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

Zubeneschamali

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you lot had your way no woman or girl would be able to get an abortion without first jumping through hoops -just what a person needs when in crises -so lay off the faux concern. It's not fooling anyone.

Untrue! Untrue!

If they had their way, no-one would get an abortion, full stop.

Their beloved 8th made abortion legal in Ireland - but that was a complete accident, and only predicted by people who opposed it, who obviously had an agenda, which seems to be nearly as bad as having a vagina.

Bannasidhe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Untrue! Untrue!

If they had their way, no-one would get an abortion, full stop.

Their beloved 8th made abortion legal in Ireland - but that was a complete accident, and only predicted by people who opposed it, who obviously had an agenda, which seems to be nearly as bad as having a vagina.

Did I mention the hoops were on fire?

I'm so used to trying to hide my vagina agenda (I have a locker in the Gay Lobby) that I may have downplayed the hoops.

Zubeneschamali

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm so used to trying to hide my vagina agenda (I have a locker in the Gay Lobby) that I may have downplayed the hoops.

To be fair, not everyone with an agenda necessarily has a vagina. There is also the infamous Gay Agenda, but it is too late to worry about that since they fooled everyone and destroyed traditional marriage already.

And divorce too, they have totally ruined traditional divorce. Now if I want a divorce, everyone will assume I want to marry my totally gay other person, and I can't say "No, I am just a traditional sleazebag" because that would be discrimination.

Bannasidhe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

To be fair, not everyone with an agenda necessarily has a vagina. There is also the infamous Gay Agenda, but it is too late to worry about that since they fooled everyone and destroyed traditional marriage already.

And divorce too, they have totally ruined traditional divorce. Now if I want a divorce, everyone will assume I want to marry my totally gay other person, and I can't say "No, I am just a traditional sleazebag" because that would be discrimination.

This makes me so happy.

I'm so glad I signed up to the Gay Vagina Agenda and not just because I got a faaaabulous espresso machine and a slow cooker. Destroying traditional hetro-normative fabric has been a dream of mine ever since I was a small child in the 70s. All that man-made so-called fabric normal people wore gave me a rash.

The next phase is a cunning plan to make abortion compulsory so we can adopt all the babies and turn them gay. But now I have said too much....

thee glitz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you lot had your way no woman or girl would be able to get an abortion without first jumping through hoops -just what a person needs when in crises -so lay off the faux concern. It's not fooling anyone.

Most people can see that that's just what you want to be presented with - an easier argument. I've raised the issue of faux concern with you and you've continually failed to address it satisfactorily - namely the tying of abortion on demand to special circumstance cases.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Untrue! Untrue!

If they had their way, no-one would get an abortion, full stop.

This is despite those you attack declaring otherwise. Anyways I know you're a militant, so there's no debating with you.

The pair of youse are fookin hilarious - it's a pity you can't take seriously and debate what's in front of you.

Bannasidhe

thee glitz wrote: »

Most people can see that that's just what you want to be presented with - an easier argument. I've raised the issue of faux concern with you and you've continually failed to address it satisfactorily - namely the tying of abortion on demand to special circumstance cases.

.

That exists only in your imagination.

That are different strands of the same thread.

Given that as medical science stands at the moment fatal abnormalities will not be detected until after the cut off point for abortion 'on demand' so that needs to be legislated as a special circumstance to allow an abortion after limit set for 'on demand'.

The Abortion 'on demand' aspect is simply acknowledgement that this is already happening via that pill you keep ignoring. It's already here. Ignore it all you want but that won't change the fact.

It really is quite simple
Abortion 'on demand' up to a set gestation time limit = essentially making that pill legal in Ireland, although in some cases a surgical approach may be required.

After that time limit abortion available in certain circumstances such as FFA should the woman wish it.

There is no tying one to the other.

Zubeneschamali

thee glitz wrote: »

This is despite those you attack declaring otherwise.

You? Do you mean yourself?

OK, tell us under what circumstances you favour murdering helpless unborn babies, and I'll explain why the Citizen's Assembly concluded that your particular case where babies should be massacred requires the 12 week no-questions-asked rule.

Or you could read their report, you've read this thread which is longer at this stage, why not read some actual informed opinion.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This makes me so happy.

I'm so glad I signed up to the Gay Vagina Agenda and not just because I got a faaaabulous espresso machine and a slow cooker. Destroying traditional hetro-normative fabric has been a dream of mine ever since I was a small child in the 70s. All that man-made so-called fabric normal people wore gave me a rash.

The next phase is a cunning plan to make abortion compulsory so we can adopt all the babies and turn them gay. But now I have said too much....

an espresso machine AND a slow cooker? In my day it was a toaster oven

Bannasidhe

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

an espresso machine AND a slow cooker? In my day it was a toaster oven

I got an upgrade :cool:

Edward M

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

an espresso machine AND a slow cooker? In my day it was a toaster oven

I think she has a vibrator too, heavenly worldly goods in that house.

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

I think she has a vibrator too, heavenly worldly goods in that house.

Bloody straight women bought them all. I could order one on-line but the customs have enough to be doing looking for illegally imported pills so someone can be threatened with 14 years in jail - I think discovering a rampant rabbit might push them over the edge.

seamus

applehunter wrote: »

From my perspective the more Kate O'Connell speaks on the issue the better.

She is hitting close to 10 on my thundering-bitchometer.

That's funny, because as a pro-choice voter I feel exactly the same way about Kate O'Connell.

She pisses off the religious and the pro-life side no end by just not being a quiet little lady and keeping her mouth shut. These aren't the people she's ever going to convince, but by making them more and more annoyed, she exposes just how much of their motivations like in bigotry and doctrine, not logic or ethics.

She reminds me a lot of a young Mary Robinson, but Kate has the benefit that the sneering arrogant assholes like William Binchy are no longer automatically assumed to be authorities they're male and catholic.

Kate has spoken a lot on topics that she knows since she was elected and always knocks it out of the park. But her speech last week really made me feel that there's proper Taoiseach potential in her.

EirWatchr

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A sound interpretation by, among others in the links, the head of Marie Stopes - a for-profit abortion business. A "finding" often reiterated by the Soros-bots.

I've read the Lancet report before.

"When countries were grouped according to the grounds under which abortion was legal, we did not find evidence that abortion rates for 2010-14 were associated with the legal status of abortion."

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The report's statement does not equate with a conclusion that legalising abortion doesn't alter abortion rates. It simply means they didn't find evidence - based on studying a global average, with no analysis per region, relative poverty, availability of the contraception, relative size of demographics, or when abortion laws were introduced/changed within the timeframe, etc.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435356/abortion-media-bias-new-lancet-study-misrepresented-journalists

Of the european countries who legalized abortion, many did so a lot earlier than the 1990 start of that report and so it is practically useless as a source when discussing what happens in the immediate aftermath of legalising abortion. The study does however estimate a steady increase in abortion numbers in Western Europe from 1990 to 2014, with 21% of pregnancies there ending in abortion as of 2014. It also estimates, worldwide, 56.3 million abortions every year, and a global increase of nearly 1 million abortions every year.

But if you don't even think of those as human deaths ...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So a narrative discussing how they do not have a voice, is really a vicarious projection of one's own voice onto an entity that does not require one in the first place.

Yikes.

I (and probably you) were conceived in a place and time where someone couldn't legally deny us that voice.

.......

This post has been deleted.

rainbow kirby

EirWatchr wrote: »

But if you don't even think of those as human deaths ...

The state doesn't either - in both Ireland and the UK a birth or death cert would not be issued for a stillbirth/miscarriage before 24 weeks gestation or until a weight of 500g had been reached.

Annasopra

Soros bots?

Is that the latest insult people are being paid to throw around nowadays?

nozzferrahhtoo

EirWatchr wrote: »

Yikes. I (and probably you) were conceived in a place and time where someone couldn't legally deny us that voice.

The fetus at 0-16 weeks when the near totality (usually around 98%) of abortions take place does not HAVE a voice to deny. There is no lights on, no one is home.

But even then retrospective issues with abortion do not convince me or appeal to me as useful at all. Those who have been aborted are not there to worry about it. Those of us who are not, were not. It is an "appeal to emotion" approach to the issue of abortion that does not work on me at all.

If my mother had not wanted me, I would hate to think she lived in a time where she was forced to have me. I would rather not have existed, than to have been forced on anyone against their will. Except you all here on boards.ie. You get me, whether you want me or not

So for me it is more a case of "Yikes. I (and probably you) were conceived in a place and time where our mothers were denied that voice."

captbarnacles

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The fetus at 0-16 weeks when the near totality (usually around 98%) of abortions take place does not HAVE a voice to deny. There is no lights on, no one is home.

But even then retrospective issues with abortion do not convince me or appeal to me as useful at all. Those who have been aborted are not there to worry about it. Those of us who are not, were not. It is an "appeal to emotion" approach to the issue of abortion that does not work on me at all.

If my mother had not wanted me, I would hate to think she lived in a time where she was forced to have me. I would rather not have existed, than to have been forced on anyone against their will. Except you all here on boards.ie. You get me, whether you want me or not

So for me it is more a case of "Yikes. I (and probably you) were conceived in a place and time where our mothers were denied that voice."

Yeah this is a weird one for me. I have no doubt I would not exist if my very Catholic parents believed contraception was not sinful. Doesn't mean I'm glad though, it was outrageous that they accepted that.

Edward M

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

:rolleyes:

At least you put in the whole quote.
The highlighted bit you roll eyes at I suppose?
In its context, a big clear IMO at the end.
I'd hardly oppose abortion on demand if I didn't think they should have the baby, except in certain circumstances, but that's IN MY OPINION, not an instruction.
I hope that clears that up once and for all.

mrkiscool2

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The fetus at 0-16 weeks when the near totality (usually around 98%) of abortions take place does not HAVE a voice to deny. There is no lights on, no one is home.

But even then retrospective issues with abortion do not convince me or appeal to me as useful at all. Those who have been aborted are not there to worry about it. Those of us who are not, were not. It is an "appeal to emotion" approach to the issue of abortion that does not work on me at all.

If my mother had not wanted me, I would hate to think she lived in a time where she was forced to have me. I would rather not have existed, than to have been forced on anyone against their will. Except you all here on boards.ie. You get me, whether you want me or not

So for me it is more a case of "Yikes. I (and probably you) were conceived in a place and time where our mothers were denied that voice."

This is one of the most common arguments I've heard. "Well, if abortion was legal, you may not have been born. How do you feel about that?"

I always have the same answer.
A. My mother does not believe in abortion, she would never get one. (But she is pro-choice, she believes women should have the choice, even if she personally would never get one).
B. Even if she did and wanted to abort me, I wouldn't know. If she thought she couldn't have me, for whatever reason, I would never ever know.
C. Even if, by the most bizarre thing ever, I did know my mother aborted me I would be happy for her and respect her choice. There must have been some reason for it and, ultimately, I'd rather not be born than be born to a mother that did not want me.

I've an amazing Mam, and I am very lucky to be wanted and loved and cherished. But what about children born to women who wanted to abort them? Can the pro-life side absolutely, 100% guarantee they'd have as good a life as someone who was planned and/or wanted? I don't think so.

Edward M

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Can the pro-life side absolutely, 100% guarantee they'd have as good a life as someone who was planned and/or wanted? I don't think so.

There's no guarantees in any life, whether wanted or not.
I'm quite sure every wanted baby didn't have as good a life as might have been planned for them by their parents, just as I'm sure most unwanted pregnancies carried to term went on to lead perfectly happy and normal lives.
Many, if not most unwanted pregnancies turn in to very loved and cherished children and adults id say.

mrkiscool2

Edward M wrote: »

There's no guarantees in any life, whether wanted or not.
I'm quite sure every wanted baby didn't have as good a life as might have been planned for them by their parents, just as I'm sure most unwanted pregnancies carried to term went on to lead perfectly happy and normal lives.
Many, if not most unwanted pregnancies turn in to very loved and cherished children and adults id say.

Really? Can you distinguish between children who were unplanned and children whose mothers wanted to abort them? Because I guarantee you accidents that are then kept vs accidents the mother wanted to abort have vastly different levels of life. Again, statistics in the USA show this to be true, both a drop in crime rate and a drop in the level of children in care.

Edward M

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Really? Can you distinguish between children who were unplanned and children whose mothers wanted to abort them? Because I guarantee you accidents that are then kept vs accidents the mother wanted to abort have vastly different levels of life. Again, statistics in the USA show this to be true, both a drop in crime rate and a drop in the level of children in care.

I know you can put up links to your stats.
But look at this one.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/07/07/myth-about-abortion-and-crime.html

frag420

Edward M wrote: »

I know you can put up links to your stats.
But look at this one.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/07/07/myth-about-abortion-and-crime.html

Fox News ha ha ha!! Surely you can do better than that!

Good to see EOTR back slapping his pro life pals too....

Muahahaha

seamus wrote: »

That's funny, because as a pro-choice voter I feel exactly the same way about Kate O'Connell.

She pisses off the religious and the pro-life side no end by just not being a quiet little lady and keeping her mouth shut. These aren't the people she's ever going to convince, but by making them more and more annoyed, she exposes just how much of their motivations like in bigotry and doctrine, not logic or ethics.

She reminds me a lot of a young Mary Robinson, but Kate has the benefit that the sneering arrogant assholes like William Binchy are no longer automatically assumed to be authorities they're male and catholic.

Kate has spoken a lot on topics that she knows since she was elected and always knocks it out of the park. But her speech last week really made me feel that there's proper Taoiseach potential in her.

Funnily enough I mentioned the same to a mate last week, that she would be a great bet to be Irelands first female Taoiseach. No odds on Paddy Power though

In fairness to her for someone who backed Coveney and got cast to the back benches she has made quite some impact since. She has a bright future ahead. Also she has the best hair in the Dail too.

mrkiscool2

Edward M wrote: »

I know you can put up links to your stats.
But look at this one.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/07/07/myth-about-abortion-and-crime.html

I read through that and it actually hurt my brain. The amount of logical leaps made in that article is bizarre. Like, the idea that children born out of wedlock some how, for some reason never explained, reduced crime is an odd one. That's just one of the many poor assertions the author makes and backs up with some study that has nothing to do with drop in crime rate. In fact, in the same article, they prove themselves wrong by showing that "unwanted" children are more likely to commit crime.

pemay

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

This is one of the most common arguments I've heard. "Well, if abortion was legal, you may not have been born. How do you feel about that?"

I always have the same answer.
A. My mother does not believe in abortion, she would never get one. (But she is pro-choice, she believes women should have the choice, even if she personally would never get one).
B. Even if she did and wanted to abort me, I wouldn't know. If she thought she couldn't have me, for whatever reason, I would never ever know.
C. Even if, by the most bizarre thing ever, I did know my mother aborted me I would be happy for her and respect her choice. There must have been some reason for it and, ultimately, I'd rather not be born than be born to a mother that did not want me.

I've an amazing Mam, and I am very lucky to be wanted and loved and cherished. But what about children born to women who wanted to abort them? Can the pro-life side absolutely, 100% guarantee they'd have as good a life as someone who was planned and/or wanted? I don't think so.

This is one of the most common arguments I've heard. "Well, if murder was legal, you may have been killed. How do you feel about that?"

I always have the same answer.
A. My local psychotic axe-maniac does not believe in murder, she would never murder. (But she is pro-choice, she believes psychotics should have the choice, even if she personally would never murder).
B. Even if she did put an axe through my head, I wouldn't know. If she thought she could get away with it, for whatever reason, I would never ever know.
C. Even if, by the most bizarre thing ever, I did know my local psychotic axe-maniac had murdered me I would be happy for her and respect her choice. There must have been some reason for it and, ultimately, I'd rather be murdered than be alive in a town where the local axe-maniac didnt have the choice to put an axe through my head.

I've an amazing local maniac, and I am very lucky to be still drawing breath. But what about people not murdered by axe-maniacs who wanted to murder them? Can the pro-life side absolutely, 100% guarantee they'd have as good a life as someone who was never in danger of having their head split in two? I don't think so.

mrkiscool2

pemay wrote: »

This is one of the most common arguments I've heard. "Well, if murder was legal, you may have been killed. How do you feel about that?"

I always have the same answer.
A. My local psychotic axe-maniac does not believe in murder, she would never murder. (But she is pro-choice, she believes psychotics should have the choice, even if she personally would never murder).
B. Even if she did put an axe through my head, I wouldn't know. If she thought she could get away with it, for whatever reason, I would never ever know.
C. Even if, by the most bizarre thing ever, I did know my local psychotic axe-maniac had murdered me I would be happy for her and respect her choice. There must have been some reason for it and, ultimately, I'd rather be murdered than be alive in a town where the local axe-maniac didnt have the choice to put an axe through my head.

I've an amazing local maniac, and I am very lucky to be still drawing breath. But what about people not murdered by axe-maniacs who wanted to murder them? Can the pro-life side absolutely, 100% guarantee they'd have as good a life as someone who was never in danger of having their head split in two? I don't think so.

Nice meme bruh.

Seriously though, the two don't equate in anyway at all. Up until at least 17 weeks, a fetus isn't scientifically life. Secondly, an axe-murder isn't carrying me around, I'm not draining them of food, energy, water, oxygen. I'm not going to be reliant on them for at least 18 years or have a terrible life when put into care, having all those questions. Bad argument is bad.

pemay

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Nice meme bruh.

Seriously though, the two don't equate in anyway at all. Up until at least 17 weeks, a fetus isn't scientifically life. Secondly, an axe-murder isn't carrying me around, I'm not draining them of food, energy, water, oxygen. I'm not going to be reliant on them for at least 18 years or have a terrible life when put into care, having all those questions. Bad argument is bad.

What is that, something caught in your throat? bruh, blurgh? Or maybe youre copying the language of americans of a certain demographic? Why would you do that?

How its a meme.....no idea.

The two don't equate at all.......not true. Its a joke, one with tongue in cheek, but theres some truth in its fallacy of justification and wilful blindness.