she should be charged with murder, which would mean her children would be taken from her anyway!

As I said, I don't think it would be murder, but I do think there may be scope for there to be some kind of criminal offence, possibly based around negligence. I am sure many people on this thread would believe that there should be some consequence for failing to vaccinate your child, without a valid reason and that child either become sick, dies, or directly causes others to be sick or die (though I think causality would be difficult to prove here). I would also like to think that most people would be sensible enough to know that as bad as it might be, it wasn't murder.

MrP

One eyed Jack

MrPudding wrote: »

As I said, I don't think it would be murder, but I do think there may be scope for there to be some kind of criminal offence, possibly based around negligence. I am sure many people on this thread would believe that there should be some consequence for failing to vaccinate your child, without a valid reason and that child either become sick, dies, or directly causes others to be sick or die (though I think causality would be difficult to prove here). I would also like to think that most people would be sensible enough to know that as bad as it might be, it wasn't murder.

To be absolutely fair to them, vaccinations are as contentious in the developed world as the issue of abortion, and I had to give them the benefit of the doubt that their sentiments were hyperbolic based on the fact that indeed it is as contentious an issue as abortion.

What was interesting though was the assumption that it was the lower class religious right were assumed to be shunning vaccinations, and the suggestions put forward were along the lines of denying the parents access to State services such as welfare and education. When it was pointed out that in the US at least, the type of parents refusing to vaccinate their children were affluent liberal left types, I think things got a bit awkward, because they aren't dependent upon the State for support, and therefore wouldn't be in any meaningful way affected by measures that have been introduced in many states in the US to increase vaccination rates.

How does this tie in with the issue of abortion? Well what it indicates, to me at least, is that because in Ireland we tend to take our cultural cues from both the US and Europe, Irish society may have pretty much abandoned the last vestiges of an authoritarian religious regime, but we're still the very same society underneath as we were at the time of the poorhouses when young unmarried mothers were problematic for society, and the poorhouses were proposed as the... 'solution', where children in these 'homes' were forcedly vaccinated, and it just appears to me that, I genuinely do wonder - would we do the same again if given half the opportunity?

This is why I also object to the lower classes being used as an argument to support legislating for abortion, it just seems to me to be rather exploitative of people who essentially have no power and aren't particularly in a position to say "no thank you", when the nice, understanding lady in the local family planning clinic suggests to her that for her sake it might be best for her to have an abortion in her current circumstances.

The reason I emphasise the word 'current' there is because I'm sure all of us are surely aware of people whose circumstances have changed when they were given the right support which enabled a young woman to continue with her education, or to start her own business, or whatever the case may be, and allowed her to raise her child, which, if the support had not been there, she may well have chosen to have an abortion.

I wonder just how long would it take before something like this, would possibly actually become a reality in Ireland -

Project prevention: Should Irish drug addicts be paid not to have kids?

It's actually genuinely frightening when I do think about it tbh, because it stinks of socially acceptable eugenics, and just like the developed world appears to have accepted defeat in the 'war on drugs', how long will it be before society admits defeat in the 'war on poverty' so to speak? Rhetorical question, but I do wonder what kind of a society we're building a future towards when abortion is even promoted as a 'choice' for women to discourage them from giving birth to people with intellectual, cognitive and physical disabilities? I wonder in the future will we go back to attaching shame to those women and children for existing when it has become socially acceptable to deem them 'unfit for society', and what kind of a society would that be?

I don't think it's one I would want to live in, if I'm being honest, as it would be incredibly boring for one thing if we were all cookie cutter carbon copies of each other. I just don't know if that's something I think a society should ever aspire to. I think the whole 'survival of the fittest' is a Victorian concept that really we should as a sociey have evolved and moved away from by now. It does appear as though we are determined to repeat the mistakes of previous generations and we can't even see it.

I wouldn't call that progress myself tbh.

EDIT: I think this article explains it better -

Post Darwin: social Darwinism, degeneration, eugenics

captbarnacles

I appreciate some of the posters here have more nuanced views but I'm still curious how the strict 'abortion is murder' believers square people ordering abortion pills for use here with a NIMBY stance. Those positions seem completely contradictory.

joe swanson

The past few posts have been way too tldr for me so apologies if I'm coming out of leftfield. If the vote is purely remove the amendment I would have to vote no.

I do not believe in abortion on demand in any way.

It should however be available in cases of fatal fetal abnormality, rape, or where the life of the mother is at risk.

It is completely wrong however that a life should be arbitrarily extinguished just cause someone couldn't of been arsed using contraception.

_Dara_

joe swanson wrote: »

The past few posts have been way too tldr for me so apologies if I'm coming out of leftfield. If the vote is purely remove the amendment I would have to vote no.

I do not believe in abortion on demand in any way.

It should however be available in cases of fatal fetal abnormality, rape, or where the life of the mother is at risk.

Very genuine question here: how is the rape exception workable considering the pregnancy would likely be over by the time the case would come to trial?

MrPudding

joe swanson wrote: »

The past few posts have been way too tldr for me so apologies if I'm coming out of leftfield. If the vote is purely remove the amendment I would have to vote no.

I do not believe in abortion on demand in any way.

It should however be available in cases of fatal fetal abnormality, rape, or where the life of the mother is at risk.

It is completely wrong however that a life should be arbitrarily extinguished just cause someone couldn't of been arsed using contraception.

Are you sure only the last few post were too long for you to read? It seems like you haven't read any... I am really sorry, but this one is going to be longer than a Trump tweet too, I really hope you can hang in there for the whole thing though.

First of all, "... just because someone couldn't of been arsed using contraception". Really? I have to ask, have you ever had sex? Do you actually know how sex works? My GF got pregnant with our first child while she was on the pill. She had not missed any, or taken any late, she had not been ill and vomited one up. She had taken the pill exactly as she was supposed to, and she still got pregnant. It happens. It isn't all slags fcuking anything in sight without contraception knowing if they do get pregnant they can simply get an abortion. That is an extremely ignorant viewpoint, and one that indicates you don't really understand the subject matter of the discussion.

Secondly, leaving aside the practicalities of it, why would you allow abortion for rape? Surely a baby as a result of a rape is just someone that couldn't be arsed using contraception in addition to not being arsed getting consent...? No? Regardless, what is it about a baby conceived during a rape that means its life can be arbitrarily extinguished, but not the life of one conceived by consent? The baby didn't rape the woman, what did it do? If the rapist got caught and prosecuted he wouldn't be put to death, why should the baby?

MrP

SusieBlue

joe swanson wrote: »

The past few posts have been way too tldr for me so apologies if I'm coming out of leftfield. If the vote is purely remove the amendment I would have to vote no.

I do not believe in abortion on demand in any way.

It should however be available in cases of fatal fetal abnormality, rape, or where the life of the mother is at risk.

It is completely wrong however that a life should be arbitrarily extinguished just cause someone couldn't of been arsed using contraception.

Your post is beyond ignorant. You clearly have no grasp on the issue at all.

nice_guy80

Purely coincidental that the pope is visiting next year?
I think not.

and now some FG td wants the referendum put back

One eyed Jack

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Purely coincidental that the pope is visiting next year?
I think not.

and now some FG td wants the referendum put back

I dunno tbh, the Pope's visit was planned well in advance of any announced referendum on the issue. Here's an article from 2016 about it -

Pope Francis to visit Ireland in 2018

Or do you mean that Leo purposely planned the announcement of a possibility of the announcement date of a referendum to coincide with the congregation of hordes of Catholics in one of Dublin's most notorious gay hook-up spots? Leo does have a boyfriend, doesn't he? Not too sure about the Pope, but he doesn't strike me as an exhibitionist.

Regardless, I'd sooner give an audience to a humble left wing Argentinian socialist who is head of an organisation which counts more LGBT members amongst it's ranks talking about family values, than a West African authoritarian racist wingnut feminist LGBT advocate who was the telling me to "know my place" at an abortion rally.

Perhaps a gentle reminder of who we're talking about here -

I'll hope to be at the Phoenix park myself on the day with my son, who if I had listened to people who told me I would never make a good father, he wouldn't exist now.

Actually it's funny, I was recently, now that I'm reminded of it, called a failure as a parent by another poster on here, and 15 years ago I would have taken that seriously, because I believed myself at the time I could never be a good parent to a child, as much as I wished to be a father (I told my wife I wanted six children, and she told me go fùck myself :pac:), but nowadays? Yeah, I hate using terms like "single parent", "lone parent", and I'm not an unmarried parent because we're still married, just separated, but every teacher who has taught my son has said that he is a joy to teach, and I like to think I did alright.

He still thinks I'm an asshole most of the time, but that's because I've always taught him myself not to be an arrogant, selfish asshole who thinks they are ever in any position to pass judgement on other people less fortunate than himself.

emo72

if they try push back the referendum until after the pope goes, well, this place will go tits up. stay out of our business papy.

eviltwin

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Purely coincidental that the pope is visiting next year?
I think not.

and now some FG td wants the referendum put back

There's obviously a mistaken belief that a Papel visit will rejuvenate the Catholic faith here and that people who would have been in favour of abortion will see the error of their ways and vote accordingly

It's the last grasp at straws of an organisation that overestimates it's importance and relevance in this country.

nice_guy80

eviltwin wrote: »

There's obviously a mistaken belief that a Papel visit will rejuvenate the Catholic faith here and that people who would have been in favour of abortion will see the error of their ways and vote accordingly

It's the last grasp at straws of an organisation that overestimates it's importance and relevance in this country.

I just don't want a religious sect influencing yet another referendum vote in Ireland

Hotblack Desiato

Congratulations OEJ on finding one lunatic at one rally so you can tar the entire pro-choice lobby with one brush. Well done :rolleyes:

Is your honest stance the one you're claiming now, or is it the one from before when you were proposing abortion on demand up to birth?

RDM_83 again

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Congratulations OEJ on finding one lunatic at one rally so you can tar the entire pro-choice lobby with one brush. Well done :rolleyes:

Is your honest stance the one you're claiming now, or is it the one from before when you were proposing abortion on demand up to birth?

At least it's a verifiable real person on video speaking at the march, you can't take a high horse about strawmen when this is a page or two back.

Sin City wrote: »

Case in point
I have a friend who doesnt believe in abortion
would argue against it at every oppurtuniy

He changed hes mind as soon as he knocked this woman up

He was booking flights to the UK as soon as he knew it and was convincing her shes not gonna have hes child

tigger123 wrote: »

Kind of illustrates the lack of empathy on the pro life side; all about the principal until it's your problem (and not someone else's), then it's all about the choice.

The latter post getting loads of thanks ðŸ˜‘

All this ****e does is reinforce divisions and won't be helpful to the more moderate repeal crowds cause but it seems like some would be happier loosing the referendum if it's not something similar to the uk regime put in

roshje

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I just don't want a religious sect influencing yet another referendum vote in Ireland

So would you be agreeable to a non religious group trying to influence the referendum vote?

Ash.J.Williams

roshje wrote: »

So would you be agreeable to a non religious group trying to influence the referendum vote?

Of course

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Congratulations OEJ on finding one lunatic at one rally so you can tar the entire pro-choice lobby with one brush. Well done :rolleyes:

Eh? Where did I tar the entire pro-choice lobby with one brush? I didn't. In fact if you've been following this thread, you'll have noticed that I posted this earlier -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Thirdly, there's no stigma among adults at least towards anyone who believes in the right to life, hell, this is one of the things that gets on my tits - people who are pro-choice don't want women to have abortions, they'd much rather women didn't have to have abortions, and people who are pro-life are exactly the same, and it's only immature fcukwits who can only see the world in black and white engage in the kind of finger pointing nonsense and trying to use every guilt trip in the book (and even some that aren't in the book, like the daft hypothetical you presented) to try and paint anyone whom they disagree with as unreasonable!

I don't think at all that everyone in the pro-choice lobby, or even the majority of them for that matter, are actually anything like that particular wingnut, because the few people I do know who are pro-choice, are entirely reasonable people, perfectly capable of articulating their arguments in a respectful, non-authoritarian way that I could listen to them speak all day on the issue of abortion, or anything else they'd care to share on any issue under the sun.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Is your honest stance the one you're claiming now, or is it the one from before when you were proposing abortion on demand up to birth?

HD you speak as though a person cannot change their mind? If that is so, then what has all the posturing, pontificating and evangelising in this thread and the many others which came before it been about? Has it not been in an effort to discuss the issue and inform people and allow them to make up their own minds? I think those efforts should also allow for the possibility that people will change their minds upon hearing the arguments presented regarding the issues of abortion in Ireland and the 8th amendment?

Otherwise surely all we're doing is talking past each other and never actually making any progress or generating any understanding on these issues. It may not be the outcome you'd like, but then if the outcome was one you wanted, would you have any issue with me changing my mind? I don't think you would.

splinter65

emo72 wrote: »

if they try push back the referendum until after the pope goes, well, this place will go tits up. stay out of our business papy.

But the pope wouldn’t be pushing the referendum anywhere. How would he do that?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.