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

Sierra Eire

In response to the woman's right to bodily integrity, the child in the womb is not her body.

If a woman wants to have surgery to remove a wart from her hand or something, I'm fine with that. But the child's body is not her body so I don't think the right to bodily integrity gives you the right to kill a baby.

SusieBlue

pilly wrote: »

Jesus H Christ lads. You're engaging with a Nazi!

What is wrong with you people?

I should have known better, at this stage. I’m done now.

Sierra Eire

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Why shouldn’t they? What makes a zygote more important than the woman carrying it?

If a building was on fire and you could only save either a zygote in a petri dish or a toddler, which would you save?

I never said an unborn child is more important than the mother. I said the unborn child's right to life trumps every right of the mother except her right to life. If her life is in danger, I would accept abortion in her case.

What does a "zygote" in a petri dish have to do with abortion?

NuMarvel

Sierra Eire wrote: »

I have never heard of any of these "rights" you are describing. Are these actually upheld by law or are you saying they are rights because you think they should be?

No, they're just phrases I made up on the spot. :rolleyes:

Yes, these are actual established rights. And if you've really never heard of them, then I suggest you do some research into the area before discussing the matter of rights any further.

January

pilly wrote: »

Jesus H Christ lads. You're engaging with a Nazi!

What is wrong with you people?

I agree lads.

January

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Yeah, Broadsheet reported that a few days ago. He was on no registry, his certificate that John McGuirk produced is dated two years after it claimed he started, and they have a major typo on it (practicioner)... he's also has a book called Forgiving Ferns, in which he describes his time as a gun runner and a thief.

And he left the campaign because the pro choice side was bullying him ha

pilly

Jesus H Christ lads. You're engaging with a Nazi!

What is wrong with you people?

Sierra Eire

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Supreme Court ruling 2001.

Right to Bodily Integrity.
The North Western Health Board -v- H.W. & C.W.

OK - but how can you justify ending a child's life to satisfy the "right to bodily integrity"?

"Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies."

A child in the womb is a human being, so from what I can gather, abortion infringes on the child's right to bodily integrity and their right to life.

robarmstrong

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Why shouldn’t they? What makes a zygote more important than the woman carrying it?

If a building was on fire and you could only save either a zygote in a petri dish or a toddler, which would you save?

They never answer the question so I'd honestly be surprised if they do.

To be brutally honest I think this batch of pro-lifers are just trolls looking to wind people up, they all spit out the same thing, ignore points made and spit out more wind-up worthy stuff and it's pathetic. There was one saying pro-choice is pro-abortion when it really, really isn't.

They can't accept that you can be entirely against abortion but still be in support of women's rights and their right to hold control over their own body.

Ave Sodalis

gmisk wrote: »

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/doubts-grow-over-nurse-used-by-anti-abortion-campaign-f37tb0ms9

So not a nurse then in any shape or form..really poor form from the save the 8th campaign

Yeah, Broadsheet reported that a few days ago. He was on no registry, his certificate that John McGuirk produced is dated two years after it claimed he started, and they have a major typo on it (practicioner)... he's also has a book called Forgiving Ferns, in which he describes his time as a gun runner and a thief.

SusieBlue

Sierra Eire wrote: »

Why should her rights (apart from her right to life) trump that of the child's right to life?

Why shouldn’t they? What makes a zygote more important than the woman carrying it?

If a building was on fire and you could only save either a zygote in a petri dish or a toddler, which would you save?

Bannasidhe

Sierra Eire wrote: »

I have never heard of any of these "rights" you are describing. Are these actually upheld by law or are you saying they are rights because you think they should be?

Supreme Court ruling 2001.

Right to Bodily Integrity.
The North Western Health Board -v- H.W. & C.W.

Sierra Eire

WhiteRoses wrote: »

A zygote or fetus does not have equal value to a living, breathing woman. A woman is so much more valuable and important and her rights absolutely should trump that of the contents of her womb.

Why should her rights (apart from her right to life) trump that of the child's right to life?

SusieBlue

Sierra Eire wrote: »

Once again, if a woman's life is in danger and can be proven to be in danger due to the pregnancy, I would be OK with abortion.

A baby is not a "potential person". When a baby is born it's always a human being that comes out of the vagina, not a cheesecake or a puppy - a human.

I see you once again totally ignored my point about how the 8th affects women’s rights in other ways besides abortion.

I think you hit the nail on the head there - key phrase being when it’s born.
When it’s born we can afford it equal rights to its mother. Before that, while it resides in HER uterus and depends on her to get to the point that it can be born, it’s her body, and it should be up to her what happens it.

A zygote or fetus does not have equal value to a living, breathing woman. A woman is so much more valuable and important and her rights absolutely should trump that of the contents of her womb.

gmisk

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/doubts-grow-over-nurse-used-by-anti-abortion-campaign-f37tb0ms9

So not a nurse then in any shape or form..really poor form from the save the 8th campaign

Sierra Eire

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's a women's rights issue because our law doesn't presently consider any of the woman's rights during pregnancy, bar her right to life. Her right to bodily atuonomy and her health; her right to be free of degrading and inhuman treatment; her right to freely give or withhold consent to clinical services; all out the window. Men never experience this; all of the rights above are guaranteed for us, even if it results in someone else's death.

So yes, this is very much a women's rights issue.

I have never heard of any of these "rights" you are describing. Are these actually upheld by law or are you saying they are rights because you think they should be?

Sierra Eire

WhiteRoses wrote: »

a womans needs, wants and rights are more important than that of a potential person. It’s that simple.

Once again, if a woman's life is in danger and can be proven to be in danger due to the pregnancy, I would be OK with abortion.

A baby is not a "potential person". When a baby is born it's always a human being that comes out of the vagina, not a cheesecake or a puppy - a human.

pitifulgod

Sierra Eire wrote: »

That isn't my Twitter account, please stick to the abortion discussion. But if you must harass me on Twitter, go after me on my @DaveCullenCF account. Thanks.

You're "openly white" ... So the Hitler stuff is yours? Right so...

NuMarvel

Sierra Eire wrote: »

Yes, it IS a women's rights issue when the woman's right to life is at risk because of the pregnancy. If you think it is a women's rights issue to have on-demand abortion then you'll need to explain why.

It's a women's rights issue because our law doesn't presently consider any of the woman's rights during pregnancy, bar her right to life. Her right to bodily atuonomy and her health; her right to be free of degrading and inhuman treatment; her right to freely give or withhold consent to clinical services; all out the window. Men never experience this; all of the rights above are guaranteed for us, even if it results in someone else's death.

So yes, this is very much a women's rights issue.

SusieBlue

Sierra Eire wrote: »

Yes, it IS a women's rights issue when the woman's right to life is at risk because of the pregnancy. If you think it is a women's rights issue to have on-demand abortion then you'll need to explain why.

Please see my point about the referendum being about more than abortion, it effects women’s rights in many other ways.
I don’t owe you any explanations, a womans needs, wants and rights are more important than that of a potential person. It’s that simple.

NuMarvel

Cally Caleigh wrote: »

It's a shame for people like me who know the complications the 8th amendment causes and the positives of repealing it to replace with legislation. I don't believe the constitution is the place for such a complex legal issue.
But replacing with legislation that allows 12-week unrestricted is a step too far for me, having done research on how much the fetus at 12 weeks has physically developed.
Obviously something had to change for cases of fatal fetal abnormality, or where the mother's life would be in danger by not aborting (hypertension, septic miscarriage, etc). And I would vote to repeal if that was the extent of the replacement text. But it's not. So I guess it's a no from me.

In reality, a no vote won't stop abortions up to 12 weeks. Women will continue to travel, the majority of them doing so within the first 12 weeks. Women will continue to import pills, all of them within the first 12 weeks.

A no vote doesn't stop abortions, it just means they'll continue to be exported or happen in secret. And as we heard at the Assembly and Committee hearings, this puts women's health and sometimes even their lives at risk. Women who travel will have no continuity of care, and there are legal restrictions on the exchange of information between medical teams. Women who experience side effects of imported pills risk bring put on trial and sent to jail if they seek medical attention.

So if a No vote means abortions will happen but women's health or lives be be at greater risk, and a yes vote means abortions will happen but the risk to women's health or lives is lesser, surely a Yes vote is the obvious choice? I'm not saying it's an easy choice, but compared to the alternative, it's surely the least worst one. Especially when it's still open to you to campaign for the 12 week limit to be reduced or removed post repeal.

Sierra Eire

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It is a woman’s rights issue. And the referendum is about SO much more than abortion.
Please educate yourself on the matter.

Yes, it IS a women's rights issue when the woman's right to life is at risk because of the pregnancy. If you think it is a women's rights issue to have on-demand abortion then you'll need to explain why.

Sierra Eire

WhiteRoses wrote: »

If you are ok with abortion in cases of rape you are ok with abortion. A life is a life, it doesn’t become any less of a baby because of how it was conceived.
If you are ok with it in cases of rape I presume you’ll be voting to repeal.

I never mentioned rape. I would not support abortion in rape cases for two reasons. The first one being that the child is still a child. I would be OK with the rape victim giving it up for adoption or something like that. The second reason I would be against abortion in rape cases is because I believe it would lead to false rape allegations being made.

SusieBlue

Sierra Eire wrote: »

Abortion is not a women's rights issue, unless the woman in question is at risk of dying from the pregnancy.

That is all I have to say.

It is a woman’s rights issue. And the referendum is about SO much more than abortion.
Please educate yourself on the matter.

Sierra Eire

Abortion is not a women's rights issue, unless the woman in question is at risk of dying from the pregnancy.

That is all I have to say.

SusieBlue

Sierra Eire wrote: »

If a woman's life is in danger because of the pregnancy, I would be OK with abortion in that case.

But the pro-abortion agenda in this country will legalise on-demand abortion.

If you are ok with abortion in cases of rape you are ok with abortion. A life is a life, it doesn’t become any less of a baby because of how it was conceived.
If you are ok with it in cases of rape I presume you’ll be voting to repeal.

Sierra Eire

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

If it is, interesting in August you posted "It's funny how many people get upset at the stuff they are not forced to do..."

That isn't my Twitter account, please stick to the abortion discussion. But if you must harass me on Twitter, go after me on my @DaveCullenCF account. Thanks.

Ave Sodalis

david75 wrote: »

Check out his charming YouTube channel. Swastikas and Nazi videos ahoy

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfC0sIGuXx55iEuep-86Svw

:rolleyes:

Okay, I bit and googled it... https://plus.google.com/106944670544413788191

So Nazi and Swastika videos, calling people ******s, and have a childish public argument with some other youtuber, and you're not a troll? Is this your Twitter? https://twitter.com/CommunistRalph

If it is, interesting in August you posted "It's funny how many people get upset at the stuff they are not forced to do..."

Sierra Eire

WhiteRoses wrote: »

What about the women carrying the pregnancy, what about her rights? Her rights (as a living person) should supersede that of a potential person.

As someone very wise said earlier in the thread, you are looking at the uterus so hard you can’t see the woman attached to it.

If a woman's life is in danger because of the pregnancy, I would be OK with abortion in that case.

But the pro-abortion agenda in this country will legalise on-demand abortion.

pitifulgod

david75 wrote: »

Check out his charming YouTube channel. Swastikas and Nazi videos ahoy

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfC0sIGuXx55iEuep-86Svw

Ya I was a tad concerned when Hitler seemed to fill up all the results...