The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

ELM327 wrote: »

How, Can, You, Know, It, Is, True, When, The, Wording, Has, Not, Been, Set, Yet.....

Research Schrodinger's cat and you will see why that covers your post.
Are you sure you're not a pro birther? Your militant refusal to acknowledge rationality seems to suggest you are.

Of course I'm a pro birther, are you an anti birther?

Edward M wrote: »

Of course I'm a pro birther, are you an anti birther?

Another strawman?
Ok.. I'll bite and try to explain it to you.

Pro-Birther is a counter derogatory term used for the anti-repeal group, as a retort for them using "pro-abortion" or similar. No one is truly pro abortion, just pro choice.

ELM327 wrote: »

Another strawman?
Ok.. I'll bite and try to explain it to you.

Pro-Birther is a counter derogatory term used for the anti-repeal group, as a retort for them using "pro-abortion" or similar. No one is truly pro abortion, just pro choice.

Well we agree on something perhaps.:)
But why use the derogatory term, can't you have a rational debate, I didn't use any such term to you.

ELM327 wrote: »

Different yes... disorder no.

Eugenics involves killing of active people, the icelandic method involves prevention. Big difference.

PS: This is a discussion forum, if you don't want a reply from random posters I'd suggest sending a PM to whomever it was that you were "referring to".

Eugenics doesn't require active people and didn't just involve killing them, it included mass sterilisation as well. I support a woman choosing to have an abortion, you're basically saying eradicate possibility of something en masse.

That's not what actually happens in Iceland, people who tend to take the test will abort. It's more a scenario that some women don't feel they're able to cope with raising a child with down syndrome etc. I support their choice and understand that it's an extraordinarily complex situation. It is not for the purpose of perfecting the human race as you appear to believe.

ELM327 wrote: »

Different yes... disorder no.

Eugenics involves killing of active people, the icelandic method involves prevention. Big difference.

PS: This is a discussion forum, if you don't want a reply from random posters I'd suggest sending a PM to whomever it was that you were "referring to".

You must be trolling here. No pro choice people want to eradicate Downs Syndrome.

pitifulgod wrote: »

Eugenics doesn't require active people and didn't just involve killing them, it included mass sterilisation as well. I support a woman choosing to have an abortion, you're basically saying eradicate possibility of something en masse.

That's not what actually happens in Iceland, people who tend to take the test will abort. It's more a scenario that some women don't feel they're able to cope with raising a child with down syndrome etc. I support their choice and understand that it's an extraordinarily complex situation. It is not for the purpose of perfecting the human race as you appear to believe.

That's enforced .. I enforce *choice*...

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You must be trolling here. No pro choice people want to eradicate Downs Syndrome.

slighltly different opinion to yours, and I must be trolling?
Riiiiiiight.

Edward M wrote: »

Well we agree on something perhaps.:)
But why use the derogatory term, can't you have a rational debate, I didn't use any such term to you.

Because it's a common used term on these boards, and you will find I am not the first to use it as it is in common parlance

There must be no straw left on the camel's back with all these straw men you are sending.

ELM327 wrote: »

That's enforced .. I enforce *choice*...

slighltly different opinion to yours, and I must be trolling?
Riiiiiiight.

Slightly different? No. You are promoting a form of genetic supremacism. Eugenics was much more than killing people.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Slightly different? No. You are promoting a form of genetic supremacism. Eugenics was much more than killing people.

Right.
That's not even close to what I was saying. Way to miss the point.

I'm convinced some people here just hear/read what they want to hear to have a ridiculous argument with someone.

ELM327 wrote: »

I've said the opposite.
We should eradicate disorders if possible. No one is talking about euthanasia or anything, but preventing the creation of the life in the first place.

You'd be a good advertisement against repeal really!

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

ELM327 wrote: »

Because it's a common used term on these boards, and you will find I am not the first to use it as it is in common parlance

There must be no straw left on the camel's back with all these straw men you are sending.

There's no need for it. Pro abortionists is commonly used too like.

Name calling doesn't help anyone. Pro life and pro choice are the terms each movement chose for themselves, it's not hard to stick to them.

Edward M wrote: »

You'd be a good advertisement against repeal really!

So we should not allow female bodily autonomy because you don't like something you've read online? And have failed to post one rational related non strawman counterpost? Riiight. Good one jim

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

There's no need for it. Pro abortionists is commonly used too like.

Name calling doesn't help anyone. Pro life and pro choice are the terms each movement chose for themselves, it's not hard to stick to them.

Whatever you want, it's the same thing. Pro life/Pro Birth/Birth Enforcers/The god squad/whatever else.
It's people who want to deny the female population bodily autonomy.

I'm making this one post on this thread then unsubscribing.
To anyone thinking of voting against repeal... please please please read up on the Miss P case.

ELM/out

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

Ah look, that's what we are being told now.
My argument as yours is based on current information.
Why not tell people the most likely scenario.
You called my statement, or at least the portion you highlighted secondly, though that wasn't the full sentence so it took the statement as a whole out of context, false.
You haven't provided any evidence it is false or indeed will later be false.
All the evidence points to it being true, in fact you even said you wanted it to be true in different words in one of your posts.

If the referendum is passed, here is the most likely scenario:

1) The Oireachtas will legislate for access to abortion. It's uncertain at this point what precisely will be in that legislation, but it won't go any further than the recommendations of the Committee. There's a chance that those recommendations won't be legislated for in full. And, as an aside, those recommendations don't include disability as a grounds for abortion so it is highly unlikely the final legislation will include it.
2) Barring unforseen circumstances, this will remain our law for the forseeable future. Irish politicians as a group like to avoid controversy, and have a great track record in being slow to change abortion laws, eg 30 years just to legislate for the woman's right to life in the 8th.
3) Any proposed changes will garner significant media attention. If the electorate are opposed to the change, they will make their voice heard through protests, lobbying their TDs, and all the other mechanisms open to the electorate. This won't happen behind their backs.

There are of course other possible scenarios, but none of them would be the most likely scenario.

nozzferrahhtoo

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Slightly different? No. You are promoting a form of genetic supremacism. Eugenics was much more than killing people.

I do not get to disagree with you often as I love and agree with the majority of what you post. So I relish the chance to query you on this.

I am not entirely sure what you mean here though so I am not sure if I am right to query it. But to test the waters, put it this way..... If I could press a button that meant no MORE people would ever be born in our species with a condition like that, I would happily press it. Would you not? IF not, I am curious why not.

The medical professionals seem to suggest otherwise.

ELM327 wrote: »

Completely.
It is a red herring from the pro birthers... considering medically you (in 99% of cases) cannot detect DS before 12 weeks.

Guess they must be running out of logical arguments (seeing as there are none, other than emotive fear and wish to control others)

of course you can its a blood test

Pedro K

Tigger wrote: »

of course you can its a blood test

It is clear therefore that diagnosis of chromosomal abnormality, while technically possible, can rarely or realistically be achieved before twelve weeks. To suggest therefore that disability will be eliminated by enacting legislation in line with the recommendations of the Oireachtas committee is misleading.

Pedro K wrote: »

The medical professionals seem to suggest otherwise.

thats gibberish, they are talking about screening and diagnostic as two different things if you use the diagnostic blood test

from the article

A second method of screening is a blood test to analyse free fetal DNA in the mother’s blood stream. This test (eg Harmony, Panorama) can be performed from nine weeks onwards. These tests cost upwards of €500 and are not funded by the State which is an obvious limiting factor for many women. If organised through the public system women still have to pay for it. There is no facility in Ireland to analyse the samples so they have to be sent to the UK or the USA for analysis. Results are generally available within two weeks. These tests are not 100 per cent reliable, and so a further, diagnostic, test must be performed to confirm or refute the diagnosis.

at 9 weeks then you'll be able to have a final test which is 100% conclusive.
At the moment the tests need to be sent outside the state but that would change as would the price once people realise they can easily get rid of the risk of down syndrom children. btw the blood test is highly accurate

btw i'm all for up to 16 week abortion on demand and 12 would be a start but i'd like to see it as a constitutional amendment not to leave to the government of any time to do as they want

Tigger wrote: »

btw i'm all for up to 16 week abortion on demand and 12 would be a start but i'd like to see it as a constitutional amendment not to leave to the government of any time to do as they want

That's a point of view many hold re the constitution, I'm glad someone else can see the problem, there are a good few out there who might vote for repeal if there was some other constitutional guarantee inserted in its place.

[Deleted User]

I don't understand the obsession with having a provision in the constitution, this is a uniquely Irish mindset. We elect politicians to legislate, and it works in every other country we consider to be our peers.

Realistically if we vote repeal no politician will want to touch this issue again for a very long time, and if they do it will be because there's a demand from the public.

NuMarvel

Tigger wrote: »

btw i'm all for up to 16 week abortion on demand and 12 would be a start but i'd like to see it as a constitutional amendment not to leave to the government of any time to do as they want

You probably could add an amendment like that, but you're still excluding access on the grounds of serious risk to health, FFA, etc. And trying to add exceptions like those into the constitution is asking for more trouble, because the constitution isn't the place to set rules about complex clinical, scientific, and moral issues.

This is the Attorney General's legal advice on the 8th back in 1983:

"The overall reason, which crops up in almost every facet of any attempted solution is that the subject matter of the amendment sough is of such complexity, involves so many matters of medical and scientific, moral and jurisprudential expertise as to be incapable of accurate encapsulation into a simple constitution-type provision."

That can apply to pretty much any other matter that involves "matters of medical and scientific, moral and jurisprudential expertise".

Edward M wrote: »

That's a point of view many hold re the constitution, I'm glad someone else can see the problem, there are a good few out there who might vote for repeal if there was some other constitutional guarantee inserted in its place.

I and others have pointed out that such a move would be overly complex. Secondly, we elect the legislators. They represent the public. Not trusting legislators with certain things is absolutely ridiculous unless you want all future legislation in constitution?

pitifulgod wrote: »

I and others have pointed out that such a move would be overly complex. Secondly, we elect the legislators. They represent the public. Not trusting legislators with certain things is absolutely ridiculous unless you want all future legislation in constitution?

the constitution is better for single massive issues like this that populist politicians would have to have an opinion on every time they canvassed

Edward M wrote: »

That's a point of view many hold re the constitution, I'm glad someone else can see the problem, there are a good few out there who might vote for repeal if there was some other constitutional guarantee inserted in its place.

The 8th was supposed to be a guarantee and look how that ended up. Putting a guarantee in the constitution would just end up tying the courts and legislature in knots again and again.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Tigger wrote: »

at 9 weeks then you'll be able to have a final test which is 100% conclusive.
At the moment the tests need to be sent outside the state but that would change as would the price once people realise they can easily get rid of the risk of down syndrom children. btw the blood test is highly accurate

I'm sorry but isn't that the opposite of what that says?

It's not 100% accurate and needs to be combined with another test to get a meaningful result, and those tests can't be carried out before 11 weeks, from my reading at that. With the limit for accessing abortion being at 12 weeks.

Tigger wrote: »

the constitution is better for single massive issues like this that populist politicians would have to have an opinion on every time they canvassed

What other pieces of legislation do you want to lob in the constitution? Ireland will change in the next twenty years, so another referendum in 20 years for any changed attitudes? We're getting another on divorce wording soon as well.

pitifulgod wrote: »

What other pieces of legislation do you want to lob in the constitution? Ireland will change in the next twenty years, so another referendum in 20 years for any changed attitudes? We're getting another on divorce wording soon as well.

The constitution really should not be the place to be specific on law. In fact Josepha Madigan wants to change the 4 year divorce rule in the constitution to 2. I dont agree. Take time limits out and let legislators decide.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The constitution really should not be the place to be specific on law. In fact Josepha Madigan wants to change the 4 year divorce rule in the constitution to 2. I dont agree. Take time limits out and let legislators decide.

I would concur with you on that, no idea why anyone thinks the solution is effectively be setting variables in the constitution when legislators are there to do it.