Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

17273757778324

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Thankfully (somewhat), the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act means that physical illnesses like cancer is now a grounds for abortion if an obstetrician and another medical expert deem the illness is life threatening without treatment that would harm the foetus.

    It's a bit flimsy and completely open to interpretation, but it's better than nothing.

    No the actual life has to be at threat not just without treatment. Like imminently at threat. Don't forget the poldp kept a woman force fed by tubes until the pregnancy became viable so they could perform a c section on a woman.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,722 ✭✭✭nice_guy80


    Coveney is just playing to his conservative fg constituency base imho

    he probably wants to support it but doesn't want to appear too liberal

    its funny that politicians don't even seem to trust fellow politicians


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    RobertKK wrote: »
    What Simon Coveney proposes would raise questions other constitutional issues.
    Yeah, unfortunately that does appear to be the case. Seems like a very simple thing for him to have overlooked before making this recommendation though, so I wonder if this is something that's already been resolved as a possibility elsewhere.

    Or has he made the mistake of having a great idea and running to the media before the lawyers?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Weirdly timed comment from coveney given the attorney generals bizarre rant the other day


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    January wrote: »
    No the actual life has to be at threat not just without treatment. Like imminently at threat. Don't forget the poldp kept a woman force fed by tubes until the pregnancy became viable so they could perform a c section on a woman.

    Is that not a separate section to the act? It seems to have physical illness, and then emergency physical illness.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,771 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    seamus wrote: »
    Yeah, unfortunately that does appear to be the case. Seems like a very simple thing for him to have overlooked before making this recommendation though, so I wonder if this is something that's already been resolved as a possibility elsewhere.

    Or has he made the mistake of having a great idea and running to the media before the lawyers?

    I think he felt himself being in a corner and had this idea as being an exit from it.
    The Dail would need a separate debate on the 15th amendment, no work has been done on that and for it to be workable the way Coveney wants it, it would have needed to have been put to the people and passed before the 8th amendment referendum.
    So yeah I think he did as you say, overlooked a key part of our democracy that is written into our constitution and didn't think it through.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,554 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    No issues with Coveney changing position on abortion, I actually think it can often be viewed as commendable when politicians change views on issues in light of new information etc.

    The two-thirds majority thing is a poorly-thought out proposal though and I disagree with it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Is that not a separate section to the act? It seems to have physical illness, and then emergency physical illness.

    That's what the act says but again we've seen it in motion where rather than give a woman an abortion because she was suicidal they held her against her will until the pregnancy was viable.


  • Posts: 1,159 [Deleted User]


    Coveney's proposal is ridiculous and thankfully it appears to be unconstitutional. To think that repeal could win the referendum and yet the pro-life minority in the Dail would be allowed continue dictating to women, it's just appalling. I'm sure Coveney himself knows it and is just trying to appease the prolifers after his comments yesterday.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    January wrote: »
    That's what the act says but again we've seen it in motion where rather than give a woman an abortion because she was suicidal they held her against her will until the pregnancy was viable.

    Oh absolutely, which is why I said it's flimsy and completely open to interpretation.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    preacher2 wrote: »
    So go ahead and give me a reason babies should be killed.

    I am not clear what the military has to do with any of this, or your need to bring it up. So I will leave that mostly aside and correct some of your other misconceptions.

    The biggest misconception you have is demonstrated in the sentence you write here above. No one is saying "babies should be killed". Quite the opposite as the majority of people who are pro-choice and the majority of people who are anti-choice share a common goal. We all want less (ideally no) abortions occurring. We merely disagree on how to work towards and attain that goal. And that is before we also point out that "fetus" and "baby" are much different constructs and the termination of a fetus is not the baby murdering campaign of death you want to pretend it is when calling people who simply do not agree with you "disgusting".

    It would be similar to me asking you "Why do you feel we need to murder loads of people" when you express your desire to want to join the military. Clearly the first goal and choice of armies is not to kill anyone. The ideal would be no wars, no fighting and no death. But since we do not live in the ideal world we require OPTIONS. And wanting the option to do X does not mean we feel we should be doing X. And if you can not separate those two concepts then you are not really equipped for an abortion debate, or to be a member of any army.
    preacher2 wrote: »
    Why do you call eachother ''pro choice''? You have choice? You can go out and cut your own ears off if and feed them to birds, nobody cares.

    You appears somehow to have missed a simple fact that language is contextual. Context defines the meaning of words and terms every bit as much as a dictionary does. And the fact we have many choices in life has nothing to do with the contextual use of the words "pro choice" with regards abortion. We use terms like "pro choice" and "anti choice" because it accurately defines the groups. Whereas phrases like "anti life" and "pro death" and "pro abortion" do not. Alas I suspect you have more interest in posturing than accuracy in the words you use..... so it is not a distinction I expect you to adhere to. But let us not pretend you do not understand it while you flout it.
    preacher2 wrote: »
    But when it comes to a DIFFERENT body (not your body - basic biology) then no, you do not nor will you EVER have the right to decide what happens to it.

    Well here you are simply wrong at the most basic of levels. We have the right to decide what happens to "bodies" all the time. Become a farmer and you will be manipulating the bodies of, and even ending the life of, other animals all the time. So contrary to your erroneous claim of "you do not nor will you EVER have the right" we in fact "do and likely will always have the right" over other bodies.

    So the question becomes when and why should we LOSE that right. Your anti-choice cohort on this thread and other areas of this forum seem to think screeching the word "human" at the question somehow answers it. But it does not as that is both circular AND begging the question. It does not address the abortion or rights issue at all.

    My right to swing my fists around at will ends at your face. There is a reason why this is so and it is not merely because you are "human". There are attributes you have as an entity, specifically a conscious and sentient entity, that curtail my rights to do what I will with, or to, you.

    The issue to overcome, but has not been overcome, for the anti-choice speaker/debator is that when one identifies what those attributes are..... one quickly realizes that they are PRECISELY the attributes the fetus at 0-16 weeks lacks. Not just partially lacks, but wholly and entirely lacks. In fact it also entirely lacks many of the pre-requisites to them too.

    Therefore the idea that such a fetus has, or should have, any rights at all.... or illicit in us any moral or ethical concern..... simply has no basis.

    There are two types of anti-choice campaigner. One who wants to hear their own voice and soap box and preach..... and one who actually does want to change minds. Anyone who is the latter needs to address that point first and foremost. They need to provide some coherent and consistent and convincing basis upon which to presume that such a fetus should hold any such concerns for us.

    This, for all your posturing, you have not yet done. But nor has anyone else, so you should not take that observation personally. As if you genuinely want one argument from the pro-choice camp as you claim.... then that is it. The pregnant woman is a sentient and conscious agent with rights and choices and for whom we should hold moral and ethical concern. The fetus is not. And if we want to curtail the freedoms, rights, choices and well being of such a woman in deference to a non-sentient agent of no concern..... then the anti-choice camp needs to do better to justify that move. Because in a world of "innocent until proven guilty" the onus and burden of argument should very much lie with them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    preacher2 wrote: »

    So go ahead and give me a reason babies should be killed.

    :)

    Who is suggesting killing babies???
    Didnt this state and it's Religious arm not kill enough of them already? And then throw into cesspits!
    I see plenty of poster concerned about women's health and women's rights, havnt seen a poster yet advocate killing babies!
    Time to grow, wake up, and get some sense and a modicum of education.

    Repeal The 8th
    Don't feed the trolls!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Claims to be atheist but says rapists will burn in hell...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    January wrote: »
    Claims to be atheist but says rapists will burn in hell...

    A quick look at the previous posts tells you all you need to know.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,020 ✭✭✭Simi


    Flying Fox wrote: »
    Coveney's proposal is ridiculous and thankfully it appears to be unconstitutional. To think that repeal could win the referendum and yet the pro-life minority in the Dail would be allowed continue dictating to women, it's just appalling. I'm sure Coveney himself knows it and is just trying to appease the prolifers after his comments yesterday.

    I'm concerned by this constant rolling back of the proposals in an attempt to satisfy pro life voters. Concessions aren't going to satisfy them and could end up turning the law into a bureaucratic mess for doctors and women to try to navigate.

    The 72 hrs waiting period is simple misogyny, if a woman has made it to the point of asking her GP for help terminating a pregnancy, she has already agonized over it and doesn't need to be told to go away & think about it.

    Coveneys other proposals all smack of a distrust for women, forcing GP's to list all the alternatives and hinting at sending women for counselling if the GP doesn't think they're decision is informed enough.

    The forced delivery in lieu of abortion after 24 wks is another Y case waiting to happen. There will almost certainly be instances of withholding abortion until a pregnancy has reached viability if that becomes law.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,313 ✭✭✭✭markodaly



    Please stop making stuff up.

    Au Contraire mon ami.

    If the 8th is repealed there will be no legal protection for the unborn, so an abortion could take place an hour before birth that would be fully legal. Unless you can show me where it would not be so?

    If the legislation you linked was sufficient, then why is there still a discussion on cabinet level to the 'what happens after'.

    Also, the supreme court ruling was pretty strong on this, that the unborn would have no constitutional rights once the 8th was repealed.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    markodaly wrote: »
    Au Contraire mon ami.

    If the 8th is repealed there will be no legal protection for the unborn, so an abortion could take place an hour before birth that would be fully legal. Unless you can show me where it would not be so?

    If the legislation you linked was sufficient, then why is there still a discussion on cabinet level to the 'what happens after'.

    Also, the supreme court ruling was pretty strong on this, that the unborn would have no constitutional rights once the 8th was repealed.



    Have you even bothered to do any research at all???


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    markodaly wrote: »
    If the 8th is repealed there will be no legal protection for the unborn, so an abortion could take place an hour before birth that would be fully legal.

    If the 8th is repealed, the PLDPA will still be the law of the land and an abortion an hour before birth will carry a 14 year jail sentence, the same as it does today.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    Simi wrote: »

    Coveneys other proposals all smack of a distrust for women, forcing GP's to list all the alternatives and hinting at sending women for counselling if the GP doesn't think they're decision is informed enough.

    I'm ok with doctors listing alternatives, they should be anyway. Ensuring women are informed of all options so that they can make an informed decision would be the best way to go. And there's nowt wrong with counseling, to ensure they are in the best place to make a decision, no matter what that decision is. As long as it's timely, and doesn't interfere with her medical care.

    I haven't formed an opinion yet on the rest.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 1,159 [Deleted User]


    Counselling is fine if the woman wants it. But if she's sure of her decision why make her wait?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    markodaly wrote: »
    If the 8th is repealed there will be no legal protection for the unborn, so an abortion could take place an hour before birth that would be fully legal. Unless you can show me where it would not be so?

    Joey already did: the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. This remains in force after the referendum. A Yes vote doesn't strike it down.
    markodaly wrote: »
    If the legislation you linked was sufficient, then why is there still a discussion on cabinet level to the 'what happens after'.

    The cabinet discussion is around what changes to make to legislation in the event of a Yes vote. There is clear public opinion for change and that can only happen with a Yes vote.

    And until those changes are passed by the Dail and Seanad, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act remains in force.
    markodaly wrote: »
    Also, the supreme court ruling was pretty strong on this, that the unborn would have no constitutional rights once the 8th was repealed.

    Which is not the same as saying there would be no LEGAL rights. Legal rights can, and often do, exist without being in the constitution, eg the ban on abortion up to 1983.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 15,255 Mod ✭✭✭✭FutureGuy


    markodaly wrote: »
    Au Contraire mon ami.

    If the 8th is repealed there will be no legal protection for the unborn, so an abortion could take place an hour before birth that would be fully legal. Unless you can show me where it would not be so?

    If the legislation you linked was sufficient, then why is there still a discussion on cabinet level to the 'what happens after'.

    Also, the supreme court ruling was pretty strong on this, that the unborn would have no constitutional rights once the 8th was repealed.

    I’m happy to debate points but this is a fcuking moronic and uneducated post.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    markodaly wrote: »
    Au Contraire mon ami.

    If the 8th is repealed there will be no legal protection for the unborn, so an abortion could take place an hour before birth that would be fully legal. Unless you can show me where it would not be so?
    Terminations routinely occur before the due date in this country. In fact, in many instances it's medical best practice to terminate the pregnancy early so as to avoid going into labour.

    So, eh, what's your problem?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 299 ✭✭bertieinexile


    Howdy pardners! Y'all good now?
    david75
    *if these are actual bot accounts as part of the Kanto hiring by Save the 8th, and they seem to be given they’re more and more extreme each time they come on, it’s backfiring wildly on them. This is what they spent all that money on?
    It’s not even good psychological warfare if you can laugh at it.


    Zubeneschamali
    david75
    Last few don’t even sound Irish tbh
    Poster A had posted nothing for 3 years before bursting to life in this thread and just this thread. He refers to "dorm room arguments".
    Another odd thing is that many of these pop-up posters seem unfamiliar with references to ordinary day-to-day stuff here. They will post generic stuff about baby murder, but don't know who the PLC are, don't jump to the defence of Ronan Mullen (not in their briefing pack?), aren't aware that abortion is already legal here, etc. etc.

    david75
    Joeytheparrot
    To be honest I doubt this is Kanto/Cambridge analytica stuff. Its too public, obvious and transparent. Its not the slick style of what they did with Trump and Brexit.

    I’d agree except as the post just above yours States, they just don’t even seem to be Irish. Even the spelling is wrong. ‘Legalizing’ for example. I’ve had to correct my phone to include the z. And they don’t seem to have any local knowledge or awareness of the backstory and history of all this.
    It’s obvious they’re new accounts just here to sh!tpost but where from?



    How do you become one of these bots? Is there a few bob in it? Although to be honest I'd be happy just to get a good meal out of it. Smart boy, not afraid of work. Has own bicycle.

    Harris is about to drop a bomb in the Dail this afternoon with his proposed legislation. It's going to engage the majority of voters for the first time and the reality of what's proposed is going to hit them hard.
    I don't think the pro choice side are ready for this at all.


    Look at the your attempts to engage with Ligertion. To me he represents where the huge centre ground are on this.
    You don't seem to have any ability to imagine yourselves in his position which is the only starting point for trying to convince someone.
    Why would you. You have spent two years only talking to one another.
    It's way too late to try changing your approach now. It goes deeper than that
    If you had tried to see where your opponents, or even the middle ground, were coming from you would never have dreamed of putting 12 weeks to the people. The smart move would have been to introduce an unpolicable wedge case like rape and got unrestricted access that way.

    Because when most of the country hear Harris's proposals today it is just going to sound like one thing to them. Floodgates.

    Lets have a look at how you are dealing with those voters
    ligertigon
    I guess what I am saying, Is that I will be voting NO, based on the question put to voters, as it skews too far for me.
    Physical Medical condition putting life of mother at risk, should be allowed, though on a list set in stone.
    On demand? not a chance, responsibility comes in here.
    I am an atheist, and not a liberal, and believe very strongly in protecting life but not the spawn of a rapist, though this would be hard to be proven in the short time frame...

    Oldtree
    So not on demand for the spawn of a rapist. How do you propose to seperate out this specific point? Put women on trial and require definitive proof before acceding to a legitimate termination in your eyes?
    You will be asked a black and white question yes or no in may. #trustwomen

    ligertigon
    I don't propose anything. Not my job. Not interested.
    My job is to vote on the question put to me with a yes/no.
    So blame the citizens assembly for that one dude.

    Oldtree
    You did propose somthing...
    So dude I blame you for that one if as you say you will vote no. You can't have it every which way to suit yourself and well you know it.

    ligertigon
    Blame me for an opinion?
    Yes I can have it every which way. Its called erring on the side of caution

    Oldtree
    You were blaming the citizens assembly, so you got blamed back
    If you are erring on the side of caution then you know you are making an error and not on the side of caution for Irish women.



    Do you think the chances of ligertigon changing his mind are now (A) more likely (B) less likely (C) the same.

    I hope, and have every reason to believe, this is also what's going on on the doorsteps


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    If the 8th is repealed, the PLDPA will still be the law of the land and an abortion an hour before birth will carry a 14 year jail sentence, the same as it does today.

    And just to follow this up, there WAS a very dangerous period for the unborn in this country related to the 8th, but it was not before it passed nor will it be after it is repealed.

    The X case judgement made the 1861 act unconstitutional in 1992. The PLDPA was passed by the FG/Labour coalition in 2013. For 20 years, Ireland had no valid law on the books against abortion. Only the text of the constitution itself protected the unborn, and it would have been an absolute nightmare to convict anyone of anything using just the constitution.

    So the condition you are worried about, having no laws at all against abortion, was true for 20 years because of the 8th, the x case judgement and the fear that successive governments had for 20 years of the backlash from prolifers if they legislated for the X case thereby legalising abortion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Harris is about to drop a bomb in the Dail this afternoon with his proposed legislation.

    This is not a bombshell. The 12 week proposal has been headline news in this country for 9 months. Perhaps you were abroad and missed it all?

    The prolifers have been screaming ever since that it'll never pass, pretending that they would back a more restrictive regime, and warning Repealers that we are making a tactical mistake (although why they would warn us if we were really making a mistake is not clear).

    And with all this noise, polling (which includes the 12 week proposal) still says the referendum will pass comfortably.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Harris is going to hit the pro choice campaign with a bombshell?? And we’re not ready for it??

    Are the pro lifers on drugs today or somethin??


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Really weird that American media are covering this and our own media really aren’t.
    This is a brilliant read. Scary though

    Why American Pro-Life Dollars Are Pouring Into Ireland

    https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/why-american-pro-life-dollars-are-pouring-into-ireland/266981/


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement