The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Triceratops Ballet

hey Horseburger!

care to answer:

Would you put a limit on abortion by stating that it should not be available after a particular stage of pregnancy?

Would you allow abortion for every case of pregnancy, where the foetus has no health issues, or would you limit it to circumstances of a fatal foetal condition?

If you were the GP, what would you allow to happen?

horseburger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Really?

Do you also imagine that you don't need to be a doctor to tell when someone should get brain surgery? What about my appendix, when should I be allowed to have that out? Do you prowl the wards reading people's charts, and telling their doctors that they are getting other medical procedures all wrong?

Or is it just pregnant women whose care you think you can butt into, as a layman, and tell them no, they can't have the treatment their doctor recommends? 14 years in jail for that one!

I asked you what your opinion would be, not if you were qualified to give an expert opinion.

NuMarvel

Trasna1 wrote: »

There may be a mood for change, but it is not true to say Yes on the 8th is the only option. Indeed repeal and replace was the preferred option into the CA suggested otherwise.

I'll focus on this part, because I think Zubeneschamali covers the rest very well.

What we are voting on is pretty much what the Assembly recommended. This is how the Assembly's recommendation is summarised on their website:

57% of the Members recommended that Article 40.3.3 be replaced with a Constitutional provision explicitly authorising the Oireachtas to address termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn and any rights of the pregnant woman. In other words, it would be a matter for the Oireachtas to decide how to legislate on these issues.

If the referendum is carried, Article 40.3.3 will consist of the following: "Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy." There is, in effect no difference to what the Assembly recommended and what the Government is proposing.

horseburger

bubblypop wrote: »

thats gas, you actually asked the same question when the poster had answered. In fact you quoted their answer in your post!!

and what does that story have to do with this thread?

I asked in what categories of pregnancy (for want of a better phrase)

I asked if they'd be ok with an abortion of a healthy foetus which would otherwise grow and develop with no complication, or just fatal foetal conditions.

I also asked if they'd support provision of abortion in cases where there is a non fatal foetal condition.

I didn't get an answer that really, I don't think

ohnonotgmail

Trasna1 wrote: »

Theoretical governments actually. Governments get elected on broad manifestos. I've voted for a candidate I dont see eye to eye with fully politically, because voting insists on compromising and ranking your priorities.

If Labour as a minority party in government has succeeded in changing the law to what they wanted to, it would be hard to argue that it was the will of the people when they were elected primarily in response to the economic crisis.

They Constitution is all about tying the hands of future governments, it insists they consult the people instead of making laws to suit their own agenda.

What a no vote actually does, apart from retaining the status quo, is insist the future governments directly consult the people on this issue.

we are having a referendum. how is that not directly consulting the people?

horseburger

baylah17 wrote: »

You asked your question , it was answered and then you post this garbage with a further interrogation.
i have answered all I answering from you, in my personal opinion you are trolling and flaming this thread in order to derail it or have it closed down, that just my opinion, but I will put you om ignore from here on in and advise others to do similarly.

In other words you won't address specifically the different cases you would allow for abortion.

Is it in all cases of pregnancy - of full health, fatal foetal condition, non fatal conditions?

Zubeneschamali

horseburger wrote: »

I asked you what your opinion would be, not if you were qualified to give an expert opinion.

I have already told you that my opinion is that the patient should consult a qualified doctor, and the law should get out of the way of the doctor treating her.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

I asked in what categories of pregnancy (for want of a better phrase)

I asked if they'd be ok with an abortion of a healthy foetus which would otherwise grow and develop with no complication, or just fatal foetal conditions.

I also asked if they'd support provision of abortion in cases where there is a non fatal foetal condition.

I didn't get an answer that really, I don't think

you also didn't answer those questions yourself

Trasna1

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'll focus on this part, because I think Zubeneschamali covers the rest very well.

What we are voting on is pretty much what the Assembly recommended. This is how the Assembly's recommendation is summarised on their website:


If the referendum is carried, Article 40.3.3 will consist of the following: "Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy." There is, in effect no difference to what the Assembly recommended and what the Government is proposing.

Typo in my post, so I agree with you on this. Repeal and replace was the option the political cohort were getting behind until the CA backed a more liberal recommendation. The liberal outcome from the CA was a huge surprise - the CA was only ever intended to give political cover to Enda Kenny to allow him to address the issue without him being seen to lead the issue.

When the CA came out with the liberal recommendation there was an attitude of surprise, but it was grasped upon as a way of settling this contentious political hot potato once and for all by the political class. I think the majority of politicians don't have strong feelings on the issue but are hunting around for what is popular in their area.

blanch152

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the political climate is in favour of more liberal abortion law, it will be because voters are more favourable to more liberal abortion law. These theoretical voters can simply change the 8th to whatever they want at that future time, it doesn't tie their hands in any way.

The only thing the No campaign seem to be trying to guard against is a future government with no mandate who change the law in defiance of public opinion. That certainly doesn't sound like any Irish politician I ever heard of, and our remedy would be the same in this case as in any other - to vote them out and put the law back the way we want it.

Exactly, and that makes the only reasons to vote NO being you want to tie future voters to a particular option and you want to preserve a wholly unworkable amendment in the Constitution.

Societal mores have changed many times through the ages. Who knows, but in 20 years, a future Oireachtas may well vote to ban abortion, based on future scientific knowledge.

ohnonotgmail

Trasna1 wrote: »

Typo in my post, so I agree with you on this. Repeal and replace was the option the political cohort were getting behind until the CA backed a more liberal recommendation. The liberal outcome from the CA was a huge surprise - the CA was only ever intended to give political cover to Enda Kenny to allow him to address the issue without him being seen to lead the issue.

When the CA came out with the liberal recommendation there was an attitude of surprise, but it was grasped upon as a way of settling this contentious political hot potato once and for all by the political class. I think the majority of politicians don't have strong feelings on the issue but are hunting around for what is popular in their area.

i think you would be wrong on that.

perhaps you can answer the question i asked you earlier? Would you be happy for the 8th to be retained as it is?

horseburger

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

What would you answer to these questions Horseburger?

I have a difficulty with abortion in cases where there are no health issues with the foetus/child/ human foetus/ (whatever the term is depending on the perspective).

I think that abortion should be available in cases where the baby has a fatal condition and will not live long, or at all upon birth.

For example as outlined on the episode of Prime Time by Sarah McGuinness of Terminations for Medical Reasons, who spoke of her case where her baby had anencephaly, and there was no chance of life, or even for much length of time.

I also think it should be available in circumstances where there is a risk to life of the mother. It was outlined recently by another poster that if a pregnancy is confirmed it could lead to a condition that is fatal to the mother.

I understand this condition is not covered by current law due to there being a rare occurrence of cases (I think), but I think if there is any risk to the life of the mother, then if abortion is sought that it should be available.

pitifulgod

horseburger wrote: »

In other words you won't address specifically the different cases you would allow for abortion.

Is it in all cases of pregnancy - of full health, fatal foetal condition, non fatal conditions?

You can't just interrogate people and claim to be on the fence while arguing in a solely pro life direction. When asked what arguments on pro choice side you agree with, silence... If you're in fact pro life which I strongly suspect you are, don't pretend to be otherwise.

horseburger

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

you also didn't answer those questions yourself

I had but I deleted the post accidentally and rewrote a reply. I had included the link to the prime time discussion that I referenced in post, but it isn't in the rewritten post

blanch152

horseburger wrote: »

I have a difficulty with abortion in cases where there are no health issues with the foetus/child/ human foetus/ (whatever the term is depending on the perspective).

I think that abortion should be available in cases where the baby has a fatal condition and will not live long, or at all upon birth.

For example as outlined on the episode of Prime Time by Sarah McGuinness of Terminations for Medical Reasons, who spoke of her case where her baby had anencephaly, and there was no chance of life, or even for much length of time.

I also think it should be available in circumstances where there is a risk to life of the mother. It was outlined recently by another poster that if a pregnancy is confirmed it could lead to a condition that is fatal to the mother.

I understand this condition is not covered by current law due to there being a rare occurrence of cases (I think), but I think if there is any risk to the life of the mother, then if abortion is sought that it should be available.

If that is what you believe, you should vote to repeal the 8th, and subsequently lobby your local politicians in respect of restrictive abortion legislation.

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

I have a difficulty with abortion in cases where there are no health issues with the foetus/child/ human foetus/ (whatever the term is depending on the perspective).

I think that abortion should be available in cases where the baby has a fatal condition and will not live long, or at all upon birth.

For example as outlined on the episode of Prime Time by Sarah McGuinness of Terminations for Medical Reasons, who spoke of her case where her baby had anencephaly, and there was no chance of life, or even for much length of time.

I also think it should be available in circumstances where there is a risk to life of the mother. It was outlined recently by another poster that if a pregnancy is confirmed it could lead to a condition that is fatal to the mother.

I understand this condition is not covered by current law due to there being a rare occurrence of cases (I think), but I think if there is any risk to the life of the mother, then if abortion is sought that it should be available.

what about risks to the health of the mother? what if there is a risk of long term injury, would you be ok with it in those circumstances?

horseburger

pitifulgod wrote: »

You can't just interrogate people and claim to be on the fence while arguing in a solely pro life direction. When asked what arguments on pro choice side you agree with, silence... If you're in fact pro life which I strongly suspect you are, don't pretend to be otherwise.

If you don't mind, I will make the observation, that people who were so sure, earlier today, that a foetus isn't human, are now reluctant to concede that they would permit abortion in stages of pregnancy when human status of the foetus is definite - not there was ever any logical doubt about the definitiveness of its humanity.

horseburger

bubblypop wrote: »

what about risks to the health of the mother? what if there is a risk of long term injury, would you be ok with it in those circumstances?

Yes, if there is a risk that the ill health could lead to death.

robarmstrong

Enough of the vagueness, either you're pro-life or pro-choice HB, this has gone on far too long and you've been running in circles. Either out yourself or continue with your posting style until eventually the mask will slip and you'll out yourself down the line.

For someone who's apparently on the fence, you've posted nothing but pro-life material and when pushed on reasons to repeal you gave one.

NuMarvel

Trasna1 wrote: »

Typo in my post, so I agree with you on this. Repeal and replace was the option the political cohort were getting behind until the CA backed a more liberal recommendation. The liberal outcome from the CA was a huge surprise - the CA was only ever intended to give political cover to Enda Kenny to allow him to address the issue without him being seen to lead the issue..

I'm confused by this, because repeal and replace was what the CA recommended. They voted against outright removal/repeal/deletion of Article 40.3.3. This is how the ballots went:

Ballot 1
Option A - Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution should be retained in full.
Option B - Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution should not be retained in full.
87% voted for Option B.

Ballot 2
Option A - Article 40.3.3 should be replaced (i.e. deleted and not replaced).
Option B - Article 40.3.3 should be amended or replaced.
56% went for option B.

As for what it should be amended/replaced with, that was decided in Ballot 3
Option A - Article 40.3.3° should be replaced with a constitutional provision that explicitly authorises the Oireachtas to legislate to address termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn and any rights of the pregnant woman.
Option B - Article 40.3.3° should be replaced or amended with a constitutional provision that directly addresses termination of pregnancy, any rights of the unborn and any rights of the pregnant woman
57% went for Option A.

So the assembly decided against the issue of termination of pregnancy being addressed directly in the constitution. You can call that liberal if you want (though I don't know why you would), but I call it common sense, because we were warned by the AG and others back in 1983 that this would cause trouble, and the last 35 years have proven them right.

Trasna1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i think you would be wrong on that.

perhaps you can answer the question i asked you earlier? Would you be happy for the 8th to be retained as it is?

There are of course some politicians that have strong feelings on the issue, Brid Smith, ivana Bacik have campaigned for years on a pro choice platform. I'm thinking more of figures of the main political parties (labour aside whose stance has always been clear). One could argue that the views of these people have evolved, but it's more likely they've been happy to be pushed around but the prevailing political wind in their area.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote: »

If you don't mind, I will make the observation, that people who were so sure, earlier today, that a foetus isn't human, are now reluctant to concede that they would permit abortion in stages of pregnancy when human status of the foetus is definite - not there was ever any logical doubt about the definitiveness of its humanity.

several people have stated that they support abortion being available regardless of circumstance, so now you're blatantly lying!

what is your argument here? one shouldn't support abortion at all if they don't support it up to week 40? by that standard anyone who thinks that abortion is killing a baby should be out protesting the availability of the morning after pill and the 13th amendment

ohnonotgmail

Trasna1 wrote: »

There are of course some politicians that have strong feelings on the issue, Brid Smith, ivana Bacik have campaigned for years on a pro choice platform. I'm thinking more of figures of the main political parties (labour aside whose stance has always been clear). One could argue that the views of these people have evolved, but it's more likely they've been happy to be pushed around but the prevailing political wind in their area.

some people would say that politicians evolving their thinking would be a good thing. apparently not.

how about you answer the question i asked?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Tipperary animal lover

more like horse shi*e than horse burger me thinks

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

Would you place any limits as to when an abortion can be carried out?

Yes, depending on the context.

horseburger wrote: »

What do you reckon of abortion? Are you ok with it in general?

No. I would prefer they never happened at all. I just do not think making it illegal, or exporting the issue to the UK, is a valid viable or useful way to attain that goal.

horseburger wrote: »

If the foetus is healthy, with no medical conditions, and will grow and develop healthily up to birth and beyond birth, would you allow for abortions in that case?

Yes, within certain time frames.

You really do like vague questions that can only get vague answers don't you? You really need to add context and specifics to your questions if you want anything but the vaguest of answers.

horseburger

blanch152 wrote: »

If that is what you believe, you should vote to repeal the 8th, and subsequently lobby your local politicians in respect of restrictive abortion legislation.

Perhaps Blanch.

There is knock on off placing the responsibility of legislation on public representatives though, in the sense that they very often vote with regard to their political career and not the issue being voted on.

For example Regina Doherty recently saying, that in 2014 she was ignorant of the issues regarding abortion in Ireland.

But she said that the time that she really believed what she had said.

She pretty much made a dismissive comment saying 'women who don't want to get preggers have contraceptives available to them so they should stop whinging'.

In the Irish Times item from 2014, Mary Minihan wrote:

"Speaking to radio station LMFM, Ms Doherty said she understood why political leaders were reluctant to act and said clear legislation would have to replace article 40.3.3 if it was removed. “I’m not sure that the current situation does satisfy anybody. It certainly doesn’t satisfy the pro-choice people, and that’s not a movement that I would be in sync with,” she said.
“Not everybody lives in the black or the white of pro-life or pro-choice ideologies, because there are lots of situations in the middle of the grey areas that when those situations visit people’s houses then they have to make very difficult decisions.”".

"Contraceptives"

Ms Doherty said she also disagreed with the pro-choice view that women in Ireland did not have determination over their own bodies.

“I genuinely and firmly believe that women already have the determination over their own bodies and that’s called contraceptives, so make the decisions before you find yourself in a position where you’re using an abortion as a form of a contraceptive afterwards.”".


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fine-gael-td-backs-colleague-s-call-for-abortion-referendum-1.1912286

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/repeal-campaigners-will-not-accept-a-no-vote-says-minister-1.3430112?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Frepeal-campaigners-will-not-accept-a-no-vote-says-minister-1.3430112

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

Yes, if there is a risk that the ill health could lead to death.

so, no then is your answer?
life long ill health and/or injury to the mother only count if the woman might die?

horseburger

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed they have. please scroll back a few pages.

horseburger

bubblypop wrote: »

so, no then is your answer?
life long ill health and/or injury to the mother only count if the woman might die?

What's your answer to that scenario?