The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Zubeneschamali · 27-03-2018 09:02AM

Ismisejack wrote: »

Abortion is the unlawful killing of another unborn child, and that is what yee are trying to legalize

No, since the 8th was passed, abortion has been lawful in several situations.

By accident and against the express intentions of the people who wrote the 8th and voted for it, and despite warnings from actual law-talking guys before they wrote it and voted for it, but nonetheless, they accidentally made abortion legal here for the first time.

Because the pro-life crew are not, in fact, very bright.

Madscientist30 · 27-03-2018 09:10AM

preacher2 wrote: »

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Then do you mind explaining what on earth you mean by your other post I replied to?

What? I am not asking for you to build me a rocket ship here, I am not here trying to argue with you, which you are clearly trying to do with me and I promise it wont end well.

Just bring me a basic argument for abortion. 1 argument, I seen a women do it a few posts up but Im not sure if shes here for a debate.

Most of you people dont want to listen so I am asking for one of you to come to a debate here.

You promise it wont end well? Your aggression and venom just jumps off the screen.....poor guy I feel sorry for you now. Just try to think happy thoughts

Zubeneschamali · 27-03-2018 09:11AM

Ismisejack wrote: »

I would assist her in whatever way possible however the unborn child shouldn’t get the death sentence for its fathers actions.

Thanks for your help with the Repeal the 8th campaign. Keep it up!

seamus · 27-03-2018 09:13AM

Coveney this morning suggesting a "two-thirds lock" on any abortion regulations into the future.

In essence this would mean that any change to the abortion laws would require the consent of a two-thirds majority of the Dail.

It's not something I personally would prefer, but in terms of shutting down the "I don't trust politicians to legislate" or "It'll be abortion up to 60 weeks soon enough" crowd, it would be very effective.

The pro-life campaign would lose one of the last pillars of their campaign. Fair play to Coveney, it's a good idea.

FutureGuy · 27-03-2018 09:14AM

Ismisejack wrote: »

people have abortions anyway the anti life side claim, as if that is a legitimate reason for legalizing abortion. Lots of people do drigs anyway so why legalize them too. And murder ( of the born), that happens regularly too so why don’t the pro choice people want choice when it comes to murdering the born?

Honest question - why are you not going after the 13th amendment if you care so much for the "Irish unborn"?

NuMarvel · 27-03-2018 09:26AM

david75 wrote: »

Are these guys knowingly warping into a parody of themselves and gettin more ridiculous or is it just me?

It's definitely not just you. And at this point, I'm just ignoring the extremists, who can't be reasoned with, and the obvious spoofers, who don't want to be reasoned with.

david75 · 27-03-2018 09:32AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's definitely not just you. And at this point, I'm just ignoring the extremists, who can't be reasoned with, and the obvious spoofers, who don't want to be reasoned with.

Yeah I’ve been trying to do the same.

david75 · 27-03-2018 09:35AM

*if these are actual bot accounts as part of the Kanto hiring by Save the 8th, and they seem to be given they’re more and more extreme each time they come on, it’s backfiring wildly on them. This is what they spent all that money on?

It’s not even good psychological warfare if you can laugh at it.

Zubeneschamali · 27-03-2018 09:38AM

david75 wrote: »

Last few don’t even sound Irish tbh

Poster A had posted nothing for 3 years before bursting to life in this thread and just this thread. He refers to "dorm room arguments".

B made a very bizarre 1st post asking why he should join the military, deploy and fight terrorism if abortion is happening in his own country. He clearly meant deploy to a different country to "fight terrorism". Would you like some of Mom's apple pie with that?

C appeared a month ago and has posted nothing anywhere on boards except in these abortion referendum threads. When he first appeared, he posted in the strangest Darby O'Gill fake Irish accent: Pro choice yee call yeerselfs??

Another odd thing is that many of these pop-up posters seem unfamiliar with references to ordinary day-to-day stuff here. They will post generic stuff about baby murder, but don't know who the PLC are, don't jump to the defence of Ronan Mullen (not in their briefing pack?), aren't aware that abortion is already legal here, etc. etc.

Annasopra · 27-03-2018 09:38AM

david75 wrote: »

*if these are actual bot accounts as part of the Kanto hiring by Save the 8th, and they seem to be given they’re more and more extreme each time they come on, it’s backfiring wildly on them. This is what they spent all that money on?

It’s not even good psychological warfare if you can laugh at it.

To be honest I doubt this is Kanto/Cambridge analytica stuff. Its too public, obvious and transparent. Its not the slick style of what they did with Trump and Brexit.

kylith · 27-03-2018 09:39AM

preacher2 wrote: »

Medical problems: This is a bit broad, however when it comes down to this why cant you just go to UK? I still disagree with it but why cant you? Anyway, you need to be more specific because there is a massive array of medical problems that dont justify and abortion and a very small amount that do.

