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

ohnonotgmail

Wombatman wrote: »

Depends on profit margins surely?

selling babies to americans was pure profit. You cant beat that for margins.

Guy:Incognito

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

selling babies to americans was pure profit.

Hardly, sure just like any business, the biggest overhead is wages . Oh no hang on.........

Funnyonion79

raspberrypi67 wrote: »

Forgive me not reading all of the ( boring ) but what exactly does repealing the 8th imply for the unborn and for the woman? Can it be explained in 2 sentences. ?
I'm thinking here we go again, I'm not going to vote if I dont fully understand what they are at here....

Have a listen to Leo’s speech from last night and that should explain everything

.......

This post has been deleted.

pleas advice

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I can't see what people gain ,in their own lives, from knowing they tried to restrict other peoples rights. Does it really give them comfort to sit at home in front of the telly thinking " I really stuck it to those women/men that I'll never know today"

Some people believe an unborn human has rights, is it really that hard to understand?

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

Some people believe an unborn human has rights, is it really that hard to understand?

Oh I understand THAT they think that. WHY they think it is something I have never understood in the context of a 12 week old fetus. And they do not seem to be able to explain it either.

The most we have been offered in that regard is from a poster unable to back up half the things they have said so far. And that was the fantastical claim that if something potentially could have rights in the future, it has a right to get to that point in it's future and attain them.

Bannasidhe

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Have no doubt the governments of the day were working hand in glove with the RCC in selling 'guaranteed white' children to unvetted Americans.

http://www.thejournal.ie/us-adoptions-ireland-1950s-royal-irish-academy-3150953-Jan2017/

SusieBlue

pleas advice wrote: »

Some people believe an unborn human has rights, is it really that hard to understand?

I believe that the living, breathing woman who is carrying that unborn human is far more important and that her needs and wants should be prioritised.
I don't believe her rights should be diminished and her bodily integrity not upheld, at the expense of giving a fetus (who cannot grow without her) equal rights.
If it weren't for her there would be no unborn to begin with.

.......

This post has been deleted.

baylah17

pleas advice wrote: »

Some people believe an unborn human has rights, is it really that hard to understand?

Yes it is.

How can a week old fetus be considered a unborn human? How does it acquire rights at that stage.

By your logic from the instant of conception it has rights, do those conceived through IVF have the same rights? Do frozen embryos have the "right" to be brought to full term and be "born", and if so who will forcibly implant them in womb of a woman against her will?

Spanish Eyes

Repeal or not, abortion is a reality here, whether by imported pills or travelling to another country.

If people thought that disabled children were guaranteed the best of care and facilities throughout their lives, there would be less talk of DS abortions and all the rest of it.

The focus should be on treating the children of the nation equally in every respect whether suffering from a profound/mild disability or not. That is pro life, not pro foetus and it is where the focus should lie. Sadly we have seen so many protests at the lack of facilities for our disabled community. That's where it should all start really.

Rights for the born.

Cabaal

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

selling babies to americans was pure profit. You cant beat that for margins.

Especially when you consider,
- You sell the baby and make a profit off the sale
- You then get yearly "donations" for a few years from the American's
- You continue to charge the Irish state (in many cases) claiming you still have the baby even though you don't.

Fine money makers for the nuns it was

Mrs Shuttleworth

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Mod: Mrs Shuttleworth, this type of post is borderline racist and conspiracy theorist hysteria. If you want to be taken seriously, maybe backing up outlandish statements with some sort of credible source would be a good start.

Surprised that you're moderating a forum such as this and not aware of stories such as the below.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/14/heres-the-company-that-buys-aborted-body-parts-from-planned-parenthood/

SusieBlue

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Surprised that you're moderating a forum such as this and not aware of stories such as the below.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/14/heres-the-company-that-buys-aborted-body-parts-from-planned-parenthood/

What about the nuns selling babies to rich Americans while forcing their mothers to work in laundries for years on end to pay off their "debt" to society?

Bannasidhe

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Surprised that you're moderating a forum such as this and not aware of stories such as the below.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/14/heres-the-company-that-buys-aborted-body-parts-from-planned-parenthood/

Breitbart?!?
Seriously???

pleas advice

baylah17 wrote: »

How can a week old fetus be considered a unborn human? How does it acquire rights at that stage.

By virtue of being taxonomically human.

seamus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Breitbart?!?
Seriously???

Breitbart is the conspiracy theorist's bible. They collaborate a lot with "Sandy Hook was a hoax" Alex Jones.

There's only one type of person who takes Breitbart seriously.

baylah17

pleas advice wrote: »

By virtue of being taxonomically human.

Beyond ridiculous.
You going to answer my questions now re IVF and Frozen embryos?

Bannasidhe

pleas advice wrote: »

By virtue of being taxonomically human.

Do you object to life support machines being switched off when they are keeping a 'taxonomically human' brain dead person alive?

After all, a life support machine performs many of the same functions as a womb

Mrs Shuttleworth

WhiteRoses wrote: »

What about the nuns selling babies to rich Americans while forcing their mothers to work in laundries for years on end to pay off their "debt" to society?

I don't agree with it at all. Horrendous. But a different argument.

If you don't want or can't handle a baby, whether the 1950s or today, don't have penetrative sex until you can.

It's not rocket science. For some "repealers", maybe it is.

pleas advice

baylah17 wrote: »

Beyond ridiculous.
You going to answer my questions now re IVF and Frozen embryos?

How is it beyond ridiculous? Would you afford the same rights to a dog as a one year old child?

Night Falls

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I don't agree with it at all. Horrendous. But a different argument.

If you don't want or can't handle a baby, whether the 1950s or today, don't have penetrative sex until you can.

It's not rocket science. For some "repealers", maybe it is.

I guess anal is ok then.

baylah17

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I don't agree with it at all. Horrendous. But a different argument.

If you don't want or can't handle a baby, whether the 1950s or today, don't have penetrative sex until you can.

It's not rocket science. For some "repealers", maybe it is.

So its a womans / childs decision to be raped? To be the victim of incest?
And sex is only for the purpose of creating babies????

Ave Sodalis

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Surprised that you're moderating a forum such as this and not aware of stories such as the below.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/14/heres-the-company-that-buys-aborted-body-parts-from-planned-parenthood/

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

If you don't want or can't handle a baby, whether the 1950s or today, don't have penetrative sex until you can.

It's not rocket science. For some "repealers", maybe it is.

As someone who is pro-choice, I think you should campaign for the pro-life side more

baylah17

pleas advice wrote: »

How is it beyond ridiculous? Would you afford the same rights to a dog as a one year old child?

Still waiting on your answer re IVF and Frozen embryos....

As for you dog analogy, well thats beyond pathetic, Cora

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

How is it beyond ridiculous? Would you afford the same rights to a dog as a one year old child?

Clearly not, but the mediation point for that differential is not taxonomy. But sentience.

To highlight this, ask the SAME question you just asked but about two non-human entities. Lets say a dog and a spider. Would you afford them the same rights?

Neither is taxonomically human. So what is the mediation point? Why is one element in a taxonomy tree afforded higher rights than another?

Also future proof your question. If we created a fully sentient AI tomorrow, or met a fully sentient alien species.... would we afford them any rights, or moral and ethical concerns? If so, then why given they are not taxonomically human?

I do not think taxonomy is a useful foundation point for concepts like rights and ethics. But I would be interested to see you argue how and why it should be if you can, as it is the VERY point that others have simply run away from the thread when called on.

kenmc

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I don't agree with it at all. Horrendous. But a different argument.

If you don't want or can't handle a baby, whether the 1950s or today, don't have penetrative sex OR GET RAPED until you can.

It's not rocket science. For some "repealers", maybe it is.

Fixed your post for you, you missed a corner case

eviltwin

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Repeal or not, abortion is a reality here, whether by imported pills or travelling to another country.

If people thought that disabled children were guaranteed the best of care and facilities throughout their lives, there would be less talk of DS abortions and all the rest of it.

The focus should be on treating the children of the nation equally in every respect whether suffering from a profound/mild disability or not. That is pro life, not pro foetus and it is where the focus should lie. Sadly we have seen so many protests at the lack of facilities for our disabled community. That's where it should all start really.

Rights for the born.

Ironically some of the TD's mouthing about supports for special needs now are the very ones who voted to take away support for disabled and special needs children during the referendum. Fooling no-one with their hypocrisy.

Cabaal

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Surprised that you're moderating a forum such as this and not aware of stories such as the below.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/14/heres-the-company-that-buys-aborted-body-parts-from-planned-parenthood/

You believe thats a legitimate and crediable news source?
If you believe that then I have some magic beans you might want to buy :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

If you don't want or can't handle a baby, whether the 1950s or today, don't have penetrative sex until you can.

Yeah Abstinence approaches to sex and sexuality resulted in MORE unwanted pregnancies in places that attempted it. So you are onto a fail there from the outset.

As others point out however not all penetrative sex is consented to, or planned. So I do not need to hammer that door any more.

What others have not also highlighted, so I will repeat it here, is that many people who CAN "handle a baby" suddenly can not do so after conception. Their circumstances change. So not pretend/assume that all unwanted pregnancies were unwanted at the time of conception. Sometimes through death or abandonment the woman who discovers she is pregnant finds herself suddenly single and unable to handle the baby she was previously capable of handling.

There are ANY NUMBER of reasons a women can find herself pregnant with a baby she now does not want, or can not cope with. And if it is at the earliest stages of pregnancy where the fetus has not even remotely started developing, let alone attained, any level of sentience I am not seeing any arguments.......... absolutely least of all from you........ as to why termination of that pregnancy should not be an option for her.

It's not rocket science. For some conspiracy theorists perhaps it is though.