The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

January wrote: »

Well no, the wording being entered into the constitution if the referendum is passed will be



It's not vague. If future governments feel the will of the country is make abortion more freely available past 12 weeks then they can enact legislation to do that, but again, as we've seen stuff like that has been voted down, not every law that is billed in governement is passed.

You just seem to be re-wording the same statement. What if they decide to change it in 6 months time? And 4 months after that?

What about opposition governments using it as a contrarian selling point to the sitting government ad infinitum? Sure like everything then, they can just change their minds when in power.

The referendum barely meets the criteria of a decision. Its a question of "take it out or leave it in". But why? What will change? What are the proposals? And even then, proposals outside the enshrined rights of a constitution aren't worth anything.

Its as vague as you could possibly get.

drillyeye wrote: »

Don't be so fast with the presumptions. I merely asked the question, which as I stated, I was fairly sure I knew the answer to. I was after clarification.

As I already said in relation to divorce, it is generally a yes or no, whereas abortion is a spectrum with too many potential variations to list.

I'll say it again, the referendum is a terrible proposal. You simply saying "it will last a long time" isn't worth a jot.

It brings into question the very need for a constitution at all. Why bother having one if it politicians can be trusted from month to month?

I already stated that I'd be in favour of certain changes. But there is no criteria put forward, no indications that cant change in a day, no idea of whether it will be put back into a protected state within the constitution....

Its a non-runner as far as I'm concerned. There is no way to have a conversation because, quite simply, there is nothing to talk about. (but I will check the information independently.

Why only for abortion though?

The goverment could bring the age of consent down to puberty or lower, but nobody ever seems to worry about that. Why do they trust the government on that?

Or they could remove the concept of rape within marriage, but again, nobody ever seems to think there is any danger of that. Why not?

So why so much concern about the risk of future unplanned and unannounced legislation for abortion?

volchitsa wrote: »

Why only for abortion though?

The goverment could bring the age of consent down to puberty or lower, but nobody ever seems to worry about that. Why do they trust the government on that?

Or they could remove the concept of rape within marriage, but again, nobody ever seems to think there is any danger of that. Why not?

So why so much concern about the risk of future unplanned and unannounced legislation for abortion?

You're just flipping my question upside down.

From "why bother having a constitution?" to "Why bother NOT having a constitution?"

The first part is easy enough to answer, I am asking about this referendum issue because it is the referendum in question. What you are trying to get at is "whataboutism"

What is the basic problem with questioning the vacuum of information here?

What are you voting for? "change", I'm sure. But wheres the information on what form that change will take, where are the indications, where are the guarantees, where are the protections, what is the direction?

As I said above, there is barely any conversation to be had, simply because the referendum is so vague.

drillyeye wrote: »

You're just flipping my question upside down.

From "why bother having a constitution?" to "Why bother NOT having a constitution?"

The first part is easy enough to answer, I am asking about this referendum issue because it is the referendum in question. What you are trying to get at is "whataboutism"

What is the basic problem with questioning the vacuum of information here?

What are you voting for? "change", I'm sure. But wheres the information on what form that change will take, where are the indications, where are the guarantees, where are the protections, what is the direction?

As I said above, there is barely any conversation to be had, simply because the referendum is so vague.

No, I think you don't know what "whataboutery" is.

What I am saying is that you are making an assertion about something that hasnt happened, and that not only is there no evidence for assuming it will happen, but looking at other examples where personal rights are not protected in the constitution, ie they depend only on the government not legislating to remove those rights, shows that it is not a reasonable fear to have.

drillyeye wrote: »

The aggression for asking the most simple question of all!

Ah jaysis. What are you on about??!

volchitsa wrote: »

No, I think you don't know what "whataboutery" is.

What I am saying is that you are making an assertion about something that hasnt happened, and that not only is there no evidence for assuming it will happen, but looking at other examples where personal rights are not protected in the constitution, ie they depend only on the government not legislating to remove those rights, shows that it is not a reasonable fear to have.

"Why are interested in the particular referendum at hand, when I can ask you about other things?"

That's "whataboutism". An attempt to avoid the actual question by talking about theoretical issues instead.

How can you fail to see the concern here? Even by reading your own words?

Look at the bolded. Think about it for a second.

I am not the one making assertions here, I am the one questioning assertion. There is NOTHING in this referendum. Its ALL assertion and guesses.

And THAT is the problem.

The best thing that can happen is that this referendum is met with a "no" vote. And then an actual, well-thought out, referendum can take its place that has something to actually decide upon.

bubblypop wrote: »

The referendum is only on whether to repeal the 8th amendment or not.
Given that the amendment has been shown time & time again to put women's health at risk, then it seems completely reasonable to take it out.
As said before, there won't be thousands of abortions the next day!
The government legislate all the time, that is their job, that is why we vote for them, to make the law. Not everything is in the constitution & we have thousands of laws.

But it doesn't! If it had ANY kind of proposal behind it, a framework of what will take its place.....then we'd have something to talk about.

But the government has chicken-shytted its way out of providing a basis for a vote.

Kurtosis wrote: »

How is the referendum vague? The details are pretty clear, the referendum will ask whether article 40.3.3 of the constitution should be removed and replaced with "Provision may be made in law for regulation of termination of a pregnancy."

If the referendum is passed, the government intends to introduce a bill to the Dáil to regulate the termination of pregnancy in line with the following General Scheme.

Is this some kind of a joke?

"How is it vague?" you ask, followed by "it will be removed and something can happen later"

Why haven't they proposed a bill beforehand, so as people have something over which to think and make an actual decision upon?

This is like a fundamental block in reason!

You can only frame a Constitutional Referendum on a Yes/No basis. This is waht is proposed to put in/take out. You cannot set out a list of choices. That would amount to an advisory opinion poll.
The complexities of all situations are best dealt with, in law. That is why Repeal is the better option.

You can only enact a law, on what is allowed by the Constitution. So, no law can be passed until the prohibition is removed from the Constitution. The Govn't have set out the terms of the law they propose to bring in. That is as far as they can go, legally.

drillyeye wrote: »

Is this some kind of a joke?

"How is it vague?" you ask, followed by "it will be removed and something can happen later"

Why haven't they proposed a bill beforehand, so as people have something over which to think and make an actual decision upon?

This is like a fundamental block in reason!

If you check the latter half of my post, you will see they have proposed the heads of a bill beforehand, which people can think over and make an actual decision on:

Kurtosis wrote: »

How is the referendum vague? The details are pretty clear, the referendum will ask whether article 40.3.3 of the constitution should be removed and replaced with "Provision may be made in law for regulation of termination of a pregnancy."

If the referendum is passed, the government intends to introduce a bill to the Dáil to regulate the termination of pregnancy in line with the following General Scheme.

Or do you want this bill to be put to the people in a plebiscite?

RobertKK wrote: »

btw this 'trust women' argument is not going to work. People usually trust people they know they can trust, people don't trust women or men just because someone says they must 'trust women'.
It just makes one think about trust, politicians will control abortion if repeal wins, does one trust politicians who flip flop and tell lies to get elected?
Trust women, one would find a lot of women who wouldn't trust other women in a random matter that is being asked, just as one wouldn't trust a random man if asked to.
Trust avoids the argument which is about the unborn and their current status of a right to life.

Also basically pro choice campaigners just do not trust voters either! Why is that?

drillyeye wrote: »

I fail to see how "they can legislate in the future" is not the very idea of vague.

Essentially, people are being asked to remove the amendment from the constitution. And nothing more besides that.

Yes.

People are being asked to remove the amendment from the constitution. Whats the problem?

drillyeye wrote: »

I can agree with that. Its a sensible framework, a fundamental basis for a state.

I don't think its a good idea to be without a constitution.

My problem with this referendum (and the exchange here so far is just pushing me more and more in this direction!) is that the question put to the public is borderline nonsense.

It is avoiding the specifics of "why" and "how". You can blame the government for that, afraid to make a position clear in case they lose votes. Its just silly, really!

Have you read the Constitution?
It consists of frameworks not specifics of "why" and "how" - for example it state the maximum number of ministers but doesn't specify what departments they head so theoretically there could be a Minister for Hot Beverages and Salty Snacks.

The Constitution is the Framework and it charges the Government with taking care of the specifics in line with that framework. That's the whole point. Why on Earth do you think having specifics in the question would clarify things? The Constitution is not the place for specifics - that is what legislation is for. We are not voting on legislation. What other Referendumquestion contained specifics???

It's very simple - as it should be - either a) Keep the 8th or b) Repeal the 8th and allow Government to legislate.

IMHO it should be even simpler than that - a basic a) Keep or b)Repeal - as The Constitution already says it's Government's role to legislate according to the results of Referenda so stating it in the question is superfluous repetition put there at the advice of the Attorney General in an attempt to head off any delaying tactics should Repeal win.

drillyeye wrote: »

And that's no problem, a yes or no should be based on a definitive outcome, not a "lets see what happens!"

We should be voting on a clear-cut, precise list of changes to which we can answer yes or no.

My ideal situation would be a list of changes, have them made (or not), and then its plonked back into the constitution so as it cant be fooked with ad infinitum, so as it doesn't become yet another vote-getter forever.

The referendum, as it stands, is quite literally pointless. That is to say, it doesn't make any proposal. None. Zero.

This is just pointless whataboutery. The electorate is voting on amending the constitution. There is a draft heads of bill with proposed legislation accompanying the referendum. The oireachtas will vote on that.

Minister Harris has published the draft bill

http://health.gov.ie/blog/publications/general-scheme-of-a-bill-to-regulate-termination-of-pregnancy/

And a policy paper


http://health.gov.ie/blog/publications/policy-paper-on-regulation-of-termination-of-pregnancy/