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

SusieBlue

NuMarvel wrote: »

Don't forget all the surrogacy. Sure you can't swing a cat in Ireland now for all the surrogate mothers.

Don't forget the thousands of parents akin to Daddy Warbux from Annie queueing up to adopt all the children in our foster care system.
The demand is so high we can barely keep up.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Don't forget the thousands of parents akin to Daddy Warbux from Annie queueing up to adopt all the children in our foster care system.
The demand is so high we can barely keep up.

Shhh! That's supposed to be a secret!

ForestFire

NuMarvel wrote: »

It has been explained numerous times the difficulties that putting the grounds for abortion into the constitution would cause. Do you have a response to those posts?

You keep saying its difficult , its not a good idea and so on.

The response is:-

A)It might be difficult but that is want some people are only comfortable in voting for (Regardless if it is right or wrong).
How many I don't know. I am one, I'm not sure yet...

B)Overcome the difficulties to allow this to happen. You never said impossible, and I don't believe it is impossible.

We could discus this and keep going around in circles but at the end of the day there are only two options:-

1)Have the referendum without the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

2)Have the referendum with the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

The only question left is, if you think you can get enough support for 1) then lets proceed this way and let the people decide.

And if not then proceed with 2)

(Or is there another option?)

ohnonotgmail

ForestFire wrote: »

You keep saying its difficult , its not a good idea and so on.

The response is:-

A)It might be difficult but that is want some people are only comfortable in voting for (Regardless if it is right or wrong).
How many I don't know. I am one, I'm not sure yet...

B)Overcome the difficulties to allow this to happen. You never said impossible, and I don't believe it is impossible.

For all practical purposes it is impossible.

ForestFire wrote: »

We could discus this and keep going around in circles but at the end of the day there are only two options:-

1)Have the referendum without the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

2)Have the referendum with the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

The only question left is, if you think you can get enough support for 1) then lets proceed this way and let the people decide.

And if not then proceed with 2)

(Or is there another option?)

What we are voting on has already been decided. we will not be voting on adding even more clauses with unknown interpretations into the constitution. we made that mistake when the 8th was passed. we wont make it again.

ForestFire

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

For all practical purposes it is impossible.

What we are voting on has already been decided. we will not be voting on adding even more clauses with unknown interpretations into the constitution. we made that mistake when the 8th was passed. we wont make it again.

We do not have the referendum question so I would not say it is decided just yet..

Anyway if it is the case that it is a closed topic of what the referendum is going to ask, then we will know after the result if people are happy with this method and trust the legislation after the vote, I suppose.

ohnonotgmail

ForestFire wrote: »

We do not have the referendum question so I would not say it is decided just yet..

Anyway if it is the case that it is a closed topic of what the referendum is going to ask, then we will know after the result if people are happy with this method and trust the legislation after the vote, I suppose.

The specific wording has not been decided but we will not be voting on adding even more clauses to the constitution.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

That binary outlook means that all unborn up to the last few minutes before they are born have no rights what so ever.

If you are comfortable with that, fine. Many would not be and indeed many would view the abortion of an unborn person of say 38 weeks be the same as killing someone who was born at 40 weeks.

The proposals are quite clear. They do not recommend termination be allowed after such time as a fetus become sentient except where that fetus is incompatible with life so get away with your hyperbole.

We do not have protection in the Constitution for the born but brain dead, why should it be there for the unborn whose brain does not yet function? Both are human. Both are technically alive. Where are the posters showing those in a vegetative state pleading for them not be 'killed'?

Perhaps while answering that question you might also answer the question I originally asked you.

NuMarvel

ForestFire wrote: »

You keep saying its difficult , its not a good idea and so on.

I keep saying it because it's what the legal advice says, and it's what's happened with the 8th. This isn't some notion I came up with, it's a conclusion I arrived at after researching the issue.

Perhaps you can share with us the research and experiences that led you to think an altered amendment is a viable option.

ForestFire wrote: »

The response is:-

A)It might be difficult but that is want some people are only comfortable in voting for (Regardless if it is right or wrong).
How many I don't know. I am one, I'm not sure yet...

B)Overcome the difficulties to allow this to happen. You never said impossible, and I don't believe it is impossible.

A) We don't put provisions into the constitution simply because they might be popular. A constitutional provision has to first and foremost be fit for purpose, especially when it's about complex matters. If it can't be shown that it will or is likely to be that, then it has no business being put to a referendum in the first place.

I can't think of a way to overcome them. Neither can anyone else it seems, you included. Until someone does, then I guess it's impossible.

ForestFire wrote: »

We could discus this and keep going around in circles but at the end of the day there are only two options:-

1)Have the referendum without the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

2)Have the referendum with the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

The only question left is, if you think you can get enough support for 1) then lets proceed this way and let the people decide.

And if not then proceed with 2)

(Or is there another option?)

This is already been decided. We're going with Option 1. That's not likely to change because no one in political or legal circles is calling for anything like Option 2. The reaction can be split into three main camps:

1) Repeal and legislate as per the Committee's recommendations.
2) Repeal and legislate, but not as far as the Committee's recommendations.
3) Don't repeal.

All of the above fall into Option 1 in some shape or form.

Annasopra

ForestFire wrote: »

You keep saying its difficult , its not a good idea and so on.

The response is:-

A)It might be difficult but that is want some people are only comfortable in voting for (Regardless if it is right or wrong).
How many I don't know. I am one, I'm not sure yet...

B)Overcome the difficulties to allow this to happen. You never said impossible, and I don't believe it is impossible.

We could discus this and keep going around in circles but at the end of the day there are only two options:-

1)Have the referendum without the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

2)Have the referendum with the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

The only question left is, if you think you can get enough support for 1) then lets proceed this way and let the people decide.

And if not then proceed with 2)

(Or is there another option?)

Have you read the reports from the Citizens Assembly and Oireachtas Committee that you asked for?

Annasopra

ForestFire wrote: »

We do not have the referendum question so I would not say it is decided just yet..

It is. The cabinet decided the 8th will be replaced with an enabling clause giving the Oireachtas the power to legislate.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The proposals are quite clear. They do not recommend termination be allowed after such time as a fetus become sentient except where that fetus is incompatible with life so get away with your hyperbole.

We do not have protection in the Constitution for the born but brain dead, why should it be there for the unborn whose brain does not yet function? Both are human. Both are technically alive. Where are the posters showing those in a vegetative state pleading for them not be 'killed'?

Perhaps while answering that question you might also answer the question I originally asked you.

A brain dead person is medically a dead person.
Apples and oranges but I see the hair splitting is strong in this one.

markodaly

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Therefore no constitutional protections for the unborn what so ever. I see this might be hard for you to see but this is the issue many people have.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

A brain dead person is medically a dead person.
Apples and oranges but I see the hair splitting is strong in this one.

I see the avoiding answering questions is strong in this other one.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I see the avoiding answering questions is strong in this other one.

I have answered but you don't like the given answer. That is your problem, not mine.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

I have answered but you don't like the given answer. That is your problem, not mine.

You most certainly have not answered this:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can you explain how it is possible to give 'rights' to what the State itself does not consider a person without stripping the rights of an actual living, breathing, citizen?

You have spouted hyperbole about 'unborn' while showing scant regard for the protection of already born women and girls. In fact - you haven't even mentioned them.
Where are their protections?

Where is the right to have timely life saving medical treatment?
Where is the right to be allowed to die with dignity not kept on 'life support'?
Where is the right to not be force fed?

Loafing Oaf

markodaly wrote: »

Therefore no constitutional protections for the unborn what so ever. I see this might be hard for you to see but this is the issue many people have.

Many people opposed to 'abortion on demand' regardless of term limits.

Candamir

markodaly wrote: »

Therefore no constitutional protections for the unborn what so ever. I see this might be hard for you to see but this is the issue many people have.

There are plenty of countries which don’t have a constitution at all - therefore no ‘constitutional protection’ for anyone - born, unborn or otherwise. And still we don’t see murderers run rampant on the streets with impunity.

So we really don’t need constitutional protection. It’s too complicated. It will cause more problems than it solves, foreseen and unforeseen.

Let our legislators legislate.

Zubeneschamali

markodaly wrote: »

Therefore no constitutional protections for the unborn what so ever. I see this might be hard for you to see but this is the issue many people have.

I accept that this is an issue for many people.

I expect that they will vote against repeal.

And lose.

ohnonotgmail

markodaly wrote: »

A brain dead person is medically a dead person.
Apples and oranges but I see the hair splitting is strong in this one.

bull****. People can lack brain function and still be medically alive. I have seen this first hand.

Candamir

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

bull****. People can lack brain function and still be medically alive. I have seen this first hand.

Well no. Brain death is the legal definition of death. People who are brain dead are medically and legally dead.

People who are alive however may lack some brain functions. That’s an entirely different scenario.

NuMarvel

markodaly wrote: »

Therefore no constitutional protections for the unborn what so ever. I see this might be hard for you to see but this is the issue many people have.

I'm sure it will be be an issue for some people. But the alternative is the status quo, which only a minority want (approximately 15% according to polls over the last few years).

So these people are going to have to decide which is the least worst option to them:

1) Keeping the 8th, which means women will have abortions elsewhere or in secret, thereby increasing the risks to their health
2) Repealing the 8th, which means women will have abortions here, mitigating those increased risks to their health.

As the outcome of the referendum is going to be the same for the unborn no matter what, I would imagine that most sensible people would decide to do what they could to decrease risks to the woman. It may not be their ideal choice, but it's the one that cause the least harm all round.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'm sure it will be be an issue for some people. But the alternative is the status quo, which only a minority want (approximately 15% according to polls over the last few years).

So these people are going to have to decide which is the least worst option to them:

1) Keeping the 8th, which means women will have abortions elsewhere or in secret, thereby increasing the risks to their health
2) Repealing the 8th, which means women will have abortions here, mitigating those increased risks to their health.

As the outcome of the referendum is going to be the same for the unborn no matter what, I would imagine that most sensible people would decide to do what they could to decrease risks to the woman. It may not be their ideal choice, but it's the one that cause the least harm all round.

Just on your last paragraph, are you sure?
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ad-claiming-100-000-lives-saved-by-ni-abortion-laws-accurate-1.3174415%3fmode=amp

ForestFire

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'm sure it will be be an issue for some people. But the alternative is the status quo, which only a minority want (approximately 15% according to polls over the last few years).

So these people are going to have to decide which is the least worst option to them:

1) Keeping the 8th, which means women will have abortions elsewhere or in secret, thereby increasing the risks to their health
2) Repealing the 8th, which means women will have abortions here, mitigating those increased risks to their health.

As the outcome of the referendum is going to be the same for the unborn no matter what, I would imagine that most sensible people would decide to do what they could to decrease risks to the woman. It may not be their ideal choice, but it's the one that cause the least harm all round.

While I don't disagree with the options we have, the reasons and intentions of the vote NO can be very different, i.e.

1b) Reject the repeal of the 8th in the current form, to force the government to come back with something more acceptable.

You may not think this is a valid reason to vote NO, but I am guessing that a lot of people will be doing.

Again I have stated many times, I am likely to vote for repeal, but I can see the issues people are going to have with this.

Loafing Oaf

ForestFire wrote: »

1b) Reject the repeal of the 8th in the current form, to force the government to come back with something more acceptable.

As I've said before, I think the government is likely to rule this out as part of the campaign to secure a yes vote.

Edward M

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

As I've said before, I think the government is likely to rule this out as part of the campaign to secure a yes vote.

I'd say you're right.
This current govt will certainly not address it again.
I'd say though that repeal will pass, but the pro life campaign are going to throw every spanner they can at this campaign, because they will realise if repeal passes then it is effectively game over for them as regards the constitutional rights of the unborn.
Highly unlikely any govt will revisit it if repeal is passed, unless to address time and reason limits.

Annasopra

markodaly wrote: »

Therefore no constitutional protections for the unborn what so ever.

Why does there need to be?

No other state in the world does it.

splinter65

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Every family or parents of someone who has down syndrome or has a family member/relative with a disability with all take a different view on the useage of the new billboard posters.

For example the O Dowd family appear happy to lend their support to the newly formed group ( Disability voices for life )

https://www.facebook.com/disabilityvoicesforlife/videos/211989529367440/

Everyone will Interpret the billboards message in their own way, the " 90% " abortion rate the billboard is quoting , I Interpret they re trying to tell the electorate [font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]the cold uncomfortable truth about how abortion impacts on a vulnerable section of society in another country.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Even if they didn,t change the billboard posters on their vans, known repeal campaigners took issue & offence with the previous billboard poster which had a young mother on the poster, who also gave their permission for their image to be used .[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][/font]

Why is that poster offensive?

Loafing Oaf

Edward M wrote: »

Highly unlikely any govt will revisit it if repeal is passed, unless to address time and reason limits.

And if they ever do, it'll be a low-key bit of admin, just like current proposals to adjust divorce laws.

January

splinter65 wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Every family or parents of someone who has down syndrome or has a family member/relative with a disability with all take a different view on the useage of the new billboard posters.

For example the O Dowd family appear happy to lend their support to the newly formed group ( Disability voices for life )

https://www.facebook.com/disabilityvoicesforlife/videos/211989529367440/

Everyone will Interpret the billboards message in their own way, the " 90% " abortion rate the billboard is quoting , I Interpret they re trying to tell the electorate [font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]the cold uncomfortable truth about how abortion impacts on a vulnerable section of society in another country.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Even if they didn,t change the billboard posters on their vans, known repeal campaigners took issue & offence with the previous billboard poster which had a young mother on the poster, who also gave their permission for their image to be used .[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][/font]

Why is that poster offensive?

Again its not the poster it's the claims on the poster. That woman has come out and said that she never even contemplated an abortion. So she and the anti choice side are lying through their teeth with her little statement.