The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

pitifulgod

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

I don't believe abortion should be legal anywhere. Abortion on demand wasn't legal until Lenins USSR made it legal. Then the rest of the world followed. Great example the world followed there. And now we want to do the same here in Ireland?

And women's suffrage was granted, maternity leave was rather high along with state crèches coming into place around the same time in Russia. Abortion was banned again under Stalin. While Soviet Russia was pretty abhorrent in most respects towards human rights during the early years, there were examples where progressive policies were put into place. Just because something happened in Soviet Russia, does not make it inherently bad...

2wsxcde3

pitifulgod wrote: »

And women's suffrage was granted, maternity leave was rather high along with state crèches coming into place around the same time in Russia. Abortion was banned again under Stalin. While Soviet Russia was pretty abhorrent in most respects towards human rights during the early years, there were examples where progressive policies were put into place. Just because something happened in Soviet Russia, does not make it inherently bad...

The problem there is that some people today would consider Russias actions that were "pretty abhorrent in most respects towards human rights" to be progressive today. Some people want to see the death penalty reintroduced to Ireland (after being abandoned in 1954). To them, the USSR was "progressive" in killing people. Just like pro-choice people think the USSR was "progressive" in being the first country in the world to legalize abortion.

North Korea legalized abortion in the 1950's before the UK and America. I guess North Korea was "progressive" too.

Captain Obvious

NuMarvel wrote: »

You don't need case law to prove something is the law, because, well... it's the law and laws are presumed to be constitutional unless the courts find otherwise.

The words in the constitution have meaning, they're not there for poetic license. If the constitution says the unborn's right to life is equal to a born person, and the state must defend and vindicate that right in its law then that's what the State must do. There's no room in there for exempting someone.

But if you're a fan of case law, maybe you can cite the case law that supports your stance?

You seem a little confused. I'm not saying anything is unconstitutional, including the current law. I'm saying there is nothing preventing a law being introduced that treats the mother and doctor differently. The only thing that goes against this is speculation, mainly by that of the AG. It has not been tested in court.

NuMarvel wrote: »

What has been linked to is a story that shows that the 8th goes far beyond abortion, and that retaining the 8th means decisions on maternity care will ultimately be the purview of judges and lawyers, not women and their doctors.

Normally medical cases only go to court where the patient has a lack of capacity to consent or there's a serious risk to life. But neither of those apply in this instance; this is solely because of the 8th.

Again you are reaching and making up law. This case was very specific and was ruled in favour of the mother. It does not mean

retaining the 8th means decisions on maternity care will ultimately be the purview of judges and lawyers, not women and their doctors

That's nothing but scaremongering and deliberate misrepresentation.

pitifulgod

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

The problem there is that some people today would consider Russias actions that were "pretty abhorrent in most respects towards human rights" to be progressive today. Some people want to see the death penalty reintroduced to Ireland (after being abandoned in 1954). To them, the USSR was "progressive" in killing people. Just like pro-choice people think the USSR was "progressive" in being the first country in the world to legalize abortion.

North Korea legalized abortion in the 1950's before the UK and America. I guess North Korea was "progressive" too.

You must view Stalin as progressive for banning it so? This is how your logic follows through...

January

HSE: We're bringing this woman to court and citing the 8th amendment as the reason we're bringing her to court.

Anti-choicers: THAT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 8TH AMENDMENT #FAKENEWS!!!!!11!!

2wsxcde3

January wrote: »

HSE: We're bringing this woman to court and citing the 8th amendment as the reason we're bringing her to court.

Anti-choicers: THAT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 8TH AMENDMENT #FAKENEWS!!!!!11!!

Didn't the woman end up having a cesarean? So she was just wasting the hospitals time?? No wonder we have a trolley crisis with people like that clogging up the system going against the advice of doctors.

If a woman swallows a container of pills in A&E she will have her stomach pumped against her will too. There is no such thing as complete bodily autonomy.

Captain Obvious

January wrote: »

HSE: We're bringing this woman to court and citing the 8th amendment as the reason we're bringing her to court.

Anti-choicers: THAT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 8TH AMENDMENT #FAKENEWS!!!!!11!!

You can make whatever argument you want in a court. It's what the court decides that matters. To illustrate, in the US the KKK tried to object to hate crime laws based on their right to free speech. They relied on the right to free speech to make their case. The court rejected their argument. By your logic it is the right to free speech, and not the KKK, that is the problem.

January

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Didn't the woman end up having a cesarean? So she was just wasting the hospitals time?? No wonder we have a trolley crisis with people like that clogging up the system going against the advice of doctors.

If a woman swallows a container of pills in A&E she will have her stomach pumped against her will too. There is no such thing as complete bodily autonomy.

She wanted a trial of labour. She wasted nobodies time as she wasn't the one to bring anyone to court. When she eventually went into labour (the day after they brought her to court!!) and she realised she wasn't going to get the natural birth she longed for she consented to a ceserean.

NuMarvel

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You seem a little confused. I'm not saying anything is unconstitutional, including the current law. I'm saying there is nothing preventing a law being introduced that treats the mother and doctor differently. The only thing that goes against this is speculation, mainly by that of the AG. It has not been tested in court.

Firstly, the AG doesn't speculate. They may not always be right, but their opinions are based on more than conjecture or guesswork.

Secondly, for someone who dismisses other opinions as speculation, you've provided nothing to back up your own claims, even when directly asked. So you too are speculating.

And, no offence, but if asked to choose between the opinions of the AG and the unsupported speculations of Captain Obvious on the internet, no one in their right mind would choose the latter.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Again you are reaching and making up law. This case was very specific and was ruled in favour of the mother. It does not mean


That's nothing but scaremongering and deliberate misrepresentation.

This is exactly what happened. The woman was able to make her decision only after the court ruled. Judges and lawyers will continue to be the ultimate arbiters in maternity care. The HSE's own guidelines on consent say as much.

This is the reality of the 8th, and if you don't like that then you either change it or accept it. You don't get to ignore it because it makes you uncomfortable.

swampgas

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

I don't believe abortion should be legal anywhere. Abortion on demand wasn't legal until Lenins USSR made it legal. Then the rest of the world followed. Great example the world followed there. And now we want to do the same here in Ireland?

Grand, I know where you stand now - on an absolutist no abortion anywhere for anyone ever platform. Because "life" means a woman should just suck it up and get on with being pregnant. And because your opinion (and it's very much a minority opinion) should dictate how everyone else lives their lives.

Captain Obvious

NuMarvel wrote: »

Firstly, the AG doesn't speculate. They may not always be right, but their opinions are based on more than conjecture or guesswork.

Secondly, for someone who dismisses other opinions as speculation, you've provided nothing to back up your own claims, even when directly asked. So you too are speculating.

You are asking me to back up something I never claimed though.

NuMarvel wrote: »

And, no offence, but if asked to choose between the opinions of the AG and the unsupported speculations of Captain Obvious on the internet, no one in their right mind would choose the latter.

That's your prerogative.

NuMarvel wrote: »

This is exactly what happened. The woman was able to make her decision only after the court ruled. Judges and lawyers will continue to be the ultimate arbiters in maternity care. The HSE's own guidelines on consent say as much.

This is the reality of the 8th, and if you don't like that then you either change it or accept it. You don't get to ignore it because it makes you uncomfortable.

This was a landmark case that limited the scope of the 8th yet you are claiming it did the opposite.

2wsxcde3

January wrote: »

She wanted a trial of labour. She wasted nobodies time as she wasn't the one to bring anyone to court. When she eventually went into labour (the day after they brought her to court!!) and she realised she wasn't going to get the natural birth she longed for she consented to a ceserean.

Some people are contrary. She even went to the papers then looking for attention. There is no mention of the hospital trying to save the baby in "holy Catholic Ireland". They have a woman who was refusing good medical advice that was designed to save her life, just like jehovah witnesses refuse blood transfusions. If she was refusing a HPV vaccine the pro-choicers would be down her throat like a flash demanding she take it and force her children to take it.

It sounds like the hospital were trying to save the woman from her own odd ideas about medical care.

pitifulgod

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Some people are contrary. She even went to the papers then looking for attention. There is no mention of the hospital trying to save the baby in "holy Catholic Ireland". They have a woman who was refusing good medical advice that was designed to save her life, just like jehovah witnesses refuse blood transfusions. If she was refusing a HPV vaccine the pro-choicers would be down her throat like a flash demanding she take it and force her children to take it.

In any decision in relation to saving my life, I'll be able to make my own choice and won't have to go to court. One can make their own decisions unless you're pregnant, that's the situation.

January

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Some people are contrary. She even went to the papers then looking for attention. There is no mention of the hospital trying to save the baby in "holy Catholic Ireland". They have a woman who was refusing good medical advice that was designed to save her life, just like jehovah witnesses refuse blood transfusions. If she was refusing a HPV vaccine the pro-choicers would be down her throat like a flash demanding she take it and force her children to take it.

It sounds like the hospital were trying to save the woman from her own odd ideas about medical care.

Went to the papers looking for attention? She is highlighting how the 8th amendment affects wanted pregnancies as much as it affects unwanted ones. They have a woman who was refusing a (terribly invasive) surgery when there was no indication for said surgery at that time. She was informed of the risks and benefits of refusing that surgery. A 10% chance of uterine rupture is not a huge risk, especially when she was already admitted to the hospital (voluntarily I might add, she had no problem staying in the hospital which is what the doctors wanted so they could monitor her).

The HPV vaccine has nothing to do with this discussion btw, you're just making yourself look stupid now.

There was no need for the doctors to force her to court and the judge made the right decision but it shouldn't have needed to come to that.

2wsxcde3

And if she died then by following her own odd ideas about medical care, there would be 3 children left without a mother. It sounds to me like the doctors were only trying to do their best in what was an awkward situation given her mis-informed ideas on medical care.

January

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

And if she died then by following her own odd ideas about medical care, there would be 3 children left without a mother. It sounds to me like the doctors were only trying to do their best in what was an awkward situation given her mis-informed ideas on medical care.

She would not have died, she knew her options and knew that if labour wasn't going well she could have a ceserean at any time. If her uterus had ruptured the hospital had time to perform a ceserean. She was in hospital. The judge agreed with her that she didn't need a ceserean straight off the bat. She didn't have have mis-informed ideas on medical care, she was very informed on her decisions.

Loafing Oaf

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Just like pro-choice people think the USSR was "progressive" in being the first country in the world to legalize abortion.

North Korea legalized abortion in the 1950's before the UK and America. I guess North Korea was "progressive" too.

And building motorways must be bad because Hitler did a lot of it...

Beethoven9th

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.

Sounds reasonable to me !

January

Beethoven9th 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.

Sounds reasonable to me !

Yep sounds great except for when you put it in the context of Savita and what happened to her or that the right to life of the unborn superceeds those of already born children in the regard that if a person cannot afford another child yet finds herself pregnant (maybe she was raped, maybe she used contraception etc) she has no option but to either travel to another country (at a cost of up to thousands of euro), access abortion pills illegally and take them in her home afraid to call medical experts if something does go wrong, or carry on with the pregnancy and find herself and her family in further poverty.

Sound as reasonable then?

Billy86

Beethoven9th 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.

Sounds reasonable to me !

Does it sound reasonable to you to have a person who has become a vegetable and is essentially a corpse kept just 'alive' enough to stop the nonviable foetus in their stomach from dying quickly? Not to continue to develop so that it could actually be born, but just to 'not die'?

And all while the woman's family and the would-have-been father are spending their days contacting the media with pleas to end the horrific freak show?

That belongs in the horror stories of medical experimentation 100+ years ago, or in Lovecraftian body-horror art and 'reasonable' is about the last word I would attach to it.

eviltwin

Beethoven9th 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.

Sounds reasonable to me !

Sounds reasonable to you but I put my life ahead of any unborn child. My husband puts my life ahead of an unborn child so do my kids, my family, my friends.

There is no equality. Not one person I know would ever want me treated as anything less than the priority in a crisis pregnancy situation. They know my loss has a far greater impact than the loss of a foetus. They will vote accordingly.

NuMarvel

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You are asking me to back up something I never claimed though.

You said the law could be changed to treat the women and doctor differently:

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'm saying there is nothing preventing a law being introduced that treats the mother and doctor differently.

You've provided nothing to back that up, so it's nothing more than speculation on your behalf.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

This was a landmark case that limited the scope of the 8th yet you are claiming it did the opposite.

It's a case that does what I said it does: it highlights that the 8th goes beyond abortion, and that judges and lawyers will continue to be the ultimate decision makers in cases of maternity care, not the women and her doctors. If you think this means the 8th will never be used again to bring other pregnant women to court, you're mistaken.

Captain Obvious

NuMarvel wrote: »

You said the law could be changed to treat the women and doctor differently:



You've provided nothing to back that up, so it's nothing more than speculation on your behalf.

So you're asking me to prove the lack of existence of an obstacle you made up.

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's a case that does what I said it does: it highlights that the 8th goes beyond abortion, and that judges and lawyers will continue to be the ultimate decision makers in cases of maternity care, not the women and her doctors. If you think this means the 8th will never be used again to bring other pregnant women to court, you're mistaken.

I'm sure it will. Much like every other right will be tested in court for various reasons. But that isn't a reason in itself to eliminate a right. It's the courts decisions that matter.

Water John

Beethoven, that wording also seemed reasonable to William Binchy, but it ended up being interpreted very differently than he thought.

Loafing Oaf

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

If all these difficult issues are what is really bothering the pro-choice side, then they should be campaigning for these only. Simon Coveney said it was not impossible to legislate for these cases only.

But he has yet to make concrete proposals on how such legislation would work.

Water John

Jim Daly TD from West Cork takes a swipe at him.

In a statement today Mr Daly does not reference Mr Coveney directly.

But he said: "Simply calling for Repeal and abandoning the issue of what sort of a regime we create is not leadership.

"It is soft politics which fails to deal with the consequences of our acts."

volchitsa

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

And if she died then by following her own odd ideas about medical care, there would be 3 children left without a mother. It sounds to me like the doctors were only trying to do their best in what was an awkward situation given her mis-informed ideas on medical care.

And yet the law actually says that even in an inevitable miscarriage, the woman, who may well be a mother already, must be at real and substantial risk of death before intervention is allowed.

Not too worried about the importance of the woman's life then, it seems.

Specially since, when doctors misread the charts and let her die, the response is not terribly energetic. Did anyone get struck off over Savita's death?

They only care when their own opinion is not being followed, afaict.

Beethoven9th

January wrote: »

Sound as reasonable then?

Just my personal opinion yes, deal with it

swampgas

Beethoven9th wrote: »

Just my personal opinion yes, deal with it

What a hero. You are entitled to your personal opinion, but that doesn't mean other people can't disagree with it and point out how the consequences of a law based on your opinion ends up with pregnant women being treated like second class citizens. Maybe you don't care what women think, should they just shut up and stay pregnant?

You might not like your views being called out as a backwards old-fashioned misogyny, but that's tough. Deal with it.

.

Zubeneschamali

Beethoven9th 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.

Sounds reasonable to me !

Then you should probably vote to keep it, and lose.