Repeal the 8th?

A

Adecco

Registered User
Messages
61
Excuse my ignorance here - but obviously I've heard this slogan being banded about the last couple of years.
And I've just read an article in Irish times with girls living abroad who are determined that people should be allowed have an abortion for ANY reason.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-...k-from-australia-to-vote-for-repeal-1.3060808
(The first girl in that link claims it was one of the reasons she left Ireland which seems a little OTT to me but anyway)

So is this what would happen if we repeal the 8th? That people can get an abortion for ANY reason? (i.e. they're just not in the mood to have a baby, for example)

Or would there have to be some mitigating circumstances to allow it?
 
Ah, the mood to have a baby....

Government haven't come up with any firm proposals an alternative to the 8th amendment, so no one knows yet what choices will be on offer.
 
Leo said:
Ah, the mood to have a baby....

Government haven't come up with any firm proposals an alternative to the 8th amendment, so no one knows yet what choices will be on offer.
Click to expand...
Why not abdicate the responsibility to an unelected talking shop full of busybodies, reactionaries, fundamentalists, retirees, academics and people with nothing better to do with their time and ask them to come up with some ideas. We could call if a Citizens Assembly (although that's what a Parliament is so maybe some other name which doesn't give the impression of a democratic mandate would be better)... oh, wait, too late!
 
No matter what provision or none a person thinks there should be regarding abortion, "Repeal the 8th" is surely the shallowest campaign slogan ever. Apart from it horrible American twinge, it suggests repealing a constitutional amendment that was opposed by those most opposed to abortion and those most supportive at the time it was introduced.

Repealing the 8th amendment should only be considered when a new regime has been agreed on, whatever that might be. Either they want abortion covered by the 1861 Offences against the People Act or they just want to rant against something they disapprove of.
 
cremeegg said:
No matter what provision or none a person thinks there should be regarding abortion, "Repeal the 8th" is surely the shallowest campaign slogan ever. Apart from it horrible American twinge, it suggests repealing a constitutional amendment that was opposed by those most opposed to abortion and those most supportive at the time it was introduced.

Repealing the 8th amendment should only be considered when a new regime has been agreed on, whatever that might be. Either they want abortion covered by the 1861 Offences against the People Act or they just want to rant against something they disapprove of.
Click to expand...
I think the argument is that it has no place in the Constitution, which should be a document comprising guiding principles, not specific laws. I kind of agree with that idea. Give that I do find it ironic that some people who support such a view think we should have a Constitutional amendment about water.
 
Purple said:
Why not abdicate the responsibility to an unelected talking shop full of busybodies, reactionaries, fundamentalists, retirees, academics and people with nothing better to do with their time and ask them to come up with some ideas. We could call if a Citizens Assembly (although that's what a Parliament is so maybe some other name which doesn't give the impression of a democratic mandate would be better)... oh, wait, too late!
Click to expand...


The only problem with that approach is what to do to stall the whole process further if the assembly stalling tactic unexpectedly comes to a conclusion within a lifetime.
 
Purple said:
I think the argument is that it has no place in the Constitution, which should be a document comprising guiding principles, not specific laws. I kind of agree with that idea. Give that I do find it ironic that some people who support such a view think we should have a Constitutional amendment about water.
Click to expand...
I agree with that idea in general too, although I would view the right to life as a guiding principle. I don't really see any irony as that's not the argument of the repeal side. They just see the 8th, rightly, as a block to a liberal abortion regime.
 
I find it ironic that in some cases the same people who think that the Right to Life of the unborn child is not an issue for the Constitution do think that the ownership of a public utility is a constitutional issue.
 
So did anyone watch cutting edge last night? They were on about abortion.

Tommy Tiernan seemed to be the main man according to people on Twitter. Personally I thought he was very poor.

He didn't make any great points - although people really bought into his line 'Abortion won't be compulsory'. I'm not even sure what he was trying to say with that - but a lot of people thought it was cool. Seemed to get a lot of praise for it.

He also didn't like the language the other person on the panel used. Personally I got the impression he was pro-abortion but didn't really want to confront the hard language associated with it.
He's also a bit up himself anyway.

Repealing the 8th certainly seems to be the 'cool' opinion though - and anyone else with a different opinion is labelled a bible basher.

What really surprised me though was one of the panellists Alison Coleman(?).
She was of the belief that once a child is in the womb and with a heartbeat - then it is a human being. However she then went onto say that the mothers rights trump all this and is therefore pro-abortion.

I can certainly understand if someone if of the belief it is not a child until it out of the womb - and therefore rationalise abortion like that.
But if someone believes that it is a proper human - albeit living inside the womb rather than outside - then its difficult to see that anything other than murder.
 
I don't accept that this is a religious issue; I'm an atheist and I have major reservation about abortion.
I also don't accept that this is a continuation of the agenda which saw us introduce marriage equality; the two issues are very different at every level.
 
Purple said:
I don't accept that this is a religious issue; I'm an atheist and I have major reservation about abortion.
I also don't accept that this is a continuation of the agenda which saw us introduce marriage equality; the two issues are very different at every level.
Click to expand...

I would agree with all that.
 
I find it really strange that it is against the law to do a cull on garden frogs in an area because garden frogs are an endangered species however people have zero compulsion about ripping apart a baby without the aid of pain relief because they don't think you have any rights until you pass the magic portal.

Given that in the UK babies are frequently allowed to die after failed abortions this also does not hold true.

The only people I think who should have a right to an opinion on this issue are people who have survived an abortion attempt.
 
Ripping apart? Hardly.

Should those who have suffered fatal foetal abnormalities and been forced onto a boat to England for treatment have a say too?
 
Leo said:
Even the doctors?

That site though :(
Click to expand...

Are you saying medicine is now 100% certain on all things??

Can I look forward to being 1,000 years old now since medical science is now perfect?

Do they never make mistakes?

If doctors were so perfect how come there are still babies who survive abortion?

As for the site....pro-life is better than websites suggesting that chopping babies up at 9 months is perfectly acceptable if that is what the mother wants.

See Clinton say killing babies is perfectly fine as long as they has not not passed the magic portal.
 
I didn't say any such thing, but I would value qualified medical opinion over that of someone who chooses to hide behind European Data protection law to have their history hidden.
 
Leo said:
I didn't say any such thing, but I would value qualified medical opinion over that of someone who chooses to hide behind European Data protection law to have their history hidden.
Click to expand...

Value is exactly the issue here, how much do you value life?

Do you not think life should be given a chance or just snuffed out because someone can't be bothered to look after what they have created?

I keep hearing that we in Ireland are backward regarding abortion and I cannot but help to think what is backward about valuing life?
 
There are hard-line views on both sides of this debate. Personally, I'd rather not impose my morality on everyone else, or have anyone else's hard-line morality imposed on me. I mean, I think the world is already way over-populated and that is resulting in massive amounts of pain and suffering, mostly in less developed or equitable nations. How much do you value the long term viability of the species, or one individual in a developed country versus hundreds in the third-world?

S.L.F said:
Do you not think life should be given a chance or just snuffed out because someone can't be bothered to look after what they have created?
Click to expand...

Should someone carrying a foetus with zero chance of survival be forced to continue to carry that and run a high risk of never being able to conceive again? That seems a pretty barbaric practice to me. Why should they be deprived of the choice to have children just to endure some futile exercise? I have family who were in that position, you want to tell the children they've had since they shouldn't have been allowed to exist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top