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

Percy Judd wrote: »

If she's that adamant about not wanting any more children, then the pill or coil combined with male contraception (and her age) will ensure no unplanned pregnancy.

But no, that's too much effort. Abortion is the answer. Right?

Again, you're assuming that every woman can use the pill or the coil. In some cases there are women who cannot use any form of contraception.

SusieBlue

The adoption theory has been done to death, anyway. It just isn't a realistic or adequate way of dealing with the issue.

If we want to use adoption as an alternative to stop circa 4k abortions each year, we need to find 4k willing parents to adopt these kids.

We have had huge advancements in fertility treatments which means many couples struggling to conceive have other options. The average family size is decreasing on a regular basis.
Adoption is a rarity, only 5 domestic adoptions occurred in Ireland in 2016.

So the reality is that we will actually have an extra 4k children stuck in foster care. A foster care system that cannot cope with what they are already dealing with. And the only people who will suffer and bear the burden are the children resigned to this fate through no fault of their own.
A life in foster care, hoping to be adopted is no life for a child.

Its a moot point anyway because it doesn't solve the issue of women who do not want or cannot remain pregnant. Women are not vessels for supplying children to those who cannot have them. She should not have to gestate a pregnancy for someone else's gain.

January

Percy Judd wrote: »

I'm assuming if the 8th is repealed and 12-week unrestricted abortion is brought in, this will be administered using Mifepristone/misoprostol.
Can any pro-abortion people (I'm using that term since I've been labelled the provocative 'anti-choice') so why not fight fire with fire, explain to me how exactly Mifepristone terminates a fetus?
Like not wanting to see what a 12-week old fetus looks like, another inconvenient detail the pro-abortion side conveniently ignore/divert attention away from.

You've been told what a 12 week fetus looks like from a person who is pro-choice.

Nobody is ignoring what an abortion does or how it happens btw, we believe that the right of the mother is more important than the right of a fetus.

ohnonotgmail

Percy Judd wrote: »

If she's that adamant about not wanting any more children, then the pill or coil combined with male contraception (and her age) will ensure no unplanned pregnancy.

But no, that's too much effort. Abortion is the answer. Right?

even for married woman? Does the church not believe she has a duty to her husband?

Percy Judd

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Was there not several pages just shortly gone by there that addressed exactly which you claim was ignored?

Not really, all I can see is 1 poster describing the 12 week fetus as similar in appearance to a rubber alien toy. Google the images for yourself. This isn't just some unwanted cancerous growth you can destroy, it's another tiny human being with it's own heartbeat, head, arms, legs, fingers, toes, synapses formed in the brain, intestine, responds to stimulus ,etc.

Ave Sodalis

Percy Judd wrote: »

Like not wanting to see what a 12-week old fetus looks like, another inconvenient detail the pro-abortion side conveniently ignore/divert attention away from.

Was there not several pages just shortly gone by there that addressed exactly which you claim was ignored?

Percy Judd

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so we are back to a woman keeping her knees together?

If she's that adamant about not wanting any more children, then the pill or coil combined with male contraception (and her age) will ensure no unplanned pregnancy.

But no, that's too much effort. Abortion is the answer. Right?

JDD

So you recognise as a child (your words) but would still weigh up your job as being more important than its life?

Where, in my post, did I describe a foetus as a child?

If only there were some way to avoid unwanted/unplanned pregnancies.
Nope, I'm all out of ideas.
Legalized abortion is the only answer.

So your answer to my question is to stop having sex with my husband until I go through the menopause. That's actually your answer. Okay. Thanks.

Percy Judd

I'm assuming if the 8th is repealed and 12-week unrestricted abortion is brought in, this will be administered using Mifepristone/misoprostol.
Can any pro-abortion people (I'm using that term since I've been labelled the provocative 'anti-choice') so why not fight fire with fire, explain to me how exactly Mifepristone terminates a fetus?
Like not wanting to see what a 12-week old fetus looks like, another inconvenient detail the pro-abortion side conveniently ignore/divert attention away from.

This drug is a progesterone blocker, which deprives the developing baby of essential nutrients and causes him/her to die of starvation. Two days later, the woman is to take 400 mg of a second drug, misoprostol, (prostaglandin) to induce contractions that will expel the dead baby.

ohnonotgmail

Percy Judd wrote: »

If only there were some way to avoid unwanted/unplanned pregnancies.
Nope, I'm all out of ideas.
Legalized abortion is the only answer.

so we are back to a woman keeping her knees together?

Percy Judd

JDD wrote: »

Now please PLEASE answer these questions and don't just ignore them.

I'm married, 41, and have three kids. If I got pregnant again I would have a 60% chance of getting a condition called placenta accretia. It can be fatal in a very small amount of cases, but it could have permanent serious health problems in a larger amount of cases. It can't be diagnosed with any certainty until you are 34 weeks pregnant.

Would you allow a termination in the first 12 weeks in those circumstances?

Second question. Same scenario but disregard the placenta accretia as a risk. Like most women who have been pregnant (and nearly all who have had multiple pregnancies) I have pelvic floor and abdominal weakness issues. I deal with back and hip pain every day. A fourth pregnancy would exacerbate those issues and I would have to deal with them long after the pregnancy has finished.

Would you allow a termination in the first 12 weeks in those circumstances?

Last question. I don't want another child. I would have to give up my job as my childcare costs would be astronomical. I love my job, I don't want to be a stay at home mother. My other children would have to make sacrifices, not just economic ones like swimming lessons or day trips, but would get less of my time too. I'm exhausted. My children would certainly pick up on the fact that I was frustrated and trapped at home.

Would you truly expect me to carry the pregnancy to full term and give it up for adoption? To explain to everybody at work that I was giving the child up for adoption? Would you expect me to explain to my children that once their baby brother or sister was born I was giving it away because I didn't want it? What do you think that would do their psyche?

You know, and I know, full well that that wouldn't happen. You're answer would be "once you have the baby you'd change your mind, all the sacrifices would be worth it". I tell you right now, they would not. Coming from someone who always wanted children, and I made a positive decision to have all three of my children, and yet the pros outweigh the cons by a cats whisker. The pros would not outweigh the cons where I felt forced to have a fourth child.

Would you allow a termination in the first 12 weeks in those circumstances? Bear in mind, I've had my tubes tied. I've taken every precaution. But there's a 0.1% chance I could get pregnant. My third child was conceived while I was religiously on the pill, also a 0.1% chance. So it could happen. Would that make any difference - that I took every precaution (apart from never having sex with my husband again)?

Please actually answer the questions. Because you are voting on something that will directly affect me.

If only there were some way to avoid unwanted/unplanned pregnancies.
Nope, I'm all out of ideas.
Legalized abortion is the only answer.

Experience_day

JDD wrote: »

Now please PLEASE answer these questions and don't just ignore them.

I'm married, 41, and have three kids. If I got pregnant again I would have a 60% chance of getting a condition called placenta accretia. It can be fatal in a very small amount of cases, but it could have permanent serious health problems in a larger amount of cases. It can't be diagnosed with any certainty until you are 34 weeks pregnant.

Would you allow a termination in the first 12 weeks in those circumstances?

Second question. Same scenario but disregard the placenta accretia as a risk. Like most women who have been pregnant (and nearly all who have had multiple pregnancies) I have pelvic floor and abdominal weakness issues. I deal with back and hip pain every day. A fourth pregnancy would exacerbate those issues and I would have to deal with them long after the pregnancy has finished.

Would you allow a termination in the first 12 weeks in those circumstances?

Last question. I don't want another child. I would have to give up my job as my childcare costs would be astronomical. I love my job, I don't want to be a stay at home mother. My other children would have to make sacrifices, not just economic ones like swimming lessons or day trips, but would get less of my time too. I'm exhausted. My children would certainly pick up on the fact that I was frustrated and trapped at home.

