The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

ForestFire wrote: »

The length of pregnacy(age ) is dertermined by a doctor from the date of last cycle and fixed from this point. Yes there can be some error in this but the date is set a nd you know how long you have to decide.

So if you think there is an issue with 11 and 13 weeks then put 14 weeks into the constitution.

If you want an abortion, you should not be waiting till the last minute to decide.

Putting terms and time limits into the constitution is an absolute legal nightmare waiting to happen. We were warned about the 8th. We were warned of the unintended consequences.

Bannasidhe

ForestFire wrote: »

The length of pregnacy(age ) is dertermined by a doctor from the date of last cycle and fixed from this point. Yes there can be some error in this but the date is set a nd you know how long you have to decide.

So if you think there is an issue with 11 and 13 weeks then put 14 weeks into the constitution.

If you want an abortion, you should not be waiting till the last minute to decide.

Indeed. If a person is in crises they should bloody well just hurry up and make a decision :rolleyes:

Your lack of understanding about how difficult a decision it can be or indeed the biological realities of being pregnant is astounding.

ForestFire

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Neither the 8th or time limits in the constitution are acceptable in my opinion.

Can you imagine the court cases on whether a woman is 10 or 13 weeks pregnant.

This is much more complex than having a divorce 4 year separation in the constitution.

The X case was in 92. The judgement wasnt legislated for till well over 20 years later. This idea that every general election will turm into fighting over abortion is just a red herring.

Replacing the 8th with time limits is a really really bad way of doing this.

The length of pregnacy(age ) is dertermined by a doctor from the date of last cycle and fixed from this point. Yes there can be some error in this but the date is set a nd you know how long you have to decide.

So if you think there is an issue with 11 and 13 weeks then put 14 weeks into the constitution.

If you want an abortion, you should not be waiting till the last minute to decide.

Also if we put 12 weeks in legislation we still have the same issue in determing the 11 to 13 weeks cases? So there is no difference.

ForestFire wrote: »

No alternative seems a very closed position.

Would you prefer to keep the status quo, rather than have 12 weeks in the constitution?

Why can't there be a 12 week limit in the constitution? Not working for divorce is a separate argument, as this is about the protect and right to life.

It should not be messed around with every general election, and if you think they won't what's wrong with the constitution then of we are happy to keep 12 weeks. Why would we want to change?

I have been out of this thread for a while, but all previous arguments not to keep protection in constitution is it's not the place, remember divorce, that's what we have now.

Thank some time to write it test it and put it in.

I set out the problems with a replacement amendment earlier today.

The provision in the constitution for divorce reinforces my point. Getting a divorce is a legal matter, so it's easy to provide for it in a legal document (I don't think it should be in this particular document, but that's a different argument). We haven't had any court cases testing that provision and we haven't had to hold referendums to remedy unforseen problems.

Abortion on the other hand has resulted in multiple court cases. We've had four subsequent referendums, with at least one more on the way. And the 8th, which was meant to be a cast iron guarantee against abortion ended up actually legalising it. Which is exactly what the opponents of the 8th said back in 83.

If you've got text that would work like the divorce clause instead of how the 8th has, I'd love to hear it. Because I've thought about it, and I can't think of any. Which is why I say there is no realistic alternative, and why I favour repeal or something similar.

Zubeneschamali

ForestFire wrote: »

Would you prefer to keep the status quo, rather than have 12 weeks in the constitution?

Yes, and hold another vote in 5 years.

markodaly wrote: »

A misnomer considering many of our rights are derived from the Constitution.

And? The vast majority of our law is not directly written into the constitution.

Neither the 8th or time limits in the constitution are acceptable in my opinion.

Can you imagine the court cases on whether a woman is 10 or 13 weeks pregnant.

This is much more complex than having a divorce 4 year separation in the constitution.

The X case was in 92. The judgement wasnt legislated for till well over 20 years later. This idea that every general election will turm into fighting over abortion is just a red herring.

Replacing the 8th with time limits is a really really bad way of doing this.

ForestFire

NuMarvel wrote: »

There is no realistic alternative for people who want change.

No alternative seems a very closed position.

Would you prefer to keep the status quo, rather than have 12 weeks in the constitution?

Why can't there be a 12 week limit in the constitution? Not working for divorce is a separate argument, as this is about the protect and right to life.

It should not be messed around with every general election, and if you think they won't what's wrong with the constitution then of we are happy to keep 12 weeks. Why would we want to change?

I have been out of this thread for a while, but all previous arguments not to keep protection in constitution is it's not the place, remember divorce, that's what we have now.

Thank some time to write it test it and put it in.

markodaly wrote: »

Removing the 8th from the constitution will mean that all unborn will have no rights, apart from what is fashionable in the Dail of the day. If you trust politicians then more fool you.

There is no realistic alternative for people who want change.

markodaly

pitifulgod wrote: »

We don't write strict guidelines/legislation into the constitution. With the exception of abortion and divorce, the reason for that is because of the influence of the Catholic Church. A constitution is supposed to be an interpretive and living document. Not the place for legislation or removing the ability to legislate entirely.

Not really. The constitution is a document that protects peoples fundamental rights, things like property, free speech, right to life.

Removing the 8th from the constitution will mean that all unborn will have no rights, apart from what is fashionable in the Dail of the day. If you trust politicians then more fool you.

markodaly wrote: »

A misnomer considering many of our rights are derived from the Constitution. I think the pro choice people have dropped the ball, but that is what echo chambers do.

Most want the 8th repealed but most do not want unlimited abortion. If they put in a fail-safe into the constitution to protect the life of the unborn, they would win. The more this debate is going to drag on, the more likely it will not pass.

We don't write strict guidelines/legislation into the constitution. With the exception of abortion and divorce, the reason for that is because of the influence of the Catholic Church. A constitution is supposed to be an interpretive and living document. Not the place for legislation or removing the ability to legislate entirely.

markodaly

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The constitution really should not be the place to be specific on law.

A misnomer considering many of our rights are derived from the Constitution. I think the pro choice people have dropped the ball, but that is what echo chambers do.

Most want the 8th repealed but most do not want unlimited abortion. If they put in a fail-safe into the constitution to protect the life of the unborn, they would win. The more this debate is going to drag on, the more likely it will not pass.

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

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.

The test is 9 weeks its very accurate and the second test is 100%
The testing only takes two weeks cos there’s no dedicated lab here
There will be soon of course

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

[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.

Edward M

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.

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

The medical professionals seem to suggest otherwise.

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

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.

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

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.