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; } } }

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

Water John

Is there an alternative Constitutional Article being proposed for Art 8? I don't think so, Boulevardier.
The Constitution simply reverts to pre 1980.

Loafing Oaf

Boulevardier wrote: »

Yes, but a constitutional provision which explicitly gives the Oireachtas sole powers over abortion is still tantamount to a declaration that there can be no unenumerated or implied rights in the constitution for any unborn, including late-stage unborn.

My own position on unborn rights is that where a woman's right to life and those of an unborn conflict, the woman must always come first. However, that does not mean that a late-term unborn should be left without rights of any kind.

Do you have any reason to believe such rights are incorporated into any particular part of the constitution? In the absence of such a provision, is it not just as likely a court might decide any restriction on abortion is unconstitutional?

jimmycrackcorm

pilly wrote:

How many times do I have to post simple maths lessons here

1 abortion costs less than 10 months maternity care. Simples

What is confusing you about this?

A pack of condoms costs a fraction of either.

The vast majority of the debate and morality surrounding abortion could be removed if research was pushed into easier preventative pregnancy measures.

Even the decision process to abort an unwanted pregnancy is traumatic in its own right.

Water John

Some on here seem to think, it gets as much thought as going down to the shop for a packet of lozenges.

frag420

end of the road wrote: »

i haven't made an argument for abortion on demand at all, i have made one against it. we could only save money by stripping away the services afterwords, abortion itself wouldn't bring savings as the costs from what i can find seem to be hugely under-estimated.
essentially your point is looking for a problem for abortion on demand to be the solution.

Can you show us what you found that hugely underestimate the costs?

Just a heads up but looking inside your head for one of your facts does not count!!

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

I really can't see the Oireachtas going further than the Committee's recommendations. I wouldn't be surprised if there were attempts to be step back from some of them.

Absolutely. The whole point of the Assembly and the Committee is to give cowardly politicians something to hide behind. They are never, ever going out in front.

Boulevardier

Yes. Judge Richard Humphrey recently said this:

"The judge repudiated the notion that Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution could be regarded as the sole repository of all the rights of the unborn child, pointing out that such rights were implicit in several articles of the Constitution, particularly in Article 40, long before the enactment of Article 40.3.3. “In addition to these rights”, he elaborated, “other significant rights of the unborn child are recognised, acknowledged or created by common law or statute, in turn reflecting inherent natural and constitutional rights of the unborn which are implied by the constitutional order. Since we were all unborn at one point, it is illogical to be dismissive of the natural, human and biological reality that there is continuity between the rights to be enjoyed before birth and those after birth”.

This is from this article in Village:

https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2016/09/laws-of-unintended-coherence/

Any such rights would presumably be abolished by an Oireachtas only provision on abortion law in the constitution.

Riskymove

Water John wrote: »

Is there an alternative Constitutional Article being proposed for Art 8? I don't think so, Boulevardier.
The Constitution simply reverts to pre 1980.

one option is to just repeal the 8th as recommended by the Committee

There is also consideration of replacing the text with something specifically giving power to Oireachtas to legislate for abortion...it is suggested that this would lessen the chance of any legislation being challenged.

Boulevardier

"There is also consideration of replacing the text with something specifically giving power to Oireachtas to legislate for abortion...it is suggested that this would lessen the chance of any legislation being challenged."

This is precisely where there may be danger of going too far the other way. Giving the Oireachtas such power clearly implies that unborn rights other than those contained in the 1983 amendment do not exist, and that the Oireachtas could legislate for unrestricted abortions up to full term.

I agree with the idea that simple repeal would bring us back to the pre-1983 situation, which I think would be the best constitutional situation.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Boulevardier

Right now that's true, they would not.

However the right-to-choose groups would favour it, and it could be brought in by a future government which includes, say Labour.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

Boulevardier wrote: »

Right now that's true, they would not.

However the right-to-choose groups would favour it, and it could be brought in by a future government which includes, say Labour.

It's possible, but I don't think it's likely. I think it's more likely that a government would make access to abortion more restrictive in the future, than less. But even then, I don't rate that as probable either.

I think the most likely outcome is that, assuming the referendum succeeds, whatever legislation passes will be the legislation for the foreseeable future. That's what's happened in other countries with similar legislation (eg France's laws have been in place since 1975), and I don't forsee Ireland being the exception to that.

Especially when you consider it took us 20 years to change our laws just for the X Case.

mrkiscool2

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's also wrong. Had a very frustrating discussion on a Breda O'Brien article on Facebook with people who think women should have abortion to term. There are people who believe it should be to term, which is madness.

Annasopra

Boulevardier wrote: »

Right now that's true, they would not.

However the right-to-choose groups would favour it, and it could be brought in by a future government which includes, say Labour.

No. This is utter nonsense. No pro choice campaigners want unrestricted abortion upto full term.

Annasopra

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

That's also wrong. Had a very frustrating discussion on a Breda O'Brien article on Facebook with people who think women should have abortion to term. There are people who believe it should be to term, which is madness.

To be fair people arguing for this are in a tiny minority and not allied to any serious group at all on this issue. Pro choice campaigners are simply not looking for full term abortions. It is bunkum and drivel suggesting they are.

mrkiscool2

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

To be fair people arguing for this are in a tiny minority and not allied to any serious group at all on this issue. Pro choice campaigners are simply not looking for full term abortions. It is bunkum and drivel suggesting they are.

I fully agree they are in the minority but I think it's wrong to say no-one is arguing for it. We have to, as the pro-choice side, acknowledge that argument and thoroughly reject it!

end of the road

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. This is utter nonsense. No pro choice campaigners want unrestricted abortion upto full term.

unfortunately it's not nonsense. a good number of pro-choice want unrestricted abortion up to term.

Hannibal_Smith

end of the road wrote: »

unfortunately it's not nonsense. a good number of pro-choice want unrestricted abortion up to term.

What would you consider to be a good number? I'm not sure ive heard anyone wanting this. Sure what is it, week 26 the baby can survive outside the womb? So the baby isn't dependent on the mother for life any longer, so what would even the thinking behind it be? I would imagine it's nothing more than scaremongering.

Timberrrrrrrr

end of the road wrote: »

unfortunately it's not nonsense. a good number of pro-choice want unrestricted abortion up to term.

And a number of pro-life people would be in favour of strapping a pregnant girl (yes girl) to a bed for 9 months and forcing her to give birth to an unwanted child

Thankfully the idiots on both sides (forced pregnancy to birth/unrestricted abortion to full term) are in the tiny minority.

end of the road

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

What would you consider to be a good number? I'm not sure ive heard anyone wanting this. Sure what is it, week 26 the baby can survive outside the womb? So the baby isn't dependent on the mother for life any longer, so what would even the thinking behind it be? I would imagine it's nothing more than scaremongering.

sadly it's not scaremongering. such extremists exist. i don't get the thinking behind it myself but then again i don't get the thinking in relation to wanting unrestricted abortion full stop.

Bannasidhe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And a number of pro-life people would be in favour of strapping a pregnant girl (yes girl) to a bed for 9 months and forcing her to give birth to an unwanted child

Thankfully the idiots on both sides (forced pregnancy to birth/unrestricted abortion to full term) are in the tiny minority.

end of the road wrote: »

sadly it's not scaremongering. such extremists exist. i don't get the thinking behind it myself but then again i don't get the thinking in relation to wanting unrestricted abortion full stop.

As Timberrrrrrrr pointed out - extremists exist on both side but are in the minority. Sadly, it's a reality that we have already had a young pregnant rape victim force fed when she went on hunger strike and a brain dead woman kept alive against the express wishes of her family. Your extremists are already being extreme, our extremists are keyboard warriors who no one - including the vast majority of pro-choice supporters - will ever allow to decide anything.

Hannibal_Smith

end of the road wrote: »

sadly it's not scaremongering. such extremists exist. i don't get the thinking behind it myself but then again i don't get the thinking in relation to wanting unrestricted abortion full stop.

Have you got a link? I'd be interested in reading the thoughts behind it.

I don't understand how you can't understand the thinking behind wanting the 8th repealed. It has been explained so many times to you throughout the thread. But hey ho, you can only explain to those willing to listen.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Have you got a link? I'd be interested in reading the thoughts behind it.

I have only talked with three people EVER who think women should be able to terminate the pregnancy up to term. And of those three, three of them were on this forum. And of those three, one of them seems to have done a COMPLETE about turn on the issue and gone to the opposite extreme of claiming women should not have any abortions in this country, and the unborn should have a right to life, and the women themselves should get no social welfare of any kind. Figure that out if you can.

So it is hard to take any of them seriously. Especially when I asked all three of them what exactly the termination would entail, and what implications it would have for the fetus at each stage.... and none of the three answered. Though one of them did go on for awhile about how much he imagined Hilary Clinton agreed with him.

So I too am skeptical about what a "good number" actually means. Because really, it seems to be statistically a non-existent number. Statistically there really is no one calling for this at all, let alone a "good number".

Itssoeasy

I'm happy that the speakers in the Dail so far from all parties and none bar Ruth coppinger have tried to be positive. Was Catherine Connolly ever a member of a political party ? I know she's an indepedent but I've always been very impressed with any speeches she has given in the Dail. Jesus even mick Wallace is trying to address the 8th amendment committee report. The world is gone mad.

end of the road

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Have you got a link? I'd be interested in reading the thoughts behind it.

I don't understand how you can't understand the thinking behind wanting the 8th repealed. It has been explained so many times to you throughout the thread. But hey ho, you can only explain to those willing to listen.

i can understand simply wanting to repeal the 8th itself and no more. i would personally like to vote to repeal it myself but i can't due to the likely hood of abortion on demand being legislated for.

HandsomeBob

Have to say fair play to Colette Kelleher. Summed up my feelings nicely in the subject.

Itssoeasy

Even Michael Healy Rae is given a different opinion to others but you can't say he's trying to give his honest opinion.

Hannibal_Smith

end of the road wrote: »

i can understand simply wanting to repeal the 8th itself and no more. i would personally like to vote to repeal it myself but i can't due to the likely hood of abortion on demand being legislated for.

On what basis would you like it repealed? Take out the possible legislative changes after. What would your reasons be for repealing the 8th?

Da Boss

Good to see more tds , according to the independent at least, are pro life than pro choice.