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

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

keano_afc

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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

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 .

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

If a woman is having an abortion, she doesn't choose to have an unsafe one. The ban means that's the only type of abortion available to them. THAT'S stating the obvious.

dr.fuzzenstein

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

Argument: Every life is sacred.
My reply: Sure, especially the billions who have died through poverty, hunger, war, violence, carelessness, indifference and greed in the 20th century alone.
The billions that get to live in misery, hunger, war and poverty.
The billions of children that never happened because egg and sperm didnt't combine. Or weren't viable. Or aborted spontaniously at a later stage.
The trillions of egg and sperm that never had a chance to combine.
Of course it's personal to you.
Myself I believe I am alive because of a several trillion to one chance.
And you know what? It doesn't make me one tiny bit special. I am not alive because I am entitled to it by some higher authority or power.
I may have a right to life enshrined in law, but in the end that means exactly SFA in the grand scheme of things and had I never been born it would not have made a difference to me or anyone else.
Life is far from sacred, it's the cheapest, most abundent, abused and pissed upon commodity on what we call God's green Earth.
It's ugly, but that's the truth.

keano_afc

baylah17 wrote: »

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 .

The poster said they had an abortion because they couldnt afford another child.

2 posters have said that if circumstances existed after birth where one couldnt afford to keep X amount of children, in that case "the solution would maximise the well being of all the sentient beings". Would that solution not come into play once the unaffordable child is born?

SusieBlue

keano_afc wrote: »

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

You are being deliberately ignorant now. What do you propose, we set up euthanasia stations to dispose of grown, sentient children we no longer want?

A bunch of cells, mere weeks old, in the womb are not comparable to developed, grown, sentient human being.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

keano_afc wrote: »

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

You will struggle to quote me saying any such thing anywhere on any forum ever. You wholesale made that up on your own.

What I DID say was that in BOTH scenarios the person should consider all the ETHICAL options open to them, and choose the one that bets fits their context.

I have had my words spun into dishonest versions of themselves many many times on this forum, but you have certainly exceeded all previous attempts at it here.

[Deleted User]

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Not quite sure what you mean by this, do you mean that you don't care that women have to go through unnecessary operations because of the 8th?

keano_afc

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You are being deliberately ignorant now. What do you propose, we set up euthanasia stations to dispose of grown, sentient children we no longer want?

A bunch of cells, mere weeks old, in the womb are not comparable to developed, grown, sentient human being.

Yes, in the same way a newborn seconds after birth is in no way comparable to a fully grown adult. We are all bunches of cells, some more advanced than others. That argument really doesnt hold water.

I'm not being ignorant, I'm simply trying to understand how financial difficulties can be a valid reason for ending a human life, and at what point those difficulties are no longer admissible.

keano_afc

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As I've already said, what happens when you already have a child you cant afford? What happens if your financial circumstances change at 26/28/30 weeks gestation?

One eyed Jack

pilly wrote: »

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?

....... wrote: »

But that is simply because they have no other choice in Ireland Jack - it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

It's not being disingenuous at all, it goes right back to what I've been suggesting and what has been suggested by people regardless of whether they are pro-choice or pro-life (anti-choice then, if you must) all along and what has been suggested by the evidence we have available to us -

1. The vast majority of women who choose to have an abortion do so for socioeconomic reasons
2. The vast majority of women who have abortions do not want to have abortions
3. Both people who are pro-choice and people who are anti-choice want to reduce the numbers of women who feel they have to have abortions
4. I think we can all agree that we wish the 8th weren't either necessary or that it had never been written into the Constitution in the first place
5. I think we can all agree that women opting for unsafe abortions is something none of us want

So, with all that said, it would appear to me at least that one of the ways to resolve this issue is to give women the support and resources they need so that they never have to feel like they aren't in a position where they are forced to make the decision to have an abortion due to a lack of resources and support.

Of course, I'm not naive enough to think that such a policy would or could ever account for the individual wishes of every single woman, but it would apply for vast majority of women, which I think would be a far better way to tackle the underlying cause as opposed to just using abortion as a means to avoid tackling the underlying cause and allowing it to continue.

SusieBlue

keano_afc wrote: »

Yes, in the same way a newborn seconds after birth is in no way comparable to a fully grown adult. We are all bunches of cells, some more advanced than others. That argument really doesnt hold water.

I'm not being ignorant, I'm simply trying to understand how financial difficulties can be a valid reason for ending a human life, and at what point those difficulties are no longer admissible.

Have you ever tried to live off thin air? Its quite difficult. We need money for shelter and clothing and food and healthcare and education and to a lesser extent, transport.
Those, at a minimum, are needed to live a comfortable life.
If you aren't financially stable enough to provide those things for yourself AND for another little person (never mind children you may already have), living a comfortable life would be very difficult and stressful.
Rather than impose a life of poverty on a child, some choose abortion.

I vaguely see the point you are making about living children. But there is no such thing as abortion for children who are already born. In any country. Anywhere in the world. So its irrelevant. We are discussing aborting weeks-old pregnancies, not grown children. There is a massive difference.

One eyed Jack

bubblypop wrote: »

Not quite sure what you mean by this, do you mean that you don't care that women have to go through unnecessary operations because of the 8th?

No, of course I don't. I simply meant that I don't do insincerity very well - I can't pretend to feel something I don't, which is why I said nothing, rather than express sentiments I don't genuinely feel, because I see that as being disrespectful. That's all.

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So, with all that said, it would appear to me at least that one of the ways to resolve this issue is to give women the support and resources they need so that they never have to feel like they aren't in a position where they are forced to make the decision to have an abortion due to a lack of resources and support.

Of course, I'm not naive enough to think that such a policy would or could ever account for the individual wishes of every single woman, but it would apply for vast majority of women, which I think would be a far better way to tackle the underlying cause as opposed to just using abortion as a means to avoid tackling the underlying cause and allowing it to continue.

And this can be done while also repealing the Eighth and legislating for increased access to abortion. In the same way, more can be done to improve sex education and access to contraception while also repealing the Eighth and legislating for increased access to abortion.

These aren't either/or situations, both can be done simultaneously, and no one has even hinted that socio-economic issues shouldn’t be addressed. Indeed, you’ll find that pro-choice groups like the NCWI and Amnesty have a history of campaigning on socio-economic issues, whereas anti-repeal groups like Iona don’t.

keano_afc

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Have you ever tried to live off thin air? Its quite difficult. We need money for shelter and clothing and food and healthcare and education and to a lesser extent, transport.
Those, at a minimum, are needed to live a comfortable life.
If you aren't financially stable enough to provide those things for yourself AND for another little person (never mind children you may already have), living a comfortable life would be very difficult and stressful.
Rather than impose a life of poverty on a child, some choose abortion.

I vaguely see the point you are making about living children. But there is no such thing as abortion for children who are already born. In any country. Anywhere in the world. So its irrelevant. We are discussing aborting weeks-old pregnancies. There is a massive difference.

Myself and my wife have 2 kids, and a third on the way. We are barely surviving financially and if I'm honest, I'm struggling to see how we can afford another. And yet, the thought of ending that life is abhorrent to me.

I'm not seeing how options that are there for families that suddenly find themselves in poverty are not also available if a child is taken to term. If a family with 3 kids suddenly find themselves only able to afford 2 (although I'm not entirely sure how that would work), the options available to them are no different to a couple with 2 kids who get pregnant and cant afford a third.

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not being disingenuous at all, it goes right back to what I've been suggesting and what has been suggested by people regardless of whether they are pro-choice or pro-life (anti-choice then, if you must) all along and what has been suggested by the evidence we have available to us -

1. The vast majority of women who choose to have an abortion do so for socioeconomic reasons
2. The vast majority of women who have abortions do not want to have abortions
3. Both people who are pro-choice and people who are anti-choice want to reduce the numbers of women who feel they have to have abortions
4. I think we can all agree that we wish the 8th weren't either necessary or that it had never been written into the Constitution in the first place
5. I think we can all agree that women opting for unsafe abortions is something none of us want

So, with all that said, it would appear to me at least that one of the ways to resolve this issue is to give women the support and resources they need so that they never have to feel like they aren't in a position where they are forced to make the decision to have an abortion due to a lack of resources and support.

Of course, I'm not naive enough to think that such a policy would or could ever account for the individual wishes of every single woman, but it would apply for vast majority of women, which I think would be a far better way to tackle the underlying cause as opposed to just using abortion as a means to avoid tackling the underlying cause and allowing it to continue.

Whilst I agree in a Uthopian world no woman should ever have to have an abortion we're not living in one.

In fact in Sweden which I would consider to be one of the best in the world in terms of childcare, parental support etc. the abortion rate is still 25% which to me suggests very simply that 25% of pregnancies are accidental and really not wanted.

It's just the reality of it. Socio-economic reasons is kind of a catch all term but it doesn't simply mean "I can't afford the child", it also means "I can't change my life at the moment, I'm happy with the way it is".

dr.fuzzenstein

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I vaguely see the point you are making about living children. But there is no such thing as abortion for children who are already born. In any country. Anywhere in the world. So its irrelevant. We are discussing aborting weeks-old pregnancies, not grown children. There is a massive difference.

That's the point of some people all along.
To them there is zero difference to aborting a weeks old foetus to grabbing a random child off the street and bashing it's skull in with a brick whilst laughing maniacally.
The "abortion of children already born" argument is saying exactly that.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pilly

keano_afc wrote: »

Myself and my wife have 2 kids, and a third on the way. We are barely surviving financially and if I'm honest, I'm struggling to see how we can afford another. And yet, the thought of ending that life is abhorrent to me.

I'm not seeing how options that are there for families that suddenly find themselves in poverty are not also available if a child is taken to term. If a family with 3 kids suddenly find themselves only able to afford 2 (although I'm not entirely sure how that would work), the options available to them are no different to a couple with 2 kids who get pregnant and cant afford a third.

Pro-lifers often argue that it's selfish to have an abortion. In a lot of cases I think it's selfish to go through with the pregnancy. You're bringing another child into the world that you can't afford.

I'm not specifically referring to your case here now but a lot of pro lifers would be the very ones on other threads about homelessness jumping up and down saying we shouldn't give Biddy a "free" house because she has a load of kids she can't afford. It's hypocritical to say the least.

keano_afc

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That's the point of some people all along.
To them there is zero difference to aborting a weeks old foetus to grabbing a random child off the street and bashing it's skull in with a brick whilst laughing maniacally.

In both scenarios a human life is ended.

Although there might be slightly less laughing in the first example you gave.