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

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.

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.

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...

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....?

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.

Sweetemotion

Odhinn wrote: »

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

Off course we are. Why wouldn't we?

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

Thirdfox

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

It's my day job - I can't leave the law to one side

If you read up on the case - the family had already travelled to England and came back. You need to get your facts in order before tackling the legal side.

Here's the case notes - have a read of the (rather tragic) case - rape by family member and girl ultimately had a miscarriage while in London after being cleared by the SC to have an abortion:
http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1992/1.html

As for constitutional law - I recommend Hogan's book - it's a tome but a worthy read (try any legal library if you're not inclined to buy the book yourself

):
https://www.bloomsburyprofessional.com/ie/j-m-kelly-the-irish-constitution-9781845923662/

edit - and now I'm really out

LushiousLips

Sweetemotion wrote:

Goodnight princess.

Don't be a Dlckhead

RayM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

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

If you really think abortion will be used as a form of contraception, then - like so many of your ilk - you have a very low opinion of women.

conorhal

RayM wrote: »

If you really think abortion will be used as a form of contraception, then - like so many of your ilk - you have a very low opinion of women.

You think it isn't? What percentage do you imagine are 'oopsies'?

RayM

conorhal wrote: »

You think it isn't? What percentage do you imagine are 'oopsies'?

No, I don't think it is. Not that what someone else chooses to do with their own body is any of my business.

end of the road

RayM wrote: »

No, I don't think it is. Not that what someone else chooses to do with their own body is any of my business.

they aren't choosing to do something with their body though. they are choosing to do something with the unborn life they are carying. quite the difference there.

RayM

end of the road wrote: »

they aren't choosing to do something with their body though. they are choosing to do something with the unborn life they are carying. quite the difference there.

They're choosing not to carry it inside their body for nine months. I don't think they should be forced to.

end of the road

RayM wrote: »

They're choosing not to carry it inside their body for nine months. I don't think they should be forced to.

well no they are choosing to kill the unborn. i don't think the unborn should have it's life taken bar extreme circumstances. the unborn have a right to life bar absolutely extreme circumstances.
without a legal guarantee that there will be no abortion on demand, i can't see there being a resounding yes to repealing the 8th, or if there is it won't be by much.

RayM

end of the road wrote: »

well no they are choosing to kill the unborn. i don't think the unborn should have it's life taken bar extreme circumstances. the unborn have a right to life bar absolutely extreme circumstances.
without a legal guarantee that there will be no abortion on demand, i can't see there being a resounding yes to repealing the 8th, or if there is it won't be by much.

It only needs to be 50% plus 1, so hopefully it'll get over the line and abortion will be safely available on request. Not really interested in arguing about the rights and wrongs of abortion itself, tbh, because those arguments have been done to death. I don't have to like or approve of other people's decisions to accept that they should have a right to make them, even if I think they're wrong - especially where their own bodies are concerned. It's not my business. It's not about me.

maxsmum

RayM wrote: »

end of the road wrote: »

well no they are choosing to kill the unborn. i don't think the unborn should have it's life taken bar extreme circumstances. the unborn have a right to life bar absolutely extreme circumstances.
without a legal guarantee that there will be no abortion on demand, i can't see there being a resounding yes to repealing the 8th, or if there is it won't be by much.

It only needs to be 50% plus 1, so hopefully it'll get over the line and abortion will be safely available on request. Not really interested in arguing about the rights and wrongs of abortion itself, tbh, because those arguments have been done to death. I don't have to like or approve of other people's decisions to accept that they should have a right to make them, even if I think they're wrong - especially where their own bodies are concerned. It's not my business. It's not about me.

This is exactly it. This is really all it comes down to. I find the image of men curled up in their beds at night worried that maybe some women somewhere might have an abortion so weird!

Annasopra

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...

You are making stuff up now :rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

Sweetemotion wrote: »

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

What on earth are you talking about? Nobody here said not to use protection. The point being made is that even the most effective methods of contraception have a very small chance of failure. If that happens, the people involved have to decide what's right for them and sometimes it may be having an abortion. It is not something that is taken lightly and to try to argue that it will be used as a method of contraception is frankly ridiculous and shows utter contempt for the women unfortunate enough to find themselves in that situation.

NuMarvel

Thirdfox wrote: »

It's my day job - I can't leave the law to one side

If that's true, then your grasp of the law is shockingly poor. Maybe (once again) take your own advice and hit the law library. Start with the consequences of breaching court orders and injunctions.

conorhal

RayM wrote: »

No, I don't think it is. Not that what someone else chooses to do with their own body is any of my business.

I think what you actually mean is that your pompous declaration was at odds with reality and now you don't want to talk about it because the fact that the majority of abortions are lifestyle choices to illiminate a minor inconvenience is a fact that you don't want to acknowlege because it's a hard PR spin.

Kiwi in IE

conorhal wrote: »

I think what you actually mean is that your pompous declaration was at odds with reality and now you don't want to talk about it because the fact that the majority of abortions are lifestyle choices to illiminate a minor inconvenience is a fact that you don't want to acknowlege because it's a hard PR spin.

When you have been pregnant for 9 months when you didn't want to be, and gone through childbirth unwillingly, come back to us about your 'minor inconvenience'!

LirW

I had my second because I wanted to and the pregnancy was horrifying. I did feel sh1t for 9 months straight and needed an emergency C-section because I went into labour early. It's probably the main reason why I don't wanna have more children, because I really don't wanna go through this again, ever ever ever.
If you're pregnant and have to carry it to term against your will you're risking the longterm mental and physical health of an adult woman. So many women that really wanted children get out of pregnancy and childbirth traumatized because it can go wrong so easily. You can't use women as brood machines against their will. Pregnancy is not getting a bit heavier over 9 months. It sucks, big time.

_Dara_

conorhal wrote: »

You think it isn't? What percentage do you imagine are 'oopsies'?

The amount of women who wilfully don't use contraception because abortion is an option? Yeah, I'd say that's very few women. Now, women who do use contraception and it fails? A much higher number, I should think. But that's not really an "oopsie", is it?

nozzferrahhtoo

markodaly wrote: »

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.

Well it does pay to consider how much a part of our culture it already is. Just because people currently seeking abortions might, for example, hop on a boat to England and do it there..... that does not make it NOT part of the culture HERE.

That said though, have you looked through the figures on abortion when choice based abortion is introduced to the society? You might find that quite often the figures go in the OPPOSITE direction that your concerns here suggest you imagine they would.

end of the road wrote: »

the unborn have a right to life bar absolutely extreme circumstances.

Should they though? On what philosophical basis? What is it you think "rights" are at the level of philosophy. How and why are they formed. To what exactly are they assigned and on what basis?

What is it about one piece of life that gives it "rights" that another piece of life does not? Why does the 12 week old fetus have a right to life when the cow about to become your next burger does not?

I fear a lot of people have a throw away sound bite approach to the deep philosophical concepts of rights, morality and ethics that is shown in your rather vague statement here.

Zubeneschamali

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.

No, it really isn't, it is exactly what Volchista said, and everyone who voted for it knew that, and the prolife movement opposed it at the time and 37.5% of the voters opposed it because they were prolife.

Think about it, the 13th does not establish a right to travel. It does not stand alone. All it does is say the 8th cannot be used to limit freedom to travel.

But in what circumstance could the 8th have been used? We know that, because the Supreme Court told us in its judgement on the X case. The 8th obliged the state to prevent travel for abortion.

This is not in any way an unenforceable legal anything - the AG enforced it in the X case, injuncting a girl from travel and from having an abortion. She returned from England and never did have the abortion - it worked.

And that is before the legislature implemented the judgement into law (which they never did, we enacted the 13th so that they wouldn't have to). Obviously, if travelling to England for an abortion is a breach of the right to life of the unborn (which the SC confirmed) then the state would have to make it illegal, and punish women and people who help them appropriately. Something like the recent law with its 14 year sentence on conviction would have been required.

And 37.5% of voters were A-OK with that.