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

kylith

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.

You would vote against abortion for rape, incest, or medical reasons?

Women do not always choose to have sex.

Women do not always have the choice of using contraception, in the cases of rape, for example. Contraception can fail, even when used correctly.

A woman may not realise her contraception has failed until it is too late for the MAP. A woman who has been raped may be too traumatised or in denial and not take the MAP.

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.

Have you ever taken the morning after pill?

Effects include :
nausea
abdominal pain
fatigue
headache
menstrual changes
dizziness
breast tenderness
vomiting

Do you think this is the kind of thing a woman should be taking, perhaps several times a week, in case her contraception fails?

[Deleted User]

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You are also aware of the severe health implications of taking the morning after pill? Say a woman has sex once a week, you are suggesting she take the morning after pill a couple of times a month?

You are aware of the medical problems associated with abortions, both physical and mental?

[Deleted User]

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

You can't keep taking the morning after pill... you have an extremely limited amount of times you can take it during your life

How many abortions do you think someone can have?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Quite aside from the effects of the morning after pill on the body of the woman taking it (it's very obvious you're unaware of those so I don't need to ask), I'm interested in what exactly you think the morning after pill does?

Also suicide isn't illegal in Ireland. That "where's her choice then??" argument became a moot point 25 years ago.

I'm so looking forward to six more months of thoroughly informed debate like this.

[Deleted User]

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

You just don't get an abortion you know, its not a case of popping down to Dunnes and buying a packet of the shelf and job over.

At 12 weeks its also not a case of popping a pill, see here
https://www.pregnancychoicesdirectory.com/peoplesstories/abortion/1196/a-medical-abortion-at-12-weeks

There is also untold psychological damage that the mother can suffer from including depression.

I am shocked that you would prefer people to have an abortion than taking the morning after pill.

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

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

That is what I thought. So there are factual errors in your post. You might want to start there with a re-think. So women CAN commit suicide, yet they can not access the removal of non-sentient tissue from their own body. And you in some way think this is.... what.... a good thing?

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Not what the user appears to be saying at all. Rather what is being said is that the effects of the MAP mean you can not simply be popping them after every sexual encounter "just in case". And with various forms of contraception there is no way to tell it has failed.

So assuming people are not going to simply be popping MAPs every morning they ever have sex, clearly your narrative is not likely to take hold in the heads of pro-choice supporters.

But what is also interesting is that abortion, when accessed early enough in the process, IS actually just a matter of popping a different pill. The same pill people are obtaining illegally off the internet. So your "rather people have abortion than a pill" narrative is double likely to fail here.

Actual surgical abortions only happen later in the process, and talking about pills AT ALL at that stage is just going to add more red to the pond of herring.

strandroad

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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?

If your contraception fails you might not know until weeks later.

Educate yourself.

Mint Sauce

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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?

Honestly, dont know. Maybe this would be part of proposed legislation

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?

What I mean is the how far the unborn life is developed. Yes life is there long before this stage, but weather that is conception or inception that another debate.

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.

Thats the problem, How far can we believe or trust the government?

Bannasidhe

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?

Women do not always choose to have sex.
Contraception is not 100% effective.
I'm sure women in rural communities are just beating a path to the village pharmacy to get the morning after pill.

What physical repercussions are there for men who choose to have sex, and choose not to use contraception?

And incidentally it isn't.

CRIMINAL LAW (SUICIDE) ACT, 1993

AN ACT TO ABOLISH THE OFFENCE OF SUICIDE, TO MAKE IT AN OFFENCE TO BE AN ACCOMPLICE TO SUICIDE AND TO REPEAL SECTION 9 OF THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) AMENDMENT ACT, 1871 . [9th June, 1993]

BE IT ENACTED BY THE OIREACHTAS AS FOLLOWS:

Short title and commencement.

1.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Criminal Law (Suicide) Act, 1993.

(2) This Act shall come into operation one month after the date of its passing.

Suicide.

2.—(1) Suicide shall cease to be a crime.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/11/enacted/en/print

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

You are also aware of the severe health implications of taking the morning after pill? Say a woman has sex once a week, you are suggesting she take the morning after pill a couple of times a month?

Ave Sodalis

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

You can't keep taking the morning after pill... you have an extremely limited amount of times you can take it during your life

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.

[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?

[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.

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]

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?

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?

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Incidentally committing suicide is illegal

Is it? Which law is that exactly?

[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.

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.

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?

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.

[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?

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.

FutureGuy

Abortion happens.

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

Simple as that.

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'

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.

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.

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?

.......

This post has been deleted.