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

applehunter

I don't trust our media to report on the referendum fairly.

That poll today is another example of why.

pilly

keano_afc wrote: »

The Journal and the Irish Times have pulled this "survey" from their online versions. Its the very definition of fake news.

Except for the fake part?

keano_afc

seamus wrote: »

The IMT survey is 75% in favour when you exclude the "no opinion"s

The Journal and the Irish Times have pulled this "survey" from their online versions. Its the very definition of fake news.

seamus

NuMarvel wrote: »

The results don't match either.

The IMT survey is 75% in favour when you exclude the "no opinion"s

baylah17

NuMarvel wrote: »

RobertKK wrote: »

Embarrassing for the Irish Examiner which was recently bought by the Irish Times, and the poll they printed on their front page that 75% of doctors supported 12 week abortion limit.
It turned out it was a twitter poll where anyone could log in and claim they were a doctor and vote as there was no verification of one was or wasn’t a doctor.
So this is a clear example of fake news being splashed across a national newspaper when the poll was open to be anyone but claimed it was only doctors who were asked.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/75-of-doctors-support-12-week-access-to-abortion-466855.html

They used a twitter poll and also a link where one could say they were a doctor and then vote.
Here is the twitter poll
https://twitter.com/imt_latest/status/956898931639808001

But it is splashed across a national newspaper as a proper poll, lol. A paper owned by the Irish Times...

The IMT survey was based on a proper survey, and not the twitter poll. The Twitter poll had 93 votes, whereas the IMT survey referred to in the headline had 388 respondents. The results don't match either.

Out of 388 respondents, a total of 285, or 73%, said they are in favour of the divisive new rule, while 96, or 25%, said they are opposed, with just seven survey takers, or 2%, saying they have no view on the matter.

Maybe next time, try reading the article before telling us they got it wrong, yeah?

Way to go on cou texting the no sides nasty and misleading propaganda.

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

Embarrassing for the Irish Examiner which was recently bought by the Irish Times, and the poll they printed on their front page that 75% of doctors supported 12 week abortion limit.
It turned out it was a twitter poll where anyone could log in and claim they were a doctor and vote as there was no verification of one was or wasn’t a doctor.
So this is a clear example of fake news being splashed across a national newspaper when the poll was open to be anyone but claimed it was only doctors who were asked.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/75-of-doctors-support-12-week-access-to-abortion-466855.html

They used a twitter poll and also a link where one could say they were a doctor and then vote.
Here is the twitter poll
https://twitter.com/imt_latest/status/956898931639808001

But it is splashed across a national newspaper as a proper poll, lol. A paper owned by the Irish Times...

The IMT survey was based on a proper survey, and not the twitter poll. The Twitter poll had 93 votes, whereas the IMT survey referred to in the headline had 388 respondents. The results don't match either.

Out of 388 respondents, a total of 285, or 73%, said they are in favour of the divisive new rule, while 96, or 25%, said they are opposed, with just seven survey takers, or 2%, saying they have no view on the matter.

Maybe next time, try reading the article before telling us they got it wrong, yeah?

RobertKK

Embarrassing for the Irish Examiner which was recently bought by the Irish Times, and the poll they printed on their front page that 75% of doctors supported 12 week abortion limit.
It turned out it was a twitter poll where anyone could log in and claim they were a doctor and vote as there was no verification of one was or wasn’t a doctor.
So this is a clear example of fake news being splashed across a national newspaper when the poll was open to be anyone but claimed it was only doctors who were asked.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/75-of-doctors-support-12-week-access-to-abortion-466855.html

They used a twitter poll and also a link where one could say they were a doctor and then vote.
Here is the twitter poll
https://twitter.com/imt_latest/status/956898931639808001

But it is splashed across a national newspaper as a proper poll, lol. A paper owned by the Irish Times...

Zubeneschamali

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think this is one of the most honest statements I have read.

If, as next of kin, it is a case of the woman or the fetus... how many of us in all honesty would say save the fetus?

I wouldn't.

This is why many Catholic women over the years have chosen to attend the Rotunda rather than Holles St (when they got a choice), to avoid the Catholic Ethos which was, traditionally, save the baby for baptism.

This ethos is no longer in force if you ask the Master of Holles St., but you'll remember the fuss about having the Nuns at St. Vincent's in charge of the National Maternity Hospital recently, and we all remember the unofficial comments made to Savita Hallapanavar.

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

I could easily say I don't think his wifes health is worth more than my unborn.

To clarify, I do of course mean if my wife were pregnant, I would put her life and health above the life of her unborn.

I meant "any" in the sense of any regardless of healthy, healthy as far as we know, Downs, FFA, whatever. Regardless of the health or otherwise of the unborn, my wife comes first.

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

Its stating the obvious though I feel.
Repealing the eighth would romp home in a referendum imo
What a lot of voters might have and indeed do have issue with is what is proposed to replace it.

I agree.

The message needs to be clear that as long as the 8th is there things will continue exactly as they have been. Now, while that suits some people, I think they are in a minority.

A No vote is a vote to ensure that:

Women can, and will, be denied medical treatment.
Rape victims can, and will, be forced through extra trauma.
Suicidal women will be forced to endure a 'reviews by experts'.

People will have to stand helplessly by as a Constitutional clause means their wife/partner/daughter/sister's life will have to be medically deemed 51% likely to end before a pregnancy that threatens their life can be terminated.

Can you imagine being in that room? It's the stuff of nightmares.

Edward M

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think this is one of the most honest statements I have read.

If, as next of kin, it is a case of the woman or the fetus... how many of us in all honesty would say save the fetus?

I wouldn't.

Its stating the obvious though I feel.
Repealing the eighth would romp home in a referendum imo
What a lot of voters might have and indeed do have issue with is what is proposed to replace it.

Captain Obvious

suicide_circus wrote: »

Mother? That would imply there's a child involved

Whatever floats your boat.

suicide_circus

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No my definition would be giving the choice to the mother, even if she makes one you think is bad.

Mother? That would imply there's a child involved

Captain Obvious

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

If your definition of "pro-choice" is bad medical practice then sure, I'm not pro-choice :rolleyes:

No my definition would be giving the choice to the mother, even if she makes one you think is bad.

mrkiscool2

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So you wouldn't be pro choice then.

If your definition of "pro-choice" is bad medical practice then sure, I'm not pro-choice :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

I don't know for sure, but I think Zubens post was just a personal point.
Like it'd be easy to argue his wording, I could easily say I don't think his wifes health is worth more than my unborn.
I assume he meant to him, if he had a choice, he'd pick his wife every time.
If I had that choice to make, I'd pick my wife too.
The eighth amendment would mean neither I or my wife would have that choice.
I think that's just not right.

I think this is one of the most honest statements I have read.

If, as next of kin, it is a case of the woman or the fetus... how many of us in all honesty would say save the fetus?

I wouldn't.

Captain Obvious

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Unless the doctor says "Childbirth may kill you, but you can still choose to go through with the delivery" then I can't really see a choice. If something is wrong with the pregnancy that puts the mother's life in danger, the likelihood of even the fetus surviving is extremely slim.

So you wouldn't be pro choice then.

baylah17

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/up-to-40000-irish-people-living-abroad-are-eligible-to-vote-in-abortion-referendum-36580809.html
40,000 Irish abroad eligible to vote.
These are the votes that may potentially make the difference.
They are in my opinion more likely to be young, enlightened voters more given to repeal than retain.

mrkiscool2

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Shouldn't it be the mothers choice whether to give her life for the fetus?

Unless the doctor says "Childbirth may kill you, but you can still choose to go through with the delivery" then I can't really see a choice. If something is wrong with the pregnancy that puts the mother's life in danger, the likelihood of even the fetus surviving is extremely slim.

Captain Obvious

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Sorry, there is no argument here, at all. If the mother's life is at risk due to her pregnancy an abortion should be performed immediately. There is no debate here. Risking her life for the sake of a fetus is not acceptable, especially when the trauma the woman is going through could kill the fetus anyway.

Shouldn't it be the mothers choice whether to give her life for the fetus?

Edward M

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

That's interesting... Your wifes life is more important than the life of the unborn IN YOUR OPINION. there is an argument to say it isn't.... And i say that from a pro choice angle

I don't know for sure, but I think Zubens post was just a personal point.
Like it'd be easy to argue his wording, I could easily say I don't think his wifes health is worth more than my unborn.
I assume he meant to him, if he had a choice, he'd pick his wife every time.
If I had that choice to make, I'd pick my wife too.
The eighth amendment would mean neither I or my wife would have that choice.
I think that's just not right.

mrkiscool2

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

That's interesting... Your wifes life is more important than the life of the unborn IN YOUR OPINION. there is an argument to say it isn't.... And i say that from a pro choice angle

Sorry, there is no argument here, at all. If the mother's life is at risk due to her pregnancy an abortion should be performed immediately. There is no debate here. Risking her life for the sake of a fetus is not acceptable, especially when the trauma the woman is going through could kill the fetus anyway.

Ash.J.Williams

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is kinda sorta equal under our laws now, but soon we will delete that stupid amendment and it will no longer be equal, and proper order. My wife's life and health are worth more than the life of any unborn, full stop.

That's interesting... Your wifes life is more important than the life of the unborn IN YOUR OPINION. there is an argument to say it isn't.... And i say that from a pro choice angle

Ave Sodalis

Iona are starting to pay for Facebook adverts now. I seen a post about facts from the UK about DS and abortion come up on my homepage... I've reported it to FB about being misleading but I doubt it'll do much good.

Water John

Well they did put forward, William Binchy as an expert. Not that he got it right in 1983.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mr. CooL ICE

A PANEL OF three judges have ruled against the Pro Life Campaign’s application to become a legal adviser in a Supreme Court case on defining “the unborn” in the Constitution.

The panel of judges also questioned the impact the groups involvement would have in the context of the upcoming Eighth Amendment referendum, and asked why they had waited until the last minute to lodge the application to become an amicus, when when the appeal was lodged in the summer of 2016.

I'm guessing the bolded bit is ammo to claim they are being silenced

Zerbini Blewitt

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

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

Looking at his piece not from the viewpoint of a supposed rebuttal to the pro-choice position but in what it is saying in support of the pro-life argument.

He is saying a 4 weeks embryo is a human being (I note he steers clear of starting at the zygote stage) because neither proponents nor opponents of abortion can tell a convincing semantic story of when the 4 weeks embryo changes to become the baby human being (and person) in the delivery room. In other words, because there is no clearly defined time boundary of when personhood is attained we must therefore call a 4 weeks embryo a human being.

Sorry but this is just plainly illogical & weak.

Besides the actual arguments presented by different prochoice people, including those on this site, which deal with the {definite no person hood possible stage, followed by an interval time period when personhood is attained, followed by definite personhood attained stage} … …
his wafer thin ‘three card trickery’ word play really isn’t something I’d be basing the foundation for a pro-life definition of a human being on.

It’s almost as if the writer has never had a back and forth with an established pro-choice ethicist or any real world pro-choice person in his entire life. I don’t see how else he could construct this argument.

In fact, it is riddled throughout with misrepresentations of the pro-choice side. He could have represented the pro-choice side fairly but he chose not to. This says a lot about his credibility.
Also, that he even mentioned ensoulment at all tells its own story.

Unless there is any better reasoning than this effort, it is clear that as before, a zygote, a 4 week embryo or early stage foetus are not human beings.

MrPudding

Water John wrote: »

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

Meh. Separation of powers.

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

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

Sure the judges know nothing without help.

There is a long history in the courts of amicus briefs and friends of the court. This is pretty common, and is to be found in all kinds of cases.

Judges do tend to be fairly bright individuals, and whilst they will carry out a considerable amount of research themselves, they do, to varying degrees, rely on experts, or interested parties, in a particular field to fill out their knowledge, or to identify other avenues for their own research.

I would not expect a judge to base their judgment in a particular matter on an amicus brief, but it would not be unusual, and I have no issue, with them using such briefs to inform their opinion and their research.

I know this is a different jurisdiction, but here is a list of the amicus briefs filed in support of the people trying to overturn Proposition 8 in the US. There were a similar number against, mostly from religious organisations. This is not an uncommon thing. I would not be particularly worried if they managed to get themselves attached to this case, anything they said or submitted would be carefully assessed, and not simply taken a given.

MrP

astrofool

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's pretty complex. A foetus has all the major organs, including a heart, a brain, a nervous system and a vascular system. You may be thinking of an embryo.

To be fair, it's not developmentally complex enough to exist by itself, unlike a born baby, or a carrot plant.