Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

volchitsa · 02-01-2018 05:58PM

Andyfitzer wrote: »

I agree, as I said quite clearly, it might be something to consider. Remember me typing that? I've not got a clear handle on it yet. I think you'll find identical twins could be considered clones. One cell becomes two separate beings. Shared DNA. I didn't say they aren't separate people with their own thoughts, as you seem to have concluded.

But since you've not got a clear handle, and neither does the rest of society, and since creating clones is banned because of that legal and ethical quagmire, then how on earth is it a useful analogy for what the twinning phenomenon may tell us about the definition of what a new person is and when it begins?

Cos it looks like you're just trying to muddy the waters and have nothing useful to add at all.

murphaph · 02-01-2018 06:19PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Identical twins are not clones. Their DNA, while almost identical, is still measurably different. They are distinct people, with distinct legal personalities, and with a complete - not shared - set of human rights.

They started out as a single fertilised egg. At some point after that, they each became a person. The religion-informed view is that personhood happens at the moment of conception, which means that those twins were once one person, but now are two people.

Think about that logically for a second. If conception is the only point when personhood begins, then there's no future point at which a second person can have come into being, which means that identical twins are, in fact, just one person.

When you encounter an apparent contradiction, the logical thing to do is to check your premise. The wooliest premise in this case is personhood-from-conception: there's no scientific basis for it; it's just a personal belief.

So, logically, a fertilised egg isn't a person, but a child after birth is. That means that at some point during pregnancy, a clump of cells becomes a person. When does it legally become a person? At birth, generally speaking.

Now, those are my views, but they are views that have been arrived at by analysing the facts as best I can determine or understand them. You may have different views, but unless you can come up with a better analysis than "I dunno, clones?", I'm confident that my views make more objective sense than yours.

Excellent post OB. There's simply no denying the logic...but they will anyway.

recedite · 02-01-2018 06:21PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Identical twins are not clones. Their DNA, while almost identical, is still measurably different.

What is the difference then? A zygote splits. Depending on whether it happens naturally or artificially, its a twin or a clone.

blanch152 · 02-01-2018 06:32PM

The complete red herring in this debate is that there is a single right answer either morally or politically.

Firstly, there is a difference between individual actions and societal norms and permissions. If prostitution was legal in Ireland, it wouldn't oblige every woman to be a prostitute or every man to procure one. Similarly, holding a strong personal dislike for abortion doesn't prevent one from voting to allow it in Ireland, this is where the Catholic bishops get it wrong regularly. On the other hand, being personally supportive of an abortion in your own personal circumstances doesn't mean you think it is a good idea for wider society.

Secondly, not all rights are the same. The right to life, the right to choose, the right to a job, the right to housing, the right to an education, the right of free speech, the rights of the unborn, the right to post what you like on boards. All of these rights are not equal and some judgement must be made between these rights. Each of us is entitled to make our own judgement and nobody is right or wrong. Of course, we are all entitled to inform others of the reasons for our judgement and attempt to influence them, but at the end of the day, democracy means we accept the outcome whatever that may be.

Thirdly, rights change over time. Once upon a time there was no right to homosexual relationships, they were banned. Now there is same-sex marriage, passed in a referendum that a large majority of people supported. Yet, a referendum in 1950 would have had the direct opposite result, possibly even a greater number opposing the right than supporting it now. Does that mean the people in the 1950s were wrong or evil? No, just that society moved on and changed and the view of rights changed with it. On the issue of abortion, there is no doubt that it is a long time since 1983 and that views among the public may well have changed significantly.

Finally from my own viewpoint, and completely unrelated to the previous discussion on rights, there is an unanswerable case for repeal of the 8th Amendment because of its legal effects. The current amendment in the Constitution is a bad idea, no matter your views on abortion, because it has led to bad cases and further amendments. Repealing it and letting the legislature get on with their job of legislating is the best solution.

So when I see and hear people talking about the right to life or the right to choose trumping other rights, I get a little tired of the debate and go back to the principles I have listed. There are many rights, not all of them are the same, many are conflicting and society's view of those rights changes over time and what is right for society may not be right for the individual.

02-01-2018 06:48PM

blanch152 wrote: »

The complete red herring in this debate is that there is a single right answer either morally or politically.

Firstly, there is a difference between individual actions and societal norms and permissions. If prostitution was legal in Ireland, it wouldn't oblige every woman to be a prostitute or every man to procure one. Similarly, holding a strong personal dislike for abortion doesn't prevent one from voting to allow it in Ireland, this is where the Catholic bishops get it wrong regularly. On the other hand, being personally supportive of an abortion in your own personal circumstances doesn't mean you think it is a good idea for wider society.

Secondly, not all rights are the same. The right to life, the right to choose, the right to a job, the right to housing, the right to an education, the right of free speech, the rights of the unborn, the right to post what you like on boards. All of these rights are not equal and some judgement must be made between these rights. Each of us is entitled to make our own judgement and nobody is right or wrong. Of course, we are all entitled to inform others of the reasons for our judgement and attempt to influence them, but at the end of the day, democracy means we accept the outcome whatever that may be.

Thirdly, rights change over time. Once upon a time there was no right to homosexual relationships, they were banned. Now there is same-sex marriage, passed in a referendum that almost everyone supported. Yet, a referendum in 1950 would have had the direct opposite result. Does that mean the people in the 1950s were wrong or evil? No, just that society moved on and changed and the view of rights changed with it. On the issue of abortion, there is no doubt that it is a long time since 1983 and that views among the public may well have changed significantly.

Finally from my own viewpoint, and completely unrelated to the previous discussion on rights, there is an unanswerable case for repeal of the 8th Amendment because of its legal effects. The current amendment in the Constitution is a bad idea, no matter your views on abortion, because it has led to bad cases and further amendments. Repealing it and letting the legislature get on with their job of legislating is the best solution.

So when I see and hear people talking about the right to life or the right to choose trumping other rights, I get a little tired of the debate and go back to the principles I have listed. There are many rights, not all of them are the same, many are conflicting and society's view of those rights changes over time and what is right for society may not be right for the individual.

I agree with most of this post, but must add a point of order.

A substantial, substantial minority opposed SSM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-fourth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

The 34th Amendment was opposed by 734,300 people. That is not an inconsiderable amount of people!

blanch152 · 02-01-2018 07:00PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with most of this post, but must add a point of order.

A substantial, substantial minority opposed SSM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-fourth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

The 34th Amendment was opposed by 734,300 people. That is not an inconsiderable amount of people!

Accepted, I have changed the post to reflect that.

recedite · 02-01-2018 07:01PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Think about that logically for a second. If conception is the only point when personhood begins, then there's no future point at which a second person can have come into being, which means that identical twins are, in fact, just one person.

OK good retort, if somebody was arguing that there was only one single point. Or if some strawman was arguing it, whatever.

SusieBlue · 02-01-2018 07:35PM

blanch152 wrote: »

The complete red herring in this debate is that there is a single right answer either morally or politically.

Firstly, there is a difference between individual actions and societal norms and permissions. If prostitution was legal in Ireland, it wouldn't oblige every woman to be a prostitute or every man to procure one. Similarly, holding a strong personal dislike for abortion doesn't prevent one from voting to allow it in Ireland, this is where the Catholic bishops get it wrong regularly. On the other hand, being personally supportive of an abortion in your own personal circumstances doesn't mean you think it is a good idea for wider society.

Secondly, not all rights are the same. The right to life, the right to choose, the right to a job, the right to housing, the right to an education, the right of free speech, the rights of the unborn, the right to post what you like on boards. All of these rights are not equal and some judgement must be made between these rights. Each of us is entitled to make our own judgement and nobody is right or wrong. Of course, we are all entitled to inform others of the reasons for our judgement and attempt to influence them, but at the end of the day, democracy means we accept the outcome whatever that may be.

Thirdly, rights change over time. Once upon a time there was no right to homosexual relationships, they were banned. Now there is same-sex marriage, passed in a referendum that a large majority of people supported. Yet, a referendum in 1950 would have had the direct opposite result, possibly even a greater number opposing the right than supporting it now. Does that mean the people in the 1950s were wrong or evil? No, just that society moved on and changed and the view of rights changed with it. On the issue of abortion, there is no doubt that it is a long time since 1983 and that views among the public may well have changed significantly.

Finally from my own viewpoint, and completely unrelated to the previous discussion on rights, there is an unanswerable case for repeal of the 8th Amendment because of its legal effects. The current amendment in the Constitution is a bad idea, no matter your views on abortion, because it has led to bad cases and further amendments. Repealing it and letting the legislature get on with their job of legislating is the best solution.

So when I see and hear people talking about the right to life or the right to choose trumping other rights, I get a little tired of the debate and go back to the principles I have listed. There are many rights, not all of them are the same, many are conflicting and society's view of those rights changes over time and what is right for society may not be right for the individual.

Excellent, thought provoking post. I think you are right. We all value our rights differently. What is of paramount importance to one, is insignificant to another.
Thinking out loud here, but does it not all go back to the choice though? Like one person may choose to value the unborn, therefore they would never procure an abortion, even if in awful circumstances. They would follow through with the pregnancy.
Someone else may choose to terminate as they hold value in having a choice, and prefer to have ultimate control over their bodily autonomy.

Neither of them are wrong, they just hold different values. And that’s ok. If we could all just trust each other to make the best decisions for our own personal lives there would be no need for this debate to be so bitter.

end of the road · 02-01-2018 07:46PM

the debate by it's nature is going to be somewhat bitter because the referendum is the difference between the allowing of the killing of the unborn outside extreme circumstances, and continuing with the protections for the unborn.

SusieBlue · 02-01-2018 07:48PM

end of the road wrote: »

the debate by it's nature is going to be somewhat bitter because the referendum is the difference between the allowing of the killing of the unborn outside extreme circumstances, and continuing with the protections for the unborn.

You forgot it’s also about the woman’s choice of bodily autonomy.
If it were as simple as killing the unborn as you enjoy to put it, it would be pretty black and white.
Unfortunately some of us hold value in our human rights so it isn’t as simple as just being about the unborn.

Andyfitzer · 02-01-2018 08:46PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Thinking out loud here, but does it not all go back to the choice though? Like one person may choose to value the unborn, therefore they would never procure an abortion, even if in awful circumstances. They would follow through with the pregnancy.
Someone else may choose to terminate as they hold value in having a choice, and prefer to have ultimate control over their bodily autonomy.

Neither of them are wrong, they just hold different values. And that’s ok. If we could all just trust each other to make the best decisions for our own personal lives there would be no need for this debate to be so bitter.

I do get what you are saying, but that presupposes that it's an ok choice to say it's not a life worth saving in the womb, and we are only considering our own bubble, not if it's moral or ethical in a wider sense (societal), so we get back on the merry-go-round.
For instance, can I choose that it's OK to rob a bank and do so legally, but if others choose it's not ok and don't, then that's their choice? Obviously not.
It is obvious that the crux of the matter is if conception, implantation, or some other time is when we confer the right to life. Or do we say there's some sort of sliding scale (which I'm uncomfortable with) and draw a line somewhere rather arbitrarily. I'm quite happy with this board overall, as I think it's what I was looking for. Lots for me to consider

end of the road · 02-01-2018 08:48PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You forgot it’s also about the woman’s choice of bodily autonomy.
If it were as simple as killing the unborn as you enjoy to put it, it would be pretty black and white.
Unfortunately some of us hold value in our human rights so it isn’t as simple as just being about the unborn.

the woman’s choice of bodily autonomy is already upheld though for the most part. we are all agreed the 8th does cause issues and if it wasn't for abortion on demand, repeal would be voted for on a landslide.
however, the right to kill the unborn is nothing to do with choice or bodily autonomy. a woman can do whatever she likes with her body, but she cannot kill the unborn within the state unless her life is in danger.

SusieBlue · 02-01-2018 08:53PM

end of the road wrote: »

the woman’s choice of bodily autonomy is already upheld though for the most part. we are all agreed the 8th does cause issues and if it wasn't for abortion on demand, repeal would be voted for on a landslide.
however, the right to kill the unborn is nothing to do with choice or bodily autonomy. a woman can do whatever she likes with her body, but she cannot kill the unborn within the state unless her life is in danger.

Her rights should be upheld in FULL, just like they are for men. Being upheld for the most part simply is not good enough.

The right to terminate a pregnancy is EVERYTHING to do with bodily autonomy. Because without that body, there would be no baby. And the last time I checked, a woman owns her own body, not the state.

And if in your next post you say the woman doesn’t own her body when she is carrying a child, and is at the mercy of the state, then you are frankly a disgrace. How anyone could support such a notion is beyond me.

I’m sure you’d change your tune pretty quickly if it were your rights at risk here. Luckily for you, you will never have that problem simply because you were born male.

SusieBlue · 02-01-2018 08:55PM

Andyfitzer wrote: »

I do get what you are saying, but that presupposes that it's an ok choice to say it's not a life worth saving in the womb, and we are only considering our own bubble, not if it's moral or ethical in a wider sense (societal), so we get back on the merry-go-round.
For instance, can I choose that it's OK to rob a bank and do so legally, but if others choose it's not ok and don't, then that's their choice? Obviously not.
It is obvious that the crux of the matter is if conception, implantation, or some other time is when we confer the right to life. Or do we say there's some sort of sliding scale (which I'm uncomfortable with) and draw a line somewhere rather arbitrarily. I'm quite happy with this board overall, as I think it's what I was looking for. Lots for me to consider

Sorry but that’s an absolutely ridiculous analogy, are you honestly comparing a woman’s right to bodily autonomy to someone wanting to rob a bank? Seriously???

oscarBravo · 02-01-2018 08:59PM

Andyfitzer wrote: »

For instance, can I choose that it's OK to rob a bank and do so legally, but if others choose it's not ok and don't, then that's their choice? Obviously not.

OK, but what if you thought it was immoral to charge interest and tried to prevent people entering a bank?

Usury is something that different people feel differently about, but in our society, charging interest is, broadly speaking, an acceptable thing to do. If you have a problem with it, you don't have to do business with banks, but you don't have the right to prevent anyone else from doing so.

It is obvious that the crux of the matter is if conception, implantation, or some other time is when we confer the right to life.

Yes. And that's why thought experiments are valuable, like the question about whether you'd choose to save one woman or several embryos from a burning building.

Most people would save the woman, because most people recognise that a woman is a person while an embryo is not. Some people would let the woman die, but hopefully that number is very small and shrinking fast.

The idea that a fertilised egg - invisible to the human eye - should have all the same rights as an infant child is incomprehensible to me.

end of the road wrote: »

the woman’s choice of bodily autonomy is already upheld though for the most part.

[...]

a woman can do whatever she likes with her body...

...except choose not to be pregnant, apparently.

Itssoeasy · 02-01-2018 09:11PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Her rights should be upheld in FULL, just like they are for men. Being upheld for the most part simply is not good enough.

The right to terminate a pregnancy is EVERYTHING to do with bodily autonomy. Because without that body, there would be no baby. And the last time I checked, a woman owns her own body, not the state.

And if in your next post you say the woman doesn’t own her body when she is carrying a child, and is at the mercy of the state, then you are frankly a disgrace. How anyone could support such a notion is beyond me.

I’m sure you’d change your tune pretty quickly if it were your rights at risk here. Luckily for you, you will never have that problem simply because you were born male.

Well you don't know what his response will be.

02-01-2018 09:34PM

end of the road wrote: »

the debate by it's nature is going to be somewhat bitter because the referendum is the difference between the allowing of the killing of the unborn outside extreme circumstances, and continuing with the protections for the unborn.

Nope. No it is not.

In the event of the amendment being repealed, the government of the day could choose to enact legislation akin to the status quo, and so the legal restrictions on procurement of an abortion would not change.

The important thing to note is that we would be asking the legislature to create / amend / remove any and all protections or otherwise for the unborn, not preventing them from doing so by placing it above their level in the constitution.

blanch152 · 02-01-2018 09:50PM

Andyfitzer wrote: »

I do get what you are saying, but that presupposes that it's an ok choice to say it's not a life worth saving in the womb, and we are only considering our own bubble, not if it's moral or ethical in a wider sense (societal), so we get back on the merry-go-round.
For instance, can I choose that it's OK to rob a bank and do so legally, but if others choose it's not ok and don't, then that's their choice? Obviously not.
It is obvious that the crux of the matter is if conception, implantation, or some other time is when we confer the right to life. Or do we say there's some sort of sliding scale (which I'm uncomfortable with) and draw a line somewhere rather arbitrarily. I'm quite happy with this board overall, as I think it's what I was looking for. Lots for me to consider

But the right to life isn't sacrosant and hasn't always been.

Throughout history the right to execute criminals has been used liberally. Kings had the power of life and death over their subjects.

It doesn't matter a single bit whether we define life at conception, implantation or some other time. What matters is the balance of rights and where we believe that should be.

There is a right to life of the unborn. There is a right to bodily integrity. There is a woman's right to choose. What is important is where we draw the line between those rights.

end of the road · 02-01-2018 10:10PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Her rights should be upheld in FULL, just like they are for men. Being upheld for the most part simply is not good enough.

agreed.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The right to terminate a pregnancy is EVERYTHING to do with bodily autonomy. Because without that body, there would be no baby. And the last time I checked, a woman owns her own body, not the state.

And if in your next post you say the woman doesn’t own her body when she is carrying a child, and is at the mercy of the state, then you are frankly a disgrace. How anyone could support such a notion is beyond me.

there is no right to terminate a pregnancy. abortion is nothing to do with bodily autonomy as the unborn baby is being the one actually effected by the abortion over all. a woman owns her body, however it doesn't allow her to kill the unborn baby inside her, as the unborn baby is a separate entity.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I’m sure you’d change your tune pretty quickly if it were your rights at risk here. Luckily for you, you will never have that problem simply because you were born male.

again, you don't have a right to an abortion bar extreme circumstances, which are facilitated in this country. the reality is that we have to stand somewhere and that stand is protecting the unborn. if we could repeal the 8th and not have abortion on demand, that would be a brilliant outcome for me. that is the outcome i want and i believe to be best for society.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Sorry but that’s an absolutely ridiculous analogy, are you honestly comparing a woman’s right to bodily autonomy to someone wanting to rob a bank? Seriously???

well it is a good comparison in such that people expect to be able to do as they please regardless of the consiquences. therefore we have laws in place to insure people can't cary out activities for the greater good of society.

Itssoeasy · 03-01-2018 12:30AM

end of the road wrote: »

agreed.

there is no right to terminate a pregnancy. abortion is nothing to do with bodily autonomy as the unborn baby is being the one actually effected by the abortion over all. a woman owns her body, however it doesn't allow her to kill the unborn baby inside her, as the unborn baby is a separate entity.

again, you don't have a right to an abortion bar extreme circumstances, which are facilitated in this country. the reality is that we have to stand somewhere and that stand is protecting the unborn. if we could repeal the 8th and not have abortion on demand, that would be a brilliant outcome for me. that is the outcome i want and i believe to be best for society.

well it is a good comparison in such that people expect to be able to do as they please regardless of the consiquences. therefore we have laws in place to insure people can't cary out activities for the greater good of society.

If we never put the 8th amendment into the constitution in the first place we wouldn't be we're we are now(yes I know hindsight is a wonderful thing) We're the politicians of the day unable to to pass anything that would have upheld the ban on abortions without using a sledgehammer to crack this nut ?

I mean legislation could have done the job and given the mood of the country in the 1980s, I doubt it would have done any less of a job that the 8th amendment. If legislation was in play, then in the intervening years it could have ammended to properly legislate for issues such as FFAs in a better way then the way it has been. There is legislation on the books in this country that has had the same name for years that has been amended to reflect changes. Legislation is relatively easy to amend, the constitution of our country isn't.

Itssoeasy · 03-01-2018 12:33AM

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1992021800017

He is the Dail debate after the x case in 1992, and includes Taoiseach Albert Reynolds briefing the Dail on the issues surrounding the case.

end of the road · 03-01-2018 12:53AM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

If we never put the 8th amendment into the constitution in the first place we wouldn't be we're we are now(yes I know hindsight is a wonderful thing) We're the politicians of the day unable to to pass anything that would have upheld the ban on abortions without using a sledgehammer to crack this nut ?

I mean legislation could have done the job and given the mood of the country in the 1980s, I doubt it would have done any less of a job that the 8th amendment. If legislation was in play, then in the intervening years it could have ammended to properly legislate for issues such as FFAs in a better way then the way it has been. There is legislation on the books in this country that has had the same name for years that has been amended to reflect changes. Legislation is relatively easy to amend, the constitution of our country isn't.

the ideal situation would be that the constitution would continue to say the state has a duty to protect the unborn as much as is practical, yet legislation to deal with the necessary abortions could be done outside the constitution. i'm unsure if that could work but i certainly would be ideal, as abortion in extreme circumstances could be allowed but the state would still have to try and protect the unborn as much as it can.

blanch152 · 03-01-2018 01:18AM

end of the road wrote: »

the ideal situation would be that the constitution would continue to say the state has a duty to protect the unborn as much as is practical, yet legislation to deal with the necessary abortions could be done outside the constitution. i'm unsure if that could work but i certainly would be ideal, as abortion in extreme circumstances could be allowed but the state would still have to try and protect the unborn as much as it can.

That is a recipe for another disaster of hundreds of A, B, C, D, E, F, right down to Z cases which will be heard before the courts as the limits of the legislation are tested against their constitutionality.

lawred2 · 03-01-2018 09:52AM

end of the road wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

If we never put the 8th amendment into the constitution in the first place we wouldn't be we're we are now(yes I know hindsight is a wonderful thing) We're the politicians of the day unable to to pass anything that would have upheld the ban on abortions without using a sledgehammer to crack this nut ?

I mean legislation could have done the job and given the mood of the country in the 1980s, I doubt it would have done any less of a job that the 8th amendment. If legislation was in play, then in the intervening years it could have ammended to properly legislate for issues such as FFAs in a better way then the way it has been. There is legislation on the books in this country that has had the same name for years that has been amended to reflect changes. Legislation is relatively easy to amend, the constitution of our country isn't.

the ideal situation would be that the constitution would continue to say the state has a duty to protect the unborn as much as is practical, yet legislation to deal with the necessary abortions could be done outside the constitution. i'm unsure if that could work but i certainly would be ideal, as abortion in extreme circumstances could be allowed but the state would still have to try and protect the unborn as much as it can.

You clearly don't understand constitutional law if you truly believe that that would be ideal...

How would 'as much as practical' be measured?

How would you go about documenting 'as much as practical' in the constitution?

The only thing I see such fluffy cop out meaningless nonsense achieving is overtime for the courts.

seamus · 03-01-2018 10:22AM

end of the road wrote: »

the ideal situation would be that the constitution would continue to say the state has a duty to protect the unborn as much as is practical, yet legislation to deal with the necessary abortions could be done outside the constitution. i'm unsure if that could work but i certainly would be ideal, as abortion in extreme circumstances could be allowed but the state would still have to try and protect the unborn as much as it can.

What you're basically doing there is the same thing as repealing the 8th, without repealing it.

That is, "The state will defend the right to life of the unborn as far as is practicable, <insert> except that it may legislate for abortion where necessary".

All you've done is introduce two contradictory statements that cancel eachother out.

Except you've made it worse. You've now set up decades of expensive, tedious and painful arguments about what can and can't be done according to the constitution.

And, exactly as happened with the 8th in the first place, in your poorly considered attempt to keep abortion out, you are likely unwittingly introducing a scenario that would force a government to legalise abortion in certain circumstances.

A constitution is not the place for laws. It should just never be there in the first place.

recedite · 03-01-2018 10:39AM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Legislation is relatively easy to amend, the constitution of our country isn't.

seamus wrote: »

A constitution is not the place for laws. It should just never be there in the first place.

I'll just point out that the constitution absolutely is a place for laws, that's what it is made of.
And its very easy to change. Whoever is an interested citizen shows up on polling day and casts a vote. Then its done.

Constitutional laws tend to be broader in scope than legislation, and are approved by the people directly as opposed to being approved by politicians representing the people.

03-01-2018 11:14AM

recedite wrote: »

I'll just point out that the constitution absolutely is a place for laws, that's what it is made of.
And its very easy to change. Whoever is an interested citizen shows up on polling day and casts a vote. Then its done.

Constitutional laws tend to be broader in scope than legislation, and are approved by the people directly as opposed to being approved by politicians representing the people.

It costs millions of euro to run a referendum, it takes millions of man hours and effort to do so.

It is not easy.

recedite · 03-01-2018 11:29AM

It might be interesting to calculate the number of laws passed by the Dail per year, divided by it's annual cost. Then compare to the cost of holding a referendum (excluding any campaigners costs). Especially if 2 or more referendums held on the same day.
Beyond the scope of this thread though.

03-01-2018 11:30AM

recedite wrote: »

It might be interesting to calculate the number of laws passed by the Dail per year, divided by it's annual cost. Then compare to the cost of holding a referendum (excluding any campaigners costs). Especially if 2 or more referendums held on the same day.
Beyond the scope of this thread though.

Is this agreement that your facile attempt to suggest the constitution is easy to change is nonsense?

ancapailldorcha · 03-01-2018 11:48AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It costs millions of euro to run a referendum, it takes millions of man hours and effort to do so.

It is not easy.

There's also the fact that the government of the day needs to find the result of a change desirable and of sufficiently low risk that it won't damage their chances of re-election too much. Depending on the issue, you also need enough desire for change among the populace that a referendum would even be deemed necessary.

Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

Comments