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

Cian_ok

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I don’t think I’m being unreasonable tbh. I just don’t want a situation where you can just demand and be given an abortion just like that.

Why not? Do you think that a woman, that has access to abortion from the start of her pregnancy, will suddenly at 34 weeks decide "nah. I think I'll get an abortion"?

volchitsa

markodaly wrote: »

Odhinn wrote: »

That puts us back to square one.

Why would it? The 8th could be repealed but replaced with something that protects the life of the unborn post 12 weeks.

It could define 'life' as being a baby that is 12 weeks in the womb and that the state endows it with all the constitutional protections afforded to everyone else. You could still have the choice to abort before this.

Otherwise its open season to what is the fashionable opinion of the day.

That would mean that a future Savitta Halapanavar would have to be left to die. Is that really what you intend?

volchitsa

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by "no limits"?
I think most people who want the 8th repealed would be perfectly happy with a time limit for abortions for non medical reasons, choice/demand if you like (serious medical issues would be a different matter). Possibly even a limit that is a good deal shorter than the UK 24-week one. I know I would. And I'm not aware of anyone who actively wants abortions to be able to take place at any time up to birth.

So where are you getting this claim that "a lot of people" want no limits from?

It's a red herring afaict.

I mean pretty much what you’ve just said - a limit on the time in which you can avail of an abortion would be where I’d start. Anything over 12 weeks wouldn’t sit right with me.

I’d also expect that there be a process to be followed to determine if abortion is really wanted or required in each situation - assessments of the mothers physical and mental health, a proper discussion with her about her options, making sure the father is listened to etc.

I don’t think I’m being unreasonable tbh. I just don’t want a situation where you can just demand and be given an abortion just like that.

I think that's pretty much the majority pro choice position, with a few caveats - eg the father? Don't you think women in a liong term relationship are going to discuss it with the father anyway? And in any case, what if he refuses - do we section her for the duration? What if the woman says she's been raped? Does a rapist get a chance to be a daddy? If not, why would a man who has left his wofe get one (for example)? What if she says the father isn't her husband? What if the girl is a minor?
But for the basic proposal of abortion on request up to three months or so, and then ony for serious health issues after - where are you getting this idea that that's not a perfectly valid pro choice position?

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

yes but abortion on demand isn't accessible within this state. so therefore we are protecting, as much as is possible, the right to life of the unborn, and some unborn's lives are being protected.

That's untrue. There's more that could be done if pro-lifers were so inclined, eg amend the constitution to include more of those unborn's lives.

Yet, they've never done that. In fact, any calls they've made for change have been for legislation (eg on protection for frozen embryos), not constitutional amendment.

end of the road wrote: »

people's access to abortion isn't constitutionally protected, the right to travel is . it would never be enforcible to stop people traveling abroad for abortion, it's just not doable, unless you banned pregnant women from traveling, which just isn't possible.

Back in 1992 it was. That's not just my opinion though, but the opinion of the Attorney General, High Court, and the Supreme Court of 1992.

The issue wasn't that a ban wasn't doable or enforceable, it clearly was. And you could make an argument that in the abscence of the 13th and 14th Amendments, it would be even more so in this day and age. The issue was that the enforcement of the ban was unpalatable to the majority of the Irish public.

end of the road wrote: »

the irish state doesn't ultimately endorse abortion on demand, which is all that matters. people seeking it abroad isn't state endorsement of it. all that has to happen is a guarantee that abortion on demand can't be legislated for, and you may get most people voting to repeal the 8th, as we all agree there are other issues it causes which we would like to see ended. but if that guarantee isn't given, then i'm afraid i and many many others will have to vote no to repealing it.

Many may vote no to repeal in those circumstances, but polls show more would vote yes. The Repeal the 8th Campaign is first and foremost about getting abortion out of the constitution. Why would they risk losing support by abandoning that core principle at this point?

What's more, you have ignored the central point of my post; the unforeseen consequences of putting complex matters into the constitution. How would you guarantee that wouldn't happen with whatever amendment you'd suggest?

end of the road

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm curious - what, in your view, would constitute "on demand"?
The girl who's in college and would most likely have to abandon her education to raise the child?
The woman who already has a number of children she's struggling to look after?

yes definitely they would be abortion on demand. those cases definitely wouldn't convince me to vote to repeal.

Shenshen wrote: »

The 15 year old, who had never heard of "contraception" before in her life?

would be about borderline but wouldn't be enough to convince me to repeal the 8th. i'm not sure that is really an issue now anymore as with the internet most 15 year olds will hear about contraception.

Shenshen wrote: »

The woman who is in an abusive relationship and cannot even face telling her boyfriend/husband that she's pregnant for fear of what he might do?
The woman with serious mental health issues, who will have to go off her regular medication because of the pregnancy?
The woman who has just been diagnosed with cancer and has to delay the chemo that might save her life because she also found out she's pregnant?

the third one would definitely come under the abortion in extreme circumstances, which i am willing to support even though i don't agree with abortion, as the mother's life is ultimately under threat.
the first one would just about come under that, and possibly the second, all though i'm unsure on those yet.

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm honestly curious, where would you decide a situation is insufferable enough for the woman to be allowed to abort, and where you'd think she should just have to go through with it?

i've answered that for you there now.

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

That might sound good in theory, but as we've seen, it's a different story in practice.

The 8th has given us 4, soon to be 5 referendums, numerous high court and supreme court cases, and put us in breach of human rights treaties at least 4 times. It puts women's health and lives at risk, there's a whole section of unborn that it doesn't apply to since Roche v Roche, and it hasn't actually achieved its aims, because women still access abortion services. In fact, for most women, that access is now constitutionally protected because of the 8th, not despite it.

And all that comes from 43 pretty simple words that were meant to bolster Ireland's existing ban on abortion.

Anyone who thinks they can put something more complex into the Constitution without unforeseen consequences either doesn't understand constitutional law or hasn't been paying attention to the last 34 years.

yes but abortion on demand isn't accessible within this state. so therefore we are protecting, as much as is possible, the right to life of the unborn, and some unborn's lives are being protected.
people's access to abortion isn't constitutionally protected, the right to travel is . it would never be enforcible to stop people traveling abroad for abortion, it's just not doable, unless you banned pregnant women from traveling, which just isn't possible.
the irish state doesn't ultimately endorse abortion on demand, which is all that matters. people seeking it abroad isn't state endorsement of it. all that has to happen is a guarantee that abortion on demand can't be legislated for, and you may get most people voting to repeal the 8th, as we all agree there are other issues it causes which we would like to see ended. but if that guarantee isn't given, then i'm afraid i and many many others will have to vote no to repealing it.

NuMarvel

markodaly wrote: »

Why would it? The 8th could be repealed but replaced with something that protects the life of the unborn post 12 weeks.

It could define 'life' as being a baby that is 12 weeks in the womb and that the state endows it with all the constitutional protections afforded to everyone else. You could still have the choice to abort before this.

Back in 2002, pro lifers rejected a constitutional amendment that said protections would begin after implantation. I can only imagine their reaction to an amendment that said protections would only begin after 12 weeks. :eek:

markodaly wrote: »

Otherwise its open season to what is the fashionable opinion of the day.

I think you drastically overestimate the desire of Irish politicians to deal with abortions laws. It took us 20 years, 2 referendums, a case at the European Courts of Human Rights, and ultimately the public outcry over the death of Savita Halappanavar just to legislate for the X Case.

And you think they'll start changing abortion laws willy nilly without a constitutional amendment? As if :rolleyes:.

Shenshen

end of the road wrote: »

we just don't want abortion on demand. if there was a guarantee that wouldn't happen then more would vote for repeal.

I'm curious - what, in your view, would constitute "on demand"?
The girl who's in college and would most likely have to abandon her education to raise the child?
The woman who already has a number of children she's struggling to look after?
The woman who is in an abusive relationship and cannot even face telling her boyfriend/husband that she's pregnant for fear of what he might do?
The 15 year old, who had never heard of "contraception" before in her life?
The woman with serious mental health issues, who will have to go off her regular medication because of the pregnancy?
The woman who has just been diagnosed with cancer and has to delay the chemo that might save her life because she also found out she's pregnant?

