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

January

Bonniedog wrote: »

I wonder what Gandalf's view is on their theocratic buddy Dr. Selim proposing that Irish hospitals legally carry out the torture and mutilation of little girls?

Left was curiously silent on that.

Got a link to that woman you were referencing in your last posts?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Oldtree

Damien360 wrote: »

12 week limit will not cater for those who find out at 20 weeks when a first scan is done, that their child is not viable. And therefore these women will still have to travel to UK. That's just wrong.

The policy paper published by the government on 8th March says different

Policy 9: That termination of pregnancy for a fetal condition likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth or for maternal health should not have a gestational limit in the General Scheme.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=445276&stc=1&d=1520779204

pitifulgod

Bonniedog wrote: »

Majority in Leinster House has already voted for 12 weeks limit, so that will be bottom line in legislation.

You seem to forget that reason for repeal was to do with risk to mother's life, and in particular one case that the report into it showed that it had to do with hospital procedures, nothing whatsoever to do with "Catholic ethos" or refusing the poor woman any option.

Whole debate now is about up to what stage abortion on demand will be permitted. They could at least be honest about it. If that's what people vote for then fair enough.

The reason for repeal is that the state is currently forcing thousands of women abroad for medical procedures. They happen regardless. Literally all the party leaders have said this... So you appear to be pretty poor at following it so far...

Abortions will be allowed to occur at later stages if danger to woman's life or ffa.

Damien360

Oldtree wrote: »

Damien360 wrote: »

12 week limit will not cater for those who find out at 20 weeks when a first scan is done, that their child is not viable. And therefore these women will still have to travel to UK. That's just wrong.

The policy paper published by the government on 8th March says different

Policy 9: That termination of pregnancy for a fetal condition likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth or for maternal health should not have a gestational limit in the General Scheme.

http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Policy-paper-approved-by-Goverment-8-March-2018.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjeu6eDvOTZAhVBB8AKHSJvAoAQFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw1gOSv1xXvn_MuqY1WHQlJz

I stand corrected. Delighted. Will that go to the wording in referendum ?

January

Damien360 wrote: »

I stand corrected. Delighted. Will that go to the wording in referendum ?

This is the proposed wording and a rough proposal of the legislation to come after.

The wording

Taking TDs through the bill, he said it included two sections and a schedule. The wording of the proposed constitutional amendment is as follows:

Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy

The short policy paper, which the minister published today affirms the following:

That termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a risk to the health (which would include risk to the life) of a pregnant woman would be provided for in the General Scheme.

That there will be distinction between a risk to the physical or mental health of a woman.

That two medical practitioners will be required to assess access to termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a risk to the health of a pregnant woman.

One medical practitioner can permit to terminate a pregnancy where an emergency risk to health arises.

That termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a fetal condition which is likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth would be provided for

That two medical practitioners would be required to enable access to termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a fetal condition which is likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth.

That termination of pregnancy up to 12 weeks of pregnancy without specific indication will be permitted

That a time period would be required to elapse between the initial assessment by a medical practitioner and the a termination of pregnancy being carried out.

That termination of pregnancy for a fetal condition likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth or for maternal health should not have a gestational limit in the General Scheme.

That the definition of appropriate medical practitioners in the legislation would include all registered medical practitioners on the Medical Council register.

The legislation will require that a termination of pregnancy should be certified by the appropriate medical practitioner(s) in all cases.

The General Scheme will require that the termination of pregnancy be notified to the Minister for Health by the appropriate medical practitioner.

The law will include provision for a formal review process for a woman in certain defined circumstances. It is noted that Section 10 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 established a formal mechanism whereby a woman can seek a review of the clinical assessment made by the original treating medical practitioner or team where their assessment is that the woman does not require a termination, or when the woman has been unable to obtain an opinion in this regard.

Conscientious objection in line with that provided for in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 will be allowed so as to provide a right to conscientious objection for medical and nursing personnel.

A clause confirming that nothing in the legislation would limit or interfere with the right to travel or to information will be included.

That termination of pregnancy would be lawful in the circumstances set out in the grounds provided for in the new legislation, but it will retain the offence of intentional destruction of the unborn in defined circumstances.

A woman who procures or seeks to procure a termination of pregnancy for herself would not be guilty of an offence.

That the Minister for Health will publish an annual report of terminations of pregnancy in the preceding year

The HSE must also be prepared to report each year of reviews undertaken in the preceding year in defined circumstances, and will include the number of reviews carried out and the outcomes of the reviews. These reports will be submitted to the Minister for Health for publication.

That provision for consent similar to that contained in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 would be provided in the new legislation.

That the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 would be repealed in full.

January

There's also a great article published in The Irish Times today setting out the facts and comparing what other EU countries have access to in the form of abortions.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-referendum/abortion-facts#

splinter65

Fred Swanson wrote: »

It is not smugness. We are organising the troops well and will be joined by thousands home to vote.

You couldn’t be any smugger if you were a Professor of Smugness lecturing in Avanced Cockyness at Smug University, to paraphrase darling Blackadder.
More please!

gandalf

Bonniedog wrote: »

I wonder what Gandalf's view is on their theocratic buddy Dr. Selim proposing that Irish hospitals legally carry out the torture and mutilation of little girls?

Left was curiously silent on that.

Simple we shouldn't facilitate it. We shouldn't allow religious zealots to have any input into our health services and how they operate no matter what their hue. The same for education and any of the organs of the state.

As for my politics I am neither right wing or left wing. Unlike some I don't have the simple black and white view of life that allows for that simplistic ability to label myself as either.

(BTW none of my friends are called Selim....you must be imaging things)

Oldtree

Damien360 wrote: »

I stand corrected. Delighted. Will that go to the wording in referendum ?

Link didn't work from phone, so I attached the actual published paper to post above

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106405725&postcount=8948

It is the proposed government scheme as it stands at the moment.

Zubeneschamali

Fred Swanson wrote: »

What are the keep lot going to do when they lose?

Nothing at all. Like the anti-divorce and anti-SSM folks, they will just forget the whole issue forever.

applehunter

Very well organised rally yesterday.

Nice atmosphere & some great speeches.

I found it inspirational.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

baylah17

Bonniedog wrote: »

Ismisejack wrote: »

Wow never came across such a snob in my relatively short life, well I’m 22 so I’ll be able vote against repeal for a long time yet! How u like that?! There’s is nothing backwards about being anti abortion it’s indeed progressive as there is much more progressive ways of dealing with crisis pregnancies than child murdering. When referendum day comes and the eighth is retained I can’t wait to see the face on snobs like you

I wonder what Gandalf's view is on their theocratic buddy Dr. Selim proposing that Irish hospitals legally carry out the torture and mutilation of little girls?

Left was curiously silent on that.

Because that dibnt happen
More hate posts by queen of hate posting

RobertKK

Given the extremist abortion laws planned by the politicians, 12 week abortion allowed for any reason, and no time limit on abortion for life limiting conditions or on mental health grounds, I don't believe the repeal the 8th will win.
I don't believe people will trust letting the politicians in having the power to change law without asking the people in the future. It gives them free reign.
Simon Harris campaigned and said he was pro-life, lies.
Micheal Martin showed his previous words were lies.
The repeal side have so many politicians supporting repeal who showed they lied to voters about their stance on abortion.
Then they want voters to trust politicians over what the constitution at present guarantees.
People aren't fools, repeal say trust women, I trust women and most I know are for the 8th amendment, I don't trust politicians who have proven they lied about this issue. They can say they went on a journey but it has been a journey of betrayal to their voters. What good is a person as a politician who says 'you can vote for me, I am prolife and will defend that position' but then does the exact opposite? Who would vote or put trust in giving people like this more power, when their word means zero?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What about that small rally that repeal had on international women's day?
Organised well in advance, and less than a thousand attended.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So this is about the Catholic Church?
Did someone forget to tell Atheists for life?

eviltwin

RobertKK wrote: »

What about that small rally that repeal had on international women's day?
Organised well in advance, and less than a thousand attended.

Bad day for it but we don't need it, we got what we wanted. We got a referendum.

swampgas

RobertKK wrote: »

Given the extremist abortion laws planned by the politicians, 12 week abortion allowed for any reason, and no time limit on abortion for life limiting conditions or on mental health grounds, I don't believe the repeal the 8th will win.
I don't believe people will trust letting the politicians in having the power to change law without asking the people in the future. It gives them free reign.
Simon Harris campaigned and said he was pro-life, lies.
Micheal Martin showed his previous words were lies.
The repeal side have so many politicians supporting repeal who showed they lied to voters about their stance on abortion.
Then they want voters to trust politicians over what the constitution at present guarantees.
People aren't fools, repeal say trust women, I trust women and most I know are for the 8th amendment, I don't trust politicians who have proven they lied about this issue. They can say they went on a journey but it has been a journey of betrayal to their voters. What good is a person as a politician who says 'you can vote for me, I am prolife and will defend that position' but then does the exact opposite? Who would vote or put trust in giving people like this more power, when their word means zero?

You're very passionate in your beliefs. So are many, many people who want the 8th repealed.

Abortion is one of those emotive topics that people often need to make a journey to understand. It's not simple. Ireland has been stuck in a time warp for decades, and it's not because Ireland is somehow better than anywhere else. Ireland has learned, Ireland has grown up, and Ireland will have legal abortion, with or without you.

You are screaming about betrayal? That's makes my blood boil, to be honest. The women and girls of Ireland, and the men and women who love them, have been betrayed for decades by a people and government too cowardly and immature to face the reality of the need for abortion in Ireland. The 8th amendment was and is a betrayal, a shameful betrayal, of the women of Ireland. I for one will feel like a stain has been lifted from the country when it is finally repealed.

Discodog

The photo on the front page of the Sunday Times is so wrong. A nine year old child carrying a big red heart. On it is written "I'm Prolife because there's always a better answer than abortion".

This is child abuse. It's using a child in the way that a beggar would. The child has no concept about the subject. The hypocrisy of protecting life & abusing a child.

January

Discodog wrote: »

The photo on the front page of the Sunday Times is so wrong. A nine year old child carrying a big red heart. On it is written "I'm Prolife because there's always a better answer than abortion".

This is child abuse. It's using a child in the way that a beggar would. The child has no concept about the subject. The hypocrisy of protecting life & abusing a child.

I'm not sure how you think a nine year old has no concept about the subject? Why do you say that.

_Dara_

Discodog wrote: »

The photo on the front page of the Sunday Times is so wrong. A nine year old child carrying a big red heart. On it is written "I'm Prolife because there's always a better answer than abortion".

This is child abuse. It's using a child in the way that a beggar would. The child has no concept about the subject. The hypocrisy of protecting life & abusing a child.

In fairness, some Repeal campaigners aren’t much better in that regard. I certainly saw some putting words in their very young children’s mouths whilst posting photos of them on social media. I just think children should be left out of it on both sides. It’s manipulative nonsense.

January wrote: »

I'm not sure how you think a nine year old has no concept about the subject? Why do you say that.

It’s so so young. Let children be innocent and give them space and time to form their own opinions on the matter. Critical thinking faculties need to be developed first.

January

_Dara_ wrote: »

In fairness, some Repeal campaigners aren’t much better in that regard. I certainly saw some putting words in their very young children’s mouths whilst posting photos of them on social media. I just think children should be left out of it on both sides. It’s manipulative nonsense.

It’s so so young. Let children be innocent and give them space and time to form their own opinions on the matter. Critical thinking faculties need to be developed first.

I don't think it's so young. Especially if it's explained in an age appropriate way, and it can be. Mine have asked about it because I wear my repeal jumper a lot and help run the local pro-choice group so go to meetings often.

Discodog

January wrote: »

I'm not sure how you think a nine year old has no concept about the subject? Why do you say that.

Are you really suggesting that a 9 year old understands fatal fetal abnormality, rape, incest etc ? The child "understands" what it's parents have indoctrinated it with.

up for anything

Ismisejack wrote: »

Wow never came across such a snob in my relatively short life, well I’m 22 so I’ll be able vote against repeal for a long time yet! How u like that?! There’s is nothing backwards about being anti abortion it’s indeed progressive as there is much more progressive ways of dealing with crisis pregnancies than child murdering. When referendum day comes and the eighth is retained I can’t wait to see the face on snobs like you

So come on then, Jack. Detail the more progressive ways of dealing with crisis pregnancies other than child murdering as you see it, please? I'd be really interested in hearing about these.

_Dara_

January wrote: »

I don't think it's so young. Especially if it's explained in an age appropriate way, and it can be. Mine have asked about it because I wear my repeal jumper a lot and help run the local pro-choice group so go to meetings often.

There’s no harm in answering questions, of course. But I just would be wary of people indoctrinating kids either way. And putting words in their months like people on both sides sometimes do is really tasteless. That’s not giving them the breathing room to parse the issue for themselves. Children are developing mentally. Give them unbiased information and let them form their own worldview.

Discodog

January wrote: »

I don't think it's so young. Especially if it's explained in an age appropriate way, and it can be. Mine have asked about it because I wear my repeal jumper a lot and help run the local pro-choice group so go to meetings often.

Do you think that this mother of this child explained both sides of the argument ?

January

Are you really serious? A child can definitely understand things when it's explained to them simply.

Fatal fetal abnormality = the baby is very sick in the mother's belly and will not survive outside of it.

Rape = when someone forces someone to have sex with them against their will (and yes, I have spoken to my child about rape, I may not have called it rape but she knows about it, I have younger kids too and will discuss it with them when I feel they're ready too)

We haven't discussed incest yet but I'm sure it will come.

She knows that some women do not want to remain pregnant and that there are a myriad of reasons for that such as the above cases and also because of possibly financial implications or that they just don't want to have children and that currently women who don't want to, or can't remain pregnant, are forced to go to England so they can have either pills or an operation to remove the fetus from the womb and she knows that there is a referendum coming up about it.

I'm not saying my child is a genius but she understands the process of abortion and what may cause a woman to have one. It's not that hard to understand.