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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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: »

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:

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

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.

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

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

taxonomy is the answer to your question, plain and simple

No, it is not. Because that is circular. Taxonomy calls it human. It is human because taxonomy.

Take some analogies. Borders do not define ownership. Yet it is borders we use to define what IS owned. DNA does not define inheritance. But using DNA we can measure if you should inherit.

In other words there is a difference between a word that defines what something is, and a word that defines to what that something applies. The word "Human" or "person" does not define rights or who or what should get it. We do that. And then we label that something later. You are mixing up the labels with the concepts. Badly.

Calling something "Human" is just a label, like a border. It does not define what rights are, what gets them, or why. You need something more than that.

Plain and simple.

Ismisejack

(Reply to nozz)
We should allow a fetus the right to life, I can’t think of any other rights a fetus should have but enlighten me if you can. Killing a human outside the womb is illegal and killing a human inside the womb is the same , so why should killing a human inside the womb be permitted?

david75

Wow. Went from ‘damn women looking for bodily autonomy these past 40 years and holding me up in traffic damn them’

To

‘MURDERERS!!’

In no time at all.

Ajsoprano

I don’t think I’d have the heart to abort a baby. I have flip flopped on the issue over the years.

Why not just give him/her up for adoption to give him/her a snowballs chance. It should be gay adoption we are pushing for. We could end institutional orphanages if there was gay couples who wanted kids getting kids.

I think it’s a decision made under pressure that will be reflected on in hindsight for the rest of your life.

There’s no real right or wrong in it. There’s a feminist side and a Jesus side and both sides have an agenda more important to them than the issue of abortion. They just want to win.

I’d vote yes for health reasons but no for lifestyle reasons.

Other cultures have abortion but in other cultures a girl can turn up at her boyfriends house with good news and it can be fairly normal for the boy to say “not my problem get an abortion”.
How’s that for women’s rights.

nozzferrahhtoo

Excuse me if I number your premises and moves here, as it will make it easier to answer your question.

Ismisejack wrote: »

We should allow a fetus the right to life

Killing a human outside the womb is illegal

killing a human inside the womb is the same

why should killing a human inside the womb be permitted?

The flaw in your premise lies in the third part. It is NOT the same. It is not the same for a multitude of reasons. But the most important one I could mention is that a fetus at 12 weeks lacks the faculty of consciousness and sentience entirely.

Not slightly like someone brain damaged.
Not compromised like someone in a coma.
Not switched off entirely like a dead adult.

But ENTIRELY. It is simply not here, not built, never created, never existed.

So no, it is not the same. Killing a child that has been born (or even in the weeks before it is born) is killing a sentience and conscious agent.

Termination of a fetus at 12 weeks is not.

So it is your error in premise 3 that answers your question in point 4 above and explains why your outright assertion in point 1 is simply that, an assertion. With no support or argument to carry it.

SusieBlue

Ismisejack wrote: »

(Reply to nozz)
We should allow a fetus the right to life, I can’t think of any other rights a fetus should have but enlighten me if you can. Killing a human outside the womb is illegal and killing a human inside the womb is the same , so why should killing a human inside the womb be permitted?

When I’m out and about wearing my ‘Repeal the 8th’ jumper it’s people with opinions like yours that I hope to p*ss off.

Ajsoprano

WhiteRoses wrote: »

When I’m out and about wearing my ‘Repeal the 8th’ jumper it’s people with opinions like yours that I hope to p*ss off.

Why do you want to piss people off? Surely you want women to get rights you think they should have?
Or do you just want to piss people off?

SusieBlue

Ajsoprano wrote: »

Why do you want to piss people off? Surely you want women to get rights you think they should have?
Or do you just want to piss people off?

Oh of course not, the whole point of me wearing it is to raise awareness for women to have more rights and full bodily autonomy.

I’m just aware of the fact that a very minor percentage of society sees me as an inferior murderer, these people’s opinions will never be changed but I wouldn’t even waste my breath trying to, but I’m glad at the very least that it annoys them.

splinter65

WhiteRoses wrote: »

When I’m out and about wearing my ‘Repeal the 8th’ jumper it’s people with opinions like yours that I hope to p*ss off.

Why do you think that your jumper pisses people off at all?
When the jumpers were distributed at the start I got the impression that a lot of people who bought them put them away quickly because of this type of immediate response

https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/57m6xz/why_arent_you_wearing_a_repeal_jumper_you_fascist/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list

Do you still wear yours? I haven’t seen one in over a year.

david75

Ajsoprano wrote: »

I don’t think I’d have the heart to abort a baby. I have flip flopped on the issue over the years.

Why not just give him/her up for adoption to give him/her a snowballs chance. It should be gay adoption we are pushing for. We could end institutional orphanages if there was gay couples who wanted kids getting kids.

I think it’s a decision made under pressure that will be reflected on in hindsight for the rest of your life.

There’s no real right or wrong in it. There’s a feminist side and a Jesus side and both sides have an agenda more important to them than the issue of abortion. They just want to win.

I’d vote yes for health reasons but no for lifestyle reasons.

Other cultures have abortion but in other cultures a girl can turn up at her boyfriends house with good news and it can be fairly normal for the boy to say “not my problem get an abortion”.
How’s that for women’s rights.

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one.

Doesn’t mean you should make another woman’s choice for her. You’re not living her life. You don’t know her circumstances nor anything about her life.

But please stop suggesting she’ll have one just cos a baby is inconvenient.
You undermine your argument and disrespect any woman that makes that choice. Nobody makes the choice lightly.

SusieBlue

splinter65 wrote: »

Why do you think that your jumper pisses people off at all?
When the jumpers were distributed at the start I got the impression that a lot of people who bought them put them away quickly because of this type of immediate response

https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/57m6xz/why_arent_you_wearing_a_repeal_jumper_you_fascist/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list

Do you still wear yours? I haven’t seen one in over a year.

As I said, I imagine it p*sses off people who don’t see value in me having an opinion and see abortion as murder.
I still wear mine, I’ve seen plenty while out and about.
The reaction I get from it is mostly positive, I’d get a few people genuinely asking questions and looking for information too.
I’ve only had 3 negative reactions and all of those people shouted and roared at me that I’m a murderer.
One actually accused me of the slaughter of innocent babies.
They were all extremely rude, disrespectful and aggressive and all of these reactions came about as I was going about my business in the city center, it’s not like I was campaigning for repeal at the time or anything.
Go figure.

splinter65

WhiteRoses wrote: »

As I said, I imagine it p*sses off people who don’t see value in me having an opinion and see abortion as murder.
I still wear mine, I’ve seen plenty while out and about.
The reaction I get from it is mostly positive, I’d get a few people genuinely asking questions and looking for information too.
I’ve only had 3 negative reactions and all of those people shouted and roared at me that I’m a murderer.
One actually accused me of the slaughter of innocent babies.
They were all extremely rude, disrespectful and aggressive and all of these reactions came about as I was going about my business in the city center, it’s not like I was campaigning for repeal at the time or anything.
Go figure.

I know a ****load of them were purchased but I definitley got the impression that senior repeal the 8th people didn’t like the whole “you’re a Nazi and a fascist if you don’t buy a jumper and wear it” atmosphere that hung around it and subtly distanced themselves from that scene.
There was the unfortunate photo that went viral of girls posing lewdly in front of a statue in a rural church somewhere while modeling the jumpers that seemed to piss EVERYONE off, including repeal advocates.
Here it is

http://theliberal.ie/disgraceful-outrage-as-pro-choice-repeal-activists-purposely-disrespect-statue-of-our-lady-in-kildare-church/

Ajsoprano

david75 wrote: »

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one.

Doesn’t mean you should make another woman’s choice for her. You’re not living her life. You don’t know her circumstances nor anything about her life.

But please stop suggesting she’ll have one just cos a baby is inconvenient.
You undermine your argument and disrespect any woman that makes that choice. Nobody makes the choice lightly.

That doesn’t really make sense.
Say if I read the paper and see a lad stole a car. Should I not have any feelings on the subject because I didn’t steal the car or I didn’t have my car stolen?

SusieBlue

Ajsoprano wrote: »

That doesn’t really make sense.
Say if I read the paper and see a lad stole a car. Should I not have any feelings on the subject because I didn’t steal the car or I didn’t have my car stolen?

You don’t have to gestate, give birth to or rear a car for 18 years so the point is invalid.

Having your car stolen is obviously a very sh*t thing to happen but nowhere near the scale of having to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term.

You can of course have your opinion on the matter, but you shouldn’t get to dictate what another person does with their own personal car (or womb).

david75

Ajsoprano wrote: »

That doesn’t really make sense.
Say if I read the paper and see a lad stole a car. Should I not have any feelings on the subject because I didn’t steal the car or I didn’t have my car stolen?

Emmm

I kiiiinda see the argument you’re trying to make?
(I really don’t)

To respond in kind, women want to take the wheel of their own car now and have had enough of someone else deciding where they drive and get out of their car you don’t own it and won’t pay the motor tax nor nct for its upkeep so f**k off basically.

Get it? Now you’re motoring

pleas advice

if you don't want to leave litter on the beach, don't litter on the beach. but don't tell me what to do with my litter?

splinter65

So the referendum is nearly upon us and the people will have their say and will get exactly what they vote for and will have to stand over the result, one way or the other.
If the 8th isn’t repealed, what will be the plan for the repeal lobby?
I’m pro life but I’m not culturally Irish even though I’m an Irish citizen and I’m quite detached from all things Irish so I’ve no strong “OMG old Ireland is disappearing what will we do?!?” feelings about it.
If the 8th is repealed ( I’m not too sure it will be)
I will be very interested to see the path Ireland turns onto as I think it will be the most seismic thing to ever have happened here since the birth of the state.
I think that legislation will be introduced and very soon abortion will be widely available with no restrictions to around 20 weeks.
It will start at 12 weeks and arguments will ensue and it will creep up steadily.
Only time will tell what the long term consequences will be though.
The 1 in 5 statistic in the UK is pretty stark.
Where do people see abortion in Ireland in 10 years time? (Subject to repeal)

david75

In the run up to marriage equality we had the same mouthpieces saying we’ll have gays marrying each other to adopt kids to abuse them and What’s to stop someone marrying their sister? Or their dog?? Where does it stop?!?! These were actual arguments put forth.

It’s the same scare tactics and hysterical nonsense lost that campaign for those against it. We’re seeing the same here and again the same people making the same mistakes and undermining their own campaign with such nonsense.

I’m glad Irish people are smarter than falling for this bull****. I’m sad that there’s an deranged element of Irish people that are trying to push it. Again.

PhoenixParker

pleas advice wrote: »

if you don't want to leave litter on the beach, don't litter on the beach. but don't tell me what to do with my litter?

More like if you want to donate your kidney to save someone's life, go, do it and you're wonderful for doing it but don't tell me I have to donate my kidney and remove my right to say no or back out.