Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Hotblack Desiato

I'm dreading what the cultural catholic, suckers for emotive pics of cute baybees crowd are going to come up with. After all if we prohibit all "activists" then they're the only ones left - the ones who go along with the flow, baptise their kids for an easy life, don't ask hard questions about anything and don't think about the massive inherent contradictions of their "faith".

Danger quotes because most of them don't really believe in a theistic, interventionist god at all - they just won't admit it

lazygal

Anybody Catholic should automatically be excluded. The rules are clear

Absolam

The rules say Catholics should be excluded? Where do they say that?

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

If a Catholic goes to mass and the priest ever mentions anything about abortion then surely in the interest of fairness this should be classed as a pro life meeting.

After all, no Catholic believes the church's stance is anything but prolife, that's why they are happy to allow pro life material to be handed out at churches.

So... if people go to a dinner party and the host ever mentions anything about abortion then surely in the interest of fairness this should be classed as both a pro choice and pro life meeting? After all, people are happy to walk by both pro life and pro choice material being handed out in all manner of locations.

Or does anyone think it's possible to make a distinction between individuals who actively campaign for either point of view and individuals who are exposed to both campaigns, and that just possibly those who feel so strongly as to campaign (on any of the issues the Citizens Assembly will discuss) are less likely to be even handed in their treatment of the subject?

Hotblack Desiato

Mass - the catholic dinner party, but the host only gives you nasty crackers, and keeps the wine to himself!

And you wouldn't expect to host a second dinner party if the first one was just a monologue from you telling your guests what to think...

Hotblack Desiato

It's obvious the outcome of this will not be a straight repeal of the 8th, with only legislation to replace it - or, as should happen, a positive right to abortion in the constitution.

What they'll say is a load of crap, modify 40.3.3 as little as possible to include FFA and rape and this will be painted as the "consensus of the Irish people" - vomit

Incidentally the most hardline so-called "pro-life" activists will agree with me on this point - allowing abortion for rape is a morally indefensible position. Rape is a crime but difficult to prove, and the circumstances of conception should not be an issue in determining the options open to the woman. Either it is moral to abort an embryo or foetus, or it is not.

That'll place me and many of you in a quandary - do we vote Yes to a slight liberalisation of the laws on abortion, or No to something which will set in stone for years to come a very restrictive law which continues to judge women and deny them bodily autonomy?

I think we should stick to our guns. No. Nothing short of complete choice for women is acceptable, I will never vote for a law which tells a woman she is forced to remain pregnant.

Not just repeal, but a right to abortion - returning control of their own bodies to women.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Mass - the catholic dinner party, but the host only gives you nasty crackers, and keeps the wine to himself!
And you wouldn't expect to host a second dinner party if the first one was just a monologue from you telling your guests what to think...

And yet people still go... maybe it's not what you're making it out to be :P

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's obvious the outcome of this will not be a straight repeal of the 8th, with only legislation to replace it - or, as should happen, a positive right to abortion in the constitution. What they'll say is a load of crap, modify 40.3.3 as little as possible to include FFA and rape and this will be painted as the "consensus of the Irish people" - vomit

Well.. certainly the outcome will be a report and recommendations to the Oireachtas, because that's the purpose of the Assembly. If you think that's not likely to contain recommendations you would like to see, is it possible that what you want is not in tune with what most people want? Because if it was, you'd be a lot more confident about their recommendations matching yours, wouldn't you?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Incidentally the most hardline so-called "pro-life" activists will agree with me on this point - allowing abortion for rape is a morally indefensible position. Rape is a crime but difficult to prove, and the circumstances of conception should not be an issue in determining the options open to the woman. Either it is moral to abort an embryo or foetus, or it is not.

I don't know about hardline, but I'd agree that most of those who oppose abortion on the basis that it takes the life of another person will not be inclined towards allowing that person to be killed except in the most extreme of circumstances, and even then would be more than cautious of it.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That'll place me and many of you in a quandary - do we vote Yes to a slight liberalisation of the laws on abortion, or No to something which will set in stone for years to come a very restrictive law which continues to judge women and deny them bodily autonomy?

I think if there is a referendum everyone will need to give it some careful thought, not least to avoid being misled by claims that the current circumstances judge women, or that their bodily autonomy is denied.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I think we should stick to our guns. No. Nothing short of complete choice for women is acceptable, I will never vote for a law which tells a woman she is forced to remain pregnant. Not just repeal, but a right to abortion - returning control of their own bodies to women.

I think you should too. Anything that keeps us from moving towards a situation where people can kill other people just because they want to seems like a good thing, so keep voting no

aloyisious

Cabaal wrote: »

Indeed it does,
One could try and argue that any self described catholic should be exempt given the Catholic church's "pro-life" agenda :pac:

Wonder if the judge's secretary will ask Red C to re-check the answer info sheets it's pollsters used to register the CA members responses to see if there were other errors needing more exclusions. Mattie would be even more upset if the next was an anti-abortion activist who was excluded by the judge.

expectationlost

aloyisious wrote: »

Just seen this in today's online issue of the Irish Times...... An honest gent.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/citizens-assembly-member-replaced-over-role-with-pro-choice-group-1.2838626

the RED c methodology doc published on the CA website last week said http://citizensassembly.ie/en/About-the-Citizens-Assembly/Red-C-Methodology-Document.pdf

As the Assembly will be discussing five separate predefined topics, it was agreed that
members of advocacy groups on these topics (should they be randomly approached),
will be excluded from membership of the Assembly. The rationale for this decision is
based on the fact that interest groups will be invited to make
presentations/submissions on the matters concerning them.

it didn't say anything about past membership but he told me that he told REDc about his past activities, he said he was a voluntary organiser which may have excluded him on the basis the group that he is in would be making a submissions but he says he's no longer an organiser with them and won't be contributing to any submission they make,so its seems strange to exclude based on those rules.

then he told the assembly again on Saturday and they excluded him and only on Friday put up the questionnaires used which do ask about of past or future "advocacy roles" http://citizensassembly.ie/en/About-the-Citizens-Assembly/Who-are-the-Members/

he says he told them but REDc f'up and didn't exclude him at their stage... but it causes suspicion when they are not clear about their rules and change their mind.

expectationlost

lazygal wrote: »

Anybody Catholic should automatically be excluded. The rules are clear

the rules talk of an "advocacy role"

Are you currently, have been or intend to be acting in an advocacy role for any interest or lobby group currently campaigning on any of the issues to be considered by the Assembly?

http://citizensassembly.ie/en/About-the-Citizens-Assembly/Who-are-the-Members/Red-C-Recruitment-Questionnaire-.pdf

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Is it going to end up like US jury selection, where anyone informed enough to have an opinion on an issue, or even knowledge of a newsworthy event having occurred, is liable to be deselected?

I'm not sure who made the rules in the first place, but it is a mistake to exclude people on the basis of them having an interest/expertise in the subject matter.
The above restriction is the result of inappropriately applying principles that would be applied to a jury in a criminal case. In that situation the defendant is allowed to de-select some jury members that might seem to have an obvious bias against them. That is reasonable in that context, because the defendant is an individual whose freedom is at stake. A jury member could take an instant like or dislike based on the defendants race, age, job description, appearance etc. This obviously does not apply when the CA is discussing principles and laws.

Also this business of muzzling the members;

Those on the assembly are allowed to have opinions on the Eighth amendment but cannot comment on them publicly.

Measures are taken in a court to prevent a feedback loop developing between the press and the jury. Again, unnecessary and undesirable to do the same in the CA.

So, while the idea of a random selection of citizens is good from a democratic point of view, that's as far as the similarities should go. In all other respects, the CA should function more like the Dail chamber; ie open, transparent, and full interaction encouraged between the members and the press.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

Also this business of muzzling the members;

Those on the assembly are allowed to have opinions on the Eighth amendment but cannot comment on them publicly.

that is an slightly excessive restatement of what the judge said by the IT, she said she thought it would be inappropiate, not that they cannot. http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2016/1016/20161016_rteradio1-thisweek-citizensas_c21071874_21071907_232_.mp3

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

In all other respects, the CA should function more like the Dail chamber; ie open, transparent, and full interaction encouraged between the members and the press.

If we had a properly functioning Dail chamber there would be no CA.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I'm not sure who made the rules in the first place, but it is a mistake to exclude people on the basis of them having an interest/expertise in the subject matter. The above restriction is the result of inappropriately applying principles that would be applied to a jury in a criminal case.

Are you sure? Has anyone said such principles are being applied, or are you just presuming because a Judge is involved?
After all, the rules don't say people are excluded on the basis of them having an interest/expertise in the subject matter, do they? They say "acting in an advocacy role for any interest or lobby group currently campaigning on any of the issues to be considered", which is quite a different thing. And the principle of excluding advocates from an assembly makes quite good sense when that assembly will be hearing submissions from those advocates, even if that's got nothing to do with juries (and given the Assembly isn't a Court, that's just as well).

recedite wrote: »

Also this business of muzzling the members; Measures are taken in a court to prevent a feedback loop developing between the press and the jury. Again, unnecessary and undesirable to do the same in the CA.

Why do you think what happens in a Court is relevant though? The Assembly isn't a Court, it hasn't been constituted as anything like a Court, and won't be required to deliver anything like what a Court would.

recedite wrote: »

So, while the idea of a random selection of citizens is good from a democratic point of view, that's as far as the similarities should go. In all other respects, the CA should function more like the Dail chamber; ie open, transparent, and full interaction encouraged between the members and the press.

Perhaps your idea of open and transparent is just a tiny bit different from the Chairperson of the Assembly then? After all, your yourself already said the Chairperson has said that "openness and transparency" should be an important feature of the CA. And we know she's said she thinks it's critical to the success and integrity of the assembly that the members could freely and confidently make contributions and express their views without fear of harassment or criticism; that's not going to happen if they're fully interacting with the press, is it? So maybe the way the Chairperson thinks it should function will produce a more reasoned set of conclusions than the way you think it should function.

aloyisious

Reading yesterday's Irish Indo, I saw an ad asking for people to send submissions relating to the work the CA is doing re the abortion issue to an address on Parnell Square soonest. There was a closing date for same. Unfortunately as the paper wasn't mine, I have no more details and the snap I took of the Ad is blurred. Doubtless other people here would have seen the Ad and might be able to fill the info gap here. I'd imagine the Ad was placed in the other Nat dailies as well. The Ad would have been on the 13th page at least, due to the coverage given to the funeral of Tony Foley and other items.

Hotblack Desiato

From yesterday's Irish Times

aloyisious

I was updated by RTE TV news that the FG part of Govt is still in discussion with its partners over the voting on a bill being put to the Dail on the issue, and that the partners may accept instead a bringing forward (date-wise) of the report from the CA, or at least a Preliminary Report..... I don't know if the last is true or just some-one kite-flying to belay a mutiny. Such a deal would confirm what expectationlost mentioned ref politicians and the CA, that it is controlled from the top. If FG are really trying something on the lines mentioned by RTE, then it's time for a change......... this time at the top.

Absolam

I'm not sure what you're actually saying FG are trying to do? Introduce a Bill that would make the Citizens Assembly unnecessary, or force it to conclude early or something?

recedite

FG are basically saying "Whats the point of having a dog, and then barking yourself ?"

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

FG are basically saying "Whats the point of having a dog, and then barking yourself ?"

So... do they want the dog, or do they want to bark? If they wanted to bark, why did they get the dog? If it's their dog, why bark?

recedite

FG got the dog and put it outside in a kennel, but now their "partners" are starting to bark inside the house. Its very annoying for FG.

aloyisious

Typing this as RTE updates me on what the Govt parties and groups have cobbled together. It reports that ministers have agreed a deal that will avoid a split in the Govt, a unified position, an amendment to the bill in tonight's Dail debate and a special cabinet committee will be set up to look at the CA report, plus NO free vote for ministers/Govt members. Also apparently the independent Alliance members WILL NOT be liable to a Govt whip, however such a thing might have applied (possibly what's called collegiality). However, Brid Smith (People Before Profit / Anti Austerity Alliance) doesn't like it. She is NOT Govt member. It's probable more details will follow to clarify and set in print the deal. Kath Zappone on RTE now saying the Govt has come to a mature decision, and the committee to report to the ministers in an effective and efficient manner, (whatever that phrase means). She's stated she's speaking only for herself.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

FG got the dog and put it outside in a kennel, but now their "partners" are starting to bark inside the house. Its very annoying for FG.

So they weren't thinking about barking themselves at all, they wanted someone else to stop?

Well, if I make out what aloyisious is saying correctly, it sounds like they've put a bit more space between themselves and the dogs now anyway..

recedite

Its a confusing situation, but I think an agreement has been reached such that the FG TD's will be whipped to vote against the opposition partner bill.

And that will put an end to all the barking inside the House.
Now I think the dog metaphor has probably.. ahem.. "run its course" at this stage :pac:

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

Its a confusing situation, but I think an agreement has been reached such that the FG TD's will be whipped to vote against the opposition partner bill.

And that will put an end to all the barking inside the House.
Now I think the dog metaphor has probably.. ahem.. "run its course" at this stage :pac:

Ah come on now, what about the tail wagging the dog?

Absolam

Does anyone know what the bill is/was?

recedite

They proposed a bill to initiate a referendum, on whether to repeal the 8th.

frag420

Wait, I am getting confused now!?

Are we limiting abortion to dogs now as well?

aloyisious

frag420 wrote: »

Wait, I am getting confused now!?

Are we limiting abortion to dogs now as well?

Naw, it was about the yipping and yapping from the house. But now that you mention it, maybe a bit of neutering wouldn't go astray, boom boom.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

They proposed a bill to initiate a referendum, on whether to repeal the 8th.

Swiftly done to death.