AtomicHorror wrote: » You want the Oireachtas to be allowed to legislate for a travel ban and a ban on access to information on abortion? Why?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » No it's not, women have the choice of where to work, where to go, what to eat, whether to have tea or coffee... women have lots of choice. What they don't have however is the choice of whether or not they should be able to kill their own babies in the womb... and that is a choice that men also don't have either, as were a man to get pregnant in Ireland tomorrow (and that is quite probable given that we have a Gender Recognition Act here) he would be subject to very same laws which women currently are. The fact that he would be a pregnant man and not a pregnant woman would be an irrelevance and that is simply because our abortion laws are framed in such a way as to protect prenatal human beings from being murdered, not on preventing people doing what they want with their own bodies... that is just incidental.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Because leaving those clauses in the Constitution is asking for trouble. The pro-lifers thought their 8th would ban abortion for ever - instead it made abortion legal by accident. If we amend 40.3.3 as suggested, those right to travel and information clauses are unmoored from the right to life of the unborn, who knows what effect they might have on legislation in years to come? The need for them will be gone - clean up. The Constitution has enough crazy crap in it as is.
pilly wrote: » Tbf that could be said about most laws.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » A Little Pony wrote: » You have to give the child a chance. I don't know what is wrong with some people. It is a pretty basic morality question, not a religious question. Morally I can not see any justification for it. why should you get to impose your morals on others?
A Little Pony wrote: » You have to give the child a chance. I don't know what is wrong with some people. It is a pretty basic morality question, not a religious question. Morally I can not see any justification for it.
AtomicHorror wrote: » I can't think of any possible negative, unintended consequence of leaving them in place. Of course that doesn't mean there can be none, but isn't that also true of any amendment we now make to 40.3.3? Can you suggest such a possible consequence in this example? I can immediately see a risk to removing those clauses. I admit, I did consider suggesting a slight rewording of both to more clearly connect them to the new paragraph 1. The CA recommendations certainly don't rule out your approach, either.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Akrasia wrote: » The more changes they make to the constitution, the more likely it is that the referendum will be rejected.
Akrasia wrote: » All it would take is someone to invent some nonsense about the constitutional change giving people rights to travel to Syria to join ISIS, and you'll end up with a bunch of people abstaining because of uncertainty
Akrasia wrote: » The simplest change is the best, by the end of a referendum campaign, we're going to have no shortage of people deliberately obfuscating and muddying arguments to confuse voters.
A Little Pony wrote: » We don't allow slavery in law based on morals. It is forced on people to not allow slavery via law. So you can easily impose morality on people as we see everyday.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » your analogy is flawed. having laws against how we treat other people is good public policy. the only person an abortion affects is the woman involved.
AtomicHorror wrote: » Well we know where this goes next- back to the personhood argument again. Pony will say a foetus is a person, we'll say it's not, or that it's a person with less value than the mother... My take on it is that even if you consider a foetus to be a person it does not matter. Pregnancy is a unique scenario where the rights of a dependent person are in conflict with rights of a provider person. I believe the provider trumps the dependent, and so in the case of pregnancy, mother takes priority. The only good analogies to pregnancy are science fiction-sounding stuff.
AtomicHorror wrote: » ohnonotgmail wrote: » your analogy is flawed. having laws against how we treat other people is good public policy. the only person an abortion affects is the woman involved. ....... wrote: » This post has been deleted. Well we know where this goes next- back to the personhood argument again. Pony will say a foetus is a person, we'll say it's not, or that it's a person with less value than the mother... My take on it is that even if you consider a foetus to be a person it does not matter. Pregnancy is a unique scenario where the rights of a dependent person are in conflict with rights of a provider person. I believe the provider trumps the dependent, and so in the case of pregnancy, mother takes priority. The only good analogies to pregnancy are science fiction-sounding stuff.
A Little Pony wrote: » I take the opposite take on that regarding the provider or dependent. The dependent has the higher moral and righteous argument simply because it has no say, it doesn't have a voice but it is a living being. Those without a voice are more vulnerable.
volchitsa wrote: » I can : what about families taking children out of the country to places where FGM is allowed/tolerated?[/q Or men going to Southeast Asia for sex tourism? They could possibly organize a group visit perfectly openly and legally, because of their right to travel. Ireland could be a centre for organizing sex travel for Europeans Just a thought.
volchitsa wrote: » I can : what about families taking children out of the country to places where FGM is allowed/tolerated? Or men going to Southeast Asia for sex tourism? They could possibly organize a group visit perfectly openly and legally, because of their right to travel. Ireland could be a centre for organizing sex travel for Europeans Just a thought.
me_right_one wrote: » You two guys must be having a laugh. At least some pro-abortionists have the backbone to admit they know they're killing a perfectly healthy separate person. You have to hand it to them, they have guile.
January wrote: » It does only affect the woman who has it. The fetus isn't a separate person, not when it can't survive outside of the womb. It's practically a parasite until it becomes viable and I say that as a woman who has had 4 very wanted pregnancies.
me_right_one wrote: » Could you survive in space? Does that make you less of a person?
me_right_one wrote: » https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Brown At least have the respect to acknowledge that you are ending a persons life.
me_right_one wrote: » Could you survive in space? Does that make you less of a person?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Brown At least have the respect to acknowledge that you are ending a persons life.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » how is Louise Brown relevant? the only difference with her is that she was conceived artificially.
pilly wrote: » Christ on a fcuking cross if I hear FGM once more. I'll say it again and again and again until people drop it.FGM and Abortion-2 completely different issues. I'm not sure what the motivation behind dropping it in every so often is? Currently anyone has the right to travel and go on a bleeding sex crazed orgy wherever they want, again nothing to do with abortion.
volchitsa wrote: » You can keep on repeating it, and other people can disagree, Pilly. They're not the same thing, sure, but the ban on abortion is based on the claim that abortion harms another person, the unborn baby. Since that's the claim, it's logical to compare other situations where harm is being done to other people, and the comparison with FGM or child sex abuse abroad (not just an orgy, to be clear) is in many ways a better comparison than many others that have been made here.Sorry if that annoys you, it isn't meant to. Especially as I wasn't actually comparing the two actions, just suggesting that keeping the law that allows travel to commit something that is illegal here, once abortion itself is gone from the constitution, might possibly lead to the law being used to justify other illegal actions that are tolerated in other countries. Since abortion would no longer be the obvious reference.
