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

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

More accurately, in the UK they are suffering from a shortage of doctors, full stop.

https://www.ft.com/content/a3a52be8-8e3a-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d
In the next three years Britain’s cash-strapped National Health Service will be spending £100m in an effort to find 5,000 new doctors. In other words, each doctor needed to plug growing staffing shortages will cost £20,000 in fees to recruitment agencies.

Even then, there will be shortfalls. Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, indicated earlier this year that the UK needed more like 11,500 doctors by 2020 to meet the demands of a seven-days-a-week NHS — one in which staff are as available at weekends as they are on weekdays. That the current supply-demand gap is of this magnitude speaks volumes about the gulf between government ambitions and reality.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/05/make-access-to-abortion-easier-uks-top-obstetrician-demands

Holdups were now so common, shortages of doctors trained in abortion care so widespread, and the process of obtaining pills so time-consuming and user-unfriendly that women’s access to early abortion was “at crisis point”.

Stuckforcash

Has anyone any links to a reasoned debate on this topic? As in one without shouting and strawman arguments. Cheers.

applehunter

We don't know what we are voting on yet. At least the repeal side are certain of their views!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volgograd

Annasopra

applehunter wrote: »

We don't know what we are voting on yet

We have a fairly good idea

1 Remove this

3° the state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right. this subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the state and another state. this subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the state, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

2 Add something like; The Oireachtas shall have to power to legislate on abortion and this legislation can be subject to court challenge

3 Draft legislation will be prepared to accompany the question above that will allow unrestricted abortion upto 12 weeks and abortion after 12 weeks in cases of FFA and threat to life of the Mother

JC01

applehunter wrote: »

We don't know what we are voting on yet. At least the repeal side are certain of their views!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volgograd

To be fair I think both "sides" are certain of there views, just one is far more willing to discuss and debate them.

Peregrinus

Stuckforcash wrote: »

Has anyone any links to a reasoned debate on this topic? As in one without shouting and strawman arguments. Cheers.

Sadly, no.

As long as the discussion is framed in terms of arguments from human rights - the "right to life" versus the "right to bodily integrity" - what you basically have is two irreconcilable viewpoints, neither of which can be objectively validated by any empirical evidence. Rights-based arguments tend towards absolutism, since how can you compromise in the defence of human rights? So that debate lead inexorably to stalemate, and stalemate breeds shouting and strawman arguments.

The only way to have a reasoned discourse is to reframe the discussion. If the starting point is (a) both views are held by significant sections of the community; (b) both views are entitled to a similar degree of respect; and (c) there is no basis on which either view can claim priority over the other, then you can go on to do some fresh thinking about what a legal/public policy framework that acknowledges and accommodates both views would look like. But that's the diametric opposite of the simplistic binary discourse which a referendum encourages, so right now is not a very promising time to look for such a discourse.

Akrasia

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Too early to peak I think. People will become bored and fed up and will have made their minds up anyway.

I will ignore Iona, pro abortion, anyone and everyone. I do not need lecturing to me at this stage of my life so they can all just go and feck off really.

I am bored already. It is an individual decision. But of course we are not capable of making that on our own anymore. Feck that.

This is why i lose faith in democracy. A once in a generation opportunity to shape the direction of Irish society and people get 'bored' and switch off before the campaign even starts.

Go back to facebook, there are pictures of cats you haven't awwwwd at yet.

ELM327

brendanwalsh wrote: »

I personally think abortion is disgusting. The description of surgical abortion really makes me feel uncomfortable and the pictures I have seen online of litttle babies chopped into pieces is disturbing. I would have no qualms for a person to get abortion if they were raped or the child had a disease incompatible with life. But abortion on demand is something I will have to vote against.

Those pictures are of fetuses not of "little babies".
Why is rape any different? The potential child knows not whether it is a rape victim's unwanted consequence or a miracle child tried for for years. And even if it could know, it would not have the ability to do so until many more weeks of gestation had passed.
The end result is the same. It's a cluster of cells that has the potential to become a child. Like the head of a spermatozoa, like an implanted fertilized ovum.

All of these are potentially human... but none of these are human as they do not possess sentience.

In Ireland we are looking at the possibility of abortion up to 12 weeks. Surgical abortions are not necessary until after 12 weeks, So surgical abortions, all these photos you saw from militant probirth groups, are sadly - like the downs syndrome argument - an irrelevant red herring.
QED

(TLDR - if you are ok with abortion in any circumstance then why not the others).

pitifulgod

applehunter wrote: »

We don't know what we are voting on yet. At least the repeal side are certain of their views!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volgograd

We've been given a draft of the preferred wording. It's far more fit for purpose than the actual 8th amendment. So we do have a good idea of what we'll be voting on.

nozzferrahhtoo

Stuckforcash wrote: »

Has anyone any links to a reasoned debate on this topic? As in one without shouting and strawman arguments. Cheers.

Megathreads like this one are good. The one downside however is there are many debates happening at the same time. You just have to do the work and follow the threads of them yourself and filter out the white noise. Trust me though, after a little practice this gets rather easy to do.

We did used to have a debate forum on boards.ie though. Where two users could pit themselves together without any replies from other users (on another forum I moderate we do this with TWO threads. One for the two combatants, and another for everyone else to comment in parallel on the main event).

I wonder if now would be a time to resurrect something of this sort? Maybe have a thread where 1 or more people from each "side" are only allowed post. And people can choose for their own side who they think the most rational and reasons and coherent and civil speakers have been so far to put in that cage?

I guess anyone who finds it interesting as an idea, petition your local moderator

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

I think a lot of doctors in Ireland will not want to facilitate abortions. It will be most likely the big business abortion providers who will move in fill the void if the 8th amendment is replaced.

I see no evidence that your imaginary future will come to pass. But let us imagine for the purposes of argument that it does.

So what?

If abortion is happening who cares WHO is providing it?

As with any business we will have to ensure they conform to certain regulations of course. But nothing new there.

So what's the problem in your imaginary world there? I am not seeing it.

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

No. Anyone can look at my post and yours - I'm happy with that

Yep and I have done. And I am not seeing what the issue is either. The user appears to have responded directly to what you actually wrote. And other users, myself included, are not seeing the misrepresentation. In fact no one else has registered seeing it, except you.

Common Decorum in Discourse would suggest that the most mature and rational move to make at that juncture is to stop screeching "misrepresentation" at people and instead stop and point out what you DID mean, what the user fallaciously replied to, and how the two differ exactly.

That is, after all, how conversation works. And this is, after all, a forum for conversation.

nozzferrahhtoo

brendanwalsh wrote: »

I personally think abortion is disgusting. The description of surgical abortion really makes me feel uncomfortable and the pictures I have seen online of litttle babies chopped into pieces is disturbing.

Try watching heart bypass surgery or cesarean section sometime. You will realize a few things very quickly such as:

1) Generally surgery is disturbing to watch or hear described.
2) How pleasant a procedure is or looks says NOTHING About its morality.
2) Medical abortion up to 12 weeks has nothing to do with surgery anyway.

So if you are voting against a system of abortion up to 12 weeks because the surgery disturbs you then you are voting the wrong way for the wrong reasons. Almost no abortions in that period of time will be surgical ones. They will be obtained legally through the simple use of pills.

brendanwalsh wrote: »

I would have no qualms for a person to get abortion if they were raped or the child had a disease incompatible with life. But abortion on demand is something I will have to vote against.

Unfortunately there is no way to GIVE that option to women who were raped WITHOUT abortion on demand. So if you want women who are raped to be able to obtain abortion pills legally....... then you have to vote for abortion for all.

Why? Stop to think about it for a moment. How would you ascertain eligibility for it? Your options are:

1) The woman has to secure a conviction for rape. What if the guy is found innocent but is not actually innocent? What of the sheer length of time rape convictions can take? What about women who want to put the rape behind them and not prosecute it. They just want to draw a line under it and move on as best they can? NOT WORKABLE.

2) The woman merely has to accuse the rape. What if a woman really wants an abortion? This would be an incentive to create false accusations for rape. And false rape accusations, even when dropped or found innocent, destroy lives. Because swaths of the public have this ignorant nonsense "No smoke without fire" attitude to it. NOT WORKABLE.

3) Simply take the woman's word for it she was raped. Well there you have abortion on demand. Because anyone woman who wants abortion just has to CLAIM she was raped.

So if you genuinely have concerns for women who were raped, as I do too, then I am sorry to say that opening up abortion for any woman for 12 weeks of gestation is probably the only way you can turn than concern into a reality.

Zubeneschamali

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

3 Draft legislation will be prepared to accompany the question above that will allow unrestricted abortion upto 12 weeks and abortion after 12 weeks in cases of FFA and threat to life of the Mother

Not quite. The Committee said:
The Committee is of the view that no differentiation should be made between the life and the health of the woman. This is consistent with the evidence from medical experts made available to the Committee regarding the difficulty medical professionals have in defining where a threat to health becomes a threat to life.

Ash.J.Williams

Stuckforcash wrote: »

Has anyone any links to a reasoned debate on this topic? As in one without shouting and strawman arguments. Cheers.

Zubeneschamali

Stuckforcash wrote: »

Has anyone any links to a reasoned debate on this topic? As in one without shouting and strawman arguments. Cheers.

Have you read the report of the Citizen's Assembly and the Oireachteas Committee? They cover the issues pretty well.

[Deleted User]

q9214n5louyt3p wrote: »

Misrepresentation is a tactic of both sides in this debate - ironically you are misrepresenting the tactic as typical of only one side

Telling an outright lie and then playing the victim when someone questions it. That's not a tactic I've seen from the pro-repeal side, whose argument is based around actual medical facts. When those facts were presented to the citizens assembly and the oireachtas committee, a significant majority were in favour of abortion being available with a 12 week limit. It's just common sense. So the pro birthers will do everything they can to deflect from the facts and try to make up their own.

Annasopra

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Have you read the report of the Citizen's Assembly and the Oireachteas Committee? They cover the issues pretty well.

Thats true. Reasoned and calm.

Water John

Well, I'll wait to see what those Ministers opposed to the 12 weeks come up with, to deal with rape and incest. That conundrum needs to be satisfactorily dealt with by anyone, proposing Repeal and saying the 12 weeks is too liberal. I understand their reluctance at 12 weeks no restriction.
They need to point out how they would see the law that follows Repeal.
In fact, anyone here who supports the Repeal but want a more restricted law than the 12 weeks, please post.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/05/make-access-to-abortion-easier-uks-top-obstetrician-demands

Kind of funny that the link is about the UK's chief gynecologist calling for easier access to abortions. Beyond that, as I said, in the UK are more accurately struggling from a shortage of doctors and professionals full stop.

More than 86,000 NHS posts vacant, says report

NHS faces shortage of 2,000 surgeons

NHS faces shortage of more than 40,000 nurses after Brexit, says leaked government prediction

According to the report, compiled by London’s Southbank University, across London there are more than 252 unfilled occupational therapist posts within NHS and social care services. Nearly one third of these vacancies sit within the Mental Health sector.

1,000 more psychiatrists needed to tackle 'unacceptable failings' in care

CANCER CARE SHORTAGE Cancer patients are being denied prompt chemotherapy due to a lack of specialist nurses

UK experiencing ‘desperate’ shortage of radiologists

Children's hospital units forced to close to new patients due to staff shortages
Lack of paediatric doctors and nurses across the UK also means care children receive is at risk, says the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

'Thousands' at risk due to shortage of specialist physiotherapists, charity warns

Almost one in three paramedic jobs are vacant across England.

And no surprise, that shortage includes midwives...

NHS midwife shortages: Bill for temporary staff costing service £100m a year
NHS contending with shortage of 3,500 midwives as Government pay restraint policies see experienced staff leave in droves

Riskymove

Water John wrote: »

I understand their reluctance at 12 weeks no restriction.
They need to point out how they would see the law that follows Repeal.

from the comments so far I think they would live with a tighter time frame - i.e. 8 - 10 weeks

munchkin_utd

Water John wrote: »

Well, I'll wait to see what those Ministers opposed to the 12 weeks come up with, to deal with rape and incest. That conundrum needs to be satisfactorily dealt with by anyone, proposing Repeal and saying the 12 weeks is too liberal. I understand their reluctance at 12 weeks no restriction.
They need to point out how they would see the law that follows Repeal.
In fact, anyone here who supports the Repeal but want a more restricted law than the 12 weeks, please post.

As to a possible viable fudge, maybe it'd simply be that the form for getting the abortion pills would have a few boxes for incest or rape, and you choose from the pallete of valid reasons which one applies. If the form simply stays with the advising doctor then whatever box is ticked becomes only an administrative formality to access the pills
With something like that, its technically only for rape, incest etc keeping politicans happy, but its essentially abortion on demand keeping the repeal side happy.

I dont know why it'd be the job of someone against a change to come up with a proposal to make a change? Surely it'd be someone looking for a change (from the status quo that nothing in the slightest is allowed) who would need to use their imagination to at least get something voted through.

Maybe the politicans who see 12 weeks as being too liberal are in reality happy to see no change but for political reasons want to say they are in the middle. Or, maybe they have more pressing issues like driving around attending funerals in order to shore up the support in advance of any potential election. That after all is the main purpose of a career politician, to get re-elected

Zubeneschamali

munchkin_utd wrote: »

As to a possible viable fudge, maybe it'd simply be that the form for getting the abortion pills would have a few boxes for incest or rape, and you choose from the pallete of valid reasons which one applies. If the form simply stays with the advising doctor then whatever box is ticked becomes only an administrative formality to access the pills

Yes, lets do away with one kind of hypocrisy and add a new one instead. You can have access to abortion pills, just lie on this form, thanks.

Loafing Oaf

munchkin_utd wrote: »

A

I dont know why it'd be the job of someone against a change to come up with a proposal to make a change?

Because they say that they are not opposed to any change but that the change proposed by the government goes too far. I'll just link to an article making the case because I'm too lazy to:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/legislating-for-abortion-in-rape-cases-is-very-difficult-1.3376777

Those TDs and Senators who accept that the current position is no longer appropriate but who have said they don’t want to go with the 12 weeks proposal from the Oireachtas committee need to tell the electorate what if any alternative they are proposing to address the circumstances of women pregnant as a result of rape.

Water John

The case of those who are opposed to Repeal is clear. I am talking of, the many who, support the Repeal, but who have problems with the proposed 12 weeks, no questions, which Minister Harris has indicated would be the proposed law.

joe_cork

What if, after 10 weeks, the scan results for your pregnancy revealed that the foetus has a chromosomal abnormality resulting in serious sight & hearing problems, would have severe brain abormalities and serious mental disabilities, and even if it survived the pregnancy would never walk. What if, assuming it managed to reach full term, it would have only a 10% chance of reaching the age of one. What if, even if you knew that the baby was to reach its first birthday, that you would know for certain that you would be burying the child at some stage, and almost certainly at a young age?

If this was the scenario put in front of you after 10 weeks into a pregnancy, would you choose to take a pill that would induce a miscarriage?

We didn't do an amniocentesis during pregnancy, so a few days after the birth of our child we suddenly found that these were the conditions that our baby had been born with. So, for us, the decision around termination was never an option.

We are both in favour of repealing the 8th amendment. Personally, if I had done the amniocentesis (or preferably the newer non-invasive Harmony cfDNA tests), I know for a fact that I would have chosen to terminate. Even today, this is the option I would have chosen were it up to me.

However, we would not have terminated as my wife has said she would never have been able to do this, but would respect the decision of other mothers to do otherwise. In other words, she is very much pro-choice, but would personally choose not to terminate.

Why am I writing this? Firstly, I personally find every day an emotional struggle, I find it a battle to get over the condition of our baby. We both love our child, but know our time with her is limited, and we both know that at some stage she will be gone. So even the act of writing these thoughts down feels like an escape valve, something heavy off my chest. Secondly, the ongoing abortion debate will definitely focus on conditions such as this. The anti-abortion side will say they are speaking for parents such as us. They don't speak for us. They don't know what we've experienced, or what parents in similar situations have experienced. Remember that the Harmony cfDNA tests are non-invasive, which I believe will mean that more parents will choose to scan for fetal chromosomal conditions. So this is a scenario that more parents will find themselves in. I believe parents should have a choice.

January

Riskymove wrote: »

from the comments so far I think they would live with a tighter time frame - i.e. 8 - 10 weeks

Which is actually what is happening with the 12 week limit anyway.

A pregnancy is calculated from the first day of the person's last period. Conception happens at least two weeks after that (could be longer, up to three weeks depending on when a person ovulates), so a 12 week pregnancy is actually a ten week old fetus.

If they were to reduce it to 10 weeks, we'd be looking at an 8 week old fetus, 8 weeks is actually 6 weeks and some people don't even know they're pregnant before 6 weeks. So trying to organise an abortion within two weeks doesn't give a person much time to contemplate their options and come to a decision on whether they want to abort or carry on with the pregnancy.

Riskymove

January wrote: »

two weeks doesn't give a person much time to contemplate their options and come to a decision on whether they want to abort or carry on with the pregnancy.

agreed

Hannibal_Smith

I don't understand why people are okay with abortion in cases of rape, but are against it in other circumstances.

If you do not agree with abortion because a baby is being killed and you believe it is likely to suffer then why is it okay to allow that suffering in cases of rape? If you believe in the right to life of the unborn and that it deserves it's own rights and protections, why would you agree to killing it in cases of rape?

Does your opinion of the foetus change? Is it less deserving of rights than any other foetus?

Why would you stand up for the rights of one set of unborn, but not others?

How would the woman prove to a medical professional that she was raped? Particularly before the 12 week cut off?

_Roz_

January wrote: »

So trying to organise an abortion within two weeks doesn't give a person much time to contemplate their options and come to a decision on whether they want to abort or carry on with the pregnancy.

I'm fine with the 12 week limit but.... would people really take that long to figure out what to do? Do you want it, and can you support it. Yes/no answers to both. If you want it but can't support it, the decision might take a bit longer I suppose to try find a workable arrangement, but for the most part, surely anyone who is having sex should already have considered what they would do if they got accidentally pregnant, and review this at any point circumstances change, no?

RobertKK

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see no evidence that your imaginary future will come to pass. But let us imagine for the purposes of argument that it does.

So what?

If abortion is happening who cares WHO is providing it?

As with any business we will have to ensure they conform to certain regulations of course. But nothing new there.

So what's the problem in your imaginary world there? I am not seeing it.

How can you say something is an imaginary world when it was reported as fact in the UK?
Why would Ireland be different?

Do you think abortions should be viewed as a business which you said it would be?
We are told the pro choice side want abortions to be legal, safe and rare. But a business is there to make money and that would go against rare.

Speaking of businesses, I do feel sympathy for Marie Stopes, when she was alive she was all for birth control being used to reduce unwanted pregnancies, but she was against abortion. Now her name is associated with being for something she was against.
A bit like Amnesty International whose founder was against abortion. But who died and now the organisation is a campaigner for abortion. Giving who funds them it is a business more than a charity when change of policy can be bought.
It is like they pissed on the graves of the Marie Stopes by using her name and on the founder of Amnesty by turning the organisation he founded into an advocate for abortion.

This is why it matters, Marie Stopes was for eugenics. She was very anti-abortion and I wonder do women know who use the clinics that bear her name that Marie Stopes accused a friend of murder because she had an abortion?
She was a very strange choice of name for a business that provides abortion.