Strike For Repeal?

MightyMandarin

kylith wrote: »

That supposes that just because someone doesn't want a child now that they'll never want one. Should 16 year olds get sterilised?

Also, getting a sterilised during fertile years is practically impossible.

Did I say everyone should get sterilised? I said 'it's not an easy decision to make', but some people even my age don't ever see themselves having kids so the option is always there.

Absolam

mahamageehad wrote: »

This is an understandable worry. However, based on what we've seen in Irish politics in recent years, it's extremely unlikely. It's more likely that we'll see a new or amended bill that allows for abortion in specific circumstances - I'd guess FFA only. Maybe rape/incest but as mentioned previously in this thread, the burden of proof for rape could be problematic. Even if somehow we accidentally vote in the most extreme Dáil of all time and they vote to allow abortion to 25 weeks, the backlash would see them outed in the next election and the next crowd would render the Act void. I do think abortion to 10 or 12 weeks will be allowed at some point in the far future, but I believe that's a long way away. Politicians will stay away from this issue at all costs.

So unlikely, but possible. Whereas with the 8th in place, it's not possible. Given the choice; allow that the unlikely could happen but might then be reversed before too many lives are taken, or make it impossible for any lives to be taken even over one government term, I think many people will lean towards the latter. I certainly will.

MightyMandarin

mahamageehad wrote: »

There's a lot of people posting here, so it's difficult to keep track. The fact is that if you are for abortion in the limited scenarios you described above, you should be voting to repeal the 8th.

I have experience with this actually. A friend of mine has PCOS. This means it'd be difficult for her to get pregnant even if she wanted to and she has lots of other health issues because of it. Since much younger, she has always said she didn't want kids. Now she's 32 and she's still saving it. She asked about getting her tubes tied or even a hysterectomy a few years back in order to reduce her hormonal issues. She was laughed out of two separate doctors offices. They won't touch a healthy young woman with no kids unless in the case of ovarian cancer or something like that. To be fair, most doctors would be reluctant to perform a vasectomy on a 25 year old guy that had no kids too, even though vasectomies are more reversable on average.

Interesting that you say that, but why? The Constitution is there to provide law-making power or prevent law-making power, and what the Govt. did in 2013 was provide exceptional circumstances to Art. 40.3.3. in a perfectly legal manner. I haven't heard a single legal expert refute the assumption that the Govt. could do the same within Art. 40.3.3. as it stands today. Therefore I see no reason to repeal it.


Yeah, I'll be honest I know very little about permanent measures of contraceptives and I think it's a very murky area especially if people end up changing their minds in the future. I just mentioned it to say that there are even more options other than the pill and condoms, for some people.

pilly

Absolam wrote: »

So unlikely, but possible. Whereas with the 8th in place, it's not possible. Given the choice; allow that the unlikely could happen but might then be reversed before too many lives are taken, or make it impossible for any lives to be taken even over one government term, I think many people will lean towards the latter. I certainly will.

This is a major part of the argument from pro-lifers that I don't get. Keeping it 8th will not stop abortions taking place. It just means that they're done across the water.

Is it okay so long as it doesn't happen in Ireland?

kylith

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Did I say everyone should get sterilised? I said 'it's not an easy decision to make', but some people even my age don't ever see themselves having kids so the option is always there.

It's incredibly difficult for someone of childbearing age to get sterilised, even if they are 100% sure that they want it. Doctors simply will not do it.

Fuzzytrooper

pilly wrote: »

This is a major part of the argument from pro-lifers that I don't get. Keeping it 8th will not stop abortions taking place. It just means that they're done across the water.

Is it okay so long as it doesn't happen in Ireland?

I suppose the argument against that would be that you can only control what happens in your own sphere of control - to take a bit of a stupid example, you can play all the Adriana Grande you want in a club but you won't in my house! I may hate that my wife listens to that (she doesnt btw) but if she goes to a friends house and they start bopping away to that rubbish, there's not much I can do about it. Again a bit of a stupid example but hopefully you see what I'm getting at.

mahamageehad

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Interesting that you say that, but why? The Constitution is there to provide law-making power or prevent law-making power, and what the Govt. did in 2013 was provide exceptional circumstances to Art. 40.3.3. in a perfectly legal manner. I haven't heard a single legal expert refute the assumption that the Govt. could do the same within Art. 40.3.3. as it stands today. Therefore I see no reason to repeal it.


Yeah, I'll be honest I know very little about permanent measures of contraceptives and I think it's a very murky area especially if people end up changing their minds in the future. I just mentioned it to say that there are even more options other than the pill and condoms, for some people.

The provisions in the Act you're referencing from 2013 are only legal because the life of the mother is directly at risk. It would be impossible to bring in an act allowing for abortion in the case of FFA or rape or incest without repealing the 8th as it would directly contradict the constitution.

MightyMandarin

mahamageehad wrote: »

The provisions in the Act you're referencing from 2013 are only legal because the life of the mother is directly at risk. It would be impossible to bring in an act allowing for abortion in the case of FFA or rape or incest without repealing the 8th as it would directly contradict the constitution.

We could always amend the provision. Personally I think it should be amended to stop the confusion as it could honestly be better written.

I feel however, that simply repealing it and not replacing it would be dangerous unless something replaced it. This is why how the Govt. will conduct the referendum is key to deciding if Art. 40.3.3. will be repealed.

mahamageehad

MightyMandarin wrote: »

We could always amend the provision. Personally I think it should be amended to stop the confusion as it could honestly be better written.

I feel however, that simply repealing it and not replacing it would be dangerous unless something replaced it. This is why how the Govt. will conduct the referendum is key to deciding if Art. 40.3.3. will be repealed.

And therein lies the problem. Amend with what?
"The life of the unborn is usually equal to the mother"
"Unless in exceptional circumstances the life of the unborn is equal to the mother"

This is not how the constitution should be used. Nuances should be dealt with in legislation. I agree with you that wording is key. I'll be first in line to vote repeal. I'd love an advisory vote on the same day to gauge what people think should be allowed. I would be very very wary of voting for a replacement.

volchitsa

MightyMandarin wrote: »

We could always amend the provision. Personally I think it should be amended to stop the confusion as it could honestly be better written.

I feel however, that simply repealing it and not replacing it would be dangerous unless something replaced it. This is why how the Govt. will conduct the referendum is key to deciding if Art. 40.3.3. will be repealed.

The AG at the time said the wording was a disaster but no-one seemed able to propose something that satisfied everyone. I think it's not really possible, but you appear to think it's not a major matter.

So why don't you give us an idea of the sort of wording you think would be significantly better?

Absolam

pilly wrote: »

This is a major part of the argument from pro-lifers that I don't get. Keeping it 8th will not stop abortions taking place. It just means that they're done across the water. Is it okay so long as it doesn't happen in Ireland?

Actually, it's an overgeneralisation since we already permit abortion in necessary circumstances. But why would you imagine 'it's okay so long as it doesn't happen in Ireland?' I'd expect most pro life proponents would say they'd advocate banning (or more accurately equally restricting) abortion in any jurisdiction they get a say in. I know I would.

pilly

Fuzzytrooper wrote: »

I suppose the argument against that would be that you can only control what happens in your own sphere of control - to take a bit of a stupid example, you can play all the Adriana Grande you want in a club but you won't in my house! I may hate that my wife listens to that (she doesnt btw) but if she goes to a friends house and they start bopping away to that rubbish, there's not much I can do about it. Again a bit of a stupid example but hopefully you see what I'm getting at.

Very silly example, I have to be honest but if you use that analogy it shows a degree of serious controlling behaviour that in my view is not acceptable.

Yes you can control what happens in your own life but not in a whole countries life. As you say you can't control what music is played in someone else's house or indeed your own actually, if your wife did listen to Ariana Grande up in the bedroom nothing you could do about it.

MightyMandarin

mahamageehad wrote: »

And therein lies the problem. Amend with what?
"The life of the unborn is usually equal to the mother"
"Unless in exceptional circumstances the life of the unborn is equal to the mother"

This is not how the constitution should be used. Nuances should be dealt with in legislation. I agree with you that wording is key. I'll be first in line to vote repeal. I'd love an advisory vote on the same day to gauge what people think should be allowed. I would be very very wary of voting for a replacement.

I don't how I'd go about, because I'm honestly not as well educated or experienced in the law as some of our best best legal experts, who I imagine could produce a scenario where certain other exceptions could be made.

All I know is what I support, and if the referendum were simply to repeal the 8th Amendment with no replacement, then I could not support it.

pilly

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, it's an overgeneralisation since we already permit abortion in necessary circumstances. But why would you imagine 'it's okay so long as it doesn't happen in Ireland?' I'd expect most pro life proponents would say they'd advocate banning (or more accurately equally restricting) abortion in any jurisdiction they get a say in. I know I would.

My point was that you seem to believe it will save "lives" when it reality it won't.

kylith

pilly wrote: »

My point was that you seem to believe it will save "lives" when it reality it won't.

The only 'lives' it will save are those being born to women least able, financially or mentally, to look after a child.

mahamageehad

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I don't how I'd go about, because I'm honestly not as well educated or experienced in the law as some of our best best legal experts, who I imagine could produce a scenario where certain other exceptions could be made.

All I know is what I support, and if the referendum were simply to repeal the 8th Amendment with no replacement, then I could not support it.

But can you not see that it doesn't need to be replaced? Do you think we had free-for-all abortion in Ireland before the 8th was introduced? Have you read the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013? Is there something in there that worries you or you feel doesn't do the job?

On the point about you not being as good as the best legal experts - the best mathematicians in the world can't make 1 and 1 equal 3. Life is either equal or it's not. It's a binary decision. If you say it's not, then it shouldn't be in the constitution. The nuances will be worked out in a court of law and the PLPA2013 is a great start.

me_right_one

pilly wrote: »

This is a major part of the argument from pro-lifers that I don't get. Keeping it 8th will not stop abortions taking place. It just means that they're done across the water.

Is it okay so long as it doesn't happen in Ireland?

Eh, you do know there's pro-life movements in the UK too? And America? And, eh, actually, everywhere?

MightyMandarin

mahamageehad wrote: »

But can you not see that it doesn't need to be replaced? Do you think we had free-for-all abortion in Ireland before the 8th was introduced? Have you read the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013? Is there something in there that worries you or you feel doesn't do the job?

On the point about you not being as good as the best legal experts - the best mathematicians in the world can't make 1 and 1 equal 3. Life is either equal or it's not. It's a binary decision. If you say it's not, then it shouldn't be in the constitution. The nuances will be worked out in a court of law and the PLPA2013 is a great start.

No the 2013 Act is a fine piece of legislation.

I've already said life is equal, and I don't want the Art. 40.3.3. repealed. If the nuances are sorted out in the courts or by the legislature then they will be. If Art. 40.3.3. is proposed to be amended to be better phrased to include certain 'nuances' then I'd support that either.

I don't really know what part of my position is unclear to you, I've pretty much said everything I need to say in this thread.

Absolam

pilly wrote: »

My point was that you seem to believe it will save "lives" when it reality it won't.

Do you think so? I reckon there are less people who travel to other countries for abortions than might avail of them if they were freely available here; many pro choice activists argue (like kylith does above) that our Constitution only keeps the poor from having abortions so that would indicate they agree. Statistically (as best as can be made out), abortion rates for Irish women are about a fifth of those for British women, so it's possible our current regime saves 80% of lives that would be lost otherwise.

jameorahiely

pilly wrote: »

This is a major part of the argument from pro-lifers that I don't get. Keeping it 8th will not stop abortions taking place. It just means that they're done across the water.

Is it okay so long as it doesn't happen in Ireland?

Abortions already tale place. Perhaps we should be lookimg at changing the leglislation and not the constitution.


What do the repeal crowd think of that?

mahamageehad

MightyMandarin wrote: »

No the 2013 Act is a fine piece of legislation.

I've already said life is equal, and I don't want the Art. 40.3.3. repealed. If the nuances are sorted out in the courts or by the legislature then they will be. If Art. 40.3.3. is proposed to be amended to be better phrased to include certain 'nuances' then I'd support that either.

I don't really know what part of my position is unclear to you, I've pretty much said everything I need to say in this thread.

I'm confused by the part where you say all life is equal but that girls who are raped should be free to have an abortion. Why is life not equal in that case?

rainbow kirby

me_right_one wrote: »

Eh, you do know there's pro-life movements in the UK too? And America? And, eh, actually, everywhere?

Yep, but in the UK the existence of abortion and the fact that the NHS funds it is basically a settled question. Minor issues come up every now and then.

MightyMandarin

mahamageehad wrote: »

I'm confused by the part where you say all life is equal but that girls who are raped should be free to have an abortion. Why is life not equal in that case?

I answered this at least twice in the thread already, but anyway, life is equal as it is in the case where the mother is raped, but I feel it's unconscionable to force a woman fulfill the pregnancy in this case and I believe an exception should be made on moral grounds.

mahamageehad

jameorahiely wrote: »

Abortions already tale place. Perhaps we should be lookimg at changing the leglislation and not the constitution.


What do the repeal crowd think of that?

They'll all for it I'd say. The majority of the Repeal supporters understand that legislation is key. But as long as the constitution states that the life of the mother is equal to the life of the newborn, the reach of any potential legislation is shackled.

mahamageehad

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I answered this at least twice in the thread already, but anyway, life is equal as it is in the case where the mother is raped, but I feel it's unconscionable to force a woman fulfill the pregnancy in this case and I believe an exception should be made on moral grounds.

What about two 13 year olds uneducated about safe sex that are messing around trying out something they saw on the internet. How would you feel in that case if the little girl got pregnant?

One eyed Jack

pilly wrote: »

My point was that you seem to believe it will save "lives" when it reality it won't.

How do I phrase this... Ok, the restrictions on abortion here have had the effect on Irish society that we value the life of the unborn more than in countries where abortion is not as restricted, so in that sense it has meant that not only has it saved lives, but also that we no longer demonise unmarried mothers, and instead we offer them the social supports and services they need to be able to raise those children. It's worth remembering that the main reason given when women in the States were asked why they had an abortion, it was due to socioeconomic factors.

I don't think basing our laws on single cases is a good idea at all, nor is the idea of facilitating, permitting or allowing for abortion in specific set circumstances such as rape, FFA, etc. I personally have always maintained that we should legislate to facilitate for abortion with no special conditions or term limits attached. That would be the only safe way I could see, because women who are determined not to give birth to a child they don't want, are likely to do anything to stop that happening, up to and including suicide, and even then there's no guarantee their attempts would be successful or have the desired effect.

In saying that too though, I would hate to see private companies making a profit from abortion, and I would prefer if abortion were only made available in public hospitals. Even then, to be quite honest, I don't know anyone among my friends who would go for that, because they'd always have the fear of locals "knowing" (hell some of my friends don't even go to their local STI clinic, preferring instead to travel out of town!), so as for the argument that legislating for broadening our abortion laws in this country would mean women wouldn't have to go abroad (not just to the UK but the Netherlands too), I don't know that it would have any effect at all on the numbers of women travelling abroad.

MightyMandarin

mahamageehad wrote: »

What about two 13 year olds uneducated about safe sex that are messing around trying out something they saw on the internet. How would you feel in that case if the little girl got pregnant?

Is this literally going to be throw every flippin scenario at me and see which one's I think are applicable or not?

I think I'm done with this thread.

LuckyLloyd

pilly wrote: »

This is a major part of the argument from pro-lifers that I don't get. Keeping it 8th will not stop abortions taking place. It just means that they're done across the water.

Is it okay so long as it doesn't happen in Ireland?

kylith wrote: »

The only 'lives' it will save are those being born to women least able, financially or mentally, to look after a child.

Ye are logically right, but you should know that this is a loser for the Repeal side, not a winner. You don't really want to highlight the U.K. abortion regime to sway undecideds in the middle and those who believe abortion in all scenarios is murder are perfectly comfortable with making it as difficult as possible for people to obtain same.

jameorahiely

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Yep, but in the UK the existence of abortion and the fact that the NHS funds it is basically a settled question. Minor issues come up every now and then.

I was reading a good article the other day about conveyer belt abortions in the uk. The doctor signs all the forms without meeting the patient. The receptionist will change your reason for getting one to a reason acceptable under law. And off you go. 26 seconds was the average "consultation" The foetus remains are thrown in open bins and mentally challemged people are given abortions without their consent. Women who do decide to give birth to a disabled child are looked down on and asked why didn't they just kill their child.


Fascinating stuff

mahamageehad

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Is this literally going to be throw every flippin scenario at me and see which one's I think are applicable or not?

I think I'm done with this thread.

No it's not, but your lack of an answer in this case speaks volumes. I just wanted to push you a little to see that there is a grey area. You've already conceded that in the case of rape. I wanted to see were there more areas. I think the 8th is too vague and any amendment will include a grey area. I'm strongly against giving grey areas constitutional protection. The vagueness of the 8th has resulted in numerous high profile cases already.

With all respect MightyMandarin, I'm here posting on this thread to engage with people in the middle and to correct what I see as a lot of misinformation from both sides of the campaign. I'm no authority and don't claim to be. I'm not here to force anyone to change their minds and I'm not even aiming for that. You and me, clearly we'll never agree. And that's ok. That's what democracy and debate are for.