The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

13-04-2018 11:40PM

horseburger wrote: »

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?

It's a foetus, not a human being which occurs on birth, that's when it gets a PPS number etc.

We can continue posting like this if you want but it'll just be a waste of your bandwidth and time

Trasna1 · 13-04-2018 11:41PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

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?

They're is no case law because the 8th would have prevented it. In my opinion the right to bodily integrity which is moderated at present by the rights afforded the unborn by the 8th, would imply that a person would have a right to abortion treatment, up to the point of viability at least,

petalgumdrops · 13-04-2018 11:43PM

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.

Sorry? So if I told you I got pregnant by accident and was forced to travel to london I.Would be more deserving of telling you the 8th had an affect on me?

How can you dare speculate on whether I wanted to carry to term or not? Whether I had the means to travel or not or whether I even had the physical ability to travel. Would love to see you question a woman who "could" travel. Please don't even respond to me again.

NuMarvel · 13-04-2018 11:44PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

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

...

'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 Because the constitution will have changed once the Amendment is repealed, the current legislation will be unconstitutional'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'

And yet, here's what two of their members say on a public blog:

A vote for repeal will not create a legal vacuum. The current legislation (the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013) will continue to operate until a new law for the regulation of abortion is introduced.

So on one hand a public post that clearly says it won't be unconstitutional, and on the other a poster claiming she's got an email that says otherwise. I wonder which one is more reliable...

petalgumdrops · 13-04-2018 11:45PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

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

Completely respect your decision

petalgumdrops · 13-04-2018 11:47PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

And yet, here's what two of their members say on a public blog:

So on one hand a public post that clearly says it won't be unconstitutional, and on the other a poster claiming she's got an email that says otherwise. I wonder which one is more reliable...

Seems it doesn't suit your narrative? Also not an email Facebook messenger ðŸ˜Š

Ave Sodalis · 13-04-2018 11:48PM

petalgumdrops wrote:

Sorry? So if I told you I got pregnant by accident and was forced to travel to london I.Would be more deserving of telling you the 8th had an affect on me?

Nobody is saying that either, you seem determined to twist people's words. You are the original person to dismiss anyone else's story and yet the reason the 8th is being repealed is due to the other stories and the ones travelling England. It's great that it worked out for you but it's questionable how much of an impact the 8th had on that, and it has little to know baring on the fact that there are women who do not get misdiagnosed and have to suffer through it.

petalgumdrops · 13-04-2018 11:48PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

And yet, here's what two of their members say on a public blog:

So on one hand a public post that clearly says it won't be unconstitutional, and on the other a poster claiming she's got an email that says otherwise. I wonder which one is more reliable...

Perhaps you could maybe ask them a specific question rather than inferring your own meanings

Trasna1 · 13-04-2018 11:50PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

And yet, here's what two of their members say on a public blog:

So on one hand a public post that clearly says it won't be unconstitutional, and on the other a poster claiming she's got an email that says otherwise. I wonder which one is more reliable...

The question is though, that in the absence of the 8th is the 2013 act constitutional? In the absence of the 8th, does the right to bodily integrity infer a right to abortion?

I'm not sure if the original act was ever constitutionally tested, perhaps someone here will know.

13-04-2018 11:51PM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

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.

Sorry? So if I told you I got pregnant by accident and was forced to travel to london I.Would be more deserving of telling you the 8th had an affect on me?

How can you dare speculate on whether I wanted to carry to term or not? Whether I had the means to travel or not or whether I even had the physical ability to travel. Would love to see you question a woman who "could" travel. Please don't even respond to me again.

I'm not sure how if you got pregnant by accident you would be forced to travel, unless you mean you would have an abortion in this case and are prevented by the 8th to availing of the service here.

As for the rest of your post your pretty much describing the situation that some women face in that they cannot travel for certain reasons but wish to have an abortion but are not permitted to do so due to the 8th.

Why would I be questioning a woman who decided to travel, her reasons for travelling are their own.

You stated that your child (thankfully) is still alive because of the 8th but surely your beliefs and personal decision also played a part?

January · 13-04-2018 11:57PM

Let.me ask you a few questions petalgumdrops, if I may?

What ffa was your baby misdiagnosed with?

By which method?

Were you preparing to travel to England when you found out about the diagnosis?

Did you seek a second opinion yourself or were you offered further diagnostic testing which picked up the misdiagnosis?

January · 13-04-2018 11:58PM

I also see that aul Bertie hasn't bothered to come back and reply to JDD...

seamus · 14-04-2018 12:00AM

It took 33 years, several maternal deaths, a corpse being used as an incubator, hundreds of thousands of tragic stories and decades of tireless campaigning to get politicians to even *consider* the abortion question in Ireland.

Simple fact is that once repeal is through and the legislation in place, no Irish government for fifty years will do anything but tweak the legislation slightly to correct errors and omissions. We know this because the past informs us that this is so.

Claims about what they could theoretically do are nothing but hysterical scaremongering

Trasna1 · 14-04-2018 12:11AM

seamus wrote: »

It took 33 years, several maternal deaths, a corpse being used as an incubator, hundreds of thousands of tragic stories and decades of tireless campaigning to get politicians to even *consider* the abortion question in Ireland.

Simple fact is that once repeal is through and the legislation in place, no Irish government for fifty years will do anything but tweak the legislation slightly to correct errors and omissions. We know this because the past informs us that this is so.

Claims about what they could theoretically do are nothing but hysterical scaremongering

I wouldn't agree. Divorce was very contentious and we are looking at a major overhaul of the law in this area in the next year or so, some 20, not 50 years after the referendum. And campaigning on divorce effectively stopped after the referendum.

I still see both sides battling away after this referendum, whatever way it goes. The law will be continuing to evolve

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 12:23AM

DubInMeath wrote: »

I'm not sure how if you got pregnant by accident you would be forced to travel.

As for the rest of your post your pretty much describing the situation that some women face in that they cannot travel for certain reasons but wish to have an abortion but are not permitted to do so due to the 8th.

Why would I be questioning a woman who decided to travel, her reasons for travelling are their own.

You stated that your child (thankfully) is still alive because of the 8th but surely your beliefs and personal decision also played a part?

By that standard whether we terminate or not is all based on beliefs and personal decision?

I have no personal ethos on terminations bar that for healthy babies there should be a limit.

Abortion in ireland was not something that was offered to me. It did not inform doctors practice on how my case was dealt with at a time when I was at my most vulnerable. Had I have been in England and based on how fetal medicine there had pushed reccomendation for termination- I would have grabbed it with both hands . When you are told your baby is one if only 4 cases ever to be born alive then you can't tell me that the 8th didn't have an impact on my outcome. Simlarily like how I can't tell other women that the 8th didn't impact negatively on them. It seems that this group will pledge undying faith and will not question the stories that support their narrative. '
The depts of despair is all I can describe what we went through.
I know that women also mention that having full bodily autonomy in maternity care is also an issue related to the 8th. That interventions are carried out against their will.
I didn't want my birth to go the way it did, my baby was being born earlier than I wanted and fear and panic took over for me. If intervening in the way they did to save both my life and my childs then yes the 8th saved him. I didn't want the level of intervention I received but we are here.

Until you hear a doctor telling you that your baby has no chance of life, that death is certain that termination would be easier on you, that you can try again -all while not being able to do anything about it then you can tell me that I'm wrong.

The biggest travesty of these issues are public couselling waiting lists meant I suffered immensely because of it...... or maybe I didn't shout the loudest.

Leaving this thread now before I'm asked to produce my CVS and Amniocenthese reports

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 12:35AM

January wrote: »

Let.me ask you a few questions petalgumdrops, if I may?

What ffa was your baby misdiagnosed with?

By which method?

Were you preparing to travel to England when you found out about the diagnosis?

Did you seek a second opinion yourself or were you offered further diagnostic testing which picked up the misdiagnosis?

January I think I actually spoke.privately to you about this in the pregnancy forum 2 years ago when it was diagnosed.

Intially something was detected as being not right at 12 week scan. High NT, shortening of nasal bone which they said could suggest DS.
CVS FISH result for 12, 18, 21 came back clear but was called in and told Trisomy (ill pm you the number as my case is only one of 11 so it will identify me) confirmed on CVS. So rare that they couldn't tell impact except it was very bad. Fetal medicine in london lab suggested termination. Geneticist in crumlin took on my case and for complete clarity an amino was done but as with how rare the case was I would have to wait weeks rather than the 10/12 days some people waited. Waiting period between results of CVS and Amnio was obviously horrific as I needed to ne at least 15/16 weeks for amnio.

You might remember talking to me before

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 12:41AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Nobody is saying that either, you seem determined to twist people's words. You are the original person to dismiss anyone else's story and yet the reason the 8th is being repealed is due to the other stories and the ones travelling England. It's great that it worked out for you but it's questionable how much of an impact the 8th had on that, and it has little to know baring on the fact that there are women who do not get misdiagnosed and have to suffer through it.

If you read any of my posts you will actually see that I clearly said that........ everyone has their story

horseburger · 14-04-2018 12:47AM

DubInMeath wrote: »

It's a foetus, not a human being which occurs on birth, that's when it gets a PPS number etc.

We can continue posting like this if you want but it'll just be a waste of your bandwidth and time

Not a foetus that is also human?

Ave Sodalis · 14-04-2018 12:55AM

petalgumdrops wrote:

If you read any of my posts you will actually see that I clearly said that........ everyone has their story

Which, in context of what you were replying to, seems like a dismissal of those stories.

NuMarvel · 14-04-2018 12:59AM

Trasna1 wrote: »

They're is no case law because the 8th would have prevented it. In my opinion the right to bodily integrity which is moderated at present by the rights afforded the unborn by the 8th, would imply that a person would have a right to abortion treatment, up to the point of viability at least,

If there is no case law, then what would a person challenging the law base their case on? It's not enough for someone to say they're challenging a law and there should be no term limits; they have to support their arguments.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Perhaps you could maybe ask them a specific question rather than inferring your own meanings

I don't need to. The meaning of their post couldn't be clearer. There is no legal vacuum after a Yes win. The current law remains in place until it's changed.

Trasna1 wrote: »

The question is though, that in the absence of the 8th is the 2013 act constitutional? In the absence of the 8th, does the right to bodily integrity infer a right to abortion?

I'm not sure if the original act was ever constitutionally tested, perhaps someone here will know.

Acts passed by the Oireachtas have the presumption of constitutionality, and that includes the 2013 Act after the 8th is replaced. It has to be proven that acts are unconstitutional, i.e. they contravene a provision of the constitution.

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 01:03AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Which, in context of what you were replying to, seems like a dismissal of those stories.

So you say that I dismissed every ither story and now yoy say it "seems" a dismissal.

Nobody's story is dismissed I said clearly consensus will never be met by Yes/No side and regardless of all the 100s of stories this is a matter of individual conscience.... but you seem to want to have the last word.

14-04-2018 01:06AM

horseburger wrote: »

Not a foetus that is also human?

I and others answered you already on this. If you want I'll just reply neigh to your posting the same question as you don't like to answer people's questions when it doesn't suit you and that will lead to either you or I or both being thread banned. But since I'm here to discuss I'll probably just ignore you in most cases as its clear your not here for discussion.

Trasna1 · 14-04-2018 01:12AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

If there is no case law, then what would a person challenging the law base their case on? It's not enough for someone to say they're challenging a law and there should be no term limits; they have to support their arguments.

I don't need to. The meaning of their post couldn't be clearer. There is no legal vacuum after a Yes win. The current law remains in place until it's changed.

Acts passed by the Oireachtas have the presumption of constitutionality, and that includes the 2013 Act after the 8th is replaced. It has to be proven that acts are unconstitutional, i.e. they contravene a provision of the constitution.

The law would be challenged on the basis of incompatibility with the Constitution, it would look to precedent with regards to bodily integrity. The very blog you linked earlier suggested strongly that significant provisions in 2013 act would be found unconstitutional following repeal of the 8th.

horseburger · 14-04-2018 01:17AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Madscientist30 wrote: »

Haven't heard you considering anything "for" it yet really Clearly you do consider such private matters your business anyway. Repeal will allow women to make the best choices for themselves. So what you really have to decide is do you think your fellow humans are capable of making reproductive decisions without you getting a say. Realistically most of them are probably as smart as you or I if not more so. So on balance I dont think I need to be involved in their decision processes. Do you? And if you think humans are inherently not to be trusted, then why are you advocating bringing more of them into the world

We are being asked to vote on this issue. There is nothing wrong with asking questions regarding the arguments in favour or repealing the Eight Amendment.

I have considered the yes arguments. I wouldn't be asking questions about the issue, if I hadn't considered the yes arguments.

Example:

Labour have posters up with the slogan "Compassion in a Crisis".

Response - Compassion for the mother but not the human that is being aborted?

People Before Profit have posters stating "Our Bodies Our Choices"

Response - What about the separate body whose life is being ended?

Would you prefer if I showed the same lack of curiosity, on the arguments for and against, as the people who gave answers in this vox pop below?

Yes, the guy asked intentionally provocative one sided questions, but that doesn't excuse the very poor responses, from the participants in the Repeal march, who were questioned in the vox pop.

Here is a debate for and against that I watched recently.

Have you seen it before?

horseburger · 14-04-2018 01:20AM

DubInMeath wrote: »

I and others answered you already on this. If you want I'll just reply neigh to your posting the same question as you don't like to answer people's questions when it doesn't suit you and that will lead to either you or I or both being thread banned. But since I'm here to discuss I'll probably just ignore you in most cases as its clear your not here for discussion.

Your answer was to suggest that a foetus doesn't have the right to be recognized as human, even though a foetus comes into being through two other human beings.

gctest50 · 14-04-2018 01:23AM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

So you say that I dismissed every ither story and now yoy say it "seems" a dismissal.

Nobody's story is dismissed I said clearly consensus will never be met by Yes/No side and regardless of all the 100s of stories this is a matter of individual conscience.... but you seem to want to have the last word.

It's yes or no for repeal

There won't be a third option

[ ] Tick here to make abortions compulsory

Trasna1 · 14-04-2018 01:29AM

horseburger wrote: »

.

In fairness, that video had been edited to push the agenda of rebel media. Indeed the people he interviewed are just protestors being put on the spot, not campaigners - and in every campaign you'll have hangers-on that only broadly understand the issue, or are simply just followers.

You could conduct interviews like that at any public rally and get brain dead answers among some of the participants. It's not representative.

Ave Sodalis · 14-04-2018 01:30AM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

So you say that I dismissed every ither story and now yoy say it "seems" a dismissal.

Nobody's story is dismissed I said clearly consensus will never be met by Yes/No side and regardless of all the 100s of stories this is a matter of individual conscience.... but you seem to want to have the last word.

Can you please stop with the word gymnastics? In what way have I implied I wanted the last word? What do you even mean by that?

You were implying that the 8th has had little effect on people, I suggested to read the Facebook page to see how it does have an effect on people, you replied saying everyone has a story which came very much across as a dismissal of those stories. What on earth has the rest of that got to do with it?

horseburger · 14-04-2018 01:33AM

Trasna1 wrote: »

In fairness, that video had been edited to push the agenda of rebel media. Indeed the people he interviewed are just protestors being put on the spot, not campaigners - and in every campaign you'll have hangers-on that only broadly understand the issue, or are simply just followers.

You could conduct interviews like that at any public rally and get brain dead answers among some of the participants. It's not representative.

No matter how one sided a vox pop is edited, the people vox popped could not have been recorded saying what they said, unless they said what they said.

Ave Sodalis · 14-04-2018 01:33AM

horseburger wrote: »

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.

Can you answer my questions now?

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments