The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

....... · 26-04-2017 02:16PM

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali · 26-04-2017 02:17PM

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?

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.

Akrasia · 26-04-2017 02:23PM

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.

Are you opposed to the morning after pill?

What about IFV where more embryos are created than will ever be implanted?

In other words, when is there a 'baby' to be killed?

AtomicHorror · 26-04-2017 02:34PM

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.

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.

AtomicHorror · 26-04-2017 02:36PM

pilly wrote: »

Tbf that could be said about most laws.

Except for the personal responsibility bit, which makes no sense when speaking about law. You don't make people personally responsible for a choice by writing a law denying them the right to choose. All you do is add consequences.

A Little Pony · 26-04-2017 02:38PM

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?

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.

Akrasia · 26-04-2017 02:39PM

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.

The more changes they make to the constitution, the more likely it is that the referendum will be rejected. 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

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 · 26-04-2017 02:41PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Then feel free not to have an abortion.

But leave me to make my own decisions.[/quote]
That is like saying if you don't like murder don't commit one. People aren't just allowed to make their own decisions on multiple things.

AtomicHorror · 26-04-2017 02:47PM

Akrasia wrote: »

The more changes they make to the constitution, the more likely it is that the referendum will be rejected.

I agree, but I'd suggest that entirely removing 40.3.3 and replacing it represents more changes that just replacing paragraph 1.

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

Wouldn't removing those protections sew similar uncertainty in the pro-choice camp? Is it only the pro-lifers who are vulnerable to these tactics?

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.

On this we agree, but I don't think that's sufficient reason to risk dumping protections that were hard fought-for by the predecessors to the modern repeal movement.

ohnonotgmail · 26-04-2017 02:49PM

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.

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.

....... · 26-04-2017 02:54PM

This post has been deleted.

Murrisk · 26-04-2017 03:03PM

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.

Oh, well women actually do indeed have the choice to have an abortion in this country. Not on these shores but thankfully the choice is there. Later along than is ideal though. But still, yeah, the choice is there.

AtomicHorror · 26-04-2017 03:05PM

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.

ohnonotgmail · 26-04-2017 03:11PM

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.

i agree. I'm getting dizzy at this stage

volchitsa · 26-04-2017 03:12PM

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.

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.

A Little Pony · 26-04-2017 03:19PM

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.

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 · 26-04-2017 03:22PM

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.

So whenever there is a conflict between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus, the woman has to take her chances, right? We save the most vulnerable because it has no voice?

Seriously?

(I don't know if you're a male or a female, but I do wonder if you can ever have been pregnant.)

AtomicHorror · 26-04-2017 03:22PM

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.

The rights to travel and information both start with the words "This subsection shall not..."

In other words, no law enacted within the context of 40.3.3 can interfere with those two rights. So no law on the rights of the unborn, or the practice of services impacting the unborn, would be allowed to contravene the rights to travel and information. Any other law could be subject to such bans, depending on the rest of the constitution outside 40.3.3.

There's nothing to stop the Oireachtas from enacting laws against travelling for FGM, and indeed it's already illegal to travel for FGM. I wouldn't support a ban on information on FGM, even though it is an abhorrent practice.

I don't know about sex tourism, but I assume the principle above holds.

pilly · 26-04-2017 03:25PM

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.

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.

me_right_one · 26-04-2017 03:31PM

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.

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 · 26-04-2017 03:34PM

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.

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.

AtomicHorror · 26-04-2017 03:41PM

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.

Why should a person who lacks a capacity to express their opinion have greater rights than a person who is capable? That seems like it would create problems for coma patients and organ transplant scenarios and so forth...

me_right_one · 26-04-2017 03:42PM

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.

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.

AtomicHorror · 26-04-2017 03:46PM

me_right_one wrote: »

Could you survive in space? Does that make you less of a person?

No, because people are not expected to survive in space. What a strange question.

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.

You use that Wikipedia article a lot for different arguments. I'm not sure you've read it, because it hasn't supported any of them yet.

ohnonotgmail · 26-04-2017 03:46PM

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.

how is Louise Brown relevant? the only difference with her is that she was conceived artificially.

AtomicHorror · 26-04-2017 03:51PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how is Louise Brown relevant? the only difference with her is that she was conceived artificially.

I think me_right_one might have still had it in the Windows clipboard from the embyro/foetus transplant fiasco...

Which by the way, did you ever actually admit you'd got that wrong, me_right_one?

volchitsa · 26-04-2017 03:58PM

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.

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.

ohnonotgmail · 26-04-2017 04:03PM

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.

except those sections of the constitution specifically refer to abortion. there is nothing to stop the government introducing legislation that prevents people from traveling to commit offences abroad and they have already done so.

....... · 26-04-2017 04:05PM

This post has been deleted.

January · 26-04-2017 04:19PM

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.

She is a person, because she was born. If she hadn't been born, she wouldn't have been a person.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments