Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

Explicitly, what benefit is it to the anti-choice side to support the holding of a referendum? Some posters seem to suggest that the anti-choice view might be bolstered in a referendum. So surely they would support holding one?

How exactly would holding a referendum bolster the pro life position (it was pro life Cabaal mentioned wasn't it, not anti choice?)? It wouldn't give greater protection to the life of the unborn, so it would seem to only offer the possibility of keeping the right to life as we would without a referendum, or losing it. I can't see any bolstering in that at all, can you?

Pherekydes wrote: »

You'll have to be explicit about what you mean by "killing people", I'm afraid. Is that beyond you?

Well, to be honest I don't have to be, regardless of whether it's beyond me or not. If you can't grasp it it seems it will slip through your fingers...

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Enda could, in the days following a referendum (assume the 8th is repealed), move to enact legislation resulting in almost exactly the same legal situation and put that to a Dáil vote.
All that would change from a legal perspective, is that instead of requiring the people to be involved with difficult, nuanced and changeable legislation, we would give that power to our elected representatives, whom we empower with our vote.
This notion that we should put difficult legislation into our Constitution is nonsense. There is no need to 'replace' the 8th with anything.

Sure... and no need to repeal it either. Right now we don't require the people to be involved with difficult, nuanced and changeable legislation, we require legislators to. And our Constitutional provision prevents them creating legislation that infringes the right to life of the unborn, which would not be the case were it to be repealed.
Particularly, it's useful in preventing Endas successor from overturning the sterling work you imagine he would do following the repeal of the 8th, and her successor from overturning that legislation and so on...

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm also with Pherekydes on this, what are you on about people being killed? Nobody is looking for people to be killed. The only people that could be killed here are women be it by putting their life's at risk or by pushing them into such a desperate situation that they feel they must end their life. Perhaps you could go into more details in relation to what you mean?

Well I certainly never said anyone was looking for people to be killed! I said we don't need to encourage the possibility of killing people here; something which repealing the 8th would certainly do.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Particularly, it's useful in preventing Endas successor from overturning the sterling work you imagine he would do following the repeal of the 8th, and her successor from overturning that legislation and so on...

Should laws not be fluid and be open to change by the will of the people?

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Well I certainly never said anyone was looking for people to be killed! I said we don't need to encourage the possibility of killing people here; something which repealing the 8th would certainly do.

Instead we encourage the possibility of killing people somewhere else. Is that better?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Should laws not be fluid and be open to change by the will of the people?

I'm going to say 'no' on that one... at least on the fluid bit. Laws really need to be the sort of thing you can rely on, you know, it takes some effort and thought rather than a whim before changing them. And then there are certain elements on which you might say are the foundation on which everything rests, likes rights and suchlike. They should be particularly difficult to alter and require the full exercise of the will of the people before being changed. In my opinion, obviously...

robdonn wrote: »

Instead we encourage the possibility of killing people somewhere else. Is that better?

I'm not sure acknowledging that we cannot prevent it is the same as encouraging it, but if it were a choice between the two, I'd certainly choose the one that meant the least number of people being killed myself.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

Sure... and no need to repeal it either.

Hmm. Well, no. Exactly no.

Absolam wrote: »

Right now we don't require the people to be involved with difficult, nuanced and changeable legislation, we require legislators to.

Yes.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/29/eu-referendum-parliament-leaders-david-cameron-david-mitchell

Regarding 'Brexit' but replace economics, politics and history with ethics, medicine and even theology if you like.

But Dawkins’s words gave me solace. He said: “It is an outrage that people as ignorant as me are being asked to vote. This is a complicated matter of economics, politics, history, and we live in a representative democracy not a plebiscite democracy. You could make a case for having plebiscites on certain issues – I could imagine somebody arguing for one on fox hunting, for example – but not on something as involved as the European Union. This should be a matter for parliament.”

Absolam wrote: »

And our Constitutional provision prevents them creating legislation that infringes the right to life of the unborn, which would not be the case were it to be repealed.

A provision added to the constitution by citizens who are no longer anything like the majority of the present day fare.

Absolam wrote: »

Particularly, it's useful in preventing Endas successor from overturning the sterling work you imagine he would do following the repeal of the 8th, and her successor from overturning that legislation and so on...

