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

Loafing Oaf

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The poll that was released was released at the weekend discussed here and people showed polls of the marriage referendum. Most polls in the marriage referendum were well into the 60% or even 70%. So seeing a poll just in the mid 50% would have me worried.

Were the former after don't knows were distributed? If so the comparable figure for repeal the 8th is round 65%.

erica74

Rezident wrote: »

I think it will be as most people seem to be pro-abortion nowadays but I can't agree with it personally, I mean, it's not exactly a million miles away from killing a baby is it? Just because the baby doesn't have a birth cert yet doesn't make it ok to sentence him or her to death!

Some babies survive the abortion, so there's 'comfort care', I don't understand how any human being with any empathy can turn a blind eye to this. It's all gone wrong hasn't it?

Except it IS a million miles away from killing a baby.

Nobody is "pro abortion", that term suggests forced abortions. People are pro choice as in, allow everyone the choice to continue with a pregnancy or end a pregnancy. As it stands, women are forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy if they cannot go abroad, whereas if the change is made, any woman who wants to have an abortion can do so and any woman who doesn't want to have an abortion won't be forced to have one.

freshpopcorn

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Were the former after don't knows were distributed? If so the comparable figure for repeal the 8th is round 65%.

It could also end up in the high 40% if this isn't handled/debated well!

Guy:Incognito

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

Should women that are infertile or going through the menopause have an opinion?

About their own bodies? 100% .

About other peoples bodies? Why would they (or anyone else) want an opinion on that?

The simple answer is to remove the barriers to women making decisions about their own issues . Everyone can keep out of everyone else's business.

If you needed an operation , would you want the decision about whether you can have it or not to be made by someone you've never met, who has no experience of it one way or another and has no reason to not let you get it other than they don't agree with this particular operation?
Or should the whole thing be between you and your doctor?

freshpopcorn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You keep making this vague statement. Any evidence?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Provide proof there are TDs supporting late term abortions please. Otherwise you are just scaremongering.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I find your assertions on this very strange. You claim to be in favour of repeal but you are always undermining it. I'm not sure I believe you are in favour of repeal at all.

To me a repeal is important but I think the most important to people to target now are those on the fence voters is the most important.
It's easy enough to figure out TD's who are against abortion and who have being campaigning in the dail for it with years and those who are middle of the road.(changed there mind over time).
Just note not all TD who have being campaigning for abortion for years are strong as others.
When the debates start's for example I don't think those who are a lot more liberal about the matter comes across well to people who are unsure of the matter or people who might vote for abortion up to twelve weeks but if they hear future governments can legislate on the matter easily and change it easily and that TD admits I'd always support the woman's choice. I think these people won't do the campaign any favors.

Loafing Oaf

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It could also end up in the high 40% if this isn't handled/debated well!

Yeah well anything's possible but you're using the fall in support for SSM from opinion polls to referendum as a model for what might happen with abortion. If I'm reading your figures correctly, the former went from round 67% to 62% on the day, and the latter is currently round 65%...

.......

This post has been deleted.

freshpopcorn

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Yeah well anything's possible but you're using the fall in support for SSM from opinion polls to referendum as a model for what might happen with abortion. If I'm reading your figures correctly, the former went from round 67% to 62% on the day, and the latter is currently round 65%...

Some polls were well in the 70% during the marriage referendum.(ie fell by 10%)

freshpopcorn

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes and make people wait another thirty years for this matter to be dealt with. I just think by debating well and not leaving very liberal people debate the mater will do a lot of help for the campaign.

RobertKK

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

About their own bodies? 100% .

About other peoples bodies? Why would they (or anyone else) want an opinion on that?

The simple answer is to remove the barriers to women making decisions about their own issues . Everyone can keep out of everyone else's business.

If you needed an operation , would you want the decision about whether you can have it or not to be made by someone you've never met, who has no experience of it one way or another and has no reason to not let you get it other than they don't agree with this particular operation?
Or should the whole thing be between you and your doctor?

So is the unborn life inside the woman’s body her life, or a life of a different life whom is not given a choice over it’s own body, but decided upon by someone else?
A bit like a life support machine and being told you have to decide to keep it going or switch it off.
Except in most cases the life in the womb that is switched off isn’t going to die and will be fine if left to live.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

freshpopcorn

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes thirty is a bit extreme but it would be great just to get it done and dusted this year!
I even know somebody who's said there voting to repeal because they'll no the government will just come back with another referendum and there views on abortion wouldn't be taken to kindly here.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

So is the unborn life inside the woman’s body her life, or a life of a different life whom is not given a choice over it’s own body, but decided upon by someone else?
A bit like a life support machine and being told you have to decide to keep it going or switch it off.
Except in most cases the life in the womb that is switched off isn’t going to die and will be fine if left to live.

Yes, it is inside the woman.

If the woman does not want it to be inside her what do you expect her to do?

Guy:Incognito

RobertKK wrote: »

So is the unborn life inside the woman’s body her life, or a life of a different life whom is not given a choice over it’s own body, but decided upon by someone else?
A bit like a life support machine and being told you have to decide to keep it going or switch it off.
Except in most cases the life in the womb that is switched off isn’t going to die and will be fine if left to live.

That's the woman's decision to make. It's certainly not mine or anyone elses not directly connected to her and will have no impact on the lives of any of the rest of us regardless of what she decides to do.

Apart form the ones unable to travel , abortions are happening , so I don't see how anyone saying they are concerned about life can see any advantage to putting extra pressure, emotional and financial on the women and couples going through it.

RobertKK

....... wrote: »

Its potential life. If the woman decides she no longer wants to incubate it then her rights should come first.

This is basic stuff Robert.

We all have the potential life to be alive tomorrow but we could be dead before midnight.
It is life rather than potential as the unborn is alive as it is life. Otherwise why would an abortion be used to stop the life from proceeding?
It is like any life that is ended by choice, a life that was alive is ended.

Boom_Bap

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't know what a preganancy is. Is that your new word? Bored with "Pro-Abortion" already are we?

If all you have to post about is spelling, then don't post. It's not the topic. Their is no plaice for that in After Oures.

ELM327

Boom_Bap wrote: »

If all you have to post about is spelling, then don't post. It's not the topic. Their is no plaice for that in After Oures.

That clearly was not the crux of that post.

If you read it to the end you will see the barb of "pro abortion" nomenclature

joeyanne

RobertKK wrote: »

We all have the potential life to be alive tomorrow but we could be dead before midnight.
It is life rather than potential as the unborn is alive as it is life. Otherwise why would an abortion be used to stop the life from proceeding?
It is like any life that is ended by choice, a life that was alive is ended.

No. It is a potential life. It cannot survive without the incubation of the womb.
You cannot just think of a woman as an incubator, it IS her life. She must be allowed to make the decision for herself.
If I was to have an abortion, how will this affect you? IT WON'T. So why do you believe you have the right to stop me from accessing this service in my home country?

Riskymove

ELM327 wrote: »

That clearly was not the crux of that post.

If you read it to the end you will see the barb of "pro abortion" nomenclature

It kind of reduced the impact when the barb was aimed at the wrong poster

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

A bit like a life support machine and being told you have to decide to keep it going or switch it off.

A bit like it except for the massive differences I guess.

With a life support machine we are speaking of an entity with rights, for whom we should have moral and ethical concern.

With abortion we are talking about a fetus that has not attained ANY attribute that ANYONE on this thread has managed to argue should cause us to afford it rights, or moral and ethical concern.

Do you often use the phrase "a bit like" to simply brush ENORMOUS differences under the carpet?

.......

This post has been deleted.

david75

....... wrote: »

Robert I suggest you read back through the thread.

The distinction between something alive and a potential life has been gone over many times.

Women should have control over their own bodies and the contents of their wombs.

That is not to say that a fetus shouldnt be afforded some rights, but those rights can never trump the rights of the woman in which it resides.

A casual glimpse at his posts suggests he isn’t a big fan of women in general.

Riskymove

ELM327 wrote: »

That clearly was not the crux of that post.

If you read it to the end you will see the barb of "pro abortion" nomenclature

Hi all,

Sorry to get a bit overly precious but as Elm327 still hasn't responded to my subsequent posts I can only assume he has put me on ignore list or similar. So it is unlikely he will amend or clarify his earlier post directed at me

I'd just like to make it clear that I did not use the term "pro-abortion" nor would I support it used in the way it was by another poster.

Cheers

RobertKK

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

That's the woman's decision to make. It's certainly not mine or anyone elses not directly connected to her and will have no impact on the lives of any of the rest of us regardless of what she decides to do.

Apart form the ones unable to travel , abortions are happening , so I don't see how anyone saying they are concerned about life can see any advantage to putting extra pressure, emotional and financial on the women and couples going through it.

So if a baby that is born is dependent on the mother and has no one else to look after it, infanticide would be ok as it directly impacts the mother’s life and her choices?

Legalised abortion leads to increased abortion rate, abortion should be rare we are told but what the Irish people are being offered is abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks and it will normalise the killing of the unborn as it has in other countries.
What we need is more help in every way for mothers to make their lives easier, rather than having some see new life as a negative and a burden, instead of having them treated as clinical waste which have been used with other rubbish to heat hospitals in the UK.

RobertKK

david75 wrote: »

A casual glimpse at his posts suggests he isn’t a big fan of women in general.

There are many women against abortion.
A survey by Newstalk with a polling company found more men were prochoice than women.

Your post is tacking the person and not the topic at hand which shows you have a weak argument if you can’t argue the topic.

swampgas

RobertKK wrote: »

So if a baby that is born is dependent on the mother and has no one else to look after it, infanticide would be ok as it directly impacts the mother’s life and her choices?

Legalised abortion leads to increased abortion rate, abortion should be rare we are told but what the Irish people are being offered is abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks and it will normalise the killing of the unborn as it has in other countries.
What we need is more help in every way for mothers to make their lives easier, rather than having some see new life as a negative and a burden, instead of having them treated as clinical waste which have been used with other rubbish to heat hospitals in the UK.

Quite often a woman just doesn't want to be pregant, end of story. You cannot insist that you should be able to "persuade" a woman not to have an abortion by providing some support for pregnancy and child rearing. If a woman simply doesn't want to go through with a pregnancy, what would she have to do to convince you that she really means it? What would it take to convince you that maybe she should get to make the final decision on what happens?

joeyanne

RobertKK wrote: »

So if a baby that is born is dependent on the mother and has no one else to look after it, infanticide would be ok as it directly impacts the mother’s life and her choices?
.

NO again. If a baby is born, then it is a living, breathing human being. But at, and before, 12 weeks, it is not a baby. It is a fetus. How can you really believe a fetus can have the same rights as a woman?

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

Legalised abortion leads to increased abortion rate

Does it though? Have you figures on this? I would like to see them. Especially given the inherent difficulty of getting accurate figures for abortions by women in a state where it is illegal (as their abortions tend to be done in secret at home and/or in a foreign land). So I doubt your assertion here is on safe ground at all. But I am open to citations on it.

RobertKK wrote: »

What we need is more help in every way for mothers to make their lives easier

The two are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact just about everyone I have worked with in campaigning for pro-choice has also been VERY much Pro every initiative that would reduce the number of people actually having abortions.

Earlier and better sex education for example, despite comical and then abandoned claims on this thread that education in the class room has no effect outside the classroom.

Reduced cost of contraception, I do not think they should be eligible for VAT for example.

Better social welfare and parental support......... despite at least one anti abortion speaker on this thread claiming women should not get child allowance or social welfare.

And much more. We too easily forget the common ground between pro and anti choice groups. WE ALL want less abortions happening. We just disagree that abortion being illegal is the moral, or efficacious, method to attain that agenda.

.......

This post has been deleted.