Eighth Amendment poll

Started by Farrandeelin, May 01, 2018, 03:36:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Are you in favour of repealing the 8th amendment?

Yes
47 (21.8%)
Yes but have no vote
73 (33.8%)
No
40 (18.5%)
No but have no vote
36 (16.7%)
Undecided
20 (9.3%)

Total Members Voted: 216

Voting closed: May 24, 2018, 03:36:55 PM

omaghjoe

Quote from: Syferus on May 20, 2018, 12:52:39 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 20, 2018, 06:57:18 AM
Quote from: Syferus on May 20, 2018, 06:02:11 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 20, 2018, 04:11:27 AM
Quote from: Syferus on May 20, 2018, 02:03:38 AM
Quote from: mrdeeds on May 20, 2018, 01:35:24 AM
Is anyone going to change a voters view on this? No. Can we all not agree that the extreme on both sides is ridiculous.

The extreme of anything is ridiculous. I don't know what that has to do with this, though. Both sides do not have the same amount of extremists by the looks of things so you'd be well advised not to draw a false equivalence between Yes and No campaigners.

Once again I'm in agreement with Sy here


Since 90%+ of abortions carried on will be on pregnancies from consensual mating and will not be medically necessary, that's what the discussion should be about.... so we should get back to it....

That 90%+ is a straight up weigh up of Mother Choice v Unborn Person's Life

It's about every single situation wher abortion is needed. Pretending that people should only focus on the one use of abortion is incredibly disingenuous.

Did you not just say that the extremes are ridiculous? I thought by that you wanted to focus on the very similar scenario for the bulk of cases?

I really cannot fathom how you took me talking about the extreame views of people on any given issues to mean it's ok to ignore cases of rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities or the mental well being of the woman when discussing abortion.


Probably because thats what the initial post by mrdeeds was about...?

We ignore the extreme cases in both sides because they do not make up the majority. If I'm speeding because I'm in a rush its a crime, if I am speeding to get my wife to hospital its still a crime but its overlooked as it is deemed acceptable reason for breaking the law. We don't legislate to make speeding legal because of a few exceptional cases which we deem acceptable for breaking the law we use our judgement on the circumstances of each scenario.

omaghjoe

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 20, 2018, 10:11:45 AM
Lads, is there any need for the language? You'd swear some of your autocorrects insert f**ks and insults into sentences. I know people who seemingly can't speak a sentence without a curse in it, but being unable to type without one is strange.

Anyway I think some people are reading something into Syf's post that isn't there. Of course every prospective parent hopes their child will be born healthy and strong. It's crazy to suggest they don't. However he is not saying that they wish to swap their children or anything like that. Once the issue is uncovered and the baby is born, those children are loved and cherished as much as a healthy baby. Of course they are.

So I don't think he is saying the parents of children with problems wish they were never born, or anything like that.

The context of the conversation was regarding the collapse of the population of Downs Syndrome population. In the context it was offered as justification for the termination of Down Syndrome diagnosis

mrdeeds

Quote from: omaghjoe on May 20, 2018, 04:11:16 PM
Quote from: Syferus on May 20, 2018, 12:52:39 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 20, 2018, 06:57:18 AM
Quote from: Syferus on May 20, 2018, 06:02:11 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 20, 2018, 04:11:27 AM
Quote from: Syferus on May 20, 2018, 02:03:38 AM
Quote from: mrdeeds on May 20, 2018, 01:35:24 AM
Is anyone going to change a voters view on this? No. Can we all not agree that the extreme on both sides is ridiculous.

The extreme of anything is ridiculous. I don't know what that has to do with this, though. Both sides do not have the same amount of extremists by the looks of things so you'd be well advised not to draw a false equivalence between Yes and No campaigners.

Once again I'm in agreement with Sy here


Since 90%+ of abortions carried on will be on pregnancies from consensual mating and will not be medically necessary, that's what the discussion should be about.... so we should get back to it....

That 90%+ is a straight up weigh up of Mother Choice v Unborn Person's Life

It's about every single situation wher abortion is needed. Pretending that people should only focus on the one use of abortion is incredibly disingenuous.

Did you not just say that the extremes are ridiculous? I thought by that you wanted to focus on the very similar scenario for the bulk of cases?

I really cannot fathom how you took me talking about the extreame views of people on any given issues to mean it's ok to ignore cases of rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities or the mental well being of the woman when discussing abortion.


Probably because thats what the initial post by mrdeeds was about...?

We ignore the extreme cases in both sides because they do not make up the majority. If I'm speeding because I'm in a rush its a crime, if I am speeding to get my wife to hospital its still a crime but its overlooked as it is deemed acceptable reason for breaking the law. We don't legislate to make speeding legal because of a few exceptional cases which we deem acceptable for breaking the law we use our judgement on the circumstances of each scenario.

I said nothing.

sid waddell

Quote from: omaghjoe on May 20, 2018, 04:11:16 PM
Quote from: Syferus on May 20, 2018, 12:52:39 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 20, 2018, 06:57:18 AM
Quote from: Syferus on May 20, 2018, 06:02:11 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on May 20, 2018, 04:11:27 AM
Quote from: Syferus on May 20, 2018, 02:03:38 AM
Quote from: mrdeeds on May 20, 2018, 01:35:24 AM
Is anyone going to change a voters view on this? No. Can we all not agree that the extreme on both sides is ridiculous.

The extreme of anything is ridiculous. I don't know what that has to do with this, though. Both sides do not have the same amount of extremists by the looks of things so you'd be well advised not to draw a false equivalence between Yes and No campaigners.

Once again I'm in agreement with Sy here


Since 90%+ of abortions carried on will be on pregnancies from consensual mating and will not be medically necessary, that's what the discussion should be about.... so we should get back to it....

That 90%+ is a straight up weigh up of Mother Choice v Unborn Person's Life

It's about every single situation wher abortion is needed. Pretending that people should only focus on the one use of abortion is incredibly disingenuous.

Did you not just say that the extremes are ridiculous? I thought by that you wanted to focus on the very similar scenario for the bulk of cases?

I really cannot fathom how you took me talking about the extreame views of people on any given issues to mean it's ok to ignore cases of rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities or the mental well being of the woman when discussing abortion.


Probably because thats what the initial post by mrdeeds was about...?

We ignore the extreme cases in both sides because they do not make up the majority. If I'm speeding because I'm in a rush its a crime, if I am speeding to get my wife to hospital its still a crime but its overlooked as it is deemed acceptable reason for breaking the law. We don't legislate to make speeding legal because of a few exceptional cases which we deem acceptable for breaking the law we use our judgement on the circumstances of each scenario.
You ignore the extreme cases because you know full well the 8th Amendment causes extreme cases - regularly.

We should legislate for abortion because that's what sensible countries whose people aren't living in a la la make believe fantasy world do. Like, say, every other country in Europe.


thebigfella


magpie seanie

Quote from: Rudi on May 18, 2018, 04:45:55 PM
Quote from: gallsman on May 18, 2018, 02:08:47 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 18, 2018, 12:48:51 PM
Quote from: Rudi on May 18, 2018, 12:43:17 PM
Quote from: magpie seanie on May 18, 2018, 12:11:15 PM
Quote from: Rudi on May 17, 2018, 08:41:16 PM
The youngest person with down syndrome in Iceland is 20. Clearly they have a cultural policy to eliminate the weakest or those who do not conform to some ideal model. Shame on them, hopefully Ireland does not head the same way. What choice did these babies have or were the parents coerced into making their decision. Progressive society not. Savita Halapanavar died of sepsis not for the need of an abortion. I will be voting no, I do feel huge sympathy for couples with cases of ffa.

Can't let this go. She died of sepsis because she was denied the proper medical treatment to save her life because of concerns of her doctors over the 8th amendment. It couldn't be clearer. She wouldn't have died in most countries in the world as it wouldn't have been in question.

Cant let this go either. A huge number of prominent consultants have came out and clearly explained the doctors in this case fucked up, nothing in the 8th amendment should have caused the death of SH.

Name and quote them and please indicate the level of access and knowledge they have about this case.

The official report is above. You wish to refute it so you'll need to do better than what you've said.

Even if you're right, it shows there is at best confusion among highly paid and educated professionals about the 8th amendment which is leading to improper treatment of women.

I wouldn't expect much, Rudi appears to be quite fond of posting manufactured facts and figures without anything backing it up. Still waiting to hear about a source for the youngest person in Iceland with Down's Syndrome being 20.

I read it heard it on the six one news various sources. I don't have time to post links. More over I don't need to justify myself or any quote to you.

Of course you don't have to justify yourself to me or anyone. However, in a discussion, if you want your points to be taken seriously, especially if you're contradicting and official enquiry, I think it's reasonable to ask that you include some facts.

Mayo4Sam

I was interested in Rudi's claim about Iceland, turns out its pretty much true, not quiet but it seems that IF people find out about their child having DS then they terminate

from 2007 to 2015 every single pregnant woman in Iceland terminated a fetus with Down syndrome following a positive diagnosis

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/behind-the-lens-disappearing-down-syndrome/ you

Another tough one to call, its very different finding out after 3 months to actually having the baby and then finding out
Excuse me for talking while you're trying to interrupt me

gallsman

Quote from: Mayo4Sam on May 22, 2018, 10:04:20 AM
I was interested in Rudi's claim about Iceland, turns out its pretty much true, not quiet but it seems that IF people find out about their child having DS then they terminate

from 2007 to 2015 every single pregnant woman in Iceland terminated a fetus with Down syndrome following a positive diagnosis

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/behind-the-lens-disappearing-down-syndrome/ you

Another tough one to call, its very different finding out after 3 months to actually having the baby and then finding out

Well no, his post was utter bollocks.

He claimed, as absolute fact, that the youngest person in Iceland with Down's Syndrome was 20. Zero evidence provided. There's no "pretty much true" here at all. He's 100% wrong.

He also claimed that "Clearly they have a cultural policy to eliminate the weakest or those who do not conform to some ideal model" despite the fact it is obvious that each case is an individual decision a) to get the test and then b) to decide whether to terminate or not.

He also then completely whiffed on the nature of Savita Halapanavar's death.

Rudi

Irish Independent May 1st 2013. Consultants claim Irish law was not responsible for Savitas death.

The Iceland case about 20 year I read in a local newspaper.  It's false I did not know that at the time, however it's clear from numbers that Iceland aborts babies with downs. Galls man learn some manners.

gallsman

#669
Quote from: Rudi on May 22, 2018, 11:28:30 AM
Irish Independent May 1st 2013. Consultants claim Irish law was not responsible for Savitas death.

The Iceland case about 20 year I read in a local newspaper.  It's false I did not know that at the time, however it's clear from numbers that Iceland aborts babies with downs. Galls man learn some manners.


It was in a local newspaper? What about the Six One news that you also claimed?

As for it being wrong, I'm sure you were just waiting to verify the facts and were of course going to come on here and correct yourself?

"Iceland" does not abort anything. Individuals make the decisions.

Away and shite with your "manners" when you post such deliberate lies.

sid waddell

But, but, but...he doesn't know what he's talking about, or something.

The author of the investigation into Savita Halappanavar's death has reiterated his finding that she would still be alive if the Eighth Amendment did not exist.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/professor-savita-would-be-alive-today-if-not-for-8th-470954.html

Jim_Murphy_74

#671
Quote from: sid waddell on May 22, 2018, 11:48:12 AM
But, but, but...he doesn't know what he's talking about, or something.

The author of the investigation into Savita Halappanavar's death has reiterated his finding that she would still be alive if the Eighth Amendment did not exist.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/professor-savita-would-be-alive-today-if-not-for-8th-470954.html

Don't worry Matty McGrath got a call from a woman doctor he knows.  He will put this "so-called-expert" straight.  Just like he explained how a few drinks make nervous drivers safer.

Our maybe that lady DJ from Spirit FM, she seemed to know a lot more about these things than Peter Boylan.

Of course Dr. Arulkumaran is being sly intervening at this late stage.  It will minimize the time available to dig dirt up to discredit him.

/Jim.

armaghniac

Quote from: sid waddell on May 22, 2018, 11:48:12 AM
But, but, but...he doesn't know what he's talking about, or something.

The author of the investigation into Savita Halappanavar's death has reiterated his finding that she would still be alive if the Eighth Amendment did not exist.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/professor-savita-would-be-alive-today-if-not-for-8th-470954.html

This may or may not be true. But the Eighth Amendment now is not the same as when she did not receive proper treatment and a lot of people, including you, are attempting to give the impression that it is.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

Jim_Murphy_74

#673
Quote from: armaghniac on May 22, 2018, 01:59:56 PM
This may or may not be true. But the Eighth Amendment now is not the same as when she did not receive proper treatment and a lot of people, including you, are attempting to give the impression that it is.

How is it different?

Maybe point out here:  https://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/DOT/eng/Historical_Information/The_Constitution/Constitution_of_Ireland_-_Bunreacht_na_h%C3%89ireann.html



/Jim.

sid waddell

#674
Quote from: armaghniac on May 22, 2018, 01:59:56 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 22, 2018, 11:48:12 AM
But, but, but...he doesn't know what he's talking about, or something.

The author of the investigation into Savita Halappanavar's death has reiterated his finding that she would still be alive if the Eighth Amendment did not exist.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/professor-savita-would-be-alive-today-if-not-for-8th-470954.html

This may or may not be true. But the Eighth Amendment now is not the same as when she did not receive proper treatment and a lot of people, including you, are attempting to give the impression that it is.
The Eighth Amendment now is exactly the same as it was when it was introduced. The wording has not changed. And it's exactly the same as in 2012.

The Supreme Court has chipped away around the edges over the years at what those who campaigned for it thought they were getting. The X case in 1992 was such an example. Two Fianna Fail governments - that of Albert Reynolds and that of Bertie Ahern, tried to get the X Case judgement that threat of suicide was a grounds for allowing an abortion overturned in referendums in 1992 and 2002 and both times they failed.

The same people who are campaigning to retain the 8th Amendment now all campaigned against legislating for the X Case. But the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act is irrelevant to cases such as the Savita one. Were a Savita case to occur today, doctors and medical staff would face the exact same contraints as they did in 2012. Nothing has changed in that regard.

Let there be no doubt that the concept of the Eighth Amendment in the first place was thought up by the Roman Catholic religious right. It was the Roman Catholic religious right that opportuniscally used political instability in 1981 and 1982 to make a referendum a pre-requisite for support for a minority government held and it was they who tried to shout everybody else down during the campaign of that referendum.

There is a direct lineage between the No campaign in this referendum and every campaign against every progressive measure ths country has introduced in the last 40 years. Every single time they've been wrong. Most of the No campaign would still be campaigning against the legalisation of contraception were it still banned.

Those who campaigned in 1983 knew what they were NOT campaigning for. They were very definitely not campaigning for the right to travel, or that the threat of suicide would be grounds for an abortion.

But the almost certain likelihood of those things arising in future via Supreme Court judgements was widely referenced at the time. In their zealotry, the Roman Catholic religious right ignored these warnings. The irony is that the 8th Amendment would lead to the right to an abortion being specifically enshrined in the constitution, and it'll ultimately lead to comprehensive legislation for abortion - because people have seen that the 8th Amendment is a disaster.

Those who won the battle in 1983 lost the war, and their own zealotry contributed to that loss.