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

end of the road

January wrote: »

Nope. Because I didn't kill anything. If they ever ask me if I had an abortion I'll be honest with them but right now they're too young to explain it to (although the eldest two do know about the concept of abortion).

You don't have a problem with abortion though do you eotr? If I was able to afford to go to England you'd have been fine with that.

i wouldn't be fine with as i disagree with it. however i can't stop you.

captbarnacles wrote: »

1. You have no idea what a crisis pregnancy is.
2. No, they don't. You are imagining this.

wrong on both counts.

kylith wrote: »

And there we have it. "THE UNBORN'S RIGHT TO LIFE HAS TO BE PROTECTED (unless abortion happens somewhere I can't see it, so I can pretend it's not a thing)"

no, the life of the unborn must be protected. however the reality is we cannot stop people from traveling abroad to procure abortions.

kylith wrote: »

Unless she can afford airfare, right?

no, extreme circumstances such as a threat of life or disability upon the mother, or the baby not being viable to be caried to term. if she wishes to have an abortion by choice for non-extreme circumstances then there is a facility to allow that to happen.

kylith

end of the road wrote: »

no, extreme circumstances such as a threat of life or disability upon the mother, or the baby not being viable to be caried to term. if she wishes to have an abortion by choice for non-extreme circumstances then there is a facility to allow that to happen.

That's exactly my point. You're perfectly OK with women travelling to have abortions. You say that it's because there's nothing can be done, but you're not picketing airports. You're not demanding that the right to travel be repealed. If a woman has the means to go to the UK for an abortion then that's ok with you.

If anything you are in favour of more extreme abortions that any pro-choice person. By denying women abortions locally and telling them to travel what you're saying is 'I want you to have a more traumatic abortion with a fetus that is later term and more developed than it would have been if you could have gone to your GP when you first decided to terminate, since this way you have to arrange travel and save up to afford it'. The abortion you support is closer to 'killing babies' than the abortion I support, since it occurs closer to viability.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

wrong, full trust of women in my posts, i trust them to make their own decisians. they just cannot kill the unborn within the state unless there is an extreme situation that requires it. just like i can't kill someone unless it is an absolute last resort. try again.

that is why we have a wellfare system. abortion is not needed or required in this country for those cases.

yes and i have said that where abortion is necessary to save the mother's life or to prevent disability or where the baby cannot be caried to term that it should be provided.

There is no trust. You simply do not trust women to make the right decisions for themselves. Your idea that the welfare state provides sufficient protection to bring everyone completely out of poverty is simply laughable too.

Frankly all of your posts on this are just complete nonsensical and full of contradictions.
You say you trust women but you have demonstrated you dont - you dont trust them to decide what is right for them.
You say that abortion shouldnt be available but you are perfectly fine with it being available for women who travel
You claim you dont support abortion abroad really but you are unwilling to really do anything about it. You refuse for example to campaign for reversing the 13th amendment.

Annasopra

kylith wrote: »

That's exactly my point. You're perfectly OK with women travelling to have abortions. You say that it's because there's nothing can be done, but you're not picketing airports. You're not demanding that the right to travel be repealed. If a woman has the means to go to the UK for an abortion then that's ok with you.

If anything you are in favour of more extreme abortions that any pro-choice person. By denying women abortions locally and telling them to travel what you're saying is 'I want you to have a more traumatic abortion with a fetus that is later term and more developed than it would have been if you could have gone to your GP when you first decided to terminate, since this way you have to arrange travel and save up to afford it'. The abortion you support is closer to 'killing babies' than the abortion I support, since it occurs closer to viability.

This also can leave many women forced into aborting when they may have decided differently. Women who have gone and spent thousands can often feel more pressured into abortions and avoid last minute decisions to change their mind.

Yep the current regime means women in Ireland have later term abortions and do not get sufficient post abortion healthcare

end of the road

kylith wrote: »

That's exactly my point. You're perfectly OK with women travelling to have abortions. You say that it's because there's nothing can be done, but you're not picketing airports. You're not demanding that the right to travel be repealed. If a woman has the means to go to the UK for an abortion then that's ok with you.

i'm not okay with it. i cannot stop it, and trying to would be a fruitless exercise. i can only work with the realities and practicalities that exist.

kylith wrote: »

If anything you are in favour of more extreme abortions that any pro-choice person. By denying women abortions locally and telling them to travel what you're saying is 'I want you to have a more traumatic abortion with a fetus that is later term and more developed than it would have been if you could have gone to your GP when you first decided to terminate, since this way you have to arrange travel and save up to afford it'. The abortion you support is closer to 'killing babies' than the abortion I support, since it occurs closer to viability.

i'm not in favour of abortion outside the extreme circumstances that i mentioned. however i do believe that the current situation does stop some abortions from happening which is a good thing for society.

kylith

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not in favour of abortion outside the extreme circumstances that i mentioned. however i do believe that the current situation does stop some abortions from happening which is a good thing for society.

More children born to unwilling parents who can't afford them is good for society?

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

There is no trust. You simply do not trust women to make the right decisions for themselves.

there is full trust of women in my posts, i trust them to make their own decisians. they just cannot kill the unborn within the state unless there is an extreme situation that requires it.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Your idea that the welfare state provides sufficient protection to bring everyone completely out of poverty is simply laughable too.

i never made such a claim. however the wellfare state can be improved.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Frankly all of your posts on this are just complete nonsensical and full of contradictions.
You say you trust women but you have demonstrated you dont - you dont trust them to decide what is right for them.
You say that abortion shouldnt be available but you are perfectly fine with it being available for women who travel
You claim you dont support abortion abroad really but you are unwilling to really do anything about it. You refuse for example to campaign for reversing the 13th amendment.

my posts are factual and there are no contradictions. i trust women in my posts, i trust them to make their own decisians. they just cannot kill the unborn within the irish state and i believe that to be just. i cannot stop abortion from being availible in other countries or people traveling to them to procure one. there would be no point in campaigning to try and stop it as the burdin of proof to show that an abortion took place would be impossible to provide and it would be an unreasonable expectation to try and provide it.

kylith wrote: »

More children born to unwilling parents who can't afford them is good for society?

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

kylith

end of the road wrote: »

nope wrong. my posts are factual and there are no contradictions. i trust women in my posts, i trust them to make their own decisians.

Except about what's best for them, their lives, and their existing children.

end of the road wrote: »

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

Will they though? You know for a fact that every child that a woman would have terminated if she had the money to travel will grow up to be an upstanding citizen, productive and making the country better? What about the ones born to women who are career-dole-scroungers? The ones who never had any chances in life because their parents couldn't afford to give them a leg up? The ones raised by women that didn't want them and who do a sh!tty job of parenting?

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

there is full trust of women in my posts, i trust them to make their own decisians. they just cannot kill the unborn within the state unless there is an extreme situation that requires it.

i never made such a claim. however the wellfare state can be improved.

my posts are factual and there are no contradictions. i trust women in my posts, i trust them to make their own decisians. they just cannot kill the unborn within the irish state and i believe that to be just. i cannot stop abortion from being availible in other countries or people traveling to them to procure one. there would be no point in campaigning to try and stop it as the burdin of proof to show that an abortion took place would be impossible to provide and it would be an unreasonable expectation to try and provide it.

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

This sort of wistful thinking has no place in law making.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

kylith wrote: »

More children born to unwilling parents who can't afford them is good for society?

What about unwilling fathers who have no choice at all but could be left financially obligated. I would love to see the male abortion debated as well, where men can opt out up to a stage.

kylith

Rose Swift Marlin wrote: »

What about unwilling fathers who have no choice at all but could be left financially obligated. I would love to see the male abortion debated as well, where men can opt out up to a stage.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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'

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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

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.

Mr. CooL ICE

end of the road wrote: »

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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."

.......

This post has been deleted.

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