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

nozzferrahhtoo

Da Boss wrote: »

They seem to consider abortion as some sort of “right” and are so blinded they see no wrong.

How can one be blind to something that is not even there? That is like calling someone a vegetarian because they happen not to be eating meat the moment you look at them. It makes no sense at all.

The problem is not that people like me are "blind" to the wrongs of abortion. It is that people like you, when asked directly (which I have) fail to show there is anything wrong with it.

You genuinely appear to think that screeching "wrong" at something often enough magically makes it so.

humpsterfire wrote: »

The problem isn't can or cant you have an abortion, the real problem is whether you 100% practice safe sex or not.
Another step down the ladder from personal responsibility for society as a whole.

The problem with your rhetoric here is that it ignores the scaling that occurs with large numbers. Even if 100% of society tomorrow suddenly started practicing 3 or 4 forms of safe sex (you listed some yourself) there will STILL be some statistical % of failures and STILL be unwanted pregnancies.

The sheer quantity of people having sex, multiplied by the sheer number of times they HAVE sex...... means that even a small % of failures results in a rather large number of unwanted pregnancies.

Unless you want to live in a fantasy world of abstinence approaches to contraception (and we have seen how well abstinence only practices have NOT gone in places like the US) then it quickly becomes apparent that high horse screeching of "responsibility" at people is not going to deal with the issues at all.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Surely all babies are clumps of developing cells?

Well to be pedantic few cells are "developing cells". Each cell is pretty much complete in it's own right. What the cells as a whole are doing is developing into a more complex over all life form. A cell in a 20 week old fetus for example is no more a "developing cell" than one at the end of your nose right now.

The more pertinent fact is that a fetus, yourself, myself, a tree, a cow are all just "a clump of cells". The question is what makes one clump of cells in this world more "important" or deserving of "rights" than any other clump of cells.

What I find in the topic of abortion is that when I identify the attributes that elevate one "clump of cells" over another...... they happen to always be attributes that the fetus in the 0-16 week window (when the near totality of choice based abortion occurs) lacks not just slightly but ENTIRELY.

Peregrinus

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

So the IT reports this morning that the Government is pressing ahead with preparing legislation to allow for up to 12 weeks, despite concerns that the public won't support it.

It occurs to me, are FG just going through the motions here? They present a referendum which they are pretty sure will be rejected, but can then turn around and say "well we gave people their say" and consider the issue closed, thus not addressing it or having to face the potential fall out from their conservative base.

I doubt this. In general, to have promoted a referendum which doesn't pass is politically damaging. It makes a government look out of touch (you didn't realise it wouldn't pass)/lacking in leadership (you couldn't persuade people to vote for it).

To my mind there;s always been a fundamental weakness in the pro-choice position (and I say this as a pro-choice person myself); while there's a majority who dislike the Eighth Amendment, it's not clear there's a majority for any particular alternative. Pointing out the effects of the Eighth Amendment on women facing health issues, on women who have been raped, etc, is effective at building dissatisfaction with the Eighth, but what you're assembling is a coalition of people, many of whom don't believe in a woman's right to choose, and who won't vote for it.

So this choice was always going to have to be made - an amendment which will address "hard cases" of rape, incest, substantial medical issues but which won't confer a general right to choose a termination, which will will certainly pass but will not change the position of most women, or an amendment which opens up a genuine right to choose, which might not pass.

If all you favour is a right to abortion in the hard cases, then obviously this is a no-brainer; you go for the more limited amendment. But if you favour a general right to choose, it's not so easy; you have to think clearly about the the risk that amendment you prefer would, if put forward, be rejected, likely resulting in paralysis on this issue for another decade or so. This isn't due to Machiavellian scheming by pro-life groups and socially conservative forces.

My guess is that those who advocate risking all for the more pro-choice option do so because, while recognising the risk of losing, they think this is the only amendment worth having; a "hard cases only" amendment would have symbolic significance, but it would leave the position of the majority of Irish women unchanged.

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Repealing the 8th is the only solution.

It's only part of a number of solutions. Getting people to vote for it relies on the the possible outcomes being known. Given the choice of retaining the 8th, or repealing allowing special circumstances only, I believe many pro-choicers would vote to retain! Until such time that these cases and abortion on demand becomes an all or nothing question. If abortion on demand is what people want, I'm sure we'll get it. If we do end up with, let's make sure that it's because it's wanted.

_Kaiser_

So the IT reports this morning that the Government is pressing ahead with preparing legislation to allow for up to 12 weeks, despite concerns that the public won't support it.

