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

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

What the forced birthers seem to forget is that sometimes there's more than a woman and a foetus being affected. Sometimes there's a husband and already born children that also have to be taken into consideration. But sure **** them as long as another little baby is born its all good. If the family can't afford to eat because of that that's grand isn't it?

nozzferrahhtoo

Sierra Eire wrote: »

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.

But it is not a "baby" that gets aborted. The first thing you would find beneficial is look at the statistics on choice based abortion around the world. Consistently, regardless of whether it is a country with restrictions like the UK, or one with nearly no restrictions like Canada, we find that women have abortions in or before week 12 well over 90% of the time and the near totality of such abortions happen by week 16.

So throwing words like "baby" and "human being" around clouds the issue of just what it is being terminated. It is an attempt to use those words to fuzz the entire human life cycle into one generic emotive blob that the anti choice campaigner hopes no one looks too closely at.

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?

What people like that are generally discussing is the fact that human morality and ethics and rights are in the business of mediating the actions and well being of conscious creatures.

If we are to curtail the choices of individuals, choices that will affect their freedoms, well being, health and more the we need to do so with good reason.

I see NO good reason, least of all from you so far, to suggest that those choices should be being curtailed in deference to a non-sentient non-conscious entity lacking in those faculties entirely.

Sierra Eire wrote: »

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

The issue is, given 96 to 98% of choice based abortion occur before week 16, that you have not established why such a fetus should have a "right to life" at all in the first place. You seem to want the thread to merely take that as default, for no reason at all, and then justify any move AWAY from that position. But it does not work that way. If you want to say such a fetus should have a right to life, then the onus is on you to show that, not on anyone else to negate it.

You might start by explaining what you think rights are, what entities get them, and most importantly on what basis they get them. And we can hope your answer is not as circular as the ONLY answer people EVER give when asked this question.

Sierra Eire wrote: »

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

The word "justify" is a rhetorical linguistic move that we see often here. The word itself implies a guilt that you have not established exists. I believe in innocent until proven guilty, in people AND concepts. And so if you want to establish an action requires justification in the first place, let alone that we have to justify it to YOU, then you have to successfully indict it first. You have not done this. Nor, I suspect, can you.

But by all means try. What aspect of the termination of a 12/16 week gestated fetus do you feel requires justification in the first place and WHY.

Sierra Eire wrote: »

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

About as much as "babys" that you keep referring to. But as I said a couple of times to you already above, when we are talking about choice based abortion we are talking about a fetus. A fetus that statistics show us are usually between 10 and 12 weeks of gestation when they are terminated.

So I suspect people might stop talking about zygotes pointlessly with you, when you stop talking about "babys" and "children" pointlessly with them. Something makes me suspect that is not a change you are likely to make however. And I think we both know why.

Zubeneschamali

Sierra Eire wrote: »

That is all I have to say.

I don't believe that for a moment.

Zubeneschamali

Ismisejack wrote: »

the mother and the unborn, each has an equal right to life, neither more than the other

That is the problem we are going to fix.

The equal right to life was created by the 8th.

We are going to repeal it, and then this will no longer be true.

JDD

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is the problem we are going to fix.

The equal right to life was created by the 8th.

We are going to repeal it, and then this will no longer be true.

Well that's it in a nutshell right.

We're just explaining over and over why the right to life should not be bestowed on a foetus from conception, or from implantation. We are explaining that the right to life should only be bestowed upon the point the foetus can exist without the assistance of the placenta.

As it is, the foetus does not have an equal right to life to the mother. Where there is a significant threat, as opposed to an absolute certainty, to the life of the mother you are allowed to have an abortion.

Loafing Oaf

JDD wrote: »

As it is, the foetus does not have an equal right to life to the mother. Where there is a significant threat, as opposed to an absolute certainty, to the life of the mother you are allowed to have an abortion.

I've always thought if you really believed in an equal right to life, you would only countenance an abortion if there was at least a 50% chance the woman would die. And that is clearly not practice in Irish hospitals, and never has been...

Graces7

kylith wrote: »

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

So a clone? He or she is an individual human being, as each of us was and is. So you are advocating self-mutilation?

You are destroying a life and the most vulnerable and innocent and pure life there is. Yes, dependent, trusting .

Graces7

January wrote: »

What the forced birthers seem to forget is that sometimes there's more than a woman and a foetus being affected. Sometimes there's a husband and already born children that also have to be taken into consideration. But sure **** them as long as another little baby is born its all good. If the family can't afford to eat because of that that's grand isn't it?

No good ever came of killing another to serve self. If the family is too poor then they should have practised safe sex.

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions. Rather than punishing an innocent for your mistakes.

Zubeneschamali

Graces7 wrote: »

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions.

Yes, away to England with you! And we'll never speak of this again.

Good old Ireland.

kylith

Graces7 wrote: »

So a clone? He or she is an individual human being, as each of us was and is. So you are advocating self-mutilation?

You are destroying a life and the most vulnerable and innocent and pure life there is. Yes, dependent, trusting .

While it is genetically different it is connected to her bloodstream and dependant in that for nourishment. It is living tissue, but it is not ‘alive’; certainly not in the way the woman is. For a start it does not have a functioning brain.

Going on about it being innocent and pure is just an appeal to emotion. It could be the next Hitler or John Wayne Gacey or Margaret Thatcher.

robarmstrong

Graces7 wrote: »

No good ever came of killing another to serve self. If the family is too poor then they should have practised safe sex.

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions. Rather than punishing an innocent for your mistakes.

Sorry, but you are aware that pregnancies still occur during "safe" sex?

There are no contraceptives out there readily available that are 100% safe in this country, unless you go the sterility route.

How are you posting on boards from the 50's anyways?

nozzferrahhtoo

Graces7 wrote: »

He or she is an individual human being, as each of us was and is.

All loaded words which mask the simple fact that it is not even remotely an individual PERSON because every aspect that we would meaningfully define that by is wholly and completely absent in a fetus at the point of usual termination.

Graces7 wrote: »

No good ever came of killing another to serve self.

Yet we do it all the time, like in our meat food industry. There too we are killing others to serve the self. And those others are a LOT more sentient and conscious than a 12 week gestated fetus which is the sentience equivalent of a rock at that point.

So if we are able to happily kill THAT life all the time, than what attributes exactly is it that afford the fetus more concern? I think you will find it has no such attributes, rather you are mediating everything on attributes it may have in the future and then applying them back along the time line.

Graces7 wrote: »

If the family is too poor then they should have practised safe sex.

Firstly, who said they did not? Many do and still get pregnant.

Secondly, you assume the financial concerns came into play BEFORE they had sex, and not after. This is a very unsafe assumption.

Graces7 wrote: »

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions. Rather than punishing an innocent for your mistakes.

Bull from you there alas. The ACTUAL meaning of taking responsibility is to evaluate your situation, take stock of and consider ALL your options, and then maturely and intelligently choose the best option for you.

The meaning YOU appear to imagine "taking responsibility" has is "Do what I would do, and do not do what I would not, otherwise you are irresponsible". And that definition deserves only a prescription of a healthy dose of getting over yourself.

NuMarvel

Graces7 wrote: »

No good ever came of killing another to serve self. If the family is too poor then they should have practised safe sex.

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions. Rather than punishing an innocent for your mistakes.

If only it was as simple as that.

Contraception isn't 100% effective. One organisation in the UK found that half the women who use their services were using contraception at the time.

Then of course there's the fact that pharmacists here can refuse to dispense medication that they have a "conscientious objection" to. So there's no guarantee a woman will be able to get contraception in the first place.

Finally, I'd wager there's a correlation between economic status and knowledge of and access to contraception, i.e. poor families are probably less likely to know about and be able to get effective contraception.

If you really wanted to reduce the incidence of abortion, you'd be better off dealing with the latter two points. Because as we know from our own experience, and can see from around the world, making abortion illegal doesn't stop people having abortions.

kylith

Graces7 wrote: »

No good ever came of killing another to serve self. If the family is too poor then they should have practised safe sex.

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions. Rather than punishing an innocent for your mistakes.

And if they did practise safe sex? And the contraceptive failed? Then what? Sucks to be them?

Terminating a pregnancy IS taking responsibility.

Mr. CooL ICE

Graces7 wrote: »

No good ever came of killing another to serve self. If the family is too poor then they should have practised safe sex.

Celibates telling people about sex. Some things never change.

david75

Folks. Some much needed laughter. This thread on twitter is laugh out loud funny and lampooning John McGuirk for his lies about that ‘nurse’ and the ongoing lies around it. Do yourselves a favour and read it. You won’t need a twitter account just open in a new pages and read the whole thread.

A much needed moment of levity targeting the stupidity and buffoonery of this clown trying to con the entire country with his lies in the name of save the 8th

https://twitter.com/ruthiefizz/status/974054153411579905?s=21

robarmstrong

I think pro-life is running out of options as they're being countered at every turn.

"ABORTION IS BARBARIC AND GOES AGAINST GOD!!!" - so does having mass graves for babies that were stillborn, ill or just tossed aside by followers of their similar ideology.

"YOU'RE MURDERING A BABY!!!" - see above.

"TAKING A LIFE!!!" - completely ignoring the amount of poor souls who were driven to commit suicide due to the abuse suffered upon them by the same followers as previously mentioned. What about all their lives?

"THEY ARE EQUAL" - no, they really are not. One is an existing person, one is not an existing person (yet). It does not make sense to give an unborn human/fetus/zygote/whatever emotional or non emotional terminology priority rights over an existing human, that's just a fallacy.

"IT'LL BE AN ABORTION ON DEMAND FREE FOR ALL THAT CAN HAPPEN AT ANY TIME DURING A PREGNANCY!!" - absolutely not. It's proposed at a cut-off point of 12 weeks, on a case-by-case basis along with mental health and physical health assessments to ensure that this right is not abused.

Any other arguments?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

robarmstrong wrote: »

I think pro-life is running out of options as they're being countered at every turn.

"ABORTION IS BARBARIC AND GOES AGAINST GOD!!!" - so does having mass graves for babies that were stillborn, ill or just tossed aside by followers of their similar ideology.

"YOU'RE MURDERING A BABY!!!" - see above.

"TAKING A LIFE!!!" - completely ignoring the amount of poor souls who were driven to commit suicide due to the abuse suffered upon them by the same followers as previously mentioned. What about all their lives?

"THEY ARE EQUAL" - no, they really are not. One is an existing person, one is not an existing person (yet). It does not make sense to give an unborn human/fetus/zygote/whatever emotional or non emotional terminology priority rights over an existing human, that's just a fallacy.

"IT'LL BE AN ABORTION ON DEMAND FREE FOR ALL THAT CAN HAPPEN AT ANY TIME DURING A PREGNANCY!!" - absolutely not. It's proposed at a cut-off point of 12 weeks, on a case-by-case basis along with mental health and physical health assessments to ensure that this right is not abused.

Any other arguments?

PEOPLE (i.e. women) KNOW THE RISK WHEN THEY HAVE SEX - soooo - sex is only for procreation then...hahahahahahahahaha.... looks like 'some people' might have a few 'issues'.

PEOPLE (i.e women) NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. - cos nothing encourages good parenting like an unwanted child.

ALL LIFE IS PRECIOUS!! - do the HSE know that as I can't help but notice a lot of people (including children) are denied vital medical treatment on the grounds of cost ? - also... how many refugees ya'll think we should take?

USING ABORTION AS CONTRACEPTION!! - here is a dictionary. Knock yourself out.

ohnonotgmail

robarmstrong wrote: »

I think pro-life is running out of options as they're being countered at every turn.

"ABORTION IS BARBARIC AND GOES AGAINST GOD!!!" - so does having mass graves for babies that were stillborn, ill or just tossed aside by followers of their similar ideology.

"YOU'RE MURDERING A BABY!!!" - see above.

"TAKING A LIFE!!!" - completely ignoring the amount of poor souls who were driven to commit suicide due to the abuse suffered upon them by the same followers as previously mentioned. What about all their lives?

"THEY ARE EQUAL" - no, they really are not. One is an existing person, one is not an existing person (yet). It does not make sense to give an unborn human/fetus/zygote/whatever emotional or non emotional terminology priority rights over an existing human, that's just a fallacy.

"IT'LL BE AN ABORTION ON DEMAND FREE FOR ALL THAT CAN HAPPEN AT ANY TIME DURING A PREGNANCY!!" - absolutely not. It's proposed at a cut-off point of 12 weeks, on a case-by-case basis along with mental health and physical health assessments to ensure that this right is not abused.

Any other arguments?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

PEOPLE (i.e. women) KNOW THE RISK WHEN THEY HAVE SEX - soooo - sex is only for procreation then...hahahahahahahahaha.... looks like 'some people' might have a few 'issues'.

PEOPLE (i.e women) NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. - cos nothing encourages good parenting like an unwanted child.

ALL LIFE IS PRECIOUS!! - do the HSE know that as I can't help but notice a lot of people (including children) are denied vital medical treatment on the grounds of cost ? - also... how many refugees ya'll think we should take?

USING ABORTION AS CONTRACEPTION!! - here is a dictionary. Knock yourself out.

we really need to put these as a sticky at the top of the thread.

NuMarvel

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Celibates telling people about sex. Some things never change.

What's funny to me is how today's supporters of the 8th talk about the availability of contraception, but the original proponents of the 8th were all staunch anti-contraception campaigners.

david75

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we really need to put these as a sticky at the top of the thread.

I think we’d all vote for that.

robarmstrong

NuMarvel wrote: »

What's funny to me is how today's supporters of the 8th talk about the availability of contraception, but the original proponents of the 8th were all staunch anti-contraception campaigners.

I've put more cents* into me pockets than they've put into their arguments :P

*because I know I'll get grammer-fied.

Mr. CooL ICE

NuMarvel wrote: »

What's funny to me is how today's supporters of the 8th talk about the availability of contraception, but the original proponents of the 8th were all staunch anti-contraception campaigners.

Same with SSM and civil partnerships. Round and round and round we go.

PhoenixParker

I feel like a note is warranted on contraception for anyone reading this and thinking "they should have just used contraception" is maybe a semi-decent argument.

The rates of failure given for contraception are per year.

Take the pill, which with perfect use, has a 99% effective rate. That means one woman in 100 will get pregnant every year. Sounds like there's a tiny risk of failure

But

Women are fertile for about 27 years (18-45 approx), so a woman taking the pill throughout her fertile years has something like a 1 in 4 chance of an unexpected pregnancy in a woman's lifetime using one of the most reliable methods perfectly.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Graces7 wrote: »

No good ever came of killing another to serve self. If the family is too poor then they should have practised safe sex.

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions. Rather than punishing an innocent for your mistakes.

With all due respect you’ve no idea what you’re talking about. With the best intentions in the world of being careful, accidents happen. You’re trying to slut shame women because they’ve had sex. Sex isn’t a bad thing that deserves punishment. It’s an intimate act between two consenting adults and sometimes accidents happen, the pill isn’t effective or the condom breaks and people find themselves in an awful situation whereby they aren’t emotionally or physically or mentally ready to become a parent. A child deserves a home that it’ll be safe and loved in and if for whatever reason a woman finds herself unable to offer that then her body should not be an incubator and another defenseless child forced upon her for care.

I know personally I have a condition that’s not under control at the moment and my consultants have warned me not to get pregnant, as if by some miracle I’m actually fertile right now my body is incapable of growing a healthy baby and I’ve been the child wouldn’t be okay. I am personally against abortion for me, but if it did happen I wouldn’t have any choice really, it wouldn’t be a pregnancy with a happy ending. What am i supposed to do? Abstain from sex because I’m unwell?

Zubeneschamali

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Same with SSM and civil partnerships. Round and round and round we go.

Many of these people are conservative, not in the Maggie Thatcher political sense, but in the "Stop changing things!" sense.

The actual issues - contraception, divorce, SSM, abortion - they mostly don't have any moral investment in these issues at all. It's why we never hear of anyone campaigning to ban divorce or contraception. They have no vision of where society should go or why, they have no interest in progress of any kind.

It's why they are perfectly fine with abortion of Irish fetuses in the UK - they don't actually care. It's also why, when put to it, they can't muster any arguments for their views. They don't actually hold those views for any particular reason.

They just think all change is bad, and everything used to be better before it changed. It's an attitude rather than an argument.

January

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I feel like a note is warranted on contraception for anyone reading this and thinking "they should have just used contraception" is maybe a semi-decent argument.

The rates of failure given for contraception are per year.

Take the pill, which with perfect use, has a 99% effective rate. That means one woman in 100 will get pregnant every year. Sounds like there's a tiny risk of failure

But

Women are fertile for about 27 years (18-45 approx), so a woman taking the pill throughout her fertile years has something like a 1 in 4 chance of an unexpected pregnancy in a woman's lifetime using one of the most reliable methods perfectly.

18-45? Try from average age of 10 to around age 45.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Neyite

January wrote: »

18-45? Try from average age of 10 to around age 45.

Actually it's closer to her fifties or even mid fifties given that there is often a fertile surge during peri-menopause and before full menopause happens.

So about 40+ years of potential fertility is about average for a woman I would say.