The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

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.

So the problem this is meant to address is that the legislation might change.

It is not likely that this would happen; don't forget, it took 30 years just to legislate for the woman's right to life in the 8th. Future changes certainly won't happen behind the backs of the electorate, and the Constitution already allows a bill to be referred back to the people in specified circumstances. So I don't consider a constitutional provision to be a proportionate response to this possible problem.

Also, I haven't seen anything to date that suggests there is a large number of people who would prefer to see the grounds for abortion in the constitution. I'm sure some are uncertain about aspects of the recommended legislation, but no one is coming forward to say the referendum should be on something else. On the constitutional issue, there are only two camps - Repeal or Don't Repeal. There isn't a 3rd campaign saying Amend.

In addition, you keep talking about the on request timeframe as if that's all the post referendum legislation will be about. It won't; it will cover other grounds such as risk to the woman's health and FFA. If those grounds aren't included in your constitutional provision, it leaves a significant proportion, the ones more likely to have abortions due to complications of some kind, high and dry. But the catch 22 is that including those grounds will, as the 8th has, end up creating problems, not solving them. To once again steal Peter Sutherland's line: "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"

TL:DR - The problem you want to solve isn't really a problem, and no one's calling for this type of amendment, but even if it was and they were, abortion is too complex an issue to be properly covered by a constitutional provision.

ForestFire wrote: »

You have not read my post and come up with your own version, but here is some clarification.

I said if they can stick this unbelievably stupid "law" in their constitution then what is the issue with us (Ireland) putting something in the actually protects life??

You answered your own question. Sticking stupid laws in a Constitution is stupid.
The US 2nd Amendment was stupid because it wasn't future proofed. Written in a post-revolution country which feared a counter-revolution and didn't take into account advances in weaponry or the expansion of the US to a continent wide nation of millions. Millions with the right to bear arms is a recipe for disaster.
It was short sighted, too rooted in contemporary fears and too specific while also being so vaguely written as to be open to wide interpretation.

It is very much like the 8th. The 8th was a response to fears that abortion would be legalised (in a country where contraception wasn't widely available) and sought to make it super illegal. It is badly written, specific yet difficult to be sure what exactly is and is not allowed.

Constitutions should be the framework for legislation, they should be future proofed as far as possible, precise enough to provide solid guidelines without unnecessarily tying the hands of legislators to respond to an evolving society. It should not be used as a means to appease those who are uncomfortable with societal changes - e.g 5 year separation before divorce.

There is no need for a time limit to be included in the Constitution. As I said before, if there is ever an Irish electorate that would accept government legislating for liberal abortion laws than logically that electorate would repeal any amendment that has a specific time limit - so it would be pointless, and expensive, window dressing.

BTW the Constitution is interpreted on an ongoing basis, by the Supreme Court.
Exactly as happened with the 8th. The wording turned out to be interpreted very differently, than William Binchy intended.

Kurtosis wrote: »

Well I was hoping you might consider how the insertion of an absolute date for the protection of human life into the constitution is much easier said than done.

And (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) am I right in thinking that articles of the constitution cannot be tested in the court? (i.e. isn't it legislation that can be tested for constitutionality?)

No.

Think about the X case had to test the constitution.

Although you couldnt take a case to say part of the constitution was unconstitutional.

Kurtosis wrote: »

And (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) am I right in thinking that articles of the constitution cannot be tested in the court? (i.e. isn't it legislation that can be tested for constitutionality?)

Exactly right. The courts can't determine if something in the constitution is constitutional or not, because being in the constitution means it's de facto constitutional.

I don't know how the courts would manage in a case where there were contradictory provisions in play, which is another good reason for not needlessly playing around with the constitution.

ForestFire wrote: »

Thanks for the effort for a proper reply...

But while I agree the Gun law is stupid...
Agree The 8th was badly done....
Agree The divorce law for a time of 4 years is unnecessary....

I don't believe the protection of life is stupid...
That it can't be done better to ensure it solid...
And as A moral life question, does deserve ultimate protection...

Is that hard to understand?

Equally, is it hard to understand that there is no place in a Constitution for a statement that effectively says that an embryo that is not recognised as a 'person' by the State ( no death certificate in the even of miscarriage, no ppns number, no direct benefits such as child benefit or a dependent's allowance in JSA/JSB) is equal to an existing citizen.

The State does not recognised true 'personhood' until the moment of birth - how can it then say in the Constitution that a 'non-person' is equal to a person?

The 8th Amendment strips women of some of their rights in favour of what the State itself does not recognise as a citizen. It impacts on Healthcare provision, it removes the right of bodily autonomy.

A Constitutional clause that states that a particular group of citizens are equal to a group of not only not citizens but not yet persons and this clause over rides some of their rights.

That is absurd.

Consonata wrote: »

Because by changing the amendment we are legalising the concept of having an abortion by choice by writing it into our constitution as a right. We then legislate by how that right is regulated.

Is that hard to understand?

I think its a bit harder to understand than my point i hope you agree (Simple because mine is about moral beliefs, while yours is about Laws/ etc.,) but its something that I am open to looking into if there is proper debate and information.

Alas I will have to leave it there for tonight, no doubt I may be back again with you all at some stage in the next weeks:)

Kurtosis wrote: »

Since you didn't want to have a try, I gave it a go. The new and improved article 40.3.3:

The state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn after the age of 12 weeks from the date of (conception/something else?) and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, except for cases where the unborn is the result of rape or incest, or is suffering from a fatal foetal abnormality, or where the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Really clear, right?

Until you get into legal arguments about whether x is an FFA or not.

The citizens assembly and the Oireachtas committee looked at this extensively.

Both having considered expert medical and legal advice on the issue did not feel an amended constitution with specified term limits was a good idea.

ForestFire wrote: »

Has this even been tried, Have these people presented there results and reasons because I am all ears?

Yes. To the citizens assembly and oireachtas committee.

seenitall wrote: »

That's very harsh, now. I can only imagine how you feel about baring legs... you puritan!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Take this thought with you - the very reason for a Constitution is as a basis for the laws of the land, not as a moral framework.

But nearly all laws are based upon the moral beliefs of society anyway so I don't see the issue with a basis in there for the right to life at 12 weeks, so it can be put into law.

Also, and again not that I fully agree with thiss, the first words in the Irish constitution read:-

BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN
In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom
is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all
actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our
Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers
through centuries of trial


Some more food for thought. Good night.

seenitall wrote: »

Ouch, my eyes!! Touché.

Now you've seen it all

ForestFire wrote: »

But nearly all laws are based upon the moral beliefs of society anyway so I don't see the issue with a basis in there for the right to life at 12 weeks, so it can be put into law.

Also, and again not that I fully agree with thiss, the first words in the Irish constitution read:-

BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN
In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom
is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all
actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire,
Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our
Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers
through centuries of trial


Some more food for thought. Good night.

Putting religion in a Constitution is a recipe for shariaesque type laws.

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morals or ethics - quite the opposite as these 'holy morals' were used to justify the incarceration of thousands of Irish women when notions of morality were allowed to over ride the rights of the citizen.

Plus - not all Irish citizen's believe in a Divine Lord - it's our Constitution too you know and should reflect that fact.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Personally I think the 1937 Constitution is a complete hames - it seems to me to be the bones of the 22 Constitution with added Roman Catholic interference and an attempt at social engineering to bring about Dev's vision of Ireland.

The whole thing needs to be rewritten, not all this continual tinkering and ignoring the bits that are deemed irrelevant.

I thought a couple of years ago that having a referendum on a new constitution would be a clever way of getting abortion liberalisation through. By packaging it with less urgent and less contentious changes that would attract support you could draw some of the vitriol out of the debate...