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

Charmeleon

up for anything wrote: »

I'm wondering why there aren't warehouse facilities dotted around the countryside containing non-viable humans on life support. Life is life according to pro-lifers. Therefore just because that life isn't sentient or capable of staying alive without help surely no one has the right to just switch off the machinery keeping the body functioning? The machinery should be obliged to run for as long as it takes for the body to die or for something to bring the person back to normal life. If it's legal to turn off life support machinery then it should be equally legal to obtain an abortion in this country. There's not much difference to my mind.

So if a person is on life support and non-sentient but the prognosis is that they will fully recover and lead a normal life in six months time, is it ok to kill them?

zedhead

Charmeleon wrote: »

So if a person is on life support and non-sentient but the prognosis is that they will fully recover and lead a normal life in six months time, is it ok to kill them?

If the life support meant they had to be hooked up to a sentient and conscious person with life limiting results, possible medical complications, change in lifestyle & physcial changes which they did not choose would it be ok to keep them like that for 6 months?

Charmeleon

zedhead wrote: »

If the life support meant they had to be hooked up to a sentient and conscious person with life limiting results, possible medical complications, change in lifestyle & physcial changes which they did not choose would it be ok to keep them like that for 6 months?

The state does not impregnate anyone, unless there’s some diabolical plan to contaminate tampons with semen and I am not aware of it. Whether the pregnancy occurs in circumstances that are good, bad or indifferent, it is the interaction of two private individuals. The question is not whether the mother is ‘forced’ to continue a pregnancy, it is whether the state is obliged to permit facilities where the developing child can be terminated on the wishes of the mother.

mrkiscool2

Charmeleon wrote: »

The state does not impregnate anyone, unless there’s some diabolical plan to contaminate tampons with semen and I am not aware of it. Whether the pregnancy occurs in circumstances that are good, bad or indifferent, it is the interaction of two private individuals. The question is not whether the mother is ‘forced’ to continue a pregnancy, it is whether the state is obliged to permit facilities where the developing child can be terminated on the wishes of the mother.

And the Irish state doesn't put anyone into a coma. The question is not whether the family is "forced" to continue a life, it is whether the state is obliged to permit facilities where the sustained life can be terminated on the wishes of the family.

blanch152

Charmeleon wrote: »

The state does not impregnate anyone, unless there’s some diabolical plan to contaminate tampons with semen and I am not aware of it. Whether the pregnancy occurs in circumstances that are good, bad or indifferent, it is the interaction of two private individuals. The question is not whether the mother is ‘forced’ to continue a pregnancy, it is whether the state is obliged to permit facilities where the developing child can be terminated on the wishes of the mother.

What will the pro-lifers come up next in their bizarre world?

Bannasidhe

Charmeleon wrote: »

The state does not impregnate anyone, unless there’s some diabolical plan to contaminate tampons with semen and I am not aware of it. Whether the pregnancy occurs in circumstances that are good, bad or indifferent, it is the interaction of two private individuals. The question is not whether the mother is ‘forced’ to continue a pregnancy, it is whether the state is obliged to permit facilities where the developing child can be terminated on the wishes of the mother.

No. The issue is whether the State can force a woman or girl to continue with a pregnancy against her will.

ForestFire

zedhead wrote: »

If the life support meant they had to be hooked up to a sentient and conscious person with life limiting results, possible medical complications, change in lifestyle & physcial changes which they did not choose would it be ok to keep them like that for 6 months?

If you go into Temple street hospital, you will see plenty of parents who care for their sick children, who's life has been put on hold indefinitely until there child recovers.

This could be months or years in some cases and including careers on hold or lost, stress and mental complications, Change in lifestyle etc.

Should they have the right to abandon their children in hospital?

mrkiscool2

ForestFire wrote: »

If you go into Temple street hospital, you will see plenty of parents who care for their sick children, who's life has been put on hold indefinitely until there child recovers.

This could be months or years in some cases and including careers on hold or lost, stress and mental complications, Change in lifestyle etc.

Should they have the right to abandon their children in hospital?

They....do have that right though. Does that mean that the vast, vast majority of parents (specifically mothers) do this? No, but they do have the choice. Especially as the child is in a safe haven (AKA the hospital).

I'm not saying it's right, but your argument falls when that right already exists.

zedhead

ForestFire wrote: »

If you go into Temple street hospital, you will see plenty of parents who care for their sick children, who's life has been put on hold indefinitely until there child recovers.

This could be months or years in some cases and including careers on hold or lost, stress and mental complications, Change in lifestyle etc.

Should they have the right to abandon their children in hospital?

I think they do have that right?

Anyway its not the same thing. They have a duty of care to their children who are born. I am sure there are some parents who do the bare minimum that is required of them, and I would imagine some do go and get on with their life.

up for anything

blanch152 wrote: »

Those on life support don't have an equal right to life as the mother so they don't have constitutional protection.

It really shows up how bizarre the current constitutional provision is.

You're absolutely right. The thought just came to me and I got it down without thinking it through before I'd forgotten it. There are a lot of holes in my analogy.

January

ForestFire wrote: »

If you go into Temple street hospital, you will see plenty of parents who care for their sick children, who's life has been put on hold indefinitely until there child recovers.

This could be months or years in some cases and including careers on hold or lost, stress and mental complications, Change in lifestyle etc.

Should they have the right to abandon their children in hospital?

They absolutely do have the right to abandon their child in hospital and I actually know someone that did just that.

Charmeleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. The issue is whether the State can force a woman or girl to continue with a pregnancy against her will.

That was the case before contraception and the right to travel were corrected in law. If you want to prevent pregnancy, have an abortion or the morning after pill the state will not stand in your way. The question is whether abortion should be permitted as a service within the state.

mrkiscool2

Charmeleon wrote: »

That was the case before contraception and the right to travel were corrected in law. If you want to prevent pregnancy, have an abortion or the morning after pill the state will not stand in your way. The question is whether abortion should be permitted as a service within the state.

So you're saying it's morally okay for the state to have an attitude that is basically "Not in our backyard"? Kind of disgusting, especially when you consider for FFA the women going to England have to come back on the ferry as it's the only way to bring the remains home.

Charmeleon

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So you're saying it's morally okay for the state to have an attitude that is basically "Not in our backyard"? Kind of disgusting, especially when you consider for FFA the women going to England have to come back on the ferry as it's the only way to bring the remains home.

That’s not the state’s position, it isn’t dependent on whether abortion is available in other countries or not. It would not change if abortion was suddenly banned in all other countries.

kylith

Charmeleon wrote: »

That was the case before contraception and the right to travel were corrected in law. If you want to prevent pregnancy, have an abortion or the morning after pill the state will not stand in your way. The question is whether abortion should be permitted as a service within the state.

I have yet to see any good reason why it should not be permitted within the state.

mrkiscool2

Charmeleon wrote: »

That’s not the state’s position, it isn’t dependent on whether abortion is available in other countries or not. It would not change if abortion was suddenly banned in all other countries.

So, the state's position depends upon other state's positions? You do realise how silly that is? Also, if the UK banned it, I know what you'd say. "Well, other countries are banning it now so we shouldn't have it either!". It's amazing you can have two different perspectives based on the situation, huh? One thing remains constant, opposition to abortion for women.

Charmeleon

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So, the state's position depends upon other state's positions? You do realise how silly that is? Also, if the UK banned it, I know what you'd say. "Well, other countries are banning it now so we shouldn't have it either!". It's amazing you can have two different perspectives based on the situation, huh? One thing remains constant, opposition to abortion for women.

You may have misread my post. Compare what I said to what you say I said, they are opposite.

ForestFire

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

They....do have that right though. Does that mean that the vast, vast majority of parents (specifically mothers) do this? No, but they do have the choice. Especially as the child is in a safe haven (AKA the hospital).

I'm not saying it's right, but your argument falls when that right already exists.

I never said they do not have the right and I was not asking for the current legal status, I asked should they have the right and you seemed to agree they should not have this right?

That is the same simple question we are asking about for the unborn..Should they have the right?

mrkiscool2

Charmeleon wrote: »

You may have misread my post. Compare what I said to what you say I said, they are opposite.

I did. But, essentially, most of your point is removed if other countries (specifically the UK) outlawed abortion for non-citizens. So then what happens? Also, the morning after pill reduces in effictiveness per hour after sex. And stuff like broken condoms, failed female contraception etc won't be stuff you get the MAP for. Also, the MAP has a proven failure rate after being used by a woman more than 3 times. It is not a solution like you hold it up to be. It can be a last line of defense but it is not as effective as you hold it up to be.

mrkiscool2

ForestFire wrote: »

I never said they do not have the right and I was not asking for the current legal status, I asked should they have the right and you seemed to agree they should not have this right?

That is the same simple question we are asking about for the unborn..Should they have the right?

From the way the post was worded it seemed like you were saying that. Sorry if you knew the law! It's still a fcuking really disgusting question to ask.

I think it should be. I don't have to agree with it but I will never have to walk in a woman's shoes and pray I never have to experience that myself. I don't want kids anyway, but if I ever had one, for whatever reason, and my child was in hospital for a long, long time, I wouldn't abandon it. But I can't put my viewpoints, morality or situation on others. So yes, it should be.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

What will the pro-lifers come up next in their bizarre world?

Probably that the earth is flat!

2wsxcde3

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

But I can't put my viewpoints, morality or situation on others.

Would you object to FGM being legalized in this country so? Some want it legalized. Or would you try to impose your viewpoints and morality on others by insisting it stay illegal.

Are you pro-choice for these women:

Why Some Women Choose to Get Circumcised
An anthropologist discusses some common misconceptions about female genital cutting, including the idea that men force women to undergo the procedure.
(Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/ )

SusieBlue

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Would you object to FGM being legalized in this country so? Some want it legalized. Or would you try to impose your viewpoints and morality on others by insisting it stay illegal.

Why on earth do you keep bringing up FGM, it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion?

mrkiscool2

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Would you object to FGM being legalized in this country so? Some want it legalized. Or would you try to impose your viewpoints and morality on others by insisting it stay illegal.

I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer. What woman, in their right fcuking mind, would want FGM?

ForestFire

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

It's still a fcuking really disgusting question to ask.
.

Jesus, now we can't even ask questions....

That is the question the the referendum is asking us by the way, and for a lot of people it the same type of questions based on their morals?

Can you understand that?

(And the reason I asked was directly to someone talking about someone on life support, so I don't see the difference???)

2wsxcde3

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

What woman, in their right fcuking mind, would want FGM?

Are you pro-choice for these women:

Why Some Women Choose to Get Circumcised
An anthropologist discusses some common misconceptions about female genital cutting, including the idea that men force women to undergo the procedure.
(Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...logist/389640/ )

Ali Selim said on Prime Time:

You can't control people, it's against the law to practice abortion but people just cross the border and come back.

Should we stop forcing women to travel abroad to get this procedure done? And allow them to have it performed here in Ireland under safe medical supervision. Pro-choicers should be looking to repeal the 2012 law that made FGM/Female Circumcision illegal here if they really believe a woman has the ultimate choice over her own body.

mrkiscool2

ForestFire wrote: »

Jesus, now we can't even ask questions....

That is the question the the referendum is asking us by the way, and for a lot of people it the same type of questions based on their morals?

Can you understand that?

(And the reason I asked was directly to someone talking about someone on life support, so I don't see the difference???)

No, you can ask questions. Never said you couldn't. And actually, originally, I thought you were asking should we in the sense should we make it law, which was fine. Again, I can find your question revolting but you have every right to ask it.

And no, the question isn't asking do we think it's okay to abandon one's sick child because it is sick. It is asking whether or not a woman should be allowed to choose whether they go through with 9 months of highly difficult pregnancy followed by (at minimum) 18 years of supporting that fetus once it's born (and becomes a child).

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Are you pro-choice for these women:

Why Some Women Choose to Get Circumcised
An anthropologist discusses some common misconceptions about female genital cutting, including the idea that men force women to undergo the procedure.
(Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...logist/389640/ )

Gonna give you the benefit of the doubt. The link doesn't work. You can repost and I'll read it and THEN answer you.

volchitsa

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Would you object to FGM being legalized in this country so? Some want it legalized. Or would you try to impose your viewpoints and morality on others by insisting it stay illegal.

But FGM is inflicted on people who have feelings and wishes and moreover will suffer the consequences throughout their whole life.

Even so, if it had to be done to a fetus to enable the woman to survive childbirth, we'd do it without a second thought - because the thinking, breathing woman takes priority over the fetus.

So the question isnt really about whether we'd copy other countries "just because", it's why we continue to deny human rights to women on the pretext that they can avail of them by travelling to other countries.

IMO that safety valve is the main reason the law hasnt been changed long ago.

2wsxcde3

Here is the link again:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/

Khazan: And where is the support for this practice coming from?

Shell-Duncan: ...But when you talk to people on the ground, you also hear people talking about the idea that it’s women’s business. As in, it’s for women to decide this. If we look at the data across Africa, the support for the practice is stronger among women than among men.

I don't believe people should just be able to choose whatever they want to do. These women in support of this practice are perpetuating the problem in my opinion. That's why i don't agree with their support if it.

mrkiscool2

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Here is the link again:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/

Khazan: And where is the support for this practice coming from?

Shell-Duncan: ...If we look at the data across Africa, the support for the practice is stronger among women than among men.

So....your evidence for women wanting to get FGM (or FGC, as they call it) is from cultures that have highly patriarchal societies that still, for the most part, view women as objects and breeders? Wow, much evidence, such persuasion! :rolleyes: