The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

freshpopcorn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Which TD? I dont know any

I always got that impression of some of the the lefty TD's when I heard them speak!

Bannasidhe

freshpopcorn wrote: »

No!
But I can see it being used as something that could cause trouble. To the best of my knowledge certain TD's support late term abortions and they could cause the campaign trouble if they are give to much air time!

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I always got that impression of some of the the lefty TD's when I heard them speak!

Bit of a leap there from 'best of my knowledge' to 'got the impression'.

freshpopcorn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Bit of a leap there from 'best of my knowledge' to 'got the impression'.

Well then it's to the best of my knowledge or (what ever suits you) they are certain TD's who'd support later term abortions. If these people speak in debates on the matter they could do damage to the repeal campaign.

Kurtosis

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Well then it's to the best of my knowledge or (what ever suits you) they are certain TD's who'd support later term abortions. If these people speak in debates on the matter they could do damage to the repeal campaign.

In fairness, speculative posts about TDs' supposed extreme views being presented as fact can also damage the repeal campaign.

seamus

Danny Healy-Rae was wheeled out on PrimeTime tonight to discuss abortion opposite Kate O'Connell.

If this is the highest level of debate the pro-life campaign can muster, it's game over.

It was like watching Donald Trump debating science with Brian Cox. Only worse.

baylah17

seamus wrote: »

Danny Healy-Rae was wheeled out on PrimeTime tonight to discuss abortion opposite Kate O'Connell.

If this is the highest level of debate the pro-life campaign can muster, it's game over.

It was like watching Donald Trump debating science with Brian Cox. Only worse.

Healy Rae was pathetic whinging and wringing his hands over the teeny babies being schlaughtered
Pure pathetic

frag420

baylah17 wrote: »

Healy Rae was pathetic whinging and wringing his hands over the teeny babies being schlaughtered
Pure pathetic

Is there any links to see this?

baylah17

frag420 wrote: »

baylah17 wrote: »

Healy Rae was pathetic whinging and wringing his hands over the teeny babies being schlaughtered
Pure pathetic

Is there any links to see this?

You should be able to see it on the RTE player later tonight or tomorrow

freshpopcorn

frag420 wrote: »

Is there any links to see this?

It might still be on plus one now. Other than that it should be on the player at around 23:30. It has to be over on plus one before it's put on the player!

January

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Which TD? I dont know any

I always got that impression of some of the the lefty TD's when I heard them speak!

Nobody supports late term abortion. People support choice.

Nettle Soup

Did anyone see Willie O'Dea on the Tonight show? He made a complete gob****e of himself. He wants to repeal the 8th but also protect the life of the unborn which meant he will oppose the repeal. Yates is still smiling at his spoof. Cowardly politician trying to please everyone.

Not Fidelma Healy Eames is talking....

Lia_lia

seamus wrote: »

Danny Healy-Rae was wheeled out on PrimeTime tonight to discuss abortion opposite Kate O'Connell.

If this is the highest level of debate the pro-life campaign can muster, it's game over.

It was like watching Donald Trump debating science with Brian Cox. Only worse.

It was like something from Father Ted. Can't believe family members of mine elected that dope.

pleas advice

January wrote: »

Nobody supports late term abortion. People support choice.

Choice to have late term abortions?

frag420

baylah17 wrote: »

You should be able to see it on the RTE player later tonight or tomorrow

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It might still be on plus one now. Other than that it should be on the player at around 23:30. It has to be over on plus one before it's put on the player!

I cant access that as I am living in the UK, the land of abortion on demand and fetus markets!!

pleas advice

baylah17 wrote: »

Healy Rae was pathetic whinging and wringing his hands over the teeny babies being schlaughtered
Pure pathetic

I dunno.
Like his father, he represents people who have their dinner in the middle of the day. and there's a lot of them still in rural Ireland

freshpopcorn

January wrote: »

Nobody supports late term abortion. People support choice.

That's a lovely line but if a TD who supported choice/late term abortion was asked in a debate.
Would you support people have the choice to have a later term abortions in the future?
They replied yes, I support choice with no limit. It might put people off supporting the repeal the eighth!

beertons

I don't think it will be repealed.

Spanish Eyes

beertons wrote: »

I don't think it will be repealed.

I am inclined to agree with you.

There will be forces and TDs against this that may sway it.

But so be it.

It will not change the fact that abortion is legal here as it stands. Just order your pills online or take a plane to Manchester etc. How hypocritical is that now.

volchitsa

pleas advice wrote: »

Choice to have late term abortions?

A bit like choice to have major surgery when you could have had minor surgery?
Why would someone do that?

freshpopcorn

beertons wrote: »

I don't think it will be repealed.

It all depends on who shows up on the day.
I was confident it would be repealed up until the marriage referendum but the result of that made me slightly doubtful.
I also thought the demand/discussion online about the issue isn't as popular as people make out. it always seems to be the same people involved.

realitykeeper

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Doing what you believe is right would be not having an abortion. If you stay out of other people's lives and they stay out of yours, then everything is fine. Seeing as no one is forced to have an abortion, then you're life won't change a bit .

If I am asked a question, I will reply with an answer. That is what I intend to do on referendum day.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Just like the marriage equality referendum, the sky won't fall if other people are afforded more rights, despite what certain scaremongering groups predicted. Incidentally ,they've been awfully quite the last couple of years since the referendum and their predictions of the country collapsing around us haven't materialised........

I agree that was of no concern to anyone else but given all the economic problems facing the country at the time, I considered it a shameful waste of time, money and above all it was an unnecessary distraction from important concerns like the 200, 000,000,000.00 euro + national debt. I think the reason homosexuality is sinful goes back to original sin (which includes all sex). Heterosexuality is however required for procreation and is therefore permissible.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I can't see what people gain ,in their own lives, from knowing they tried to restrict other peoples rights. Does it really give them comfort to sit at home in front of the telly thinking " I really stuck it to those women/men that I'll never know today"

It has nothing to do with personal gain or any motive of a nefarious nature. It is about doing what I believe is right.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Separately, on the figures quoted from the op on the citizens assembly, why the hell would you take part in one on the subject of abortion if you're going to get to the end and say "I'd rather not give my opinion" ?

But I will give my opinion, on referendum day.

So in the event a no vote is retuned are the pro-life side going to then go and ask for the right to travel for an abortion to to be revoked? If not, why not? Or is it a case of not on my door step, ask people to vote on that and I'm almost certain we'd see some interesting results. It's a question that needs to be asked, if you vote no are you against women travelling too and if so will you vote to block them?

Put that to the middle ground and see which way the polls go. The TV discussion of this tonight has been in line with my expectations, hand wringing and "won't someone please think of the children"

freshpopcorn

Deleted User wrote: »

So in the event a no vote is retuned are the pro-life side going to then go and ask for the right to travel for an abortion to to be revoked? If not, why not? Or is it a case of not on my door step, ask people to vote on that and I'm almost certain we'd see some interesting results. It's a question that needs to be asked, if you vote no are you against women travelling too and if so will you vote to block them?

I can't grantee that they won't ask for such things if there was a No vote with a good percentage. Some might then decide that Irish people should be allowed to repeal those referendums.
However they might just say they don't there children growing up with easy access to abortion in their country.

JupiterKid

realitykeeper wrote: »

If I am asked a question, I will reply with an answer. That is what I intend to do on referendum day.



I agree that was of no concern to anyone else but given all the economic problems facing the country at the time, I considered it a shameful waste of time, money and above all it was an unnecessary distraction from important concerns like the 200, 000,000,000.00 euro + national debt. I think the reason homosexuality is sinful goes back to original sin (which includes all sex). Heterosexuality is however required for procreation and is therefore permissible.


It has nothing to do with personal gain or any motive of a nefarious nature. It is about doing what I believe is right.



But I will give my opinion, on referendum day.

The rank homophobia and general backwardness of your post is really something else... I suppose you would criminalize all sex outside of heterosexual marriage?

vetinari

Deleted User wrote: »

So in the event a no vote is retuned are the pro-life side going to then go and ask for the right to travel for an abortion to to be revoked? If not, why not? Or is it a case of not on my door step, ask people to vote on that and I'm almost certain we'd see some interesting results. It's a question that needs to be asked, if you vote no are you against women travelling too and if so will you vote to block them?

Put that to the middle ground and see which way the polls go. The TV discussion of this tonight has been in line with my expectations, hand wringing and "won't someone please think of the children"

Exactly, the pro life side is just hypocritical hand wringing if they are okay with women traveling to England for an abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

Choice to have late term abortions?

No, the choice to do what you want, when you want, until such time as it impacts on another entity that should have rights. A fetus at 12 weeks should not have rights. Or at least, there has not been a SINGLE coherent argument offered on this thread so far as to why they should.

The old adage holds true "My right to swing my fists around freely ends at your face". What this means is that we work towards an ideal where every one of us can do anything they want without limit, until such time as their free-choice has impact on the rights of another sentient entity.

There is no reason on offer, least of all on this thread, to suggest that the rights, free choice, and well-being of pregnant women should be curtailed in deference to the non-sentient entity growing inside her.

The "best" we have had in response is someone literally inventing a "right to become sentient". But said user is not posting on the thread at the moment as they were asked not to post again until they decide to back up any of their claims. They have been unwilling/unable to do so, so have not been posting again. But perhaps they will return and explain why an entity that is not at all sentient, has the right to become sentient. And why that right apparently only applies to meat. A sentience created in, say, silicon magically does not get that right at all. If you can work that one out, explain it to me!

We have had some wanton misrepresentation of the free-choice position too which has been taking the form of comical linguistic gymnastics. We have been told that the choice to have an abortion is THE SAME as not offering that choice. Why? Because at the end of the day you are apparently "forcing women to remain pregnant". And this comes from people who themselves are (now) suddenly against abortion in all it's forms..... and also against single mothers getting child allowance and social welfare. Because apparently suffering (from unwanted pregnancy and lack of funds) helps you release your true potential.

But no, offering someone a choice not to be pregnant is not the same as forcing them to be pregnant. And the sheer fetid desperation of claiming otherwise shows the depths of non-argument we have coming from the pro-life side.

But I guess I am "forced" to be a Vodafone Customer too. Not because I can not stop being one, but because I was told that if I want to stop being one I have to register that cancellation between 0 and 16 weeks before the contract renews itself. And if I do not avail of that window, sure I am being forced. Apparently.

Cabaal

vetinari wrote: »

Exactly, the pro life side is just hypocritical hand wringing if they are okay with women traveling to England for an abortion.

and they are perfectly ok with it when they speak in the media, so its a case of abortion is murder...except won't the women gets on a plane or boat.

But now and then when you chat to pro-lifers the mask slips and they say they would like to see women banned. This is the world they want, a world where women's travel can be controlled and herded and where we can have homes where women can be forced to term....sure we can call them mother and baby homes, that sounds all cute and cutely.

What could go wrong...

Edward M

Cabaal wrote: »

and they are perfectly ok with it when they speak in the media, so its a case of abortion is murder...except won't the women gets on a plane or boat.

But now and then when you chat to pro-lifers the mask slips and they say they would like to see women banned. This is the world they want, a world where women's travel can be controlled and herded and where we can have homes where women can be forced to term....sure we can call them mother and baby homes, that sounds all cute and cutely.

What could go wrong...

Yawn!

KellyXX

B_Wayne wrote: »

Option 1 in the next ballot would effectively have the exact same effect as repeal.

I would vote for option 2 , only provided I also get to see what it is being replaced with.

I cannot vote for option one as i will not put changes going forward into legislators hands alone.

KellyXX

KellyXX wrote: »

I would vote for option 2 , only provided I also get to see what it is being replaced with.

I cannot vote for option one as i will not put changes going forward into legislators hands alone.

The constitution is not the place for it, we elect our politicians to legislate. A proposed bill is being put forward before the referendum to outline what the legislation will be, so people will be clear on what they are voting for. It will be abortion by request up to 12 weeks, the same system that most countries in Europe have had for decades.

Peregrinus

Flying Fox wrote: »

The constitution is not the place for it, we elect our politicians to legislate. A proposed bill is being put forward before the referendum to outline what the legislation will be, so people will be clear on what they are voting for . . .

Well, they'll be clear on what they are voting for in the short term. But in the long term what they are voting for is for the Oireachtas to have power to determine when, and on what conditions, abortion will be available, with no guarantee that the conditions initially introduced will be maintained.

(Which, incidentally, is what I would vote for. But I couldn't pretend that what I', actually voting for is the first set of conditions. I would also be voting for the possibility that the first set of conditions might be changed or replaced by the Oireachtas.)

ELM327

Those are terrible choices.
It should be "repeal and government will legislate" or "retain".

The constitution is not a place for morality. Look at the trouble brought and still being brought by the wording of Dev's 1937 constitution. Morality changes over time. Laws/constitutions remain in place ad infinitum. There are (albeit common law) laws on the statute books in the UK for hundreds of years.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, they'll be clear on what they are voting for in the short term. But in the long term what they are voting for is for the Oireachtas to have power to determine when, and on what conditions, abortion will be available, with no guarantee that the conditions initially introduced will be maintained.

(Which, incidentally, is what I would vote for. But I couldn't pretend that what I', actually voting for is the first set of conditions. I would also be voting for the possibility that the first set of conditions might be changed or replaced by the Oireachtas.)

Of course, I'm not pretending anything. But the chance of Ireland pushing the limit further than 12 weeks when it works for most of our European counterparts is very slim IMO. We're generally amongst the last to do anything socially progressive

sydthebeat

There are too many on this earth as it is. All countries should have abortion as a means of controlling population growth.

KellyXX

Flying Fox wrote: »

The constitution is not the place for it, we elect our politicians to legislate. A proposed bill is being put forward before the referendum to outline what the legislation will be, so people will be clear on what they are voting for. It will be abortion by request up to 12 weeks, the same system that most countries in Europe have had for decades.

Looks like that's what I'm going to be voting on then. I don't trust legislators.

The options there to me were ,vote and we will sort it all out later with something. Too wish you washy for me.

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Well then it's to the best of my knowledge or (what ever suits you) they are certain TD's who'd support later term abortions. If these people speak in debates on the matter they could do damage to the repeal campaign.

You keep making this vague statement. Any evidence?

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

That's a lovely line but if a TD who supported choice/late term abortion was asked in a debate.
Would you support people have the choice to have a later term abortions in the future?
They replied yes, I support choice with no limit. It might put people off supporting the repeal the eighth!

Provide proof there are TDs supporting late term abortions please. Otherwise you are just scaremongering.

Cabaal

Edward M wrote: »

Yawn!

Truth hurts doesn't it

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It all depends on who shows up on the day.
I was confident it would be repealed up until the marriage referendum but the result of that made me slightly doubtful.
I also thought the demand/discussion online about the issue isn't as popular as people make out. it always seems to be the same people involved.

I find your assertions on this very strange. You claim to be in favour of repeal but you are always undermining it. I'm not sure I believe you are in favour of repeal at all.

Annasopra

KellyXX wrote: »

Looks like that's what I'm going to be voting on then. I don't trust legislators.

The options there to me were ,vote and we will sort it all out later with something. Too wish you washy for me.

But putting legislation into the constitution makes really really bad law. Savita, Miss X, Miss P.

KellyXX

KellyXX wrote: »

Looks like that's what I'm going to be voting on then. I don't trust legislators.

The options there to me were ,vote and we will sort it all out later with something. Too wish you washy for me.

What are you afraid they're going to do?

Having abortion specifically referenced in a country's constitution is highly unusual.

Cabaal

KellyXX wrote: »

Looks like that's what I'm going to be voting on then. I don't trust legislators.

The options there to me were ,vote and we will sort it all out later with something. Too wish you washy for me.

Very silly outlook,
By that logic why have any legislation at all for anything....after all you don't trust legislators (apparently).

Sure we'll just put everything in the constitution,
What could go wrong?
:rolleyes:

frag420

Edward M wrote: »

Yawn!

Must be exhausting stopping all these women travelling to murder the unborn...no wait, it cant be that as you dont really give a crap about them travelling to murder outside of Ireland just so long as it doesn't happen here!

Maybe your tired because you spend a lot of time searching for evidence to back up the vast majority of the crazy claims from the pro birth side..no wait, cant be that either or else you folks would have produced the evidence by now!?

So what has you so tired Ed??

seamus

You see now we're getting to the point where some people want to vote "No" because they just don't like the idea of abortion, but they know that sounds petty and irrational.

So they invent vague reasons like, "I don't trust legislators" or, "What's going to happen is not very clear, so I'm voting no to be safe" to make themselves feel better, but once you scratch at the surface their reasoning has no basis.

The same kinds of nonsense appeared in the marriage equality referendum - people with pseudo-rational reasons for voting against it, but ultimately it just came down to them not liking gay people.

KellyXX

Flying Fox wrote: »

What are you afraid they're going to do?

Having abortion specifically referenced in a country's constitution is highly unusual.

They can do ANYTHING.

KellyXX

Cabaal wrote: »

Very silly outlook,
By that logic why have any legislation at all for anything....after all you don't trust legislators (apparently).

Sure we'll just put everything in the constitution,
What could go wrong?
:rolleyes:

Have you forgotten we are talking about one particular subject here?

KellyXX

seamus wrote: »

You see now we're getting to the point where some people want to vote "No" because they just don't like the idea of abortion, but they know that sounds petty and irrational.

So they invent vague reasons like, "I don't trust legislators" or, "What's going to happen is not very clear, so I'm voting no to be safe" to make themselves feel better, but once you scratch at the surface their reasoning has no basis.

The same kinds of nonsense appeared in the marriage equality referendum - people with pseudo-rational reasons for voting against it, but ultimately it just came down to them not liking gay people.

Oh Jesus.
This is getting tiring.
Give me clear things to vote on and I'm happy to vote.
But don't tell me what I must vote on. You have your own vote for that.

ELM327

seamus wrote: »

You see now we're getting to the point where some people want to vote "No" because they just don't like the idea of abortion, but they know that sounds petty and irrational.

So they invent vague reasons like, "I don't trust legislators" or, "What's going to happen is not very clear, so I'm voting no to be safe" to make themselves feel better, but once you scratch at the surface their reasoning has no basis.

The same kinds of nonsense appeared in the marriage equality referendum - people with pseudo-rational reasons for voting against it, but ultimately it just came down to them not liking gay people.

Like the down's syndrome red herring?
It is not possible in 99%+ of pregnancies to test for down's before 12 weeks.
But don't let the anti-choice/pro -birth side let facts get in the way of a good aul christian whine.

Ave Sodalis

KellyXX wrote: »

But don't tell me what I must vote on. You have your own vote for that.

I don't see in that post where he told you what you must do. They're just pointing out the flaw in your thinking, you're still entitled to think and vote that way. Once you put it on a public forum though, it's going to be questioned.

Cabaal

KellyXX wrote: »

Have you forgotten we are talking about one particular subject here?

So you see the constitution as important then?

Great, should we also fully enforce article 42 and sub articles under 42 in that case?

You seem pretty knowledgeable about the constitution so I'm sure I don't have to explain what I'm talking about, its relevant to the 8th.