The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

NuMarvel · 17-12-2017 06:13PM

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.

markodaly · 17-12-2017 06:32PM

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 The 8th could be repealed but replaced with something that protects the life of the unborn post 12 weeks.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

markodaly · 17-12-2017 06:33PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No thanks and public opinion does not support this.

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

Shenshen · 17-12-2017 06:40PM

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?

NuMarvel · 17-12-2017 06:47PM

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:.

end of the road · 17-12-2017 06:47PM

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.

end of the road · 17-12-2017 06:52PM

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.

NuMarvel · 17-12-2017 07:17PM

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?

volchitsa · 17-12-2017 07:19PM

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?

volchitsa · 17-12-2017 07:22PM

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?

Cian_ok · 17-12-2017 07:26PM

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"?

end of the road · 17-12-2017 07:49PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

in very very limited circumstances was it enforcible, where someone admitted they were going abroad to procure an abortion. effectively it wasn't enforcible over all.

NuMarvel wrote: »

The issue was that the enforcement of the ban was unpalatable to the majority of the Irish public.

so be it. a lot of things are unpalatable to some of the Irish public. but they have to be implemented for the greater good.

NuMarvel wrote: »

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?

it's not up to the campaigners to abandon it, it's up to the government to give the guarantee it won't legislate for it.

Shenshen · 17-12-2017 07:54PM

end of the road wrote: »

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

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.

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.

i've answered that for you there now.

Thank you. It's good to see clear answers on how much hardship you'd be happy to force others to accept, and where you would draw the line.

thee glitz · 17-12-2017 08:10PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Thank you. It's good to see clear answers on how much hardship you'd be happy to force others to accept, and where you would draw the line.

Self-inflicted in fairness - matters of personal responsibility.

NuMarvel · 17-12-2017 08:11PM

end of the road wrote: »

it's not up to the campaigners to abandon it, it's up to the government to give the guarantee it won't legislate for it.

That doesn't address my point though; People may vote no to repeal in the absence of this guarantee, but polls show more would vote yes. And you've again ignored the central point of my prior post; the unforeseen consequences of putting complex matters into the constitution. So I'll ask again: How would you guarantee that wouldn't happen with whatever amendment you'd suggest?

end of the road · 17-12-2017 08:29PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Thank you. It's good to see clear answers on how much hardship you'd be happy to force others to accept, and where you would draw the line.

the life of the unborn has to be protected. i believe that is right and just.
if i vote yes to repeal then i would be completely endorsing the taking of the life of the unborn regardless of circumstances. i'm not going to do that as i don't agree with it.
if repealing the 8th didn't bring abortion on demand to ireland then i would vote to repeal it.

Mr. CooL ICE · 17-12-2017 08:30PM

thee glitz wrote: »

Self-inflicted in fairness - matters of personal responsibility.

Having an abortion when the baby couldn't be supported is personal responsibility.

Odhinn · 17-12-2017 08:36PM

markodaly wrote: »

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

.

Laws will regulate that, and they are not that easily changed. The amendment creates all sorts of hesitancy and must go.

markodaly · 17-12-2017 08:42PM

volchitsa wrote: »

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

Oh, that old myth again? You can tell when a side is scrambling trying and get an upside of a debate when they bring that up.

Can we park the question if the mothers life is in danger please, it was dealt with the Protection of Life Bill 2013

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/35/enacted/en/pdf

markodaly · 17-12-2017 08:46PM

Odhinn wrote: »

Laws will regulate that, and they are not that easily changed. The amendment creates all sorts of hesitancy and must go.

Laws are easily change but the constitution is not. As I said, there is no protection for the unborn if the 8th is repealed, so a law could be brought in where anyone can abort a baby up to the day before they are due for any reason.

People do not trust the politicians as much you think they do. So, there should be an additional amendment protecting the life of the unborn, from 12 weeks.

Saying, leave it in the hands of future politicians is not good enough.

Odhinn · 17-12-2017 08:57PM

markodaly wrote: »

Laws are easily change but the constitution is not. As I said, there is no protection for the unborn if the 8th is repealed, so a law could be brought in where anyone can abort a baby up to the day before they are due for any reason..

...not that you're scare mongering.

markodaly wrote: »

People do not trust the politicians as much you think they do. So, there should be an additional amendment protecting the life of the unborn, from 12 weeks.

Saying, leave it in the hands of future politicians is not good enough.

People shouldn't trust them at all. They are, however,answerable to the electorate and the notion that some 9 month abortion law may be brought in at some stage in the future by them (for reasons unknown) is no reason to rely on an inflexible and problematic amendment.

Odhinn · 17-12-2017 08:59PM

markodaly wrote: »

Oh, that old myth again? You can tell when a side is scrambling trying and get an upside of a debate when they bring that up.

Can we park the question if the mothers life is in danger please, it was dealt with the Protection of Life Bill 2013

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/35/enacted/en/pdf

...the miss Y case in 2014, the dead woman kept alive on a respirator.....

Hotblack Desiato · 17-12-2017 09:02PM

markodaly wrote: »

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

Do you mean the one 34 years ago where many of the Yes voters have since died? The one that everyone currently of reproductive age had no say in?

volchitsa · 17-12-2017 09:07PM

markodaly wrote: »

Oh, that old myth again? You can tell when a side is scrambling trying and get an upside of a debate when they bring that up.

Can we park the question if the mothers life is in danger please, it was dealt with the Protection of Life Bill 2013

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/35/enacted/en/pdf

You misunderstand. You said that we could have a new law which would give the 12 week old fetus "the same rights as everyone else". That isn't actually the case at the moment, (despite what prolife at the time thought they were doing) because of the clause that says "as far as is practicable".

If we did as you suggested, that is exactly what would happen : I'm not allowed to kill you to save my own life (let's say I need your liver) so a woman with a fetus over 12 weeks would not be allowed to kill it in order to save her own life either. Otherwise it wouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.

thee glitz · 17-12-2017 09:14PM

end of the road wrote: »

it's not up to the campaigners to abandon it, it's up to the government to give the guarantee it won't legislate for it.

Pro-choice campaigners, from all I've seen, don't particularly care for special circumstances cases - they merely use them to further their own, more liberal, agenda.

I'm very confident that legislating for abortion in the case of FFA, for example, would be widely welcomed. Special cases is not enough for pro-choicers - they would rather risk the continued inavailability in these cases than contemplate advocating anything less than abortion on demand.

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Having an abortion when the baby couldn't be supported is personal responsibility.

It's not really though - more looking out for yourself. There are state supports available to all, if not from family too.

Hotblack Desiato · 17-12-2017 09:17PM

thee glitz wrote: »

Self-inflicted in fairness - matters of personal responsibility.

Yeah cause if you get cancer when you're pregnant it's obviously your own fault :rolleyes:

Or maybe she was 'asking for it' if she got raped.

You have a low opinion of women but so do many of your fellow travellers.

Edward M · 17-12-2017 09:36PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yeah cause if you get cancer when you're pregnant it's obviously your own fault :rolleyes:

Or maybe she was 'asking for it' if she got raped.

You have a low opinion of women but so do many of your fellow travellers.

ACH, that's not very fair. People have concerns about abortion on demand, based on a whim rather than a necessity.
Where did anyone say that anyone raped was asking for it. There are probably a great amount of unwanted pregnancies where more responsible behaviour would have prevented them.
That doesent include rape or abusive situations.
You're looking for a stick to beat some with that doesent exist.

Odhinn · 17-12-2017 09:46PM

Edward M wrote: »

ACH, that's not very fair. People have concerns about abortion on demand, based on a whim rather than a necessity.
.........

You might expand as to "based on a whim".

Edward M · 17-12-2017 10:00PM

Odhinn wrote: »

You might expand as to "based on a whim".

Maybe I worded it wrongly.
Based on just wanting to get rid of the baby perhaps because it brings complications in to their life they don't want.
Such as perhaps, career, finances and just plain being tied down to baby minding.
There can be many reasons for it, I'd need a page to list them all and you know it.
The post was in response to a fairly accusing post, an unhelpful post really that points to ignorance of anyone who opposes abortion on demand.
Just to edit, abortion on demand up to 12/16 weeks, which ever, doesent have to be based on anything other than any whim as I originally said!

markodaly · 17-12-2017 10:00PM

Odhinn wrote: »

People shouldn't trust them at all. .

Yet, you are prepared to hand them the keys to determine the how the unborn are treated.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments