The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

ForestFire wrote: »

Any presiding government can at anytime clarify and/or hold a new referendum to clarify/modify or remove, it if it is really necessary.

So the will of the government and people cannot just be ignored

But you missing the point, I am not asking about how you or I feel on the abortion topic.

I am asking do you think if will affect the general population and result?

Are you happy that the question will be asked to the public to just remove the 8th amendment without replacing it with anything?

And again this is not what you or I would like, but what you think could have an affect on the result.

that is not what is being proposed

jimmycrackcorm

swampgas wrote:

Eh ... isn't that democracy though? The government is answerable to the electorate. If you don't trust the government, what's your alternative? The Pope?

There's a difference. I can have a direct say on voting on the specific in the referendum, whereas voting TDs represents a multitude of policy areas.

Kurtosis wrote: »

Well if it is occurring at 24/25 weeks, referring to it as a choice doesn't really capture the circumstances fully. Any course of action that results in termination of a pregnancy would be the woman and her doctor(s), and would have to medically indicated. It's far closer to your critically ill person scenario than your well person scenario.

Of course. Where it's medically indicated, my hypothetical doesn't come into play.

My hypothetical is confined to purely choice based terminations at 24/25 weeks. While obviously incredibly rare, that would have to be a consideration should an absolute choice framework ever be enshrined in law.

I fully appreciate that isn't at all on the table in the Irish context (though there is a minority legal view that a simple repeal might mean that any limits at all on the right to terminate at any time would be unconstitutional.....!).

david75

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Oh God, I just remembered we're in for months of posters being vandalised and fighting online over it.

Don’t get distracted by the sideshow.

We’ve been vandalising women’s bodily autonomy since the foundation of the state. That’s the issue being addressed at last.

drkpower wrote: »

Of course. Where it's medically indicated, my hypothetical doesn't come into play.

My hypothetical is confined to purely choice based terminations at 24/25 weeks. While obviously incredibly rare, that would have to be a consideration should an absolute choice framework ever be enshrined in law.

I fully appreciate that isn't at all on the table in the context (though there is a minority legal view that a simple repeal might mean that any limits at all on the right to terminate at any time would be unconstitutional.....!).

you are assuming that the woman would be able to find a doctor willing to perform an abortion

eviltwin wrote: »

Why should they? Are you going to start looking for redress for those who smoke, drank, took drugs during pregnancy?

I've covered that already. There are good policy reasons why mother and child shouldn't be placed as legal adversaries in circumstances of negligent behaviour.

But should that apply where the mother takes a conscious decision to deliver at 24/25 weeks (with no medical indication) in the full knowledge that it is inevitable the child will be profoundly disabled for life by that decision. In such a case, I have no difficulty with the child having a right of redress against its mother, ethically morally or legally.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you are assuming that the woman would be able to find a doctor willing to perform an abortion

Of course.

I think that is unlikely. Just as it is unlikely a mother would ever make such a choice.

But I wouldn't be comfortable leaving even one child without redress if both of those eventualities came to pass.

freshpopcorn

david75 wrote: »

Don’t get distracted by the sideshow.

We’ve been vandalising women’s bodily autonomy since the foundation of the state. That’s the issue being addressed at last.

And if repeal campaign gets to complacent because of the marriage referendum it might continue for years to come.

drkpower wrote: »

Of course.

I think that is unlikely. Just as it is unlikely a mother would ever make such a choice.

But I wouldn't be comfortable leaving even one child without redress if both of those eventualities came to pass.

there is no proposal to allow abortion past 12 weeks. why are you distracting the thread with nonsense hypotheticals?

drkpower wrote: »

I think the qualitative difference is that abusing alcohol - even at extreme levels - is not absolutely certain to result in significant injury.

A choice to deliver at 24 weeks is.

I appreciate there is a lot of 'grey' in these situations, for sure, but for those who advocate that absolute choice extends to such decisions to terminate a pregnancy at 24 weeks, are you comfortable that the then born child has no redress at all. From a position of being normal, they are now without a mother, are profoundly disabled, and will probably be in lifelong state care. I am all for maternal choice and autonomy but don't we have to engage in some sort of balancing exercise where the consequences for the child are so catastrophic?

Given that I am not one of those who advocates that absolute choice extends to terminating a pregnancy at 24 weeks unless there is a compelling extenuating circumstance than obviously I, personally, am not comfortable.

But neither am I comfortable when I see elderly parents at their wits ends with worry over what will happen their seriously disabled and utterly dependent adult child when they can no longer care for them.

Neither am I comfortable when I see terminally ill people suffer needlessly before succumbing to a painful and prolonged death despite their own wish to die with dignity.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there is no proposal to allow abortion past 12 weeks. why are you distracting the thread with nonsense hypotheticals?

Sorry to distract you. It's an interesting aside of some passing relevance. You don't have to engage with it.

ForestFire

swampgas wrote: »

The 8th amendment was actually put in place to prevent democratically elected governments legalising abortion.

Was it not a democratically elected government and the peoples vote that put it in? And nothing stopped any governments from having a vote anytime to change/remove anytime they wanted, they want just like now.

Again as per further post I'm not asking about the rights or wrongs but how you think this might affect the result?

ForestFire wrote: »

Was it not a democratically elected government and the peoples vote that put it in? And nothing stopped any governments from having a vote anytime to change/remove anytime they wanted, they want just like now.

Again as per further post I'm not asking about the rights or wrongs but how you think this might affect the result?

The important thing is that people know what they are voting on. If the proposed legislation is clear i dont see an issue. I cant see any future governments touching it with a bargepole for a long time.

ForestFire

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is not what is being proposed

What is being proposed then?

RTE
"Senior sources say the Cabinet has also agreed that the Referendum Bill should include wording to repeal the Eighth Amendment and also wording to be added into the constitution to enable to Oireachtas to legislate on this matter."

ForestFire wrote: »

What is being proposed then?

RTE
"Senior sources say the Cabinet has also agreed that the Referendum Bill should include wording to repeal the Eighth Amendment and also wording to be added into the constitution to enable to Oireachtas to legislate on this matter."

so it is not being replaced with nothing. I dont see what your confusion is?

eviltwin

Press conference at 10, we will know all then. It's being broadcast live on YouTube for anyone interested

ForestFire

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so it is not being replaced with nothing. I dont see what your confusion is?

Okay its the same difference, it being replaced with what exactly I said in my first post.

The government will decide now, and at any point in the future what the rules are.

Are you happy this will not affect the result? Sway the way some people might vote?

ForestFire wrote: »

Okay its the same difference, it being replaced with what exactly I said in my first post.

The government will decide now, and at any point in the future what the rules are.

Are you happy this will not affect the result? Sway the way some people might vote?

i will repeat my previous post

The important thing is that people know what they are voting on. If the proposed legislation is clear i dont see an issue. I cant see any future governments touching it with a bargepole for a long time.

pitifulgod

ForestFire wrote: »

There is a very important thing called the constitution.
Do you not think we need it?

The alternative was clear so not sure why you brought the Pope into it?

ForestFire wrote: »

Any presiding government can at anytime clarify and/or hold a new referendum to clarify/modify or remove, it if it is really necessary.

So the will of the government and people cannot just be ignored

But you missing the point, I am not asking about how you or I feel on the abortion topic.

I am asking do you think if will affect the general population and result?

Are you happy that the question will be asked to the public to just remove the 8th amendment without replacing it with anything?

And again this is not what you or I would like, but what you think could have an affect on the result.

In 1983, numerous people including Mary Robinson highlighted how it was incorrect to have anything like the 8th amendment as it would lead to pretty horrible scenarios which it did. Hardcoded endless detail into the constitution and removing any ability to amend any legislation in the future is chaotic.

If the public are dissatisfied with the government, that affects them in the polls. Unless you propose we hardcode any legislation that could be interpreted as related to morals to be put directly into it? You can imply morality with a lot of things that we legislate for.

[Deleted User]

eviltwin wrote: »

Press conference at 10, we will know all then. It's being broadcast live on YouTube for anyone interested

Has it started yet? Nothing on News Now...

eviltwin

Lia_lia wrote: »

Has it started yet? Nothing on News Now...

Still waiting...

pitifulgod

eviltwin wrote: »

Still waiting...

Referendum at the end of May is plan anyway.

Doltanian

I never thought I'd see the day that I am supporting Fianna Fail again, well done FG you have hit a fresh low, the lowest you could possible go in the murder and genocide of defenceless babies to satisfy the EU paymasters and George Soros.

Doltanian wrote: »

I never thought I'd see the day that I am supporting Fianna Fail again, well done FG you have hit a fresh low, the lowest you could possible go in the murder and genocide of defenceless babies to satisfy the EU paymasters and George Soros.

LOL. you realise that Michael Martin has come out in support of repeal?

ForestFire wrote: »

Okay its the same difference, it being replaced with what exactly I said in my first post.

The government will decide now, and at any point in the future what the rules are.

Are you happy this will not affect the result? Sway the way some people might vote?

It is the job of government to decide.

They are the ones changed with creating legislation by the Constitution. If the people are not happy with a piece of legislation they can make that known and there are various avenues open to having that legislation withdrawn/changed, or repealed *coff coff water charges*.

Having the 8th in the Constitution prevents government doing it's job and that is exactly what it was designed to do - there was absolutely no legislation on the horizon in the early 80s to legalise abortion. No even a scintilla of a mention of legalising abortion.

If people feel they can't trust the government then that says a lot about electoral choices not the Constitution.

Doltanian

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

LOL. you realise that Michael Martin has come out in support of repeal?

And has no support from his party, Fianna Fail need to pull the plug on this charade excuse of a Government immediately to prevent a referendum taking place.

Doltanian wrote: »

I never thought I'd see the day that I am supporting Fianna Fail again, well done FG you have hit a fresh low, the lowest you could possible go in the murder and genocide of defenceless babies to satisfy the EU paymasters and George Soros.

All those women marching in support of Repeal are EU Paymasters?!?!?! :eek:

Wait a second... that makes me an EU Paymaster....

#mindblown.

Doltanian wrote: »

And has no support from his party, Fianna Fail need to pull the plug on this charade excuse of a Government immediately to prevent a referendum taking place.

Really? you base that on what?

swampgas

ForestFire wrote: »

Was it not a democratically elected government and the peoples vote that put it in? And nothing stopped any governments from having a vote anytime to change/remove anytime they wanted, they want just like now.

Again as per further post I'm not asking about the rights or wrongs but how you think this might affect the result?

I don't know if you were around in the 80's when the 8th Amendment was introduced. It was a very different Ireland to the one we see today. There was a genuine panic among some that a Roe vs. Wade judgement could introduce abortion to Ireland. There was a propaganda campaign that you had to have been there to believe. The people were subject to a barrage of the most hateful, wrong, and deceitful propoganda, in a country still in thrall to bishops and priests. It was a grim time, to be honest.

There was no intention to respect the will of the people. The idea was to terrify and brainwash and intimidate a constitional bar on abortion, to slow down the inevitable, as the Irish people became more educated, modern and liberal.