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

nozzferrahhtoo

Well nice to see you are not dodging and ignoring ALL my posts, just 99% of them.

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?

Medically they were a fetus. Your narrative might call them "children". Whether they were of moral or ethical concern to me however would be based on what AGE of a fetus they were.

What the murder of a woman, and her fetus against her will, has to do with a woman choosing abortion though.... is anyone's guess.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

So rights are a matter of location

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

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

So? The unborn child didn't commit the rape. What's some suffering compared to a human life?

I would have more respect for the pro-life viewpoint if they didn't weasel out of defending their position when faced with unpleasant circumstances.

Ave Sodalis

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So rights are a matter of location

He made that very clear when he said he'd no problem with women traveling for abortions

[Deleted User]

baylah17 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0130/936946-eighth-amendment-cabinet-referendum/
Speaking on RTs Morning Ireland, he said: "Whether the Eighth Amendment is in our Constitution, or indeed not in our Constitution, abortion is a reality for Irish women.

"I cannot close my eyes and block my ears to the fact that 3,265 of our citizens travelled to the UK in 2016 from every county in Ireland.

"I cannot stand over a situation where the abortion pill is illegally accessed in this country and women, perhaps in the privacy of their own bedroom, in a lonely isolated place, [are] taking a pill without any medical supervision."

I owe that man a pint, well said Minister, well said.

3,265 Now, 30,365 when abortion is legalised.

Life is cheap.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe once you conceive you are having a child.

And I believe the process typically takes nine months, not six.

Cabaal

Deleted User wrote: »

Just where are the homeless couple having sex?

So are you going to admit your logic is failed or are you just going to continue with your silly response? Only an incredibility dim person would actually have no idea where a homeless couple could have sex.

Ask yourself this, if you were outside in a park and wanted to have sex, where would you have sex....use your imagination.
:rolleyes:

Your logic is heavily flawed, you just won't admit it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

3,265 Now, 30,365 when abortion is legalised.

Any citations to back that up?

baylah17

Deleted User wrote: »

3,265 Now, 30,365 when abortion is legalised.

Life is cheap.

From the same stable that gave us "Hello divorce, Goodby Daddy" :rolleyes:

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

3,265 Now, 30,365 when abortion is legalised.

Life is cheap.

per annum? That's 50% the birth rate!? Do you think women will be getting pregnant just to have an abortion?

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Just where are the homeless couple having sex?

none of your business. you are obsessed with other people having sex.

freshpopcorn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

We really shouldnt be having referenda after refeenda on this. Let the legislature legislate.

I just think that some people will be scared if the vote for abortion up to twelve weeks that future governments could have unrestricted abortion and this doesn't sit well with people.

Mrs Shuttleworth

[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.

This really is what this referendum boils down to and what we're being asked to vote on.

"I want to get my hole at all costs even if if I have to kill a child now and again to do it."

ohnonotgmail

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

This really is what this referendum boils down to and what we're being asked to vote on.

"I want to get my hole at all costs even if if I have to kill a child now and again to do it."

and we're back to the slut shaming.

Night Falls

Deleted User wrote: »

3,265 Now, 30,365 when abortion is legalised.

Life is cheap.

And made up "statistics" are completely worthless.

Thank feck there only ever seems to be one person spouting absolute inanity at any one time, not sure i'd have the strength for multiples.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

This really is what this referendum boils down to and what we're being asked to vote on.

"I want to get my hole at all costs even if if I have to kill a child now and again to do it."

Your need to slut shame aside: You seem remarkably intent on telling OTHER people what THEIR position on things is. Would conversation not be easier if you stick to telling us YOUR position and we tell you ours?

Buford T. Justice XIX

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are you so passionate about killing unborn children?

Mod note: Quite simply, this type of post is on the borderline of trolling. There are better ways of expressing your thoughts on the subject rather than goading a reaction from others on the subject.

Cut it out, all involved on both sides!

Buford T. Justice.

Night Falls

I spoke too soon.

Skylinehead

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

This really is what this referendum boils down to and what we're being asked to vote on.

"I want to get my hole at all costs even if if I have to kill a child now and again to do it."

I thought it was about stopping the white race or something, and free body parts?

Night Falls

Skylinehead wrote: »

I thought it was about stopping the white race or something, and free body parts?

Jet fuel doesn't melt the morning after pill, I think.

dudara

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I just think that some people will be scared if the vote for abortion up to twelve weeks that future governments could have unrestricted abortion and this doesn't sit well with people.

I can understand that, but we are the people and we elect the politicians. Everything they do is both for us and answerable to us. Politicians who neglect the will of their voters don’t survive. Politicians think Long and hard about what points to support and the impact of such decisions on their voter base. So I can only see a government supporting less restrictive abortion when there is actually public demand for it.

dudara

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

This really is what this referendum boils down to and what we're being asked to vote on.

"I want to get my hole at all costs even if if I have to kill a child now and again to do it."

Stop being facetious. You are demeaning what is an important discussion.

kylith

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

This really is what this referendum boils down to and what we're being asked to vote on.

"I want to get my hole at all costs even if if I have to kill a child now and again to do it."

>70% of women who have terminations in the US already have children, and looking after those children is one of the factors in them deciding to terminate.

It is incorrect to attempt to demonize women seeking terminations as morally bereft slatterns.

(stats are from 2008. The percentage of women with existing children having terminations has risen by 10% since then, but the work PC won't access the relevant page: https://www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2008)

Martina1991

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote:

This really is what this referendum boils down to and what we're being asked to vote on.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote:

"I want to get my hole at all costs even if if I have to kill a child now and again to do it."

No it is not. Don't be so ignorant.
Why are you making it about sex.

It is about trusting women and giving them a choice to make a decision based on the best interests of themselves and the unborn.
Not forcing an unwanted pregnancy onto a woman or affecting her maternity care.

wingsof daun

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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.

Women have the right to reproduce but not the right to kill, or conspire to kill either. We have the right to act morally, not otherwise. If we act immorally we are liable to be punished by the higher law, the laws governing the universe, Gods law. Man's created laws and rights are imperfect or artificial.

seamus

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I just think that some people will be scared if the vote for abortion up to twelve weeks that future governments could have unrestricted abortion and this doesn't sit well with people.

Ultimately it will all come down to the wording.

At present, commentators seem to believe it'll be something as concise as

"The Oireachtas may provide for the termination of pregnancies in accordance with the law"

What do this mean? It means that it does not automatically permit unlimited abortions. It also does not remove any inferred "right to life" of the unborn, just an explicit one.

What this means is that in the most part, it may allow any future Oireachtas to potentially allow for unrestricted abortion up to around 18-20 weeks.

Once the "grey area" of 20-28 weeks comes into play, constitutional questions of a "right to life" arise again, and anything beyond FFAs or a risk to the mother's life could be challenged as unconstitutional.

Beyond 28 weeks the constitution allows it to be legal to "terminate a pregnancy", or in other words, to "give birth".

Or in other words, would this wording allow;
Unlimited up to 12 weeks? Almost certainly
20 weeks? Potentially
After 20 weeks? Unlikely.

Which I think should satisfy most people.

frag420

Deleted User wrote: »

Just where are the homeless couple having sex?

Why does it matter, are you jealous or do you want to watch them doing it?

Maybe they do it down an alley way like I did many years ago when I met a brazen hussy in a nightclub, what a ride and she didn't spill a drop and she didn't get pregnant!

Anyways I see you are suggesting a lot that people should abstain from sex as one way of not getting pregnant!?

What is your thoughts on blow jobs and anal sex where the seed does not enter the vagina! Are you ok with some sodomy in order to cut down on needles abortions?

Perhaps the pro birth side should be pushing some bum fun as part of their agenda instead, so that people can enjoy themselves without getting pregnant?

Any thoughts on this?

kylith

wingsof daun wrote: »

Women have the right to reproduce but not the right to kill, or conspire to kill either. We have the right to act morally, not otherwise. If we act immorally we are liable to be punished by the higher law, the laws governing the universe, Gods law. Man's created laws and rights are imperfect or artificial.

What absolute nonsense. Morality is not law, and law is not morality. Morality is subjective.

Some people think that it's immoral to have sex before you're married, other people think that it's perfectly moral to have as much sex as you want with however many people are happy to participate.

We absolutely have the right to act immorally (by some peoples' standards).

You get your god to come down here so we can have a discussion with the child-rapist-protecting, baby-murder-advocating, slavery-approving, gobshite about morality, yeah? Until then you can take your Victorian religious morals and stick 'em up your jumper.

Ave Sodalis

wingsof daun wrote: »

Women have the right to reproduce but not the right to kill, or conspire to kill either. We have the right to act morally, not otherwise. If we act immorally we are liable to be punished by the higher law, the laws governing the universe, Gods law. Man's created laws and rights are imperfect or artificial.

I think we can stop with the whole religion aspect of it now. Your bible states (multiple times) that life begins when someone breathes on their own. Even Adam was not considered alive until he was breathing so even though it does forbid murder (rightly), it does not define a foetus as a living thing.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Skylinehead wrote: »

I thought it was about stopping the white race or something, and free body parts?

That's the establishment's angle IMHO. The other perspective the Repeal camp.

To the mods if I sound facetious I make no apologies. For example, I find it very hard to take seriously any campaign in which a Children's Minister in Government parades around in a Repeal sweatshirt advocating abortion.

It shows how utterly infantile, imbecilic, gullible and narcisstic as a populace we have become.

frag420

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That's the establishment's angle IMHO. The other perspective the Repeal camp.

To the mods if I sound facetious I make no apologies. For example, I find it very hard to take seriously any campaign in which a Children's Minister in Government parades around in a Repeal sweatshirt advocating abortion.

It shows how utterly infantile, imbecilic, gullible and narcisstic as a populace we have become.

Woooo hoooo!!!