Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1
Options
Comments
-
No, because this does not help anyone - just like the old laws criminalising suicide.
I would hope that we work towards a society where the people who feel like they have been forced to take such a drastic step (which I'm sure most wouldn't unless they feel like they have no other option - who wants to order destructive drugs over the internet?) are supported to the extent that they may not need to take such steps.
Because of course when you do lliterally have the child growing within yourself you can't possibly prevent anyone taking a hanger to themselves or ordering pills online like you state. And I feel the 8th provides for these cases that women who are in such tragic/desperate situations where they are contemplating (or to be legally correct in case some picks up on my language - at risk of ) self-harm are given legal abortions in Ireland - I just want to understand how these circumstances arise and what we can do to avoid/minimise them.
But the question for me is not - "prosecute these evil women!!!!" (which if it is not clear, is not my thinking at all) but rather "what can we do to ensure these women are not placed in such a position?" Be that from governmental support for lone parents, additonal susidies for childcare/education or what other supports are identified as being necessary.
With the best will and all the supports in the world, there are still some women who don't want to have children, or don't want to have more children. There is nothing wrong with that, and I don't see how it's anyone's business.
While you're here advocating for extra supports for these women, how many other people are starting threads about dole scrounging single mothers. Your ideas while perhaps well intentioned do not necessarily represent the opinions of the majority, parents and single parents are lucky to get the supports they do from the government and there's a significant section of the population that begrudge them every single penny.Eventually humans may be created in artificial wombs and a lot of the abortion debate will be rendered moot (bodily autonomy etc) - of course even then there will be unwanted pregnancies and rapes and FFA (which again I would be supportive of making an amendment to the 8th to provide for) - but from the outset my view isn't to punish people for making potentially desperate choices, but to seek how to minimise/eliminate the situation from arising.
And that's one thing I think everyone across the spectrum (potentially apart from absolute dogmatic religious types who never want abortions - I haven't met many who fall into this category however) can agree on - we want abortions to be safe and minimised, and when the situation calls for it - easily accessible. We simply have different bars of eligibility to this medical treatment - I feel that the 8th is a good/adequate compromise between the life of the unborn, the mother, her bodily autonomy and the father - you obviously disagree but I haven't been convinced that the alternative discussed (12 weeks abortion on demand or whatever the ultimate legislation may end up as) is a better balance of these competing rights - you probably feel that it is.
I literally couldn't disagree more to be honest, I've said it before and I'll say it a million times if I have to. I do not care about the legislation being introduced. There could be no legislation on the table and I still think the 8th amendment is an abomination. The fact that the constitution of the country I live in reduces the worth of my life to being equal to that of the contents of my uterus is disgusting. I want the same rights in this country as any man living in this country. I want to be able to have the healthcare I want and to refuse any treatment or intervention that I don't. I want my right to bodily autonomy recognised in the constitution and I want to be allowed to be the person who determines the course of my own life. Just like you can. I don't want to end up in a situation where I might have to go to the high court to stop doctors slicing me open, or to force them to give me treatment that I might need. I want the HSE's policy on consent to apply to me regardless of whether I am pregnant or not. Even if abortion is to remain illegal, I want these things. You have them, why shouldn't I?In terms of asking the question I hope you can do me the favour of discussing your rationale in asking it? Is it because you feel that anyone who is against the repeal must hate women or feel like they are baby incubators or property of some sort? From my perspective it is about the balancing of rights - we disagree on where this balance lies but it is simply not the case that this is a view rooted in misogyny or wanting to "punish" women or to wantonly put their lives at risk for the craic etc. Especially when we have such tough cases as rape (probably the worst violation of a woman's body) there better be strong reasons for why one holds the view they do (and not because a book told them so i.e. religous reasons).
If we take away the right to life (or from someone else's perspective ascribe the right to life) to a human being - there must be a good reason for doing so. You must be sufficiently convinced that such reasons exist that one partner can choose to do so for say up to the first trimester - I unfortunately am not.
My reasoning for asking it is because I fail to understand the logic disconnect that exists in people who think we need a constitutional article that makes abortion here illegal, but do not want that law enforced. Abortion is currently illegal in this country and so has a criminal penalty associated with it, however if people don't support the prosecution of those who commit this criminal offence why do we have or need this law? it seems to me to be a completely illogical and hypocritical stance.0 -
I don't see how forcing someone who doesn't want to be a parent to proceed with a pregnancy. and give birth to a baby they do not want, is in anyones best interests.
If women are telling us they cannot give a child the kind of life it deserves, then we should believe them and not force them to.0 -
pitifulgod wrote: »Have you abandoned discussing anything? You seem to run into the thread and then disappear. Eg that man being paid to remove posters yesterday who was most likely a council worker...
The problem is one does answer stuff, then the answer doesn't suit and it is 'you never answered the question', so after a while it becomes reality as one gets bored with the same crap and the need for discussion is lessened as one knows it will lead nowhere.
He said paid to remove No posters...unless you claim council workers are working for Yes...0 -
PlaneSpeeking wrote: »I'd hope not and would instead support the girl but wasn't there case in the North where someone was prosecuted after their flatmate went to the police ?
There is no law saying a teacher (or anyone else) must report something that might or might not be used in a crime later.
The other issue is the problem. As in the X case - not knowing where he stood after the 8th was in place, the father of X asked what the legal situation was, so that the AG was made aware in advance of his plan to take X for an abortion.
Similarly, if someone reports to the authorities that teen Zed has pills from the internet and plans to use them, and officialdom tells the AG...0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »There is no law saying a teacher (or anyone else) must report something that might or might not be used in a crime later.
The other issue is the problem. As in the X case - not knowing where he stood after the 8th was in place, the father of X asked what the legal situation was, so that the AG was made aware in advance of his plan to take X for an abortion.
Similarly, if someone reports to the authorities that teen Zed has pills from the internet and plans to use them, and officialdom tells the AG...
Thank you. This is the issue sadly, the 8th leaves so many unanswered questions and I imagine that if you are dealing with a crisis pregnancy whether it be unwanted, following rape or very much wanted but the foetus will not survive to term - the last thing you want is uncertainty and the possibility of a criminal charge added to your pain.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I would hope that we work towards a society where the people who feel like they have been forced to take such a drastic step (which I'm sure most wouldn't unless they feel like they have no other option - who wants to order destructive drugs over the internet?) are supported to the extent that they may not need to take such steps.
...Be that from governmental support for lone parents, additonal susidies for childcare/education or what other supports are identified as being necessary.
But there is no governmental support that can be made available that is compensation enough for a woman who simply does not want to be pregnant, whether because the pregnancy occurs because of rape, the woman does not want to be a parent, the foetus is already dying, or there is a FFA that means it cannot survive after birth and she does not wish to extend her trauma further than necessary.
Lone parent subsidies, free childcare, whatever; it does not help women who do not want to go through a pregnancy and birth.
I do not. As a woman who is happily pregnant I have no say over what procedures can and cannot be performed on me. I can have labour induced against my wishes. I can have a midwife cut my vagina open during delivery without so much as a by-your-leave. Currently if I fall ill I have no choice over whether or not I can receive treatment; if the treatment may harm the foetus then I don't get it until I am literally dying.We simply have different bars of eligibility to this medical treatment - I feel that the 8th is a good/adequate compromise between the life of the unborn, the mother, her bodily autonomy
I want this foetus to come to term and be born a happy, healthy baby. I do NOT want to be forced to gamble my life on this.
Again you seem to be saying that a man should get a determining say here. Please clarify if you are actually saying that a man should get to decide that a woman should be forced to continue with a pregnancy against her will.and the fatherIf we take away the right to life (or from someone else's perspective ascribe the right to life) to a human being - there must be a good reason for doing so. You must be sufficiently convinced that such reasons exist that one partner can choose to do so for say up to the first trimester - I unfortunately am not.
As someone claiming to be a legal professional I'm sure you are aware that a foetus is not considered a human being in law.0 -
I have to admit as a male that this was my concern at the outset.Of all the arguments for "No"vote, the father's rights is the weakest, but also the most insidious.
It will resonate with a section of the electorate that are convinced everything these days is about women's right and men are been left behind. This will feed this narrative.
But seriously even if you oppose abortion how could you possibly argue that men, as a result of having sex with a woman, can control or influence her body and health care. The sex could have been forced, short term non serious relationship, one night stand whatever.
I'm saying this as a man and a father.
Could anyone please tell me how men's "rights" during a pregnancy could be enforced. How would they be workable.
But it's unworkable.
The woman has to have the casting vote as it's her body.
At the moment that's what happens anyway.
You can't make it 50:50 because then what happens in a tie?0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »So you are posting stuff and then not even reading the first few replies. Good to know.
I suspect Robert has a few on ignore.
Which would be ironic, given his RepealShield nonsense.
No wait, not ironic. Hypocritical.0 -
The problem is one does answer stuff, then the answer doesn't suit and it is 'you never answered the question', so after a while it becomes reality as one gets bored with the same crap and the need for discussion is lessened as one knows it will lead nowhere.
He said paid to remove No posters...unless you claim council workers are working for Yes...
Hang on, Robert. Are you saying that a council worker who has been told to remove illegally placed posters cannot be said to be 'being paid' to do so?
Last I checked council workers are salaried employees. Tomorrow he may be 'being paid' to fix a pot hole. "Why are you painting double yellow lines, man in council uniform?" "I'm being paid to".0 -
Advertisement
-
Because as a prospective father knowing that I will have no legal rights to prevent the abortion of my child affects me personally.
To clarify you are currently expecting or hope to expect in the future? Having a planned pregnancy without consent of the partner/impending mother is a rather bizarre trail of thought.
As a man it's more concerning to have more rights particularly single fathers after the child is born than worry about legal rights of the idea of one.Equally I can't understand that you can't see that if I were to wish to keep my unborn child - there is nothing I can legally do to prevent its destruction if the 8th is repealed. That a father (married or unmarried) has no say in how their child is disposed of is a travesty I am willing to fight tooth and nail against.
There is nothing you can do with it in place as discussed that can happen anyhow it does nothing...Oh except hamper your current /future partner's maternity care but it's about you it appears so you're perfectly okay with that.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »I think we can trust politicians like this doctor to change if the electorate want a far more liberal approach in the future.
Because that is what we pay them to do: represent us.
So it was the electorate's who voted for lax regulation of banks that contributed to the crash and it was the electorate who voted for Anglo Irish Bank to get billions in taxpayers money from borrowing to saddle us with and we have nothing from that bank in return.
The electorate who voted for half of cervical screenings to be sent to Texas?
The electorate who voted for the electronic voting machines that had questions over their security and cost us tens of millions.
The electorate who voted for Irish water and the cost of that and then again worst off.
They do a lot of stuff that people never voted for. Simon Harris at the last election told his voters to vote for him as he is pro-life and will defend the lives of the unborn, but the Leo did too...Is this how one builds trust?0 -
Hang on, Robert. Are you saying that a council worker who has been told to remove illegally placed posters cannot be said to be 'being paid' to do so?
Last I checked council workers are salaried employees. Tomorrow he may be 'being paid' to fix a pot hole. "Why are you painting double yellow lines, man in council uniform?" "I'm being paid to".
Where does it say council worker?0 -
I don't see how forcing someone who doesn't want to be a parent to proceed with a pregnancy. and give birth to a baby they do not want, is in anyones best interests.
If women are telling us they cannot give a child the kind of life it deserves, then we should believe them and not force them to.
Never seen it phrased better than the below (aside from the fact it's obviously from the states, the sentiment stands)
0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »It's gas, you say that as if it is a bad thing, but that is the point.
It's like the No poster (one of the rare inoffensive ones) that says: "If repeal wins, we'll have unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks". I feel like putting up a poster beside it saying THIS! Vote yes!
Lol, yes.0 -
Nothing to do with the referendum, Robert.So it was the electorate's who voted for lax regulation of banks that contributed to the crash and it was the electorate who voted for Anglo Irish Bank to get billions in taxpayers money from borrowing to saddle us with and we have nothing from that bank in return.
The electorate who voted for half of cervical screenings to be sent to Texas?
The electorate who voted for the electronic voting machines that had questions over their security and cost us tens of millions.
The electorate who voted for Irish water and the cost of that and then again worst off.
They do a lot of stuff that people never voted for. Simon Harris at the last election told his voters to vote for him as he is pro-life and will defend the lives of the unborn, but the Leo did too...Is this how one builds trust?
Back to the divide and deflect are we?0 -
Where does it say council worker?
He has been identified as wearing the logo of a company associated with TII who have the remit of road maintenance. So one could say that he is not employed directly, by the council but the work he does is on their behalf.
Regardless, Robert; are you objecting to an employee carrying out legitimate works to remove posters which have been placed at a junction, which is somewhere were posters are not allowed to be placed?dcaee.gov.ie wrote:The Road Traffic Acts contain requirements in relation to maintaining clear lines of sight for road users which may impact on where posters can be placed, e.g. not on road signs, at traffic junctions or on roundabouts where they may cause road safety risks
Why are you not concerned that these posters were placed illegally in the first place? Where was your outcry about the man, not officially authorised to do so, tearing down Yes posters?0 -
So it was the electorate's who voted for lax regulation of banks that contributed to the crash and it was the electorate who voted for Anglo Irish Bank to get billions in taxpayers money from borrowing to saddle us with and we have nothing from that bank in return.
The electorate who voted for half of cervical screenings to be sent to Texas?
The electorate who voted for the electronic voting machines that had questions over their security and cost us tens of millions.
The electorate who voted for Irish water and the cost of that and then again worst off.
They do a lot of stuff that people never voted for. Simon Harris at the last election told his voters to vote for him as he is pro-life and will defend the lives of the unborn, but the Leo did too...Is this how one builds trust?
Robert
We trust politicians from the moment we are born until the day we die to legislate for every single aspect of our lives so tell me what's so different about this?0 -
Because as a prospective father knowing that I will have no legal rights to prevent the abortion of my child affects me personally.
So you do want to be able to force a woman to continue with a pregnancy against her will. That's barbaric.
Ideally the decision to continue or abort should be reached mutually, but if a couple cannot agree then someone has to have the deciding vote, and it is only right that that vote belongs to the person most effected by the pregnancy: the woman.
Maybe one day medical science will allow a foetus to be transplanted into a man or an artificial womb, but until then the person who decides what happens to a woman's body has to be the woman.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »But as a lawyer, you must know that the State, by guaranteeing to protect and vindicate the equal right to life of the unborn, must apply legal penalties of a similar nature as in the case where the woman's right to life is violated. Abortion, while not murder, must carry some similar penalty. Hence the POLDPA has it carrying a 14 year jail sentence.
And if you don't agree that abortion should carry that penalty, you'd better vote yes, or we'll be looking at the Zed case: a teenager up on trial and facing 14 years in jail for taking internet pills.
The AG is Constitutionally obliged to do it, just like in the X case, and then the prolifers will run around and say "We never meant for this to happen!" and we'll have to scramble, as in the 13th and 14th amendments, to apply some botched fix to the botched text of our botch of a Constitution.
That is not true - just like we no longer criminalise suicide (the murder of oneself) I do not believe there is a legal need to provide a equate the crime of procuring an illegal abortion to murder.
And even on a superficial examination of the legislation is question there is a clear difference in how the crime of procuring an illegal abortion and murder is dealt with in Ireland:
Murder carries with it a mandatory life sentence,
Procuring an illegal abortion carries a fine or term not exceeding 14 years.
Your statement is therefore patently false - I don't know if you actually didn't know the difference in law or are pretending not to - taking your statement at face value - you are incorrect - even if a court were to find a person guilty of illegally procuring an abortion the discretion is left to the court (depending on circumstances) to impose a fine, impose a jail term not greater than 14 years or impose nothing of the sort.
Unless you don't trust our judges to exercise their judgement in deciding how each individual case is to be handled then your suggestion above that an illegal abortion carries a 14 year term is completely incorrect.
You are also completely incorrect to suggest that a yes vote is needed on that basis and of your hypothetical Z case.0 -
Advertisement
-
The 8th amendment specifically mandated the government to "defend and vindicate" the right to life of the unborn.
They will absolutely have to prosecute at some point if it's left in.0 -
That is not true - just like we no longer criminalise suicide (the murder of oneself) I do not believe there is a legal need to provide a equate the crime of procuring an illegal abortion to murder.
And even on a superficial examination of the legislation is question there is a clear difference in how the crime of procuring an illegal abortion and murder is dealt with in Ireland:
Murder carries with it a mandatory life sentence,
Procuring an illegal abortion carries a fine or term not exceeding 14 years.
Your statement is therefore patently false - I don't know if you actually didn't know the difference in law or are pretending not to - taking your statement at face value - you are incorrect - even if a court were to find a person guilty of illegally procuring an abortion the discretion is left to the court (depending on circumstances) to impose a fine, impose a jail term not greater than 14 years or impose nothing of the sort.
Unless you don't trust our judges to exercise their judgement in deciding how each individual case is to be handled then your suggestion above that an illegal abortion carries a 14 year term is completely incorrect.
You are also completely incorrect to suggest that a yes vote is needed on that basis and of your hypothetical Z case.
I'm still not following you.
Do you think that having to worry whether you are going to be prosecuted or not, after having an abortion, is a good thing?0 -
I do not believe there is a legal need to provide a equate the crime of procuring an illegal abortion to murder.
I didn't say it had to exactly equate, which should be obvious because it does not exactly equate. It must be comparable to fulfill the states obligations. Other non-law-talking guys have already proposed removing it and this has been explained to them in the Dáil:
The Protection of Life During Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill 2017, introduced by pro-choice TDs from AAA–PBP and the Green Party, proposed to reduce the prescribed punishment for "unlawful destruction of human life" from the maximum 14-year prison sentence specified in the 2013 act to a fine of up to €1. The intention was to provide minimal compliance with the constitutional requirement to outlaw abortion while removing any deterrent effect. The bill was rejected by the Fine Gael–independent coalition, that the bill was unconstitutional as the new penalty would not "defend and vindicate" the unborn's right to life "as far as practicable". Simon Harris, the Minister for Health, said, "The clear advice of the Attorney General, which I am sharing with the House, is that this Bill fails to discharge the State's obligations under Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution and would, if passed, be likely to be subject to immediate successful legal challenge.0 -
Triceratops Ballet wrote: »My reasoning for asking it is because I fail to understand the logic disconnect that exists in people who think we need a constitutional article that makes abortion here illegal, but do not want that law enforced. Abortion is currently illegal in this country and so has a criminal penalty associated with it, however if people don't support the prosecution of those who commit this criminal offence why do we have or need this law? it seems to me to be a completely illogical and hypocritical stance.
Again - I must correct you in saying abortion is not illegal in Ireland. In fact the FAQs at the start of this thread point out a number of abortions take place legally in Ireland every year.
So your initial premise is already flawed - I support the current legal abortion regime in Ireland - and on thinking believe an extension should be possible for certain FFA cases (which again ties into my stance on life and its meaning). However the current referendum is not asking if FFA cases should be included into the 8th, but rather the repeal in its entirety and the proposed legislation will bring in abortion on demand which I do not support - I can only vote on what is presented to me and if the choice is between a flawed 8th or nothing at all I will choose to retain.
If the question changed to extending abortion to specific FFA cases then I would most likely be happy to vote yes on the matter.0 -
-
Again - I must correct you in saying abortion is not illegal in Ireland. In fact the FAQs at the start of this thread point out a number of abortions take place legally in Ireland every year.
So your initial premise is already flawed - I support the current legal abortion regime in Ireland - and on thinking believe an extension should be possible for certain FFA cases (which again ties into my stance on life and its meaning). However the current referendum is not asking if FFA cases should be included into the 8th, but rather the repeal in its entirety and the proposed legislation will bring in abortion on demand which I do not support - I can only vote on what is presented to me and if the choice is between a flawed 8th or nothing at all I will choose to retain.
If the question changed to extending abortion to specific FFA cases then I would most likely be happy to vote yes on the matter.
Which specified cases?
List them.0 -
-
Again - I must correct you in saying abortion is not illegal in Ireland. In fact the FAQs at the start of this thread point out a number of abortions take place legally in Ireland every year.
So your initial premise is already flawed - I support the current legal abortion regime in Ireland - and on thinking believe an extension should be possible for certain FFA cases (which again ties into my stance on life and its meaning). However the current referendum is not asking if FFA cases should be included into the 8th, but rather the repeal in its entirety and the proposed legislation will bring in abortion on demand which I do not support - I can only vote on what is presented to me and if the choice is between a flawed 8th or nothing at all I will choose to retain.
If the question changed to extending abortion to specific FFA cases then I would most likely be happy to vote yes on the matter.
Quick question, why don't you support Irish women to have terminations in their own country?
We know Irish women are having abortions in other countries. & they are constitutionally protected in doing so.
So, why, stop them having them here?0 -
Again - I must correct you in saying abortion is not illegal in Ireland. In fact the FAQs at the start of this thread point out a number of abortions take place legally in Ireland every year.
So your initial premise is already flawed - I support the current legal abortion regime in Ireland - and on thinking believe an extension should be possible for certain FFA cases (which again ties into my stance on life and its meaning). However the current referendum is not asking if FFA cases should be included into the 8th, but rather the repeal in its entirety and the proposed legislation will bring in abortion on demand which I do not support - I can only vote on what is presented to me and if the choice is between a flawed 8th or nothing at all I will choose to retain.
If the question changed to extending abortion to specific FFA cases then I would most likely be happy to vote yes on the matter.
It MAY bring in "abortion on demand" (I hate that phrase, no woman would "demand" one - she'd NEED one).
Not WILL, MAY. Depending on future legislation.
All Repeal will do is mean - for one example - that should I become pregnant I can continue with painkilling medication that enables me to go about my life.
Currently with the 8th, I would be refused them as they can cause birth defects.
That's not Love Both - that's I must suffer for the foetus' benefit.0 -
Advertisement
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »I didn't say it had to exactly equate, which should be obvious because it does not exactly equate. It must be comparable to fulfill the states obligations. Other non-law-talking guys have already proposed removing it and this has been explained to them in the Dáil:
The Protection of Life During Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill 2017, introduced by pro-choice TDs from AAA–PBP and the Green Party, proposed to reduce the prescribed punishment for "unlawful destruction of human life" from the maximum 14-year prison sentence specified in the 2013 act to a fine of up to €1. The intention was to provide minimal compliance with the constitutional requirement to outlaw abortion while removing any deterrent effect. The bill was rejected by the Fine Gael–independent coalition, that the bill was unconstitutional as the new penalty would not "defend and vindicate" the unborn's right to life "as far as practicable". Simon Harris, the Minister for Health, said, "The clear advice of the Attorney General, which I am sharing with the House, is that this Bill fails to discharge the State's obligations under Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution and would, if passed, be likely to be subject to immediate successful legal challenge.
So would you wish to retract your original statement that the Act carries a 14 year sentence? What sort of judge/case would result in a court opting to use its discretion to impose a maximum term penalty of 14 years? I would have to guess it would be some sort of grotesque "illegal abortions for fun/blackmail etc." that pro-choice proponents would rightly castigate as being fanciful enough to be out of touch with reality - the bogey/strawman case of a spiteful woman doing her 10th abortion because she just couldn't be bothered to take the pill instead (and actually - even in that case I couldn't see a judge imposing a 14 year term - maybe this strawman ogre needs to be doing all her abortions in the 9th month for fun or something).
Equally the proposal to change the potential penalty to a fine of 1 euro logically fails as it is no deterrence at all to illegal abortions and to when more serious cases of illegal abortions (though again not to the hyperbolic out of this world scenario I painted above) occurs.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement