The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

freshpopcorn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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

I just think that some people will be scared if the vote for abortion up to twelve weeks that future governments could have unrestricted abortion and this doesn't sit well with people.

Mrs Shuttleworth

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes Contraception fails, but if you are in a loving relationship you should be in a position to have the child.

Sex is not a right for either partner, it is not a chore, it is not a requirement of a relationship.

The act of Penatrive sex can result in a pregnancy, the only 100% foolproof way to avoid this is to avoid having sex. If you do have sex then there should be a level of responsibility and that includes raising a child.

This really is what this referendum boils down to and what we're being asked to vote on.

"I want to get my hole at all costs even if if I have to kill a child now and again to do it."

ohnonotgmail

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

This really is what this referendum boils down to and what we're being asked to vote on.

"I want to get my hole at all costs even if if I have to kill a child now and again to do it."

and we're back to the slut shaming.

Night Falls

Deleted User wrote: »

3,265 Now, 30,365 when abortion is legalised.

Life is cheap.

And made up "statistics" are completely worthless.

Thank feck there only ever seems to be one person spouting absolute inanity at any one time, not sure i'd have the strength for multiples.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

This really is what this referendum boils down to and what we're being asked to vote on.

"I want to get my hole at all costs even if if I have to kill a child now and again to do it."

Your need to slut shame aside: You seem remarkably intent on telling OTHER people what THEIR position on things is. Would conversation not be easier if you stick to telling us YOUR position and we tell you ours?

Buford T. Justice XIX

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are you so passionate about killing unborn children?

Mod note: Quite simply, this type of post is on the borderline of trolling. There are better ways of expressing your thoughts on the subject rather than goading a reaction from others on the subject.

Cut it out, all involved on both sides!

Buford T. Justice.

Night Falls

I spoke too soon.

Skylinehead

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

This really is what this referendum boils down to and what we're being asked to vote on.

"I want to get my hole at all costs even if if I have to kill a child now and again to do it."

I thought it was about stopping the white race or something, and free body parts?

dudara

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I just think that some people will be scared if the vote for abortion up to twelve weeks that future governments could have unrestricted abortion and this doesn't sit well with people.

I can understand that, but we are the people and we elect the politicians. Everything they do is both for us and answerable to us. Politicians who neglect the will of their voters don’t survive. Politicians think Long and hard about what points to support and the impact of such decisions on their voter base. So I can only see a government supporting less restrictive abortion when there is actually public demand for it.

Night Falls

Skylinehead wrote: »

I thought it was about stopping the white race or something, and free body parts?

Jet fuel doesn't melt the morning after pill, I think.

dudara

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

This really is what this referendum boils down to and what we're being asked to vote on.

"I want to get my hole at all costs even if if I have to kill a child now and again to do it."

Stop being facetious. You are demeaning what is an important discussion.

kylith

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

This really is what this referendum boils down to and what we're being asked to vote on.

"I want to get my hole at all costs even if if I have to kill a child now and again to do it."

>70% of women who have terminations in the US already have children, and looking after those children is one of the factors in them deciding to terminate.

It is incorrect to attempt to demonize women seeking terminations as morally bereft slatterns.

(stats are from 2008. The percentage of women with existing children having terminations has risen by 10% since then, but the work PC won't access the relevant page: https://www.guttmacher.org/report/characteristics-us-abortion-patients-2008)

Martina1991

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote:

This really is what this referendum boils down to and what we're being asked to vote on.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote:

"I want to get my hole at all costs even if if I have to kill a child now and again to do it."

No it is not. Don't be so ignorant.
Why are you making it about sex.

It is about trusting women and giving them a choice to make a decision based on the best interests of themselves and the unborn.
Not forcing an unwanted pregnancy onto a woman or affecting her maternity care.

wingsof daun

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I believe that the living, breathing woman who is carrying that unborn human is far more important and that her needs and wants should be prioritised.
I don't believe her rights should be diminished and her bodily integrity not upheld, at the expense of giving a fetus (who cannot grow without her) equal rights.
If it weren't for her there would be no unborn to begin with.

Women have the right to reproduce but not the right to kill, or conspire to kill either. We have the right to act morally, not otherwise. If we act immorally we are liable to be punished by the higher law, the laws governing the universe, Gods law. Man's created laws and rights are imperfect or artificial.

seamus

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I just think that some people will be scared if the vote for abortion up to twelve weeks that future governments could have unrestricted abortion and this doesn't sit well with people.

Ultimately it will all come down to the wording.

At present, commentators seem to believe it'll be something as concise as

"The Oireachtas may provide for the termination of pregnancies in accordance with the law"

What do this mean? It means that it does not automatically permit unlimited abortions. It also does not remove any inferred "right to life" of the unborn, just an explicit one.

What this means is that in the most part, it may allow any future Oireachtas to potentially allow for unrestricted abortion up to around 18-20 weeks.

Once the "grey area" of 20-28 weeks comes into play, constitutional questions of a "right to life" arise again, and anything beyond FFAs or a risk to the mother's life could be challenged as unconstitutional.

Beyond 28 weeks the constitution allows it to be legal to "terminate a pregnancy", or in other words, to "give birth".

Or in other words, would this wording allow;
Unlimited up to 12 weeks? Almost certainly
20 weeks? Potentially
After 20 weeks? Unlikely.

Which I think should satisfy most people.

frag420

Deleted User wrote: »

Just where are the homeless couple having sex?

Why does it matter, are you jealous or do you want to watch them doing it?

Maybe they do it down an alley way like I did many years ago when I met a brazen hussy in a nightclub, what a ride and she didn't spill a drop and she didn't get pregnant!

Anyways I see you are suggesting a lot that people should abstain from sex as one way of not getting pregnant!?

What is your thoughts on blow jobs and anal sex where the seed does not enter the vagina! Are you ok with some sodomy in order to cut down on needles abortions?

Perhaps the pro birth side should be pushing some bum fun as part of their agenda instead, so that people can enjoy themselves without getting pregnant?

Any thoughts on this?

kylith

wingsof daun wrote: »

Women have the right to reproduce but not the right to kill, or conspire to kill either. We have the right to act morally, not otherwise. If we act immorally we are liable to be punished by the higher law, the laws governing the universe, Gods law. Man's created laws and rights are imperfect or artificial.

What absolute nonsense. Morality is not law, and law is not morality. Morality is subjective.

Some people think that it's immoral to have sex before you're married, other people think that it's perfectly moral to have as much sex as you want with however many people are happy to participate.

We absolutely have the right to act immorally (by some peoples' standards).

You get your god to come down here so we can have a discussion with the child-rapist-protecting, baby-murder-advocating, slavery-approving, gobshite about morality, yeah? Until then you can take your Victorian religious morals and stick 'em up your jumper.

Ave Sodalis

wingsof daun wrote: »

Women have the right to reproduce but not the right to kill, or conspire to kill either. We have the right to act morally, not otherwise. If we act immorally we are liable to be punished by the higher law, the laws governing the universe, Gods law. Man's created laws and rights are imperfect or artificial.

I think we can stop with the whole religion aspect of it now. Your bible states (multiple times) that life begins when someone breathes on their own. Even Adam was not considered alive until he was breathing so even though it does forbid murder (rightly), it does not define a foetus as a living thing.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Skylinehead wrote: »

I thought it was about stopping the white race or something, and free body parts?

That's the establishment's angle IMHO. The other perspective the Repeal camp.

To the mods if I sound facetious I make no apologies. For example, I find it very hard to take seriously any campaign in which a Children's Minister in Government parades around in a Repeal sweatshirt advocating abortion.

It shows how utterly infantile, imbecilic, gullible and narcisstic as a populace we have become.

frag420

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That's the establishment's angle IMHO. The other perspective the Repeal camp.

To the mods if I sound facetious I make no apologies. For example, I find it very hard to take seriously any campaign in which a Children's Minister in Government parades around in a Repeal sweatshirt advocating abortion.

It shows how utterly infantile, imbecilic, gullible and narcisstic as a populace we have become.

Woooo hoooo!!!

ohnonotgmail

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That's the establishment's angle IMHO. The other perspective the Repeal camp.

To the mods if I sound facetious I make no apologies. For example, I find it very hard to take seriously any campaign in which a Children's Minister in Government parades around in a Repeal sweatshirt advocating abortion.

It shows how utterly infantile, imbecilic, gullible and narcisstic as a populace we have become.

so the establishment, which is pretty much entirely white in this country, wants to end the white race. well that makes absolutely perfect sense and in now way comes across as totally loony. Not one bit.

kylith

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That's the establishment's angle IMHO. The other perspective the Repeal camp.

To the mods if I sound facetious I make no apologies. For example, I find it very hard to take seriously any campaign in which a Children's Minister in Government parades around in a Repeal sweatshirt advocating abortion.

It shows how utterly infantile, imbecilic, gullible and narcisstic as a populace we have become.

Why do a bunch of white guys want to end the white race?

Cabaal

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

It shows how utterly infantile, imbecilic, gullible and narcisstic as a populace we have become.

I can't take any pro-life organizations seriously as long as they claim abortion is murder but they don't want to ban women from traveling to have abortions and they don't want the full force of the law (jail time etc) for women who import and use abortion pills.

It shows how utterly gutless they are in relation to protecting the fetus they claim to care so much about. They know calling for a travel ban would turn the public against them.

joeyanne

Deleted User wrote: »

Its a deep deep shame that you are not passionate about protecting the life of an unborn child.

And it's a deep deep shame that you believe a fetus should possess more rights than a living, breathing woman.

wingsof daun

kylith wrote: »

What absolute nonsense. Morality is not law, and law is not morality. Morality is subjective.

We absolutely have the right to act immorally (by some peoples' standards).

Those people are all asses. What value has their opinion? None! You may say morality is subjective but that isn't the fact. There is a higher law, you don't have to call it Gods. Do you not believe in karma/rebirth? What comes around goes around as the saying goes.

Cabaal

joeyanne wrote: »

And it's a deep deep shame that you believe a fetus should possess more rights than a living, breathing woman.

well to be fair, he thinks a fetus once it gets on a plane to the UK has no rights at all. Thats why he's ok with women traveling for abortions.

double standards much

Ave Sodalis

wingsof daun wrote: »

Those people are all asses. What value has their opinion? None! You may say morality is subjective but that isn't the fact. There is a higher law, you don't have to call it Gods. Do you not believe in karma/rebirth? What comes around goes around as the saying goes.

I'll take my chances... :rolleyes:

.......

This post has been deleted.

Night Falls

wingsof daun wrote: »

Those people are all asses. What value has their opinion? None! You may say morality is subjective but that isn't the fact. There is a higher law, you don't have to call it Gods. Do you not believe in karma/rebirth? What comes around goes around as the saying goes.

What if the aborted foetus was a murderer or child rapist in a previous life? That would be a pickle of a moral dilemma.

SusieBlue

wingsof daun wrote: »

Women have the right to reproduce but not the right to kill, or conspire to kill either. We have the right to act morally, not otherwise. If we act immorally we are liable to be punished by the higher law, the laws governing the universe, Gods law. Man's created laws and rights are imperfect or artificial.

Morals are a matter of opinion. I think it is immoral to force someone who doesn't want to be pregnant to be a human incubator.

God doesn't exist so I don't really care about what he thinks.
I'm sure if he were real he'd have interfered during the days of forcing pregnant women into slavery laundries, while nuns sold their babies to rich American couples, laughing all the way to the bank.
We also had the days of pedophile clergymen taking advantage and abusing vulnerable children and calling anyone who spoke out liars.
I won't even start on how appallingly the church treated gay people.

"God" and the RCC has done more damage to citizens of this country than we'll ever be able to fully comprehend.
We have a whole generation of people with lifelong scars from the abuse and trauma they were put through as innocent children.

So don't dare come lecturing me about Gods laws and his punishments when the RCC has brought nothing but fear and misery to our society.

Timberrrrrrrr

wingsof daun wrote: »

Those people are all asses. What value has their opinion? None! You may say morality is subjective but that isn't the fact. There is a higher law, you don't have to call it Gods. Do you not believe in karma/rebirth? What comes around goes around as the saying goes.

Actually, no I don't, I tend not to believe in things that have never been proven

Do you believe in leprechauns? Fairies? The loch ness monster?

.......

This post has been deleted.

wingsof daun

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I think we can stop with the whole religion aspect of it now. Your bible states (multiple times) that life begins when someone breathes on their own. Even Adam was not considered alive until he was breathing so even though it does forbid murder (rightly), it does not define a foetus as a living thing.

That is how misguided we have become. Nothing grows without the presence of the soul. No combination of material elements can assume the symptoms of life without the soul. The sperm and eggs combine and the soul enters then the cells begin to multiply. That is Vedic knowledge, superior to your Bible and far older too.

kylith

wingsof daun wrote: »

Those people are all asses. What value has their opinion? None! You may say morality is subjective but that isn't the fact. There is a higher law, you don't have to call it Gods.

And yet, you did.

wingsof daun wrote: »

Do you not believe in karma/rebirth?

Nope.

wingsof daun wrote: »

What comes around goes around as the saying goes.

Got any proof of that?

nozzferrahhtoo

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

It shows how utterly infantile, imbecilic, gullible and narcisstic as a populace we have become.

No. It doesn't. And I think we can discuss why without any of your conspiracy theories and anti establishment agenda and issue with overlords and elites.

Quite simply what we are doing as a society is refining what it is we actually value and why. With statistically irrelevant exception we ALL value Human Life, and the lives of Children over all. So all your narratives around some erosion of that value is simply fantasy play.

What we are doing is refining why it is we value those things, and what it even means to value them. And what we are learning from that introspection more and more is that the attributes that gives value to these things, are the attributes that a 12 week old fetus lacks ENTIRELY.

We value the choices, freedoms and well beings of sentience entities. We do not want to curtail such things without good cause. So unless you can establish a basis for why we need to hold moral and ethical concern for a fetus......... then no one else is going to start doing so. Much less at the expense of the ACTUALLY sentient woman whom we do actually value.

Deleted User wrote: »

Its a deep deep shame that you are not passionate about protecting the life of an unborn child.

I am VERY passionate about protecting the lives of unborn children. I just differ from you as to when that concern comes online. It is later in the process that conception, or implantation or whatever it is has been floating YOUR boat.

But that I differ in WHEN I start to hold that concern, does not mean I do not hold it at all. So you would do well to stop pretending that is the position of pro-choice speakers.

Cabaal

wingsof daun wrote: »

That is how misguided we have become. Nothing grows without the presence of the soul. No combination of material elements can assume the symptoms of life without the soul. The sperm and eggs combine and the soul enters then the cells begin to multiply. That is Vedic knowledge, superior to your Bible and far older too.

A soul is just a belief,
It cannot and has not been proven,

I can say that rocks have souls, you can't disprove me.

nozzferrahhtoo

wingsof daun wrote: »

Those people are all asses. What value has their opinion? None! You may say morality is subjective but that isn't the fact. There is a higher law, you don't have to call it Gods. Do you not believe in karma/rebirth? What comes around goes around as the saying goes.

What "higher law" are you referring to and what evidence have you for it's existence? Unless we can substantiate the existence of this "higher law" the the law of humanity ON humanity is the only one we need concern ourselves with.

wingsof daun wrote: »

Nothing grows without the presence of the soul.

Define what "soul" is exactly? Where does it come from? How does it get into, say, a plant?

ohnonotgmail

wingsof daun wrote: »

That is how misguided we have become. Nothing grows without the presence of the soul. No combination of material elements can assume the symptoms of life without the soul. The sperm and eggs combine and the soul enters then the cells begin to multiply. That is Vedic knowledge, superior to your Bible and far older too.

and just as much nonsense as anything in the bible. ancient fairy stories are just that. attempts by primitive men to understand the world around them.

kylith

wingsof daun wrote: »

That is how misguided we have become. Nothing grows without the presence of the soul. No combination of material elements can assume the symptoms of life without the soul. The sperm and eggs combine and the soul enters then the cells begin to multiply. That is Vedic knowledge, superior to your Bible and far older too.

So, grass has a soul?

Timberrrrrrrr

wingsof daun wrote: »

That is how misguided we have become. Nothing grows without the presence of the soul. No combination of material elements can assume the symptoms of life without the soul. The sperm and eggs combine and the soul enters then the cells begin to multiply. That is Vedic knowledge, superior to your Bible and far older too.

So flowers have a soul? How many flowers have you killed over the years?

Coillte_Bhoy

Doltanian wrote: »

There should be referendum on killing innocent babies. Full Stop. Irish people are not capable of being trusted at the ballot box,

Talk about a contradiction?

Cabaal

kylith wrote: »

So, grass has a soul?

Grass goes to grass heaven sure, unless its burnt....then it goes to grass hell

Wombatman

wingsof daun wrote: »

That is how misguided we have become. Nothing grows without the presence of the soul. No combination of material elements can assume the symptoms of life without the soul. The sperm and eggs combine and the soul enters then the cells begin to multiply. That is Vedic knowledge, superior to your Bible and far older too.

Cabaal

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So flowers have a soul? How many flowers have you killed over the years?

Just flowers?
Lets go back to the grass, what about when he cuts the lawn?
Think of the millions of murdered grass, what a monster!

.......

This post has been deleted.

Cabaal

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nah, cutting the grass is murder.
I suppose spreading grass seed on concrete where it can't grow is like masterbating
:P

_Dara_

I'm living in Dublin but I've discovered that I'm actually still registered in my home county. I've decided to leave it that way, I reckon my quite conservative home county needs my repeal vote more than Dublin does. The mar ref just about passed there in 2015.

pleas advice

Cabaal wrote: »

Nah, cutting the grass is murder.
I suppose spreading grass seed on concrete where it can't grow is like masterbating
:P

i remember that parable

Guy:Incognito

wingsof daun wrote: »

Women have the right to reproduce but not the right to kill, or conspire to kill either. We have the right to act morally, not otherwise. If we act immorally we are liable to be punished by the higher law, the laws governing the universe, Gods law. Man's created laws and rights are imperfect or artificial.

God doesn't exist.

Your moral are not the same as other people's.stop trying to make people live by your own view of life.

Sebastian Dangerfield

Giant banners of a graphic nature being displayed by the pro-life side all around the Irish Times building this lunchtime.

4 months more of this to go. Cant wait