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

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I'm listening to Ronan Mullen from earlier today ... Also the fact he worked for the Catholic Church will not help people who for whatever reason aren't fans of the Catholic Church

The fact that he is 1000 toads inside a "human" suit doesn't help, either.

eviltwin

Night Falls wrote: »

I'm not certain that the older female vote will be as weighted in favour of what you might call a "conservative" position as in other topics. Young votes are certainly needed, but I don't think the older generations will be the gimme that would usually be assumed.

I also think we do the elderly a disservice by assuming they will vote No

All the elderly people I've engaged with are in favour of Repeal

ohnonotgmail

Laois_Man wrote: »

They’ll be forced to take a position on it if losing votes to another party in an election campaign

There will be no stomach for even mentioning it. Lets just get the referendum out of the way first.

Zubeneschamali

Night Falls wrote: »

There is a whole lot of crazy on this thread and it is absolutely fascinating to watch.

Have you noticed anything the loons in this thread have in common?

ohnonotgmail

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Have you noticed anything the loons in this thread have in common?

Ooh Ooh Ooh, i know sir.

Zubeneschamali

Laois_Man wrote: »

every General Election forever more could effectively become another abortion referendum with every party proposing new changes as part of their manifesto.

Yes, this is called Representative Democracy, and usually regarded as pretty cool.

Edit: but in fact, on this issue? No. Any changes will happen through an all-party committee system, because no party will want to be a target of pro-life/pro-choice warfare. Pass this, and we will basically never hear from the prolifers again, bar having to avoid the occasional street speaker.

A bit like the anti-divorce lobby, in fact.

Zubeneschamali

Night Falls wrote: »

I don't think the older generations will be the gimme that would usually be assumed.

I agree. A 70-year-old today would have been 35 in 1983, and not by any means guaranteed to be a prolifer. Some have been working all these years to reverse this mistake.

Laois_Man

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

There will be no stomach for even mentioning it. Lets just get the referendum out of the way first.

Your trouble is you’re only considering party’s who actually want to get into power. Certain destructive party’s with no such genuine ambitions will take enormous delight from backing the likes of FF/FG into a damaging corner.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, this is called Representative Democracy, and usually regarded as pretty cool.

Most sane people are dreading this campaign once every 20 years. Imagine having it every 2-5 years

Dev84

We as a country and i have no doubt about it will scrap the 8th.

Kurtosis

pleas advice wrote: »

what nonsense is this?

The proposals are clearly not more liberal than Britain's laws.

freshpopcorn

I can see a good few constituencies voting No in this referendum unlike the marriage one. Any place that was under about 55% could easily go No this time around and it will take Dublin/Urban areas to pull it over.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, some of the prolifers are beginning to believe the polls - realizing they will lose, they want to prevent a vote.

I would be very concerned at this stage re this referendum being passed. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

The main reasons:
1. SSM was only 2 years ago and 38pc voted No. it is hard to believe that many of that 38pc who felt SSM was a step too far, will be comfortable with repeal (plus abortion to 12 weeks).

2. A chunk of that 12pc can safely be considered to be in the antirepeal camp on the 8th. That leaves a very small amounts of votes to play for. And those swing voters are likely going to be people who until recently would have been very uncomfortable with a 12 week regime.

3. The anti repeal campaign has barely started yet, while the pro repeal campaign have been out early and have led the narrative for the last few months.

4. There may be an aura of overconfidence beginning to slip into the pro repeal side that won't play well amongst the few percentage of middle ground voters who will decide this.

The last point is the easiest to counter. The pro repeal campaign needs to be all about 'safe, legal and rare'. It needs to folllow the example of the SSM campaign by being utterly respectful of differences, emphasising how each decision is a deeply personal one, and needs to avoid the inevitable temptation to enter argumentative debates on the value or otherwise of the pre 12 week foetus. However one feels on the latter, those debates will win no votes amongst the target demographic.

pleas advice

Kurtosis wrote: »

The proposals are clearly not more liberal than Britain's laws.

oh right, i thought you were disputing the numbers.

although I don't think theres an equivalent restriction proposed for our laws as the one below, however ineffectual it is

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith -

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or

Beechwoodspark

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I can see a good few constituencies voting No in this referendum unlike the marriage one. Any place that was under about 55% could easily go No this time around and it will take Dublin/Urban areas to pull it over.

Just anecdotally in my role I travel around rural Ireland (midlands and south east mainly) and to me it seems the pro life side will win easily at this stage. Just no sense of momentum for the repeal side but that is just my sense of it at moment.

david75

drkpower wrote: »

I would be very concerned at this stage re this referendum being passed. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

The main reasons:
1. SSM was only 2 years ago and 38pc voted No. it is hard to believe that many of that 38pc who felt SSM was a step too far, will be comfortable with repeal (plus abortion to 12 weeks).

2. A chunk of that 12pc can safely be considered to be in the antirepeal camp on the 8th. That leaves a very small amounts of votes to play for. And those swing voters are likely going to be people who until recently would have been very uncomfortable with a 12 week regime.

3. The anti repeal campaign has barely started yet, while the pro repeal campaign have been out early and have led the narrative for the last few months.

4. There may be an aura of overconfidence beginning to slip into the pro repeal side that won't play well amongst the few percentage of middle ground voters who will decide this.

The last point is the easiest to counter. The pro repeal campaign needs to be all about 'safe, legal and rare'. It needs to folllow the example of the SSM campaign by being utterly respectful of differences, emphasising how each decision is a deeply personal one, and needs to avoid the inevitable temptation to enter argumentative debates on the value or otherwise of the pre 12 week foetus. However one feels on the latter, those debates will win no votes amongst the target demographic.

We live in an age where fear lies and pure bullsh!t will stick in people’s minds regardless of how strong the opposing actual facts and evidence presented are or how well they’re presented. So you may well be right.

It might not pass.

What kind of victory is that?

Women will still go to Britain for abortions.

So what will the pro life campaign actually achieve if they’re victorious?

It’s completely self defeating of themselves and their motives

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

and needs to avoid the inevitable temptation to enter argumentative debates on the value or otherwise of the pre 12 week foetus. However one feels on the latter, those debates will win no votes amongst the target demographic.

I disagree. No-one who thinks a fertilized cell is a human baby with an equal right to life will vote to repeal the 8th no matter what anyone says in the campaign.

But even though it is popular among pro-lifers to say things like that, nobody much believes it. I see no reason to let the pro-life campaign lie about this.

Right to travel passed 62:38, and that was 25 years ago. Suicide, 65:35. Information, 60:40. We all knew we were voting for abortion on demand, just in England.

I think on the day, 60:40 is quite possible. (Of course I'll be quite happy with 50.1)

Mrs Shuttleworth

murpho999 wrote: »

It will be to repeal the 8th.

Simple as that.

Legislation will then decide the terms afterwards.

I don't get why a rape victim's child is ok to be aborted but not that of an unwanted crisis pregnancy. I don't see the difference.

"Unwanted crisis pregnancy", oh get to f**k.

This referendum is purely to facilitate Tara Flynn types to bang strange men without a condom and without consequences, and greedy doctors get rich on the back of it.

Referendum night I'd rather watch Bullseye reruns than get off my ar $e to facilitate selfish hipsters.

At least be honest about your motives.

eviltwin

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

"Unwanted crisis pregnancy", oh get to f**k.

This referendum is purely to facilitate Tara Flynn types to bang strange men without a condom and without consequences, and greedy doctors get rich on the back of it.

Referendum night I'd rather watch Bullseye reruns than get off my ar $e to facilitate selfish hipsters.

Yes that's exactly why nearly 170,000 Irish women have had abortions

[Deleted User]

I'm still stunned that people feel this is worth debating voluntarily.

Nobody is changing anybody's mind folks.

Get out and vote on the day. Ignore the ugliness the media will stir up. That's all anyone can do.

It will pass comfortably.

JupiterKid

The result will be a lot closer than the SSM referendum, that’s for sure. It may be as wafer thin close as the divorce referendum of 1995. There will be a marked urban-rural divide, with Dublin being yes and probably the regional cities.

Constituencies like Roscommon-South Leitrim and Donegal will be strongly no.

One key issue is how many young people eligible to vote will register and actually use their vote. This could swing the result.

Mrs Shuttleworth

eviltwin wrote: »

Yes that's exactly why nearly 170,000 Irish women have had abortions

They banged when they didn't want a baby and now they expect us to massage and assuage their egos post the event. They can p*$$ off, no sympathy.

Zubeneschamali

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Just no sense of momentum for the repeal side but that is just my sense of it at moment.

The campaign hasn't started yet, we haven't even seen the text.

It's a bit early to be thinking about momentum.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I disagree. No-one who thinks a fertilized cell is a human baby with an equal right to life will vote to repeal the 8th no matter what anyone says in the campaign.

But even though it is popular among pro-lifers to say things like that, nobody much believes it. I see no reason to let the pro-life campaign lie about this.

Right to travel passed 62:38, and that was 25 years ago. Suicide, 65:35. Information, 60:40. We all knew we were voting for abortion on demand, just in England.

I think on the day, 60:40 is quite possible. (Of course I'll be quite happy with 50.1)

The pro life campaign campaign are going to lie whether you let them or not. But you have to choose your battles wisely. Whether anyone likes or agrees with it, a lot of the middle ground - the people who will decide this - have a very conflicted view on what the early foetus represents. Characterising the early foetus as 'value-less' may be what you believe, it may even be intellectually rigorous (for some), but it will likely alienate those voters. That may represent a short term victory for you, but won't achieve the end you want. Better to respect that position, while advocating for repeal due to the myriad of other good reasons that exist for it.

JupiterKid

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

"Unwanted crisis pregnancy", oh get to f**k.

This referendum is purely to facilitate Tara Flynn types to bang strange men without a condom and without consequences, and greedy doctors get rich on the back of it.

Referendum night I'd rather watch Bullseye reruns than get off my ar $e to facilitate selfish hipsters.

At least be honest about your motives.

How are things in the 1950s? Sure those brazen hussies deserve to be thrown into the laundries, yes?

david75

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

They banged when they didn't want a baby and now they expect us to massage and assuage their egos post the event. They can p*$$ off, no sympathy.

Amazing. With any luck this kind of comment gets blared loud and all the women who have had miscarriages or been raped or have had FFA experiences don’t hear it.

This thinking and attitude is exactly why this ref will pass.

eviltwin

JupiterKid wrote: »

How are things in the 1950s? Sure those brazen hussies deserve to be thrown into the laundries, yes?

Ah she's watching Bullseye, definitely stuck circa 1985

TomSweeney

JupiterKid wrote: »

The result will be a lot closer than the SSM referendum, that’s for sure. It may be as wafer thin close as the divorce referendum of 1995. There will be a marked urban-rural divide, with Dublin being yes and probably the regional cities.

Constituencies like Roscommon-South Leitrim and Donegal will be strongly no.

One key issue is how many young people eligible to vote will register and actually use their vote. This could swing the result.

I think I'll come home to vote to repeal this.
I hope other ex pats do too.

pleas advice

TomSweeney wrote: »

I think I'll come home to vote to repeal this.
I hope other ex pats do too.

you're being illegal

Itssoeasy

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

eviltwin wrote: »

Yes that's exactly why nearly 170,000 Irish women have had abortions

They banged when they didn't want a baby and now they expect us to massage and assuage their egos post the event. They can p*$ off, no sympathy.

Is that type of language helpful in any way ? I feel like I'm watching a clip from the late late with Alice Glenn. I'd have hoped we as a country would be past this view in 2018.

Itssoeasy

pleas advice wrote: »

TomSweeney wrote: »

I think I'll come home to vote to repeal this.
I hope other ex pats do too.

you're being illegal

If the poster is registered to vote in this country then no it's not illegal.