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

Water John wrote: »

Most of these misadventures occur when staff are afraid to call in senior doctors, when in doubt. Not because of constitution or legislation.
Largely have nothing to do with the current debate.

Baloney. Savita requested an abortion and was turned down. She would be alive today (and might have more children!) if not for the 8th.

[Deleted User]

Water John wrote: »

Most of these misadventures occur when staff are afraid to call in senior doctors, when in doubt. Not because of constitution or legislation.
Largely have nothing to do with the current debate.

They do though, when the reason the staff are afraid is because of the 8th!

Martina1991

Water John wrote:

Most of these misadventures occur when staff are afraid to call in senior doctors, when in doubt. Not because of constitution or legislation. Largely have nothing to do with the current debate.

I wouldn't like to think doctors would make life threatening decisions because they were "afraid" to ask for help.

It'd be more likely that there was no consultant available at the time of an emergency.

Water John

They are often afraid to call in a consultant, out of hours, for fear of, getting the head eaten off them. That's a reality.

Zubeneschamali

Water John wrote: »

They are often afraid to call in a consultant, out of hours, for fear of, getting the head eaten off them. That's a reality.

If so, then they and the consultant urgently need firing.

But that is not the subject of the thread or the upcoming Referendum.

freshpopcorn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Baloney. Savita requested an abortion and was turned down. She would be alive today (and might have more children!) if not for the 8th.

I'll be honest I get very lost regarding the whole Savita case because people from both sides always give different answers.
Since Ireland now has access to abortion when a woman's life is at risk would she have being given an abortion if she was in the same position Today? or would the eighth amendment need to be repealed?

Bannasidhe

Water John wrote: »

You are incorrect, woman's live has priority and once there is risk to her life, medics must act.
You don't seem to understand sepsis, which is a virulent, possibly fatal, infection.
It's very presence puts the woman's life at risk and must be acted on, without delay.
Nobody is waiting for a % risk to be analysed. Doctor, should and would be before the Medical Council for gross negligence.

Did you even bother to read the H.S.E's own report on the complete cock up regarding sepsis and the delays due to the confusion over the 8th that led to Savita Halappanvar's death?

It was her death that lead to these protocols you are banging on about as if they are followed to the letter were introduced.

Jayzuz - HIQUA are complaining that medical staff in hospitals aren't washing their hands and you are acting like the hospitals are all over sepsis!

Bannasidhe

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I'll be honest I get very lost regarding the whole Savita case because people from both sides always give different answers.
Since Ireland now has access to abortion when a woman's life is at risk would she have being given an abortion if she was in the same position Today? or would the eighth amendment need to be repealed?

Not until the risk to her life was 51% or over. Nothing has changed in that regard.

freshpopcorn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not until the risk to her life was 51% or over. Nothing has changed in that regard.

So if the risk to her life was under 50% and she was out the 12 weeks time frame the repeal would have no effect?

Bannasidhe

freshpopcorn wrote: »

So if the risk to her life was under 50% and she was out the 12 weeks time frame the repeal would have no effect?

If the 8th is repealed than the 'equal right' clause is gone. The women's life will take priority and medical confusion will be eliminated. If the fetus is viable medical staff would like suggest delivery and incubation.
Late term terminations in countries where abortion is legal are rare and generally only because there are exceptional circumstances. With the 8th gone a termination would be possible to save the woman's life without having to wait until it reaches crises (ie 51%) should the woman request it.

Important to add that Repeal in and of it'self will not legalise abortion. That will require legislation.

Kurtosis

Water John wrote: »

You are incorrect, woman's live has priority and once there is risk to her life, medics must act.
You don't seem to understand sepsis, which is a virulent, possibly fatal, infection.
It's very presence puts the woman's life at risk and must be acted on, without delay.
Nobody is waiting for a % risk to be analysed. Doctor, should and would be before the Medical Council for gross negligence.

But all medical conditions or interventions carry a potential risk to a woman's life. Obviously ranging from miniscule to major. There has to be some threshold of risk (implicit or explicit) to determine whether an intervention is made which could result in termination of the pregnancy.

volchitsa

Kurtosis wrote: »

But all medical conditions or interventions carry a potential risk to a woman's life. Obviously ranging from miniscule to major. There has to be some threshold of risk (implicit or explicit) to determine whether an intervention is made which could result in termination of the pregnancy.

Exactly. Flu can kill, and pregnancy, with its extra burden on the woman's cardiovascular system, can make flu far more dangerous than if the same person were not pregnant.

Does that mean a pregnant woman who catches flu should be allowed/advised to terminate her pregnancy?
I suppose if we really believed that pregnancy was an issue of conflicting rights between the fetus and the woman, that might actually be the case, but the truth is we dont. It's something of a fiction really, a way of preventing women who want an abortion from getting one in all but the most extreme circumstances, that's all.

The idea of conflicting rights has really only been invented to allow a ban on abortion without (usually) killing women when the pregnancy goes wrong. But it isnt really applied. Because it doesn't make lot of sense, as the flu example demonstrates.

Annasopra

Water John wrote: »

You are incorrect, woman's live has priority and once there is risk to her life, medics must act.
You don't seem to understand sepsis, which is a virulent, possibly fatal, infection.
It's very presence puts the woman's life at risk and must be acted on, without delay.
Nobody is waiting for a % risk to be analysed. Doctor, should and would be before the Medical Council for gross negligence.

No. You dont understand the 8th amendment cannot give priority to womens lives!

Annasopra

Kurtosis wrote: »

But all medical conditions or interventions carry a potential risk to a woman's life. Obviously ranging from miniscule to major. There has to be some threshold of risk (implicit or explicit) to determine whether an intervention is made which could result in termination of the pregnancy.

And the 8th means they also have to risk assess the unborns life as equal to the Mother

Da Boss

Using the excuse that abortion should be allowed because people travel to England and have it anyway is a poor excuse. People also rob and murder and take drugs, surely they should be legalized too cos people do then anyway!

mrkiscool2

Da Boss wrote: »

Using the excuse that abortion should be allowed because people travel to England and have it anyway is a poor excuse. People also rob and murder and take drugs, surely they should be legalized too cos people do then anyway!

Talking about poisoning the well. Murder and robbery have nothing to do with abortion. And I don't think taking drugs should be illegal, but that is besides the point. If you think it's okay for women to travel to England a. you are an asshat, expecting women to go through the stress and financial burden of getting an abortion in another country and b. you aren't against abortion, you are just being "Not in my back yard"

freshpopcorn

As I've said in previous posts I can't call this referendum basing on what I'm hearing at the moment.
If it does pass will it be celebrated in Dublin Castle like when the marriage referendum was announced? or will it just be like a standard referendum.

Kurtosis

I don't imagine so. Repeal would pave the way for a provision that virtually everyone wishes would never need to be used...so unlikely to lead to much jubilant celebration.

freshpopcorn

Kurtosis wrote: »

I don't imagine so. Repeal would pave the way for a provision that virtually everyone wishes would never need to be used...so unlikely to lead to much jubilant celebration.

Thanks, I was just thinking some might see it as a celebrations because women were getting better rights!

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

As I've said in previous posts I can't call this referendum basing on what I'm hearing at the moment.
If it does pass will it be celebrated in Dublin Castle like when the marriage referendum was announced? or will it just be like a standard referendum.

I think it will be tight. Given that many women and men fought in 83 against it, fought in the 92 referenda and in the 2002 referendum I think many will celebrate. I dont think it will be the same tone at all.

I think the support of Michael Martin and Leo Varadakar may possibly be the game changer bringing it over the line.

freshpopcorn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think it will be tight. Given that many women and men fought in 83 against it, fought in the 92 referenda and in the 2002 referendum I think many will celebrate. I dont think it will be the same tone at all.

I think the support of Michael Martin and Leo Varadakar may possibly be the game changer bringing it over the line.

Leo wasn't really a surprise to be honest Michael Martin was but once the parties have free will to vote however they want I can see their being a split. Even Today the Junior minister Patrick O'Donovan came out saying he wants to keep the eighth amendment. I'd say they could be an urban rural decide with td's and a lot will try and get out of supporting either side.

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Leo wasn't really a surprise to be honest Michael Martin was but once the parties have free will to vote however they want I can see their being a split. Even Today the Junior minister Patrick O'Donovan came out saying he wants to keep the eighth amendment. I'd say they could be an urban rural decide with td's and a lot will try and get out of supporting either side.

Given where Leo was 5 years ago it is a surprise. The leadership of political parties will mostly be looked to. The marriage referendum showed us many things
1 The people are ahead of politicians
2 Referenda campaigns lead by civil society more than politicisns works
3 The urban rural divide is not as divided as we think nowadays

I also think this media manfacturing of "both sides are shrill" is fascinating. There is a huge attempt to portray repealers as bullyers, name callers, abusers etc etc when the vast majority are perfectly reasonable.

freshpopcorn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Given where Leo was 5 years ago it is a surprise. The leadership of political parties will mostly be looked to. The marriage referendum showed us many things
1 The people are ahead of politicians
2 Referenda campaigns lead by civil society more than politicisns works
3 The urban rural divide is not as divided as we think nowadays

Where I am in Cork I know of a TD's and county Councillors who'd be pro life unless they change there minds but I don't see this with more urban TD's to b be honest.

volchitsa

freshpopcorn wrote: »

As I've said in previous posts I can't call this referendum basing on what I'm hearing at the moment.
If it does pass will it be celebrated in Dublin Castle like when the marriage referendum was announced? or will it just be like a standard referendum.

Personally, if it's passed I will be immensely relieved. Hugely so.

i'm not sure anyone actually "celebrates" abortion though, unlike the first gay marriage for instance, so no, I dont expect there will be much actual celebration as such.

January

freshpopcorn wrote: »

As I've said in previous posts I can't call this referendum basing on what I'm hearing at the moment.
If it does pass will it be celebrated in Dublin Castle like when the marriage referendum was announced? or will it just be like a standard referendum.

If it passes there are celebrations planned. Maybe not on the scale of the mar eq ref but celebrations none the less. And we won't be celebrating abortion we will be celebrating winning the right to choice.

Loafing Oaf

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Even Today the Junior minister Patrick O'Donovan came out saying he wants to keep the eighth amendment..

That being a fairly big story is a good indicator of where FG are at on this issue IMO. I think the great majority of the PP will ultimately row in behind repeal, just as they did with POLDPA.

Edward M

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Leo wasn't really a surprise to be honest Michael Martin was but once the parties have free will to vote however they want I can see their being a split. Even Today the Junior minister Patrick O'Donovan came out saying he wants to keep the eighth amendment. I'd say they could be an urban rural decide with td's and a lot will try and get out of supporting either side.

Personally, it wouldn't matter a damn to me what a TD thought.
If we can't make up our own minds on an issue such as this, without referencing what a TD thinks as to why we come to our decision, then that is not our own choice anyway, its based on someone else's thinking or feelings.
This is a personal issue to me, if I'm not happy in my own mind then I won't vote on what anybody else thinks, be they priest, politician or any other type of individual.

freshpopcorn

Edward M wrote: »

Personally, it wouldn't matter a damn to me what a TD thought.
If we can't make up our own minds on an issue such as this, without referencing what a TD thinks as to why we come to our decision, then that is not our own choice anyway, its based on someone else's thinking or feelings.
This is a personal issue to me, if I'm not happy in my own mind then I won't vote on what anybody else thinks, be they priest, politician or any other type of individual.

Yes, I agree with you regarding what a TD has to say on an issue. I might pay attention to them if it was an issue I was unsure of to get more information.
I just find it interesting where TD's put themselves regarding this issue. A lot I'd say were expecting it just to be on fatal fetal abnormalities and not abortion up to twelve weeks.

david75

Let’s be honest. Leo hasn’t given his full throated support for it at all. He’s a political opportunist and thinks he knows the country is divided on it so is hedging his bets by saying he supports it in principle but he ‘isn’t pro choice’.
It’s so greasy and transparent of him it’s kind of disgusting

Martin and FF was a shock. A total shock. But they probably realise the country is more in favour of repealing this than keeping it and are too taking advantage of the wind speed on the ground.

Marriage equality was a feelgood factor and campaign. Few TDs were stupid enough to go against it and most took full advantage of it. None more than Leo. What a perfect time to announce he was gay. And before your tea is cold he’s Taosieach.
He was happy to be the spearhead and face of progressive modern Ireland on that issue.
Now? A foot in both camps and visibly uncomfortable about it.

He’s repulsive.

De Bild

freshpopcorn wrote: »

As I've said in previous posts I can't call this referendum basing on what I'm hearing at the moment.
If it does pass will it be celebrated in Dublin Castle like when the marriage referendum was announced? or will it just be like a standard referendum.

:D:D Are you a referendum specialist or just incredibly vain?!