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

seamus wrote: »

there's a huge grassroots vote in the rural Catholics who won't be impressed by this.

Probably not, but the salient question from his POV is, are they going to shift their vote away from FF in any numbers. If not, there's no real downside to this move for him.

Hector Bellend

The 8th amendment will not be televised

Edward M

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Probably not, but the salient question from his POV is, are they going to shift their vote away from FF in any numbers. If not, there's no real downside to this move for him.

I think its great for the debate.
Let's face it, he has a personal point of view on ethical issues and shouldnt suffer consequences for voicing them, despite his party's stance.
http://www.thejournal.ie/fianna-fail-protect-rights-of-unborn-3646886-Oct2017/

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Only in the same way as the size of your bathroom on a blue print has already been determined. That is, at the moment of conception you have a blue print for building a male or female person. But that does not make it a person any more than a blueprint is a house.

But yes sex is pretty much entirely determined from the moment of conception. What's your point?

The size of your bathroom isn't determined by the blueprint for it, unless that plan is followed through on. Maybe your neighbours nick your blueprint and it turns out their new bathroom is the size specified.

DNA is a better analogy to a blueprint. What happens when you put the building blocks together is an outcome, which can be compared to what was planned, not the plan itself.

My point is that human life can't be considered a no-one.

captbarnacles

We asked for chemo and were told no but no reason given. They got thick with us then. None of the circumstances were present where surgery is necessary.

captbarnacles

thee glitz wrote: »

The size of your bathroom isn't determined by the blueprint for it, unless that plan is followed through on. Maybe your neighbours nick your blueprint and it turns out their new bathroom is the size specified.

DNA is a better analogy to a blueprint. What happens when you put the building blocks together is an outcome, which can be compared to what was planned, not the plan itself.

My point is that human life can't be considered a no-one.

But nobody really considers the fertilised egg as human life without implantation and if they do you need to imagine just how much human life ends up down the toilet everyday.

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

The size of your bathroom isn't determined by the blueprint for it, unless that plan is followed through on.

That is just splitting hairs and over extending the analogy past it's utility. Neither of which is a useful move. The point simply is that there is more in play about sex determination than you're trying to grasp.

thee glitz wrote: »

My point is that human life can't be considered a no-one.

Just because it has DNA determining a sex, does not make it a person. The blueprint of DNA at conception is one for building a male or female (for the most part, there are exceptions). That is all. It does not make it a person. There is DNA there that will give it arms and legs too, not just a gender. So what? it is still not a person. The Zygote for a cow also has it's sex determined. That does not make a cow a person either. Gender determination does not make a no one a someone.

There is DNA everywhere in our world, not just Human DNA. There is nothing particularly special about DNA. Nothing particularly unique about life. There really is only ONE attribute that distinguishes us particularly well from any other life on this planet....... only ONE attribute that meaningfully confers "personhood" on an entity........ and it is the ONE attribute that a fetus being aborted (almost entirely in the 0-16 week range) lacks not just slightly but ENTIRELY.

Water John

Barnacles, well there was a lot od discussion around the MAP and it being a possible abortifaciant, as it prevented the fertilised egg from implanting.
Was the fertilised egg an unborn, even before implantation?

Bannasidhe

Water John wrote: »

Barnacles, well there was a lot od discussion around the MAP and it being a possible abortifaciant, as it prevented the fertilised egg from implanting.
Was the fertilised egg an unborn, even before implantation?

IF a human life begins at conception and conception is when the egg becomes fertilised than 'logically' a fertilised egg is a human life regardless of when it is implanted - meaning all those frozen embryos that are routinely destroyed are- according to that 'logic' - aborted humans.

captbarnacles

Water John wrote: »

Barnacles, well there was a lot od discussion around the MAP and it being a possible abortifaciant, as it prevented the fertilised egg from implanting.
Was the fertilised egg an unborn, even before implantation?

If you believe life starts at conception then I would think it is ? Makes no difference to the debate for me.

[Deleted User]

rainbow kirby wrote: »

When antenatal screening is either not being performed at all or performed at the wrong time (for example, the anomaly scan according to NICE guidelines in the UK should be performed between 18+0 and 21+6 weeks but is often performed later in Ireland or not at all) that is not best practice.

Most of the techniques of Active Management of Labour (amniotomy/instant augmentation with synthetic oxytocin etc) as brought to the world by Holles Street are not considered best practice. The expectation that labour must follow a nice partogram graph is a bit ridiculous.

The fact that very few of the hospitals in Ireland make use of community midwives and satellite clinics is not best practice - it has been shown that it is better for low-risk women to be cared for in community settings by midwives, freeing up obstetricians for medium and high risk cases.

The fact that a woman's informed consent can be overruled simply because she is pregnant (see the Mother B case: hospital brought her to court on due date to force a CS rather than "allowing" a VBA3C attempt) is absolutely nuts and is a direct result of the 8th.

You know all these scans it's said women don't get offered here? is it possible to get them privately or is it just not at all?

Candamir

Royal College of Physicians of Ireland guidelines for management of ectopic pregnancy:
https://rcpi-live-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/28.-Diagnosis-and-Management-of-Ectopic-Pregnancy.pdf

Health Service Executive guide to ectopic pregnancy:
https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/az/E/Ectopic-pregnancy/Treating-ectopic-pregnancy.html

Report into Medical Council fitness to practice hearing (where Methotrexate was used in a misdiagnosed ectopic pregnancy):
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/doctor-was-following-guidelines-in-ectopic-pregnancy-medical-council-inquiry-told-35227160.html

I think it should be clear from the above that it is certainly not illegal to use Methotrexate for ectopic pregnancy in Ireland. The reasons why it is or isn't considered in a given case are nothing to do with the 8th. As drkpower said, there are many many reasons to repeal the 8th. Championing non existent and incorrect ones weakens our position.

rainbow kirby

bluewolf wrote: »

You know all these scans it's said women don't get offered here? is it possible to get them privately or is it just not at all?

The Dublin hospitals do tend to offer the dating (12 week) scan and anomaly (20 week) scan at the right time, but generally they wouldn't do things like the nuchal translucency measurement, quad test, NIPT tests etc. You can generally pay privately for all of those tests - the problem with that is that many women (a) don't know they exist and (b) can't afford outright or can't justify spending €200-500 on a test.

In quite a few hospitals outside Dublin the anomaly scan isn't offered at all, in some if it's offered it's done late (harder to do anything about a very negative result at 24+ weeks!), in some a 32 week growth scan is offered instead.

thee glitz

That is just splitting hairs and over extending the analogy past it's utility. Neither of which is a useful move. The point simply is that there is more in play about sex determination than you're trying to grasp.

It's pointing out the difference between a plan and the implementation of it, quite important. You could look at a plan for years and a house wouldn't emerge from it. When a house is constructed, the plan may still exist independently of it.

Just because it has DNA determining a sex, does not make it a person. The blueprint of DNA at conception is one for building a male or female (for the most part, there are exceptions). That is all. It does not make it a person. There is DNA there that will give it arms and legs too, not just a gender. So what? it is still not a person.

It's not a fully formed person, but it has life, human life, which I know you don't intrinsically value so...

The Zygote for a cow also has it's sex determined. That does not make a cow a person either.

Can't argue with that. Entirely irrelevant, and suggesting that what I said implies it, but not wrong.

Gender determination does not make a no one a someone.

Nothings, by definition, don't have attributes. Having a determination of sex therefore implies an identity, which is human (except when it's a cow of course).

There is DNA everywhere in our world, not just Human DNA. There is nothing particularly special about DNA. Nothing particularly unique about life.

It's human life which is specifically of concern. Nothing special about DNA, nothing unique about life, but nothing special about human life - or does it need to be scarce to be valued?

There really is only ONE attribute that distinguishes us particularly well from any other life on this planet....... only ONE attribute that meaningfully confers "personhood" on an entity........ and it is the ONE attribute that a fetus being aborted (almost entirely in the 0-16 week range) lacks not just slightly but ENTIRELY.

This is the one alone thing that YOU value. Human DNA definitively distinguishes human life from other life, not the feeling that harm is being done to oneself.

Infini

I've said it before and I'll say it again the issue is too sensitive for anyone but the people involved to be dealing with. The constitution is certainly NOT the place for something like this. We've seen how past "intervention" has worked out..... pretty craptaularly.

threescompany

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think you mistyped there? I assume you are NOT talking about pregnancies from FAILED contraception. Because in those cases people did take full cautionary measures, but they failed on them. They can hardly be blamed for that.

There is two main problems with moral high horsing in this fashion however that are worthy of your consideration.

1) The first is we do not do this anywhere else. We do not stand over someone injured on the football field screaming at them that they brought it on themselves with their choice to play football, or their choice not to wear the correct protective gear, or that their protective gear was not used properly or failed them. We do not refuse medical help to those who did not put their seat belt on in the car. We help people FIRST and offer condemnation LATER.

2) Like what I wrote to you earlier about rape....... differentiating between people who did not bother to use contraception.... and those that did but were failed by it.......... is not really workable in practice. When a woman shows up seeking abortion, how do you propose to tell the difference between the two retrospectively?

People make mistakes in this world. I think the best approach is to work to minimize mistakes, rather than deny them options having made their mistakes.

Sexual ignorance is one example of this. We need better and more comprehensive and EARLIER sexual education in our schools for example. Despite people (well just one on this thread really) suggesting that education has no effect outside the classroom..... it has actually been shown to be one of (or even THE?) most effective factor in reducing unwanted pregnancy and abortion in a society.

I have considered your points above. I’m genuinely trying to reconcile repealing the 8th in my head but I’m finding it difficult to accept your points..... with regard to when someone is injured on the football field / not wearing protective gear scenario, you’re correct, we help first & if there’s condemnation, that comes later. However by helping these people we are helping them get better. Someone is injured and we do what we can to help / cute them, however it’s different with someone if they want an abortion, you must accept, there’s an added element. There’s a potential baby to terminate, not just a broken leg to fix?? The moral compass is pointed in the opposite direction so I cannot accept this argument.

Regarding the failed contraception, theres always a small risk when you use contraception. If you don’t want a baby, take responsibility and double up. Please don’t infer I’m on my moral high horse. It’s not helpful. I can’t help how I feel.
Regarding sexual ignorance, I disagree. Children are taught about sexual education in primary school, 5th/6th class. Do you think it should be earlier?? We live in a world where we are exposed to sex continually and through advertising, tv, media, etc, children, young adults and people have never had more opportunities to learn about sex and it’s consequences.

thee glitz

captbarnacles wrote: »

But nobody really considers the fertilised egg as human life without implantation and if they do you need to imagine just how much human life ends up down the toilet everyday.

Human life going down the toilet every day would be a concern. A fertilised egg isn't a plan. A plan is an idea, which may be represented graphically on paper, stored in computer memory, or stored in your head etc.

mrhoppy

Edward M wrote: »

I think its great for the debate.
Let's face it, he has a personal point of view on ethical issues and shouldnt suffer consequences for voicing them, despite his party's stance.
http://www.thejournal.ie/fianna-fail-protect-rights-of-unborn-3646886-Oct2017/

He's going to lose his seat regardless. The members of his own party voted to retain the 8th at the Ard Fheis, so of course he's going to suffer the consequences from them.

captbarnacles

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/ethical-issues/when-pregnancy-goes-awry-ectopic-pregnancies.html

AFAIK that's the Catholic position. Imo it influences the decisions in holles at as they could offer us no reason to not use chemo.

Bannasidhe

mrhoppy wrote: »

He's going to lose his seat regardless. The members of his own party voted to retain the 8th at the Ard Fheis, so of course he's going to suffer the consequences from them.

His party doesn't elect him. The voters of Cork South Central will decide if he keeps his seat or not, and while I am not in his constituency, nor would I ever vote for FF my 83 year old pro-choice mother will vote for him, as will my aunts, sister, brother-in-law, cousins etc. TBH as much as I dislike Martin and FF I doubt if this will play badly with his electorate. Quite the opposite.

Sierra Oscar

mrhoppy wrote: »

He's going to lose his seat regardless. The members of his own party voted to retain the 8th at the Ard Fheis, so of course he's going to suffer the consequences from them.

Micheál Martin is going to lose his seat in the next General Election? I assume you're having a laugh? He has the safest seat in the country. Don't be deluded. :rolleyes:

I must say, I really do admire Martin's leadership on this issue. Yes, many in his party are pro-life. However he himself clearly comes from a pro-life background, but clearly recognises that society is changing.

He has been on the record for many months as having said that he cannot imagine a situation whereby an abortion is not justified in the case of fatal-fetal abnormalities, incest or rape.

The Committee clearly highlighted that the only way to resolve this situation is to allow abortion up to 12 weeks, unrestricted. This is a committee that heard from countless experts. They know much more than you or me. Micheál Martin followed the advice of experts, and fair play to him.

So you tell me you're a pro-life fundamentalist eh? Great for you. Who are you going to vote for now? Society is moving on. Get with the times. Fianna Fáil remains a conservative party and even they, with the help of a pro-active leader, are pulling themselves into the 21st century. Get with the times lads. The old days are over.

applehunter

He won't lose his seat, but he may lose the leadership.

Sierra Oscar

applehunter wrote: »

He won't lose his seat, but he may lose the leadership.

And who is going to challenge him? Do you see any TD's moving to take him out tonight? :rolleyes:

No you don't, because deep down they all know Irish society has changed dramatically and they are out of kilter with what people think.

piplip87

I am a member of FF. I can you now there will be a push against MM after this speech. While some of us support his stance I can see in various social media groups that this has not gone down well at all with the majority of members. It may not be today or next month but by the general election MM will not be leading FF.

mrhoppy

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

So you tell me you're a pro-life fundamentalist eh? Great for you. Who are you going to vote for now? Society is moving on. Get with the times. Fianna Fáil remains a conservative party and even they, with the help of a pro-active leader, are pulling themselves into the 21st century. Get with the times lads. The old days are over.

I'm not a "pro-life fundamentalist". I'm simply pro-life.

A "this century" argument is a fallacy at best. Today is Friday. Should the law be different on Monday simply because it's a later date? No. So the fact that it's the 21st century has nothing to do with it.

If this is the state of Irish politics I personally will abstain from voting. I will not vote for a party whose leader betrays the majority of their voters. The lot of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour and Sinn Féin are two-faced liars and prevaricators.

mrhoppy

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Who are you going to vote for now?

I'd rather vote for the Communist Party of Ireland over Fianna Fáil

nozzferrahhtoo

threescompany wrote: »

however it’s different with someone if they want an abortion, you must accept, there’s an added element. There’s a potential baby to terminate, not just a broken leg to fix?? The moral compass is pointed in the opposite direction so I cannot accept this argument.

I certainly accept that no analogy is a 100% fit. If it was it would stop being an analogy, and start being the exact same thing. The "football" analogy is just a first step to seeing what is problematic with the high horse approach of "You got yourself into this situation". And you are right, were I relying on that analogy ALONE, I would have problems in my rhetoric.

But you will note I did not rely on it alone, I made a few other points, including the functional approach to how you would distinguish retrospectively between people who did and did not use contraception........ such as here..........

threescompany wrote: »

Regarding the failed contraception, theres always a small risk when you use contraception. If you don’t want a baby, take responsibility and double up.

........... the problem here is pure statistics. EVERY contraception has a failure rate. So even when you double up you will STILL get a significant % of unwanted pregnancies. The sheer number of people having sex, multiplied by the sheer number each of them HAS sex, results in a large number. And even a small % of a large number is.... a large number. Even if there are only 1,000,000 incidents of people having sex in a year and a failure rate of only 1/10 of a %........ that is still 1000 failures.

And standing over such people from ones high horse saying "You should have used contraception.... or used it better...." is no use retrospectively to anyone falling into that 1000, don't you agree?

But I go further than that. I also note that a fetus at 12 weeks for example is not even REMOTELY a person, or sentient, or anything of the sort. The pregnant woman is. And I have in all my years (decades) discussing abortion NEVER been shown an argument yet as to why the choices, freedoms and well being of a SENTIENT woman should in any way be curtailed for the benefit of a non-sentient entity inhabiting her body.

threescompany wrote: »

Regarding sexual ignorance, I disagree. Children are taught about sexual education in primary school, 5th/6th class. Do you think it should be earlier??

This is not consistently true. I, for example, never got ANY education on it in my schools really except the biological basics in our Junior Cert Science book. Others I know who got education in school did not get it until Transition year or after. Much later than 6th class!! And many who DID get it, did not get it from any regulated or standardized source..... but rather from a diversity of religious groups brought in by the school to do it. Needless to say not much coverage of abortion, homosexuality, or gender diversity in any of that!

So yes, I do feel it should be early. I also feel it should be part of the core curriculum, standardized, regulated, comprehensive, inclusive, and secular. And, despite a sole person declaring on the thread that sex education in the classroom has no effect outside the classroom...... the figures and studies ABOUND as to the efficacy of such programs.

And sexual ignorance abounds too more than you appear to realize. There are errors and myths and incomplete information floating around in every corner. Both in terms of pregnancy and STDs. From errors like thinking lesbian sex is free from STD risk, to myths like virgins can not get pregnant, to incomplete information like people who know where the condom goes but do not know about pinching the head of it while rolling it on. To name but a few of a LONG list. If you want more go watch the You Tube channel "Sexplanations" for a few days and see the diversity of human ignorance on sex and sexuality that Dr. Lindsey Doe works so hard to dispel and address.

threescompany wrote: »

We live in a world where we are exposed to sex continually and through advertising, tv, media, etc, children, young adults and people have never had more opportunities to learn about sex and it’s consequences.

That makes it worse not better. The media portrayal of sex and sexuality is far from educational. If we are relying on the media to perpetuate sexual knowledge, then we are in more trouble than I thought.

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

It's pointing out the difference between a plan and the implementation of it, quite important.

And I am pointing out that the gender of a human being decided at the moment of conception is the plan, not the implementation of it. Quite important!

thee glitz wrote: »

It's not a fully formed person, but it has life, human life, which I know you don't intrinsically value so...

What a straw man that is. I value human life every bit as much as you do, so you can pocket the distortions and ad hominem thanks. The difference is where we define "human life" as starting, and what it means. You are appealing to "Human life" in a way that is purely taxonomy. Which is not useful. I however am appealing to the attributes that make humans "human". Their actual HUMANITY. Attributes that distinguish humanity from any other piece of life on this planet.

thee glitz wrote: »

Can't argue with that. Entirely irrelevant, and suggesting that what I said implies it, but not wrong.

Except it is not irrelevant at all. Irrelevance does not appear in things that do not suit YOUR argument and agenda. You are trying to make a "someone" out of a "no one" by pointing to the fact that their sex is determined in DNA. And I am just pointing out to you that that is also true of EVERY gendered species on our entire planet. Which dilutes your approach to the nonsense it was to begin with.

thee glitz wrote: »

Nothings, by definition, don't have attributes.

Come back with the goal posts there, I said "no one" not "nothing". Stop changing MY words into words more convenient to you. The Zygote is not a "nothing" it is a "no one". And while "nothings have no attributes" a "no one" can. Learn the difference.

thee glitz wrote: »

Having a determination of sex therefore implies an identity, which is human (except when it's a cow of course).

No, it does not. No more than having an arm implies an identity. Or a hair color. Or eye color. Or a genetic disease. Identity is a subjective narrative. There is no narrative in biological sex. You are basically engaging in pathetic fallacy to manufacture identity out of nothing but narrative.

thee glitz wrote: »

It's human life which is specifically of concern. Nothing special about DNA, nothing unique about life, but nothing special about human life - or does it need to be scarce to be valued?

As I said, that which gives human life value....... in fact that which even come up with the concept OF value in the first place for you to equivocate so poorly over....... is human sentience and consciousness. Something a fetus at 0-16 weeks lacks ENTIRELY as it is no more sentient than your nearest table leg or rock.

There is nothing inherently special about human life as you say, except the sentience and consciousness that gives us the very concepts of value, ethics, morality and all the other things we value like culture, art, literature, poetry, love, and hope.

thee glitz wrote: »

This is the one alone thing that YOU value. Human DNA definitively distinguishes human life from other life, not the feeling that harm is being done to oneself.

Again only in terms of pure taxonomy. Which is a poor basis for the levels of philosophy you are failing to aspire to.

Hannibal_Smith

thee glitz wrote: »

Human life going down the toilet every day would be a concern. A fertilised egg isn't a plan. A plan is an idea, which may be represented graphically on paper, stored in computer memory, or stored in your head etc.

It's only a concern when it comes to abortion. When it comes to miscarriage no one gives a hoot what gets flushed down where. If human life is a human life etc.

Anyhow, what about the human life that doesn't want to carry the 'humanlife' you are talking about? What is to happen then?

seamus

bluewolf wrote: »

You know all these scans it's said women don't get offered here? is it possible to get them privately or is it just not at all?

You can get any number of scans done privately, but it's not cheap.

The main problem with public maternity care is that it's inconsistent. Some hospitals do a single scan, others do 2 or 3. If you pay extra money to go private in a public hospital, you'll get a scan every month.

Private patients are also now offered early genetic screening, and actually recommend that women over 35 get it. The nurse in the Rotunda who talked my wife through it said very bluntly that it will tell you early if there are any abnormalities and "not that there's anything you can do about it in this country, but it lets you make a more informed decision".

There should be zero difference between the quality of care a pregnant woman receives, regardless of where in the country she is or whether she has paid to go private. But the reality is very different.