The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 22-04-2017 5:08pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not to mention the number of people who suggest they are 'pro-choice', advocating that it should be a woman's choice and that she should have the right to choose what happens within her own body, etc... but, only up to a certain point in her pregnancy, that they're comfortable with. They never when questioned explain what they think should happen to a woman who would want to terminate her pregnancy in the manner of her choosing after that point.

Pro-choice but only up to a certain point implies an inherently deceptive position in that they really don't think women should be trusted to make choices for themselves at all, but rather that women should only be able to make choices that they're comfortable with. How that position is any different from pro-life/anti-choice/whoever disagrees with them... has never been explained to me by anyone. They always, always prefer to ignore that question. Seems it presents an uncomfortable conundrum for their ideological position.

Well no. When there's no brain activity, properly functioning organs etc, it's obviously different than when there is and when the foetus has the capacity to feel pain and to survive outside the womb. You're not thick Jack, that's not a difficult point to understand.

And in terms of repealing the eighth it's a rather moot point anyway. The funny thing is, relatively few women take a notion to get an abortion in the third trimester! Rates in the UK are something in the order of .1% IIRC, and those would include Irish women of course.

I care more about the women who need an abortion now, and who should be able to access one safely and with dignity, than about hypothetical third term foetuses and how exactly I or any other person really feels about them.

Mr. CooL ICE · 22-04-2017 5:10pm

Jamiekelly wrote: »

If you plant a seed in the ground it has the potential to become a tree. If you take said seed out of the ground, you have not cut down a tree.

According to some on this thread you could be accused of burning down a whole forest for digging up a seed.

Excellent analogy

I, like most pro choice supporters, would love it if abortions never needed to be carried out. However, it is anything but a black and white situation and when push comes to shove, I prioritise the already-living over the not-yet-living.

AtomicHorror · 22-04-2017 5:11pm

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you have a referendum on pro choice abortion, what about one on pro choice murder? Should people not have the choice to murder people?

If you have a scenario where:

person A's continued life is entirely dependant on person B's life, and where;
person A's continued life is also dependant on person B taking a calculable risk to their own health and life

Then, person B should be allowed to choose if they want to take that risk.

The only scenario I know of that fits this description is pregnancy, but if others exist and if the constitution blocks choice, then a referendum is certainly needed.

pjohnson · 22-04-2017 5:15pm

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Excellent point made in this post.

A good friend of mine needed an abortion (for health reasons, not that it matters. Rather than get an extremely early term abortion at 5 weeks, she had to go on a waiting list for a clinic in England, and save the money for flights and accommodation. She ended up having an abortion at 14 weeks instead. She needed the abortion to protect her health at the time but because of the 8th amendment it was the termination of a 14 week old fetus instead of a 5 week old fetus.

That's all the 8th amendment does, just kicks the ball down the road.

I remember that horror case a few years back where a hospital wasnt allowed unplug a deceased (and eventually decomposing) woman solely because she was pregnant.......not even Stephen King or Garth Ennis would be that macabre. Yet this was a great success for some people. It showed the reality that once pregnant certain people view a woman (even deceased) as nothing more than an incubator for 9mths. Yet they pretend they are "pro life". They may care for the fetus but they do not care for the woman in the least.

A Little Pony · 22-04-2017 5:15pm

If the referendum is precise then go for it. But it can't just be a simple yes or no like Brexit, it is not as simple as that. If it is just yes to abortion, go wild with it, then I say no. NI should have a vote on this.

AtomicHorror · 22-04-2017 5:26pm

infogiver wrote: »

AtomicHorror wrote:

infogiver wrote: »

I'm too lazy for all the mental gymnastics that pro abortion people have to put themselves through in order to persuade themselves that a baby is not a baby.
You must all be exhausted from it

On this we can agree. You are intellectually lazy.

I'm lazy and stupid I think.

Infogiver, I'd like to retract my comment and apologise. This is really not the kind of debate I would like to have, even when the topic is contentious.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 22-04-2017 5:30pm

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Excellent point made in this post.

A good friend of mine needed an abortion (for health reasons, not that it matters. Rather than get an extremely early term abortion at 5 weeks, she had to go on a waiting list for a clinic in England, and save the money for flights and accommodation. She ended up having an abortion at 14 weeks instead. She needed the abortion to protect her health at the time but because of the 8th amendment it was the termination of a 14 week old fetus instead of a 5 week old fetus.

That's all the 8th amendment does, just kicks the ball down the road.

Yup, same as. I know two women that I can think of now who ended up getting surgical rather than medical abortions because of the expense, having to get off work etc. Time limit for medical abortion is nine or ten weeks, that can be a reeeal tight time limit under the circumstances.

infogiver · 22-04-2017 5:34pm

pjohnson wrote: »

Oh god do you know think an Embryo has a fully functional human body?

What's God got to do with it?

pjohnson · 22-04-2017 5:36pm

infogiver wrote: »

What's God got to do with it?

Excellent evasive manouver.

infogiver · 22-04-2017 5:38pm

Sofiztikated wrote: »

The destruction of babies would be murder.

Good job we're not talking about murdering babies.

No we're not. We all have to toe the line about the terminology we use.
For example, it's not murdering babies it's terminating a fetus, I think, I'm not sure.
We don't want anyone upset.

infogiver · 22-04-2017 5:38pm

pjohnson wrote: »

Excellent evasive manouver.

You mentioned God, not me.

pjohnson · 22-04-2017 5:39pm

infogiver wrote: »

You mentioned God, not me.

Yes but you seemed to miss the other words that were inconvenient to your argument.

infogiver · 22-04-2017 5:40pm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Infogiver, I'd like to retract my comment and apologise. This is really not the kind of debate I would like to have, even when the topic is contentious.

I don't want to either. It's tiresome and it just goes round in circles so as they say on Dragons Den, I'm out.
Unfollowing.
Edited to add: I appreciate your apology although it was entirely unnecessary.

Mr. CooL ICE · 22-04-2017 5:45pm

pjohnson wrote: »

It is using words in their actual proper form.........a woman is refered to as being pregnant when there is a viable embryo/fetus inside her. You cant just start arguing since you dont understand big words.

Mod: Less of this please. Try arguing your point without resorting to petty digs.

Sofiztikated · 22-04-2017 5:46pm

infogiver wrote: »

No we're not. We all have to toe the line about the terminology we use.
For example, it's not murdering babies it's terminating a fetus, I think, I'm not sure.
We don't want anyone upset.

Terminology IS important.

And full disclosure, I'm a person with a condition that, when spotted, most doctors will recommend a termination.

One eyed Jack · 22-04-2017 5:47pm

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Well no. When there's no brain activity, properly functioning organs etc, it's obviously different than when there is and when the foetus has the capacity to feel pain and to survive outside the room. You're not thick Jack, that's not a difficult point to understand.

And in terms of repealing the eighth it's a rather moot point anyway. The funny thing is, relatively few women take a notion to get an abortion in the third trimester! Rates in the UK are something in the order of .1% IIRC, and those would include Irish women of course.

I care more about the women who need an abortion now, and who should be able to access one safely and with dignity, than about hypothetical third term foetuses and how exactly I or any other person really feels about them.

It's not a moot point, it's the whole point, because in terms of the 8th amendment, it recognises the equal right to life of the unborn, in the context of human life, not 'the foetus', which is a medical term used to describe human life from the 8th week of development to birth.

You're right that IDX is incredibly rare (.017% of all abortions in the US last time I checked the stats), so why not legislate for that on the understanding that actually we do trust pregnant women?

As for the idea that current legislation disproportionately affects women who are socioeconomically deprived, I would suggest that has more to do with the fact that they are socioeconomically deprived, than it has to do with our current legislation regarding abortion. Using people's circumstances as socioeconomically deprived is the ultimate "let them eat cake" argument IMO as though allowing for abortion is a solution to socioeconomic deprivation, with no regard for those women's health or mental well-being. It's assuming that they would have the €600 to afford an abortion, it's assuming that the person who impregnated them recognises their agency, it's assuming that women who are socioeconomically deprived would want an abortion, rather than the social supports and access to education which women in other countries have, which is the real reason why those countries abortion rates are so low.

Take a look at the overall statistics regarding socioeconomics and you'll quickly see that it's mostly women who are members of minority groups who are disproportionately affected by their socioeconomic status who have abortions not out of choice, but out of necessity and social pressure. I say disproportionately affected, because the majority of women who avail of abortion in the US are Christian white women (I don't have the stats for the numbers of women who are transgender who have availed of abortion).

I don't expect young college students and idealogues to understand that reality though, and that's not a dig at you personally, I just mean it from my own perspective that there's a hell of a lot more to this issue than what some idealogues would want people to understand, so they deliberately set people up in conflict with each other by using misleading information, rather than giving people impartial information and trusting them to make up their own minds.

njs030 · 22-04-2017 5:59pm

infogiver wrote: »

I don't want to either. It's tiresome and it just goes round in circles so as they say on Dragons Den, I'm out.
Unfollowing.
Edited to add: I appreciate your apology although it was entirely unnecessary.

You've resorted to silly comments, ignored any reasonable questions and your only input has been about your life and your child and friends. The world outside your door isn't your problem!

The 8th amendment isn't just about abortion it's also about women having control of their own body during pregnancy and being allowed to choose what medical procedures they do or don't want to undergo.

One day you might be glad other people went out of their way to try and get choices for everyone not just for themselves.

One eyed Jack · 22-04-2017 6:09pm

notjustsweet wrote: »

You've resorted to silly comments, ignored any reasonable questions and your only input has been about your life and your child and friends. The world outside your door isn't your problem!

The 8th amendment isn't just about abortion it's also about women having control of their own body during pregnancy and being allowed to choose what medical procedures they do or don't want to undergo.

One day you might be glad other people went out of their way to try and get choices for everyone not just for themselves.

The 8th amendment isn't about abortion at all, it's about recognising, acknowledging and protecting the equal right to life of the unborn as far as is practicable. Legislation could be drafted while the 8th remains in place as it is, but the political will isn't there. That's why upon my reading of what the citizens assembly were asked, it seems as though politicians would prefer to wash their hands of the issue and offer legislation which would still be just as contentious and wholly inadequate as the POLDPA 2013.

You're not actually interested in getting choices for everyone if your only concern is women who agree with your choices btw. That's not being petty, it's a significant point, a bit like the womens march that chose to exclude women who didn't agree with their opinions.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 22-04-2017 6:11pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a moot point, it's the whole point, because in terms of the 8th amendment, it recognises the equal right to life of the unborn, in the context of human life, not 'the foetus', which is a medical term used to describe human life from the 8th week of development to birth.

You're right that IDX is incredibly rare (.017% of all abortions in the US last time I checked the stats), so why not legislate for that on the understanding that actually we do trust pregnant women?

I mean that it's approaching a moot point because given the amount of late term abortions which occur when they're readily available, and the reasons for which they generally occur, the rather obsessive discussion of them is unproductive and unnecessary. I'm totally in favour of legislating for late term abortions in that I'd like to see a situation where the law says pregnant woman and her doctor can make the decision to carry out an abortion at any point and without having to prove that she deserves one. I don't at all think I'll ever live to see that situation in Ireland though.

As for the idea that current legislation disproportionately affects women who are socioeconomically deprived, I would suggest that has more to do with the fact that they are socioeconomically deprived, than it has to do with our current legislation regarding abortion. Using people's circumstances as socioeconomically deprived is the ultimate "let them eat cake" argument IMO as though allowing for abortion is a solution to socioeconomic deprivation, with no regard for those women's health or mental well-being. It's assuming that they would have the €600 to afford an abortion, it's assuming that the person who impregnated them recognises their agency, it's assuming that women who are socioeconomically deprived would want an abortion, rather than the social supports and access to education which women in other countries have, which is the real reason why those countries abortion rates are so low.

Where are you getting that I said lack of access to abortion makes people socially deprived? I agree with everything you're saying here, and I think people who are very opposed to abortion would spend their time much more productively if they campaigned and advocated for social inclusion and mobility, better education, better access to healthcare including contraception etc. Fact remains that Jacinta from Ballybane and Sorcha from Raheny are likely to be very very differently impacted by the same situation: an unwanted pregnancy which they wish to terminate.

Take a look at the overall statistics regarding socioeconomics and you'll quickly see that it's mostly women who are members of minority groups who are disproportionately affected by their socioeconomic status who have abortions not out of choice, but out of necessity and social pressure. I say disproportionately affected, because the majority of women who avail of abortion in the US are Christian white women (I don't have the stats for the numbers of women who are transgender who have availed of abortion).

I think this is in reference to me talking about marginalised people? I wasn't referring to religious or ethnic minorities. IME the most deprived minorities in Ireland would be relatively unlikely, generally speaking, to want to access abortion.

I don't expect young college students and idealogues to understand that reality though, and that's not a dig at you personally, I just mean it from my own perspective that there's a hell of a lot more to this issue than what some idealogues would want people to understand, so they deliberately set people up in conflict with each other by using misleading information, rather than giving people impartial information and trusting them to make up their own minds.

Well I'm neither a young college student nor an ideologue, in fact when I was I would have been rather pro-life. Bit of real life soon copped me on though.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 22-04-2017 6:15pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The 8th amendment isn't about abortion at all, it's about recognising, acknowledging and protecting the equal right to life of the unborn as far as is practicable. Legislation could be drafted while the 8th remains in place as it is, but the political will isn't there. That's why upon my reading of what the citizens assembly were asked, it seems as though politicians would prefer to wash their hands of the issue and offer legislation which would still be just as contentious and wholly inadequate as the POLDPA 2013.

:D:D:D:D

Someone should have told that to the people who were specifically worried about a ruling similar to Roe vs Wade happening in Ireland and campaigned and voted for the eighth amendment specifically so that abortion could not be legislated for.

Seriously man, if you so much as hint that anybody in this thread is being disingenuous or intellectually dishonest, or lying to themselves...that's fcuking Kafkaesque what you just said.

pjohnson · 22-04-2017 6:16pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The 8th amendment isn't about abortion at all, it's about recognising, acknowledging and protecting the equal right to life of the unborn as far as is practicable. Legislation could be drafted while the 8th remains in place as it is, but the political will isn't there. That's why upon my reading of what the citizens assembly were asked, it seems as though politicians would prefer to wash their hands of the issue and offer legislation which would still be just as contentious and wholly inadequate as the POLDPA 2013.

You're not actually interested in getting choices for everyone if your only concern is women who agree with your choices btw. That's not being petty, it's a significant point, a bit like the womens march that chose to exclude women who didn't agree with their opinions.

See the decaying woman used as an incubator. There is nothing equal about the anti-choice crowd. The fetus is the priority. The woman should just shut up and be an incubator.

jaja321 · 22-04-2017 6:16pm

If I understand it correctly - the way the CA voted on ballot 3 - is pretty much the same as repealing the 8th? As in they are recommending to the Govt. that it is the Oireachtas that should legislate for abortion and specifics shouldn't be in the constitution.. Is that understanding correct?

gizmo81 · 22-04-2017 6:23pm

We are either a misogynistic society or not. We either respect women, their intelligence to make an informed decision and their right to have autonomy, or we don't.

This drawn out 'conversation' is just so one section of society can force their version of morality on the rest.

One forgets so easily that this vision of morality left full term babies in septic tanks.

Leave women make their own choices. I trust women.

eviltwin · 22-04-2017 6:26pm

jaja321 wrote: »

If I understand it correctly - the way the CA voted on ballot 3 - is pretty much the same as repealing the 8th? As in they are recommending to the Govt. that it is the Oireachtas that should legislate for abortion and specifics shouldn't be in the constitution.. Is that understanding correct?

Yes because if they had just voted to repeal the gov could remove it and do nothing. Now they are forced to make a whole new amendment.

Calhoun · 22-04-2017 6:32pm

gizmo81 wrote: »

We are either a misogynistic society or not. We either respect women, their intelligence to make an informed decision and their right to have autonomy, or we don't.

This drawn out 'conversation' is just so one section of society can force their version of morality on the rest.

One forgets so easily that this vision of morality left full term babies in septic tanks.

Leave women make their own choices. I trust women.

This is why if it had of gone to a repeal referendum it might well have failed, the identify politic simplification of the argument and bringing it into an us versus them perspective is ignorant of the complex and nuanced problem that we have in Ireland.

We move on then to the collective blaming of anyone that doesnt agree with the SJW narrative, if you don't agree with me you want to see babies dead in a septic tank. Designed to shut down reasonable discourse, nice little tactic imported from the Americans.

If you want a reasonable debate on this i would suggest you change the tune. Otherwise you might not be happy with the result.

jaja321 · 22-04-2017 6:35pm

eviltwin wrote: »

Yes because if they had just voted to repeal the gov could remove it and do nothing. Now they are forced to make a whole new amendment.

Right. So the amendment (if the recommendation is accepted) would basically say that the issue of the abortion/right to life of unborn etc is to be dealt solely in legislation, developed by the Oireachtas. So this in essence is a better result than repeal? (if you support repeal).

eviltwin · 22-04-2017 6:38pm

jaja321 wrote: »

Right. So the amendment (if the recommendation is accepted) would basically say that the issue of the abortion/right to life of unborn etc is to be dealt solely in legislation, developed by the Oireachtas. So this in essence is a better result than repeal? (if you support repeal).

Depends. My understanding is it can go to referendum which might happen if the government decided they want to pass the decision over to us. We then decide what changes we want. Or they can do it themselves. It's not a straight repeal but it's probably the best outcome for the repeal side outside of that. Ultimately neither side wins and this is a recommendation only, they may ignore it.

seamus · 22-04-2017 6:43pm

jaja321 wrote: »

Right. So the amendment (if the recommendation is accepted) would basically say that the issue of the abortion/right to life of unborn etc is to be dealt solely in legislation, developed by the Oireachtas. So this in essence is a better result than repeal? (if you support repeal).

It will be something along the lines of saying the Oireachtas will have the power to legislate in relation to abortion.

My understanding is that the legal experts determined that a straightforward repeal wouldn't give the government power to legislate. There would be other provisions in the Constitution on which abortion laws could be declared unconstitutional.

But by explicitly stating that the Government are permitted to legislate, you remove all question of whether abortion legislation would be unconstitutional.

This isn't actually a call to repeal, it's even better than that.

Faugheen · 22-04-2017 6:45pm

eviltwin wrote: »

Depends. My understanding is it can go to referendum which might happen if the government decided they want to pass the decision over to us. We then decide what changes we want. Or they can do it themselves. It's not a straight repeal but it's probably the best outcome for the repeal side outside of that. Ultimately neither side wins and this is a recommendation only, they may ignore it.

It would have go to a referendum as it would have to change the article as it is in the constitution.

One eyed Jack · 22-04-2017 6:48pm

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

:D:D:D:D

Someone should have told that to the people who were specifically worried about a ruling similar to Roe vs Wade happening in Ireland and campaigned and voted for the eighth amendment specifically so that abortion could not be legislated for.

Seriously man, if you so much as hint that anybody in this thread is being disingenuous or intellectually dishonest, or lying to themselves...that's fcuking Kafkaesque what you just said.

Purely for your use of the word Kafkaesque, I couldn't help it

But seriously, it's true, look at the wording -

"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."

The bit in bold is key, as whether or not the 8th amendment exists, the unborn would still have a Constitutional right to life, and any drafting of any new legislation would be constrained by that right, but it depends upon ones perspective as to how far the State can go in practical terms to protect that right while acknowledging that the pregnant woman (if I were being particularly pedantic I would point out that a woman doesn't become a mother until she gives birth, same as a man doesn't become a father until the woman he impregnates gives birth, that's why I disagree with the concept of 'paper abortions' for men, that's not an abortion and the outcomes of the two scenarios cannot be related), also has a right to life.

It's not that the 8th amendment actually regards their right to life as equal, but rather that it places a burden on the State to value the right to life on the unborn as equal to the right to life of the mother. In order to actually make any real change, constitutional or legislative, we would have to have a referendum to rescind the right to life of the unborn, which is determined in current legislation as the development of human life from the point of implantation* to birth.

*The implantation bit was to get around the RCCs perspective which regards human life as from the point of conception. Biologically, they're correct, but it's not quite so simple as that either.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments