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

ForestFire

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

As I've said before, I think the government is likely to rule this out as part of the campaign to secure a yes vote.

You cannot indefinitely rule out another referendum in the future, New governments, new people etc. etc., who's going to believe them if they tried that....They would be better just sticking to the core facts.

(Right now lads this is the lisbon treaty, let us know what you think.......hold on... I did not hear you properly, here's a few extras for you...let me know again there please.)

Bannasidhe

splinter65 wrote: »

Why is that poster offensive?

It's a lie designed to tug at people's emotions.

The Oireachtas committee recommended that termination after 12 weeks be permissible only when 1) The life of the woman is threatened.
2) There is a diagnoses that the fetus is incompatible with
life.
3) There is a diagnoses of 'significant' abnormality.

So lets look at this:

1) Being pregnant with a fetus diagnosed with DS is not itself life threatening.
2) Having DS is not incompatible with life.
3) People with DS are capable of living independent, productive, lives so it is highly questionable if it would qualify as a 'significant' abnormality unless other factors were present.

Additionally as January has said - this woman never contemplated having a termination so the geographical location of the termination she was never going to have is moot.

Bannasidhe

ForestFire wrote: »

You cannot indefinitely rule out another referendum in the future, New governments, new people etc. etc., who's going to believe them if they tried that....They would be better just sticking to the core facts.

(Right now lads this is the lisbon treaty, let us know what you think.......hold on... I did not hear you properly, here's a few extras for you...let me know again there please.)

If it fails this time I guarantee there will be another referendum.

ForestFire

January wrote: »

Again its not the poster it's the claims on the poster. That woman has come out and said that she never even contemplated an abortion. So she and the anti choice side are lying through their teeth with her little statement.

I don't see a problem with it if these two cases are met:-

1) The picture was approved by the Mother
2) The text if from at least one real case that is true.

All advertisement pictures use models/actresses etc. to put their point across.

Again I think contesting things like this is just stupid, were just sticking to the facts is better?

Edward M

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's a lie designed to tug at people's emotions.

The Oireachtas committee recommended that termination after 12 weeks be permissible only when 1) The life of the woman is threatened.
2) There is a diagnoses that the fetus is incompatible with
life.
3) There is a diagnoses of 'significant' abnormality.

So lets look at this:

1) Being pregnant with a fetus diagnosed with DS is not itself life threatening.
2) Having DS is not incompatible with life.
3) People with DS are capable of living independent, productive, lives so it is highly questionable if it would qualify as a 'significant' abnormality unless other factors were present.

Additionally as January has said - this woman never contemplated having a termination so the geographical location of the termination she was never going to have is moot.

I haven't seen that poster before myself.
But if she never contemplated an abortion then its definitely wrong to use it unless it states an actress or unaffected persons used.
Can anyone link to somewhere she says she never considered an abortion?

Loafing Oaf

ForestFire wrote: »

You cannot indefinitely rule out another referendum in the future, New governments, new people etc. etc., who's going to believe them if they tried that..

Well I suppose Varadkar could promise not to initiate one himself...Problem with having a referendum on 'limited abortion' in a couple of years is pretty much everyone supporting 12 weeks has said it would be unworkable. It would look like they were only saying that because were hellbent on 'abortion on demand'...

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

Just on your last paragraph, are you sure?
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ad-claiming-100-000-lives-saved-by-ni-abortion-laws-accurate-1.3174415%3fmode=amp

No one's been able to show me how it's stopping abortions, and I've asked plenty of times, so I'm going to say yes, I'm sure. Someone tried on this or another thread, but their methodology and assumptions were unsound, and I don't think they came back with revised data.

ForestFire wrote: »

While I don't disagree with the options we have, the reasons and intentions of the vote NO can be very different, i.e.

1b) Reject the repeal of the 8th in the current form, to force the government to come back with something more acceptable.

You may not think this is a valid reason to vote NO, but I am guessing that a lot of people will be doing.

Again I have stated many times, I am likely to vote for repeal, but I can see the issues people are going to have with this.

1B is more accurately described as "Maintain the status quo until a government proposes something more palatable to me". Which is just a variation of my first option.

I can understand why people might want that, but that's not going to be on this year's ballot paper and who know when it will be, if ever.

So again, people are going to have to choose the least worst option. I am not dismissing the difficulty some people may have with that, but I trust that most people in that situation will choose repeal.

Ave Sodalis

ForestFire wrote: »

While I don't disagree with the options we have, the reasons and intentions of the vote NO can be very different, i.e.

1b) Reject the repeal of the 8th in the current form, to force the government to come back with something more acceptable.

You may not think this is a valid reason to vote NO, but I am guessing that a lot of people will be doing.

Again I have stated many times, I am likely to vote for repeal, but I can see the issues people are going to have with this.

The biggest problem with doing this is that it could be another 30 or 40 years before the government decide to go near the issue of abortion again, which leaves another generation of fertile women without the choice of abortion in this country.

Loafing Oaf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

ForestFire wrote: »

You cannot indefinitely rule out another referendum in the future, New governments, new people etc. etc., who's going to believe them if they tried that....They would be better just sticking to the core facts.

(Right now lads this is the lisbon treaty, let us know what you think.......hold on... I did not hear you properly, here's a few extras for you...let me know again there please.)

If it fails this time I guarantee there will be another referendum.

Do you think they would hold a ‘limited abortion’ referendum though?

nice_guy80

I don't see the issue with giving a doctor and their female patient the right to choose

thee glitz

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Do you think they would hold a ‘limited abortion’ referendum though?

If a 'limited' referendum is possible, then that's what should take place first.

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

If a 'limited' referendum is possible, then that's what should take place first.

Its possible however it creates a massive legal quagmire. Having something in the constitution does not create certainty at all. We were forewarned this in the 1980s by Mary Robisnon, Peter Sutherland and many others and look what a mess the 8th became. It is not as if the cabinet just pulled the decision out of thin air. The Citizens Assembly and the Oireachtas Committee both took a number of months in considering the issues in depth. They were given access to legal expertise. They were given a chance to discuss and debate. Neither reccommended this option of time limits.

Again I have to ask has anyone who is a proponent of time limits in the constitution actually read up on why this option was rejected by both the Citizens Assembly and the Oireachtas Committee? Or are you just arguing the case without facts?

Hellrazer

You`ll never guess the absolute bollox a canvasser told my wife tonight.
Apparently all foetuses are fully formed from the moment of conception.
They even told her it had arms and legs and that abortion was killing a fully formed human being.
Yep thats right--fully formed with arms and legs from the moment of conception.
Just as well I didnt answer the door!!!

If this is what the pro lifers are reduced to telling people then I really fear for the outcome of this referendum.

These absolute lies need to be debunked by the pro choice groups.

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Again I have to ask has anyone who is a proponent of time limits in the constitution actually read up on why this option was rejected by both the Citizens Assembly and the Oireachtas Committee? Or are you just arguing the case without facts?

I don't favour time limits at all

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't favour time limits at all

What are you on about then?

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What are you on about then?

If a referendum to allow abortion in restricted cases only was possible (and we already have that, so I mean allowing for more), then that should be put to the people before a referendum which potentially allows for a free for all.

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

If a referendum to allow abortion in restricted cases only was possible (and we already have that, so I mean allowing for more), then that should be put to the people before a referendum which potentially allows for a free for all.

And have you read the Citizens Assembly and Oireachtas Committee and looked at why such options were rejected?

Loafing Oaf

Well it's a moot point anyway because we're going to have a referendum on 'unrestricted' abortion. What I'm wondering is would the government consider having a 'limited' referendum if this one is defeated. Would pro-choice activists even want such a referendum, or would they prefer to wait for another crack at full liberalisation.

njs030

thee glitz wrote: »

If a referendum to allow abortion in restricted cases only was possible (and we already have that, so I mean allowing for more), then that should be put to the people before a referendum which potentially allows for a free for all.

What type of restricted cases are you talking about?

thee glitz

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And have you read the Citizens Assembly and Oireachtas Committee and looked at why such options were rejected?

Not very much, but I'm going to go with because it was easier and/or more appealing to do so?

RobertKK

I see the organisation that represents family doctors say they are outraged that the minister never consulted them on what is being proposed.
They question how Simon Harris presumed that the state could direct GPs to lead an abortion service without consultation and the implications for GPs.
They say they strongly object to the assumption that GPs will lead an abortion service.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0205/938543-nagp-abortion/

Edward M

RobertKK wrote: »

I see the organisation that represents family doctors say they are outraged that the minister never consulted them on what is being proposed.
They question how Simon Harris presumed that the state could direct GPs to lead an abortion service without consultation and the implications for GPs.
They say they strongly object to the assumption that GPs will lead an abortion service.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0205/938543-nagp-abortion/

You'd wonder how representative of the electorate are the CA and indeed the OC, lots of dissenting voices coming out now?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/varadkar-stresses-12week-limit-on-abortion-not-plucked-out-of-air-36572006.html

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

I see the organisation that represents family doctors say they are outraged that the minister never consulted them on what is being proposed.
They question how Simon Harris presumed that the state could direct GPs to lead an abortion service without consultation and the implications for GPs.
They say they strongly object to the assumption that GPs will lead an abortion service.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0205/938543-nagp-abortion/

Interesting to note that they're not objecting to providing the service, just the manner it was announced.

Peregrinus

NuMarvel wrote: »

Interesting to note that they're not objecting to providing the service, just the manner it was announced.

I think it's a bit more than the manner in which it was announced; it's the fact that it was announced at all.

From their point of view, I think there's two bothersome issues here; God and Mammon. On the God side, there's the fact that undoubtedly some GPs will object to providing the service at all, and my guess would be that a GP representative body would want to talk to the government about that, probably with a view to protecting the rights/interests of those GPs. On the Mammon side, if the GPs are to provide a new service, there needs to be conversations about how (and how much) they will be paid for providing that service, and the GP representative body would expect those conversations to be with them.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

Interesting to note that they're not objecting to providing the service, just the manner it was announced.

You imagine though that the profession to be tasked with the implementation of the scheme if passed would have been consulted somewhere along the line before now?

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

You'd wonder how representative of the electorate are the CA and indeed the OC, lots of dissenting voices coming out now?
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/varadkar-stresses-12week-limit-on-abortion-not-plucked-out-of-air-36572006.html

Public opinion and the CA seem in line with each other when it comes to changing the constitution and the 12 week limit.

In the CA, 13% were opposed to any constitutional change, and polls show that 15% of the public share the same opinion. And for the 12 week limit, 64% of CA attendees supported this, and polls since then put public support at 65%. I haven't looked at all the Committee votes, but I know that only 15% of the members favoured retention of the 8th, so there's consistency across the board on that aspect.

Also, note how the CoI are objecting to the post-referendum legislation, not the proposed repeal and enable clause. And that's consistent with their previous statements that this matter doesn't belong in the constitution, and with their oppostion to the 8th back in 1983.

Edward M

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it's a bit more than the manner in which it was announced; it's the fact that it was announced at all.

From their point of view, I think there's two bothersome issues here; God and Mammon. On the God side, there's the fact that undoubtedly some GPs will object to providing the service at all, and my guess would be that a GP representative body would want to talk to the government about that, probably with a view to protecting the rights/interests of those GPs. On the Mammon side, if the GPs are to provide a new service, there needs to be conversations about how (and how much) they will be paid for providing that service, and the GP representative body would expect those conversations to be with them.

It might be that if GPs unilaterally decide that enough of their members are not happy with providing the service that you could see the set up of abortion centers/clinics, call them what you will.
Now if that happened then they could become the target of pro life groups.
I would imagine that the last thing any woman considering abortion would want would be running a gauntlet of potential abuse if she was getting the help she needed.
Poor form on the govt side so far not to have sounded this aspect out.

Peregrinus

Edward M wrote: »

You imagine though that the profession to be tasked with the implementation of the scheme if passed would have been consulted somewhere along the line before now?

Mmm. It might be a bit premature to consult with them about a scheme that requires constitutional amendment when you haven't got your amendment, or even published your proposed text. Carrying this whole project through successfully will require some nifty political footwork, and making some decisions which, if you go one way, will piss off some people and, if you go the other, will piss off others.

NAGP's irritation about not being consulted earlier is probably a downside that Varadkar can accept. If he doesn't have the agreement of the people to an abortion scheme, the agreement of the doctors is irrelevant. Conversely, if he seeks the agreement of the doctors early on, that can be made to look presumptuous or arrogant.

Assume that Varadkar is happy with a scheme under which medical practitioner may provide abortions in defined circumstances, but are not legally compelled to if they choose on ethical grounds not to do so. (That's the case pretty well everywhere in Europe, so I'd be astonished if that's not how it ended up here.) The real issue will be how much GPs are to be paid for doing so, and that's definitely a level of detail that we don't need to have nailed down just yet.

NuMarvel

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it's a bit more than the manner in which it was announced; it's the fact that it was announced at all.

From their point of view, I think there's two bothersome issues here; God and Mammon. On the God side, there's the fact that undoubtedly some GPs will object to providing the service at all, and my guess would be that a GP representative body would want to talk to the government about that, probably with a view to protecting the rights/interests of those GPs. On the Mammon side, if the GPs are to provide a new service, there needs to be conversations about how (and how much) they will be paid for providing that service, and the GP representative body would expect those conversations to be with them.

Edward M wrote: »

You imagine though that the profession to be tasked with the implementation of the scheme if passed would have been consulted somewhere along the line before now?

The Government is in a damned if they do, and damned if they don't situation here. If they start consulting GPs before they make any announcement, they'll be accused of being arrogant and presumptuous of the people's will and being disrespectful towards the people by not announcing it to them first. If they don't, they're accused of being presumptuous of the GPs.

Do I think they could have handled it better? Sure. I'd have added in a line about offering a GP-led service, in consultation with the appropriate bodies, etc (and maybe they said that and it wasn't picked up). Do I think it will affect the outcome of the referendum? No.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

Public opinion and the CA seem in line with each other when it comes to changing the constitution and the 12 week limit.

In the CA, 13% were opposed to any constitutional change, and polls show that 15% of the public share the same opinion. And for the 12 week limit, 64% of CA attendees supported this, and polls since then put public support at 65%. I haven't looked at all the Committee votes, but I know that only 15% of the members favoured retention of the 8th, so there's consistency across the board on that aspect.

Also, note how the CoI are objecting to the post-referendum legislation, not the proposed repeal and enable clause. And that's consistent with their previous statements that this matter doesn't belong in the constitution, and with their oppostion to the 8th back in 1983.

That's fair enough comment too.
But in future polls as the time towards the vote gets closer and more interested groups may come out on the restriction limits will the actual vote mirror that.
I know its all supposition now as the actual wording is not known yet.
But the fact of the 12 week limit and indeed that all foetal rights are being removed from the constitution are making a lot of people perhaps think a bit more about their vote.