Abortion Discussion

Loafing Oaf

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Ok can all references to abortion and unborn be removed then? Any referendum needs to focus on this rather than particular sets of circumstance in my opinion. Is it necessary to refer to such things in a countries constitution?

But there is no consensus on what the law should be to replace Article 40.3.3. Whatever legislation you came up with would inevitably cause massive ructions within FG...

Kiwi in IE

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But there is no consensus on what the law should be to replace Article 40.3.3. Whatever legislation you came up with would inevitably cause massive ructions within FG...

Well the potential for massive ruptions within FG is certainly a good reason for maintaining legislation that puts the lives of Irish women at risk!

Can anyone explain what politicians mean when they say that the government 'dosn't have a mandate' to call a referendum on an issue? How do they obtain a 'mandate'. I would have assumed that being in government should give them a 'mandate' to hold a referendum on whatever took their fancy?

Loafing Oaf

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Well the potential for massive ruptions within FG is certainly a good reason for maintaining legislation that puts the lives of Irish women at risk!

Can anyone explain what politicians mean when they say that the government 'dosn't have a mandate' to call a referendum on an issue? How do they obtain a 'mandate'. I would have assumed that being in government should give them a 'mandate' to hold a referendum on whatever took their fancy?

Well look at the struggle they had to get X case legislation over the line. We get what we vote for at the end of the day...I don't think it's reasonable to be expecting FG (or FF) to be seeking extensive liberalisation of abortion law...

alaimacerc

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Can anyone explain what politicians mean when they say that the government 'dosn't have a mandate' to call a referendum on an issue? How do they obtain a 'mandate'. I would have assumed that being in government should give them a 'mandate' to hold a referendum on whatever took their fancy?

Presumably they mean, "wasn't in our manifesto or the programme for government". Not that that's stopped them before, mind you...

Kiwi in IE

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well look at the struggle they had to get X case legislation over the line. We get what we vote for at the end of the day...I don't think it's reasonable to be expecting FG (or FF) to be seeking extensive liberalisation of abortion law...

Why is it such an issue here? I know 'Holy Catholic Ireland' etc, but that isn't really the case anymore. As I said earlier, almost every other Western country have managed to legislate for this several decades ago. I don't believe that religion truly has that much more of a hold over people under 50 in Ireland than anywhere else. Do people here really have more of a perceived attachment to foetuses belonging to others than people in the UK, France, Canada, etc do? I don't think so. I really don't understand why it is such a massive issue and everyone is so unwilling to change it, despite that it results in constant cases where women are treated appallingly and there is a regular international airing of the latest horrific case every few months, making the country look completely archaic.

Kiwi in IE

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But there is no consensus on what the law should be to replace Article 40.3.3. Whatever legislation you came up with would inevitably cause massive ructions within FG...

Can it not just be got rid of first though? So there is a clean slate to work from? If we continue with a referendum to amend the constitution for each particular circumstance where abortion may be required at 30 year intervals, we might get to a referendum on cases which involve sexual assault in about 60 years once FFA and health are dealt with. It is ridiculous. The country badly needs strong leadership on this issue (and in general).

Loafing Oaf

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Can it not just be got rid of first though? So there is a clean slate to work from? If we continue with a referendum to amend the constitution for each particular circumstance where abortion may be required at 30 year intervals, we might get to a referendum on cases which involve sexual assault in about 60 years once FFA and health are dealt with. It is ridiculous. The country badly needs strong leadership on this issue (and in general).

Do you not see the constitutional provision would have to be immediately replaced with some legislation, and that it would be almost impossible to achieve consensus on that legislation within the two governing parties? In the very unlikely event that there was to be a repeal referendum follow by legislation under the current govt, the legislation would almost certainly be highly restrictive.

The next GE is only a year or so away now and the parties have said they will set their stalls out on the issue before that so you will likely end up with a more liberal abortion regime than if you tried to push through a referendum now.

alaimacerc

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Do you not see the constitutional provision would have to be immediately replaced with some legislation [...]

No, there already is legislation. Obviously the whole point of repeal would be to enable reform or repeal of the existing law, but there's no requirement to do that immediately.

obplayer

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Do you not see the constitutional provision would have to be immediately replaced with some legislation, and that it would be almost impossible to achieve consensus on that legislation within the two governing parties? In the very unlikely event that there was to be a repeal referendum follow by legislation under the current govt, the legislation would almost certainly be highly restrictive.

The next GE is only a year or so away now and the parties have said they will set their stalls out on the issue before that so you will likely end up with a more liberal abortion regime than if you tried to push through a referendum now.

Genuine question, why would the constitutional provision have to be immediately replaced with some legislation?

Loafing Oaf

obplayer wrote: »

Genuine question, why would the constitutional provision have to be immediately replaced with some legislation?

Well seemingly it wouldn't according to alainamerc. I had erroneously assumed the PoLDPA (got it right this time:P) would be rendered 'null and void' if Article 40.3.3 was repealed. So I should probably stop pontificating on these things...

Kiwi in IE

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Do you not see the constitutional provision would have to be immediately replaced with some legislation, and that it would be almost impossible to achieve consensus on that legislation within the two governing parties? In the very unlikely event that there was to be a repeal referendum follow by legislation under the current govt, the legislation would almost certainly be highly restrictive.

Why does abortion/reference to the unborn need to be in the constitution though? If 40.3 was removed entirely could the legislation not remain as is until the next election where parties could set their stall then? If its gone from the constitution at least there can be movement. If laws don't need a constitutional reference then get rid of talk of the unborn from it and have legislation written separate from the constitution to continue the status quo and then there can be discussion about changing it. Slow and painful but better than a referendum at 30 year intervals for individual circumstance.

Why is it so impossible to change here? France, UK, Germany, Spain etc all managed to introduce appropriate abortion legislation but in Ireland it is impossible? Why? If the answer is that they do not have constitutions that specifically refer to 'the unborn', then why do we? And how can it be removed?

Kiwi in IE

As much as I support Claire Daly and her intentions we will never get anywhere making changes for one specific set of circumstances at a time while reference to the unborn remains in the constitution.

Are we the only country that has reference to foetuses in the constitution? I know next to nothing about other states constitutions (NZ doesn't have one) and I could not find anything on Google to indicate that this is the case in anywhere else.

alaimacerc

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well seemingly it wouldn't according to alainamerc. I had erroneously assumed the PoLDPA (got it right this time:P) would be rendered 'null and void' if Article 40.3.3 was repealed. So I should probably stop pontificating on these things...

I should probably pontificate less myself -- usual "not a lawyer" disclaimers/boasting applies. Perhaps the PoLDPA would be voided, but I don't see why this would be the case. It's "legislating for the X case (and Halappanavar, etc...)", which itself turned on the SC judgement from the 8th, but I don't think it then depends on the 8th, in any necessitated sense. Or the SC has had to busk worse at least, I'm certain.

The PoLDPA itself repealed the Offences Against the Persons Act provisions, so that aspect is surely moot. (Don't ask me what happens when you repeal an act that repealed an act. Previous disclaimer!)

volchitsa

alaimacerc wrote: »

I should probably pontificate less myself -- usual "not a lawyer" disclaimers/boasting applies. Perhaps the PoLDPA would be voided, but I don't see why this would be the case. It's "legislating for the X case (and Halappanavar, etc...)", which itself turned on the SC judgement from the 8th, but I don't think it then depends on the 8th, in any necessitated sense. Or the SC has had to busk worse at least, I'm certain.

The PoLDPA itself repealed the Offences Against the Persons Act provisions, so that aspect is surely moot. (Don't ask me what happens when you repeal an act that repealed an act. Previous disclaimer!)

Presumably (and I'm only guessing here) it would depend on how the POLDP act is worded. If the act cites as its origin article 40.3.3, then likely it may be voided by the disappearance of that article.

alaimacerc

volchitsa wrote: »

If the act cites as its origin article 40.3.3, then likely it may be voided by the disappearance of that article.

I'm moderately confident it doesn't refer to it directly at all, though of course I'm open to correction on it doing so in some way I'm missing. Several of its provisions of course restate in similar wording (legal cut'n'paste!) subsections of the constitution, of the X ruling, and so forth. "Nothing in this Act shall operate to limit the freedom to travel between the State and another state"...

Loafing Oaf

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why is it so impossible to change here? France, UK, Germany, Spain etc all managed to introduce appropriate abortion legislation but in Ireland it is impossible? Why? If the answer is that they do not have constitutions that specifically refer to 'the unborn', then why do we? And how can it be removed?

I'm not sure to what extent you're actually looking for historical info here, or just throwing up your hands in despair at the situation...

The pro-life referendum was passed in 1983, when Ireland was still very Catholic, although already beginning to secularize...

The ultra-Catholic groups behind the referendum had seen other countries stumble into 'liberal' abortion regimes 'in a fit of absence of mind' and were determined the same thing wasn't going to happen here.

Ultimately, the reason why repeal of article 40.3.3 has only become a live possibility in the last few years is that the majority wanted it, or something like it, to stay until very recently.

Peregrinus

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Are we the only country that has reference to foetuses in the constitution? I know next to nothing about other states constitutions (NZ doesn't have one) and I could not find anything on Google to indicate that this is the case in anywhere else.

We are not the only country to reference the unborn explicitly in the Constitution. The Dominican Republic has a Constitution which enshrines a right to life which cannot be violated "from conception until death". There may be others, but I think not many.

More common, I suspect, are constitutional provisions which don't single out the unborn or reference abortion explicitly, but which nevertheless do operate so as to limit what the legislature may or may not do with regard to abortion. Famously, in the US, the Supreme Court found in Roe -v- Wade that the US Constitution did not permit Congress (or the States) to restrict access to abortion during the first two trimesters of pregnancy. The German Constitution recognises a right to life, which, coupled with a constitutional guarantee of human dignity, the courts have found to required legal controls on abortion, if not justified by imperative reasons (e.g. risk to maternal life, rape). And, again, I'm sure there are examples from other countries where constitutional provisions which don't explicitly mention abortions or the unborn are found to operate either to restrict abortions or to invalidate restictions on abortion.

alaimacerc

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

The pro-life referendum was passed in 1983, when Ireland was still very Catholic, although already beginning to secularize...

Look at the results of the results of the 1992 referenda, for that matter. Though they all went the "liberal" way, there were 35-40% people on each voting for the "yet more absolutist" direction in each case. Including on travel restrictions being (potentially) inferred from the 8th, which would basically have been flying in the face of EU law. And which we're now told by some isn't even a possibility due to important principles in common law (that they stumbled across some time after making their mind up on this anyway). What silly people for making such a fuss about nothing, obviously!

These days there's supposedly about 70% support for the obvious categories of "good" abortion. But you'd immediately suspect that would be fairly soft in any foreseeable referendum situation. If there's legislation proposed as an immediate followup, there will be the inevitable "vote no due to some supposed flaw in the legislation" argument. If there's none, there will be the even more inevitable "vote no, you're getting a a pig in a poke" one. More likely is some sort of tweak, and that is subject to variations on the same theme, as well as the "yet more unforeseen consequences" one. You'd wonder if the "liberal" side would even be entirely united on their stance on a relaxation of the 8th that left it substantially in place.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Dominican Republic has a Constitution which enshrines a right to life which cannot be violated "from conception until death".

I was not aware of that one. The Wikipedia article on the topic makes for pretty chilling reading. The "from conception" part can't exactly be a a big help, as one then gets instantly from "various forms of contraception might theoretically have a secondary (tertiary, quaternary...) contragestive effect into "equivalent to abortion, thus utterly banned!"

The German Constitution recognises a right to life, which, coupled with a constitutional guarantee of human dignity, the courts have found to required legal controls on abortion, if not justified by imperative reasons (e.g. risk to maternal life, rape).

That's now only for "late"(ish) abortion, though, following later legislation and court rulings on the same constitutional provisions. First-trimester termination is available on demand. (And by "on demand", I mean actual "on demand", and not yer "let's call it 'on demand' because we're against that, even though it's not" rubbish as with the UK.) Partly driven by reunification -- or by "absorption" of the East, as one might better regard it in legal terms.

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

That's now only for "late"(ish) abortion, though, following later legislation and court rulings on the same constitutional provisions. First-trimester termination is available on demand. (And by "on demand", I mean actual "on demand", and not yer "let's call it 'on demand' because we're against that, even though it's not" rubbish as with the UK.) Partly driven by reunification -- or by "absorption" of the East, as one might better regard it in legal terms.

Actually it's not "on demand", strictly speaking. There's a waiting period, plus mandatory counselling, before a woman can have an abortion.

