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

thee glitz

kylith wrote: »

Do you think that a woman would spend thousands and endure the pain of an abortion if she did not feel that it was the only option for her? This isn't a shopping trip, you know.

What distinguishes being 'the only option for her' from 'the option she's sure she wants'?

Hannibal_Smith

Edward M wrote: »

I said what I said as my feelings, my view on it, I don't judge others on my take of things, I personally have a view on it, shared by my wife BTW, but that's incidental.
I'm sure the vast majority of abortions are for the right reasons in the mind of the person involved, but I don't think my conscience will allow me to vote for a right to abortion where even a tiny percentage might just be done as a dismissive inconvenience.
I might have to abstain this time?

I think that's what every one is doing and it's exactly as you say. You vote how your conscience allows. It's tricky and not straight forward at all. Should the 8th be repealed? On it's own merit? It seems from this thread anyhow that people think it should be repealed. But the reason for keeping it there is to hold back what might come after it.

Conscience is very much apart of every one's vote on this one, I would think, which is why it becomes so emotive. I've read it a few times on this thread that people are forgetting there's a baby involved. But equally I wonder do people remember there is a woman involved. You yourself have said she should just get on with it. That's a horrible way to treat a woman. Maybe the view is it's a horrible thing to kill a baby, but how can it be resolved? How can both lives be equal when at the moment the baby's existence will override the wishes of the woman it is dependent on?

kylith

thee glitz wrote: »

What distinguishes being 'the only option for her' from 'the option she's sure she wants'?

I'm unsure of what you're asking here. Could you clarify?

Edward M

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I think that's what every one is doing and it's exactly as you say. You vote how your conscience allows. It's tricky and not straight forward at all. Should the 8th be repealed? On it's own merit? It seems from this thread anyhow that people think it should be repealed. But the reason for keeping it there is to hold back what might come after it.

Conscience is very much apart of every one's vote on this one, I would think, which is why it becomes so emotive. I've read it a few times on this thread that people are forgetting there's a baby involved. But equally I wonder do people remember there is a woman involved. You yourself have said she should just get on with it. That's a horrible way to treat a woman. Maybe the view is it's a horrible thing to kill a baby, but how can it be resolved? How can both lives be equal when at the moment the baby's existence will override the wishes of the woman it is dependent on?

Good post, the only blip, I didn't say they should get on with it, I just said they get on with it.

[Deleted User]

I imagine the "just get over it" crowd would be singing a different tune if mandatory kidney donation became a thing in order to save lives

thee glitz

kylith wrote: »

I'm unsure of what you're asking here. Could you clarify?

What I mean is what determines that abortion is the 'only option' - is this restricted to medical requirements, or open to a wider definition of necessity?

kylith

thee glitz wrote: »

What I mean is what determines that abortion is the 'only option' - is this restricted to medical requirements, or open to a wider definition of necessity?

The only option available to her if she does not want to have a child.

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

Could say the same about cocaine, heroine and many other drugs.
I'm a democrat here, I have a vote on it coming up, if its passed I hold my hands up to the democratic decision on it, it probably won't get my vote, because of MY conscience, much as I'd like to see the eighth repealed, but not a no limit abortion policy up to any set period.

And there is an argument to be made for regulating those but this thread is not the place for that.

One major difference is that were those things to be regulated it wouldn't take a referendum and all the high horse moral brigade riding we are seeing here (and in the marriage equality referendum) as people's 'lifestyle choices' are debated/judged and comments about 'getting on with it' and 'suffering the consequences' are rolled out nor is the bodily autonomy of some one who is a user of these substances subject to terms and conditions - unless that user is pregnant in which case any potential treatment for addiction is dependent on how it affects an embryo or fetus.

So not really a great comparison all things being equal.

captbarnacles

Edward as a matter of interest what is your view on abortion in cases of rape? And if you agree with it how would work it?

Edward M

captbarnacles wrote: »

Edward as a matter of interest what is your view on abortion in cases of rape? And if you agree with it how would work it?

I would be in favour of the victims choice on that, earliest decision possible.

Atoms for Peace

There's going to be some serious dirt and vitriol draged into the public domain leading up to what ever referendum will take place in the upcoming months.
Therefore I've made my mind up on the matter before the fun starts.

applehunter

Re : Dail Debate

I was most impressed by Brid Smyth on the repeal side. I think herself and Clare Daly are two of the better Dail contributers. Ruth Coppinger on the other hand is charmless.

The one thing that struck me in all the repeal speeches was the lack of acknowledgement for the unborn child. The two that stand out were Simon Harris and Michael Martin. Both claim to have been on a journey to their present position. Be honest and don't hide behind sophistry.

Bannasidhe

applehunter wrote: »

Re : Dail Debate

I was most impressed by Brid Smyth on the repeal side. I think herself and Clare Daly are two of the better Dail contributers. Ruth Coppinger on the other hand is charmless.

The one thing that struck me in all the repeal speeches was the lack of acknowledgement for the unborn child. The two that stand out were Simon Harris and Michael Martin. Both claim to have been on a journey to their present position. Be honest and don't hide behind sophistry.

Perhaps it's because to refer to an embryo as a 'unborn child' is emotive sophistry of the highest order. There is no 'child' born or unborn at the gestation period being considered.
There is something that may later develop into a child or may abort itself and miscarry.

It is not sophistry to use the correct medical terms, quite the opposite.

When I was 3 years old I was not a woman. I had the potential to become a woman but no one would have referred to me as such because it wouldn't be true. Toddler, child, girl yes. Woman no.

[Deleted User]

Edward M wrote: »

I would be in favour of the victims choice on that, earliest decision possible.

So why? If you can decide it's OK to abort a feotus that was conceived by rape, is it not OK if the woman happens to be pregnant, as a result of anything else?
So do you really care for the unborn in that case?
Is it just a moral judgement as regards abortion? Woman gets pregnant, doesn't want to be, shouldn't get abortion.
Woman gets raped, is then pregnant, she should get an abortion.
So what exactly is the difference is these two situations?

applehunter

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps it's because to refer to an embryo as a 'unborn child' is emotive sophistry of the highest order. There is no 'child' born or unborn at the gestation period being considered.
There is something that may later develop into a child or may abort itself and miscarry.

It is not sophistry to use the correct medical terms, quite the opposite.

When I was 3 years old I was not a woman. I had the potential to become a woman but no one would have referred to me as such because it wouldn't be true. Toddler, child, girl yes. Woman no.

Is unborn ok with you?

My point is that Harris and Martin didn't acknowledge the unborn in their speeches. To come from a pro life position to where they are now and not to acknowledge the unborn was cowardly.

Bannasidhe

applehunter wrote: »

Is unborn ok with you?

My point is that Harris and Martin didn't acknowledge the unborn in their speeches. To come from a pro life position to where they are now and not to acknowledge the unborn was cowardly.

I was simply suggesting a possible reason why some people didn't refer to the occupants of a womb directly - and I have no problem with unborn but then I'm not making a speech in the Dail so it matters not a whit what I am ok with.
I have noticed that among some opposed to repeal that the owner of the womb doesn't feature at all so I guess they balance each other out.

Cowardly is a strange word to use, particularly for Martin (whom I am not a fan of, to put it mildly, nor would I ever vote for him or any FF candidate) as he actually stuck his head above the parapet for once in his life and is being condemned widely for it. I think his speech was the one brave thing I have ever seen him do tbh. I'll sneer a little less when my mother votes for him again.

Edward M

bubblypop wrote: »

So why? If you can decide it's OK to abort a feotus that was conceived by rape, is it not OK if the woman happens to be pregnant, as a result of anything else?
So do you really care for the unborn in that case?
Is it just a moral judgement as regards abortion? Woman gets pregnant, doesn't want to be, shouldn't get abortion.
Woman gets raped, is then pregnant, she should get an abortion.
So what exactly is the difference is these two situations?

I never said if she was raped she should get an abortion, that's twice today I've been misquoted.
Twisting what I say doesent change what I said.
I said she should have the choice if she was raped.
I don't know why I feel the way I do, but a rape victim is a different case than an ordinarily induced pregnancy.

Hannibal_Smith

Edward M wrote: »

that's twice today I've been misquoted.

I didn't misquote you.

You said :-

Edward M wrote: »

Many women have unwanted pregnancies, most just get on with it though.
Inconvenience is a poor reason for aborting IMO.

I said:-

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

. You yourself have said she should just get on with it.

Where is the misquoting?

Edward M

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I was simply suggesting a possible reason why some people didn't refer to the occupants of a womb directly - and I have no problem with unborn but then I'm not making a speech in the Dail so it matters not a whit what I am ok with.
I have noticed that among some opposed to repeal that the owner of the womb doesn't feature at all so I guess they balance each other out.

Cowardly is a strange word to use, particularly for Martin (whom I am not a fan of, to put it mildly, nor would I ever vote for him or any FF candidate) as he actually stuck his head above the parapet for once in his life and is being condemned widely for it. I think his speech was the one brave thing I have ever seen him do tbh. I'll sneer a little less when my mother votes for him again.

I agree on that BTW.
Its funny how it goes though, the other day I posted on political opinions here locally, they were announced on local radio, most were anti repeal or if they were pro, they were against the 12_week on demand proposal.
A poster replied that it didn't really matter what any individual politician thought, this was a matter for personal choice, which was greeted with rapturous thanks also from repeal posters.
Funny how when it suits its great, when it doesn't matter what they think.

SusieBlue

Edward M wrote: »

I never said if she was raped she should get an abortion, that's twice today I've been misquoted.
Twisting what I say doesent change what I said.
I said she should have the choice if she was raped.
I don't know why I feel the way I do, but a rape victim is a different case than an ordinarily induced pregnancy.

Genuine question and I’m not being smart, but is that maybe because the sex was forced on a rape victim, whereas in an ordinarily induced pregnancy the sex was (most likely) had for pleasure?
Because that’s what it sounds like your getting at.

captbarnacles

Edward M wrote: »

captbarnacles wrote: »

Edward as a matter of interest what is your view on abortion in cases of rape? And if you agree with it how would work it?

I would be in favour of the victims choice on that, earliest decision possible.

Problem is that it is extremely difficult to prove so what to do then?

Edward M

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Genuine question and I’m not being smart, but is that maybe because the sex was forced on a rape victim, whereas in an ordinarily induced pregnancy the sex was (most likely) had for pleasure?
Because that’s what it sounds like your getting at.

I'd say because its consensual and we all know there is always a risk of pregnancy being induced from sex.

Edward M

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I didn't misquote you.

You said :-

I said:-

Where is the misquoting?

Edward M wrote: »

Many women have unwanted pregnancies, most just get on with it though.
Inconvenience is a poor reason for aborting IMO.

The word should.
I made a statement of what most women do, not what they "should" do.

Edward M

captbarnacles wrote: »

Problem is that it is extremely difficult to prove so what to do then?

I don't have all the answers.
Just to put what I'm thinking down here, I'm not proposing anything, just expressing how I feel.
Perhaps an insight as to the thoughts of a large range of people on how they might vote and their reasons for it.
I'm not against consensual sex of any type and for any reason people want to have it.
I'm not against any form of contraception nor do I believe that sex should be only used for procreation.
I drink alcohol, I back horses, I tell dirty jokes, I laugh at others telling them, I don't go to mass every Sunday, I don't pray every night, I don't know the rosary off by heart, I've had sex with more than one woman, I've had children with two women. Both women still talk to me, as do my 3 children, we all get along grand.
Basically I'm an ordinary chap I think, I'm not preaching, just trying to explain my reasons for being against abortion on demand, I feel others have the same view as in my social circle that's the sort of feedback I'm getting.

Martina1991

Edward M wrote:

I'd say because its consensual and we all know there is always a risk of pregnancy being induced from sex.

But contraception can and does fail.
We can take precautions but they don't always work.

And then What? Tough sh!t you shouldn't have had sex?

Akrasia

Edward M wrote: »

I never said if she was raped she should get an abortion, that's twice today I've been misquoted.
Twisting what I say doesent change what I said.
I said she should have the choice if she was raped.
I don't know why I feel the way I do, but a rape victim is a different case than an ordinarily induced pregnancy.

Its because of blame. A rape victim cannot be blamed for getting pregnant, but everyone else should 'take responsibility' by being forced to have a baby, even if its a case of failed contraception.

Its fundamentally a judgement. You are judging that a pregnant rape victim has suffered too much to be expected to carry an unwanted pregnancy, but everyone else should just accept the consequence of their choice to have sex

Annasopra

Edward M wrote: »

I never said if she was raped she should get an abortion, that's twice today I've been misquoted.
Twisting what I say doesent change what I said.
I said she should have the choice if she was raped.
I don't know why I feel the way I do, but a rape victim is a different case than an ordinarily induced pregnancy.

Extrenely difficult to lefislate for abortion in case of rape. What do you accept as proof she was raped?

This is why the 12 week no questions asked legislation is suggested.

joey1111

Well if its going to go pro life then there should be a mandatory prison sentence for any man who fails to support their child both financially and emotionally.

If men have a say in what a woman does with a foetus then they should equally be responsible for how it gets there and what happens to it afterwards.

Go into any family court and you will see so many men either not showing up or giving some excuse as to why they cant or wont support their kid's.

Britain including Scotland are miles ahead of Ireland in actually repremanding these losers and making them take responsibility for their sperm.

You'd see a lot of losers skipping the country me thinks and a lot thinking before the deed which cam't be a bad thing

It pi$$es me off so much that this is always on the woman, she either gets pregnant to trap men or she gets pregnant for a free gaff.

Nothing about the men at all, can they not manage to put a condom on no?

But they get to say that she has to keep the child, manage it herself through her whole life and also in a lot of cases give zero support or ownership for the child.
Meanwhile the child grows up in a lot of cases with emotional problems.

AVFC.Stephen

lived in a country where women have abortions like hot dinners......

A past partner became pregnant while there and we decided to have the baby. The medical help was unreal. They told us everything through the pregnancy and put us up in a hotel for 3 days after the birth next to the hospital for 3 days with a mid wife on 24hr standby.

2 years ago my now wife became pregnant in Ireland.we ran into a few problems when a GP apparently let it slip that the baby had cysts on the brain. We hadn't a clue what that meant but it sounded serious. We went to the hospital to find out more.

This is the crazy part... The doctor said she couldn't tell us if there was problems with the baby as it may persuade us to go to England to get an abortion. At this stage my wife is in tears and worried sick.... both of us left the hospital like an empty shell thinking we were in for a serious talk.

Thankfully the cysts disappeared and the baby was born healthy. The stress we were put under because we don't have a choice in this country is stone age BS. My wife was put under so much stress as we were considered high risk ppl to get an abortion if the kid had downs. How they put you in that category I have no idea.

Just to clarify.

I agree with abortion
My wife doesn't.

Hannibal_Smith

Edward M wrote: »

The word should.
I made a statement of what most women do, not what they "should" do.

The word 'Should' may not be literally in your post, but when you look at what you said in context, it is what you're saying.

I said :-

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

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?

To which you responded directly with:-

Edward M wrote: »

Many women have unwanted pregnancies, most just get on with it though.
Inconvenience is a poor reason for aborting IMO.

Maybe you could clarify what women, who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy, should do? If no abortion and they don't want to be pregnant?