The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

I don't particularly like my tax money spent on gangs of unwanted gasúrs, this seems likely to generate savings tbh

erica74

I'm so very happy about the decision to go ahead with the Referendum. I'm not as confident as some people that it will pass. I think there's still too much misinformation out there, and too many people too close minded to seek out the actual facts in spite of their beliefs.
I would like abortion legalised in Ireland, no restrictions, however, I would be happy to accept abortions without restrictions up to 12 weeks.

I wonder if the plan for abortion services in Ireland will be made public before the Referendum? What I mean by this is, what will the actual set-up be? In hospitals, the cost, will there be any sort of screening, what will the process be - from finding out you're pregnant to deciding you can't/don't want to continue with the pregnancy to the abortion itself?

I hope that Ireland can make the right decision. Anyone who wants an abortion should have safe legal access to one in Ireland and anyone who doesn't want an abortion can continue with their pregnancy. Seems fair to us all.

Wanderer78

erica74 wrote:

I hope that Ireland can make the right decision. Anyone who wants an abortion should have safe legal access to one in Ireland and anyone who doesn't want an abortion can continue with their pregnancy. Seems fair to us all.

What's the 'right' decision and has this actually been decided democratically? The outcome is clear in my mind

erica74

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What's the 'right' decision and has this actually been decided democratically? The outcome is clear in my mind

I would have thought I was clear about what I think the right decision is

Anyone who wants an abortion should have safe legal access to one in Ireland and anyone who doesn't want an abortion can continue with their pregnancy.

Wanderer78

erica74 wrote: »

I would have thought I was clear about what I think the right decision is

oh you did, and im in agreement, but theres actually no ultimate 'right' answer, it should be up to the individual to decide what that actually means to them, and up to them to decide on voting day

erica74

Wanderer78 wrote: »

oh you did, and im in agreement, but theres actually no ultimate 'right' answer, it should be up to the individual to decide what that actually means to them, and up to them to decide on voting day

Apologies! I bristled as I think I'm all hot headed after reading through this thread.

Wanderer78

erica74 wrote: »

Apologies! I bristled as I think I'm all hot headed after reading through this thread.

its understandable, the debate hasnt been particularly good, not just on boards. even though im on the repeal side, i feel it has been a very divisive campaign filled with a lot of ****e from both sides, and im a little angry now that it has been more or less decided by our leading parties what the outcome will be, thats not democracy!

Odhinn

Kurtosis wrote: »

Yes they were. And also scaremongering by spouting nonsense like this:

That would be the yokel who helped block a cancer trial because it required women to take the pill - and then got promoted to bishop.
https://www.herald.ie/news/abortion-row-priest-blocked-cancer-trials-29484085.html
I'd say hes not a medical doctor either.

Night Falls wrote:

It's also ironic for someone to be decrying the erosion of morals and the value of human life when in the very same thread someone is pining for a dictator infamous for the murder of thousands of his citizens and for the repression of the democratic process.

Are you saying a friend of thatcher that ran a regime where women were raped with various rodents is a bad man?

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote:

This referendum is purely to facilitate Tara Flynn types to bang strange men without a condom and without consequences, and greedy doctors get rich on the back of it.

Referendum night I'd rather watch Bullseye reruns than get off my ar $e to facilitate selfish hipsters.

I take it this is "humour".

Annasopra

david75 wrote: »

We should all take a moment to thank DeBild and similar people.

They’re doing an amazing job of completely shooting themselves in the foot with their loudmouth shouting and patronising and insulting and utterly factually vapid points of view.

These people did the same thing in marriage equality and it backfired horribly on them.

Keep up the great work DeBild. You’re doing great work altogether.
Do you even realise I wonder.

No. I don't agree.

Pro repeal need to calmly stick to the discussion itself. Let these prople show themselves for what they are but don't let them try and set up some narrative they are being bullied.

Annasopra

ForestFire wrote: »

There is a very important thing called the constitution.
Do you not think we need it?

The alternative was clear so not sure why you brought the Pope into it?

I dont think abortion law should be in the constution. Yes let the oireachtas decide.

Peatys

But late to the party here, this has probably been answered, but hard to trawl through all the "debating"..

where did the 12week figure come from?

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I have to say I can't see the eighth being repealed if the government can go changing the 12 week rule without putting it to another referendum!

We really shouldnt be having referenda after refeenda on this. Let the legislature legislate.

Annasopra

Peatys wrote: »

But late to the party here, this has probably been answered, but hard to trawl through all the "debating"..

where did the 12week figure come from?

Upto the 12 week period an abortion can take place with a pill and care be given by a GP. After that it is a procedure in hospital.

frag420

pleas advice wrote: »

he's being illegal

(if he has left more than 18 months ago and/or is not planning on returning for good within 18 months)

Where there is a will there is a way, esp when doing what’s right for my Irish sisters!

My employer here has offers myself and several other Irish employees to be somewhat employed by the Dublin office on a part time basis (one day a month) and use a company residential property in Ireland as an address to register to vote in the referendum!

However I have already sorted things out back home to stay on the register and will be returning on the day to vote and flying back here the next day!

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

And if repeal campaign gets to complacent because of the marriage referendum it might continue for years to come.

I think after 35 years of fighting there wont be complacency

raspberrypi67

Forgive me not reading all of the ( boring ) but what exactly does repealing the 8th imply for the unborn and for the woman? Can it be explained in 2 sentences. ?
I'm thinking here we go again, I'm not going to vote if I dont fully understand what they are at here....

frag420

raspberrypi67 wrote: »

Forgive me not reading all of the ( boring ) but what exactly does repealing the 8th imply for the unborn and for the woman? Can it be explained in 2 sentences. ?
I'm thinking here we go again, I'm not going to vote if I dont fully understand what they are at here....

It means we get to kill and eat the unborn for any reason we like...up to and including the day of birth!

Annasopra

Doltanian wrote: »

And has no support from his party, Fianna Fail need to pull the plug on this charade excuse of a Government immediately to prevent a referendum taking place.

No support? Eh thats completely untrue. It was FF members who proposed the 12 week legislation.

Cabaal

ForestFire wrote: »

There is a very important thing called the constitution.

You claim that the constitution is only important when it suits you.

So tell me then, why are you not looking for the 13th amendment to be revoked when a women try's to travel for an abortion?

After all, if you consider a fetus as equal to a child then article 42 comes into effect and the important constitution states:

42.2:
"In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child".

So if you want the constitution to be followed then you agree that women must be detained when they attempt to travel for abortion because they are failing in their duty of care inline with 42.2 in the constitution.

Of course no pro life group ever looks for women to be banned from traveling, so this shows they are selective in relation to the constitution.

Why don't they look for women to be banned from traveling?
Because they are happy to export women to the UK and they know the public backlash would be massive against them with such a idiotic suggestion.


At the end of the day the constitution is conflicting and it needs to be changed, it ignores women's

Annasopra

Laois_Man wrote: »

My main gripe with the governments chosen method is when you take it out of the constitution and into the hands of the legislatures, every General Election forever more could effectively become another abortion referendum with every party proposing new changes as part of their manifesto. Whatever the new text is, if any, it needs to continue to live in the constitution

It shouldnt be in the constitution. That completely complicates things. Look at the unintended consequences of it being in the constution and Ms X

Cabaal

Doltanian wrote: »

And has no support from his party, Fianna Fail need to pull the plug on this charade excuse of a Government immediately to prevent a referendum taking place.

So despite a majority of our country demanding change you want to deny our citizens their democratic right to vote in a referendum ?

Sorry, we're not a dictatorship

Cabaal

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It shouldnt be in the constitution. That completely complicates things. Look at the unintended consequences of it being in the constution and Ms X

Worse still, Miss P,
Having a brain dead women on life support because of a fetus has a heartbeat but the mothers brain is decomposing is just what every partner and family wants.

Disgraceful that the family and partner had to go to court to have the life support switched off,

pitifulgod

Cabaal wrote: »

So despite a majority of our country demanding change you want to deny our citizens their democratic right to vote in a referendum ?

Sorry, we're not a dictatorship

They're also concerned about "white genocide" so they have a pretty warped viewpoint.

Cabaal

pitifulgod wrote: »

They're also concerned about "white genocide" so they have a pretty warped viewpoint.

and funny how the religious pro-life people are not ok with religious freedom in our schools, despite the constitution stating parents have this right to opt children out

They love being selective

ForestFire

Cabaal wrote: »

You claim that the constitution is only important when it suits you.

So tell me then, why are you not looking for the 13th amendment to be revoked when a women try's to travel for an abortion?

After all, if you consider a fetus as equal to a child then article 42 comes into effect and the important constitution states:

So if you want the constitution to be followed then you agree that women must be detained when they attempt to travel for abortion because they are failing in their duty of care inline with 42.2 in the constitution.

At the end of the day the constitution is conflicting and it needs to be changed, it ignores women's

You have made a lot of assumptions here about me that it's really astounding. Can you point me to any if these claims you said i made or believe.

The constitution can be changed in other ways than what is proposed.

Just to be clear, I asked do you think it might shift the middle ground peoples views and affect the overall result?

sjb25

I was on the yes side the more I think about it I’m now swaying into mayb I genuinely haven’t a clue what way I’m going to vote on this.
And I’m normally pretty certain on this kind of stuff and would normally be on the yes side for the likes of this but I just don’t no

Iv a few months of thinking to do

one thing I do no is my family as an example is split down the middle was almost civil war the other night over it in our house. Had a gathering of about 10 people was almost 50/50 I’d say it’s oretty the same in work it’s going to be a close one this it’s people like myself who are undecided are going to sway this

Cabaal

ForestFire wrote: »

The constitution can be changed in other ways than what is proposed.

Just to be clear, I asked do you think it might shift the middle ground peoples views and affect the overall result?

But at the end of the day the 8th must be repealed,

You cannot consider a fetus equal to a child as this conflicts with article 42, so are you suggesting changes to 42 so it specifically states the state has not duty to intervene in cases of harm to a fetus?

The common sense approach to the 8th is for it to be changed as has been proposed, the government must be allowed to legislate in relation to this issue. The constitution is not the place for dictating medical care to women

Odhinn

Cabaal wrote: »

Worse still, Miss P,
Having a brain dead women on life support because of a fetus has a heartbeat but the mothers brain is decomposing is just what every partner and family wants.

It's replaced having a close female relative committed to an asylum as an aspirational goal.

nozzferrahhtoo

Laois_Man wrote: »

My main gripe with the governments chosen method is when you take it out of the constitution and into the hands of the legislatures, every General Election forever more could effectively become another abortion referendum with every party proposing new changes as part of their manifesto.

That is what democracy is for me though. An ongoing and changing conversation about the laws and values in our society. As little as possible should be written in stone for all time and never changeable. And if the values and the will of the people changes over time, this should be reflected in who they elect.

Even if my values WIN the referendum I would not like to think my values will win forever more. I want them to be continuously tested, challenged and questioned. Because unlike some on this thread I do not see my positions as always right, or me as perfect. If I am wrong in a value I hold, I want to be shown my error, and I want society to be able to reflect that change.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody is changing anybody's mind folks.

Even if I believed that true, I would still debate issues of import. However I do not believe it true. And one of the reasons I do not believe it true is that every forum I have spoken in on the subject, both on and off line, I have had people tell me publicly and privately that how I have conducted myself in the debate, and the things I have said, have indeed changed their mind and/or approach to the issue.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

At least be honest about your motives.

If by "be honest about your motives" you mean "allow me to put as much of MY words in YOUR mouth as possible" then no I do not think I will be doing that.

I myself am very honest about my motives. My motives are to live in a country and society that values the rights, choices and well being of ACTUAL sentient entities, and does not curtail them in deference to entities that are not the least bit sentient at all.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jim Ellis wrote: »

They have a point. Morals and value of human life are slowly being eroded in society. The right-on liberals will find something else to focus their attention on after this referendum is passed.

I think your narrative has it exactly backwards. What I see happening in society is a focus on what it even means to have morals and ethics and rights. What are they? What are they for? And on what basis do we assign and afford and mediate them?

Rather than an erosion of the value of human life I see us focusing on what it is to BE human in the first place. What exactly IS it that we value and why? Because everyone I have encountered on the pro-repeal side, and on the pro-choice side, have very deeply valued human life. They are just also VERY clear on what that means and entails. And in the shock reveal of the century, their value judgement is not founded on mere strands of DNA. Also in shock news: Water is wet.

And when we consider the answers to those questions..... what it is we value about humans.... what it is we do with rights and why..... and what attributes all of this is based on.......... we find that the attributes in question happen to be the ones the fetus not slightly but WHOLLY lacks entirely.

And as such there is no reason to afford such a fetus any moral or ethical concern, or rights. That is not an erosion of rights, or values, or morals in our society. It is a focusing on them in a way that makes sense rather than the vague hand waving of the past. And long may it continue!

ricero wrote: »

Abortion cannot be used as a form of contraception. Society cannot become a place without responsibilities and abortion a way out for people who dont use contraceptive methods when practicising sex.

Abortion cannot be used as a form of contraception by definition. A contraception prevents conception. Abortion by definition does not do this. Abortion terminates a pregnancy. So your first use of terms is wrong.

Your second use is also wrong when you say abortion is for people who do not use contraceptive methods. Firstly MANY pregnancies occur DESPITE contraception being used. Secondly some occur through sex the woman was not a willing participant of. Thirdly pregnancies are sometimes planned and wanted, but AFTER conception the circumstances of the people involved change.

A further error in your narrative lies in the fact that abortion != a failure to take responsibility. Taking responsibility in a situation means rationally considering ALL your options and choosing the one that best fits your situation and requirements. That is the core of taking responsibility. And abortion is an OPTION for such people to consider and, sometimes, take. Forcing people not to have abortions is not giving them responsibility. It is you taking it FROM them and exercising it vicariously on their behalf.

nozzferrahhtoo

Doltanian wrote: »

There should be referendum on killing innocent babies. Full Stop.

Lucky that is not what the referendum OR abortion is about isn't it? Abortion is about terminating a fetus. A "Baby" is another word with a whole different narrative. A narrative you are trying to exploit in an "argument from emotion" because arguments of rationality are entirely failing you.

If you actually want to change minds (assuming you do) in the upcoming vote then I think screaming words like "Baby" and "murder" is not going to do it. What WOULD change minds, and it would change my mind over night without a moments hesitation, reservation, or apology..... would be if you construct a rational argument as to why we should have any moral or ethical concern for a 12 week old fetus, or why we should afford it any rights.

Alas the people I have laid that challenge to so far have basically run away from the thread.

Doltanian wrote: »

Irish people are not capable of being trusted at the ballot box

If by "not trusted" you mean "they will not agree with me and what I want them to do in my self appointed role as emperor" then yes.... I am afraid that is how democracy works.

However I do know how democracy works, and if the vote does not go my way I will not be denigrating the public for being less trustworthy than myself. Rather I will start the NEXT campaign and the NEXT series of education and debate for the NEXT vote whenever and wherever it may be. Because again, that is what democracy involves.

Doltanian wrote: »

I stand with the Right and the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I am a young person and I always speak my mind and never hide what I believe.

I tend not to stand by organisations that lie to people and systematically at all levels cover up abuses. However it is a democracy and the members of such an organisation have every right to vote too. Something tells me said organisation has no more rational arguments for affording a fetus rights than you have thus far presented however. Nor do I suspect you have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that the god entity said organisation is entirely and wholly based on, even exists in the first place.

Zubeneschamali

The text of Varadkar's statement is here.

I like this line near the end:
No longer an article of our Constitution, but rather a private and personal matter for women and doctors.

Again suggesting that this will be the last we hear from pro-lifers in the mainstream, they will be relegated to fringe protests since the matter will be a private medical one from now on.

erica74

raspberrypi67 wrote: »

Forgive me not reading all of the ( boring ) but what exactly does repealing the 8th imply for the unborn and for the woman? Can it be explained in 2 sentences. ?
I'm thinking here we go again, I'm not going to vote if I dont fully understand what they are at here....

In all fairness, you need to educate yourself and come to a decision yourself. You shouldn't be voting based on the information given to you by other people who may have a biased uneducated opinion.
And I hope this doesn't come across as condescending or anything like that, I mean this genuinely.

Mrs Shuttleworth

There's only two reasons this proposal is being pushed so much:

1. Control and reduction of the numbers of white working and middle classes, as a diktat from our EU overlords. Culturally any new regime will not extend to the Muslim and African communities;
2. A steady stream of raw body parts for transmission and sale to the multinational companies based here who want them.

That's it.

murpho999

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

"Unwanted crisis pregnancy", oh get to f**k.

This referendum is purely to facilitate Tara Flynn types to bang strange men without a condom and without consequences, and greedy doctors get rich on the back of it.

Referendum night I'd rather watch Bullseye reruns than get off my ar $e to facilitate selfish hipsters.

At least be honest about your motives.

Honest about my motives? What motives?

I'm a married man in my mid forties so what motive could I have?

Your post sounds archaic and very anti-women.
Do you truly believe that women out there want to have sex with strange men without a condom, not very wise for STIs?
Do you really believe that crisis pregnancies don't exist?
Do you really think people will take the decision of having an abortion lightly and not face any consequences?

One thing you do raise though is there should be better education and promotion of contraception as this would help against the need for abortion in some cases.

Night Falls

And the stream of batsh1t mentalism flows on and on.

Nettle Soup

I liked that Simon Harris said he is pro life too and that the categorisation "Pro Life" is out-dated and belongs in the 1980s.

TomSweeney

pleas advice wrote: »

he's being illegal

(if he has left more than 18 months ago and/or is not planning on returning for good within 18 months)

****! I didn;t know, seems really unfair .

I'm an Irish citizen after all, that will eventually come back to Ireland.

Doctor Jimbob

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

There's only two reasons this proposal is being pushed so much:

1. Control and reduction of the numbers of white working and middle classes, as a diktat from our EU overlords. Culturally any new regime will not extend to the Muslim and African communities;

2. A steady stream of raw body parts for transmission and sale to the multinational companies based here who want them.

That's it.

1. I'd be willing to bet everything I own that the referendum text isn't going to contain any text about restricting abortion rights to white people. On that basis, your first point is nonsense.

2. What raw body parts exactly?

Night Falls

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

1. I'd be willing to bet everything I own that the referendum text isn't going to contain any text about restricting abortion rights to white people. On that basis, your first point is nonsense.

2. What raw body parts exactly?

You're not really expecting a rational response, are you? It will be the internet equivalent of a message written on a wall in excrement.

Lovetoo sell bodyparts

seamus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

1. Control and reduction of the numbers of white working and middle classes, as a diktat from our EU overlords. Culturally any new regime will not extend to the Muslim and African communities;
2. A steady stream of raw body parts for transmission and sale to the multinational companies based here who want them.

I do hear those lizard overlords pay top money for freshly-aborted baby parts to feast on at their Bilderberg dinners.

Doctor Jimbob

Night Falls wrote: »

You're not really expecting a rational response, are you? It will be the internet equivalent of a message written on a wall in excrement.

Absolutely not, I'm just curious as to how someone comes to conclusions like that. Assuming they're not completely taking the piss, which is a pretty big assumption I suppose.

Doctor Jimbob

seamus wrote: »

I do hear those lizard overlords pay top money for freshly-aborted baby parts to feast on at their Bilderberg dinners.

I heard every abortion gives George Soros an additional year of life.

Ave Sodalis

seamus wrote: »

I do hear those lizard overlords pay top money for freshly-aborted baby parts to feast on at their Bilderberg dinners.

That's a lie. It's actually aliens so they can replicate our body parts through consumption, then be born unto human females and begin their world domination. The humans won't even see it coming.

Zubeneschamali

TomSweeney wrote: »

****! I didn;t know, seems really unfair .

I'm an Irish citizen after all, that will eventually come back to Ireland.

You could make up your mind to return for good within 18 months on Referendum day, and then change your mind next day.

Night Falls

Is anyone else really really REALLY looking forward to the calm and reasoned debate *from both sides* (TM) over the next few months? I might do myself a mischief i'm so excited.

Night Falls

Night Falls wrote: »

Is anyone else really really REALLY looking forward to the calm and reasoned debate *from both sides* (TM) over the next few months? I might do myself a mischief i'm so excited.

Unfortunately RTE and the rest of our established media have demonstrated time and again that they cannot moderate a serious debate between the moderate opposing views.

It'll be a free for all between triggered bluehairs and frothing relics

pleas advice

Im looking forward to 'calm' from one side of the debate, and 'reasoned' from the other...

Not sure which is which though

SusieBlue

Purely anecdotal but I'm in a facebook group specifically for Irish women and mothers, over 22k in the group.
The topic of the 8th came up and I was honestly gobsmacked.
Knowing the demographic of the group, and opinions on previous similar topics, I was shocked and very proud to see that in 700+ posts, about 98% with pro repeal.
The majority of these women are mothers with young kids, a lot of them are doing it on their own.

Interestingly, their reasoning for their decision wasn't just about abortion, but more so maternity care.
Hundreds of posts from real women detailing the appalling care they received.
One woman was given an episiotomy (if you don't know what it is, look it up) against her will, after repeatedly telling her doctor she didn't consent.

The doctor went against her wishes due to the fact that he estimated her baby would weigh around 10lb.
This was during the early stages of labour and the baby wasn't in any distress.
When her baby was born, she was a tiny 6lb. The episiotomy was wholly unnecessary.
Especially considering it was NOT done in an emergency situation. She wasn't even given a chance to push the baby out herself.

It was eye opening reading all the replies. Some of the stories about what women were put through were heartbreaking.