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

Sofiztikated

sondagefaux wrote: »

Well now that someone on boards has said so, I'm completely reassured... :rolleyes:

You don't have to be completely reassured.

If a socially conservative party materialises, and gains enough support to have major representation, and propose change in legislation, then so be it. If that's the will of the people, then who are we to stand in the way of that democracy.

I doubt it will happen. The same way no parties have stood on a "Repeal Divorce" platform. The same way no parties have stood on a "Repeal SSM" platform. The same way no parties have stood on a "Give up work when you get married" platform.

Edward M

Bannasidhe, your last post, probably one of the best I've read on here.

Sofiztikated

sondagefaux wrote: »

Why would it have to be elected on such a platform?

People vote for parties for multiple reasons in general elections.

There's no way for certain that you can know what a future Oireachtas, if it has carte blanche to legislate on abortion, will do.

The only way to be certain that the general public get to decide on abortion is to insert clauses into the proposed amendment to the effect that abortion cannot be made illegal up to 12 weeks and to specify the reasons why it remains legal after 12 weeks.

That goes for anything, not just abortion. You can't put clauses nonsense in the constitution based on what you think might happen. We've seen the result of that already.

Zubeneschamali

sondagefaux wrote: »

The only way to be certain that the general public get to decide on abortion is to insert clauses into the proposed amendment to the effect that abortion cannot be made illegal up to 12 weeks and to specify the reasons why it remains legal after 12 weeks.

One more time- not happening, not even on the table.

sondagefaux

JDD wrote: »

No. The oireachtas have said they’ll bring in legislation to allow abortion up to 12 weeks. If, at some point in the future, we democratically elect an Uber-conservative party and they reverse the legislation so be it. That’s democracy. The constitution is not the right place to legislate for abortion.

Incidentally I think your fears are unfounded. No socially conservative party is going to materialize and get into power in the next twenty years, as they’d be so linked to the Catholic Church (whether they were or weren’t) and we are still a country trying to establish our independent character. By the time the next generation comes around, who may have forgotten the church scandals, abortion law will be well established and retraction is unlikely to find much support.

Well now that someone on boards has said so, I'm completely reassured... :rolleyes:

sondagefaux

swampgas wrote: »

Nothing - except that such an Oireachtas would have either have to be elected on such a platform (which is unlikely) or else risk losing the support of the electorate at the next election, also unlikely.

Are you worried about what the government might do, or what the electorate might pressure them to do?

Why would it have to be elected on such a platform?

People vote for parties for multiple reasons in general elections.

There's no way for certain that you can know what a future Oireachtas, if it has carte blanche to legislate on abortion, will do.

The only way to be certain that the general public get to decide on abortion is to insert clauses into the proposed amendment to the effect that abortion cannot be made illegal up to 12 weeks and to specify the reasons why it remains legal after 12 weeks.

Bannasidhe

I find these arguments in favour of the status quo because a future government could do *insert scenario here* perplexing.

I could understand it if the status quo was 'ok'. But it isn't. For either side.

The 8th is not 'protecting the unborn' - it has led to the legalisation of abortion in certain limited circumstances in Ireland and wholesale exported the problem for foreign solutions. It has impacted on the provision of healthcare for women in ways the original framers hadn't considered. It has lead to death. It has led to forced feeding. It has lead to a brain dead women being kept artificially alive against the expressed wishes of her family. What's next? Someone being jailed for possession of an abortion pill? No government wants that. It will be a PR disaster of X proportions. The alternative is to simply not enforce the law. Think about that. A situation where a government quietly decides to simply ignore a law because they fear a backlash. It's GUBU territory. I honestly do not believe this is what the pro-life movement wanted or expected, but this is what happened and could continue to happen. Placing them very much in the position of being seen as 'women murderers'.

I remember when it first came in. Back when expensive flights made the old coach/ferry trip to the UK the only affordable option - and still women travelled. When it was possible to censor information - and they did censor. This was circumvented by a network of people in the UK ringing phone boxes at all hours of the day and night to supply some terrified woman with the information denied her They did prevent travel when they could as the X Case demonstrated to a horrified population. The right to travel was voted in by the electorate. Censorship of information was stopped by the will of the people. The X Referendum showed that there were circumstances when the Irish people did not believe a fetus had equal right to life as the woman or girl carrying it. The anger over Savita Halappanavar's unnecessary death forced the government to finally legislate for X . Personally, I think it is absolutely outrageous and an insult to both the electorate and the democratic process that successive government ignored the result of a referendum for so long but that is by the by.

The reality is the advent of cheap flights and abortion pills available on-line has rendered it an unworkable anachronism, information can be got on-line using a mobile phone. it's about as enforceable as that nonsense in the Constitution about recognising women's work in the home (less pension turned out to be the reward).

Voting to retain the 8th is a vote to keep the 'Irish solution' that isn't a solution at all. It's a fudge and a dodge. The longer it remains the more unworkable it becomes and the further and further it strays from the original intention. The longer it's there the more the pro-life movement will be seen as not pro-life but anti-women because women are speaking out They are detailing how the 8th has affected them. Forced them to travel. Forced them to carry a fetus to term knowing there will never be a living child. Forced them into unnecessary surgical procedures. Forced them to forgo vital medical treatment. Men are speaking out about the horror of watching their wives/ girlfriends/ daughters/ sisters going through State sponsored physical and mental torture and being helpless to do anything about it.

The 1980s are gone. We are no longer cowed by the Roman Catholic Church. We can no longer be kept uninformed. We can no longer be kept 'at home'. We can no longer be kept compliant by the threat of the Laundries. We can no longer be silenced. It's a different Ireland and we need a Constitution fit for purpose. The 8th will be repealed - it's just a question of when.

If you want really want to prevent abortions campaign for free contraception. Demand proper sex education. Work to eliminate some of the 'reasons' like poverty, lack of affordable childcare, housing shortages, maternity pay linked to working income, paid parental leave for partners etc. Make it easier for women to have their children. Support mothers in their daily needs. Be pro- life not fixated on being pro-birth. There will still be abortions but many of the reasons women feel they have no other option will be eliminated and choosing to have a child would no longer be a crises for many.

JDD

No. The oireachtas have said they’ll bring in legislation to allow abortion up to 12 weeks. If, at some point in the future, we democratically elect an Uber-conservative party and they reverse the legislation so be it. That’s democracy. The constitution is not the right place to legislate for abortion.

Incidentally I think your fears are unfounded. No socially conservative party is going to materialize and get into power in the next twenty years, as they’d be so linked to the Catholic Church (whether they were or weren’t) and we are still a country trying to establish our independent character. By the time the next generation comes around, who may have forgotten the church scandals, abortion law will be well established and retraction is unlikely to find much support.

Annasopra

sondagefaux wrote: »

If the constitution is changed to permit the Oireachtas to legislate for abortion in any manner it sees fit, what's to stop a future Oireachtas legislating for a ban on abortion in all circumstances?

Are you guaranteeing me that there will never be a majority of TDs and Senators in favour of a ban on abortion in all circumstances?

How could you possible guarantee that?

At a minimum, the proposed change to the constitution needs to contain language which says that no law which prohibits abortion outright can be passed, guarantees the right to abortion up to 12 weeks and guarantees the right to abortions after 12 weeks in stated circumstances.

If it doesn't, if it simply repeals the current provisions, and permits the Oireachtas to legislate as it sees fit, what's to stop a future Oireachtas from taking an ultra-conservative position?

How would that meet the remit that the constitutional convention has handed down?

I don't just want the current constitutional provisions repealed, I want them replaced with guarantees that there is a constitutional right to abortion up to 12 weeks, with a guaranteed right to abortion after 12 weeks in stated circumstances.

You seem to misunderstand. The Citizens assembly and oireachtas committee did not reccomend putting time limits in the constitution at all. They reccomended legislation.

Annasopra

sondagefaux wrote: »

Given that the wording hasn't been decided yet, and given that handing carte blanche to the Oireachtas to legislate as it sees fit could result in the Oireachtas banning abortion in all circumstances, I'd suggest that you might be misinformed.

The draft wording has been agreed. You dont actually seem to know what you are talking about.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/draft-wording-for-abortion-law-is-agreed-by-cabinet-36626344.html

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/cabinet-to-consider-wording-of-abortion-referendum-this-morning-828872.html

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0220/942002-eighth-amendment/

Zubeneschamali

sondagefaux wrote: »

If the constitution is changed to permit the Oireachtas to legislate for abortion in any manner it sees fit, what's to stop a future Oireachtas legislating for a ban on abortion in all circumstances?

Nothing.

If you go and read the reports of the Citizens Assembly, the Oireachteas Committee and the statements by the Taoiseach and Minister for health, you will see that this is precisely what we will be voting on come the referendum.

swampgas

sondagefaux wrote: »

If it doesn't, if it simply repeals the current provisions, and permits the Oireachtas to legislate as it sees fit, what's to stop a future Oireachtas from taking an ultra-conservative position?

Nothing - except that such an Oireachtas would have either have to be elected on such a platform (which is unlikely) or else risk losing the support of the electorate at the next election, also unlikely.

Are you worried about what the government might do, or what the electorate might pressure them to do?

January

If they put 12 weeks in the constitution they won't be able to change that without another referendum though.

sondagefaux

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If the constitution is changed to permit the Oireachtas to legislate for abortion in any manner it sees fit, what's to stop a future Oireachtas legislating for a ban on abortion in all circumstances?

Are you guaranteeing me that there will never be a majority of TDs and Senators in favour of a ban on abortion in all circumstances?

How could you possible guarantee that?

At a minimum, the proposed change to the constitution needs to contain language which says that no law which prohibits abortion outright can be passed, guarantees the right to abortion up to 12 weeks and guarantees the right to abortions after 12 weeks in stated circumstances.

If it doesn't, if it simply repeals the current provisions, and permits the Oireachtas to legislate as it sees fit, what's to stop a future Oireachtas from taking an ultra-conservative position?

How would that meet the remit that the constitutional convention has handed down?

I don't just want the current constitutional provisions repealed, I want them replaced with guarantees that there is a constitutional right to abortion up to 12 weeks, with a guaranteed right to abortion after 12 weeks in stated circumstances.

.......

This post has been deleted.

sondagefaux

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. None of that is likely. You appear to be misinformed.

The likely wording is something more like

Do you approve of Article 40.3.3 being removed

AND REPLACED WITH

Given that the wording hasn't been decided yet, and given that handing carte blanche to the Oireachtas to legislate as it sees fit could result in the Oireachtas banning abortion in all circumstances, I'd suggest that you might be misinformed.

January

Edward M wrote: »

Tbf, it would probably have been cancelled if it were here too given the weather situation.
But I take your point.

Yeah but at least here it is easily rearranged without having to rebook flights and hotels.

For anyone this is affecting please contact the abortion support network they are helping to rearrange flights and accommodation.

Edward M

amdublin wrote: »

Can you imagine if you were supposed to be travelling yesterday/today/this weekend.

The amount of reorganisation and stress.

Ireland can be cruel sometimes

Tbf, it would probably have been cancelled if it were here too given the weather situation.
But I take your point.

Charmeleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So basically what you are doing is dodging engaging with me about my positions, and instead contriving to build situations where you can take pot shots at them in conversation with others?

If my positions were so "bad" you could rebut them, rather than shady underhand tactics of taking digs like this.

For. Shame.

Secondly as another user pointed out the text from me you have quoted does NOT fit your previous description of "the unborn are not worthy of any consideration or protection at all."

Third, the text from me you quoted is not EVEN a pro-choice argument. If you go back and actually read the context is was an argument against an unsubstantiated assertion that the arguments being discussed on here are throwing concern for humanity our of the discussion. And I was pointing out that this is not only false, but is actually the exact opposite of what is happening.

So not only are you taking cowardly third person pot shots at me, you are strawmanning my position to do so.

For. Absolute. Shame. Some decorum please.

Just catching up to lol at this post. I can actually feel the fundamentalism.

Zubeneschamali

professore wrote: »

If that will go into the constitution, or otherwise can be legally enforced without some future nutcase being able to change it, without a further referendum, then I have no issue.

Lone nutcases cannot pass mad legislation in Ireland.

amdublin

Can you imagine if you were supposed to be travelling yesterday/today/this weekend.

The amount of reorganisation and stress.

Ireland can be cruel sometimes

astrofool

professore wrote: »

I used 8 month old fetuses as an extreme example. I'd be against going beyond 12 weeks, and going to 12 weeks is only agreeable to me because it gives the woman ample time to make a decision. I've looked at the development of the fetus in the womb in order to come to this decision.

Have you ever had kids, and do you understand how "12 weeks" get calculated, because, if you do, then everything your saying makes no sense at all. I can elaborate, but it would be good to know what base level of knowledge you're starting with.

Annasopra

sondagefaux wrote: »

The wording is likely to include a reference to abortion being permitted in almost any circumstance up to 12 weeks, with provisions for the Oireachtas to legislate for restrictions after 12 weeks. It's also likely to include a provision which prevents the Oireachtas from legislating to outlaw abortion in all circumstances, or to restrict its availability only in situations in which it's now available.

No. None of that is likely. You appear to be misinformed.

The likely wording is something more like

Do you approve of Article 40.3.3 being removed

3° the state 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. this subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the state and another state. this subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the state, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

AND REPLACED WITH

“Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies”

January

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Usually by the first day of the last period unless there are huge discrepancies (or you didn't know when your last period was), then they go by the earliest scan date size to calculate the size of the fetus against how big they should be at certain weeks. (In things like IVF etc it's calculated by date of implantation).

.......

This post has been deleted.

Belfast

The abortion law in Germany

interesting to see how other countries handle abortion law. other counties laws are in link below

Germany

Under the German Penal Code, termination of pregnancy (Schwangerschaftsabbruch) or abortion (Abtreibung) is unlawful but permitted on demand under certain conditions and also on medical and criminal grounds when requested by the pregnant woman.

An abortion may be performed by a physician at the request of a pregnant woman if she presents to the physician a certificate indicating that she obtained counseling at least three days before the operation and not more than twelve weeks have elapsed since conception.[66] However, the Code also provides for an upper limit of twenty-two weeks for an abortion when the pregnant woman has had counseling and a court order discharges the person who terminates the pregnancy because the woman was “in exceptional distress at the time of the operation.”[67]

An abortion may be performed by a physician with the consent of the pregnant woman if it is medically necessary to prevent danger to her life or grave injury to her physical or mental health “and if the danger cannot reasonably be averted in another way from her point of view,” taking into consideration the woman’s present and future living conditions.[68] In such instances, there is a gestational limit of not more that twenty-two weeks of pregnancy.[69]

An abortion may be performed on criminal grounds with the pregnant woman’s consent, within twelve weeks following conception, where, based on medical opinion, “there is strong reason to support the assumption that the pregnancy was caused by [a criminal] act” (e.g., child abuse, sexual assault, rape).[70]

In the case of medical or criminal grounds for an abortion, an independent doctor must verify that such grounds exist and provide a medical certificate to that effect, and the certifying doctor may not perform the operation.[71]

Prepared by Wendy Zeldin
Senior Legal Research Analyst
January 2015 "

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/abortion-legislation/europe.php#germany

nozzferrahhtoo

tonymontanavu wrote: »

Your condescending pushing of opinion, shaped as fact, is frustrating.

I can not help you with that even if that WAS what I was doing, which it is not. Your inventing of tone and putting it into my post is something only you can deal with.

But to be honest I do not think someone opening a post with "Absolute nonsense" and then calling my position "dismissive" when it is anything but........ has any pedestal from which to be accusing others of A) Condescension or

Pushing opinions as facts. Because it seems to me you were the only one doing either.

tonymontanavu wrote: »

Your analogy of material value is pointless and I don't know who the we you refer to are.

The only we I intended to refer to is the "we" who are people who have sat down and worked with women through the scenarios we have been discussing, or have training in areas of mental health care and psychology relevant to the subject.

Suffice it to say however.... you not understanding an analogy does not make it pointless. The purpose of the analogy very much had a point, and it was simply to point out the VAST difference between A) Devaluing something and

Clarifying that it never had the value you thought it had in the first place.

These two things are very different things indeed, and portraying me doing B as if I was doing A shows you are EITHER misunderstanding me entirely or wilfully misrepresenting me. I do hope it is the former, as that can be corrected through open and honest discourse. The latter not so much.

tonymontanavu wrote: »

I am not going to engage with you as I believe you have constructed an argument to suit your position but I am sure you will impress lots of people with your pseudointellectual condescending retort.

Again after a closing comment like that I think you once again make it clear which one of us is actually being condescending and dismissive and pushing opinions as facts. Whether one is an intellectual or not has nothing to do with it, so I think we can pocket the ad hominem. What I am saying is either true and can not be rebutted, or it is false and can be. The fact you are not doing so suggests which it is.

Nor am I saying what I am saying from merely "intellect". I am saying it also from both training and experience. I know all about the treatment of this kind of grief and loss. I know about couple focused interventions, "Swanson's Caring Theory" and "Meaning of Miscarriage Model", and the many randomised control studies evaluating the differences between people who evaluate the miscarriage as "losing a baby" and those that evaluate it is "losing a pregnancy".

There is nothing "pseudo-intellectual" about this, and ad hominem attacks on me personally will not make the wealth of resources, training and studies on this subject go away. IT is all there, entirely independent of me.

Plus, you could merely take a step away from abortion for a minute and consider the logic of what I am talking about in isolation. We are a species driven by narratives and stories that we tell ourselves. Many of ours narratives do not track with reality, but mostly that is ok. No harm in that. But when a story we are telling ourselves becomes the source or some, most or even ALL of our pain in a given context...... and the story is itself a falsehood..... then what is so mystical in the suggestion that divesting oneself of that narrative can and does have beneficial effects??

It is very easy to shout words like "pesudo-intellectual" at things we disagree with. But there is a lot of material there and shouting at it rebuts none of it I am afraid.

nozzferrahhtoo

Not sure why you replied to my entire post twice

But I hope you do not mind me amalgamating both into a single reply.

professore wrote: »

I've looked at the development of the fetus in the womb in order to come to this decision.

I would be curious what you found in that development that brought you cause for concern though.

I know the entire development process of the human fetus quite intimately at this point, having studied it at no small length and I genuinely can not think of anything in a 12 or 16 week fetus that should be raising your concerns.

professore wrote: »

We really have no idea what the future holds in terms of governments.

I do not think that is fair. We have many ideas, all of them based in rational appraisals of what has gone before, what the electorate generally want, and eternal truths like politicians generally looking after their own skin.

So I think we can make highly educated guesses. Sometimes on what a government will do and sometimes on what they will not.

But I have to say the same thing I already said to you. The kind of thinking you are putting on this thread today is the kind of thing that would cripple ANY action on ANY issue. Because there is barely an issue of any import that is not open to some POTENTIAL for government abuse.

So from your pessimism over potential actions of a government, to your pessimism over "Even one baby is too much", you are peddling a crippling narrative of inaction basically that, as I said, really does come across like someone who made the decision first and is inventing narratives to justify it second.

But all that said, comparisons to things like Hitler are not helpful. We are not making decisions in isolation here. And in both countries WITH term limits and WITHOUT term limits on abortion we simply do not see the horrors you envision coming to pass. Whether it be in the UK with their limts, the US with they variable to no limits, or canada with none. It simply is not happening.

So why you think Ireland is going to suddenly be a pocket of depravity and horror in this way is not clear to me and, I suspect if you were honest with yourself, to you either.

But as I said I would not be opposed to having a constitution that recognizes when and why a human being attains rights. But I just do not think it is part of THIS debate on THIS referendum because that simply is not what is being proposed here.

volchitsa

swampgas wrote: »

I agree, but a lot of the proposed solutions put forward by people uncomfortable with legalising abortion seem to boil down to a similar sorts of interrogation. From the crazy extremes of "rape courts" to assess whether a woman was truly raped or not, to very tight time limits. IMO, it boils down to the same thing - a fear that other people will do "immoral" things and have "unethical" abortions, and a desire to try to stop them.

If you are wary of interrogating women and girls at border control, perhaps consider that putting legal hurdles in front of women requesting abortions in Ireland is coming from a similar place? And has a similar effect on the woman or girl in question?

On this point actually, if the idea of interrogating women at borders is unpleasant, how much more is the idea of forcefeeding an 18 year old rape victim? And subjecting her to surgical mutilation on very dodgy "consent" obtained using the threat of being sectioned in a mental hospital?
Or putting a (different) child in a mental hospital as a "solution" to her having asked for an abortion on grounds of suicide ideation?

You'd think anyone who had the empathy to refuse to vote to have women interrogated at borders would vote against these massive abuses without hesitation. but it seems not.

swampgas

professore wrote: »

Yeah I know, you are right of course. It's a difficult one, and I struggle with it. I just couldn't bring myself to vote for something that would involve young girls and women being interrogated at border control about being pregnant and their sex lives.

So much of this is a grey area and very difficult

I agree, but a lot of the proposed solutions put forward by people uncomfortable with legalising abortion seem to boil down to a similar sort of interrogation. From the crazy extremes of "rape courts" to assess whether a woman was truly raped or not, to very tight time limits. IMO, it boils down to the same thing - a fear that other people will do "immoral" things and have "unethical" abortions, and a desire to try to stop them.

If you are wary of interrogating women and girls at border control, perhaps consider that putting legal hurdles in front of women requesting abortions in Ireland is coming from a similar place? And has a similar effect on the woman or girl in question?