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

Hotblack Desiato

RDM_83 again wrote: »

connorhal and AnGaelach would appear to have views broadly in line with majority Irish opinion

[citation needed]

I would support a German system, I would not support a limit of 12 weeks

Oh bloody hell, at least educate yourself as to what other countries allow before you propose their legal position for this country. It's not hard. BTW Germany is a pretty socally conservative country.

masculinist

splinter65 wrote: »

Why do the Repeal supporters dwell so much on the FFA and the rape/incest reasons for abortions when it’s such a small percentage.
The FFA is less then 1%.
Rape less then 1%
Why don’t they just say, look loads of girls find themselves pregnant and they don’t want to have the baby so why don’t we let them have an abortion up to 24 weeks like they do everywhere else?

You just have to look at the stronghold of femin(az)ism , the USA where false rape accusations flow thickly about 30 years after the alleged events apparently only when the man has money and fame they can exploit. Feminists dont do term limits. Although I find the lack of children from such alleged rapes strange.

Hotblack Desiato

RDM_83 again wrote: »

You clearly didn't follow either campaign if you think moments like "basket of deplorables" in the US or in the UK the looking down on the English working classes by the great and the good had.

As if the 'working classes' had a view as a bloc. Arguably it is the 'working classes' who will lose out the most from Trump and brexit, just as they've lost out from the last 40 years of Reaganite/Thatcherite/NuLabour governments.

You realize that the referendum is about repealing the 8th, if you make it about abortion on demand being a right it risks support.

It's a risk I'm prepared to take. I'll not support a half measure in the constitution. The logical position afaiac is to repeal and have the Oireachtas legislate. They probably won't go nearly as far as I'd like them to, but having to put up with the decisions of an elected government with which one disagrees is an inherent hazard of democracy. The problem is when party political stances or stances supported by only one specific church - i.e. the 8th Amendment which was supported by the RCC and opposed by the other christian churches in Ireland, even 34 years ago - get written into our constitutional law. The 8th amendment is sectarian law written into our constitution at the behest of a foreign government using American money. Even then it only won in Dublin by 51:49 of votes. I'm not sure how many of that 51 are still alive - yet 35 years on and given all the horrific scenarios the 8th has visited upon us, we are stll expected to believe that repeal is questionable.[/QUOTE]

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What other reason is there to post that video? The opinions of some randomer are irrelevant. But by linking them to a movement you can try to discredit that movement. This trick is as old as the hills. My side = cuddly Argentinian socialist (who happens to be the sole ruler of an authoritarian state, oops) vs. Their side = some wingnut.

The one and only reason I posted the video was simply because I figured nobody would have any idea who I was referring to otherwise. I was making the point that I'd sooner listen to what the Pope had to say about family values, than some wingnut telling me to know my place regarding the issue of abortion. You're making the association with the wider pro-choice movement, not me. I said already I was never either pro-life nor pro-choice and I maintain that stance, because where I'm coming from, I'm not looking at the issue in terms of sides, hence why you'll have noticed earlier I pointed out for example that Ben Carson's claim that the majority of abortion clinics in the US were built in black neighbourhoods, was false. It's quite a bit more nuanced than that.

Would you prefer to be subjected to some shouty wingnut, or someone who even though you disagree entirely with their politics (hence why I made the point that he was a left wing socialist), you're willing to give them a hearing because you know they're not going to behave like an arsehole? I know who I'd rather give an audience to, and that, was my point.

Great. Which makes your decision to post that particular clip even harder to justify, unless of course your motivation was to paint the pro-choice lobby in a bad light.

It doesn't make it harder to justify because I never made the association with the wider pro-choice movement in the first place. You did! I also wouldn't give David Quinn an audience, or anyone whom I considered a selfish, arrogant arsehole. Read the whole post, and then as difficult as it may be for you to do, try and imagine context given that I've always said the issue was never just black and white, that it is both a personal issue at an individual level, and a wider social issue, which brings me on to my next point.

