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

nozzferrahhtoo

Ismisejack wrote: »

You are indeed anti life as you propose terminating the life of another innocent human being. If you left all alone a life is born however if you intervene with a surgical knife or whatever it results in a child not getting it’s one chance at life, as you’ve killed it. You can’t deny it, abortion ends life, fact

Wow so much wrong in such a short paragraph. Lets go through it in order.

Firstly as expected you did not answer the questions and discussion points in my last paragraph.

Second I am not proposing terminating anyone or anything. I would much prefer to live in a society with ZERO abortions. But I believe women should have the choice themselves.

Third we terminate life all the time. You did it last time you ate. The last time you used paper. The last time you treated an infection. We terminate life ALL THE TIME. So if you want to argue one termination of a life is worse than another, you need more substance to your (non)argument there.

Fourth, with the proposed terminations up to 12 weeks surgical knives will likely have nothing to do with anything. Ever after 12 weeks however you might want to educate yourself on the equipment used.

Fifth if you leave it alone MAYBE a life is born. You can not say it would be. Do you know what the statistics even are on miscarriage in the first 12 weeks? Nature aborts fetuses left alone quite remarkably often you know.

Sixth no one here that I have seen has EVER denied that abortion terminates life. So you are rebutting claims no one here is actually making. What people are claiming is that "Human Life" is a phrase that has other meanings outside mere biological taxonomy. And those meanings, especially the ones that influence our moral and ethical concerns, are precisely the things the fetus at 12 weeks lacks. Not just partially or slightly lacks. But ENTIRELY lacks.

But if you want to NOT dodge my challenges this time I am happy to repeat it..... Drop the ad hominem rhetorical tools of misrepresentation and tell us on what basis, other than an appeal to mere taxonomy, you think we should have any moral and ethical concerns for a 12 week old fetus.

Or is shouting "Human" at it pretty much the sole argument you have to offer here? That and "intolerant" when people do not simply roll over and agree with you of course.

pleas advice

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...
But by all means try. Drop the ad hominem rhetorical tools of misrepresentation and tell us on what basis, other than an appeal to mere taxonomy, you think we should have any moral and ethical concerns for a 12 week old fetus. "You can not have abortion without killing life" tells us nothing. You can not take an anti-biotic, eat pretty much any meal, write on paper, or many other things without "killing life" either. Clearly there is more than merely "killing life" in play in our morality and ethics therefore. And I would be curious to see if you even know what that something is.

you're pretty much begging the question there, Nozz....

taxonomy is the answer to your question, plain and simple

eviltwin

Ismisejack wrote: »

You are indeed anti life as you propose terminating the life of another innocent human being. If you left all alone a life is born however if you intervene with a surgical knife or whatever it results in a child not getting it’s one chance at life, as you’ve killed it. You can’t deny it, abortion ends life, fact

WE KNOW :rolleyes:

Ismisejack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Oh good another user who does not actually understand the word murder. It means to kill unlawfully. In a context where abortion is legal, no one is killing anything unlawfully. So the word murder does not apply.

But it seems your mis-use of language is manifold, and not limited to not knowing what murder is. Calling people "anti life" and "anti children" is so blatant a plunge into linguistic propaganda and misrepresentation that you you excel everyone on the thread so far at both.

As far as I know EVERY person on BOTH sides of this issue value the sanctity and preciousness of human life. Acknowledgement of that likely goes against your agenda so you will not do that.

The difference between the sides lies solely in WHEN we think an entity attains that "human life". No mere biological life, but that level of "Life" that is more than mere taxonomy. That moment that elevates us (at least in our own human estimation) over all other life on this planet.

Some people think that is at conception. Some when the heart starts beating. Some later. Some earlier even thinking the sperm itself is sacred and contraception and masturbation are "sinful" or wrong.

The difference is of course that some of us can explain and argue where we think that line lies and why. Some other merely assert it or scream it or misuse terms to attack people they do not agree with as you have here.

But by all means try. Drop the ad hominem rhetorical tools of misrepresentation and tell us on what basis, other than an appeal to mere taxonomy, you think we should have any moral and ethical concerns for a 12 week old fetus. "You can not have abortion without killing life" tells us nothing. You can not take an anti-biotic, eat pretty much any meal, write on paper, or many other things without "killing life" either. Clearly there is more than merely "killing life" in play in our morality and ethics therefore. And I would be curious to see if you even know what that something is.

You are indeed anti life as you propose terminating the life of another innocent human being. If you left all alone a life is born however if you intervene with a surgical knife or whatever it results in a child not getting it’s one chance at life, as you’ve killed it. You can’t deny it, abortion ends life, fact

eviltwin

Ismisejack wrote: »

The propaganda sprouted at the recent pro-abortion/ anti-life/ anti-children/pro-murder demonstration avoided any mention the unborn child, as that suited them. They are still in denial regards abortion being murder, it is murder that’s a fact you can’t have abortion without killing life

That kind of hysterical nonsense doesn't endear you to most reasonable people, it's also completely irrelevant. Everyone knows what an abortion is, if people are going to vote to repeal that rubbish won't change their mind.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ismisejack wrote: »

The propaganda sprouted at the recent pro-abortion/ anti-life/ anti-children/pro-murder demonstration avoided any mention the unborn child, as that suited them. They are still in denial regards abortion being murder, it is murder that’s a fact you can’t have abortion without killing life

Oh good another user who does not actually understand the word murder. It means to kill unlawfully. In a context where abortion is legal, no one is killing anything unlawfully. So the word murder does not apply.

But it seems your mis-use of language is manifold, and not limited to not knowing what murder is. Calling people "anti life" and "anti children" is so blatant a plunge into linguistic propaganda and misrepresentation that you you excel everyone on the thread so far at both.

As far as I know EVERY person on BOTH sides of this issue value the sanctity and preciousness of human life. Acknowledgement of that likely goes against your agenda so you will not do that.

The difference between the sides lies solely in WHEN we think an entity attains that "human life". No mere biological life, but that level of "Life" that is more than mere taxonomy. That moment that elevates us (at least in our own human estimation) over all other life on this planet.

Some people think that is at conception. Some when the heart starts beating. Some later. Some earlier even thinking the sperm itself is sacred and contraception and masturbation are "sinful" or wrong.

The difference is of course that some of us can explain and argue where we think that line lies and why. Some other merely assert it or scream it or misuse terms to attack people they do not agree with as you have here.

But by all means try. Drop the ad hominem rhetorical tools of misrepresentation and tell us on what basis, other than an appeal to mere taxonomy, you think we should have any moral and ethical concerns for a 12 week old fetus. "You can not have abortion without killing life" tells us nothing. You can not take an anti-biotic, eat pretty much any meal, write on paper, or many other things without "killing life" either. Clearly there is more than merely "killing life" in play in our morality and ethics therefore. And I would be curious to see if you even know what that something is.

eviltwin

pleas advice wrote: »

doesn't sound like there were that many people there

any other estimates of numbers? i saw three to five thousand mentioned on reddit

what does it matter how many people there are? I think marches are moot. The original repeal March was to show support for a referendum which we now have. The March for life was to show there was no public support for a referendum, well that didn't happen.

Either way I don't see a March as being a way to sway voters, they only attract those who support the message in the first place.

So we can have a petty "my march was bigger than your march" bunfight but it's immature and silly given how the only thing that matters is May.

Ismisejack

The propaganda sprouted at the recent pro-abortion/ anti-life/ anti-children/pro-murder demonstration avoided any mention the unborn child, as that suited them. They are still in denial regards abortion being murder, it is murder that’s a fact you can’t have abortion without killing life

david75

pleas advice wrote: »

doesn't sound like there were that many people there

any other estimates of numbers? i saw three to five thousand mentioned on reddit

That was me said 10. It wasn’t but it looked like that the amount of people rubber necking and milling around walking on the road cos they could and given the time of day. Somewhere around 4-5 more likely.

average_runner

Laneyh wrote: »

Not really that much disruption some buses along O'Connell St and Eden Quay might have needed to be rerouted but other than that other modes of transport were running.

I can't imagine there would be too many parents driving via O'Connell St - Custom House Quay to collect kids from creche or sports activities.
Considering the volume of people traffic and transport was back on track quite quickly

A Lot of buses use that route. Wife got home at 730 instead of 630 and I was later as had to go to in-laws first on the bus.

I don't mind people trying to get their point across but show respect to others that might actually be on your side.

pleas advice

doesn't sound like there were that many people there

January wrote: »

david75 wrote: »

Amazing turn out .... Gotta be up around 10k

Unfortunately the anti choice side will horribly inflate their numbers on Saturday ...

any other estimates of numbers? i saw three to five thousand mentioned on reddit

NuMarvel

Laneyh wrote: »

Not really that much disruption some buses along O'Connell St and Eden Quay might have needed to be rerouted but other than that other modes of transport were running.

I can't imagine there would be too many parents driving via O'Connell St - Custom House Quay to collect kids from creche or sports activities.
Considering the volume of people traffic and transport was back on track quite quickly

And that's saying something considering what the LUAS extension has done to travel times in that area.

Laneyh

JDD wrote: »

I don't think a point of a march is to actually dent support for the reason you're marching. And so it follows that the fact that support for repeal hasn't dropped because you held the march during rush hour isn't exactly something to be shouted from the rooftops. And of course there are more people coming out in support for pro-choice marches with the referendum so close. Somebody in the organizing bodies should have anticipated that, thought about the increased level of inconvenience, considered whether a bigger impact would have been made with a weekend march, and made their decision accordingly. Perhaps they did. I believe they made the wrong one. It's not a fatal mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

I think they wanted to do something on the 8th for International Women's day.
There were multiple events around the country yesterday

Having a counter march at the same time as the pro-life march would be a definite mistake. It would descend into shouting matches and be fairly ugly.
The pro-life campaign will have one national event and bus people in

I'm sure a pro-choice weekend march will arranged in advance of the referendum.

david75

As if anyone is going to let this sway their vote and stay annoyed about it enough to remember it in May.

Laneyh

average_runner wrote: »

Whoever allowed the march to go through rush hour should lose their job.

I don't care which side it was, but please have marches at a time that won't affect
people trying to get to creches and kids sports.

Not really that much disruption some buses along O'Connell St and Eden Quay might have needed to be rerouted but other than that other modes of transport were running.

I can't imagine there would be too many parents driving via O'Connell St - Custom House Quay to collect kids from creche or sports activities.
Considering the volume of people traffic and transport was back on track quite quickly

JDD

I don't think a point of a march is to actually dent support for the reason you're marching. And so it follows that the fact that support for repeal hasn't dropped because you held the march during rush hour isn't exactly something to be shouted from the rooftops. And of course there are more people coming out in support for pro-choice marches with the referendum so close. Somebody in the organizing bodies should have anticipated that, thought about the increased level of inconvenience, considered whether a bigger impact would have been made with a weekend march, and made their decision accordingly. Perhaps they did. I believe they made the wrong one. It's not a fatal mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

NuMarvel

average_runner wrote: »

Whoever allowed the march to go through rush hour should lose their job.

I don't care which side it was, but please have marches at a time that won't affect
people trying to get to creches and kids sports.

JDD wrote: »

I have to agree with Average Runner January. It was a bad tactics to do it at rush hour. I see the reason for it in a strike - you inconvenience people to a point where pressure is put on an employer to resolve an issue, but that's not the right tactic to win over votes. It would have been better to organize a march on a Saturday when more people (of my age, who do have to get home to creches and sports) could have attended.

To get someone to empathise with a cancer sufferer you don't have to give them a dose of chemotherapy.

This is the second or third march to be held on International Women's Day and none of the previous marches have dented public support for repeal. If yesterday's march caused more inconvenience than normal, it's probably a sign of how much more support the cause has now.

eviltwin

January wrote: »

Isn't it terrible people were inconvenienced like that... It's exactly why it was done at that time. To highlight how hard it is for women to travel to England.

yeah but a lot of those people would be pro repeal anyway. I don't think it's going to make anyone change their vote either way regardless. I just wish it had been on a weekend because I couldn't attend yesterday. It was a bad day and time imo. There is a March for Life at the weekend, I think it's a pity the Repeal side didn't do similar.

JDD

I have to agree with Average Runner January. It was a bad tactics to do it at rush hour. I see the reason for it in a strike - you inconvenience people to a point where pressure is put on an employer to resolve an issue, but that's not the right tactic to win over votes. It would have been better to organize a march on a Saturday when more people (of my age, who do have to get home to creches and sports) could have attended.

To get someone to empathise with a cancer sufferer you don't have to give them a dose of chemotherapy.

January

average_runner wrote: »

Whoever allowed the march to go through rush hour should lose their job.

I don't care which side it was, but please have marches at a time that won't affect
people trying to get to creches and kids sports.

Isn't it terrible people were inconvenienced like that... It's exactly why it was done at that time. To highlight how hard it is for women to travel to England.

david75

THis was the guy handing out the placards in question. What a goon. And yes that is a make America great again hat he is wearing at the irexit thing a few weeks back

https://twitter.com/nursepollyrgn/status/972090906223562752?s=21

.......

This post has been deleted.

PopePalpatine

I'm surprised McGuirk would mention neo-Nazis rather than his comrades' new favourite bogeymen.

average_runner

Whoever allowed the march to go through rush hour should lose their job.

I don't care which side it was, but please have marches at a time that won't affect
people trying to get to creches and kids sports.

david75

That gob****e McGuirk is on twitter saying there were neonazis marching yesterday. It seems there were people handin out placards with ‘strike for Repeal’ On them but with the fascist Britain first logo behind it.

The plc are up to some really desperate tactics.

nice_guy80

yer wan from UCD is being given a national platform to spread her views

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/facts-will-convince-many-young-people-to-vote-no-to-repeal-1.3419933?mode=amp

January

Watching the debate live and it's amazing.

Mattie is on now, he's doing wonders for the pro-choice people.

david75

January wrote: »

It's amazing.

Unfortunately the anti choice side will horribly inflate their numbers on Saturday and say ours was a measly turn out today.

I went to a pro life rally last summer. There was about 3000 there. Mostly elderly people and their very young grandkids. Really unsuitable for them to be hearing some of the stuff coming off the stage but there ye go.

The vast majority of people here tonight are college age.

January

david75 wrote: »

Amazing turn out and brilliant to see the majority are all young. Gotta be up around 10k

It's amazing.

Unfortunately the anti choice side will horribly inflate their numbers on Saturday and say ours was a measly turn out today.

david75

Amazing turn out and brilliant to see the majority are all young. Gotta be up around 10k