The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

end of the road · 18-12-2017 07:07PM

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 · 18-12-2017 07:09PM

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?

SusieBlue · 18-12-2017 07:25PM

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.

mrkiscool2 · 18-12-2017 07:26PM

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.

end of the road · 18-12-2017 07:26PM

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.

Edward M · 18-12-2017 07:45PM

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.

mrkiscool2 · 18-12-2017 08:24PM

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.

end of the road · 18-12-2017 08:39PM

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.

mrkiscool2 · 18-12-2017 08:51PM

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"

gctest50 · 18-12-2017 09:01PM

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

NuMarvel · 18-12-2017 09:03PM

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.

NuMarvel · 18-12-2017 09:10PM

end of the road wrote: »

the current system is ultimately stopping some abortions.

How many abortions did the current system stop last year?

end of the road · 18-12-2017 09:12PM

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

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.

we have a wellfare system in place to help those mothers and children who are in difficulty.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

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!

i don't cause the problems. the problems are the lack of good foster parents. that will not be solved by abortion and it's not justification to allow abortion in this state in my view.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

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

i have stated the system has a hell of a lot of problems and they need to be fixed.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

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!

of course it is, but it is why our mental health system needs to be up to scratch.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

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"

yes, i stated that we have ways to deal with the issues of the mother's health, including abortion where the mother's life is at risk, or where the baby will be unable to be caried to term.

Consonata · 18-12-2017 09:59PM

Is it really practical to discuss the philosophical points about abortion. A person who believes that life begins at conception is very very unlikely to have their opinion swayed by an internet post. That sort of belief stems from various different moral rules that are built over decades.

It is also important to remember that people who believe that abortion should be outlawed in all/nearly all circumstances are, not only in the minority, but in the very small minority.

In an Amnesty poll done last year for example:

Only 5% of Irish adults believe that Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
7% believe that it should be illegal in all, except where the mothers life is at risk
7% also believe it should be illegal in all except when the mothers life is at risk and/or there is a fatal foetal abnormality

These are tiny numbers. That is 19% of Irish People. the other 81% are open to varying degrees of abortion legislation, replacing the 8th Amendment, who's views on which are exceptionally diverse.

So in the next category, we have the largest %, the plurality, where 42% believe abortion should be allowed in the case of danger of life/health to the mother, FFA and, rape. For these people, the philosophical argument of the childs right to life is out of the window, because they do believe abortion should be allowed in certain cases. Rape, seemingly being the differentiating factor.

This is why I think, instead of coming to these voters on a philosophical level, which inevitably results in them returning to the trenches of Pro-Choice/Pro-Life, I think its more useful to discuss the legal implications of what they believe. If a voter believes abortion should be allowed in the case of rape for example, they have to come to terms with the fact that:

Not all women want/can easily admit to having been raped
The conviction rate for rape is notoriously low
By the time it reaches a judge, 6 out of the 9 months of the pregnancy term have already elapsed in which case the child is only 12 weeks away from being born and it is ultimately more difficult to abort.

If they still believe that that can work, then sure. However, from talking to people on this issue, that is rarely the case.

I don't think Ireland is ready to pass an abortion law, bringing our legislation in line with the British. However a 12 week limit is probably the closest we can get to getting it past the electorate.

markodaly · 18-12-2017 10:18PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

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

Exactly the same, no didnt say that.

markodaly · 18-12-2017 10:26PM

Consonata wrote: »

I don't think Ireland is ready to pass an abortion law, bringing our legislation in line with the British. However a 12 week limit is probably the closest we can get to getting it past the electorate.

Actually the law that is proposed is more open than that of the British system,the big difference is the time limit. Hence why I do not think it will pass unless there are strong guarantees to protect the unborn.

Consonata · 18-12-2017 10:38PM

markodaly wrote: »

Actually the law that is proposed is more open than that of the British system,the big difference is the time limit. Hence why I do not think it will pass unless there are strong guarantees to protect the unborn.

Is the British system not 22 weeks? or is it 18

NuMarvel · 18-12-2017 11:11PM

Consonata wrote: »

Is the British system not 22 weeks? or is it 18

In general it's 24 weeks, if continuing the pregnancy would pose a greater risk to the woman's health than having an abortion. It's only allowed after that if there's a risk to the woman's life, there's a risk of a "grave permanent injury" to the woman's health, or if there's a substantial risk of "serious handicap".

markodaly wrote: »

Actually the law that is proposed is more open than that of the British system,the big difference is the time limit.

I don't know how you can say that considering we don't know the full details of the proposed Irish laws. All we know is that general access would be available within the first 12 weeks, compared to 24 for Britain. And that our laws won't provide for abortion in the cases of a serious, but not fatal, fetal abnormality, whereas the UK laws do.

All we know after that is the general outline of the reasons that abortion will be allowed, but none of the detail, including term limits.

....... · 18-12-2017 11:18PM

This post has been deleted.

Annasopra · 19-12-2017 12:17AM

gctest50 wrote: »

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

Exactly ultimately the 8th amendment allows us to ship abortion abroad but ban it for poor women and migrants.

Consonata · 19-12-2017 01:51AM

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.

If you are not prosecuting people who have abortions abroad, what is the point of the ban on abortion except being a giant facade of virtue signalling by the Irish Government?

end of the road · 19-12-2017 02:14AM

Consonata wrote: »

If you are not prosecuting people who have abortions abroad, what is the point of the ban on abortion except being a giant facade of virtue signalling by the Irish Government?

the point is that it does go some way to protecting the life of the unborn via not allowing abortions to be caried out within the state bar extreme circumstances. it is the state saying that while it cannot stop people from carying out the act elsewhere, such an act will not be able to be caried out within the state. virtue signalling is a myth.

Consonata · 19-12-2017 02:16AM

end of the road wrote: »

the point is that it does go some way to protecting the life of the unborn via not allowing abortions to be caried out within the state bar extreme circumstances. it is the state saying that while it cannot stop people from carying out the act elsewhere, such an act will not be able to be caried out within the state. virtue signalling is a myth.

If there was a definition of virtue signalling that would be it. The state abdicates responsibility, and instead penalises those who are weakest in order to keep up appearances that they are actually doing something.

end of the road · 19-12-2017 02:38AM

Consonata wrote: »

If there was a definition of virtue signalling that would be it. The state abdicates responsibility, and instead penalises those who are weakest in order to keep up appearances that they are actually doing something.

no . the state is saying that while it cannot stop someone from going abroad to procure abortion, it does not condone the act and that it is not up to the irish state to provide access to it bar extreme circumstances. in my view the state is not penalising anyone by not providing access to abortion on demand, nor is it abdicating on any responsibility as it has no responsibility to provide abortion on demand. the state isn't keeping up appearances that it is doing something, it is actually doing something. it just isn't going to work in every case. we have laws for a number of things within the state, and while they won't always work, they do often work whether it be a big or small amount. we don't just abolish them because they don't work in every single case. in my view the protections that exist for the unborn are for the greater good and i support them remaining. even if they stop 1 abortion that's a good thing.

Consonata · 19-12-2017 03:27AM

end of the road wrote: »

no . the state is saying that while it cannot stop someone from going abroad to procure abortion, it does not condone the act and that it is not up to the irish state to provide access to it bar extreme circumstances. in my view the state is not penalising anyone by not providing access to abortion on demand, nor is it abdicating on any responsibility as it has no responsibility to provide abortion on demand. the state isn't keeping up appearances that it is doing something, it is actually doing something. it just isn't going to work in every case. we have laws for a number of things within the state, and while they won't always work, they do often work whether it be a big or small amount. we don't just abolish them because they don't work in every single case. in my view the protections that exist for the unborn are for the greater good and i support them remaining. even if they stop 1 abortion that's a good thing.

If the state does not condone the act then why isn't it penalising people who have an abortion abroad.

Being realistic there is no such thing as a legal barrier to abortion in Ireland, only a financial one. That has been clear to all ever since the X Case.

end of the road · 19-12-2017 03:51AM

Consonata wrote: »

If the state does not condone the act then why isn't it penalising people who have an abortion abroad.

i presume because it wouldn't be practical to do so. the protections that exist only exist as much as is practical. i presume it would not be possible to gather the evidence required to not only prove the woman had an abortion, but to bring a successful prosecution against her.

Consonata wrote: »

Being realistic there is no such thing as a legal barrier to abortion in Ireland, only a financial one. That has been clear to all ever since the X Case.

maybe so, but at least there is some sort of barrier, there is no access to abortion on demand within the irish state, and the unborn have some protections and rights. what exists now in terms of protection is better then the little that will exist should the 8th be repealed and abortion on demand brought in.

Zubeneschamali · 19-12-2017 07:09AM

gctest50 wrote: »

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

That is not true at all.

It also stops women in the care of the State like in prison or mental institutions, women in direct provision with asylum status, women like Savita who are in a late medical crisis...

Zubeneschamali · 19-12-2017 07:17AM

Consonata wrote: »

If the state does not condone the act then why isn't it penalising people who have an abortion abroad.

The state would have been absolutely legally required to do so, but we passed the 13th to stop it. Which makes the whole 8th thing worthless.

frag420 · 19-12-2017 07:55AM

end of the road wrote: »

the point is that it does go some way to protecting the life of the unborn via not allowing abortions to be caried out within the state bar extreme circumstances. it is the state saying that while it cannot stop people from carying out the act elsewhere, such an act will not be able to be caried out within the state. virtue signalling is a myth.

Would you support a ‘grassing up’ or ‘squeeling’ charter whereby people like yourself who know or suspect that their sister or mother or neighbour or aunt or colleague or even some stranger was going abroad to procure a termination and that you could call the abortion hotline ( don’t worry it will be a free line) so that they could be stopped from traveling to procure the termination?

And seeing as your believe in saving the babies so much you would have to give details such as your name and copy of passport or ID, not too much to ask to save th babies no?

January · 19-12-2017 08:15AM

frag420 wrote: »

Would you support a whistleblowing charter whereby people like yourself who know or suspect that their sister or mother or neighbour or aunt or colleague or even some stranger was going abroad to procure a termination and that you could call the abortion hotline ( don’t worry it will be a free line) so that they could be stopped from traveling to procure the termination?

Je. Sus. Don't be giving them ideas will you not.

Its like the time they proposed to picket Dublin and Shannon Airport with giant posters and offering to refund the flight costs if women didn't travel to procure abortions.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments