The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

In fact (NB further personal speculation, anyone is free to disagree) I wonder if the father may not have been "encouraged" to see that he wasn't going to be allowed to win, because the legal repercussions in obstetric care and human rights for pregnant women would be enormous. Obviously it may not have been put to him in that way. IOW I'm not sure the state just "got lucky"..

. Indeed, I've wondered myself if Miss Y was 'encouraged' to abscond to another jurisdiction with the promise of a potential abortion only to find herself without the means to obtain what she wanted when she got there, just to serve someone's agenda. Still, it has to be said that if Mr Enright was advised that his unborn daughter only had such rights as are expressed in the Constitution, he was well advised.

volchitsa wrote: »

But on the actual point, it's untrue that the state has done or will do what you were implying, i.e., grant a legal existence to the unborn.

. That's a little disingenuous all the same though; that the unborn has a legal existence is beyond doubt. Given that they are not yet born though, the State has no reason to furnish them with a death certificate, which in no way obviates their legal existence.

eviltwin

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, they legally exist. They are assigned a right in the Constitution, they are protected by legislation, and have been provided counsel in Court actions. Not talking morally or philosophically. I'm not sure what distinctions you think are or ought to be made between an abortion or a miscarriage, but the very fact that you're using two different terms show you see a distinction.

They are two different things, of course there is a distinction

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

They are two different things, of course there is a distinction

It was your question in fairness;

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm curious from a legal point of view why a miscarriage isn't treated as a death but an abortion is. And I appreciate this probably makes no sense beyond my own musings but as someone who has experience of both its an interesting distinction.

If you can see a distinction, why wouldn't the law?

freshpopcorn

Often here and online I see people often talking about repealing the 8th amendment. Generally tough on social media it seems to be the same people discussing it it either wanting to keep it or remove it.
However the vibe I get from talking to people is different. I find a lot of people simply don't really care about it. I know a few people and they'd seem very liberal but they want to keep it. I also know people who want it gone.
If it was to go to a referendum I think it might be rather close.
However my question is if Ireland was to have a referendum about it and the keep side won. What would happen?
Edit: My question is would the repeal side accept the peoples decision?

Maximus Alexander

freshpopcorn wrote: »

However my question is if Ireland was to have a referendum about it and the keep side won. What would happen?

Nothing.

Discodog

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Nothing.

Until & if the EU Court of Human rights intervenes

Calhoun

Discodog wrote: »

Until & if the EU Court of Human rights intervenes

Question is would they really want to be seen to be messing with a counties constitution.

Europe is getting a scare the past while, the right hasn't had any big win really other than in the UK but they are getting close enough that change will have to be on the cards.

At a time when they need to assure the citizens of Europe that they are not an unelected group dictating how things happen it would be very unwise of them.

I am not saying that's how it should be but the macro environment may change the status quo under which they operate atm.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Jack the Stripper

Wouldn't a hard Brexit be grand.

Ken.

Threads merged.

AtomicHorror

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Edit: My question is would the repeal side accept the peoples decision?

Accept in what sense? Accept that the constitution and the law remain unchanged? Of course, but to do otherwise would be delusional. Accept in the sense of obeying the law? It is already circumvented by thousands every year, that won't change.

If you mean, would they call it a day on the repeal cause... no, why would they? When the repeal movement started, it was unpopular. By many measures, it still is. A failure to carry the referendum would just mean they're not done.

freshpopcorn

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Accept in what sense? Accept that the constitution and the law remain unchanged? Of course, but to do otherwise would be delusional. Accept in the sense of obeying the law? It is already circumvented by thousands every year, that won't change.

If you mean, would they call it a day on the repeal cause... no, why would they? When the repeal movement started, it was unpopular. By many measures, it still is. A failure to carry the referendum would just mean they're not done.

Thanks, for the reply. The reason I asked was because after the marriage referendum the NO campaign basically gave up apart from the odd appeal which you'll always get.
The repeal campaign often say Ireland is crying out for a referendum to change this law and it's what the Irish people want bur if the Irish people decided that they wanted to keep it.Would they have to admit they're in the minority.(I hope that makes sense)

Consonata

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Thanks, for the reply. The reason I asked was because after the marriage referendum the NO campaign basically gave up apart from the odd appeal which you'll always get.
The repeal campaign often say Ireland is crying out for a referendum to change this law and it's what the Irish people want bur if the Irish people decided that they wanted to keep it.Would they have to admit they're in the minority.(I hope that makes sense)

If you mean "accept the result of the referendum", then probably yes for a time, until the next one, as Ireland is wont to do.

It is only a matter of time until the laws on the matter change, I would just like to think that we have matured enough as a people to move past our fraught past.

Annasopra

Calhoun wrote: »

Question is would they really want to be seen to be messing with a counties constitution.

Europe is getting a scare the past while, the right hasn't had any big win really other than in the UK but they are getting close enough that change will have to be on the cards.

At a time when they need to assure the citizens of Europe that they are not an unelected group dictating how things happen it would be very unwise of them.

I am not saying that's how it should be but the macro environment may change the status quo under which they operate atm.

The European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU. It is entirely separate. There are 47 countries under it's jurisdiction as opposed to the EU with 27.

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Thanks, for the reply. The reason I asked was because after the marriage referendum the NO campaign basically gave up apart from the odd appeal which you'll always get.
The repeal campaign often say Ireland is crying out for a referendum to change this law and it's what the Irish people want bur if the Irish people decided that they wanted to keep it.Would they have to admit they're in the minority.(I hope that makes sense)

No. The Divorce action campaign didnt just give up after our first referendum.

Calhoun

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU. It is entirely separate. There are 47 countries under it's jurisdiction as opposed to the EU with 27.

Why hasnt it challenged Ireland on this before or has it?

B_Wayne

Calhoun wrote: »

Why hasnt it challenged Ireland on this before or has it?

They've been going after us for years on it.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/world/council-of-europe-closes-case-against-ireland-on-abortion-1.2025834%3Fmode%3Damp

1hnr79jr65

Hail Savita, who needed an abortion.
Died in state care, due to Catholic Church extortion.

Zubeneschamali

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The reason I asked was because after the marriage referendum the NO campaign basically gave up

Well, yes, but the NO campaign in that one was a bit of a joke, not anything principled or organized, and they were literally no worse off after they "lost" - what was there to fight for?

I think it will be the same with the 8th - when it is finally repealed, most people who voted to keep it will give up, because nothing much will change except in a few corner cases. All the talk of holocausts and baby-murder will evaporate (apart from a few street-corner preacher types with signs).

NuMarvel

Calhoun wrote: »

Why hasnt it challenged Ireland on this before or has it?

The European Court of Human Rights is like any other court and can only act on the basis of cases it hears. It can't proactively evaluate a country's laws to determine if they are in compliance with the Convention.

That said, Ireland's abortion laws have been the subject of at least three ECHR cases: Well Woman & Open Door in 1992, D v Ireland in 2006, and A,B, & C v Ireland in 2010.

Well Woman/Open Door related to the provision of information, and Ireland lost that case, with our laws as they were then being found to be a breach of the human rights granted by the Convention. That's at least part of the reason we held a referendum on access to information in 1992.

D v Ireland was about accessing abortion in the case of FFA, but the case was dismissed as Ms D hadn't gone through the courts in Ireland first, which is a requirement of bringing a case to the ECHR.

A, B, & C v Ireland was an amalgamation of cases brought by 3 separate women (referred to as Ms's A, B, and C) around accessing abortion in differing circumstances. A and B lost their cases, but C's rights were found to be breached as our laws didn't set out how the a woman could access a legal abortion in Ireland. In other words, there was no legislation for the X Case. The outcome of that was the introduction of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act in 2013.

In addition, the courts in Northern Ireland have found that their laws, which would be similar to ours, are also a breach of the Convention by not allowing access to abortion in cases of rape, incest, and FFA. That finding is being appealed, so it may change, and it doesn't directly apply to us. But at the same time, legislators would be remiss not to consider the finding when drafting post-repeal/change laws on abortion.

Calhoun

NuMarvel wrote: »

The European Court of Human Rights is like any other court and can only act on the basis of cases it hears. It can't proactively evaluate a country's laws to determine if they are in compliance with the Convention.

That said, Ireland's abortion laws have been the subject of at least three ECHR cases: Well Woman & Open Door in 1992, D v Ireland in 2006, and A,B, & C v Ireland in 2010.

Well Woman/Open Door related to the provision of information, and Ireland lost that case, with our laws as they were then being found to be a breach of the human rights granted by the Convention. That's at least part of the reason we held a referendum on access to information in 1992.

D v Ireland was about accessing abortion in the case of FFA, but the case was dismissed as Ms D hadn't gone through the courts in Ireland first, which is a requirement of bringing a case to the ECHR.

A, B, & C v Ireland was an amalgamation of cases brought by 3 separate women (referred to as Ms's A, B, and C) around accessing abortion in differing circumstances. A and B lost their cases, but C's rights were found to be breached as our laws didn't set out how the a woman could access a legal abortion in Ireland. In other words, there was no legislation for the X Case. The outcome of that was the introduction of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act in 2013.

In addition, the courts in Northern Ireland have found that their laws, which would be similar to ours, are also a breach of the Convention by not allowing access to abortion in cases of rape, incest, and FFA. That finding is being appealed, so it may change, and it doesn't directly apply to us. But at the same time, legislators would be remiss not to consider the finding when drafting post-repeal/change laws on abortion.

Thanks for that, i wasn't aware of the status of cases taking against Ireland on this, i would have thought something so unpopular would have been challenged.

If you will allow me to be a little bit lazy, what kind of fines would Ireland face if it broke such laws? I need to do my own research but dont have the time at the moment but would like to tease this argument out.

NuMarvel

Calhoun wrote: »

Thanks for that, i wasn't aware of the status of cases taking against Ireland on this, i would have thought something so unpopular would have been challenged.

If you will allow me to be a little bit lazy, what kind of fines would Ireland face if it broke such laws? I need to do my own research but dont have the time at the moment but would like to tease this argument out.

If a country is found to be in breach of the Convention, they usually have to pay damages to the person or people who brought the case and change their laws to bring them in line with the Convention.

That said, I don't think there is any actual fine or sanction for not changing the laws. At least, none that I can find reference to. And this article backs that up, by stating "While countries are obliged to abide by the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe [the body that set up the ECHR] cannot implement sanctions on countries."

That's not to say that a country can completely ignore the ECHR. The Council of Europe monitor governments' plans to change their laws, and pressure can be brought to bear locally as well.

For example, it took 5 years for our laws on homosexuality to be changed after Norris's ECHR case, and that's mainly credited to the mother of a gay man meeting with the then-Justice Minister and asking why the law hadn't been changed yet. Similarly, public outcry over the death of Savita Halappanavar meant the government couldn't put the ABC ruling on the long finger any longer.

RobertKK

I am totally converted now to the prochoice argument...

https://twitter.com/jpy_kurdish/status/861404580768362496

B_Wayne

RobertKK wrote: »

I am totally converted now to the prochoice argument...

https://twitter.com/jpy_kurdish/status/861404580768362496

Perfectly fair point. Eg during the marriage referendum. Gay people marrying wasn't my battle but I offered help and support during the campaign. Basically, she's saying that she doesn't want men to take control of the campaign. Nothing wrong with saying that.

What's much more worrying is all the racist slurs and sexist remarks about her appearance in the responses, there's literally hundreds and it's all tends to be racist and sexist. So well done at finding a really old video that was reposted that's being spread by a racist alt right account.

RobertKK

B_Wayne wrote: »

Perfectly fair point. Eg during the marriage referendum. Gay people marrying wasn't my battle but I offered help and support during the campaign. Basically, she's saying that she doesn't want men to take control of the campaign. Nothing wrong with saying that.

What's much more worrying is all the racist slurs and sexist remarks about her appearance in the responses, there's literally hundreds and it's all tends to be racist and sexist. So well done at finding a really old video that was reposted that's being spread by a racist alt right account.

Yeah, the women are all virgins and have immaculate conceptions, so nothing to do with men.
It is strange how for some women when the unborn in is their womb, it is their body and a man should have no say, but if she was to let it be born she wouldn't be saying the man has no say, they would be after money to raise the child.

B_Wayne

RobertKK wrote: »

Yeah, the women are all virgins and have immaculate conceptions, so nothing to do with men.
It is strange how for some women when the unborn in is their womb, it is their body and a man should have no say, but if she was to let it be born she wouldn't be saying the man has no say, they would be after money to raise the child.

If somebody got to make decisions on the behalf of your body, would you be fine with that? She was also discussing allies in her speech and how the campaign should be conducted.

Calhoun

B_Wayne wrote: »

Perfectly fair point. Eg during the marriage referendum. Gay people marrying wasn't my battle but I offered help and support during the campaign. Basically, she's saying that she doesn't want men to take control of the campaign. Nothing wrong with saying that.

What's much more worrying is all the racist slurs and sexist remarks about her appearance in the responses, there's literally hundreds and it's all tends to be racist and sexist. So well done at finding a really old video that was reposted that's being spread by a racist alt right account.

Its great to see this one surface again, its actually what set me on the path to be contrary to feminist point of view.

She is basically saying that men don't have a vote in a democratic process and should shut up. There is allot wrong with that i don't know where to begin.

The comments i have seen are not bad they are questioning the high standard she has for Ireland compared to her own country. People don't like outsiders who have come to this country and benefited greatly from it to be telling half the voting population that its none of their business.

Its views like hers that will sink this whole referendum when it does come around.

B_Wayne

Calhoun wrote: »

Its great to see this one surface again, its actually what set me on the path to be contrary to feminist point of view.

She is basically saying that men don't have a vote in a democratic process and should shut up. There is allot wrong with that i don't know where to begin.

The comments i have seen are not bad they are questioning the high standard she has for Ireland compared to her own country. People don't like outsiders who have come to this country and benefited greatly from it to be telling half the voting population that its none of their business.

Its views like hers that will sink this whole referendum when it does come around.

No, the comments are largely from people not in Ireland. Even the originating account is Canadian. How dare anyone use her race or appearance to judge her. That's what most of the comments are. I have no idea if she is originally from her Ireland, her points are valid and absolutely do not justify a bunch of racists going on rants against her. That's what 90% of the comments are.

The most favourited response simply reads.

What is a negro doing in Ireland?!

So stop bs'ing and claiming that it's not a racist pile on.

Calhoun

B_Wayne wrote: »

No, the comments are largely from people not in Ireland. Even the originating account is Canadian. How dare anyone use her race or appearance to judge her. That's what most of the comments are. I have no idea if she is originally from her Ireland, her points are valid and absolutely do not justify a bunch of racists going on rants against her. That's what 90% of the comments are.

The most favourited response simply reads.

So stop bs'ing and claiming that it's not a racist pile on.

I havent really read the comments but while i condemn them i don't really care about them. Crap is on the internet folk from abroad are going to comment on it, especially if the good folk across the pond get their hands on it.

My main concern is the crap she is spouting about Irish citizens. So get off your white night high horse trying to turn this whole discussion into a race argument.

Its crap like this video that will sink this referendum, especially if we have a doubling down and conversation about the crap like in this video is not allowed be challenged because its "racist".

RobertKK

B_Wayne wrote: »

If somebody got to make decisions on the behalf of your body, would you be fine with that? She was also discussing allies in her speech and how the campaign should be conducted.

But when there is an abortion, is the woman terminating her life, or that of a human life within her body?
Her body is not just one life, but two lives.
So while the argument is my body, my choice, the body that is being terminated is not her body per se.