The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

And you presumably think it's as equally wrong outside Ireland as it would be within Ireland, yet you'd vote to keep the provision that puts the freedom to travel above our constitutional ban on abortion. This is not the decision of someone who thinks abortion is wrong. It's NIMBYism.

it is the decisian of someone who thinks abortion on demand is wrong, yet who realises the realities in which we have to work in.

NuMarvel wrote: »

The only thing that's been clear about your views on the travel ban is that they're keep changing.

incorrect, they haven't changed. i just have a multitude of reasons for my view on it.

NuMarvel wrote: »

People aren't twisting your posts. Please are reading them for what they are.

no they are twisting them, to try and get them to fit their bogyman that they have created.

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think not subjecting women to the risks of travelling to another jurisdiction for a procedure that could be easily carried here benefits society. Even someone steadfastly opposed to abortion can surely see it's better that women who have abortions should have safer ones.

abortion on demand does not benefit society as it leads to less of an incentive to improve our systems. we have barely an incentive as it is, with abortion on demand the incentive will get less.

NuMarvel wrote: »

And as has been pointed out before, concerns that offering abortions would take resources away from other services are unfounded because pregnant women will be accessing our health service whether they have an abortion or not.

they aren't unfounded as we can see from britain.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't forget that someone who is 70 now was only 35 when the 8th passed.

I love this:

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i disagree that they are forced.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i don't and i haven't been discredited at all, as much as you would like it to be otherwise

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i haven't been clear on that as i never made such a statement.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

incorrect, they haven't changed. i just have a multitude of reasons for my view on it..

You've provided a multitude of reasons alright. They've swung between, "we can't stop them", to "stopping them would affect others", to "I don't even want to be able to stop them". These reasons are inconsistent with each other and don't portray someone who's given the matter any thought.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i'm not being disingenuous at all. i don't believe they are being forced to go abroad for the abortion, they are choosing to do it as they wish to have an abortion. nobody is holding a gun to their head.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i have 100% credibility, and i have debated and engaged in the discussion with nothing but good faith, dispite all the attacks and all else that have been thrown at me.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

again i have never made such a statement. no matter how much you want it to be true, it's not true.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

again, one eyed jack never made any such statement, and no matter how much you want it to be otherwise, that is a fact. also, considering he isn't in a position to defend himself, it is unreasonable to be bringing him into any argument.

.......

This post has been deleted.

lazygal

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Many older women have lent money to a sister or friend to 'get the boat'. Many of them got the boat themselves. Many of them remember smuggling in condoms and spermicidal jelly. Many of them remember having to bar a parish priest from the door to stop him taking a grandchild away because the mother wasn't married. Many of them know the eighth amendment is a mad law that leads to crazy practices around miscarriages and labour and birth. They might be very religious despite all that. But they are a force who know the eighth is bad law and want to get rid.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Delirium

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not being disingenuous at all. i don't believe they are being forced to go abroad for the abortion, they are choosing to do it as they wish to have an abortion. nobody is holding a gun to their head.

Please explain how they could legally avail of an abortion in Ireland.

Oldtree

Peadar Tóibín, Sinn Féin, was just on Newstalk this morning and does not want the 8th repealed, and is going against his parties line, but can continue to be a member of the party provided he states the party line in interviews.

He stated that no woman had died due to the 8th.

The Committee on the 8th Amendment was told the amendment undoubtedly contributed to the death of Savita Halappanavar at UHG, by Prof Sir Sabar Arul, the then incoming President of the British Medical Association and author of the report into Savita’s death.

I find it incredulous that Peadar not heard of Savita Halappanavar?

He also brought up a fear of eugenics with particular attention to downs syndrome and said in other European countries, (he mentioned Denmark specifically were at 98%) of those diagnosed with downs syndrome by prenatal screening are aborted.

But this would not appear to be the case in the Netherlands, where there has been no change in the number of babies being born with downs syndrome. See this article.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/number-of-babies-born-with-down-syndrome-has-not-decreased-in-netherlands-1.3303392

Bannasidhe

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Back in '82 when it became known this insane referendum was coming down the line my 17 year old self participated in my first 'political' action. Standing on Daunt's Square in Cork giving our pro-choice leaflets and ignoring the really vile abuse being hurled at me. When I went home to my then 47 year old mother and 70 year old Mass attending everyday grandmother I was all fired up and ready to go on a rant when I defiantly told them what I had spent my day doing. To my utter shock it was they who went on a pro-choice rant - they were not only pro-choice, they were in favour of abortion on demand and that only women of child baring years should be allowed to vote. They. were. Radical.

My grandmother is dead 19 years this month, my mother is now 83 - and she is still radical on this issue. Women's bodies - women vote is her mantra. Only death will stop her voting for full repeal and the full recommendations of the Citizen's Assembly.

NuMarvel

Oldtree wrote: »

Peadar Tóibín, Sinn Féin, was just on Newstalk this morning and does not want the 8th repealed, and is going against his parties line, but can continue to be a member of the party provided he states the party line in interviews.

He stated that no woman had died due to the 8th.

The Committee on the 8th Amendment was told the amendment undoubtedly contributed to the death of Savita Halappanavar at UHG, by Prof Sir Sabar Arul, the then incoming President of the British Medical Association and author of the report into Savita’s death.

I find it incredulous that Peadar not heard of Savita Halappanavar?

Let's face it, no matter how many experts would say the 8th was a factor, some people will refuse to hear it.

But even leaving aside the accuracy of his statement, it's bizarre that the threshold for changing our laws is set as high as requiring someone's death first. By that measure we'd never have changed anything.

Boulevardier

One of the options for repeal is to insert an article in the constitution saying that only the Oireachtas can decide on abortion.

The idea behind this seems to be to head off any rights which may be given by future court action to the unborn based on other parts of the constitution, or from unenumerated rights.

However, if that Oireachtas-only provision is put in, surely it would be tantamount to declaring that there is no right to life anywhere in the constitution for any unborn, even late-term unborn?

If so, perhaps that is going too far in the other direction from where things are now?

PS I favour simple repeal.

Billy86

end of the road wrote: »

that's not a solution, as in turn the systems we have will highly likely see less money as the belief will be that people can just have an abortion.

That doesn't fly and if anything you've made an argument in favour of providing for abortions on public healthcare as we would wind up saving an absolute rake of money on social services with this. Far, far, far more than the cost of of an abortion, which apparently ranges from about €500-€1,600.

https://www.mariestopes.ie/abortion-care/how-much-does-an-abortion-cost/

end of the road

Billy86 wrote: »

That doesn't fly and if anything you've made an argument in favour of providing for abortions on public healthcare as we would wind up saving an absolute rake of money on social services with this. Far, far, far more than the cost of of an abortion, which apparently ranges from about €500-€1,600.

https://www.mariestopes.ie/abortion-care/how-much-does-an-abortion-cost/

i haven't made an argument for abortion on demand at all, i have made one against it. we could only save money by stripping away the services afterwords, abortion itself wouldn't bring savings as the costs from what i can find seem to be hugely under-estimated.
essentially your point is looking for a problem for abortion on demand to be the solution.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pilly

Boulevardier wrote: »

One of the options for repeal is to insert an article in the constitution saying that only the Oireachtas can decide on abortion.

The idea behind this seems to be to head off any rights which may be given by future court action to the unborn based on other parts of the constitution, or from unenumerated rights.

However, if that Oireachtas-only provision is put in, surely it would be tantamount to declaring that there is no right to life anywhere in the constitution for any unborn, even late-term unborn?

If so, perhaps that is going too far in the other direction from where things are now?

PS I favour simple repeal.

I see where you're coming from but to me that simply means that when it's repealed then the Oireachtas comes up with the legislation, this makes sense to me.

I trust them enough to not all of sudden throw in a curve ball and legislate for abortion up to 30 week or something. All the indications are that it will be 12 weeks and that's fine by me.

pilly

end of the road wrote: »

i haven't made an argument for abortion on demand at all, i have made one against it. we could only save money by stripping away the services afterwords, abortion itself wouldn't bring savings as the costs from what i can find seem to be hugely under-estimated.
essentially your point is looking for a problem for abortion on demand to be the solution.

How many times do I have to post simple maths lessons here:

1 abortion costs less than 10 months maternity care. Simples.

What is confusing you about this?

Billy86

end of the road wrote: »

i haven't made an argument for abortion on demand at all, i have made one against it. we could only save money by stripping away the services afterwords, abortion itself wouldn't bring savings as the costs from what i can find seem to be hugely under-estimated.
essentially your point is looking for a problem for abortion on demand to be the solution.

I didn't say anything about abortion 'on demand' - I said abortion, which can mean in the case of it being necessary or extenuating circumstances such as rape or incest... quite a common one from what I've seen is sexual exploitation of the mentally disabled. I'm actually not too mad on 'abortion on demand' myself, and frankly find it cowardly and lazy that people resort to attempting to brush any changes being made as this, no differently to those claiming anyone not in favour of banning all non-white immigration are advocating "absolute open borders".

Your argument against my point was a financial one, and yes there is no doubt that a €500-1,500 abortion is a much less expensive option than what goes into the cost of social services towards these children.

I'm working in admin in Tusla the last year or so, and frankly you appear to have no idea how many of these children that parents did not have the means to get an abortion for in such instances cost so, so much for regular therapies of multiple forms over the course of years, after care services, foster payments, disability services, labour costs (social workers, family support workers, child in care teams, case conferences, out of hours services, admin wages, GALs, etc), and on and on. Not one of these services are required for a child that does not exist.

Loafing Oaf

Boulevardier wrote: »

However, if that Oireachtas-only provision is put in, surely it would be tantamount to declaring that there is no right to life anywhere in the constitution for any unborn,

NuMarvel

pilly wrote: »

I see where you're coming from but to me that simply means that when it's repealed then the Oireachtas comes up with the legislation, this makes sense to me.

I trust them enough to not all of sudden throw in a curve ball and legislate for abortion up to 30 week or something. All the indications are that it will be 12 weeks and that's fine by me.

I really can't see the Oireachtas going further than the Committee's recommendations. I wouldn't be surprised if there were attempts to be step back from some of them.

Water John

The Repeal is a totally separate issue from what the Oireacthais may legislate afterwards. Its being discussed simply to give people, a guide as to, what is likely.
Savita's sad death occurred mainly due to poor medical care. I have family in the business and know her complications should have been dealt with much earlier. It seems a secondary factor was some poor understanding of Art 8.
I don't agree with her case being involved in this Constitutional choice.

Boulevardier

Yes, but a constitutional provision which explicitly gives the Oireachtas sole powers over abortion is still tantamount to a declaration that there can be no unenumerated or implied rights in the constitution for any unborn, including late-stage unborn.

My own position on unborn rights is that where a woman's right to life and those of an unborn conflict, the woman must always come first. However, that does not mean that a late-term unborn should be left without rights of any kind.

Water John

Is there an alternative Constitutional Article being proposed for Art 8? I don't think so, Boulevardier.
The Constitution simply reverts to pre 1980.

Loafing Oaf

Boulevardier wrote: »

Yes, but a constitutional provision which explicitly gives the Oireachtas sole powers over abortion is still tantamount to a declaration that there can be no unenumerated or implied rights in the constitution for any unborn, including late-stage unborn.

My own position on unborn rights is that where a woman's right to life and those of an unborn conflict, the woman must always come first. However, that does not mean that a late-term unborn should be left without rights of any kind.

Do you have any reason to believe such rights are incorporated into any particular part of the constitution? In the absence of such a provision, is it not just as likely a court might decide any restriction on abortion is unconstitutional?

jimmycrackcorm

pilly wrote:

How many times do I have to post simple maths lessons here

1 abortion costs less than 10 months maternity care. Simples

What is confusing you about this?

A pack of condoms costs a fraction of either.

The vast majority of the debate and morality surrounding abortion could be removed if research was pushed into easier preventative pregnancy measures.

Even the decision process to abort an unwanted pregnancy is traumatic in its own right.