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

NuMarvel

Thirdfox wrote: »

Now you're stretching the definition of enforceable - the "crime of travelling abroad for an abortion" as set out by the SC in X had/has no punishment - unlike speeding.

Just like blasphemy laws - unenforceable until the government actually legislated a punishment for it.

If the government at the time (or currently) legislates for a crime of abortion carried out abroad then the 8th becomes "enforceable" - but only with retrospective deterrence value and of no use to the actual child aborted.

If Ms X breached the court injunction what then? Contempt of court is satisfied only when the contempt is satisfied - how does Ms X satisfy the court that she comes back to Ireland with her unborn child when the child has been aborted already?

If you're not a lawyer - you might leave the actual legal arguments to one side and just argue the merits of your case on emotional/factual grounds.

I'm not stretching anything. It just looks like that to you because you have a very narrow view of how the law works.

Travelling for an abortion when there was a high court injunction telling her not to (amongst other things), would have left Ms X in contempt of court. Contempt of court can result in fines and/or prison sentences. Just because something isn't set out in statute doesn't mean it can't be enforced. Court orders can have the same legal weight as laws passed by parliaments.

Maybe you should take your own advice and leave the legal arguments to one side.

Sweetemotion

Thirdfox wrote: »

And this is why I don't post in AH generally.

Anyway - I've said my piece - I'm not getting paid to discuss legal minutiae so have a good night all and I look forward to a lively (and hopefully enlightening) referendum campaign next year (if the government is still around by then).

Goodnight princess.

Thirdfox

Sweetemotion wrote: »

It's better than the advice you are giving. Sure why use protection at all we will soon have abortion available.

Watch and see how much sexual transmitted diseases increase due to this.

But hey isn't it great how liberal we are...

And this is why I don't post in AH generally.

Anyway - I've said my piece - I'm not getting paid to discuss legal minutiae so have a good night all and I look forward to a lively (and hopefully enlightening) referendum campaign next year (if the government is still around by then).

Odhinn

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Off course we are. Why wouldn't we?

Other than trying to annoy people, do you have any actual point to make?

LirW

Sweetemotion wrote: »

It's better than the advice you are giving. Sure why use protection at all we will soon have abortion available.

Watch and see how much sexual transmitted diseases increase due to this.

But hey isn't it great how liberal we are...

Most abortions are decided in relationships. The partners usually have a longterm plan on how to prevent a pregnancy. Again, while the risk is very small, it's still there. Like having a stroke from over the counter medication.

And vasectomies and tubal ligations are very hard to get under a certain age and when you're childless.

Sweetemotion

Odhinn wrote: »

So we're going to have more STD's because of abortion....?

Off course we are. Why wouldn't we?

Thirdfox

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No

The family travelled back because they were also legally injuncted from arranging an abortion.

The 8th amendment did prevent this girl from travelling. That is a fact.

It really isn't - because the girl had already travelled when the 8th was in existence. She came back by choice.

The family were legally injuncted - what does that mean in reality - do you know what happens if they didn't? Did the Irish HC have any hold over them once they were already in a different country?

If you want to clarify your statement and say "the 8th amendment did prevent this girl from travelling once the girl had informed law authorities of an intention to abort and after returning to the country on the injunction of a high court" I would agree with you. But that expanded statement gives rise to my charge of unenforceability in the first instance.

Odhinn

Sweetemotion wrote: »

It's better than the advice you are giving. Sure why use protection at all we will soon have abortion available.

Watch and see how much sexual transmitted diseases increase due to this.

But hey isn't it great how liberal we are...

So we're going to have more STD's because of abortion....?

Sweetemotion

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I hope they didnt get the advice you gave here!

It's better than the advice you are giving. Sure why use protection at all we will soon have abortion available.

Watch and see how much sexual transmitted diseases increase due to this.

But hey isn't it great how liberal we are...

gctest50

Sweetemotion wrote: »

See the gang up is now happening........

No, that's what you were trying to elicit

Try spread false information and then whimper when yer pulled up on it

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If done right it is 100% effective.

Thirdfox

NuMarvel wrote: »

The enforceability of laws isn't so narrowly defined as to relate only to the action it's meant to prevent, but also the sanctions carried in the event of the action being carried out. By your logic, speeding laws are unenforceable because people break speeding limits. But clearly the opposite is true, because we have fines, and penalty points.

If Ms X didn't come back to Ireland she would have risked being found in contempt of court for breaching a high court injunction. So yes, it was enforceable, by virtue of the penalty she could have faced for not adhering to the injunction.

Now you're stretching the definition of enforceable - the "crime of travelling abroad for an abortion" as set out by the SC in X had/has no punishment - unlike speeding.

Just like blasphemy laws - unenforceable until the government actually legislated a punishment for it.

If the government at the time (or currently) legislates for a crime of abortion carried out abroad then the 8th becomes "enforceable" - but only with retrospective deterrence value and of no use to the actual child aborted.

If Ms X breached the court injunction what then? Contempt of court is satisfied only when the contempt is satisfied - how does Ms X satisfy the court that she comes back to Ireland with her unborn child when the child has been aborted already?

If you're not a lawyer - you might leave the actual legal arguments to one side and just argue the merits of your case on emotional/factual grounds.

Annasopra

Sweetemotion wrote: »

No I tell them to never use protection.:rolleyes:

I hope they didnt get the advice you gave here!

Annasopra

LirW wrote: »

I'm taking BC that's supposed to be 99.5-99.9 effective. That is pretty high, isn't it? That means every time I mount my man the chances are around 1 in 1000 that I would get pregnant, which is also pretty damn low. If I would get pregnant that would be similar to winning Euromillions.
So the chance is pretty damn low, like really insanely low, yet it is there.
Same way that you have the risk of having a heart attack from taking Paracetamol. It's pretty damn low but it's here and you still take it I assume.

Also the MAP is a megaload of hormones and should not be used on a regular base because it can affect your health. This is strong medication and according to leaflet you shouldn't drive after taking it. It's emergency contraception for, as the name says it, emergency.

I think the way this is explained a 3yo would get it.

Yep. It really does badly show up the need for education that posters are on here advocating regular MAP and Pulling out for contraception.

Sweetemotion

kylith wrote: »

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

You know the MAP is some serious sh!t, yeah? Not something you'd take regularly.

I hope to feck someone else gave that 18 year old of yours the safe sex talk.

No I tell them to never use protection.:rolleyes:

Annasopra

Thirdfox wrote: »

Ah I see where your misunderstanding arises now - I claim the 8th did not prevent the girl from travelling to the UK because - the 8th amendment was there and the girl travelled to the UK.

It was only at the bequest of the gardai after the fact that she returned to Ireland and then they decided to operate the 8th on her on her particular circumstances. It did not prevent her from travelling to the UK initially and thus this is why the 8th as interpreted by the SC would be unenforceable...clearly.

You can't say the 8th operated to prevent her from travelling to the UK when she was in the UK already. It certainly didn't prevent her from travelling there and only prevented her after she came back after letting the Irish police know that she was in the UK to procure an abortion and then actually complied with their request that she come back. If you can't see the difference there I can't help you anymore.

No

The family travelled back because they were also legally injuncted from arranging an abortion.

The 8th amendment did prevent this girl from travelling. That is a fact.

LirW

I'm taking BC that's supposed to be 99.5-99.9 effective. That is pretty high, isn't it? That means every time I mount my man the chances are around 1 in 1000 that I would get pregnant, which is also pretty damn low. If I would get pregnant that would be similar to winning Euromillions.
So the chance is pretty damn low, like really insanely low, yet it is there.
Same way that you have the risk of having a heart attack from taking Paracetamol. It's pretty damn low but it's here and you still take it I assume.

Also the MAP is a megaload of hormones and should not be used on a regular base because it can affect your health. This is strong medication and according to leaflet you shouldn't drive after taking it. It's emergency contraception for, as the name says it, emergency.

I think the way this is explained a 3yo would get it.

NuMarvel

Thirdfox wrote: »

What's hard to understand? The girl was in the UK already - the Gardai had no power to make her return to Ireland.

We must have different definitions of clearly indeed - isn't the fact that the X case came up a clear example that the 8th amendment (as understood by the SC in the X case) is unenforceable? The girl had already travelled to the UK so how does this show anything other than the unenforceability of the SC's interpretation of the 8th amendment?

The 8th didn't prevent the girl from travelling to the UK and the X case only went up to the SC because the family travelled back to Ireland voluntarily. Is it clearer to you now?

The enforceability of laws isn't so narrowly defined as to relate only to the action it's meant to prevent, but also the sanctions carried in the event of the action being carried out. By your logic, speeding laws are unenforceable because people break speeding limits. But clearly the opposite is true, because we have fines, and penalty points.

If Ms X didn't come back to Ireland she would have risked being found in contempt of court for breaching a high court injunction. So yes, it was enforceable, by virtue of the penalty she could have faced for not adhering to the injunction.

Thirdfox

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You claimed the 8th did not prevent the girl from travelling to the UK. But it did. When they returned Ms X was injuncted from travelling. The High Court upheld that injunction. It was overturned by the Supreme Court but you really cant claim Ms X was not prevented from travelling when she was prevented from travelling. This isnt my interpretation. This is fact.

Ah I see where your misunderstanding arises now - I claim the 8th did not prevent the girl from travelling to the UK because - the 8th amendment was there and the girl travelled to the UK.

It was only at the bequest of the gardai after the fact that she returned to Ireland and then they decided to operate the 8th on her on her particular circumstances. It did not prevent her from travelling to the UK initially and thus this is why the 8th as interpreted by the SC would be unenforceable...clearly.

You can't say the 8th operated to prevent her from travelling to the UK when she was in the UK already. It certainly didn't prevent her from travelling there and only prevented her after she came back after letting the Irish police know that she was in the UK to procure an abortion and then actually complied with their request that she come back. If you can't see the difference there I can't help you anymore.

kylith

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If done right it is 100% effective.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Pre-cum the pill and a condom and still in doubt the MAP I'm pretty sure you wont get pregnant.

You know the MAP is some serious sh!t, yeah? Not something you'd take regularly.

I hope to feck someone else gave that 18 year old of yours the safe sex talk.

Sweetemotion

gctest50 wrote: »

That if you find pulling out 100% effective - yer sterile

and those kids aren't yours, she got a subcontractor in

See the gang up is now happening.

If you don't want to get pregnant you can.

Sweetemotion

LirW wrote: »

Like pulling out after 2 thrusts? What about pre-cum that in a lot of cases isn't felt by the man yet can still impregnate a woman?
I'm curious myself now.

Pre-cum the pill and a condom and still in doubt the MAP I'm pretty sure you wont get pregnant.

gctest50

Consonata wrote: »

.... Should someone tell him.

That if you find pulling out 100% effective - yer sterile

and those kids aren't yours, she got a subcontractor in

dudara

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If done right it is 100% effective.

100% effective means no pregnancies EVER. No form of contraception, or pulling out pre-ejaculation is 100% effective.

The only things that are 100% effective are never ever having sex, or having a hysterectomy.

Annasopra

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Yes joey your right I know nothing.

I've one kid who is now 18. I didn't want anymore and I don't.

It must be a miracle.

It clearly is given your ridiculous posts above.

Annasopra

Thirdfox wrote: »

Go ahead - give me your interpretation then?

You claimed the 8th did not prevent the girl from travelling to the UK. But it did. When they returned Ms X was injuncted from travelling. The High Court upheld that injunction. It was overturned by the Supreme Court but you really cant claim Ms X was not prevented from travelling when she was prevented from travelling. This isnt my interpretation. This is fact.

LirW

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If done right it is 100% effective.

Like pulling out after 2 thrusts? What about pre-cum that in a lot of cases isn't felt by the man yet can still impregnate a woman?
I'm curious myself now.

Sweetemotion

Consonata wrote: »

.... Should someone tell him.

Maybe you should.

Sweetemotion

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I wonder if sweetemotion knows much at all about sex reading these posts.

Yes joey your right I know nothing.

I've one kid who is now 18. I didn't want anymore and I don't.

It must be a miracle.

Consonata

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If done right it is 100% effective.

.... Should someone tell him.

LirW

Thirdfox wrote: »

And I too have tried to look at it from a scientific (with a humanist bent) view - spiritual doesn't fact in the argument at all in my household. ...

Sorry, had to shorten your post there because of wall of text reasons.

See I fully get where you're coming from.

I'm assuming that the 12 weeks time limit has to do with the proven medical facts. The first trimester of a pregnancy is the time where most things can go wrong. Up to 12 weeks almost half of all conceived pregnancies abort naturally, most of them so early that the woman never knows she was actually expecting.
While every embryo develops differently there are major milestones met around 13-14 weeks.
To put it in a stupid term, it's the most "humane" time to end a pregnancy.
Also taking into account that not every woman finds out in week 5 or 6 that she's pregnant but a good bit later.
It would be very unusual to not have found out by 12 weeks.

The reason why 24 weeks are in place for severe cases of FFA is that certain tests can only be carried out between 13 and 24 weeks. In week 13 is the best time to have a nuchal translucency and if that's abnormal you can go from there. The most accurate test can only be carried out at around 20 weeks which gives you a very good indication of what's most likely wrong with the baby. There are FFAs where the child wouldn't survive the birth or the first few hours after it, so this is the last time for parents to decide if they want to go ahead anyway or not. Again 24 weeks is the very earliest that a baby can be kept alive outside the womb. The chances that they'll make it are a lot lower than for example a preemie that's born at 30 weeks, in that case every day counts.
I believe that an ethical component is in fact the reason why these limits are set. They are not fully random but this is the best compromise from an ethical and medical point of view.

Regarding paternal rights, this is something where I wanna come back to another point you mentioned: Going ahead with a pregnancy that's unwanted.
See, a pregnancy takes a toll on every woman. Some are super happy and just seem to fly through it but others don't. It can have a horrible impact on your mental health even if your child is planned or not.
So if you're not in the perfect circumstances, the chances that this will take a toll is a lot higher.
While the infertility of one couple is incredibly tragic, it doesn't mean that another woman has to go ahead with a pregnancy that she doesn't want or maybe even resents. This can be incredibly distressing and traumatic up to a point where it can drive a woman suicidal.
So in order to protect the life of an unborn child we risk the mental and maybe physical health of an adult woman? This can be seen as punishment because in fact that means that the life of a bundle of cells has more value than the health and sanity of a living and breathing human-being that's a functioning part of society (ideally).

And this is where paternal rights come in and I agree that this is an extremely tricky one. De facto the father does not have a right or say what's going to happen. Now we need to take into account that the majority of men wouldn't want to raise a child on their own because the mother already decided she won't do it. But these men are there, I know a case of it personally. And these men depend on the grace of the woman. This is a very sh1tty scenario for all. The father will lose out on his own child. But again the toll the woman takes can be incredibly high.
No matter what, the woman would end up as some kind of baby machine against her will. And because she's the one that is pregnant and takes all the physical and mental side effects, that can vary widely, she's the one who has to decide what's going to happen. There is unfortunately no compromise on that one, as painful as it might be for a father that would be willing to raise a child on his own.
But there are no winners here because that's a sour scenario for everyone involved.

I personally still see it as wrong that a woman should be forced carrying a child against her will. I think the human rights agree with me on that point. This is why it is so difficult to imply the paternal rights for a child that is not born. The 8th at the moment overrules this by saying "Yeah well, your life as a grown woman is as important as the one of a cell blob and in in a scenario of doubt, we side with that cell blob, no matter what's up with you."

This enables so many problems. This also enables substandard pregnancy care and the overruling of consent during the pregnancy and birth. And no matter what, I think, in case of doubt, the adult woman or a living child or your auntie nell is more important than an embryo.