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

Bannasidhe

david75 wrote: »

My read on this is it sort of smacks of desperation. They know they don’t have the support to defeat repeal

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/11/ireland-abortion-repeal-referendum-home-to-vote-pro-choice-campaign

It's giving those who are currently abroad an opportunity to determine the kind of Ireland they will return to.

I am of the generation that voted against the 8th and promptly got the hell out of Ireland as what I personally experienced while campaigning for choice convinced me that there was no place in 80s Ireland for anyone who was even slightly liberal in their world view. I wasn't alone. I worked, lived... and played... among people from all parts of the Republic who felt ourselves to be in exile. It says a lot that a generation found Thatcher's Britain more welcoming than our native land.
It's no coincidence that most of us returned after the election of Mary Robinson as we sensed change was in the air. We voted for divorce. We voted for the right to travel and get information. We voted for the Ireland we wanted and now another generation need to know this is their chance.

PLC know that and are afraid.

Zubeneschamali

david75 wrote: »

It’s posted on a plc page.

They may want to draw attention to it - there was a similar campaign for SSM and many opponents said it was illegal, or at the least encouraging voters who are ineligible to vote illegally.

Frank Bullitt

david75 wrote: »

My read on this is it sort of smacks of desperation. They know they don’t have the support to defeat repeal

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/11/ireland-abortion-repeal-referendum-home-to-vote-pro-choice-campaign

In fairness, using a bloke who said he was a nurse but was actually a gun runner for you campaign, that smacks of both desperation and stupidity.

Which would be this - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/save-the-8th-campaign-wrongly-described-video-speaker-as-nurse-lrlb6lm2s

January

Gintonious wrote: »

In fairness, using a bloke who said he was a nurse but was actually a gun runner for you campaign, that smacks of both desperation and stupidity.

David is pro repeal. Think he's just getting his wires crossed

JDD

NuMarvel wrote: »

When do you think the right to life should begin? Because it's not presently at conception.

To be fair to the catholic/Christian pro-lifers, they'd be against the morning after pill and IVF, for the very reason that they think a fertilized egg has a soul. The church has always been consistent on that front.

There's no marches against the morning-after pill or IVF for a few reasons. In relation to the morning-after pill, well, that ship has sailed as far as the legislation is concerned. And I suppose from a pragmatic point of view, they might prefer someone to take the morning after pill then go for a termination further along in the pregnancy. Even pro-lifers I'm sure believe there's a scale of wrongdoing here, even if they would never admit it openly.

As for IVF, they know they're on to a losing game. The aim of IVF is to actually conceive a child, something they hold in very high regard. They would look particularly heartless to prevent a childless couple from conceiving. That said, the catholic church have always been against IVF.

david75

January wrote: »

David is pro repeal. Think he's just getting his wires crossed

Smacked my own hand for not bothering to read the article before posting.
It is odd it was posted on plc but then a lot of their campaign is frankly really bizarre. But as a previous poster said it was probably to raise awareness.

pilly

david75 wrote: »

My read on this is it sort of smacks of desperation. They know they don’t have the support to defeat repeal

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/11/ireland-abortion-repeal-referendum-home-to-vote-pro-choice-campaign

That doesn't make sense David, this is pro choice campaigners?

Sorry, just read other posters corrected that already.

david75

pilly wrote: »

That doesn't make sense David, this is pro choice campaigners?

See above post.

Hoboo

Can I ask something. If they 8th is repealed, will that give the government the power to legislate on abortion?

Thanks.

NuMarvel

Hoboo wrote: »

Can I ask something. If they 8th is repealed, will that give the government the power to legislate on abortion?

Thanks.

In effect, yes, though technically it's the Oireachtas that legislates, not just the government. A draft of the intended legislation will be published before the end of the month.

ohnonotgmail

Hoboo wrote: »

Can I ask something. If they 8th is repealed, will that give the government the power to legislate on abortion?

Thanks.

that is the point of the referendum.

Grayson

JDD wrote: »

To be fair to the catholic/Christian pro-lifers, they'd be against the morning after pill and IVF, for the very reason that they think a fertilized egg has a soul. The church has always been consistent on that front.

There's no marches against the morning-after pill or IVF for a few reasons. In relation to the morning-after pill, well, that ship has sailed as far as the legislation is concerned. And I suppose from a pragmatic point of view, they might prefer someone to take the morning after pill then go for a termination further along in the pregnancy. Even pro-lifers I'm sure believe there's a scale of wrongdoing here, even if they would never admit it openly.

As for IVF, they know they're on to a losing game. The aim of IVF is to actually conceive a child, something they hold in very high regard. They would look particularly heartless to prevent a childless couple from conceiving. That said, the catholic church have always been against IVF.

To be fair very few pro lifers are pro lifers in the same way the catholic church are.

A lot would allow contraception. Same about the morning after pill. There's many that would allow a termination in the first few weeks.

Most people on both sides of the argument see it as a very nuanced argument with a lot of grey areas. But it's a good tool for pro lifers to turn it into a black and white argument.

Zubeneschamali

Hoboo wrote: »

Can I ask something. If they 8th is repealed, will that give the government the power to legislate on abortion?

The Oireachteas Committee thinks yes. The Citizen's Assembly thinks maybe not, and recommended replacing the 8th with an explicit clause saying the Oireachteas can legislate, and that seems to be the path the Government are taking.

Hoboo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Oireachteas Committee thinks yes. The Citizen's Assembly thinks maybe not, and recommended replacing the 8th with an explicit clause saying the Oireachteas can legislate, and that seems to be the path the Government are taking.

OK so nothing has been set in stone yet. And going by whats currently on the table, abortion being legalised will therefore up to the government to decide? And depending on what government of the the day, that could go either way?

Cheers.

JDD

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair very few pro lifers are pro lifers in the same way the catholic church are.

A lot would allow contraception. Same about the morning after pill. There's many that would allow a termination in the first few weeks.

Most people on both sides of the argument see it as a very nuanced argument with a lot of grey areas. But it's a good tool for pro lifers to turn it into a black and white argument.

Well, contraception is a different animal. The church is against contraception for a different reason, in that they believe you shouldn't be having sex unless its for procreation purposes.

I'd be sure a lot of older people wouldn't know what the morning after pill actually does. I bet if I asked my Dad whether the morning after pill prevented conception from occurring after sex, or whether it prevented implantation, he probably wouldn't know for sure. Even if he did know, as you say, he's probably fairly comfortable with it.

Pro-lifers can't say the argument is nuanced, because they believe if you open the door a chink you open it to a flood. I've never really got this. I remember having an argument with a friend before the divorce referendum - he was 19, the same as me - when he said he was going to vote no. He said that we'd end up like the UK or the States with every second marriage ending in divorce. Of course, that didn't happen because culturally we are very different to the UK or the States, and our very strict divorce laws have hardly changed in 20 years. And I don't think there's much of a push to change them. So I take all this "oh it'll be a slow creep to allowing abortions to 24 weeks" for what it is. Nonsense.

NuMarvel

Hoboo wrote: »

OK so nothing has been set in stone yet. And going by whats currently on the table, abortion being legalised will therefore up to the government to decide? And depending on what government of the the day, that could go either way?

Cheers.

In reality the legislation that's passed later this year will be our abortion law for the foreseeable future, assuming the 8th is repealed. Politicians won't be in any rush to change it unless there's considerable public support.

CruelCoin

Is there any sign of a commitment to a speedy turnaround if you're seeking an abortion?

Most women don't know they're pregnant before 8 weeks.

Then, take the time for deliberating, getting a doctors appointment, getting referred to a specialist, getting on the waiting list and actually having the procedure done, the 12 week window will sail the majority of women by.

There may soon be legal access to abortion. just not practical access.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

CruelCoin wrote: »

Is there any sign of a commitment to a speedy turnaround if you're seeking an abortion?

Most women don't know they're pregnant before 8 weeks.

Then, take the time for deliberating, getting a doctors appointment, getting referred to a specialist, getting on the waiting list and actually having the procedure done, the 12 week window will sail the majority of women by.

There may soon be legal access to abortion. just not practical access.

If a surgical abortion is not required (and before 12 weeks they are generally not required) then it can all be handled by a GP.

January

CruelCoin wrote: »

Is there any sign of a commitment to a speedy turnaround if you're seeking an abortion?

Most women don't know they're pregnant before 8 weeks.

Then, take the time for deliberating, getting a doctors appointment, getting referred to a specialist, getting on the waiting list and actually having the procedure done, the 12 week window will sail the majority of women by.

There may soon be legal access to abortion. just not practical access.

90% of abortions performed before 12 weeks are done using pills. There will be no waiting list, there will be a doctors appt and a prescription given to go to the pharmacist and get the medication, the government are proposing a waiting time, it could be 48/72 hours. In the small number of cases that need surgical abortions there possibly will be a few days wait but that's the same with ERPC's for miscarriages.

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

can we clarify the terminology used here? I thought the use of abortion pills WAS a medical abortion. Something like a D&C is a surgical abortion.

retro:electro

CruelCoin wrote: »

Is there any sign of a commitment to a speedy turnaround if you're seeking an abortion?

Most women don't know they're pregnant before 8 weeks.

Then, take the time for deliberating, getting a doctors appointment, getting referred to a specialist, getting on the waiting list and actually having the procedure done, the 12 week window will sail the majority of women by.

There may soon be legal access to abortion. just not practical access.

Most women? Or some women?
The vast majority of women will have realised they’re pregnant by that stage.

.......

This post has been deleted.

rainbow kirby

anna080 wrote: »

Most women? Or some women?
The vast majority of women will have realised they’re pregnant by that stage.

Yep, 4-6 weeks is fairly standard if your cycle is regular. I found out at 7 weeks with my first son and that was considered late.

Hoboo

NuMarvel wrote: »

Politicians won't be in any rush to change it unless there's considerable public support.

In reality though politicians have often made decisions regardless of public support. The last 10 years alone has proven that.

I'm not a fan of the government holding the cards in this instance.

JDD

Most women don't know they're pregnant before 8 weeks.

I don't think that's true. If you were on the pill, you'd know you were possibly pregnant at 5 weeks, because you wouldn't have got your period during the 7 day break from the pill. If you weren't on the pill you'd still know at 5 to 6 weeks as you'd cop that you hadn't got your period in a long time. If you have irregular periods then yes, it could take a bit longer to realise that you might be pregnant, but as the above posters have said, worst case scenario you could get the pill within three days of deciding to have an abortion.

JDD

Hoboo wrote: »

In reality though politicians have often made decisions regardless of public support. The last 10 years alone has proven that.

I'm not a fan of the government holding the cards in this instance.

Economic decisions, yes, because basically they're always unpopular unless you're reducing taxes. Politicians are used to being vilified over that, they're immune to it. But social issues are different. I can't remember one instance in my lifetime where an Irish government have introduced a more liberal regime in any facet of public life without a push from the public, or the ECHR, to do so. They don't have to 'balance the books' when it comes to social issues, so it's just not in their interest to make unpopular decisions.

pilly

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Yep, 4-6 weeks is fairly standard if your cycle is regular. I found out at 7 weeks with my first son and that was considered late.

4 weeks is ridiculous tbh, unless you knew you'd had highly risky sex you wouldn't be taking a pregnancy test at 4 weeks.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

pilly wrote: »

4 weeks is ridiculous tbh, unless you knew you'd had highly risky sex you wouldn't be taking a pregnancy test at 4 weeks.

Assuming you got pregnant in the middle of a four week cycle, at four weeks pregnant you'd be about two weeks late, would you not check at that point?

My cycle isn't very regular, I'll know what week to expect a period but not what day. I'd still be checking if it didn't show up that week.

Edit: That said, at very busy times, it can be surprisingly easy to lose track of what happened when, I can imagine it's very possible to get into the second month of pregnancy before you really start paying attention.

seamus

Hoboo wrote: »

In reality though politicians have often made decisions regardless of public support. The last 10 years alone has proven that.

I'm not a fan of the government holding the cards in this instance.

I guess the question though is what's your alternative?

You can't put it in the constitution; we've already been down that road.

What makes this instance any different to another where the government legislates? Why are the government to be given the power on all other aspects of healthcare law, criminal law, human rights legislation, but on abortion law for some reason they just can't be trusted?