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

optogirl

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are you so passionate about killing unborn children?

This narrative that people who are pro CHOICE are motivated by blood lust is a disgusting ruse made by the pre-birth movement to demonise women making difficult decisions in often very difficult circumstances - you will not demonise me for supporting such women in those choices, whatever they may be. Get down off your soapbox for a moment and spend a tenth of the time you spend wringing your hands about zygotes on trying to help people in your society.

[Deleted User]

baylah17 wrote: »

It is a legal right to engage in consensual sexual activity once you reach the age of such consent, yes.

Yes to have sex is legal with a partner who has agreed, but is it a legal right for you to get sex?

[Deleted User]

Cabaal wrote: »

Why are you ok will "killing" life after conception with the morning after pill and why are you ok by allowing "killing" by being ok with women traveling for abortions?

Because it hasn't travelled to the womb at that stage.

Guy:Incognito

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

I don't get the thing where on the one hand discussions like this are unrepresentative of the Irish people who are staunchly and quietly pro-life, or at least will balk at unrestricted access up until 12 weeks, and on the other hand the place will turn into the last days of Rome (but with sh1ts n giggles abortions) if the 8th is repealed. Is the 8th keeping Irish morality correct and so not representative of social mores, or is it representative of those mores and so repealing it will have relatively little effect? Pro-life seem very divided on that point.

Sure morality is gone. the gays got their way and are off forcing anyone not shackled to a spouse (of the opposite sex) to marry them and have the wrong type of sex with them forever(or until they get bored and move on to the next victim, cos they're incapable of monogamy don't you know)

baylah17

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it a legal right?

Do you have to have sex to exist?

It is a legal right to engage in consensual sexual activity once you reach the age of such consent, yes.

[Deleted User]

Cabaal wrote: »

so a 17 year old homeless couple on the street, they love each other and the girl gets pregnant due to contraception failing.

By your view they are in a position to have a child or are you going to claim they don't "properly" love each other
:rolleyes:

You are really grasping at straws now, a homeless couple of the street should have more pressing matters than having sex.

Cabaal

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are you so passionate about killing unborn children?

Why are you ok will "killing" life after conception with the morning after pill and why are you ok by allowing "killing" by being ok with women traveling for abortions?

[Deleted User]

baylah17 wrote: »

And 5 years ago Savita Hallapanavar was sentenced to death by the so called Irish Health system because of the same stone aged views that espouse.

That is a strange case in that the Medical teams could have performed an abortion. I have also read that she died of E-Coli and an abortion would have not prevented this.

Either way, I do believe abortion for medical reasons should be allowed.

Bannasidhe

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

That's up to the woman concerned to decide. Pro choice is letting people decide for themselves . Pro life is deciding for them.

How many life changing decisions would you like me to make for you? Bearing in mind I know nothing about you?

You do realise I was asking Mr Freeview that question as he's fine with abortion after rape/incest but not after a contraception fail.

Cabaal

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes Contraception fails, but if you are in a loving relationship you should be in a position to have the child.

.

so a 17 year old homeless couple on the street, they love each other and the girl gets pregnant due to contraception failing.

By your view they are in a position to have a child or are you going to claim they don't "properly" love each other
:rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

joeyanne wrote: »

You don't seem to understand that some people, even when in a relationship, do not want children. This may be a personal choice, due to medical reasons or any other reason that is NOT your business.

If you do not believe in allowing abortion, then do not get one. But please please be open-minded to the fact that peoples personal choices are not your business, and their choices have nothing to do with you. Nor will their choices affect you personally.

Why are you so passionate about killing unborn children?

baylah17

Deleted User wrote: »

20 years ago a mother in Omagh was carrying a set of twins inside her womb, the IRA killed her and her unborn children. Were they children or just a fetus?

And 5 years ago Savita Hallapanavar was sentenced to death by the so called Irish Health system because of the same stone aged views that espouse.

ohnonotgmail

Hard to believe that nearly 6000 posts in that rabid ignorance is still being posted.

Another website i frequent has a tagline that goes

The Straight Dope
Fighting ignorance since 1973. (It's taking longer than we thought.)

aint that the truth.

