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 Most want the 8th repealed but most do not want unlimited abortion.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.
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.
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.
NuMarvel wrote: » There is no realistic alternative for people who want change.
markodaly wrote: » A misnomer considering many of our rights are derived from the Constitution.
ForestFire wrote: » Would you prefer to keep the status quo, rather than have 12 weeks in the constitution?
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.
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.
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.
Bannasidhe wrote: » 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 wrote: » Sorry now I never said that. They are planning on putting 12 weeks in legislation anyway. So you don't think it's going to work by limited in legislation to 12 weeks like they are telling us? Or it's going to be changed very quickly to a longer and longer period?
notjustsweet wrote: » Edit - I'm getting confused with your posts because your jumping between wanting timeframes in the constitution to talking about legislation. The below is related to if it's put in the constitution! What about the alternative that putting 12 weeks in means it can't be made into a shorter time frame either? There may come a time 12 weeks is too long and imagine we all have to have another referendum to change it. I can't imagine any government touching this for a long, long time if its repealed. Politicians don't like making unpopular decisions and will avoid anything controversial as long as possible.
ForestFire wrote: » Well why not put 12 weeks in now, as a very very good first step, and still have another change if needed in 5 years.
NuMarvel wrote: » Instead of asking why not, let's ask why first Why should we do this? What problem is it supposed to be addressing?
ForestFire wrote: » I am still assuming that there will be a magic number (12 weeks) that they plan to legislate for. There will be medical and other criteria to pick this date and I do not know how they will pick the date, but lets assume this is done correctly and a majority agree with the date proposed. The point then of including it in the constitution, is that we are removing the absolute right to life of the unborn and replacing it with a new agreed date after 12 weeks, as part of the repeal vote. To protect this and to protect life after 12 weeks from further change, it should be enshrined in the constitution so that successive governments cannot change it without going back to the people. I assume that, like me, there are many people that are open to abortion up to a defined date (Be that 12 weeks) but against a complete removal of protection, and who also do not trust to have this important moral decision in the hands of politicians (as nice as they all are) If you think the repeal has enough support without these people, then fair enough, but without clear defined and constitutional protect you may lose votes (regardless of your own belief and stance). So what is the issue including the 12 week date? Do you want to be easily want to change it? Easily remove it? Is 12 weeks not enough, What do you propose. And to make it clear, I am not deciding the 12 weeks, just that there is going to be a limit set in legislation in any case as per the current plan.
Consonata wrote: » Because if it needs to be changed or altered due to unforseen circumstances, that would require a second referendum, and as we have seen from how politicians have hoofed this particular can down the road, that may not be for a while
Water John wrote: » You are totally undermining the construct of a written constitution, if you use it, in place of law. The construct of a written constitution, frames the areas, where Parliament make laws.
ForestFire wrote: » So you don't trust politicians to hold a second referendum if absolutely needed, but you do trust them (Or asking me too trust them) with the absolute law on the right to life of the unborn for them to change at will (However likely or unlikely that may be)?
ForestFire wrote: » If the USA can have "the right to bear arms" in there constitution (Which I personnel don't agree with, but it's there) then I think we can have a absolute date for the protection of humane life in ours(if the people want it there)?
Bannasidhe wrote: » You are suggesting that an amendment written 1791 that has been the direct cause of so much violence and division in the U.S. is the example to follow?
Kurtosis wrote: » So what would you suggest the wording of this should be? This is what 40.3.3 states at the moment:The states acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right
ForestFire wrote: » I am far from a legal lawyer, so you will have to forgive me that my version would, be easily challenged wording, But that's probably want you want me to do to shoot down this proposal. But then its not up to me to make this water tight, is it? That's what we are paying our politicians and their consultants for. We also have an Attorney General to refer matters to. And we can send anything proposed to the courts to be tested...is that not enough?
notjustsweet wrote: » Wouldn't all that happen for it to become law too?
