The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Abortion on demand for up to 12 weeks, too high for me personally. I would imagine many would think the same. There should be caveats to who and why you can avail of it.

volchitsa wrote: »

Everyone knew they were voting on the right to travel for abortion and on the right to get information about abortion. It wasn't some worry about going to Malaga or about not getting the latest edition of Cosmo on time.

If you say so - obviously everyone must believe that then.

Or perhaps people decided that it was impossible to know the minds of people and why they travel and if the SC judgment in the X case means that every pregnant woman would be stopped at the border then something must be done.

Unlike yourself I don't profess to claim to the know the minds of everyone who voted

gctest50

markodaly wrote: »

Abortion on demand for up to 12 weeks, too high for me personally.

It's all right, it's up to 12 weeks

So if you are going for one you don't have to wait

volchitsa

Thirdfox wrote: »

If you say so - obviously everyone must believe that then.

Or perhaps people decided that it was impossible to know the minds of people and why they travel and if the SC judgment in the X case means that every pregnant woman would be stopped at the border then something must be done.

Unlike yourself I don't profess to claim to the know the minds of everyone who voted

If some people thought they were voting to be allowed to go to Malaga that's an argument for better information. But then you weren't in the country so you wouldn't know.

Anyway, let's say you're right, then why is it not legal to arrest a woman like Deirdre Conroy or Tara Flynn who have had abortions and have spoken about them? You wouldn't leave a murderer walking around talking about the murder he'd committed just because you hadn't managed to stop him in the first place, would you?

gctest50 wrote: »

It's all right, it's up to 12 weeks

So if you are going for one you don't have to wait

I have no idea what you mean with this.

volchitsa wrote: »

If some people thought they were voting to be allowed to go to Malaga that's an argument for better information. But then you weren't in the country so you wouldn't know.

Anyway, let's say you're right, then why is it not legal to arrest a woman like Deirdre Conroy or Tara Flynn who have had abortions and have spoken about them? You wouldn't leave a murderer walking around talking about the murder he'd committed just because you hadn't managed to stop him in the first place, would you?

The same reason I imagine people don't have problems with letting people talk about marijuana usage despite it being illegal here in Ireland.

If "murder" is legal elsewhere in the world then unfortunately no, you wouldn't be able to stop a murderer talking about his legal experiences in Ireland. You would be able stop him if he commits a "murder" here in Ireland though.

So I don't see why you would be confused about the issue here.

It means what it says: The option is there until you passed 12 weeks gestation.
If you want to avail of an abortion you can do this in week 8 or in week 11.

Some women only find out quite late, I did with my first, found out in week 9.

LirW wrote: »

It means what it says: The option is there until you passed 12 weeks gestation.
If you want to avail of an abortion you can do this in week 8 or in week 11.

Some women only find out quite late, I did with my first, found out in week 9.

Yes, I am aware of this. I did say, up to 12 weeks did I not?

Thirdfox wrote: »

The same reason I imagine people don't have problems with letting people talk about marijuana usage despite it being illegal here in Ireland.

If "murder" is legal elsewhere in the world then unfortunately no, you wouldn't be able to stop a murderer talking about his legal experiences in Ireland. You would be able stop him if he commits a "murder" here in Ireland though.

So I don't see why you would be confused about the issue here.

All these scenarios of raping a child or murdering someone are somewhat irrelevant because in the end it's a medical procedure that needs to be performed or supervised by a medical professional.
It's not the same case with smoking a joint, stabbing someone or raping a child.

The issue is that plenty of other countries in the west give the environment it needs to be safe.

That all really is comparing pears and apples.

rainbow kirby

In fairness, there's very little supervision needed for an early medical abortion beyond possibly making sure the pills are taken properly.

eviltwin

rainbow kirby wrote: »

In fairness, there's very little supervision needed for an early medical abortion beyond possibly making sure the pills are taken properly.

My concern is the illegality and how that might stop a woman seeking assistance if something went wrong.

markodaly wrote: »

I have no idea what you mean with this.

I imagine the poster wants to say that "up to" means that's just the limit and that many/most/some/all etc. people will be procuring abortions much earlier than this limit.

Then adding in the joke about no need for waiting if not inclined.

One question I wonder about from the pro-choice side (and some of my pro-choice friends confirmed it to me) is if medical science advances forward so that a 10, 8, 6, X week old foetus is viable independently from the mother and outside of the womb would they then agree to set the limit for abortion at the new date of viability - and that one day this could well reach 0 (or human reproduction is no longer inside wombs etc. etc.) at which point abortion would be illegal per se as the foetus is independently viable from day 0.

If that is the case, this sort of limited abortion and constant rolling back of the limit as medical science improves and advances may be one I could agree to but other than that I am firmly in the "pro-life" side (the name which I find silly as I would say that no-one's anti-life but equally nor are people wrong to see it as something other than "choice").

Thirdfox wrote: »

I imagine the poster wants to say that "up to" means that's just the limit and that many/most/some/all etc. people will be procuring abortions much earlier than this limit.

Ok, well I guess its splitting hairs but the main point still stands that the 12 week limit will be too high for many.

LirW wrote: »

All these scenarios of raping a child or murdering someone are somewhat irrelevant because in the end it's a medical procedure that needs to be performed or supervised by a medical professional.
It's not the same case with smoking a joint, stabbing someone or raping a child.

The issue is that plenty of other countries in the west give the environment it needs to be safe.

That all really is comparing pears and apples.

But you stating it as a medical procedure does not make it one per se. I agree it's not the same as smoking a joint, I'd argue it is much more important than that - though in the hierarchy of importance I'd personally place it slightly under murder, above statutory rape laws and much much higher than drug classification laws. But that's just me and I am cognisant that not everyone feels the same way as I do. I'd just hope that you can also realise that not everyone feels like it's a simple medical procedure either.

Kiwi in IE

markodaly wrote: »

Abortion on demand for up to 12 weeks, too high for me personally. I would imagine many would think the same. There should be caveats to who and why you can avail of it.

Why should it have anything thing to do with who and why you can avail of it? Is your objection to abortion about 'killing babies' or not? If so, what difference does who and why make? If not, what is your objection about?

I'm really talking from a purely scientific point of view. It is a huge ethical question and this is why this topic is so loaded.
I'm somewhat detached to that because I grew up and carried my first pregnancy in a country that has abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. Since my pregnancy was unexpected you go through your options and decide what's best for yourself, I was pretty young. I chose to keep it.
My mother had an abortion when I was young, it doesn't change the way I think about her and see her.

It changes a lot if someone quite close to you had one and they're still the same lovely person, despite having their reasons for their decision.
It is so much easier to resent people we don't know for their decision to terminate a pregnancy.

I also couldn't understand when I was very young how someone could do that. Until I was in the situation to think about what's best for myself and can I support a child. Even though I decided to keep it, I was grateful that there was the option. It is a big deal and the average woman puts a lot of thought into that.

If I'd get pregnant again, despite being on a North Korean army schedule to take my BC, I wouldn't want another child. We couldn't support it the way it deserves it and it wouldn't be fair on my other 2. I'm doing my best to prevent it but it's not 100% safe.

But I don't wanna get carried away in personal anecdotes here.

NuMarvel

professore wrote: »

I agree, "other countries do it" is a poor argument.

Just as well that wasn't my argument.

Thirdfox wrote: »

Interesting - I wasn't in the country when the 13th was debated - what did people think they were voting on specifically for this wording to be added?
...
I see from the Wiki link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

That the exact words of the amendment are
“This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.”

This wording does not in Volchitsa's words "specifically voted to allow women to travel to terminate pregnancies".

In fact it does something quite different - it is saying that the 8th amendment does not interfere with the freedom to travel. As a result of the X case - the SC would have left the police with an unenforceable legal protection as unless you can read minds it is impossible to know why someone chooses to travel to another state.

This is quite different to what Volchitsa suggested.

I find it hard to believe that someone would suggest that the X case wasn't on people's mind when they voted on the 13th Amendment. That was the only reason we were having a referendum on the issue in the first place. Or are we to believe that it was purely coincidental that the government held a referendum on the issue of travel in the same year that the Supreme Court found the 8th could be used to prevent travel?

And the power of the 8th (pre 13th) to prevent travel clearly wasn't unenforceable; it's why there was an X Case to begin with.

baylah17

markodaly wrote: »

Abortion on demand for up to 12 weeks, too high for me personally. I would imagine many would think the same. There should be caveats to who and why you can avail of it.

There is a caveat
It's only available to women

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why should it have anything thing to do with who and why you can avail of it? Is your objection to abortion about 'killing babies' or not? If so, what difference does who and why make? If not, what is your objection about?

Lots of questions there, do you want me to write a thesis to convince you or do you want to have an argument to confirm your already held beliefs?

Put simply I do not want a culture of abortion become the norm in Ireland where 25% of pregnancies are aborted which is the norm elsewhere.

LirW wrote: »

All these scenarios of raping a child or murdering someone are somewhat irrelevant because in the end it's a medical procedure that needs to be performed or supervised by a medical professional.
It's not the same case with smoking a joint, stabbing someone or raping a child.

The issue is that plenty of other countries in the west give the environment it needs to be safe.

That all really is comparing pears and apples.

And just to try and give some idea of how the issue is set out from my viewpoint - I'm proud to live in a country where we have a constitutional protection eliminating the death penalty.

Abortion, in some cases, feels like a death penalty to a human entity/foetus/growth/thing (whatever label you wish to place on it) - and on one that has committed no crime other than to exist (even if people were pro-death penalty they might see a distinction here).

So while you see medical procedure, I see an unfortunate state-sanctioned destruction of a "thing" - and hey we allow state-sanctioned destruction of things, even living things like dogs and cats...but I see a difference when it's human.

Of course, my arguments go much further than this - but this is just an attempt to give you a glimpse of "how the other side" sees it. And maybe then, you can understand why actually some people (who you can still believe are mistaken) have significant reservations on abortion and don't see it as just clipping your toenails or even removing kidney stones (I'm not suggesting you view it as such but I'm trying to give you the sense of how big of a gap I see the two).

maxsmum

markodaly wrote: »

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why should it have anything thing to do with who and why you can avail of it? Is your objection to abortion about 'killing babies' or not? If so, what difference does who and why make? If not, what is your objection about?

Lots of questions there, do you want me to write a thesis to convince you or do you want to have an argument to confirm your already held beliefs?

Put simply I do not want a culture of abortion become the norm in Ireland where 25% of pregnancies are aborted which is the norm elsewhere.

But tough if you don't want it; let others do what they need to do for their situation.
Jesus. I don't want to live in a country where people don't know how to use alcohol responsibly or where people don't clean up dog crap but such is life, worry about your own conscience and you'll be fine.

NuMarvel wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that someone would suggest that the X case wasn't on people's mind when they voted on the 13th Amendment. That was the only reason we were having a referendum on the issue in the first place. Or are we to believe that it was purely coincidental that the government held a referendum on the issue of travel in the same year that the Supreme Court found the 8th could be used to prevent travel?

And the power of the 8th (pre 13th) to prevent travel clearly wasn't unenforceable; it's why there was an X Case to begin with.

If you know about the X case then you would know that the family in question was already in England and (for some reason I cannot understand) complied with the Gardai's request to come back to Ireland. There wouldn't be an X case (but of course there would probably have been another one like it some time afterwards) if the family didn't voluntarily return to the country.

So the SC's judgment is clearly unenforceable - would the Gardai have flown over to the UK and renditioned the girl back to Ireland? You are seeing the argument you'd like to see - when it has been put forward that there are alternative interpretations of what the 13th amendment wanted to do (which is to roll back from the unenforceable SC judgment).

And nice strawman again - I would be grateful if you could point out where I suggested the X case wasn't on people's minds when voting on the 13th amendment? I wouldn't believe that either! But that's not what I said was it?

Thirdfox wrote: »

And just to try and give some idea of how the issue is set out from my viewpoint - I'm proud to live in a country where we have a constitutional protection eliminating the death penalty.

Abortion, in some cases, feels like a death penalty to a human entity/foetus/growth/thing (whatever label you wish to place on it) - and on one that has committed no crime other than to exist (even if people were pro-death penalty they might see a distinction here).

So while you see medical procedure, I see an unfortunate state-sanctioned destruction of a "thing" - and hey we allow state-sanctioned destruction of things, even living things like dogs and cats...but I see a difference when it's human.

Of course, my arguments go much further than this - but this is just an attempt to give you a glimpse of "how the other side" sees it. And maybe then, you can understand why actually some people (who you can still believe are mistaken) have significant reservations on abortion and don't see it as just clipping your toenails or even removing kidney stones (I'm not suggesting you view it as such but I'm trying to give you the sense of how big of a gap I see the two).

I do see it that this is an ethical predicament.
But unfortunately life can be a real b1tch and it is not all black and white and ponies and roses.

A lot of people that see abortion as the elimination of life will genuinely never be in the situation where you are truly desperate. Most know they have the support of family, friends and the state. But not everyone has.
For example plenty of these people won't ever be victim of domestic violence that involves complete control about ones sexuality. It's not an uncommon practice to dictate the birth control intake of the abused and get them pregnant on purpose. Twisted individuals that want pure control over someone else. You wouldn't wanna bring up a child in this environment. But could you go to the police and declare this as rape? This is where it starts to get difficult.

Other women simply don't have the cushion to fall back on. Women have mental health issues or addiction problems that could damage the unborn due to drugs and medication. The prospect for these babies is a childhood of neglect.

There is a variety of reasons why women are forced to think about this scenario and this is where it gets really difficult. A lot of people that are pro-life will very likely never find themselves in such awful situations. They know what they can fall back on and struggle to see how someone could choose to abort a child. And honestly I don't blame them a bit for their thinking.

But this is why I personally think it is very important to give all women the choice to decide against carrying a pregnancy to term. Because life isn't black and white. And you never know what's going on behind the curtain of ones relationship, personal life, health or mental health. These issues can be very complex. And while unfortunately there will be a minority of women using abortion as some form of birth control, it's a tough thing to even think about for the majority of women.

maxsmum wrote: »

But tough if you don't want it; let others do what they need to do for their situation.
Jesus. I don't want to live in a country where people don't know how to use alcohol responsibly or where people don't clean up dog crap but such is life, worry about your own conscience and you'll be fine.

Again - this is why we have laws prohibiting murder and the such - because while you can choose to live with a clean conscience and never choose to kill anyone it doesn't mean you cannot/should not intervene in the prevention of others'.

I'm not equating murder and abortion here - I'm trying to help you see that your argument of "you don't do it but let others who want to go ahead" doesn't work in actual fact. The state does intervene even in situations that do not affect people personally. It is an important power and should be used sparingly but in cases of life/death I think most people would agree this is one of the areas where the state, or the populace, should have a position - be it in statutory or constitutional law.

Kiwi in IE

markodaly wrote: »

Lots of questions there, do you want me to write a thesis to convince you or do you want to have an argument to confirm your already held beliefs?

Put simply I do not want a culture of abortion become the norm in Ireland where 25% of pregnancies are aborted which is the norm elsewhere.

Do you prefer the current culture? Where abortion still happens, only women have to travel to obtain it, only the very poor or sick have no access, and every now and then a tradgedy happens, or a disgraceful situation where a woman's human rights have been breached is dragged through the European Human Rights Court, making the country look like a theocratic, misogynistic backwater on the international stage?

Annasopra

Specialun wrote: »

ah sure if its illegal then it never ever happens. my mistake. the pro abortion poster mentioned drugs too but yet you didnt pull him/her up on it..

You suggested abortion pills make abortion here accessible. That isnt true considering they are illegal.

Sweetemotion

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You suggested abortion pills make abortion here accessible. That isnt true considering they are illegal.

The morning after pill which can be taken up to 5 days after having unprotected sex is available without prescription.