[Deleted User]

baylah17 wrote: »

And posted by one who clearly, pardon the phrase, has never had a good ride.
Sex is as much a recreational activity as it is anything else.

Is it a legal right?

Do you have to have sex to exist?

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

Then dont have Sex, its that easy.

Sex is not a legal right, you have no demand for it as a partner.

Do you think married couples/partners should have legal rights to sex?

Sex is a choice, if you are so Pro-Choice then choose not to have sex instead of choosing to kill a child.

Except that a marriage isn't legal until consummated so there is certainly an obligation to have sex as far as the law is concerned.

Do you suggest a newly married couple who want to wait before having children - or don't wish to have children - never 'finalise' their legal requirements to be considered married just to be sure there are no 'accidents'?

I'm getting the distinct impression you aren't thinking this through - that what you really want is women to be punished if they have 'penetrative' sex and don't want children.

[Deleted User]

emo72 wrote: »

Man I have to say, that's some ancient medieval thinking right there.

Edit, and I'm not being personal, just had to reply to your statement.

Im medieval? I want to protect life, you want to kill it.

baylah17

emo72 wrote: »

Man I have to say, that's some ancient medieval thinking right there.

And posted by one who clearly, pardon the phrase, has never had a good ride.
Sex is as much a recreational activity as it is anything else.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

I have made my point clear if you want to continue to twist my words that is up to you.

Many women who have low incomes make wonderful parents, it's ignorant to think that you have to be rich to raise and love a child.

I don't think that. What I do think is ignorant is someone assuming to know enough about everybody else's life an circumstances so as to dictate to them that they have to have a baby that they may well have tried very hard not to have.

Deleted User wrote: »

Then dont have Sex, its that easy.

Sex is not a legal right, you have no demand for it as a partner.

Do you think married couples/partners should have legal rights to sex?

Sex is a choice, if you are so Pro-Choice then choose not to have sex instead of choosing to kill a child.

So, a couple who have been together donkeys years should be celibate unless they want to have a baby. Regardless of financial status, inclination toward having a child, or indeed the fact that they may already have a bunch of children and just don't want to have any more?

And can you PLEASE explain how your mechanic for allowing victims of rape to access abortion while withholding it from everyone else?

[Deleted User]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Depends what you mean by "Life". If you mean pure biology then that is one thing, but if you mean in terms of rights, morals, ethics, person hood and actual humanity that is different.

"Life" is not one catch all term that you can switch definitions in and out to suit yourself. You have to be clear what you mean.

Yes, it is limited to agents with the capacity to even REQUIRE a choice. We do not give rocks choice do we? Why give it to a fetus? What attribute does a fetus has that a spider does not that makes you suddenly concerns about it having "choice"?

Yet you can not offer a way to allow such women to access abortion, which keeping it from others. You have not even TRIED to answer that in fact. Dodge much?

20 years ago a mother in Omagh was carrying a set of twins inside her womb, the IRA killed her and her unborn children. Were they children or just a fetus?

Guy:Incognito

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why are embryos implanted as a result of rape or incest less deserving of life than those implanted as a result of contraception fail

That's up to the woman concerned to decide. Pro choice is letting people decide for themselves . Pro life is deciding for them.

How many life changing decisions would you like me to make for you? Bearing in mind I know nothing about you?

pilly

I see all the nutters are coming out of the woodwork now that panic is setting in.

emo72

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes Contraception fails, but if you are in a loving relationship you should be in a position to have the child.

Sex is not a right for either partner, it is not a chore, it is not a requirement of a relationship.

The act of Penatrive sex can result in a pregnancy, the only 100% foolproof way to avoid this is to avoid having sex. If you do have sex then there should be a level of responsibility and that includes raising a child.

Man I have to say, that's some ancient medieval thinking right there.

Edit, and I'm not being personal, just had to reply to your statement.

Ave Sodalis

Deleted User wrote: »

I have made my point clear if you want to continue to twist my words that is up to you.

Many women who have low incomes make wonderful parents, it's ignorant to think that you have to be rich to raise and love a child.

Yes, my own mother is one of them. It wasn't all roses and sunshine though, as you're trying to make it out to be. Provided I had any sort of consciousness afterwards (which I wouldn't), would have been fully supportive if she decided to abort me.

[Deleted User]

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Who are you to dictate what every single couple should or should not be in a position to do?

You have no idea of people's circumstances, mental state, finances, living situations, age, general health, genetic conditions, health of the baby...
You can't assume to speak for every single situation by saying "if you are in a loving situation you should be in a position to have a child".

You literally cannot account for every single variable life throws at us. Blanket statements like the above do your cause no good.

Then dont have Sex, its that easy.

Sex is not a legal right, you have no demand for it as a partner.

Do you think married couples/partners should have legal rights to sex?

Sex is a choice, if you are so Pro-Choice then choose not to have sex instead of choosing to kill a child.

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

When do you think life begins?

Depends what you mean by "Life". If you mean pure biology then that is one thing, but if you mean in terms of rights, morals, ethics, person hood and actual humanity that is different.

"Life" is not one catch all term that you can switch definitions in and out to suit yourself. You have to be clear what you mean.

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess choice is a limited thing.

Yes, it is limited to agents with the capacity to even REQUIRE a choice. We do not give rocks choice do we? Why give it to a fetus? What attribute does a fetus has that a spider does not that makes you suddenly concerns about it having "choice"?

Deleted User wrote: »

Because rape is an evil thing, nobody should be made to suffer.

Yet you can not offer a way to allow such women to access abortion, which keeping it from others. You have not even TRIED to answer that in fact. Dodge much?

[Deleted User]

kylith wrote: »

Obviously not, since that's not what you said.

Anyway, what does someone having a termination then choosing to subsequently have a baby have to do about anything?

And how would that be worked?

On achieving a conviction? That could take years.
On filing a report? We'd see skyrocketing false rape accusations.
On stating that she was raped? What's the difference between that and abortion on request?

So rich women can travel, that's ok by you.

If a woman can't afford to travel for an abortion how can she afford to take care of a baby?

I have made my point clear if you want to continue to twist my words that is up to you.

Many women who have low incomes make wonderful parents, it's ignorant to think that you have to be rich to raise and love a child.

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes Contraception fails, but if you are in a loving relationship you should be in a position to have the child.

Sex is not a right for either partner, it is not a chore, it is not a requirement of a relationship.

The act of Penatrive sex can result in a pregnancy, the only 100% foolproof way to avoid this is to avoid having sex. If you do have sex then there should be a level of responsibility and that includes raising a child.

Who are you to dictate what every single couple should or should not be in a position to do?

You have no idea of people's circumstances, mental state, finances, living situations, age, general health, genetic conditions, health of the baby...
You can't assume to speak for every single situation by saying "if you are in a loving situation you should be in a position to have a child".

You literally cannot account for every single variable life throws at us. Blanket statements like the above do your cause no good.

joeyanne

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes Contraception fails, but if you are in a loving relationship you should be in a position to have the child.

Sex is not a right for either partner, it is not a chore, it is not a requirement of a relationship.

The act of Penatrive sex can result in a pregnancy, the only 100% foolproof way to avoid this is to avoid having sex. If you do have sex then there should be a level of responsibility and that includes raising a child.

You don't seem to understand that some people, even when in a relationship, do not want children. This may be a personal choice, due to medical reasons or any other reason that is NOT your business.

If you do not believe in allowing abortion, then do not get one. But please please be open-minded to the fact that peoples personal choices are not your business, and their choices have nothing to do with you. Nor will their choices affect you personally.

[Deleted User]

Call me Al wrote: »

Why are these pregnancies and babies ok to be murdered, going by your terminology, and not the others conceived using consensual legal sex? Why are they less worthy of life?

Because rape is an evil thing, nobody should be made to suffer.

Medical reasons should always give priority to the mother and sometimes you could be causing more harm than good by allowing a woman to go full term when the child is likely to die or is in serious distress and pain.

Incest really falls for medical reasons.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes Contraception fails, but if you are in a loving relationship you should be in a position to have the child.

But what if you don't want to have a child? Even if you're in a long-term committed relationship. Lots of people like that don't want children, or can't afford children.

Should they all live in celibacy?