You tell me. You were previously advocating a pro-choice position far in extreme of anyone else I've seen on boards. Could it simply have been an attempt to discredit pro-choice all along?

Conspiracy theory stuff there HD, but you're imputing illuminati style motives that simply aren't there. I'll try and make it as simple as I can for you, though something already tells me no explanation will be sufficient as your mind is made up. Consider this a courtesy as I normally would never explain myself to anyone, but seeing as I've never thought of you as an arsehole, I'm at least willing to forego that principle on this occasion.

I was previously advocating a position, not what I considered a pro-choice position, to be absolutely clear, it is a position that is and always was, and always will be, based upon affording standards of human dignity and decency to both the woman, and the unborn. I was looking at the issue from an individualistic perspective and imagining that such a goal could be achieved at a societal level. Because my thinking on it then, and still my thinking on it now, is that if a woman wants an abortion, she's going to have one, and there is absolutely nothing, short of literally chaining her to a bed and force feeding her, that anyone can do to stop her, not the law, not term limits, nothing. As an individual, I still believe that no woman should ever be forced to give birth if she does not want to, and we must acknowledge that that is reality, it's that simple.

Now, I then looked at the issue from a societal level, and did my research (you'll notice I didn't mention China, as what was done there with the "One child policy" was an extreme which has never been repeated in history, notwithstanding the fact that the wealthy could simply afford to pay a fine if they had another child, it was an incredibly corrupt regime). I've already posted in this thread an article which details how abortion was suggested by well-meaning but misguided eugenics enthusiasts on the principle of 'survival of the fittest', and even the founder of Planned Parenthood in the US has been credited with ulterior motives regarding her enthusiasm for eugenics, but I don't believe her intent was ever racist. It just so happened that black communities at the time were amongst the most socially deprived demographic in society, and so abortion or sterilisation seemed like the most obvious answer to the issue of eliminating something which they believed was holding society back from evolving - the poor, the sick and the needy. Rather than address the underlying social issue, the idea was to eliminate the symptoms rather than ever address the cause.

I see the same happening again when arguments are made that poor people cannot afford abortions, as though the assumption is that socioecnomically deprived demographic should actually want abortions. It's easy to exploit people who are less fortunate than ourselves, it's been done by movement after movement throughout human history, and yes, I'll freely admit that there are no better practitioners of it than organised religions, who have their own motivations to exploit people who really aren't in any position to say "no thank you", when offered what they see as the quickest way out of their circumstances, because they don't see how the consequences of their decisions affect wider society as a whole, hence why I included the thread about 'Should Irish drug addicts be offered money to have no more children?', because the woman in the video is a perfect example of someone who is exploiting people in bad situations and receiving private donations in the order of half a million dollars a year to do wealthier people's dirty work. If that doesn't sound familiar, remember your history, and how the religious organisations at the time in Ireland, the UK and the US were able to operate in society as they did. They were providing a quick fix solution for a society that at the time regarded the poor, the sick and the needy as undesirables. It just so happened that the vast majority of which made up that social demographic were unmarried young women and their children. Coincidence? I think not.

And that is why I don't believe abortion is a solution to any issue, because it isn't some benevolent 'this will fix all your problems' solution, and even now I see it being proposed as the way to rid society of people with downs syndrome, and people are desperate for it, because people with downs syndrome are a problem for society. Who do you think would be vastly over-represented in 20 years time, 50 years, even 100 years time as the demographic which has the highest rate of abortions?

To go back to a point inadvertently made by that wingnut in the video - "Savita was a rich woman" (you only have to look at the colour of Savita's skin to know she was not a lower caste Dalit in her own country, so that came as news to nobody), she was not an impoverished economic migrant, and yet the way her death is constantly used to promote the introduction of abortion in Ireland is at worst disingenuous, and at best - simply misguided, and putting emotions before facts.

For all the warbling about engaging in critical thinking that goes on around these parts, and finger pointing at 'sides' based upon ideologues various positions, there really isn't a whole lot of critical thinking or any objective evaluation goes on at all, and either stance whether one identifies themselves as either pro-choice or pro-life, their arguments are at their core either based upon emotional heart string tugging, appeals to conscience, or the most arrogant and nefarious of all - the base assumption of a universal moral standard in society. They know there is no such thing as a universal moral standard, and yet they persist in applying their moral standards externally, and assuming that everyone else should base their arguments on that standard.

It simply doesn't work, and it displays a gross ignorance of the concept of self-awareness, and human nature, which is all too often why we end up talking past each other.

spookwoman

splinter65 wrote: »

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
I posted the above source already but here it is again .
Baby steps.
So you mean take small steps first, introduce people to the idea that mothers will only be aborting babies of less then 12 weeks gestation that have resulted from rape/incest or babies that have FFA, and then the reasons can increase as can the gestation.

Mothers? Not very women who gets pregnant is a mother just as surly as not every woman want to become a mother

splinter65

Consonata wrote: »

Source on those figures. And even if that were to be the case, its due to baby steps when it comes to abortion. Not going for full limitless abortion with a week limit which may turn people off.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
I posted the above source already but here it is again .
Baby steps.
So you mean take small steps first, introduce people to the idea that mothers will only be aborting babies of less then 12 weeks gestation that have resulted from rape/incest or babies that have FFA, and then the reasons can increase as can the gestation.

Crea

They don't have abortion on demand to 24 weeksevery where else.
Most European countries have a 12 week limit unless there there's a specific reason. 90% of all abortions take place before 10 weeks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

Crea

They don't have abortion on demand to 24 weeks every where else.
Most European countries have a 12 week limit unless there there's a specific reason. 90% of all abortions take place before 10 weeks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

Consonata

splinter65 wrote:

Why do the Repeal supporters dwell so much on the FFA and the rape/incest reasons for abortions when itâ€™s such a small percentage. The FFA is less then 1%. Rape less then 1% Why donâ€™t they just say, look loads of girls find themselves pregnant and they donâ€™t want to have the baby so why donâ€™t we let them have an abortion up to 24 weeks like they do everywhere else?

Source on those figures. And even if that were to be the case, its due to baby steps when it comes to abortion. Not going for full limitless abortion with a week limit which may turn people off.

splinter65

Fred Swanson wrote: »

That's called a choice.

Why do the Repeal supporters dwell so much on the FFA and the rape/incest reasons for abortions when it’s such a small percentage.
The FFA is less then 1%.
Rape less then 1%
Why don’t they just say, look loads of girls find themselves pregnant and they don’t want to have the baby so why don’t we let them have an abortion up to 24 weeks like they do everywhere else?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

tigger123 wrote: »

What are the "lifestyle reasons" you referred to in your post?

an example would be that the child is inconvenient.

splinter65

Consonata wrote: »

I pray that you aren't being sarcastic.

What lifestyle reasons then?

When you turn up at Planned Parenthoid in US to arrange an abortion, you have the opportunity to tick a box as to why you want the abortion.
There’s a long list of options one of which includes amongst many others , (in Sth Dakota for example) ”doesn't want child” and one other which is much mentioned here “fatal Foetal abnormalities”
The FFA reasons accounts for less then 1% of abortions but the “doesn’t want child” accounts for over 68%.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
“Lifestyle reasons” and “doesn’t want the child”
Which is less acceptable?

tigger123

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not being one bit sarcastic.
i have never and would never describe a woman as a slut or a whore and i have no time for anyone who would either.

What are the "lifestyle reasons" you referred to in your post?

end of the road

Consonata wrote: »

I pray that you aren't being sarcastic.

i'm not being one bit sarcastic.
i have never and would never describe a woman as a slut or a whore and i have no time for anyone who would either.

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

wrong, not Sluts and whores. never

I pray that you aren't being sarcastic.

What lifestyle reasons then?

Loafing Oaf

thee glitz wrote: »

Because a lot of people want just change, but not full liberalisation. Framing it in such terms puts the change most want at risk.

Recent opinion polls suggest a small majority in favour of 'abortion on demand' (within term limits). The 'risk' may not be as great as you suggest.

splinter65

volchitsa wrote: »

It's dishonest because nobody is pro abortion. Everyone here would be delighted if every baby was wanted and if no medical issues threatening the mother's health ever required a pregnancy to be terminated.

Being pro education means you want all children to be well educated, being pro democracy means you want all citizens to have a free vote.

Whereas there's no such thing as being pro abortion. As everyone knows, including you. So the fact that you need to portray the other side of the debate in that way can only be so as to dismiss their views without engaging.

Are some people not pro the legal introduction of abortion?
I don’t see what difference it makes .
If you want abortions to be available in Ireland then are you not pro abortion?
There was no fuss about people being pro divorce.

splinter65

Fred Swanson wrote: »

He is a foreign head of state seeking to interfere in the affairs of another nation.

I thought the RCC was as good as dead in Ireland?
What are you worried about then? Surely no ones going to listen to an old man in a white dress!
He’s the leader of 1 billion + adherents of a particular religion.
Are you seriously suggesting he should be silenced?
Is that not fascism ?

thee glitz

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

If, as seems increasingly likely, that choice will be between full liberalisation and no change, why waste time and muddy the waters 'contemplating' alternative proposals.

Because a lot of people want just change, but not full liberalisation. Framing it in such terms puts the change most want at risk.

end of the road

tigger123 wrote: »

"Lifestyle reasons".

Sluts and whores, eh?

wrong, not Sluts and whores. never

Annasopra

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I think the 8th ammendment will be repealed when the referendum does take place, but I don't think it will be the landslide that some think it will be.

I dont think anyone thinks it will be a landslide on either side.

Loafing Oaf

thee glitz wrote: »

while not contemplating a situation where it could be available, for example, in the case FFA without full liberalisation..

Well at the end of the day it's up to the government and not repeal campaigners what choice we get in the referendum. If, as seems increasingly likely, that choice will be between full liberalisation and no change, why waste time and muddy the waters 'contemplating' alternative proposals.

thee glitz

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I don't see any incompatibility in believing that all women should have access to abortion (within term limits) and holding that such access is particularly urgent in certain cases. Therefore I don't see anything hypocritical or deceitful in focusing on 'hard cases' in the referendum campaign.

I don't see any incompatibility in that either. The hypocrisy arises when calling for abortion availability for any reason and using special circumstances to further that, while not contemplating a situation where it could be available, for example, in the case FFA without full liberalisation.

If the recommendations of the committee are followed, it will be clear to any sentient person that a yes vote in the referendum is a vote for abortion on demand/request/whatever you want to call it.

Yes - showing that they too don't value special circumstances over lifestyle choices.

tigger123

end of the road wrote: »

no it's because i believe if people really don't want abortion on demand, they won't allow it in their country. they would allow abortion in extreme circumstances, which i'm in favour of also even if i don't agree with the act, as it's a case of necessary evil, but they wouldn't facilitate abortion for life style reasons.

at least if they are born into neglect and so on, there is a system to remove them from that neglect. absolutely it's far from perfect, but it can be improved. it's not reason to kill them instead.

again, a woman doesn't have a right to an abortion bar extreme circumstances. it's important to keep pointing this out. there is no such right within the state. a woman doesn't even have the right to procure abortion abroad technically, just the right to travel.

the system can be and should be improved. we pay taxes to help women who have children who can't afford them. we can deal with the issues, we can't bring an unborn baby back to life if it's aborted.

"Lifestyle reasons".

Sluts and whores, eh?

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

It's dishonest because nobody is pro abortion. Everyone here would be delighted if every baby was wanted and if no medical issues threatening the mother's health ever required a pregnancy to be terminated.

Being pro education means you want all children to be well educated, being pro democracy means you want all citizens to have a free vote.

Whereas there's no such thing as being pro abortion. As everyone knows, including you. So the fact that you need to portray the other side of the debate in that way can only be so as to dismiss their views without engaging.

no it's because i believe if people really don't want abortion on demand, they won't allow it in their country. they would allow abortion in extreme circumstances, which i'm in favour of also even if i don't agree with the act, as it's a case of necessary evil, but they wouldn't facilitate abortion for life style reasons.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

So you are just pro birth it seems, not pro life. Doesn’t matter what kind of life these poor children are born into, with potentially unfit parents, neglect, abuse, poverty, life limiting health conditions etc so long as they are born.

at least if they are born into neglect and so on, there is a system to remove them from that neglect. absolutely it's far from perfect, but it can be improved. it's not reason to kill them instead.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I understand your passion for ‘saving lives’ but women don’t usually go around procuring abortions as casually as buying a cup of coffee, as you like to make out.
It is in most cases a very last resort in a very sad situation.
By denying a woman her right to a termination, can you even begin to imagine what kind of conditions will be forced on her and her child? Because they literally have no other option?
It has been mentioned and admitted many times that support in this country from the government for women in these circumstances is minimal.

again, a woman doesn't have a right to an abortion bar extreme circumstances. it's important to keep pointing this out. there is no such right within the state. a woman doesn't even have the right to procure abortion abroad technically, just the right to travel.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The resources simply aren’t there to help her or her child. So she struggles on.
Is this miserable situation honestly preferable, in your opinion?
And if you are so passionate about saving all these lives, can I ask what you do to support struggling mothers in disadvantaged situations trying their hardest to bring up their kids? Or do you not care, so long as they are born?

the system can be and should be improved. we pay taxes to help women who have children who can't afford them. we can deal with the issues, we can't bring an unborn baby back to life if it's aborted.

Loafing Oaf

thee glitz wrote: »

Will they say it though, or continue to push special circumstances as a particular cause of concern?

I don't see any incompatibility in believing that all women should have access to abortion (within term limits) and holding that such access is particularly urgent in certain cases. Therefore I don't see anything hypocritical or deceitful in focusing on 'hard cases' in the referendum campaign. If the recommendations of the committee are followed, it will be clear to any sentient person that a yes vote in the referendum is a vote for abortion on demand/request/whatever you want to call it.

SusieBlue

Da Boss wrote: »

The government are introducing stricter drink driving laws- to saw lifes! They are taking measures to tackle climate change- which will save life’s. They are (talking of a t least) tackling homelessness- to help save life’s. They are however planning to remove a piece of legislation-the 8th amendment, which has saved more lives that anything else ever did . Without the 8th how many of us Irish would have been denied our lives we currently enjoy,all thanks to the 8th

So you are just pro birth it seems, not pro life. Doesn’t matter what kind of life these poor children are born into, with potentially unfit parents, neglect, abuse, poverty, life limiting health conditions etc so long as they are born.

I understand your passion for ‘saving lives’ but women don’t usually go around procuring abortions as casually as buying a cup of coffee, as you like to make out.
It is in most cases a very last resort in a very sad situation.
By denying a woman her right to a termination, can you even begin to imagine what kind of conditions will be forced on her and her child? Because they literally have no other option?
It has been mentioned and admitted many times that support in this country from the government for women in these circumstances is minimal.
The resources simply aren’t there to help her or her child. So she struggles on.
Is this miserable situation honestly preferable, in your opinion?
And if you are so passionate about saving all these lives, can I ask what you do to support struggling mothers in disadvantaged situations trying their hardest to bring up their kids? Or do you not care, so long as they are born?

thee glitz

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

If you share this view then I guess a referendum on full liberalisation of the law is a gamble worth taking.

It may well be. Will they say it though, or continue to push special circumstances as a particular cause of concern? Aside, having a pro-abortion Minister for Children is beyond parody.

Da Boss

The government are introducing stricter drink driving laws- to saw lifes! They are taking measures to tackle climate change- which will save life’s. They are (talking of a t least) tackling homelessness- to help save life’s. They are however planning to remove a piece of legislation-the 8th amendment, which has saved more lives that anything else ever did . Without the 8th how many of us Irish would have been denied our lives we currently enjoy,all thanks to the 8th