The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Trasna1 · 13-04-2018 11:10PM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Or ban it completely. They could also change whatever laws they like, based on that argument.

Without the 8th a constitutional judgement on a woman's right to medical treatment would almost certainly guarantee a right to an abortion. I've felt something like that would have been unlikely to succeed in the 80s but the Constitution is considered a living document so that interpretation might be considered reasonable now.

And yes, the government can change whatever laws it likes.. It does so, regularly.

NuMarvel · 13-04-2018 11:11PM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Or ban it completely. They could also change whatever laws they like, based on that argument.

A) Examples of thing politicians can legislate for because there is no constitutional provision stopping them:

Closing all public hospitals
Repealing drink driving laws
lowering the age of consent
increase taxes to 99%

Examples of things that politicians are not fecking likely to legislate for despite there being no constitutional amendment

See A.

captbarnacles · 13-04-2018 11:12PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

Without the 8th a constitutional judgement on a woman's right to medical treatment would almost certainly guarantee a right to an abortion. I've felt something like that would have been unlikely to succeed in the 80s but the Constitution is considered a living document so that interpretation might be considered reasonable now.

And yes, the government can change whatever laws it likes.. It does so, regularly.

Gasp! the government will enact laws based on the will of the people as in a functional representative democracy.

You have a problem with the system of government we have - any other suggestions?

ohnonotgmail · 13-04-2018 11:12PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Contact lawyers for choice who seem to have a different view to you on this? The 12 weeks is merely a proposal, not even a bill. It will need to go in front of the oireactas to pass like any legislation. Changes to norama Legislation does not need the backing or approval of the people.,politicians will make these decisions. I have spent a long time researching this.

The removal of the 8th makes the ammendment unconstitutional and can be challenged in the supreme court. Who have already said that the unborns right to life will cease to exist with the passing of repeal.

I wait in anticipation for you to tell me differently.

how horribly condescending. and the part in bold is just so wrong it hurts.

seamus · 13-04-2018 11:13PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

The removal of the 8th makes the ammendment unconstitutional and can be challenged in the supreme court.

You are literally throwing words on the screen and hoping that it sounds like a cogent argument. The above sentence makes no sense. Not like, "I don't understand your point", like, "This is a load of words strung together by someone who doesn't understand what most of them mean".

Who have already said that the unborns right to life will cease to exist with the passing of repeal.

That's not correct. The supreme court have made no such declaration in regards to what will happen when the eighth is repealed.

You're close, but your wording is so specific that I wonder if you're deliberately miswording it or regurgitating something you heard from a pro-life group.

petalgumdrops · 13-04-2018 11:14PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Repealing the 8th does not provide unlimited abortion!

Have you read the proposals or the wording of the 36th amendment? When you do get back to me. While there may be no appetite to increase or impose a limit beyond 12 weeks, limits will not be placed into our constitution. When we vote on repeal we will never vote again and it will be our politicians who can and will provide for an upper limit. From reading the posts here it seems many people feel the unborn should have zero rights and so the increasing of limits are not beyond the realm of possibility in near future. European average would not be likelt to exceed 18 weeks but limits CAN be moved by the government and not the people
. This is what repealing an amended does.

Trasna1 · 13-04-2018 11:14PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

A) Examples of thing politicians can legislate for because there is no constitutional provision stopping them:

Closing all public hospitals
Repealing drink driving laws
lowering the age of consent
increase taxes to 99%

Examples of things that politicians are not fecking likely to legislate for despite there being no constitutional amendment

See A.

Politicians are doing their best to get a minimum alcohol pricing bill implemented though there is little to no public support for one.

Governments are strongly influenced by their supporters not the public.

captbarnacles · 13-04-2018 11:16PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Contact lawyers for choice who seem to have a different view to you on this? The 12 weeks is merely a proposal, not even a bill. It will need to go in front of the oireactas to pass like any legislation. Changes to norama Legislation does not need the backing or approval of the people.,politicians will make these decisions. I have spent a long time researching this.

The removal of the 8th makes the ammendment unconstitutional and can be challenged in the supreme court. Who have already said that the unborns right to life will cease to exist with the passing of repeal.

I wait in anticipation for you to tell me differently.

Can't have politicians making law...wait isn't that in the constitution too?

Spanish Eyes · 13-04-2018 11:21PM

Every country in Europe is obviously devastated by now. Even Italy. The Pope has said it, at is fkn peril lol!

I don't hear anything about terminations anywhere now. Does anyone.

The woman's choice,

13-04-2018 11:22PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

Politicians are doing their best to get a minimum alcohol pricing bill implemented though there is little to no public support for one.

Governments are strongly influenced by their supporters not the public.

Really Irish Water would disagree with you there.

One of the reasons the vote is happening is because of public out cry over women dying when an abortion could have saved their lives.

horseburger · 13-04-2018 11:23PM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Viability.

Can you answer my questions now?

Even if it is a question of viability, it is still the intentional ending of a life, if abortion occurs at a stage of unviability.

petalgumdrops · 13-04-2018 11:23PM

seamus wrote: »

You are literally throwing words on the screen and hoping that it sounds like a cogent argument. The above sentence makes no sense. Not like, "I don't understand your point", like, "This is a load of words strung together by someone who doesn't understand what most of them mean".

This came from Lawyers from choice. Who have said that repeal will make the 8th amendment
Will make current legislation unconstitutional. But hey they are the pro- choice laywer group.

That's not correct. The supreme court have made no such declaration in regards to what will happen when the eighth is repealed.

You're close, but your wording is so specific that I wonder if you're deliberately miswording it or regurgitating something you heard from a pro-life group.

Outside of article 40.3.3 there is no constitutional protection for the unborn.

Again why assume I'm pro-life because I feel the unborn should have rights at some point.

Fred Swanson · 13-04-2018 11:23PM

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel · 13-04-2018 11:23PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I have spent a long time researching this. .

Not long enough if you don't know the difference between legislation and a constitutional amendment. That is literally first semester stuff in law.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

The removal of the 8th makes the ammendment unconstitutional and can be challenged in the supreme court.

Repeal makes nothing unconstitutional, be it in legislation or in the constitution. By definition, anything in the constitution can't be unconstitutional. The present law still stands until it's changed by the Oireachtas. And you've presented nothing to indicate how a challenge to the courts would be successful.

By the way, the challenge would be in the High Court first, not the Supreme Court. They'd only hear an appeal to a lower courts' decision, and even then only if they thought the appeal had sufficient merit to warrant being heard.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I wait in anticipation for you to tell me differently.

Congratulations on getting something right.

petalgumdrops · 13-04-2018 11:25PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Not long enough if you don't know the difference between legislation and a constitutional amendment. That is literally first semester stuff in law.

Repeal makes nothing unconstitutional, be it in legislation or in the constitution. By definition, anything in the constitution can't be unconstitutional. The present law still stands until it's changed by the Oireachtas. And you've presented nothing to indicate how a challenge to the courts would be successful.

By the way, the challenge would be in the High Court first, not the Supreme Court. They'd only hear an appeal to a lower courts' decision, and even then only if they thought the appeal had sufficient merit to warrant being heard.

Congratulations on getting something right.

God I wonder why a pro-choice Lawyer group would spout lies then so?

NuMarvel · 13-04-2018 11:25PM

seamus wrote: »

You are literally throwing words on the screen and hoping that it sounds like a cogent argument. The above sentence makes no sense. Not like, "I don't understand your point", like, "This is a load of words strung together by someone who doesn't understand what most of them mean".

Reminds me of this.

:D

NuMarvel · 13-04-2018 11:26PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

God I wonder why a pro-choice Lawyer group would spout lies then so?

They're not the ones spouting lies.

petalgumdrops · 13-04-2018 11:27PM

captbarnacles wrote: »

Can't have politicians making law...wait isn't that in the constitution too?

Admire your 100% faith In politicians

Trasna1 · 13-04-2018 11:27PM

captbarnacles wrote: »

Gasp! the government will enact laws based on the will of the people as in a functional representative democracy.

You have a problem with the system of government we have - any other suggestions?

I've no problem with our system of government. I was responding to the point that the government could retain the ban on abortion following removal of the 8th, or reintroduce a ban at some future time. The argument I was making was that would be unlikely since a right to bodily integrity would in a modern context infer a right to abortion. This was one of the original arguments for the 8th in 83 - which in the context of the time was a stretch but not now.
Indeed, any such challenge on the basis of the Constitution could find the idea of term limits unconstitutional.

captbarnacles · 13-04-2018 11:30PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

I've no problem with our system of government. I was responding to the point that the government could retain the ban on abortion following removal of the 8th, or reintroduce a ban at some future time. The argument I was making was that would be unlikely since a right to bodily integrity would in a modern context infer a right to abortion. This was one of the original arguments for the 8th in 83 - which in the context of the time was a stretch but not now.
Indeed, any such challenge on the basis of the Constitution could find the idea of term limits unconstitutional.

Agreed. Our laws should have a modern context which I gather by looking at other western countries is pro-choice.

Spanish Eyes · 13-04-2018 11:30PM

Honestly, if the 8th is repealed, I think it will be all be forgotten about within a few weeks

horseburger · 13-04-2018 11:30PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To answer your first question here...... I think it is ok to end the life of ANY entity for ANY reason, including a 12 week old human fetus, that A) Entirely lacks the faculty of sentience and has never at any stage had the faculty of sentience in any way.

Do you have an argument as to why an entity lacking that faculty and always having lacked that faculty should have a right to life? Or can I simply assume that you actually believe shouting the word "Human" at that question over and over and over and over again actually answers it in some magical la la land way?

If you understand the answer to the first question, you will already know the answer to this question. If you find you do not though, feel free to let me know and I will answer it happily.

So is killing cows to obtain meat, or chopping down trees to make paper. We end life all the time. No one here AT ALL is denying we are ending life. Yet you keep saying it over and over like you are telling people something they either do not know, or have been denying.

The point that you are so DESPERATE to dodge however is that you seem entirely ignorant about where the line is, and what the line is, between life we end all the time and life we should not end. You just shout the word "Human" over and over because you think that is the line, yet you can not even begin to explain why.

The third outright lie I have caught you at now. The questions you just asked me were almost word for word the questions you asked earlier today and everyone here saw me answer you.

Lying in person is one thing, and people do it often. But lying when the truth is right beside the lie in black and white.... that takes some gall.

Because at 12/16 weeks we are ending the life of an entity that is not and never has been sentience or conscious. At much later stages however, we would be ending the life of a human sentience.

The two are therefore not comparable, even though you want to pretend they are. Pretence, alas, being the main substance of pretty much everything you have written here today.

It is still the ending of a life, at any stage of its development.

Not everyone supports your view.

The issue is the human aspect of the abortion debate.

If the human aspect of the debate wasn't central to the issue, the word foetus wouldn't be used as frequently, in arguments for abortion.

petalgumdrops · 13-04-2018 11:31PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

They're not the ones spouting lies.

Their response to me in relation to increasing 12 week limit;

Hi as with any ordinary legislation, it would be politicians in parliament who pass the legislation. Time limits won't be written into the Constitution. However, if the legislation is unconstitutional, it can be struck down by the Supreme Court.

'We can't say at this point whether it would be unconstitutional or not. But 18-21 weeks on request would be well outside the European and global norm'

"Proposed" just means that the government can't pass this new legislation unless the referendum passes. It's a proposal now, not even a Bill, because it can't be introduced in the Oireachtas until after the referendum passes. It would be unconstitutional at the moment.

'The trouble is that if the government doesn't replace it quickly, it could be challenged in the Supreme Court. Because the constitution will have changed once the Amendment is repealed, the current legislation will be unconstitutional'

'So the government really should act quickly after the referendum to avoid any uncertainty in the law'

NuMarvel · 13-04-2018 11:31PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

I've no problem with our system of government. I was responding to the point that the government could retain the ban on abortion following removal of the 8th, or reintroduce a ban at some future time. The argument I was making was that would be unlikely since a right to bodily integrity would in a modern context infer a right to abortion. This was one of the original arguments for the 8th in 83 - which in the context of the time was a stretch but not now.
Indeed, any such challenge on the basis of the Constitution could find the idea of term limits unconstitutional.

The courts have shown they are slow to legislate from the bench in matters of social policy, eg recent cases on surrogacy and the right to die.

What case law exists that would support the notion that the courts would strike down term limits as unconstitutional?

captbarnacles · 13-04-2018 11:32PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Honestly, if the 8th is repealed, I think it will be all be forgotten about within a few weeks

Nonsense. Look at the continuous outrage and protests not to mention societal breakdown, gay marriage has caused.:pac:

Triceratops Ballet · 13-04-2018 11:32PM

petalgumdrops wrote:

Contact lawyers for choice who seem to have a different view to you on this? The 12 weeks is merely a proposal, not even a bill. It will need to go in front of the oireactas to pass like any legislation. Changes to norama Legislation does not need the backing or approval of the people.,politicians will make these decisions. I have spent a long time researching this.

Politicians will draft and vote on the legislation, that's correct. Who elects the politicians though? No politicians have wanted to touch this issue with a bargepole for 35 years, do you honestly think that after this successive governments are going to all of a sudden risk their necks on this issue just because they can, when none of them have before now?

horseburger · 13-04-2018 11:33PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

No it's not a human being as they are not seen so legally until birth.

What is it if not human before birth? It was created by two humans yet you seem to be suggesting that it suddenly becomes human upon birth?

13-04-2018 11:35PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Admire your 100% faith In politicians

Seems you don't have any faith in your own gender, but that's a different thing perhaps.

Still wondering how the 8th managed to save your child's life. From your posts even news of FFA did not influence your decision to carry to term as is your right.

Repealing the 8th isn't going to change that situation, people are not going to be forced to have abortions if they don't want one.

It just means that they don't have to travel or order pills online is they did decide to terminate.

seamus · 13-04-2018 11:36PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Outside of article 40.3.3 there is no constitutional protection for the unborn.

Sure. Nobody said anything to the contrary.

I was simply pointing out the fact that you are wrong to claim the supreme court recently made any comment about the status of the unborn without the eighth amendment.

The supreme court ruled that no additional rights are conferred on the unborn outside of the right to life provided by the eighth amendment.

One may infer that this means when the eighth has been removed that the unborn will have no constitutional rights. But it is plain wrong to declare that the Supreme Court said that.

That might seem like splitting hairs, but precision is important if you're going to make legal arguments.

And it's a common tactic of disinformation groups to claim that an authority or court has said something important, when in fact it hasn't at all.

It's also incorrect - just because the supreme court has ruled the unborn have no additional constitutional rights, does not mean that the unborn will have no implicit right to life when the eighth is removed. That is a matter that would have to be separately resolved.

Triceratops Ballet · 13-04-2018 11:39PM

petalgumdrops wrote:

Have you read the proposals or the wording of the 36th amendment? When you do get back to me. While there may be no appetite to increase or impose a limit beyond 12 weeks, limits will not be placed into our constitution. When we vote on repeal we will never vote again and it will be our politicians who can and will provide for an upper limit. From reading the posts here it seems many people feel the unborn should have zero rights and so the increasing of limits are not beyond the realm of possibility in near future. European average would not be likelt to exceed 18 weeks but limits CAN be moved by the government and not the people . This is what repealing an amended does.

Yes I understand what we're voting on, I know what a repeal means, I'm ready to vote to repeal, have been since my 18th birthday.

The 8th amendment is an abomination, how it got placed in the constitution in the first place is deeply disturbing and its long overdue for repealing

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments