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

swampgas

RobertKK wrote: »

The woman’s life comes first but a blatant disregard for the life she carries does give a view into the psyche of that woman or man who supports taking that life away. There is a lack of empathy with the other life if there is nothing wrong and you terminate his/her life in the womb.
He/she in the womb is growing and showing he/she wants to live as there are two lives involved.

What seems to be the case is that people opposed to abortion have lots of empathy for a potential life, but less for the pregnant woman. Those in favour of allowing a woman to choose have more empathy for the woman than for the foetus.

What's interesting is how those with traditional views of women tend to have less empathy for them and are less inclined to give them autonomy. Women had to fight for the vote, for employment equality, for many things that traditionalists don't like. They want to decide for women, rather than let women decide for themselves.

What is so bad about letting women decide, Robert? Why is it so important to you that you get to tell them what to do? Can you not see the problem with assuming that you know better than they do?

.......

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK

kylith wrote: »

No. A baby can be taken care of by anybody with a mind to. There is literally no way that a fetus can be taken from a womb and implanted into another womb to gestate.

What if the mother doesn’t want her baby to be cared by someone else and want her/him dead?
We have seen mothers commit infanticide. That is illegal but the argument is the baby has the same understanding as the unborn baby in the womb has.
The only difference is you can see one and the other is hidden in a body of a woman.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

A 12 week foetus doesn't "want" anything. No more than if you held an apple in your grip, extended your arm and released your grip the apple "wants" to fall, or mold on a damp wall "wants" to grow.

kylith

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would think that any perceived increase is just from previously illegal terminations now being recorded.

For example, say 500* women managed to have legal terminations last year. Assuming that 4500* went to the UK for a termination last year, if the same numbers continue next year the rate of legal Irish abortions would skyrocket from 500pa to 5000pa. No more Irish women would actually be getting terminations, they'd just be having them in Ireland and recording them in Irish statistics.

*All numbers purely for the sake of argument

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

The woman’s life comes first but a blatant disregard for the life she carries does give a view into the psyche of that woman or man who supports taking that life away.

Yea, it gives you the insight that without sentience they have NO REASON to value that life any more than you valued the life of the last steak you ate, or the last bacteria you killed by the MILLIONS when you last took an anti-biotic.

And you can take a look into my psyche for free with that too, because I ENTIRELY agree with them on that assessment. There is no reason on offer, least of all by you, as to why we should value a 12 week old fetus in that way at all.

RobertKK wrote: »

There is a lack of empathy with the other life if there is nothing wrong and you terminate his/her life in the womb.

Perhaps a dictionary would benefit you at this point. Empathy: "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.". The Fetus HAS no feelings. There is no sentient entity there to have any. Do you empathize with amoeba too?

What you are doing is not empathizing. It is projecting your feelings onto the fetus.

RobertKK wrote: »

He/she in the womb is growing and showing he/she wants to live as there are two lives involved.

It does not "want" anything any more than an amoeba moving towards a food source "wants" to eat or a plant stretching towards the sun "wants" to photosynthesize. There is nothing there doing the wanting. YOU are wanting vicariously on it's behalf.

baylah17

RobertKK wrote: »

The woman’s life comes first but a blatant disregard for the life she carries does give a view into the psyche of that woman or man who supports taking that life away. There is a lack of empathy with the other life if there is nothing wrong and you terminate his/her life in the womb.
He/she in the womb is growing and showing he/she wants to live as there are two lives involved.

There is no greater lack of empathy in this debate than from those who would compel under force of law a woman to carry a fetus against her will.
The right to regulate her own body is a basic civil right for every woman, the right not to be forced into motherhood against her will.

The Legend Of Kira

Home to vote is slowly starting to trend I see.

https://twitter.com/LdnIrishARC/status/958470809781260290

There was a thread a few months ago on Irish abroad coming home to vote for the upcoming referendum.

https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2057794664

As one poster said on that thread.

"" If you aren’t resident in Ireland, then legally you cannot vote. ""

If this is actually accurate ,, what l be done to ensure that those who vote are legally allowed vote ?

RobertKK

joeyanne wrote: »

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?

The woman’s life comes first but a blatant disregard for the life she carries does give a view into the psyche of that woman or man who supports taking that life away. There is a lack of empathy with the other life if there is nothing wrong and you terminate his/her life in the womb.
He/she in the womb is growing and showing he/she wants to live as there are two lives involved.

kylith

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. A baby can be taken care of by anybody with a mind to. There is literally no way that a fetus can be taken from a womb and implanted into another womb to gestate.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

Women against abortion?
Fine... then don't have one!

.......

This post has been deleted.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

.......

This post has been deleted.