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

If you think about it, the 90% figure might actually indicate that many Irish people would also prefer to have the option of a termination if DS is detected. I have had conversations with Irish people who were prepared to travel to the UK to terminate rather than continue a pregnancy with DS. I can't be the only one, surely?

Are Irish women and British women so different? I don't think so. Surely this just illustrates that the issue should be the ability of the person who will have to undergo the pregnancy, and then more than likely be the primary carer for the child afterwards, to decide whether they should go through with it or not?

And, perhaps without realising it, those posters have shown what they are really about - don't let it happen here. Are they really saying "just keep going to England, for appearances sake"?

January

Not to nitpick guys but can we stop using terms like 'Down's children' 'down's people' 'disabled people' etc

The proper terms that families and people want used is 'child with Down Syndrome' 'person with Down Syndrome' 'people with disabilities'. Don't let the condition define the person.

Ave Sodalis

The Legend Of Kira wrote:

If its the 90% abortion rate the truck is claiming, I googled their claim again to see what came in the google search- I found this article from the BBC who are also quoting a 90% abortion rate of unborn babies diagnosed with down syndrome .

I have a question for you: do you work with families of Downs children? Do you actively help care for the children than need constant supervision? Do you go out of your way on at least a weekly basis to allow parents of severe Down's children some time off? Do you help care for any of them when their parents die? Do you provide any sort of educational or social support for the children themselves?

Or is this another case of "what about the Down's children! Won't someone think of them and their fight against the heartless abortionists" and then go back to not giving a sh*t about them when this referendum is all over?

Cabaal

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's not as if there isn't precedent for governments falling or doing u-turns because of public backlash either. VAT on children's shoes, removing automatic medical cards for over 70s, and water charges spring to mind as examples.

Exactly,

If one government tried to increase it to 24 weeks the next could easily change it back, if the will of the people supported them. The government aren't going to touch it with a barge pole otherwise.

Its still not a reason not to repeal the 8th, without repealing it we cannot properly deal with the issues at hand and the hard reality of what women go through and how this country fails them.

Either we must repeal the 8th or if we're going to claim a fetus is equal to a chilod then we must start charging women with murder if the use abortion pills and we must ban them from traveling for abortions.

People simply can't claim a fetus is equal to a child and abortion is murder and yet be fine with women traveling for abortion and not having the full weight of the law place upon women who use pills illegally.

One way or another we as a country must own up and start properly dealing with our own issues, either we trust women and provide support and care for them by repealing the 8th or we treat women who have illegal abortions as criminals and charge them with murder of the fetus.

Bannasidhe

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

" yet no one on the anti-repeal side is telling us how it can happen here."

If a future government ever decides to legalise for abortion access further then the current 12 week limit proposal, I know some might say " that,s scaremongering " if its just about legalising for access for 12 weeks limit & 12 weeks limit only, then surely there would be proposals from some public figures/Tds for some sort of legal clause to be included that no future government can legalise for further abortion access beyond 12 weeks without consulting the people, but at the present moment I don,t see anyone publicly calling for such a clause to be included funny that, a few months ago while giving an interview to Rte news the spokesperson for the abortion rights campaign went on record saying they want the recommendations of the citizens assembly at the minimum meaning they want more.

"" We want full abortion access, at the minimum we want the recommendations of the citizens assembly "" .

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0930/908737-march-for-choice/

If the Tds on the repeal side want 12 weeks access & 12 weeks access only, they should be calling for a legal clause to ensure any future legalisation stays at 12 weeks only & goes no further-the fact that they aren,t calling a for a legal clause is telling .

The simple medical fact is that many conditions which may cause the fetus to be incompatible with life cannot be diagnosed by 12 weeks. [edited for clarification] Neither can Downs Syndrome which is compatible with life and therefore not a Fatal Fetal Abnormality. The CA recommended that after 12 weeks termination be permissible (not compulsory) when there is a diagnosis of FFA however the CA did not recommend termination be available if the fetus has been diagnosed with a non-fatal abnormality. Downs Syndrome is a non fatal abnormality.

The committee’s report will also recommend that a termination be legal in cases of fatal foetal abnormality but it will not recommend that a termination be legal in cases where a foetal abnormality is not deemed to be fatal.

On that latter point, the committee differs from the Citizens’ Assembly which recommended that a termination be legal in cases of a “significant abnormality” that are not fatal.

http://www.thejournal.ie/committee-citizens-assembly-3749589-Dec2017/

The key word is 'significant' - given that many many people with DS are perfectly capable of living independent, productive lives it cannot be deemed to be a 'significant' abnormality and such a classification would be open to legal challenge.

You are scaremongering.

Furthermore, firstly the Dáil cannot introduce legislation which ties the hands of future Dáils. But even if it could, should a future Dáil wish to change the legislation it could equally remove this 'legal clause'.
It would be nothing but meaningless window dressing.

Secondly, the current proposal is that the Ref question be 'repeal and allow the Dáil to legislate' - that's it.
Repeal the 8th and allow government to do it's job and legislate. What that legislation will be will be thrashed out in the Dáil and the Senate and will need a majority vote to pass.

If you think a time will come when the Irish electorate will accept legislation for terminations after 12 weeks for any fetal abnormality at all, significant or not, then I put it to you that you do not want to wait for that electorate to be voting on Repeal as it will be very very liberal and probably in favour of a Canadian style system.

NuMarvel

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm tired of this being trotted out as its pretty baseless.

If a government did this without the backing of the people then the government wouldn't last long and the TD's would feel the full wraith of the people at the polls.

It's not as if there isn't precedent for governments falling or doing u-turns because of public backlash either. VAT on children's shoes, removing automatic medical cards for over 70s, and water charges spring to mind as examples.

Loafing Oaf

Water John wrote: »

Those figures look reasonable. Peader Tobin, I presume would be the only TD to break SF party ranks.

As far as we know. An interesting straw in the wind on this issue was FF TD Thomas Byrne saying he would feel duty-bound as a legislator to vote for the 12-week legislation if the referendum passed, despite being strongly pro-life. Assuming a SF volte face, it would only take a handful of 'on-the-fence' FG TDs (perhaps looking for political cover) to take this line for the legislation to pass.

Water John

SF TDs abstained because they had not got approval from an Ard Fheis. They thus did not break party rules.

nozzferrahhtoo

Water John wrote: »

Oaf, well I told where I was getting my facts from.

I have no facts either way myself but I can only give my thinking on it.

Well there is a workability issue to look at. 12 weeks is already pretty restrictive. But not so much. We see worldwide on average that a country that has access to abortion by choice generally find over 90% of their abortions occurring in or before 12 weeks. Even if the country has a 24 week limit in a UK or US form, or n o theoretical limit like in Canada. With or without a limit the abortions GENERALLY happen by 12 weeks.

But most of those happen in the 10 to 12 week area. Why? Because most people at, say, 0-4 weeks do not even KNOW they are pregnant. If you restrict it TOO Much you are pushing it back to a point where most people will not realize they are pregnant in time to avail of it.

Further even those who DO realize it.... if the limit is too restrictive you pressure and rush them into a decision. And statistically NO ONE wants that I suspect.

So you are 100% right it is possible. But I think it is a bad enough idea that it is unlikely to happen. Humans have a fetish for round numbers though so I guess I would not be shocked by a 10 week limit. But 12 weeks is round number in terms of being 3 months. So....... meh. Wait and see I guess.

NuMarvel

Water John wrote: »

Those figures look reasonable. Peader Tobin, I presume would be the only TD to break SF party ranks.

Even if there wasn't a change, it's possible SF TDs would abstain on votes on the 12 week option. I think that's what the SF TDs on the Committee did and they haven't faced sanctions for that.

Cabaal

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If a future government ever decides to legalise for abortion access further then the current 12 week limit proposal,

I'm tired of this being trotted out as its pretty baseless.

If a government did this without the backing of the people then the government wouldn't last long and the TD's would feel the full wraith of the people at the polls.

The fact that every-time the 8th has come up its been kicked down the road year upon years shows just how reluctant governments are to do anything in relation to abortion. Yet here we are with the pro life groups claiming it can be just changed and thats that, its utter nonsense.

At the end of the day if there's enough backing from the people for the government to change the legislation in years to come, then there's also enough backing for the 8th to be repealed in years to come.

FG did the citizen assembly likely thinking the outcome would be different to this, but instead it went the way they didn't expect....people looked at the facts and understood the current setup was simply far too restrictive and was untrusting to women.

This baseless fear mongering is just getting silly.

NuMarvel

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If a future government ever decides to legalise for abortion access further then the current 12 week limit proposal...

In other words, it can't be done under the current proposals. I'm glad we finally got there.

This of course means that the pro life poster isn't a call to vote No in the referendum, but actually a call to legislate as per the Committee's recommendations. Have to say, I didn't see that one coming.

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If the Tds on the repeal side want 12 weeks access & 12 weeks access only, they should be calling for a legal clause to ensure any future legalisation stays at 12 weeks only & goes no further-the fact that they aren,t calling a for a legal clause is telling .

There's already a constitutional provision to refer legislation to the people in a referendum in specified circumstances. It's called Article 27. If those circumstances aren't to your satisfaction, you're welcome to campaign to have them changed.

Water John

Those figures look reasonable. Peader Tobin, I presume would be the only TD to break SF party ranks.

Loafing Oaf

Water John wrote: »

Oaf, well I told where I was getting my facts from. What have you got to back up what you are saying. Not being smart here. Just think the proposed legislation would not be a foregone conclusion, erring on the stricter side.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/spotlight-on-sinn-fin-as-clear-majority-of-tds-rejects-12week-proposal-36562750.html

Legislation to allow for abortion up to 12 weeks will not pass through the Dáil unless Sinn Féin changes its party policy.

And there is about as much chance of Man City not winning the league as of SF not doing that. Okay you're still not quite over the line then, but you only need a handful of the FG undecideds to support it and you're there.

Water John

Oaf, well I told where I was getting my facts from. What have you got to back up what you are saying. Not being smart here. Just think the proposed legislation would not be a foregone conclusion, erring on the stricter side.

Loafing Oaf

Water John wrote: »

There is every likelyhood, as I mentioned before, that the law would be stricter than 12 weeks.

No chance.

Water John

There is every likelyhood, as I mentioned before, that the law would be stricter than 12 weeks. Irish Times today (behind a paywall) are saying one third of TDs for, one third against, and one third undecided.

Well just look at the USA, where they inserted the right of militia to bear arms into the original constitution. Specifics into the constitution is not a good idea.

The Legend Of Kira

NuMarvel wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I addressed the claim the billboard van is saying/quoting in an earlier post this evening

"the poster is telling us "don't let that happen here" yet no one on the anti-repeal side is telling us how it can happen here."

You haven't addressed that part of the claim, and considering we're talking about what will happen here, in Ireland, that's the most relevant part.

If you had an answer, you'd have provided it by now. Clearly you don't, hence your evasion and deflection.

" yet no one on the anti-repeal side is telling us how it can happen here."

If a future government ever decides to legalise for abortion access further then the current 12 week limit proposal, I know some might say " that,s scaremongering " if its just about legalising for access for 12 weeks limit & 12 weeks limit only, then surely there would be proposals from some public figures/Tds for some sort of legal clause to be included that no future government can legalise for further abortion access beyond 12 weeks without consulting the people, but at the present moment I don,t see anyone publicly calling for such a clause to be included funny that, a few months ago while giving an interview to Rte news the spokesperson for the abortion rights campaign went on record saying they want the recommendations of the citizens assembly at the minimum meaning they want more.

"" We want full abortion access, at the minimum we want the recommendations of the citizens assembly "" .

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0930/908737-march-for-choice/

If the Tds on the repeal side want 12 weeks access & 12 weeks access only, they should be calling for a legal clause to ensure any future legalisation stays at 12 weeks only & goes no further-the fact that they aren,t calling a for a legal clause is telling .

Cabaal

pitifulgod wrote: »

And it's going to incredibly hurtful for people with down syndrome or family members with it to have to deal with such billboards for the next 6 months. Kira doesn't seem to care about such things though.

Just like it was very hurtful for single mothers and fathers when the started the crap of "Every child deserves a mother and father" back in 2015.

This made many single parents feel hurt

captbarnacles

What are they worrying about? We'll still be exporting that issue to the UK. It will mean the people who cannot afford to travel and likely could in no way cope financially with a disabled child will have no choice but we know that is irrelevant to them.

pitifulgod

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The whole thing is a lie

1 How can 90% of babies be aborted? A baby is born human being
2 Its complete irrelevant nonsense given that the oireachtas is proposing legislation for 12 weeks.

And it's going to incredibly hurtful for people with down syndrome or family members with it to have to deal with such billboards for the next 6 months. Kira doesn't seem to care about such things though.

Annasopra

The whole thing is a lie

1 How can 90% of babies be aborted? A baby is born human being
2 Its complete irrelevant nonsense given that the oireachtas is proposing legislation for 12 weeks.

NuMarvel

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I addressed the claim the billboard van is saying/quoting in an earlier post this evening

"the poster is telling us "don't let that happen here" yet no one on the anti-repeal side is telling us how it can happen here."

You haven't addressed that part of the claim, and considering we're talking about what will happen here, in Ireland, that's the most relevant part.

If you had an answer, you'd have provided it by now. Clearly you don't, hence your evasion and deflection.

Water John

Well those two statements cannot be mutually true, unless 90% of the people who don't ask whether the Foetus has DS are also aborted.

We don't in many things, follow the UK pattern. We don't have the same level of divorce, for example. Two quite different countries, socially in many ways.

The Legend Of Kira

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" You're not saying much about how this material is misleading if not outright lying. Funny that. ""

I addressed the claim the billboard van is saying/quoting in an earlier post this evening .

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106033668&postcount=6402

A cut and paste job is not 'addressing' - not even in a very large typeface.

What is it you want addressed the figure of a 90% abortion rate the billboard truck is quoting or something else ?

If its the 90% abortion rate the truck is claiming, I googled their claim again to see what came in the google search- I found this article from the BBC who are also quoting a 90% abortion rate of unborn babies diagnosed with down syndrome .

Bannasidhe

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" You're not saying much about how this material is misleading if not outright lying. Funny that. ""

I addressed the claim the billboard van is saying/quoting in an earlier post this evening .

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106033668&postcount=6402

A cut and paste job is not 'addressing' - not even in a very large typeface.

nice_guy80

I see the fear and mongering have started in earnest. by one side.

where does it say anything in the oireachtas report about abnormal foetuses being aborted?

deflect. misconstrue the truth. play on people's emotions.
sick

The Legend Of Kira

NuMarvel wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

One other poster pointed out something from an Irish times article- I wasn,t aware of till he/she mentioned it.
....

Given that the boys mother gave her permission for his image to be used in the billboard campaign, how is he being exploited once his parent/guardian consented to give permission to use his image ? if his image was used without any permission being given then yeah I would see issue with it- but once permission has being given Id see it as his mothers own personal business if she wants his image to be used, this new group the Irish times mentioned ( Disability voices for life ) if they want to campaign & give permission for images to be used in billboards I don,t see any issue with it .

You're not saying much about how this material is misleading if not outright lying. Funny that.

Abortion on grounds of disability isn't in the committee's recommendations and the Institute of Obstetricians have said it's not realistic or feasible to get a diagnosis in within 12 weeks, meaning it won't be done under the on-request option.

The poster is telling us "don't let that happen here" yet no one on the anti-repeal side is telling us how it can happen here.

"" You're not saying much about how this material is misleading if not outright lying. Funny that. ""

I addressed the claim the billboard van is saying/quoting in an earlier post this evening .

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106033668&postcount=6402

freshpopcorn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Tell us why you will vote yes then?

To stop exporting the issue to the UK.
To make sure people have the support of their family/friends at home.
It's basic medical care that's available in most developed countries.
People's circumstances might be difficult be it financially or being in an abusive relationship and bring a baby into the world won't be the right thing to do.
Difficulty during previous pregnancies.
Having a large family to support already.
Being to young.
Just not the wright time in life.
Health reasons either for the mother or baby.
Off the top of my head.
Sorry it's not written better.

Annasopra

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I can see your argument and why you said it.

I'm sure joey does too, but it's either you are fully with us or the enemy.

How can they not see this will push people away?

I can see the argument too. There is some validity in what he is saying. It is the repetetiveness that made me question it. I think it is odd when someone claims to be one side but constantly subtly undermining that side. I have made my point and I will leave it now.