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

Discodog

So much of our bad law results from the constitution. We should throw it out & make a new one fit for this century.

Zubeneschamali

Calhoun wrote: »

It is an outlier actually

It is an outlier because ordinary Irish women have abortion on demand already. The 8th only affects outliers.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

people (to a large degree) are not legally obliged to intervene in those circumstances, even if they arguably have a moral obligation.

The State is required to intervene to protect a real person, but we had two referenda to stop the State intervening to save the unborn.

In the Supreme Court judgement on the X case, Judge Hederman opined that it would be OK to lock women up if they were pregnant and suicidal. The majority of the court disagreed with his opinions (excerpts from Hederman below).

We also had two referenda where the pro-lifers tried to write Hederman's opinion into the constitution, and failed.

The State therefore can be obliged to take positive action to intervene to prevent an imminent destruction of life and one obvious way is by a restraining order directed to any person who is threatening the destruction of the unborn life where known to the State. That can include restraint of the mother of the child where she is the person or one of the persons threatening the continued survival of the life.
...
If this young person without being pregnant had suicidal tendencies due to some other cause then nobody would doubt that the proper course would be to put her in such care and under such supervision as would counteract such tendency and do everything possible to prevent suicide.
...
Suicide threats can be contained. The duration of the pregnancy is a matter of months and it should not be impossible to guard the girl against self-destruction and preserve the life of the unborn child at the same time. The choice is between the certain death of the unborn life and a feared substantial danger of death but no degree of certainty of the mother by way of self-destruction.

From supremecourt.ie

Zubeneschamali

B_Wayne wrote: »

In terms of her being from or not from Ireland, I don't think it remotely matters.

It sometimes matters very much. Most women from Ireland can just hop on a Ryanair flight, there is abortion on demand as in the UK for them.

Non-EU women may have not have visas which allow them into the UK, they are one of the groups who suffer from our ban on abortion on demand, along with the very young, the poor, the very sick and those in institutions.

Zubeneschamali

RobertKK wrote: »

But when there is an abortion, is the woman terminating her life, or that of a human life within her body?

No, generally a doctor does it (unless it is very early days and pills work).

Murrisk

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

All you're trying to do really is get people to say that they agree with women being restrained so that yet more martyrdom can be injected into the debate, as if there wasn't enough of it already.

On this. Earlier in the thread, you said that nobody in the thread was judging women based on their sexual history and behaviour and that people who suggested that it was happening on-thread were being martyrs. A number of posters replied to you with posts from earlier than your post in the thread that directly contradicted your assertion. Have you chosen to ignore this?

Outlaw Pete

volchitsa wrote: »

And since we don't, isn't that evidence that the majority of our society doesn't actually see the unborn as being the equivalent to a born person in the way you have tried to present it?

Men used to legally be able to rape their wives... would you suggest that was evidence that the majority of society was okay with that? Of course not.

If I came at you now with a knife, a bystander would presumably be entitled to hold me down, tie me down if necessary, to stop me, right?

Should we do the same to a pregnant woman who is determined to abort her pregnancy?

Some laws are simply unworkable, doesn't mean that society is okay with the associated crimes taking place, that's where you're thinking is flawed. Women have been jailed for taking abortion pills late into pregnancies, have they not? And men have been jailed for the death of fetuses also. Therefore, it is quite clear that we put value on the life of a fetus as a society. It's poppycock to be trying to suggest that because we don't chain women to beds, we really must therefore be okay with developing babies being killed.

All you're trying to do really is get people to say that they agree with women being restrained so that yet more martyrdom can be injected into the debate, as if there wasn't enough of it already.

Consonata

Calhoun wrote: »

I am accepting that they both are in dire situations and both should be serviced from Ireland.

I am arguing the point that if you put one on a pedestal over another holes can be picked in it. In fact in both cases you could pick holes in them, that is exactly what the pro-life side will do.

This convoluted back and forth we have been doing is just a drop in the ocean of what i see coming. The side that can talk it our rationally has a better shot than the side that goes heavy on the rhetoric.

What holes can you pick in these cases?

Calhoun

Consonata wrote: »

I haven't touched the refugee topic. You are not accepting that her situation (in that she could not leave due to her immigration status) is not similar to other Irish women's status (in that they can't afford to/whatever their reasons may be).

I am accepting that they both are in dire situations and both should be serviced from Ireland.

I am arguing the point that if you put one on a pedestal over another holes can be picked in it. In fact in both cases you could pick holes in them, that is exactly what the pro-life side will do.

This convoluted back and forth we have been doing is just a drop in the ocean of what i see coming. The side that can talk it our rationally has a better shot than the side that goes heavy on the rhetoric.

Consonata

Calhoun wrote: »

Not really under the terms of what has been provided in this thread, we are saying that Ms X case is so important because she was a refugee and was vulnerable in a number of ways.

As folk are focusing on the fact she is a refugee they are differentiating her from the women who cannot afford it. If we start to dig into the refugee question questions will be asked.

I haven't touched the refugee topic. You are not accepting that her situation (in that she could not leave due to her immigration status) is not similar to other Irish women's status (in that they can't afford to/whatever their reasons may be).

Outlaw Pete

B_Wayne wrote: »

If somebody got to make decisions on the behalf of your body, would you be fine with that?

They already do... and yes I am fine with that.

If I want to drink (or take drugs) and drive, there are laws in place stopping me from doing so, but it's my body and so it should be my choice, right... so why can't I? Well, because I might kill an innocent person and therefore we need to have laws in place to best prevent that from happening. The fact that I would be prevented from doing something with my own body (at the same time as I am being preventing from getting into a car intoxicated) would be purely incidental... and the same applies in the case of abortions as our abortion laws are designed to protect innocent human beings from being harmed too and that some people would be prevented from doing what they wanted with "their own body" would also be purely incidental.

Also, we have a Gender Recognition Act here in Ireland now and so men in Ireland can become pregnant (not all, obviously) but if any of the men to which I refer did fall pregnant and they came to the decision that that they wanted to have an abortion... they would be unable to do so given that they would be subjected to the very same laws which pregnant women currently are here.

Calhoun

Consonata wrote: »

Loving these goalpost moves. Great target practice.

Not really under the terms of what has been provided in this thread, we are saying that Ms X case is so important because she was a refugee and was vulnerable in a number of ways.

As folk are focusing on the fact she is a refugee they are differentiating her from the women who cannot afford it. If we start to dig into the refugee question questions will be asked.

I think however, you dont actually want to debate more so label.

Calhoun

Consonata wrote: »

I take it from that that your opinion is that the Pro-Gay Marriage side was not rational.

There you go assuming things, you so want to label me dont you

At the time the argument was very dirty on both sides, both engaged heavily on identity politics of us versus them. I don't believe that will work this time, the issues at hand are nuanced and complex, if we treat it as black and white us versus them no matter what side does it i feel they will lose.

Consonata

Calhoun wrote: »

I think it matters where she is from, maybe not to you or I but to general population it might. The Mrs Y case is horrible but it is an outlier case and we don't really want to bring up the rabbit warren of refugees applying to Ireland even though we share no land border with Europe.

Calhoun wrote: »

I am not treating it as an outlier, the folk who are pushing this as a sign that Ireland needs to change are doing that.

Loving these goalpost moves. Great target practice.

Calhoun

Consonata wrote: »

But her case is not an outlier, you are only framing it so. Both women couldn't leave the country to have an abortion. There reasons are separate, the important point is that they couldn't have the abortion here. It isn't some other-worldly scenario, as frequently women can't just go away to the UK for a weekend to have an abortion. There's waiting lists, time off, familial circumstances, etc.

I am not treating it as an outlier, the folk who are pushing this as a sign that Ireland needs to change are doing that. As they are differentiating it from all the other reasons for it to happen.

Both should be able to be sorted here but they are not.

Consonata

RobertKK wrote: »

A referendum based on the CA recommendations would be hard to pass.

I doubt it. Placing the legislation in the hands of the Oireachtas is better surely than repeal in your opinion. Repeal has a permanence, whereas what the Oireachtas proposed does not, and it has the ability to change over time, depending on public opinion (which is a good thing in fairness.)

Consonata

Calhoun wrote: »

It would be folly to believe however that their is consensus for everything the citizens assembly has advised on.

What will win the day is what ever side is more rational and speak to the Irish people. If we go down the identity politic route again like we did with the marriage referendum, it might not go the right way.

I take it from that that your opinion is that the Pro-Gay Marriage side was not rational.

Consonata

Calhoun wrote: »

The case of socio-economic problem is something that i would say happens on a regular occurence there for it is common. Ms Y's case as i said is an outlier, meaning it is unique and the chances of it happening again are slim when we compare it to the former problem.

But her case is not an outlier, you are only framing it so. Both women couldn't leave the country to have an abortion. There reasons are separate, the important point is that they couldn't have the abortion here. It isn't some other-worldly scenario, as frequently women can't just go away to the UK for a weekend to have an abortion. There's waiting lists, time off, familial circumstances, etc.

Calhoun

Consonata wrote: »

The point is that it isn't law though. People aren't after keeping the status quo in this situation, in fact as far as I'm aware, retain in its entirety is only at like 15% polling wise. That suggests less a split, and more a consensus that something needs to change somewhere.

It would be folly to believe however that their is consensus for everything the citizens assembly has advised on.

What will win the day is what ever side is more rational and speak to the Irish people. If we go down the identity politic route again like we did with the marriage referendum, it might not go the right way.

RobertKK

Consonata wrote: »

The point is that it isn't law though. People aren't after keeping the status quo in this situation, in fact as far as I'm aware, retain in its entirety is only at like 15% polling wise. That suggests less a split, and more a consensus that something needs to change somewhere.

A referendum based on the CA recommendations would be hard to pass.

Consonata

RobertKK wrote: »

Society is split, things being law doesn't mean it is right, in the past many things that were wrong were legal.

The point is that it isn't law though. People aren't after keeping the status quo in this situation, in fact as far as I'm aware, retain in its entirety is only at like 15% polling wise. That suggests less a split, and more a consensus that something needs to change somewhere.

Calhoun

Consonata wrote: »

How does it remotely relate to identity politics though? You have the case of the refugee, who can't leave due to her status in the country, and you have the lady who can't afford to leave due to socio-economic reasons.

Both women have an impediment to leaving the country which they cannot control, unless you are going to defer to some "bootstrap" logic. You have accepted that the case in terms of Mrs. Y was a terrible situation, yet do not accept that this situation is not unique. You are not being consistent with your outrage.

Due to the fact you referred to pro-choice supporters as "self righteous know it all pro-choice folk who look down on the little people in scorn." and then went on to comment that people should "lose the condescending attitudes we might have an actual discussion."

The original video which we were discussing was related to identity politics.

The case of socio-economic problem is something that i would say happens on a regular occurence there for it is common. Ms Y's case as i said is an outlier, meaning it is unique and the chances of it happening again are slim when we compare it to the former problem.

The reason i was saying we shouldnt overly focus on the Ms Y case is because it throws up the arguments on refugee status ect which distracts from the important part of the discussion which is women not being able to get proper care in this country.

Due to the fact you referred to pro-choice supporters as "self righteous know it all pro-choice folk who look down on the little people in scorn." and then went on to comment that people should "lose the condescending attitudes we might have an actual discussion.

I was responding to a poster who was ignoring the discussion taking place at the time and engaging in similar identity politics. However as usual rather than discuss the topic at hand we have a dog pile as its not quite the agenda we want to discuss.

RobertKK

volchitsa wrote: »

If I came at you now with a knife, a bystander would presumably be entitled to hold me down, tie me down if necessary, to stop me, right?

Should we do the same to a pregnant woman who is determined to abort her pregnancy?

And since we don't, isn't that evidence that the majority of our society doesn't actually see the unborn as being the equivalent to a born person in the way you have tried to present it?

People would more than likely run away from a person threatening with a knife.

Do women advertise they are going to have an abortion? Are they as obvious as a person attacking with a knife?

Society is split, things being law doesn't mean it is right, in the past many things that were wrong were legal.

Consonata

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Can somebody answer this for me. Should we see a referendum on this in the next few years?

There seems to be will in Fine Gael for it to be next year, once the Citizens Assembly report goes into committee next October.

I would be willing to bet that end of '17/beginning of '18, we'll have an idea when the referendum will be.

Consonata

Calhoun wrote: »

Let me break it down for you, what happened to her in terms of the rape ect was terrible, if the reason she couldnt have an abortion abroad was because our authorities wouldnt allow her to leave the country that should not have happened.

However her being allowed to leave the country but not doing so because she might not get back in changes the dynamic. I wasn't aware if this was the case i was going on what you said.

I am not giving you the poor discriminated right wing rubbish, i have been arguing that identity politics shouldnt play a part in this conversation at all. This then became a case of holding the pro-choice to more account than we are pro-lifers. There are crazy folk on both sides as far as i am concerned but for the purposes of today we are only talking about the one that came up.

So again ill ask how is it Ironic? or is it just that you don't agree with what i am saying? Ok thought police tell the good folk of after-hours what they should think.

How does it remotely relate to identity politics though? You have the case of the refugee, who can't leave due to her status in the country, and you have the lady who can't afford to leave due to socio-economic reasons.

Both women have an impediment to leaving the country which they cannot control, unless you are going to defer to some "bootstrap" logic. You have accepted that the case in terms of Mrs. Y was a terrible situation, yet do not accept that this situation is not unique. You are not being consistent with your outrage.

So again ill ask how is it Ironic?

Due to the fact you referred to pro-choice supporters as "self righteous know it all pro-choice folk who look down on the little people in scorn." and then went on to comment that people should "lose the condescending attitudes we might have an actual discussion."

freshpopcorn

Can somebody answer this for me. Should we see a referendum on this in the next few years?

Calhoun

Consonata wrote: »

So on the one hand

and on the other hand we have

I can't keep track of these goalposts. Is her situation bad or is it not? You are simultaneously dismissing her plight out of hand (on what basis I don't even want to know) and then saying that "The Mrs Y case is horrible". You are changing your point to fit your argument, plainly arguing in bad faith.

Oh don't give me the poor discriminated right wing rubbish. Either argue with class or don't bother.

Let me break it down for you, what happened to her in terms of the rape ect was terrible, if the reason she couldnt have an abortion abroad was because our authorities wouldnt allow her to leave the country that should not have happened.

However her being allowed to leave the country but not doing so because she might not get back in changes the dynamic. I wasn't aware if this was the case i was going on what you said.

I am not giving you the poor discriminated right wing rubbish, i have been arguing that identity politics shouldnt play a part in this conversation at all. This then became a case of holding the pro-choice to more account than we are pro-lifers. There are crazy folk on both sides as far as i am concerned but for the purposes of today we are only talking about the one that came up.

So again ill ask how is it Ironic? or is it just that you don't agree with what i am saying? Ok thought police tell the good folk of afterhours what they should think.

Consonata

So on the one hand

Calhoun wrote: »

If your telling me her only reason for not going abroad was that she wasnt sure she would be allowed back into her country of choice for refugee status, its ridiculous.

If she wanted the abortion so badly that she was suicidal surely she would have done anything possible to get rid of it.

and on the other hand we have

Calhoun wrote: »

No i am saying its not wise to build an argument on abortion based upon a refugee. Its a mess of a topic and allot of hard questions not related to the abortion will come out of it.

I can't keep track of these goalposts. Is her situation bad or is it not? You are simultaneously dismissing her plight out of hand (on what basis I don't even want to know) and then saying that "The Mrs Y case is horrible". You are changing your point to fit your argument, plainly arguing in bad faith.

Calhoun wrote: »

Why so because you disagree with what i am saying?

Oh don't give me the poor discriminated right wing rubbish. Either argue with class or don't bother.

Calhoun

Consonata wrote: »

The Irony here is pretty strong.

Why so because you disagree with what i am saying?

Calhoun

Consonata wrote: »

This implies that shes like a customer in a shop and is picking out her favourite from the EU 27 which is faintly ridiculous. You think after coming all that way she is going to jeopardize her status?

No i am saying its not wise to build an argument on abortion based upon a refugee. Its a mess of a topic and allot of hard questions not related to the abortion will come out of it.