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

splinter65

....... wrote: »

So because of your failure to see whats patently obvious, all women in Ireland should suffer under the 8th?

What makes you the judge and jury on whether or not abortion has improved the lives of women anywhere in the world? You could look at my life and think its not great, but I like it and as I live it - my opinion is really the only one that matters regarding it.

However, given your abject failure to see how abortion has improved the lives of women, please do elucidate and tell us exactly where and how it has dis-improved the lives of women. Something must be informing your opinion, so share this evidence with the rest of us?

Give me an example of how abortion has improved women’s lives anywhere in the world.
It has disimproved the lives of women in Asia by snuffing them out before they got a chance to be born.
Millions of them.
I’ll give you a chance there to tell me how that’s just not true.

Bannasidhe

splinter65 wrote: »

Give me an example of how abortion has improved women’s lives anywhere in the world.
It has disimproved the lives of women in Asia by snuffing them out before they got a chance to be born.
Millions of them.
I’ll give you a chance there to tell me how that’s just not true.

How can a life be disimproved when it never actually truly began?

So much hyperbole.
So little logic.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

splinter65 wrote: »

Give me an example of how abortion has improved women’s lives anywhere in the world.

You cast a wide net there. So wide that it can easily be answered with the more Obvious examples. Women who have been impregnated by rape can use abortion to have the option to not gestate and produce the spawn of the monster who committed that horrific violence against them for example. Women who feel that the presence of that fetus inside them feels like they are being raped again and again every second of every day.

In a medical context the ability to abort has saved lives in scenarios where the doctor(s) involved have ascertained that the fetus, the mother, or both will simply not survive the process. So there are women alive today that without the ability to terminate the pregnancy they had would simply not be alive today and their resulting fetus or child would either be dead too, or born without one or more of it's parents.

In a socio-economic context it gives women the change to continue on their life path, career choices, educational choices, and so forth by terminating a pregnancy that would eventually result in a child that would curtail, derange, even entirely preclude them their dreams and ambitions.

This is all measurable in the well being of actual sentient entities, the women who have used abortion. To contrast with that you appear to hold up the imaginary well being of entities that do not exist but you assume would have otherwise. So I am not sure you compare like with like by comparing the well being of actual people with the well being of people who never came to exist.

In other words when you say "It has disimproved the lives of women in Asia by snuffing them out before they got a chance to be born." you can not "disimprove" the quality of a life that never existed. It would be like taking an empty glass and turning it upside down in the attempt to make it even more empty of water. It just does not parse as anything but nonsense.

Giving women autonomy over their own reproductive processes also ensures the mutual benefit for mother and child than when a woman choose to produce an actual person they do so when THEY want to and when THEY feel they can provide the best future and life for the child they create. So this benefits not just those women, but the very real (as opposed to your imaginary) women (and men) they go on to produce.

The list goes on and I could write 10 more posts this length, but since your question was so wide reaching and containing such a low threshold, I feel this is many times more than is required to answer what you actually asked.

captbarnacles

January wrote: »

We don't have to come up with an excuse because we don't believe that it is killing anything. Killing is taking a life, a fetus isn't a life it has the potential to become a life. We simply believe that a woman's choice to either continue or end the pregnancy be her own and nobody but her should be able to make that decision.

So you can keep shouting all you like about the right to life of the unborn but the supreme Court has ruled that outside of the 8th the unborn has no other rights and the government are currently bringing forward as referendum to Repeal that amendment. If its repealed a woman will have choice which is a huge step forward in this country and if its not repealed then sure we will shout louder and hopefully it won't take another 30 odd years before a government has the balls to tackle the issue again.

None of the pro-lifers believe it either. Picture this: Irish women are ordering pills online to kill born Irish children and mothers are taking born Irish children to England where they can be killed and the response of the pro-lifers is to shrug their shoulders and say "can't do anything about that". Get out. They'd be picketing airports and ferryports, demanding we cease all diplomatic and trade ties with England and staging hunger strikes on O'Connell street. Every normal persons response would be extreme.

This is all absurd of course. They do not in any way, shape or form believe the unborn are a full human life.

baylah17

splinter65 wrote: »

Give me an example of how abortion has improved women’s lives anywhere in the world.
It has disimproved the lives of women in Asia by snuffing them out before they got a chance to be born.
Millions of them.
I’ll give you a chance there to tell me how that’s just not true.

That post is just sad, pure emotional hyperbole, all that is missing is the violins in the background.
If thats the best that the anti-choice can offer then they should quit now!

Beta Ray Bill

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, the reasons are in the report.

Which I'm sure you have read, right?

I take the citizens assembly with a pinch of salt.
Nearly a third left/withdrew from the process. (how could a third leave on such an important topic?!?)
An additional 7 were hired via a Red C employee.

I've learned not to trust governments, "independent" reports/findings, committee's, assemblys and all the other crap that goes along with it.
There is always someone pulling the strings.

baylah17

grahambo wrote: »

I take the citizens assembly with a pinch of salt.
Nearly a third left/withdrew from the process. (how could a third leave on such an important topic?!?)
An additional 7 were hired via a Red C employee.

I've learned not to trust governments, "independent" reports/findings, committee's, assemblys and all the other crap that goes along with it.
There is always someone pulling the strings.

Incorrect, none of those involved in the discussions on the 8th were hired by the Red C employee who hand picked members, that happened AFTER the CA had already dealth with the 8th.

splinter65

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How can a life be disimproved when it never actually truly began?

So much hyperbole.
So little logic.

Science has said that life begins at conception.
Do you want to argue that?
If that zygote is not a human being then what is it?
Right now in China 120 boys are born for every 100 girls. That’s a lot of women who aren’t here because of abortion.
How is that good for women?

JDD

grahambo wrote: »

I take the citizens assembly with a pinch of salt.
Nearly a third left/withdrew from the process. (how could a third leave on such an important topic?!?)
An additional 7 were hired via a Red C employee.

I've learned not to trust governments, "independent" reports/findings, committee's, assemblys and all the other crap that goes along with it.
There is always someone pulling the strings.

I'm not saying your concerns are well founded, but it's not a completely uncommon view.

Presumably though, if the referendum is passed with the view that the legislation in its current form will be enacted, you will believe that it wasn't just a coincidence that assembly, committee and the majority of the population are of the same view?

baylah17

splinter65 wrote: »

How is that good for women?

How is treating women like breeding bitches good for women, since that's what you appear to be advocating?

Zubeneschamali

splinter65 wrote: »

Science has said that life begins at conception.

Last time I checked, Science said life began at least 4 billion years ago.

baylah17

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Last time I checked, Science said life began at least 4 billion years ago.

But But But ....what about Adam and Eve and the Bible, its not 4 million years old.:rolleyes:

splinter65

baylah17 wrote: »

That post is just sad, pure emotional hyperbole, all that is missing is the violins in the background.
If thats the best that the anti-choice can offer then they should quit now!

Will I wait for you to counter with an argument to disprove what I posted or will we agree now that my post is factual and you can’t think of anything else to do except sneer?

baylah17

splinter65 wrote: »

my post is factual and you can’t think of anything else to do except sneer?

Your post is pure childish drivel.

splinter65

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Last time I checked, Science said life began at least 4 billion years ago.

Human life begins at conception.
You know that.

Zubeneschamali

splinter65 wrote: »

Human life begins at conception. You know that.

Not legally, it doesn't.

splinter65

baylah17 wrote: »

Your post is pure childish drivel.

If my post isn’t factual then all you have to do is point out the non facts. It should be easy.

baylah17

splinter65 wrote: »

Human life begins at conception.
You know that.

Eh , NO!
Not even if the Catechism says so Father
You see there is where you fail as you are starting off with a silly fallacy

NuMarvel

splinter65 wrote: »

Science has said that life begins at conception.
Do you want to argue that?
If that zygote is not a human being then what is it?

Whatever about when life beings, the right to life doesn't being at conception. And no pro lifer has ever asked for the constitution to be changed to say that it does.

What's more, the people voted to put the freedoms to travel and to access information about abortion service abroad above the unborn's right to life. So regardless of when the right to life begins, we've already decided that a woman's freedoms and rights, beyond her right to life, can override the unborn's right to life. And again, no pro lifer has ever asked for the constitution to be changed to reverse that position.

So why then shouldn't we grant the same status to a woman's right to bodily autonomy, even if it's just early on in the pregnancy. If we've already decided that we think a woman should be able to access abortion elsewhere, what is the reason for denying her the same options here?

That's a question I've asked more than once on this or other threads, and to date, not a single "pro life" supporter has been able to rationally answer it.

Bannasidhe

splinter65 wrote: »

Science has said that life begins at conception.
Do you want to argue that?
If that zygote is not a human being then what is it?
Right now in China 120 boys are born for every 100 girls. That’s a lot of women who aren’t here because of abortion.
How is that good for women?

'Life' in the narrowest possible definition of the word- it exists, without any knowledge that it exists and nature aborts around 1 in 4 of those zygotes. I await your campaign to have those recognised as deaths.

It it genetically human. But if you believe being human is simply a matter of the composition of one's DNA and all that other stuff about ability to live without the need to gain ones nutrients/oxygen etc from another human being, awareness of one's own existence, or any of the other stuff that defines us as a species - you know, that whole Homo Sapiens Sapiens stuff - then it would seem you see us as on a par with a amoeba. Which is after all a life.

It's a bit rich to talk about China given Ireland's woeful track record on protecting women and children. I'm sure the 500 children buried in Tuam gave thanks everyday they were born in Ireland not aborted in China. Classic whataboutery in lieu of an actual argument.

I look forward to seeing you picket your local airport to save lives - seeing as you are so concerned about the global abortion situation.

splinter65

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not legally, it doesn't.

Biologically human life begins at conception. As much as you would like it to be otherwise.
A human being with its own DNA seperate to its parents.
I prefer science to the law.

JDD

splinter65 wrote: »

Human life begins at conception.
You know that.

I'll bite.

I believe a zygote is a human being. My definition of human being is any combination of human cells that results from a female and male reproductive cells bonding together.

I don't believe being scientifically classified as a human being automatically bestows upon you the right to life. So there you go.

Bannasidhe

JDD wrote: »

I'll bite.

I don't believe being scientifically classified as a human being automatically bestows upon you the right to life. So there you go.

Of course it does - that's why we have free universal healthcare and banned wars... oh...wait...

robarmstrong

NuMarvel wrote: »

Whatever about when life beings, the right to life doesn't being at conception. And no pro lifer has ever asked for the constitution to be changed to say that it does.

What's more, the people voted to put the freedoms to travel and to access information about abortion service abroad above the unborn's right to life. So regardless of when the right to life begins, we've already decided that a woman's freedoms and rights, beyond her right to life, override the unborn's right to life. And again, no pro lifer has ever asked for the constitution to be changed to reverse that position.

So why then shouldn't we grant the same status to a woman's right to bodily autonomy, even if it's just early on in the pregnancy. If we've already decided that we think a woman should be able to access abortion elsewhere, what is the reason for denying her the same options here?

That's a question I've asked more than once on this or other threads, and to date, not a single "pro life" supporter has been able to rationally answer it.

Because the majority of them cling to an outdated ideology passed down to them by people who turned a blind eye to atrocities committed by the establishment that's so staunchly against abortion in the first place.

Pro-lifers never respond to my own comments about how I'm against abortion but I want it brought in so that the generation after me doesn't have to suffer the shame and humiliation that thousands of women before them suffered.

Let's weigh it up - abortion is wrong yeah, but oppressing the rights of people who already are living, existing and in this world is a lot more wrong I think.

Like I said before I would fully support and care for my daughter if she ever had to go through an abortion, I'd be failing as a father by suppressing her the right to choose what can or cannot happen to her own body, nobody else has the right to say that other than her, and I want her to have that right a lot more than I want the 8th to be saved.

Pedro K

splinter65 wrote: »

Biologically human life begins at conception. As much as you would like it to be otherwise.
A human being with its own DNA seperate to its parents.
I prefer science to the law.

Are you against progestin, IUD, or other methods of contraception whose mechanism stops implantation?

NuMarvel

splinter65 wrote: »

Biologically human life begins at conception. As much as you would like it to be otherwise.
A human being with its own DNA seperate to its parents.
I prefer science to the law.

We're talking about a constitutional referendum so this is about law, not science. If you want to talk about this as a purely scientific matter, then maybe try the Health Sciences forum.

If you want to use this as an argument for not changing our laws, then you're going to have to address the fact that the law is already different from what you're saying, and will continue to be if the people vote No in the referendum.

JDD

Pedro K wrote: »

Are you against progestin, IUD, or other methods of contraception whose mechanism stops implantation?

And leading on from that, are you against IVF?

Zubeneschamali

splinter65 wrote: »

I prefer science to the law.

I don't see lads in white coats at the pro-life rallies for some reason.

Do you know who DOES believes what you believe about zygotes?

The Roman Catholic Church.

david75

Grasping at straws seems to be a thing with the anti choice brigade

Legal challenge lodged to allow people in North vote in Eighth Amendment referendum

http://www.thejournal.ie/judicial-review-8th-amendment-referendum-3902154-Mar2018/?utm_source=shortlink