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

Sweetemotion

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Or in the cases of rape... or any of the other reasons that have been acknowledged over and over and over on this thread

Rape is always brought up in this discussion because it's the most extreme case.

Amend the 8 tomorrow for rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormality and if the mothers life in danger and it would pass by 99%.

But what we have now is an either you are with us or against attitude and that is damaging both sides but I think it will damage the pro choice more.

retro:electro

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Close your legs.

Never heard this one before :rolleyes:

amdublin

Why is it ok to abort a foetus in some circumstances? Eg. Rape
But not in other circumstances? E.g. failed contraception and don't want to have a 3rd child

What's different about one foetus over another?

[Deleted User]

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Close your legs.

youll be looking for the abstinence thread.

unfortunately for you its not busy. the country isnt voting on that anytime soon.

amdublin

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Close your legs.

So you're never ever ever to have sex unless you want to be pregnant?

Sex is a good thing and an enjoyable thing to do for ones mind and soul.

Ave Sodalis

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Rape is always brought up in this discussion because it's the most extreme case.

Amend the 8 tomorrow for rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormality and if the mothers life in danger and would pass by 99%.

But what we have now is an either you are with us or against attitude and that is damaging both sides but I think it will damage the pro choice more.

Except, as said over and over as well, specific cases of rape cannot be legislated for. I brought up rape because it is not as simple as closing your legs. The amendment will not be on specifically rape, incest or fatal fetal. The amendment will be so that the government can legislate for these cases, amongst others. We are not/will not be voting to amend for rape, incest or fatal fetal alone, so telling people it's as simple as closing their legs is a load of rubbish. This is something I think you know already.

captbarnacles

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Or in the cases of rape... or any of the other reasons that have been acknowledged over and over and over on this thread

Rape is always brought up in this discussion because it's the most extreme case.

Amend the 8 tomorrow for rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormality and if the mothers life in danger and it would pass by 99%.

But what we have now is an either you are with us or against attitude and that is damaging both sides but I think it will damage the pro choice more.

And back to rape committees then I guess? That will go well.

captbarnacles

amdublin wrote: »

Edward M wrote: »

But I can't get the baby out of my head in the middle of all that.

I can't get it out of my head that you have said you will vote yes to repeal.

Yet you throw out things like this every now again (a complete and utter probirther line, let's call a spade a spade)

Edward will be voting no and it's obvious at this stage he is not seriously debating it. If he were a fully paid up subscriber to Iona it would not be a shock.

kylith

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Amend the 8 tomorrow for rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormality and if the mothers life in danger and it would pass by 99%.

But then you have the issue of how to bring it on for rape without opening the door for abortion on request as taking women’s word for it that they were raped IS abortion on request, but forcing women to go through a tribunal to prove they were raped is barbaric, and will ultimately wind up meaning that some women who just weren’t believable enough will have to carry their rapist’s baby.

It’s also rather upsetting that some people think a foetus is more important than a woman's physical or mental health, as allowing abortion in cases of threat to life only means that women can be denied treatment until their illness is so far progressed that it can kill them.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I reckon I know who I worked with and hung out with in London in the 80s. We were the Irish Queers and the Lefties - the same people who 'manned' the Abortion Info lines - and yes - we left for social reasons and there was a lot of us because if you were gay or socially liberal Ireland was no place for you. Edit to add : or if you wanted a divorce, or to raise your 'illegitimate' child, or were a survivor of one of Ireland's many institutions designed to make life hell for the socially unacceptable.

And again - given I was there and these were my peers - I remember how Robinson's election caused us to decide it was time to bring the fight back home.

I didn't say it was all the Irish. I said it was the Irish I worked, lived among, and played with, and we were both politically and socially very aware.

It's not always about economics.

You are falling into your own trap of conformation bias. Just because you had an experience does not mean that it as true for all Irish emigrants of the 1980's.

According to CSO figures 206,000 people left Ireland during the 80's. The vast vast majority of these for economic reasons.

Again, I said social reasons may have contributed but to argue that the majority of emigration was caused by social issues flies in the face of established facts.

markodaly

Edward M wrote: »

But why, I mean where did they come from?
I had a child with my first partner in the 80s, in rural Cavan, we lived together for 4 years after the child was born, we had no problems or our daughter either.
I really would like to know where in Ireland this wasn't possible at that time?

I have family who had children outside of marriage in the 80'. They never married but lived together in a normal life.

I think perhaps some people maybe over egging the situation of the 80's in relation to unmarried mothers at the time.

It was entirely possible for an un married mother to keep their kids and life a normal life at the time without the some nun jumping out of a manhole to kidnap them.

markodaly

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm going to row back on this because my memory of the 21st amendment was a little hazy. The 21st amendment did not get rid of capital punishment. There was no constitutional amendment required to get rid of capital punishment. Capital punishment had already been abolished in 1990 by statute. The 21st amendment prevents the government from reintoducing capital punishment.

What happened in 1990 was that all offences were removed which had Capital Punishment as a possible sentence.

The 21st amendment inserted a clause into the constitution with banned Capital Punishment from ever bing legislated for again.

Any future government could not introduce legislation that provided for Capital punishment, even during a state of emergency.

In terms of the current discussion, it is relevant and you are splitting hairs.

The 21st amendment did indeed ban Capital punishment as it makes it impossible for it to be legalised again, unless of course there is another referendum to remove this amendment, where by the government of the day is free to legalise it. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Mr. CooL ICE

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Close your legs.

Whenever I see posts like this, I always assume the poster has never been in a sexual relationship.

Zubeneschamali

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Amend the 8 tomorrow for rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormality and if the mothers life in danger and it would pass by 99%.

That's what we are doing. If you read the report of the Citizen's Assembly, you will see that 12 weeks without restriction is the best way to cover rape and incest. The law will allow later abortion for FFA.

January

The citizens assembly and the JOC decided on 12 weeks on request so that it allows rape and incest victims to obtain an abortion without having to disclose the reason for the abortion. It's hard to prove rape and it retraumatises victims further having to relive the experience.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sweetemotion wrote: »

But it is that simple.

Simplistic not simple. It makes so many assumptions. While also we have seen the effects of abstinence approaches to contraception in the past. It results in more unwanted pregnancies and an increase in teen pregnancies.

Among the assumptions it makes is A) that a women who is pregnant simply chose to have sex. Which ignores exceptions like rape and abuse and coercion and more and

that all women seeking not to be pregnant did not choose to be pregnant. Which ignores the exceptions like people who planned to get pregnant but upon getting pregnant something in their lives changes dramatically like their health, their financial situation, their relationship, their emotional or mental well being, or more.

So no, it is not "That simple". What you offer here is simplistic, not simple.

nice_guy80

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Close your legs.

maybe you should look for a referendum on banning sex so?

oh no, wait. Then that'd be the end of the human race.

pilly

Edward M wrote:

I know, that's the way I see it though. I don't place the baby's right to life above or even equal to the mothers, the mothers health should always be primary, if she's raped or incestuously abused But I do place the baby's right to life above the woman's choice if her health isn't compromised.

So you've changed your mind again? Surprise surprise.

Sweetemotion

January wrote: »

The citizens assembly and the JOC decided on 12 weeks on request so that it allows rape and incest victims to obtain an abortion without having to disclose the reason for the abortion. It's hard to prove rape and it retraumatises victims further having to relive the experience.

You have just changed some ones view on the Internet. I have never thought of it like that.

Edward M

captbarnacles wrote: »

Edward will be voting no and it's obvious at this stage he is not seriously debating it. If he were a fully paid up subscriber to Iona it would not be a shock.

I don't think my position is unique in Ireland.
I don't agree with the eighth amendment, I'm voting repeal.
I know fully what is the most likely scenario after repeal is passed, I don't agree with abortion on demand either, but the fact that abortion is available by travel anyway, and abortion pills are being imported and used here illegally also.
Despite what may be thought of me, I also respect others views, if they feel they are happy with abortion on demand then that's their entitled view also.
Our legislators ultimately will make the decision on what comes after repeal, if repeal is passed.
I have my views on what that should be, others have theirs.
Whatever that ends up as is what I will ultimately have to live with, I might not agree with it, but as a democrat, I think anyway, I will settle for that.
I honestly don't care if you think I might be a member of Iona or not.

January

Sweetemotion wrote: »

You have just changed some ones view on the Internet. I have never thought of it like that.

Have I? I'm absolutely delighted to hear that.

pilly

Edward M wrote: »

I don't think my position is unique in Ireland.
I don't agree with the eighth amendment, I'm voting repeal.
I know fully what is the most likely scenario after repeal is passed, I don't agree with abortion on demand either, but the fact that abortion is available by travel anyway, and abortion pills are being imported and used here illegally also.
Despite what may be thought of me, I also respect others views, if they feel they are happy with abortion on demand then that's their entitled view also.
Our legislators ultimately will make the decision on what comes after repeal, if repeal is passed.
I have my views on what that should be, others have theirs.
Whatever that ends up as is what I will ultimately have to live with, I might not agree with it, but as a democrat, I think anyway, I will settle for that.
I honestly don't care if you think I might be a member of Iona or not.

I started off having total respect for your willingness to debate Edward, now I simply don't believe a word you say and this is why:

If you're going to vote to repeal and you've made that decision why are you constantly on here listing reasons not to vote to repeal?

Also, your mask slips every so often when you try to be a smart arse like asking what the citizens assembly recommended when you know full well the answer.

You've read this whole thread and I'm sure you've read extensively outside of it so as I said before please stop insulting people's intelligence by pretending to be ignorant of the facts.

pilly

January wrote: »

Have I? I'm absolutely delighted to hear that.

You don't actually believe that from someone who was telling people to close their legs in an earlier post?

January

pilly wrote: »

You don't actually believe that from someone who was telling people to close their legs in an earlier post?

Maybe I'm naive but I like to take people at face value, it is possible someone has changed their mind when they realise that the only way rape victims are going to have access to abortion is if they don't have to jump through hoops to get it. Like that awful rape committee thing that was discussed earlier in the thread. If the person is not genuine then oh well, that's their beef.

Zubeneschamali

Sweetemotion wrote: »

You have just changed some ones view on the Internet. I have never thought of it like that.

For folks who are still thinking about the issue, it really is worth reading the report and other material from the Citizen's Assembly.

They considered the issue calmly, they listened to experts, they made the recommendations the Govt is using for the referendum and legislation.

The issue of why 12 weeks unrestricted is covered in their final report (a pdf).

Percy Judd

January wrote: »

Maybe I'm naive but I like to take people at face value, it is possible someone has changed their mind when they realise that the only way rape victims are going to have access to abortion is if they don't have to jump through hoops to get it. Like that awful rape committee thing that was discussed earlier in the thread. If the person is not genuine then oh well, that's their beef.

The morning after pill is effective at preventing pregnancy up to 5 days after intercourse and legal and readily available to rape victims.
Rape is not a valid argument for abortion in my opinion.
Again these arguments (fatal fetal abnormalities, rape, incest) are not what repealing the 8th for unrestricted 12-week abortion on demand will primarily be used for.
A previous poster simply asked for statistics on what percentage of pregnancies result in fatal fetal, result from rape, and pretty much got told to shut up.
We are going the direction of England where 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion.

seamus

Percy Judd wrote: »

The morning after pill is effective at preventing pregnancy up to 5 days after intercourse and legal and readily available to rape victims.
Rape is not a valid argument for abortion in my opinion.

So if a rape victim doesn't consider the possibility that she might be pregnant and then later discovers that she is, then tough sh1t?

How very humanitarian of you.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

Percy Judd wrote: »

The morning after pill is effective at preventing pregnancy up to 5 days after intercourse and legal and readily available to rape victims.

About that:

A woman, who asked for the morning-after pill, was refused the pill after the pharmacy accused her of lying about being raped.

...

Pharmacies are allowed to refuse morning-after pills, along with other medical tablets, if they feel it affects their conscience.

Source.

Percy Judd wrote: »

We are going the direction of England where 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion.

Women have been going in the direction of England for abortion for decades. We stopped one once and quickly changed our constitution to make sure we couldn't do that again.

I struggle to see how it's better for the unborn that abortions are carried out overseas than here. No one else has been able to adequately explain it, do you want to take a shot?

Percy Judd

seamus wrote: »

So if a rape victim doesn't consider the possibility that she might be pregnant and then later discovers that she is, then tough sh1t?

How very humanitarian of you.

What? Who doesn't know that sex might result in pregnancy? You're not giving women or rape victims much credit there. Unless the rapist holds his victim captive for 5 days after raping her, then your argument doesn't hold up.