Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Cabaal

aloyisious wrote: »

There is another angle when it comes to legislation that will be brought into the Oireachtas by the Govt and that is members of the Govt who, as TD's using their freedom of voting choice, choose to vote NAY. That's OK and agreed upon by all sides. It's the BUT if a MINISTER chooses to say at any Govt meeting or publicly that he/she will vote against the Govt bill and/or will campaign publicly against any such legislation being brought into law [both separate to the vote freedom given to TD's and Senators] I'm wondering what'll happen then.

In short, their party will suffer for it big time.

If the ref passes then this means that the citizens of Ireland want change and the government must legislate for that change, for a TD to refuse to allow that change means that they are ignoring the citizens of Ireland.

Given all major party's with exception of FF have majority support for repeal (based on Irishtimes stats at present) any TD against is likely to be FF,

if they stick their heels in and bring down the government then FF would suffer in the polls to a massive extent esp by people below the age of 40/50 years of age who might have foolishly voted for FF while forgetting FF are basically now the country's most conservative political party.

But bringing down the government over this would remove all doubt regarding just how conservative they are as a party for good in people's minds.

Loafing Oaf

[QUOTE=Cabaal;105997952
if they stick their heels in and bring down the government then FF would suffer in the polls to a massive extent esp by people below the age of 40/50 years of age who might have foolishly voted for FF while forgetting FF are basically now the country's most conservative political party.

But bringing down the government over this would remove all doubt regarding just how conservative they are as a party for good in people's minds.[/QUOTE]

I don't see how anti-repeal FF TDs could bring down the government. Do you mean through a motion of no confidence? Presumably they would have to depose Martin first, and I don't see that happening.

aloyisious

Unless Simon Coveney is playing for a better deal than unrestricted abortion of up to 12 weeks and will accept a compromise, as [from his public statements] he seems to be one minister who will vote against any Govt abortion legislation if it includes unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks, then I can't see Leo continuing with his services as a Govt minister [foreign affairs/tanaiste], regardless of his family links to the F/G party.

From yesterday: Simon Coveney
‏
Verified account

@simoncoveney
Jan 29

More
Happy to speak publicly about my views on abortion referendum after Cabinet meeting this evening - it's important that Govt finalises approach first.

recedite

I think you may be placing undue emphasis on the 12 weeks restriction.
If the 8th is entirely repealed as proposed, then all rights will be removed from the unborn, right up until the moment of birth.
The current govt. or the next one, will then be free to extend the time limit to any number of weeks, or just remove the time restriction altogether.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

I think you may be placing undue emphasis on the 12 weeks restriction.
If the 8th is entirely repealed as proposed, then all rights will be removed from the unborn, right up until the moment of birth.
The current govt. or the next one, will then be free to extend the time limit to any number of weeks, or just remove the time restriction altogether.

Actually it is not me but is Simon Coveney who has placed emphasis on the 12 week restriction so it's a moot point and I can't follow you in debating the emphasis, undue or otherwise. It's too far into the development of the feotus for him.

The Govt stated plan is to bring in legislation without delay to fill the legislative gap if the referendum vote outcome is to delete the 8th, in order to relieve the courts of responsibility of having to regularly revisit the abortion issue.

If a split within Govt ministerial ranks leads to problems in getting the legislation ready before the referendum, and have it redy for voting through the Oireachtas and signature into law by Michael D, then the courts will be visited by those opposed to abortion because there would be NO legislation from politicians to cover abortion here.

Even those opposed to the deletion of the 8th know the state will be forced to provide some law on abortion if the 8th is deleted, as it was the Govt which called the referendum removing any cover for the unborn.

Edit: My point was that if the Govt can't agree on abortion legislation wording and strictures to stand in lieu of a deleted 8th, then there will be no law at all covering abortion. It would in effect be as you've pointed out in your bracketed quote [If the 8th is entirely repealed as proposed, then all rights will be removed from the unborn, right up until the moment of birth. The current govt. or the next one, will then be free to extend the time limit to any number of weeks, or just remove the time restriction altogether]...... With NO law there would be no time restrictions for any Govt to extend.

2nd edit: The Agriculture minister, Michael Creed, has said he can't support the 12 week limit, the same position as Simon Coveney..... The following article is slightly mixed in wording, it's headline is "Creed: I can’t support 12-week limit" and inside another quote is "Agriculture Minister Michael Creed has revealed that he cannot support unrestricted abortion". IMO, 12 weeks is a restriction. However, the matter may well be thrashed out at the F/G meeting this eveningmentioned in the article, or at Govt level. It seem's FF will also be meeting this evening to discuss the topic this evening. The F/G whip, Mr McHugh also has some doubts about the restriction... https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/creed-i-cant-support-12-week-limit-466530.html

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

.... The following article is slightly mixed in wording, it's headline is "Creed: I can’t support 12-week limit" and inside another quote is "Agriculture Minister Michael Creed has revealed that he cannot support unrestricted abortion". IMO, 12 weeks is a restriction.

Repeal the 8th and Legislate for a 12 week restriction are two different things. One is a constitutional referendum, the other is a proposed FG bill for some future date.
I'm just saying that if the amendment passes, then there would be a period of uncertainty immediately afterwards in which there was no restriction. This current govt. (or some other future govt.) would be free to insert the 12 week restriction, or a 4 week restriction, or a 24 week restriction or no restriction at all.
Those who think that the 8th has no place in the constitution will be happy with this flexibility. Others won't.

Peregrinus

I'm open to correction, but I think the position is that if the 8th were to be simply deleted and nothing inserted in its place, current statutory law regulating abortion (the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013) would continue in force unless and until amended, repealed or replaced by the Oireachtas, or struck down as unconstitutional by the courts. (And without having thought too deeply about it I don't see that it would be struck down as unconstitutional.)

In real life I think the point is moot. The government is not going to hand pro-lifers a campaigning gift by proceeding with a referendum without having made its intentions post-referendum very clear.(*) Either the wording of the proposed amendment will itself state the conditions on which abortion will be permitted, or draft legislation to deal with this will be published in advance of the referendum happening.

(* David Cameron did this with his misbegotten Brexit referendum in the UK, and look what happened!)

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm open to correction, but I think the position is that if the 8th were to be simply deleted and nothing inserted in its place, current statutory law regulating abortion (the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013) would continue..

Yes, but the proposal is to insert "enabling" wording into the constitution which would allow the TDs to bring in whatever legislation they see fit. In other words, no constitutional limits.
In the meantime, any existing legislation would still apply.

.......

This post has been deleted.

recedite

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is the current "recommendation" alright.
The whole point of removing any constitutional limit is to make things much more "flexible" in future.

.......

This post has been deleted.

recedite

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nevertheless, the "enabling" wording in the proposed amendment would enable that.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but the proposal is to insert "enabling" wording into the constitution which would allow the TDs to bring in whatever legislation they see fit. In other words, no constitutional limits.

Yes. But there are no constitutional limits on the power of the Oireachtas to legislate for, e.g., euthenasia.

Do we need constutional limits on the power of the Oireachtas to legislate with respect to abortion? If so, why? What it is that distinguishes abortion from other ethically challenging areas where the power of the Oireachtas is not subject to specific constitutional limits?

seamus

recedite wrote: »

Nevertheless, the "enabling" wording in the proposed amendment would enable that.

It would allow for termination of pregnancies beyond that.

Let's be clear.

Loafing Oaf

recedite wrote: »

Nevertheless, the "enabling" wording in the proposed amendment would enable that.

And because the age of consent for sex isn't written into the Constitution, a future government could reduce it to 6. Are you also concerned that might happen?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

What it is that distinguishes abortion from other ethically challenging areas where the power of the Oireachtas is not subject to specific constitutional limits?

Quite simply because a born person is already protected by all the rights in the constitution, but the question of whether the unborn were also protected has occasionally been asked.
The older archaic abortion legislation (offences against the person acts) and the 8th amendment both served to extend the basic right to life to the unborn. The right to life and bodily integrity are about the only human rights that they are capable of benefiting from.
The current proposal seeks to remove those basic constitutional rights.

lazygal

I heard George Soros is going to pay for a whole new constitution after repeal and anyone who wants an abortion can get pregnant using his sperm and then have abortions right up to birth and even after birth because once the eighth is gone the whole notion of three branches of Government and checks and balances and legislation goes out the window.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

Quite simply because a born person is already protected by all the rights in the constitution, but the question of whether the unborn were also protected has occasionally been asked.
The older archaic abortion legislation (offences against the person acts) and the 8th amendment both served to extend the basic right to life to the unborn. The right to life and bodily integrity are about the only human rights that they are capable of benefiting from.
The current proposal seeks to remove those basic constitutional rights.

Umm, I reckon a good few Irish people [male, female and other] would have the opinion that the inclusion of the 8th in the constitution removed "the right to life and bodily integrity" from women and other when it came to the push.

AFAIK neither the 8th nor the constitution itself mention bodily integrity in respect of the unborn but stand open to correction on this. I don't think the constitution contains the words bodily integrity in respect to women either when it comes to the issue we are debating.

I think sections of the archaic legislation you mention in reference to abortion were annulled by sections of P.O.L.D.P.A., said sections in that new act seen as updating the law on abortion.

Ref the "enabling words", we haven't seen the actual words yet, nor the way they will be constructed for the purpose of enabling anything. We're waiting for Simon Harris to let us know what the actual words will be and how they are formulated. Until Simon reveals all, despite us [due to advance notice] having a fair idea of the words and their intent, we'll just be speculating about them.

Ref this quote of your's: but the question of whether the unborn were also protected has occasionally been asked; don't you think the 8th answered that?

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

Ref this quote of your's: but the question of whether the unborn were also protected has occasionally been asked; don't you think the 8th answered that?

I do yes. But the new proposal is to replace it, with a different and opposite answer.

aloyisious

It seems the enabling wording advice given by the AG to be put into the constitution in the referendum - filling in the gap created by a deletion of the 8th - to allow the Govt introduce changes in abortion law is something on the lines of "affirming the right of the Oireachtas to legislate for the regulation of termination of pregnancy". It's left me wondering if the 8th amendment, or something else, has really been a leg-iron around all the Govt's since 1983, preventing them from introducing legislation. I am looking at P.O.L.D.P.A. wondering the how and why of it's coming into being if this is true. I'm getting the notion that the enabling clause, as also mentioned in the AG's advice, is solely to reduce, if not prevent, court cases being brought to stop the Oireahtas actually legislating further on the issue.

I know that since the 80's, and maybe even earlier, there have been occasional editorials in the newspapers about Govt's and Oireachtas not legislating about abortion when significant court cases have ensued due to the lack of legislation on the issue, with the public also bashing Leinster House on the lack. I wish the Oireachtas godspeed in their endeavour to keep up with us.

aloyisious

Simon Coveney is being interviewed live by Sean O'Rourke on RTE 1 radio NOW on his position on abortion and his difficulties with possible wording of any future legislation brought in under the enabling replacing the 8th. he's said three times now that he believes the state has a duty to protect an unborn child.
Part of the discussion is on what is the health, as distinct from the life, of the woman is, and the way that can be adjudged by medical professionals, said mention being made in ref to what the committee recommended.

Personally I don't understand how a woman's health, if she's severely ill, can be differentiated from life, as the ill health can lead to loss of her life in terms of risk. One directly abuts the other.

Hotblack Desiato

Isn't it great that he gets to wrestle with his conscience live on the national broadcaster :rolleyes: I suppose we should be grateful this drip isn't Taoiseach.

lazygal

It is a shockingly bad interview. He hasn't a clue what he wants or how to go about it.

aloyisious

That, in a way, is the beauty of a live interview. Nothing said can be denied or said to be misunderstood, particularly in a one-on-one interviewer. There's a long time to go to late May so things may get sorted out by then on where ALL the Govt ministers stand on voting for/against legislation brought before the Oireachtas.

Speaking of the referendum, I thought I heard some-one from the Govt parties on RTE last mention 04 May as the date, but it was a single reference only and not followed up on by the interveiwer so I may have misheard the date reference. I have no connection with Universities and their student population so what date in May would be inclusive of their being able to vote in the referendum?

Yesterday's issue of the Irish Examiner had a large photo of Niamh Uí Bhrían and other ladies outside Buswells hotel at the launch of the "save the 8th" national billboard campaign against the referendum on the eight amendment. The largest poster in the image is on a advertisement lorry with the image of what is presumably supposed to be a Downs Syndrome child alongside the words "IN BRITAIN 90% OF BABIES WITH DOWNS SYNDROME ARE ABORTED". I'm waiting for Mattie McGrath to come out and condemn Níamh and Co for doing what he asked people from the "Pro-life" side NOT TO do, not use Downs Syndrome as a weapon in the campaign.

aloyisious

The 1PM news has an interview with another TD who opposes the 8th being deleted and abortions. He advised pregnant women to visit their local Dr if they have thoughts about abortion. I got the impression he believes the only cure is for the pregnant woman to keep the pregnancy until the unborn is born and local groups will help her out. It's incredible that a TD still has that as the only opinion worth holding, making other TD's who oppose abortion except on medically necessary grounds or on compassionate grounds [rape and incest] look reasonable by comparison. It was almost like a WW story.

eviltwin

aloyisious wrote: »

The 1PM news has an interview with another TD who opposes the 8th being deleted and abortions. He advised pregnant women to visit their local Dr if they have thoughts about abortion. I got the impression he believes the only cure is for the pregnant woman to keep the pregnancy until the unborn is born and local groups will help her out. It's incredible that a TD still has that as the only opinion worth holding, making other TD's who oppose abortion except on medically necessary grounds or on compassionate grounds [rape and incest] look reasonable by comparison. It was almost like a WW story.

Peter Fitzgerald from FG. He was completely out of his depth in that interview.

Cabaal

This seems to be one of the most recent tasteless posters they are using

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

This seems to be one of the most recent tasteless posters they are using

What.. naked woman or 9 week old foetus, which is it you don't like looking at?

seamus

recedite wrote: »

What.. naked woman or 9 week old foetus, which is it you don't like looking at?

It's the blatant, crass appeal to nationalism.

"The English do it, so it must be wrong!"

Funnily, the use of "Eire" in an English sentence betrays the American origins of these images.

Only plastic paddies and ignorant British politicians use "Eire" in an English sentence. Irish people don't.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

Funnily, the use of "Eire" in an English sentence betrays the American origins of these images.

I thought that was odd alright. It really only looks right on stamps and coins.