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

Demonique

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

But we seem to be seeing that pro-choice people don't believe that women who follow a religion or culture different from their own should have the choice to do whatever she wants with her own body.

WTF, in those cases its not a case of women making a choice about their bodies, its forced on them by their parents when they're children and they don't get a say in the matter.

Annasopra

applehunter wrote: »

You can be in favour of repeal and also question media bias and point out the sham that were the processes that got us to a referendum.

The CA "controversy" is nothing. It is a red herring by those scrambling around trying to keep the 8th

pitifulgod

applehunter wrote: »

You can be in favour of repeal and also question media bias and point out the sham that were the processes that got us to a referendum.

Except the citizens assembly issue wasn't related to the convention on the eight...

Zubeneschamali

uptherebels wrote: »

I would imagine most people don't care what affiliations a hospital has, only when those affiliations affect the medical care that is provided within them

These two things are not unconnected. Hospitals with a Catholic Ethos (i.e. most Irish hospitals) have a list of things they won't do, and often a priest on the ethics board to fire people who ignore the list.

Zubeneschamali

david75 wrote: »

It was obvious to all the CA was just the govt kicking the can down the road.

Kicking the can down the road would be giving the question to some body which would fudge and waste time and eventually come up with a report which would be buried in committees for a few years and eventually forgotten in the next election cycle. Dáil Eireann has been kicking the can down the road this way for 30 years.

The CA was the exact opposite - they finally gave the question to a group that considered the question in a reasonable time and came up with a concrete proposal for a referendum.

Now, you could argue that the Government were being cowardly, that they were hiding behind the CA, that they were using them for cover so that Fine Gael didn't own the decision and become the Abortion Party, but given the Dáil's abysmal handling of the issue over the last 30 years, I am OK with that.

Frank Bullitt

Cora Sherlocks meltdown over the Citizens Assembly is a good enough reason to have Twitter alone.

pilly

Gintonious wrote: »

Cora Sherlocks meltdown over the Citizens Assembly is a good enough reason to have Twitter alone.

I'm not on Twitter. Give us an idea of the rubbish she's coming out with.

baylah17

pilly wrote: »

I'm not on Twitter. Give us an idea of the rubbish she's coming out with.

I'm guessing it will boil down to "The people of Ireland are Pro the 8th and under no circumstances should they be allowed a referendum so that I can be proved wrong"

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The CA was the exact opposite - they finally gave the question to a group that considered the question in a reasonable time and came up with a concrete proposal for a referendum.

Now, you could argue that the Government were being cowardly, that they were hiding behind the CA, that they were using them for cover so that Fine Gael didn't own the decision and become the Abortion Party, but given the Dáil's abysmal handling of the issue over the last 30 years, I am OK with that.

The more I think about it, the more I think it was actually a stroke of genius.

If the Fine Gael government had just gone ahead and put the referendum up, it would be a totally different debate. Sinn Fein would be highly critical of the wording, claiming it's not good enough, that FG are still kneeling in front of the Pope. The parties who oppose everything would oppose it, just because FG put it forward and FF would begrudgingly allow the bill to pass, but would campaign against the referendum.

By creating a non-partisan citizen's body to bring the suggestions forward, party politics has been surgically removed from the debate. None of the parties are pointing fingers or opposing it on partisan grounds; they're having relatively honest discussions about the merits of the referendum itself.

This is now a referendum arising from effectively a citizen's initiative. It's not a potential notch in the bedpost of a political party or a party crumbling under pressure from fringe interests.

I think this is part of the reason why Iona are so worried. They can't use the "bleedin' Government" sentiment to attack the referendum. They can't claim that nobody asked for it. They can't claim that anyone was bullied into holding it.

All of the usual tricks they usually pull to attack issues on irrelevant matters, have been taken from them. They have to face the issue down using "de poor baybees" and "Jaysus is watching" narratives. And they know these narratives are tired and don't resonate with modern voters.

applehunter

Oh how you wish it were true seamus.

David Quinn, Breda O'Brien, Marian Steen et al are stars of the Irish media.

They won't shrink from their positions like some of our politicians and have the courage of their convictions.

realitykeeper

JupiterKid wrote: »

The rank homophobia and general backwardness of your post is really something else... I suppose you would criminalize all sex outside of heterosexual marriage?

I understand why my post might annoy people who do not agree with me but there was nothing homophobic about it. On matters of morality, I believe a God fearing society and not the law should be the driving force. The laws of man ought to deal with crimes not involving consenting adults.

Annasopra

applehunter wrote: »

Oh how you wish it were true seamus.

David Quinn, Breda O'Brien, Marian Steen et al are stars of the Irish media.

They won't shrink from their positions like some of our politicians and have the courage of their convictions.

Quinn, O'Brien and Steen are certainly well connected and high profile. Stars though? It wouldnt be how I would describe them at all. Petulant religious ideologues out of touch with modern Ireland. Thats what they are.

frag420

realitykeeper wrote: »

I understand why my post might annoy people who do not agree with me but there was nothing homophobic about it. On matters of morality, I believe a God fearing society and not the law should be the driving force. The laws of man ought to deal with crimes not involving consenting adults.

What’s to fear in a god who doesn’t have the balls to stop a school shooting in Florida, who won’t stop adults raping kids, who won’t stop genocide, mass murder or even abortion! Your god has the driving force of a fart...

Your god should be ashamed for his lack of action and that is why man had to step in and make laws because your god is too much of a pussy to do it!

As for consenting adults, while you’re at mass this morning I’m still in bed with a woman I didn’t even know 8 hours ago and she and I have consented to stay here at least until midday doing things that would make you blush...

Edward M

frag420 wrote: »

What’s to fear in a god who doesn’t have the balls to stop a school shooting in Florida, who won’t stop adults raping kids, who won’t stop genocide, mass order or even abortion! Your god has the driving force of a fart...

Your god should be ashamed for his lack of action and that is why man had to step in and make laws because your god is too much of a pussy to do it!

As for consenting adults, while you’re at mass this morning I’m still in bed with a woman I didn’t even know 8 hours ago and she and I have consented to stay here at least midday doing things that would make you blush...

Don't skip breakfast, its the most important meal of the day.:)

frag420

Edward M wrote: »

Don't skip breakfast, its the most important meal of the day.:)

Don’t worry, il be eating!

amdublin

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Quinn, O'Brien and Steen are certainly well connected and high profile. Stars though? It wouldnt be how I would describe them at all. Petulant religious ideologues out of touch with modern Ireland. Thats what they are.

Breda O'Brienosaur as I like to call her. Ok a bit immature I know.

But seriously she reminds me of teachers from my youth. My brainwashed youth where as teens we had talks from god knows who on protecting little babies and who passed out little propaganda pins of babies feet at X weeks.

I was 15 then. I didn't know better. I'm an adult now. In an ideal world there would be no abortion and that would be great. but in real life there are circumstances where pregnancy is not the right option for a woman, a man, a family, a couple. And that's ok too.

Edward M

amdublin wrote: »

Breda O'Brienosaur as I like to call her. Ok a bit immature I know.

But seriously she reminds me of teachers from my youth. My brainwashed youth where as teens we had talks from god knows who on protecting little babies and who passed out little propaganda pins of babies feet at X weeks.

I was 15 then. I didn't know better. I'm an adult now. In an ideal world there would be no abortion and that would be great. but in real life there are circumstances where pregnancy is not the right option for a woman, a man, a family, a couple. And that's ok too.

All that's a fine post, but its the ideal.
According to most posts I've read, its the woman's choice, the man, the family, even the couple don't count.
If a man fcuks off, he's a toe rag. If a man or the family, dont want the woman to abort, they are putting pressure on her!
Like should the woman have to have the baby if her nearest and dearest don't want her to abort?

kylith

realitykeeper wrote: »

I understand why my post might annoy people who do not agree with me but there was nothing homophobic about it. On matters of morality, I believe a God fearing society and not the law should be the driving force. The laws of man ought to deal with crimes not involving consenting adults.

we’ll just re-legalise marital rape, slavery, and wife beating, shall we?

The bible is one of the worst sources of morality one could think of.

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

On matters of morality, I believe a God fearing society and not the law should be the driving force. The laws of man ought to deal with crimes not involving consenting adults.

Until such time as someone bothers to come up with a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that a god even exists, I am not sure fearing it should be the basis of anything. Least of all our moral discourse. Not to mention it gives those of us who see no reason to think one exists an advantage, as our not fearing it gives us more intellectual and manipulative freedom to move over people who do. Which would allow us to control them were we compelled to. I do not want to live in a society where I have that potential ability, even if I never intend to use it.

Because without an actual god that exists, all that such moral discourse amounts to is people failing to argue their own moral position...... defaulting to the intellectually bankrupt approach of rubber stamping their own opinions with the backing of an imaginary agent they can threaten your soul with. You back your opinions up with a god for one reason and one reason only..... you can not do so with reason and intellect and discourse.

If you lock Andrew Sullivan and Bill OReily in a room together.......... both of them devout Catholics........... they will not even be able to agree on their (allegedly) shared god's opinion on homosexuality.

That you personal have a hatred or phobia of sex is your issue. Calling it "sin" is, as I said, just the default move of someone who can not argue their moral position and so appeals to their imaginary backing to do so instead.

So what the laws of man should be in the business of doing is enshrining and enforcing the results of our intellectual, moral, philosophical and ethical discourse as a society and as a species. And ALL completely unsubstantiated nonsense, including the nonsense that a god exists, should be precluded from that conversation until such time as you people get off your behinds and show such an entity is even there in the first place.

This you will not do. This, I suspect, you can not do. I doubt you have/will even try.

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

All that's a fine post, but its the ideal.
According to most posts I've read, its the woman's choice, the man, the family, even the couple don't count.
If a man fcuks off, he's a toe rag. If a man or the family, dont want the woman to abort, they are putting pressure on her!
Like should the woman have to have the baby if her nearest and dearest don't want her to abort?

Her nearest and dearest can certainly express their views but ultimately it's the decision of the woman.

And I say that as a person who was once in the position where my son's ex girlfriend was pregnant and abortion was one of the options discussed, along with me raising the resulting child, her having the resulting child etc. I even offered to pay for her abortion if that was her decision. And I'll not lie - that was hard because I wanted her to give birth to my grandchild. My son wanted her to give birth to his child.

She decided to have the child. That now tweenager is the light of my life. But it was never my decision. It was never my son's decision - and that was his expressed view.

Ultimately only one person could choose and the rest of us abide by that decision regardless of how we felt about it.

kylith

Edward M wrote: »

All that's a fine post, but its the ideal.
According to most posts I've read, its the woman's choice, the man, the family, even the couple don't count.
If a man fcuks off, he's a toe rag. If a man or the family, dont want the woman to abort, they are putting pressure on her!
Like should the woman have to have the baby if her nearest and dearest don't want her to abort?

She is the one who has to go through the pregnancy, labour, and birth; so she is the one who gets the final say.

Edward M

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Her nearest and dearest can certainly express their views but ultimately it's the decision of the woman.

And I say that as a person who was once in the position where my son's ex girlfriend was pregnant and abortion was one of the options discussed, along with me raising the resulting child, her having the resulting child etc. I even offered to pay for her abortion if that was her decision. And I'll not lie - that was hard because I wanted her to give birth to my grandchild. My son wanted her to give birth to his child.

She decided to have the child. That now tweenager is the light of my life. But it was never my decision. It was never my son's decision - and that was his expressed view.

Ultimately only one person could choose and the rest of us abide by that decision regardless of how we felt about it.

Well ultimately that was my point.
But regardless of how you put it, you coerced the young woman in to her decision.
If you had said you wanted nothing to do with it and your son had said the same, how do you think she would have reacted?
How do you think your son would have reacted if she had aborted?
Its all well and good that all turned out fine for you all, and I'm really delighted to hear such a story and am really glad for you all.
But ultimately a light in your life could easily have been erased without a whimper too.
I'd say that would be a good pro life story as well.

Edward M

kylith wrote: »

She is the one who has to go through the pregnancy, labour, and birth; so she is the one who gets the final say.

I know, but that's not what was implied in the other post.
Not being misogynistic, but the man not wanting to have a child is irrelevant, it seems he has no choice either way, abide by the woman's decision or he is viewed as a toe rag, one way or the other?

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

Well ultimately that was my point.
But regardless of how you put it, you coerced the young woman in to her decision.
If you had said you wanted nothing to do with it and your son had said the same, how do you think she would have reacted?
How do you think your son would have reacted if she had aborted?
Its all well and good that all turned out fine for you all, and I'm really delighted to hear such a story and am really glad for you all.
But ultimately a light in your life could easily have been erased without a whimper too.
I'd say that would be a good pro life story as well.

You are reading things into my post that I did not say.

No pressure was put on her. We sat down - as adults - and discussed her options. We showed her she had choices.
1. If you do not want to be pregnant we will arrange an abortion. Don't worry about the cost.
2. If you do not want an abortion but don't feel ready to raise a child don't worry.
3. If you want to continue with the pregnancy know that we are here for you every step of the way.

In what possible universe is that coercion???

I don't know what would have happened if we had said we wanted nothing to do with 'it' as in no possible universe would that have happened. Some people might do that. I am not one of those people and I am proud to say neither is my son.

IF she had decided to have an abortion he would have travelled with her and been there. Respecting her decision. Is this so hard to understand? It's called respect. It's part and parcel of being pro-choice.

If she had decided to abort what was then a non-sentient fetus there would not have been a child. It's as simple as that. That sentient person would never have existed for me to miss. I would not have a granddaughter in the same way as I do not have a brother/sister who is 4 years older than me as my mother miscarried.

Edward M

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are reading things into my post that I did not say.

No pressure was put on her. We sat down - as adults - and discussed her options. We showed her she had choices.
1. If you do not want to be pregnant we will arrange an abortion. Don't worry about the cost.
2. If you do not want an abortion but don't feel ready to raise a child don't worry.
3. If you want to continue with the pregnancy know that we are here for you every step of the way.

In what possible universe is that coercion???

I don't know what would have happened if we had said we wanted nothing to do with 'it' as in no possible universe would that have happened. Some people might do that. I am not one of those people and I am proud to say neither is my son.

IF she had decided to have an abortion he would have travelled with her and been there. Respecting her decision. Is this so hard to understand? It's called respect. It's part and parcel of being pro-choice.

If she had decided to abort what was then a non-sentient fetus there would not have been a child. It's as simple as that. That sentient person would never have existed for me to miss. I would not have a granddaughter in the same way as I do not have a brother/sister who is 4 years older than me as my mother miscarried.

OK, coercion might be a bit strong, but you did make an intervention.
Why not just say to her, look, go off and make your decision on whether you want the baby or not, then come back when you have your mind made up and we will support you either way.
By offering her the help you did before she made her choice, I would regard that as at least subtle coercion.
I know you will disagree, but that's the way I see your post.

Just a quick edit, to ask a question.
Why didn't you tell her, in true pro choice wording, its none of my business really?

nozzferrahhtoo

What you call coercion I call friendship and family. The dynamic that when anyone hits a bump in their life, that you should isolate them until such time as they make decisions for themselves is a heartless and horrific one and you can keep it. I for one will NEVER act like that to people close tome. I will ALWAYS be there to discuss their decisions with them, inform them of choices they might not know, or implications they might not have considered in the choices they DID know.

Telling someone "Go off and decide for yourself" just because I am afraid my input might coerce them is a nonsense to me, and a horrific way to treat someone in a time of turmoil or need. I, for better or worse, HAVE a heart.

Edward M

I fully appreciate the sentiments in Banasidhes posts. They are exactly the same feelings I might have myselif in her situation.
But they are not the feelings being put across by most pro choice posters and posts, that's my point.
Mostly I have read, its no ones business, its between the woman and her doctor, its the woman's choice.
If I believed that, I would say to someone who asked me, its none of my business, make your decision and then I'll support that decision.
Offering a sweetener counts as subtle coercion IMO.

Bannasidhe

Edward M wrote: »

OK, coercion might be a bit strong, but you did make an intervention.
Why not just say to her, look, go off and make your decision on whether you want the baby or not, then come back when you have your mind made up and we will support you either way.
By offering her the help you did before she made her choice, I would regard that as at least subtle coercion.
I know you will disagree, but that's the way I see your post.

Having a mature discussion with a young woman who has recently discovered her contraception failed and she is pregnant is stretching the definition of 'intervention'. I don't know about you, but in my world that is called being both supportive and an adult.

Generally I find when a person finds themselves in a bit of a crises situation -
which tends to cloud the mind - and they come to you for advice saying 'go off and make your decision' without also making it very clear what choices/options are available and regardless of their decision you will be there is not being supportive. It's piling more pressure on someone who is already under stress. You might do that to a person. I wouldn't.

You are talking like we were all there when she pee'd on a pregnancy test, whipped it out of her hand before she saw the results and said 'right young lady - these are your options! Choose NOW!'

She found out she was pregnant. She told my son. A few days later I was told.
Options were discussed. She had as much time as she needed to decide having heard her options. It was made abundantly clear she had choices and her decision was both final and would be respected. Any help she needed following on from her decision would be freely given. She took some days to consider her options. She made her decision.

Do stop extrapolating to make some point or other.

Ismisejack

Pro choice yee call yeerselfs?? The ultimate choice is the choice one has over whether they life or die and by aborting a baby ur denying it it’s choice as to whether it can live or not, surely if yee were about choice yee wouldn’t deny a baby the choice of whether it lives or is murdered. Abortion Denys a child it’s only life, abortion is murder. If an abortion doesn’t take place a child has a life whereas abortion takes that child’s life, it’s only life. Yee talk about the woman having the child but that isn’t a matter of life or death, unlike in the babies case

Edward M

The good argument is always to tell the other party to stop.
Fair enough, I've made my point.