Would you truly expect me to carry the pregnancy to full term and give it up for adoption? To explain to everybody at work that I was giving the child up for adoption? Would you expect me to explain to my children that once their baby brother or sister was born I was giving it away because I didn't want it? What do you think that would do their psyche?

You know, and I know, full well that that wouldn't happen. You're answer would be "once you have the baby you'd change your mind, all the sacrifices would be worth it". I tell you right now, they would not. Coming from someone who always wanted children, and I made a positive decision to have all three of my children, and yet the pros outweigh the cons by a cats whisker. The pros would not outweigh the cons where I felt forced to have a fourth child.

Would you allow a termination in the first 12 weeks in those circumstances? Bear in mind, I've had my tubes tied. I've taken every precaution. But there's a 0.1% chance I could get pregnant. My third child was conceived while I was religiously on the pill, also a 0.1% chance. So it could happen. Would that make any difference - that I took every precaution (apart from never having sex with my husband again)?

Please actually answer the questions. Because you are voting on something that will directly affect me.

So you recognise as a child (your words) but would still weigh up your job as being more important than its life?

JDD

splinter65 wrote: »

If you don’t want a baby you give it up for adoption and walk away.

Now please PLEASE answer these questions and don't just ignore them.

I'm married, 41, and have three kids. If I got pregnant again I would have a 60% chance of getting a condition called placenta accretia. It can be fatal in a very small amount of cases, but it could have permanent serious health problems in a larger amount of cases. It can't be diagnosed with any certainty until you are 34 weeks pregnant.

Would you allow a termination in the first 12 weeks in those circumstances?

Second question. Same scenario but disregard the placenta accretia as a risk. Like most women who have been pregnant (and nearly all who have had multiple pregnancies) I have pelvic floor and abdominal weakness issues. I deal with back and hip pain every day. A fourth pregnancy would exacerbate those issues and I would have to deal with them long after the pregnancy has finished.

Would you allow a termination in the first 12 weeks in those circumstances?

Last question. I don't want another child. I would have to give up my job as my childcare costs would be astronomical. I love my job, I don't want to be a stay at home mother. My other children would have to make sacrifices, not just economic ones like swimming lessons or day trips, but would get less of my time too. I'm exhausted. My children would certainly pick up on the fact that I was frustrated and trapped at home.

Would you truly expect me to carry the pregnancy to full term and give it up for adoption? To explain to everybody at work that I was giving the child up for adoption? Would you expect me to explain to my children that once their baby brother or sister was born I was giving it away because I didn't want it? What do you think that would do their psyche?

You know, and I know, full well that that wouldn't happen. You're answer would be "once you have the baby you'd change your mind, all the sacrifices would be worth it". I tell you right now, they would not. Coming from someone who always wanted children, and I made a positive decision to have all three of my children, and yet the pros outweigh the cons by a cats whisker. The pros would not outweigh the cons where I felt forced to have a fourth child.

Would you allow a termination in the first 12 weeks in those circumstances? Bear in mind, I've had my tubes tied. I've taken every precaution. But there's a 0.1% chance I could get pregnant. My third child was conceived while I was religiously on the pill, also a 0.1% chance. So it could happen. Would that make any difference - that I took every precaution (apart from never having sex with my husband again)?

Please actually answer the questions. Because you are voting on something that will directly affect me.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

BattleHardened wrote: »

Interesting article in the irish times on sunday:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/pro-choice-canvasser-shocked-by-reaction-on-doorstep-1.3422778

Dublin 4 has typically been a liberal area. But there seems to be a disparity between the rich areas of dublin 4 and the poorer areas. The rich areas according to the article were anti-repeal while the poorer areas were pro-repeal.

What are the other areas of dublin that could be considered safe in the bag for the pro-repeal side?

It broadly was similar during canvasses for the marriage equality referendum. We got a better reception in the working class areas; Ringsend, Irishtown, etc than in the more illustrious addresses. I think there was a noticeable difference in the tallies for individual polling stations in the constituency as well, though even the lowest results were still clearly yes.

BattleHardened

Interesting article in the irish times on sunday:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/pro-choice-canvasser-shocked-by-reaction-on-doorstep-1.3422778

Dublin 4 has typically been a liberal area. But there seems to be a disparity between the rich areas of dublin 4 and the poorer areas. The rich areas according to the article were anti-repeal while the poorer areas were pro-repeal.

What are the other areas of dublin that could be considered safe in the bag for the pro-repeal side?

Pedro K

Percy Judd wrote: »

Just because someone travels to another country to engage in activities that are illegal in their own country, does not automatically mean those activities should be legalized in their own country. That seems to be the logic here. "It's illegal here, but legal over there, and people are going over there, so let's legalize here".

There are lots of differences in laws between countries, if we legalized in Ireland everything that was legal in every other country in the world then the country would not be a very nice place. For instance, age of consent is 13 in Japan, should we lower ours to 13 just because it's legal there?

What bothers me about all this is, there's absolutely no focus or attention on preventing unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. The focus now is solely on abortion as the solution. I'm sure women don't like having abortions, and would prefer if the pregnancy never happened. It can't be a nice thing to go through, and can result in psychological damage and guilt afterwards.

Why is there no focus on educating both men and women on proper contraception use and the consequences of unprotected sex. Why is abortion being so heavily marketed instead?

Did you read the report of the joint Oireachtas committee?

PhoenixParker

January wrote: »

BTW You'll never get true statistics anywhere of how many rape cases end up in pregnancy because not every person will reveal whether they were raped or not.

Over half the women who travelled to England for an abortion last year had used at least one form of contraception to prevent pregnancy and over half were already parents. This does not sit with the anti-choice argument that women are irresponsible people who are having sex without precautions and using abortion as contraception. (Which you cannot do btw, because contraception prevents pregnancy.)

The fact that most are already parents suggests that most of those availing of UK abortion services are more than familiar with the development levels of fetuses at various stages of gestation, contrary to the pro-life statements made above.

In general it's the pro life side who I've seen making incorrect statements about how menstruation and pregnancy work. Basic things like weeks gestation, eg stating that a woman who is 12 weeks pregnant has possibly known of her pregnancy for 12 weeks, irregular cycles and how common they are. Or the big one for me seeming to believe that pregnancy, childbirth and raising an additional child are merely inconvient (because women get abortions for "convenience reasons") instead of the overwhelming, permanently life altering reality.

January

Percy Judd wrote: »

Let me ask you both, as previous poster asked but was not answered. What percentage of pregnancies are a result of rape? And why is abortion being opened up to everyone with no restrictions up to 12 weeks because of these exceptional circumstances? (rape, ffa, etc.)

BTW You'll never get true statistics anywhere of how many rape cases end up in pregnancy because not every person will reveal whether they were raped or not.

Over half the women who travelled to England for an abortion last year had used at least one form of contraception to prevent pregnancy and over half were already parents. This does not sit with the anti-choice argument that women are irresponsible people who are having sex without precautions and using abortion as contraception. (Which you cannot do btw, because contraception prevents pregnancy.)

nozzferrahhtoo

Percy Judd wrote: »

The main arguments on the pro-choice side are these rape, ffa, incest and so on.

If you say so. It is not my main argument. In fact it is not one of my arguments AT ALL. My ENTIRE pro-choice argument in fact does not mention rape, ffa, or incest at all. And in fact I have no moral or ethical issues with incest at all. Nor has anyone, on long threads on that subject, suggested why I might or should.

I do not think rape ffa and incest are required to make a solid and coherent argument on the subject of pro choice abortion whatsoever.

Percy Judd wrote: »

The truth is most of those abortions are probably just women using it as another form of contraception

How can that be "truth" when abortion, simply by definition, can NOT be a form of "contraception". Is it possible you are not actually aware of what contraception actually means?

Percy Judd wrote: »

What bothers me about all this is, there's absolutely no focus or attention on preventing unwanted or unplanned pregnancies.

Isn't there? A lot of people, myself included, have focused on it quite a lot, including on this very thread.

In fact I have written quite long appeals to both sides of the abortion debate explaining how we should not, as emotive as abortion is as a topic, lose sight of the common ground we share on both sides of abortion. Which is that generally everyone, on both sides of that issue, actually want less abortions happening.

And I have discussed at great length how in my experience (as I can only speak for myself here) the push back I get against initiatives aimed at reducing unwanted pregnancies comes FROM the people who are against abortion. Which seems to make no sense to me.

But for example we have people against abortion, including one vocal but very poorly argues one on this thread, who want to do away with social welfare, single parent allowance, and child allowance. So the very financial aid that would help women who feel financially pressured into abortion as their only option.......... is to be removed but abortion is too. Talk about having your cake AND eating it AND making sure no one else can eat it too. All from the selfish mouth of someone who simply does not want to see HIS tax money spent in any way on OTHER peoples kids.

Another example is how people like myself push for longer, more comprehensive and MUCH earlier sexual education as part of the core school curriculum. Why is it whenever I suggest such a thing almost the ONLY people who say it is a bad idea..... usually under some non-sequitur nonsense about protecting the "innocence" of children (still do not see the connection myself)........ are people who are themselves against abortion. Why do I almost never see pro-choice people complain about sex education in kids?

We also heavily tend to suggest things like removing VAT from contraceptives and morning after solutions, and making them easier to access. And also push for a consciousness raising campaign for parents to teach them that "the talk" with their kids needs not to be "THE talk" but an ongoing iterative conversation that starts from an early age and goes on for years.

So I do not think "The focus now is solely on abortion as the solution.". Abortion is not the solution. Abortion is a CHOICE. And those of us who are pro-choice but ALSO want little or no abortions happening also concentrate heavily on making sure there are other useful choices that are accessible.

The question is why do people push back against those solution and suggestions and why, in my experience at least, does that push back come from people AGAINST abortion. How can they be against abortion AND the solutions to reducing it at the same time.

Percy Judd wrote: »

Look up an image of a 12 week fetus (I know you probably won't, those in favour of abortion are generally afraid of the realities of what they're campaigning for) and tell me that's not a human life.

I am intimately aware of the stages of the entire gestation process myself. Not just the pictures of it, but the processes, changes, stages, and much more. So, for me at least, your "I know you probably won't" simply does not apply at any level whatsoever. I am probably more informed on the subject than all but 10 or 12 users on this forum.

And I simply see no moral or ethical issues with abortion of a 12 week gestated fetus. So rather than tell us "go look it up", how about YOU go look it up, and tell me what attributes specifically (rather than a general description you offered) should be triggering the concerns you appear to think should be triggered.

I certainly do not see why "reflexes" is a mediation point for anything at all. Though we do have a user around here who was mightily impressed by a paper on how the tongue waggles when you play music at the fetus. Unfortunately in trying to describe what the movement LOOKS like the author says it looks like "trying to speak".

But alas the user appears to have read that as the fetus WAS trying to speak, rather than making movements similar to those of trying to speak. And got rather emotive on the subject of abortion as a result.

Oldtree

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.

The morning after pill does the following 3 things (yes I looked it up to educate myself)

1. Temporarily stops the release of an egg from the ovary

2. Prevents fertilization

3. Prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus

Yes, a fertilised egg and fertilisation occurs in the fallopian tubes. So is this or is this not an abortion that you agree with?

Frank Bullitt

pilly wrote: »

It's gas the amount of new members Boards are getting out of this referendum. Strange thing is all their posts are vaguely similar. Ummm...........

You would think they would have just used the same ones they used to argue against same sex marriage.

Silly billies.

[Deleted User]

Percy Judd wrote: »

Indeed I'm not.
The main arguments on the pro-choice side are these rape, ffa, incest and so on.
My point stands these are exceptional circumstances and if 1 in 5 pregnancies in England are terminated, then that's a lot of rape or ffa pregnancies.
The truth is most of those abortions are probably just women using it as another form of contraception, deciding they made a mistake and don't want to raise a child so killing them instead (up to 24 weeks.)

The main argument on the pro choice side is that women should have the right to choose what to do with their own body.
The main argument on the pro repeal side is that the 8th amendment is detrimental to the health of women.
Maybe you should read this thread & understand some of the issues that come into being because of the 8th.

Oh & abortion cannot be used as contraception, I suggest a dictionary.
FYI, not all women can take the morning after pill, I know I cannot

amdublin

Percy Judd wrote: »

What did it look like then?

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the poster had a miscarriage around 12 weeks. It seems wrong to me to ask them to describe what they miscarried. Why no empathy?

Why does it feel like prolifers are all about punishing women over and over.

But hey if you're into that sort of thing. My mam told me about a miscarriage she had at the age of 24 at six months gestation. She said she went to the bathroom and she felt like her insides had fallen out of her and she was so petrified scared because she thought she was dying. I didn't ask her what it looked like sorry.

NuMarvel

Percy Judd wrote: »

Just because someone travels to another country to engage in activities that are illegal in their own country, does not automatically mean those activities should be legalized in their own country. That seems to be the logic here. "It's illegal here, but legal over there, and people are going over there, so let's legalize here".

There are lots of differences in laws between countries, if we legalized in Ireland everything that was legal in every other country in the world then the country would not be a very nice place. For instance, age of consent is 13 in Japan, should we lower ours to 13 just because it's legal there?

It isn't just because someone travels. It's that no one wants to stop them. To the point that we voted to put the freedom to travel for an abortion above the unborn's right to life, as I said in the part of the post you edited out.

That's what makes abortion different from most other illegal activities in Ireland; it's the only one where being able to do it abroad is constitutionally protected.

Tell me, if you knew someone was going to have an abortion abroad, would you try to stop them?

Percy Judd wrote: »

What bothers me about all this is, there's absolutely no focus or attention on preventing unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. The focus now is solely on abortion as the solution. I'm sure women don't like having abortions, and would prefer if the pregnancy never happened. It can't be a nice thing to go through, and can result in psychological damage and guilt afterwards.

Why is there no focus on educating both men and women on proper contraception use and the consequences of unprotected sex. Why is abortion being so heavily marketed instead?

Education and increased access to contraceptives were recommendations of both the Citizen's Assembly and the Joint Oireachtas Committee, so you're wrong on that point. And many campaigners for repeal have called for these measures for some time.

The only people who say nothing about these are anti-repealers. And some of them, eg the Catholic Church are outright opposed to them.

Percy Judd

seamus wrote: »

You're conflating two issues. We're discussing rape. The 12-week proposal is separate.

Indeed I'm not.
The main arguments on the pro-choice side are these rape, ffa, incest and so on.
My point stands these are exceptional circumstances and if 1 in 5 pregnancies in England are terminated, then that's a lot of rape or ffa pregnancies.
The truth is most of those abortions are probably just women using it as another form of contraception, deciding they made a mistake and don't want to raise a child so killing them instead (up to 24 weeks.)

January

It's hard to describe without sounding crass tbh. Have you seen one? I'd liken it to one of those little aliens you used to get in pods with slime around it years ago when we were kids.

seamus

Percy Judd wrote: »

Let me ask you both, as previous poster asked but was not answered. What percentage of pregnancies are a result of rape? And why is abortion being opened up to everyone with no restrictions up to 12 weeks because of these exceptional circumstances? (rape, ffa, etc.)

You're conflating two issues. We're discussing rape. The 12-week proposal is separate.

Percy Judd

January wrote: »

I said it was not human like, that doesn't mean to say it is not human. But it didn't look like this anyway - https://www.google.ie/search?q=12+week+fetus&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiomZremunZAhXMCMAKHU2vAUkQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=637#imgrc=J-ekNKuC1LL94M:

What did it look like then?

January

Percy Judd wrote: »

What is it then?

I said it was not human like, that doesn't mean to say it is not human. But it didn't look like this anyway - https://www.google.ie/search?q=12+week+fetus&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiomZremunZAhXMCMAKHU2vAUkQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=637#imgrc=J-ekNKuC1LL94M: