nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Annasopra

ForestFire wrote: »

We do not have the referendum question so I would not say it is decided just yet..

It is. The cabinet decided the 8th will be replaced with an enabling clause giving the Oireachtas the power to legislate.

Annasopra

ForestFire wrote: »

You keep saying its difficult , its not a good idea and so on.

The response is:-

A)It might be difficult but that is want some people are only comfortable in voting for (Regardless if it is right or wrong).
How many I don't know. I am one, I'm not sure yet...

B)Overcome the difficulties to allow this to happen. You never said impossible, and I don't believe it is impossible.

We could discus this and keep going around in circles but at the end of the day there are only two options:-

1)Have the referendum without the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

2)Have the referendum with the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

The only question left is, if you think you can get enough support for 1) then lets proceed this way and let the people decide.

And if not then proceed with 2)

(Or is there another option?)

Have you read the reports from the Citizens Assembly and Oireachtas Committee that you asked for?

NuMarvel

ForestFire wrote: »

You keep saying its difficult , its not a good idea and so on.

I keep saying it because it's what the legal advice says, and it's what's happened with the 8th. This isn't some notion I came up with, it's a conclusion I arrived at after researching the issue.

Perhaps you can share with us the research and experiences that led you to think an altered amendment is a viable option.

ForestFire wrote: »

The response is:-

A)It might be difficult but that is want some people are only comfortable in voting for (Regardless if it is right or wrong).
How many I don't know. I am one, I'm not sure yet...

B)Overcome the difficulties to allow this to happen. You never said impossible, and I don't believe it is impossible.

A) We don't put provisions into the constitution simply because they might be popular. A constitutional provision has to first and foremost be fit for purpose, especially when it's about complex matters. If it can't be shown that it will or is likely to be that, then it has no business being put to a referendum in the first place.

I can't think of a way to overcome them. Neither can anyone else it seems, you included. Until someone does, then I guess it's impossible.

ForestFire wrote: »

We could discus this and keep going around in circles but at the end of the day there are only two options:-

1)Have the referendum without the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

2)Have the referendum with the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

The only question left is, if you think you can get enough support for 1) then lets proceed this way and let the people decide.

And if not then proceed with 2)

(Or is there another option?)

This is already been decided. We're going with Option 1. That's not likely to change because no one in political or legal circles is calling for anything like Option 2. The reaction can be split into three main camps:

1) Repeal and legislate as per the Committee's recommendations.
2) Repeal and legislate, but not as far as the Committee's recommendations.
3) Don't repeal.

All of the above fall into Option 1 in some shape or form.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

That binary outlook means that all unborn up to the last few minutes before they are born have no rights what so ever.

If you are comfortable with that, fine. Many would not be and indeed many would view the abortion of an unborn person of say 38 weeks be the same as killing someone who was born at 40 weeks.

The proposals are quite clear. They do not recommend termination be allowed after such time as a fetus become sentient except where that fetus is incompatible with life so get away with your hyperbole.

We do not have protection in the Constitution for the born but brain dead, why should it be there for the unborn whose brain does not yet function? Both are human. Both are technically alive. Where are the posters showing those in a vegetative state pleading for them not be 'killed'?

Perhaps while answering that question you might also answer the question I originally asked you.

ohnonotgmail

ForestFire wrote: »

We do not have the referendum question so I would not say it is decided just yet..

Anyway if it is the case that it is a closed topic of what the referendum is going to ask, then we will know after the result if people are happy with this method and trust the legislation after the vote, I suppose.

The specific wording has not been decided but we will not be voting on adding even more clauses to the constitution.

ForestFire

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

For all practical purposes it is impossible.

What we are voting on has already been decided. we will not be voting on adding even more clauses with unknown interpretations into the constitution. we made that mistake when the 8th was passed. we wont make it again.

We do not have the referendum question so I would not say it is decided just yet..

Anyway if it is the case that it is a closed topic of what the referendum is going to ask, then we will know after the result if people are happy with this method and trust the legislation after the vote, I suppose.

ohnonotgmail

ForestFire wrote: »

You keep saying its difficult , its not a good idea and so on.

The response is:-

A)It might be difficult but that is want some people are only comfortable in voting for (Regardless if it is right or wrong).
How many I don't know. I am one, I'm not sure yet...

B)Overcome the difficulties to allow this to happen. You never said impossible, and I don't believe it is impossible.

For all practical purposes it is impossible.

ForestFire wrote: »

We could discus this and keep going around in circles but at the end of the day there are only two options:-

1)Have the referendum without the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

2)Have the referendum with the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

The only question left is, if you think you can get enough support for 1) then lets proceed this way and let the people decide.

And if not then proceed with 2)

(Or is there another option?)

What we are voting on has already been decided. we will not be voting on adding even more clauses with unknown interpretations into the constitution. we made that mistake when the 8th was passed. we wont make it again.

ForestFire

NuMarvel wrote: »

It has been explained numerous times the difficulties that putting the grounds for abortion into the constitution would cause. Do you have a response to those posts?

You keep saying its difficult , its not a good idea and so on.

The response is:-

A)It might be difficult but that is want some people are only comfortable in voting for (Regardless if it is right or wrong).
How many I don't know. I am one, I'm not sure yet...

B)Overcome the difficulties to allow this to happen. You never said impossible, and I don't believe it is impossible.

We could discus this and keep going around in circles but at the end of the day there are only two options:-

1)Have the referendum without the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

2)Have the referendum with the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

The only question left is, if you think you can get enough support for 1) then lets proceed this way and let the people decide.

And if not then proceed with 2)

(Or is there another option?)

NuMarvel

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Don't forget the thousands of parents akin to Daddy Warbux from Annie queueing up to adopt all the children in our foster care system.
The demand is so high we can barely keep up.

Shhh! That's supposed to be a secret!

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

NuMarvel wrote: »

Don't forget all the surrogacy. Sure you can't swing a cat in Ireland now for all the surrogate mothers.

Don't forget the thousands of parents akin to Daddy Warbux from Annie queueing up to adopt all the children in our foster care system.
The demand is so high we can barely keep up.

NuMarvel

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't forget all the surrogacy. Sure you can't swing a cat in Ireland now for all the surrogate mothers.

NuMarvel

markodaly wrote: »

I am talking about constitutional protections here for those past the 12 weeks, where there will be none.

It has been explained numerous times the difficulties that putting the grounds for abortion into the constitution would cause. Do you have a response to those posts?

Nettle Soup

applehunter wrote: »

Why scoff?

A cursory glance at the last 100 years would show you that anything is possible in the name of progress.

What??

Those blinkers are fitting you well

.......

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm losing count of how many times this has been pointed out, and am good as sure it will need to be again at least once before the weekend.

.......

This post has been deleted.

markodaly

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I am talking about constitutional protections here for those past the 12 weeks, where there will be none.

patmac

This has probably been said before and this is my only contribution in any abortion debate. But can we get on with it.
Put out a leaflet, highlighting the main points, everybody votes, move on.
Christ this whole process is so tedious. I'm sure every point of view has been aired at this stage several times over.

nozzferrahhtoo

markodaly wrote: »

That binary outlook means that all unborn up to the last few minutes before they are born have no rights what so ever.

But the user did not offer ANY outlook, let alone a binary one. The user asked you a question. One you have not answered here. Even a little.

markodaly wrote: »

If you are comfortable with that, fine. Many would not be and indeed many would view the abortion of an unborn person of say 38 weeks be the same as killing someone who was born at 40 weeks.

Who exactly is doing that though? PREGNANCIES have been terminated at 38 weeks, but generally the fetus is not. Who is EITHER seeking that OR doing it exactly?

I am pro-choice. Very staunchly so at this point given the lack of anti-abortion arguments coming from that camp. But even I see killing a 38 week old gestated baby as "the same as killing someone who was born at 40 weeks."

So who exactly or what exactly is it you feel you are addressing here?

.......

This post has been deleted.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can you explain how it is possible to give 'rights' to what the State itself does not consider a person without stripping the rights of an actual living, breathing, citizen?

That binary outlook means that all unborn up to the last few minutes before they are born have no rights what so ever.

If you are comfortable with that, fine. Many would not be and indeed many would view the abortion of an unborn person of say 38 weeks be the same as killing someone who was born at 40 weeks.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

Yet you are then comfortable to give no constitutional rights at all to the unborn.
That is fine by the way but many and I think the majority are not comfortable with that. Thus the whole thing could fail.

Can you explain how it is possible to give 'rights' to what the State itself does not consider a person without stripping the rights of an actual living, breathing, citizen?

markodaly

volchitsa wrote: »

Good point. Winning the referendum is one thing, but being a team player isn't the way to catch the eye of the Vatican. I suppose he has to choose.

Terrible dilemma for the others. Do they let him make his name among their bosses while they all sit obediently by, no fire and brimstone preaching at all?
Where's their sense of moral duty? There's strategy and then there's complete absence from the debate. (I do hope they all join in. )

The fact you want to frame the debate this way is kinda pathetic. If you need a boogeyman to get your point of view across then your just like Trump and the rest of them, despite your own perception on your heightened enlightened position.

markodaly

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.

Yet you are then comfortable to give no constitutional rights at all to the unborn.
That is fine by the way but many and I think the majority are not comfortable with that. Thus the whole thing could fail.

Zubeneschamali

volchitsa wrote: »

There's strategy and then there's complete absence from the debate.

Under Ratzinger, I thought that there was a suggestion that the vatican were OK with pushing a hard line, losing waverers and marshalling a smaller core of more dedicated Catholics. Let the a la carte crew feck off.

Francis seems more inclusive.

volchitsa

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I doubt there is much insanity when it comes to Bishop Doran. The man is keen for advancement and being the attack dog for the church is a way to do that.

Good point. Winning the referendum is one thing, but being a team player isn't the way to catch the eye of the Vatican. I suppose he has to choose.

Terrible dilemma for the others. Do they let him make his name among their bosses while they all sit obediently by, no fire and brimstone preaching at all?
Where's their sense of moral duty? There's strategy and then there's complete absence from the debate. (I do hope they all join in.

)

Loafing Oaf

[QUOTE=volchitsa;106059532

I see Bishop Eamon Martin had a little foray into the same field a few weeks back, [/QUOTE]

Kind of going through the motions. Whenever I see a headline about a bishop pronouncing on social issues these days, I assume it's Bishop Kevin or Bishop Fonzie

ohnonotgmail

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So you think he is keen to get publicity as an attack dog even if it helps the Repeal movement? I say let him go for it.

No such thing as bad publicity for him. He is getting his name in the papers for what he believes are the right reasons.