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

Da Boss

January wrote: »

Contraception fails.

As a result of negligence

January

Da Boss wrote: »

I’m forcing no woman to be pregnant, play safe in the bed and there will be no problems, if a woman chooses not to, she must suffer the consequences. There is alternatives to abortion that don’t end life, it’s my belief these options should be explored and utilized

Contraception fails.

Da Boss

WhiteRoses wrote: »

This is now the 3rd time I’ve asked you, but you keep ignoring my posts and skirting around the issue.

Bar forcing women who don’t want to be pregnant to be pregnant, what is your solution to all of this?

And what are your opinions on how the 8th affects maternity care and the concept of consent?

If you choose not to reply to this I have no choice to believe that you don’t have an answer and don’t even understand the full implications of the 8th. You are arguing for a cause you aren’t even fully aware of.

I’m forcing no woman to be pregnant, play safe in the bed and there will be no problems, if a woman chooses not to, she must suffer the consequences. There is alternatives to abortion that don’t end life, it’s my belief these options should be explored and utilized

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

Im sorry you dont understand the concept of a conditional verb, the modh coinníollach must have stumped you in school.

Id be delighted if you could show the points I made that made no sense Jack?

I was neither stumped by your use of the conditional tense, nor was I stumped in school by the modh coinníolach. It was your selection bias I was pointing out, and as I explained to you yesterday - of course you're going to think an argument is successful if you already agree with it in the first place!

Yours is an entirely egotistical point of view when you imagine yourself to be informed, educated and your opinions to be valid, so that when other people express a point of view which you already agree with, they too must be as informed, educated, and their opinions are valid, because you already agree with their opinions!

Anyone whose opinion you disagree with, is then of course not making any kind of intelligent argument, don't seem to know what they're arguing about, ignorant shoutery, and suffering from such a level of ignorance that thankfully they are in a minority.

Logically then, not only have your arguments not been successful in changing anyone's opinion, but you then go on to assert that if you didn't agree with yourself already, you would agree with yourself...

That's why your comment made absolutely no sense.

Im still waiting on you to give us:

(a) evidence to show that the 8th Amendment should be kept in place due to positive outcomes and

(b) an argument to show that a fetus should have more rights than a living sentient woman.

My answer today is the same answer I gave you yesterday -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I won't elucidate any such thing, because that would be tacit acknowledgement that I have to frame my arguments in such a way as to acknowledge that I have to kowtow to your authority. That would be like me asking you to frame your arguments according to existing laws in this country. I don't expect you to btw, but you don't get to tell me how I should make my arguments either.

The 8th has never suggested that the unborn has more rights than the woman btw, but you knew that already, it's just the facts and evidence don't suit your argument.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Loafing Oaf

eviltwin wrote: »

end of the road wrote: »

wouldn't work though. any protest banns are usually defied, and tbh rightly so. as much as intimidation is wrong, any protest banns are against democracy and must be defied at any cost.

They will have nowhere to protest unless you think they are going to bother standing outside maternity hospitals and GP clinics. They will soon get tired of that. It won't change anything anyway.

Plus it’s hard to think of a surer way Of alienating the soft pro-life element among our senior citizens...

One eyed Jack

end of the road wrote: »

wouldn't work though. any protest banns are usually defied, and tbh rightly so. as much as intimidation is wrong, any protest banns are against democracy and must be defied at any cost.

With all due respect though EOTR, I don't think intimidation and harassment (which is what those protesters are doing) is in any way democratic. There is such a thing of course as legitimate protests (though I don't have much time for them personally either tbh), but targeting individuals like that, from any side of any argument, for any reason, should never be tolerated.

They are the antithesis of democracy in a civilised society.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

If I were on the fence I can certainly say this thread would persuade me in favour of repealing the 8th.

But you weren't on the fence in the first place so that comment, much like the rest of your post, makes absolutely no sense!

SusieBlue

Da Boss wrote: »

The truth hurts sometimes

This is now the 3rd time I’ve asked you, but you keep ignoring my posts and skirting around the issue.

Bar forcing women who don’t want to be pregnant to be pregnant, what is your solution to all of this?

And what are your opinions on how the 8th affects maternity care and the concept of consent?

If you choose not to reply to this I have no choice to believe that you don’t have an answer and don’t even understand the full implications of the 8th. You are arguing for a cause you aren’t even fully aware of.

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

wouldn't work though. any protest banns are usually defied, and tbh rightly so. as much as intimidation is wrong, any protest banns are against democracy and must be defied at any cost.

They will have nowhere to protest unless you think they are going to bother standing outside maternity hospitals and GP clinics. They will soon get tired of that. It won't change anything anyway.

end of the road

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah I too would see protesters as extremists and I would support any action being taken against them, as I don't believe anyone should be intimidated and harassed no matter whether or not I agree or disagree with their decision that they've made for themselves.

I remember one council, I think it was Ealing, taking legal action to have protesters barred from protesting outside clinics -

Ban on protests outside abortion clinic gets backing from MPs

I could imagine the same would eventually have to happen here if the 8th were repealed.

wouldn't work though. any protest banns are usually defied, and tbh rightly so. as much as intimidation is wrong, any protest banns are against democracy and must be defied at any cost.

.......

This post has been deleted.

volchitsa

Da Boss wrote: »

No it’s not and you know that well. The baby is not yet conceived so no it not ending a life

You're preventing a unique person from coming into the world all the same.

If you want to claim that the difference is because you think there's a baby there from the moment of conception then there are all sorts of problems with that, like why it's legal to destroy IVF embryos, or why we don't have official inquests into miscarriages, or why we don't sue women whose babies are born with fetal alcohol syndrome etc etc.

Quite clearly the law doesn't consider that there is an actual baby present. And nor should it IMO. Because there isn't, for a large part of the pregnancy.

NuMarvel

Da Boss wrote: »

The hypocrisy of the so-called pro choice contingent baffles me to say the least.

I'm not surprised that the pro choice position baffles you. You have absolutely no intention of understanding it; your whole stance is based on not understanding it or even giving it a fair hearing. Instead, you spend your time on the thread being intentionally provocative and disruptive by shouting about murder and killing, and so on.

If you truly want to comprehend the repeal point of view, try engaging constructively with other posters and listening to what they have to say. I don't expect that you'll do this, but who knows, maybe you'll surprise us.

[Deleted User]

Da Boss wrote: »

To kill(verb)- the act of ending ones life. I’m pretty sure abortion does that so yes it’s killing, it’s murder, and that’s the truth

You do realise the law disagrees with you right?

Da Boss

volchitsa wrote: »

That's equally true every time someone has sex using contraceptives. So what?
Uncontrolled reproduction isn't actually a good thing, despite what the bible tells man to do.

No it’s not and you know that well. The baby is not yet conceived so no it not ending a life

Hannibal_Smith

Da Boss wrote: »

The hypocrisy of the so-called pro choice contingent baffles me to say the least. If they were really pro choice why is it they are denying babies right to a life, surely if they pro choice they’d allow the baby enter this world and make the choice themselves????

You would ask a baby whether they want to be aborted? How would the baby communicate their decision to you?. And in the intervening period the woman is forced to be an incubator against her wishes.

Da Boss

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Like the truth you can't kill something that hasn't been born?[/QUOTE. To kill(verb)- the act of ending ones life. I’m pretty sure abortion does that so yes it’s killing, it’s murder, and that’s the truth

volchitsa

Da Boss wrote: »

Well yee pro choicers are denying the baby it’s right to life, not giving it the option to live the one life they have on this earth

That's equally true every time someone has sex using contraceptives. So what?
Uncontrolled reproduction isn't actually a good thing, despite what the bible tells man to do.

Da Boss

Akrasia wrote: »

What? So when the baby is born, we ask it if it wants to be aborted before it became a baby?

You don't have a clue what you're talking about

Well yee pro choicers are denying the baby it’s right to life, not giving it the option to live the one life they have on this earth

Da Boss

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

How do you feel about the tactics and stunts from the pro-life side? Telling people they're baby killers and should be going to jail, never mind the fact that plenty of the people you lot say that to are already traumatised enough.

The truth hurts sometimes

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

As I said earlier I find it quite fascinating.

Genuine question, given this is actually what you said earlier -

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It fascinates me how much men on both sides feel they must have a say.

Why would you find it fascinating at all no matter how many men on either side felt they must have a say in a Constitutional issue which will not only affect women, but it will affect men and children and future generations of Irish society too?

I just don't get why you'd imagine anyone shouldn't be interested in an issue which directly influences their lives and the lives of their children and future generations.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll agree with that alright, but I would also point out the tactics of Amnesty Ireland in refusing to hand back funding they received from George Soros. At least the ARC did hand back any funding they received. I wouldn't just look at one side and say "look what they're doing", both sides of the issue are playing politics in an attempt to influence Irish society.

The pro life campaigners in Ireland wont even take money. They will get the Americans to fund direct campaigning in order to circumvent the law.

Annasopra

January wrote: »

The loudest voices in the Irish abortion debate seem to be being shipped in from America... There was a campaign during the summer last year for families to host' pro life' visitors so they could campaign door to door. It's no wonder the debate here mirrors the states if thats the tactics they're using.

Yeah and lots and lots of American dollars will be spent on pro life advertising on facebook and twitter. Of course the pro life campaign wont object to that at all. Its only when they dont like what the message funds they complain.

frag420

Da Boss wrote: »

And the tactics and stunts From the so called pro choice side and rotten and stink to the core. Anybody with a pro life view is ridiculed, mocked, silenced ,and intimidated . They are trying to silence all pro lifers and trying to associate them
With the Catholic Church, labeling them
As backwards country fools to try trick them into in voting pro choice as if it’s the “cool” thing to do

Well if you really believe in your stance as pro life then stop being a wuss as the babies need real men to fight for their lives, not people who moan about how they are being labelled or how people rightly view them as backward!

The very fact you think you’re fellow pro lifers can be tricked into being pro choice based on how they perceive others see them is pathetic and shows how weak you and your arguments really are!! You have no confidence in yourself or your fellow pro lifers....sad really!!

Akrasia

Da Boss wrote: »

The hypocrisy of the so-called pro choice contingent baffles me to say the least. If they were really pro choice why is it they are denying babies right to a life, surely if they pro choice they’d allow the baby enter this world and make the choice themselves????

What? So when the baby is born, we ask it if it wants to be aborted before it became a baby?

You don't have a clue what you're talking about

frag420

Da Boss wrote: »

The hypocrisy of the so-called pro choice contingent baffles me to say the least. If they were really pro choice why is it they are denying babies right to a life, surely if they pro choice they’d allow the baby enter this world and make the choice themselves????

Wait, did I read that right? You want to deny a woman choice over her bodyily autonomy so that she can have a baby and then you are going to offer choice to the baby if it wants to live or not?

So tell me oh knowledgeable one, how are you going to know what the baby wants? You can’t ask it questions becaise it’s a new born baby and it can’t think for itself, talk or indeed understand a word your saying!? What do you propose, if it cries it wants to live perhaps?

Perhaps someone like yourself could take care of the child until it’s in a position to make such a decision as you seem to want all the babies to be born regardless of if it’s into poverty, abuse etc, so long as it’s born?!

Da Boss

And the tactics and stunts From the so called pro choice side and rotten and stink to the core. Anybody with a pro life view is ridiculed, mocked, silenced ,and intimidated . They are trying to silence all pro lifers and trying to associate them
With the Catholic Church, labeling them
As backwards country fools to try trick them into in voting pro choice as if it’s the “cool” thing to do

Da Boss

The hypocrisy of the so-called pro choice contingent baffles me to say the least. If they were really pro choice why is it they are denying babies right to a life, surely if they pro choice they’d allow the baby enter this world and make the choice themselves????