The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

Do you honestly believe if it wasn't for the ECHR that we'd have homosexuality as a crime today?

I point you to the simple matter of something like Divorce, which is treated as a no-brainer in modern society.

It was only legalized in this country in 1995

And take a look at the margin...



With a margin of 9000 people only deciding that Divorce is fine in 1995 do you honestly want me to believe that they would have thought Homosexuality was fine? :pac::pac::pac::pac:

AnGaelach

Consonata wrote: »

I point you to the simple matter of something like Divorce, which is treated as a no-brainer in modern society.

With a margin of 9000 people only deciding that Divorce is fine in 1995 do you honestly want me to believe that they would have thought Homosexuality was fine? :pac::pac::pac::pac:

Proof of something passing in 1995 is proof that something else would still be criminalised in 2017?

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

Proof of something passing in 1995 is proof that something else would still be criminalised in 2017?

Yes? Do you think social change just "happens". A populous who was only coming to terms with divorce in 95' isn't going to become okay with homosexuality just like that.

I don't think you really understand how insular Ireland was as a country before we joined International institutions like the ECHR, EU et al. The church had a massive grip over the country, plus social norms were dictated by the Vatican and the local parish priest, not what was seen as socially normal globally. We didn't encounter people of different cultures and traditions, and suffered as a result.

ECHR + EU with the funding that they brought, and the human rights that they brought, modernised our country majorly.

AnGaelach

Consonata wrote: »

Yes? Do you think social change just "happens". A populous who was only coming to terms with divorce in 95' isn't going to become okay with homosexuality just like that.

And do you think 20 years isn't a long enough time for homosexuality to become decriminalised? This has just become nonsensical back and forth. The poster stated homosexuality would still be a crime today if it hadn't been for the ECHR which is neither a logical assumption or backed by any fact. It's simple conjecture.

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

And do you think 20 years isn't a long enough time for homosexuality to become decriminalised? This has just become nonsensical back and forth. The poster stated homosexuality would still be a crime today if it hadn't been for the ECHR which is neither a logical assumption or backed by any fact. It's simple conjecture.

Again you disregard the fact that we only came to terms with divorce by less than half a percent in 1995.

Have you any evidence to show that there was going to be a massive epiphany between then and now that we suddenly would think "yeah, sodomy is ok" in rural catholic Ireland w/o freedom of movement, free trade, investment, and the ECHR?

AnGaelach

Consonata wrote: »

Again you disregard the fact that we only came to terms with divorce by less than half a percent in 1995.

Have you any evidence to show that there was going to be a massive epiphany between then and now that we suddenly would think "yeah, sodomy is ok" in rural catholic Ireland w/o freedom of movement, free trade, investment, and the ECHR?

Divorce passed.

The onus of proof is on the person who made the claim (that homosexuality would be a crime today), not the person calling it conjecture.

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

Divorce passed.

The onus of proof is on the person who made the claim (that homosexuality would be a crime today), not the person calling it conjecture.

By. less. than. half. a. percent.

Are you intentionally being dense now? I don't think you are quite getting that a population who is only just about ok with Divorce, isn't going to magically become ok with Sodomy. You are looking at Ireland through the lens of somebody who has seen it within the EU, yet refusing to look at the history of what sort of a country we were before it. (not a very good one)

volchitsa

AnGaelach wrote: »

Divorce passed.

The onus of proof is on the person who made the claim (that homosexuality would be a crime today), not the person calling it conjecture.

This is the weirdest argument. Of course it's conjecture, that's what the word "would" tells you. It's very plausible conjecture though, for the reasons the poster has given.

Proving something that didn't happen, would have done in different circumstances - it"s just funny that you've spent so long over it. What proof would you accept - a certificate from a crystal-ball gazer?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Annasopra

AnGaelach wrote: »

And do you think 20 years isn't a long enough time for homosexuality to become decriminalised? This has just become nonsensical back and forth. The poster stated homosexuality would still be a crime today if it hadn't been for the ECHR which is neither a logical assumption or backed by any fact. It's simple conjecture.

If you think about it yes it is a perfectly logical assumption. If Ireland was not a member of the Council of Europe/European Convention on Human Rights/European Court of Human Rights then our legislative system would not have had such an international or human rights influence and the Norris Supreme Court judgement would still be a huge influence on our legislature. I do think there is a perfectly logical assumption there.

eviltwin

AnGaelach wrote: »

Divorce passed.

The onus of proof is on the person who made the claim (that homosexuality would be a crime today), not the person calling it conjecture.

Barely. If the referendum had happened later it would have passed easily. People change, attitudes change. Imagine suggesting divorce should be illegal or homosexuality should be a crime today, you'd be laughed out of it. The same for abortion. The results of the CA show the attitude to abortion is changing too. They were normal members of the public. Abortion will be a reality in Ireland, it's just a matter of time and a government brave enough to put it to a referendum.

Annasopra

eviltwin wrote: »

Barely. If the referendum had happened later it would have passed easily. People change, attitudes change. Imagine suggesting divorce should be illegal or homosexuality should be a crime today, you'd be laughed out of it. The same for abortion. The results of the CA show the attitude to abortion is changing too. They were normal members of the public. Abortion will be a reality in Ireland, it's just a matter of time and a government brave enough to put it to a referendum.

Sometimes I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation though. Is it more acceptable now because it exists (legal divorce/gay male sex) or does it exist because it's more acceptable? That is where we are at with abortion really. Once it becomes legal it will become much more socially acceptable.

Consonata

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Sometimes I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation though. Is it more acceptable now because it exists or does it exist because it's more acceptable?

Pretty much. You don't have a shower by starting with your toe, then your foot, then your lower leg, at a snails pace. Thats not how social change (usually) happens. It happens leaps that may be intially unpopular, but gain popularity through normalization.

kevincool

AnGaelach wrote: »

I think the Government should have refused to have let the ECHR interfere with our Constitution or public policy. We're the ones who define what our rights are, it's a power given to us by Bunreacht na hÉireann.

Then ireland should be out of EU to have no one's interference

B_Wayne

kevincool wrote: »

Then ireland should be out of EU to have no one's interference

Just to clarify again, the ECHR is not associated with the EU and we voluntarily signed up for it, for good reason.

Annasopra

kevincool wrote: »

Then ireland should be out of EU to have no one's interference

EU ≠ ECHR

nagdefy

For some reason the Repeal the 8th logo reminds me of Avonmore milk?!

Nettle Soup

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fianna-fil-delegates-reject-calls-to-change-the-constitution-on-abortion-36227113.html

I see those Fianna Fail gombeens voted against repealing the 8th amendment.

A second motion from the party’s London branch – backing a “woman’s right to choose” was also heavily defeated.

They sly feckers are trying to cement the anti-abortion and religious groups as they continue to recover after destroying the country.
There is talk McQuaid will be exhumed to remind people of their duties and that women are 2nd class citiziens in the eyes of the church.

Sure they might as well have the referendum. Ireland won't vote to repeal the eighth. All these people shouting and screaming to repeal are the loud minority, Ireland will not (in my opinion) vote to repeal.

In my opinion abortion should be legal only in limited circumstances..... for medical reasons and other limited circumstances.

freshpopcorn

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure they might as well have the referendum. Ireland won't vote to repeal the eighth. All these people shouting and screaming to repeal are the loud minority, Ireland will not (in my opinion) vote to repeal.

In my opinion abortion should be legal only in limited circumstances..... for medical reasons and other limited circumstances.

The only thing I know is I'm often amazed at the people who are pro-life. Both male and female.
If the marriage referendum achieved over 70% I'd be a lot more confident. It will take the urban areas for it to be repealed unless it's just an an appeal for very limited circumstances.

freshpopcorn

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The only thing I know is I'm often amazed at the people who are pro-life. Both male and female.
If the marriage referendum achieved over 70% I'd be a lot more confident. It will take the urban areas for it to be repealed unless it's just an an appeal for very limited circumstances.

Yeah I think new laws are needed in certain circumstances where the mothers life is in danger or where the pregnancy is because of rape/incest.

I do think the majority of voters would be against abortion being made available freely.

Martina1991

Deleted User wrote:

Yeah I think new laws are needed in certain circumstances where the mothers life is in danger or where the pregnancy is because of rape/incest.

I think a lot of no voters are against the repeal are concerned that abortion would be used as some sort of emergency contraception.

I think that's not true. No one would make the decision to have an abortion lightly.

Wanderer2010

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah I think new laws are needed in certain circumstances where the mothers life is in danger or where the pregnancy is because of rape/incest.

I do think the majority of voters would be against abortion being made available freely.

I agree with you in the case of mothers life being at risk or from a result of rape, but abortion in every other instance? Nope- plenty of birth control out there for men and women if you don't want a kid, try using it.

B0jangles

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I agree with you in the case of mothers life being at risk or from a result of rape, but abortion in every other instance? Nope- plenty of birth control out there for men and women if you don't want a kid, try using it.

1.) How could there be a law allowing for abortion specifically in rape cases? Think about the timelines for a pregnancy vs. a rape prosecution.

2.) Contraception fails.

Phoebas

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I agree with you in the case of mothers life being at risk or from a result of rape, but abortion in every other instance?

Would I have to prove the rape or just make a rape allegation?

Sounds like a solution fraught with difficulty.

Wanderer2010

Phoebas wrote: »

Would I have to prove the rape or just make a rape allegation?

Sounds like a solution fraught with difficulty.

It would have to be proved I guess, but in this day and age if you don't want a kid, then use contraception, it really is that simple. This isn't 1930s Ireland.

Crea

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

It would have to be proved I guess, but in this day and age if you don't want a kid, then use contraception, it really is that simple. This isn't 1930s Ireland.

What about fatal foetal abnormality?

Phoebas

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I see those Fianna Fail gombeens voted against repealing the 8th amendment.

This is the kind of attitude that will see the repeal bid fail. Calling people who disagree with you 'gombeens' isn't going to win you a single vote.

B0jangles

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

It would have to be proved I guess, but in this day and age if you don't want a kid, then use contraception, it really is that simple. This isn't 1930s Ireland.

Then it is literally impossible - there is not enough time for a rape to be proved to have happened, no-where near enough time.

And again, contraception can and does fail.

Phoebas

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

It would have to be proved I guess, but in this day and age if you don't want a kid, then use contraception, it really is that simple. This isn't 1930s Ireland.

I've got to wonder why you would suggest a solution that isn't at all practical .

The idea of delaying a termination until a rape prosecution made its way through the judicial system should be abhorrent to anyone who takes a pro life position.

Wanderer2010

B0jangles wrote: »

Then it is literally impossible - there is not enough time for a rape to be proved to have happened, no-where near enough time.

And again, contraception can and does fail.

Yes it can but that's the minority. If you don't want a child that is formed because of failing contraception, no need to kill the child. You have options like adoption etc.

markodaly

I like Leo's take on it. The unborn should not have equal rights as the mother but should not be without rights.

My take on it, that whatever compromise will be reached, both sides will not be happy, that is because both sides do not represent the Irish people, they represent their own interest groups and are the extremes.

The Pro-Life crowd are zealots. The Pro-choice crowd are zealots. The majority of Irish people are not zealots.

So abortion will be legalised in some respects (upsetting the pro-life zealots) but there will be no on-demand abortion (upsetting the pro-choice zealots)

B0jangles

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Yes it can but that's the minority. If you don't want a child that is formed because of failing contraception, no need to kill the child. You have options like adoption etc.

Leaving aside the failed contraception issue, what about your other acceptable scenario - the situation where the pregnancy is the result of rape? If you accept that it is impossible for a rape trial and conviction to take place within the time necessary, how do you suggest pregnant rape victims who want an abortion should be treated?

JupiterKid

One thing is for certain, in the run up to next year's referendum, the campaigning by the pro-life and pro-choice sides will be intense, dirty and divisive.

It'll make the run up to the same sex referendum look like nothing in comparison.

markodaly

JupiterKid wrote: »

One thing is for certain, in the run up to next year's referendum, the campaigning by the pro-life and pro-choice sides will be intense, dirty and divisive.

It'll make the run up to the same sex referendum look like nothing in comparison.

True, I just don't want to hear the rhetoric that if you are not 100% pro-choice than you hate women, expect to hear a lot of that nonsense.
Alternatively you may also hear that any abortion is murder stuff as well.

Crea

Pro life =|woman haters
Pro choice = baby killers

No room for in between

kylith

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Yes it can but that's the minority. If you don't want a child that is formed because of failing contraception, no need to kill the child. You have options like adoption etc.

Adoption is a solution to an unwanted child, not an unwanted pregnancy, and that's not to even get into the fact that it is no woman's responsibility to go through an uncomfortable at best and dangerous at worst pregnancy for another person.

uck51js9zml2yt

markodaly wrote: »

The Pro-Life crowd are zealots. The Pro-choice crowd are zealots. The majority of Irish people are not zealots.

So abortion will be legalised in some respects (upsetting the pro-life zealots) but there will be no on-demand abortion (upsetting the pro-choice zealots)

I have to wonder at the person who thinks objecting to the killing of perfectly formed human beings is zealotry!
Maybe they should have aborted you as well:)
I wasn't planned but the impact I've had in the world has been huge ( at least for those I've been in contact with). A lot of lives would be a lot poorer in my absence

Martina1991

Wanderer2010 wrote:

Yes it can but that's the minority. If you don't want a child that is formed because of failing contraception, no need to kill the child. You have options like adoption etc.

Forcing a woman/ young girl to carry out a pregnancy is not fair.

* Miscarriages are very common.
* Severe morning sickness is debilitating.
* Foetal abnormalities do happen.
* Haemorraghes do happen.
* Still births do happen.
(I work in a hospital)

Women risk their lives in pregnancy and then you want them to just give the baby away?

Adoption is not the easy answer. There are many children in care today. Anonymous once they were born.

Ulysses Gaze

Nettle Soup wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fianna-fil-delegates-reject-calls-to-change-the-constitution-on-abortion-36227113.html

I see those Fianna Fail gombeens voted against repealing the 8th amendment.

A second motion from the party’s London branch – backing a “woman’s right to choose” was also heavily defeated.

They sly feckers are trying to cement the anti-abortion and religious groups as they continue to recover after destroying the country.
There is talk McQuaid will be exhumed to remind people of their duties and that women are 2nd class citiziens in the eyes of the church.

It seems you and your ilk have learned to sum of sweet **** all from both Trump winning the Presidency and the Brexit vote.

If you, and the Pro-Choice crowd, continue insulting those who disagree with you, and more importantly those on the fence, you are cast iron-guaranteeing to lose any referendum on this topic.

nice_guy80

is there any chance at all that I could just go away and return when this crap has been finished?

Phoebas

Ember Orange Varnish wrote: »

Maybe they should have aborted you as well:)

This debate really brings out the worst in people.

Ulysses Gaze

nice_guy80 wrote: »

is there any chance at all that I could just go away and return when this crap has been finished?

Let's just have the ****ing referendum in the next two months and be ****ing done with it.

Sick of both sides at this stage.

January

Contraception is not 100% effective.

People who are married cannot give their offspring up for adoption unless they declare themselves unfit to parent, this can affect offspring already being raised or future offspring.

Ken.

Mod-tatranska thread banned. Reason-personal abuse.

Hotblack Desiato

People forget that the 8th was only passed by a margin of 2 to 1 even though this was 1983, when the catholic church's influence was still at its height and only 4 years after the mass hysteria of the pope's visit.

At that time, the only experience most people had of abortion was their local priest telling them how evil it was.

In Dublin it was only passed by the narrowest of margins, 51% to 49%.

Many of the people who voted Yes in 1983 will have since died.

It was almost unthinkable even ten years ago for a woman to 'come out' and publicly state she had an abortion, many people in the public eye have done just this in the last few years and there is very little controversy about it. More and more people accept that the idea of forced pregnancy and forced birth is abhorrent, the fact that we voted in 1992 to allow information and travel for abortion is proof that the Irish people are willing to allow women to make their own choices. What the women of Ireland need now is the ability to make their own choice without having to leave the country. The 8th amendment does not 'save lives', all it does is cause greater stress, expense and delay (so the abortion is later) to women who have abortions.

The so-called 'pro life' lobby are small, most of them are part of a few extended and intermarried families of extreme catholics, but they are extremely extremely vocal out of all proportion to their numbers and the media and especially broadcasters pander to them. 40,000 people marched for choice a couple of weeks ago but RTE gave nearly as much airtime to FIVE anti-choicers.

Zubeneschamali

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

40,000 people marched for choice a couple of weeks ago but RTE gave nearly as much airtime to FIVE anti-choicers.

Expect a lot more of this in the referendum campaign.

If 50,000 people say repeal, and 5 say no - Equal time!

posturingpat

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

People forget that the 8th was only passed by a margin of 2 to 1 even though this was 1983, when the catholic church's influence was still at its height and only 4 years after the mass hysteria of the pope's visit.

At that time, the only experience most people had of abortion was their local priest telling them how evil it was.

In Dublin it was only passed by the narrowest of margins, 51% to 49%.

Many of the people who voted Yes in 1983 will have since died.

It was almost unthinkable even ten years ago for a woman to 'come out' and publicly state she had an abortion, many people in the public eye have done just this in the last few years and there is very little controversy about it. More and more people accept that the idea of forced pregnancy and forced birth is abhorrent, the fact that we voted in 1992 to allow information and travel for abortion is proof that the Irish people are willing to allow women to make their own choices. What the women of Ireland need now is the ability to make their own choice without having to leave the country. The 8th amendment does not 'save lives', all it does is cause greater stress, expense and delay (so the abortion is later) to women who have abortions.

The so-called 'pro life' lobby are small, most of them are part of a few extended and intermarried families of extreme catholics, but they are extremely extremely vocal out of all proportion to their numbers and the media and especially broadcasters pander to them. 40,000 people marched for choice a couple of weeks ago but RTE gave nearly as much airtime to FIVE anti-choicers.

Do you seriously think no life has been saved because of it? Really :rolleyes:

PopePalpatine

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

It seems you and your ilk have learned to sum of sweet **** all from both Trump winning the Presidency and the Brexit vote.

If you, and the Pro-Choice crowd, continue insulting those who disagree with you, and more importantly those on the fence, you are cast iron-guaranteeing to lose any referendum on this topic.

You've got to love how this shit isn't called out on by the "I wouldn't have voted against Repeal if its supporters weren't so shrill!" crowd:

Ember Orange Varnish wrote: »

I have to wonder at the person who thinks objecting to the killing of perfectly formed human beings is zealotry!
Maybe they should have aborted you as well:)
I wasn't planned but the impact I've had in the world has been huge ( at least for those I've been in contact with). A lot of lives would be a lot poorer in my absence

January

posturingpat wrote: »

Do you seriously think no life has been saved because of it? Really :rolleyes:

Lives have been lost because of the 8th. Not saved.