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

baylah17

keano_afc wrote: »

So you think the choice to end the life of the unaffordable child should be there after birth too?

Apples and oranges and you know it.
The decision to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester is not comparable to killing a child or indeed an adult .

keano_afc

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So sentient children are more affordable than those in the womb. Cool.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

keano_afc

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The same thing people with an unwanted pregnancy should do? Which is consider all the available and ethical options, and choose the one that fits best in their current context, and maximizes the well being of all SENTIENT beings involved as best as possible.

Why, what would you expect they would do?

So you think the choice to end the life of the unaffordable child should be there after birth too?

nozzferrahhtoo

Not sure what the distinction in practice is between a "safe" abortion and an "unsafe" one but like any medical procedure there is always risks of complication and damage. I would not call any medical procedure "safe", nor would I suggest that the "only thing" that makes such a procedure unsafe is choosing an "unsafe" version of it. Hell we can not even remove ingrowing toenails without at least one teenager losing an entire leg because of it. Medical procedures are not "safe". They just vary in their placement on the continuum of risk.

But clearly what is being discussed here is not what is being pretended...... that women who only have abortions because they feel they have to........ but that women who feel they have to are not likely to be stopped by us not offering one here legally in Ireland. And how far down that continuum of risk they are prepared to go in order to obtain one is certainly a point of concern.

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, it is a bit, which is why I asked kylith why she thinks those abortions that happened would have happened anyway?

No, the only thing that makes abortions unsafe is when women choose to have unsafe abortions. But again, that's stating the obvious.

You're not making sense here Jack.

If a woman has decided she wants an abortion what makes you think that will change with the Repeal the Eighth?

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

Eh, well of course abortions wouldnt happen where women didnt feel they have to have one but isnt that stating the obvious?

Yes, it is a bit, which is why I asked kylith why she thinks those abortions that happened would have happened anyway?

We are talking about abortions that women have sought out because they DO feel they have to have them. They will happen regardless of an abortion ban.

As has been repeatedly mentioned on this thread, abortion bans dont reduce the number of abortions, they just make them unsafe.

No, the only thing that makes abortions unsafe is when women choose to have unsafe abortions. But again, that's stating the obvious.

nozzferrahhtoo

keano_afc wrote: »

What would you do with your 4 children if you fell on hard times now and couldnt afford all 4?

The same thing people with an unwanted pregnancy should do? Which is consider all the available and ethical options, and choose the one that fits best in their current context, and maximizes the well being of all SENTIENT beings involved as best as possible.

Why, what would you expect they would do?

keano_afc

January wrote: »

At the time that wasn't an option for me either because I'm married. Now it wouldn't even be an option, telling 4 children that mammy is having a baby but someone else will take it away when it's born because we can't afford it, not an option for me.

What would you do with your 4 children if you fell on hard times now and couldnt afford all 4?

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Genuine question kylith but why do you think they're going to happen anyway? From my experience, a huge proportion of them wouldn't happen if women didn't feel they had to have them.

What experience is this? What has led you to believe a "huge proportion" of women who have abortions feel like they have to have them?

MrPudding

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet pro abortion movement seems to think cancer, MRSA , child cancer, lack of hospital beds comes in a distant second when it comes to abortion.

Yes you can get a 2 hour boat to liverpool to get an abortion yet you cant get a hospital bed for a Brain Tumor in Ireland. Children having to travel to the US for cancer treatment as we dont have it here. Who is marching for them.

How about we put abortion on the back burner for a few years and lets get the more important things sorted first.

Really? Pro-abortion? I suppose you would call me pro-abortion. I have 4 kids and no abortions. What kind of sh1t pro-aborionist does that make me?

MrP

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

kylith wrote: »

If the woman can’t walk away, then the man shouldn’t be able to either.

Gloria Steinem:

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

I notice the anti-repealers had nothing to say about the fact that women, like me, have to undergo unnecessary operations because of the 8th amendment.
That really shows their lack of empathy for 'life'

It doesn't show any lack of empathy for life bubblypop. I just don't do insincerity very well is all. That's the one and only reason I didn't make any comment on your circumstances.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

But a huge proportion of those abortions are going to happen anyway, whether the woman goes to the UK, or buys pills online, or has some other remedy. Isn't it better that they happen sooner, where she can have proper medical help if something goes wrong?

Genuine question kylith but why do you think they're going to happen anyway? From my experience, a huge proportion of them wouldn't happen if women didn't feel they had to have them.

kylith

Edward M wrote: »

The eighth needs to go no doubt on that and a clear circumstance with the health and wellbeing of the mother being put foremost in any pregnancy. But most anti abortion on demand supporters would be trying to protect against unnecessary abortions really.

But a huge proportion of those abortions are going to happen anyway, whether the woman goes to the UK, or buys pills online, or has some other remedy. Isn't it better that they happen sooner, where she can have proper medical help if something goes wrong?

MrPudding

Da Boss wrote: »

Well I’ll tell you my side of the story. As you know everyone only has one life on this earth therefore life is sacred. An abortion ends a life and the one chance that baby had of a life is gone. That baby will never have a life, this as a result of an abortion (which I personally consider a selfish oact). This is all personal to me as I was informed I would have me aborted should the law have allowed. Therefore the eight amendment saved my life, the life I currently enjoy that only for the eighth I wouldn’t never have seen. Surely you see where I’m coming from and why the eighth is so important to me

Meh. Had you been aborted you wouldn't know. My mother was offered pills to make me go away when she was pregnant. Obviously she did not take them, but as I said in a previous post, it would have been better for her if she had taken them. Having me meant she ruined her life.

Of course she loves me, and I love being alive, and she would never say she regrets having me, but her life would have been so different, and so much better had she taken the pills.

And if she had, so what? I would not know. I would not be aware of a chance or a life missed. I am sure it must be awful to be told you would have been aborted were it not for the fact it was a little bit difficult and your mother did not have enough money to travel, but count yourself lucky. One of the other anti-choice posters was apparently going to get aborted until his father offered his mother a shopping trip...

MrP

MrPudding

volchitsa wrote: »

In fact the forced use of someone's organs while they are still alive is a well known analogy for pregnancy (the "famous violinist" thought experiment), one which I've not seen convincingly debunked.

I have posted this thought experiment, or something very close to it several times over a number of threads. I have never seen an anti-choicer even attempt to answer it, let alone debunk it.

end of the road wrote: »

it's still their organs. theft is theft. they didn't give permission to take, therefore theft has taken place.

By not opting out they have given permission. Implied permission is still permission.

Deleted User wrote: »

If I have kidney failure and you are a match, can you be forced to donate a kidney to save my life? It won't kill you, just put your body under a bit of strain. But you have the right to refuse, and ultimately let me die. But what about my right to life?

It is immoral to suggest that a woman has no right to refuse use of her organs, then.

You don't even need to go as extreme as donating a kidney. You can't even be force to donate a pint of blood, even if someone's life depended on it.

MrP

Mr. CooL ICE

end of the road wrote: »

they will grow up and will contribute to society and will make this country better.

Edward M

bubblypop wrote: »

I notice the anti-repealers had nothing to say about the fact that women, like me, have to undergo unnecessary operations because of the 8th amendment.
That really shows their lack of empathy for 'life'

That's a bit unfair to most.
I read your condition and that's crazy for sure and most would recognise the stupidity of what you went through.
The eighth needs to go no doubt on that and a clear circumstance with the health and wellbeing of the mother being put foremost in any pregnancy. But most anti abortion on demand supporters would be trying to protect against unnecessary abortions really.
The argument can be made that the unborn should have rights so long as the health and wellbeing of the mother aren't compromised.
I wouldn't be for abortion on demand in all circumstances, but weighing it up if the only way to ensure the mother has her rights too I may have to vote for it, though that's going to condemn at least some perfectly healthy and normal foetus to the bin.
Its a cynical exercise either way I feel.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Oldtree

bubblypop wrote: »

I notice the anti-repealers had nothing to say about the fact that women, like me, have to undergo unnecessary operations because of the 8th amendment.
That really shows their lack of empathy for 'life'

No empathy whatsoever either for the thousands of Irish women that undergo the gruelling journey to the UK and are medical and mentally unsupported upon their return every year.

[Deleted User]

I notice the anti-repealers had nothing to say about the fact that women, like me, have to undergo unnecessary operations because of the 8th amendment.
That really shows their lack of empathy for 'life'

nozzferrahhtoo

Rose Swift Marlin wrote: »

Well you could use the same argument for women:(your logic) if she isnt willing to raise a child she helped to create, then she shouldnt be having sex in the first place. She knows that contraception can fail and she shouldnt have sex if shes not willing to deal with the consequences.. Or should only men be held responsible for there actions in your world?

I think the problem with the "deal with the consequences" narrative is that "dealing with the consequences" to such people means "deal with them the way I want you to deal with them". Or generally in this context it means "deal with having the baby and just get on with it".

"Dealing with the consequences" for me however means sitting down in after an unwanted occurrence in life, consider all your options openly and intelligently, and make the decision that is the right one for you. And if that is abortion, then so be it.

What does not help is lording consequences over people from some imaginary high horse. "Oh you know sex can get you pregnant, so it is all your own fault" helps no one in this world. We do not send doctors out onto the football pitch to stand over the injured player screaming "You knew when you decided to play sport you could get hurt! Now deal with it!"

Dealing with consequences means informing yourself of all your decisions, and doing your best to make the correct one for yourself. It does not mean, and should never mean, doing what other people WANT you to do in a moment of crisis.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

kylith wrote: »

Men already can and do simply walk away, and there’s not much can be done about it. I know more than one family where ‘dad’ has simply vanished.

Of course, we could always turn a common trope in these threads on its head: if a man isn’t willing to pay for the child he helped to create he shouldn’t be having sex in the first place. He knows that contraception can fail and he shouldn’t have sex if he’s not willing to deal with the consequences.

If the woman can’t walk away, then the man shouldn’t be able to either.

Well you could use the same argument for women:(your logic) if she isnt willing to raise a child she helped to create, then she shouldnt be having sex in the first place. She knows that contraception can fail and she shouldnt have sex if shes not willing to deal with the consequences.. Or should only men be held responsible for there actions in your world?

And women will be able to walk away with abortion without any input from the man, so we have a sitiuation where she gets to decide the mans life for upto 23 years, if men had the male abortion we could opt out.

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

you are happy to explain to them that you killed it though.

That is an absolutely disgusting comment. You show your true colours with a remark like that.

nozzferrahhtoo

Da Boss wrote: »

I just hold the belief that nobody has the right to end the life of another

You might want to enter into discussion with our meat industry then, as it does it daily. You might also want to take issue with the farming industry who do it also every day through the use of pesticides and insecticides.

When you are done there, you might go to the paper industry, who are killing trees every day. After that the medical industry who use anti-biotics to end the lives of millions of bacteria in a holocaust of numbers beyond your imagination.

Or instead you could get over the notion that "ending a life of another" is as bad as you think, and that the thing that makes "ending a life" bad in this world happens to be a thing the fetus being terminated lacks not just slightly, but ENTIRELY.

pilly

end of the road wrote:

you are happy to explain to them that you killed it though.

And there you show your true colours.

pilly

Dre as in Dray wrote:

Yet pro abortion movement seems to think cancer, MRSA , child cancer, lack of hospital beds comes in a distant second when it comes to abortion.

What on earth has that got to do with anything.

I have already explained the mathematics to other people on here who can't add but here it goes again:

1 abortion costs less than 1 birth, fact. So how does it take any money away from anywhere?