It occurs to me, are FG just going through the motions here? They present a referendum which they are pretty sure will be rejected, but can then turn around and say "well we gave people their say" and consider the issue closed, thus not addressing it or having to face the potential fall out from their conservative base.

dr.fuzzenstein

ofll I consider the arguments on the pro life side progress.
Decades and centuries ago masturbation was considered a sin. Also frivolous sex and after that birth control became the next Great Evil and the argument was always the same.
Every Sperm is Sacred!
So now after decades of bitterly fighting tooth and nail for every fraction of an inch, anyone who still says masturbation, sex and birth control are a Sin Unto the Lord sounds like a complete nutter and the anti choice brigade is very carefully steering away from the Bible basher image.
After the above conceded retreats, the battle line has now moved into sperm and egg combining to form a zygote, or fully functioning and sentient human being as the anti side will have it.
Feel free to say "no it isn't" and discredit your entire argument.

I'm not a fan of abortion, but sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALAAAA!!!! I I CAN'T HEAR IT, IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!" is not the answer.
In the end it will be the majority that decides and you will have to concede this battle line as well.

Peregrinus

sondagefaux wrote: »

It will develop or it might develop? It's not certain that every conception results in the live birth of a viable child. Far from it: between 10% and 20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriages, although the real figure is likely to be far higher as many miscarriages occur so early that women never knew they were pregnant.

It has the potential to develop, in a way that neither the sperm nor the egg do. More, it's oriented towards development; development will happen unless Something Goes Wrong. Of its nature, it's constantly developing towards maturity, and the only way this will stop is if something happens to bring about its death.

So, yeah, it's fundamentally different from the sperm or the egg in that respect, neither of which will develop at all unless a particular contingency - fertilisation - occurs.

What the moral or ethical implications of this difference are is another matter, of course. But that the difference exists is not really open to question.

sondagefaux

end of the road wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

You and I are going to have a respectful disagreement here. It is not a baby. It is a ball of cells. What it could become is irrelevant. I am all about protecting unborn babies; but only at the point that they become babies. Potentially becoming babies doesn't make a clump of cells sentient or valuable.

what it will be is relevant though, that is the reality and we can't sweep it away.
the ball of cells will develop into a baby eventually, so only protecting it when it becomes a baby isn't enough ultimately. it has to be able to develop first, so has to be protected pre-baby.

It will develop or it might develop? It's not certain that every conception results in the live birth of a viable child. Far from it: between 10% and 20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriages, although the real figure is likely to be far higher as many miscarriages occur so early that women never knew they were pregnant.

Miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week. About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. But the actual number is likely higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn't realize she's pregnant.
...
Most miscarriages occur before the 12th week of pregnancy.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/pregnancy-loss-miscarriage/symptoms-causes/syc-20354298

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Sperm and eggs are also pre-babies. So they need protecting too?

I wouldn't use the term pre-babies myself, but neither sperm nor eggs in isolation have any potential of ever becoming a baby. Why would you even ask that question?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You and I are going to have a respectful disagreement here. It is not a baby.

What does or doesn't constitute a baby isn't defined by science, it's defined by social norms and cultural values.

It is a ball of cells. What it could become is irrelevant.

Have you ever thought to try that perspective on anyone who has lost a baby? I'm guessing telling them that they lose about 40 million skin cells a day isn't likely going to be of much comfort either. Don't be surprised if they ask you what's wrong with you. They're not being rude, they're genuinely curious.

I am all about protecting unborn babies; but only at the point that they become babies.

Painting yourself into a rather awkward corner there.

Potentially becoming babies doesn't make a clump of cells sentient or valuable.

If your only criteria is sentience, then it's understandable you would see no value in that which isn't sentient. However sentience isn't and has never been the determining criteria in determining to whom we assign human rights. Clue is in the 'human' bit, and it is that upon which value is predicated.

Sentient rights are an entirely different philosophical argument.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

You and I are going to have a respectful disagreement here. It is not a baby. It is a ball of cells. What it could become is irrelevant. I am all about protecting unborn babies; but only at the point that they become babies. Potentially becoming babies doesn't make a clump of cells sentient or valuable.

what it will be is relevant though, that is the reality and we can't sweep it away.
the ball of cells will develop into a baby eventually, so only protecting it when it becomes a baby isn't enough ultimately. it has to be able to develop first, so has to be protected pre-baby.

Sperm and eggs are also pre-babies. So they need protecting too?

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

You and I are going to have a respectful disagreement here. It is not a baby. It is a ball of cells. What it could become is irrelevant. I am all about protecting unborn babies; but only at the point that they become babies. Potentially becoming babies doesn't make a clump of cells sentient or valuable.

what it will be is relevant though, that is the reality and we can't sweep it away.
the ball of cells will develop into a baby eventually, so only protecting it when it becomes a baby isn't enough ultimately. it has to be able to develop first, so has to be protected pre-baby.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Unborn babies will still be protected under the guidelines set out by the citizens assembly. Clump of developing cells isn't afforded those rights, because it isn't a baby.

Surely all babies are clumps of developing cells?

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

it will be a baby so has to have protection so that it can develop.

You and I are going to have a respectful disagreement here. It is not a baby. It is a ball of cells. What it could become is irrelevant. I am all about protecting unborn babies; but only at the point that they become babies. Potentially becoming babies doesn't make a clump of cells sentient or valuable.

end of the road

Oldtree wrote: »

So you would agree then that if a woman (having full control) decides it isn't a viable situation, it isn't a viable situation?

no . a couple of examples of non-viable situations would be. FFA, threat to the mother's life, threat of permanent disability to the mother.

Deleted User wrote: »

Unborn babies will still be protected under the guidelines set out by the citizens assembly. Clump of developing cells isn't afforded those rights, because it isn't a baby.

it will be a baby so has to have protection so that it can develop.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

not when it risks the removal of the rights and protections of the unborn.

Unborn babies will still be protected under the guidelines set out by the citizens assembly. Clump of developing cells isn't afforded those rights, because it isn't a baby.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

So, you 'trust' women, but think they lack a decision making capacity and are easily coerced into making decisions against their best interests? I hate to break it to you, but that's kind of the opposite of trusting women.

No need for the inverted commas kylith, I also never said I thought they lack a decision making capacity or that they are easily coerced into making decisions against their best interests. You don't hate to break anything to me, in fact I suspect you quite revel in it given the way you've twisted what I said to try and make what I said sound like I don't trust women, but if I said that makes you untrustworthy, it still isn't saying I don't trust women, it's saying I don't trust you.

I trust you won't be addressing this question I originally asked of you either -

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.

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?

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.

I included the other posts for context. In your own time.

Oldtree

humpsterfire wrote: »

The problem isn't can or cant you have an abortion, the real problem is whether you 100% practice safe sex or not.

Even if you practice 100% safe sex, it is not a 100% guarantee that the woman will 100% not get pregnant.

Oldtree

end of the road wrote: »

no, that's not what i'm saying at all. the ideal outcome would be that abortion on demand wouldn't be availible, but other then that issue the woman would have full control of procedures performed on her. the only thing that is being looked for here is for the protections for the unborn to remain unless it is a situation where it isn't viable for that to happen.

So you would agree then that if a woman (having full control) decides it isn't a viable situation, it isn't a viable situation?

humpsterfire

If you half don't want to get pregnant/impregnate, expect choppy results.

Man wears a condom, use a separate spermicidal lubricant, woman wears female condom (whatever that's called), the pill. You want to be less sensible, only choose one. You want to be sensible, choose at least 3.

The problem isn't can or cant you have an abortion, the real problem is whether you 100% practice safe sex or not.

Another step down the ladder from personal responsibility for society as a whole.

end of the road

kylith wrote: »

So because some women who don't want to be pregnant will use the repeal of the 8th to not be pregnant any more no pregnant woman should have control over what medical procedures are performed on her?

no, that's not what i'm saying at all. the ideal outcome would be that abortion on demand wouldn't be availible, but other then that issue the woman would have full control of procedures performed on her. the only thing that is being looked for here is for the protections for the unborn to remain unless it is a situation where it isn't viable for that to happen.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That statement carries as much meaning as me saying "abortion has no place in modern Ireland", because society has progressed a massive amount in the last 30 odd years!

You asked the question does EOTR trust women, and by that I assume you mean does the person you're asking trust women to make decisions for themselves when they have the full capacity and freedom and resources to make decisions for themselves. On that basis, yes, of course I trust women.

The people I don't trust is anyone who would exploit someone else's lack of decision making capacity to coerce anyone into making decisions they wouldn't normally make for themselves that aren't in their best interests, but which serve the interests of those people encouraging them towards an outcome which suits that persons best interests.

So, you 'trust' women, but think they lack a decision making capacity and are easily coerced into making decisions against their best interests? I hate to break it to you, but that's kind of the opposite of trusting women.

end of the road wrote: »

not when it risks the removal of the rights and protections of the unborn.

So because some women who don't want to be pregnant will use the repeal of the 8th to not be pregnant any more no pregnant woman should have control over what medical procedures are performed on her?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Once again I'm disappointed but not all that surprised to see that a poster like One Eyed Jack, who spends a lot of time on these 8th amendment discussions, seems not to be aware of the full range of its effects. Selective vision I suspect.

I am fully aware of the full range of the effect of the 8th amendment. I guess the selective vision you speak of goes both ways. It's more likely though that it's just a difference of perspective.

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Repealing the 8th is the only solution.

not when it risks the removal of the rights and protections of the unborn.

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

But is abortion on demand the only solution?

Repealing the 8th is the only solution.

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

really is the only way the 8th has got a huge chance of being repealed. currently the chance is very very slim.

Well in that case I'd advise you to put your house on the 8th to be retained @ 3/1 with Paddy Power...

volchitsa

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It is though. That is the really crazy thing here. The 8th amendment isnt just about abortion at all. It has a number of negative impacts for maternity services and those who are pregnant.

It probably has more of an effect on pregnant women who don't want an abortion at all, like Savita of course, but also PP, the woman who was kept rotting on a life support machine despite being already dead, or the many women who are threatened with prosecution for refusing various medical procedures like ARM or c-sections, like the Ms B case which was discussed here a while back, or Ciara Hamilton, or Aja Teehan, and who knows how many others.

Women who want an abortion generally manage to get one, either by traveling or by ordering pills on the Internet. Women who are miscarrying or giving birth OTOH, or who need other pregnancy care, have very little choice.

Once again I'm disappointed but not all that surprised to see that a poster like One Eyed Jack, who spends a lot of time on these 8th amendment discussions, seems not to be aware of the full range of its effects. Selective vision I suspect.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Well of course. That's why it's called pro-choice and not pro-abortion, despite how the other side would have it. In fact you're (unwittingly I assume) making the case that they should be called anti choice, since it's the "choice" bit that seems to puzzle you so.

Whereas in fact someone choosing not to terminate a pregnancy is as much of a right for pro choice as the right to terminate it.

I never used the term 'pro-abortion', because that's just silly. I also don't mind if anyone were to call it 'anti-choice', as I said earlier - if they must. No, WhiteRoses pronouncement that she was not in favour of abortion for herself kinda reminded me of Lena Dunhams recent 'foot in mouth' effort, no, not the one where she says all women must be believed, and then went on to accuse a woman of lying about her being sexually assaulted by Dunhams friend, I mean the one before that, at the women's march, where she said she wished she too had had an abortion. I'm guessing WhiteRoses isn't a complete nutjob though, so that's why I was wondering what all that was about :pac:

No, the kind of pro-choice position I'll never get my head around is the pro-choice (but on my terms) position. In that case, everyone is also pro-choice, it just depends where upon that spectrum people allow for others to make that choice for themselves. By that standard, David Quinn isn't anti-choice, he's pro-choice, until fertilisation :pac:

Ok, ever so slightly facetious, but hopefully you get the point - the labels (pro-choice/anti-choice/pro-life/anti-life, hell even the new pro-birth/anti-birth nonsense) really don't matter.

end of the road

Akrasia wrote: »

bodily autonomy is a right.

The next time someone from the government turns up telling you that you have been conscripted into a medical drug trial you might remember that.

We value autonomy so much that we don't harvest organs from the dead without express consent even if doing so would save the lives of innocent children

and as said if this was about bodily autonomy there would be 100% support for repeal of the 8th.
however killing the unborn bar extreme circumstances goes out of the threshold where it would be reasonable to consider an act as exercising bodily autonomy.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Legal abortion will be available in this country at some point in the near future. This is undeniable.
I’m not saying it will be in the next referendum, but it will be passed eventually.
However, you have nothing to worry about; because you will never be forced to have an abortion.
Men and women will finally be equal in terms of bodily autonomy. Every aspect of pregnancy will be safer. I can’t wait for Ireland to join every other progressive modern country in the world.

men and women would be equal in terms of bodily autonomy without the availability of abortion on demand. that is why the government should decide not to legislate for abortion on demand as that way the 8th could be repealed with full support of irish society. bodily autonomy would be equal, the unborn would be protected as much as is practical, and the other issues the 8th cause which are of concern across the board could be removed once and for all. it really is the only way the 8th has got a huge chance of being repealed. currently the chance is very very slim.

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It is though. That is the really crazy thing here. The 8th amendment isnt just about abortion at all. It has a number of negative impacts for maternity services and those who are pregnant.

But is abortion on demand the only solution?

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ahh right, that explains why I didn't understand the point, because I don't see it as a law that hinders the medical care of pregnant women. I see it as a law that protects the right to life of the unborn.

It is though. That is the really crazy thing here. The 8th amendment isnt just about abortion at all. It has a number of negative impacts for maternity services and those who are pregnant.