But that's not really the point. The question is whether countries other than Ireland regulate abortion law through the constitution. The answer is yes, many countries do, a few by constitutional provisions which refer explicitly to abortion, but more by provisions which don't refer explicitly, but nevertheless apply to abortion. And that regulation can be strikingly pro-choice (as in the US) or strikingly pro-life (as in the Dominican Republic) or can steer something of a middle course (as in Germany).

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually it's not "on demand", strictly speaking. There's a waiting period, plus mandatory counselling, before a woman can have an abortion.

I believe that's entirely consistent with the normal interpretation of "on demand". To wit, "not dependent on some medical criterion".

But that's not really the point. The question is whether countries other than Ireland regulate abortion law through the constitution.

To which the answer is "not really" in German's case, for the reasons given. The relevant provision is -- in full! -- "Human dignity shall be inviolable." Which I think is more illustrative of the capacity of jurists to busk it shamelessly, than it does the drafters of the Basic Law having been nearly as prescriptive as the prolix mentality that continues to go into the BnaE.

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

I believe that's entirely consistent with the normal interpretation of "on demand". To wit, "not dependent on some medical criterion".

Well, I don't want to quibble over definitions, but that wouldn't be the usual definition of "on demand". "On demand" normally means that you get it when you ask for it. "Video on demand" doesn't come three days late, and only after you have completed a discussion about the wisdome of watching it.

alaimacerc wrote: »

To which the answer is "not really" in German's case, for the reasons given. The relevant provision is -- in full! -- "Human dignity shall be inviolable." Which I think is more illustrative of the capacity of jurists to busk it shamelessly, than it does the drafters of the Basic Law having been nearly as prescriptive as the prolix mentality that continues to go into the BnaE.

That's not the relevant provision in full, though, is it? Art 1(1) says "Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority." And Art 2(2) says "Everyone has the right to life and to physical integrity. The freedom of the person is inviolable. Intrusion on these rights may only be made pursuant to a statute."

The combination of these provisions means that (a) you can't have an abortion unless there is a law which says you can (i.e. there is no right to abortion, as there is for example in the US) and (b) whatever law the Bundestag enacts can be scrutinised by the courts to ensure that it "respects and protects human dignity".

Under the current interpretation and application of these provisions there is generally liberal access to abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. But this wasn't always so; under exactly the same provisions previous liberal abortion laws were struck down. And, presumably, the interpretation of the provisions could change again.

In other words, access to abortion is regulated by the German constitution. Right now, that regulation is operating in a way that most pro-choicers find broadly acceptable. But there's nothing inevitable about that.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

"Video on demand" doesn't come three days late, and only after you have completed a discussion about the wisdome of watching it.

OK, I'll give you that much. Perhaps I should have stuck to the "at the request of the woman" formula I tend to switch to after I get too irritated by people using "on demand" pejoratively. (Or indeed, factually incorrectly.) I'm pretty sure that were a future Claire Daly-led government of all the independent talents to propose "abortion for anyone who wants one, but with a cooling-off period and a chat about it over a cup of Barry's" it would be pretty generally characterised in the former terms.

That's not the relevant provision in full, though, is it? Art 1(1) says "Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority." And Art 2(2) says "Everyone has the right to life and to physical integrity. The freedom of the person is inviolable. Intrusion on these rights may only be made pursuant to a statute."

I don't think the second sentence of 1(1) adds anything in particular here (minutes of the meeting on that; "action: us!"), and I don't think 2(2) applies at all, unless Germany holds foetal (much less embyronic, zygtotic...) personhood. Or unless it previously did. But I'm busking that, I'm only very broadly familiar with the history of the German law in this area. (Not entirely convinced the Germans aren't busking it too, mind you.)

In other words, access to abortion is regulated by the German constitution.

Or "has been regulated by the Bundesverfassungsgericht", at any rate. Certainly quite a bit removed from the "reference to foetuses in the constitution" of Kiwi's question.

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

OK, I'll give you that much. Perhaps I should have stuck to the "at the request of the woman" formula . . .

I won't fall out with you over it. I think we can agree that the present state of German law affords a woman who want an abortion an effective opportunity to get one during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, without having to satisfy anyone else that her reasons for wanting one are "good enough".

alaimacerc wrote: »

I don't think the second sentence of 1(1) adds anything in particular here (minutes of the meeting on that; "action: us!"), and I don't think 2(2) applies at all, unless Germany holds foetal (much less embyronic, zygtotic...) personhood. Or unless it previously did.

Art 2(2) doesn't mention personhood at all; the Germans have not gone down the semantic dead end that has characterized discourse on this topic in the Anglosphere.

SFAIK the position, in outline, is this. Art 2(2) recognized a right to life and to physical integrity for "everyone", and says that any intrusion on this right has to be justified by law.

First question: Does "everyone" include what is referred to in the Irish Constitution as "the unborn", or just the mother? Answer from the German courts: both. They arrive at this answer after looking at the reference to human dignity in Art 1 and looking at what went on in the Nazi period, of which these articles are intended to prevent a repeat.

Conclusion: you can't have an abortion unless there is a law that permits it.

Second question: Can the law permit abortion on any terms at all?

Answer from the German courts: No, it can't. Legislating is an exercise of state authority. By Art 1(1) state authority must respect and protect human dignity. The courts will scrutinize any abortion legislation against this standard, bearing in mind that the protection of human dignity extends both to the mother and to the the unborn.

In the 1970s a liberal abortion law was struck down on the grounds that it failed to respect human dignity, but the court indicated that it wouldn't strike down a law which permitted abortions in cases of risk to maternal life, rape and similarly weight situations. But they didn't say that that was the only law they would allow to stand; just that that one would definitely be on the right side of the line. They wouldn't rule (and, I think, couldn't rule in a binding way) on a hypothetical law; only on a law actually enacted by parliament and coming before them for review.

So parliament duly passed a law along the lines of the heavy hints dropped by the court, and in due course it did come before them and they upheld it.

There matters rested until the 1990s when, following reunification, there was pressure for a uniform abortion law which would steer a middle course between the restrictive West German law and the liberal East German law. The "first 12 weeks, independent* counselling requirement, waiting period" law was the result.

[*"Independent" mean independent of the agency that will provide the abortion. There are a variety of agencies licensed to offering the counselling, and a woman can go to any agency of her choice.]

When it came before the court, they confirmed what they had already said; abortion could only be permitted if parliament legislated for it, and any legislation had to respect and protect human dignity (both of the mother and of the foetus). But this didn't have to be done through the criminal law; parliament could adopt social, regulatory, etc measures to ensure that human dignity was not overlooked in the abortion decision, and the counselling requirement and cooling off period in the new law were a sufficient discharge of the requirement to protect and respect the dignity of the foetus.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

I won't fall out with you over it. I think we can agree that the present state of German law affords a woman who want an abortion an effective opportunity to get one during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, without having to satisfy anyone else that her reasons for wanting one are "good enough".

We can, though evidently we can both still run on about it considerably!

Art 2(2) doesn't mention personhood at all; the Germans have not gone down the semantic dead end that has characterized discourse on this topic in the Anglosphere.

Meine Deutsche is nicht zu gut, aber der zweiter Satz habt der Wort "Person" im es. I've now seen three different versions of this, the one I was working from originally using the word "person" in both the first two sentences, whereas yours doesn't in either.

SFAIK the position, in outline, is this. Art 2(2) recognized a right to life and to physical integrity for "everyone", and says that any intrusion on this right has to be justified by law.

First question: Does "everyone" include what is referred to in the Irish Constitution as "the unborn", or just the mother? Answer from the German courts: both. They arrive at this answer after looking at the reference to human dignity in Art 1 and looking at what went on in the Nazi period, of which these articles are intended to prevent a repeat.

But it's not 1(1) that I'm quibbling over the applicability of, it's 2(2). If the latter's held to cover "the unborn", I don't see how we can't be getting into the aforesaid blind alley. (And from what point in prenatal development, and so on.)

They wouldn't rule (and, I think, couldn't rule in a binding way) on a hypothetical law; only on a law actually enacted by parliament and coming before them for review.

This is always a tricky thing with judicial review of primary law; if they consider it to be flawed, are they able to "partially strike it down" in a way that amounts to rewriting it on the cuff? There's a fine line here between undue stonewalling, and encroachment on separation of powers.

recedite

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Can it not just be got rid of first though? So there is a clean slate to work from? If we continue with a referendum to amend the constitution for each particular circumstance where abortion may be required at 30 year intervals, we might get to a referendum on cases which involve sexual assault in about 60 years once FFA and health are dealt with. It is ridiculous. The country badly needs strong leadership on this issue (and in general).

The situation in Ireland is that the people are sovereign, even more so than in other countries, and that means "the people" have to be consulted before making significant changes. A country like the UK has "strong leadership" but look how Tony Blair was easily able to take them to war in Iraq despite the lack of public support for it. I'm not saying we would have a referendum before declaring war, but there is a way of doing things here such that politicians do not do things unless they have a definite mandate from the people (or are forced into a course of action by the EU/IMF :pac:) You could call it weak leadership, or you could call it strong democracy.

In most of the EU treaty changes that have happened, only Ireland and Denmark had referendums, and sometimes France. Governments in the other states tend to make the decision for the people. For the Nice Treaty, we were the only one to have a referendum. That's because the Irish people must be asked before adopting any changes to the "essential scope or objectives" of the EU. Ok, maybe a lot of us don't follow these things, and don't bother to vote, but at least we are asked.
So there's pros and cons to "strong leadership", right up to fascism itself.
I'm happy enough with our system though.

If all references to the unborn were removed from the Constitution, it would not affect existing legislation, even though some of the same words were "copied and pasted" directly into the (separate) statute books.
But at that moment, the default position would still be that in all current laws, and all historical laws, the unborn had the right to life. This could cause a Supreme Court to decide that the unborn had an implied or unenumerated right to life. Really they should not be put in the position where they have to "surmise" whether that right exists or not. The people should be asked directly. Hence if you really wanted to remove that right to life, you would have to go to the people and have some definite alternative inserted into the Constitution such as "the unborn have no particular right to life".

The other problem is that if there was no constitutional framework, you could in theory have one govt. coming in and legislating for abortion on demand, only to be followed by the next govt. reversing that and banning all abortion. I'm not saying you would actually get such sweeping changes in reality, but the parties might be tempted to campaign for a mandate to make modifications to the legislation, which could see-saw back and forth, depending on who was in opposition and who was in govt.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

But at that moment, the default position would still be that in all current laws, and all historical laws, the unborn had the right to life.

Why? You keep making this sort of claim, and then doing absolutely nothing to back it up. Them after a brief fallow period, claiming something similar again.

There's specific primary legislation that covers this at present. That legislation would continue to operate until either struck down by supreme court challenge, or amended by the Oireachtas.

Hence if you really wanted to remove that right to life, you would have to go to the people and have some definite alternative inserted into the Constitution such as "the unborn have no particular right to life".

A fanciful construction on legal reality. The counterpart of unenumerated rights: enumerated non-rights? What precedent is there for this? What possible need? What difference would it make? Other than to enhance the "oh no, sounds a bit scary, I'd better not vote for that, then" factor, of course.

Loafing Oaf

recedite wrote: »

The other problem is that if there was no constitutional framework, you could in theory have one govt. coming in and legislating for abortion on demand, only to be followed by the next govt. reversing that and banning all abortion. I'm not saying you would actually get such sweeping changes in reality, but the parties might be tempted to campaign for a mandate to make modifications to the legislation, which could see-saw back and forth, depending on who was in opposition and who was in govt.

Well yes it's called democracy. But do you actually see this happening in any other liberal democracies, to any significant extent? Or do you see any orchestrated effort to roll back any other elements of the 'liberal agenda' in Ireland? And surely you know the reason why. There is an overwhelming consensus in favour of the separation of church and state in most liberal democracies that even conservative parties generally have no appetite to defy. Ireland has joined this consensus on all other significant social issues and will get there on abortion too one day soon...

alaimacerc

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well yes it's called democracy.

Ah yes, but recedite prefers the even more democratic model where not only does the present electorate have to agree, the hand of the past lays heavily upon it in the form of past voters and their decisions in previous decades, and also so do politicians too anxious about their backwoodsmen to even put the matter to the question. Like a triple lock! At least where the status quo is preferable to the likely alternative to any given person...

recedite

alaimacerc wrote: »

Why? You keep making this sort of claim, and then doing absolutely nothing to back it up. Them after a brief fallow period, claiming something similar again.
There's specific primary legislation that covers this at present. That legislation would continue to operate until either struck down by supreme court challenge, or amended by the Oireachtas..

Yes, existing legislation would continue to operate. And it would continue to recognise the right to life.
I'm saying it may not be possible to introduce new legislation afterwards withdrawing that right, because any such proposed legislation would be open to challenge on the basis that it could be repugnant to the unenumerated rights of the unborn, as implied and established through usage and time.