Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Options
1…5681011…334

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Exactly. Repeal the 8th and then allow legislators to, y'know, legislate rather than hiding behind the 'in accordance with the constitutional prohibition' BS.
    May as well scrap the whole Constitution in that case, and let them y'know, legislate rather than hiding behind any of it.


  • Options
    #213
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    recedite wrote: »
    May as well scrap the whole Constitution in that case, and let them y'know, legislate rather than hiding behind any of it.

    Are there any other parts of the constitution that provide as many paradoxes as the 8th?

    If not, the phrase regarding the baby and the bath water springs to mind...


  • Options
    #214
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Are there any other parts of the constitution that provide as many paradoxes as the 8th?

    If not, the phrase regarding the baby and the bath water springs to mind...
    But if it's a choice between scrap or keep it'll be kept. It's pointless campaigning for a straight repeal, which I wouldn't vote for either as I think there has to be some constitutional position on the unborn. Just not this one.


  • Options
    #215
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,043 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    But if it's a choice between scrap or keep it'll be kept. It's pointless campaigning for a straight repeal, which I wouldn't vote for either as I think there has to be some constitutional position on the unborn. Just not this one.

    Do other constitutions have a position on the unborn? They all seem to manage without one - better than we have with one, I'd say. Look at the whole fiasco last Christmas about that poor young woman in Mullingar.

    And as a matter of interest, what constitutional position do you think would be a tenable one?


  • Options
    #216
    The Black Oil
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,320 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    TheJournal.ie

    Niamh Uí Bhriain of the Life Institute added: “The push for abortion in Ireland is almost entirely media led and driven, and has failed to attract significant grassroots support. That’s because Irish people are aware that abortion kills babies and harms women, and no amount of spin can cover up that fact.”

    Yes, Niamh. That's it exactly...

    Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.

    CMod: Entertainment



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #218
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,043 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    What I'm really interested to hear is what sort of wording Dan Solo (or anyone else who wants something in the constitution but not the 8th) thinks would make for acceptable law.

    Because I can't see any precedent for anything that isn't an unmitigated disaster. The unborn have no legal existence for a very good reason : they don't actually exist. Not as an autonomous being. May as well try to put in legal protection for the unconceived. Or for your lungs or brain, to stop people smoking or taking drugs.


  • Options
    #219
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    volchitsa wrote: »
    The unborn have no legal existence for a very good reason : they don't actually exist. Not as an autonomous being. May as well try to put in legal protection for the unconceived. Or for your lungs or brain, to stop people smoking or taking drugs.
    Well that's not quite true, they do exist. What's more, those that survive may eventually be able to hold their mothers accountable for the "choices" made during pregnancy. This doctor proposes to test new-borns for harm suffered during the pregnancy.
    Dr Adrienne Foran, a neonatologist in the Rotunda and Temple Street hospitals in Dublin, described the risks faced by unborn babies whose mothers are drinking as the "elephant in the room". She said: "It is something very controversial at the moment."

    The after-effects are seen in children who are come back at age two or three with learning difficulties, she told the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children.
    Anyway, the mantra "Repeal the 8th" makes for a catchy soundbyte, but means nothing. What do you propose to change it to, or do you mean just delete it entirely?


  • Options
    #220
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    volchitsa wrote: »
    What I'm really interested to hear is what sort of wording Dan Solo (or anyone else who wants something in the constitution but not the 8th) thinks would make for acceptable law.

    Because I can't see any precedent for anything that isn't an unmitigated disaster. The unborn have no legal existence for a very good reason : they don't actually exist. Not as an autonomous being. May as well try to put in legal protection for the unconceived. Or for your lungs or brain, to stop people smoking or taking drugs.
    And what's your good reason for giving anybody a legal status after birth that's so different from in the womb?
    Saying the US manage just fine is a bit of a joke when you see the shenanigans individuals states can get up to in the absence of a constitutional position. It also means the law on abortion could be changed in an instant by the US Supreme court without the US people having a say in it. Indeed they could decide anybody they wanted wasn't a person and there'd be no constitutional position to stop them.
    So what happens if the 8th is repealed and the Irish Supreme court decides the unborn has an equal legal right to life as the born? I assume all the pro-choice people here would be happy with this as it was decided by the legislature in the absence of any constitutional "interference"?


  • Options
    #221
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Is that all you've got?
    So what if the 8th disappears and the government of the day enacts a complete ban on abortion? Or leave it to the Supreme court who decide foetus = person?
    That's what you're risking if there's no constitutional position on it.


  • Options
    #223
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #224
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Yes and so what? It could be decided by either the supreme court or government legislation in the absence of any constitutional position.
    I notice you don't seem to want to contest this.


  • Options
    #225
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #226
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Complicated this, I know, but you brought it up. Why don't you tell me "so what"?


  • Options
    #227
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,043 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    recedite wrote: »
    Well that's not quite true, they do exist. What's more, those that survive may eventually be able to hold their mothers accountable for the "choices" made during pregnancy.
    Yes, ongoing harm to the existing person caused before birth.
    1) it's not going to happen (or every miscarriage becomes a possible murder requiring investigation)
    2) it doesn't prove the unborn has any more autonomous existence (did you miss that bit in my post?) than your heart or lungs do. You damage your lungs by smoking - that doesn't prove that lungs have an autonomous existence.
    Anyway, the mantra "Repeal the 8th" makes for a catchy soundbyte, but means nothing. What do you propose to change it to, or do you mean just delete it entirely?
    Yes, delete it entirely. (The US has issues with competing legislatures because it's a federation, for whoever it was who made that point. It's not relevant in Ireland, which has one constitution, one legislature and one Supreme Court, not one for each state.)


  • Options
    #228
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,043 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Is that all you've got?
    So what if the 8th disappears and the government of the day enacts a complete ban on abortion? Or leave it to the Supreme court who decide foetus = person?
    That's what you're risking if there's no constitutional position on it.
    Not sure what your problem is. The Supreme Court decides according to what existing laws say, it can't make up its own laws.

    The government of course can, and theoretically could. But in countries which have done so (Central and South America mainly) women die. I'd take my chances on an elected government here not being able to get that through. They're more likely to bring back capital punishment, at least it would only be people convicted of a crime who would die as a result.


  • Options
    #229
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    Well that's not quite true, they do exist.
    Not as a legal person. Can they get a PPS number?
    Anyway, the mantra "Repeal the 8th" makes for a catchy soundbyte, but means nothing. What do you propose to change it to, or do you mean just delete it entirely?

    It's strange that you should say it means nothing, and then indicate that you know what it means.

    "Repeal the 8th" means get abortion out of the Constitution; it doesn't belong there. It's a medical procedure; it should be legislated for in the same way as any other medical procedure.


  • Options
    #230
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Not sure what your problem is. The Supreme Court decides according to what existing laws say, it can't make up its own laws.
    Not sure what your problem is either. In the absence of specific legislative or constitutional direction, the Supreme court will end up deciding what's a person and what isn't. They interpret the law, and if it's vague or badly worded you'll get whatever a bunch of old men decide on the day.


  • Options
    #231
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,043 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Exactly.
    And anyway, the fact that the system is imperfect is no reason to remove the legislature in favour of a constitution that micro manages everything. There's no reason to think a legislature that can't write good clear laws is going to be able to write decent constitutional law either. That's harder and leaves even more room for errors because it's impossible for a single document to cover every situation.


  • Options
    #233
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Not sure what your problem is. The Supreme Court decides according to what existing laws say, it can't make up its own laws.

    The government of course can, and theoretically could. But in countries which have done so (Central and South America mainly) women die. I'd take my chances on an elected government here not being able to get that through. They're more likely to bring back capital punishment, at least it would only be people convicted of a crime who would die as a result.

    I happen to agree that it is quite unlikely, but to be pedantic, they couldn't bring back capital punishment, even if they wanted to, not without leaving true EU.

    MrP


  • Options
    #234
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Well, the whole point of the 8th was to avoid situations like Roe V Wade, where the judiciary 'found' a right to at will abortion; the 8th ensured that only the electorate could do that. Roe v Wade isn't good law if it doesn't reflect the will of the people, and it's fairly apparent that there's still quite some discussion about that in the US. Enough that the current SC might yet reverse Roe V Wade purely because the composition of the Court changes. I think I'd rather rely on a plebiscite rather than the vagaries of political appointees.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    The unborn have no legal existence for a very good reason : they don't actually exist. Not as an autonomous being.
    Of course they do have a legal existence; the 8th very clearly sets out their legal existence by assigning them a legal right. It's readily apparent that one does not to be autonomous to have a legal existence. Even people wholly dependant on life support with no autonomy whatsoever still have a legal existence.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Not as a legal person. Can they get a PPS number?
    A PPS number is hardly a prerequisite for being a legal person; I grew up without a PPS number and I was a legal person the whole time. The unborn have a legal right to life, conferred by the Constitution under the heading "Personal Rights', so the Constitution holds them to be legal persons. The Supreme Court has referred to the unborn as persons in it's judgements, so they obviously have no difficulty with the concept either. And given that they didn't rely on the 8th in offering the distinction, I would think that in the absence of the 8th jurisprudence will still hold the unborn is a person, but it will be up to the courts and the legislature to determine what rights that person should have.
    Repealing the 8th means entrusting our political representatives with decisions that we previously reserved for the electorate. Personally I'd rather have my say than hope my TD both agrees with me and believes expressing that opinion is good for their political future.


  • Options
    #235
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    "Repeal the 8th" means get abortion out of the Constitution; it doesn't belong there. It's a medical procedure; it should be legislated for in the same way as any other medical procedure.
    Well then, what you really mean to say is you want Article 40.3.3 removed from the Constitution. The 8th amendment refers to one particular change to that article.
    40.3.3 wrote:
    The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
    This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.
    This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.
    Say what you mean, and mean what you say ;)


  • Options
    #236
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    recedite wrote: »
    Well then, what you really mean to say is you want Article 40.3.3 removed from the Constitution. The 8th amendment refers to one particular change to that article.
    The 8th amendment added 40.3.3 (prohibition on abortion) to 40.3 (personal rights). Repealing the 8th amendment would remove 40.3.3, which is what I want.
    Say what you mean, and mean what you say ;)
    I did.


  • Options
    #237
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,225 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    There was definitely a much bigger crowd than last year. This image gives you some idea of the size of the crowd - it's filling the bridge, some of it has already gone over, we are close to the back.

    363969.JPG

    This one isn't really work-safe, so I'm not embedding it - do not open if easily offended - but I thought it was funny:

    https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/36890/363968.JPG

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #238
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0926/730484-eighth-amendment/
    Tánaiste Joan Burton has said she is confident Labour will find a political pathway to deal with the 8th amendment, if they are returned to government with Fine Gael.
    What does that even mean? "Vote for us and something or other will happen?".


  • Options
    #239
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0926/730484-eighth-amendment/

    What does that even mean? "Vote for us and something or other will happen?".

    I'd rather the chance of something then a party who basically says" vote for us and nothing changes, we really liked 1950s Ireland"


  • Options
    #240
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0926/730484-eighth-amendment/What does that even mean? "Vote for us and something or other will happen?".
    Cabaal wrote: »
    I'd rather the chance of something then a party who basically says" vote for us and nothing changes, we really liked 1950s Ireland"
    I think she's saying they'll do what they did with SSM; take the credit for it if it passes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The 8th amendment added 40.3.3 (prohibition on abortion) to 40.3 (personal rights). Repealing the 8th amendment would remove 40.3.3, which is what I want.
    At the risk of being pedantic, this is just not true.
    40.3.3 (the 8th amendment) has already been successfully repealed twice; the 13th and 14th amendments.
    Two other attempts, the 12th and 25th amendments failed.
    If you now want all of article 40.3.3 in its current form removed, just say so.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement