Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1
Options
Comments
-
Because as a prospective father knowing that I will have no legal rights to prevent the abortion of my child affects me personally.
Separately...
Just a response I wanted to share when someone raised that my position "places the life of the unborn above that of the mother" and also asked about rape cases:
Equally I can't understand that you can't see that if I were to wish to keep my unborn child - there is nothing I can legally do to prevent its destruction if the 8th is repealed. That a father (married or unmarried) has no say in how their child is disposed of is a travesty I am willing to fight tooth and nail against.
My stance of supporting the status quo does not place the unborn's life above that of a woman's, it is why we allow abortions in Ireland already for circumstances where the life of the mother is at risk (either through suicide or as life-saving treatment is administered to the mother which may inadvertently cause the destruction of the unborn) - but your stance places the unborn's life clearly below that of the person carrying the child/foetus/cellular blob.
The hard cases you present above are things I have considered and while they represent the extreme (and in the case of rape probably one of the strongest arguments for an expanded abortion regime in Ireland) I have in the end made my peace with the fact that unfortunately even within this hardest of hard cases - the unborn's life is not to be placed below a bodily autonomy argument - the rapist is the criminal and should be prosecuted accordingly (nor would I allow them any of the rights I would argue prospective fathers should get) but the unborn is not the criminal in this case. If you do not see a separate living entity as obtaining the right to life until being born, or from an arbitrary (12 week or otherwise) time period then of course it is similar to cutting your own nails - no-one in their right mind would be opposed to that. But if you do see these entities as possessing a right to life from potentially in/(con)ception then you could come to understand that this right to life being extinguished is abhorrent to many right thinking people.
As for the medication point - it is why for some people taking medication it is mandatory to be on a contraceptive plan to ensure a pregnancy does not occur - it would be highly irresponsible of a medical practitioner to put their patient's health at risk but not following proper procedure - see roaccutane prescriptions - as a female patient I would be obligated to be on a presribed contraceptive plan or else the drug would not be given to me. Even as a male patient I had to sign a statement to the medical practitioner stating that I will not seek to foster a child while on the medication plan before the drugs were allowed to be prescribed. Arguing that abortion should be allowed because of medication conflation issues is cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. I am not against contraception - so this is a much simpler, humane and ethical way to solve the issue instead of allowing abortion on demand for these edge cases (which can be solved by non-abortive measures).
Prevention is always better than cure - but the "cure" of abortion on demand necessitates the revoking of the right to life of a human entity - that is not something I am prepared to do without overwhelmingly important reasons and I have not seen anything from the yes camp to convince me such a reason exists.
To answer you directly on the pregnancy as a result of rape I would say that yes you should keep the unborn child - you can choose to raise it with the support of your loving family or place it for adoption but it intrinsically has a right to life that cannot be extinguished by reasons outside of its control (being created from a criminal act). It is also why for fatal foetal abnormalities I can understand why an expansion of the abortion regime should be considered - the entity may not be regarded as "alive" or having any quality of life in the few hours of being born to passing away - even here the intrinsic value I place on human life means that while some FFA cases i.e. child being born with no brain I see an argument for expanding the abortion regime, I would wish to be very careful to distinguish between "no quality of life" and "very little quality of life" cases. FFA cases represent to me the actual hardest of hard cases as this drives directly at the meaning of life (of the unborn).
The human right to life is a pillar of my moral and ethical outlook - it is why I am against the death penalty and why I am in favour of bodily autonomy with the right to choose death personally in assisted suicide. But choosing death on behalf of a distinct individual, without the legal input of the other person who created that individual is something I am willing to campaign hard against.
With all due respect, your pregnant partner could travel to the UK and have the procedure done right now before you'd even know about it.
Regardless of the 8th being retained or repealed, Irish women will continue to seek abortions. There are currently 4k women procuring them every year, either through UK hospitals or dangerous online pills.
Abortion is already in Ireland, and will continue to be.
The question is whether we want to punish vulnerable women even further during a distressing time, by forcing them to travel.
Do we want to regulate and supervise this, or continue to ignore the issue and export it to foreign health systems?0 -
Just yesterday, we had conorhal saying that the 8th isn't good but it is the only thing protecting the unborn. This from a guy who (taking him at his word) was really hurt and angry about a late miscarriage.
Yet he thinks other people, without the 8th, would be aborting similarly late pregnancies for the craic?0 -
You still don't have that right now. There's nothing stopping a woman flying to the UK now. In fact, over 10 woman do, every day.Because as a prospective father knowing that I will have no legal rights to prevent the abortion of my child affects me personally.
Separately...
.(snipped)
And you should not have that right anyway. It's the woman that has to endure the pregnancy for 9 months. You should be consulted, ideally, but that's it. As a man, I accept that due to biology the woman's vote should be the casting vote since it's her body.0 -
-
Because as a prospective father knowing that I will have no legal rights to prevent the abortion of my child affects me personally.
Separately...
Just a response I wanted to share when someone raised that my position "places the life of the unborn above that of the mother" and also asked about rape cases:
Equally I can't understand that you can't see that if I were to wish to keep my unborn child - there is nothing I can legally do to prevent its destruction if the 8th is repealed. That a father (married or unmarried) has no say in how their child is disposed of is a travesty I am willing to fight tooth and nail against.
My stance of supporting the status quo does not place the unborn's life above that of a woman's, it is why we allow abortions in Ireland already for circumstances where the life of the mother is at risk (either through suicide or as life-saving treatment is administered to the mother which may inadvertently cause the destruction of the unborn) - but your stance places the unborn's life clearly below that of the person carrying the child/foetus/cellular blob.
The hard cases you present above are things I have considered and while they represent the extreme (and in the case of rape probably one of the strongest arguments for an expanded abortion regime in Ireland) I have in the end made my peace with the fact that unfortunately even within this hardest of hard cases - the unborn's life is not to be placed below a bodily autonomy argument - the rapist is the criminal and should be prosecuted accordingly (nor would I allow them any of the rights I would argue prospective fathers should get) but the unborn is not the criminal in this case. If you do not see a separate living entity as obtaining the right to life until being born, or from an arbitrary (12 week or otherwise) time period then of course it is similar to cutting your own nails - no-one in their right mind would be opposed to that. But if you do see these entities as possessing a right to life from potentially in/(con)ception then you could come to understand that this right to life being extinguished is abhorrent to many right thinking people.
As for the medication point - it is why for some people taking medication it is mandatory to be on a contraceptive plan to ensure a pregnancy does not occur - it would be highly irresponsible of a medical practitioner to put their patient's health at risk but not following proper procedure - see roaccutane prescriptions - as a female patient I would be obligated to be on a presribed contraceptive plan or else the drug would not be given to me. Even as a male patient I had to sign a statement to the medical practitioner stating that I will not seek to foster a child while on the medication plan before the drugs were allowed to be prescribed. Arguing that abortion should be allowed because of medication conflation issues is cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. I am not against contraception - so this is a much simpler, humane and ethical way to solve the issue instead of allowing abortion on demand for these edge cases (which can be solved by non-abortive measures).
Prevention is always better than cure - but the "cure" of abortion on demand necessitates the revoking of the right to life of a human entity - that is not something I am prepared to do without overwhelmingly important reasons and I have not seen anything from the yes camp to convince me such a reason exists.
To answer you directly on the pregnancy as a result of rape I would say that yes you should keep the unborn child - you can choose to raise it with the support of your loving family or place it for adoption but it intrinsically has a right to life that cannot be extinguished by reasons outside of its control (being created from a criminal act). It is also why for fatal foetal abnormalities I can understand why an expansion of the abortion regime should be considered - the entity may not be regarded as "alive" or having any quality of life in the few hours of being born to passing away - even here the intrinsic value I place on human life means that while some FFA cases i.e. child being born with no brain I see an argument for expanding the abortion regime, I would wish to be very careful to distinguish between "no quality of life" and "very little quality of life" cases. FFA cases represent to me the actual hardest of hard cases as this drives directly at the meaning of life (of the unborn).
The human right to life is a pillar of my moral and ethical outlook - it is why I am against the death penalty and why I am in favour of bodily autonomy with the right to choose death personally in assisted suicide. But choosing death on behalf of a distinct individual, without the legal input of the other person who created that individual is something I am willing to campaign hard against.
so basically you are saying that you do not trust your partner/wife if you have one. Why would the only reason they want an abortion of your child because the amendment is repealed? If you partner feels she needs an abortion, it is something discussed between the pair of you. Your relationship would have serious issues if you and your partner could not discuss something as serious as an abortion with her ignoring you or you ignoring her needs.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'd like to response to a few points ... you have written about the rights of men, and the rights of the unborn, you didn't really seem to have much time for the rights of women.
And some women may choose to have the baby. And some women may be horrified at the very thought of it. But you don't seem to care about what the raped woman feels or thinks. Oh no. You know what's best for all of them.To answer you directly on the pregnancy as a result of rape I would say that yes you should keep the unborn child - you can choose to raise it with the support of your loving family or place it for adoption but it intrinsically has a right to life that cannot be extinguished by reasons outside of its control (being created from a criminal act).The human right to life is a pillar of my moral and ethical outlook - it is why I am against the death penalty and why I am in favour of bodily autonomy with the right to choose death personally in assisted suicide. But choosing death on behalf of a distinct individual, without the legal input of the other person who created that individual is something I am willing to campaign hard against.
A pity you couldn't put similar effort into understanding why access to abortion is a human rights issue for women. You can't deny access to abortion without denying women bodily autonomy.
Bottom line: you have decided that women are less important than their pregnancies.0 -
I can't understand that you can't see that if I were to wish to keep my unborn child - there is nothing I can legally do to prevent its destruction if the 8th is repealed.
There's nothing you can legally do now, either, so this is not a reason to keep the 8th.
But bad people (totally not you) who think they have a right to force an unwilling partner to carry to term find it much easier for them to abusively prevent their partner from accessing abortion services when those services are in England, not here.
Internet pills help with this somewhat, but those are officially illegal and carry a 14 year jail sentence for use, so again...
I see only reasons to repeal the 8th here.0 -
Because as a prospective father knowing that I will have no legal rights to prevent the abortion of my child affects me personally.
.
I hate to tell you, but you have no legal rights to prevent the abortion of your child now.
The 8th doesn't stop pregnancies from being terminated. I think 11/12 Irish women a day have terminations.
Their is a constitutional right for Irish women to obtain information on, & travel for terminations. As it is, you have no righto stop her, her rights are enshrined in the constitution.
We merely move the country she has it in.
So, if you want legal rights to stop a women aborting your 'child' then you will have to look to get the 13th & 14th amendments repealed.
The 8th will not affect you in this matter0 -
-
Choose wisely to reproduce and these problems go away, don't they? Make it a conscious choice and be in agreement *beforehand.* And, are you an attorney? Do you know if faced with this situation, you won't be able to sue to prevent abortion? Rather than getting a freebie from the Constitution?
And, if the human right to life is so important, how do you resolve Savita H.'s case? She had a heartbeat, too. Would you force your partner to birth a FFA?
Frankly, if you don't want uncertainty, adopt.
I am a solicitor yes (we don't have attorneys here in Ireland).
Why is Savita's case still being brought up? Hasn't it been established that her case was a medical mismanagement case and not at all related to abortion? That you raise the case is interesting in choosing what arguments you use to support your position.0 -
Advertisement
-
Have you abandoned discussing anything? You seem to run into the thread and then disappear. Eg that man being paid to remove posters yesterday who was most likely a council worker...0 -
I am a solicitor yes (we don't have attorneys here in Ireland).
Why is Savita's case still being brought up? Hasn't it been established that her case was a medical mismanagement case and not at all related to abortion? That you raise the case is interesting in choosing what arguments you use to support your position.
The 8th is to blame for Savitas death.
Medical mismanagement did have a hand in it, but if she had been granted an abortion when she first requested one, when it was certain that she was miscarrying, there would have been no opportunity for the medical negligence to take place or for the sepsis to develop.
If she had been given an abortion when she asked for one we'd never have even heard of her and she would most certainly be alive today.0 -
Thirdfox wrote:Why is Savita's case still being brought up? Hasn't it been established that her case was a medical mismanagement case and not at all related to abortion? That you raise the case is interesting in choosing what arguments you use to support your position.
No, it's been established that while the case was mismanaged, the 8th was directly the cause of that mismanagement.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »There's nothing you can legally do now, either, so this is not a reason to keep the 8th.
But bad people (totally not you) who think they have a right to force an unwilling partner to carry to term find it much easier for them to abusively prevent their partner from accessing abortion services when those services are in England, not here.
Internet pills help with this somewhat, but those are officially illegal and carry a 14 year jail sentence for use, so again...
I see only reasons to repeal the 8th here.
Apologies - I should have clarified - the legal right to prevent abortions (which does not exist anyway currently anywhere that I know of) - is de facto in place in Ireland by the maintance of the 8th, in Ireland.
I accept that the partner can of course hop on a plane to England/Scotland etc to procure an abortion without legal input from the father but as I can't change the laws in England I can only do what I can about Irish laws or its Constitution.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
So what about the 12th and 13th amendment, of the Irish constitution, that were brought in to allow women travel to the UK for abortions.Apologies - I should have clarified - the legal right to prevent abortions (which does not exist anyway currently anywhere that I know of) - is de facto in place in Ireland by the maintance of the 8th, in Ireland.
I accept that the partner can of course hop on a plane to England/Scotland etc to procure an abortion without legal input from the father but as I can't change the laws in England I can only do what I can about Irish laws or its Constitution.
Should you not be campaigning to remove those?0 -
Apologies - I should have clarified - the legal right to prevent abortions (which does not exist anyway currently anywhere that I know of) - is de facto in place in Ireland by the maintance of the 8th, in Ireland.
I accept that the partner can of course hop on a plane to England/Scotland etc to procure an abortion without legal input from the father but as I can't change the laws in England I can only do what I can about Irish laws or its Constitution.
So, you can't do anything to prevent someone having a termination, so keeping the 8th amendment has no affect at all for what you wish.0 -
daheff wrote:It concerns me because I am a citizen of the state. My worst case scenario is legislation that cause more unforeseen problems for people (pregnant vulnerable women mostly)
Instead of the current foreseeable problems that the 8th causes vulnerable pregnant women now? Has any of these issues you worry about happened in any of the countries with cultures similar to ours, where there is no constitutional protections?0 -
The 8th is to blame for Savitas death.
Medical mismanagement did have a hand in it, but if she had been granted an abortion when she first requested one, when it was certain that she was miscarrying, there would have been no opportunity for the medical negligence to take place or for the sepsis to develop.
If she had been given an abortion when she asked for one we'd never have even heard of her and she would most certainly be alive today.
That isn't how things work legally - do you go further back and say her partner in impregnating her caused her death? Her mother in giving birth to her led to her death (which, when you think about it, is actually true for everyone but very much besides the point).
In law when we look at causation there is the general "but for" principle - the last link in that causation chain is not the lack of abortion on demand but medical negligence - just like you (hopefully) recognise that saying her partner getting her pregnant caused her death is absurd.
Or to turn your statement around - if Ms Savita had gotten the proper medical care she was entitled to you wouldn't be raising her in the case for repealing the 8th because she would be alive.0 -
Apologies - I should have clarified - the legal right to prevent abortions (which does not exist anyway currently anywhere that I know of) - is de facto in place in Ireland by the maintance of the 8th, in Ireland.
I accept that the partner can of course hop on a plane to England/Scotland etc to procure an abortion without legal input from the father but as I can't change the laws in England I can only do what I can about Irish laws or its Constitution.
This literally makes no sense, the 8th amendment does not stop abortions from happening
Women are taking pills to terminate their pregnancies here in Ireland. Do you want to see those women prosecuted?
What do you think about the other impacts of the 8th amendment?0 -
Advertisement
-
I've known for a while which was I am likely to vote in the referendum. But, I hadn't been to the local city in a while and I must say that the no campaign posters alone would stop me from siding with them. They are horrible.0
-
That isn't how things work legally - do you go further back and say her partner in impregnating her caused her death? Her mother in giving birth to her led to her death (which, when you think about it, is actually true for everyone but very much besides the point).
In law when we look at causation there is the general "but for" principle - the last link in that causation chain is not the lack of abortion on demand but medical negligence - just like you (hopefully) recognise that saying her partner getting her pregnant caused her death is absurd.
Or to turn your statement around - if Ms Savita had gotten the proper medical care she was entitled to you wouldn't be raising her in the case for repealing the 8th because she would be alive.
Ignoring the points again are we, ye lot are consistent I'll give ye that.So what about the 12th and 13th amendment, of the Irish constitution, that were brought in to allow women travel to the UK for abortions.
Should you not be campaigning to remove those?So, you can't do anything to prevent someone having a termination, so keeping the 8th amendment has no affect at all for what you wish.Ave Sodalis wrote: »Instead of the current foreseeable problems that the 8th causes vulnerable pregnant women now? Has any of these issues you worry about happened in any of the countries with cultures similar to ours, where there is no constitutional protections?0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
That isn't how things work legally - do you go further back and say her partner in impregnating her caused her death? Her mother in giving birth to her led to her death (which, when you think about it, is actually true for everyone but very much besides the point).
In law when we look at causation there is the general "but for" principle - the last link in that causation chain is not the lack of abortion on demand but medical negligence - just like you (hopefully) recognise that saying her partner getting her pregnant caused her death is absurd.
Or to turn your statement around - if Ms Savita had gotten the proper medical care she was entitled to you wouldn't be raising her in the case for repealing the 8th because she would be alive.
When she was miscarrying she asked for an abortion she was denied that, can you explain to me (as if I'm a 5 year old) how the 8th amendment was not a factor in her death?0 -
Triceratops Ballet wrote: »This literally makes no sense, the 8th amendment does not stop abortions from happening
Women are taking pills to terminate their pregnancies here in Ireland. Do you want to see those women prosecuted?
What do you think about the other impacts of the 8th amendment?
You realise I'm for the 8th - which currently allows abortions in Ireland? But I'm against an expansion of the abortion regime which is necessitated by the removal of the 8th. I have no problems with the legal abortions we currently allow in Ireland.0 -
Apologies - I should have clarified - the legal right to prevent abortions (which does not exist anyway currently anywhere that I know of) - is de facto in place in Ireland by the maintance of the 8th, in Ireland.
I accept that the partner can of course hop on a plane to England/Scotland etc to procure an abortion without legal input from the father but as I can't change the laws in England I can only do what I can about Irish laws or its Constitution.
So you think that a man should be able to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will.0 -
Why is Savita's case still being brought up? Hasn't it been established that her case was a medical mismanagement case and not at all related to abortion?
No.
Imagine we are the first country in the world to ban antibiotics unless the patients life is in danger, with our 99th amendment.
You feel ill, and go to the doctor. She says you have a chest infection and sends you to the hospital. They confirm it. You say "Please can I have antibiotics?" and they say no, not yet. They give you a bed and start monitoring.
You're there for a week with the infection getting worse and worse. You say "When are you going to give me the antibiotics?" and the nurse says, "Ah now, this is a country concerned about superbugs, you'll just have to wait".
And then one night you suddenly get much worse, and they aren't monitoring closely enough and you die. The official report says "Medical Negligence" because they screwed up.
But in any other country, they would have treated you a week earlier and you would probably have been grand. You would never have been in a position where a mistake in monitoring you would have killed you, because the team would not have had to wait until you were at deaths door to treat you.
Because of the stupid 99th amendment.0 -
You realise I'm for the 8th - which currently allows abortions in Ireland? But I'm against an expansion of the abortion regime which is necessitated by the removal of the 8th. I have no problems with the legal abortions we currently allow in Ireland.
Then I'll rephrase. Do you want to see the women who buy abortion pills online and take them at home here in Ireland prosecuted?
also
What do you think of the other impacts of the 8th amendment, excluding abortion?0 -
You realise I'm for the 8th - which currently allows abortions in Ireland? But I'm against an expansion of the abortion regime which is necessitated by the removal of the 8th. I have no problems with the legal abortions we currently allow in Ireland.
You’re FOR the 8th? So you are against me having informed consent during my pregnancy. You are in favour of me being denied treatment for certain conditions until they become immediately life threatening?0 -
Advertisement
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »I read that that doctor changed his mind since after dealing with the issues first hand as Minister for Health.
So we can trust politicians like this doctor to not change to far more liberal abortion approach in the future...0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement