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

ohnonotgmail

Edward M wrote: »

Well, let's see.

If the referendum is passed the 8th will still be repealed irrespective of what happens in the dail afterwards.

Edward M

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but the 8th will still be repealed.

Well, let's see.

ohnonotgmail

Edward M wrote: »

That's true, but what its replaced with is not necessarily a 12 week abortion limit, that is what is likely to be proposed, but if enough TDs don't support it that might not materialise?

but the 8th will still be repealed.

Loafing Oaf

Edward M wrote: »

if enough TDs don't support it that might not materialise?

You know how people say "That's a big if." Well the one in your sentence is like the smallest 'if' in the world...

Edward M

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Repeal and replace with a clause allowing the dail to legislate. but you knew that already.

That's true, but what its replaced with is not necessarily a 12 week abortion limit, that is what is likely to be proposed, but if enough TDs don't support it that might not materialise?

ohnonotgmail

Edward M wrote: »

I thought it was a repeal referendum?

Repeal and replace with a clause allowing the dail to legislate. but you knew that already.

Edward M

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You do realise that newspapers will always strive to make a drama out of a crisis? "If the abortion referendum is approved by the people, it will pass through the Dail no problem." What kind of 'story' is that?

I thought it was a repeal referendum?

Annasopra

HandsomeBob wrote: »

My concern would be such factors wouldn't be considered.

Brexit is an absolutely huge decision for millions of people. The fact that the vote was so tight hasn't forced another vote.

They dont have a referendum culture in uk like we do so not comparable.

Loafing Oaf

Edward M wrote: »

No guarantee the 12 week legislation will pass a dail vote according to the indo, the numbers aren't stacking up, so its down to SF it looks like.
Who'd ever have thought that?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/uncertainty-over-whether-12week-abortion-legislation-will-pass-dil-vote-as-top-tds-refuse-to-disclose-their-views-36694547.html

You do realise that newspapers will always strive to make a drama out of a crisis? "If the abortion referendum is approved by the people, it will pass through the Dail no problem." What kind of 'story' is that?

nozzferrahhtoo

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Try telling her it was just a clump of cells and she would probably take your head off.

A few pages back I was explaining to a rather irate and emotional poster that that is in fact what we DO do quite often when treating women who have miscarried.

With that user I was discussing "Swanson's Caring Theory" and the "Meaning of Miscarriage Model", and the many randomized control studies evaluating the differences between people who evaluate the miscarriage as "losing a baby" and those that evaluate it is "losing a pregnancy".

A lot of people build up a narrative of "baby" during a pregnancy. After all, as even Leo one of our countries leaders pointed out "We tend to ask what the name of the baby might be not the name of the fetus". We are a narrative driven species and people can get invested in that narrative as your wife clearly did/has/is.

But when a woman's grief at miscarriage is debilitating or high, we very much do work to remove those narratives and essentially tell her "it was just a clump of cells". We do not do it so crassly or directly, but iteratively and with more empathy. But that is basically what we are doing.

But when it comes to the debate on whether we should allow abortion, we are not longer talking about the narrative each individual might hold. We are talking about the fetus as a general concept, and asking if there is any reason at the level of social morality and law, that we should hold moral and ethical concern for such a fetus. And thus far the answer seems to be a clear and consistent "no".

[Deleted User]

Will I Am Not wrote: »

It seems to me that it’s totally dependent on whether someone plans on seeing it through or not.

My wife miscarried at 9 weeks. She has a tattoo with the date on her leg, she releases a balloon on that date every year. Try telling her it was just a clump of cells and she would probably take your head off.

Someone who unwillingly falls pregnant may obviously think it to be just a clump of cells but then would they say the same when they get their first scan pic on a baby they planned for?
The ‘it’s just a clump of cells’ argument is arbitrary.

then leave it to your wife or the woman who became 'arbitrarily pregnant' to decide

Zubeneschamali

Will I Am Not wrote: »

The ‘it’s just a clump of cells’ argument is arbitrary.

I have always believed that I am just a clump of cells, and so are you and so is everyone else. What else would I be? A ghost from an invisible dimension somehow controlling a clump of cells by magic, that flies up into the clouds when I "die"?

Ha ha.

Will I Am Not

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That has been discussed A LOT on this thread so far. But at nearly 10,000 posts on the thread now I can not fault you for not having seen it.

In short though the answer to that question is contextual. It really depends on what differences you are looking for, defining, or consider relevant to the current context as to what answer you give.

In the context of abortion I think we are talking about when a biological mass of cells attains rights. Or more specifically when it stops being any old entity and starts being an entity towards which we can or should hold moral and ethical concern.

And I have argued (at nauseating length some will assure you) that this occurs when the fetus attains the basic faculty of human consciousness/sentience. And I think that because WITHOUT such a faculty I can see no basis for affording any entity, of any kind, moral or ethical concern.

The near totality (usually up around 98%) of abortions done purely by choice (not for medical necessity etc) occur in or before week 16 of gestation. Nothing operating at that point in the process even begins to suggest the fetus has attained the aforementioned faculty.

I hope that answers your question somewhat. If not, feel free to ask questions.

It seems to me that it’s totally dependent on whether someone plans on seeing it through or not.

My wife miscarried at 9 weeks. She has a tattoo with the date on her leg, she releases a balloon on that date every year. Try telling her it was just a clump of cells and she would probably take your head off.

Someone who unwillingly falls pregnant may obviously think it to be just a clump of cells but then would they say the same when they get their first scan pic on a baby they planned for?
The ‘it’s just a clump of cells’ argument is arbitrary.

Zubeneschamali

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Suggesting that it happens at the point of conception is no better than suggesting it happens at birth, or some other arbitrary point in between.

Everyone knows it is not at birth. Babies are often delivered by section before birth, and they are clearly human beings. Birth is just a legal line in the sand.

Nobody really believes it happens at conception either, apart from some real looney tunes who imagine angels handing out tiny souls to single-celled organisms. That's why the pro-lifers put up so little fight when the courts decided the 8th only applies from implantation on.

This is part of why the Citizen's Assembly came up with proposals more radical than any politician was likely to: away from all the screaming and campaigning and insults and gory posters, reasonable people can agree that the current legal regime is wrong, and that a move to a more typical framework like that in Germany is a sensible move.

Zubeneschamali

applehunter wrote: »

This referendum could legalise killing our unborn.

The 8th already made it legal.

By accident, admittedly, but legal all the same.

Zubeneschamali

statesaver wrote: »

This is a thread about Repealing the 8th not about the many sins of the Catholic Church.

The 8th IS one of the sins of the Catholic Church.

Every other Christian church in Ireland was opposed to passing it back in 83. It is a piece of Catholic dogma slapped into our Constitution by catholic ideologues as a last measure before they lost their majority.

nozzferrahhtoo

Will I Am Not wrote: »

When is the “clump of cells” no longer a clump of cells? Simple question.

That has been discussed A LOT on this thread so far. But at nearly 10,000 posts on the thread now I can not fault you for not having seen it.

In short though the answer to that question is contextual. It really depends on what differences you are looking for, defining, or consider relevant to the current context as to what answer you give.

In the context of abortion I think we are talking about when a biological mass of cells attains rights. Or more specifically when it stops being any old entity and starts being an entity towards which we can or should hold moral and ethical concern.

And I have argued (at nauseating length some will assure you) that this occurs when the fetus attains the basic faculty of human consciousness/sentience. And I think that because WITHOUT such a faculty I can see no basis for affording any entity, of any kind, moral or ethical concern.

The near totality (usually up around 98%) of abortions done purely by choice (not for medical necessity etc) occur in or before week 16 of gestation. Nothing operating at that point in the process even begins to suggest the fetus has attained the aforementioned faculty.

I hope that answers your question somewhat. If not, feel free to ask questions.

Yer Da sells Avon

Will I Am Not wrote: »

When is the “clump of cells” no longer a clump of cells? Simple question.

I don't know. See, it's actually really easy to give an honest answer to these questions. When we're talking about a gradual 9-month process, none of us will ever agree on an exact point at which the unborn becomes an actual human being whose right to life matches that of an already-born woman. Suggesting that it happens at the point of conception is no better than suggesting it happens at birth, or some other arbitrary point in between. Which is why I think it's important to be pragmatic and accept that if abortion must happen, it should really happen as early as possible. And I don't think retention of the 8th Amendment is conducive to that.

swampgas

applehunter wrote: »

Take it that I believe life begins at conception.

Are you also against the morning after pill (MAP), the coil, and the pill?

Do you think IVF is wrong?

Or is it just abortion (when it happens in Ireland) that bothers you?

JupiterKid

realitykeeper wrote: »

blah, blah, blah. A clout from a Christian Brother never did anyone a bit of harm and all this nonsense about abuses by the Catholic Church is just an excuse not to get up on a Sunday morning and go to mass. Is it any wonder that the slothful are the poorest in society.

Despicable views. Utter contempt for others. Do you know just how many lives were ruined by the twisted ideology of judgemental religious doctrine and the lust for control over the rights of others? Ireland is on the cusp of thanking a step into social normality for the rest of the developed world. Very soon the power of the views of you and your ilk will be considered to the dustbin of history.

Will I Am Not

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Oh well, it was a simple question. No idea why you don't want to answer it.

When is the “clump of cells” no longer a clump of cells? Simple question.

baylah17

nice_guy80 wrote: »

they don't want to reveal views as it will stop canvasing for the vote
I also hope it is a secret ballet in the Dail chamber

the Dail cannot have "Secret Ballots", TDs have to vote publicly and their vote is recorded, as it should be.

JupiterKid

The anti choice brigade love to roll out the attractive looking young women at the front of their marches. But take a closer look at the demographic when said marches wind up at the Dail or disband and you get a truer picture of those pulling the strings.

nice_guy80

Edward M wrote: »

No guarantee the 12 week legislation will pass a dail vote according to the indo, the numbers aren't stacking up, so its down to SF it looks like.
Who'd ever have thought that?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/uncertainty-over-whether-12week-abortion-legislation-will-pass-dil-vote-as-top-tds-refuse-to-disclose-their-views-36694547.html

they don't want to reveal views as it will stop canvasing for the vote
I also hope it is a secret ballet in the Dail chamber

Edward M

No guarantee the 12 week legislation will pass a dail vote according to the indo, the numbers aren't stacking up, so its down to SF it looks like.
Who'd ever have thought that?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/uncertainty-over-whether-12week-abortion-legislation-will-pass-dil-vote-as-top-tds-refuse-to-disclose-their-views-36694547.html

Yer Da sells Avon

applehunter wrote: »

Take this yes/no gameshow quiz to the doorsteps.

Please.

Oh well, it was a simple question. No idea why you don't want to answer it.

applehunter

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I'm not trying to catch you out. It's a simple question. Is that cluster of cells a person?

Take this yes/no gameshow quiz to the doorsteps.

Please.

Yer Da sells Avon

applehunter wrote: »

I don't play games.

I believe life begins at conception.

Get out canvassing Hapax. We need you out there on the doorsteps for the repeal movement.

I'm not trying to catch you out. It's a simple question. Is that cluster of cells a person?

applehunter

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

No, I don't think I'm Jeremy Clarkson.

And on that bombshell... I'll ask you again. Is that newly implanted clump of cells a person?

I don't play games.

I believe life begins at conception.

Get out canvassing Hapax. We need you out there on the doorsteps for the repeal movement.

Yer Da sells Avon

applehunter wrote: »

"Just to be absolutely clear"

Who do you think out are, Jeremy Clarkson?

Take it that I believe life begins at conception.

No, I don't think I'm Jeremy Clarkson.

And on that bombshell... I'll ask you again. Is that newly implanted clump of cells a person?