The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

captbarnacles wrote: »

55+

I felt a bit sorry for them as they said they were being told to f**k off at most doors.

My brother campaigned for the Yes campaign in the marriage referendum and lots of people said this to them!

Tigger wrote: »

permutations are what id like to dscuss
but theres a lot of allthe repeal going on
fcuk it i dont vote sobwho cares
im kinda nervous when i take tests

6 options being discussed:

- Simple repeal, just take it out. Then PLPA2013 would be the relevant legislation and more could come later.
- Repeal based on legislation entrenched in the constitution. Would possibly mean future referendums down the road.
- Repeal based on legislation published in tandem with a referendum. Most people like this coz they know what they're voting for, but no guarantee legislation is implemented.
- Repeal and replace on specific grounds (likely to be rape, incest, FFA etc)
- Repeal and replace on broad grounds or with rebalancing of rights (no idea how this would work)
- Repeal and replace with a provision giving exclusive power to Oireachtas to regulate

It'll probo be a yes/no vote but there's some moves towards a preferendum which would give choices. And I'm sure you're good with tests! :P

mahamageehad wrote: »

6 options being discussed:

- Simple repeal, just take it out. Then PLPA2013 would be the relevant legislation and more could come later.
- Repeal based on legislation entrenched in the constitution. Would possibly mean future referendums down the road.
- Repeal based on legislation published in tandem with a referendum. Most people like this coz they know what they're voting for, but no guarantee legislation is implemented.
- Repeal and replace on specific grounds (likely to be rape, incest, FFA etc)
- Repeal and replace on broad grounds or with rebalancing of rights (no idea how this would work)
- Repeal and replace with a provision giving exclusive power to Oireachtas to regulate

It'll probo be a yes/no vote but there's some moves towards a preferendum which would give choices. And I'm sure you're good with tests! :P

4 Might have a chance. Others. I doubt. Especially 1 and 2.

January wrote: »

And only recently another young girl was held against her will in a mental health facility after first being led to believe she was being granted an abortion but then being told she wasn't suicidal enough.

Why are you (along with almost all of the Irish/UK media) only telling half the story?

Abortion order teenager gives birth at seven months

A suicidal girl gave birth to a baby three weeks after a legal order to terminate her seven-month pregnancy.

The distressed 16-year-old was put in a psychiatric hospital when she was seeking an abortion. She was later discharged as it was determined she had no mental health disorder - just three days after being legally granted a termination on "suicide" grounds.

The girl developed a close bond with the doctor who delivered the child seven months into the pregnancy.

The case came to attention recently when details emerged about her committal, prompting debate about the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.

However, the case also highlights issues about the existing abortion legislation and the resourcing of mental health services for children.

A panel of experts, convened under the abortion legislation, concluded the teenager should have a termination as she was suicidal. At that point, she was almost 25 weeks pregnant. This is beyond the time limit for abortions in Britain.

Within days, two other psychiatrists who assessed the girl's detention in psychiatric hospital concluded she was not suicidal.

She was assessed by at least five psychiatrists over 12 days.

The baby was born seven months into the pregnancy and is now living with the girl and her mother.

The obstetrician who delivered the baby and handled the termination order has been praised for handling the case sensibly and compassionately.

Now, considering the media feasted on this story to begin with (both here and in the UK) why then was it that the outcome of the case was only reported in one paper? Didn't the rest feel that their readership would like to know that the girl went on to gave birth to a healthy baby? Surely that was newsworthy, no?

Or maybe a happy ending was somewhat ideologically inconvenient for the prochoice biased media perhaps. Once they could no longer sanctimonious use the girl (and her situation) to further their agenda.... they moved on as if she never existed. Colour me surprised.

20 weeks is simply not viable considering the fact that the record earliest gestation that a baby survived being born at was 21+5. Even at 23 weeks the chance of survival is of the order of 10-20% with the majority of those babies suffering from lifelong disability.

Considering the fact that births at extremely early gestation are almost always wanted pregnancies that went wrong for whatever reason and abortions at 20+ weeks are almost always for medical reasons this is a bit of a red herring anyway.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

What will happen if the repeal campaign fails?

The same thing as I HOPE happens if it succeeds. That we as a society will not consider ANY result as set in stone for all time, and will revisit it again in the future when there might be new data, arguments, and conditions to consider.

The joy of living in a discourse based democracy is that NO result is, or should be, final. Moral and ethical discourse should not be a set of laws written in stone, but an ongoing, iterative, and never ending conversation from all sides.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Once they could no longer sanctimonious use the girl (and her situation) to further their agenda....

Just like YOU are doing here and now you mean? At least I can hold my hands up and honestly claim that I never used her case then OR now to lord it over the other side. You are. For shame.

That said however, since you are bringing up the case as if it is some kind of success story......... in a country that offers choice based abortion services up until, lets say, 16 weeks, the girl in question might have had choices open to her that meant she never entered into the string of stress and evaluation and committal and confusion and so forth that she did. Both in terms of the stresses of her actual cases, and the stresses of her falling under the media eye and social media judgements of the mob.

She could have instead happily ambled up to a clinic and CHOSEN to have an abortion without having to prove herself to be suicidal to do it.

What worries me, much like the Blasphemy law incentivises offence, if people seeking abortion have to present as suicidal to access one....... this potentially incentivises being suicidal.

Is that a good thing? And if people are not convinced you are suicidal enough what do you do? Stage a suicide attempt maybe? Not a great idea given some people who only wanted to STAGE an attempt, have actually managed to erroneously achieve one.

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Any opinions on how the Ref might play out? Looks like a difficult one for repeal if question is overly liberal.

The Citizens Assembly recommended removing the 8th completely and replacing it with an explicit statement that the Oireachteas may legislate in this area. That's what we should be voting on.

And I think it will lose, and we will have to try again in 10 years.

But replacing the ridiculous 8th amendment with another stupid amendment about abortion which will generate hard cases where women die and folks trot off to the Supreme court and we end up having another campaign to amend it again in 20 years is pointless.

Peter Boylan made a good point about the availability of abortion in the UK and how things would be much more dire here if that avenue wasn't available.

I wonder post Brexit what that will mean for women here if things don't change.

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm sure all the pro-life people who are delighted with her happy ending will also be happy that she might never get to go to college now, might never get to pursue her dreams and might end up as a single mother receiving welfare until the child is old enough that she can get part time work and eek out a survival that way.

Or she might just end up loving the child to bit as most mothers do? Wild speculation here.

...a lot of the same people who oppose abortion also oppose services and supports for one parent families and look down on these people

More wild assertion without proof.

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm sure all the pro-life people who are delighted with her happy ending will also be happy that she might never get to go to college now, might never get to pursue her dreams and might end up as a single mother receiving welfare until the child is old enough that she can get part time work and eek out a survival that way.

Sadly, many of them really will be delighted if that this is her fate. They would love that to happen to all unmarried pregnant people.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Citizens Assembly recommended removing the 8th completely and replacing it with an explicit statement that the Oireachteas may legislate in this area. That's what we should be voting on.

And I think it will lose, and we will have to try again in 10 years.

But replacing the ridiculous 8th amendment with another stupid amendment about abortion which will generate hard cases where women die and folks trot off to the Supreme court and we end up having another campaign to amend it again in 20 years is pointless.

It is completely retarded for a country to even mention abortion in it's constitution.

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Or she might just end up loving the child to bit as most mothers do? Wild speculation here.

What is with the "or" there though? Nothing in the text you quoted is mutually exclusive with what you said. She could end up loving the child as much as any mother does, and STILL all the things the user above wrote could be true. She might just as easily, for example, have pursued all her career dreams, and then ended up loving the child she had when SHE chose to have one and when SHE felt in an emotional and financial place to have a child with the partner SHE chose to have a child with.

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

More wild assertion without proof.

Perhaps, I can not speak to that users comment. But anecdotally (and anecdote is not evidence, so take it as such) I have run into a LOT of people against abortion choice who are also against all the things many pro choice people campaign for to reduce abortions.

Some of them are opposed to contraception for example. Some of them are against the idea of better and MUCH earlier sexual education of our children (under the cop out canard of claiming to want to maintain childhood innocence). Some of them have been opposed to modifications that would support single parent families.

I will not go through the full list, but my experience has surprised me that so many people against abortions also seem to be against the very things that would reduce the number of abortions. Even the catholic church for example, opposed to abortion as they are, were for many many years an opponent of contraception.

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Dont do anecdotes.

Or replies it seems. But I think you will notice I did not limit myself to anecdotes, but also gave other examples like the Catholic Church being both against abortion and historically against the very thing that would reduce them.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sadly, many of them really will be delighted if that this is her fate. They would love that to happen to all unmarried pregnant people.

Much like most pro-choice people will love it if she commits suicide to prove their point.

Your turn. I like this game where we throw wild accusations and assumptions around.