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

Mrs Shuttleworth

baylah17 wrote: »

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????

I'm not a "pro-lifer" actually. I agree with abortion in certain cases and I thought originally that's what would be proposed.

But I can't and won't vote for what's being pushed now, abortion up to twelve weeks without restriction where the front line treatment is a two stage pill with a woman pumping blood out of herself at home. That's criminal medical negligence.

eviltwin

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I'm not a "pro-lifer" actually. I agree with abortion in certain cases and I thought originally that's what would be proposed.

But I can't and won't vote for what's being pushed now, abortion up to twelve weeks without restriction where the front line treatment is a two stage pill with a woman pumping blood out of herself at home. That's criminal medical negligence.

Where's the negligence in that?

nozzferrahhtoo

eviltwin wrote: »

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.

Yea we get that a lot. We even got told on this very thread that woman should not be allowed abort because that would stop their social mobility by not forcing them to discover their "true potential" (tm)........ but single parent allowance, child allowance, and social welfare should be done away for them because..... well I guess we do not want them getting money with which they could realize their "true potential" (tm).

I guess to reach your true potential every humanly possibly hurdle should be put in your way, and every piece of social empathy and support should be put out of your reach. Then, in a "Mother Teresa" style fetishism for suffering.... you can raise like a bird of flame from the ashes and be more than you ever could be before.

Ave Sodalis

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

But I can't and won't vote for what's being pushed now, abortion up to twelve weeks without restriction where the front line treatment is a two stage pill with a woman pumping blood out of herself at home. That's criminal medical negligence.

That's exactly what's happening now. Voting for the repeal at least grants the women medical after care.

.......

This post has been deleted.

murpho999

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I'm not a "pro-lifer" actually. I agree with abortion in certain cases and I thought originally that's what would be proposed.

But I can't and won't vote for what's being pushed now, abortion up to twelve weeks without restriction where the front line treatment is a two stage pill with a woman pumping blood out of herself at home. That's criminal medical negligence.

Why do people use just dramatic and evocative terms on this matter?

How do you know what the abortion treatment will be?

This is not what is done in other countries?

You say now you support abortion certain cases. What cases? Let me guess, incest, rape and fatal foetal abnormality? So how can you discriminate against their rights?
What is being "pushed" by the way is Repeal of the 8th which will then allow our parliament to legislate on the matter and not what you are saying

ohnonotgmail

murpho999 wrote: »

Why do people use just dramatic and evocative terms on this matter?

How do you know what the abortion treatment will be?

This is not what is done in other countries?

You say now you support abortion certain cases. What cases? Let me guess, incest, rape and fatal foetal abnormality? So how can you discriminate against their rights?
What is being "pushed" by the way is Repeal of the 8th which will then allow our parliament to legislate on the matter and not what you are saying

Because they dont actually have anything worth saying.

[Deleted User]

Cabaal wrote: »

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:

Well they linked a video and that seems legit

Mint Sauce

Whilst I have nearly always been for abortion in exceptional circumstances, ie, rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities, risk of life to the mother, etc, I am not sure if I like Leo Varadkars or the Governments current wording, and it sits slightly uncomfortably with me.

Firstly the unrestricted 12 weeks. Whilst I am not totally one sided to prolife, as per my opening paragraph, and do agree to the argument to some extent, of womans body, her choice, 12 weeks, where there is definitely life present, I dont think I can be in support of.

Then, a yes vote which allows the Government responsibility to legislate, thats all well and good, but how far could they take this legislation, I would be interested in hearing what this planned legislation would be, before making a decision.

Whilst legal abortion here, would mean women no longer having to travel, maybe without proper after medical or psychiatric care, or obtaining dodgy tablets over the internet, which can only be a good thing, I fear the current wording, leaves the whole thing open, to be to far more liberalised, and allowing abortions for what might be totally a lifestyle choice, maybe based on the gender, none fatal genetic conditions, etc, rather than the exceptional circumstances debate/argument.

With all that in mind, my current thoughts, of what might have been a Yes vote, are currently leaning towards a No, and feel that Leo Varadkar and the Government are currently trying to engineer a get out clause, until I can learn or research more.

ohnonotgmail

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Whilst I have nearly always been for abortion in exceptional circumstances, ie, rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities, risk of life to the mother, etc, I am not sure if I like Leo Varadkars or the Governments current wording, and it sits slightly uncomfortably with me.

Firstly the unrestricted 12 weeks. Whilst I am not totally one sided to prolife, as per my opening paragraph, and do agree to the argument to some extent, of womans body, her choice, 12 weeks, where there is definitely life present, I dont think I can be in support of.

Then, a yes vote which allows the Government responsibility to legislate, thats all well and good, but how far could they take this legislation, I would be interested in hearing what this planned legislation would be, before making a decision.

Whilst legal abortion here, would mean women no longer having to travel, maybe without proper after medical or psychiatric care, or obtaining dodgy tablets over the internet, which can only be a good thing, I fear the current wording, leaves the whole thing open, to be to far more liberalised, and allowing abortions for what might be totally a lifestyle choice, maybe based on the gender, none fatal genetic conditions, etc, rather than the exceptional circumstances debate/argument.

With all that in mind, my current thoughts, of what might have been a Yes vote, are currently leaning towards a No, and feel that Leo Varadkar and the Government are currently trying to engineer a get out clause, until I can learn or research more.

none of these are typically scanned for before 12 weeks. Even if they did scan for gender at 11 weeks they typically dont get it right.

Would you abort a baby based on gender if you are less than 50% sure?

https://www.babycenter.com.au/x2200/when-will-i-be-able-to-find-out-my-babys-gender-on-a-scan

In a more recent study, sonographers could only correctly identify the sex in 46 per cent of babies at 12 weeks and 80 per cent at 13 weeks.

Peatys

Cabaal wrote: »

Can I ask, since you support the 8th do you also think article 42.2 of the constitution should be fully followed and enforced by the Irish state?

What does the article say?

.......

This post has been deleted.

optogirl

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I'm not a "pro-lifer" actually. I agree with abortion in certain cases and I thought originally that's what would be proposed.

But I can't and won't vote for what's being pushed now, abortion up to twelve weeks without restriction where the front line treatment is a two stage pill with a woman pumping blood out of herself at home. That's criminal medical negligence.

'pumping blood out of herself' ? Is that the medical term?

SusieBlue

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Whilst I have nearly always been for abortion in exceptional circumstances, ie, rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities, risk of life to the mother, etc, I am not sure if I like Leo Varadkars or the Governments current wording, and it sits slightly uncomfortably with me.

Firstly the unrestricted 12 weeks. Whilst I am not totally one sided to prolife, as per my opening paragraph, and do agree to the argument to some extent, of womans body, her choice, 12 weeks, where there is definitely life present, I dont think I can be in support of.

Then, a yes vote which allows the Government responsibility to legislate, thats all well and good, but how far could they take this legislation, I would be interested in hearing what this planned legislation would be, before making a decision.

Whilst legal abortion here, would mean women no longer having to travel, maybe without proper after medical or psychiatric care, or obtaining dodgy tablets over the internet, which can only be a good thing, I fear the current wording, leaves the whole thing open, to be to far more liberalised, and allowing abortions for what might be totally a lifestyle choice, maybe based on the gender, none fatal genetic conditions, etc, rather than the exceptional circumstances debate/argument.

With all that in mind, my current thoughts, of what might have been a Yes vote, are currently leaning towards a No, and feel that Leo Varadkar and the Government are currently trying to engineer a get out clause, until I can learn or research more.

There will always be those who abuse the system.
Do we abolish social welfare for everyone because a small portion of the country are career dole claimers and are totally work shy?

As for your part about "lifestyle reasons"...I trust women to make the best, most informed decision for herself and her circumstances.
I don't believe forcing motherhood on someone who doesn't want it is in the best interests of ANYONE, let alone the innocent child.
Would you like to be brought up by a mother who never wanted you?

Most conditions, fatal or otherwise, cannot be picked up at 12 weeks. They are generally found at the anomaly scan, which normally occurs around week 20. Gender is also determined at this scan.
So that rules out health conditions (FFA or not) and it being used for selecting gender preference with the current 12 week recommendation.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Well they linked a video and that seems legit

The video was heavily edited and presented in a way to make it appear like Planned Parenthood were secretly selling aborted babies for profit.

The reality is that the foetal tissue that PP made available was consensually donated by those who attended the clinics, and the money charged was basically the handling and processing costs of the tissue, no profit was made from it.

Several investigations into the allegations found no wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood, and the pro-life activists who filmed and produced these videos were successfully sued for slander and breach of privacy.

optogirl

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I'm not a "pro-lifer" actually. I agree with abortion in certain cases and I thought originally that's what would be proposed.

But I can't and won't vote for what's being pushed now, abortion up to twelve weeks without restriction where the front line treatment is a two stage pill with a woman pumping blood out of herself at home. That's criminal medical negligence.

really? - so comments like this former classic of yours are just heat of the moment? 'This referendum is purely to facilitate Tara Flynn types to bang strange men without a condom and without consequences'

FutureGuy

Abortion happens.

It’s just that women are being punished for it.

Simple as that.

Mint Sauce

WhiteRoses wrote: »

There will always be those who abuse the system.
Do we abolish social welfare for everyone because a small portion of the country are career dole claimers and are totally work shy?

As for your part about "lifestyle reasons"...I trust women to make the best, most informed decision for herself and her circumstances.
I don't believe forcing motherhood on someone who doesn't want it is in the best interests of ANYONE, let alone the innocent child.
Would you like to be brought up by a mother who never wanted you?

Most conditions, fatal or otherwise, cannot be picked up at 12 weeks. They are generally found at the anomaly scan, which normally occurs around week 20. Gender is also determined at this scan.
So that rules out health conditions (FFA or not) and it being used for selecting gender preference with the current 12 week recommendation.

As would I, and cant imagine voicing an opinion, to someone I knew, who was seeking an abortion for what ever reason. I would like to think I would respect someones decision, dispite my own believes.

[Deleted User]

FutureGuy wrote: »

Abortion happens.

It’s just that women are being punished for it.

Simple as that.

Women already have choices;

They choose to have sex.
They can choose to use contraception.
They can choose to use the morning after pill.

If we were voting for abortion for Rape, Incest or medical reasons then I would vote no. What we are voting on is if women can have a 4th option because she couldn't be bothered to choose one of the first three options.

Incidentally committing suicide is illegal, so where are the woman's choice and the rights of her body in that issue?

nozzferrahhtoo

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Whilst I have nearly always been for abortion in exceptional circumstances, ie, rape

Could you describe to me how such a system would function? A methodology by which we could offer abortion in cases of rape in a way that would not be functionally indistinguishable from abortion on demand?

Mint Sauce wrote: »

12 weeks, where there is definitely life present, I dont think I can be in support of.

Could you explain what you mean by "there is definitely life present" at 12 weeks? There is definitely life present from conception. Not 12 weeks. So perhaps I mean something different to you there?

Mint Sauce wrote: »

how far could they take this legislation, I would be interested in hearing what this planned legislation would be, before making a decision.

Everything I have seen and heard suggest they are likely to adopt the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly. And I am inclined at this time to believe that. As for POTENTIALLY how far could they go? No idea! Perhaps the more law inclined will be able to tell us if any other laws exist in Ireland that would preclude them from adopting, say, the Canada Model?

But I suspect we are talking about theoretical potentials here, and not something that is even remotely likely to occur in reality.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Women already have choices;

They choose to have sex.
They can choose to use contraception.
They can choose to use the morning after pill.

If we were voting for abortion for Rape, Incest or medical reasons then I would vote no. What we are voting on is if women can have a 4th option because she couldn't be bothered to choose one of the first three options.

Incidentally committing suicide is illegal, so where are the woman's choice and the rights of her body in that issue?

do you think a woman using contraception should always take the morning after pill the next day just in case the contraception didnt work?

astrofool

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Whilst I have nearly always been for abortion in exceptional circumstances, ie, rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities, risk of life to the mother, etc, I am not sure if I like Leo Varadkars or the Governments current wording, and it sits slightly uncomfortably with me.

Firstly the unrestricted 12 weeks. Whilst I am not totally one sided to prolife, as per my opening paragraph, and do agree to the argument to some extent, of womans body, her choice, 12 weeks, where there is definitely life present, I dont think I can be in support of.

Then, a yes vote which allows the Government responsibility to legislate, thats all well and good, but how far could they take this legislation, I would be interested in hearing what this planned legislation would be, before making a decision.

Whilst legal abortion here, would mean women no longer having to travel, maybe without proper after medical or psychiatric care, or obtaining dodgy tablets over the internet, which can only be a good thing, I fear the current wording, leaves the whole thing open, to be to far more liberalised, and allowing abortions for what might be totally a lifestyle choice, maybe based on the gender, none fatal genetic conditions, etc, rather than the exceptional circumstances debate/argument.

With all that in mind, my current thoughts, of what might have been a Yes vote, are currently leaning towards a No, and feel that Leo Varadkar and the Government are currently trying to engineer a get out clause, until I can learn or research more.

FG are probably the most "pro-life" viable party around (barring going the extreme right) and found it very hard to legislate on even the X-case. This vote is probably going to be for the most restrictive form of abortion that the public will vote for, knowing their political base won't go any further anyway. If you find it too far, you're putting yourself on the political fringes of society.

Even FF are swinging the other way (the populist party), and Labour/SF/Greens have always been in favour. The non-relevant social democrats are about the only party close to your views.

[Deleted User]

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

do you think a woman using contraception should always take the morning after pill the next day just in case the contraception didnt work?

If they were really hell-bent on not having a child then yes, surely that would be the better option than having to go through an abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Incidentally committing suicide is illegal

Is it? Which law is that exactly?

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

Women already have choices;

They choose to have sex.
They can choose to use contraception.
They can choose to use the morning after pill.

If we were voting for abortion for Rape, Incest or medical reasons then I would vote no. What we are voting on is if women can have a 4th option because she couldn't be bothered to choose one of the first three options.

Incidentally committing suicide is illegal, so where are the woman's choice and the rights of her body in that issue?

So much ignorance in one post. You are aware of course, that contraception isn't 100% effective?

[Deleted User]

WhiteRoses wrote: »

So much ignorance in one post. You are aware of course, that contraception isn't 100% effective?

Like I said previously, Take the morning after pill if you really don't want a child.

Would it not be better to do that than go through the hell of an abortion?

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

If they were really hell-bent on not having a child then yes, surely that would be the better option than having to go through an abortion.

you are aware of the effects of the morning after pill? Of course you are, what a silly question.

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Is it? Which law is that exactly?

I see the law was changed back in 93. Only applies to assisted suicide now.

[Deleted User]

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you are aware of the effects of the morning after pill? Of course you are, what a silly question.

So you would rather people go through an abortion than popping a pill?

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

So you would rather people go through an abortion than popping a pill?

an abortion before 12 weeks IS popping a pill. again, your ignorance is astounding.