nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Zubeneschamali

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So I would just fear that using such a moving target TODAY would result in parameters that would be out of date in 5, 10, 20 or so years.

This is precisely why any limit should be in legislation, not the constitution. The govt. of the day can then revise it in line with medical advice without a 2 year rigmarole to update the Constitution every time we need to do it.

NuMarvel

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Safer, easier, and quicker, making later abortions less likely.

Zubeneschamali

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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

What has been unthinkable for our politicians since the 90s was to ask the question, because they knew (based on the 90s referenda) they would not like the answer.

Instead they reran the exclusion of suicide in 2002 (and lost again). They are a generation behind public opinion.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

keano_afc wrote: »

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

Unlike other activities which attract criminal sanctions (e.g. purchase of illegal drugs), abortion is the only one for which there is a express constitutional right to travel. So whereas it may be possible for the State to stop someone travelling to buy drugs, it is impossible to do so in regards to having an abortion. The unborn's right to life is secondary to the pregnant woman's right to travel or access information about abortion services elsewhere.

Which begs the question; if a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion at any time, for any reason, as long as she gets on a boat or a plane, can she not have a legislative right to have an abortion in Ireland in circumstances other than where there's a real risk to her life?

volchitsa

padd b1975 wrote: »

Not entirely accurate, one of the victims of the Omagh bombing was pregnant with twins, her family requested and were granted that the unborn twins were mentioned in the list of victims at all times.

Not entirely accurate either : they're mentioned but they're not legally counted.
The youngest official victim is their toddler sister.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

slit its throat throwing its remains on the floor.... you wouldn't think you had just seen a person murdered??

You are making 2 errors here, not even 1.

Firstly you are conflating legal distinctions with moral ones. MORALLY terminating the life of a fetus in the womb at X-weeks or killing it after premature birth at X-weeks are pretty much equivalent. But not in law, as several other users have already pointed out to you like "......." and "January".

Secondly you are also ignoring the difference between a mother choosing to terminate THEIR OWN fetus by THEIR OWN choice........ and some external agent coming in and killing it against her will (be it inside her or not at the time) which very much should be legally and morally abhorrent.

So you are not EVEN comparing apples and oranges here with your little analogy they are that different. I am with the others, you are just resorting to hysterics in your posts on this topic at this stage.

But AGAIN I would add to this that EVERY TIME you keep going to 23 and 24 weeks in order to force emotional weight on your otherwise intellectually bankrupt arguments on this issue. The VAST, near TOTALITY of choice based abortions occur in or before week 12 and certainly by week 16. Yet you never couch your arguments in that reality, going to the almost statistical non-entity of nearly 2 months later in the process.

keano_afc wrote: »

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

keano_afc wrote: »

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

I admit quite a lot of ignorance of law myself so people more informed than I will have to answer this, but do we not police our citizens travelling to other countries to commit crimes quite often? Even if the crime in question is not a crime in the jurisdiction where they are performed?

For example, what is done to people who travel to countries where pedophilia is either legal, or illegal but easily done?

Was there not cases only in the last year or two in the papers (can not remember if it was the UK or Ireland to be honest) of people prosecuted at home for sex crimes against children in other jurisdictions?

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.

The problem there of course is that "lowest age" is a quickly moving target as our medical science progresses. Only yesterday my news feed threw up a story about the successful use of an artificial womb in the treatment of premature born animals.

I genuinely wonder how far off we are from a stage when the woman's womb is not required at all, and a fetus at ANY stage of development can be successful nurtured from premature birth to external survival with relative ease.

So I would just fear that using such a moving target TODAY would result in parameters that would be out of date in 5, 10, 20 or so years.

padd b1975 wrote: »

Not entirely accurate, one of the victims of the Omagh bombing was pregnant with twins, her family requested and were granted that the unborn twins were mentioned in the list of victims at all times.

I am not seeing how this fact means that what the user said is not entirely accurate? They appear to be entirely parallel statements, neither negating anything of the other in any way. What am I missing?

padd b1975

....... wrote: »

You are aware that if you murder a pregnant woman you are not charged with a double murder? Why are you not campaigning that you should be?

Not entirely accurate, one of the victims of the Omagh bombing was pregnant with twins, her family requested and were granted that the unborn twins were mentioned in the list of victims at all times.

oneilla

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.

Wow what an amazing unhinged rant of a post. Ending a pregnancy is not infanticide.

tigger123

frag420 wrote: »

Have you a link for this?

Thanks

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/inside-politics

Well worth a listen.

frag420

tigger123 wrote: »

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

Have you a link for this?

Thanks

tigger123

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

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.

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!?

frag420

thee glitz wrote: »

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

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

A Little Pony

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

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.

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.

Hellrazer

Parchment wrote: »

Im sorry for you and your wifes loss.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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'

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?

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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

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.