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

pilly

I think the argument about enforcing the travel ban is a bit of waste of time on here, I have to be honest, you're fighting amongst yourselves over it lads. In the bigger picture it's not important.

JDD

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You see, logistically that would be a nightmare. Every woman and child between the ages of 12 and 50 who were travelling through the airport or ports would have to do a pregnancy test. Doing a rough back of the envelope calculation that would be 136,000 pregnancy tests per day. At even a discounted cost of a fiver per test that would be roughly €248m per year on the tests alone. That's not including the extra cost of staff to conduct this, and the knock on reduction in flights. The cost would probably go over a billion. On economic grounds alone, there's no way a majority of pro-lifers would vote for it. It would HAVE to be self-certification.

January

Five euro per test?

https://www.ebay.ie/itm/One-Step-30-Pregnancy-Tests-Ultra-Early-10mIU-HCG-Urine-Strip-Home-Testing-Kit-/370926505994

These are even more accurate than First Response pregnancy tests as these detect 10mIU HCG whereas FR detects 12mIU HCG.

pilly

Jesus H, what is the point to this? Are people so bored that they're now going back to arguing over a previous referendum?

January

pilly wrote: »

Jesus H, what is the point to this? Are people so bored that they're now going back to arguing over a previous referendum?

The point is that those who claim to be 'pro-life' yet have no problem wtih the 13th amendment are little more than NIMBY's who couldn't give a fiddlers about 'loving both'.

JDD

pilly wrote: »

I think the argument about enforcing the travel ban is a bit of waste of time on here, I have to be honest, you're fighting amongst yourselves over it lads. In the bigger picture it's not important.

Ah yeah you're right. It was just an interesting little side street.

My Dad is a pro-lifer. He's a good person, but really a dyed in the wool catholic who voted against divorce, against same sex marriage etc. To be honest, I think the dilemma he faces, and perhaps a lot of pro-lifers face, is that they can't bring themselves to ACTIVELY vote for or against something that is contrary to their belief that life, and therefore the right for that life to continue, starts at conception. While they might not equate it completely with the murder of a "born" person, they don't want to do something that they see as making abortion easier. I guarantee he doesn't have a clue how easy it is to get the abortion pill. And perhaps there is a little bit of nimbyism on his part with the travel ban - but perhaps he equates it to travelling to go to Dignitas i.e. he's okay with not stopping people from going to Dignitas because it involves huge time and effort and they've clearly thought it through, rather than having the option across the road?

I'm pro-choice by the way. I'm just trying to understand the other side of the debate.

pilly

January wrote: »

The point is that those who claim to be 'pro-life' yet have no problem wtih the 13th amendment are little more than NIMBY's who couldn't give a fiddlers about 'loving both'.

Yeah, we get that. It's been stated over and over and over.

As a pro-choicer I'm even tired of it.

January

pilly wrote: »

Yeah, we get that. It's been stated over and over and over.

As a pro-choicer I'm even tired of it.

Me too, but it won't stop me debating it when it comes up over and over and over.

kylith

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.

Doesn't stop them in El Salvador

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/z4j9m8/when-having-a-miscarriage-can-get-you-life-in-prison

Bannasidhe

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

Really. You don't think to be truly pro-life you should be in favour of affordable childcare, a decent work life balance, a liveable minimum wage, proper healthcare available throughout the country, supports for the vulnerable from cradle to grave, proper respite care, stringent overseeing of homes for the elderly, education available locally for children with special needs, affordable accommodation, secure rental leases ... all those things that make life easier and worth living.

I would say many pro-'lifers' are really just pro-'existers' - they have zero interest in what happens to children once they are born.

pleas advice

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Really. You don't think to be truly pro-life you should be in favour of affordable childcare, a decent work life balance, a liveable minimum wage, proper healthcare available throughout the country, supports for the vulnerable from cradle to grave, proper respite care, stringent overseeing of homes for the elderly, education available locally for children with special needs, affordable accommodation, secure rental leases ... all those things that make life easier and worth living..

well yes, but thats all irrelevant to the topic of this thread, more red herrings

RobertKK

eviltwin wrote: »

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?

Maybe they aren't vindictive.

NuMarvel

pleas advice wrote: »

well yes, but thats all irrelevant to the topic of this thread, more red herrings

You keep using those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

pleas advice

Ahshuryaknowurself

Edward M

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Really. You don't think to be truly pro-life you should be in favour of affordable childcare, a decent work life balance, a liveable minimum wage, proper healthcare available throughout the country, supports for the vulnerable from cradle to grave, proper respite care, stringent overseeing of homes for the elderly, education available locally for children with special needs, affordable accommodation, secure rental leases ... all those things that make life easier and worth living.

I would say many pro-'lifers' are really just pro-'existers' - they have zero interest in what happens to children once they are born.

I'd have an interest in most youngsters I know.
I live rurally of course, maybe its different, I know virtually everyone and their kids in my locality.
GAA gets us all involved in the same club, I coach a bit at underage, I go to our parish school to coach regularly too.
But that's not saying I try to influence the way they live.
But anyway as please advise said, you're statement is in fact a red herring.
No one can know or care for all of anything, and usually act in accordance with their own beliefs based on how they themselves may feel about it.
Its fair to say I think that the vast majority of kids born are wanted, all delinquents are not missed abortions, most families in need of help aren't in their situation because they wanted to but didn't abort their children or even one of them.
Most people don't even contemplate it IMO.
None of the things you mention in your post will improve because we implement abortion here.
A red herring indeed.

Bannasidhe

pleas advice wrote: »

well yes, but thats all irrelevant to the topic of this thread, more red herrings

No. You want it to be irrelevant but it isn't.

Your dismissal of it as irrelevant simply proves you have no interest in the lives of children. Your interest ends at the moment they are born and actually have needs. When they are alive.

Pro- life me arse.

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

I'd have an interest in most youngsters I know.
I live rurally of course, maybe its different, I know virtually everyone and their kids in my locality.
GAA gets us all involved in the same club, I coach a bit at underage, I go to our parish school to coach regularly too.
But that's not saying I try to influence the way they live.
But anyway as please advise said, you're statement is in fact a red herring.
No one can know or care for all of anything, and usually act in accordance with their own beliefs based on how they themselves may feel about it.
Its fair to say I think that the vast majority of kids born are wanted, all delinquents are not missed abortions, most families in need of help aren't in their situation because they wanted to but didn't abort their children or even one of them.
Most people don't even contemplate it IMO.
None of the things you mention in your post will improve because we implement abortion here.
A red herring indeed.

It's far from being a red herring.
It's the reality for many people with children.
Do you think that doesn't impact on women's decision to not have children?
Do you think pregnant women exist in some vacuum unaware of the difficulty of getting childcare, juggling work hours, finding secure accommodation...?

Seriously?

I am also sick to the eye teeth of sanctimonious so called pro-lifers acting as if they hold the moral high ground when they do precisely nothing to help the living children who need it. I don't see any Iona billboards about homelessness or calling for supports for special needs. So much for #loveboth.

pleas advice

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. You want it to be irrelevant but it isn't.

Your dismissal of it as irrelevant simply proves you have no interest in the lives of children. Your interest ends at the moment they are born and actually have needs. When they are alive.

Pro- life me arse.

life, in the sense of life or death, the state of being or the state of not, an actual living entity, and a dead bunch of cells...

Bannasidhe

pleas advice wrote: »

life, in the sense of life or death, the state of being or the state of not, an actual living entity, and a dead bunch of cells...

Life - as in the sense of being alive.
An actual living entity with real life needs. Not dead.

If you truly cared about life you would care about the lives children lead and advocate the State does everything in it's power to protect them.
But you think that is irrelevant.

I think that says it all about you.

pleas advice

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Life - as in the sense of being alive.
An actual living entity with real life needs. Not dead.

If you truly cared about life you would care about the lives children lead and advocate the State does everything in it's power to protect them.
But you think that is irrelevant.

I think that says it all about you.

i don't think its irrelevant, at all. It is irrelevant to this discussion we're having on this thread though.

I mean, I did vote yes in the Childrens Referendum a few years ago, so...

you would care about the lives children lead and advocate the State does everything in it's power to protect them.

but thats irrelevant, to this thread

Bannasidhe

pleas advice wrote: »

i don't think its irrelevant, at all. It is irrelevant to this discussion we're having on this thread though.

I mean, I did vote yes in the Childrens Referendum a few years ago, so...
you would care about the lives children lead and advocate the State does everything in it's power to protect them.
but thats irrelevant, to this thread

I repeat.

You want it to be irrelevant because it calls into question your actual concerns about children's lives and welfare.

It is relevant because all of the things I mentioned are among the reasons women have abortions : insecure housing - I can't afford to pay rent for a place with an extra bedroom; work concerns - will I lose my job/ I can't pay my rent/mortgage on maternity pay; who will mind the child- I don't earn enough to afford childcare/who will collect it from school; if the child has special needs - how will I cope without supports/ who will mind them when I'm gone/ will I be able to get them into a school/ Will I lose my job for taking time off to mind them.

All of these are just as relevant to this thread as 'I was raped and now I'm pregnant' or 'oh s*it the condom broke'. This are the everyday mundane 'I can't cope' reasons many women terminate pregnancies. Economics. Housing. Healthcare.

You want to have less abortions?
You want to save fetus' from being terminated?

Make it a damn sight easier for women to be able to care for their born children and still be able to have actual lives of their own. It's not rocket science.

pleas advice

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Make it a damn sight easier for women to be able to care for their born children and still be able to have actual lives of their own. It's not rocket science.

Ok, how do you propose I do that?

Bannasidhe

pleas advice wrote: »

Ok, how do you propose I do that?

Ask yourself 'How do I do that?
Think about what you can do. Put your passion and energy into that.

Voting to keep the 8th will not help one woman who cannot cope. She will still travel/buy pills on line. BUT - working to give her the support she needs will help her. And if she knows she has those supports then she won't feel so desperate and will be able to see how a future with a born child is actually manageable.

If the pro-life movement as a whole put their energy into ensuring that those women considering termination because they just can't see a way they would be able to raise a child for the reasons I mentioned than that would stop many women from feeling their pregnancy is a crises .

Zerbini Blewitt

pleas advice wrote: »

Why are pro life people pro life, in your view? Are they all women-hating slut-shamers, or... What?

At their core, they seem to have an inappropriately simplistic understanding of the complexities involved in crisis pregnancies.

The second most important quality of a pro-lifer is their ability to compartmentalise, thus:-

• Have no interest or concern with the problems of abortion bans (civilised countries brought in abortion 50+ years ago because women were sticking knitting needles into themselves {& worse since the dawn of time}). They have zero curiosity or engagement with this truth. It must be said though - it is easier not to engage with this reality.

• Are comfortable forcing women - especially those who disagree with their irrational views on abortion - to remain pregnant against their will (via the state)

• Avoid honestly engaging with responses that debunk the banal insanity of thinking an embryo let alone an ovum/zygote is a human being &/or has rights

Therefore in general, if one holds a wholly, or partially, irrational opinion - it helps to ignore all consequential problems with such a stance and this is a common feature in those who enthusiastically endorse forced-birthing on women against their will in Ireland.

nice_guy80

I'm Pro-Women

Pro for the women who feel they are capable of carrying their foetus and giving the child a decent life.

AND Pro for the mothers who feel they are not ready for this and deserve a choice to have an abortion as its the right decision for them in consultation with THEIR doctor, and not a clinic somewhere in the uk or europe.

so I'm pro choice AND pro life

pleas advice

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

At their core, they seem to have an inappropriately simplistic understanding of the complexities involved in crisis pregnancies.

The second most important quality of a pro-lifer is their ability to compartmentalise, thus:-

• Have no interest or concern with the problems of abortion bans (civilised countries brought in abortion 50+ years ago because women were sticking knitting needles into themselves {& worse since the dawn of time}). They have zero curiosity or engagement with this truth. It must be said though - it is easier not to engage with this reality.

• Are comfortable forcing women - especially those who disagree with their irrational views on abortion - to remain pregnant against their will (via the state)

• Avoid honestly engaging with responses that debunk the banal insanity of thinking an embryo let alone an ovum/zygote is a human being &/or has rights

Therefore in general, if one holds a wholly, or partially, irrational opinion - it helps to ignore all consequential problems with such a stance and this is a common feature in those who enthusiastically endorse forced-birthing on women against their will in Ireland.

that doesn't answer 'why' though...

Avoid honestly engaging with responses that debunk the banal insanity of thinking an embryo let alone an ovum/zygote is a human being &/or has rights

but that is the fundamental point, SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING TAXONOMICALLY HUMAN, these entities acquire some rights. And a lot of people seem unwilling on unable to accept that this is the view, of a large minority I would say, of the population.

you'd rather believe they're all women-hating, religious, control-freaks, or something...

pleas advice

nice_guy80 wrote: »

so I'm pro choice AND pro life

aren't we all, though? in our own way

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

I fully accept everything you said there.
Its a very reasonable post.
The only problem with it is your first paragraph.
How to put this takes consideration, but here's how I see it.
There is a vote on repeal, now a lot of people have a problem with it because they see it as them being asked to vote for abortion.
If they think abortion is wrong, and there are a great many that do, unless in extreme circumstances, they are going to get it hard to vote for it as they think that's them endorsing it.
I'm voting repeal personally and hoping legislation that follows will be reasonable too.
A lot won't because they see it as a gateway to more radical abortion policies.
But while people are being asked to vote on something you can't say that is none of their business. They have a say in it.

Zerbini Blewitt

pleas advice wrote: »

that doesn't answer 'why' though...
.....
but that is the fundamental point, SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING TAXONOMICALLY HUMAN, these entities acquire some rights
.....
you'd rather believe they're all women-hating, religious, control-freaks, or something...

I couldn’t disagree more. A zygote has no rights.

As others have pointed out at length, stating it acquires rights by being taxonomically human is not an argument – it is a baseless assertion.

So pro-lifers who vote to force others (who think their views are absurd) to live by their baseless moralistic lunacy are

• Religious- yes, mostly here
• Women-hating, Control-freaks & cruel – yes but mostly indirectly – i.e. as a consequence of their views (which of course they compartmentalise away & deny responsibility for).

Pro-lifers who think like this but do not vote to enforce their baseless views on others are the sane & decent ones.

Zubeneschamali

pleas advice wrote: »

the fundamental point, SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF BEING TAXONOMICALLY HUMAN, these entities acquire some rights.

Not in law, they don't. Look up the protections a fertilized egg has during IVF - it is as taxonomically human as you are, and it has no legal rights whatsoever before implantation.