nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Annasopra

Martina1991 wrote: »

If a women in Ireland today chooses to have an abortion she WILL have one. Whether it be pills bought online, going abroad or seeking cheaper dangerous alternatives.

Unfortunately many cannot go through with their decision because they are poor. Really all the 8th amendment does is marginalises poorer women and gives wealthier women more options.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

i don't. however if they travel outside the state there is nothing that can be done.

Absolute and utter nonsense. Of course you can make it extremeley difficult for travel. Ms X was banned from travelling.

Call me Al

professore wrote: »

Are there any other crimes that are illegal in Ireland but legal in another country that you can be convicted of as an Irish citizen if you partake of it in another country? I'm asking out of curiosity.

Assisted suicide I think?

kylith

professore wrote: »

Are there any other crimes that are illegal in Ireland but legal in another country that you can be convicted of as an Irish citizen if you partake of it in another country? I'm asking out of curiosity.

Sex tourism for the purpose of having sex with minors, I think.

professore

Are there any other crimes that are illegal in Ireland but legal in another country that you can be convicted of as an Irish citizen if you partake of it in another country? I'm asking out of curiosity.

Sin City

thee glitz wrote: »

Are they though - what if the UK, a democracy, adopts legislation like already in place in NI... There's no reason why we should we be legislating based on other jurisdictions. Travelling to the UK for an abortion is a loophole, not policy.

Yeah but the "crime" is still being commtted just not in an Irish Jurisdiction
Thats just passing the buck

Its not gonna stop whats actually happening
Women are going to flee the country to have medical procedures that is outlawed here

Dont get me wrong I was pro life however my own personal views will take a backseat to the reality of the situation

Criminalizing this isnt and has never stopped abortions being sought and obtained
it just makes it that bit harder.
People do suffer mentally physically and emotionally for it

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

The British statistics, which you've been quoting, show that less than 1 in 58 UK abortions were on Irish babies, much less than than would be predicted by the relative populations including considering the number of other overseas incidences.

The statistics show that Irish women have abortions. If you want to interpret that as being the successful implementation of a law that's supposed to stop Irish women having abortions, be my guest.

nice_guy80

Why should a religious body have any influence in the relationships and sex education curriculum in the schools they are the Trustees of? I'd have thought the answer was obvious.

cause they want to interfere in children's education??

It's actually fraught with difficulty at all levels though where the RSE policy is also influenced by, and in consultation the members of the Board of Management, teachers and parents. Parents too also have the opportunity to opt their children out of any programme.

again it's crazy that parents have that option

There are loads of competing lobby groups want access to schools to teach their own particular perspective on sex and sexuality, to the point where there really isn't a set standard. The children's parents themselves are in the best position to know their children best as opposed to one teacher trying to accommodate and tailor their lessons for the individual preferences of 20 odd students. The fact that some parents don't take their responsibility seriously should never mean that they should be able to hold the school responsible for their children's inadequate sex education.

I'm sorry, but that is just bonkers.
sex education in school should be mandatory for all pupils
it should be a state requirement for the school to receive state funding and for the child to be enrolled in the first place

thee glitz

NuMarvel wrote: »

The WHO says bans on abortions increases the number of unsafe abortions. If you have research or statistics that say otherwise, feel free to share.

There's this

So the British statistics prove that Ireland's abortion ban works. Riiiiight....... :rolleyes:

The British statistics, which you've been quoting, show that less than 1 in 58 UK abortions were on Irish babies, much less than than would be predicted by the relative populations including considering the number of other overseas incidences.

Loafing Oaf

volchitsa wrote: »

It's time for Ireland to stop using other countries to avoid dealing with our hang ups.

No matter how often you say it, they just won't listen!:p

volchitsa

That's part of the problem though. Traveling for abortion has actually been made official policy. The HSE takes pregnant minors abroad for abortion for instance.

It's time for Ireland to stop using other countries to avoid dealing with our hang ups.

volchitsa

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

it is allowed. in extreme circumstances. there may be room to extend those a bit, but that is all that is necessary.

There's no room in the 8th to extend beyond those extreme circumstances. The terms of the 8th are explicit in that the only consideration when it comes to the woman is her right to life and the unborn's right to life trumps everything else. Anything else will require repeal or significant amendment. And good luck to the person that thinks they can amend the 8th to include things like rape or FFA without creating more of a mess.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

Are they though - what if the UK, a democracy, adopts legislation like already in place in NI... There's no reason why we should we be legislating based on other jurisdictions. Travelling to the UK for an abortion is a loophole, not policy.

Being able to travel for an abortion is very much state policy. We voted to constitutionally protect that freedom from the reach of the 8th.

But even if it was a loophole, it's one that no one on the pro life side wants to see closed. Do you?

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why should a religious body have any influence in the relationships and sex education curriculum in the schools they are the Trustees of? I'd have thought the answer was obvious.

Because religious sex education is rubbish. The emphasis is on abstinence only, which leads to higher numbers of teen pregnancy. They also teach that homosexuality is deviant, leading to homosexual teenagers having a negative image of themselves, and higher levels of being bullied.

thee glitz wrote: »

Where the line is to be drawn, what's reasonable, is a good question that should be addressed.

And which can't be addressed while the 8th amendment is in place. If the foetus' right to life is as important as the mother's, as it is now, then the law cannot allow women treatments which could harm or kill it. Therefore the only way to treat these women involves repealing the 8th.

end of the road

Sin City wrote: »

We can debtae ethics and morality all day long

The issue here is abortions are gonna happen no matter what the law states
Women will continue to get on a plane and get it done

Why have them go through this ?

because they want an abortion, and it's not necessary for the state to cary it out in most cases. where it is, then it's mostly legislated for, and there may be some room to extend it to include other circumstances that currently aren't included, which would fit necessary abortion.

Sin City wrote: »

It should be allowed
Now in what circumstances wil be decided by the government and the medical council

it is allowed. in extreme circumstances. there may be room to extend those a bit, but that is all that is necessary.

Sin City wrote: »

We can never allow another Savita Halappanavar tragedy again

repealing the 8th and abortion on demand are no guarantees against such a case, so using it is an invalid argument.

thee glitz

end of the road wrote: »

i believe it to be wrong. which is why i find it regretible that i won't be in a position to vote repeal due to the likely hood of abortion on demand. if that threat wasn't there i'd vote repeal in a heart beat. i'm not alone in that view either.

You certainly aren't. Many have and will point out problems with the 8th amendment, and I'm glad they do so. What's lacking are proposals on how to square the circle of preventing lifestyle choice abortions, but allowing treatments be made available where 'reasonably' necessary.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nope because by law it doesn't prevent travel, and in fact it doesn't prevent abortion pills. FAIL

It doesn't prevent travel but, for whatever reasons, Ireland babies only account for less than 1.72% of abortions in the UK. It does prevent abortion pills being legalised. Laws don't actually prevent crime, just (hopefully) deter it.

For that tiny subset of necessary where "necessary" = "on the point of maternal death".

What are we to do about that - legalise abortion for just because reasons?

Says it all really doesn't it.

I don't actually believe that (though many may). Asked a question on the concept of consent, I gave an answer. The concept is generally afforded to mean consenting to sex, the same way pro-choice (ridiculously) usually means pro-abortion rights.

kylith wrote: »

As Hotblack says these abortions are carried out when there is a real and substantial risk to maternal life, not health. That means that women who are diagnosed with cancer can be denied treatment until the cancer is terminal as it would harm the fetus. Women on medication that could harm a fetus can be denied it, even if they need the medication to stay healthy. If a pregnancy will leave you crippled, tough; that's your health, not your life so you have to either make peace with the fact that you're going to spend your life in a wheelchair or go to the UK.

Where the line is to be drawn, what's reasonable, is a good question that should be addressed.

January wrote: »

Bingo.

We're not just talking about consent to sex here. We're talking about consent to procedures during pregnancy and birth. Women have absolutely zero say in what way they give birth because of the 8th amendment. The 8th allows doctors to threaten women with bringing them to court if they don't consent to what the doctors are telling them to do.

Its all disguised as being what's best for the baby but the mother isn't taken into consideration in these decisions.

I don't think we were talking about consent to procedures during pregnancy and birth, certainly I wasn't, but I'll have another look. What seems to being disguised is a hard-on for the legalisation of any reason abortion in the name of general healthcare. Afford reasonable protection to babies from their mothers and people would vote to replace the 8th.

Sin City wrote: »

The issue here is abortions are gonna happen no matter what the law states
Women will continue to get on a plane and get it done

Why have them go through this ?

Are they though - what if the UK, a democracy, adopts legislation like already in place in NI... There's no reason why we should we be legislating based on other jurisdictions. Travelling to the UK for an abortion is a loophole, not policy.

One eyed Jack

nice_guy80 wrote: »

sex education is standardised at primary school level.
teachers are obliged to cover it as part of the SPHE, Stay Safe and RSE programmes

the problem is that at secondary level teachers are dealing with teenagers and might not want to teach it.
also, the patronage of the school can interfere in the delivery of this information (seriously). (why should a religious body have this influence, I don't know)

Why should a religious body have any influence in the relationships and sex education curriculum in the schools they are the Trustees of? I'd have thought the answer was obvious.

It's actually fraught with difficulty at all levels though where the RSE policy is also influenced by, and in consultation the members of the Board of Management, teachers and parents. Parents too also have the opportunity to opt their children out of any programme.

I do agree that it would be better if it was an outside service delivering the same message in every school in the country.

There are loads of competing lobby groups want access to schools to teach their own particular perspective on sex and sexuality, to the point where there really isn't a set standard. The children's parents themselves are in the best position to know their children best as opposed to one teacher trying to accommodate and tailor their lessons for the individual preferences of 20 odd students. The fact that some parents don't take their responsibility seriously should never mean that they should be able to hold the school responsible for their children's inadequate sex education.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

The WHO - unsafe abortions in Ireland don't occur, or only in a negligible number of cases.

The WHO says bans on abortions increases the number of unsafe abortions. If you have research or statistics that say otherwise, feel free to share.

thee glitz wrote: »

As above, the British statistics back this up, but illegal abortion pills obviously aren't considered.

So the British statistics prove that Ireland's abortion ban works. Riiiiight....... :rolleyes:

Odhinn

end of the road wrote: »

agreed. however this isn't what is happening here. what is happening here is the state is insuring that bar extreme circumstances, the unborn cannot be killed within it.

But it most certainly is.

thee glitz

NuMarvel wrote: »

I cited the source only a few posts before yours.

You mentioned "British statistics" - don't worry I found them easily enough.

Personal testimonies don't lend themselves to stats.

Agreed.

But if you're looking for examples, just read the thread, because a number of posters have talked about their abortions. Plus, there's the likes of Tara Flynn, Roisin Ingle, Kitty Holland, etc.

As you've said, personal testimonies don't lend themselves to stats, and they don't sound like a fun bunch.

Any what? I've already cited the source, so I'd hope that's not what
you're looking for.

Not any more, I went and found it myself as I couldn't see it quoted.

Don't know what's confusing about that.

You're right that many people can't travel.

Thanks - the same set of stats suggest this, or it doesn't happen for some other reason. Only 1.72% of 2016 UK abortions were performed on (babies of) women from this country.

But it doesn't follow that they can't access abortion. That's probably why the number of abortion pills being ordered online is increasing

There must be loads of these pills being acquired if the shortfall in UK abortions on Irish babies is to be explained by them. Maybe there are... maybe Irish women are just better than their counterparts and don't consider abortions in the same numbers to begin with. So again, maybe, the UK numbers back up my claim about the 8th doing good work (if imperfect), hard to be certain though.

and who's to say what other more drastic measures someone might take.

The WHO - unsafe abortions in Ireland don't occur, or only in a negligible number of cases.

I'll add you to the list of people who say the ban works and haven't been able to provide a sliver of evidence to back that up.

As above, the British statistics back this up, but illegal abortion pills obviously aren't considered.

nice_guy80

Martina1991 wrote: »

Some students care about exams. Most if not all young people think about sex, a lot.

Standardised sex education would be much more effective and informative than leaving it to parents. At least then everyone would have the same correct information.

Not all parents talk to their kids about sex because they never had the talk with their own parents. It's embarrassing talking about sex with your parents.

sex education is standardised at primary school level.
teachers are obliged to cover it as part of the SPHE, Stay Safe and RSE programmes

the problem is that at secondary level teachers are dealing with teenagers and might not want to teach it.
also, the patronage of the school can interfere in the delivery of this information (seriously). (why should a religious body have this influence, I don't know)
I do agree that it would be better if it was an outside service delivering the same message in every school in the country.

Sin City

We can debtae ethics and morality all day long

The issue here is abortions are gonna happen no matter what the law states
Women will continue to get on a plane and get it done

Why have them go through this ?
It should be allowed
Now in what circumstances wil be decided by the government and the medical council

We can never allow another Savita Halappanavar tragedy again

SusieBlue

thee glitz wrote: »

The 8th protects the right to life of the unborn but still allows for abortions to be carried out where necessary, as evidenced by the fact that they occur.

For a fella to legally ride a girl, he must have her advance sober written permission to do so, similar immediately prior to doing so (particularly if she's under any influence), and each instance witnessed by at least 1 parent, a district court judge and a Hillary supporter. I wouldn't have it in the constitution though.

Just as I suspected, you literally don’t have a clue. You are in favour of a movement you don’t even know all the details of, or fully understand.

Please read some of the intelligent replies on this thread about how the 8th effects maternity care and consent (to medical procedures, not sex). Willful ignorance is one thing, but if you aren’t even interested in educating yourself on the full implications of the 8th for women then you need you ask yourself why you’re arguing so passionately for a law you don’t even understand.

There was a case here about 20 years ago where a newly wed woman in her 20’s was diagnosed with terminal cancer. She was denied any form of treatment for fear it would harm the baby. Herself and her husband begged and pleaded and were refused.
She ended up dying a slow, painful death. Her baby ended up also dying. Her husband ended up a widower in his 20’s . But yes, let’s keep the 8th, it clearly works and has women’s best interests at heart?????

Loafing Oaf

NuMarvel wrote: »

Anti-repealers have said and argued more against legislating for the X Case (which results in about 2 abortions a month) than against the freedom to travel (which results in at least 272 abortions a month).

My understanding is that the situation is extreme than that: the bulk of those 2 abortions a month would have been happening anyway (with the pro-lifers pretending they're not abortions). The only 'new' abortions taking place since the passage of POLDPA are ones on grounds of suicidality, and AFAIK there are only two or three of those a year...

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

Which statistics (genuinely interested)?

I cited the source only a few posts before yours.

thee glitz wrote: »

Any stats?

Sources cited in the post you're quoting.

thee glitz wrote: »

Stats?

Personal testimonies don't lend themselves to stats. But if you're looking for examples, just read the thread, because a number of posters have talked about their abortions. Plus, there's the likes of Tara Flynn, Roisin Ingle, Kitty Holland, etc.

thee glitz wrote: »

Any?

Any what? I've already cited the source, so I'd hope that's not what you're looking for.

thee glitz wrote: »

The other hand?

Don't know what's confusing about that.

thee glitz wrote: »

Research, with statistics?

Sources cited.

thee glitz wrote: »

Well if anything... On what basis? I was previously lead to believe that some/many women in Ireland couldn't get abortions due to the cost of travelling abroad, the time required to do so and/or their refugee status.

You're right that many people can't travel. But it doesn't follow that they can't access abortion. That's probably why the number of abortion pills being ordered online is increasing and who's to say what other more drastic measures someone might take.

thee glitz wrote: »

The 8th is still going strong, doing fine work - you must be confused.

I'll add you to the list of people who say the ban works and haven't been able to provide a sliver of evidence to back that up.

January

thee glitz wrote: »

For a fella to legally ride a girl, he must have her advance sober written permission to do so, similar immediately prior to doing so (particularly if she's under any influence), and each instance witnessed by at least 1 parent, a district court judge and a Hillary supporter. I wouldn't have it in the constitution though.

Bingo.

We're not just talking about consent to sex here. We're talking about consent to procedures during pregnancy and birth. Women have absolutely zero say in what way they give birth because of the 8th amendment. The 8th allows doctors to threaten women with bringing them to court if they don't consent to what the doctors are telling them to do.

Its all disguised as being what's best for the baby but the mother isn't taken into consideration in these decisions.

NuMarvel

sondagefaux wrote: »

Are you going to campaign to remove that right from the Constitution?

He's already said he wouldn't vote yes in a referendum to remove that freedom, so he definitely wouldn't campaign for it.

sondagefaux wrote: »

Or don't you care that the unborn are killed as long as it doesn't happen in Ireland?

That is the default anti-repeal position (I wouldn't go so far as to say "pro life" position). Anti-repealers have said and argued more against legislating for the X Case (which results in about 2 abortions a month) than against the freedom to travel (which results in at least 272 abortions a month).

kylith

thee glitz wrote: »

The 8th protects the right to life of the unborn but still allows for abortions to be carried out where necessary, as evidenced by the fact that they occur.

As Hotblack says these abortions are carried out when there is a real and substantial risk to maternal life, not health. That means that women who are diagnosed with cancer can be denied treatment until the cancer is terminal as it would harm the fetus. Women on medication that could harm a fetus can be denied it, even if they need the medication to stay healthy. If a pregnancy will leave you crippled, tough; that's your health, not your life so you have to either make peace with the fact that you're going to spend your life in a wheelchair or go to the UK.

thee glitz wrote: »

For a fella to legally ride a girl, he must have her advance sober written permission to do so, similar immediately prior to doing so (particularly if she's under any influence), and each instance witnessed by at least 1 parent, a district court judge and a Hillary supporter. I wouldn't have it in the constitution though.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Says it all really doesn't it.

Now, now, Hotblack, all it says is that some people are wilfully ignorant of what they are arguing against.

Thee Glitz: the 'consent' referred to is the consent for medical procedures to be performed, and her right to be informed about those procedures. If the medical team decides that procedure X is best for the fetus then the woman that procedure is being carried out on doesn't even need to be told what they're doing, nor can she withdraw consent for it to be done.

For example; a 2014 AIMS Ireland survey of 2,836 women found that less than half of all respondents said they were given the opportunity to refuse consent to tests, procedures and treatments.

'That doesn't sound that bad', you're probably thinking, 'medical teams doing what's best for baby'. However this leads to things like waters being broken artificially to speed up labour and free up the bed for the next patient. This is against medical best practice. The case of Hamilton vs HSE, concerned an action for negligence by a woman who was subjected to an artificial rupture of membranes (ARM), an intervention which is not best practice according to the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. She claimed that she did not consent to this procedure. The ARM led to a cord prolapse (a severe obstetric emergency) leading to a C-section having to be performed and serious damage to her baby.