The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

thee glitz

amdublin wrote: »

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I strongly suspect most medical practitioners treating pregnant women in Ireland basically ignore the 8th amendment and follow international best practice regarding the condition concerned.

I don't know... It's against the law as it stands. Because of the 8th amendment.

Either way:
If they are currently doing it anyway, the 8th must go.
If they are not doing it, the woman must have the choice, the 8th must go.

Would you say that we need abortion on demand, or just that the 8th must go?

hatrickpatrick

The pro-life campaign is screwing up with that "as a doctor, I cannot deny..." ad which keeps popping up online. It's too frequent. I was on one website yesterday reading an article about the Conor McGregor incident last week and they had an ad every few paragraphs, which isn't unusual. But instead of having a bunch of box or banner ads, literally every ad on the page was that god damn video, so in other words I had to hear her say "As a Doctor"... about five times as I scrolled down the article - the videos didn't autoplay until the video was in focus on the page.

This kind of intrusive, over exposure, in-your-face advertising does nothing but annoy people in my experience. The ad itself is insufferable (something about her voice and the whole "I'm an expert, so listen to me" attitude is incredibly grating) but even the best of ads will start to irritate people and cause bad associations with whatever they're advertising if they're so ubiquitous that you're hearing them several times in the space of a few minutes.

They really should have some limit agreed with whatever advertising agency is responsible for spreading the ad online - or use one of the much-maligned cookie tracking systems to ensure that an individual user on the same laptop, in the same browser session, isn't served literally the same autoplaying video ad several times in the space of a few minutes.

That's my view as an armchair/amateur marketing enthusiast anyway. If I was marketing a product of any kind, I sure as f*ck wouldn't do it in a way which was practically certain to piss people off.

bear1

I wanted to come back and vote and almost booked my flight until I checked my voting status and it's not registered.
Gutted by it.
On another note, I read today that those that consider themselves Irish citizens within northern Ireland are planning to appeal to our high court that those in northern Ireland should be allowed to vote.
Now, leaving aside the whole Irish citizenship issue but surely to god allowing another jurisdiction vote in such a referendum would be amazingly stupid?

_Dara_

bear1 wrote: »

I wanted to come back and vote and almost booked my flight until I checked my voting status and it's not registered.
Gutted by it.
On another note, I read today that those that consider themselves Irish citizens within northern Ireland are planning to appeal to our high court that those in northern Ireland should be allowed to vote.
Now, leaving aside the whole Irish citizenship issue but surely to god allowing another jurisdiction vote in such a referendum would be amazingly stupid?

Yes, it would be. And you’d need to fulfill ordinary residence requirements. Citizenship alone isn’t enough. That’s why people shouldn’t be allowed to jet in just to vote but if they’re still registered it’s too hard to police.

But people who don’t live here and have never been registered and who don’t have enough time to establish ordinary residence by the voter registration closing date? Truly hare-brained stuff.

bear1

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0409/953237-referendum-challenge/

Just to post a link to it.

_Dara_

bear1 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0409/953237-referendum-challenge/

Just to post a link to it.

That’s just mad, isn’t it? All the reporting is just about there not being enough time and some mention of residency requirements. Nothing about it being a different country. I mean, do British citizens living in Ireland long-term or who have never lived in Britain get to vote on British matters?

Trasna1

_Dara_ wrote: »

That’s just mad, isn’t it? All the reporting is just about there not being enough time and some mention of residency requirements. Nothing about it being a different country. I mean, do British citizens living in Ireland long-term or who have never lived in Britain get to vote on British matters?

It's no different really than those that come "home to vote". Those citizens that don't live under the Constitution shouldn't have a say imo, so this should be thrown out.

That said, the Good Friday agreement complicates matters. NI residents qualify for Irish citizenship so they can be considered part of the Irish Nation. How the courts interpret the what is the "Irish Nation" would be key. The argument is ropey enough, but could have some merit. If this got passed it would likely sink the repeal campaign with NI being far more socially conservative than RoI or the rest of the UK.

This is not to mention the political crisis that this would precipitate.

_Dara_

Trasna1 wrote: »

It's no different really than those that come "home to vote".

Yes, I know that. I dealt with that head-on in my post. EDIT: it’s my second to last post to the one you’ve quoted. But I’ve already equated the two things.

Unfortunately people who have lived and voted here and who have then left can get away with it as of now if they are still on the register. What the NI woman who took the case seems to want to do is have it so that citizenship alone is enough. Ordinary residence not required. Seems ludicrous to me but they seem to be taking her seriously.

It’s unlikely to get anywhere. The referendum is only six weeks away.

Zubeneschamali

bear1 wrote: »

On another note, I read today that those that consider themselves Irish citizens within northern Ireland are planning to appeal to our high court that those in northern Ireland should be allowed to vote.

Not a leg to stand on, the Constitution, which is the ultimate authority on the matter, is quite clear.

volchitsa

It would open a whole new can of worms - eg I'm from NI and have always held an Irish passport but no longer live on the island of Ireland at all. But if residence doesn't matter, then shouldn't I also get a vote? In which case how to justify me having multiple rights to vote and other Irish citizens having none?

erica74

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This new fact based website by Fiona De Londras and Mairead Enright addresses a number of points in this thread raised by many such as Bertie in Exile

https://aboutthe8th.com/

Facts? Don't be preposterous! Bertie and his buddies deal with overthetop nonsensical hysteria only.

I love how all of a sudden antichoice people are all very interested in the rules around voting and voters returning home and also, in the planning act governing the Repeal the 8th mural in Temple Bar. Oh a building funded by the taxpayer is engaging in a political campaign blah blah blah!!
The referendum will come and go and you won't hear another word from these people about their new found interest in the voter register:pac:

For anyone who missed it http://www.newstalk.com/Together-for-Yes-launch-poster-campaign-for-Eighth-Amendment-referendum

sometimes a private matter needs public support

Co-director of Together for Yes, Ailbhe Smyth, says they want to get facts across with their campaign.

"What we're saying is this is private, this is personal, this is not about sloganeering - this is very much about expressing that sense ofwhat's required here.

"That we need good information, good facts and really for people to understand that sense of the privacy and the very personal nature of the decision that is being made here".

Repeal the 8th.

bear1

Trasna1 wrote: »

It's no different really than those that come "home to vote". Those citizens that don't live under the Constitution shouldn't have a say imo, so this should be thrown out.

That said, the Good Friday agreement complicates matters. NI residents qualify for Irish citizenship so they can be considered part of the Irish Nation. How the courts interpret the what is the "Irish Nation" would be key. The argument is ropey enough, but could have some merit. If this got passed it would likely sink the repeal campaign with NI being far more socially conservative than RoI or the rest of the UK.

This is not to mention the political crisis that this would precipitate.

They are free to vote in our elections but they are not resident within the state, hence why I can't vote and I've spent most of life living in Galway.
I see no reason for a referendum such as this to be tossed around into a jurisdiction which belongs to the UK.
It would be like Ireland having the right to vote on Brexit.
Referendum should and just be contained to those citizens which spend the majority of their time in the south.
I don't seem to recall much noise from the north when we had the Lisbon referendum or the gay marriage referendum.
I'd be terrified that including those in the north would lead to the pro life campaign winning.

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This new fact based website by Fiona De Londras and Mairead Enright addresses a number of points in this thread raised by many such as Bertie in Exile

https://aboutthe8th.com/

The Government’s proposal is that abortion will be available up to viability of the foetus where two doctors certify that there is a risk to the life of the pregnant woman. If all pregnancies can be deemed to be risking the life of the woman, this suggests that there would be practically no restrictions.

amdublin

thee glitz wrote: »

Would you say that we need abortion on demand, or just that the 8th must go?

This is what will happen if the 8th is repealed:
https://aboutthe8th.com/2018/04/04/will-a-yes-vote-lead-to-abortion-up-to-birth/

nozzferrahhtoo

Trasna1 wrote: »

Irish citizens should not return to vote

People who are not legally eligible to vote should not vote. I can certainly agree with you on that much. If a result got over turned because of voter fraud then that would be blood on the hands of anyone who committed that fraud.

Anyone who is eligible should absolutely return to vote however, so you have simply phrased this badly here. The mediation point should be their eligibility, not their physical location. Irish citizens can and should of course return to vote.

Trasna1 wrote: »

furthermore the issue doesn't concern them.

I would say the constitution of the country where they were born, which they may hope to return some day, from where they hold a passport, and to the embassy of which they go to in a crisis, could be said to concern them. And it concerns me to help build the kind of Ireland I would want my children to be able to return to some day.

Maybe it would not concern YOU in that context. But you are not a template for others.

I live in Germany and have done for 10 years so I am not eligible to vote myself. But it would be a mistake to say the election and the result of it does not concern me.

One example of this is the Marriage Referendum Ireland recently had. I was highly involved in this. Including in a project to bus home many eligible Irish voters in the UK. We raised money, put on buses, gave tickets to the buses to said voters at a discounted price (sometimes free depending on their circumstances), and included in the price of the ticket was........ before the buses set off........ a relatively long live debate on the Referendum with speakers invited by both sides to represent them.

The result of that debate, comparing a precount to a postcount, was that most of the undecided were swayed to vote yes and some of the no voters too. I would say in no uncertain terms that the yes side destroyed them in the debate.

There were also a minimum of 5 yes voters who were eligible to vote but not in a financial position to. I personally ensured they got home. So while I could not vote yes myself, there are 5 yes votes in that referendum that would not have been there but for me.

And you think I should not have had any of that influence or concerned myself with it? Not at all. I will always concern myself with it, and no one is going to be stopping me any time soon.

Trasna1 wrote: »

They should campaign for or against abortion in the countries they are resident in.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I campaign for issues here AND in Ireland. And sometimes in countries I have not even visited. I have for example done some work for the FFRF in the US. I have never set foot on US soil and probably never will. We are a global culture now and the idea I should only concern myself with my own locality is an archaic and nonsense philosophy.

thee glitz

amdublin wrote: »

This is what will happen if the 8th is repealed:
https://aboutthe8th.com/2018/04/04/will-a-yes-vote-lead-to-abortion-up-to-birth/

Any word on if spurious mental health claims would be covered by these limited grounds?

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

Any word on if spurious mental health claims would be covered by these limited grounds?

Yes

https://aboutthe8th.com/2018/04/09/will-abortion-be-available-on-mental-health-grounds-post-repeal/

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

One example of this is the Marriage Referendum Ireland recently had. I was highly involved in this. Including in a project to bus home many eligible Irish voters in the UK.

How did you determine if they were eligible to vote?

You could have saved some money and hassle by polling the net voting intention and just sending that many people back. Maybe you did?

Annasopra

I do think it is fascinating that you have people hopping up and down about pro choice people coming home to vote but not the fact that Family and Life has a full time employee in the UK organising people in the UK to come home to vote. Slight double standards.

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

How did you determine if they were eligible to vote?

I would prefer to say so as not to undermine the same cautionary moves in the future by revealing them. Suffice to say it was by no means 100% and a significant quantity of it was taking their word for it. But the measures we did do were random enough and interesting enough that I feel confident the majority were eligible.

thee glitz wrote: »

You could have saved some money and hassle by polling the net voting intention and just sending that many people back. Maybe you did?

I believe in maximizing the number of voters. I believe democracy works better that way. So I would have no interest in your proposed approach. Further since we included a fair representation debate in the price of the ticket, the results of a debate are more honest the more minds the debate is performed to.

Not that the debate finished the moment we stepped down from the podium. A robust and energetic and respectful debate continued on the trip. I would be naive to assume that did not influence some votes en route too.

I believe in, almost to the point of religious worship, the power of human discourse. The most amount of discourse among the most amount of people will generally be the ideal you will find me striving towards.

I am not sure how you are doing your workings however on the maths of merely sending back a proportion of voters. For example if I had in the buses 300 yes voters and 100 no voters, mathematically what representation would you have me send back to Ireland to save time and expense? Not 3 and 1 I hope? Or do you mean I should have just sent back 200 yes voters and left the rest behind?

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

The Government’s proposal is that abortion will be available up to viability of the foetus where two doctors certify that there is a risk to the life of the pregnant woman. If all pregnancies can be deemed to be risking the life of the woman, this suggests that there would be practically no restrictions.

If a woman believes her pregnancy is a risk to her life, and two appropriately qualified doctors agree and say an abortion will mitigate or eliminate that risk, then I am happy to trust that woman and her doctors.

thee glitz wrote: »

Any word on if spurious mental health claims would be covered by these limited grounds?

Spurious claims? No. Mental illness that presents a serious risk to a pregnant woman's health, as certified by two qualified doctors? Yes.

Trasna1

bear1 wrote: »

They are free to vote in our elections but they are not resident within the state, hence why I can't vote and I've spent most of life living in Galway.
I see no reason for a referendum such as this to be tossed around into a jurisdiction which belongs to the UK.
It would be like Ireland having the right to vote on Brexit.
Referendum should and just be contained to those citizens which spend the majority of their time in the south.
I don't seem to recall much noise from the north when we had the Lisbon referendum or the gay marriage referendum.
I'd be terrified that including those in the north would lead to the pro life campaign winning.

I think it would be perverse if NI resident citizens were given a vote similar to the yes campaign shipping in sympathetic former residents of questionable eligibility.

At least my position is consistent, a lot of people here seem to have no problem with non-resident voters participating illegally as long as they are going to vote the "right" way.

Zubeneschamali

thee glitz wrote: »

If all pregnancies can be deemed to be risking the life of the woman, this suggests that there would be practically no restrictions.

I this were true, the 8th would have made no-restriction abortion available after the judgement in the X case in 1992.

But this is not true, as you well know.

Trasna1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I this were true, the 8th would have made no-restriction abortion available after the judgement in the X case in 1992.

But this is not true, as you well know.

But was that not because the 8th amendment gave the unborn a right to life which had to be balanced with the rights of the mother? Without the 8th no balancing of rights would have to occur, and therefore term limits would be set by legislation rather than constitutional restriction.

Correct me if my understanding is incorrect, genuinely.

Zubeneschamali

Trasna1 wrote: »

But was that not because the 8th amendment gave the unborn a right to life which had to be balanced with the rights of the mother?

If a pregnancy was a threat to the life of the mother, abortion is already legal. We have heard endlessly from the prolifers about how the 8th did not kill Savita Hallapanavar for this reason, and that the team just screwed up.

We did not see mass abortion across the Irish medical system as ghoulish doctors jumped at the chance to abort 30 week pregnancies by claiming a threat to the mothers life.

Yet this is what Thee Glitz is "just askin" about with the new law - the idea that the medical profession will lie and say women's lives or health are at risk in order to break the law. Eh, no.

kylith

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If a pregnancy was a threat to the life of the mother, abortion is already legal. We have heard endlessly from the prolifers about how the 8th did not kill Savita Hallapanavar for this reason, and that the team just screwed up.

As we know the 8th killed her because by the time her life was deemed at risk, rather than ‘just’ her health, the infection was already too far gone to save her. If the pregnancy had been terminated when she presented with a prolonged miscarriage she would almost certainly still be alive, but the medical team’s hand were tied by the 8th because there was still a foetal heartbeat.

I would recommend that people who donmt think that the 8th impacts many, many women should have a read of the In Her Shoes Facebook page; there are plenty of stories from women who are having miscarriages where the foetal heartbeat is down to 2/3 bpm (normal is around 130bpm) and are told there’s nothing can be done even though the foetus is doomed, and they have to keep going back for scam to check if it’s totally dead yet.

Trasna1

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I do think it is fascinating that you have people hopping up and down about pro choice people coming home to vote but not the fact that Family and Life has a full time employee in the UK organising people in the UK to come home to vote. Slight double standards.

Whoever you are aiming that remark at, quote them. Fwiw, I made no distinction between the campaigns. Pro life or pro choice, neither should be encouraging illegal activity undermining the process. I voted for SSM but I was very critical of home to vote at the time.

The vote is likely to be tight so I imagine, if a couple of thousand pro lifers flying in swung it, you'd be fairly upset and rightly so. The process has to be fair.

Sofiztikated

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of people, who have no intention of returning to Ireland, voting in any way to influence policy in Ireland.

I get why people do it, but I still think it's wrong. I think it should be representative of the people present within the country on that day.

It sucks for those that have no vote in the country they reside in, but that's an issue between them and their resident country.

But as it's so vague, the left or returning within 18 months, it's hard to police.

JDD

That constitutional case taken by the NI crowd doesn't have a leg to stand on. It's not enough to be a citizen to get a right to vote. The constitution clearly states that you must be a citizen AND be resident in one of the constituencies as set out under legislation. So unless the NI citizens are going to take a case saying that the legislation that sets out the voting districts is unconstitutional then I think they're on a hiding to nowhere. The only people that come out as winners from that case is the instructing law firm.

I agree with the posters from both sides that say those coming home to vote, who do not fit the eligibility requirements, should not vote. I'm sure Timberrrs heart is in the right place, but in my view it's exactly the same as attempting to vote twice. It's voter fraud, plain and simple. Having said that, anyone and everyone who is eligible to vote and is living abroad I would welcome home to vote.

And this whole "abortion will be allowed right up to full term if a doctor says there's a threat to the health of the mother" is nonsense. After 24 weeks it won't be an abortion, it will be an early induction with a live birth. TWO doctors will have to agree on the early induction. The policy paper is admittedly fairly sparse on what constitutes a threat to the health of the mother, but I assume the actual legislation will have more detail on that. It won't be any threat to the health, because there is a threat to the health of any pregnant woman in continuing to be pregnant. That being said, I don't think they'll say that it has to be a serious threat to the health of the mother, because that introduces that ambiguity again. What constitutes a serious threat? One doctors definition will be different to another's. This is when we do get down to the nitty gritty of trusting a pregnant woman and her doctor to make the right decision.

amdublin

Can you help? (Aka...want to see more posters for prochoice?)

Crowd funding has gone live. Wow, achieved goal of €100k in just 4 hours. Are going to keep going to try get to €150k

Can you support?
https://togetherforyes.causevox.com/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=cf1