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

January

pleas advice wrote: »

eviltwin wrote: »

Why would any woman wait until 30 weeks to have an abortion? What kind of scenario do you envisage where that would happen?

where she no longer finds herself in a position to look after the child, where if she had've been that position five months earlier, she would have had an abortion then.

At that stage termination of pregnancy happens. Even in cases of maternal health deteriorating or fatal foetal abnormality.

pitifulgod

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

So you think its ok to kill a baby at 8 or 9 months gestation right before it is about to be born? The baby can live outside the woman at that stage completely independently. It no longer needs the woman at the stage ...so why the need to kill it? Its going to come out one way or the other at that stage but you seem to be saying its ok to kill it right before it comes out.

Termination of a pregnancy is ending a pregnancy, at an 8/9 month point. It's giving birth eg a c-section. That's a termination of a pregnancy in that scenario. So nope, no killing of a viable foetus.

Andrew Beef

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I asked you this once already and you didn’t reply. Can you please tell me what qualifies a 10 week old zygote to be more important than my health and wellbeing? And can you please tell me why you should get to inflict that view on my life, when if something happened to me, you would know no different, and it would be my family who would suffer the loss? Why is your judgment more important than mine? Roughly 4K Irish abortions are happening every year in the UK anyway. Irish abortions are happening, just not in Ireland. You can’t proudly say there is no abortion in Ireland when the statistics glaringly say Irish women are procuring abortions on a daily basis.

I have made it abundantly clear that I support abortion for medical reasons. Your use of the term zygote is misleading and provocative; human life has zygote status far earlier in a pregnancy.

My judgement is more important than your because I don’t think that it’s okay to terminate the lives of unborn children and people like me need to fight the tide of populism.

Sex tourism happens in Cambodia and is perpetrated by Irish people; does that mean we should legalise paedophilia? I have stated my view before; people who obtain abortions contrary to Irish law outside of Ireland should be arrested and charged when they return to Ireland.

[Deleted User]

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Though i've a feeling that some pro-choicers at that stage (where such an incubator existed) would insist that the right to choose extended to the right to choose to kill the unborn rather than the right to simply choose not to be pregnant as is being posited in this current debate.

You have absolutely no evidence of that, & the only anecdotal evidence you have, from this thread, proves that all pro choice people would support the idea.

pleas advice

eviltwin wrote: »

I said termination of pregnancy. I didn't mention abortion

up to what point do you support abortion?

Bannasidhe

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

This argument has a major problem. Theoretically speaking, if in 20 years time, engineers can manufacture a self-sufficient incubator system that allows a foetus to be transferred from a woman to the incubator at, say 4 weeks (I'm not saying this would be a good idea, I would disagree with such an idea, but i'm just saying it from a theoretical point of view), then doesn't the baby become a separate entity and entitled to live?

.

Theoretically speaking, if in 20 years time, surgeons can manufacture an artificial womb and place it in man's abdomen that allows a fetus to be transferred from a woman to the womb at, say 4 weeks, would you personally be willing to 'host' that fetus. Keep in mind that your body would experience all of the various 'side effects' associated with pregnancy from nausea to stretch marks, haemorrhoids to increased urination, fatigue to edema, constipation to yeast infections. You might also develop gestational diabetes... and get nosebleeds.
And you would have to take the relevant hormones so there might be some... feminisation... of your body... and anti-rejections drugs...

Of course even if you said absolutely yes we all know that would never happen as even if you are 18 now in 20 years time at 38 you would be too old for such a drastic impact on your body.

So let's throw it out to all the pro-lifers - given the serious impact it would have on your body, not to mention the hormones needed would alter your biologic gender while you take them - would you be willing to host a fetus from 4 weeks until birth?

eviltwin

pleas advice wrote: »

up to what point do you support abortion?

I leave that for medical professionals to decide.

chalkitdown1

I have to commend you lot for tolerating that 2wsxcde3 fella over the last few days, you have the patience of saints. I've never seen so much deflection and moving of goalposts in my life. I'm pretty sure even Hitler and Stalin were brought up at one point over the weekend and now we're on to Islam and sex tourism in Cambodia. It's been a hell of an entertaining read.

mrkiscool2

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I have made it abundantly clear that I support abortion for medical reasons. Your use of the term zygote is misleading and provocative; human life has zygote status far earlier in a pregnancy.

My judgement is more important than your because I don’t think that it’s okay to terminate the lives of unborn children and people like me need to fight the tide of populism.

Sex tourism happens in Cambodia and is perpetrated by Irish people; does that mean we should legalise paedophilia? I have stated my view before; people who obtain abortions contrary to Irish law outside of Ireland should be arrested and charged when they return to Ireland.

One thing before I tear this apart, at least you are willing to say people who travel for abortions should be arrested. You are at least logically consistent in your view that abortion should be illegal and women who get one should be punished. It does, however, show how much of a misogynist you are. Should their male partners also be imprisoned? As they, most likely, were complicit?

Zygote is the term for the clump of cells in a woman's womb from day 1 of conception until week 8 of pregnancy. So, no, the poster wasn't being misleading. If abortion is to 12 weeks in Ireland, then a lot of what women get aborted will be a zygote. A zygote can't be classified at life at any stage. Seriously, if one could, theoretically, give birth to a zygote it a. wouldn't look human and b. would just die straight away.

Again, a child is a term for a young human being already born. There is no such thing as an unborn child. Nor unborn baby, as a baby is defined as from birth until 1 year old. I don't even like the term unborn but at least it says what the fetus is, unborn. And no, your judgement is more valid than anyone elses. Maybe to you it is, which is understandable, but no, your judgement is more valid. Also, I'm guessing you aren't a leftist or centre-left, in which case it was the right who came up with populism. Not really something you can try and fight back.

Finally, what in the name of fcuk does sex tourism have to do with abortion? Seriously?

SusieBlue

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I have made it abundantly clear that I support abortion for medical reasons. Your use of the term zygote is misleading and provocative; human life has zygote status far earlier in a pregnancy.

My judgement is more important than your because I don’t think that it’s okay to terminate the lives of unborn children and people like me need to fight the tide of populism.

Sex tourism happens in Cambodia and is perpetrated by Irish people; does that mean we should legalise paedophilia? I have stated my view before; people who obtain abortions contrary to Irish law outside of Ireland should be arrested and charged when they return to Ireland.

Your judgment is absolutely not more important than mine, not for a minute.

You take issue with my use of the term zygote yet refer to a pre 12 week pregnancies as unborn children, the irony of it.

With your kind of attitude I hope that someone you love never comes to you for help during a distressing crisis pregnancy, be it your wife, daughter or sister. Safe to say they’d get little to no sympathy from you.

To even bring up the word paedophelia in the same sentence is disgustingly offensive.

You didn’t answer my question anyway, why is a 10 week old pregnancy equal to me?

Bannasidhe

pleas advice wrote: »

does any child under the age of 8? ie the ability to reproduce?

Lina Medina gave birth at the age of five years, seven months, and 21 days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina

Andrew Beef

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I have made it abundantly clear that I support abortion for medical reasons. Your use of the term zygote is misleading and provocative; human life has zygote status far earlier in a pregnancy.

My judgement is more important than your because I don’t think that it’s okay to terminate the lives of unborn children and people like me need to fight the tide of populism.

Sex tourism happens in Cambodia and is perpetrated by Irish people; does that mean we should legalise paedophilia? I have stated my view before; people who obtain abortions contrary to Irish law outside of Ireland should be arrested and charged when they return to Ireland.

Your judgment is absolutely not more important than mine, not for a minute.

You take issue with my use of the term zygote yet refer to a pre 12 week pregnancies as unborn children, the irony of it.

With your kind of attitude I hope that someone you love never comes to you for help during a distressing crisis pregnancy, be it your wife, daughter or sister. Safe to say they’d get little to no sympathy from you.

To even bring up the word paedophelia in the same sentence is disgustingly offensive.

You didn’t answer my question anyway, why is a 10 week old pregnancy equal to me?

A 10 week old unborn child is not a “zygote”.

If someone came to me for advice around a crisis pregnancy I would help them emotionally and financially, and I would urge them not to have an abortion.

The paedophilia point is an analogy; things that are illegal for Irish people to do overseas basically.

SusieBlue

Andrew Beef wrote: »

A 10 week old unborn child is not a “zygote”.

If someone came to me for advice around a crisis pregnancy I would help them emotionally and financially, and I would urge them not to have an abortion.

The paedophilia point is an analogy; things that are illegal for Irish people to do overseas basically.

You still didn’t answer my question. Third time asking now.
I’ll use your terminology, why is a 10 week old unborn child equal to me?

eviltwin

Andrew Beef wrote: »

A 10 week old unborn child is not a “zygote”.

If someone came to me for advice around a crisis pregnancy I would help them emotionally and financially, and I would urge them not to have an abortion.

The paedophilia point is an analogy; things that are illegal for Irish people to do overseas basically.

Well let me ask you something Andrew

If a woman you loved, sister, daughter, friend, had an abortion, would you really be okay having her criminalised for that?

mrkiscool2

Andrew Beef wrote: »

A 10 week old unborn child is not a “zygote”.

If someone came to me for advice around a crisis pregnancy I would help them emotionally and financially, and I would urge them not to have an abortion.

The paedophilia point is an analogy; things that are illegal for Irish people to do overseas basically.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A UNBORN CHILD! For fcuks sake.

Also, peadophilia is illegal in all first world countries, abortion is only illegal in a handful of them. Hardly the same thing law wise at all.

Edward M

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A UNBORN CHILD! For fcuks sake.

Also, peadophilia is illegal in all first world countries, abortion is only illegal in a handful of them. Hardly the same thing law wise at all.

Calm yourself there mr cool.
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/07/is-it-wrong-to-say-unborn-child

mrkiscool2

Edward M wrote: »

Calm yourself there mr cool.
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/07/is-it-wrong-to-say-unborn-child

There are absolutely no links in that article. So, a claim made without evidence can then be dismissed without evidence. This claim is dismissed.

david75

Weird sick but ridiculous pro life tactics

Take one issue and pollute it with paedophilia and teen sex and STIs and nonsense, rather than talk about the issue at hand.

All in order to frighten and confuse anyone undecided on the issue.

It didn’t work in the marriage equality referendum. It won’t work now.

Hopefully they won’t realise this until after the fact, as they did last time.

Zerbini Blewitt

Edward M wrote: »

Calm yourself there mr cool.
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/07/is-it-wrong-to-say-unborn-child

Would you define any living human being as:- an undead person?

2wsxcde3

david75 wrote: »

Weird sick but ridiculous pro life tactics

Take one issue and pollute it with paedophilia and teen sex and STIs and nonsense, rather than talk about the issue at hand.

All in order to frighten and confuse anyone undecided on the issue.

It didn’t work in the marriage equality referendum. It won’t work now.

Hopefully they won’t realise this until after the fact, as they did last time.

Aren't you the one polluting the abortion referendum by bringing up the same-sex marriage referendum ...insinuating that gay people can't also be pro-life?

pleas advice

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

abortion is only illegal in a handful of them. Hardly the same thing law wise at all.

Argumentum ad populum

david75

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Aren't you the one polluting the abortion referendum by bringing up the same-sex marriage referendum ...insinuating that gay people can't also be pro-life?

Here you are again making stuff up with no basis. You said that. Not I.
The tactics are exactly the same.
But while we’re on it.

Would you be ok with a same sex couple adopting a baby from your futuristic space baby factory you mentioned earlier?

Surely if you don’t want them aborted you’d be ok with them having gay parents, no?

pitifulgod

Edward M wrote: »

Calm yourself there mr cool.
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/07/is-it-wrong-to-say-unborn-child

'The Institute Of Religion and Public Life', should really work at the sources....

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Aren't you the one polluting the abortion referendum by bringing up the same-sex marriage referendum ...insinuating that gay people can't also be pro-life?

You've brought up the marriage referendum, Northern Irish bakeries, racist politicians and scenarios that have absolutely no relation to this discussion.

mrkiscool2

pleas advice wrote: »

Argumentum ad populum

You do release you've used that incorrectly, yes? While I do, personally, believe that abortion should be legal in Ireland, I don't think we should have it legal just because a lot of other countries do. I've outlined many times why it should be legal. So, no, it's not argumentum ad populum. Learn to fact.

Edward M

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Would you define any living human being as:- an undead person?

I would. Is it's trick qiestion?
In relation to the post you quoted before you asked that, google 'pregnant" or go to the oed and type in "pregnant".
See what comes up, now I didn't invent the language, it mightn't suit everybody to see child used in relation to the entity in the womb, but it doesent change the way the language is used to describe it.

pleas advice

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

There are absolutely no links in that article. So, a claim made without evidence can then be dismissed without evidence. This claim is dismissed.

See Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 397 (6th ed. 2007), which's first definition is "A fetus; an infant;...". See also ‘The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary: Complete Text Reproduced Micrographically’, Vol. I (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1971): 396, which defines it as: ‘The unborn or newly born human being; foetus, infant’.

pilly

Brendan Eager Stud wrote:

Well the ECHR would tend to differ or can we just make up rights as we go along i.e. The right to choose?

Emm, that's what the referendum is for?

It's like you just wandered in drunk going "what's all this about rights?".

splinter65

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A UNBORN CHILD! For fcuks sake.

Also, peadophilia is illegal in all first world countries, abortion is only illegal in a handful of them. Hardly the same thing law wise at all.

I keep dropping in here to see what’s going on and I see this.
No such thing as an unborn child....it’s no wonder the pro life side are winning ...carry on...

Edward M

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

There are absolutely no links in that article. So, a claim made without evidence can then be dismissed without evidence. This claim is dismissed.

From the OED.

"Definition of pregnant in English:
pregnant
ADJECTIVE
1(of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus.

‘she was heavily pregnant with her second child’
‘she was six months pregnant’".

Sweetemotion

splinter65 wrote: »

I keep dropping in here to see what’s going on and I see this.
No such thing as an unborn child....it’s no wonder the pro life side are winning ...carry on...

Capital letters and an exclamation mark to boot.