8th Amendment

How many pregnancies are due to rape or incest in Ireland?

Surely proponents of removing the 8th Amendment on these grounds should know these figures so they can make their case.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think that we need to have instances of incidents in order to have legislature for them.

For instance, would we be required to have a spate of cannibalistic murders in order to understand that the law should not permit cannibalism?

We don't always require reactionary law, sometimes foresight is worth a substantial amount. Mary Robinson @ 04:45 worth having a listen to here...

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

Ivana Bacik in 2013 chillingly forecast almost an exact case


We don't require problems to occur, to envision and legislate for these problems.

Amending the constitution has a much higher higher evidence threshold for "instances of incidents" compared to laws/legislation.

Atlantis50 wrote: »

So you also reject the findings of the Amnesty report?

That does not follow from anything I said.

Amnesty's report is describing exactly how badly off we are now. I said if we run a repeal the 8th referendum and it fails, we are no worse off than we are today.

That does not mean I think Amnesty are wrong, or that we are in a good place.

Atlantis50 wrote: »

What kind of quack science is this? A "barely cellularly differentiated embryo"? Is the woman "a little bit pregnant" until 26 weeks according to you?

This is a human rights issue. The unborn have a right to life. Can't you empathize with them at all?

It's not quack science. It's basic human biological development. Blastocyst differentiates into the major cell types and we start calling it an embryo. What would the "scientific" view from your perspective be? A homunculus fully formed and thinking?

It's not possible to empathise with a bundle of cells without a functioning nervous system. Treat with respect, sure. Empathise, no.

Define unborn. What does it even mean? Because it's not clear. Every sperm is sacred? Every lascivious thought constitutionally required to be carried through pregnancy to birth? A bundle of human cells doesn't magically become a fully developed person on implantation, it's a progressive thing over a period of 9 months. On implantation it's even a reasonable that a natural termination will happen due to non-viability.

The problem with the 8th amendment and having any of these "social values" in a constitution is the inability to accommodate nuance or changing opinions.
In my opinion the entire thing needs to be rewritten or at the very least sections 40 and 41 removed entirely.

The situation in Ireland is extreme, the effect of the constitutional ban has been to make all terminations illegal or for all intents and purposes illegal. Because the only window for medically required terminations is the "equal" right to life of the mother, which in practice has become an inferior right to life because medical necessity has become a matter of legal argument rather than medical judgement and informed consent. Treatment of actual real flesh and blood people for cancer and other serious ailments is being retarded by a legal requirement that often flies in the face of not only the facts but basic human decency.

You are entitled to your opinion, but public policy should reflect reality.

In practical terms we are with the countries in red, with every other colour offering a minimum of medical terminations (note: orange is not red):

Atlantis50 wrote: »

If it were only about that, then the pro-choicers would want to have a referendum to amend the 8th to allow for abortion in cases of rape or where the foetus will not be born alive.

But that's not on offer. Instead, a full repeal of the 8th is, which means the debate will rightly come down to abortion on demand.

People's opposition to abortion on demand will override the other issues and the referendum will be defeated.

You're missing a key element of the (likely) proposal: a referendum to repeal the 8th on the grounds that the government would then legislate for abortion under specified conditions. Would the passage of the referendum enable a subsequent to government to enact a more extensive liberalisation of abortion law? Of course, but I think a majority would be prepared to run that risk if that was the only way to facilitate abortion on grounds of FFA etc.

galljga1 wrote: »

Unbelievable! So you expect all women/children whose pregnancies are due to rape and or incest to shout it from the rooftops.

Of course not. I can't understand how you would interpret that from my post.

galljga1 wrote: »

How exactly do we gather this vital information?

How about:

- Garda records
- Hospital/GP records
- Court records

cros13 wrote: »

It's not quack science. It's basic human biological development. Blastocyst differentiates into the major cell types and we start calling it an embryo. What would the "scientific" view from your perspective be? A homunculus fully formed and thinking?

It's not possible to empathise with a bundle of cells without a functioning nervous system. Treat with respect, sure. Empathise, no.

Define unborn. What does it even mean? Because it's not clear.

The Supreme Court defined the right to life for the "unborn" to commence after implantation, so that's the starting point.

cros13 wrote: »

Every sperm is sacred? Every lascivious thought constitutionally required to be carried through pregnancy to birth? A bundle of human cells doesn't magically become a fully developed person on implantation, it's a progressive thing over a period of 9 months. On implantation it's even a reasonable that a natural termination will happen due to non-viability.

Is every sperm protected by the 8th Amendment? What's the relevance of this absurd train of thought?

cros13 wrote: »

The problem with the 8th amendment and having any of these "social values" in a constitution is the inability to accommodate nuance or changing opinions.
In my opinion the entire thing needs to be rewritten or at the very least sections 40 and 41 removed entirely.

The situation in Ireland is extreme, the effect of the constitutional ban has been to make all terminations illegal or for all intents and purposes illegal. Because the only window for medically required terminations is the "equal" right to life of the mother, which in practice has become an inferior right to life because medical necessity has become a matter of legal argument rather than medical judgement and informed consent. Treatment of actual real flesh and blood people for cancer and other serious ailments is being retarded by a legal requirement that often flies in the face of not only the facts but basic human decency.

You are entitled to your opinion, but public policy should reflect reality.

In practical terms we are with the countries in red, with every other colour offering a minimum of medical terminations (note: orange is not red):

I disagree with everything in this paragraph (except the part about being entitled to my opinion) and I'm not willing to discuss the map until you give a link to the source.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Which evidence of a need for a change was presented in the most recent constitutional change?

Oh no no no Emmet, that doesn't count because something something librul ajinda.