Atheist voting No [See mod note in OP]

antiskeptic

spacecoyote wrote: »

You're being disingenuous here. You know that's not what he's saying.

He's saying we should have a constitution, but that the right place to legislate for this subject is not within that constution

He's saying that he's campaigning to have his "dogma" enabled by cutting my "dogma loose" from the Constitution.

He's quite prepared to have the politicians he doesn't trust to legislate in this case, because it suits his book.

So have it in every case or not at all. If suiting your book isn't the true motivation.

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

I would have thought it was fairly obvious that I wasn't suggesting dumping the Constitution by virtue of the simple fact that I didn't suggest dumping the Constitution. It's a bit rich to talk about "all or nothing" belonging to the realms of the extremists, only to follow that up with the suggestion that if you can't have your personal morality enshrined in the Constitution then we may as well not have one.

As for "enshrining cherished ideas" - as I've pointed out before, the Constitution isn't a shrine. And the idea that women should be forced to be pregnant against their will most certainly isn't an idea that I cherish.

See above post of mine

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

He's saying that he's campaigning to have his "dogma" enabled by cutting my "dogma loose" from the Constitution.

No, he's not saying that at all. And it's more than a tad disingenuous to describe wanting women to have control over their reproductive rights as "dogma".

He's quite prepared to have the politicians he doesn't trust to legislate in this case, because it suits his book.

Actually, he's made it clear, in as many words, that he's quite prepared to have the politicians he doesn't trust to legislate in practically every case imaginable.

So have it in every case or not at all.

Absolutely. But that's not the same thing as not having a Constitution, unless you subscribe to the belief that the only reason to have a Constitution is to enforce your personal morality, in which case I'd politely suggest that you check your premise.

Pete29

seamus wrote: »

The PLDPA cannot be further liberalised. The 8th amendment prevents it.

Nope. The 8th doesn't say that "laws shall be made to defend and vindicate", it says that the state:

"guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.".

These two phrases; "guarantees" and "as far as is practicable", place an obligation on the Oireachtas to enact legislation that does everything that is reasonably possible to defend the right to life of the unborn. It doesn't have to be 14 years specifically, but a much lesser punishment would be unconstitutional because it would not be fulfilling the state's guarantee to do as much as it can.

Has there been a Supreme court case which verified this?

Wrongway1985

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whether it's to every car in the land now is open to question. The question is whether abortions increase when on demand.

Could you please explain to me your understanding of 'Abortion on demand' please.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Where to though?

To take responsibility for our women instead of relying on other countries to do so.

antiskeptic wrote: »

For sure. And we have people who are damaged by the abortions they now regret. The point isn't to wheel out extremes. The point is to find out and obtain what we as a society want

But the majority don't, these aren't extremes they are realistically in line with other developed countries.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Abortion is the 007 option. Ejecting the driver from the car as soon as they panic. No attempt to brake, no steering around the obstacle.

The Irish School of Motoring

Unfortunate for the other passengers

That’s a patently absurd observation on your part. Again assuming that everyone are irresponsible slurs who partake in zero family planning. You’re quite the soapboxer there aren’t you.

antiskeptic

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Could you please explain to me your understanding of 'Abortion on demand' please.

Abortion for any reason whatsoever up to 12 weeks. The door opening to possible abortion for any reasons whatsoever up to 24 weeks.

To take responsibility for our women instead of relying on other countries to do so.

Problem 1

In the UK, the numbers of official abortions per year went from 27,000 to 25,000 to 55,000 to 91,000 to 133,000 in the first 5 years after abortion was legalized in 1967.

In other words, the numbers of abortions rose steadily and rapidly from 2.8% the number of live births in 1967 to 14.7% the number of live births in 1971. Why 5 years to achieve such a change? It wasn't that people had to be convinced to turn from backstreet abortions to medically supervised ones. Something changed dramatically in that societies outlook, following legalization.

Problem 2

A vote Yes is a vote for an archaic, confused and inhumane status quo. It merely relocates the rug under which women in crisis are currently being swept to this side of the Irish sea.

But the majority don't, these aren't extremes they are realistically in line with other developed countries.

In the 3rd-5th centuries, when the dark ages where spreading across Europe and Ireland became the last bastion of light, folk here could have made the same argument you make.

I don't consider countries with abortion to be quite as developed as you do. IF most countries around us had rising obesity rates, does that mean we ought follow them?

