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

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?

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.

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.

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.

pilly

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

What is wrong with you people?

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

January

pilly wrote: »

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

What is wrong with you people?

I agree lads.

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.

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?

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

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.

Sierra Eire

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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

I'm a nazi (national socialist) because I don't support murdering babies? I'm not sure that makes any sense.

Definitely not a socialist. I believe in freedom and limited government.

NuMarvel

That guy who never heard of the right to bodily integrity 5 minutes ago sure does seem to have become an expert in it all of a sudden.

Sierra Eire

NuMarvel wrote: »

That guy who never heard of the right to bodily integrity 5 minutes ago sure does seem to have become an expert in it all of a sudden.

I'm not an expert in it, I just see a mother and child as two bodies, not one, and I recognise the right to life of both the mother and the child.

_Dara_

Sierra Eire wrote: »

I am not a "re-reg". This is my first account on this site and I use my username on every website I use. Try googling it. I can't find anything trollish about my question in this thread.

I find it ridiculous that a number of pro-abortion people cry "women's rights!!!" even though healthy little unborn girls are the majority of abortion victims. If you think I am a troll for not buying this "women's rights" pro-abortion argument then you are naive.

Way more female foetues are aborted than male foetuses? What are you talking about? Stop mashing the keyboard before thinking things through.

Sierra Eire

_Dara_ wrote: »

Way more female foetues are aborted than male foetuses? What are you talking about? Stop mashing the keyboard before thinking things through.

A simple Google search will agree with me. The majority of abortions are performed on unborn girls because the mothers wanted boys instead. This is a well known trend. I can't provide a link to proof because I don't have enough posts to.

Bannasidhe

Sierra Eire wrote: »

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.

You asked where the law was written.
I showed you where the law is written.

Here endeth my engagement with a fascist.

_Dara_

Sierra Eire wrote: »

A simple Google search will agree with me. The majority of abortions are performed on unborn girls because the mothers wanted boys instead. This is a well known trend. I can't provide a link to proof because I don't have enough posts to.

You can give the title of the article. No link required. Go ahead.

Oh and don’t tell me to do it myself. You made the claim. The onus is on you to back it up.

Oh and China doesn’t count. That’s not here.

Experience_day

_Dara_ wrote: »

You can give the title of the article. No link required. Go ahead.

Oh and don’t tell me to do it myself. You made the claim. The onus is on you to back it up.

Oh and China doesn’t count. That’s not here.

Why does China not count?

_Dara_

Experience_day wrote: »

Why does China not count?

This thread is about whether Irish women should have the right to have abortions in this country or go continue to travel to the UK. Baby boys aren’t culturally more valued than baby girls in Ireland.

What happens in China is of no relevance to this very geographically-restricted issue.

Use your grey matter. This is really simple stuff.

Ismisejack

The pro abortion side tend to forget that with every abortion there’s two people affected, the mother and the unborn, each has an equal right to life, neither more than the other

volchitsa

Experience_day wrote: »

Why does China not count?

You realize thousand if Irish women have abortions every single year?
What difference does it make that those babies are aborted in England not Ireland? We don't have a ban at all.

It seems funny that you want a ban on abortion in Ireland based on abortions in China, but don't seem to care much about Irish babies being aborted in England.

Annasopra

Edward M wrote: »

But that's intolerance, that still exists, abortion won't change that.

It probably will to be honest. The stigma associated with abortion will lessen hugely in this country

Annasopra

Edward M wrote: »

Aborting babies doesent end intolerance.
Intolerance is a systemic societal failure, the need for abortion is one too.
I know plenty single mothers, I don't know one I've ever heard of being ostracised, punished or made leave where she is from because of it.
I think a lot are making out that the attitudes in Ireland are still the same as the last century to suit their argument.
What part of Ireland are you posters referring to here, I know that is not the case where I live anymore anyway.

Urban County Wicklow. 1990. My Sisters 16 year old best friend gets pregnant, sent to a convent to have the child.

baylah17

Sierra Eire wrote: »

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.

Grow up, or at least come back with a grown up comment!

baylah17

Sierra Eire wrote: »

I believe in freedom

Except foe women Huh! Them wimmen need to be kept in their place!:rolleyes:

Annasopra

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 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.

The 8th in the constitution has caused so many difficulties already. Putting Rape, Incest, FFA into the constitution is a legal minfield and probably would make things worse. What other national constitution prescribes the circumstsnces in which abortion can happen.

kylith

Sierra Eire wrote: »

I'm not an expert in it, I just see a mother and child as two bodies, not one, and I recognise the right to life of both the mother and the child.

While it is incapable of surviving independently of the mother it is not a separate entity. It is part of her system.

PhoenixParker

Sierra Eire wrote: »

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.

I am a human, fully formed, living with a right to life as are you.

Imagine for instance that I need a blood donation. You are the only match. Without your blood I will die. My right to life does not trump your right to bodily autonomy.

It’s a procedure that would take maybe an hour band register as barely more than a scratch but the HSE will not have you hauled in, pinned down and your blood extracted. You can say no. Everyone might think you’re horrible for saying no, curse you, ostracize you whatever, but the courts or medical system wouldn’t force you

A fetus may indeed have a right to life just as much as you or I, but just as I don’t have a right to bits of your body, while fetus needs somebody else’s womb to survive, it is the person whose womb it is who gets to decide if she will carry it.

A fetus’s right to life shouldn’t preclude a woman from having an abortion.

robarmstrong

Ismisejack wrote: »

The pro abortion side tend to forget that with every abortion there’s two people affected, the mother and the unborn, each has an equal right to life, neither more than the other

The Pro-life side tend to forget that with every forced upon unwanted full term pregnancy they're impeding an actual existing citizen's rights, not a "person in the making".

Are you going to contribute or just drop troll-like soundbites until you're eventually banned? Genuinely curious as you sprint away from any and all replies.