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

eviltwin

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Down Syndrome Ireland's funding ?

Yeah. I can't link it but he had a few tweets about it.

Itssoeasy

eviltwin wrote: »

Yeah. I can't link it but he had a few tweets about it.

Is it in relation to their statement recently or is it some other reason ?

Thanks I'll go find those tweets.

Loafing Oaf

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

It's a very carefully worded and diplomatic statement and fair play to them. But yes it's blatantly applicable to the pro-life campaign for the most part and not really to pro-repeal.

I think it would have been better to condemn all use of people with DS for propaganda purposes in principle and then say so far all examples of this we've seen have been by the anti-repeal side. The way it is phrased leaves them open to the accusation of pretending to say "a plague on both your houses" but in reality exclusively targeting the pro-lifers.

eviltwin

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Is it in relation to their statement recently or is it some other reason ?

Thanks I'll go find those tweets.

It's in relation to their statement. He tweeted it on the 26th

Itssoeasy

eviltwin wrote: »

It's in relation to their statement. He tweeted it on the 26th

I've just had a look at the tweet and his twitter account in general. He doesn't help the pro life side as I see so much anger and nastiness. There is no need for that.

david75

We should all take a moment to thank DeBild and similar people.

They’re doing an amazing job of completely shooting themselves in the foot with their loudmouth shouting and patronising and insulting and utterly factually vapid points of view.

These people did the same thing in marriage equality and it backfired horribly on them.

Keep up the great work DeBild. You’re doing great work altogether.
Do you even realise I wonder.

ForestFire

How do people feel about the referendum leaving the initial, and all future decisions on this, in the hands of our capable and future unknown governments?

Do you think this could turn a lot of people to the other side, that were possible happy with relaxing the constitution (12 weeks for example) to basically voting for the unknown?

People don't even trust the government with our water supply and now, on a basic moral question, they are asking the public to leave it up to them?

This seems crazy to me, but maybe they expect to have enough support anyway?

swampgas

ForestFire wrote: »

How do people feel about the referendum leaving the initial, and all future decisions on this, in the hands of our capable and future unknown governments?

Do you think this could turn a lot of people to the other side, that were possible happy with relaxing the constitution (12 weeks for example) to basically voting for the unknown?

People don't even trust the government with our water supply and now, on a basic moral question, they are asking the public to leave it up to them?

This seems crazy to me, but maybe they expect to have enough support anyway?

Eh ... isn't that democracy though? The government is answerable to the electorate. If you don't trust the government, what's your alternative? The Pope?

ForestFire

swampgas wrote: »

Eh ... isn't that democracy though? The government is answerable to the electorate. If you don't trust the government, what's your alternative? The Pope?

There is a very important thing called the constitution.
Do you not think we need it?

The alternative was clear so not sure why you brought the Pope into it?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I think it would have been better to condemn all use of people with DS for propaganda purposes in principle and then say so far all examples of this we've seen have been by the anti-repeal side. The way it is phrased leaves them open to the accusation of pretending to say "a plague on both your houses" but in reality exclusively targeting the pro-lifers.

But for them to start playing that card would be a tacit admission that they're the ones doing it, and I doubt that beyond the absolute lunatic fringe (whose votes are in the bag anyway) Love Both are going to come out looking good if they go up against Down Syndrome Ireland.

It's like a discreet office circular saying please stop doing xyz and someone pipes up "well that's obviously directed at me and I resent that".

In one of the most sensitive areas of a very sensitive and complex subject, Down Syndrome Ireland have acted with dignity, intelligence and tact, my hat is off to them anyway.

I think the analogous anti-repeal argument is that the pro-choice lobby have exploited cases like Savita Halappanavar and people in a fatal foetal abnormality situation for their own ends, but to my knowledge (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), no national organisation, and not Mrs Halappanavar's family, have felt the need or inclination to release a similar statement.

drkpower

January wrote: »

As early as possible and as late as necessary. Taking into account that the vast majority of abortions that take place after week 16 are for fetal abnormality or threat to the pregnant person's life I'm happy with there being no time limit, if the baby is viable then it will be born and given life support.

Of course, the number of cases where someone would choose to terminate their pregnancy after 24 weeks - absent a threat to life/health - is extremely extremely small.

But that said, if it is permitted, would the born child have any rights of redress (against its mother) in circumstances where the choice to deliver at 24, 25 weeks etc leaves them with catastrophic injuries and need for lifelong care?

Bannasidhe

drkpower wrote: »

Of course, the number of cases where someone would choose to terminate their pregnancy after 24 weeks - absent a threat to life/health - is extremely extremely small.

But that said, if it is permitted, would the born child have any rights of redress (against its mother) in circumstances where the choice to deliver at 24, 25 weeks etc leaves them with catastrophic injuries and need for lifelong care?

To play Devil's Advocate - what recourse does a person born with severe, life limiting, 24 hour care dependent, physical and mental disabilities have if their mother/parents went ahead with the pregnancy in full knowledge of the life she/they would be imposing on her offspring?

Can a person sue their parents for choosing to confine them to a life of difficulty and pain?

ohnonotgmail

ForestFire wrote: »

There is a very important thing called the constitution.
Do you not think we need it?

The alternative was clear so not sure why you brought the Pope into it?

the constitution is a terrible place for something as complicated as abortion rights. It also leaves the future interpretation up to the courts and not the people or the government.

freshpopcorn

I have to say I can't see the eighth being repealed if the government can go changing the 12 week rule without putting it to another referendum!

eviltwin

drkpower wrote: »

Of course, the number of cases where someone would choose to terminate their pregnancy after 24 weeks - absent a threat to life/health - is extremely extremely small.

But that said, if it is permitted, would the born child have any rights of redress (against its mother) in circumstances where the choice to deliver at 24, 25 weeks etc leaves them with catastrophic injuries and need for lifelong care?

How would that work? People aren't suing their mothers, or others, for damage caused during pregnancy now, why would that change?

volchitsa

drkpower wrote: »

Of course, the number of cases where someone would choose to terminate their pregnancy after 24 weeks - absent a threat to life/health - is extremely extremely small.

But that said, if it is permitted, would the born child have any rights of redress (against its mother) in circumstances where the choice to deliver at 24, 25 weeks etc leaves them with catastrophic injuries and need for lifelong care?

I know someone where a planned caesarean at 30 weeks for medical reasons (mother's, not baby) turned into an emergency for the newborn who it turned out was a lot less mature than had been thought.

Same thing, isnt it, except the expected risk of things going wrong was thought to be smaller. But that was wrong. So why would harm done at 25 weeks be the mother's fault, but not at 30? If anyone has caused the harm, it seems to be the doctors who gave the go ahead.

drkpower

I can see your point B, but I suppose there is perhaps a qualitative difference between allowing a child who already has such difficulties to live as against causing a 'normal' child to have such difficulties by one's own actions and choices.

It's not an exact analogy (ad ever when trying to analogise to pregnancy/abortion topics), but where a doctor in trying to save the life of a critically ill person succeeds but leaves them in a vegatative state, no one would dream of suing them, but if a doctor's actions turns a well person into a 'vegetable', they would be sued, and quick.

ForestFire

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the constitution is a terrible place for something as complicated as abortion rights. It also leaves the future interpretation up to the courts and not the people or the government.

Any presiding government can at anytime clarify and/or hold a new referendum to clarify/modify or remove, it if it is really necessary.

So the will of the government and people cannot just be ignored

But you missing the point, I am not asking about how you or I feel on the abortion topic.

I am asking do you think if will affect the general population and result?

Are you happy that the question will be asked to the public to just remove the 8th amendment without replacing it with anything?

And again this is not what you or I would like, but what you think could have an affect on the result.

Bannasidhe

drkpower wrote: »

I can see your point B, but I suppose there is perhaps a qualitative difference between allowing a child who already has such difficulties to live as against causing a 'normal' child to have such difficulties by one's own actions and choices.

It's not an exact analogy (ad ever when trying to analogise to pregnancy/abortion topics), but where a doctor in trying to save the life of a critically ill person succeeds but leaves them in a vegatative state, no one would dream of suing them, but if a doctor's actions turns a well person into a 'vegetable', they would be sued, and quick.

Take something like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome - could a person with F.A.S. sue their mother for consuming a few glasses of wine [as there is no safe amount any alcohol is deemed 'dangerous' ] in the early stages of pregnancy knowing they were pregnant? Would that not be a 'choice' which caused difficulties?

Will we see a time when the (possibly adult) children of anti-vaxxers sue their parents if they contract an illness for which a vaccine was denied?

Kurtosis

drkpower wrote: »

I can see your point B, but I suppose there is perhaps a qualitative difference between allowing a child who already has such difficulties to live as against causing a 'normal' child to have such difficulties by one's own actions and choices.

It's not an exact analogy (ad ever when trying to analogise to pregnancy/abortion topics), but where a doctor in trying to save the life of a critically ill person succeeds but leaves them in a vegatative state, no one would dream of suing them, but if a doctor's actions turns a well person into a 'vegetable', they would be sued, and quick.

Well if it is occurring at 24/25 weeks, referring to it as a choice doesn't really capture the circumstances fully. Any course of action that results in termination of a pregnancy would be the woman and her doctor(s), and would have to medically indicated. It's far closer to your critically ill person scenario than your well person scenario.

drkpower

eviltwin wrote: »

How would that work? People aren't suing their mothers, or others, for damage caused during pregnancy now, why would that change?

In some common law jurisdictions they are believe it or not. In the U.K., there is an immunity for maternal negligence causing injury to their unborn children. There are good policy reasons for that as allowing such suits would put the mother and unborn in a significant legal conflict which wou,d be more than undesirable. But even in the U.K., the immunity doesn't apply for negligent driving for instance.

The good reasons for the immunity though may not apply to an active conscious decision to deliver at , lets say, 24 weeks where the decision is almost certain to cause significant injury.

drkpower

volchitsa wrote: »

I know someone where a planned caesarean at 30 weeks for medical reasons (mother's, not baby) turned into an emergency for the newborn who it turned out was a lot less mature than had been thought.

Same thing, isnt it, except the expected risk of things going wrong was thought to be smaller. But that was wrong. So why would harm done at 25 weeks be the mother's fault, but not at 30? If anyone has caused the harm, it seems to be the doctors who gave the go ahead.

I am assuming for the purposes of my hypothetical that there is absolutely no 'medical' indication for the termination, it is purely by choice.

eviltwin

drkpower wrote: »

In some common law jurisdictions they are believe it or not. In the U.K., there is an immunity for maternal negligence causing injury to their unborn children. There are good policy reasons for that as allowing such suits would put the mother and unborn in a significant legal conflict which wou,d be more than undesirable. But even in the U.K., the immunity doesn't apply for negligent driving for instance.

The good reasons for the immunity though may not apply to an active conscious decision to deliver at , lets say, 24 weeks where the decision is almost certain to cause significant injury.

We don't see it here though nor should we. The last thing we want is to see women criminalised as a result of their actions during pregnancy.

david75

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I think it would have been better to condemn all use of people with DS for propaganda purposes in principle and then say so far all examples of this we've seen have been by the anti-repeal side. The way it is phrased leaves them open to the accusation of pretending to say "a plague on both your houses" but in reality exclusively targeting the pro-lifers.

The PLC really don’t seem to have gotten the message. This is them literally hanging themselves. Leave them to it I say.

https://twitter.com/fotoole/status/958081825372549120

Edward M

There's lots of rights arguments here.
Let's say hypothetically, that a woman goes to the father of her pregnancy and says, I'm pregnant and I am going to have the baby and keep it. The father says no, I want that baby aborted, I'm not ready for fatherhood now, it would ruin my life.
Now if he walks away from his responsibility he is classed as a scumbag shirking his responsibility and leaving her in the lurch?
Also hypothetically, let's say a woman has a late abortion, the baby somehow survives, should this mother then be entitled to walk away with no responsibility for that baby?

drkpower

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Take something like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome - could a person with F.A.S. sue their mother for consuming a few glasses of wine [as there is no safe amount any alcohol is deemed 'dangerous' ] in the early stages of pregnancy knowing they were pregnant? Would that not be a 'choice' which caused difficulties?

Will we see a time when the (possibly adult) children of anti-vaxxers sue their parents if they contract an illness for which a vaccine was denied?

I think the qualitative difference is that abusing alcohol - even at extreme levels - is not absolutely certain to result in significant injury.

A choice to deliver at 24 weeks is.

I appreciate there is a lot of 'grey' in these situations, for sure, but for those who advocate that absolute choice extends to such decisions to terminate a pregnancy at 24 weeks, are you comfortable that the then born child has no redress at all. From a position of being normal, they are now without a mother, are profoundly disabled, and will probably be in lifelong state care. I am all for maternal choice and autonomy but don't we have to engage in some sort of balancing exercise where the consequences for the child are so catastrophic?

swampgas

ForestFire wrote: »

There is a very important thing called the constitution.
Do you not think we need it?

The alternative was clear so not sure why you brought the Pope into it?

The 8th amendment was actually put in place to prevent democratically elected governments legalising abortion. It was designed to tie the hands of legislators for as long as possible, as a referendum would be needed to undo it. In that sense it has been very successful as a way of thwarting the will of the people.

When I hear people "fearing" what an "unconstrained" government might do, I start to smell a rat. If the people vote in a government that legalises abortion, that's how it should be.

My tongue-in-cheek reference to the pope was a reference to the way the RC church has had undue influence in the past in such matters. Often when people have "moral" concerns about the way the government might legislate, there is a religious dimension that they think should take precedence. Apologies if I took you up wrong on that.

freshpopcorn

Oh God, I just remembered we're in for months of posters being vandalised and fighting online over it.

drkpower

eviltwin wrote: »

We don't see it here though nor should we. The last thing we want is to see women criminalised as a result of their actions during pregnancy.

I didn't mention criminalisation. The question is whether the child, now born, left profoundly disabled and in need of lifelong care due to a choice to deliver at 24 weeks for no medical indication, should have no rights to redress thereafter?

eviltwin

drkpower wrote: »

I didn't mention criminalisation. The question is whether the child, now born, left profoundly disabled and in need of lifelong care due to a choice to deliver at 24 weeks for no medical indication, should have no rights to redress thereafter?

Why should they? Are you going to start looking for redress for those who smoke, drank, took drugs during pregnancy?