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

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

1…3031333536…332

Comments

  • #962
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    volchitsa wrote: »
    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.

    The scope of those rights is Article 40.3.3 though, so unless that article is amended to add references to other rights, actions or whatever than are proposed by the CA (or exist now), they can't be used in the way you describe.

    If they were, the current law on FGM would be unconstitutional.


  • #963
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I can't think of any possible negative, unintended consequence of leaving them in place.

    Reread the sketch of the new article 40 including these clauses from upthread:

    The Oireachtas shall enact law addressing any rights of the unborn, and the lawful availability, in the State, of any services impacting the life and welfare of the unborn.

    This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

    What does the second paragraph refer to? It is literally saying that the Oireachteas shall enact law about the unborn and services affecting the unborn, and that law shall not affect freedom to travel.It is no longer about the right to life of the unborn, since we deleted that.It appears to be saying that no law which deals with the unborn or services for pregnant women can in any way can limit travel.

    So - here are a pregnant asylum seeker and a pregnant woman behind bars for murder. They apply to the courts for leave to travel abroad, because no law barring them from doing so is constitutional.

    Are you sure that isn't what it means? Without consulting the Supreme Court?


  • #964
    keano_afc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Yes it does.


  • #965
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #966
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    keano_afc wrote: »
    Yes it does.

    Sorry, but fetusses are not people in law. Abortion is a crime with a serious punishment, but it is not the same crime as murder or manslaughter. It never has been, it isn't now, and it never will be.

    Ignoring the law, everyone knows the difference between a miscarriage and the death of a child. Even you.


  • Advertisement
  • #967
    keano_afc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I'm a citizen of Ireland. I can only influence what happens in my country.


  • #968
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    keano_afc wrote: »
    I'm a citizen of Ireland. I can only influence what happens in my country.

    But if you believe abortion is wrong, why aren't you campaigning to remove the right to travel for abortion?


  • #969
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    keano_afc wrote: »
    I'm a citizen of Ireland. I can only influence what happens in my country.

    Completely untrue - in the X case the Attorney general applied to the courts for an order preventing a foreign abortion, he got it and and it worked.

    We had to have a referendum precisely to stop him doing that again.

    And the state still claims universal jusrisdiction for murder - something you claim is impossible.


  • #970
    keano_afc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    January wrote: »
    But if you believe abortion is wrong, why aren't you campaigning to remove the right to travel for abortion?

    I believe drug use to be wrong. Should I be standing in Dublin airport preventing people boarding flights to Amsterdam?


  • #971
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #972
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    If you were in Holles St tomorrow (for whatever reason) and while sitting there shooting the breeze with some other lovely folk, spied a man walking over to an incubator, picking up a baby from within it (that had just recently been prematurely born at 23 weeks gestation) unhook it from it's tubes, hold it to his chest and then slit its throat throwing its remains on the floor.... you wouldn't think you had just seen a person murdered??

    Come on now, of course you would and you'd be dialing 999 in a heartbeat. So why, pray tell, should a baby being aborted at that same gestational stage, be considered a non-person? It's location? Is that what makes the difference between them being considered a person or a mere 'blob of biological matter' which the killing of can be considered being aptly referred to as a "medical procedure"? Even when both the mother and the child were of good health?

    Nah. Both are the killing of a human being.


  • #973
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Reread the sketch of the new article 40 including these clauses from upthread:



    What does the second paragraph refer to? It is literally saying that the Oireachteas shall enact law about the unborn and services affecting the unborn, and that law shall not affect freedom to travel.It is no longer about the right to life of the unborn, since we deleted that.It appears to be saying that no law which deals with the unborn or services for pregnant women can in any way can limit travel.

    First up, I created that paragraph. I like it, but I knocked together very quickly. If a constitutional law professional ever uses a wording even vaguely resembling mine, I'll fall out of my chair with surprise (and I might switch jobs too, if it pays well). It's plausible-sounding filler text I inserted to illustrate how I think an amendment in line with the CA recommendation would be done.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    So - here are a pregnant asylum seeker and a pregnant woman behind bars for murder. They apply to the courts for leave to travel abroad, because no law barring them from doing so is constitutional.

    The Oireachtas would not be allowed to enact a law specifically barring travel for the purposes of seeking any services they've legislated for under Article 40.3.3, which might be abortion or other stuff, depending on what the government of the day allows. That doesn't mean they will enact a law giving some additional right to such travel for such services- just that they can't make a new laws against it.

    That won't matter to a person imprisoned for murder, because they're being barred from travel on the basis of a law which is underpinned by unrelated parts of the constitution. They're not being barred from travel because they want to go do something we consider illegal (or maybe legal at the time), they're being barred from travel because they already did something illegal and were convicted of a crime under Irish law.

    That doesn't seem unconstitutional.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Are you sure that isn't what it means? Without consulting the Supreme Court?

    Nope, but so long as the new paragraph 1 isn't worded by an amateur like me based on 5 minutes faffing on his lunchbreak, I can't see this being a problem.


  • #974
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #975
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    If you were in Holles St tomorrow (for whatever reason) and while sitting there shooting the breeze with some other lovely folk, spied a man walking over to an incubator, picking up a baby from within it (that had just recently been prematurely born at 23 weeks gestation) unhook it from it's tubes, hold it to his chest and then slit its throat throwing its remains on the floor.... you wouldn't think you had just seen a person murdered??

    Come on now, of course you would and you'd be dialing 999 in a heartbeat. So why, pray tell, should a baby being aborted at that same gestational stage, be considered a non-person? It's location? Is that what makes the difference between them being considered a person or a mere 'blob of biological matter' which the killing of can be considered being aptly referred to as a "medical procedure"? Even when both the mother and the child were of good health?

    Nah. Both are the killing of a human being.

    Again, hysterics.

    The difference between them is that one is born and one is not. Prematurity doesn't matter here.


  • #976
    frag420
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,161 ✭✭✭frag420


    keano_afc wrote: »
    I believe drug use to be wrong. Should I be standing in Dublin airport preventing people boarding flights to Amsterdam?

    All drugs or just illegal drugs?

    Does alcohol count in your narrow mind? What about paracetamol or coffee?


  • #977
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,014 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    If you were in Holles St tomorrow (for whatever reason) and while sitting there shooting the breeze with some other lovely folk, spied a man walking over to an incubator, picking up a baby from within it (that had just recently been prematurely born at 23 weeks gestation) unhook it from it's tubes, hold it to his chest and then slit its throat throwing its remains on the floor.... you wouldn't think you had just seen a person murdered??

    Come on now, of course you would and you'd be dialing 999 in a heartbeat. So why, pray tell, should a baby being aborted at that same gestational stage, be considered a non-person? It's location? Is that what makes the difference between them being considered a person or a mere 'blob of biological matter' which the killing of can be considered being aptly referred to as a "medical procedure"? Even when both the mother and the child were of good health?

    Nah. Both are the killing of a human being.

    I really see why there was a "March For Science'


  • #978
    Murrisk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 889 ✭✭✭Murrisk


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Sorry, but fetusses are not people in law. Abortion is a crime with a serious punishment, but it is not the same crime as murder or manslaughter. It never has been, it isn't now, and it never will be.

    Some argue that one can't say that it will never a comparable crime to murder, worldwide. But even going at it from a logistic angle, it will not be possible. There are 50-ish murders a year in Ireland. Meanwhile, even if abortion was outlawed internationally, there would still be women in the thousands procuring backstreet abortions every year in Ireland, even the figure dropped from what it is now. Investigating over a thousand abortion cases a year? Yeah, not going to happen. And that's not even considering that it would be difficult to prove. If it's known that a woman was pregnant, procured abortion pills and is no longer pregnant, that still doesn't prove she aborted. She may never have used the pills and may have miscarried. So there a whole layer of complexity right there. It will never be a crime like murder because people realise it is unworkable. I think that's as a big a reason as the moral side of things.

    But, yay, let's go back to the time of backstreet abortions. Woo!


  • #979
    Murrisk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 889 ✭✭✭Murrisk


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    If you were in Holles St tomorrow (for whatever reason) and while sitting there shooting the breeze with some other lovely folk, spied a man walking over to an incubator, picking up a baby from within it (that had just recently been prematurely born at 23 weeks gestation) unhook it from it's tubes, hold it to his chest and then slit its throat throwing its remains on the floor.... you wouldn't think you had just seen a person murdered??

    Come on now, of course you would and you'd be dialing 999 in a heartbeat. So why, pray tell, should a baby being aborted at that same gestational stage, be considered a non-person? It's location? Is that what makes the difference between them being considered a person or a mere 'blob of biological matter' which the killing of can be considered being aptly referred to as a "medical procedure"? Even when both the mother and the child were of good health?

    Nah. Both are the killing of a human being.

    You're like a red top representative on boards.ie, seriously.


  • #980
    Hellrazer
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,013 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hellrazer


    The whole premature baby thing shouldn't really be brought into the argument as long as the upper limit for an abortion is set below the lowest survival age for a premmie.

    I agree there has to be a limit to gestational age in order to make the whole abortion issue a bit more palatable for people.

    My daughter was born at 28 weeks (19 years ago)

    At the time 28 weeks was close to the lowest survival age for premmies. Today its down to around 21 weeks and thats with a whole lot of health problems.

    18 weeks is where the bar should be set at unless the child that is born is completely unable to survive.And that fact is only found out in a later scan or test. Then later abortions should be allowed.

    The UK used to allow abortions up to 28 weeks,then it was reduced to 24 weeks and if Im not mistaken there was talk of reducing it to 20 weeks.
    Not sure its related but it looks like they are reducing abortion on demand gestational age in line with premature survival ages.


  • #981
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Hellrazer wrote: »
    The whole premature baby thing shouldn't really be brought into the argument as long as the upper limit for an abortion is set below the lowest survival age for a premmie.

    I agree there has to be a limit to gestational age in order to make the whole abortion issue a bit more palatable for people.

    My daughter was born at 28 weeks (19 years ago)

    At the time 28 weeks was close to the lowest survival age for premmies. Today its down to around 21 weeks and thats with a whole lot of health problems.

    18 weeks is where the bar should be set at unless the child that is born is completely unable to survive.And that fact is only found out in a later scan or test. Then later abortions should be allowed.

    The UK used to allow abortions up to 28 weeks,then it was reduced to 24 weeks and if Im not mistaken there was talk of reducing it to 20 weeks.
    Not sure its related but it looks like they are reducing abortion on demand gestational age in line with premature survival ages.

    Holland had a policy of not helping babies born before 25 weeks to survive because of the health problems and suffering that they would inevitably endure if they were kept alive. Is that policy still in place?


  • Advertisement
  • #982
    Hellrazer
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,013 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hellrazer


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Holland had a policy of not helping babies born before 25 weeks to survive because of the health problems and suffering that they would inevitably endure if they were kept alive. Is that policy still in place?

    That policy was in place here aswell 19 years ago.Not sure if its still in place though.
    One of the well known maternity hospitals wouldn't resuscitate before 25 weeks.My wifes waters went at 22 weeks. We were "advised" to go to the other well known maternity hospital through their A+E where there was no such rule in place.
    Had our baby been born at 22 weeks they would not have resuscitated and would have just been left to die.As it was she held out until 28 weeks.


  • #983
    Parchment
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,203 ✭✭✭Parchment


    Hellrazer wrote: »
    That policy was in place here aswell 19 years ago.Not sure if its still in place though.
    One of the well known maternity hospitals wouldn't resuscitate before 25 weeks.My wifes waters went at 22 weeks. We were "advised" to go to the other well known maternity hospital through their A+E where there was no such rule in place.
    Had our baby been born at 22 weeks they would not have resuscitated and would have just been left to die.As it was she held out until 28 weeks.

    Im sorry for you and your wifes loss.


  • #984
    Hellrazer
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,013 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hellrazer


    Parchment wrote: »
    Im sorry for you and your wifes loss.

    There was no loss.
    My daughter is 19 and completely healthy.


  • #985
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,211 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    charlietheminxx wrote: »
    Does the endless pro-life v pro-choice debate not seem a bit pointless? You will generally never convince either side to be otherwise because their views on the topic are too radically different.

    Public opinion is changing.

    A few years back it would have been unthinkable that a citizens' assembly would have come to the conclusions that this one did.

    A lot of the anti-choice lobby can't get their heads around this at all, and are screaming about 'bias' etc.

    But it goes to show what can happen when people approach a divisive issue like this in a rational way and consider the facts, rather than empty emotional arguments and pictures of miscarried foetuses.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • #986
    thee glitz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    But it goes to show what can happen when people approach a divisive issue like this in a rational way and consider the facts, rather than empty emotional arguments and pictures of miscarried foetuses.

    What happens is you get people giving opinions on where cutoff limits should be.


  • #987
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    This debate is not like gay marriage debate, make no mistake about that. Its actually more serious than that.


  • #988
    frag420
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,161 ✭✭✭frag420


    thee glitz wrote: »
    What happens is you get people giving opinions on where cutoff limits should be.

    That's like your opinion...man!!


  • #989
    frag420
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,161 ✭✭✭frag420


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    This debate is not like gay marriage debate, make no mistake about that. Its actually more serious than that.

    Just you wait until two married lesbians opt for an abortion...how will you cope, you won't know which one to hate!?


  • #990
    BabyCheeses
    Closed Accounts Posts: 778 ✭✭✭BabyCheeses


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    The child should not be murdered because a moron (in 'normal' abortions) didn't take precautions. Absolutely it should go ahead. It isn't the child's fault his/her mother is a complete idiot.

    And this coming from the guy complaining about a lack of togetherness in the community.


  • Advertisement
  • #991
    tigger123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,593 ✭✭✭tigger123


    The Irish Times political podcast discusses the result of the Citizen's Assembly this week, some great analysis in there.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement