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

JDD · 04-04-2018 06:15AM

JC what you’re saying is an embryo does not have a right to life before implantation. If you believed it had a right to life from conception it follows that you must be in favor of banning any medication that prevents implantation of fertilized eggs.

You also said that IVF needs to be regulated. What do you mean by that? Do you mean that all fertilized eggs should be implanted? Because that would effectively put an end to IVF treatment - the success of which depends on the selection of the most viable embryos. Is that your view?

volchitsa · 04-04-2018 06:44AM

Love nor Money wrote: »

Wrong again. She had the right to travel wherever she wanted. None of the charges against her were for travelling anywhere. She was acquitted of course but I understand that's not the point.

Are you saying that she was allowed to travel to Switzerland?

Because you are wrong, she wasn't. The travel agent reported her to AGS and she was prevented from travelling.

She couldnt be tried for it because it didn't happen, and because attempting to travel is not against the law.

But if she had gone she would have been. Unlike women travelling for abortion who are not only allowed to leave the country quite openly, unlike Gail O'Rorke, but who know they will not be prosecuted on their return.

J C · 04-04-2018 07:26AM

Love nor Money wrote: »

Not a great point that, because it applies equally in a case where a parent decides they don't want their born child anymore. In both cases there is an answer (not a pretty one but an answer nonetheless) being state care.

True ... but there is also the option of adoption. I have reared my own family, at this stage, so I wouldn't personally adopt ... but there are many couples out there who would be very glad to do so.

Triceratops Ballet · 04-04-2018 07:35AM

J C wrote:

True ... but there is also the option of adoption. I have reared my own family, at this stage, so I wouldn't personally adopt ... but there are many couples out there who would be very glad to do so.

Correct me if I'm wrong but married couples in Ireland can not have their children adopted, so what in that case?
Women of child bearing age in Ireland also find it very difficult to find a doctor to perform sterilisation in the event that they don't ever want to have children, or don't want to have any more, so is your solution for them celibacy?

J C · 04-04-2018 07:39AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

You really are incapable of articulating a coherent philosophy here, aren't you?

My philosophy is coherent, that all human lives should be treated with equal respect.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Here's a thought: if you can't articulate a coherent philosophy, maybe you don't have a right to have your incoherent philosophy dictate the limits of a woman's bodily integrity and reproductive healthcare.

I have every right to articulate my philosophy ... and you have every right to reject it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, morally speaking, you are exactly as opposed to the MAP as you are to abortion? There is no moral difference between the two? And, morally speaking, any form of assisted reproduction that involves the destruction of embryos is exactly as wrong as abortion?

Morally speaking you are correct ... how can it logically be any other way?

Trying to draw artificial lines of 'this far and no further' will probably ultimately fail ... as the inexorable movement in all countries, towards abortion on demand at all stages before birth and euthanasia at all ages after birth is proving.
Canada has abortion on demand without gestational limit ... and Belgium has euthanasia at all ages from birth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

http://diversityhealthcare.imedpub.com/children-and-euthanasia-belgiums-controversial-new-law.php?aid=3729

Triceratops Ballet · 04-04-2018 07:42AM

You fall down on that basic point though, what is respectful about insisting a woman who does not wish to give birth to a child, remain pregnant against her wishes to satisfy your moral standpoint

That is not respectful of her wishes, or value as a person beyond her ability to gestate a pregnancy

Wildlife Actor · 04-04-2018 07:56AM

volchitsa wrote: »

Are you saying that she was allowed to travel to Switzerland?

Because you are wrong, she wasn't. The travel agent reported her to AGS and she was prevented from travelling.

She couldnt be tried for it because it didn't happen, and because attempting to travel is not against the law.

But if she had gone she would have been. Unlike women travelling for abortion who are not only allowed to leave the country quite openly, unlike Gail O'Rorke, but who know they will not be prosecuted on their return.

The charges were for assisting a suicide, not travel. The only aspect of the travel component that became relevant to the charges was booking the sick friend's flight, not her own.

Wildlife Actor · 04-04-2018 08:04AM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Doesn't really apply as the mother has already gone through a pregnancy and has every right to choose to put her child up for adoption, just like she should have every right to choose the course of her pregnancy.

You're equating the choice to give up a child to state care or adoption with abortion. While there might be some equivalence from the mother's point of view, there's a radical difference from the child's.

And yes I said "child" in both cases. For clarity I regard it as a child from 10 weeks* so I'm not talking about zygotes or balls of cells

*(12 weeks is better than nothing: if only it was enshrined in the constitution with defined exceptions for ffa and serious health of mother I'd happily replace 8th amendment)

volchitsa · 04-04-2018 08:13AM

Love nor Money wrote: »

The charges were for assisting a suicide, not travel. The only aspect of the travel component that became relevant to the charges was booking the sick friend's flight, not her own.

How could she be charged with travelling when the travel agent refused to sell her the ticket and instead reported her to the guards? She didn't travel because she was prevented from doing so.

Something which he could not have done if her stated reason had been that she intended to have an abortion.

IOW the right is indeed to travel for an abortion, not for anything provided it is legal in the country of destination.

volchitsa · 04-04-2018 08:14AM

Love nor Money wrote: »

You're equating the choice to give up a child to state care or adoption with abortion. While there might be some equivalence from the mother's point of view, there's a radical difference from the child's.

And yes I said "child" in both cases. For clarity I regard it as a child from 10 weeks* so I'm not talking about zygotes or balls of cells

*(12 weeks is better than nothing: if only it was enshrined in the constitution with defined exceptions for ffa and serious health of mother I'd happily replace 8th amendment)

What happens at 10 weeks, or are you just expecting everyone else to accept your personal opinion as legal basis for law?

JDD · 04-04-2018 08:20AM

J C wrote: »

Trying to draw artificial lines of 'this far and no further' will probably ultimately fail ... as the inexorable movement in all countries, towards abortion on demand at all stages before birth and euthanasia at all ages after birth is proving.
Canada has abortion on demand without gestational limit ... and Belgium has euthanasia at all ages from birth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

http://diversityhealthcare.imedpub.com/children-and-euthanasia-belgiums-controversial-new-law.php?aid=3729

How is there an “exorable movement in all countries towards abortion on demand”? Canada never had a time limit on abortions. The UK time limit has not changed since it was legalized in 1967. The US time limit has not been extended since Roe v Wade. Even in Belgium, your example of a liberal country, the time limit of 12 weeks has not changed since abortion was legalized in 1990.

Ireland’s very strict divorce laws have not changed since legalization over 20 years ago.

Why do you think Ireland will be any different to any other European nation?

SusieBlue · 04-04-2018 08:31AM

J C wrote: »

True ... but there is also the option of adoption. I have reared my own family, at this stage, so I wouldn't personally adopt ... but there are many couples out there who would be very glad to do so.

I am so sick of this nugget of genius being offered up as an alternative.

There is no domestic adoption in Ireland. The most recent statistics available to us (2016) show that just 5 infants were adopted that year.

Between progressions in fertility treatments giving couples who struggle to conceive more options, the average family size reducing each year, and many couples opting not to have kids at all, there is little to no appetite for adoption in this country.

On top of that, married couples cannot give their child up for adoption. And in any case, in order to do so, you have to declare yourself an unfit parent. Meaning you are also surrendering existing older children you have, and any children you may have in the future.

When you also factor in how tedious, expensive, and time consuming adoption is, its no wonder most couples seeking to do so, do it internationally, from countries such as Vietnam and Russia.

In order to stop 4k abortions happening every year, you need to find 4k perspective adoptive parents for those children. Which won't happen, so really, you'd be putting 4k extra children in to foster care, into a system already buckling under the pressure.

Regardless, none of those scenarios are of help to a woman who will not or can not remain pregnant, so its irrelevant.

So where are all these couples you speak of? Please do some actual research before throwing out such ridiculous statements, you are doing your side no favours at all.

Zubeneschamali · 04-04-2018 08:49AM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Please do some actual research before throwing out such ridiculous statements, you are doing your side no favours at all.

No, no, J C, ignore SusieBlue here, you are doing a great job for repeal!

oscarBravo · 04-04-2018 09:27AM

Love nor Money wrote: »

*(12 weeks is better than nothing: if only it was enshrined in the constitution with defined exceptions for ffa and serious health of mother I'd happily replace 8th amendment)

The Constitution isn't a goddamn shrine, and it's no place for detailed legislation.

Is it really too much to ask that people stop thinking of it as little more than a way to prevent future governments from enacting policies that the current electorate disapprove of? Because that's not what a constitution is for.

Wildlife Actor · 04-04-2018 12:28PM

volchitsa wrote: »

How could she be charged with travelling when the travel agent refused to sell her the ticket and instead reported her to the guards? She didn't travel because she was prevented from doing so.

Something which he could not have done if her stated reason had been that she intended to have an abortion.

IOW the right is indeed to travel for an abortion, not for anything provided it is legal in the country of destination.

Ah look now. The Constitutional provision reads "This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel
between the State and another state." it confers no right. It limits the effect of the 8th amendment.

You now accept that Gail O'Rorke was not charged with travelling and the only point you can make is that she would have been charged? Well, how about this: she wouldn't have been charged with travelling. If travelling was a step in effecting the crime it would have been evidence against her. It was not a separate offence.

NuMarvel · 04-04-2018 12:32PM

Love nor Money wrote: »

*(12 weeks is better than nothing: if only it was enshrined in the constitution with defined exceptions for ffa and serious health of mother I'd happily replace 8th amendment)

This has been raised before in this or other threads, and the long and short of it is that the constitution isn't the place to set out the grounds for abortion. The last 35 years alone should be proof of that, what with the 4 referendums, multiple court cases, and numerous breaches of internationally recognised human rights that the 8th has caused.

The Journal has a good article on the legal advice from the Attorney General back in 1983 here. As you can see, he was emphatically not in favour, and proposed something far more straight forward. Most of his comments can apply just as well to suggestions like yours, especially this (my emphasis added)

The overall reason, which crops up in almost every facet of any attempted solution is that the subject matter of the amendment sough is of such complexity, involves so many matters of medical and scientific, moral and jurisprudential expertise as to be incapable of accurate encapsulation into a simple constitution-type provision.

If you want any kind of change to our abortion law, then a Yes vote is the only viable option. And if you're not in favour of what's proposed to follow a Yes vote, then you are free to campaign and lobby politicians both after the referendum and at every general election afterwards to have it made more restrictive.

volchitsa · 04-04-2018 12:42PM

Love nor Money wrote: »

Ah look now. The Constitutional provision reads "This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel
between the State and another state." it confers no right. It limits the effect of the 8th amendment.

You now accept that Gail O'Rorke was not charged with travelling and the only point you can make is that she would have been charged? Well, how about this: she wouldn't have been charged with travelling. If travelling was a step in effecting the crime it would have been evidence against her. It was not a separate offence.

I've no idea how you think your version of what happened would prove your claim any better though : an average of 10 women every single day do what Gail O'Rorke was prevented from doing ie, travel abroad for a service which is legal there but illegal in Ireland. The women travelling for an abortion can do so thanks to the 13th. The 13th didn't apply for Gail O'Rorke's purpose, since sne was prevented from travelling.

The only possible conclusion is that the 13th concerns abortion only.

Or maybe you think that it is only assisted suicide which is excluded, rather than only abortion which is allowed?

If do, can it be invoked if parents want to take an Irish born minor to a country where child marriage is legal, have them marry over there and then have the marriage recognized in Ireland?

Wildlife Actor · 04-04-2018 12:43PM

volchitsa wrote: »

What happens at 10 weeks, or are you just expecting everyone else to accept your personal opinion as legal basis for law?

Well the collective "personal opinion" of the citizens assembly is 12 weeks. What magic happens at 12 weeks? We take the view - and that is all it is, albeit based on the available medical evidence, that the ball of cells has developed to such extent that it is a human. Of course its imperfect, of course it's based on people's opinions. But civilisations must choose their fundamental laws and ultimately it's a matter of the collective "personal opinion."

And @Oscarbravo

Of course its complicated and legislation is better equipped to deal with specifics. However this is a hard hard question, and people are entitled not to leave a lot of leeway to the legislature. How come the promises of politicians have now become so reliable?

As some us senator said, to every difficult human problem there is an answer that is clear, uncomplicated and wrong.

volchitsa · 04-04-2018 12:51PM

Love nor Money wrote: »

Well the collective "personal opinion" of the citizens assembly is 12 weeks. What magic happens at 12 weeks? We take the view - and that is all it is, albeit based on the available medical evidence, that the ball of cells has developed to such extent that it is a human. Of course its imperfect, of course it's based on people's opinions. But civilisations must choose their fundamental laws and ultimately it's a matter of the collective "personal opinion."

You made a specific claim about 10 weeks, whereas the CA simply picked 12 weeks as a reasonable compromise. Like the age of consent, nobody thinks something magic happens at 16 (or 17 as the case may be) but it seems to provide enough leeway to minimize the risk of harm being done.

At 12 weeks the fetus is nowhere near being viable nor sentient, while the woman has had a reasonable length of time to reach a considered decision without being panicked into it by lack of time.

Also, technically, a first trimester abortion is much simpler and safer for the woman than a later one.

Just some of the reasons to legislate for 12 weeks without necessarily believing that something "magic" happens at that stage of pregancy.

Wildlife Actor · 04-04-2018 12:53PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I've no idea how you think your version of what happened would prove your claim any better though : an average of 10 women every single day do what Gail O'Rorke was prevented from doing ie, travel abroad for a service which is legal there but illegal in Ireland. The women travelling for an abortion can do so thanks to the 13th. The 13th didn't apply for Gail O'Rorke's purpose, since sne was prevented from travelling.

The only possible conclusion is that the 13th concerns abortion only.

Or maybe you think that it is only assisted suicide which is excluded, rather than only abortion which is allowed?

If do, can it be invoked if parents want to take an Irish born minor to a country where child marriage is legal, have them marry over there and then have the marriage recognized in Ireland?

We're getting further and further away from where this started, which was you accusing another poster of hypocrisy for not wanting to reverse the 13th amendment.

I can't speak for the other poster but, while I agree with you that the logical conclusion of opposing abortion in Ireland is inconsistent with being comfortable with it abroad, I do not think that you can assume that those who oppose fully liberalised abortion think that it's fine abroad. For myself I would have voted against the 13th but I am realistic enough to know that it will not be reversed. Acceptance of that reality is not satisfaction with it.

....... · 04-04-2018 12:55PM

This post has been deleted.

volchitsa · 04-04-2018 01:36PM

Love nor Money wrote: »

We're getting further and further away from where this started, which was you accusing another poster of hypocrisy for not wanting to reverse the 13th amendment.

I can't speak for the other poster but, while I agree with you that the logical conclusion of opposing abortion in Ireland is inconsistent with being comfortable with it abroad, I do not think that you can assume that those who oppose fully liberalised abortion think that it's fine abroad. For myself I would have voted against the 13th but I am realistic enough to know that it will not be reversed. Acceptance of that reality is not satisfaction with it.

AFAIAC, just now I am discussing your claim that the 13th is a general right to travel and not a right to travel for abortion. Do you now accept that this cannot possibly be the case, or Gail O'Rorke could have invoked it against the refusal of the travel agent to let her travel, and indeed against the guards for abusive arrest?

The rest of this post is also wrong, BTW - we can't possibly prevent all murders, but we don't decide to ignore them for that reason, still less insert a right to commit some kinds of murder into our constitution.

Wildlife Actor · 04-04-2018 01:41PM

....... wrote: »

Why?

If its murder, as you seem to think, then why are you not campaigning to get rid of it?

I'm not campaigning to save the 8tg amendment either. Too busy to save all the world...

Wildlife Actor · 04-04-2018 01:51PM

volchitsa wrote: »

AFAIAC, just now I am discussing your claim that the 13th is a general right to travel and not a right to travel for abortion. Do you now accept that this cannot possibly be the case, or Gail O'Rorke could have invoked it against the refusal of the travel agent to let her travel, and indeed against the guards for abusive arrest?

The rest of this post is also wrong, BTW - we can't possibly prevent all murders, but we don't decide to ignore them for that reason, still less insert a right to commit some kinds of murder into our constitution.

You've mischaracterised what I said. I never said 13th was a general right to travel. Go check my oosts. The right to travel preexisted 1983 (how many times do I have to repeat myself). Along comes the 8th amendment. Questions raised in x case as to whether travel trumped by 8th (prob yes in my view). People voted to give priority to right to travel in abortion cases. It limits the 8th amendment. Doesn't create a new right. Nothing to do with assisted suicide.

The Gail O Rorke case is a red herring in this context.

It's only marginally more hypocritical to allow travel in abortion cases than to refuse to prosecute suspects here for foreign murders. We cannot at a practical level solve all the world's problems.

oscarBravo · 04-04-2018 01:52PM

Love nor Money wrote: »

Of course its complicated and legislation is better equipped to deal with specifics. However this is a hard hard question, and people are entitled not to leave a lot of leeway to the legislature.

No, people are not entitled to any such thing. I'll repeat: that's not what the Constitution is for.

There are lots of things I'd rather our elected representatives didn't do, but I'm not campaigning to have clauses inserted into the Constitution to prevent them from doing them - not because I trust them, but because that's not what the Constitution is for.

How come the promises of politicians have now become so reliable?

Who said they were reliable? If we had a clause in the Constitution to prevent politicians from passing every law we don't trust them not to pass, the Constitution would be bigger than the statute book.

A Constitution is designed to limit the power of the government, not its policies. I know I'm screaming down a well trying to get that point across to an electorate that doesn't understand the point and wouldn't care if it did, but "enshrining" bad law in the Constitution is orders of magnitude worse than letting a government enact a bad law.

volchitsa · 04-04-2018 02:21PM

Love nor Money wrote: »

You've mischaracterised what I said. I never said 13th was a general right to travel. Go check my oosts. The right to travel preexisted 1983 (how many times do I have to repeat myself). Along comes the 8th amendment. Questions raised in x case as to whether travel trumped by 8th (prob yes in my view). People voted to give priority to right to travel in abortion cases. It limits the 8th amendment. Doesn't create a new right. Nothing to do with assisted suicide.

The Gail O Rorke case is a red herring in this context.

It's only marginally more hypocritical to allow travel in abortion cases than to refuse to prosecute suspects here for foreign murders. We cannot at a practical level solve all the world's problems.

It's infinitely more hypocritical, because nobody is saying a person living in England who has an abortion in England should later be prosecuted in Ireland.

We have put a clause in our law that effectively allows Irish women to have abortions as long as they have a few quid to pay for it. So we're ok with abortions really. Imagine doing the same thing for FGM or child sex abuse?

Meanwhile, if a woman is miscarrying in Ireland, and her health is being destroyed, we won't intervene because killing a fetus (in Ireland) is worse than leaving the woman infertile.

It's a textbook demonstration of hypocrisy.

end of the road · 04-04-2018 02:33PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but married couples in Ireland can not have their children adopted, so what in that case?
Women of child bearing age in Ireland also find it very difficult to find a doctor to perform sterilisation in the event that they don't ever want to have children, or don't want to have any more, so is your solution for them celibacy?

the solution is to change those issues so that those who may need to avail of them can do so. someone who wants to be sterilised should be able to have that procedure done.

SusieBlue · 04-04-2018 02:53PM

We've had 35 years to change those issues. It hasn't happened. I, and most of society, have no intention of waiting another 35 years.

end of the road · 04-04-2018 03:52PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

We've had 35 years to change those issues. It hasn't happened. I, and most of society, have no intention of waiting another 35 years.

well seeing as people don't seem to be interested in setting up such campaigns, or at least if they are i haven't heard of them, we probably will be waiting another 35 years. abortion on demand certainly won't be making those issues go away.

Triceratops Ballet · 04-04-2018 03:56PM

it's two strands of the same problem, women not being able to access elective medical treatment they want because their baby making abilities are valued over their desires.

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

Comments