The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Hotblack Desiato

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's because it's not legislation, it's a clause in the constitution and requires a referendum to change it.

Very bad idea to put what should be in legislation into the constitution, because it's so awkward to change it when it needs to be changed. e.g. there is a five year separation requirement for a divorce written into the constitution, many people regard this as ridiculous now but it can't be changed without a referendum. There is also a ridiculous clause requiring blasphemy to be a crime, we're stuck with that too along with a load of other outdated catholic guff about a woman's place being in the home, power deriving not from the people but from the christian god, 'due homage and worship' being due to that god. Also religious oaths for the presidency and judges. Basically if you're not a christian you're not really Irish according to our constitution - lovely.

NuMarvel

January wrote: »

My apologies I read your post wrong and thought you had said up to and not after 22 weeks. Must go back to specsavers.

Apologies again!

No probs at all .

NuMarvel

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's because it's not legislation, it's a clause in the constitution and requires a referendum to change it.

As an aside, we didn't have much success in legislating for the 8th either. Not quickly at least. When the X Case was heard 9 years after the referendum on the 8th, the court criticised the governments of the time for not introducing legislation after the referendum.

And it would be another 21 years, 2 referendums and 1 ECHR case later before a government would get around to legislating for the X Case.

Let's hope that whatever changes are made to the constitution in next year's referendum, the legislation is quicker in coming into being.

mahamageehad

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's because it's not legislation, it's a clause in the constitution and requires a referendum to change it.

Very bad idea to put what should be in legislation into the constitution, because it's so awkward to change it when it needs to be changed. e.g. there is a five year separation requirement for a divorce written into the constitution, many people regard this as ridiculous now but it can't be changed without a referendum. There is also a ridiculous clause requiring blasphemy to be a crime, we're stuck with that too along with a load of other outdated catholic guff about a woman's place being in the home, power deriving not from the people but from the christian god, 'due homage and worship' being due to that god. Also religious oaths for the presidency and judges. Basically if you're not a christian you're not really Irish according to our constitution - lovely.

Slightly beside the point, but we are also due more referendums over the next 2 years including a vote on removing the blasphemy thing, a vote on reducing the divorce waiting time and one about the wording of the "place of the women in the home" thing. So, plenty of fun to come! :P

Dotsie~tmp

mahamageehad wrote: »

Slightly beside the point, but we are also due more referendums over the next 2 years including a vote on removing the blasphemy thing, a vote on reducing the divorce waiting time and one about the wording of the "place of the women in the home" thing. So, plenty of fun to come! :P

Oh that wont be the end. The family will have to be redefined and destroyed. Gender fluid mental disorders will codified. Various other marxist or post-moderist rot.

pitifulgod

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Oh that wont be the end. The family will have to be redefined and destroyed. Gender fluid mental disorders will codified. Various other marxist or post-moderist rot.

How do any of the referendums referenced equal anything like that? I thought you guys thought the marriage referendum had already destroyed the family?

kylith

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Oh that wont be the end. The family will have to be redefined and destroyed. Gender fluid mental disorders will codified. Various other marxist or post-moderist rot.

Dogs will marry cats, birds will fly upside down, and the seas will turn to crème brulee!

baylah17

kylith wrote: »

Dogs will marry cats, birds will fly upside down, and the seas will turn to crème brulee!

There's more chance of a Nazi becoming Pope ffs!

PopePalpatine

kylith wrote: »

Dogs will marry cats, birds will fly upside down, and the seas will turn to crème brulee!

Shur the lads from Stormfront told me it all started when we freed the slaves, let the wimminz vote and stopped treating "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" as relationship advice and more like the words of a sex pest.

eviltwin

kylith wrote: »

Dogs will marry cats, birds will fly upside down, and the seas will turn to crème brulee!

Sure we were told parents would be marrying their kids and people marrying multiple partners none of which came to pass.

Hotblack Desiato

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Oh that wont be the end. The family will have to be redefined and destroyed. Gender fluid mental disorders will codified. Various other marxist or post-moderist rot.

It really sounds as if you wish we all lived in a 1950s catholic straitjacket.

Plenty of candidates have run for election on that sort of platform in the last 25 years or so - Catholic Centre Party, National Party, you could probably include Renua - and most of them were lucky to reach the low three figures in numbers of votes.

Tigger

mahamageehad wrote: »

Slightly beside the point, but we are also due more referendums over the next 2 years including a vote on removing the blasphemy thing, a vote on reducing the divorce waiting time and one about the wording of the "place of the women in the home" thing. So, plenty of fun to come! :P

whats the place of women in the home one

January

Tigger wrote: »

whats the place of women in the home one

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/remove-women-in-the-home-clause-from-constitution-says-nash-1.2483284

PopePalpatine

^The campaigning for that one (as well as a blasphemy referendum) should be a barrel of laughs thanks to 50-50 representation, we might get John Waters back on the airwaves.

frag420

Took 1964 posts before John Waters was mentioned....new record 😂😂😂

Billy86

kylith wrote: »

Dogs will marry cats, birds will fly upside down, and the seas will turn to crème brulee!

...make it happen.

Hotblack Desiato

PopePalpatine wrote: »

^The campaigning for that one (as well as a blasphemy referendum) should be a barrel of laughs thanks to 50-50 representation, we might get John Waters back on the airwaves.

"Balance" :rolleyes: this just gives unwarranted credibility to lunatic fringes.

mrkiscool2

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"Balance" :rolleyes: this just gives unwarranted credibility to lunatic fringes.

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that there shouldn't be balance? It's a referendum, no matter your personal believes it's important the electorate is informed of both sides.

222233

Press_Start wrote: »

You're signed on with the GP or whoever on prescription birth control. You're using it properly with a practical prevention change of 80-90% effectiveness. You become pregnant, and report this to the doctor. The doctor can make the descision and either go ahead with the abortion, giving you the options, or advise you to have the child and give it up through foster care. I'm fully aware that Birth Control fails, so do seatbelts, airbags and brakes but we still keep them and use them, and deal with the issues that arise after failure. I humbly believe that it will carry eventually, but I can't comprehend why people on the repeal argument can't understand why the moral implications make those of us on the other side feel uncmfortable.

*I'm on the side for heavy modification and reassessment of the 8th, not pro-life, abortion is nessessary at times*

It would be a very dangerous world where doctors made decisions about who can and can not opt for medical procedures...

As someone who is pro choice I can't understand the moral implications for others because :
A. They will not be forced to have an abortion
B. The 8th amendment isn't stopping abortions, those who wish to and have the means to access abortion are doing so any way (the law just makes this very stressful and difficult for them)

Huntergonzo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"Balance" :rolleyes: this just gives unwarranted credibility to lunatic fringes.

This is true, but those lunatics are often experts at shooting themselves in the foot, so while it may be unbearable listening to their outdated rubbish, they serve an important purpose = driving undecided people the other way.

spookwoman

Huntergonzo wrote: »

This is true, but those lunatics are often experts at shooting themselves in the foot, so while it may be unbearable listening to their outdated rubbish, they serve an important purpose = driving undecided people the other way.

That goes for the "sane" side as well. Like it or not the no choice lot are very united with the same views whereas the pro choice are not. There are those that are for limited abortions, there are those who are for abortion on demand and then there are the ones in between and all are nearly at each others throats because they all think they are right. Anyone with a different view no matter how slight is nearly seen as the enemy and the more vocal ones what you might call Social Justice Warriors are probably the worst especially on social media and are turning people off.

Billy86

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that there shouldn't be balance? It's a referendum, no matter your personal believes it's important the electorate is informed of both sides.

It is important both sides get representation, though in the interests of balance it should also be proportional. For example in terms of climate change, 97.5% of experts believe it to be real and so it would make far more sense for representation to reflect that.

Abortion is of course a trickier one to quantify in that sense, but exact 50/50 representation is not always a good or accurate thing.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can't wait to see who they wheel out to defend the references to the Holy Trinity and our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ.

NuMarvel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I can't wait to see who they wheel out to defend the references to the Holy Trinity and our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ.

As we saw with the marriage equality referendum, there are plenty of people who'll object to change if it means they get a bit of media attention. Broadcasters will have no problem finding someone for the No side for even the most unobjectionable referendum.

seamus

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that there shouldn't be balance? It's a referendum, no matter your personal believes it's important the electorate is informed of both sides.

"Balance" implies that the items on both sides have equal weight.

So if one speaker is a practising doctor of obstetrics and gynaecology, then the speaker on the opposite side for "balance", should be one of equal qualifications and not a Bishop or a "Professor of ethical studies" or a non-practising psychologist attached to the Iona institute. None of those people are qualified to speak in opposition to the Doctor - just like the Dr. is not qualified to talk about religious matters or psychology.

It's seen far too often in climate change debates where an actual climate change scientist discusses the issue, providing data from studies, and being capable of explaining that data. And then the person on the other side of the table is a Healy-Rae shouting numbers and nonsense from something he read on the internet.

That's the exact opposite of balance - that's giving one side more weight than they're due.

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

Broadcasters will have no problem finding someone for the No side for even the most unobjectionable referendum.

100% of legally competent people will say delete those references from the Preamble. 0% will defend them. So the people they dig up to defend those references will be incompetent, yet they will get equal time.

It is possible that the only people they can find will be not-joking insane.

Hotblack Desiato

spookwoman wrote: »

That goes for the "sane" side as well. Like it or not the no choice lot are very united with the same views whereas the pro choice are not. There are those that are for limited abortions, there are those who are for abortion on demand and then there are the ones in between and all are nearly at each others throats because they all think they are right. Anyone with a different view no matter how slight is nearly seen as the enemy and the more vocal ones what you might call Social Justice Warriors are probably the worst especially on social media and are turning people off.

Really? I think your imagination is running away with itself. There was a very wide range of groups and views on the pro-choice march. Nobody at each other's throats.

As for the old "I would have voted yes only them quares/wimmins were too in your face/shrill", that guff was shown up for what it was two years ago. It's just a way of trying to silence one side of the "debate".

.......

This post has been deleted.

A Little Pony

Do the pro life side need more funds for the campaign?