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

Captain Obvious

pilly wrote: »

I don't agree, I think there are genuinely people out there who are undecided. Some people don't think too long or hard about this sort of thing unless they have to.

The wording of the referendum hasn't even been decided yet. There will be plenty waiting to see what the 8th will be replaced with before making uo their minds.

markodaly

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is quite clear they lied. They presented a woman talking about considering an abortion when no such consideration actually took place. what would you call that?

How do you know that no such consideration took place?

January

markodaly wrote: »

How do you know that no such consideration took place?

Because she's openly admitted it numerous times.

.......

This post has been deleted.

markodaly

January wrote: »

Because she's openly admitted it numerous times.

Link to this statement ?

Riskymove

markodaly wrote: »

Link to this statement ?

If you read any of the articles her basic point is:

Theoretically, if abortion had been legal in Ireland when she became pregnant and a clinic was nearby she might have rushed into having an abortion

She never refers to actually deciding to have an abortion and changing her mind

MrPudding

ForestFire wrote: »

You have not read my post and come up with your own version, but here is some clarification.

I said, if they can stick this unbelievably stupid "law" in their constitution then what is the issue with us (Ireland) putting something in the actually protects life??

The second amendment isn't a law. It is an amendment to the constitution that set out a new (at the time of passing) right, The right to bear arms. The right to bear arms isn't a law either, it is a... well... right.

If a federal or state legislature wants to pass a law, and a person's 2nd amendment right is engaged, then that law will be measured against that right.

I don't think there are any "laws" in the US constitution. Even if there were, that does not mean that having laws in a constitution isn't stupid, cos it is.

MrP

.......

This post has been deleted.

Riskymove

MrPudding wrote: »

The second amendment isn't a law. It is an amendment to the constitution that set out a new (at the time of passing) right, The right to bear arms. The right to bear arms isn't a law either, it is a... well... right.

I've always seen it's original point as a right to rise up against oppressors rather than the right to own weapons

Water John

Might agree with you Risky, problem is US Supreme Court has a different interpretation. That's why amendments to constitutions, can have unintended consequences.

MrPudding

Riskymove wrote: »

I've always seen it's original point as a right to rise up against oppressors rather than the right to own weapons

It actually talk about having an armed militia to protect the state. I am not a US constitutional lawyer, but there are arguments that it is not actually a right for an individual to bear arms, but for members of a militia to bear arms. As the US now has a reasonable sized military the whole thing seems even more stupid.

So what you have here isn't even a law, it is a right, but it has caused, and continues to cause a fair amount of strife. Adding things like time limits, and specifics about a particular thing is a crazy thing to do in a constitution. Our constitution is considerably easier to change that the US constitution, but it is still difficult, as it is supposed to be, but there should be a clear line between what is a matter for the constitution and what is a matter for legislation.

MrP

Billy86

MrPudding wrote: »

The second amendment isn't a law. It is an amendment to the constitution that set out a new (at the time of passing) right, The right to bear arms. The right to bear arms isn't a law either, it is a... well... right.

If a federal or state legislature wants to pass a law, and a person's 2nd amendment right is engaged, then that law will be measured against that right.

In some parts of the US you can even get proper prison time for carrying a gun, a high profile NFL player got two years for it about a decade back.

January

markodaly wrote: »

Link to this statement ?

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/773908732912730112

'I'm not saying I would have done it'

She didn't even try to organise an abortion in England.

Edward M

January wrote: »

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/773908732912730112

'I'm not saying I would have done it'

She didn't even try to organise an abortion in England.

But she doesn't say she didn't consider abortion either.
At that time she couldn't legally have one here, her only option would have been to travel.
I think her point is that if it was just a matter of going to a local doctor or clinic, she may well have aborted in the short term, but, whether she looked in to travel or not, by the time she had a chance for any of this to happen she changed her mind perhaps.
Nice insertion of "Dr Evil" there, that's a bit ridiculous too, of course discredit her at all costs by mocking her, that's just great.

January

When asked if she didn't have a problem with abortion so she says 'oh I'm not saying I would have' she's implying women have loads of time to change their mind but wouldn't if the 8th was repealed. The claim on the side of the truck says 'the time it took to plan an abortion in England is the time I needed to change my mind' she never planned an abortion in England, therefore, she didn't need the time to change her mind. The claim is false.

Also, I didn't make the video and didn't even see the Dr. Evil thing at the end...

Edward M

January wrote: »

When asked if she didn't have a problem with abortion so she says 'oh I'm not saying I would have' she's implying women have loads of time to change their mind but wouldn't if the 8th was repealed. The claim on the side of the truck says 'the time it took to plan an abortion in England is the time I needed to change my mind' she never planned an abortion in England, therefore, she didn't need the time to change her mind. The claim is false.

Also, I didn't make the video and didn't even see the Dr. Evil thing at the end...

We should do a fat check on whether she planned it or not, I often plan things in my head that never see the time of day.:)
You posted a video without actually seeing it? That's blind faith for ya.
But she sounds like someone who before she had her child would certainly have been pro choice. I would say her situation is being exploited by the pro life side too, but ridiculing her by mocking her is also wrong IMO.

Water John

Interesting to see the Pro Life Campaign seek to become involved in the Supreme Court Case. They reckon, they cam be of help to the Judges in reaching their conclusions on the 'unborn' question. Most of the reasoning seems to be, political, on their submission.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/supreme-court-to-rule-on-pro-life-campaign-application-1.3382398

does that mean if the Judges refuse their involvement, that they may seek to use that as evidence of a State bias?

January

Edward M wrote: »

January wrote: »

When asked if she didn't have a problem with abortion so she says 'oh I'm not saying I would have' she's implying women have loads of time to change their mind but wouldn't if the 8th was repealed. The claim on the side of the truck says 'the time it took to plan an abortion in England is the time I needed to change my mind' she never planned an abortion in England, therefore, she didn't need the time to change her mind. The claim is false.

Also, I didn't make the video and didn't even see the Dr. Evil thing at the end...

We should do a fat check on whether she planned it or not, I often plan things in my head that never see the time of day.:)
You posted a video without actually seeing it? That's blind faith for ya.
But she sounds like someone who before she had her child would certainly have been pro choice. I would say her situation is being exploited by the pro life side too, but ridiculing her by mocking her is also wrong IMO.

I didn't watch to the end of the video not that I didn't watch the video.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

I never knew that people who lean pro-choice are able to reads peoples minds and intentions. Quite a gift you have there.

Rather than waiting for me to read your mind howabout you answer this?
Or would you prefer to continue making snarky remarks in a frankly pathetic attempt at deflection?

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?

The longer you snark the more obvious it becomes you don't have an answer.

Edward M

January wrote: »

I didn't watch to the end of the video not that I didn't watch the video.

Well if you watch to the end, its 36 seconds, it cuts her off mid sentence too.
Now I didn't see the interview at all except for your link, but once I saw the bould Dr inserted I felt it was just unfair.

Spanish Eyes

Water John wrote: »

Interesting to see the Pro Life Campaign seek to become involved in the Supreme Court Case. They reckon, they cam be of help to the Judges in reaching their conclusions on the 'unborn' question. Most of the reasoning seems to be, political, on their submission.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/supreme-court-to-rule-on-pro-life-campaign-application-1.3382398

does that mean if the Judges refuse their involvement, that they may seek to use that as evidence of a State bias?

Not unless pro choice groups are excluded too. Otherwise many will think their presence without a counter balance might have swayed things if the SC backs their view.

I think the pro choice are keeping out of this just in case pro life are allowed in.

Anyway the case is not about abortion at all, it is about the status of an unborn child in relation to a right to remain/deportation orders. And the judge said that would be the basis of the case nothing else.

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

We should do a fat check on whether she planned it or not, I often plan things in my head that never see the time of day.:)

Well, here she is, about 6 months after her daughter was born talking about dealing with a pregnancy in college. It's clear that the pregnancy was a crisis at the time she found out she was pregnant, but she doesn't mention anything about even thinking about an abortion, never mind planning one. She says herself that her first reactions were about looking after the baby when it comes, who'll look after it, what will her parents think, etc.

I don't expect her to spend the entire video talking about abortion, but considering the video is aimed at students who become pregnant in college, and she's staunchly pro-life in later appearances, I'm surprised she didn't make some reference to "thinking about travelling" or something like that.

But, nothing. Just the usual reactions you'd expect from a teenager who suddenly finds out they're pregnant.

Water John

I would presume the odds are it application would be rejected. So we'll see, after Wed, how it's played.

Spanish Eyes

Water John wrote: »

I would presume the odds are it application would be rejected. So we'll see, after Wed, how it's played.

Yep, I am watching it closely myself. I think I would be a bit miffed if the PL are allowed in. But I hope the learned judge will know that he does not need hand holding at this stage of his legal career.

Still..... who knows?

NuMarvel

Water John wrote: »

Interesting to see the Pro Life Campaign seek to become involved in the Supreme Court Case. They reckon, they cam be of help to the Judges in reaching their conclusions on the 'unborn' question. Most of the reasoning seems to be, political, on their submission.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/supreme-court-to-rule-on-pro-life-campaign-application-1.3382398

does that mean if the Judges refuse their involvement, that they may seek to use that as evidence of a State bias?

They'll certainly make claims of bias and being silenced if their application is refused, but they'd be laughed out of court if they lodged some kind of legal appeal against the referendum result on the basis. It'd be up there with the lads who claimed Valentine's day stamps and CCTV in polling stations invalidated the marriage equality referendum.

Spanish Eyes

NuMarvel wrote: »

They'll certainly make claims of bias and being silenced if their application is refused, but they'd be laughed out of court if they lodged some kind of legal appeal against the referendum result on the basis. It'd be up there with the lads who claimed Valentine's day stamps and CCTV in polling stations invalidated the marriage equality referendum.

I don't see how they could claim bias if refused, where the pro choice side are not a feature.

But it is not up to me is it.

Water John

But it would add to the narrative of, not trusting judges, politicians et al. Que, reason to have 8th in the Constitution, but we'll await.

Akrasia

Edward M wrote: »

But she doesn't say she didn't consider abortion either.
At that time she couldn't legally have one here, her only option would have been to travel.
I think her point is that if it was just a matter of going to a local doctor or clinic, she may well have aborted in the short term, but, whether she looked in to travel or not, by the time she had a chance for any of this to happen she changed her mind perhaps.
Nice insertion of "Dr Evil" there, that's a bit ridiculous too, of course discredit her at all costs by mocking her, that's just great.

If she had an abortion, her life would be different and her child would never have existed.

The exact same situation she would have been in if she had used contraception or if the contraception she did use hadn't have failed.

This whole 'I have a baby now therefore abortion is wrong' is a stupid argument, especially from the kinds of people who are opposed to sex outside of marriage. (if they had all had unprotected sex outside of marriage, there would be way more precious babies around today for us all to dote over)

Having a baby is (should be) an enormous decision, one that profoundly affects the parents, but also, the baby being brought into the world. You shouldn't have a puppy if you're not in a position to look after a dog, you shouldn't be forced to have a baby on the principle that you'll grow to love it after it's born. (and if you don't, sure you can always have it adopted or something)

NuMarvel

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I don't see how they could claim bias if refused, where the pro choice side are not a feature.

But it is not up to me is it.

The inclusion or lack of the pro choice side wouldn't make a difference to the court's decision. The PLC have to show they are impartial, that they have the relevant expertise, and that they would raise significant issues that wouldn't be raised in their absence. If they meet that criteria, then they're in. If they don't, they're not.

Of course, those are the facts of the matter. If their application is rejected, the PLC won't let things like facts get in the way.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

Well, here she is, about 6 months after her daughter was born talking about dealing with a pregnancy in college. It's clear that the pregnancy was a crisis at the time she found out she was pregnant, but she doesn't mention anything about even thinking about an abortion, never mind planning one. She says herself that her first reactions were about looking after the baby when it comes, who'll look after it, what will her parents think, etc.

I don't expect her to spend the entire video talking about abortion, but considering the video is aimed at students who become pregnant in college, and she's staunchly pro-life in later appearances, I'm surprised she didn't make some reference to "thinking about travelling" or something like that.

But, nothing. Just the usual reactions you'd expect from a teenager who suddenly finds out they're pregnant.

Just the usual reactions?
So wanting an abortion would be unusual?
She expressed her fears, she didn't say it of course, but probably, or at least maybe, abortion was thought of and having to travel if that was her decision.
The video there is about college, not abortion anyway.
But tbf, she sounds like she had great support, a lot of young girls and women wouldn't have that, I could just as easily see a young girl explaining she had no choice but to abort and believing them too and seeing their choice as perhaps the best for them too.