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

applehunter

The unborn has no fundamental rights under the Constitution other than the right to life, lawyers for the State have told the Supreme Court.

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0221/942294-rights-of-the-unborn/

Zubeneschamali

JDD wrote: »

I wager a 25 year old in 1983, who would be 60 now, probably believes "young people" these days are taking too many risks sexually and probably have a different view on unrestricted terminations than they may have done in their youth.

The 8th referendum was my first chance to vote after turning 18. I voted against it then and I'll vote against it now.

Two similarly minded ladies:

DK_0w1NW0AAs88E.jpg:large

Charmeleon

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well....
“The moment sentience and consciousness comes on line, the moment the fetus therefore has become an actual member of what I believe the set "humanity" actually means...... then I afford it all the love, respect, and moral and ethical concern I would afford to YOU or even to MYSELF or my own children.

Consciousness and Sentience (the core attributes of what it means to be Humanity really) are paramount to me and I am not degrading it at all, but being SPECIFIC about it. And when an entity lacks those things, it is not morally or ethically important to me. At all.”

.......

This post has been deleted.

Charmeleon

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Some of the Pro-choice positions and arguments are bad though, just like some pro-life arguments and positions are bad, unless you are claiming moral infallibility?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Charmeleon

amdublin wrote: »

I have seen a few posters in this thread: "I shall be voting for repeal but in the meantime here's a big load of comments and arguments which actually look like I'm on the pro life anti repeal side"

What is that about???

Are they genuine??
Or is this a pro life / Iona type online strategic tactic?

It doesn't feel genuine. Something rings off with some posts.

The computer says no?

It’s a genuine, moderate position, between the hardliner, extreme positions that the foetus has a ‘soul’ and killing it is not justified in any circumstances and the equally extreme position that the unborn are not worthy of any consideration or protection.

I know it seems weird and fake when you hear opinions that don’t match with either of the extreme ideologies but I would think it applies to the majority of people out there. If the extreme positions were correct then it’s either a 50/50 decision on which life to save in an emergency or, there is no moral difference in having three abortions per year as compared with three tooth extractions per year. I don’t think the majority of people agree with either of these extremes. They don’t have a place in the debate trenches though, because ‘if you’re not repeating scripture, you’re just evil’.

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

However, what youngsters fail to understand is that older people lived through an ultra-orthodox Ireland as well as an Ireland of non stop Catholic bashing. In short, we have seen the full movie whereas the youngsters missed the first half. You guys were presented with one paradigm, older people have seen both the former and the latter. We can make an informed choice. Let he who has understanding count the number of the beast. The Devil seeks to confuse, you see. It is the lack of understanding that enables evil to thrive.

A nice long post which in NO WAY actually replies to anything I just wrote. I am also not sure how old you THINK I am or what relevance my age actually has. But Wibbs is not the only one around here who remembers Basil Brush

I do not care what you lived, or think you lived, through to be honest. The argument from authority fallacy is bad enough without then making that authority yourself. The fact remains you EITHER have arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer for a claim...... or you don't. And in this context it appears you don't. Simple as.

Moaning about who is "bashing" who (even as now you are only imagining that bashing) is not going to change that fact, or deflect people from noticing it. And I repeat: If you want to build a moral system based on fear of your god.... then the first step is to substantiate that that god even exists in the first place.

Until such time as you can do that (as if) then perhaps we should discuss our moral systems, and more relevant to this thread the ethics and morality of abortion, without aspects of your imagination clouding the discourse? Your imaginary friend is no more relevant to the world of morality than my son's.

pilly

amdublin wrote:

Are they genuine?? Or is this a pro life / Iona type online strategic tactic?

It's looking more and more like a tactic to me. Not one that's going to work though. Quite silly really.

.......

This post has been deleted.

amdublin

I have seen a few posters in this thread: "I shall be voting for repeal but in the meantime here's a big load of comments and arguments which actually look like I'm on the pro life anti repeal side"

What is that about???

Are they genuine??
Or is this a pro life / Iona type online strategic tactic?

It doesn't feel genuine. Something rings off with some posts.

nozzferrahhtoo

Charmeleon wrote: »

How many times has this rationalisation been repeated to excuse atrocities I wonder. It doesn't bother me, therefore it must be morally justified.

You will have to take it up with someone who's position actually is "It doesn't bother me therefore it must be justified" then, as that does not describe me or my position at all.

Rather my position is based on explaining exactly what does and does not bother me, why, on what basis, and in what contexts. And having done that taking those conclusions to other areas (of which abortion of the fetus is only one of many many many) and applying them.

I have no idea what other atrocities you refer to, but you could give an example and test it to see if I am consistent in my views. In fact, I assumed that was what you WERE doing when asking me about "harvesting their organs" for example. And I think you will find I was indeed consistent in my views.

But I fail to see which atrocities, either past ones that have happened, or future ones you imagining happening, that you think might result from my approach to a sentience bases moral and ethical system. If you find one let me know, I would relish the challange to my ideals.

.......

This post has been deleted.

david75

So we’re actually not having a referendum on what people get up to in the bedroom right? Cos that’s nobody else’s business regardless of their age.
Right?

JDD

bubblypop wrote: »

You are forgetting that the 'older' voters you are talking about, those 50 years or over, were once campaigning against this amendment.
They were the 20 & 30 somethings of the 1980s, and they have waited a very long time for this referendum.

True. But people do tend to get more conservative as they get older. I wager a 25 year old in 1983, who would be 60 now, probably believes "young people" these days are taking too many risks sexually and probably have a different view on unrestricted terminations than they may have done in their youth.

TomSweeney

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If i look at that hashtag on twitter all i see are posts from iona-lite accounts.

OK I could be mistaken, I thought there was some handy list that would block all these twitter trolls ...

[Deleted User]

You are forgetting that the 'older' voters you are talking about, those 50 years or over, were once campaigning against this amendment.
They were the 20 & 30 somethings of the 1980s, and they have waited a very long time for this referendum.

JDD

I do sort of get what Tony Montana is saying. When campaigning for any sort of legislative change, you should make some effort to understand the reasons why someone might vote against your views. How else are you to persuade them to vote differently? And surely that is the point of a campaign - the people who will vote with you are already there. A campaign is to try and convince those that oppose your views to change their mind. Now, you're never going to change the mind of someone who is Iona Institute or Opus Dei (or both). But by calmly arguing against them, especially on a forum like this, you may convince a lurker or others to your views.

I agree that the cohort of college/early twenties women are the most vocal group of campaigners, and I agree that is for good reason. But like any young adult you would have a tendency to look at older generations and think "they're out of touch, they're dinosaurs, there's no convincing them, we just need to shout loud enough and we'll get the change we want". The pro-life campaigners will focus on that and use it to their advantage, so that older voters will feel like they're not being listened to.

volchitsa

tonymontanavu wrote: »

No

So I dont know what you were saying then.
Some people want Repeal because they support a right to choose for abortion, others agree to having abortion for choice because it seems to be the only long term solution to solve the problem of the 8th amendment which harms women.

Coming on here and dictating what other people "should" say is suggesting that people arent being upfront about their opinons It is a bit weird for a "new" poster TBH.

tonymontanavu

volchitsa wrote: »

Are you saying this is the only, or the "real" reason people want repeal of the 8th?

If so, I think you are mistakenly trying to mindread, because there are other very good reasons for wanting the8th gone.

ohnonotgmail

TomSweeney wrote: »

It's a start, its handy on twitter for blocking all the shyte these people send to you

If i look at that hashtag on twitter all i see are posts from iona-lite accounts.

volchitsa

tonymontanavu wrote: »

I said that if you choose to have sex you can become pregnant. If you become pregnant you would like the choice to end it. I think people should state that clearly - that's it. I didn't suggest any conditions to that decision bar the 12 weeks

Are you saying this is the only, or the "real" reason people want repeal of the 8th?

If so, I think you are mistakenly trying to mindread, because there are other very good reasons for wanting the8th gone.

TomSweeney

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what an excellent argument.

It's a start, its handy on twitter for blocking all the shyte these people send to you

.......

This post has been deleted.

pilly

So the new pro life tactic is to pretend to be pro choice and throw a load of straw men out there.

How clever. :rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

applehunter wrote: »

#repealshield.

what an excellent argument.

applehunter

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we have heard all the opposing positions ad nauseum. They have nothing to offer. Is it any wonder that young people reject them?

#repealshield.

ohnonotgmail

tonymontanavu wrote: »

That's called a debate which is what this is. I complained about both sides but pointed out one side who are probably most militant because of their close investment to the outcome as you point out (and therefore more close minded to opposing positions).

Bringing my hatred of women into it without any background is another thing I can't stand and is an incredibly condescending argument in my opinion.

we have heard all the opposing positions ad nauseum. They have nothing to offer. Is it any wonder that young people reject them?

tonymontanavu

WhiteRoses wrote: »

And what you might consider questionable, another might consider to be reasonable and agreeable, so no, they don’t have to justify their opinions to each and every member of society.

Did you miss the part earlier where I pointed out that this age group is amongst the most passionate because the outcome of the referendum directly affects them, as the next generation of pregnant women and mothers?

This referendum will have no direct affects on the religious over 50’s, except for maybe some hurt feelings if it doesn’t go their way.
Yet out of the two groups you picked the young women to complain about, when the referendum directly affects them.
This alone speaks volumes.
Whether you intended to or not, it comes across as a bit mysogenic and condescending towards women. As if their opinion is less valuable and is plain annoying purely because of their age.

That's called a debate which is what this is. I complained about both sides but pointed out one side who are probably most militant because of their close investment to the outcome as you point out (and therefore more close minded to opposing positions).

Bringing my hatred of women into it without any background is another thing I can't stand and is an incredibly condescending argument in my opinion.

tonymontanavu

....... wrote: »

You stated that if a woman took precautions then needed an abortion then that was ok.

I think if a woman needs an abortion under any circumstances its ok. She is not required to be taking precautions to qualify for it.

I said that if you choose to have sex you can become pregnant. If you become pregnant you would like the choice to end it. I think people should state that clearly - that's it. I didn't suggest any conditions to that decision bar the 12 weeks