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

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, abortion for your grand-daughter because you have the cash, but not for the same-age girl in a mental hospital, a prison or direct provision.

All because you have drawn some bizarre conclusion that abortion on demand somehow causes income inequality to worsen.

I was going to suggest you go back and read the posts again, but you'd probably still come to the same conclusion so it's a bit pointless.

In typing out that post, did it occur to you at any stage that I would have a different relationship with the people I know than those with whom I have no relationship whatsoever?

If it hasn't already, it should now.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

That's what I was just testing myself.
Its proper to take in to consideration peoples overall views with regard to all laws regarding what can and can't be done with ones body.

Indeed, and I do believe drug taking, and lethal injection are personal and/or between a doctor and patient. That is not to say they should not be regulated, controlled, and laws built around them (such as we do with, say, alcohol and things like, say, drunk driving, public intoxication, and so forth).

The arguments against such things are pretty paltry, though the arguments against abortion the most paltry of the three.

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well yes, what about them indeed! Voluntary euthanasia between a doctor and the patient, under regulations, would indeed be another example.

And for the most part I do think drugs should be a persons own business in the same way alcohol is. Though we have this umbrella term "drugs" for such a wide range of things that it really makes sense to consider drugs on a case by case basis, but a good majority of them should be legal. Maybe even them all.

I think people's rights to decide what to do with their own body should generally only be curtailed by it's impact on other sentient agents. Abortion in the 0-16 week period does not impact other sentient agents. Because the fetus is not even remotely sentient. It not only lacks it, it lacks many of the prerequisites for it too.

So not sure what you are asking here really. But it does give me a chance to test a point.... if we just wait....

That's what I was just testing myself.
Its proper to take in to consideration peoples overall views with regard to all laws regarding what can and can't be done with ones body.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

Like a lethal injection maybe?
What about illegal drugs?

Well yes, what about them indeed! Voluntary euthanasia between a doctor and the patient, under regulations, would indeed be another example.

And for the most part I do think drugs should be a persons own business in the same way alcohol is. Though we have this umbrella term "drugs" for such a wide range of things that it really makes sense to consider drugs on a case by case basis, but a good majority of them should be legal. Maybe even them all.

I think people's rights to decide what to do with their own body should generally only be curtailed by it's impact on other sentient agents. Abortion in the 0-16 week period does not impact other sentient agents. Because the fetus is not even remotely sentient. It not only lacks it, it lacks many of the prerequisites for it too.

So not sure what you are asking here really. But it does give me a chance to test a point.... if we just wait....

Edward M

nice_guy80 wrote: »

politics shouldn't have a say in the decisions a doctor and patient make. none.

decisions should be made on the medical needs of the patient and not on society's opinion of what is best for the patient. or what politicians deem they feel is the correct thing for patients.

Like a lethal injection maybe?
What about illegal drugs?

end of the road

nice_guy80 wrote: »

politics shouldn't have a say in the decisions a doctor and patient make. none.

decisions should be made on the medical needs of the patient and not on society's opinion of what is best for the patient. or what politicians deem they feel is the correct thing for patients.

agreed. however, allowing abortion on demand goes beyond where such a stance is reasonable.

nice_guy80

politics shouldn't have a say in the decisions a doctor and patient make. none.

decisions should be made on the medical needs of the patient and not on society's opinion of what is best for the patient. or what politicians deem they feel is the correct thing for patients.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yeah despite his "instead of assuming my position on things, you could just ask" narrative I asked him about that one too and, you guessed it, NOTHING in response.

The claim was "after abortion was legislated for in a society, the gap between those people who are living in poverty and those people who are wealthy, widened enormously" and I did not see anything from him supporting that.

No mention which countries he was talking about for example.
No mention of what the gap was before abortion in those countries, compared to what it was after.
No mention of whether there was already such a trend towards that separation already.
No mention of the fact that that is a gap widening already worldwide.
No mention of whether the trend he claimed normalized for trends already there.
No mention of evidence elevating the claim past the correlation-causation divide.

Nothing. Literally nothing supporting the claim. Not. A. Word. But you know..... you just have to ask about his position....... but when you do..... he claims he just doesn't want to talk to you anyway.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then not only will I give her the money

So, abortion for your grand-daughter because you have the cash, but not for the same-age girl in a mental hospital, a prison or direct provision.

All because you have drawn some bizarre conclusion that abortion on demand somehow causes income inequality to worsen.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No they don’t, and that’s all your opinion, absolutely none of that is fact.

oh yes they do have a right to life, it's not my opinion but fact. the constitution guarantees their right to life and to guarantee such protection "as much as is practical"

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

i did yes, which is rather different to what you claim i stated. what you are stating is that i stated that the unborn have a constitutional right to be sentient, which is something i have never stated.
the unborn, under the constitution have the right to life as much as is practical. this protection in turn, insures that there is no medical or other interference bar extreme circumstances, to stop the unborn from growing and eventually being born. therefore due to the fact they have constitutional right to life, they have a defacto right to be sentient. the constitution gives the right to life, and the right to be sentient is the defact o right.

No they don’t, and that’s all your opinion, absolutely none of that is fact.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You didn't say anything about defacto in your original post. You said the pre-sentient have the right to protection in order to become sentient.

i did yes, which is rather different to what you claim i stated. what you are stating is that i stated that the unborn have a constitutional right to be sentient, which is something i have never stated.
the unborn, under the constitution have the right to life as much as is practical. this protection in turn, insures that there is no medical or other interference bar extreme circumstances, to stop the unborn from growing and eventually being born. therefore due to the fact they have constitutional right to life, they have a defacto right to be sentient. the constitution gives the right to life, and the right to be sentient is the defact o right.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

i never claimed the constitution said it. i have been clear that what i stated is defacto due to an actual right. this is very simple to understand.

again i never said it did, you are the one saying that i am saying it did. i made nothing up, i was clear that it is a defacto right.

You didn't say anything about defacto in your original post. You said the pre-sentient have the right to protection in order to become sentient.
So I asked you for the source for the law you were quoting, and you came up empty.
For truth, the below is what you originally posted. I've bolded the bits where you made up the law, to make things easier for you:

end of the road wrote: »

it's not viable to operate on the basis of sentients only. the pre-sentient, as in the unborn, who will (unless circumstances prevent it) will become sentient, have to be given protection, to insure their right to become sentient is upheld as much is practically possible.
the reality in relation to abortion on demand, is that when it is legislated for (at least in terms of countries like britain).....

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You do know that instead of assuming my position on things, you could just ask?

What like I did THREE TIMES and you still have not actually answered any of what was asked?

No? No? No? I guess not then.

Loafing Oaf

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Also, he wants to be seen to 'give his TDS' space to come to the 'right' decision on the issue, rather than pressurising them into 'following the leader'.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No, sorry, that's your interpretation of the constitution. The constitution doesn't actually specifically say that, at all.

i never claimed the constitution said it. i have been clear that what i stated is defacto due to an actual right. this is very simple to understand.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The reality is the constitution says sweet f all about sentience and pre-sentience and defacto rights, and you made that up to support your argument.

again i never said it did, you are the one saying that i am saying it did. i made nothing up, i was clear that it is a defacto right.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Varadkar says accepting recommendations on Eighth a ‘strong option’
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-says-accepting-recommendations-on-eighth-a-strong-option-1.3356004?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fvaradkar-says-accepting-recommendations-on-eighth-a-strong-option-1.3356004

Ooh Leo you tease...

that man talks out of both sides of his mouth.

Loafing Oaf

Varadkar says accepting recommendations on Eighth a ‘strong option’
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-says-accepting-recommendations-on-eighth-a-strong-option-1.3356004?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fvaradkar-says-accepting-recommendations-on-eighth-a-strong-option-1.3356004

Ooh Leo you tease...

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

So your position is not about stopping abortions or saving the 'lives' of the unborn. It's about making sure that women have to travel to a foreign country to have them.

Glad to clear that up.

You do know that instead of assuming my position on things, you could just ask?

No? No? I guess not then.

Well whatever that cleared up for you I guess as long as you're happy we're all good.

pilly

end of the road wrote: »

i know that, hence i said "unborn" rather then children. we rightly don't kill children because they end up in the care system, so to me, killing the unborn because a couple of them may end up in the care system, is not an exceptible outcome either.

that's what looking at the issues that cause children to end up in care would do, treat the cause.

abortion on demand is the issue i have with repealing the 8th. if that issue is not there, then i would gladly vote repeal.

My New Years wish for you EOTR is that you will learn two things this year:

1. How to use capital letters.
2. To state something as an opinion rather than fact.

Just because you believe something that does not mean it's a fact, understand?

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

i gave you a reply. it's a defacto right, rather then a constitutional right. the constitutional right is that the unborn have a right to have their lives protected as much as is practical, therefore defacto, they have a right to become sentient.

No, sorry, that's your interpretation of the constitution. The constitution doesn't actually specifically say that, at all.

You seem to have a massive issue with distinguishing the difference between your opinion and facts.

The reality is the constitution says sweet f all about sentience and pre-sentience and defacto rights, and you made that up to support your argument.
FYI, this is why people don't take you seriously in these threads.

nozzferrahhtoo

Still Ignoring then and dodging then? Something you claimed you never do?

AGAIN: You claimed to have replied to my posts, and took exception when I called that claim a lie. Can you please direct me to the replies you JUST explicitly claimed you wrote? To posts #2369 #2519 #2583 #4060 #4239 #4409?

end of the road wrote: »

those reasons don't stack up in terms of allowing abortion on demand.

More assertion then? You never back any of this up. This is not logical. That does not stack up. That is not right. This has to be done. This should be this way. Assertion after assertion with never a single "because" following it.

The simple fact is you have not a SHRED of argument to offer as to why the rights, choices and well being of a sentient agent should be curtailed by something that simply is not. To get there you merely INVENT a "right to become sentient" and then engage in linguistic acrobatics to dodge defending the claim for such a right.

What is more when I compare a sentient machine, not yet on, with a fetus, and ask why one has the "right to be sentient" and the other does not, you simply run away and dodge the question. Dodge. Duck. Ignore. run. What an MO you are building.

end of the road wrote: »

the reality is that nobody's rights are being curtailed by not allowing abortion on demand

But I did not say "rights" did I? I said "Rights, well being and choices". You ignore entire posts sometimes, but then ignore parts of sentences the rest of the time.

end of the road wrote: »

given that the unborn's right to life has some protection within the irish constitution

Do keep up, we are talking about CHANGING that constitution. I am aware of what he constitution says NOW thanks. I do not need a lesser understanding of it offered to replace my own. What I am discussing is what changes SHOULD be made and more importantly WHY they should be made..... rather than simply asserting things that should change or should not change like you do and then running away.

end of the road wrote: »

we cannot judge things on sentients alone, as sometimes that just isn't valid.

Why cant we? And when is it not valid? And not just when but WHY? Merely saying "now" as part of your assert-athon is not answering the question. Even a little.

end of the road wrote: »

this case being one of such, as it involves something that is likely to become sentient.

And why should the likelyhood to become sentient be of moral or ethical concern other than your assertion that it should? Have you any arguments, other than repetition of the claim, to support the claim?

end of the road wrote: »

it's not about me, it's about society

My point exactly, thanks. So when you claim something is "far better" you need to explain why it is "far better" other than what is "far better" for YOU. Merely asserting it is "far better" for society without engaging in any argument as to why it is so..... is dodging the question/challenge.

end of the road wrote: »

the reality is that allowing the killing of the unborn without question or reason is not good for society, as over time it leads to a slow devaluation of other lives.

No. It does not. It allows us to VALUE life by specifying exactly what it is we value. After all we kill cow after cow without ever "devaluing life". We chop down tree after tree without "devaluing life".

What we should do is talk about what IS of value. Clearly it is not just "life" as we end life all the time. So there must be something more about "human life" that makes us value it. And that "something more" I feel is the faculty of consciousness and sentience. A faculty that, bully for you, the fetus simply lacks. But rather than acknowledge that you simply assert that the potential to be sentient is of value. But despite MULTIPLE attempts I have not yet gotten you to defend or support that position. Nor, I suspect, will I.

end of the road wrote: »

it is possible that sadly even if these women didn't have a child, their plans would have not come to fruition anyway.

Of course it is. But that is their journey to find out. Their journey to find that out one way or the other, should not be curtailed by a blob of non-sentient matter inside THEIR body that they don't want in there.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then not only will I give her the money but I'll make sure she has access to the best of treatment and care and aftercare with people I know and would trust with my own life, and I don't ask any questions, and I don't want to be paid back. I'd have thought that was an obvious conclusion from my replies to both WhiteRoses and eviltwin earlier. This really isn't as difficult to understand as some people are making it out to be at all at all.

So your position is not about stopping abortions or saving the 'lives' of the unborn. It's about making sure that women have to travel to a foreign country to have them.

Glad to clear that up.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

it is not rubbish and i have not said that we don't do it because it's not viable. yes we voted not to do it, but the reality is even if we didn't, there could not be sufficient evidence gathered to bring about a prosecution for having an abortion. the burdin of proof within our court system is quite high for a start, and neither side could ultimately prove anything sufficiently.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Still waiting on a reply to this, EOTR.

i gave you a reply. it's a defacto right, rather then a constitutional right. the constitutional right is that the unborn have a right to have their lives protected as much as is practical, therefore defacto, they have a right to become sentient.

end of the road

Martina1991 wrote: »

I am not talking about "killing" children. I'm talking about terminating a <12 week old fetus, as a last resort for the mother.

i know that, hence i said "unborn" rather then children. we rightly don't kill children because they end up in the care system, so to me, killing the unborn because a couple of them may end up in the care system, is not an exceptible outcome either.

Martina1991 wrote: »

Your argument about looking at the reasons children are in care is just diverting the problem. Why not treat the cause rather than the effect.

that's what looking at the issues that cause children to end up in care would do, treat the cause.

Martina1991 wrote: »

What problems do you see occurring if the 8th amendment is repealed?

abortion on demand is the issue i have with repealing the 8th. if that issue is not there, then i would gladly vote repeal.

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

So, you offer to help her any way you can and she asks you to loan her the money to go to the UK for a termination because she does not want to be pregnant. What then?

Then not only will I give her the money but I'll make sure she has access to the best of treatment and care and aftercare with people I know and would trust with my own life, and I don't ask any questions, and I don't want to be paid back. I'd have thought that was an obvious conclusion from my replies to both WhiteRoses and eviltwin earlier. This really isn't as difficult to understand as some people are making it out to be at all at all.

.......

This post has been deleted.