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

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?

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.

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.

[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

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.

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

.......

This post has been deleted.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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

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

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????

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.

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?

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.

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

baylah17

pleas advice wrote: »

By virtue of being taxonomically human.

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

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.

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.

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???

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?

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/

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