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

Loafing Oaf

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

but in reality would rather detain women and chain them up, forcing them to have their babies.

they are happy to take a deeply hypocritical stance

I don't see how these can both be true for the same person or group. I believe the latter rather than the former has long been the reality for most Irish pro-lifers, as demonstrated in the right-to-travel referendum.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

no, i don't.
i was referring to the case where carying the baby to term may cause permanent disability to the mother, something i have been clear about throughout the thread.

Indeed. You continuously opine about how you support abortion in extreme circumstances. At the end of the day though you don't because you continuously put fetuss before womens lives. I think Bannasidhe really summed up your stance quite well when referring to another poster.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This reads to me that essentially you believe that those already born, breathing, living, women who are impacted - in some cases dying - because of the 8th are merely collateral damage in some ethical battle to 'save' potential living, breathing, people.
Any women (or girl) who is 'of child bearing age' in Ireland could be the next victim but that is a necessary step...

That is awful.

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I notice as well now EOTR supports abortion where there in the case the child may be disabled.

no, i don't.
i was referring to the case where carying the baby to term may cause permanent disability to the mother, something i have been clear about throughout the thread.

dr.fuzzenstein

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or any other kind of abortion. That is kind of their thing.

The anti abortion side had to concede on abnormalities, rape, incest, right to information, right to travel and risk of suicide.
They simply shrug their shoulders now and pretend they're alright with all of that, but in reality would rather detain women and chain them up, forcing them to have their babies.
For all the united front they put up, putting even "Ulster Says No" to shame, they were pushed back every single time.
The fact that they shrug their shoulders when it comes to the fact that women travel abroad to have abortions shows that they are happy to take a deeply hypocritical stance and they don't give a flying fcuk about them or any other women.
As we have seen on this thread they are reduced to saying "no we weren't" and "no it's not", while they maintain an air of moral superiority and simply plow on as if everything is going exactly their way. It's called Bunker Mentality.
They know this is the last line in the sand, the last battle, the final retreat, after they had to concede inch by inch after decades of bitter fighting tooth and nail, but this is endgame.
They know they're playing Comical Ali when they say everything is going as planned for them.
For some reason all my posts have been met with deafening silence from the No camp, I won't engage in their silly semantics and hair splitting and I'm looking past an agenda, which they are unable to, so they can't argue on anything outside theirs.

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or we could have a Referendum....

Yes - that's what I was referring to.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or any other kind of abortion. That is kind of their thing.

Do you think they represent sizeable proportion of the people here, or maybe you're not well placed to answer that?

Zubeneschamali

thee glitz wrote: »

I guess they'd be fairly against opening up the possibility of abortion on demand any time soon.

Or any other kind of abortion. That is kind of their thing.

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

I guess they'd be fairly against opening up the possibility of abortion on demand any time soon. Or is there anything to be said for polling the people?

Or we could have a Referendum....

thee glitz

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So even with an unworkable wording for FFA, rape and incest only, the Pro-Life movement would have fought it tooth and nail, just as they wanted to keep travel and information illegal, just as they tried to remove the suicide exception, twice.

I guess they'd be fairly against opening up the possibility of abortion on demand any time soon. Or is there anything to be said for polling the people?

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

if there was no chance of abortion on demand being legislated for, there would have been huge support from the pro-life movement.

I have read many, many times from the pro-life crew that fetuses are babies, fuill stop. No killing them just because their dad is a rapist, no killing them because their dad is their grandad too, and the one about the little baby who the mother was told by evil doctors would never live who grew up to win the Nobel Prize, the Eurovision and an all Ireland hurling medal.

So even with an unworkable wording for FFA, rape and incest only, the Pro-Life movement would have fought it tooth and nail, just as they wanted to keep travel and information illegal, just as they tried to remove the suicide exception, twice.

And these were not handfuls of votes, they were 30+ percent of the electorate.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

i haven't dodged anything.

Except the MULTIPLE posts on this thread from me, that you have simply dodged. We are not talking about one point or one post here. We are talking about an ongoing demonstrably consistent MO where you ignore posts I write to you, wait a few hours or days, then take pot shots at a post I have written to someone else.

end of the road wrote: »

in the future, the human being unborn life will be sentient and have experience

A) You do not know that. Many fetuses simply do not survive.

So we are agreed, it is NOT a sentient agent now. You just imagine it being in the future.
C) You are stll not comparing like with like. You refuse to compare two things now, rather you have to take one now, and one you imagine in the future, so the comparison gives what YOU want it to give.

dr.fuzzenstein

end of the road wrote: »

most people who are against abortion on demand are concerned for both. that is why we support abortion when necessary but don't when it isn't, meaning that where the baby does have a genuine effect on the mother it's life can be terminated. it doesn't mean we agree with the act, but we understand it's necessary as it would cause an unacceptible outcome in the form of death or permanent disability.

Except that's not what you do.
You support abortion for medical reasons and all others you would rather they don't, but you don't care if they do a coat hanger job or travel to England.
So you can sit on your moral high horse and say "There's No Abortion (on demand) in Ireland!" You don't give a flaming fart for those women.
Since you don't support capturing women who want to abort and chain them to a bed forcing them to have their baby all I get is the very unsavoury wiff of a hypocrite.

As for the clump of cells debate:
EOTR has his views and others have a different view. Will we just leave it there please?
In the end the votes decide, but whatever the outcome, you cannot FORCE someone to change their mind, will you please just agree to disagree?
This endless back and forth about this point is very tedious and can't be resolved.

Annasopra

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Lol, EOTR getting on his high horse about a claim being false when he has made a few false claims himself and has never admitted any of them were false, cause fcuk the truth getting in the way of his narrative.

This is just Panto. I notice as well now EOTR supports abortion where there in the case the child may be disabled. Another contradictory position from a so called pro life poster. Laughable really.

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

oh no i'm not. you made a claim about a poster. that claim was false. when pointed out to you by that poster and myself that your claim was false, you continued to make the claim.

Lol, EOTR getting on his high horse about a claim being false when he has made a few false claims himself and has never admitted any of them were false, cause fcuk the truth getting in the way of his narrative.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Loving how you keep ignoring the posts I write to you, put take pot shots at other posts I make to other people. Dodge much?

i haven't dodged anything. i actually meant to get back to you but had other things to do.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is not above an ant in terms of sentience, brain power, experience and a developed brain however. To put one above the other you have to look at what one is, and what the other MIGHT be in the future. Hardly comparing like with like there are you.

in the future, the human being unborn life will be sentient and have experience, a developed brain and brain power way above an ant. so therefore the human life comes above that of an ant.

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You are embarassing yourself now

oh no i'm not. you made a claim about a poster. that claim was false. when pointed out to you by that poster and myself that your claim was false, you continued to make the claim.

uptherebels wrote: »

When people call you a nimby in relation to abortion it is because as you have said before that your support for the right to life is limited by geography.

no, when people call me all sorts it's based on makey uppy nonsense and stuff i never said. my posts are twisted to mean and say what those people want them to say and to mean, in an aim to get them to fit the bogyman nonsense they have created in their heads.

eviltwin wrote: »

It says everything that some people are more concerned with the fate of individuals yet to be conceived than actual women and girls.

most people who are against abortion on demand are concerned for both. that is why we support abortion when necessary but don't when it isn't, meaning that where the baby does have a genuine effect on the mother it's life can be terminated. it doesn't mean we agree with the act, but we understand it's necessary as it would cause an unacceptible outcome in the form of death or permanent disability.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

What risks, what are you comparing?

The risks you referred to as being present in the current situation minus whatever ones might be mitigated by the alternative you'd propose in lieu of the Committee's recommendations.

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't care much for the CA - what's this thread called and why anyway? Apparently, they voted one way, but the proclaimed 'result' was something else due to the farcical way it was determined. I also don't buy your concern for women's lives being any greater than mine - would you accept the possibility of legislating for abortion on demand being kicked 10 years down the road if it meant an end to women dying due the 8th?

I watched the whole vote. It was very clear. Each proposal was clearly made, any clarifications sought were provided, then the vote on that particular proposal was not only taken - they had a vote as to whether they would vote.
No apparent discrepancy at all - the resulting report reflected the vote.
Glad to clear that up.

And what?

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So you are admitting the 8th puts women's lives in danger and you want situation to continue unless the government dismisses the recommendations of the Citizen's Assembly and brings in a more restrictive regime than they proposed?

Once again we see a so called 'pro-lifer' using women's lives to further their agenda.

I don't care much for the CA - what's this thread called and why anyway? Apparently, they voted one way, but the proclaimed 'result' was something else due to the farcical way it was determined. I also don't buy your concern for women's lives being any greater than mine - would you accept the possibility of legislating for abortion on demand being kicked 10 years down the road if it meant an end to women dying due the 8th?

NuMarvel wrote: »

Plus, a more restrictive regime would still put most women's lives at risk because it would only benefit a smaller number of women, meaning the remainder would continue to exposed to the risks of a general abortion ban.

What risks, what are you comparing?

eviltwin

It says everything that some people are more concerned with the fate of individuals yet to be conceived than actual women and girls.

NuMarvel

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So you are admitting the 8th puts women's lives in danger and you want situation to continue unless the government dismisses the recommendations of the Citizen's Assembly and brings in a more restrictive regime than they proposed?

Once again we see a so called 'pro-lifer' using women's lives to further their agenda.

Plus, a more restrictive regime would still put most women's lives at risk because it would only benefit a smaller number of women, meaning the remainder would continue to exposed to the risks of a general abortion ban.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

that's rich. we have had a couple of pro-choicers on here doing nothing but making up things about other individuals on this site.

When people call you a nimby in relation to abortion it is because as you have said before that your support for the right to life is limited by geography.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't see much point in us continuing this conversation then

A move you often make. But if you decide to bow back in again I will repeat here a post you appear to have missed earlier:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The 8th has a positive effect on her right to life before she's even born though?

I am still curious what your interest even is in a law that protects the right to life of the unborn given you have indicated to me in the past (assuming you were not just communicating poorly) that you believe a woman should be able to have a termination of her pregnancy at any stage, for any reason.

I am very interested to hear how one can hold the position that a woman should have the right to terminate the pregnancy at any stage for any reason........ while also holding to the position the unborn should have a right to life.

You have told us "that a woman should have full control over her own body at any stage in her pregnancy.".

Is that not at odds with a law that gives a right to life to the unborn?

You have also told us that "Before it's born, it's a foetus, inside a pregnant woman, who does not want to continue her pregnancy. After it's born, it's no longer a foetus, but an individual human being upon which we confer human rights."

Is there not a contradiction in saying we confer rights after birth, but having a law that gives it rights before birth? Which is it? It can not be both!

I genuinely would like to see the connection here, because at the moment it is like reading the posts of two totally different people posting under one single user name. Perhaps a simple re-wording of your points is all that is required for me to see the missing link, but right now things appear to by entirely contradictory.

Or maybe even better, because second voices can often be clearer than one.... if someone ELSE understands how this conflict is resolved and understands OEJs position here, could you adumbrate it in your own words for me. Maybe I will understand the same point better simply made by a different person in a different way?

nozzferrahhtoo

uptherebels wrote: »

Please explain to me, how as a 30 year old male the 8th affects me.

At a guess I expect he will say that it affected you when you were a fetus, because it gave you a right to life as an unborn.

Weirdly he also says women should have a right to terminate the pregnancy at ANY stage for ANY reason though. And he also claims that the fetus inside such a woman is something without right, because it gets these AFTER it is born and is given human rights.

If you can make sense of these contradictions, you are a better man than I.

nozzferrahhtoo

Loving how you keep ignoring the posts I write to you, put take pot shots at other posts I make to other people. Dodge much?

end of the road wrote: »

the reality however is that the unborn even in it's first few weeks is above an ant, given that it will likely develop if not stopped, into a complex human person.

It is not above an ant in terms of sentience, brain power, experience and a developed brain however. To put one above the other you have to look at what one is, and what the other MIGHT be in the future. Hardly comparing like with like there are you.

uptherebels

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's in the Irish Constitution which acts as a guiding document for Irish society so of course you and everyone else and even those yet to be born are affected by it.

I can, I just did, and I'll likely do it again. How you choose to interpret what I say is entirely up to you.

I don't know why you refer to anti choicers as I've said I am neither pro-choice nor anti-choice as the labels mean nothing to me, but I formed that opinion given the number of pregnant women and women who have given birth since the inception of the 8th amendment, and the number of women who have been negatively affected by the existence of the 8th amendment, as a subset of those women.

Please explain to me, how as a 30 year old male the 8th affects me.

So you know how many women were negatively affected by the 8th?

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As blithe and dismissive as your own, yes, that is my response.

I wouldn't have considered your first post a dramatic performance, but it was your reply to mine suggesting I was being dramatic when I responded to you in kind, that had me think if anyone is being dramatic here, it sure as hell ain't me. You're only getting back what you gave out in the first place, so if you're going to be dismissive, you shouldn't be surprised and should expect the same in return.

I've been civil even when you interpreted my posts with malicious intent, but my patience wears thin when you're constantly at it. I'm not upset by that, I'm not angry about it, I'm not stroppy about it, or any of the other many characteristics you might try and imply. I'm just tired. That's all. I'm tired and I'm wore out and I thought it wasn't too much to expect a bit of human decency and understanding goes both ways. I was wrong. Clearly you're under the impression that it only goes one way.

I don't see much point in us continuing this conversation then, and with that said, I'll bow out for now.

So you have no actual response to the fact that a vote to retain the 8th essentially says dead women are collateral damage.

You prefer to make it all about you. It's not about you Jack. It's not about me. Neither of us will ever have a crises pregnancy.

This is about women's right to life and right to decide what happens their own bodies.

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

Promoting abortion on demand as being the result of repealing the 8th is also putting women's lives in danger, by making it less likely to pass.

thee glitz wrote: »

There's no real proof (necessary) except people saying that they would vote to repeal the 8th, but wouldn't if it meant abortion on demand.

So you are admitting the 8th puts women's lives in danger and you want situation to continue unless the government dismisses the recommendations of the Citizen's Assembly and brings in a more restrictive regime than they proposed?

Once again we see a so called 'pro-lifer' using women's lives to further their agenda.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seriously?
That's your response?

As blithe and dismissive as your own, yes, that is my response.

I wouldn't have considered your first post a dramatic performance, but it was your reply to mine suggesting I was being dramatic when I responded to you in kind, that had me think if anyone is being dramatic here, it sure as hell ain't me. You're only getting back what you gave out in the first place, so if you're going to be dismissive, you shouldn't be surprised and should expect the same in return.

I've been civil even when you interpreted my posts with malicious intent, but my patience wears thin when you're constantly at it. I'm not upset by that, I'm not angry about it, I'm not stroppy about it, or any of the other many characteristics you might try and imply. I'm just tired. That's all. I'm tired and I'm wore out and I thought it wasn't too much to expect a bit of human decency and understanding goes both ways. I was wrong. Clearly you're under the impression that it only goes one way.

I don't see much point in us continuing this conversation then, and with that said, I'll bow out for now.

ohnonotgmail

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You are embarassing yourself now

Now???

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

you either haven't, or are twisting them to suit what you wanted them to say. whichever it is, your claim is inaccurate and i haven't made up anything
.

You are embarassing yourself now