The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

Time and again, the courts show up families which have harboured a pedophile for decades while all the time pretending to pillars of the community.

Time and again eh? Then you should have no problem naming many examples? How many can you name? Not merely a family that has or had a pedo in it, because that is not what you just said. But one that knowingly harboured one and concealed it under a veil of pretense.

Lets see your citations and naming of it. Lets see how often this actually happens "time and again" eh?

realitykeeper wrote: »

Instances of wrongdoing within the Catholic Church are no more part of the Catholic Church than finding a fly in a packet of soup from Tesco. Tesco do not have a policy of adding flies to their soup even if you found one there.

But do they have a policy of covering it up when it is found, belittling it (like you do here) when covering it up does not work, then harassing and manipulating the customer who was a victim of it, including refusing to pay compensation to that customer when the courts demand it, and then not only not taking the product off their shelves but moving the product to another store where other customer could be victims of it? While all the while pretending to preach how to be good producers of such a product, and how it is to live a moral and ethical life in food production?

Otherwise perhaps you are contriving quite willfully to not compare like with like here. Because THAT is what Tesco would need to be doing before your analogy could be taken even remotely seriously.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: realitykeeper, don't post in this thread again. Reason: poor attempt at trolling.



Edited -> On 2nd thoughts, upgraded to a ban. Still threadbanned upon their return.

Billy86

Nevermind, troll got called for what he was. That was one of the more disgusting posts I've read on AH in a while.

professore

Just listening to Niall Boylan on 4FM on the topic of intolerance of both sides. Very interesting.

Also is it the case that it will be a straight vote to repeal? In that case I will have to vote no, even though I would be in favour of abortion in certain circumstances - for example 12 weeks for any reason I would vote yes - I would struggle with it but it would be a yes. Fatal fetal abnormalities would have no issue either.

I don't believe this is a topic that should be legislated on the whims of politicians, rather whatever is decided should be enshrined in the Constitution.

For an extreme example if the 8th is repealed, abortion of otherwise healthy 8 month old fetuses becomes a possibility. I can't have that on my conscience. I'm not religious in the least by the way. My wife and daughter both think like this too - and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinions - we certainly wouldn't fall out over it, as we strongly disagree on other topics - we have had no heated debates about this just rational discussions.

Some other guy seems to think that anyone who voted Yes in the gay marriage referendum will also vote to repeal. Completely different things I'm afraid. I voted Yes for gay marriage.

Billy86

Eight months would be 34-35 weeks... apart from North Korea and China (with their 'unique' history when it comes to abortion), is there any country in the world that allows that late?

Annasopra

tonymontanavu wrote: »

What diffrence do that make? The only diffrence is that our closest neighbour allows it because of the access to it.
We can't make decisions and refer to what's allowed elsewhere (and not everywhere deemed progressive)

What happens post Brexit then?

professore

Billy86 wrote: »

Eight months would be 34-35 weeks... apart from North Korea and China (with their 'unique' history when it comes to abortion), is there any country in the world that allows that late?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html

9 states and DC have no restrictions in the US alone.

I am actually in favour myself in the case of non viable fetuses at any stage of pregnancy. I'm not talking about these cases.

Legal restrictions
As of 1998, among the 152 most populous countries, 54 either banned abortion entirely or permitted it only to save the life of the pregnant woman.[22]

In addition, 49 of the 152 most populous countries were without restriction as to reason, but 44 of these imposed limits after a particular gestational age:[22]

12 weeks (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Rep., Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan)
13 weeks (Italy)
14 weeks (Austria, Cambodia, Germany, Hungary, and Romania)
18 weeks (Sweden)
24 weeks (Singapore)
no limit (Canada, China, and North Korea)
viability (Netherlands and to some extent the United States)

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

I'm not talking about these cases.

This will be handled in legislation after the 8th is repealed, not in the Constitution, 12 weeks unrestricted, and later for FFA or the health of the mother is at risk.

Edward M

volchitsa wrote: »

I notice you haven't tried to explain it though.

Because from where I'm standing, as a woman, hopefully with a brain, who's had an abortion, I don't think I needed a random man coming along and helping me to think these things through. I did that at the time, and I'm still certain it was the right decision.

And what's more, I think women who terminate pregnancies do think these things through, and that nobody thinks it's like killing a fly.

To be blunt about it, the mindset behind such a comment is the typical male "women are silly idiots who need to be told what and how to think" stuff.

It was in response to a question asked of me.
By wording it the way I did it seems to have caused upset.
What I felt when I was writing it was that I was conveying that women have a brain, (something I never doubted) and are well capable of making their own decision on the why's of it.
I have never told anybody what they should do nor would I.
The last sentence in that post states very clearly that what might be my necessity might not be yours, meaning that decisions made are valid for the person that makes them, whether agreed with by me or others or not.
I can't help it if what I say sounds typically male, I am a male after all, but the way you word that is a bit ironic I think, given that you are attacking me for seeming to have some bad opinion of women?

Edward M

....... wrote: »

Why should any womans decision making process be held up to your judgement about whats right for her?

What if she thinks its a necessity but you dont? Why should your opinion dictate her options for her own body?

Read the last two lines of the post again.

volchitsa

Edward M wrote: »

It was in response to a question asked of me.
By wording it the way I did it seems to have caused upset.
What I felt when I was writing it was that I was conveying that women have a brain, (something I never doubted) and are well capable of making their own decision on the why's of it.
I have never told anybody what they should do nor would I.
The last sentence in that post states very clearly that what might be my necessity might not be yours, meaning that decisions made are valid for the person that makes them, whether agreed with by me or others or not.
I can't help it if what I say sounds typically male, I am a male after all, but the way you word that is a bit ironic I think, given that you are attacking me for seeming to have some bad opinion of women?

How is it ironic to point out that you are assuming that women may not have brains, and may need third parties (you?) to ensure they don't do something stupid.

Nobody ever suggests that all men, in general, should not be allowed to do something because some men may not have the brains to think the consequences through. But you don't even see the problem with that being the default approach to something that concerns women.

Gosh those silly women, why did we ever give them the vote. We really need to go back to the good old days right?

pleas advice

I really think you got the wrong end of the stick there...

swampgas

professore wrote: »

I don't believe this is a topic that should be legislated on the whims of politicians, rather whatever is decided should be enshrined in the Constitution.

I find this genuinely hard to comprehend. You are assuming that democracy won't work properly for legislation regarding abortion. You are assuming that TDs are likely to go passing abortion legislation "on a whim". Everything I've seen from the Dáil in the last 40 years suggests the opposite - that the government tends to leglislate on controversial issues only when they absolutely have to, and when there is significant public pressure to do so, and when efforts to kick the can down the road have been exhausted.

professore

swampgas wrote: »

I find this genuinely hard to comprehend. You are assuming that democracy won't work properly for legislation regarding abortion. You are assuming that TDs are likely to go passing abortion legislation "on a whim". Everything I've seen from the Dáil in the last 40 years suggests the opposite - that the government tends to leglislate on controversial issues only when they absolutely have to, and when there is significant public pressure to do so, and when efforts to kick the can down the road have been exhausted.

You mean like the bank guarantee?

Edward M

pleas advice wrote: »

I really think you got the wrong end of the stick there...

Me too, I think a bit of misandry has shown itself. But of course I'm being misogynistic.

nozzferrahhtoo

professore wrote: »

I don't believe this is a topic that should be legislated on the whims of politicians, rather whatever is decided should be enshrined in the Constitution.

Not everything needs to be in the constitution. There are reasons, for example, why we do not have people generally in politics trying to reduce the sexual age of consent to 10 years of age. We do not need specific laws in the constitution to prevent them doing that. This is simply not what a constitution is for.

Also I am not sure what your concerns are with countries that do have no limits. Firstly of the most well known ones, only canada is meaningfully comparable to us as a country. I do not think we are all that much like North Korea really. And China is debatable.

Regardless of whether there are limits or not though, one thing we see consistently around the world is that the vast majority (usually a few digits past 90%) of abortion by choice happens in or before week 12. The near totality (numbers like 96 and 98) by week 16.

Those women who have abortions past this stage generally do it for genuine FFA and other medical concerns. They do it because they basically have to.

If you are fearing abortions at 8 months for example, which tend not to be abortions at all but terminations of the pregnancy resulting in a premature but entirely healthy child............ then ask yourself how often that ACTUALLY happens. How many women in this world CHOOSE for no medical reasons etc..... to have an abortion at 8 months.

For your concerns to be valid enough to justify voting no you would have to A) assume the government would ever legislate for something the electorate totally do not seem to want, which would be akin to reducing the sexual age of consent to 10 in terms of uproar and political suicide, assume they will go against the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly that they have said thus far they intend to stick with C) they would ignore all the good arguments AGAINST allowing such abortions and D) that we can not trust women at all and that they actually would go about doing any such thing.

Any one of those is pretty unlikely, but to expect all 4 of them at the same time..... sounds to me like someone who is choosing to vote "no" first and then reaching for reasons to actually do so second.

But by all means pull the stats on Canada, and work out A) How many abortions (not terminations) did happen from 8 months on and How many of them were purely based on choice and everyone involved was actually perfectly 100% healthy.

professore

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This will be handled in legislation after the 8th is repealed, not in the Constitution, 12 weeks unrestricted, and later for FFA or the health of the mother is at risk.

Lots of things have been "handled by legislation" badly. All we need is some liberal or conservative party to get into power and they can make whatever legislation they like. I think this is a fundamental human rights issue that should be in the constitution and not something that can be legislated as the goverrnment of the day decides.

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that some far right conservatives get into power and ban all abortions you know. and before you say "It could never happen" that's what they said about Trump, Brexit and the property crash. So that's why it should be in the constitution.

Have legislation around bus timetables, speed limits on roads, age of drinking etc but what constitutes a human life or potential life and in what circumstances it should be permissible to terminate it should be in the constitution.

swampgas

professore wrote: »

You mean like the bank guarantee?

That's all you've got?

Look at issues like contraception and divorce instead. Marriage equality and the smoking ban were two areas where Ireland was ahead of many other countries but there was widespread support for those.

When the Dáil legislates for abortion, it will be for a position that has widespread support. If you don't like that then you don't like democracy.

tonymontanavu

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What happens post Brexit then?

Probably no change to the current set up in relation to movement but I don't get your point? I said the the only relevant country is England/UK.

volchitsa

Edward M wrote: »

Me too, I think a bit of misandry has shown itself. But of course I'm being misogynistic.

Well, of course you do. :rolleyes:

And way to go to immediately accuse me of misandry for pointing out how your post was based on traditional tropes of women as minors, unable to make sensible decisions for themselves without men, or the law, to stop them from making disastrous mistakes. "It's for their own good really".

Anyway, you are clearly unwilling, or unable, to take even the most minor niggle as other than a terrible personal slight, so, whatever. I've finished with this.

professore

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not everything needs to be in the constitution. There are reasons, for example, why we do not have people generally in politics trying to reduce the sexual age of consent to 10 years of age. We do not need specific laws in the constitution to prevent them doing that. This is simply not what a constitution is for.

Also I am not sure what your concerns are with countries that do have no limits. Firstly of the most well known ones, only canada is meaningfully comparable to us as a country. I do not think we are all that much like North Korea really. And China is debatable.

Regardless of whether there are limits or not though, one thing we see consistently around the world is that the vast majority (usually a few digits past 90%) of abortion by choice happens in or before week 12. The near totality (numbers like 96 and 98) by week 16.

Those women who have abortions past this stage generally do it for genuine FFA and other medical concerns. They do it because they basically have to.

If you are fearing abortions at 8 months for example, which tend not to be abortions at all but terminations of the pregnancy resulting in a premature but entirely healthy child............ then ask yourself how often that ACTUALLY happens. How many women in this world CHOOSE for no medical reasons etc..... to have an abortion at 8 months.

For your concerns to be valid enough to justify voting no you would have to A) assume the government would ever legislate for something the electorate totally do not seem to want, which would be akin to reducing the sexual age of consent to 10 in terms of uproar and political suicide, assume they will go against the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly that they have said thus far they intend to stick with C) they would ignore all the good arguments AGAINST allowing such abortions and D) that we can not trust women at all and that they actually would go about doing any such thing.

Any one of those is pretty unlikely, but to expect all 4 of them at the same time..... sounds to me like someone who is choosing to vote "no" first and then reaching for reasons to actually do so second.

But by all means pull the stats on Canada, and work out A) How many abortions (not terminations) did happen from 8 months on and How many of them were purely based on choice and everyone involved was actually perfectly 100% healthy.

You can pull any stats you like - they are irrelevant to this principle. I've set out my position and that's it. Even one termination like this that I helped bring about is too many for me.

The constitution IS for human rights issues. If this isn't a human rights issue, what is? Why are gay and transgender rights in the constitution?

professore

swampgas wrote: »

That's all you've got?

Look at issues like contraception and divorce instead. Marriage equality and the smoking ban were two areas where Ireland was ahead of many other countries but there was widespread support for those.

When the Dáil legislates for abortion, it will be for a position that has widespread support. If you don't like that then you don't like democracy.

I don't like democracy???? A constitutional democracy????
You just don't like my position and you don't care what my reasons are.
And I'm not sure there was "widespread support" for the smoking ban. A LOT of people were against that. Not me as I don't smoke. There was widespread support after the fact.

volchitsa

professore wrote: »

I've set out my position and that's it. Even one termination like this that I helped bring about is too many for me.

So you are too young to have voted in 1992, right? And in 2002?

Or did you vote to ban women from travelling?

tonymontanavu

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually as someone who has worked through miscarriage with women the exact opposite of what you suggest here is true. MUCH benefit can be attained from bringing a woman mourning such a loss to a point where she sees the fetus for what it is, rather than what she had invested in it.

Now of course this does not entail marching up to such a woman and declaring to her "Get over yourself, all you lost was a relatively complex but otherwise barely differentiated clump of cells". There is a process of care and empathy in divesting people of the narratives that are causing them to needlessly suffer.

But the overall goal, and benefits, are derived very much in such cases from essentially getting to them to the point you describe, even if we do not describe it to them as crassly as you do here.



The problem with your rhetoric here however is the assumption that such consideration has NOT been taken/given. It has. The reason you pretend it has not is that the RESULTS of that consideration by people like myself have not produced the result YOU want. So I guess it is easier to imagine no consideration was taken, than to accept the fact it WAS taken and it did not go where YOU want.

I have consider at length, we are talking a length of time measurable in decades here, the value and basis for value inherent in our moral and ethical systems. I have considered at length what it is we value, why, and on what basis. I have considered even what it means TO value anything in the first place. And of course, what such values are in the business of doing day to day. What their goal and agenda and purpose even is.

And the result of ALL of that leaves me in a place that when I turn to look at the subject and context of a fetus at 12 weeks (by which time the vast and overwhelming majority of abortions have already occurred) I see nothing there TO value all that much. Least of all do I see any basis to allocate rights, or moral and ethical concern, to such an entity.

Now you are welcome to engage me on such views (or, seemingly, not) as you like....... but no pretense shall be brooked that no consideration was even given.

Absolute nonsense here. I have been through miscarriages and know plenty of others. Devaluing may work as a coping mechanism but it is not healthy.
A fetus at any point is the beginning stages of a child and has more value than your dismissive attitude to many.

nozzferrahhtoo

professore wrote: »

You can pull any stats you like - they are irrelevant to this principle. I've set out my position and that's it.

Always terribly easy to just wave away ANY data that contradicts your position without presenting any that supports your assertion. However I think that move deserves about as much respect as the effort you put into doing it. None.

The data simply shows that around the world the horror you envision basically does not come to pass. Yet so convinced are you of that horror that you have to..... what..... assume that Ireland will be some pocket of reality that is the exception to it all? Hardly.

The real reason you are not pulling out the stats to support your position is that you know as well as I do that statistically speaking the ending of the life of 8 month old fetuses on a non-medical whim is simply not happening and you are bordering on scare mongering a fantasy rather than engaging with the actual issue.

professore wrote: »

Even one termination like this that I helped bring about is too many for me.

Thankfully those in power, and education, and science do not think like that or we would never get anything done ever.

Why?

Because ANY change that we bring out in this world disenfranchises someone, or hurts someone, or opens up loopholes that are abused by someone. I am not convinced there is many, if any, exceptions to this.

We do not live in a perfect world and our rules and laws and moves on the public stage will never have perfect results. But "one person somewhere might do something terrible" is simply not an excuse to not do the right thing. Especially if the right thing will benefit thousands or more people.

The question you should be working with is what is the RIGHT thing to do. Not "If I do the right thing, who could possibly abuse it?".

Quite simply the legislation we get is HIGHLY unlikely to allow what you fear, women in Ireland are HIGHLY unlikely to do it even if it was allowed, and even after that at 8 months it is REMARKABLY rare for abortion to actually happen. Rather the pregnancy is terminated which is a much different thing entirely.

professore wrote: »

The constitution IS for human rights issues. If this isn't a human rights issue, what is?

So is the sexual age of consent. But it is not in there either nor should it be. The constitution is NOT the place to have specific laws that relate to human rights. The constitution is the place to have the framework and the axioms AROUND which such laws can be built.

I am not a lawyer by any means, and I know my limits in that regard. But even I understand the difference between constitution and legislation enough to know this. But users on this thread better than I have written on this EXACT discussion you and I are having. If you wish I can dig out their posts on the matter?

professore

volchitsa wrote: »

So you are too young to have voted in 1992, right? And in 2002?

Or did you vote to ban women from travelling?

I voted in both. I voted at the time that the threat of suicide was not sufficient grounds to justify an abortion - and I still feel this way. People threaten suicide regularly for all sorts of reasons.

I didn't vote to ban women from travelling. I don't believe it's up to us to stop Irish citizens doing things which are legal in other countries. We make a statement with our countries' laws and norms. If someone wants to go abroad and do something else then we have done as much as we can.

I have relaxed my views over the years somewhat.

nozzferrahhtoo

tonymontanavu wrote: »

Absolute nonsense here. I have been through miscarriages and know plenty of others. Devaluing may work as a coping mechanism but it is not healthy. A fetus at any point is the beginning stages of a child and has more value than your dismissive attitude to many.

Nice of you to preface your post with a description of it's content. Would that more users would do that. But you are indeed right, your post is absolute nonsense.

The first reason it is nonsense is that "devaluing" is not really an accurate description of what I have described. If you have an object you think is worth 10,000 euro and I inform you it's actual worth is 10 euro.... I have not devalued it..... I have informed you what the value actually is, was, and always has been. The only person who would be devaluing it is those who tell you it is worth 5 euro.

Similarly when we gently tease out many of the narratives that bring unwarranted pain and suffering to people, such as those who have had a miscarriage, we are NOT devaluing the fetus so much as teasing out the over inflated value they had invested in it in the first place. And it is both helpful AND healthy to do so despite your assertions to the contrary.

Nor is there anything dismissive about my attitude, you really are on a roll of making things up. But at least you pre-labeled it as absolute nonsense. The exact opposite is true. If those who have worked through these things with women like I have HAD a dismissive attitude we would not care how we spoke to such women. We would happily tell them, as I said in the post you replied to, "Get over yourself, all you lost was a relatively complex but otherwise barely differentiated clump of cells".

But we do the opposite. We recognize EXACTLY what you yourself just wrote with the fact "it has more value to many.". It does. It really does. And not only do we NOT dismiss that, we work from that very foundation premise. And we realize that If a person holds narratives that are unwarranted AND those narratives are a source of some, most, or even all of their suffering..... then divesting them of those narratives is the right thing to do, the healthy thing to do, but it must be done with care, delicacy, empathy, wisdom and education. The exact OPPOSITE of merely being dismissive of their narratives.

So yes, absolute nonsense indeed but solely and entirely from your side, not mine.

professore

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Always terribly easy to just wave away ANY data that contradicts your position without presenting any that supports your assertion. However I think that move deserves about as much respect as the effort you put into doing it. None.

The data simply shows that around the world the horror you envision basically does not come to pass. Yet so convinced are you of that horror that you have to..... what..... assume that Ireland will be some pocket of reality that is the exception to it all? Hardly.

The real reason you are not pulling out the stats to support your position is that you know as well as I do that statistically speaking the ending of the life of 8 month old fetuses on a non-medical whim is simply not happening and you are bordering on scare mongering a fantasy rather than engaging with the actual issue.



Thankfully those in power, and education, and science do not think like that or we would never get anything done ever.

Why?

Because ANY change that we bring out in this world disenfranchises someone, or hurts someone, or opens up loopholes that are abused by someone. I am not convinced there is many, if any, exceptions to this.

We do not live in a perfect world and our rules and laws and moves on the public stage will never have perfect results. But "one person somewhere might do something terrible" is simply not an excuse to not do the right thing. Especially if the right thing will benefit thousands or more people.

The question you should be working with is what is the RIGHT thing to do. Not "If I do the right thing, who could possibly abuse it?".

Quite simply the legislation we get is HIGHLY unlikely to allow what you fear, women in Ireland are HIGHLY unlikely to do it even if it was allowed, and even after that at 8 months it is REMARKABLY rare for abortion to actually happen. Rather the pregnancy is terminated which is a much different thing entirely.



So is the sexual age of consent. But it is not in there either nor should it be. The constitution is NOT the place to have specific laws that relate to human rights. The constitution is the place to have the framework and the axioms AROUND which such laws can be built.

I am not a lawyer by any means, and I know my limits in that regard. But even I understand the difference between constitution and legislation enough to know this. But users on this thread better than I have written on this EXACT discussion you and I are having. If you wish I can dig out their posts on the matter?

You seem have a fixed view of me in your head. It might surprise you to know I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

The constitution is the place to have the framework and the axioms AROUND which such laws can be built.

Surely at what point a fetus becomes human is a basic axiom that should be clearly defined? How can you accord ANY rights to ANYONE if you don't have this basic statement?

nozzferrahhtoo

professore wrote: »

You seem have a fixed view of me in your head. It might surprise you to know I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

Not at all, I replied solely to the content of your post. In fact often I try to reply to peoples posts BEFORE I see which user name I am replying to.

And to be honest I do not recall having read or replied to any of your posts before (forgive me if I am wrong). I can not at all put my finger on who you even are despite your relatively high post count.

So no, anything in my post above is a direct reply to the content of your post. Nothing to do with you at all.

professore wrote: »

Surely at what point a fetus becomes human is a basic axiom that should be clearly defined? How can you accord ANY rights to ANYONE if you don't have this basic statement?

Like you said above, I think we agree on more than either of us realize. I would indeed like to see something of that sort in the framework of which I speak. Something acknowledging what it is human rights are, and on what basis we presume to assign them.

But to be clear I was not commenting on THAT. I was commenting on your fear that in the absence of that we are likely to A) legislate in an awful way and citizens are likely to use that legislation in that way.

I am struggling to even take credible, let alone expect, the notion that we would suddenly start legislating for the killing of 8 month old fetuses (rather than mere termination of late term pregnancies) and that our citizens would start doing that on a mere whim.

I think it is statistically (rather than literally as "there is always one" as the saying goes) safe to say that no one at all is carrying a child inside themselves for 8 months and then on a whim saying "Nah, I am done with this, off with it's head".

And to put my tongue only partially.... mostly.... in my cheek, any child about to be born to a mother that WOULD do such a thing if only the law would allow her to.......... is in some ways probably better off dead anyway.

But I just do not see it happening. And if you pull the data from countries like Canada I do not think you will really see it happening there either. You will find that statistically any women who have ended their pregnancy at 8 months there have done it for reasons you will find well warranted.

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

Lots of things have been "handled by legislation" badly.

This part is not a debate - we are not putting another botched-up anti-abortion clause in the Constitution, this year or ever again.

We will keep the 8th or remove it and have legislation.