Minister Alan Shatter states need to repeal the 8th amendmant that outlaws abortion

poeticseraphim · 28-11-2012 03:16AM #1

Minister Shatter however, has opened the debate on the need to repeal the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. He stated in the Dáil that Art. 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution means that the right to health of a woman is a qualified right. As Minister with responsibility for equality, he pointed out that no such qualification applies to men.

The United Left Alliance believes that the distinction between the life and health of a woman as grounds for abortion must end; and that the choices a woman wishes to make about her fertility must be hers alone. To that end, the United Left Alliance will campaign for the repeal of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution and legislation for free, safe and legal abortion in Ireland.

Ends.

He seems to have come out full on pro-choice..stating the 8th discriminates against certain Irish citizens

He makes basically the excellent point that the constitution makes reference to the rights the unborn being considered against to a woman's right to health..whereas it does not to a man's

This is discrimination. As minister for the equality of Irish citizens he has a responsibility for pointing this out.

http://www.unitedleftalliance.org/abortion-bill-shatter-opens-debate-on-repeal-of-8th-amendment/

latenia · 28-11-2012 03:27AM

I think there should be abortion on demand available but campaigning or seeking a loophole via equality laws is just moronic and will only leave you open to ridicule, set the cause back several years and end up costing you and the state a fortune in legal fees for something which is doomed to failure. Could I roll up to a hospital and demand my free mammogram then sue when I'm laughed out of it?

marcsignal · 28-11-2012 03:28AM

yeah, just a pity he's a smug arsehole :cool:

GRMA · 28-11-2012 03:29AM

I laughed OP.

Sure men can't get pregnant, unless your an 80s action hero in a crap film

Cookie_Monster · 28-11-2012 03:35AM

latenia wrote: »

Could I roll up to a hospital and demand my free mammogram then sue when I'm laughed out of it?

men can get breast cancer too you know.

latenia · 28-11-2012 03:38AM

That's the point I was making

kowloon · 28-11-2012 04:22AM

I hope they don't rush anything like this through. The last thing I need is my Mammy chasing me with a crowbar because there was no stated date for the latest date her child could be terminated. She has a powerful swing.

poeticseraphim · 28-11-2012 04:24AM

latenia wrote: »

I think there should be abortion on demand available but campaigning or seeking a loophole via equality laws is just moronic and will only leave you open to ridicule, set the cause back several years and end up costing you and the state a fortune in legal fees for something which is doomed to failure. Could I roll up to a hospital and demand my free mammogram then sue when I'm laughed out of it?

That is not in the constitution though is it??? It is not even a matter of legislation. You are not discriminated against by the constitution.

Are you discriminated against by the HSE?
Yes..in a way

Men get breast cancer...yet there is no screening program for men and i am sure this does affect the health of men negatively.

Men should be entitled t breast cancer screenings as should women..they should be entitled to screening r testicular cancer and women should be entitled t screening or cervical cancer.

And Alan Shatter makes a correct and vital point....the 8th amendment discriminates against the health of women.

I am disappointed at the ignorance and sexism shown by some previous posters.

Women have less health rights in this country than men in constitutional law. That is dangerous. And it goes right to the heart of the debate.

The subjugation of a female person to a constitutional amendment that does not affect male person. The qualification of the right to health of a female person in constitutional law that does not apply to a male person.

A law at constitutional level is slightly different to HSE policy....there is nothing in the constitution to stop you from taking the HSE to task over their negligence. Their is nothing in the constitution that will endanger or qualify your right to your health. You could get screened for breast cancer tomorrow. It is the HSE who discriminates against you by refusing to pay. You can challenge them on it in court on an quality basis.

It is not simply a policy we are taking about here it is constitutional law. And when HSE policy does endanger men or women it should be challenged.

How many men has the 8th amendment killed?

poeticseraphim · 28-11-2012 04:41AM

kowloon wrote: »

I hope they don't rush anything like this through. The last thing I need is my Mammy chasing me with a crowbar because there was no stated date for the latest date her child could be terminated. She has a powerful swing.

That's because you secretly hate your mommy and expect her body to serve you as an incubator. You want to force your mommy to carry you to term against her will for your own selfishness. YOUR POOR MOMMY:eek::rolleyes:

Whereas I love my mommy and I would die for her now rather than have her forced to go through that against her will.

I am always amazed when people say stuff like this...you would do that to your Mom or anynone???

You would be ok later in life with knowing a woman was forced to carry you against her will even if you were a product of rape??

I would want my mother to have the choice. Any person who comes out of the womb declaring their right to life means a woman should be forced to incubate them against her will has got to be the most ungrateful ***

If your mother chose to bring you into the word you should be grateful to her. Not declaring your right over her body.

Anyway..free contraception reduces the abortion rate in countries by 62% THAT is the right way to fight abortion.

Anyway this thread is about the 8th amendment.

MagicSean · 28-11-2012 10:02AM

One of the stupidest arguments for abortion yet. It won't be brought in by loopholes. It will have to be by a referendum. The sooner people agree on this the sooner we can get on with one.

MagicSean · 28-11-2012 10:05AM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

That is not in the constitution though is it??? It is not even a matter of legislation. You are not discriminated against by the constitution.

Are you discriminated against by the HSE?
Yes..in a way

Men get breast cancer...yet there is no screening program for men and i am sure this does affect the health of men negatively.

Men should be entitled t breast cancer screenings as should women..they should be entitled to screening r testicular cancer and women should be entitled t screening or cervical cancer.

And Alan Shatter makes a correct and vital point....the 8th amendment discriminates against the health of women.

I am disappointed at the ignorance and sexism shown by some previous posters.

Women have less health rights in this country than men in constitutional law. That is dangerous. And it goes right to the heart of the debate.

The subjugation of a female person to a constitutional amendment that does not affect male person. The qualification of the right to health of a female person in constitutional law that does not apply to a male person.

A law at constitutional level is slightly different to HSE policy....there is nothing in the constitution to stop you from taking the HSE to task over their negligence. Their is nothing in the constitution that will endanger or qualify your right to your health. You could get screened for breast cancer tomorrow. It is the HSE who discriminates against you by refusing to pay. You can challenge them on it in court on an quality basis.

It is not simply a policy we are taking about here it is constitutional law. And when HSE policy does endanger men or women it should be challenged.

How many men has the 8th amendment killed?

Women actually have more rights under the constitution than men. They actually have a right to be a homemaker if they wish to be and the state has an obligation to support them in this decision.

UCDVet · 28-11-2012 10:18AM

A law that bans abortion for both genders isn't discriminatory, IMHO.

(And I'm Pro-abortion, I just don't think it's discrimination)

SafeSurfer · 28-11-2012 10:40AM

MagicSean wrote: »

Women actually have more rights under the constitution than men. They actually have a right to be a homemaker if they wish to be and the state has an obligation to support them in this decision.

That is not how article 41.2 is interpreted.

I am no fan of Alan Shatter but I think he has a point. If there was a medical issue that effected men, that forced men who were victims of rape to carry an unwanted baby for 9 months and then give birth, abortion would be a non issue.

Zippy1991 · 28-11-2012 11:37AM

The Constitution is not subject to Equality Legislation. It's the supreme legal document in the country.

Alan Shatter is an idiot. Although I agree with where he's going the man has about as much legal knowledge as the Taxi Driver I had last night that tried telling me that he'd discovered a loophole in the drink driving legislation and had got 14 people off in the courts over the past year!!! :rolleyes:

seamus · 28-11-2012 12:00PM

Zippy1991 wrote: »

the man has about as much legal knowledge as the Taxi Driver I had last night that tried telling me that he'd discovered a loophole in the drink driving legislation and had got 14 people off in the courts over the past year!!! :rolleyes:

You hardly believe this?

Alan Shatter opposed this original constitutional amendment nearly 30 years ago on the basis that it would cause a constitutional crisis. He was right, when the rest of the country voted against him.

30 years later he's calling for it to be removed. He's consistent if nothing else.

I would certainly trust Alan Shatter's legal opinion above that of some malcontent on a web forum. He didn't say that the the constitution was in breach of equality legislation, just that it was discriminatory. It is.

Unfortunately I cannot see the the repeal of the 8th amendment anytime soon. The fear machines of the raving loony fundies and religious right are too warmed up for an "Abortions on demand" debate and some of the outspoken supporters for choice are more likely to dissuade voters by their very existence - ULA, SF, etc.

At best, we might get an opportunity to reword the 8th amendment, but I doubt FG and Labour can come to any agreement on a wording that won't be construed as "soft" on abortion.

steddyeddy · 28-11-2012 12:27PM

poeticseraphim wrote: »

He seems to have come out full on pro-choice..stating the 8th discriminates against certain Irish citizens

He makes basically the excellent point that the constitution makes reference to the rights the unborn being considered against to a woman's right to health..whereas it does not to a man's

This is discrimination. As minister for the equality of Irish citizens he has a responsibility for pointing this out.

http://www.unitedleftalliance.org/abortion-bill-shatter-opens-debate-on-repeal-of-8th-amendment/

Shatter's a very intelligent man. One of the few in the dail.

humbert · 28-11-2012 12:31PM

I hate agreeing with people I don't like.

snubbleste · 28-11-2012 12:41PM

Why is he not highlighting that the Constitution discriminates against men or is it women

Article 41.2.1: In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
Article 41.2.2: The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Minister Alan Shatter states need to repeal the 8th amendmant that outlaws abortion

Comments