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

Spanish Eyes

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

I do not agree with you. But it is not up to me or you either.

The decision to be made by the SC involves deportations, but could have other implications. That is why the State is objecting to the PLC being involved.

There should be no involvement by either side in this important judgment. The law has to be seen to be impartial. I cannot see that happening if PLC are allowed in. It would also be so patronising to the judges of the SC.

But again, I have no idea how it will pan out, just my views on the matter.

Edward M

Akrasia wrote: »

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)

The point of my posts on this are simple.
This poor girl is being ridiculed because of her decision, mocked even, but her experience has seemed to change, or at least strengthen her beliefs perhaps.
Instead of trying to ridicule her and her decision, produce a counter argument that make sense.
No need to ridicule anyone to prove a point, just make people aware that not everyone has the same advantages as her.

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

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.

The video is about becoming pregnant in college. But even though she doesn't even hint at it anywhere at all in the 6 minutes she's talking you're still saying that she "probably" thought about having an abortion. Riiiight :rolleyes:

I'm a great believer in someone's first reaction being their most honest one. This is the earliest reaction we have to her talking about her pregnancy scare and she doesn't mention abortion in any way shape or form. There's certainly nothing here to make anyone believe that "the time it took to plan an abortion in England" is the reason she didn't have one.

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

The point of my posts on this are simple.
This poor girl is being ridiculed because of her decision, mocked even, but her experience has seemed to change, or at least strengthen her beliefs perhaps.
Instead of trying to ridicule her and her decision, produce a counter argument that make sense.
No need to ridicule anyone to prove a point, just make people aware that not everyone has the same advantages as her.

She's categorically not being mocked for her decision. She's being challenged on her statements about what influenced her decision.

Maybe you should follow your own advice and produce a counter argument that makes sense, instead of stooping to misrepresenting people's comments.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

The video is about becoming pregnant in college. But even though she doesn't even hint at it anywhere at all in the 6 minutes she's talking you're still saying that she "probably" thought about having an abortion. Riiiight :rolleyes:

I'm a great believer in someone's first reaction being their most honest one. This is the earliest reaction we have to her talking about her pregnancy scare and she doesn't mention abortion in any way shape or form. There's certainly nothing here to make anyone believe that "the time it took to plan an abortion in England" is the reason she didn't have one.

Ah well continue on with the discrediting.
Can't you find a video of a student that had an abortion or wanted one?

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

Ah well continue on with the discrediting.
Can't you find a video of a student that had an abortion or wanted one?

I have no need to look for one because, to the best of my knowledge, none of them are putting themselves forward as spokespeople for campaigns about constitutional provisions and making contradictory claims on the subject.

ForestFire

NuMarvel wrote: »

The video is about becoming pregnant in college. But even though she doesn't even hint at it anywhere at all in the 6 minutes she's talking you're still saying that she "probably" thought about having an abortion. Riiiight :rolleyes:

I'm a great believer in someone's first reaction being their most honest one. This is the earliest reaction we have to her talking about her pregnancy scare and she doesn't mention abortion in any way shape or form. There's certainly nothing here to make anyone believe that "the time it took to plan an abortion in England" is the reason she didn't have one.

Maybe it was something that was hard for her to say at the time, even if she only thought about it herself and told nobody, and even harder now, as she has a toddler beside her.

Do you know many women going around talking about their kids and how they contemplated abortion.

We may never know what her exact thoughts at the time. There may be some truth in it or not.

But do you believe this choice or deilema has been faced by other women?

Spanish Eyes

People need to watch the Supreme Court appeal. Just saying.

pitifulgod

ForestFire wrote: »

Maybe it was something that was hard for her to say at the time, even if she only thought about it herself and told nobody, and even harder now, as she has a toddler beside her.

Do you know many women going around talking about their kids and how they contemplated abortion.

We may never know what her exact thoughts at the time. There may be some truth in it or not.

But do you believe this choice or deilema has been faced by other women?

And you'll find a large proportion of women don't regret their abortions. It's not an easy choice for anyone to make, as many seem to like to portray it as an alternative to contraception. I do believe that women are perfectly capable of making the decision themselves without the state intervening.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

She's categorically not being mocked for her decision. She's being challenged on her statements about what influenced her decision.

Maybe you should follow your own advice and produce a counter argument that makes sense, instead of stooping to misrepresenting people's comments.

OK, no confrontation necessary, I wasn't referring to you or anyone on here.
I was referring to the video posted and DR Evil inserted.
I regard that as mocking a serious subject.
No offence to anyone here intended.

Edward M

There's a very interesting video, fictional, but it's a good glimpse at the dilemma facing people in the situation of being pregnant and not wanting the baby.
https://youtu.be/TUbIV-KRlJg

Spanish Eyes

Pro Life now want access to the Supreme Court in the case involving a deportation order. OMG.

Sure the judges know nothing without help.

NuMarvel

ForestFire wrote: »

Maybe it was something that was hard for her to say at the time, even if she only thought about it herself and told nobody, and even harder now, as she has a toddler beside her.

It doesn't appear harder for her now, what with her appearances in the media and being a literal posterchild on anti-repeal posters. Which by the way is the only reason we're talking about her in the first place.

ForestFire wrote: »

Do you know many women going around talking about their kids and how they contemplated abortion.

I've seen a number of women, with and without children, talking about why they chose to have an abortion. Here's the most recent example. Click the date stamp to see the follow thread on Twitter.

ForestFire wrote: »

We may never know what her exact thoughts at the time. There may be some truth in it or not.

We know what she's saying now and what she said then. There is nothing in what she said then that even suggests that "the time it took to plan an abortion in England" is why she didn't have an abortion, which is what she's saying now.

ForestFire wrote: »

But do you believe this choice or deilema has been faced by other women?

The particular discussion isn't about the decisions women make in these situations. It's about a person giving contradictory versions of her experiences, with the aim of restricting the choices available to women in these situations.

She had a crisis pregnancy, and she chose to continue with it. She certainly seems happy with her choice, and I'm happy that the law facilitated her choice. What I would like to see the law facilitating girls and women who make other choices.

Da Boss

The life of the mother is important and must be persevered, however the unborns life is equal and must also be preserved. Everyone must acknowledge that two people exsist here, and that the unborn mustn’t be forgotten

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

Not very much, but I'm going to go with because it was easier and/or more appealing to do so?

Read them. Then come back on it because you will be actually informed rather than guesswork.

markodaly

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.

That actually doesn't mention anything about England, whether she did try or did not try and plan an abortion. What she does say is that easy access to abortion would make it much more tempting for people to avail of one, especially at the early stages when there could be panic.

So, yea no proof of lies here, just people projecting a bias against a poster.

mrkiscool2

Da Boss wrote: »

The life of the mother is important and must be persevered, however the unborns life is equal and must also be preserved. Everyone must acknowledge that two people exsist here, and that the unborn mustn’t be forgotten

Firstly, the unborn fetus isn't life at 12 weeks, I've explained this before. Your feelings don't factor into scientific fact. Secondly, no, one person exists and sustains what is a growing clump of cells that may or may not eventually become a person.

markodaly

Akrasia wrote: »

This whole 'I have a baby now therefore abortion is wrong' is a stupid argument,

Yes, we should only listen to the people we argee with.

Keep talking, as the more you do, the more people like you will drive other people to vote No.

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Read them. Then come back on it because you will be actually informed rather than guesswork.

Any part in particular?

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Read them. Then come back on it because you will be actually informed rather than guesswork.

Any part in particular?

ForestFire

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Firstly, the unborn fetus isn't life at 12 weeks, I've explained this before. Your feelings don't factor into scientific fact. Secondly, no, one person exists and sustains what is a growing clump of cells that may or may not eventually become a person.

I think you'll find at 12 weeks the fetus is far from a clump of cells. Arms, legs, fingers toes, eyes and functioning organs.

Whether you consider if life or human is another thing, but let's describe it properly.

Consonata

ForestFire wrote:

I think you'll find at 12 weeks the fetus is far from a clump of cells. Arms, legs, fingers toes, eyes and functioning organs.

ForestFire wrote:

Whether you consider if life or human is another thing, but let's describe it properly.

I mean a footprint doesn't look like a boot.

It may look like a fully functioning human albeit miniscule, but that doesnt mean it has functioning brain faculties, or even is remotely sentient. This nonsense about the foetus having arms and legs brings needless emotion to an already emotive debate

ForestFire

Consonata wrote: »

I mean a footprint doesn't look like a boot.

It may look like a fully functioning human albeit miniscule, but that doesnt mean it has functioning brain faculties, or even is remotely sentient. This nonsense about the foetus having arms and legs brings needless emotion to an already emotive debate

Its not emotions it is a fact.

You are trying to turn it into emotions to stop people talking about it.

Your all for science when it suits you.

This is mearly a scientific fact.

Why call it a clump of cells in the first place when it's misleading?

Consonata

ForestFire wrote:

Why call it a clump of cells in the first place when it's misleading?

Because thats what it is meaningfully speaking. A gingerbread man has arms and legs but it isnt cannibalism if I eat it for tea surely.

jimmycrackcorm

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Firstly, the unborn fetus isn't life at 12 weeks, I've explained this before. Your feelings don't factor into scientific fact. Secondly, no, one person exists and sustains what is a growing clump of cells that may or may not eventually become a person.

I'll counter your lazy clump of cells argument with a more reasoned one here.

thee glitz

Consonata wrote: »

This nonsense about the foetus having arms and legs brings needless emotion to an already emotive debate

Wait a minute... these are fake arms!

ForestFire

Consonata wrote: »

Because thats what it is meaningfully speaking. A gingerbread man has arms and legs but it isnt cannibalism if I eat it for tea surely.

You do know a gingerbread person does not actualy have arms and legs?

And I only asked for it to be described properly. You can discuss it's relevance from that point on all you want as per the same post.

njs030

ForestFire wrote: »

Its not emotions it is a fact.

You are trying to turn it into emotions to stop people talking about it.

Your all for science when it suits you.

This is mearly a scientific fact.

Why call it a clump of cells in the first place when it's misleading?

Every living thing is a bundle of cells why do you argue this point with every poster. Surely you know by now what they mean.
Dogs, birds, trees, flowers... Everything is made up of cells!

The point being made is a fetus of under 12 weeks isn't capable of the same thoughts and feelings as the woman it's dependent on.

njs030

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I'll counter your lazy clump of cells argument with a more reasoned one here.

From the University of Tehran? In Iran where the abortion law changes depending on who is in power.
Written by a professor of philosophy 9 years ago.

Tbh I'll continue to take my medical advice from a medical doctor.

ForestFire

njs030 wrote: »

Every living thing is a bundle of cells why do you argue this point with every poster. Surely you know by know what they mean.
Dogs, birds, trees, flowers... Everything is made up of cells!

The point being made is a fetus of under 12 weeks isn't capable of the same thoughts and feelings as the woman it's dependent on.

Its deliberitly used to downplay the development state of the fetus.

Clump

a compacted mass or lump of something.

Just call it a fetus, and leave out the clump. Say you don't believe it is human at this stage, lots of correct ways to make your opinion known.