Abortions for only a select few, citizens assembly wide of mark

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I get the strong impression that the Citizens Assembly is told exactly what to think.

Where/why do you get that impression? Didn't they hear equal arguments from both sides?

The results of a public poll and the results out of the assembly are always going to be different because the assembly heard a structured set of arguments and discussions from across the spectrum. People specifically involved in campaigning were removed from the assembly and not invited to address it.

The public hasn't had that benefit, so are naturally going to trend towards whatever arguments they choose to listen to.

Any road, there won't be a question to the public about what kind of abortion will be allowed. Because that's making the same mistake again.

I thought the citizens assembly recommended abortion on request up to 14 or 16 weeks (can't remember which) as well as later times for other reasons (health, etc)

The IT is asking for opinions on abortions a time of up to 22 weeks.

The most debated issue is going to be where the limit sits for abortion on request. I'm happy with 14-16 weeks, but not happy with 24-26 weeks, for example, and I imagine that many people will feel the same - the later that limit goes, the more support will drop.

If and how the referendum (or accompanying legislation) deals with such limits will be crucial.

Grayson wrote: »

The difference between the assembly and your average joe is the amount of education the assembly have on the subject. It goes way beyond the catch phrases that float around. What the assembly proved is that when given the entire facts most people will end up pro choice.

I think that's probably the closest to the truth but the problem is that general public doesn't spend that much time listening to arguments. I have experience of referendums in two different countries and was majority of them are absolute joke and usually decided by people who know very little or nothing on the subject.

Grayson wrote: »

The difference between the assembly and your average joe is the amount of education the assembly have on the subject. It goes way beyond the catch phrases that float around. What the assembly proved is that when given the entire facts most people will end up pro choice.

You're assuming people weren't pro-choice in the first place, and secondly there's also the possibility that people weren't invested in something which had no consequences for them so they weren't ever likely to take it as seriously as a referendum (not that we tend to take referendums seriously in this country anyway, but that's for another thread).

server down wrote: »

Repeal the 8 is just about repealing the 8th. I would be dubious about late term abortions for instance, but the job on the 8th is to repeal a prohibition and leave the legislation to the legislators. The pro repeal movement need to point that out, and they probably need better PR.

Less than 1% of abortions are carried out in the third trimester and when they are, it's a wanted child and something has gone horribly wrong. Nobody is going to decide to just terminate their pregnancy with a few weeks left to go simply because of a change of mind! Vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester

super_furry wrote: »

This referendum is about scrapping the 8th amendment from the statute books. Once that’s done, then look at what replaces it.

I get the impression that, rightly or wrongly, this is being viewed as a referendum on abortion on demand.

I don't know whether it is to the benefit of either campaign to embrace that perception of it or not, or to highlight that it is a much wider-ranging issue than just abortion.

The great fear of the pro-life campaign is that if and when it is removed from the constitution, future legislation will become more and more liberal, and they wonder where that will end up, in particular with regard time limits for abortion on demand. With the extremely conservative 2013 Act still in place - a piece of legislation that would be revised in the future - those fears would be well grounded.

Maybe it is better for the repeal campaigns to emphasise the existing 2013 Act and how conservative it is, or maybe it is better to look for replacement legislation that would deal with abortion on demand and put a limit of 14-16 weeks on it.

I don't know which is the better approach to allay the fears of some who are bothered mainly by the question of time limits for abortion on demand. There is no way to put a 'freeze' on future legislation, but if the new legislation is something that satisfies pro-choice campaigners, maybe that's better than the 2013 Act, which there is no doubt they would want to see revised.

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Do you reckon the referendum will only ask to repeal or keep ?
That means politicians will have to legislate to fill the void.

Ain't none of them wanna do that

The only reasonable option is to replace it with a section that empowers the Dail to legislate.

A straight repeal still leaves us in an uncertain place.
Keeping it leaves us in a ridiculous place.

Being explicit about what is and isn't allowed, is not practical in a constitution. There's a reason why most legislation is 10-20 pages long - because you need to be clear about what you're doing, how it's applied and how uncertainty should be handled.

You can't do that in a constitution. A constitution is broad statements of intent. Legislation then clarifies and empowers that intent.

The marriage equality referendum is a perfect example. A single statement of intent:

"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"

This statement didn't make same-sex marriage legal. It didn't specify how it was to take place, where when or under what circumstances.
Hundreds of pages of follow-up legislation did all that.

Likewise, something like,

"The state guarantees by its laws to defend and vindicate the right to bodily autonomy of a mother in pregnancy, as far as is practicable, while acknowledging the respect and dignity due to the unborn"

...provides a statement of intent without specifically allowing or disallowing abortion on any given grounds. In effect what it does is say, "The mother is a living person with rights, but even though it doesn't have the same rights, we have to be mindful of the unborn child too". It's clear that the intent of the statement is not to allow unlimited abortion at any time during the pregnancy, but to ensure that a woman's rights are duly protected.

Obviously this is not an iron-clad statement I've come up with, just an example. Don't waste your time picking holes in it or telling me why you disagree with it

osarusan wrote: »

Maybe it is better for the repeal campaigns to emphasise the existing 2013 Act and how conservative it is, or maybe it is better to look for replacement legislation that would deal with abortion on demand and put a limit of 14-16 weeks on it.

Then you're just back to a repeat of 1983 again when the 8th amendment was introduced, and there will still be women who are past whatever term limits are placed in legislation who will seek a termination of their pregnancy, whether that be by legal or illegal means regardless.