The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Doctor Jimbob

KellyXX wrote: »

They can do ANYTHING.

This is literally the same vague scaremongering people used in run up to the marriage equality referendum. "There will be consequences. Things could happen. Unspecified things!"

Cabaal

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This is literally the same vague scaremongering people used in run up to the marriage equality referendum. "There will be consequences. Things could happen. Unspecified things!"

Also.....cause god said so

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_nmxXYIUqA

and apparently it threatened religious freedom and apparently it was bad for parents and children.
Neither of which is true,

We can always sit back and watch the spoof videos though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wopoEJxFYQw

Just to add, when every children's based charity in the country said it was wrong for anyone to discriminate against children based on their parents sexuality the Iona Institution said "shame on them"...referring to the charities.
Proof if anything they don't care about actual children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgOj0fXKuRE

Edward M

frag420 wrote: »

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??

Ah no frag, its not the argument, I'm for debate.
Its the stereotyping.
Sure I must eat me dinner in the middle of the day, say the rosary morning noon and night, the Angelus at 12 and 6, and mass if possible in between too. No wonder I'm exausted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

KellyXX

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

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.

It was post where they are assuming they know me l and then attack me. They don't know at all which way I am voting. When I said I want clearer things and certainty to cast my vote they attack me. That gets very tiring. People cannot voice an opinion on anything in this debate without people lying in the grass ready to pounce on them.

This is another example of Twitter camoflage. The polls.will be nothing like the real opinions of people. Nobody will come.out and tell anyone their real.opinions for fear of the Twitter mob. They will tell the pollsters what they want to hear and save their real opinions for the voting booth.

KellyXX

KellyXX wrote: »

They can do ANYTHING.

Again, what in particular are you so concerned they'll do?

If you're pro choice and supportive of the 12 week limit then it's a no brainer that you should vote to repeal. Anyone making up excuses for why they can't clearly doesn't want repeal and had no intention to vote for it anyway.

Zubeneschamali

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, it is just people acting the maggot to get a reaction.

Kelly nobody is attacking you, just questioning your posts. You are on a discussion forum after all.

Guy:Incognito

KellyXX wrote: »

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.

You're voting on letting people make their own decisions about themselves, their bodies and their families. The vast majority of them you don't know and never will. It won't impact your life what they do with that choice.

Let them make it for themselves.

seamus

KellyXX wrote: »

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

I'm not telling you what you must vote on, just pointing out to you that everyone here can see through your flimsy reasoning, even if you can't see through it yourself.

Legislators legislate. They do it all the time. It's what we elect them to do. They use teams of highly qualified people to craft legislation which fits in with all the other branches of law - constitutional, national, international, bye-laws, EU law, natural laws - and then they have other experts review it to make sure it can actually be a law, and then debate it between other elected representatives to decide if this piece of law reflects the country their electorate want.

This is far from legislators being able to do "Anything" - by which I presume you believe that they can scratch words on the back of a bar mat and sign it into law with no resistance.

To think that a country is better off tying the hands of legislators rather than "risk" them making a bad law is literally shooting oneself in the foot. You're preventing them making any changes that may be beneficial to society.

By all means if you believe that abortion should be completely outlawed and you don't ever want a government to be able to legislate for it, then just say that. Because there are some areas where legislators' hands should be tied, such as human rights, the death penalty, etc. And I accept that for some people, the unborn right to life is a red line issue without compromise. I don't agree, but I accept their right to believe it.

But don't try to invent the excuse that "I want abortion to be available in some circumstances, but don't trust legislators to do it right". You might fool yourself, but you don't fool anyone else.

Cabaal

KellyXX wrote: »

It was post where they are assuming they know me l and then attack me. They don't know at all which way I am voting. When I said I want clearer things and certainty to cast my vote they attack me. That gets very tiring. People cannot voice an opinion on anything in this debate without people lying in the grass ready to pounce on them.

This is a discussion form at the end of the day,
If you want to post something and not have anybody comment on it then start a blog and turn off comments.

You claim you haven't decided what way you'll vote but you've already claimed you don't want it removed from the constitution and you don't trust the government to legislate.

So this very clearly shows what side you are voting, especially as we know the vote to remove is exactly what you claim you don't want.

I can't help but think this post is disingenuous.

Nobody is telling you how to vote, but make your decision based on the right reasons not flippant and tinfoil hat stuff like you don't trust the government. Also don't be disingenuous and claim you don't know what way you'll vote when you've already said you don't want it removed from the constitution.

Be upfront, if you believe a fetus is equal a baby and the 8th should stay then just say it and be done with it.

This is another example of Twitter camoflage. The polls.will be nothing like the real opinions of people. Nobody will come.out and tell anyone their real.opinions for fear of the Twitter mob. They will tell the pollsters what they want to hear and save their real opinions for the voting booth.

You mean like the marriage ref, when all the polls should it would pass and then it did?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Ave Sodalis

KellyXX wrote: »

It was post where they are assuming they know me l and then attack me. They don't know at all which way I am voting. When I said I want clearer things and certainty to cast my vote they attack me. That gets very tiring. People cannot voice an opinion on anything in this debate without people lying in the grass ready to pounce on them.

This is another example of Twitter camoflage. The polls.will be nothing like the real opinions of people. Nobody will come.out and tell anyone their real.opinions for fear of the Twitter mob. They will tell the pollsters what they want to hear and save their real opinions for the voting booth.

If you are personally feeling attacked, there is a report post button. Personal attacks are not allowed and a mod will sort it out.

However, if you post an opinion on a public discussion board, you do not have the right to keep that opinion in tact. Once you post here and on other forums or media, you give others the right to form an opinion of your opinion. If you do not like your opinions being attacked, then I would suggest keeping them to yourself is the best bet. You can also defend your opinion (although whinging that you're being attacked because people disagree with you isn't the best defense from a discussion point of view).

baylah17

KellyXX wrote: »

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

Have you forgotten the legal shambles inserting the 8th into the Constitution caused in the first place? It led to a teenage rape victim being arrested and detained to prevent her going to the UK to obtain a Termination (Google X Case).
The job of the Legislature is to legislate, if you dont trust the legislature to legislate who do you think should do it?

Cabaal

baylah17 wrote: »

Have you forgotten the legal shambles inserting the 8th into the Constitution caused in the first place? It led to a teenage rape victim being arrested and detained to prevent her going to the UK to obtain a Termination (Google X Case).
The job of the Legislature is to legislate, if you dont trust the legislature to legislate who do you think should do it?

Worst still, look up Miss P

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/judgment-on-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-wins-award-1.2606884

The woman, aged in her 20s and referred to as Miss P, was at 15 weeks’ gestation when declared clinically dead on December 3rd at a Dublin hospital.

That arose from a brain trauma suffered at a hospital outside Dublin on November 29th, two days after she was admitted there complaining of severe headaches.

Due to concerns by doctors at the Dublin hospital over the legal implications of her pregnancy, arising from the State’s obligation to vindicate the right to life of the unborn in Article 40.3.3. - the 1983 anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution - she was kept on somatic life-support treatment.

Her father, supported by her partner and extended family, sought court orders stopping the somatic treatment so they could bury her “with dignity”.

The court heard Miss P’s condition was deteriorating, her brain was decomposing and there were concerns about the effect on the unborn of that condition and of drugs being administered to the woman.

In its judgment, the court found the prospect for the unborn is “nothing but distress and death”.

Nobody should have been forced to go to court in this situation,
If this was me and my wife was brain dead and decomposing I'd rather pull the plug myself then be forced to go to court like this family and partner did. I wouldn't care about the jail time I might get especially if it helped bring the massive flaws in the 8th to attention

frag420

Edward M wrote: »

Ah no frag, its not the argument, I'm for debate.
Its the stereotyping.
Sure I must eat me dinner in the middle of the day, say the rosary morning noon and night, the Angelus at 12 and 6, and mass if possible in between too. No wonder I'm exausted.

Yeah stereotyping pro choice folks as baby killers, murderers who want to kill the unborn right up to the day of birth...well it must take a lot out of you and the rest of the pro birth crowd!

Curios how you say the rosary and the angelus at midday....at the same time, together? Do you swap out over second word with the word from the other prayer...

The HAIL Angel HOLYof QUEEN the Mother Lord of declared Mercy unto our Mary,


:pac::pac::pac:

Edward M

frag420 wrote: »

Yeah stereotyping pro choice folks as baby killers, murderers who want to kill the unborn right up to the day of birth...well it must take a lot out of you and the rest of the pro birth crowd!

Curios how you say the rosary and the angelus at midday....at the same time, together? Do you swap out over second word with the word from the other prayer...

The HAIL Angel HOLYof QUEEN the Mother Lord of declared Mercy unto our Mary,


:pac::pac::pac:

And with my mouth full of dinner too.:)

Peatys

Edward M wrote: »

And with my mouth full of dinner too.:)

Dinner at half eleven???

Billy86

freshpopcorn wrote: »

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.

Which tds are you talking about? It's probably best to be more specific if the reasoning on your end appears to be based on no more than a hunch.

Billy86

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 really don't understand this one... in the marriage referendum we had people telling us it would be closer than expected and that no would have a big chance of winning without much to back it up beyond "people in favour being too aggressive and putting neutrals off" and other assorted bogeymen arguments about the laws of nature, the history or marriage and adoptions - nearly all of which were false arguments.

We're hearing the same here, yet the fact is the marriage referendum was a landslide vote beyond even what many on the 'yes' side expected, and won in every single area bar one - where it only lost by something like 1-2%.

How does that lead you to believe that the repeal side are less likely to win in this referendum?

Guy:Incognito

Billy86 wrote: »

I really don't understand this one... in the marriage referendum we had people telling us it would be closer than expected and that no would have a big chance of winning without much to back it up beyond "people in favour being too aggressive and putting neutrals off" and other assorted bogeymen arguments about the laws of nature, the history or marriage and adoptions - nearly all of which were false arguments.

We're hearing the same here, yet the fact is the marriage referendum was a landslide vote beyond even what many on the 'yes' side expected, and won in every single area bar one - where it only lost by something like 1-2%.

How does that lead you to believe that the repeal side are less likely to win in this referendum?

Complacency can beat anything if there's enough if it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

frag420

Edward M wrote: »

And with my mouth full of dinner too.:)

Cabbage, shpuds and some chewy mutton no doubt...keep it country eh!!

Edward M

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Complacency can beat anything if there's enough if it.

Its not just complacency perhaps.
I think there is a big difference between marriage equality and abortion tbf.
There is the fact that a human formation is to be destroyed if its passed.
The two totally different tbf.

Water John

When talking of public representatives, esp Cabinet Ministers, it should be noted that none to date, have said they oppose the repeal of the 8th. Simon Coveney and Michael Creed have agreed with the repeal, but express disquiet with the legislation proposed to follow. Richard Bruton I see, has been said not to have yet expressed an opinion. That is incorrect, as I heard him say yesterday, he supports the repeal and the Bill being proposed by Simon Harris.
It is important to differentiate between Repealing the 8th of the Constitution and the subsequent decisions by the Oirecahtas, as to the law it will put in place.
Minister Harris and the Govt, may not have the majority in the Houses of Oireachtais to carry the 12 week window. They may have to negotiate and settle for less. That will be decided, after the Referendum, if Repeal is carried.
It certainly, won't be more.

Timberrrrrrrr

Water John wrote: »

When talking of public representatives, esp Cabinet Ministers, it should be noted that none to date, have said they oppose the repeal of the 8th. Simon Coveney and Michael Creed have agreed with the repeal, but express disquiet with the legislation proposed to follow. Richard Bruton I see, has been said not to have yet expressed an opinion. That is incorrect, as I heard him say yesterday, he supports the repeal and the Bill being proposed by Simon Harris.
It is important to differentiate between Repealing the 8th of the Constitution and the subsequent decisions by the Oirecahtas, as to the law it will put in place.
Minister Harris and the Govt, may not have the majority in the Houses of Oireachtais to carry the 12 week window. They may have to negotiate and settle for less. That will be decided, after the Referendum, if Repeal is carried.
It certainly, won't be more.

Well that can't be Right! Sure haven't we had several posters over multiple threads state as a fact that if the 8th is repealed we will have abortion on demand right up to 9 months :pac:

Guy:Incognito

....... wrote: »

What complacency?

People have been upset about the 8th for 35 years now. I was out with a bunch of pensioners recently and they were all furious about it. Support is going to come from unexpected places.

No one knows how big the number of people that will look at loads of reports of a landslide win and not make the effort to go vote because it's a done deal and one vote won't make a difference

Water John

Certainly, any politician saying, they oppose the Repeal of the 8th, should state clearly what do they suggest doing with, the interaction of this Consitutional provision and medical ethics. It's clear the present situation is not sustainable. Secondly, where do they stand on women, importing abortion pills?
Do they believe in the right to travel?
They have to square the circle, as every body else has to do also, with a rational position.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Complacency can beat anything if there's enough if it.

It can, which might also explain the efforts by the anti-abortion side (and the anti-gay marriage side before them, both of which likely receive the majority of their funding from the same sources) to try and constantly give out about pro-SSM/pro-choice people being too active and not complacent enough, trying to claim it will "put people off their [pro choice/SSM] message".

Complacency certainly isn't an issue here, just as it wasn't for SSM.

david75

I’m scratching my head at that draft. What am I missing?

A.let us handle it

B. Let’s repeal it altogether


Can anyone clarify please?

Jimbob1977

david75 wrote: »

I’m scratching my head at that draft. What am I missing?

A.let us handle it

B. Let’s repeal it altogether


Can anyone clarify please?

Repealing it altogether (from the Constitution) will allow the Dail to legislate (through an Act or similar)

Larbre34

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well that can't be Right! Sure haven't we had several posters over multiple threads state as a fact that if the 8th is repealed we will have abortion on demand right up to 9 months :pac:

Given some of the characters coming out of the woodwork on this one, its a pity there isn't abortion on demand up to 70 years.

Jimbob1977

So far I've heard that Willie O'Dea and Patrick O'Donovan state that they want to keep the 8th.

Willie O'Dea said 'Keep' when pushed on TV3 last night. It was unequivocal after initial contradiction.

ELM327

So.. two old men. Neither likely to be caught up in a crisis pregnancy.
Anyone with a relevant opinion?

Riskymove

ELM327 wrote: »

So.. two old men. Neither likely to be caught up in a crisis pregnancy.
Anyone with a relevant opinion?

well, one of them is 40!

anyways pushing the idea that only someone who could be directly Affected has a right to express a view is not agreeable to me. People have children and grandchildren and other loved ones who could be or indeed have been affected.

not to mention the fact that the idea of an irellevant opinion only seems to arise when one doesn't agree with it!

Rezident

I think it will be as most people seem to be pro-abortion nowadays but I can't agree with it personally, I mean, it's not exactly a million miles away from killing a baby is it? Just because the baby doesn't have a birth cert yet doesn't make it ok to sentence him or her to death!

Some babies survive the abortion, so there's 'comfort care', I don't understand how any human being with any empathy can turn a blind eye to this. It's all gone wrong hasn't it?

Night Falls

For **** sake. It's not pro-abortion, it's pro-choice.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ELM327

Riskymove wrote: »

well, one of them is 40!

anyways pushing the idea that only someone who could be directly Affected has a right to express a view is not agreeable to me. People have children and grandchildren and other loved ones who could be or indeed have been affected.

not to mention the fact that the idea of an irellevant opinion only seems to arise when one doesn't agree with it!

As a male... it will never directly impact me.
It should not be up to me however to tell someone else what to do.

Rezident wrote: »

I think it will be as most people seem to be pro-abortion nowadays but I can't agree with it personally, I mean, it's not exactly a million miles away from killing a baby is it? Just because the baby doesn't have a birth cert yet doesn't make it ok to sentence him or her to death!

Some babies survive the abortion, so there's 'comfort care', I don't understand how any human being with any empathy can turn a blind eye to this. It's all gone wrong hasn't it?

Nobody is pro abortion. I most certainly am not.
But I do not believe that I should be able to dictate what others do with their bodies. I am pro choice.

Like... I don't see where people derive this entitlement to "govern" others.

kylith

Rezident wrote: »

I think it will be as most people seem to be pro-abortion nowadays but I can't agree with it personally, I mean, it's not exactly a million miles away from killing a baby is it? Just because the baby doesn't have a birth cert yet doesn't make it ok to sentence him or her to death!

Well, yes, at the gestation period we're looking at it's a couple of centimetres long, has only recently lost its tail, and doesn't have a functioning brain. It's pretty far from killing a newborn baby.

Rezident wrote: »

Some babies survive the abortion, so there's 'comfort care', I don't understand how any human being with any empathy can turn a blind eye to this. It's all gone wrong hasn't it?

Not at 12 weeks, they don't. What you may be thinking of is babies that are delivered early due to a FFA and won't survive long. Some babies 'survive abortion' in that the pregnancy is far enough along that the fetus can be delivered early and put into care.

Jimbob1977

ELM327 wrote: »

So.. two old men. Neither likely to be caught up in a crisis pregnancy.
Anyone with a relevant opinion?

Should women that are infertile or going through the menopause have an opinion?

nozzferrahhtoo

Rezident wrote: »

I think it will be as most people seem to be pro-abortion

I have debated the issue of abortion in formal and informal settings, public and private, on and off line for nearly 20 years now. I have not yet met a SINGLE person who identifies with the term "pro abortion".

Rezident wrote: »

I mean, it's not exactly a million miles away from killing a baby is it?

Ripping up a blue print is not the same as knocking down a house. There is a lot of "narrative" in the word "baby" that simply does not apply to a fetus. There are many differences of note between killing one, and the other.

Rezident wrote: »

Some babies survive the abortion

It depends what you mean by "survived the abortion". Medical abortions for example can simply just fail to do their job. That is not really a baby "surviving the abortion" so much as the abortion failed to take place at all and it is not a case of "Comfort care".

Rarely but in late term abortions yes there is a small survival rate. And usually these abortions are performed for some level of medical necessity and not just because someone felt like performing it.

This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with providing abortion to women at 12, 16, or 20 weeks of gestation. Go count for me the fetal survival rate of surgical abortion at 12 weeks and let me know what figure you come back with. For reference: ZERO is the figure I have come up with so far. A figure I hope lays your concerns to rest as you genuinely do seem upset and worried by these things, in part for no good reason at all. And the only thing I hate to see more than someone suffering.... is someone suffering needlessly.

chalkitdown1

I hate the term "unborn child". Do the people who use it also refer to children as 'ungrown adults'?

Kurtosis

chalkitdown1 wrote: »

I hate the term "unborn child". Do the people who use it also refer to children as 'ungrown adults'?

A new one that I've noticed cropping up over the last few weeks is "preborn child".

ELM327

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

Should women that are infertile or going through the menopause have an opinion?

Should straw men have an opinion?

Riskymove

ELM327 wrote: »

As a male... it will never directly impact me.
It should not be up to me however to tell someone else what to do.

the two positions here don't really make sense to me to be honest


is it that only people that could be directly impacted by preganancy should be allowed a say in the regime here

or is it that there should just be completely unrestricted access and no one should be in a position to restrict anyone else from doing what they want?

Cabaal

So, given so many people like to claim we are a "catholic country" and the majority religion on the census is catholic.

What does the avg (most likely) catholic on the street think about the ref?
here's a video

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/im-not-in-favour-of-abortion-but-im-not-going-to-tell-anyone-else-what-to-do-irish-people-have-their-say-on-referendum-36547635.html

Overall, people understand the hard reality's of life even if they don't personally agree with abortion or they wouldn't have one themselves, they still think they can't tell other people what to do with their body's.

ELM327

Riskymove wrote: »

the two positions here don't really make sense to me to be honest


is it that only people that could be directly impacted by preganancy should be allowed a say in the regime here

or is it that there should just be completely unrestricted access and no one should be in a position to restrict anyone else from doing what they want?

I don't know what a preganancy is. Is that your new word? Bored with "Pro-Abortion" already are we?

Riskymove

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't know what a preganancy is. Is that your new word? Bored with "Pro-Abortion" already are we?

I think you have me confused with someone else?

I apologise if a typo caused you much trouble