Thoughts on the referendum (repost)

Slutmonkey57b

I've moved this post from the trimble thread (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44129&highlight=trimble) so you may need to read my first post in that thread to follow this.

The abortion referendum was held to "clarify" the "confusion" over the implications of the previous referendum and its supposed contradictions with the other parts of the constitution introduced in the early 80's. The result of 1992 was that the people of the country refused to allow the government to illegally detain someone in this country and to prevent them from travelling abroad simply because it was opposed to what they might or might not do *legally* in another jursasdiction.
They assumed that not only did they have the right to make laws in this country, they had the right to make laws and enforce moral judgements upon citizens who were in an entirely different country altogether at the time of the *potential* offence. Regardless of your opinion of the morality of abortion, this is a completely unacceptable way for a civilised society's government to behave.

Replace "abortion" with "smoking hash" and "england" with "amsterdam" and see if you still support the above proscription on your right to travel.

Having been foiled in this fascistness the anti-abortionists then pressured certain politicians into the position that something more needed to be done. (ah shure yez didn't really understand..) It didn't. Ethical guidelines in the Medical Council allowed concientious doctors a back door to opt out if they were asked to perform an abortion for reasons they felt were not justifiable. No doctor, it should be noted, would refuse an abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancy for example. Abortion in general was still illegal, except where the mother's life was considered to be in danger either for justifiable medical reasons or for psychological reasons that might cause her to commit suicide. While Dr. Clare and co are correct that you cannot definantly say someone *will* commit suicide, you can determine that someone is a high-risk suicide case and what the causes of that risk are. Ignoring that risk or assuming that it doesn't exist is the worst kind of head in the sand mentality.

If we had a different prime minister the referendum would not have been held - without Ahern's support for the other's position (even the independants) there would have been no referendum.
This support was given in a large part because of his own personal beliefs. Note that his own personal beliefs on his relationship with Ms. Larkin were at odds with the constitution for a long time but he didn't have the same problems with introducing a referendum to change the constitution in that case.

What was so cynical about the legislation was that it deliberatly contradicted itself in order to confuse the electorate and make both sides think that their position was being supported - something exacerbated by the government's refusal to debate the topic, or to allow the referendum commission to release the necessary background information in the proper time. This was easily seen by the situation of opposing camps on the abortion question supporting the same "yes" or "no" position. It would have meant that a horrendous 12 year sentance (longer than the maximum sentance of 5 years for violent sexual offences you'll note) would have been enshrined in the constitution for anyone involved in any stage of an abortion, willing or otherwise, and prevented this being removed, even by legal challange, except by another referendum - again, a horrendous way for a civilised society's government to behave.

Of the dail's working parties and years of debate and meetings, any potential problems with the current legal situation were highlighted - the government had several clear - cut recommended options that would have given a definative descision on the subject one way or the other had they been put to the people.

Instead it ignored the recommendations of the green paper and hashed together a plan that would have broken the back of the legal process of the country (by removing from the hands of judges the ability to make sentance, and preventing the lawmakers - the dail - from setting the relavent terms of those sentances), criminalised those who may already have been the victims of a crime (in the case of rape, a crime often unpunished or under-punished in this country), and left people's lives at risk by determining when and where they were allowed to receive life-saving treatment (the "approved centres" plan).

I still say - what a cynical peice of legislation, put forward in a cynical and underhanded way.

Victor

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
Replace "abortion" with "smoking hash" and "england" with "amsterdam" and see if you still support the above proscription on your right to travel.

Do you want to look offer your post to make sure the context still works?