I'm honestly curious, where would you decide a situation is insufferable enough for the woman to be allowed to abort, and where you'd think she should just have to go through with it?

markodaly

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No thanks and public opinion does not support this.

Can you link me to the last vote we had on this?

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

That puts us back to square one.

Why would it? The 8th could be repealed but replaced with something that protects the life of the unborn post 12 weeks.

It could define 'life' as being a baby that is 12 weeks in the womb and that the state endows it with all the constitutional protections afforded to everyone else. You could still have the choice to abort before this.

Otherwise its open season to what is the fashionable opinion of the day.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

there absolutely is . having it in the constitution means special protection for the unborn. society and the state recognises the right to life of the unborn, and that cannot be changed via any means other then referendum.

That might sound good in theory, but as we've seen, it's a different story in practice.

The 8th has given us 4, soon to be 5 referendums, numerous high court and supreme court cases, and put us in breach of human rights treaties at least 4 times. It puts women's health and lives at risk, there's a whole section of unborn that it doesn't apply to since Roche v Roche, and it hasn't actually achieved its aims, because women still access abortion services. In fact, for most women, that access is now constitutionally protected because of the 8th, not despite it.

And all that comes from 43 pretty simple words that were meant to bolster Ireland's existing ban on abortion.

Anyone who thinks they can put something more complex into the Constitution without unforeseen consequences either doesn't understand constitutional law or hasn't been paying attention to the last 34 years.

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

Ireland had an absolute ban on abortion for 120 years before the 8th was passed. Whatever your stance on abortion is, there's no logical or rational reason for wanting to put it in the constitution.

there absolutely is . having it in the constitution means special protection for the unborn. society and the state recognises the right to life of the unborn, and that cannot be changed via any means other then referendum.

Crea

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So where do we put limits if not in law?

You can legislate outside of the constitution. Most of our laws are not in the constitution.

Crea

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

To be fair no I don’t. I think it’s what many on the pro choice want though and I foresee a lot of trouble if they don’t get it.

Many people on the pro repeal side are advocaying for legislation as per the citizens assembly which is abortion on demand eith time limits.

AudreyHepburn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The constitution is the wrong place to put limits.

So where do we put limits if not in law?

AudreyHepburn

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So, you're not in favor of what the Oireachtas recommended for the referendum? Abortion on demand until 12 weeks and then for any health issues with the mother (fatal abnormality, risk to the mothers life and adverse mental health affects, most specifically suicidal tendencies)

I couldn’t in good conscience say I agree with abortion on demand at any stage unless there is an actual threat to the mother’s life or the baby would suffer if carried to term.

But as I said I will vote in favor of whatever legislation the government brings in because I am even less comfortable with telling my fellow women what they can or can’t do with their own bodies.

AudreyHepburn

Crea wrote: »

You do know that if the 8th was repealed tomorrow abortion would still be illegal because of our legislation. The law would need to change to allow for abortion on demand. Do you honestly believe our politicians are prepared to do that?

To be fair no I don’t. I think it’s what many on the pro choice want though and I foresee a lot of trouble if they don’t get it.

AudreyHepburn

volchitsa wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by "no limits"?
I think most people who want the 8th repealed would be perfectly happy with a time limit for abortions for non medical reasons, choice/demand if you like (serious medical issues would be a different matter). Possibly even a limit that is a good deal shorter than the UK 24-week one. I know I would. And I'm not aware of anyone who actively wants abortions to be able to take place at any time up to birth.

So where are you getting this claim that "a lot of people" want no limits from?

It's a red herring afaict.

I mean pretty much what you’ve just said - a limit on the time in which you can avail of an abortion would be where I’d start. Anything over 12 weeks wouldn’t sit right with me.

I’d also expect that there be a process to be followed to determine if abortion is really wanted or required in each situation - assessments of the mothers physical and mental health, a proper discussion with her about her options, making sure the father is listened to etc.

I don’t think I’m being unreasonable tbh. I just don’t want a situation where you can just demand and be given an abortion just like that.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

we just don't want abortion on demand. if there was a guarantee that wouldn't happen then more would vote for repeal.

Ireland had an absolute ban on abortion for 120 years before the 8th was passed. Whatever your stance on abortion is, there's no logical or rational reason for wanting to put it in the constitution.

end of the road

nice_guy80 wrote: »

so basically you want the current situation, which is a mess

we just don't want abortion on demand. if there was a guarantee that wouldn't happen then more would vote for repeal.

nice_guy80

markodaly wrote: »

Been thinking of this more and to be honest I am going to be voting no if the proposal in its current form goes before us, unless there are constitutional safegards put in place to protect the life of the unborn. Also, its too wide as someone can get an abortion for any reason.

so basically you want the current situation, which is a mess

nice_guy80

markodaly wrote: »

Been thinking of this more and to be honest I am going to be voting no if the proposal in its current form goes before us, unless there are constitutional safegards put in place to protect the life of the unborn. Also, its too wide as someone can get an abortion for any reason.

so basically you want the current situation, which is a mess

Zerbini Blewitt

Some anti-choice posters here still seem to be at the comfortable, theoretical, armchair exercise stage when it comes to the issues of proving rape and the reality of ever growing usage of abortion pills.

Undecided, middle ground voters will have to decide between now and the likely referendum if they agree with the experts involved (eg. those at the CA & Dail committee)

1) that there is no real-world or satisfactory way to go about proving a victim was raped and

2) if it is sensible to continue to criminilise those who take abortion pills with the threat of 14 years in prison – along with the head-in-the-sand, potentially unsafe healthcare abdication consequences.

Hotblack Desiato

markodaly wrote: »

If the 8th is repealed is should be replaced with something else to protect the life of the unborn, you can call it the 8th-lite.

No thanks and public opinion does not support this.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

If the 8th is repealed is should be replaced with something else to protect the life of the unborn, you can call it the 8th-lite.

That puts us back to square one.

markodaly

If the 8th is repealed is should be replaced with something else to protect the life of the unborn, you can call it the 8th-lite.

end of the road

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's why we have to repeal the 8th and pass some legislation.

With the 8th in place, we are stuck with something like our current regime - 14 years in jail for anyone caught taking abortion pills bought off the internet.

anyone importing drugs illegally will serve a long sentence. as much as i am for legalisation of all drugs, being sentenced to a long sentence for importing abortion pills illegally is no different to importing any other drug as far as the law is concerned and nor should it be.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The constitution is the wrong place to put limits.

it really is though. it's an insurence that the limits cannot be gone over without consent of society as a whole.

captbarnacles

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

For the record I am pro choice. I don’t believe I have the right to dictate what another woman chooses to do with her body.

That being said I think a complete repeal of the 8th is unreasonable. I don’t want to end up in a situation where you can simply walk in off the street, demand an abortion and be given one then and there. There has to be proper legislation and guidelines in place.

Abortion is not just another form of contraception and I admit that I worry that is how many of the more militant pro choicers see it.

I also do not like the idea that many pro lifers are afraid to speak their opinions out loud. You are completely entitled to your beliefs and should not feel you have to hide them.

I think we need a middle ground in this debate, not an all out ban on abortion but not all out repeal either. Both sides need to be heard.

Who are these people who will use abortion as contraception? Do they exist?

The MAP is not something you'd want to experience regularly so I'd guess abortion pills are even more severe. Hard to believe women are going to choose that over regular contraception.

Most likely they and late term abortions are a pro life fantasy.

NuMarvel

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Agreed. I just think a lot of people want to repeal with no limits and that doesn’t sit well with me.

Maybe they do, but that won't be what will happen. If a repeal referendum is passed, the most the Oireachtas will do is legislate as per the Committee's recommendations, which are:

1) As a matter of choice in the first 12 weeks
2) In specified circumstances after that (eg risk to health, risk to life, ffa).

Ireland is not going to go from having one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world to having none in one fell swoop. The most that's going to happen is we'll have laws similar to most other EU countries, eg Portugal, Spain, France.

thee glitz

volchitsa wrote: »

So where are you getting this claim that "a lot of people" want no limits from?

It's a red herring afaict.

Abortion Rights Campaign probably.