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

That’s a patently absurd observation on your part. Again assuming that everyone are irresponsible slurs who partake in zero family planning. You’re quite the soapboxer there aren’t you.

Racking up a postcount like that, in the short number of years it took you, indicates quality isn't be uppermost in your thinking.

Overheal

You mean Reality 1: abortions in the UK translated for five years from under-the-table, I recorded, unregulated, to over-the-table, recorded, and regulated.

Same thing happened in the US of course. Looking at the recorded numbers they “shot up” due to the transition from illegal to regulated and then have been in decline ever since. Abortion clinics didn’t just spring up by the thousands overnight, that process took time. The ability to bring those procedures under the regulatory umbrella took time.

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

And it's more than a tad disingenuous to describe wanting women to have control over their reproductive rights as "dogma".

As disingenuous as describing not wanting babies to be killed, so as to allow your particular viewpoint as "dogma"?

Actually, he's made it clear, in as many words, that he's quite prepared to have the politicians he doesn't trust to legislate in practically every case imaginable.

So am I, practically. Just not this one. I'm sure you've got a redline yourself. If not, you'd be happy with the Constitution gone?

Absolutely. But that's not the same thing as not having a Constitution, unless you subscribe to the belief that the only reason to have a Constitution is to enforce your personal morality, in which case I'd politely suggest that you check your premise.

It's a democracy. We have it which ever way we want it, so long as people vote for it to be that way. It doesn't matter a fig what the reasons are.

Wrongway1985

antiskeptic wrote: »

Abortion for any reason whatsoever up to 12 weeks. The door opening to possible abortion for any reasons whatsoever up to 24 weeks.

This is already offered to our women is it not? Info allowed, Travel allowed. If a woman feels see can't continue pregnancy she can have an abortion, no?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't consider countries with abortion to be quite as developed as you do. IF most countries around us had rising obesity rates, does that mean we ought follow them?

How so? Which developed country is the role model to lead by that doesn't have abortion available to those who seek it?

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

You mean Reality 1: abortions in the UK translated for five years from under-the-table, I recorded, unregulated, to over-the-table, recorded, and regulated.

Same thing happened in the US of course. Looking at the recorded numbers they “shot up” due to the transition from illegal to regulated and then have been in decline ever since. Abortion clinics didn’t just spring up by the thousands overnight, that process took time. The ability to bring those procedures under the regulatory umbrella took time.

Regulatory umbrella? Are you suggesting a nation capable of the logistics of the D-Day landings couldn't record how many abortions were taking place in its hospitals for 5 years. That there really was 113,000 in the early years but they went unrecorded.

Or perhaps you suppose a country, with a maternity structure capable of handling 900,000+ full fledged pregnancies-to-live-birth got maxed out by the addition of 27k abortions?

That's a 3% increase in footfall. And a comparatively swift to turn around footfall at that

The other 100,000 turned away from the queues outside the maternity hospitals and headed down backstreets?

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Regulatory umbrella? Are you suggesting a nation capable of the logistics of the D-Day landings couldn't record how many abortions were taking place in its hospitals for 5 years. That there really was 113,000 in the early years but they went unrecorded.

Or perhaps you suppose a country, with a maternity structure capable of handling 900,000+ full fledged pregnancies-to-live-birth got maxed out by the addition of 27k abortions?

That's a 0.003% increase in footfall. And a comparatively swift to turn around footfall at that

The other 100,000 turned away from the queues outside the maternity hospitals and headed down backstreets?

I have no earthly idea why you think an allied military operation and a medical procedure rollout are equivalent in any way.

You suppose that medical personnel and facilities were all just overnight trained and equipped to perform these abortions all across the country, with hundreds of thousands of doctors and nurses and administrators ready and happy to do them? Decades of US history should have dispelled you of that notion.

DarkScar

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

This is already offered to our women is it not? Info allowed, Travel allowed. If a woman feels see can't continue pregnancy she can have an abortion, no?

The Irish state offers abortions in the UK? Where are you getting this information from? Could you share it?
Do we enforce the laws of every other country on earth or do we have or own could you answer also?

Wrongway1985

DarkScar wrote: »

The Irish state offers abortions in the UK? Where are you getting this information from? Could you share it?
Do we enforce the laws of every other country on earth or do we have or own could you answer also?

I'm not sure you are sincere in your post but I'll answer anyway.

Yes we provide in the 13th amendment no restriction on travel specifically in the likely circumstance it is for the termination of pregnancy. In the 14th amendment we specifically do not restrict information on abortion.

The Irish state does allow for abortion I never even mentioned the UK - anywhere it's available our country waves our women off, furthermore 1000 women per year taking abortion pills...absolutely zero prosecuted. The eighth is an absolute sham, don't make more of a mockery of our women by shoving them overseas or have to bleed it out alone in their room.

Do we enforce laws of others or do we have our own - We have our own but certainly have adapted and learned from other countries however as noted we do not enforce criminal sentences upon women who opt for a termination here so why even worry about enforcing the laws of others we don't even enforce our own!

The Golden Miller

Read an interesting opinion piece one of mates posted on Facebook earlier if anyone wants to read it. Comes from a few angles I hadn't really considered before:

"I will be voting NO on the 25th of May. It’s not because I think the current laws around abortion are acceptable. I don’t. The lack of legislation around fatal foetal abnormalities in Ireland is inhumane and inexcusable. The current legislation contained in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 is both too wide and too narrow, poorly drafted, and is a disservice to both the women and the unborn. I also don’t think the right balance has been struck in the Eighth Amendment between the lives of the mother and the unborn. All of those areas of the law in Ireland need serious reform, but, a complete repeal of the unborn’s right to life from the Constitution is not an acceptable answer for a number of reasons.
Firstly, our Government, who work for us and are paid by us, have given us two extremist options on an issue of monumental public importance to current and future generations, where a lot of us stand somewhere in the middle. I am not prepared to accept these ‘all or nothing’ options which attempt to force us to identify as ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’ and simplify a hugely complex issue. There is plenty of middle ground between the current status and a complete repeal of the constitutional right to life of the unborn that has been completely sidestepped. Why are we allowing ourselves to be so limited in our options on an issue of such importance? While I would be FIRST in line to vote YES to a further amendment to Article 40.3 (adding an article 40.3.4) to qualify the life of the unborn, (something desperately needed for the purposes of abortion law, criminal law and succession rights), I can not in good conscious strip all constitutional rights to life from all the unborn. Stripping the Constitutional protection from the ‘unwanted’ (or unviable) unborn will equally strip that protection from the ‘wanted’ unborn of Irish citizens.
Unless we want to allow all future governments unlimited power to legislate for abortion in Ireland in unlimited ways to unlimited gestational time periods…then we don’t want a repeal…we want an amendment. Whether the majority decide the life of all unborn should be protected at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 18 weeks, 24 weeks, etc., is a question for the people and what this referendum should have been about.
The complete removal of a recognised constitutional right will be a first since the creation of the 1937 Constitution of Ireland and would set a worrying precedent. The Constitutionally protected rights to equality, private property, a fair trial, the family, etc, consistently held to be lower in the hierarchy then the right to life, will no longer be on the seemingly unshakable ground they have been on. If you are an Irish citizen this affects you and should be factored in to your vote. I’m not here to, or qualified to, give you a lesson in Irish history and the foundation of the Free State and the forming of the Republic…but suffice to say that ‘we, the Irishmen and Irishwomen of the Republic of Ireland’ weren’t handed our constitutional rights, lives were laid down for them, and we should be very slow and think very hard, before we hand them over.
Along with my disapproval of our Government forcing us to choose from 2 extreme options, I find it deeply troubling that they are implying, or allowing it to be implied, that the removal of the Eight Amendment will only allow for abortion laws to be enacted for the termination of pregnancies up to the 12 week gestational point. There is absolutely no way the current government can bind future unknown governments to this and to allow the public to believe otherwise offends the concept of democracy and is misleading to the point of being suspect. A repeal is a complete removal of the constitutional right to life of all unborn and the future Governments will be free to legislate this area as they choose. I am not prepared to permanently cede that level of power to unknown future legislators.
I am not trying to change anybody’s vote, and I hope you all make use of your right to vote, but I believe that along with that privilege comes an obligation to understand the consequences of your vote. Personally I don’t identify as either ‘pro life’ (life begins at conception) or ‘pro choice’ (unlimited elective abortion to unknown time limits into the future) and I would like to see Article 40.3 amended again to qualify the life of the unborn, as defined by the majority, maintaining Constitutional protection for the unborn from a specified point of the gestational period. While the issue of abortion in this country is huge…something bigger is going on here. I cant help but think we are being ‘led up the garden path’ by our government who are actively encouraging us to vote away one of our most powerful constitutional rights, while also trying to convince us that we are actually gaining rights…they must think we are a ‘special kind of stupid’.
Is the current situation around abortion law in Ireland acceptable? NO.
Are we happy to allow future unknown governments complete control and unlimited power in legislating for abortion in Ireland? NO
Is there any way future governments could be bound by a 12 gestational weeks’ time limit for abortions in Ireland if we vote to repeal? NO
If we repeal article 40.3.3 (inserted by the Eighth Amendment) will there still be constitutional protection for the wanted/planned unborn of Irish citizens? NO
Do we have to be ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’? NO
Are we really stupid enough to vote away one of our constitutional rights? NO. I seriously hope not.
I think we should tell our government, who work for us, who are paid by us, to go back to the drawing board and do their job properly and come up with a better offer then ‘all or nothing’. We want change but we shouldn’t be prepared to hand over a constitutional right to get it when we don’t have to.
Can we amend Article 40.3 by adding an Article 40.3.4 qualifying the life of the unborn (at the gestational time as decided by the majority) instead of repealing Article 40.3.3? YES
Would this mean that the government could legislate for abortion in Ireland up until the gestational time limit as elected by the majority, while also maintaining constitutional protection for the unborn from this point until birth, while also keeping a fundamental right in the Constitution for Irish citizens to rely on? YES
So I will be voting NO to repealing the Eight Amendment on the 25th of May. There is not a single recognised right in the Irish Constitution that I would hand over without a fight. That’s a slippery slope I wont be stepping on to, and I feel I owe it to the next generations to protect the rights the generations before us fought so hard for.
I want change, so, I want to amend."

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

A vote Yes is a vote for an archaic, confused and inhumane status quo.

A vote to amend the Constitution is a vote for the status quo? Have you lost interest in even pretending to make sense?

Macha

So what is your solution for allowing rape victims access to terminations without re-tramatising them?

Because this isn't about the constitution or principles of property. This is about MY life and MY body and what happens to it. All of this abstract reasoning falls apart when it comes into contact with real people.

DarkScar

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Read an interesting opinion piece one of mates posted on Facebook earlier if anyone wants to read it. Comes from a few angles I hadn't really considered before:

A brilliantly argued post. If they'd finalise the draft legislation so I could see what abortion laws we're actually going to get I'd likely vote it into the constitution no bother. Defining what is a human being in the eyes of the state is about as fundamental as a right can be. It simply has to be covered by the constitution, not legislation.

Wrongway1985

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Read an interesting opinion piece one of mates posted on Facebook earlier if anyone wants to read it. Comes from a few angles I hadn't really considered before:

Correct me if I've not captured all the angles

1 - Goverment leading up garden path
2 - Poorly drafted legislation
3 - Protection of unborn not once the mother mentioned
4 - We want something else not this where the suggestion made you can guarantee won't be on table
5 - Join the revolution style forefathers speak

Pretty sure all these have been covered over multiple threads!!

oscarBravo

DarkScar wrote: »

Defining what is a human being in the eyes of the state is about as fundamental as a right can be. It simply has to be covered by the constitution, not legislation.

What other countries' constitutions define what a human being is?

DarkScar

oscarBravo wrote: »

What other countries' constitutions define what a human being is?

Why are you so concerned about what they do in other countries? They have child marriage across half of Africa. We should do that here too?

oscarBravo

DarkScar wrote: »

Why are you so concerned about what they do in other countries? They have child marriage across half of Africa. We should do that here too?

I'll take that as an indignant way of avoiding the answer "I don't know", so: why does the definition of what a human being is have to be in the Irish constitution, specifically? What's so special about Bunreacht na hÉireann that it, alone among constitutions, requires such a definition?

Loafing Oaf

DarkScar wrote: »

The Irish state offers abortions in the UK? Where are you getting this information from?

well more 'facilitating' than 'offering' but here:
https://www.newstalk.com/Six-girls-in-HSE-care-have-travelled-to-UK-for-an-abortion

Charmeleon

oscarBravo wrote: »

What other countries' constitutions define what a human being is?

The constituition doesn’t currently define life or confer rights. The wording says it acknowledges the right to life of the unborn. That means the right to life is a fundemental, non-negotiable and inalienable right afforded to all humans regardless of their status or their esteem in the community.

oscarBravo

Charmeleon wrote: »

The constituition doesn’t currently define life or confer rights. The wording says it acknowledges the right to life of the unborn. That means the right to life is a fundemental, non-negotiable and inalienable right afforded to all humans regardless of their status or their esteem in the community.

That's nice and all, but I'm waiting for an answer from the person who insists it's vital that the definition of a human being be included in the Constitution.

Mark Hamill

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I've had this discussion with you only recently and there is still nothing to say that our abortion rate will increase if we stopped exporting women to the UK to have them.

Hey antiskeptic, have any response to this or have you conceded?

ArthurDayne

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Read an interesting opinion piece one of mates posted on Facebook earlier if anyone wants to read it. Comes from a few angles I hadn't really considered before . . . .

I read this argument from your mate. From the moment he/she said that the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was "both too wide and too narrow" I had a feeling I was about to be subjected to another freestyle logic argument from a No voter. By the time I got to the point where he/she said : "Personally I don’t identify as either ‘pro life’ (life begins at conception) or ‘pro choice’ (unlimited elective abortion to unknown time limits into the future)", that feeling was vindicated.

You see, what your friend has apparently failed to notice is that, by philosophising about adding a certain gestational timeframe for the activation of the right to life of the unborn (which he envisages somehow being collectively agreed among the Irish people), he/she is accepting that the beginning of 'personhood' is not some exact science and is a somewhat murky world of philosophical ethics. If they themselves cannot muster the strength to be definitive on when they believe personhood begins, then where do they find the arrogance to believe that the Constitution should dictate philosophy to the Irish people? Surely, as someone who openly admits to not being sure on their stance towards the gestational timeframe, they feel it more appropriate that this matter is not placed in the rigid grasps of the Constitution -- but rather is made subject to legislation and the courts which will allow for the matter to be considered critically and debated. If this is still an evil outcome -- then surely they would accept it as the lesser of two evils (i.e. a philosophical matter to be debated and interpreted by our lawmakers rather than a constitutional Diktat).

I also find it irritating when people use the 'slippery slope' doctrine illogically. He/she opines that removing the right to life of the unborn will lead to a 'slippery slope' but seems to completely ignore the fact that, by the same logic, amending the Constitution to qualify the right to life of the unborn at a certain gestational timeframe is itself a step down from the current stance and therefore is a slide down the 'slippery slope' which they claim to want to avoid!!

So essentially -- while I find it refreshing that your friend at the very least is thinking independently -- like many voting 'No' their argument is dissonant. If they are unsure when the right to life should begin, then why would he/she have the Constitution dictate it to a woman who finds herself in an unwanted pregnancy?

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

I have no earthly idea why you think an allied military operation and a medical procedure rollout are equivalent in any way.

I was merely countering any implication that there was a problem rolling out accurate recording of numbers availing of the regulated services.

I take it you accept recording as accurate.

You suppose that medical personnel and facilities were all just overnight trained and equipped to perform these abortions all across the country, with hundreds of thousands of doctors and nurses and administrators ready and happy to do them? Decades of US history should have dispelled you of that notion.

1. 3% extra footfall by way of extra normal maternity service is a drop in the ocean. A few years previously, the service handled an extra 50k full delivery footfall.

Leaving aside new procedures for a moment, the load on service by an abortion is a fraction of what it takes to manage a pregancy to delivery.. lets suppose the extra equivilent-to-standard-pregnancy load on service is 1%.

Thats nothing in terms of core infrastructure or extra personnel.

2. The numbers I gave are misleading (although not in a significant sense - the startling ramp up still occurs). Abortion was already occurring in hospitals. That 27k figure in 1967, for example, would have been abortions taking place before the new legislation came into effect.

People were already trained, the infrastructure is there, the extra load negligible.

Unless you can find evidence of queues round the block...

Charmeleon

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's nice and all, but I'm waiting for an answer from the person who insists it's vital that the definition of a human being be included in the Constitution.

I don’t see the argument for that in the last few pages, only the argument that the constituition is there to defend rights against manipulation and expediency by political and judicial actors.

As I said, the constituition does not confer the right to life or define what a human being is, these are fundemental rights that do not have to pass anyone’s self appointed test and are non-negotiable. That is the only thing that stands between us and barbarism.