8th Amendment

inocybe · 28-05-2015 1:07pm

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Article 41.2?
- the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to
the State

- mothers shall not be obliged by
economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

except for single mothers who are no longer valued as parents when their youngest turns 7.

No Voter And Proud · 28-05-2015 1:27pm

traprunner wrote: »

That does not say that she can't have a life outside of the home.

I never said that.
It says that a woman's duties are to be in the home and it's strongly implied that the man should be earning enough to cover both.

No Voter And Proud · 28-05-2015 1:28pm

inocybe wrote: »

except for single mothers who are no longer valued as parents when their youngest turns 7.

Yeah that's a bit of a pity.
Wonder if someone could challenge it as unconstitutiuonal

traprunner · 28-05-2015 1:37pm

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

I never said that.
It says that a woman's duties are to be in the home and it's strongly implied that the man should be earning enough to cover both.

It says nothing or implies about a man (or nowadays another woman).

No Voter And Proud · 28-05-2015 1:39pm

traprunner wrote: »

It says nothing or implies about a man (or nowadays another woman).

How else does a woman stay at home to perform her duties without being obliged by financial necessity to find labour?
check out constitution.ie - I cant post links

traprunner · 28-05-2015 1:43pm

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

How else does a woman stay at home to perform her duties without being obliged by financial necessity to find labour?
check out constitution.ie - I cant post links

Social welfare.

FreudianSlippers · 28-05-2015 1:44pm

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

I never said that.
It says that a woman's duties are to be in the home and it's strongly implied that the man should be earning enough to cover both.

It does not say that. It says that mothers who choose to work in the home shouldn't be forced to work outside the home.

FreudianSlippers · 28-05-2015 1:45pm

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

How else does a woman stay at home to perform her duties without being obliged by financial necessity to find labour?
check out constitution.ie - I cant post links

I have forgotten more about the constitution that you know tbh... :yawn:

PopePalpatine · 28-05-2015 2:05pm

endacl wrote: »

People tend to have their heads screwed on when it comes to votes of conscience. Take the recent referendum for example. No evidence whatsoever of a protest vote.

TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if the "protest voters" used the presidential age referendum as their protest vote.

endacl · 28-05-2015 2:50pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if the "protest voters" used the presidential age referendum as their protest vote.

No way! That one went the way I voted. Can't have been anything wrong with that.

Although I did feel a bit bullied. :mad:

28-05-2015 4:11pm

I don't believe Ireland will allow a UK-style abortion regime for generations; maybe not in my lifetime.

To repeal the 8th, we can't just delete the amendment, we have to put something else in its place to clearly grant the right to an abortion. Now there's a slim chance we'll start allowing abortion in terms of FFA, rape and incest, but "abortion on demand"? Forget it.

It's almost impossible for us to understand what it's like to have your body dominated in this way, with no prospect of change for many years to come. I think it's pretty sickening.

seamus · 28-05-2015 4:13pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

To repeal the 8th, we can't just delete the amendment, we have to put something else in its place to clearly grant the right to an abortion.

No, that's not correct, we can just delete the amendment, plus the other two articles about right to information and right to travel.

There's no reason why we have to mention abortion or the unborn in the constitution at all.

No Voter And Proud · 28-05-2015 4:30pm

seamus wrote: »

No, that's not correct, we can just delete the amendment, plus the other two articles about right to information and right to travel.

There's no reason why we have to mention abortion or the unborn in the constitution at all.

So then would you suggest we would provision for it at legislative level instead?

Huntergonzo · 28-05-2015 4:33pm

fits wrote: »

I will vote labour if they make this referendum happen.
A personal contact had to travel to abort a much wanted but fatally abnormal foetus. There is no way she could have carried to term. They brought foetus home in boot of car to bury. Current system is absolutely cruel and heartless.
These decisions should be between woman, partner and doctors and noone else.

I heard a story very similar to that (if it wasn't the exact same story) on the radio last year and it was gut wrenching to listen to the mother speaking about it. Makes me utterly ashamed of my country that we would permit and encourage such barbarism and also hard to take is those that still turn their noses up to it and support the 8th, it's fcuking disgusting!

Also I just saw my first anti choice ad on Youtube, looks like they're preparing very early on for what will be a far dirtier fight than the same sex marriage referendum, watch out women of Ireland, you're in for a very degrading time when this comes up again.

28-05-2015 4:33pm

seamus wrote: »

No, that's not correct, we can just delete the amendment, plus the other two articles about right to information and right to travel.

I'm basing this on what I heard Ivana Bacik say on radio. She's written a book on this, so I think she says it with authority... apparently abortion was always prohibited in the constitution, the 8th amendment was believed to have strengthened the prohibition.

seamus · 28-05-2015 4:33pm

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

So then would you suggest we would provision for it at legislative level instead?

Yep. Just like we did before.

Glenman · 28-05-2015 4:58pm

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I heard a story very similar to that (if it wasn't the exact same story) on the radio last year and it was gut wrenching to listen to the mother speaking about it. Makes me utterly ashamed of my country that we would permit and encourage such barbarism and also hard to take is those that still turn their noses up to it and support the 8th, it's fcuking disgusting!

Also I just saw my first anti choice ad on Youtube, looks like they're preparing very early on for what will be a far dirtier fight than the same sex marriage referendum, watch out women of Ireland, you're in for a very degrading time when this comes up again.

Yes I bet you did hear this story in the media. However, you never hear or see the stories of families who have been through these diagnoses and chose life over abortion. You can see some of these stories at the link below;
http://onedaymore.ie/

This media bias was the reason that the pro life campaign organised the 33 TO 1 EVENT CHALLENGING MEDIA BIAS in March in response to 33 articles appeared in national newspapers pushing hard for more abortion. In the same fortnight period, only 1 pro-life article was published.

PopePalpatine · 28-05-2015 5:08pm

Note the use of the words "chose life". Not everybody wants to give birth to a baby that's lucky to live for a few days at most.

Huntergonzo · 28-05-2015 5:25pm

Glenman wrote: »

Yes I bet you did hear this story in the media. However, you never hear or see the stories of families who have been through these diagnoses and chose life over abortion. You can see some of these stories at the link below;
http://onedaymore.ie/

This media bias was the reason that the pro life campaign organised the 33 TO 1 EVENT CHALLENGING MEDIA BIAS in March in response to 33 articles appeared in national newspapers pushing hard for more abortion. In the same fortnight period, only 1 pro-life article was published.

I don't fall for media bias, I make my own mind up and I don't read the papers much at all either because they're full of lies and pointless gossip, I find them a bit boring to be honest.

There's no such thing as choosing life in this debate, there are those who decide to go ahead with a pregnancy, which is the vast majority of people, then there are those who choose to go ahead with the pregnancy despite what the doctors tell them. This is a risk of course, probably with mixed results but it is their choice, but it is barbaric to force an Irish person to travel and then bring their fetus home in the boot of a car and that's only one story I'm aware of, unless of course you either don't care of believe she made it up.

Loafing Oaf · 28-05-2015 9:08pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't believe Ireland will allow a UK-style abortion regime for generations; maybe not in my lifetime.

To repeal the 8th, we can't just delete the amendment, we have to put something else in its place to clearly grant the right to an abortion. Now there's a slim chance we'll start allowing abortion in terms of FFA, rape and incest, but "abortion on demand"? Forget it.

IMO, rape/incest is likely to be the wedge that forces a broad liberalisation of the abortion law. In fact I don't know how you would legislate in practice for abortion in those circumstances without such a broader liberalisation, or at least I'm not aware of any jurisdiction where it has been done effectively. Now, opinion polls are currently showing 75-80% majorities in favour of a right to abortion in cases of rape and incest. Of course not all of those people would accept 'liberal abortion' if that was the only practical way to vindicate that right, but I suspect enough of them would to make it happen...

krankykitty · 29-05-2015 8:54am

Glenman wrote: »

This media bias was the reason that the pro life campaign organised the 33 TO 1 EVENT CHALLENGING MEDIA BIAS in March in response to 33 articles appeared in national newspapers pushing hard for more abortion. In the same fortnight period, only 1 pro-life article was published.

You do know the fortnight that they based that "media bias" on? The fortnight that story was in the news about the braindead pregnant woman. People were rightly outraged at that and I'm not surprised there were no pro life articles in that particular fortnight. However, the rest of the year is fair game, we are subjected to Breda O'Brien, John Waters, David Quinn etc on what seems like a daily basis.

volchitsa · 29-05-2015 9:04am

krankykitty wrote: »

You do know the fortnight that they based that "media bias" on? The fortnight that story was in the news about the braindead pregnant woman. People were rightly outraged at that and I'm not surprised there were no pro life articles in that particular fortnight. However, the rest of the year is fair game, we are subjected to Breda O'Brien, John Waters, David Quinn etc on what seems like a daily basis.

It seems to me that the fact that none of the usuals were prepared to come out and opine on that poor woman and her family at the time actually shows they realize just how weak their stance is every time a real life example occurs. It only works as long as a purely hypothetical "love them both" fluffy kittens kind of slogan.

Similarly, many from the pro-life side here seemed to feel that discretion was the better form of valour concerning the 10 year old Paraguayan girl recently.

Someone should do the same count for a different two weeks, say the two weeks just before that story broke over Christmas, and compare them. I suspect it would tell us a lot about the ruthlessly dishonest media strategy that Iona and the rest have adopted.

L1011 · 29-05-2015 9:56am

krankykitty wrote: »

You do know the fortnight that they based that "media bias" on? The fortnight that story was in the news about the braindead pregnant woman. People were rightly outraged at that and I'm not surprised there were no pro life articles in that particular fortnight. However, the rest of the year is fair game, we are subjected to Breda O'Brien, John Waters, David Quinn etc on what seems like a daily basis.

I'm actually surprised there was the one they've mentioned, to be honest.

volchitsa · 29-05-2015 10:08am

L1011 wrote: »

I'm actually surprised there was the one they've mentioned, to be honest.

Yeah. The other question that needs to be asked (assuming a count made over a different fortnight shows a significant disparity - as I think it's bound to) is what effort was made by the various media outlets to get their opinions on this issue or over that time.

For instance does David Quinn normally send in unsolicited opinion pieces or does he wait till they contact him about something? If so, what happened in December 2014?

Were they all knocking desperately at the doors at Montrose wanting to explain their views, or was there an embarrassed silence from them when called up to speak about it?

Somebody must know this. Presumably the people complaining about being muzzled could tell us in what way they weren't allowed to be heard just at that particular time?

29-05-2015 11:22am

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

IMO, rape/incest is likely to be the wedge that forces a broad liberalisation of the abortion law. In fact I don't know how you would legislate in practice for abortion in those circumstances without such a broader liberalisation, or at least I'm not aware of any jurisdiction where it has been done effectively.

I wouldn't have thought it would be difficult. Wouldn't they just insert into the constitution an article which qualifies the prohibition on abortion by saying that abortion is permitted in circumstances of an alleged rape, incest, or where the child has no reasonable prospect of survival into infancy?

I think that would be a close-run referendum, but it would pass.

There is no serious prospect of a more liberal regime any time soon.

In any event, think the Labour Party have made a mistake in taking comfort from the outstanding success of the same-sex marriage referendum. Marriage is perceived as a wonderful, affirmative expression of human love: marriage equality 'increases the sum of human happiness' (those are the words of one Roman Catholic bishop emeritus!). It's easy to get people to ring their granny and knock on doors appealing for the citizens to support love.

It's a lot more difficult to get enthusiastic about abortion.

#AbortionEquality?

Zubeneschamali · 29-05-2015 11:26am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Wouldn't they just insert into the constitution an article

No, that's what caused the whole mess in the first place.

The referendum should be to delete the 8th, 13th and 14th amendments completely.

29-05-2015 11:44am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, that's what caused the whole mess in the first place.

The referendum should be to delete the 8th, 13th and 14th amendments completely.

That referendum wouldn't have a chance of passing. Anyone who thinks Ireland would vote for a UK-style abortion regime is mad. Polls indicate that only 68% are even in favour of abortion in circumstances of fatal foetal abnormality.

Secondly, People like Ivana Bacik and others who tend to know about this topic have said that abortion was always unconstitutional. That argument was also advanced during the 1983 referendum by the pro-choice groups.

If that's true, then deleting the passages is not enough. You'd surely have to insert a statement explicitly permitting abortion. That's my understanding anyway.

Loafing Oaf · 29-05-2015 11:45am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought it would be difficult. Wouldn't they just insert into the constitution an article which qualifies the prohibition on abortion by saying that abortion is permitted in circumstances of an alleged rape, incest, or where the child has no reasonable prospect of survival into infancy?

I think that would be a close-run referendum, but it would pass.

IMO the referendum can only be for a straight repeal of the 8th amendment, on the understanding that the government would then legislate for abortion in circumstances x, y and z.

But that's beside the point here, the difficulty lies is regulating abortion in cases of rape and incest, be it via the Constitution, legislation, medical guidelines or any other means, without a broader liberalisation of the regime.

Do you wait until the offender has been convicted before the woman pregnant through rape/incest can be allowed access to abortion? Presumably you can see the difficulty with that. Do you instead accept the word of the woman that she is a victim of rape/incest and will this not in practice be tantamount to abortion on demand?

I would be very interested to know if there is a jurisdiction where abortion access is effectively restricted to those pregnant through rape or incest.

volchitsa · 29-05-2015 11:55am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That referendum wouldn't have a chance of passing. Anyone who thinks Ireland would vote for a UK-style abortion regime is mad. Polls indicate that only 68% are even in favour of abortion in circumstances of fatal foetal abnormality.

Secondly, People like Ivana Bacik and others who tend to know about this topic have said that abortion was always unconstitutional. That argument was also advanced during the 1983 referendum by the pro-choice groups.

If that's true, then deleting the passages is not enough. You'd surely have to insert a statement explicitly permitting abortion. That's my understanding anyway.

It was illegal because of the 1865 (or whenever) OATP act, but what clause would have made it unconstitutional pre the 8th? (I'm not saying it wasn't, but I'm not aware of the claim, and it must presumably be based on something already written into the constitution.)

oscarBravo · 29-05-2015 12:00pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Secondly, People like Ivana Bacik and others who tend to know about this topic have said that abortion was always unconstitutional.

Do you have a source for that? I assume it's based on Article 40, but it feels like a stretch to read it that way.

If that's true, then deleting the passages is not enough. You'd surely have to insert a statement explicitly permitting abortion. That's my understanding anyway.

Ugh. Legislating in the Constitution is what gives us atrocities like Article 41.3.2.

Zubeneschamali · 29-05-2015 12:18pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Secondly, People like Ivana Bacik and others who tend to know about this topic have said that abortion was always unconstitutional. That argument was also advanced during the 1983 referendum by the pro-choice groups..

Ivana Bacik was only 15 in 1983, but I was old enough to vote, and nobody on the pro-choice side said that.

29-05-2015 12:40pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ivana Bacik was only 15 in 1983, but I was old enough to vote, and nobody on the pro-choice side said that.

The courts said it. I have a book on this which was partly written by Bacik, who is an expert, even if she wasn't an adult at the time. I'm sure someone with legal knowledge could confirm what she has said.

In the early 1980s, the pro choice side were worried about Roe vs Wade, and they were concerned that the constitutional ban was not strong enough. They asserted that it should be explicit. So 1983 made something explicit, and probably strengthened it, even though it already existed.

29-05-2015 12:43pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you have a source for that?.

It's something I first heard on radio last year, apparently there was a series of cases in the 1970s or 1960s that confirmed it. The claim also appears in a book 'Abortion in Ireland' which is co-written by Bacik. I'll put up a direct quote and reference later this evening.

Zubeneschamali · 29-05-2015 12:48pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

TIn the early 1980s, the pro choice side were worried about Roe vs Wade, and they were concerned that the constitutional ban was not strong enough, that it should be explicit. So 1983 made something explicit even though it already existed.

I was paying attention to this debate in the early 80s, and there was no Constitutional mention or protection of the "unborn" before the 1983 amendment. That is why the pro-life side were afraid that the existing law would be found unconstitutional or in breach of European law, because the woman's rights are in the Constitution and the embryos rights were not.

Zubeneschamali · 29-05-2015 12:49pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'll put up a direct quote and reference later this evening.

I am quite confident that you will find Bacik's book says no such thing.

jill_valentine · 29-05-2015 1:02pm

The difference in attitudes to abortion in case of rape/incest vs anything else is such a frustrating thing to see. It just lays it out so starkly that the real problem people have with abortion ain't blah blah blah babies lives!!!1!

volchitsa · 29-05-2015 1:11pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The courts said it. I have a book on this which was partly written by Bacik, who is an expert, even if she wasn't an adult at the time. I'm sure someone with legal knowledge could confirm what she has said.

In the early 1980s, the pro choice side were worried about Roe vs Wade, and they were concerned that the constitutional ban was not strong enough. They asserted that it should be explicit. So 1983 made something explicit, and probably strengthened it, even though it already existed.

The courts were hardly pro-choice, which was your claim.
Although perhaps you meant pro-life, as I presume you must have meant in this post? It doesn't make sense otherwise.
Again, though, the courts weren't meant to take any side, were they?

As for what the actual pro-life groups did claim, my memory of it is that they were afraid that there was no constitutional protection at all, and that a Roe/Wade-type decision would one day confirm the unconstitutionality of the pre-independence OATP Act on the grounds of the right to personal freedoms which were in the constitution.

29-05-2015 1:21pm

Black Menorca wrote: »

One of the big questions for me will be what proponents of the 8th's removal will replace it with?

Nothing.

This whole saga has achieved nothing and has been a disaster from start to finish.

29-05-2015 6:03pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I was paying attention to this debate in the early 80s, and there was no Constitutional mention or protection of the "unborn" before the 1983 amendment.

You're badly mistaken. Your memory is not what you think it is.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am quite confident that you will find Bacik's book says no such thing.

Why? Have you even read it?

Kingston J., Whelan A. and Bacik I (1997) Abortion and the Law Dublin: Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell. pp2-5

p5

"The decision to submit the proposal as passed by the Oireachtas to the People was challenged in an action taken against the State by a private individual who sought an injunction preventing the the holding of the [1983] referendum".

(The footnotes give the name of that case as Finn vs Attorney General 1983)

"He claimed that it would be unconstitutional to insert the proposed Eighth Amendment into the Constitution and argued that the amendment would be superfluous as the Constitution already protected the unborn."

This case was unsuccessful, we are told, because the High Court and Supreme Court said they could not interfere with the referendum process. However, we are told that the courts decided

"that the right to life of the unborn was already protected by Article 40.3 of the Constitution. [Judge Barrington] was of the view that the use of the word “citizen” in the Fundamental Rights section of the Constitution was not necessarily to be read literally. He further held that the right to life was a natural right protected by the Constitution, but antecedent and and superior thereto. He held that the “whole scheme of moral and political values which are clearly indicated by the Constitution” indicated that the right to life protected by Article 40.3 was not confined to citizens and that he “would have no hesitation in holding that the unborn child has a right to life and that it is protected by the Constitution”.

There were other cases in the 1960s and 70s but the above passage is perhaps the most laconic.
I am not sure how much more I can reproduce without breaching copyright. I am happy to photograph the chapters and print them here if mods will allow it.

In any case, I have since discovered this up-to-date link on a UCC blog

http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=380

This would have been big news in 1983, and if you remember the referendum as well as you say you do, then I can't understand how you could have missed it.

I say this as a person who is vehemently pro-choice and pro-liberty for women. I find it sickening that the constraints are so severe, but if it isn't as easy as repealing the 8th amendment, then we deserve to know about that and discuss that like reasonable people.

S.O · 29-05-2015 7:00pm

If there is a referendum to completely repeal the 8th I would vote against it and maybe campaign against it , I would be against liberal abortion laws that exist in the uk where an abortion can be requested on demand.

I think abortion should only be permitted in circumstances where a womans life is at risk, theres a miscarriage occurring, or in cases of rape, if a referendum wad held to amend the 8th to make a rape exception I would vote yes in favour, if a woman has been raped and is pregnant afterwards it should be her choice if she wants go through with the pregnancy or not.

29-05-2015 7:10pm

S.O wrote: »

if a woman has been raped and is pregnant afterwards it should be her choice if she wants go through with the pregnancy or not.

I agree but I'm having trouble understanding your opposition to what you call 'abortion on demand'.

Presumably the reason you're opposed to liberal abortion is because you see the foetus as a human being, right?

Well, is the foetus that was conceived through rape any less human than the foetus conceived through consensual sex? Aren't you talking about killing a 'human' for an act that human could not control?

I'm not attacking the sincerity of your opposition to abortion, which I don't doubt. I just wonder how tenable it is.

volchitsa · 29-05-2015 7:16pm

S.O wrote: »

I think abortion should only be permitted in circumstances where a womans life is at risk, theres a miscarriage occurring, or in cases of rape, if a referendum wad held to amend the 8th to make a rape exception I would vote yes in favour, if a woman has been raped and is pregnant afterwards it should be her choice if she wants go through with the pregnancy or not.

What proof of rape would it be reasonable to expect, in your view?
Also, do you agree that the view that the fetus' right to life is contingent on the manner of its conception is as much about being entitled to punish women who are felt to have acted wrongly as about any right to life for the fetus?

doc11 · 29-05-2015 7:41pm

jill_valentine wrote: »

The difference in attitudes to abortion in case of rape/incest vs anything else is such a frustrating thing to see. It just lays it out so starkly that the real problem people have with abortion ain't blah blah blah babies lives!!!1!

In cases of rape/incest the women has little choice to have sex in others you had consensual sex and don't want to deal with the consequences of your actions. The real problem is the different attitudes to sex as some don't see it as the "choice" but rather focus on the termination.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I agree but I'm having trouble understanding your opposition to what you call 'abortion on demand'.

Presumably the reason you're opposed to liberal abortion is because you see the foetus as a human being, right?

Well, is the foetus that was conceived through rape any less human than the foetus conceived through consensual sex? Aren't you talking about killing a 'human' for an act that human could not control?

I'm not attacking the sincerity of your opposition to abortion, which I don't doubt. I just wonder how tenable it is.

I would agree with that. If you agree with terminating the child due to rape why not impose capital punishment for the rapist too?

In my opinion the constitution should treat all life the same and if your going to discriminate based on rape or disability you have lost the battle and may well legislate for abortion on demand within the various parameters of other countries (12 weeks etc). I don't want this to be played as a political football for the next 50 years by the Labour party etc with a different abortion referendum every 10-15 years.

oscarBravo · 29-05-2015 7:52pm

doc11 wrote: »

...you had consensual sex and don't want to deal with the consequences of your actions.

Jesus. Do you have any idea how ****ing Victorian it sounds when you preach at women that they should abstain from sex unless they're prepared to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

FFS. It's the twenty-first century, and some people don't seem to have left the nineteenth.

29-05-2015 7:54pm

doc11 wrote: »

I would agree with that. If you agree with terminating the child due to rape why not impose capital punishment for the rapist too?

To be clear, I don't think we agree. I was questioning SO's stance, I personally favour a woman's right to abortion. I see the limitation of abortion to cases of rape as being inconsistent with the 'human life' claims. Logically, one should take an all-or-nothing position on abortion.

Either a woman has charge of her own body or she does not.
Either the foetus has human life, or it has not.

Zubeneschamali · 29-05-2015 8:10pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Why? Have you even read it?

No, as I said, I never even heard of the case - it was non-news at the time.

This case was unsuccessful, we are told, because the High Court and Supreme Court said they could not interfere with the referendum process.

That is probably why it was not news.

However, we are told that the courts decided

"that the right to life of the unborn was already protected by Article 40.3 of the Constitution. [Judge Barrington] was of the view

You have to be careful quoting from individual judges - Hederman thought it would be legal to lock suicidal women in a padded cell until they gave birth, but that was a minority view, not law.

29-05-2015 8:25pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, as I said, I never even heard of the case - it was non-news at the time.

The Irish Newspapers Archive say otherwise. It made headlines in all of the national papers.

You have to be careful quoting from individual judges

That's why I take the lead from people who are better educated on this topic than me, such as Dr Conor O'Mahony (link provided earlier) and Dr Ivana Bacik and her co-authors (also referenced earlier), whose claims you were previously "quite confident" did not exist.

Loafing Oaf · 29-05-2015 8:33pm

S.O wrote: »

If there is a referendum to completely repeal the 8th I would vote against it and maybe campaign against it , I would be against liberal abortion laws that exist in the uk where an abortion can be requested on demand.

I think abortion should only be permitted in circumstances where a womans life is at risk, theres a miscarriage occurring, or in cases of rape,

As I said previously, the referendum will almost certainly be a straight repeal one, on the understanding that the government would then legislate for abortion on grounds of FFA and probably other 'hard cases'. I think you can be fairly confident that that government will not attempt further liberalisation of abortion law, given the cast-iron guarantees they will be required to provide beforehand. However, could you say for sure a future left-wing government (say led by SF) would not attempt to legislate for liberal abortion? No, but that's how issues are dealt with in democracies...

doc11 · 29-05-2015 8:33pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Jesus. Do you have any idea how ****ing Victorian it sounds when you preach at women that they should abstain from sex unless they're prepared to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

FFS. It's the twenty-first century, and some people don't seem to have left the nineteenth.

So it's acceptable that if a man has sex and offers her an abortion that he should then have no financial or otherwise responsibility for the child? I don't think that's so Victorian defense would work out well in court. Or is it only men that should abstain and women can do whatever they want?

The same with a brief marriage/cohabitation that entitles a women to half a mans assets plus maintenance sounds pretty outdated too while we're at it.

oscarBravo · 29-05-2015 8:52pm

doc11 wrote: »

...if a man has sex and offers her an abortion...

What on earth makes you think it's his to offer?

8th Amendment

Comments