Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious wrote: »

Is there a separate thread on the "8th Amendment" issue. The reason I'm asking is because of this court case: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/husband-sues-state-as-his-unborn-child-dies-in-crash-34425642.html

The case doesn't seem to be particularly about the 8th? "Mr Enright wants declarations that the definition of "stillborn child" and "stillbirth" in the 2004 act is repugnant to six separate provisions of the Constitution, including the Eighth Amendment."

I understand he wants recognition that his unborn child died in a road traffic accident rather than was stillborn, but I'm not sure the 8th is necessarily a means to that end.

volchitsa

aloyisious wrote: »

Is there a separate thread on the "8th Amendment" issue. The reason I'm asking is because of this court case: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/husband-sues-state-as-his-unborn-child-dies-in-crash-34425642.html

I don't know if there is one, but I agree that it might be worth having one (and anyway don't long threads tend to have problems loading?)

In the meantime, on this particular case, while I have huge sympathy for the family concerned, I must say I can't really see how the coroner (or the High Court) can redefine international medical definitions of when the child's legal existence begins without throwing maternity care into worse disarray than it already is.

Surely coroners' courts would be overwhelmed if all miscarriages had to be investigated to identify the cause of death? Is it even possible to do so? How many suspected murder cases would all those "unexplained cause of death" cases resulting from medical ignorance to lead to?

Or would Ireland end up at the cutting edge of fetal medicine due to having to post mortem thousands of fetuses? Could the health service cope?

I can't help thinking that the additional trauma to women suffering miscarriage would be huge.

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't know if there is one, but I agree that it might be worth having one (and anyway don't long threads tend to have problems loading?)

In the meantime, on this particular case, while I have huge sympathy for the family concerned, I must say I can't really see how the coroner (or the High Court) can redefine international medical definitions of when the child's legal existence begins without throwing maternity care into worse disarray than it already is. Surely coroners' courts would be overwhelmed if all miscarriages had to be investigated to identify the cause of death? Is it even possible to do so? How many suspected murder cases would all those "unexplained cause of death" cases resulting from medical ignorance to lead to? Or would Ireland end up at the cutting edge of fetal medicine due to having to post mortem thousands of fetuses? Could the health service cope? I can't help thinking that the additional trauma to women suffering miscarriage would be huge.

I don't think he's arguing that every miscarriage should require a coroners report; certainly not every death does, he's arguing that the destruction of unborn life should be treated as a death, at least in this particular circumstance. An unborn child already has a legal existence, and he hasn't said he's looking to change that; more the way it is delimited if anything. We would probably have a better idea of exactly what he is attempting to do if we knew the other five Constitutional provisions his argument is based on.

[Deleted User]

aloyisious wrote: »

I've found the "legal discussion" page listed in the "society and culture" section, and moved my question there. I've named the new thread as "8th amendment to the constitution".

@Absolom and Volchitsa: if you're interested in the thread, can you transfer your posts below to it please. I don't want to derail this thread any further than I did by posting the Q here. To access Society and Culture, see in TOPICS at the head of this page.

link to thread

The latest on how parties and candidates are responding to RepealEight’s ‘repeal the 8th’ pledge campaign ahead of the forthcoming general election.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/02/08/18-days-to-go/

aloyisious

It'd be interesting to see how the graph on party support changes as the polling day get's nearer.

aloyisious wrote: »

It'd be interesting to see how the graph on party support changes as the polling day get's nearer.

I can't see it changing all that much, certainly not with FF or FG, I'm actually surprised its as high as it is for FF. SF is also surprisingly low as well,

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5T_zmBLwncFUDhmUjZGbXl1OVE/view?pref=2&pli=1

Sean Haughey (FF), Ronan McMahon (Renue) and Mary Hanafin (FF)

Not surprised with the partys involved there for one second,

Just checked my local area and not one FF rep or FG rep has supported it, to be honest I'm not surprised given McGuinness (FF) openly voted no for marriage equality in May.

Cabaal wrote: »

The latest on how parties and candidates are responding to RepealEight’s ‘repeal the 8th’ pledge campaign ahead of the forthcoming general election.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/02/08/18-days-to-go/

Thank you, very informative and useful links. It's good for voters to be informed as to where candidates stand on this issue.

Nick Park wrote: »

Thank you, very informative and useful links. It's good for voters to be informed as to where candidates stand on this issue.

Its certainly go research by the crowd involved,
Just curious Nick whats your take on this. Would you like to see a referendum?

Cabaal wrote: »

Its certainly go research by the crowd involved,
Just curious Nick whats your take on this. Would you like to see a referendum?

I'd be fine with a Referendum that proposes to change the wording of the 8th Amendment, or that replaces it with something else, so as to remove legal uncertainty & ambiguity yet still provides Constitutional protection for the unborn in all but the most extreme circumstances.

I would not favour a Referendum that seeks to repeal the 8th amendment and thereby leave no Constitutional barrier to abortion on demand or that would permit children to be aborted because they have conditions such as Down Syndrome.

Nick Park wrote: »

I'd be fine with a Referendum that proposes to change the wording of the 8th Amendment, or that replaces it with something else, so as to remove legal uncertainty & ambiguity yet still provides Constitutional protection for the unborn in all but the most extreme circumstances.

I would not favour a Referendum that seeks to repeal the 8th amendment and thereby leave no Constitutional barrier to abortion on demand or that would permit children to be aborted because they have conditions such as Down Syndrome.

What about the right to travel to abort for reasons such as Down syndrome? What exactly are extreme circumstances?

lazygal wrote: »

What about the right to travel to abort for reasons such as Down syndrome? What exactly are extreme circumstances?

I don't think any politicians are proposing a Referendum to stop people travelling.

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't think any politicians are proposing a Referendum to stop people travelling.

Do you think protection for the unborn should depend on the ability to travel to kill the unborn?
Also, what extreme circumstances?

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think protection for the unborn should depend on the ability to travel to kill the unborn?
Also, what extreme circumstances?

Sorry, not interested in having a quarrel with you about abortion.

I simply thanked a poster for alerting us as to which candidates favour a Referendum. That helps all of us to know who to vote for, and to pass that information on to others who share our views. Whatever side of the debate you are on, that helps democracy.

PlainP

Nick Park wrote: »

Sorry, not interested in having a quarrel with you about abortion.

I simply thanked a poster for alerting us as to which candidates favour a Referendum. That helps all of us to know who to vote for, and to pass that information on to others who share our views. Whatever side of the debate you are on, that helps democracy.

Yes our great democratic nation which has refused to call a referendum on abortion. I am 37 years of age I have never been allowed to voice my opinion on the 8th amendment. Very democratic indeed.

Hotblack Desiato

No-one who is under 50 got a vote on this, PlainP

ironically that's pretty much everyone affected by it

Back to the chart - I had to look up who IDP were. A one man and his dog type operation apparently, not sure if they are running any candidates?

I thought Fis Nua disappeared up their own fundament a good while ago now - they have been last or second-last in every election they've contested. According to their website they have one candidate.

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think protection for the unborn should depend on the ability to travel to kill the unborn?
Also, what extreme circumstances?

How about it depends on the facility of the State to enforce it? That way you wouldn't need the protection for the unborn to depend on the ability to travel to kill the unborn; the further the State can exert it's power the further it can enforce the protection for the unborn. And all the other rights it offers, which keeps everything wrapped up quite neatly too.

aloyisious

Nick Park wrote: »

I'd be fine with a Referendum that proposes to change the wording of the 8th Amendment, or that replaces it with something else, so as to remove legal uncertainty & ambiguity yet still provides Constitutional protection for the unborn in all but the most extreme circumstances.

I would not favour a Referendum that seeks to repeal the 8th amendment and thereby leave no Constitutional barrier to abortion on demand or that would permit children to be aborted because they have conditions such as Down Syndrome.

Re your first, I reckon there'll never be a wording found that would fit the bill. Re your second, no children are currently aborted here or elsewhere.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

How about it depends on the facility of the State to enforce it? That way you wouldn't need the protection for the unborn to depend on the ability to travel to kill the unborn; the further the State can exert it's power the further it can enforce the protection for the unborn. And all the other rights it offers, which keeps everything wrapped up quite neatly too.

I don't understand your 1st sentence. Re part two of your 2nd sentence, that exertion was tried by the state some years ago to force a girl and her parents to return from the UK to the republic in an attempt to prevent her from having an abortion (come back now or face arrest and prosecution on your return after any abortion performed) and we know what our courts thought of the legality of those actions. The AG's attempt at what was coercion had the Gov't of the day running for cover. As for your 3rd sentence, I can't see what you're referring to, it's an utterly strange sentence.

PlainP wrote: »

Yes our great democratic nation which has refused to call a referendum on abortion. I am 37 years of age I have never been allowed to voice my opinion on the 8th amendment. Very democratic indeed.

There are fifty articles in the Constitution, with about three hundred and sixty sub clauses (of which the right to life is one). It has been amended twenty nine times in the last seventy six years; fourteen of those you had the opportunity to participate in. I hardly think not getting to vote on the remaining three hundred and ninety odd means Ireland is particularly undemocratic; we're a long way from being able to rewrite every Constitutional provision for every generation.

So, turns out it's not just pro-life advocates in the States who leap to take offence at anything that doesn't accord with their world view.... according to the New York Post NARAL have just ripped into the Doritos Superbowl ad for 'humanising foetuses'. Some of the replies to the tweet are quite entertaining too...

aloyisious wrote: »

I don't understand your 1st sentence.

It's a suggestion that rather than proposing that protection for the unborn should depend on the ability to travel to kill the unborn, we might better propose that protection for the unborn should depend on the facility of the State to enforce it, like the other protections the State offers.

aloyisious wrote: »

Re part two of your 2nd sentence, that exertion was tried by the state some years ago to force a girl and her parents to return from the UK to the republic in an attempt to prevent her from having an abortion (come back now or face arrest and prosecution on your return after any abortion performed) and we know what our courts thought of the legality of those actions. The AG's attempt at what was coercion had the Gov't of the day running for cover.

Hmm. I rather thought the AG attempted to prevent her from travelling by obtaining an injunction, did he not? I don't recall the AG saying 'come back now or face arrest and prosecution on your return after any abortion performed'. But the point is well made; the State's power to compel extended no further than it's own jurisdiction, as with pretty much the rest of it's powers, which is exactly what I was saying.

aloyisious wrote: »

As for your 3rd sentence, I can't see what you're referring to, it's an utterly strange sentence.

I didn't think it was that odd; the State asserts very little authority beyond it's own jurisdiction, and where it does it is by virtue of international agreements. Since Ireland is party to no agreements extending jurisdiction on abortion beyond it's borders, the right to life of a foetus is confined to the same extent as other rights conferred in the Constitution. Which has the merit of a neat distinction; what Ireland can do outside it's borders, and what it can't.

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm. I rather thought the AG attempted to prevent her from travelling by obtaining an injunction, did he not? I don't recall the AG saying 'come back now or face arrest and prosecution on your return after any abortion performed'. But the point is well made; the State's power to compel extended no further than it's own jurisdiction, as with pretty much the rest of it's powers, which is exactly what I was saying.

Ms X had travelled to the UK with her parents to kill her unborn child. She was ordered by the State to return to Ireland when a garda was asked if the remains of the foetus could be used to prosecute her rapist.

volchitsa

lazygal wrote: »

Ms X had travelled to the UK with her parents to kill her unborn child. She was ordered by the State to return to Ireland when a garda was asked if the remains of the foetus could be used to prosecute her rapist.

The state also forbade a woman from travelling to Switzerland to kill herself, and actually prosecuted her friend for trying to organize the journey. It seems the state cares more about preventing dying people from killing themselves than about saving healthy fetuses.

volchitsa wrote: »

The state also forbade a woman from travelling to Switzerland to kill herself, and actually prosecuted her friend for trying to organize the journey. It seems the state cares more about preventing dying people from killing themselves than about saving healthy fetuses.

Yep, ask anyone who turns up looking for treatment for their unborn child at 6-12 weeks gestation. They'll be told nothing will be done and to come back if and when anything develops. I'd say there isn't a woman in Ireland doesn't know another woman who had a nightmare during a miscarriage where they were left alone. It's also telling that every addition to the eighth amendment has been to further erode the unborn's right to life rather than strengthen it. We pretty much wrote the right to travel to the UK to kill the unborn into our constitution after the X case.

Apparently, if we could get rid of abortion out of Ireland everything will turn around, the economy, everything will get better!
:rolleyes:

See RTE Voxpop

“For me a big issue would be abortion. If we could get rid of abortion out of Ireland, I think everything would turn around.”

https://twitter.com/mitchellnicola/status/696818372173021184

I'm not sure what RTE expect hanging outside a church, church goes no longer represent the majority view of Irish society that they once did back in for example 1970.

Hotblack Desiato

I never watch RTE any more, I can't imagine the younger generations ever will.