Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

Timberrrrrrrr · 03-04-2018 06:35AM

J C wrote: »

it is not ethical to stop people travelling ... what they get up to in another European country is their own business ... once the don't break the laws of the country they are visiting.

Pretty basic stuff as well.

And here we have the crux of the matter, NIMBY at its finest. If you really did care about the unborn you would be fighting to stop any Irish woman from having an abortion anywhere, the reality is that you don't care about the women or the fetus they carry you just don't want abortions happening in Ireland.

Wildlife Actor · 03-04-2018 07:53AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And here we have the crux of the matter, NIMBY at its finest. If you really did care about the unborn you would be fighting to stop any Irish woman from having an abortion anywhere, the reality is that you don't care about the women or the fetus they carry you just don't want abortions happening in Ireland.

The right to travel was a battle lost by pro life. But its not hypocrisy to concede that it's lost. Pro choice argued it as a separate right to abortion rights in 1992. It's hypocrisy to piggyback that victory for pro choice and characterise the concession by some pro lifers as hypocrisy.

Timberrrrrrrr · 03-04-2018 08:14AM

Love nor Money wrote: »

The right to travel was a battle lost by pro life. But its not hypocrisy to concede that it's lost. Pro choice argued it as a separate right to abortion rights in 1992. It's hypocrisy to piggyback that victory for pro choice and characterise the concession by some pro lifers as hypocrisy.

what they get up to in another European country is their own business

Read that sentence again, the poster (and many others) are clearly stating that they dont care if a woman goes to another country for an abortion they just don't want it happening in thier own country! That's not pro life that's NIMBYism at its finest.

Zubeneschamali · 03-04-2018 08:28AM

sean635 wrote: »

Hi guys. New to this thread.

This thread is like a roll-call of people banned from the After Hours thread on the 8th.

Zubeneschamali · 03-04-2018 08:31AM

Love nor Money wrote: »

Pro choice argued it as a separate right to abortion rights in 1992.

What is that supposed to mean?

If you mean that "pro-choice" argued for a general right to travel which is not related to abortion, you are 100% wrong.

The right to travel is included as an exception in 40.3.3 - it is a specific right to travel for an abortion.

ArmaniJeanss · 03-04-2018 08:41AM

sean635 wrote: »

Hi guys. New to this thread.

So basically I’m against abortion in all cases except where the woman’s life is at risk. I just think it’s morally wrong. However I’m open to having my mind changed if I was to hear a convincing arguement.

Not sure anyone is going to waste their breath making such an argument, going by your posting history in the AH thread.
Maybe re-reg and try again starting from a more subtle 'oooh, I'm really not sure' position and see if you can trap anyone into a time-wasting back and forth debate?
That seems to be the preferred way at the moment.

Wildlife Actor · 03-04-2018 10:39AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What is that supposed to mean?

If you mean that "pro-choice" argued for a general right to travel which is not related to abortion, you are 100% wrong.

The right to travel is included as an exception in 40.3.3 - it is a specific right to travel for an abortion.

Incorrect. It's confirmation that the 8th amendment does not prevent the already existing freedom to travel. Not the same. Do you honestly think that pro life position is that it's fine as long as its abroad?? No. The travel issue is a defeat that will never be reversed that's all.

....... · 03-04-2018 10:42AM

This post has been deleted.

Timberrrrrrrr · 03-04-2018 11:20AM

Love nor Money wrote: »

Incorrect. It's confirmation that the 8th amendment does not prevent the already existing freedom to travel. Not the same. Do you honestly think that pro life position is that it's fine as long as its abroad?? No. The travel issue is a defeat that will never be reversed that's all.

That's exactly what some of the most prolific pro-life posters on these forums have stated!

Zubeneschamali · 03-04-2018 11:22AM

Love nor Money wrote: »

Incorrect. It's confirmation that the 8th amendment does not prevent the already existing freedom to travel.

It is not "confirmation" of anything.

The 8th absolutely did prevent freedom to travel - we know that because of the judgement in the X case. The right to travel was added to change the 8th so that it did not prevent travel. it is a narrow exception to the text of the 8th, not a general right to travel.

Here, read it yourself:

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.

J C · 03-04-2018 11:44AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Respecting the fact that others believe different things than you do, is a very basic thing to do as well.

That has been very hard to accept for many in Ireland. But thankfully that is changing.

Everyone is entitled to believe what they wish ... but they must conform to basic ethical principles set down by society for the common good.
For example some people believe that they should be able to drink and drive ... but drinking and driving clearly increases the risk of injury and death on our roads ... and the law reflects this. Similarly when it comes to abortion, this results in the certainly of death for an unborn child ... and the law also reflects this too.

SusieBlue · 03-04-2018 11:53AM

J C wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to believe what they wish ... but they must conform to basic ethical principles set down by society for the common good.
For example some people believe that they should be able to drink and drive ... but drinking and driving clearly increases the risk of injury and death on our roads ... and the law reflects this. Similarly when it comes to abortion, this results in the certainly of death for an unborn child ... and the law also reflects this too.

Drink driving potentially causes harm to living citizens. The unborn is not a living citizen. Ridiculous comparison to make.

"Basic ethical principles" is a matter of opinion. I feel anyone who would force pregnancy on an unwilling woman who was seeking a termination as lacking basic ethical principles.

Regardless, why should I have to live my life arrested by your precious principles? The fact that we're even having this referendum establishes that there is a desire for change, significant enough that the public is divided on the matter. Those wanting change are absolutely not in a minority. A large portion of society are in favour of repeal.

I do not believe that abortion pre 12 weeks is wrong. Why is your belief more important than mine, and others who agree?

We do not need to be saved from ourselves. We are more than capable of making decisions without your intervention with your own personal morals and ethics.

Timberrrrrrrr · 03-04-2018 11:54AM

J C wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to believe what they wish ... but they must conform to basic ethical principles set down by society for the common good.
For example some people believe that they should be able to drink and drive ... but drinking and driving clearly increases the risk of injury and death on our roads ... and the law reflects this. Similarly when it comes to abortion, this results in the certainly of death for an unborn child ... and the law also reflects this too.

You keep throwing this out there as if it is reflective of the issue (is this to replace the cartoons you were told to stop posting?)

Person A wants to drink and drive, Not drinking and driving will not affect thier life in any way, the necessity to drink and drive is not a life changing one it's just ignorance and therefore rightly against the law. A drink driver can kill or maim a person, they can destroy whole families through recklessness.

Person B wants an abortion. Not having an abortion WILL affect them for the rest if thier lives so the necessity for that abortion (for whatever the reason) is why it shouldn't be against the law. Yes I know you will come back with oh the poor innocent baby but as stated time and again most of us don't see a few week old fetus as a baby.

Zubeneschamali · 03-04-2018 11:57AM

J C wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to believe what they wish ... but they must conform to basic ethical principles set down by society for the common good.

No, not always.

When enough people disagree with those ethical principles, we change them. Which is what we are about to do with abortion - delete the 8th amendment and allow unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks, later in cases of FFA or where the woman's life or health is in danger.

The basic ethical principles set down by society will change to say that is now OK.

03-04-2018 12:09PM

J C wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to believe what they wish ... but they must conform to basic ethical principles set down by society for the common good.
For example some people believe that they should be able to drink and drive ... but drinking and driving clearly increases the risk of injury and death on our roads ... and the law reflects this. Similarly when it comes to abortion, this results in the certainly of death for an unborn child ... and the law also reflects this too.

Drink driving is absolutely not comparable in any way.
However, the government allowing a part of the constitution to cause risk to women's health & to allow women to be treated as less than equal, is a very bad reflection on society.
Abortion , on the other hand, has no effect on society.

J C · 03-04-2018 12:14PM

Frito wrote: »

Volchitsa is correct, suicidality alone is not grounds for detention. The 2001 Act is clear that it's a nature and degree argument.
Firstly, you must be suffering from a mental illness that would materially benefit from treatment in an approved centre (nature).
Secondly, because of the mental illness, there is a risk of harm to the person/others, or, the person's judgment is so impaired that they cannot act in their best interests (degree).

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/25/enacted/en/html

Whilst suicidality can be viewed as a degree of mental illness, it can't be viewed as a nature of mental illness. A person needs to be mentally ill AND suicidal.
As detention in an approved centre must materially benefit the person, a woman who is suicidal because she does not want to continue her pregnancy will not be materially benefitted by involuntary detention, simply because approved centres cannot terminate pregnancies.

That all depends on whether she is suicidal because of her pregnancy or suicidal because of acute depression or some acute mental illness ... or a combination of causes.

Zubeneschamali · 03-04-2018 12:24PM

J C wrote: »

That all depends on whether she is suicidal because of her pregnancy or suicidal because of acute depression or some acute mental illness ... or a combination of causes.

A woman who is, per the post you quote: suicidal because she does not want to continue her pregnancy is clearly the first of those.

J C · 03-04-2018 12:28PM

Moonmumbler wrote: »

I agree but do you know if you are doing that on a daily basis? Do you shop ethically, for example? And how about respecting a woman's decision to do what she wants with her own body?

A woman has no more right to use her body to kill than a man.
The 'its my body, so I can kill my unborn child' ... is an argument devoid of moral legitimacy ... or even basic human compassion for someone more vulnerable than yourself. It's one of the most basic instincts to protect one's young.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

And you shouldn't talk about "killing" the unborn when it is not the same as killing someone who is born already otherwise you are on the "slippery slope" of imprisoning women who have had miscarriages as they do in El Salvador.

The fact is that abortion kills ... and this isn't some kind of side-effect ... the objective of abortion is to intentionally kill the unborn child.

We are not El Salvador ... and what is proposed isn't the imprisonment of women who have had miscarriages ... what is being proposed and to be voted upon is the introduction of unrestricted abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and thereafter following a few medical formalities.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

It's so easy for people who are "pro-life" to think this is such a simple issue, that it is only about the life/death of the unborn, to keep abortion illegal and yet not enact any laws against "offenders". To graciously allow women to travel abroad for abortion but, sure, Ireland is abortion free! It's cloud cuckoo land.

More 'slippery slope' arguments (with no validity)... like the non sequitur that because people are allowed to travel freely within Europe ... we must therefore introduce unlimited abortion in Ireland.
Are we going to have to introduce bull fighting into Ireland, because Irish people can travel to Spain and attend bull fights?

J C · 03-04-2018 12:37PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And here we have the crux of the matter, NIMBY at its finest. If you really did care about the unborn you would be fighting to stop any Irish woman from having an abortion anywhere, the reality is that you don't care about the women or the fetus they carry you just don't want abortions happening in Ireland.

We don't want needless abortions happening anywhere ... but the practical legal reality is that what somebody gets up to anywhere, is their own business, once that are obeying the laws of the jurisdiction they find themselves in.

Timberrrrrrrr · 03-04-2018 12:39PM

J C wrote: »

We don't want needless abortions happening anywhere ... but the practical legal reality is that what somebody gets up to anywhere, is their own business, once that are obeying the laws of the jurisdiction they find themselves in.

And those 2 words right there are the reason why you will never understand why a woman would procure an abortion.

J C · 03-04-2018 12:41PM

Love nor Money wrote: »

The right to travel was a battle lost by pro life. But its not hypocrisy to concede that it's lost. Pro choice argued it as a separate right to abortion rights in 1992. It's hypocrisy to piggyback that victory for pro choice and characterise the concession by some pro lifers as hypocrisy.

I'm not convinced that it was a 'battle' in the first place. Yes, some pro-life people opposed the amendment on the right to travel ... but I think that the right to travel exists independently of the 8th and its amendment. The amendment was a 'belt and braces' copper-fastening of a right that existed anyway ... and I for one, support for legal and justice reasons.

Zubeneschamali · 03-04-2018 12:41PM

J C wrote: »

We don't want needless abortions happening anywhere ... but the practical legal reality is that what somebody gets up to anywhere, is their own business, once that are obeying the laws of the jurisdiction they find themselves in.

In 1992, the 8th meant abortion in England was just as much a crime as abortion in Ireland. 600,000 people voted to keep it that way.

Your statement is only true today because the prolife people lost that campaign.

Zubeneschamali · 03-04-2018 12:42PM

J C wrote: »

I think that the right to travel exists independently of the 8th and its amendment. The amendment was a 'belt and braces' copper-fastening of a right that existed anyway ... and I for one, support for legal and justice reasons.

No, the Supreme Court ruled that you are wrong in its judgement on the X case.

JDD · 03-04-2018 12:45PM

More 'slippery slope' arguments (with no validity)... like the non sequitur that because people are allowed to travel freely within Europe ... we must therefore introduce unlimited abortion in Ireland.

Can I ask a further question on this. Firstly, the legislation that is mooted to be put in place after the referendum does not allow for unlimited abortion. Nor does any other European country that you refer to. Why do you think the prochoice campaign is looking for unlimited abortion?

Secondly, I understand the argument that just because something is legal in another country doesn't mean it should be legal here. Let me make an analogy. If I want to smoke dope legally, I can hop on a plane to Amsterdam. That doesn't mean that cannabis should be legal in Ireland. However, if I am in the care of the HSE, and declare that I want to go to Amsterdam and smoke dope, the HSE would be well within their rights to prevent me from doing so. Herein lies the difference. The right to travel abroad, to obtain an abortion, is protected in our consititution. So if I am in the care of the HSE, and want to travel to Amsterdam to obtain an abortion, I am legally allowed to do so. Why do you think, as a pro-life advocate, that the Irish people chose to allow that very specific narrow legal right, only in cases of abortion.

end of the road · 03-04-2018 12:48PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Drink driving potentially causes harm to living citizens. The unborn is not a living citizen. Ridiculous comparison to make.

the comparison is problematic i'd agree because drink driving has the potential to kill someone, whereas abortion will definitely kill the unborn, who are still living.

SusieBlue wrote: »

"Basic ethical principles" is a matter of opinion. I feel anyone who would force pregnancy on an unwilling woman who was seeking a termination as lacking basic ethical principles.

it's a matter of opinion, which in many cases will be trumped by the need to insure the greater good.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Regardless, why should I have to live my life arrested by your precious principles?

the same reason that we all have to live our lives according to principals that we may not necessarily share. the greater good of society.

SusieBlue wrote: »

The fact that we're even having this referendum establishes that there is a desire for change, significant enough that the public is divided on the matter. Those wanting change are absolutely not in a minority. A large portion of society are in favour of repeal.

there is a want for change yes, but that doesn't necessarily make that change correct, or mean those people should get what they want.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I do not believe that abortion pre 12 weeks is wrong. Why is your belief more important than mine, and others who agree?

because abortion pre-12 weeks is still ending a life of a human being. which is something that should not become normalised.

SusieBlue wrote: »

We do not need to be saved from ourselves. We are more than capable of making decisions without your intervention with your own personal morals and ethics.

agreed. however that ultimately means nothing in terms of this debate. at the end of the day, all of us are prevented by law from making some decisians, even though we wouldn't necessarily make those decisians ourselves.

J C · 03-04-2018 12:51PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Drink driving potentially causes harm to living citizens. The unborn is not a living citizen. Ridiculous comparison to make.

Drink driving potentially causes harm to living citizens and their unborn children in utero ... and a drink driver who has an accident that causes a miscarriage or the death of a pregnant woman can be charged with causing the death of the unborn child.
... and while drink driving only potentially causes harm ... abortion always kills.

SusieBlue wrote: »

"Basic ethical principles" is a matter of opinion. I feel anyone who would force pregnancy on an unwilling woman who was seeking a termination as lacking basic ethical principles.

Regardless, why should I have to live my life arrested by your precious principles? The fact that we're even having this referendum establishes that there is a desire for change, significant enough that the public is divided on the matter. Those wanting change are absolutely not in a minority. A large portion of society are in favour of repeal.

If we had a referendum to repeal the drink driving laws there would also be a split in public opinion and voting intentions as well ... wouldn't make it right though ... and would likely result in a 'no' vote as well because people instinctively protect life, if for no other reason than because disrespecting any life, disrespects all lives.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I do not believe that abortion pre 12 weeks is wrong. Why is your belief more important than mine, and others who agree?

We do not need to be saved from ourselves. We are more than capable of making decisions without your intervention with your own personal morals and ethics.

... all legislation placing restrictions on personal behavior is about saving people from themselves (or others) ... and abortion legislation is no different.

end of the road · 03-04-2018 12:59PM

bubblypop wrote: »

the government allowing a part of the constitution to cause risk to women's health & to allow women to be treated as less than equal, is a very bad reflection on society.

and had the government not decided to go for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, then it would be a certainty that the 8th will be repealed on referendum day.

bubblypop wrote: »

Abortion , on the other hand, has no effect on society.

that is a hugely debatible statement.

JDD wrote: »

Can I ask a further question on this. Firstly, the legislation that is mooted to be put in place after the referendum does not allow for unlimited abortion. Nor does any other European country that you refer to. Why do you think the prochoice campaign is looking for unlimited abortion?

Secondly, I understand the argument that just because something is legal in another country doesn't mean it should be legal here. Let me make an analogy. If I want to smoke dope legally, I can hop on a plane to Amsterdam. That doesn't mean that cannabis should be legal in Ireland. However, if I am in the care of the HSE, and declare that I want to go to Amsterdam and smoke dope, the HSE would be well within their rights to prevent me from doing so. Herein lies the difference. The right to travel abroad, to obtain an abortion, is protected in our consititution. So if I am in the care of the HSE, and want to travel to Amsterdam to obtain an abortion, I am legally allowed to do so. Why do you think, as a pro-life advocate, that the Irish people chose to allow that very specific narrow legal right, only in cases of abortion.

because there was a risk that any measures implemented to prevent travel would effect pregnant women who would not have been traveling to procure abortions.

SusieBlue · 03-04-2018 01:06PM

end of the road wrote: »

the comparison is problematic i'd agree because drink driving has the potential to kill someone, whereas abortion will definitely kill the unborn, who are still living.

it's a matter of opinion, which in many cases will be trumped by the need to insure the greater good.

the same reason that we all have to live our lives according to principals that we may not necessarily share. the greater good of society.

there is a want for change yes, but that doesn't necessarily make that change correct, or mean those people should get what they want.

because abortion pre-12 weeks is still ending a life of a human being. which is something that should not become normalised.

agreed. however that ultimately means nothing in terms of this debate. at the end of the day, all of us are prevented by law from making some decisians, even though we wouldn't necessarily make those decisians ourselves.

Hi EOTR, I have no intention of derailing the thread by engaging in a multiquote nitpicking battle. That isn't because my arguments are weak or because I secretly think you are right, its because its exhausting to do so and gets us nowhere. Thanks.

seamus · 03-04-2018 01:06PM

J C wrote: »

I'm not convinced that it was a 'battle' in the first place. Yes, some pro-life people opposed the amendment on the right to travel ... but I think that the right to travel exists independently of the 8th and its amendment. The amendment was a 'belt and braces' copper-fastening of a right that existed anyway ... and I for one, support for legal and justice reasons.

So in your eyes, the right of the individual to travel, comes before the right of the unborn to life.

This is the kind of stuff that the pro-life campaign tied themselves in knots over, and still can't reconcile even with themselves. "Every unborn is sacred...while they're in Ireland".

What actually happened is that the logistical realities and political fallout of enforcing a travel ban became clear. The idea that women at airports would have to be required to take a pregnancy test before boarding, or would be arrested stepping off a plane because their neighbour reported them.

Even the church realised that only immoral psychos and fascist dictatorships would think this was a good idea, so instead they meekly agreed that somehow the right to travel was more important than the unborn's right to life.

Even though it makes no sense. My right to life is not in any way trumped by my, or anyone else's, right to travel. And if the unborn's right to life is equal to that of the mother's, then logically the mother's right to travel does not trump the unborn's right to life.

It's a contradiction, written into the constitution. And begrudgingly supported by people calling themselves "pro-life" because being truly pro-life requires one to be a authoritarian dictator.

JDD · 03-04-2018 01:08PM

End of the Road - when you say that legalizing abortions will lead to the "normalization" of ending the life of a human being, do you honestly think that the introduction of abortion on request up to 12 weeks in Ireland will

a) lead other changes in the law which will reduce the right to life of living citizens - i.e. the introduction of capital punishment or other similar laws? Can you point to any other western country where the introduction of legal abortion has led to this?

or

b) you don't think it'll lead to changes in the law for living citizens, but you do believe it will lead to abortion on request up to a later limit at some future date. Can you show any other western country where this has occurred? I genuinely don't know if this has happened elsewhere. I know in the UK the limit has been 24 weeks since they legalized terminations in 1967. I also know that the same argument was used during the divorce referendum in the mid-90's where the anti-divorce campaign said that it was a slippery slope to allowing quickie divorces. As far as I'm aware, the divorce laws in Ireland haven't substantially changed in over 20 years.

Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

Comments