The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

NuMarvel · 17-04-2018 06:43PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I have but it seems that it's either all or nothing for both sides. If it were possible to amend the constitution rather than repealing the 8th but by amending the text or adding an article that gave precedence to the mothers health, would this not be amenable to both sides?

I don't think you have read the thread because the difficulties with this type of proposal have been addressed before by me and others. Your post gives no indication that you're read these comments or if you have, you're not paying any heed to what was said.

Grayson · 17-04-2018 06:43PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As I said, if the constitution was amended and a new article introduced which addressed the health concerns that you mention. Would that solution work for both sides?

No but it might help pro lifers who are in favor of abortion when the mothers life is in danger.
The majority of pro lifers don't and abortion completely banned. They just don't want it to be unrestricted.
However the pro life campaign is run by the zealots who take the most extreme views.

As for the pro choicers. Moat want unrestricted access until week 12. Although they'd be happy with a relaxation of the existing rules they wouldn't stop campaigning.

Personally though I think the constitution is the dumbest place to legislate for abortion. You will always find edge cases that aren't covered and it'll be impossible to legislate for them. Medical issues should not be covered in the constitution.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 17-04-2018 06:44PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

But rather than having a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment, could a referendum not be held to amend the text and add an article to the constitution that allowed for terminations in cases where the mothers health was at risk?

Would you be willing to accept those circumstances?

Absolutely not because first of all the last 35 years has shown that the constitution is not the place for maternity and healthcare issues. I'm sure (pretty much) nobody who was in favour of it foresaw or would have condoned shítshows like this or this, for example.

If the 8th was amended to something like:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life and health of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

which I'd imagine is what you're talking about, it'd just lead to more dilemmas for doctors, more challenges to the courts on what constitutes a risk to health etc etc.

Second of all, such an amendment would do nothing for people who need an abortion for reasons other than or not limited to their physical health. I am personally in favour of what's blithely referred to as abortion on demand or lifestyle abortions.

January · 17-04-2018 06:44PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

But are we going to start legislating for marginal cases? The primary concern for pro choice advocates seems to be on health grounds. If those were addressed would this not account for the vast majority of instances that people are concerned about. How many women are impregnated as a result of being raped?

Yes, hopefully, we will start legislating for marginal cases, as that is what should happen. If it's taken out of the constitution and a situation arises where someone needs to access abortion and it's not currently covered under the current legislation, then legislation can be enacted without having to hold a referendum.

dudara · 17-04-2018 06:46PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

As I said, if the constitution was amended and a new article introduced which addressed the health concerns that you mention. Would that solution work for both sides?

I don’t think that would be legally very smart. The 8th was a poor piece of lawmaking, and it has led to uncertainty. We should be seeking to legislate rather than have these cases in the constitution.

Spanish Eyes · 17-04-2018 06:48PM

Whatever side you are on the word COMPASSION should be there somewhere along with empathy too.

It is very easy to jump up and down on the pro or anti side with all the slogans and so on. But to me this issue is a very personal one between the pregnant woman and her doctor.

So to be honest everyone else can butt out and stop saying things like "it's a woman's choice", or " one in five" or whatever. But it's command and control I suppose.

Honestly you would think that people have not thought this through and are incapable of deciding for themselves. I think personally there are too many men speaking about this, with due respect to the male gender.

I do think at the end of the day, the more hectoring from the anti side will be counter productive, as will hectoring from the pro side.

We are adults and quite capable of researching the issue and deciding for ourselves. I am sick of all this "you need to be told with pictures" quite frankly.

Zubeneschamali · 17-04-2018 06:48PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

So if legislation was introduced that facilitated termination in cases where there is a risk to a woman's health would that not satisfy both sides of the debate? I think most rationale people would accept that the mothers health/life should be a priority. Would that type of legislation not mitigate the concerns of pro life advocates who believe that abortion is taking a human life.

No, we have already had them on here saying that exceptions for the woman's health after 12 weeks means no restrictions whatever because doctors will simply lie about it so they must vote NO.

So, anything which allows for the womans health or mental health is right out according to the pro-life crew.

Spanish Eyes · 17-04-2018 06:53PM

dudara wrote: »

I don’t think that would be legally very smart. The 8th was a poor piece of lawmaking, and it has led to uncertainty. We should be seeking to legislate rather than have these cases in the constitution.

Moral issues have no place in the Constitution. The same should have applied to divorce IMO. Far too restrictive. But there are winds of change there too.

We elect our TDs to legislate on our behalf. Strange as that might seem to some who expect every pothole to be fixed and forget about the big picture.

A list system is what is needed sometime soon. Might concentrate the minds on a whole of country basis rather than local issues.

I could go on..... but I will desist for now.

17-04-2018 06:55PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

How many women are impregnated as a result of being raped?

even if one woman got pregnant by rape, its disgusting that she cant be treated in her own country & that we make it worse by sending her away, further trauma to an already traumatised woman.
same goes for FFA actually.

Ave Sodalis · 17-04-2018 06:58PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

But are we going to start legislating for marginal cases? The primary concern for pro choice advocates seems to be on health grounds. If those were addressed would this not account for the vast majority of instances that people are concerned about. How many women are impregnated as a result of being raped?

Are we going to put these "marginal cases" into the constitution?

We have absolutely no idea how many people are impregnated as a result of rape. We don't even have a good stat on how many women are raped.

To be honest, the biggest reason the 8th needs to go (in my opinion) is because it's a ridiculous piece of writing that should never have gone into the constitution in the first place. It has cause far far too much suffering and death of born Irish women. If any other piece of the constitution caused that many problems, it would be gone.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 17-04-2018 06:58PM

January wrote: »

Yes, hopefully, we will start legislating for marginal cases, as that is what should happen. If it's taken out of the constitution and a situation arises where someone needs to access abortion and it's not currently covered under the current legislation, then legislation can be enacted without having to hold a referendum.

Sorry not legislation, holding referendums.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 17-04-2018 07:00PM

What I haven't been able to get to the bottom of is that if all the health risks, rape, cancer etc was addressed. Would choice* life advocates still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

*amended

amdublin · 17-04-2018 07:00PM

Michael Harding's thoughts on repealing the 8th:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2070586469888433&id=1742154706064946

"I trust women. If your child ends up in trouble, you don't turn her away and you don't blame her. You put your arms around her and you say no matter else , I will stand by you. and you say that not conditionally, not I will stand by you if I agree with what you're doing. You stand by your children ,you may not understand them , you may not undersatnd the complexity of why they want to do this that or the other but you stand by them not because you approve but because it's love, it's comapssion, it's care. To support somebody at a time when they need your support

This country for too long has been putting people outside the door ,go to England if you're like that, get out of my house if you're like that, all that sort of way of excluding people didn't help anybody

This article in the constitution was a bad idea and it didn't work, because women still go and have abortions, and the issue about repealing the eighth is about women's health , it's about having proper healthcare for women .... Do you put them outside the door.....do you say go off to England or somewhere else, or do you say, you're in a difficult situation, you've made a choice and I will stand by you ?"

Ave Sodalis · 17-04-2018 07:02PM

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155434564661186&set=a.147974516185.128710.575761185&type=3&theater

I love the idea of posters like this!

17-04-2018 07:03PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

What I haven't been able to get to the bottom of is that if all the health risks, rape, cancer etc was addressed. Would pro life advocates still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

i think you need to do some more reseach........

unless there has been a big change in the pro life camp!

Ave Sodalis · 17-04-2018 07:04PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

What I haven't been able to get to the bottom of is that if all the health risks, rape, cancer etc was addressed. Would pro life advocates still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

Pro-choice I assume you mean?

The 8th needs to go. Even if it meant abortion was legislated to be illegal after, I would still vote to get rid of the 8th.

Adding patches to a major problem is not fixing it. It's like using cellotape to fix a crack in a foundation.

January · 17-04-2018 07:05PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Sorry not legislation, holding referendums.

We won't need to if the 8th is repealed because cases like that could be dealt with within legislation. Meaning no need for further referendums

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

What I haven't been able to get to the bottom of is that if all the health risks, rape, cancer etc was addressed. Would pro life advocates still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

I'm assuming you mean pro-choice advocates? Yes, I'd still want the 8th repealed because it goes beyond abortion in cases of health risk, rape, cancer etc.

It wasnt me123 · 17-04-2018 07:05PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Just reading the last two weeks would probably be enough, considering how often we get the "I'm just asking questions" brigade.

I'm sure it will be appreciated by the pro choice side - not sure it will make any difference to the "I'm voting yes but" or "i'm not sure how I'll vote but" as its fairly obvious they are pro life and just trying to wind us all up (it worked with me I have a few on block as I just couldn't deal with the same questions being asked over and over again).

For the genuine people who want to way up all the information, it will be a good idea.

seamus · 17-04-2018 07:05PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

What I haven't been able to get to the bottom of is that if all the health risks, rape, cancer etc was addressed. Would pro life advocates still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

No, because those running the pro life campaign believe that raped and pregnant children should be forced to carry to term and sick mothers required to risk their lives to give a foetus a chance instead.

dudara · 17-04-2018 07:14PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

What I haven't been able to get to the bottom of is that if all the health risks, rape, cancer etc was addressed. Would pro life advocates still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

What about a woman that doesn’t want to be pregnant, because she is in education, doesn’t have enough money to support, doesn’t want to stop her career development, doesn’t want her husband to beat her etc. Can you write a piece of legislation that covers all the reasons a woman may not want to be pregnant.

Legislating for minority cases is downright daft. It’s poor lawmaking

v638sg7k1a92bx · 17-04-2018 07:14PM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Pro-choice I assume you mean?

The 8th needs to go. Even if it meant abortion was legislated to be illegal after, I would still vote to get rid of the 8th.

Adding patches to a major problem is not fixing it. It's like using cellotape to fix a crack in a foundation.

Yes pro choice. I amended the post.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 17-04-2018 07:15PM

dudara wrote: »

What about a woman that doesn’t want to be pregnant, because she is in education, doesn’t have enough money to support, doesn’t want to stop her career development, doesn’t want her husband to beat her etc. Can you write a piece of legislation that covers all the reasons a woman may not want to be pregnant.

Legislating for minority cases is downright daft. It’s poor lawmaking

Is that what repealing the 8th essentially doing???

Surely it's a minority of people who require/want an abortion let alone cases where there is a risk to health/life?

January · 17-04-2018 07:17PM

No, repealing the 8th will still mean abortion is illegal, so the government will have to draw up legislation to make it legal afterwards.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 17-04-2018 07:18PM

dudara wrote: »

What about a woman that doesn’t want to be pregnant, because she is in education, doesn’t have enough money to support, doesn’t want to stop her career development, doesn’t want her husband to beat her etc. Can you write a piece of legislation that covers all the reasons a woman may not want to be pregnant.

Legislating for minority cases is downright daft. It’s poor lawmaking

Let me ask you, if the woman wasn't raped, in a bad relationship, completed her education and was well off? Would you still be in favour of abortion?

Sofiztikated · 17-04-2018 07:18PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Let me ask you, if the woman wasn't raped, in a bad relationship, completed her education and was well off? Would you still be in favour of abortion?

Yup.

v638sg7k1a92bx · 17-04-2018 07:23PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Yup.

So in that case you're giving an exceptional case to prove a rule you don't actually want to defend.

Ave Sodalis · 17-04-2018 07:24PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Let me ask you, if the woman wasn't raped, in a bad relationship, completed her education and was well off? Would you still be in favour of abortion?

Yes. I don't want children. I never want children. I am not allowed to get my tubes tied in case I "change my mind". No contraception is 100% effective. The very thought of having children makes me feel sick, due to personal reasons. Carrying a child to term and giving it away would probably end up being the death of me. If I fell pregnant now, one way or another, I will not stay pregnant.

Making abortion illegal does not stop abortions.

January · 17-04-2018 07:25PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Let me ask you, if the woman wasn't raped, in a bad relationship, completed her education and was well off? Would you still be in favour of abortion?

Yes

Bannasidhe · 17-04-2018 07:26PM

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Let me ask you, if the woman wasn't raped, in a bad relationship, completed her education and was well off? Would you still be in favour of abortion?

Would I be in favour of women deciding if they wish to be pregnant?

Absolutely.

gctest50 · 17-04-2018 07:28PM

seamus wrote: »

No, because those running the pro life campaign believe that raped and pregnant children should be forced to carry to term and sick mothers required to risk their lives to give a foetus a chance instead.

It's a bit more than that, in cases of Fatal Fetal Abnormality, some want to check women into a peri-natal hospice

https://youtu.be/FXTEt3KSrYw?t=537

So if that was the way, a woman in Ireland would go through delivering a child who may only live for minutes ( if at all)

Going rate in a hospice maybe 900 euro/week

( I can't see it being much less than care for the older person

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/4/olderpeople/nhss/cost-of-care-private-and-voluntary-nursing-homes.pdf )

I'd reckon once established they'd seek money from health insurance under the 100 days thing :

In-patient mental health treatment for up to 100 days.

https://www.vhi.ie/pdf/myvhi/TOBFPL1%20V29%20Mar18.pdf

All sounds very familiar, not so many septic tanks around these days though

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments