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

freshpopcorn

Water John wrote: »

See Simon Coveney supports Repeal, just doesn't agree with the 12 weeks. Same as Michael Creed and Heather Humphries.
http://www.thejournal.ie/simon-coveney-abortion-3827872-Feb2018/

So, does this mean that Simon will be voting Yes or No?

If it means he's voting No one of Cork's most liberal constituencies could have two TD's who'd be wanting to keep the eighth!

Loafing Oaf

ForestFire wrote: »

You do know every doctor takes an Oat?

Surprisingly, some aren't that big into healthy eating!:p

nozzferrahhtoo

Akrasia wrote: »

voting with your feet and shutting down bigotted businesses works when public attitudes to the discriminated group are positive, but in areas where the prevailing attitude is prejudice, then refusing to serve people for x personal reason could be seen as a positive reason by their customer base while a liberal inclusive business owner might suffer.

That is the other side of the coin indeed but I do not think we can usefully do anything about that, at least not in a way that over rides the concern that I think PERSONAL business owners should be allowed deal with who they like when they like.

The whole concept of free business for me is that I have stock or skills that belongs to me, and I should be able to keep my possession of it until a time of MY choosing. It is MINE. I do not like the moves we have made towards compelling people to sell when they do not want to sell.

I understand WHY we make those moves.... as a reflex action against bigotry and the mistreatment of minorities and so forth. And I can not fault the intention. Just the execution. I think we need to find a better way.

Akrasia wrote: »

I think any GP should be obliged to give their patient medical advice that suits their needs

That part I am less ready to disagree with for sure. I was more talking about a GP engaging in the ACT of supplying or prescribing such a pill. That a GP should conform to the standards of truth and reality is something else for me. The GP should absolutely be compelled to give the correct advice and information where possible. And IF That correct advice is "You need this pill" then I am happy for such a PRIVATE individual to say "You need this pill, you can not get it from me as I do not stock it or prescribe it, but here are your options as to where you can go..........."

And I would hope that all the Yelp or whatever other reviews the patient writes will inform women everywhere "This doctor does not offer the full range of services a woman may require, so go elsewhere if you can" and his business will fail justifiably as a result.

You would not go to an eye doctor and DEMAND he look at your lungs. Lungs are just not a service he provides. Similarly if a doctor wants to set up saying "This is not a service I provide, but I am compelled by medical proprietry to show you the best ways you CAN get that service" then I have moral sympathies towards that situation rather than compromise me ideal that someone setting up a private business should have to provide goods or services they do not want to.

I dunno, it just seems like me going into a cake shop that does not sell nut based products and demanding "It is a cake that I want, you are a cake shop, so provide!" and them saying "Sorry sir, nut based cakes are just not a service we provide". THEY setup THEIR business to provide a specific set of products and services..... why do I get to demand services outside their own remit?

There is also the work ability aspect of things. If a doctor DOES refuse to prescribe something how can we be sure what reasons he had for doing it? He could just declare that it was his medical opinion it was not the right move for some arbitrary reason or another? All he would have to show is that HE believed it was the right medical decision, or?

Water John

Yes, there was debate before, as to the fact that the MAP prevented implantation and so was an abortifaciant. Reason some chemists wouldn't stock it.

See Simon Coveney supports Repeal, just doesn't agree with the 12 weeks. Same as Michael Creed and Heather Humphries.
http://www.thejournal.ie/simon-coveney-abortion-3827872-Feb2018/

ForestFire

captbarnacles wrote: »

Agree with Akrasia. If you feel your religious beliefs will interfere with your job when assessing treatment options for patients then don't be a doctor.

You do know every doctor takes an Oat? How you or each doctor interpret this oat might be different and another topic for debate, but and as far as I know the Oat is not based on religious beliefs?

Akrasia

ForestFire wrote: »

about 11 weeks?:)

Has there been a recent update in then morning after pill? From memory I though it had to be taken within 3 days and each day after reduces the chances of it working.

Also it takes 48-72 hours for sperm to reach the egg, Is the pill designed to work before this? or can it still be effective after the egg is fertilised?

The morning after pill can work to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, which would be the termination of a 'conceived' pregnancy

But then, a large percentage of fertilized eggs don't successfully implant or spontaneously abort later on even without any medical intervention, (up to 50% of all pregnancies according to some studies) so there are a lot of lost souls floating around of 'human life' that died completely unknown and unloved because the mother never even knew that she was pregnant.

captbarnacles

Agree with Akrasia. If you feel your religious beliefs will interfere with your job when assessing treatment options for patients then don't be a doctor.

Akrasia

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It seems so and I hope so. I hate this idea.... though I see in many cases why we have it..... that people who own a PRIVATE business should be COMPELLED to engage in any given business transaction. Be it affording abortion pills to women, or baking cakes for homosexuals. My deep feelings and rationale on that has always been that if you own and run your own business, it should be ENTIRELY up to you A) Who you deal with and Why you choose to deal or not deal with them.

But in the case of people who do NOT make cakes for homosexuals or serve pills to women for reasons of unsubstantiated nonsense like gods or personal bias..... I reserve the right to vote with my feet, invite others to follow my footsteps, for us all to go elsewhere....... and for us to enjoy the mirth and schadenfreude involved in watching a bigot go out of business and so forth.

However if some GP was, for example, working for the State I would NOT hope to have him/her/them allowed to opt out. That is not your own business, it is the states, and you should do the job you were hired for in my view. I no more think a GP working for the state should be allowed opt out than I think a man hired by a butcher should be let show up on the first day and declare "By the way I am Muslim so I will not be touching or working with your pork in any way, sowwy'boucha". Both should be fired instantly if they refuse to do the work they were hired to do in my view.

voting with your feet and shutting down bigotted businesses works when public attitudes to the discriminated group are positive, but in areas where the prevailing attitude is prejudice, then refusing to serve people for x personal reason could be seen as a positive reason by their customer base while a liberal inclusive business owner might suffer.

This is the reason why it is illegal to refuse to serve members of the travelling community in a shop or bar. Travellers have not got a lot of public sympathy amongst large sections of the Irish public.

If it was allowed to discriminate then you would have the vast majority of bars refusing service, and the few bars who allow them, being seen as 'traveller pubs' and losing a lot of their customer base.

If it was allowed to discriminate against gay people in wedding cakes, hotel venues you could see christian groups organising boycotts of the shops and suppliers who are facilitating the gay weddings, especially in smaller towns and villages in more insular parts of Ireland.

I think any GP should be obliged to give their patient medical advice that suits their needs, not the religious views of the GP. When you're a professional you operate under a license which has conditions attached, that you abide with the laws and regulations in your industry and follow best practice and behave in your clients best interests with honesty and good faith.

GPs shouldn't be allowed to refuse to prescribe contraception to cancer patients (for example) because they're catholic. And they shouldn't be allowed to refuse to prescribe abortion pills to women experiencing crisis pregnancy or couples who have a diagnosis of fetal abnormalities who decide that they do not wish to carry that pregnancy to term.

ForestFire

Martina1991 wrote: »

What about the morning after pill. No one bats an eyelid at that. Conception could occur in that case.

If you can take a pill in week 1. What's the difference in taking a pill before week 12.

about 11 weeks?:)

Has there been a recent update in then morning after pill? From memory I though it had to be taken within 3 days and each day after reduces the chances of it working.

Also it takes 48-72 hours for sperm to reach the egg, Is the pill designed to work before this? or can it still be effective after the egg is fertilised?

freshpopcorn

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Get a hold of what though? You said some TD's/parties are for late term abortions (on demand) whereas this isn't the case at all.

Let the pro-life people say what they like, thankfully most people are educated enough in ireland to see through thier lies.

Repealing the 8th (imo) will be a slam dunk.

I have my views on the matter and you have yours. We're not going to agree on the matter!

Martina1991

ifElseThen wrote:

You didn't abort by preventing egg and sperm joining.

What about the morning after pill. No one bats an eyelid at that. Conception could occur in that case.

If you can take a pill in week 1. What's the difference in taking a pill before week 12.

ifElseThen

Edward M wrote: »

but looking at the fact that we used contraceptive pills we don't know actually how many times we may have actually conceived that we didn't know about.

You'd know pretty fast if you conceived!

You didn't abort by preventing egg and sperm joining.

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

I wonder will there be an opt out allowed for GPs, perhaps on religious or ethical grounds?

It seems so and I hope so. I hate this idea.... though I see in many cases why we have it..... that people who own a PRIVATE business should be COMPELLED to engage in any given business transaction. Be it affording abortion pills to women, or baking cakes for homosexuals. My deep feelings and rationale on that has always been that if you own and run your own business, it should be ENTIRELY up to you A) Who you deal with and

Why you choose to deal or not deal with them.

But in the case of people who do NOT make cakes for homosexuals or serve pills to women for reasons of unsubstantiated nonsense like gods or personal bias..... I reserve the right to vote with my feet, invite others to follow my footsteps, for us all to go elsewhere....... and for us to enjoy the mirth and schadenfreude involved in watching a bigot go out of business and so forth.

However if some GP was, for example, working for the State I would NOT hope to have him/her/them allowed to opt out. That is not your own business, it is the states, and you should do the job you were hired for in my view. I no more think a GP working for the state should be allowed opt out than I think a man hired by a butcher should be let show up on the first day and declare "By the way I am Muslim so I will not be touching or working with your pork in any way, sowwy'boucha". Both should be fired instantly if they refuse to do the work they were hired to do in my view.

Loafing Oaf

pleas advice wrote: »

I wonder will there be an opt out allowed for GPs, perhaps on religious or ethical grounds?

Yep. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/conscience-clause-gps-will-be-allowed-to-opt-out-of-abortion-pill-law-36410265.html

Edward M

I think I'm going to vote for repeal, based on my perception as acceptable is not everyone's.
I've always been pretty much my own man, made crunch decisions throughout my life based on what I thought was the best course of action for me and since I had a family for "us".
I have lived with and used contraception, contraception by pill which my wife has used.
We both don't know how many abortions we have induced by using this method.
If my wife or my partner or whatever at the time, were ever so unlucky as to conceive a pregnancy we would have gone through with the conception, but that would have been our wish at the time, but looking at the fact that we used contraceptive pills we don't know actually how many times we may have actually conceived that we didn't know about.
Our children, when we had them were planned, but erstwhile pills kept us safe.
I now feel, having considered everything, that it would actually be hypocritical of me to vote no.
It won't cause me to compromise my beliefs by allowing others to follow theirs.
This has taken me a while to get right in my own mind.

nozzferrahhtoo

_Roz_ wrote: »

True, you just think the consequences are different than me, I suppose!

No I just question their relevance. That a fetus NOT aborted MIGHT become a sentient agent is the part I am not seeing the rationale for considering relevant. Feelz yes. But a rational argument no. And as I said, I am just someone who generally needs both.

pleas advice

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Abortion on request up to 12 weeks covers rape.

The Citizens Assembly voted strongly to allow abortion for rape victims. The Oireachteas Committee said:

"In view of the complexities inherent in legislating for the termination of pregnancy for reasons of rape or other sexual assault, the committee is of the opinion that it would be more appropriate to deal with this issue by permitting termination of pregnancy with no restriction as to reason provided that it is availed of through a GP-led service delivered in a clinical context as determined by law and licensing practice in Ireland with a gestational limit of 12 weeks."

I wonder will there be an opt out allowed for GPs, perhaps on religious or ethical grounds?

Timberrrrrrrr

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It's how they come across tough to some people and they might damage the campaign in my opinion. It pro-life campaign can get any hint of this they could have a field day in my opinion.

Get a hold of what though? You said some TD's/parties are for late term abortions (on demand) whereas this isn't the case at all.

Let the pro-life people say what they like, thankfully most people are educated enough in ireland to see through thier lies.

Repealing the 8th (imo) will be a slam dunk.

_Roz_

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That part I do not think we ever disagreed on though. We are certainly on the same page there.

True, you just think the consequences are different than me, I suppose!

:pac:

Zubeneschamali

captbarnacles wrote: »

Has there been any sensible rebuttal to this? I haven't heard one yet.

No, just a lot of shouting about how abortion on demand will never pass in Ireland.

Hoboo

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I suppose I might be a little negative on the matter and I keep find reasons why it might fail.

I think it will fail. The 12 week proposal will sway many 'on the fence' voters who would have voted Yes had it been only in cases of incest, rape or foetal abnormality. So women like Savita Halappanavar will continue to die. Its an all or nothing approach which I believe will end up with nothing.

nozzferrahhtoo

_Roz_ wrote: »

To me, it is rational to consider the consequences of action or inaction, before acting.

That part I do not think we ever disagreed on though. We are certainly on the same page there.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm sorry, what is your main objective exactly?

I'm not sure we are on the same page there. Or book. Maybe in the same library, maybe not.

Repealing the 8th amendment.

freshpopcorn

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Does not equate to the claims made though does it?

It's how they come across tough to some people and they might damage the campaign in my opinion. It pro-life campaign can get any hint of this they could have a field day in my opinion.

_Roz_

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But for something to be rational, a rational argument has to be possible for it. But this is what has not happened. Calling it rational does not make it rational. Something is only rational when demonstrated to be so. And you yourself call it more a "feeling" than something you can adumbrate the rationality for. It might FEEL rational, but that does not qualify.

Whereas, for contrast, I can quite clearly (and, I am informed, at quite nauseating length ) lay out the exact rationales behind the positions I hold and why I hold them. Nothing I present (so far) has been based on "Da Feelz" as those younger than me are wont to say.

To me, it is rational to consider the consequences of action or inaction, before acting. And the consequences here are the difference between life and death. I do have feelz tho. :pac:

Timberrrrrrrr

freshpopcorn wrote: »

PBP-Solidarity: Pro-choice, saying it is a woman’s decision. Abortions as early as possible and as late as necessary[, but no specified circumstances.

Does not equate to the claims made though does it?

nozzferrahhtoo

_Roz_ wrote: »

And to me, the fact of it becoming a person if you don't intervene with an abortion, IS a rational thing to consider.

But for something to be rational, a rational argument has to be possible for it. But this is what has not happened. Calling it rational does not make it rational. Something is only rational when demonstrated to be so. And you yourself call it more a "feeling" than something you can adumbrate the rationality for. It might FEEL rational, but that does not qualify.

Whereas, for contrast, I can quite clearly (and, I am informed, at quite nauseating length

) lay out the exact rationales behind the positions I hold and why I hold them. Nothing I present (so far) has been based on "Da Feelz" as those younger than me are wont to say.

freshpopcorn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Sure only a few weeks ago you were saying 12 weeks was too much!!
I dunno but you keep finding fault with eveything. All your posts seem to be low level giving reasons to vote no. Its kinda like now you realised 12 weeks might win that you then bring in hardline TDs. At every opportunity you are doing it. "But what about x" and X is always a reason to vote no to repeal.

I have always said that the result of the marriage referendum was lower than I expected and it made me uncomfortable about this issue passing compared to how some people feel and that it will take a good turn out in Dublin/urban areas for it pass because I feel a lot of country areas will go no.
I also haven't seen as much demand online compared to others. However a local blogger posted about the issue and it good a views. This helps me believe a little more it will pass.
I also think it's important that every vote is gotten and to do this the repeal campaign needs to out their best team forward for debates/etc on tv and be careful who they select.
To get this to pass I think they need to reach the on the fence voters now and I think more traditional td's who support the repeal will help the repeal campaign more.

I suppose I might be a little negative on the matter and I keep find reasons why it might fail. Well one is I have heard people with concerns and for them to change their mind they right people need to front the campaign another is feel certain people are very complacent about the issue. Maybe in a few weeks I'll feel more confident about it.

_Roz_

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I "just cant" acknowledge it as relevant. So I guess it is just in out genetic make up somewhere. Perhaps I am more Vulcan than Human, but I can not take something as relevant purely based on feeling or emotion. I need a concurrent rational element to it which I am just not seeing.

And to me, the fact of it becoming a person if you don't intervene with an abortion, IS a rational thing to consider. :pac:

But yeah, we just have fundamentally different views on it. At the end of the day, morals, ethics etc are all just systems of measurement established by society and culture over time, so there's always going to be a bit of variation in people's perspectives.

nozzferrahhtoo

_Roz_ wrote: »

But I just can't dismiss that, with time, it will change hehe.

And I "just cant" acknowledge it as relevant. So I guess it is just in out genetic make up somewhere. Perhaps I am more Vulcan than Human, but I can not take something as relevant purely based on feeling or emotion. I need a concurrent rational element to it which I am just not seeing.