The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Edward M wrote: »

Just on the prosecution of abortion travellers, how could that be enforced anyway?
I'm no legal expert, but how would it be possible to prosecute someone for an offence committed in a foreign state that isn't illegal in that other state anyway?
That argument wouldn't stand up I'd say.

There's a couple of ways you could do it in the absence of the 13th and 14th amendments.

For one, someone could follow the path of the X case and seek an injunction on someone leaving the State to procure an abortion that would be unlawful here. The Supreme Court in 1992 held that such an injunction would be constitutional under the 8th. So fathers objecting to their wives or partners having an abortion could seek an injunction. Anti-abortion crisis pregnancy agencies could seek an injunction. I'm sure we can all think of many more examples. And if such an injunction were granted, breaking it could see the woman facing fines and/or a prison term.

Another may be to take a leaf out of the laws against assisted suicide. As you say, we can't criminalise an act that takes place outside our jurisdiction, but you could criminalise the act of arranging an abortion, in the same way that arranging the suicide of someone else is a criminal offence, even if it is due to take place outside the state. And while it may not be easy to bring a prosecution in these circumstances, it wouldn't be impossible, especially in an age of surveillance like we live in today.

There's preventative measures you can take too, to make it harder to arrange travel in the first place. The repeal of the 14th amendment would make it possible to criminalise the distribution of any information about abortion (as it was prior to 1995). Access to websites about abortion could be easily restricted.

And all these are just things I can think of. I'd say if the Pro Life Campaign paid a lawyer to think about it, there would be plenty more they could come up with.

BTW, if anyone in favour of the 8th thinks these actions would be extreme or even callous, then I suggest re-reading the 8th. Because the 8th is clear that with the exception of the right to life, all of the woman's rights are secondary. And that includes the freedom to travel, the right to privacy and dignity, and anything else you think my suggestions violate.

gctest50

end of the road wrote: »

................

the current system is ultimately stopping some abortions. therefore it is doing it's job in some form.......

The only ones it is stopping are for those who are not wealthy enough

Before I reply to you EOTR, just know that you have broken up my responses to make me look like a d1ck. This is indicative of what pro-lifers do.

end of the road wrote: »

nope. but you know that. of course it's much easier for you to twist what people say to suit your agenda then deal with the facts though.

Okay, so what do you do when a mother, who doesn't want a child, is forced to have that child because of what you belief is just? How do you help those mothers and those kids? If you say nothing, you prove you are pro-birth and not pro-life.

well you will be glad to hear that i don't agree with the way some children are trated in ireland, or the conditions of some foster homes or the behaviour of some foster parents. however, it's not a justification for abortion. you can disagree with how children are treated but still disagree with abortion bar extreme circumstances.

So, you admit there is a problem....but want to add to the problem but not allowing abortions? Do you not see that people like you cause the problems? There is more children in the foster system than couples looking to adopt!

children suffering is no justification for abortion in itself.

Explained above, don't know why you broke up that part. Probably to make me look like an ass. Not gonna work.

in what way isn't that being dealt with. her mental health issues can be dealt with, we have a mental health system. it's not perfect by any means i'd agree but we have such a system.

So, you have a fundamental lack of biology clearly. Our mental health system is awful, like, atrocious. They have literally asked people why they haven't killed themselves that's how bad it is. But, I digress

When a woman is pregnant, her hormones are all over the shop. If she is already suffering with mental health issues before pregnancy, she is far more likely to either self-harm or attempt suicide. Which is a problem!

i have already stated that where the baby will not be able to be caried to term that abortion should be availible. but you know that.

No, you said if there was a risk to the mothers health, their are systems in place to deal with that. (Pro-tip, that law is extremely poorly written and worded and if a doctor refuses to provide an abortion, nothing would happen). I'm telling you cases in which the mother will be at risk and you just skirt over them. It's like you are putting your hands over your ears and just going. "LALALALALA, NOT LISTENING, LALALALALA"

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So, you are pro-life in the sense that you only care that a fetus is brought to term and born?

nope. but you know that. of course it's much easier for you to twist what people say to suit your agenda then deal with the facts though.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

If you were really pro-life, you wouldn't agree with the way some children are brought up in horrible foster care or are homeless.

well you will be glad to hear that i don't agree with the way some children are trated in ireland, or the conditions of some foster homes or the behaviour of some foster parents. however, it's not a justification for abortion. you can disagree with how children are treated but still disagree with abortion bar extreme circumstances.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

But nope, none of that matters, protecting a fetus is more important than making sure children who are suffering in our country don't suffer any more.

children suffering is no justification for abortion in itself.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

How? Why? You are just making a claim and not backing it up. By the way, in the case of a mother having mental health issues and may take her life, nope, it's not taken care of.

in what way isn't that being dealt with. her mental health issues can be dealt with, we have a mental health system. it's not perfect by any means i'd agree but we have such a system.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

In terms of having a dead thing inside her, nope, it's not taken care of. By the way, that dead thing can lead to infection and an infection inside the body is harder to deal with to save the mother than just aborting a fetus that has no chance of surviving outside the womb or is already dead.

i have already stated that where the baby will not be able to be caried to term that abortion should be availible. but you know that.

end of the road wrote: »

it's pro-life. you are pro-life only. nothing more. there is nothing wrong with insuring the taking of the life of the unborn cannot be a choice within the irish state bar extreme circumstances.

So, you are pro-life in the sense that you only care that a fetus is brought to term and born? How is that pro-life, and not anti-choice/pro-birth exactly? If you were really pro-life, you wouldn't agree with the way some children are brought up in horrible foster care or are homeless. But nope, none of that matters, protecting a fetus is more important than making sure children who are suffering in our country don't suffer any more.

it has to have, and it deserves equal rights from the start, as it will be a human being. where that isn't viable, it is already taken care of within the state.

How? Why? You are just making a claim and not backing it up. By the way, in the case of a mother having mental health issues and may take her life, nope, it's not taken care of. In terms of having a dead thing inside her, nope, it's not taken care of. By the way, that dead thing can lead to infection and an infection inside the body is harder to deal with to save the mother than just aborting a fetus that has no chance of surviving outside the womb or is already dead.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

Thank you. Wasn't so hard, was it?

I didn't ask you if you'd apply a travel ban. I asked if you'd repeal the constitutional protections for travel. A travel ban doesn't automatically follow repeal.

As for the enforceability of bans or injunctions on travel, that question was put to rest by the Supreme Court back in 1992. Obviously you disagree, but I think they know more about this matter than you do.

No one ever said it would.

Yes it does, for reasons that have been stated by me and others numerous times. You can ignore that if you wish, but it doesn't make your statements true.

Just on the prosecution of abortion travellers, how could that be enforced anyway?
I'm no legal expert, but how would it be possible to prosecute someone for an offence committed in a foreign state that isn't illegal in that other state anyway?
That argument wouldn't stand up I'd say.

frag420 wrote: »

So your putting practicalities above the life of the unborn?

Which is something I believe the pro life lobby are accusing the pro choice side of doing?

anyone can only work within practicality and reality. it doesn't mean that the supported aim isn't being done as much as is possible. the current system is ultimately stopping some abortions. therefore it is doing it's job in some form.
however, it can only do so much, and as much as i don't agree with abortion, there are some circumstances where the life of the unborn can't ultimately be protected as it's not practical to do so.
i believe that the recognised instances where the unborn's life can't be protected and abortion is availible, are mostly catered for within the irish state. however there are a couple of extensions such as FFA which should be incorporated into the law. but other then issues which threaten the life of the mother, or which cause the baby to be unable to be carried to term, then abortion should not be availible in this state.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

it's pro-birth. Unless you decide to take an interest in the children born due to your viewpoint, you are not pro-life, you are anti-choice and pro-birth. Nothing more

it's pro-life. you are pro-life only. nothing more. there is nothing wrong with insuring the taking of the life of the unborn cannot be a choice within the irish state bar extreme circumstances.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

No, a fetus that can't support itself outside the womb does not deserve equal rights to the mother. When it gets to a point life is viable, then it does.

it has to have, and it deserves equal rights from the start, as it will be a human being. where that isn't viable, it is already taken care of within the state.

end of the road wrote: »

it is a contradiction in some people's view. the fact it may not really be in you or my view doesn't mean someone elses view on that issue isn't valid.

Well, actually, it does. If you say something is true, you have to prove that. So, yes, someone's else view is not valid if they can't prove something. I find the idea that a fetus is an unborn life when it can't survive outside the womb is a bad view to have.

you don't know what the pro-life do or don't care about no more then i do, as we aren't going to know every single person in the country or their views whether pro-choice or pro-life.

Alright, can you back up how I don't know what "pro-life" is? No? Thought as much. And again, it's pro-birth. Unless you decide to take an interest in the children born due to your viewpoint, you are not pro-life, you are anti-choice and pro-birth. Nothing more

but the unborn won't have protection before 12 weeks. i want it to remain to be the case that the unborn have protection before 12 weeks.

I frankly don't care. You made a point, I refuted it and then you try and change the goal posts to "actually, this is what I meant. Haha pro-choicer, I got you!" No, a fetus that can't support itself outside the womb does not deserve equal rights to the mother. When it gets to a point life is viable, then it does.

SusieBlue

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

He wasnt quoting EOTR

NuMarvel asked EOTR to give a one word answer to a question.
C_man asked why he felt entitled to say someone should give a one word answer.
I explained that EOTR regularly contradicts himself and it's sometimes hard to figure out the point he's making, and that's why NuMarvel was asking for a one word answer.

frag420

end of the road wrote: »

in reality no . it would not be practical to prosecute someone for having an abortion abroad. the evidence couldn't be gathered to prove that such took place. so again this is another non-realistic question to ask, given that it cannot happen anyway.

So your putting practicalities above the life of the unborn?

Which is something I believe the pro life lobby are accusing the pro choice side of doing?

Again do you know what contradictory means?

captbarnacles wrote: »

It wouldn't be a travel ban though? surely it would be prosecution for Irish women who have an abortion abroad.

So Eotr would you support that?

in reality no . it would not be practical to prosecute someone for having an abortion abroad. the evidence couldn't be gathered to prove that such took place. so again this is another non-realistic question to ask, given that it cannot happen anyway.

frag420

EOTR, do you know what contradictory means?

Genuinely curious?

captbarnacles

It wouldn't be a travel ban though? surely it would be prosecution for Irish women who have an abortion abroad.

So Eotr would you support that?

Annasopra

WhiteRoses wrote: »

EOTR is incapable of giving a solid answer to anything he's asked to clarify about his opinion, he almost talks in riddles. I've often seem him asked for one word answers just to make things very clear, and he'll still reply with a whole paragraph of contradictions.

He wasnt quoting EOTR

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

If Ireland did reject the repeal could an argument be made to repeal the right to travel/information?

On what basis?

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

No, it's not a contradiction at all. Most people don't support abortion until full-term. While I think 12 weeks is a little short, I also recognise it's perhaps the best way to get the referendum passed. I personally think up to 20 weeks (as, like I have stated before, the fetus can't survive before 17 weeks and has less than 5% chance at 20 weeks of surviving outside the womb). At some point, there has to a recognition that the fetus is viable and is therefore life. Some say 24 weeks, others say 16, whatever. It's not a contradiction, even scientists have a hard time pin-pointing when the fetus is viable.

it is a contradiction in some people's view. the fact it may not really be in you or my view doesn't mean someone elses view on that issue isn't valid.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Actually, no, I don't know any people who say this. And, if people do say this, they are morons. My issue with anti-choice (not pro-life) is that they don't care what happens the fetus once it is born and is a child. They are pro-birth, not pro-life. That's the contradiction, not that they can agree that if the mother's life is in danger, an abortion is fine.

you don't know what the pro-life do or don't care about no more then i do, as we aren't going to know every single person in the country or their views whether pro-choice or pro-life.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Yes, and it will continue to have after this referendum. After 12 weeks, apart from certain situations, the unborn will still be protected by the state. In most countries where abortion is until a certain period of pregnancy, the unborn fetus has rights after that point. You're just ignoring that.

but the unborn won't have protection before 12 weeks. i want it to remain to be the case that the unborn have protection before 12 weeks.

Let's wade back in. Really don't know why I engage some people here, but anyway, let's dive in

end of the road wrote: »

i answer all questions put to me where relevant in terms of the context of the thread. if the questions are not relevant to the thread they will not be answered.
the abortion issue as a whole will be a contradiction on everyone's part as there will be a multitude of differing viewpoints in terms of both sides of the argument.
some for example will see the pro-choice view of only abortion up to 12 weeks as contradictory, as they believe that being pro-choice means you must not interfere in when people should and shouldn't have an abortion.

No, it's not a contradiction at all. Most people don't support abortion until full-term. While I think 12 weeks is a little short, I also recognise it's perhaps the best way to get the referendum passed. I personally think up to 20 weeks (as, like I have stated before, the fetus can't survive before 17 weeks and has less than 5% chance at 20 weeks of surviving outside the womb). At some point, there has to a recognition that the fetus is viable and is therefore life. Some say 24 weeks, others say 16, whatever. It's not a contradiction, even scientists have a hard time pin-pointing when the fetus is viable.

others will see the pro-life view of only protecting the life of the unborn as much as is practical to be contradictory, as they believe that if you are in favour of protection of the unborn, you must be in favour of it at any cost.
both are valid views, just the same as mine and many others.

Actually, no, I don't know any people who say this. And, if people do say this, they are morons. My issue with anti-choice (not pro-life) is that they don't care what happens the fetus once it is born and is a child. They are pro-birth, not pro-life. That's the contradiction, not that they can agree that if the mother's life is in danger, an abortion is fine.

it really doesn't. the fact is the irish state still has some protections for the life of the unborn. however they can only go so far whether i agree with the act of abortion or not.

Yes, and it will continue to have after this referendum. After 12 weeks, apart from certain situations, the unborn will still be protected by the state. In most countries where abortion is until a certain period of pregnancy, the unborn fetus has rights after that point. You're just ignoring that.

i don't contradict myself. it has never happened. however in relation to a topic like abortion, one must be realistic in terms of what is achievible.

Man, as I pointed out above, you clearly contradict yourself. You couldn't give a sh1t about the fetus once it's born, so your unjust morally outrage against abortions makes little sense. It's a contradiction at best and I don't want to say what it is at worst.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

EOTR is incapable of giving a solid answer to anything he's asked to clarify about his opinion, he almost talks in riddles. I've often seem him asked for one word answers just to make things very clear, and he'll still reply with a whole paragraph of contradictions.

i answer all questions put to me where relevant in terms of the context of the thread. if the questions are not relevant to the thread they will not be answered.
the abortion issue as a whole will be a contradiction on everyone's part as there will be a multitude of differing viewpoints in terms of both sides of the argument.
some for example will see the pro-choice view of only abortion up to 12 weeks as contradictory, as they believe that being pro-choice means you must not interfere in when people should and shouldn't have an abortion.
others will see the pro-life view of only protecting the life of the unborn as much as is practical to be contradictory, as they believe that if you are in favour of protection of the unborn, you must be in favour of it at any cost.
both are valid views, just the same as mine and many others.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yes it does, for reasons that have been stated by me and others numerous times. You can ignore that if you wish, but it doesn't make your statements true.

it really doesn't. the fact is the irish state still has some protections for the life of the unborn. however they can only go so far whether i agree with the act of abortion or not.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Well no, its actually just really difficult to debate with someone who constantly contradicts themselves. It gets extremely confusing, so I can see why someone might suggest he answer just just a yes or no to confirm what he's trying to get at.

i don't contradict myself. it has never happened. however in relation to a topic like abortion, one must be realistic in terms of what is achievible.

Loafing Oaf

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That is impossible

I know. I was parodying/paraphrasing this post:

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.

c_man wrote: »

What on Earth makes you think you should be giving out guidelines as to how people post? Is that kinda crap actually allowed here?

If you think I've breached a site rule, then you're free to use the Report function.

Personally I think asking a poster to give a clear answer to a simple question he's previously ignored isn't "direction" or "guideline", but your mileage may vary.

SusieBlue

c_man wrote: »

How dare he not follow the directions of random posters!

Well no, its actually just really difficult to debate with someone who constantly contradicts themselves. It gets extremely confusing, so I can see why someone might suggest he answer just just a yes or no to confirm what he's trying to get at.

end of the road wrote: »

i would vote no .

Thank you. Wasn't so hard, was it?

end of the road wrote: »

a travel bann just wouldn't be enforcible over all without banning all pregnant women from traveling which is impossible and unreasonable.

I didn't ask you if you'd apply a travel ban. I asked if you'd repeal the constitutional protections for travel. A travel ban doesn't automatically follow repeal.

As for the enforceability of bans or injunctions on travel, that question was put to rest by the Supreme Court back in 1992. Obviously you disagree, but I think they know more about this matter than you do.

end of the road wrote: »

it does not change my view on the act of abortion.

No one ever said it would.

end of the road wrote: »

it does not make the protections for the life of the unborn that the irish state have invalid.

Yes it does, for reasons that have been stated by me and others numerous times. You can ignore that if you wish, but it doesn't make your statements true.

c_man

WhiteRoses wrote: »

EOTR is incapable of giving a solid answer to anything he's asked to clarify about his opinion, he almost talks in riddles. I've often seem him asked for one word answers just to make things very clear, and he'll still reply with a whole paragraph of contradictions.

How dare he not follow the directions of random posters!

SusieBlue

c_man wrote: »

What on Earth makes you think you should be giving out guidelines as to how people post? Is that kinda crap actually allowed here?

EOTR is incapable of giving a solid answer to anything he's asked to clarify about his opinion, he almost talks in riddles. I've often seem him asked for one word answers just to make things very clear, and he'll still reply with a whole paragraph of contradictions.

c_man

NuMarvel wrote: »

So would you vote Yes or No if there was a referendum to repeal the constitutional protection of the freedom to travel for an abortion? A 1 word reply will be sufficient.

What on Earth makes you think you should be giving out guidelines as to how people post? Is that kinda crap actually allowed here?

applehunter

eviltwin wrote: »

I will discuss, not debate. There is no point trying to change a person who is deeply pro life, look at this thread for example - it's a rehash of every other abortion thread with the same people over and over again. What's the point?

I am more than willing to discuss the issue with anyone not sure of how to vote or who needs more clarification on various things.

But I'm not going to debate with people who just want to sling misinformation and insults.

Discuss/Debate

Both involve the exchange of ideas.

Classic sophistry from an abortion advocate.

NuMarvel wrote: »

So would you vote Yes or No if there was a referendum to repeal the constitutional protection of the freedom to travel for an abortion? A 1 word reply will be sufficient.

i would vote no . a travel bann just wouldn't be enforcible over all without banning all pregnant women from traveling which is impossible and unreasonable.
it does not change my view on the act of abortion. it does not make the protections for the life of the unborn that the irish state have invalid.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No

I would probably guess 20-30% are convinced pro life and 20-30% are convinced pro choice and that there is about 40-60% who can be swayed

There was an Irish Times article that said pretty much this; it put convinced repealers at "somewhat greater than 30%" and committed anti-abortion voters at being "perhaps greater than 20%, but not by much". The rest lean toward repeal, but it wouldn't be a hard Yes at this point.

freshpopcorn

If Ireland did reject the repeal could an argument be made to repeal the right to travel/information?