The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

ohnonotgmail

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

That's a but of a non sequitur as the debate isn't focused around women being forced to have c sections...

you asked a question about how the 8th impacts on womens healthcare. you are told that it can result in women forced to have c-sections. and somehow that is non-sequitar? i can see exactly how this is going to go.

robarmstrong

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

That's a but of a non sequitur as the debate isn't focused around women being forced to have c sections...

It's subtly pointing out that women do not seem to have a say/choice in their pregnancies in Ireland.

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

That's a but of a non sequitur as the debate isn't focused around women being forced to have c sections...

The debate is about repealing or not repealing the 8th amendment, these are consequences of the 8th amendment, they are very much relevant to the debate, it could be argued they're more relevant to the debate than all the back and forth about abortion and when life begins

blanch152

robarmstrong wrote: »

There's a difference, person in the first video was removing a poster that was legally placed there.

The pro-life posters are in breach of an act and are therefore illegal, fair game.

Does anyone have a link to the regulations on posters?

To be fair to the guy taking down the Yes posters, I seem to recall something about minimum height, maybe 8-10 feet above the ground. The fact that he was able to reach them without standing on a ladder may mean they are illegal.

ohnonotgmail

blanch152 wrote: »

Does anyone have a link to the regulations on posters?

To be fair to the guy taking down the Yes posters, I seem to recall something about minimum height, maybe 8-10 feet above the ground. The fact that he was able to reach them without standing on a ladder may mean they are illegal.

even if they are illegal that does not give him the right to take them down. two wrongs dont make a right and all that.

dublin city council rules

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-your-council-register-vote/election-postering

volchitsa

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

NuMarvel wrote: »

FYI, there have a few posters who have started off on that track when it's become clear it just a tactic to wind people up or disrupt the thread. As such, it's hard for the rest of us to separate the genuine posters with questions from the messers, especially when they're new to the thread.

Can I suggest that you expand a little bit more on your own thoughts and position first to help the rest of us understand where you're coming from. You'll probably get better answers too because it'll give us some context as to where your question is coming from.

My understanding was that that after Savita Halappanavar's inquest we have the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which is suppose to st out the circumstances when a woman can have an abortion. Does this not mitigate the health risk argument that is being put forward especially when the risk is as a result of the abortion rather than the pregnancy? In summary, what will repeal achieve that the Act doesn't if the argument for repeal is a healthcare issue?

No it doesn't. It doesn't change the law, which says that the woman's health is not a good enough reason for terminating a pregnancy, even when she is miscarrying. In fact it's not clear that another Savita would be any safer tomorrow than the original one was, and that is largely because the law was not written with her in mind, but was the result of the A, B and C cases in the ECHR (or ECJ perhaps?) which found against Ireland.

The only way that a risk to health can be taken into account is by repealing.
By the way, what do you mean by "when the risk is as a result of the abortion rather than the pregnancy"?

NuMarvel

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

My understanding was that...

A phrase commonly used by posters who turn out to be messers, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

My understanding was that that after Savita Halappanavar's inquest we have the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which is suppose to st out the circumstances when a woman can have an abortion. Does this not mitigate the health risk argument that is being put forward especially when the risk is as a result of the abortion rather than the pregnancy?

The Act sets out the circumstances in which a woman has an abortion. As I described earlier, that's when there's a real and substantial risk to her life. This is not the same as a risk to her health, as the courts said in the X Case.

If doctors think there's a risk to a woman's life, they can carry out an abortion in accordance with the Act. If they think there's a risk to her health, even if it's a serious risk that could result in a life long condition or disability, they can't. She either continues with the pregnancy, or travels overseas if she has the means to do so.

A question for you. Leaving aside what the law does or doesn't allow for the time being, in your opinion, when do you think a woman should be able to have an abortion?

v638sg7k1a92bx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you asked a question about how the 8th impacts on womens healthcare. you are told that it can result in women forced to have c-sections. and somehow that is non-sequitar? i can see exactly how this is going to go.

The debate is not taking place within the context of women being forced to have c sections. For example, if legislation was introduced which addressed your concerns around medical consent, would you still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

Rogelio Tinkling Cue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

The debate is not taking place within the context of women being forced to have c sections. For example, if legislation was introduced which addressed your concerns around medical consent, would you still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

the government cannot enact legislation that is unconstitutional.
therefore the 8th amendment has to be repealed.

NuMarvel

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

The debate is not taking place within the context of women being forced to have c sections. For example, if legislation was introduced which addressed your concerns around medical consent, would you still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

But the 8th has resulted in at least one case where the HSE sought a court order to carry out a c-section against a woman's will. And while the judge declined it in that instance, that's not a guarantee other applications to the courts would have the same outcome.

The 8th isn't just about abortion, it can affect all pregnancies and as has been pointed out to you already, it affects women's capacity to freely give or withhold consent during pregnancy. That can't be remedied without a Yes vote in the referendum.

v638sg7k1a92bx

NuMarvel wrote: »

A phrase commonly used by posters who turn out to be messers, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.



The Act sets out the circumstances in which a woman has an abortion. As I described earlier, that's when there's a real and substantial risk to her life. This is not the same as a risk to her health, as the courts said in the X Case.

If doctors think there's a risk to a woman's life, they can carry out an abortion in accordance with the Act. If they think there's a risk to her health, even if it's a serious risk that could result in a life long condition or disability, they can't. She either continues with the pregnancy, or travels overseas if she has the means to do so.

A question for you. Leaving aside what the law does or doesn't allow for the time being, in your opinion, when do you think a woman should be able to have on?

So if legislation was introduced that facilitated termination in cases where there is a risk to a woman's health would that not satisfy both sides of the debate? I think most rationale people would accept that the mothers health/life should be a priority. Would that type of legislation not mitigate the concerns of pro life advocates who believe that abortion is taking a human life. I think most people who would lean towards an anti abortion position would accept that in circumstances where a mothers health or life was in jeopardy.

v638sg7k1a92bx

bubblypop wrote: »

the government cannot enact legislation that is unconstitutional.
therefore the 8th amendment has to be repealed.

We've amended the constitution numerous times?

Rogelio Tinkling Cue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

We've amended the constitution numerous times?

amending the constitution isn't enacting leglislation.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

So if legislation was introduced that facilitated termination in cases where there is a risk to a woman's health would that not satisfy both sides of the debate? I think most rationale people would accept that the mothers health/life should be a priority. Would that type of legislation not mitigate the concerns of pro life advocates who believe that abortion is taking a human life. I think most people who would lean towards an anti abortion position would accept that in circumstances where a mothers health or life was in jeopardy.

That legislation would be impossible because it would contradict the constitution, specifically the 8th amendment. The 8th amendment impacts all maternity care because of the way it's worded, which is very awkward for the PLC. The 8th amendment needs to be repealed in order to draft the legislation you're in favour of.

v638sg7k1a92bx

NuMarvel wrote: »

But the 8th has resulted in at least one case where the HSE sought a court order to carry out a c-section against a woman's will. And while the judge declined it in that instance, that's not a guarantee other applications to the courts would have the same outcome.

The 8th isn't just about abortion, it can affect all pregnancies and as has been pointed out to you already, it affects women's capacity to freely give or withhold consent during pregnancy. That can't be remedied without a Yes vote in the referendum.

Surely the HSE didn't take out an injunction to to perform a c section just for the craic! I'm going out on a limb here but I would hazard a guess and say that the doctors and staff in the HSE who applied for that injunction were doing so based on their professional judgement. We rely on doctors to make these type of judgements all the time because we recognise that this is part of their job. There are many examples of when doctors carry out procedures in operating theatres or in after serious car accidents where medical consent is not given but we rely on them as professionals to use their professional judgement.

Are we really saying that we need to amend the 8th amendment because a woman may be forced to have a c section against her will, is that really the issue here?

NuMarvel

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

So if legislation was introduced that facilitated termination in cases where there is a risk to a woman's health would that not satisfy both sides of the debate? I think most rationale people would accept that the mothers health/life should be a priority. Would that type of legislation not mitigate the concerns of pro life advocates who believe that abortion is taking a human life. I think most people who would lean towards an anti abortion position would accept that in circumstances where a mothers health or life was in jeopardy.

Before we continue, can I get an answer to my question to you first. Fair's fair

NuMarvel wrote: »

A question for you. Leaving aside what the law does or doesn't allow for the time being, in your opinion, when do you think a woman should be able to have an abortion?

It wasnt me123

baylah17 wrote: »

but I will put you om ignore from here on in and advise others to do similarly.

I already did that to him and thinking of adding few more to the list. If you stop answering their questions, which they just amend and then ask the same think again, under the guise of being on the fence or voting yes BUT....., life can be much quieter.

Repeal all the way - no busy body has any say in my body

v638sg7k1a92bx

bubblypop wrote: »

amending the constitution isn't enacting leglislation.

Misael Echoing Horse wrote: »

That legislation would be impossible because it would contradict the constitution, specifically the 8th amendment. The 8th amendment impacts all maternity care because of the way it's worded, which is very awkward for the PLC. The 8th amendment needs to be repealed in order to draft the legislation you're in favour of.

But rather than having a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment, could a referendum not be held to amend the text and add an article to the constitution that allowed for terminations in cases where the mothers health was at risk?

Would you be willing to accept those circumstances?

v638sg7k1a92bx

NuMarvel wrote: »

Before we continue, can I get an answer to my question to you first. Fair's fair

I don't think it's for me to say when a woman should have an abortion.

I'm actually thinking of abstaining from the vote and from speaking to a few friends and colleagues who are on the fence they're considering doing the same.

Sofiztikated

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I don't think it's for me to say when a woman should have an abortion.

I'm actually thinking of abstaining from the vote.

But its fair to say when she shouldn't?

v638sg7k1a92bx

Sofiztikated wrote: »

But its fair to say when she shouldn't?

I don't believe I said that...

Rogelio Tinkling Cue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Are we really saying that we need to amend the 8th amendment because a woman may be forced to have a c section against her will, is that really the issue here?

we need to repeal the 8th amendment because it restricts the medical treatment a woman is given when she is pregnant.
do you think women should have to go through unneccesary surgery?
do you think women should have to have a pregnancy test before cancer treatment? if it is positive, what do you think happens to that womans medical treatment?
do you think a woman should be left to suffer for days/weeks with a slow miscarraige that could cause serious problems?
do you think a woman should be refused any medical treament because she is pregnant?

do you really think a woman should actually be dying before her treatment is put first?

It wasnt me123

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

That's what I'm asking...

Read the thread, all 5,000 posts and then come and ask your questions. Use the search top right and see what has been said - stop asking the same questions that have been answered time and time again. Spend a bit of time doing your own research if you are that bothered about the subject.

v638sg7k1a92bx

bubblypop wrote: »

we need to repeal the 8th amendment because it restricts the medical treatment a woman is given when she is pregnant.
do you think women should have to go through unneccesary surgery?
do you think women should have to have a pregnancy test before cancer treatment? if it is positive, what do you think happens to that womans medical treatment?
do you think a woman should be left to suffer for days/weeks with a slow miscarraige that could cause serious problems?
do you think a woman should be refused any medical treament because she is pregnant?

do you really think a woman should actually be dying before her treatment is put first?

As I said, if the constitution was amended and a new article introduced which addressed the health concerns that you mention. Would that solution work for both sides?

Ave Sodalis

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As I said, if the constitution was amended and a new article introduced which addressed the health concerns that you mention. Would that solution work for both sides?

Not particularly. There are far too many different valid reasons for having an abortion that we couldn't possibly constitutionalise all of them. Then when we account for rape victims, it's entirely unfair for them to expect to have to go through the legal system before getting an abortion, when that would leave it late term, or too late entirely.

Is there a reason it needs to stay in the constitution at all, when very few countries do?

v638sg7k1a92bx

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Read the thread, all 5,000 posts and then come and ask your questions. Use the search top right and see what has been said - stop asking the same questions that have been answered time and time again. Spend a bit of time doing your own research if you are that bothered about the subject.

I have but it seems that it's either all or nothing for both sides. If it were possible to amend the constitution rather than repealing the 8th but by amending the text or adding an article that gave precedence to the mothers health, would this not be amenable to both sides?

January

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Surely the HSE didn't take out an injunction to to perform a c section just for the craic! I'm going out on a limb here but I would hazard a guess and say that the doctors and staff in the HSE who applied for that injunction were doing so based on their professional judgement. We rely on doctors to make these type of judgements all the time because we recognise that this is part of their job. There are many examples of when doctors carry out procedures in operating theatres or in after serious car accidents where medical consent is not given but we rely on them as professionals to use their professional judgement.

Are we really saying that we need to amend the 8th amendment because a woman may be forced to have a c section against her will, is that really the issue here?

In the case of Mother B, she was making an informed decision to refuse a cesarean based on the fact that she wanted a trial of labour to try to have a vaginal birth. She wasn't refusing a cesarean flat out, we all know multiple cesareans hold certain risks within themselves. In this case the baby was not in distress and there was no indication for a cesarean. Previous cesarean is not indication for repeat cesarean unless there is an emergent situation, of which there was none.

The doctors had no reason to bring her to court, but they felt their hands were tied by the 8th into forcing her into a cesarean because if anything had happened to the baby they could have been found liable. Thankfully the judge disagreed and Mother B was allowed to labour until she consented to a cesarean.

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote:

As I said, if the constitution was amended and a new article introduced which addressed the health concerns that you mention. Would that solution work for both sides?

No because that's not what the constitution is for. The 8th never should have been put in in the first place religious lobbying is what got it there and it has to go.
You can't have 2 constitutional articles that contradict each other either.
It's a moot point anyway because we are having a referendum on the 8th amendment.

NuMarvel

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Read the thread, all 5,000 posts and then come and ask your questions. Use the search top right and see what has been said - stop asking the same questions that have been answered time and time again. Spend a bit of time doing your own research if you are that bothered about the subject.

Just reading the last two weeks would probably be enough, considering how often we get the "I'm just asking questions" brigade.

Thing is, I can understand why someone would daunted by searching through a large thread like this and would just launch right in. It might be no harm doing an FAQ and ask the mods to sticky it to the first post or something. I can have a stab at one next week, but if anyone else wants to give it a go in the meantime, they're more than welcome!

v638sg7k1a92bx

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Not particularly. There are far too many different valid reasons for having an abortion that we couldn't possibly constitutionalise all of them. Then when we account for rape victims, it's entirely unfair for them to expect to have to go through the legal system before getting an abortion, when that would leave it late term, or too late entirely.

Is there a reason it needs to stay in the constitution at all, when very few countries do?

But are we going to start legislating for marginal cases? The primary concern for pro choice advocates seems to be on health grounds. If those were addressed would this not account for the vast majority of instances that people are concerned about. How many women are impregnated as a result of being raped?