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

seenitall

Cabaal wrote: »

nobody wants to force a rape victim to carry the rapists off spring to term.

Well, That's not quite true though, is it? Plenty of people even just on this thread denouncing abortion as murder, so I am sure some of the more rabid ones could not be happier if they could somehow enact a law whereby A Handmaid's Tale becomes a reality.

I haven't started seeing tiny little hands and feet on huge placards in my locality yet, but when I do, I just have to make sure to remember one thing: The last sting of a cruel, vicious, dying wasp.

SusieBlue

_Roz_ wrote: »

My parents will both vote no, unfortunately. My mother has always said if I ever had an unwanted pregnancy, give the baby to her. This the woman having to declare personal insolvency because of the insane debt racked up on the house by my father. She hasn't the means to provide for herself, let alone a human being. But somehow the child existing is more important than quality of life.

I'm in a similar situation with my parents, they are both going to be pretty firm no votes and they despair at the passion I have for repeal.
I hope they change their minds but I can't see it happening.
They were opening up to the idea of changing views when all those disgraceful abortion pro-life pictures of fetuses were put up around where they live and they now won't even entertain the idea of a yes vote.
Its an extremely manipulative campaign that they're running.
I think a lot of people will vote no after seeing those pictures. It stops people seeing the wood from the trees.
Its just shock/guilt tactics.

Cabaal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I had a conversation the other day with a friend I don't get to see often where she told me of her horrible day canvassing for Marriage Equality in a Cork suburb (Simon Coveney's base as it happens) and her absolute horror when my notoriously homophobic elderly father opened the door to her knock. Having known her since she was a small child he recognised her so she couldn't run away. Instead she bit the bullet and asked him to vote Yes. He replied 'what other way would I ****ing vote?' Friend said she knew at the moment it was in the bag. Then she asked me 'What about Repeal? How will he vote on that?. I said I honestly don't know but suspect it would be a No. We made the sad commiseration faces at each other.

This morning I decided to ask him. He said that while he, personally, is anti-abortion all this amendment is is nothing more than a way for the same bunch of godbotherers who put girls in the laundries to control and torture women and girls. That as far as he is concerned there is no way a fetus is equal to a living breathing woman and it's ridiculous to say it is. It's high time the women of Ireland were shown the respect they deserve and that respect includes them having the same control over what happens their own bodies as men have. Why on Earth would anyone want to force anyone to have a child they don't want? Sure he grew up seeing the effect that had. Women trapped in abusive marriages. Unloved and unwanted children with the rags of their arses flogging them. Men drinking to escape the responsibilities they couldn't cope with or fecking off on the boat.

No more Holy Joes and Josephines punishing women and girls, he declared. Them day are gone and good riddance!

My will be 86 years old when the Referendum happens father is voting Yes to Repeal.

No one is more surprised than me.

This,
This is the catholic church forgets about in Ireland when they spout about whats is not moral or right.

They have caused so much upset and suffering that people actually don't respect them anymore. Sure they have faith in a god but they don't trust a word the catholic church says anymore.

A large amount of Catholics in this country feel betrayed,
While the church claimed the moral high-ground it betrayed its followers and the countless pregnant women in this country for decades. Nobody wants a repeat of Ann Lovett and nobody wants to force a rape victim to carry the rapists off spring to term.

A large amount of the people that feel betrayed now think of the bigger picture and even if they don't personally think abortion is right for them they think that its unfair to force their views on others like the church did for decades, after all look how much suffering that caused on women.

It is this that resulted formed a large part in the passing of the marriage ref I believe,

The likes of Lolek Limited (Iona) and their many sub-organisations forget this,

drkpower

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.

Indeed.

Lost an awful lot of respect for Simon Coveney listening to his interview with Sean O'Rourke. I have respect for anyone with a genuinely held 'pro-life' view, but he was completely disingenuous on rape being a workable standalone ground for termination. And he also lobbed Downs in there too. He knows better that that.

Incredibly dishonest and self-serving; as a potential 'leader', he showed himself up.

_Roz_

My parents will both vote no, unfortunately. My mother has always said if I ever had an unwanted pregnancy, give the baby to her. This the woman having to declare personal insolvency because of the insane debt racked up on the house by my father. She hasn't the means to provide for herself, let alone a human being. But somehow the child existing is more important than quality of life.

Bannasidhe

I had a conversation the other day with a friend I don't get to see often where she told me of her horrible day canvassing for Marriage Equality in a Cork suburb (Simon Coveney's base as it happens) and her absolute horror when my notoriously homophobic elderly father opened the door to her knock. Having known her since she was a small child he recognised her so she couldn't run away. Instead she bit the bullet and asked him to vote Yes. He replied 'what other way would I ****ing vote?' Friend said she knew at the moment it was in the bag. Then she asked me 'What about Repeal? How will he vote on that?. I said I honestly don't know but suspect it would be a No. We made the sad commiseration faces at each other.

This morning I decided to ask him. He said that while he, personally, is anti-abortion all this amendment is is nothing more than a way for the same bunch of godbotherers who put girls in the laundries to control and torture women and girls. That as far as he is concerned there is no way a fetus is equal to a living breathing woman and it's ridiculous to say it is. It's high time the women of Ireland were shown the respect they deserve and that respect includes them having the same control over what happens their own bodies as men have. Why on Earth would anyone want to force anyone to have a child they don't want? Sure he grew up seeing the effect that had. Women trapped in abusive marriages. Unloved and unwanted children with the rags of their arses flogging them. Men drinking to escape the responsibilities they couldn't cope with or fecking off on the boat.

No more Holy Joes and Josephines punishing women and girls, he declared. Them day are gone and good riddance!

My will be 86 years old when the Referendum happens father is voting Yes to Repeal.

No one is more surprised than me.

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

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

Different countries. Different population size. Different medical system. Different issues WITH their medical system. And much much more. We are not 1:1 the same country where you can simply assume one will predict the outcome in another.

And that's BEFORE you factor in the difference in abortion laws. They have, what, 24 weeks? So a significant proportion of surgical abortion? We have a proposed 12 week limit. So almost entirely PILL based. So what kind of external business model do you IMAGINE will come in to meet that demand exactly? And Why?

RobertKK wrote: »

Do you think abortions should be viewed as a business which you said it would be?

I simply do not care. Once an ELECTIVE procedure is afforded to the public in a safe, regulated, and ethical manner, I simply could not care WHO is providing it. Nor, I notice despite you are replying to a post with me asking you, have you presented a reason why I might.

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

Now you are asking a different question. Would I like to see abortions reach a level of quantity where an external business is even required in the first place. That is ENTIRELY different and the answer is no, I would not. I want ideally NO ONE to have to have abortions, or to feel they need to seek them.

But that is a TOTALLY different angle to be looking at than whether a business providing them in and of itself is problematic. I honestly do not think THAT is an issue. If abortions are happening, I ask you again (since yuo did not deign to answer) what does it matter WHO is providing them?

But AGAIN you seem to forget that at 12 weeks, which is the proposal, we are not talking about surgical abortions. But pills. So from this angle ALSO I am failing to see what your issue is.

The rest of your post is nothing to do with a reply to me, so I am sure you will forgive me if I ignore it. Especially given the sheer quantity of posts from me, to you, which you have ignored so far on the thread.

_Roz_

eviltwin wrote: »

It's not an easy decision to make, it can take weeks to decide. Not for everyone but for some. And you might have an idea what you would do before it happens, actually faced with making that choice can be very different.

georgina toadbum wrote: »

I was just going to say this. A friend of mine always said she didn't want kids and that if she got pregnant she would have an abortion.

She got pregnant and couldn't go through with it. It really is not a decision you can make before you know you are pregnant and are in that situation.

Myself I don't agree with abortion. I am however pro-choice and will be voting to repeal. I would never have one myself but I wouldn't judge anyone or wish them to be denied an abortion for whatever reason they want one.

I've heard that, and I guess it must be true, I just dunno. I know my stance on kids. I know my financial and emotional capabilities, and I know they don't support children. Ergo, abortion. But yeah I suppose it's a case of, once you do it there's no going back, so think long and hard.

georgina toadbum

eviltwin wrote: »

It's not an easy decision to make, it can take weeks to decide. Not for everyone but for some. And you might have an idea what you would do before it happens, actually faced with making that choice can be very different.

I was just going to say this. A friend of mine always said she didn't want kids and that if she got pregnant she would have an abortion.

She got pregnant and couldn't go through with it. It really is not a decision you can make before you know you are pregnant and are in that situation.

Myself I don't agree with abortion. I am however pro-choice and will be voting to repeal. I would never have one myself but I wouldn't judge anyone or wish them to be denied an abortion for whatever reason they want one.

chalkitdown1

Some horrible Pro-Life posters & billboards up around Cork City already including one giant one on the side of a building about a block away from a rape-crisis centre. Disgusting. And of course the info on them is either misleading or straight up false. It's gonna be a long 4 months of this crap.

eviltwin

_Roz_ wrote: »

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?

It's not an easy decision to make, it can take weeks to decide. Not for everyone but for some. And you might have an idea what you would do before it happens, actually faced with making that choice can be very different.

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.

_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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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

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.

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.