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

Edward M

amdublin wrote: »

??

My question is clear. Read your post.
I absolutely agree with the reasons for abortion in it BTW.

Zubeneschamali

pleas advice wrote: »

But that doesn't change the fact that somewhere between a third and a half of the population have, as you say, 'a sincerely held belief that an embryo is a tiny human and therefore entitled to the same rights as a baby or adult'

How many of these people support abortion in cases of rape or incest?

In the Citizens assembly, 84% support it for Rape, which suggests that nowhere near a third of people think a fetus is a little live baby.

pleas advice

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Better start work to repeal the 13th then, because today women have a Constitutional right to make that decision (but with an unnecessary trip to England thrown in).

Red herring, or some other logical fallacy

NuMarvel

pleas advice wrote: »

Well I mean, for me pro life means anti-(medically unnecessary) abortion.

I mean, it's the ending of a human life they have a problem with, I guess.
That shouldn't be anyone's decision *to* make

That decision is made by at least a dozen women in Ireland every day and pro lifers, or more specifically, pro lifers who oppose change, don't say anything about that. It seems that their issue isn't the ending of a human life, but that it would no longer happen in secret or abroad.

That can't be regarded as being pro life, by any stretch of the term.

seamus

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

We are all pro-life; the anti-abortion crowd chose this name for themselves to tug the heartstrings.

It's marketing.

Those who support legalisation of abortion, aren't pro-abortion. That implies they like abortion and want people to get them. So they called themselves pro-choice instead, this is a positive and more accurate message.

Of course, those in opposition aren't going to call themselves "anti-choice". That's just one step above wearing swastikas. "Anti-abortion" is OK, but it still has a negative connotation - you're defined by being negative, being conservative and opposed to something.
So they went for "pro-life", which is adequately positive but also meaningless enough that you don't have to be pigeonholed into a singular point of view.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

pleas advice wrote: »

But that doesn't change the fact that somewhere between a third and a half of the population have, as you say, 'a sincerely held belief that an embryo is a tiny human and therefore entitled to the same rights as a baby or adult'

Please provide a source for this fact please, especially the "entitled to the same rights" part. Because this would contradict what polls show over the last few years; that support for the 8th is minimal, at 15% or so.

pleas advice

We'll see after the referendum, I suppose.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

pleas advice wrote: »

Do you actually really think that?

Yes, and you're incredibly naive if you don't.

Zubeneschamali

pleas advice wrote: »

Red herring, or some other logical fallacy

Excellent riposte, or some other thing like an idiotic non sequitur.

ELM327

pleas advice wrote: »

We'll see after the referendum, I suppose.

Indeed we will.
And I would wager many pounds that it will be, once again, david quinn/Iona ilk that will be drowning their sorrows at the death of the socially conservative society in this little last bastion of imperial church rule we call home.

#repealthe8th

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

Please provide a source for this fact please, especially the "entitled to the same rights" part. Because this would contradict what polls show over the last few years; that support for the 8th is minimal, at 15% or so.

Not quite so low, but if combined with abortion on demand it tightens up.
It should still be passed, but too strong emotive abortion debate could make it too close for comfort.
For some reason people seem to be more easily swayed by baby images than women perhaps.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/eighth-amendment-polls-suggest-middle-ground-will-be-decisive-1.3326371?mode=amp

eviltwin

pleas advice wrote: »

Red herring, or some other logical fallacy

No it's not. If you really see a foetus as equal to a living person and you see abortion as the killing of a life then surely you would be against the right to travel to be in our constitution?????

Otherwise it seems your issue isn't abortion but abortion on Irish soil.

NuMarvel

pleas advice wrote: »

We'll see after the referendum, I suppose.

I'm unsure if this is a response to my post. If it was, we don't need to wait until after the referendum. You've stated something was a fact, so there shouldn't be any difficulty providing evidence of it now.

captbarnacles

eviltwin wrote: »

No it's not. If you really see a foetus as equal to a living person and you see abortion as the killing of a life then surely you would be against the right to travel to be in our constitution?????

Otherwise it seems your issue isn't abortion but abortion on Irish soil.

None of them really think that. Picture Irish women taking babies to England to kill them everyday. Everything would be the same? Surrrrrreeee

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

But you listed reasons for abortion?
Why not be so blunt as to say why should any woman have to have any reason for abortion?

To be honest, that is a matter between a woman and her doctor, as to whether she has any reason, good or bad, for an abortion. It is none of your business and none of mine.

Like any medical procedure, elective or not, or any medication, preventative or curative, there are risks and side-effects. A woman's GP is the best person to help her decide whether the abortion pill or an abortion are the best medical treatment for her, taking account of her wishes and her medical condition.

The only reason, the State (as in you and I) need to intervene is to regulate the provision of abortion. From a practical point of view, modern abortion pills are such that there is little point in prohibiting abortion for any reason up to 10-12 weeks. A GP prescription should be all that is needed for the pill.

A later abortion involves a medical procedure and an assessment by a specialist before any medical procedures is obviously appropriate hence the legislation should require this. Even a liposuction requires some level of expert medical approval.

Where we need to intervene and regulate is at the stage where the unborn is viable because the unborn do have rights too. We can play it safe and have no abortions after 18 weeks, or adopt a riskier position (for the unborn, but better for the mother's choice) and allow abortion up to 24 weeks. I am interested in hearing medical opinion on where this cut-off should be. After that, it is difficult to justify, other than in cases of FFA.

Now I know there are some who oppose any limit. To them, I would just say that every right is limited, every right tends to clash with another right, and while a woman's right to bodily integrity and right to choose are very important, hence we need to allow abortion, at some stage of the pregnancy the right to life of the unborn will trump the right to choose.

JDD

eviltwin wrote: »

No it's not. If you really see a foetus as equal to a living person and you see abortion as the killing of a life then surely you would be against the right to travel to be in our constitution?????

Otherwise it seems your issue isn't abortion but abortion on Irish soil.

I've never really understood this. There's never been any push to remove the right to travel for an abortion. I mean, in reality it would be incredibly difficult to police - you can't stop every woman of childbearing age at the airport and make them pee on a stick to see if they're pregnant. But I suppose you could at least make them sign a declaration that they are not travelling to procure a service which is illegal in Ireland. I mean, if you're willing to prosecute a woman for having an abortion in Ireland, surely you should be willing to prosecute a woman who admits to having an abortion abroad on the basis that she had breached her declaration? And by extension of that, surely pro-lifers should be campaigning for Ireland to refuse visitor applications for doctors who have performed abortions? There's no appetite at all for that kind of legislation. Which can only lead a person to conclude that Irish pro-lifers belief in the pro-life campaign is limited really to a point of principle rather than being really willing to bring their belief to it's logical conclusion.

Zubeneschamali

JDD wrote: »

There's never been any push to remove the right to travel for an abortion.

600,000+ people voted against travel, but they lost. Now they pretend that of course travel is cool, because of all sorts of issues, but that isn't what the pro-life crew said at the time.

But having lost, they fall back to defend the next ditch. They are no more going to try and reban travel than anyone is going to try and reban divorce or same sex marriage. I think they know they will lose eventually, they are fighting a rearguard action to delay losing as long as possible.

JDD

Yeah but a lot of the people who voted for ensuring that the constitutional ban on abortion would not restrict the right to travel, would never ever have voted for lifting the ban on abortion in Ireland. I wonder how they reconcile that in their heads?

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pilly

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Like it makes them think. :rolleyes:

JDD

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And then what? You can't detain them. You'd just have to get them to sign a declaration. In which case you'd just get all travelers to sign a declaration, men and women, to say they're not going abroad to procure services, or to assist someone else in procuring services, that are illegal within the state.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

JDD

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I've actually never seen a pro-lifer openly argue that there are reasons for allowing women to travel for abortions. I mean, some must hold that view clearly, and you can only assume that it is a "not in my backyard" reaction. But I wonder about those who actually voted for the 8th amendment, yet voted against the amendment to restrict the right to travel, ever really think deeply about their motivations for doing so.

JDD

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah c'mon now. You could say you miscarried. You don't have to show any proof of that. I mean at the risk of being graphic, you could miscarry up to 12 weeks into the toilet. No state in reality would be asking you to bring home evidence of the blood or foetus. And taking this to the nth degree, if you did have to do so, that would be easily done at the termination clinic. You couldn't police it.

The risk would be that if you travelled with another person, and you fell out with them, they could go to the police to report you after the fact. If the gardai had to investigate the matter, they could probably prove that you made an appointment with a clinic through your emails or phone records.

SusieBlue

JDD wrote: »

Ah c'mon now. You could say you miscarried. You don't have to show any proof of that. I mean at the risk of being graphic, you could miscarry up to 12 weeks into the toilet. No state in reality would be asking you to bring home evidence of the blood or foetus. And taking this to the nth degree, if you did have to do so, that would be easily done at the termination clinic. You couldn't police it.

The risk would be that if you travelled with another person, and you fell out with them, they could go to the police to report you after the fact. If the gardai had to investigate the matter, they could probably prove that you made an appointment with a clinic through your emails or phone records.

The problem is there is so much misinformation out there, and people are so ignorant to actual facts, that there would actually be a minority who would want to impose such rules.

This week I had a pro life person on another thread tell me that he knew loads of people who held funerals for pregnancies lost pre 12 weeks with full burials and headstones and that the abortion referendum was an insult those families who had lost pregnancies.
I was told I was a liar that there is no ‘body’ to bury and that stating an early miscarriage is similar to a heavy period is very disrespectful.

When you’re arguing with that kind of logic there’s no hope.
These are the types of people who actually would want to see evidence of the miscarriage to prove no abortion took place.
While they are in a minority, they unfortunately certainly exist.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

It would be very hard to prosecute women who go abroad

But you can prosecute those who import pills so why are the antis not seeking justice for the "murder" of these "children"

Why aren't they up in arms about the loss of embryos in fertility clinics here?

Is it because they are just a bunch of complete wasters who couldn't care less about anything other than control?