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

volchitsa · 03-01-2018 12:29PM

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.

How does having an article in the construction eliminate the need for laws to put it into effect on a day to day basis? It's more likely require laws than to replace them.

And then there are the constitutionality questions and associated court cases.

volchitsa · 03-01-2018 12:29PM

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.

How does having an article in the construction eliminate the need for laws to put it into effect on a day to day basis? It's more likely require laws than to replace them.

And then there are the constitutionality questions and associated court cases.

volchitsa · 03-01-2018 12:29PM

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.

How does having an article in the construction eliminate the need for laws to put it into effect on a day to day basis? It's more likely require laws than to replace them.

And then there are the constitutionality questions and associated court cases.

Andyfitzer · 03-01-2018 12:32PM

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???

Really? We're discussing legality. Robbing a bank is illegal. The poster was suggesting abortion be legal if the woman decided it was.

volchitsa · 03-01-2018 12:54PM

Andyfitzer wrote: »

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???

Really? We're discussing legality. Robbing a bank is illegal. The poster was suggesting abortion be legal if the woman decided it was.

Wait, wasn't it you who brought in the bank robbing analogy?

In any case you said this: "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".

So the problem is that there are no occasions on which a bank robbery can ever be legal, whereas there are an indefinite number for an abortion. Indefinite not on the sense that there are many but that they are all different and that any list is liable to leave out cases that can't all be predicted.

blanch152 · 03-01-2018 01:01PM

Andyfitzer wrote: »

Really? We're discussing legality. Robbing a bank is illegal. The poster was suggesting abortion be legal if the woman decided it was.

Essentially, that is the legal reality in Ireland enshrined in the Constitution.

The Constitution prohibits abortion but nothing in the clause prevents a right to travel. Therefore, if a woman decides she wants an abortion, all she has to do to make it legal is travel to the UK.

Our Constitution is completely hypocritical which is another reason to repeal the 8th Amendment.

Andyfitzer · 03-01-2018 01:06PM

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

Agreed. First we have to define a time where those rights kick in, right? That's what I was posting about.

Andyfitzer · 03-01-2018 01:19PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Wait, wasn't it you who brought in the bank robbing analogy?

In any case you said this: "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".

So the problem is that there are no occasions on which a bank robbery can ever be legal, whereas there are an indefinite number for an abortion. Indefinite not on the sense that there are many but that they are all different and that any list is liable to leave out cases that can't all be predicted.

OK. I think we're not quite getting each other. I'll try again. The thought proposed, in my understanding of it, that legality of abortion was about choice. One person choosing it legal and another not. That it was somehow up to the woman if it was legal or not, depending on their point of view. It does mirror the choice side's stance. I'm proposing that it has to be a societal decision

volchitsa · 03-01-2018 01:21PM

Andyfitzer wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

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.

Agreed. First we have to define a time where those rights kick in, right? That's what I was posting about.

So what do you suggest that time should be based on? Is there some indisputable point other than conception or birth that you think everyone could agree was reasonable?

blanch152 · 03-01-2018 01:22PM

Andyfitzer wrote: »

Agreed. First we have to define a time where those rights kick in, right? That's what I was posting about.

Not necessarily.

You can say that the right to bodily integrity and the right to choose are more important than the right to life of the unborn in the case of rape without defining when exactly life begins. Or you can accept that life begins at conception, yet still say that the right to choose is more important than the right to life until the foetus/baby can viably survive outside the womb. Or the opposite of both of those.

The debate about when life begins is an interesting sideshow but it isn't fundamental to the issues.

volchitsa · 03-01-2018 01:26PM

Andyfitzer wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Wait, wasn't it you who brought in the bank robbing analogy?

In any case you said this: "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".

So the problem is that there are no occasions on which a bank robbery can ever be legal, whereas there are an indefinite number for an abortion. Indefinite not on the sense that there are many but that they are all different and that any list is liable to leave out cases that can't all be predicted.

OK. I think we're not quite getting each other. I'll try again. The thought proposed, in my understanding of it, that legality of abortion was about choice. One person choosing it legal and another not. That it was somehow up to the woman if it was legal or not, depending on their point of view. It does mirror the choice side's stance. I'm proposing that it has to be a societal decision

No I'm fairly certain you have misunderstood that poster's argument, which was about someone choosing to have an abortion and someone else choosing not to. Those may both be valid choices, but only if abortion is legal can both people exercise their right to choose.

volchitsa · 03-01-2018 01:26PM

Andyfitzer wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Wait, wasn't it you who brought in the bank robbing analogy?

In any case you said this: "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".

So the problem is that there are no occasions on which a bank robbery can ever be legal, whereas there are an indefinite number for an abortion. Indefinite not on the sense that there are many but that they are all different and that any list is liable to leave out cases that can't all be predicted.

OK. I think we're not quite getting each other. I'll try again. The thought proposed, in my understanding of it, that legality of abortion was about choice. One person choosing it legal and another not. That it was somehow up to the woman if it was legal or not, depending on their point of view. It does mirror the choice side's stance. I'm proposing that it has to be a societal decision

No I'm fairly certain you have misunderstood that poster's argument, which was about someone choosing to have an abortion and someone else choosing not to. Those may both be valid choices, but only if abortion is legal can both people exercise their right to choose.

recedite · 03-01-2018 01:28PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Nope. It was a polite way of saying that your cost benefit analysis "it takes millions of man hours" to change the constitution needs further work

SusieBlue · 03-01-2018 01:33PM

volchitsa wrote: »

No I'm fairly certain you have misunderstood that poster's argument, which was about someone choosing to have an abortion and someone else choosing not to. Those may both be valid choices, but only if abortion is legal can both people exercise their right to choose.

Thank you for saving me some typing.

03-01-2018 01:49PM

recedite wrote: »

Nope. It was a polite way of saying that your cost benefit analysis "it takes millions of man hours" to change the constitution needs further work

It was possibly polite, but it certainly didn't challenge anything I wrote. Recall that you asserted that it was easy to change the constitution.

It is undeniable that millions of man hours are spent on each and every referendum that the country has held.

It is undeniable that it is extremely expensive to run a referendum.
http://www.thejournal.ie/referendums-costs-3106413-Jan2017/
That's government direct spending only of course...

If the constitution was so easy to change, why the need for a legislature?

blue note · 03-01-2018 02:16PM

murphaph wrote:

OP...if you were forced to kill your 5 year old child or unborn baby @ 12 weeks gestation what would you choose? Maybe a harsh question but if you're honest with yourself you'll pick the unborn baby and you know why. There is a difference between a sentient human with feelings and emotions and an unborn human baby that has yet to develop those things.

I see this question posed a bit. On the other hand though - if you had to kill your 90 year old granny or your 5 year old daughter, I'm pretty sure everyone would kill the granny. She's lived (most of) her life and the child has theirs in front of her.

This doesn't uncover that people don't regard 90 year olds as real people or anything. Just that we do sometimes rank one life above another.

volchitsa · 03-01-2018 02:33PM

blue note wrote: »

murphaph wrote:

OP...if you were forced to kill your 5 year old child or unborn baby @ 12 weeks gestation what would you choose? Maybe a harsh question but if you're honest with yourself you'll pick the unborn baby and you know why. There is a difference between a sentient human with feelings and emotions and an unborn human baby that has yet to develop those things.

I see this question posed a bit. On the other hand though - if you had to kill your 90 year old granny or your 5 year old daughter, I'm pretty sure everyone would kill the granny. She's lived (most of) her life and the child has theirs in front of her.

This doesn't uncover that people don't regard 90 year olds as real people or anything. Just that we do sometimes rank one life above another.

I'm not sure that's why people would choose to kill their granny than their child: there's a duty of care to one's own child that there isn't to anyone else.

Maybe a thought experiment about killing one's own granny to save a random child would give a better notion of whether we actually value young lives more or if it's about emotional attachment to particular existing people.

NuMarvel · 03-01-2018 02:45PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Also in relation to the make up of the committee and the pro choice and pro life members, were Ronan Mullen, Mattie McGrath, and Peter Fitzpatrick the best members the pro life side could muster to make the case ? The pro life position surely could have articulated better with other oireachtas members ?

Edit: there are 218 members of the oireachtas and these three were the best ? I doubt that seriously. I mean Mattie McGrath I wouldn't let mind my dog, and ronan Mullen has an arrogant streak to his questioning.

They weren't the only pro life members appointed to the committee, but they were the only ones who didn't change their viewpoints after the Committee concluded.

Anne Rabbitte and James Brown have been described as pro life in the past, but changed their stances after listening to the witnesses and experts. Others also said they changed their minds, eg Ned O'Sullivan.

Maybe the OP should consider these examples when considering the report.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So as it seems likely that there will be a referendum on the 8th amendment next year. Is it such a slam dunk as we are lead to believe by most quarters ?

I'm just saying is there a chance of this not being repealed ?

I say that because unlike the same sex marriage referendum where I personally know of people who didnt/do not agree with homosexuality, but who still voted yes to people being allowed to marry. I just think the issue of abortion may not be given the same pass.

I don't think anyone considers this referendum to be a slam dunk. Many of us (on the Yes side anyway) didn't even consider the marriage equality referendum to be a slam dunk, because there was no guarantee the support would turn up on the day.

recedite wrote: »

The "right" to parental support is surely a weaker right than the right to life itself?

No weaker than the freedom to access information about abortion in other countries, and yet our constitution still puts that ahead of the unborn's right to life.

recedite · 03-01-2018 03:13PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

No weaker than the freedom to access information about abortion in other countries, and yet our constitution still puts that ahead of the unborn's right to life.

That's a freedom of speech issue, so nothing to do with abortion in Ireland. For instance, its illegal for me to smoke cannabis in Ireland, but there is nothing to stop me reading brochures about the Amsterdam cafes while here, and then going over there to smoke some.
Whatever is legal over there has nothing to do with the Irish constitution.

Consonata · 03-01-2018 03:16PM

recedite wrote: »

That's a freedom of speech issue, so nothing to do with abortion in Ireland. For instance, its illegal for me to smoke cannabis in Ireland, but there is nothing to stop me reading brochures about the Amsterdam cafes while here, and then going over there to smoke some.
Whatever is legal over there has nothing to do with the Irish constitution.

If you were committed to your belief that life begins at conception, I think there is a slight difference between smoking cannabis and murder.

recedite · 03-01-2018 03:39PM

Consonata wrote: »

I think there is a slight difference between smoking cannabis and murder.

Yes, mainly that murder is illegal in Amsterdam.
But you can get an abortion or smoke cannabis in Amsterdam and be completely immune to any prosecution when you return to Ireland.
Because nothing illegal has been done in either jurisdiction.

NuMarvel · 03-01-2018 03:42PM

recedite wrote: »

That's a freedom of speech issue, so nothing to do with abortion in Ireland. For instance, its illegal for me to smoke cannabis in Ireland, but there is nothing to stop me reading brochures about the Amsterdam cafes while here, and then going over there to smoke some.
Whatever is legal over there has nothing to do with the Irish constitution.

Considering the 8th was used in the '80s to prevent the distribution of information about abortion services elsewhere, it was very much about abortion, and not just a freedom of speech issue. And it's everything to do with the constitution, because those decisions were only overturned after the referendum on the 14th Amendment of the Irish Constitution.

But in any case, you're agreeing with my point; weaker rights and freedoms can and do trump the unborn's right to life.

recedite · 03-01-2018 03:48PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Considering the 8th was used in the '80s to prevent the distribution of information about abortion services elsewhere...

..and hence the reason for the subsequent amendment.

NuMarvel wrote: »

But in any case, you're agreeing with my point; weaker rights and freedoms can and do trump the unborn's right to life.

I'll let you know when I agree with you. Weaker rights don't trump the right to life.

NuMarvel · 03-01-2018 03:58PM

recedite wrote: »

..and hence the reason for the subsequent amendment.

Which is what I said in the rest of my post:

NuMarvel wrote: »

Considering the 8th was used in the '80s to prevent the distribution of information about abortion services elsewhere, it was very much about abortion, and not just a freedom of speech issue. And it's everything to do with the constitution, because those decisions were only overturned after the referendum on the 14th Amendment of the Irish Constitution.

But at least you're no longer claiming it had nothing to do with abortion or the constitution.

recedite wrote: »

I'll let you know when I agree with you. Weaker rights don't trump the right to life.

Our constitution says otherwise. Or would you normally put a freedom to travel or to access information above a right to life?

blanch152 · 03-01-2018 04:07PM

recedite wrote: »

..and hence the reason for the subsequent amendment.

I'll let you know when I agree with you. Weaker rights don't trump the right to life.

There is no such thing as weaker rights. Balancing rights depends on different circumstances.

Conflicting rights must be balanced all the time. If a drug costs €1m a day to supply to a patient in Ireland for a year (€365m) to save his life but €365m would solve the housing problem for 10,000 people, does the right to life of that one patient trump the right to housing of the 10,000?

Similarly, the right to life of the unborn do not trump the right to choose and the right to bodily integrity at all times. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. After all the right to travel (a minor right if you want to measure rights) trumps the right to life of the unborn in our Constitution. Surely, a person's right to bodily integrity trumps the right to travel?

I have consistently said that we should be debating where the balance is drawn between the rights, rather than which right is stronger or weaker than the others. This is uncomfortable for both sides, because it inevitably means there will be some abortions taking place which offends those who are dogmatically pro-life, but, like in other countries, there will be circumstances where a woman is not allowed to have an abortion, be that due to the reasons for one or because of time-limits etc and this goes against the rabid pro-choice campaigners.

For my part I cannot envisage a woman who is four weeks pregnant following a rape being forced to carry a baby, neither can I envisage a woman who is 34 weeks pregnant deciding for lifestyle reasons that she no longer wants a baby. Both of those situations are wrong, the balance is somewhere in the middle.

recedite · 03-01-2018 04:12PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Our constitution says otherwise. Or would you normally put a freedom to travel or to access information above a right to life?

Show me the possible scenario. A guy tries to stop you going to the airport for your sun holiday, so you kill him. Is that it?

Consonata · 03-01-2018 04:21PM

recedite wrote: »

Show me the possible scenario. A guy tries to stop you going to the airport for your sun holiday, so you kill him. Is that it?

Where a pregnant woman is going to England. Our constitution at the moment does not stop her at the airport nor does it prosecute her if she comes back having had an abortion.

NuMarvel · 03-01-2018 04:26PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Similarly, the right to life of the unborn do not trump the right to choose and the right to bodily integrity at all times. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. After all the right to travel (a minor right if you want to measure rights) trumps the right to life of the unborn in our Constitution. Surely, a person's right to bodily integrity trumps the right to travel?

I have consistently said that we should be debating where the balance is drawn between the rights, rather than which right is stronger or weaker than the others. This is uncomfortable for both sides, because it inevitably means there will be some abortions taking place which offends those who are dogmatically pro-life, but, like in other countries, there will be circumstances where a woman is not allowed to have an abortion, be that due to the reasons for one or because of time-limits etc and this goes against the rabid pro-choice campaigners.

For my part I cannot envisage a woman who is four weeks pregnant following a rape being forced to carry a baby, neither can I envisage a woman who is 34 weeks pregnant deciding for lifestyle reasons that she no longer wants a baby. Both of those situations are wrong, the balance is somewhere in the middle.

I think overall that's a reasonable and sensible approach. And I think the kind of legislation the Committee has recommended, though not perfect, is in the same vein.

That said, being opposed to time limits doesn't necessarily make someone a "rabid" pro choice campaigner. In practice, when women can access abortion entirely as a matter of choice, they do so early in the pregnancy. Later term abortions especially after the 24 week mark are rare, and are for serious issues (eg FFA, serious risk to the woman's life or health, etc).

Even if access to abortion was unrestricted at any stage, I don't think it's remotely likely a woman would decide at week 34 out of 40 to end a pregnancy for lifestyle reasons. And even if she did, at the point, surely the doctor would just facilitate early delivery.

However, it's a moot point. Most countries don't offer that type of access, certainly none in Europe. And Ireland is definitely not going to go from having one of the most restrictive abortion laws to one of the most open in one fell swoop, or anytime soon.

end of the road · 03-01-2018 05:02PM

volchitsa wrote: »

So the problem is that there are no occasions on which a bank robbery can ever be legal, whereas there are an indefinite number for an abortion. Indefinite not on the sense that there are many but that they are all different and that any list is liable to leave out cases that can't all be predicted.

there aren't an indefinite number of cases for an abortion. there are around 2. the mother's life is in danger or the baby can't be caried to term.

blanch152 wrote: »

Essentially, that is the legal reality in Ireland enshrined in the Constitution.

The Constitution prohibits abortion but nothing in the clause prevents a right to travel. Therefore, if a woman decides she wants an abortion, all she has to do to make it legal is travel to the UK.

Our Constitution is completely hypocritical which is another reason to repeal the 8th Amendment.

the constitution is perfectly fine. it recognises the right of the unborn to life and the state will try and protect as much as it can. it also recognises that it can't stop people from traveling. that's not hypocritical, just recognising the realities. the 8th has plenty of reasons for repeal but access to abortion on demand, something one doesn't have a right to, is not that reason.

blanch152 · 03-01-2018 05:08PM

end of the road wrote: »

there aren't an indefinite number of cases for an abortion. there are around 2. the mother's life is in danger or the baby can't be caried to term.

the constitution is perfectly fine. it recognises the right of the unborn to life and the state will try and protect as much as it can. it also recognises that it can't stop people from traveling. that's not hypocritical, just recognising the realities. the 8th has plenty of reasons for repeal but access to abortion on demand, something one doesn't have a right to, is not that reason.

I haven't seen anyone propose a right to access abortion on demand without any restriction.

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

Comments