The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

These women were already aware that abortion was an option. I hadn't thought I needed to spell that out too. I didn't say that anyone "listed the options available" either by the way, in your usual way of ignoring what I actually said and substituting it with whatever suits you. I said they were advised that they might be better off to have an abortion. They weren't looking to be told that they might be better off to have an abortion when they were looking for advice on continuing their pregnancy. You keep missing that bit, and whether it's on purpose or by accident I'm still not sure yet.

I don't particularly care one way or the other if you aren't willing to accept my word as good enough. I do care however when you either by mistake or on purpose, misrepresent what I've actually said.

And none of that has anything at all to do with keeping/repealing the 8th.

volchitsa wrote: »

I was going to skip out the rest of that post, but I happened to notice this, which is irrelevant to the discussion but like... WTF??

Have I read you right? Your parents worked and expected a neighbour to look after you for nothing??

Hey, my parents both worked, in the 70s when most mothers still stayed home, and they always paid for someone to look after us. Always.

And here you are lecturing about people needing to take responsibility for their children. But you know what, your neighbours shouldn't have had to provide free labour for your parents. You don't think that was a free subsidy?

And you're even complaining because today's pensions wouldn't be enough for those neighbours - so who do you think pays the pensions? Your parents were doubly subsidized, by the neighbours and by the state. And earning a decent wage I'm sure too.

(I'm still wondering if you meant something else? I can't get my head around it.)

No, you haven't read that right. You appear to have missed the bit where I said that my neighbour never took a penny off my parents. To most people that would imply that my parents offered her money, but she wouldn't take it. Not to you of course, unsurprisingly.

And no, I'm not here lecturing anyone about taking responsibility for their children, I'm here having a discussion, in which you seem desperate to make sure that not just I, but now my parents, are painted out to be terrible people.

I would expect any grown adult would simply laugh at such childish nonsense, as I'm doing now. You'll just have to take my word for that too though.

eviltwin wrote: »

And none of that has anything at all to do with keeping/repealing the 8th.

In fairness, as I said way back in the thread - if all of us were to restrict ourselves to the standard that we could only post what was directly relevant to keeping/repealing the 8th, then this thread wouldn't even be past one page.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, you haven't read that right. You appear to have missed the bit where I said that my neighbour never took a penny off my parents. To most people that would imply that my parents offered her money, but she wouldn't take it. Not to you of course, unsurprisingly.

And no, I'm not here lecturing anyone about taking responsibility for their children, I'm here having a discussion, in which you seem desperate to make sure that not just I, but now my parents, are painted out to be terrible people.

I would expect any grown adult would simply laugh at such childish nonsense, as I'm doing now. You'll just have to take my word for that too though.

I don't think anyone who is not absolutely on their uppers should allow someone to look after their seven children on a regular basis and not pay them. Grandparents sometimes do it because they're their grandchildren, but if the parents can afford to pay anything at all I think it would be a decent gesture to show the grandparents are not being taken for granted.

As for non related people doing it for nothing, well I suspect you're taking family legend for reality. If the neighbours were so wealthy that extra money was useless to them, it's a bit off to expect them to commit to raising not one or two but seven children. And the reality is that most people were not that well off really.

Truly bizarre. And yes, you were posting long posts earlier about single parents not expecting the state to help with child care. Like here :
[

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Stall on there, I don't want to make women do anything. Each and every woman has a mind of their own, and I would want each and every woman to have the freedom and the resources to decide for themselves, what is best for themselves, and support them in acting in what they believe is acting in their best interests. To that end, no, I don't believe that just giving anyone money is actually helping them. In case it hasn't been made clear already and as January has been at pains to point out - child benefit of what is it now €140, or a tax free allowance of €30 per month is a mere pittance, as are any of the other welfare payments from the State such as OFPA, DCA, etc, the list goes on. Suffice to say - they don't actually teach anyone that they are perfectly capable of generating and maintaining their own wealth and therefore not being dependent upon the State.

Again though - that starts before a woman is ever pregnant, and doesn't just apply to pregnant women either. There are a number of men, albeit thankfully a minority, who claim that because they cannot afford to support their children that they should either be absolved of any financial responsibility, or imagine that the State should provide for their children. They too, should be taught how to generate wealth so that should they ever find themselves in a position where they have fathered a child, they don't immediately assume that responsibility for their child is entirely either the mothers responsibility, or the responsibility of the State.

As for being "determined" to make you and your parents "look bad", you posted that, not me, I didn't ask you to. No determination from me, just a personal reaction to your personal anecdote. You want to police people's reactions to your posts, but it doesn't work like that.

And if it bothers you, you can always change your posting style. Hey you could even try sticking to provable facts and a few serious studies instead.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Good Man.

You keep going as you are. Sure you are doing the pro-choice side great favours with your (ever shifting) position and (strident I said it so it's true) demeanour.

The comment about likes is particularly good. Very Trumpesque. I'm sure you'll get bigly likes too someday.

this would be the shifting position that doesn't shift? the ultimate impossible miracle.

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think anyone who is not absolutely on their uppers should allow someone to look after their seven children on a regular basis and not pay them. Grandparents sometimes do it because they're their grandchildren, but if the parents can afford to pay anything at all I think it would be a decent gesture to show the grandparents are not being taken for granted.

As for non related people doing it for nothing, well I suspect you're taking family legend for reality. If the neighbours were so wealthy that extra money was useless to them, it's a bit off to expect them to commit to raising not one or two but seven children. And the reality is that most people were not that well off really.

Truly bizarre. And yes, you were posting long posts earlier about single parents not expecting the state to help with child care. Like here :
[

As for being "determined" to make you and your parents "look bad", you posted that, not me, I didn't ask you to. No determination from me, just a personal reaction to your personal anecdote. You want to police people's reactions to your posts, but it doesn't work like that.

And if it bothers you, you can always change your posting style. Hey you could even try sticking to provable facts and a few serious studies instead.

you can't force people to take your money. if you offer money and they refuse to take it then what do you do?
the neighbours were obviously happy to look after jack when needed and didn't look for money, maybe his parents offered it. maybe they hadn't it to offer.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's a bit rich btw your asking me to stick to provable facts and a few serious studies when most of your argument as regards the repeal of the 8th amendment consists of a mere handful of high profile anecdotes

The "anecdotes" that can actually be shown to be real, relevant, and actually shown to have occurred? As opposed to a system of argumentation based on "I know this person........no honest I do........."?

Anecdote is not evidence generally, but I know which type has value myself. And if we are discussing the implications and effects of text in our constitution, then verifiable anecdotes of people and situations that HAVE actually been affected by that text are far from irrelevant. False equivalence between anecdotes does not take value from one set or add value to the other. The two are not equivalent at all.

volchitsa wrote: »

"Bringing up" seven children whose parents are working full time hours regularly is not "helping someone out" it's a full time occupation.

Now I'm aware that people tend to ignore the work done by mothers with small children precisely because it's unpaid, but it's taking things to an extreme when neighbours are expected to fill in, unpaid, as well.

That's how you see it volchista, and that's fine. That's not how I see it, and which of our perspectives do you think I'm likely to lend more weight to? I'll give you a hint - it's not yours.

Since I've always worked full time except when I was on maternity leave or, very occasionally, unemployed, I don't see how it's my responsibility in any way. I'm just saying how it comes across, as very condescending and generalizing, and actually very dismissive of people whose circumstances you know nothing of.

I meant how you choose to react to what I said is your responsibility. It is. It can't be lecturing people, generalising, condescending and dismissive all that the same time and then telling me I'm talking about people whose circumstances I know nothing about. If you choose to take what I said personally when you're aware that the intent of what I said was never directed at you personally, then you don't get to blame me for that. If I'm to take you seriously, then you'll have to behave according to that same standard yourself so I don't get offended. That doesn't seem to have held you back in the slightest :pac:

Except I had read it right, your parents actually allowed a neighbour to raise seven of their children while they worked full time and never paid them anything. And you think that's a good thing.

And you're still not reading it right, and now not only are you not reading it right, but you're assuming things that I never said. Where did I ever say it was a good thing?

I think it's selfish and arrogant. I'm kind of not surprised TBH.

I'm sure you're just as lovely offline too.

Gosh it didn't take you long to change your mind about my posts did it?

I haven't changed my mind? You've still contributed greatly to the discussion, and I wouldn't ever suggest otherwise. We don't always agree, we won't always agree, but you're still invaluable to the discussion for the wealth of information and knowledge you do possess!

I see this has been answered already, so yeah, genuine incidents are not scientific data, but they are actual verifiable consequences of a law that was intended to prevent abortions but which has not done that.

"Not scientific data but..."


I've read all I need to read right there.

So even one single serious negative consequence for a woman who was giving birth rather than having an abortion is enough to call into question a law which doesn't do what it was meant to do and does have all sorts of unintended negative consequences.

And there are a lot more than one such incident.

That's a matter of opinion really as to whether or not the law does what it was intended to do, and whether the cases you claim are the unintended consequences of that law, actually are the unintended consequences of that law. For that of course you're free to abandon scientific data, evidence and so on, and fall back on how you're choosing to interpret a whole range of circumstances through a very limited lens. Well yes, when your methodology is that poor, you're bound to be able to make the evidence fit your hypothesis.

(As an aside, and as others have pointed out, how do you square your current support for retaining the 8th etc with your previously expressed support for abortion to be available right up to due date iirc? Have you changed your mind?)

You weren't paying attention earlier in the thread either then? That doesn't surprise me in the slightest tbh.

thee glitz wrote: »

Because I'm not an expert in constitutional law.

None of us here are, but some of us can see the flaws with your suggestion. However you either can't or don't want to, so I guess we'll leave it there until you have something new to add.

thee glitz wrote: »

Because I'm not an expert in constitutional law. I guess reference could be made to burden imposed by the continued protection of life.

Fiona de Londras would know her way around the Constitution - why don't you have a read of her opinion

While it is quite appropriate for this Committee to be concerned with legal certainty, we must accept that absolute legal certainty is not achievable. Indeed, Ms Justice Laffoy made that point here last week. Thus, rather than try to achieve absolutelegal certainty, the aim should be to create a reasonable level of legal certainty. Thisis one that makes clear the scope of the Oireachtas’ legislative power, although it may still require the exercise of judgement in determining whether a proposed legal
enactment is within that power. It may also be subject to a finding by a Court that thisjudgement was inaccurate, resulting in some or all of a piece of law being struck down. In my view, both simple repeal and repeal and replace allow for a reasonable level of legal certainty, although in the case of replace much depends on the wording that is proposed....
. Constitutions should enable the organs of the state to govern effectively, i.e. to respond to the real governance needs in society, which shift and change over time, within constitutionally articulated limitations about rights and the separation of powers. They should also enable the state to meet its international human rights law obligations, which we are currently in breach of....

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/eighthamendmentoftheconstitution/Opening-Statement-by-Professor-Fiona-De-Londras,-Law-School,-Birmingham-University-270917.pdf

Fiona goes into the pros and cons of it in quite a lot of detail.

Happy reading!

NuMarvel wrote: »

None of us are, but some of us can see the flaws with your suggestion. However you either can't or don't want to, so I guess we'll leave it there until you have something new to add.

If you're not an expert, they're perceived flaws until confirmed. Yes, we will have to leave it there for now, until someone can clarify.

I have a question that keeps resurfacing in my mind, every time I read threads like this. That question is, why is being given a life on earth considered to be better than not being given a life on earth? Why the automatic assumption that every potential life should become a living, breathing life - nature's interventions excluded?

I don't mean how can life on earth be considered a good thing, because I know it can be good, great, even amazing at times, but it can also be a truly difficult experience some of the time, or all of the time, for some people. To qualify, I'm not saying I don't understand or appreciate that life can be a wonderful experience, but it is, unfortunately, a painful experience for many.

I ask this as someone who continued with an unplanned pregnancy, and relinquished her child to parents that wanted a (second, adopted) child. I read threads like this one in a confused state of mind. There is the part of me that understands how traumatic an unplanned pregnancy can be - I know that feeling of being unsupported and pregnant. Then there is another side of me, the side that hopes my child is happy she was given a chance to live a life on this planet, even though that life wasn't lived with her biological mother.

Although I don't feel the same as this thread's (and similar thread's) pro-life posters, I find myself strangely comforted by their 'life above all else' train of thought. It is for selfish reasons I find comfort in their dogged insistence that life, even in its very early stage, should be given the chance to be born. That selfish reason is that I hope my child prefers the life I gave her, with a family brand new, to not having a life at all.

But, this comes at continued cost to me. Twenty eight years later, I still struggle with the life I now have without the child I gave birth to. I hope she loves being on this planet - this planet that can be as wonderful as it can be horrendous.

I doubt it's necessary for me to outline the pain this life can bring but I suspect that some people don't ever get to see the beauty. I'm lucky, although I feel tremendous emotional pain a lot of the time, I also feel joy and see beauty even though the measures can sometimes be unbalanced.

How do hard-stance pro-life people see this world? How can they be sure that to be given a life on earth is a great gift?

I hope they're right, and to be given a life is better than to not be given a life (on earth -who knows what else is on offer elsewhere?) because something I wasn't prepared for, when choosing to place my child with a new family, was the guilt. Level one guilt being not keeping her with me, but level two guilt (that accumulated over the many years since) is a whole new level for me - the guilt that comes with knowing that this world knows how to deliver pain, and I sent her out there to deal with it alone (by alone, I mean without me). It's crippling sometimes.

To try return from my off-tangent and back to my question: why is it deemed that life on earth is a blessing when life on earth is also almost guaranteed to bring some pain, and in some cases, a lot of pain?

At all costs. Is that really fair?

NuMarvel wrote: »

To be fair, some women may still be doing these things. One of the witnesses at the Committee on the 8th referred to interviews with women who had abortions in the UK or via pills. Those women spoke about what options they were considering if travel or pills hadn't been accessible.

I'd find it hard to believe that at least some women, even if only a handful, haven't actually tried these or other methods. Just because One Eye Jack hasn't heard about it is doesn't mean it hasn't happened, especially when women who do talk about it risk a 14 year prison sentence.

What are we to do on the basis of the imagination of a handful of people saying what stupid and illegal things they might have done? Thankfully, WHO research states that unsafe abortions occur with negligible incidence here, or not at all.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

^^^^^^^^ Fiona de Londras ^^^^^^ professor of law ^^^^quite a lot of details and clarification ^^^^ linky up there^^^^^she took aaaages writing that. Read books and everything. Be rude not to read her clarification.

In my view, both simple repeal and repeal and replace allow for a reasonable level of legal certainty

Great news, thanks.

thee glitz wrote: »

If you're not an expert, they're perceived flaws until confirmed.

Back in 1983ish, before the 8th was passed, people who knew the law like Peter Sutherland (the Attorney General) and Alan Shatter (then a TD and family lawyer) warned that the wording of the 8th was unclear, would have to be dragged to the Supreme Court for clarification, and had the risk of unintended consequences like making abortion legal in Ireland, the exact opposite of its supporters intention.

Guess what - the experts were right.

Now you are proposing another dogs dinner which the legal experts are warning is a bad idea. Guess what again.

It's up to the woman at the end of the day, isn't it ?

Us men ain't the ones who have to carry the baby.

Oh, and I would rather get medical advice off Michael Jackson's doctor than our taoiseach. He brought in medical cards for u6's and pushe'd our system over a cliff. Gob****e.

NuMarvel wrote: »

The decision is up to the woman at the end of the day.

But it'll be up to men to turn up and vote on the day to make sure a woman can make that decision if she wants to. Because you can be sure that every man who is against it will be there.

This.

All the heat and light generated around this question has nothing to do with whether, or when, a woman should or should not terminate her pregnancy.

It all has to do with how we as a society should respond to a woman who faces this question. Should we forbid her? Should we permit her? Either way, how should we support her? It's all about what we should do, not what she should do. And "we" includes both men and women.