The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

...the miss Y case in 2014, the dead woman kept alive on a respirator.....

Which was resolved as per the law. Moving the goal posts though.

markodaly

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Do you mean the one 34 years ago where many of the Yes voters have since died? The one that everyone currently of reproductive age had no say in?

No, the poll you based your answer on.

markodaly

volchitsa wrote: »

You misunderstand. You said that we could have a new law which would give the 12 week old fetus "the same rights as everyone else". That isn't actually the case at the moment, (despite what prolife at the time thought they were doing) because of the clause that says "as far as is practicable".

If we did as you suggested, that is exactly what would happen : I'm not allowed to kill you to save my own life (let's say I need your liver) so a woman with a fetus over 12 weeks would not be allowed to kill it in order to save her own life either. Otherwise it wouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.

The law is quite clear in regards in protecting the life of the mother.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

Yet, you are prepared to hand them the keys to determine the how the unborn are treated.

Selective quoting = bad. The only way what you propose could enter law is if the population supported.

markodaly wrote:

Which was resolved as per the law. Moving the goal posts though.

No, they were problems which had to be resolved through the courts because of the amendment, and the end in the miss y case was exactly the debacle predicted some years ago.

thee glitz

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yeah cause if you get cancer when you're pregnant it's obviously your own fault :rolleyes:

I don't think anyone said that - the below was.

Shenshen wrote:

The woman who has just been diagnosed with cancer and has to delay the chemo that might save her life because she also found out she's pregnant?

end of the road wrote:

the third one would definitely come under the abortion in extreme circumstances, which i am willing to support even though i don't agree with abortion, as the mother's life is ultimately under threat

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

Or maybe she was 'asking for it' if she got raped.

I don't think anyone said that either, not even George. Pregnancies arising from rape are a 'special circumstance', whether they should be treated as such or not.

You have a low opinion of women but so do many of your fellow travellers.

wtf is this

Hotblack Desiato

Edward M wrote: »

ACH, that's not very fair. People have concerns about abortion on demand, based on a whim rather than a necessity.

The idea that women would seek abortion on a whim is idiotic, and highly offensive.

Where did anyone say that anyone raped was asking for it.

That bit about how personal responsibility can prevent unwanted pregnancy. Personal responsibility does not prevent rape.

There are probably a great amount of unwanted pregnancies where more responsible behaviour would have prevented them.

Perilously close to 'slut shaming' but let's run with it. Much earlier and better sex education is needed along with better access to contraception - preferably free. Catholics who are oh so concerned about abortion are blocking the things which reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Odhinn

Edward M wrote: »

Maybe I worded it wrongly.
Based on just wanting to get rid of the baby perhaps because it brings complications in to their life they don't want.
Such as perhaps, career, finances and just plain being tied down to baby minding.
There can be many reasons for it, I'd need a page to list them all and you know it.
The post was in response to a fairly accusing post, an unhelpful post really that points to ignorance of anyone who opposes abortion on demand.
Just to edit, abortion on demand up to 12/16 weeks, which ever, doesent have to be based on anything other than any whim as I originally said!

Right. If a woman is prepared to terminate a pregnancy because she doesn't want to be tied down to baby minding, does that really strike you as somebody that should have a child?

Hotblack Desiato

thee glitz wrote: »

wtf is this

You suggested that abortion is the result of 'personal irresponsibility' whatever that is.

Edward M

Odhinn wrote: »

Right. If a woman is prepared to terminate a pregnancy because she doesn't want to be tied down to baby minding, does that really strike you as somebody that should have a child?

She doesent have to rear the child though, she can put it up for adoption.

thee glitz

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You suggested that abortion is the result of 'personal irresponsibility' whatever that is.

It's your phrase...

What I meant was women having their babies aborted rather than caring from them.

Also, my views make me a traveller, thus explaining my low opinion of women?

Odhinn

Edward M wrote: »

She doesent have to rear the child though, she can put it up for adoption.

And in an ideal world thats exactly what would happen. However thats not the world we live in. There are people who have suffered untold horror in their early lives because of unsuitable mothers and the failure of the state to provide any decent alternative. If somebody unsuitable for motherhood has the abortion option open, it help solve the problem.

Hotblack Desiato

Edward M wrote: »

She doesent have to rear the child though, she can put it up for adoption.

Why should she be forced to complete a pregnancy to get to that point?

eviltwin

Edward M wrote: »

She doesent have to rear the child though, she can put it up for adoption.

No. Not an option. Fine for those who want to do that, not so fine for others.

Besides, we cannot cope with 3000 odd babies entering the care system and there are not enough potential parents to take them.

thee glitz

Odhinn wrote: »

There are people who have suffered untold horror in their early lives because of unsuitable mothers and the failure of the state to provide any decent alternative. If somebody unsuitable for motherhood has the abortion option open, it help solve the problem.

And there's probably a high correlation between unsuitable mothers and women who would have an abortion for selfish reasons.

Edward M

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The idea that women would seek abortion on a whim is idiotic, and highly offensive.



That bit about how personal responsibility can prevent unwanted pregnancy. Personal responsibility does not prevent rape.



Perilously close to 'slut shaming' but let's run with it. Much earlier and better sex education is needed along with better access to contraception - preferably free. Catholics who are oh so concerned about abortion are blocking the things which reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

I've lived over fifty years, in different times growing up I know, but I've seen young girls going to england all my life, not always their own choice even, forced to by family and uncaring boyfriends who didn't want the stigma or the responsibility at the time.
I've also seen young women, helped by family and their baby's father, sometimes even when the relationship had ended, have and bring up happy children with the mother being happy in the situation they are in.
I just feel that the foetus, which I believe to be a human form, should have to suffer the consequences of irresponsible behaviour that leads to their conception.
I know, you think that's me showing disrespect for women and the choices some make, that's not true though, I presume the amount of abortions would be small percentage wise as compared to birth, but abortion on demand would I believe lead to a small percentage of girls aborting on no more than a whim and the fact that they just can.

Hotblack Desiato

thee glitz wrote: »

It's your phrase...

Nope the 'personal responsibility' phrase was yours. Care to clarify?

Also, my views make me a traveller, thus explaining my low opinion of women?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller

:rolleyes: this is a common English language phrase, I am not buying into your claim to not know what it means.

Hotblack Desiato

thee glitz wrote: »

And there's probably a high correlation between unsuitable mothers and women who would have an abortion for selfish reasons.

Again the low opinion of women.

What is the evidence for your rush to judgment?

Odhinn

Edward M wrote: »

I've lived over fifty years, in different times growing up I know, but I've seen young girls going to england all my life, not always their own choice even, forced to by family and uncaring boyfriends who didn't want the stigma or the responsibility at the time.
I've also seen young women, helped by family and their baby's father, sometimes even when the relationship had ended, have and bring up happy children with the mother being happy in the situation they are in.
I just feel that the foetus, which I believe to be a human form, should have to suffer the consequences of irresponsible behaviour that leads to their conception.
I know, you think that's me showing disrespect for women and the choices some make, that's not true though, I presume the amount of abortions would be small percentage wise as compared to birth, but abortion on demand would I believe lead to a small percentage of girls aborting on no more than a whim and the fact that they just can.

You can be perfectly responsible and end up pregnant (or so I've observed).

As regards the "no more than a whim" brigade - excellent.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why should she be forced to complete a pregnancy to get to that point?

because the unborn have a right to live.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why should she be forced to complete a pregnancy to get to that point?

because the unborn have a right to live.

Based on what exactly? 5apart from the law which ca be changed).
Because if it is that self evident, then why aren't there autopsies every time a woman has a miscarriage?
It seems to be more about preventing a woman from deciding about her own pregnancy rather than any actual concern for the unborn.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why should she be forced to complete a pregnancy to get to that point?

because the unborn have a right to live.

Based on what exactly? (Apart from the law which can be changed).
Because if it is that self evident, then why aren't there autopsies every time a woman has a miscarriage?
It seems to be more about preventing a woman from deciding about her own pregnancy rather than any actual concern for the unborn.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

Based on what exactly? 5apart from the law which ca be changed).
Because if it is that self evident, then why aren't there autopsies every time a woman has a miscarriage?
It seems to be more about preventing a woman from deciding about her own pregnancy rather than any actual concern for the unborn.

no it's about concern for the unborn, and insuring their rights and protections remain.

NuMarvel

markodaly wrote: »

Laws are easily change but the constitution is not. As I said, there is no protection for the unborn if the 8th is repealed, so a law could be brought in where anyone can abort a baby up to the day before they are due for any reason.

The number of countries in the world where the law allows this can be counted on one hand. There is no basis to believe that Ireland would join them, especially given our record of hesitancy in changing abortion laws even when constitutionally permitted.

markodaly wrote: »

People do not trust the politicians as much you think they do. So, there should be an additional amendment protecting the life of the unborn, from 12 weeks.

Saying, leave it in the hands of future politicians is not good enough.

People don't mistrust politicians as much as you think either. There's nothing legally stopping politicians closing the public health system tomorrow and telling people to pay for their own care. But no one's advocating for a constitutional amendment to prevent that, are they? And that's because it's not bloody likely.

I said before there was no logical or rational reason to keep abortion in the constitution, and that point still stands. The best people can put forward is scaremongering or extreme hypotheticals, and I don't think that's enough of a reason to constitutionalise the matter.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

because the unborn have a right to live.

That right is already subject to a number of exceptions, eg a woman's' freedom to travel for an abortion elsewhere. At the very least, a woman's right to bodily autonomy early in the pregnancy should have the same status as being able to get on a boat or a plane.

thee glitz

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nope the 'personal responsibility' phrase was yours. Care to clarify?

You said 'personal irresponsibility'.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveller

:rolleyes: this is a common English language phrase, I am not buying into your claim to not know what it means.

I'm genuinely not sure what you're accusing me of - being a commie sympathiser? Fellow travellers certainly aren't 'mine'... gonna let that one go. I don't buy your claim for requirement of clarity over 'personal responsibility', but anyway

https://www.wikiquote.org/wiki/Personal_responsibility

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Again the low opinion of women.

What is the evidence for your rush to judgment?

Well, hands up, I dont have any - but it's not a far stretch to believe that the kind of person who would seek a lifestyle choice abortion may not be the best to person raise a child.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Based on what exactly? 5apart from the law which ca be changed).
Because if it is that self evident, then why aren't there autopsies every time a woman has a miscarriage?
It seems to be more about preventing a woman from deciding about her own pregnancy rather than any actual concern for the unborn.

no it's about concern for the unborn, and insuring their rights and protections remain.

So women who drink too much can be arrested?
Or smokers?
Or women who go horse riding or eevn cycling and have an accident - what about the rights of their unborn? Zilch?

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

no it's about concern for the unborn, and insuring their rights and protections remain.

There's one thing about that. The rights and protections didn't exist within law or constitution until the 8th amendment brought them into existance in 1983. Until then, as there was nothing specific in law referring to such rights, the only protection here was by default, due to abortions being illegal here.

So it seems, remarkably, neither the state nor the church seemed to be aware of the lack of rights and protection until the debate about abortion got really going here and it became an issue for the state and it's voting citizens. Here ends, my involvement in this particular abortion V the 8th rights issue, as I'm posting in another thread on the same issue here.

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

That right is already subject to a number of exceptions, eg a woman's' freedom to travel for an abortion elsewhere. At the very least, a woman's right to bodily autonomy early in the pregnancy should have the same status as being able to get on a boat or a plane.

a woman's right to bodily autonomy does have the same status as being able to get on a boat or a plane. however where a woman's decisian effects the right to life of the unborn then that life has to be protected bar extreme circumstances.

volchitsa wrote: »

So women who drink too much can be arrested?
Or smokers?
Or women who go horse riding or eevn cycling and have an accident - what about the rights of their unborn? Zilch?

someone going horse riding and being involved in an accident is irrelevant to the discussion. there are many who believe women who drink themselves into oblivian, and who smoke during pregnantsy should be arrested yes.

Hotblack Desiato

Edward M wrote: »

I've lived over fifty years, in different times growing up I know, but I've seen young girls going to england all my life, not always their own choice even, forced to by family and uncaring boyfriends who didn't want the stigma or the responsibility at the time.
I've also seen young women, helped by family and their baby's father, sometimes even when the relationship had ended, have and bring up happy children with the mother being happy in the situation they are in.
I just feel that the foetus, which I believe to be a human form, should have to suffer the consequences of irresponsible behaviour that leads to their conception.
I know, you think that's me showing disrespect for women and the choices some make, that's not true though, I presume the amount of abortions would be small percentage wise as compared to birth, but abortion on demand would I believe lead to a small percentage of girls aborting on no more than a whim and the fact that they just can.

I disagree that abortion will become an easy or whimsical decision whatever the law may be.

Women who need support in pregnancy and in parenthood should absolutely get it, and if that leads to fewer abortions then that is a good thing.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

No, they were problems which had to be resolved through the courts because of the amendment, and the end in the miss y case was exactly the debacle predicted some years ago.

The courts ruled as per law,which sets a precedent. That argument is nonsense.

Returning the eight should be replaced with something that gives the Dail the ability to legislate for the first 12 weeks, but after there should be protections for the unborn.