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

Da Boss

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except yes it is. It is the solution to being pregnant and not wanting to be pregnant for one. However I prefer the word "option" to "solution". Abortion is, and should be, an option. And just because OTHER options are available, that does not mean abortion should not be one.

it is not a solution, IT INVOLVES KILLING A CHILD DENYING IT ITS ONLY LIFE . You Abortion is not a reasonable option, it would be morally and ethically unacceptable in these circumstances.

I see nothing wrong with that. I see no moral or ethical problems with an early stage fetus with abnormalities or defects being terminated before they reach the stage of person-hood.
Well that frightens me, the fact that you see no problem with With ending the life of another, the only one they have , just cos u can. Ur lack of morals frightens me.

To put the above in more clear English, you are claiming that the availability of abortion on demand will increase the quantity of unplanned pregnancies. The first question is obvious then: Have you ANY data or citations from countries that have allowed abortion by choice that shows this has, or generally, actually happens? Or is it just a fantasy you are making up because you think it SOUNDS true, and useful to your agenda?

It’s rather obvious that this will be the case should unrestricted abortion to 12 weeks be possible.

PopePalpatine

Da Boss wrote: »

It’s rather obvious that this will be the case should unrestricted abortion to 12 weeks be possible.

If it's so obvious, where's your evidence?

[Deleted User]

Da Boss wrote: »

It’s rather obvious that this will be the case should unrestricted abortion to 12 weeks be possible.

If the definition of 'fairly obvious' were 'things i make up in my head because i want them to be true', sure. thankfully it isnt

Da Boss

Well if there’s the risk that a woman gets pregnant as a result of of a bit of “fun” and the risk isn’t guaranteed but in the case if does happen it can be reversed (abortion) then I’m pretty sure that it’s a risk many will be willing to take. Regards that I don’t think any reasonable person would dispute that

[Deleted User]

Da Boss wrote: »

Well if there’s the risk that a woman gets pregnant as a result of of a bit of “fun” and the risk isn’t guaranteed but in the case if does happen it can be reversed (abortion) then I’m pretty sure that it’s a risk many will be willing to take. Regards that I don’t think any reasonable person would dispute that

except for the time, cost, and physical stress on the body, up to and including actual surgery.
do you think people love casually popping in for a bit of surgery?

SusieBlue

Da Boss wrote: »

Well if there’s the risk that a woman gets pregnant as a result of of a bit of “fun” and the risk isn’t guaranteed but in the case if does happen it can be reversed (abortion) then I’m pretty sure that it’s a risk many will be willing to take. Regards that I don’t think any reasonable person would dispute that

What kind of people do you associate with to say you think that someone about to get the ride wouldn’t bother with using contraception OR the morning after pill, because sure they can always just get an abortion?

I honestly don’t know anyone who would do such a thing. I don’t know anyone that stupid, that would just repeatedly get endless abortions as a means of birth control.

You are (once again) totally underestimating how serious of a procedure an abortion is, physically, mentally and emotionally.
No person would put themselves through it unless they felt they had no other choice. No woman takes the decision lightly.
You are talking about women having ‘fun’ and procuring abortions as if she were picking up a pint of milk on the way home from work in the shop.

kylith

Da Boss wrote: »

Well if there’s the risk that a woman gets pregnant as a result of of a bit of “fun” and the risk isn’t guaranteed but in the case if does happen it can be reversed (abortion) then I’m pretty sure that it’s a risk many will be willing to take. Regards that I don’t think any reasonable person would dispute that

So do you go around getting your teeth knocked out because you can just get implants?

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

So do you go around getting your teeth knocked out because you can just get implants?

I like to jump off roofs for fun. Sure if I break a bone it can be pinned. :cool:

Da Boss

WhiteRoses wrote: »

What kind of people do you associate with to say you think that someone about to get the ride wouldn’t bother with using contraception OR the morning after pill, because sure they can always just get an abortion?

I honestly don’t know anyone who would do such a thing. I don’t know anyone that stupid, that would just repeatedly get endless abortions as a means of birth control.

You are (once again) totally underestimating how serious of a procedure an abortion is, physically, mentally and emotionally.
No person would put themselves through it unless they felt they had no other choice. No woman takes the decision lightly.
You are talking about women having ‘fun’ and procuring abortions as if she were picking up a pint of milk on the way home from work in the shop.

I don’t mean routinely not play safe in bed, I mean a tipsy drunken one night stand for example when they won’t really be thinking very hard about the future. Like also I think everybody knows a few “ accidents “ ( don’t mean it in derogatory way ) who, if it was legally possible, would have been aborted any denied their most fundamental right, the right to life. I myself being one such example of this

Edward M

A clear majority for repeal and the 12 week limit according to this.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/clear-majority-backs-abortion-on-request-up-to-12-weeks-poll-shows-1.3368816?mode=amp

[Deleted User]

Da Boss wrote: »

I don’t mean routinely not play safe in bed, I mean a tipsy drunken one night stand for example when they won’t really be thinking very hard about the future. Like also I think everybody knows a few “ accidents “ ( don’t mean it in derogatory way ) who, if it was legally possible, would have been aborted any denied their most fundamental right, the right to life. I myself being one such example of this

Again with the 'I was saved because of the 8th' argument.
It's ridiculous & proves nothing. Plenty of us were accidents, (I don't know why you have a problem with that word) so what? I know my mother's life would have been completely different, most probably a lot better, if she didn't have me. But she did.
Which was her choice, her choice. Nothing to do with me & if she chose differently I would never know.
Maybe you should also educate yourself on how the 8th amendment affects women's healthcare? It's not all about abortion you know.

tigger123

Edward M wrote: »

A clear majority for repeal and the 12 week limit according to this.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/clear-majority-backs-abortion-on-request-up-to-12-weeks-poll-shows-1.3368816?mode=amp

Didn't see that coming, but not entirely surprised either.

Michael Martin coming out as pro choice signals (to me anyway) politically which way the wind is blowing on this issue, and the poll confirms it.

There's a sizable shift towards pro choice at the moment.

Hooks Golf Handicap

Edward M wrote: »

A clear majority for repeal and the 12 week limit according to this.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/clear-majority-backs-abortion-on-request-up-to-12-weeks-poll-shows-1.3368816?mode=amp

“Will you vote to change the Constitution so that the Government can legislate for abortion up to 12 weeks, or will you vote not to change the Constitution?”
A clear majority of all voters – 56 per cent – said they would vote in favour of the constitutional change, with 29 per cent not in favour. Fifteen per cent said they did not know or offered no opinion.
When undecided voters are excluded, 65 per cent favour repeal and abortion being allowed up to 12 weeks while 35 per cent do not.

Well that's that as far as I'm concerned, 2:1 majority like the Equality Referendum.
Any time spent further debating this issue is time just time wasted.
It's not as if some internet argument would make any of us change our minds anyway.

Hooks Golf Handicap

tigger123 wrote: »

Didn't see that coming, but not entirely surprised either.

Michael Martin coming out as pro choice signals (to me anyway) politically which way the wind is blowing on this issue, and the poll confirms it.

There's a sizable shift towards pro choice at the moment.

People get that the real issue is the care of women.
The "no killing babies on our soil" argument just ignores the reality.

Hooks Golf Handicap

I am afraid though that the #keep campaign will open the war chest & start putting up posters of 18 week aborted fetuses outside schools & the like.

Kermit.de.frog

That poll can not be right.

I HIGHLY doubt if 12 weeks on demand was put on paper a majority would vote for it.

It's in the Abortion Times too.

I'm agnostic on the issue so have no axe to grind.

nozzferrahhtoo

Why did you write text in the quote from me that I never myself wrote? That is a wantonly and egregiously dishonest move of making it look like I typed things I never did.

Da Boss wrote: »

It is not a solution, IT INVOLVES KILLING A CHILD DENYING IT ITS ONLY LIFE . You Abortion is not a reasonable option, it would be morally and ethically unacceptable in these circumstances.

Have you any arguments as to why it is morally and ethically problematic other than merely outright asserting it to be so? No one is "killing a child" here. They are terminating a fetus. A fetus is not a child any more than a seed is a tree or a blue print is a house.

And I do not think your misunderstanding of what words mean, is a valid foundation for building a moral framework.

Da Boss wrote: »

Well that frightens me, the fact that you see no problem with With ending the life of another, the only one they have , just cos u can. Ur lack of morals frightens me.

That people have moral viewpoints DIFFERENT to yours, does not mean they lack any morals. To think that morals different to yours equate to no morals at all is a level of hubris and arrogance I am afraid I can not join you at. The simple fact is that I have many morals, that I can actually argue for and example. And that they differ from YOURS does not invalidate them.

We "end the life of others" all the time in our world. Welcome to reality. Our meat industry ends the life of animals all the time. Our farming industry uses pesticides that end millions of lives every year. Our paper industry kills trees. And the amount of life ended by doctors using things like antibiotics number in the billions.

So clearly "ending life" is par for the course. So if you want to suggest some particular life or lives should not be ended, you need to provide an argument for that. An argument, not a shrill assertion.

I know what I think is valuable about human life, and I know what attribute I believe confer that value. The sticking point for me is that not just some but ALL of those attributes are wholly and entirely absent in the fetus. So I see no moral or ethical dilemma in the killing of such a fetus. And shrill screams about who has no morals is not likely to be the move that illuminates any for me.

Da Boss wrote: »

It’s rather obvious that this will be the case should unrestricted abortion to 12 weeks be possible.

No it is not "obvious" at all. But the answer to the question I asked IS obvious. I asked have you any evidence for the claim. It is perfectly obvious that the answer is no. You do not. Why? Because abortion HAS been brought into countries around the world at various points throughout history and the simple fact is the claim you have made has not actually occurred in those places.

Amazing something you find so "obvious" has not actually happened, isn't it? Well no, actually it is not. It has not happened because there is no reason why it should or might.

Akrasia

bubblypop wrote: »

Again with the 'I was saved because of the 8th' argument.
It's ridiculous & proves nothing. Plenty of us were accidents, (I don't know why you have a problem with that word) so what? I know my mother's life would have been completely different, most probably a lot better, if she didn't have me. But she did.
Which was her choice, her choice. Nothing to do with me & if she chose differently I would never know.
Maybe you should also educate yourself on how the 8th amendment affects women's healthcare? It's not all about abortion you know.

Not to mention the fact that for every 'accident' which the woman is forced to carry against her will, a potential wanted pregnancy is sacrificed. People who might have been waiting for the right partner with whom to start a family get stuck with a crisis pregnancy instead and are deprived the choice of who to father her children.

Every time something happens, there are an infinite amount of missed opportunities that will now never be. Every time a man is too shy to talk to a girl he likes who also happened to like him too, there goes the potential for an entire gene pool worth of people that will never be born.

If my parents had chosen a different house to buy, I would never have met my wife and my 3 kids would never have been born. By my parents choosing one house over another, they caused the birth of 3 kids (plus their kids, and grandkids and their grandkids etc) but they also deprived potential other children of being born if I had met a different woman with whom to start a family.

Every single human above the age of reason makes life altering choices that decide the course of future people either being born or not born so it is silly to pick 'abortion survivors' as the only life choice that matters. Aborting a pregnancy prevents that 'person' from ever existing in exactly the same way that using contraception while having sex prevents that person from having existed. It's just as accurate to call an 'abortion survivor' a 'contraception survivor' because many crisis pregnancies are caused by failures in contraception

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That poll can not be right.

I HIGHLY doubt if 12 weeks on demand was put on paper a majority would vote for it.

It's in the Abortion Times too.

I'm agnostic on the issue so have no axe to grind.

the question they asked was quite clear

“Will you vote to change the Constitution so that the Government can legislate for abortion up to 12 weeks, or will you vote not to change the Constitution?”

tigger123

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That poll can not be right.

I HIGHLY doubt if 12 weeks on demand was put on paper a majority would vote for it.

It's in the Abortion Times too.

I'm agnostic on the issue so have no axe to grind.

The article sets out what questions were asked; they were clear, to the point, and not in anyway leading. It's a solid poll.

Loafing Oaf

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That poll can not be right.

I HIGHLY doubt if 12 weeks on demand was put on paper a majority would vote for it.

.

Mustn't be true so...

Zubeneschamali

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I HIGHLY doubt if 12 weeks on demand was put on paper a majority would vote for it.

Odds at Paddypower today:

Change/remove the 8th: 1/6
Leave unchanged: 7/2

Bannasidhe

Da Boss wrote: »

I don’t mean routinely not play safe in bed, I mean a tipsy drunken one night stand for example when they won’t really be thinking very hard about the future. Like also I think everybody knows a few “ accidents “ ( don’t mean it in derogatory way ) who, if it was legally possible, would have been aborted any denied their most fundamental right, the right to life. I myself being one such example of this

Are you saying every 'accident' in the UK is aborted?
In Germany?
Sweden?

Really?

Do you have even a shred of evidence?

It's just that I know a few English 'accidents' who are hale and hearty and in their 30s.....I know they were accidents because I knew their mothers when the accidents happened (still know their mothers in fact). I was there for the discussions of options.

Their mothers made a choice.

Edward M

tigger123 wrote: »

The article sets out what questions were asked; they were clear, to the point, and not in anyway leading. It's a solid poll.

I'd say so too. The times is a liberal paper, but looking at the questions as posed, I don't see any disputing them, that is unless the indo or rte perhaps, more conservative, come up with one disputing this one.
Then you could see aspersions as to the validity of either poll if there were significant differences.
But based on the question posed I see no reason to doubt the findings.

Kermit.de.frog

“Will you vote to change the Constitution so that the Government can legislate for abortion up to 12 weeks, or will you vote not to change the Constitution?”

Where in that question does it say "on demand"? It says "can legislate". VERY different to "on demand".

The Irish Times has used the poll falsely in it's headline. It does not say unrestricted abortion.

I guarantee if it was unrestricted it would fail and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

I like calling out false media bs and this is the height of it.

tigger123

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

“Will you vote to change the Constitution so that the Government can legislate for abortion up to 12 weeks, or will you vote not to change the Constitution?”

Where in that question does it say "on demand"? It says "can legislate". VERY different to "on demand".

The Irish Times has used the poll falsely in it's headline. It does not say unrestricted abortion.

I guarantee if it was unrestricted it would fail and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

I like calling out false media bs and this is the height of it.

The headline I see on their website says "abortion on request"... where is the "on demand" part coming into it?

applehunter

The Abortion Times.:D

Not far wrong.

Kermit.de.frog

tigger123 wrote: »

The headline I see on their website says "abortion on request"... where is the "on demand" part coming into it?

Bull****. It does NOT say "abortion on request" - i.e demand - in the question.

It is abortion with conditions at the most.

Read the question properly.

False reporting by the Irish Times.

Loafing Oaf

Edward M wrote: »

I'd say so too. The times is a liberal paper, but looking at the questions as posed, I don't see any disputing them, that is unless the indo or rte perhaps, more conservative, come up with one disputing this one

Daily Mail a couple of weeks ago had similar findings. As conservative as it gets in a mainstream Irish media context I'd say...