So you’re not actually anti-abortion, you’re just Pro-forcing I’ll women to have to fork out a load of money and travel to another country, without their medical records, to get the healthcare they need.

Women having prolonged miscarriages: should they have to travel too?

Hannibal_Smith · 27-03-2018 09:41AM

Can I ask a question regarding cancer and chemo? Something popped up on my fb newsfeed today and it was a story of a woman who is undergoing chemo and she has to have a pregnancy test before each treatment. If the pregnancy test was positive what would happen? Would they stop the treatment?

kylith · 27-03-2018 09:42AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Can I ask a question regarding cancer and chemo? Something popped up on my fb newsfeed today and it was a story of a woman who is undergoing chemo and she has to have a pregnancy test before each treatment. If the pregnancy test was positive what would happen? Would they stop the treatment?

Yes. Chemo would harm the foetus so would be stopped. Her medical advice would be ‘pray you deliver before it becomes terminal’.

....... · 27-03-2018 09:42AM

This post has been deleted.

david75 · 27-03-2018 09:43AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

To be honest I doubt this is Kanto/Cambridge analytica stuff. Its too public, obvious and transparent. Its not the slick style of what they did with Trump and Brexit.

I’d agree except as the post just above yours States, they just don’t even seem to be Irish. Even the spelling is wrong. ‘Legalizing’ for example. I’ve had to correct my phone to include the z. And they don’t seem to have any local knowledge or awareness of the backstory and history of all this.

It’s obvious they’re new accounts just here to sh!tpost but where from?

seamus · 27-03-2018 09:44AM

kylith wrote: »

Yes. Chemo would harm the foetus so would be stopped. Her medical advice would be ‘pray you deliver before it becomes terminal’.

Or "take a little holiday to the UK and we'll check the foetus again when you get back".

david75 · 27-03-2018 09:45AM

kylith wrote: »

Yes. Chemo would harm the foetus so would be stopped. Her medical advice would be ‘pray you deliver before it becomes terminal’.

Seriiusly?? That’s appalling

kylith · 27-03-2018 09:47AM

david75 wrote: »

Seriiusly?? That’s appalling

THat’s the 8th amendment for you.

seamus · 27-03-2018 09:53AM

david75 wrote: »

Seriiusly?? That’s appalling

Yes. Any treatment that carries a significant (i.e. probable) risk of inducing an abortion is illegal as the medical team could be jailed for up to 14 years for providing it.

Even treatments that are known to have a slight risk of inducing an abortion are in a grey area and medical professionals very rarely go ahead with them.

baylah17 · 27-03-2018 09:53AM

Ismisejack wrote: »

Abortion is the unlawful killing of another unborn child,

Nope, nothing unlawful about it at all, in fact its already legal here under the provisions of the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act.
Hopefully after the referendum it will be more widely available with less stupid hoops to jump through.

January · 27-03-2018 09:56AM

seamus wrote: »

Coveney this morning suggesting a "two-thirds lock" on any abortion regulations into the future.

In essence this would mean that any change to the abortion laws would require the consent of a two-thirds majority of the Dail.

It's not something I personally would prefer, but in terms of shutting down the "I don't trust politicians to legislate" or "It'll be abortion up to 60 weeks soon enough" crowd, it would be very effective.

The pro-life campaign would lose one of the last pillars of their campaign. Fair play to Coveney, it's a good idea.

Coveneys literal 180 degree turn has surprised me so much.

david75 · 27-03-2018 09:58AM

January wrote: »

Coveneys literal 180 degree turn has surprised me so much.

It’s encouraging to see though. He sat down and listened to doctors and experts and the evidence. And somehow getting all kinds of crap for it including the front page headline on the indo yesterday not so subtly having a dig at him simply cos he changed his mind.

baylah17 · 27-03-2018 09:59AM

seamus wrote: »

Coveney this morning suggesting a "two-thirds lock" on any abortion regulations into the future.

In essence this would mean that any change to the abortion laws would require the consent of a two-thirds majority of the Dail.

It's not something I personally would prefer, but in terms of shutting down the "I don't trust politicians to legislate" or "It'll be abortion up to 60 weeks soon enough" crowd, it would be very effective.

The pro-life campaign would lose one of the last pillars of their campaign. Fair play to Coveney, it's a good idea.

Would that not require another amendment to the Constitution to change the voting rules in the Dail ?
Or couldn't the Dail just repeal that piece of legislation with a simple majority?
Seems to me the Tainiste is just muddying the waters

RobertKK · 27-03-2018 10:00AM

seamus wrote: »

Coveney this morning suggesting a "two-thirds lock" on any abortion regulations into the future.

In essence this would mean that any change to the abortion laws would require the consent of a two-thirds majority of the Dail.

It's not something I personally would prefer, but in terms of shutting down the "I don't trust politicians to legislate" or "It'll be abortion up to 60 weeks soon enough" crowd, it would be very effective.

The pro-life campaign would lose one of the last pillars of their campaign. Fair play to Coveney, it's a good idea.

What Simon Coveney proposes would raise questions other constitutional issues.

Article 15 11 1 states:
All questions in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting other than the Chairman or presiding member.

Given abortion would be outside the constitution, then what Simon Coveney is proposing would be unconstitutional and would need another referendum to change the 15th amendment, our democracy is based on a simple majority over 50%.
If we were to apply what Simon Coveney proposes to referendums for example, a lot of referendums that had passed would have failed, so it would be a bit of a pandora's box changing from what we always used, who is to decide in the future whether a 50% plus vote is applied or a 66% plus vote applied.
One could have a Taoiseach with a majority and bring in rules that a 66% is applied if there is a motion of no confidence.
Whatever side one is on, I think the 66% idea is not a good idea and is unconstitutional.

Ave Sodalis · 27-03-2018 10:01AM

Thankfully (somewhat), the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act means that physical illnesses like cancer is now a grounds for abortion if an obstetrician and another medical expert deem the illness is life threatening without treatment that would harm the foetus.

It's a bit flimsy and completely open to interpretation, but it's better than nothing.

baylah17 · 27-03-2018 10:04AM

RobertKK wrote: »

What Simon Coveney proposes would raise questions other constitutional issues.

Article 15 11 1 states:
All questions in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting other than the Chairman or presiding member.

Given abortion would be outside the constitution, then what Simon Coveney is proposing would be unconstitutional and would need another referendum to change the 15th amendment, our democracy is based on a simple majority over 50%.
If we were to apply what Simon Coveney proposes to referendums for example, a lot of referendums that had passed would have failed, so it would be a bit of a pandora's box changing from what we always used, who is to decide in the future whether a 50% plus vote is applied or a 66% plus vote applied.
One could have a Taoiseach with a majority and bring in rules that a 66% is applied if there is a motion of no confidence.
Whatever side one is on, I think the 66% idea is not a good idea and is unconstitutional.

Never thought I would say this, but I agree with Robert.

Zubeneschamali · 27-03-2018 10:04AM

January wrote: »

Coveneys literal 180 degree turn has surprised me so much.

You have to remember that FG as a whole were very anti-abortion. Lucinda Creighton burned a ministerial career and possible future leadership/Taoiseach position because FG were not anti-abortion enough for her.

Varadkar has an MD, is young enough and his Dad is an Indian immigrant - I strongly suspect that his anti-abortion views were always just to line up with the parties core vote, while Coveney is more traditional FG.

Yeah_Right · 27-03-2018 10:05AM

preacher2 wrote: »

What? I am not asking for you to build me a rocket ship here, I am not here trying to argue with you, which you are clearly trying to do with me and I promise it wont end well.

Just bring me a basic argument for abortion. 1 argument, I seen a women do it a few posts up but Im not sure if shes here for a debate.

Most of you people dont want to listen so I am asking for one of you to come to a debate here.

One argument for abortion? Okay, here's one.

We were 2 consenting adults enjoying a sexual relationship. We weren't married and did not want to be in an exclusive relationship with each other (or anyone at that time) :eek: We did not want children (or STIs) so we used protection. She still got pregnant. So she had an abortion. We carried on with our lives and we are happy and content. I believe (going by FB posts) she is now married with a couple of kids. And I'm in a loving relationship myself. It all worked out for the better because abortion was a safe and legal option.

Zerbini Blewitt · 27-03-2018 10:09AM

david75 wrote: »

Seriiusly?? That’s appalling

I think it’s far, far worse than appalling!

I think the 8th amendment is legalised criminality (for the cancer treatment reason alone but also for all the other reasons listed throughout the thread eg. FFA) and makes Ireland an outlaw state amongst the civilised countries of the world.

Other than this one area: coercing women to be incubators against their will, this is a modern civilised country.

Madscientist30 · 27-03-2018 10:09AM

Ismisejack wrote: »

Using positive words such as choice etc and calling unborn child fetus etc is pro abortion contingents way of making abortion sound less inhumane than it actually is

Using positive catchphrases such as "love both" and "pro-life" is the anti-choice contingents way of making forced pregnancy and the degradation of women sound less inhumane than it actually is.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments