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

SusieBlue

One eyed Jack wrote: »

WhiteRoses while I do get what you're saying, the bit in bold is I think anyway what causes confusion for people.

Yeah I can accept why it might come across that way, that’s why I explained myself a bit more. In the general sense I think it’s easier for me to just identify as pro choice.
The point I was trying to make was that I’m not pro abortion.You're not in favour of abortion for yourself. Well, isn't that a choice that you have made, for yourself?

And again, that statement only works if you imagine that the availability of abortion is a determining factor in what constitutes a progressive modern country. By that standard, China is a progressive modern country. Less said about America the better.

Absolutely. It’s one of many definitely factors in progressiveness. Not the only one. It’s just a particularly important one at the moment given the referendum.

Kurtosis

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And again, that statement only works if you imagine that the availability of abortion is a determining factor in what constitutes a progressive modern country. By that standard, China is a progressive modern country. Less said about America the better.

Abortion may be a determining factor but not the only one. Not all countries with abortion may be progressive and modern.

Bannasidhe

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Yeah I can accept why it might come across that way, that’s why I explained myself a bit more. In the general sense I think it’s easier for me to just identify as pro choice.
The point I was trying to make was that I’m not pro abortion.You're not in favour of abortion for yourself. Well, isn't that a choice that you have made, for yourself?

Absolutely. It’s one of many definitely factors in progressiveness. Not the only one. It’s just a particularly important one at the moment given the referendum.

I understand completely what you are saying.

While I, personally couldn't have seen myself choosing to have an abortion (can't say never would have because if I had ever been pregnant with a fetus that was not compatible with life then, having considered the options, I probably would have chosen to end that pregnancy), it is not my right to make that choice for other women.

I wish abortion wasn't necessary. I wish there was 100% safe contraception, no rape, no foetal abnormalities, no poverty, no addictions, no AIDS, no medical complications, basic income so parents/guardians were not forced to work outside the home out of economic necessity, affordable childcare, equal parental leave, equal pay....

Mainly I wish we had a country where every single child born is wanted and cherished.

But - I am a realist and no matter how much I wish for utopia it's not going to happen so I will work for a country where women have children because they want to rather than a country where women have children because they have no choice, where on-line pills and wire hangers are consigned to the past, where every female truly controls what happens to her own body - as least as far as medical procedure are concerned.

I am pro-choice because the only body I get to say what happens to it is my own, and what I choose to do with is is no bodies business but my own.

One eyed Jack

uptherebels wrote: »

or if you see it as the removal of a law that hinders the medical care of pregnant women;)

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.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Absolutely. It’s one of many definitely factors in progressiveness. Not the only one. It’s just a particularly important one at the moment given the referendum.

I get what you mean, I guess the difference is in how both of us would define a progressive society, and if I were to be fair to you, earlier in the discussion pilly mentioned the example of Sweden. I wouldn't think of Sweden as a progressive society, I would think of Sweden as a failed economic experiment, and as the saying goes, "a picture paints a thousand words", or graph at least, in this case -

Inequalities%20have%20widened.PNG

Source: Economic Survey of Sweden 2017
(OECD btw, so not exactly pulling it out of my arse!)

Spanish Eyes

County Roscommon will decide this.

nice_guy80

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

County Roscommon will decide this.

hopefully
how did we get on in the last one?

Annasopra

RobertKK wrote: »

But people voted for the 8th amendment in 1983, it is not like it was imposed on the country, it was the choice of the people, it doesn't matter if people use their choice to go to the UK, we are not obliged to have the same laws as other countries, even if people want to avail of them like abortion, to pay less tax, work opportunities, drug use etc.

Yeah. And now we can give them the opportunity to repeal the 8th.

nice_guy80

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I understand completely what you are saying.

While I, personally couldn't have seen myself choosing to have an abortion (can't say never would have because if I had ever been pregnant with a fetus that was not comparable with life then, having considered the options, I probably would have chosen to end that pregnancy), it is not my right to make that choice for other women.

I wish abortion wasn't necessary. I wish there was 100% safe contraception, no rape, no foetal abnormalities, no poverty, no addictions, no AIDS, no medical complications, basic income so parents/guardians were not forced to work outside the home out of economic necessity, affordable childcare, equal parental leave, equal pay....

Mainly I wish we had a country where every single child born is wanted and cherished.

But - I am a realist and no matter how much I wish for utopia it's not going to happen so I will work for a country where women have children because they want to rather than a country where women have children because they have no choice, where on-line pills and wire hangers are consigned to the past, where every female truly controls what happens to her own body - as least as far as medical procedure are concerned.

I am pro-choice because the only body I get to say what happens to it is my own, and what I choose to do with is is no bodies business but my own.

exactly
should be your choice and not based on law due to the teachings of some religious sect

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

WhiteRoses while I do get what you're saying, the bit in bold is I think anyway what causes confusion for people. You're not in favour of abortion for yourself. Well, isn't that a choice that you have made, for yourself?

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.

Annasopra

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

They think it will be like the marraige equality referendum

Nothing could be further from the truth

I dont think it will be like that at all. I dont know anyone who thinks that either.

thee glitz

NuMarvel wrote: »

Polls say that the type of change being proposed and discussed is favoured by the majority of people,so pro choicers are the ones in the middle on this.

Nothing to fear so for hard pro-choicers in finding out what people really want, since it's established that it's what they want.

But even if that wasn't the case, realistically, repeal needs to happen to effect any type of change.

It does - I'm saying there's a greater chance of that happening if the implications of doing so are restricted

The Constitution isn't the place to try and provide for abortion, and the 8th has shown us that.

It's a good place to generally prohibit it. The 8th is what we have now - can we do better?

Ireland cited for breaches of human rights on multiple occasions.

By the UN I believe - on what grounds other than they say so though?

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the AG back in 1983 argued against the text that was voted on. In his words, "the subject matter of the amendment sought is of such complexity, involves so many matters of medical and scientific, moral and jurisprudential expertise as to be incapable of accurate encapsulation into a simple constitution-type provision." That , especially the bolded part, holds true to pretty much anything we'd put into the constitution about abortion.

Change it ye, but give the people something they can support in big numbers.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Well I can only speak for myself but I have posted at length here about the other implications of the 8th, from maternity care, to consent.

I haven't given enough consideration to the implications on consent to give a reply that I would be confidently contented with. It would / will be based on a reasonability basis with regard to the health of the mother and baby.

I think any reason deemed good enough by a woman and her doctor is good enough to procure an abortion, if she feels it’s the best decision.

So any reason, potentially - doctor shopping, anyone?

Even more so in the cases of FFA and special circumstances, but I’m in support of leaving that decision up to the woman.

Even more so in these cases is my point, and this should be recognised and allowed to be voted on.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

But is abortion on demand the only solution?

Repealing the 8th is the only solution.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[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.

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: »

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.

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?