The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

end of the road wrote: »

a woman's right to bodily autonomy does have the same status as being able to get on a boat or a plane. however where a woman's decisian effects the right to life of the unborn then that life has to be protected bar extreme circumstances.

You need to read the constitution, because you're wrong on both counts. A woman's freedom to travel has greater status than her right to bodily autonomy during pregnancy. And last year at least 3265 women made a decision that affected the unborn's rights, and the constitution makes sure the 8th can't interfere in that.

As I said before, the unborn's right to life is already subject to exceptions. I see no reason why bodily autonomy early in a pregnancy can't be another one.

markodaly wrote: »

Returning the eight should be replaced with something that gives the Dail the ability to legislate for the first 12 weeks, but after there should be protections for the unborn.

The constitution already gives the Dáil power to legislate, so repealing the 8th is all that's needed. The Dáil can then legislate as per the Committee's recommendations, which is similar in practice to what you're suggesting.

If someone wants to put that into the constitution, then good luck coming up with a wording that won't cause more trips to the high court, supreme court and/or international human rights authorities.

end of the road wrote: »

it is black and white when it comes to abortion on demand.

Yet somehow you say its gray in cases or rape. Hypocrytical stance really.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Posters like this is what is really harming the pro-choice side.

Signature, A picture of repeal, location repeal. Blame the Catholic Church and then make it a class issue about poor people.

Most people don't give a feck about the church. Never have and never will, it's the class issue that gets to people. Most people in Ireland grew up poor and know what it like to be hungry through no fault of the own and trying their best to put food on the table in the 70's and 80's and now we are finally getting through the latest recession. Jumped up little fecks looking to be cool who never went hungry and now want to control their fertility?

I bet you wouldn't wouldn't dare say that about any other race, religion or creed other than the poor Irish.

It is a class issue. Wealthy people can afford to travel for abortions. Poor people cant.

end of the road wrote: »

there is adoption. or if they really want to kill their baby they can hop to england. in terms of abortion on demand ireland doesn't need to meet that need. it does need to meet the need to have an abortion in extreme circumstances where someone's life is at stake or in the cases where the baby will sadly die anyway.

Again with the hypocrysy. "Its fine if they want to do it. Just not on this Island"

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So where do we put limits if not in law?

It should be in law but not in the constitution.

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.

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

That sounds disastrous....court cases deciding if it is 12 weeks or not

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

You need to read the constitution, because you're wrong on both counts. A woman's freedom to travel has greater status than her right to bodily autonomy during pregnancy. And last year at least 3265 women made a decision that affected the unborn's rights, and the constitution makes sure the 8th can't interfere in that.

As I said before, the unborn's right to life is already subject to exceptions. I see no reason why bodily autonomy early in a pregnancy can't be another one.

because there is no need for it as those who really wish to have an abortion on demand have the opportunity to avail of it elsewhere, and the irish state has a duty to insure there are rights and protections for the unborn. people traveling abroad doesn't make those protections less valid. we have laws in this country which people break but we don't scrap them because people break them. so just because people travel abroad for abortions doesn't mean that we need to scrap the protections for the unborn. if the protections work in 1 case then it's a good thing.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Again with the hypocrysy. "Its fine if they want to do it. Just not on this Island"

it's actually not fine, but we have to be realistic. people can't be stopped from traveling abroad.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

because there is no need for it as those who really wish to have an abortion on demand have the opportunity to avail of it elsewhere, and the irish state has a duty to insure there are rights and protections for the unborn.

1. There is a need for it
2. They want it here not elsewhere
3. What is the duty of the Irish State that you claim here and if you back that up, what prevents it from being changed by due process?

As always, you post opinions - pretty vapid ones, often offensively so in sensitive topics such as this- as if they were fact.

You post facts which are not facts

You don't respond to points made in any meaningful way.

I dont believe for a second youre anything but a disturbingly committed (if ideologically incoherent) troll account

Frankly it's astonishing how you are allowed to destroy threads on this site the way that you do and it's a pretty pisspoor judgement on the moderators and the systems they have in place, given how busy they are handing out infractions and bans for much less corrosive behaviour every minute of every day.

Obviously I'll be banned for saying this but I can't be the only one sick of this. Carry on everyone!

Edward M

Odhinn wrote: »

You can be perfectly responsible and end up pregnant (or so I've observed).

As regards the "no more than a whim" brigade - excellent.

I've explained my reasons for my beliefs over a few posts, if that doesent sit with you then that's just our differing belief on the subject.
I feel a repeal of the eighth to help those in life and death situations is necessary and would vote for such, but not for abortion for all up to any stage.
I feel that if those who want abortion on demand want the allowance of abortion up to a certain stage, they might cause change of the eighth at all to fail.

pilly

end of the road wrote:

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.

WE KNOW.

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.

Well firstly abortion can not be a form of contraception because that is simply not what the word contraception means. If conception happens, one is already past the point of contraception.

However I find your position internatlly incoherent. If you are "pro choice" and "don’t believe I have the right to dictate what another woman chooses to do with her body" then when you say they should "simply walk in off the street, demand an abortion and be given one then and there" or when you worry about the reasons WHY they are having an abortion........ then that is exactly what you are doing......... dictating their choices.

The simple fact is that if you can not argue against X, then peoples reasons for doing X might bother you but that is irrelevant. For example I believe in your right to drink coke and eat McDonalds. If you told me you were specifically eating and drinking it because you intended to get so obese that you could claim disability........... while your motivation might disgust me I still believe in your right to do so.

I am sure people will seek abortions for reasons that disgust me personally. Such as, to take an example mentioned on the thread already, because they find out they are having a girl when they wanted a boy. But I have to realize the border between personal disgust.... and ACTUAL reasons for curtailing the rights and choices of others. The former, is not the latter. Nor should it ever be.

thee glitz wrote: »

Self-inflicted in fairness - matters of personal responsibility.

So are most sports injuries. But we do not stand over them lording our moral high horse at them that they got themselves into this mess. Rather we stand with them, and tell them what their options to go forward are.

The same should be true of pregnancy. Because that is what personal responsibility means. Assessing your current situation, your options, and deciding what is the best way for YOU to move forward.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So are most sports injuries. But we do not stand over them lording our moral high horse at them that they got themselves into this mess. Rather we stand with them, and tell them what their options to go forward are.

Presumably you wouldn't start off with amputation though?

The same should be true of pregnancy. Because that is what personal responsibility means. Assessing your current situation, your options, and deciding what is the best way for YOU to move forward.

Apparently,

wikipedia wrote:

Personal responsibility or Individual Responsibility is the idea that human beings choose, instigate, or otherwise cause their own actions. A corollary idea is that because we cause our actions, we can be held morally accountable or legally liable.

Say you knock someone off a bike one night in the middle of nowhere, and they're probably in a bad way. The best thing for You might be to get out of there asap and say nothing, so we have laws against that to disincentivise it.

end of the road wrote: »

because there is no need for it as those who really wish to have an abortion on demand have the opportunity to avail of it elsewhere, and the irish state has a duty to insure there are rights and protections for the unborn. people traveling abroad doesn't make those protections less valid. we have laws in this country which people break but we don't scrap them because people break them. so just because people travel abroad for abortions doesn't mean that we need to scrap the protections for the unborn. if the protections work in 1 case then it's a good thing.

it's actually not fine, but we have to be realistic. people can't be stopped from traveling abroad.

So in summary: you're against abortion on demand but you're not against abortion on demand, and you're not against the freedom to travel but we must protect the unborn even if it only works in one case, except in that one case where stopping someone travelling worked because we can't stop people travelling even when we did and something something something abortion on demand!!!

Here's a simple yes or no question: Would you vote Yes or No in a referendum to repeal the constitutional protection of the freedom to travel for an abortion?

thee glitz wrote: »

Presumably you wouldn't start off with amputation though?

I would assume that would depend on the injury in question. But what we "start off with" is not my point. My point is that rather than lording our personal moral high horse of "You got yourself into this" we offer them all the options we can, and realize that "personal responsibility" does not involve them making the choices WE would make in that situation. Which is, functionally at least, essentially what you are espousing..... that personal responsibility means them not making the choices YOU would not yourself make.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

that personal responsibility means them not making the choices YOU would not yourself make.

Whether I would or not make a certain choice is hypothetical. Actually in that situation, I'd be subject to the same laws.

thee glitz wrote: »

Whether I would or not make a certain choice is hypothetical. Actually in that situation, I'd be subject to the same laws.

Hypothetical or not, defining "taking responsibility" as "not having abortions", which many people here do, is not people taking responsibility, but the speaker doing so for them.

Giving people options, and allowing them to choose the best one for them, is giving people the responsibility to take themselves. Not making, or unmaking, their choices for them.

If one wants to moan at people about personal responsibility, then GIVE Them the responsibility in the first place would be my thinking on it.

sbsquarepants

NuMarvel wrote: »

You need to read the constitution, because you're wrong on both counts. A woman's freedom to travel has greater status than her right to bodily autonomy during pregnancy. And last year at least 3265 women made a decision that affected the unborn's rights, and the constitution makes sure the 8th can't interfere in that.

As I said before, the unborn's right to life is already subject to exceptions. I see no reason why bodily autonomy early in a pregnancy can't be another one.

As far as I can see basically any Irish woman who wants an abortion, whether that reason is the often quoted fatal foetal abnormality, rape / incest or she just doesn't fancy the idea of stretchmarks or would rather go backpacking for a year than sit in minding a baby, she already gets that abortion. All this pointless amendment does is make it a more arduous and expensive undertaking.

The number of abortions prevented is likely negligible and those kids are likely born in to the worst possible scenarios, the poorest, the most abusive, the least capable of looking after them. Anyone with a bit of freedom and a few spare quid just jumps on a plane and gets the job done.

A lot of pro lifers tend to stop giving a rats arse about what happens to the lives they "save" once they are actually born. Sure isn't a life of misery better than no life at all!

Shenshen

end of the road wrote: »

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.

Well, not by your answers - you said you're borderline about the girl who didn't know about contraception, for example, and in the case of the woman in the abusive relationship.
Why would in those cases the life of the unborn be less deserving of protection?

Zubeneschamali

sbsquarepants wrote: »

A lot of pro lifers tend to stop giving a rats arse about what happens to the lives they "save" once they are actually born. Sure isn't a life of misery better than no life at all!

The whole Irish pro-life thing has its roots in old-fashioned Catholic theology. It was important to deliver each baby alive so that they could be baptized and saved from Limbo. This was more important than saving the mothers life (since she was already baptized and could go to heaven).

Loafing Oaf

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.

I will vote against a referendum to change the constitution unless it includes a clause stipulating that the constitution must remain exactly the same...

jimmycrackcorm

Zubeneschamali wrote:

The whole Irish pro-life thing has its roots in old-fashioned Catholic theology. It was important to deliver each baby alive so that they could be baptized and saved from Limbo. This was more important than saving the mothers life (since she was already baptized and could go to heaven).

I don't think that's correct. For a start Irish families were traditionally very large because more children meant better chances surviving old age by having kids to support their parents.

The religious stuff is incidental and that argument is always pushed to try to make it only a religious choice.

Many of not most pro life people consider that they were also once a fetus and are therefore distinctly attuned to the idea that killing a fetus is killing a person.

Zubeneschamali

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think that's correct.

Look up the ethos of the Rotunda vs. Holles street back in the day. Rotunda, Protestant, save the mother. Holles St., Catholic, save the baby.

It is a religious difference and it is based in theology.

Which is why the Catholic Church was the only Irish Christian Church arguing for the 8th back in 1983 - the Church of Ireland were against it (although still anti-abortion).