But in the case that Enda's successor did indeed do exactly that, and if that act were in direct contention with the electorate's wishes, then that successor would not last long would they? And inevitably, if indeed the electorate did want that provision to be kept within the legislation, their successor would surely triumphantly return that law?

Or, maybe... just maybe... that would not be the case.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

I'm going to say 'no' on that one... at least on the fluid bit. Laws really need to be the sort of thing you can rely on, you know, it takes some effort and thought rather than a whim before changing them. And then there are certain elements on which you might say are the foundation on which everything rests, likes rights and suchlike. They should be particularly difficult to alter and require the full exercise of the will of the people before being changed.In my opinion, obviously. ..

I'm not sure acknowledging that we cannot prevent it is the same as encouraging it, but if it were a choice between the two, I'd certainly choose the one that meant the least number of people being killed myself.

How very American of you.

I believe referendums are a great chance to ascertain the will of the people. Let's schedule one post haste!

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

They should be particularly difficult to alter and require the full exercise of the will of the people before being changed. In my opinion, obviously...

I believe I'm echoing Kyng Curved Harmonica here but they're right. The ONLY way for the people to exercise their will to directly alter a constitutional right is via referendum. By denying the people the opportunity to express that will, no matter how the decision may fall in the end, is not democratic. In my opinion, obviously...

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not sure acknowledging that we cannot prevent it is the same as encouraging it, but if it were a choice between the two, I'd certainly choose the one that meant the least number of people being killed myself.

And I don't believe that making a medical procedure legal is encouraging it either, but if it were a choice between the two, I'd certainly choose the one that meant we didn't hold the life and health of a developing embryo over the life and health of a person.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Well I certainly never said anyone was looking for people to be killed! I said we don't need to encourage the possibility of killing people here; something which repealing the 8th would certainly do.

It doesn't actually kill any person, if a fetus is classed as a person then any women who had an abortion would be charged with murder. This is not the case.

Its disingenuous for you to try in anyway suggest that an abortion is equal to killing people, poor form. Even the law does not agree with you in that regard

Cabaal

http://jezebel.com/interview-with-a-woman-who-recently-had-an-abortion-at-1781972395?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Interview With a Woman Who Recently Had an Abortion at 32 Weeks

Elizabeth* is 35. She grew up in the South, currently lives in Brooklyn, and has been married for two years. After a previous miscarriage at 10 weeks, she was overjoyed to find herself pregnant for a second time. At 31 weeks, she found out that the baby boy she was carrying wouldn’t be able to breathe outside the womb and would not survive. And at 32 weeks, she flew to Colorado to get a shot that would start the process of a third-trimester abortion; she then flew back to New York to finish the delivery. We talked on the phone two weeks into her recovery.

Lingua Franca

I'm just reading the same article.

A 10k/25k CASH procedure that takes place over 4 days.

Shure all the women will be queueing round the corners for late term abortions.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. Regarding 'Brexit' but replace economics, politics and history with ethics, medicine and even theology if you like.

I'm not convinced I'd agree whether someone should have a right is too complicated for the people to decide by plebiscite; how we implement that right (or absence thereof) is certainly sufficiently complex for legislation to be decided by parliament. Have you just got it backwards?

Deleted User wrote: »

A provision added to the constitution by citizens who are no longer anything like the majority of the present day fare.

That's obviously a matter of opinion; my opinion is the majority of 'the present day fare' as you say are sufficiently like their predecessors to want to retain a right to life for the unborn, if slightly modified from the way it was originally presented.

Deleted User wrote: »

But in the case that Enda's successor did indeed do exactly that, and if that act were in direct contention with the electorate's wishes, then that successor would not last long would they? And inevitably, if indeed the electorate did want that provision to be kept within the legislation, their successor would surely triumphantly return that law? Or, maybe... just maybe... that would not be the case.

Are you certain of that? It sounds rather like speculation; even the basic premise that Enda would bring forward (and have parliamentary support for) legislation flying directly in the face of a just passed referendum seems dubious. The very fact that you're saying maybe that would not be the case does offer an air of uncertainty.
No... it seems to me that you can't provide any assurance of how legislation might go if the 8th were repealed. Whereas not repealing the 8th provides every assurance that the unborn retain the right to life.

Deleted User wrote: »

How very American of you

Do you think? I know Americans can be opinionated, but it's hardly exclusive to them....

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe referendums are a great chance to ascertain the will of the people. Let's schedule one post haste!

If ascertaining the will of the people is all you're interested in, I'll support every referendum you propose other than any that would infringe a persons rights

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

I believe I'm echoing Kyng Curved Harmonica here but they're right. The ONLY way for the people to exercise their will to directly alter a constitutional right is via referendum. By denying the people the opportunity to express that will, no matter how the decision may fall in the end, is not democratic. In my opinion, obviously...

True. And anyone who holds the right to engage in political franchise more highly than the right to life will err on the side of a referendum. Anyone who feels the opposite isn't likely to though.

robdonn wrote: »

And I don't believe that making a medical procedure legal is encouraging it either, but if it were a choice between the two, I'd certainly choose the one that meant we didn't hold the life and health of a developing embryo over the life and health of a person.

Whereas I'd choose to hold them equal, or at least their lives. Health is a bit trickier; I certainly wouldn't hold someones health over someone elses life.

aloyisious

This reported event, planned and publicized for next Tuesday should be interesting to see whether any official action will be carried out North or South of the border in the air, from the land or the water to stop it and/or seize the pills mid-flight, or detain anyone involved in it either side of the border.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/plan-to-use-drone-to-fly-abortion-pills-to-the-north-gets-mixed-reaction-740180.html

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

It doesn't actually kill any person, if a fetus is classed as a person then any women who had an abortion would be charged with murder. This is not the case.

No; it's not the case that someone would be charged with murder when they kill a person. There are a number of charges available for unlawful killing, as I'm sure you'r well aware. The foetus has a right to life enumerated in the Constitition as a 'Personal Right'; so the Constitution certainly classes it as a person.

Cabaal wrote: »

Its disingenuous for you to try in anyway suggest that an abortion is equal to killing people, poor form. Even the law does not agree with you in that regard

It's disingenuous to pretend you don't know what someone is talking about when you certainly do just to make an argument of it. Poor form indeed
As for what the law says about the foetus being a person, we've been here before on this thread, does it really bear recitation?
The Supreme Court has held the unborn to be a person;
"Direct State interference in the developing unborn life is outlawed and furthermore the State must protect and promote that life and above all defend it from unlawful interference by other persons"
"The extinction of unborn life is not confined to the sphere of private life of the mother or family because the unborn life is an autonomous human being protected by the Constitution."
"There could be no question whatsoever of permitting another life to be taken to deal with the situation even if the intent to self-destruct could be traced directly to the activities or the existence of another person"
"The right to life of one person (as in Shaw's case) was held to be superior to the right to liberty of another but, quite clearly, the right to life might not be the paramount right in every circumstances."
as has the High Court, in noting reference to the unborn as a person in legislation ((b) an unborn person,), even common law jurisdictions such as the UK refer to unborn persons in their legislation...

Now it should be pointed out that I never did suggest that an abortion is equal to killing people, I said it is killing people. I'm perfectly happy to stipulate that there are different crimes involving killing people with different penalties, and abortion is only one of them.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

This reported event, planned and publicized for next Tuesday should be interesting to see whether any official action will be carried out North or South of the border in the air, from the land or the water to stop it and/or seize the pills mid-flight, or detain anyone involved in it either side of the border.

Couple of Typhoons sent to bring it down maybe? That would certainly provide the publicity Rosa are seeking....

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not convinced I'd agree whether someone should have a right is too complicated for the people to decide by plebiscite; how we implement that right (or absence thereof) is certainly sufficiently complex for legislation to be decided by parliament. Have you just got it backwards?

I haven't asked for your agreement, so I'm not sure what the relevance is here?

Asking the people to make binary decisions on extremely nuanced legislation when we have a representative democracy in which we empower people on our behalf to educate themselves and make those decisions, whilst also retaining the ability to shape and change that legislation seems from a simple logistical point of view a nightmare. From an informed decision point of view, also quite a difficult task.

Absolam wrote: »

That's obviously a matter of opinion; my opinion is the majority of 'the present day fare' as you say are sufficiently like their predecessors to want to retain a right to life for the unborn, if slightly modified from the way it was originally presented.

In direct contradiction of the various polls that have been taken and posted in this thread?

Absolam wrote: »

Are you certain of that? It sounds rather like speculation; even the basic premise that Enda would bring forward (and have parliamentary support for) legislation flying directly in the face of a just passed referendum seems dubious. The very fact that you're saying maybe that would not be the case does offer an air of uncertainty.

Certain of what exactly? That if a Government brings forth legislation that doesn't tally with the electorate that they are liable to lose their seat at the table? And that the replacements are entitled to 'undo' what changes caused such problems?

Joan Burton & End Kenny would be hard pressed to agree there, and that's only on the trifling matter of job creation and water charges, nevermind this extraordinary matter of importance!

Absolam wrote: »

No... it seems to me that you can't provide any assurance of how legislation might go if the 8th were repealed. Whereas not repealing the 8th provides every assurance that the unborn retain the right to life.

I haven't attempted to offer any assurance on the matter. I have stated that if the Government wished and were backed by the Dáil to legislate almost exactly the same protection on the day following the removal of the article from the constitution, that that would be in their remit. Are you saying that this is not the case?

If they then choose not to, or were not indeed able to, that is a secondary matter.

Absolam wrote: »

Do you think? I know Americans can be opinionated, but it's hardly exclusive to them....

Oh I agree, I just noted the tonal change.

Absolam wrote: »

If ascertaining the will of the people is all you're interested in, I'll support every referendum you propose other than any that would infringe a persons rights

Great.
Which person's rights are currently affected by the 8th Amendment?
edit: Ah, I see we're going back in the lovely big circle again from above.

Pherekydes

aloyisious wrote: »

...seize the pills mid-flight...

Mid-flight? Oooh, could be exciting.



/sorry, couldn't help myself. :pac:

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

No; it's not the case that someone would be charged with murder when they kill a person. There are a number of charges available for unlawful killing, as I'm sure you'r well aware. The foetus has a right to life enumerated in the Constitition as a 'Personal Right'; so the Constitution certainly classes it as a person.

It's disingenuous to pretend you don't know what someone is talking about when you certainly do just to make an argument of it. Poor form indeed
As for what the law says about the foetus being a person, we've been here before on this thread, does it really bear recitation?
The Supreme Court has held the unborn to be a person;
"Direct State interference in the developing unborn life is outlawed and furthermore the State must protect and promote that life and above all defend it from unlawful interference by other persons"
"The extinction of unborn life is not confined to the sphere of private life of the mother or family because the unborn life is an autonomous human being protected by the Constitution."
"There could be no question whatsoever of permitting another life to be taken to deal with the situation even if the intent to self-destruct could be traced directly to the activities or the existence of another person"
"The right to life of one person (as in Shaw's case) was held to be superior to the right to liberty of another but, quite clearly, the right to life might not be the paramount right in every circumstances."
as has the High Court, in noting reference to the unborn as a person in legislation ((b) an unborn person,), even common law jurisdictions such as the UK refer to unborn persons in their legislation...

Now it should be pointed out that I never did suggest that an abortion is equal to killing people, I said it is killing people. I'm perfectly happy to stipulate that there are different crimes involving killing people with different penalties, and abortion is only one of them.

So abortion is killing people? Which is ok, so long as that killing takes place in another jurisdiction?

And the unborn is autonomous? When does that happen? Is it when sperm meets egg? Just curious...

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

That's obviously a matter of opinion; my opinion is the majority of 'the present day fare' as you say are sufficiently like their predecessors to want to retain a right to life for the unborn, if slightly modified from the way it was originally presented.

And does that opinion have any basis?

Let's just look at a couple of facts and statistics to set the scene.

• In 1983 there were about 2.66 million people of legal age to vote in the referendum.
• Of those 2.66 million people, less than 1.578 million of them are still alive. (2011 census results, 2016 census results will obviously tell us how much less)
• Minimum age for anyone who was eligible to vote in 1983 is 51 (46 as of 2011 results)
• Of all who are eligible to vote now, over 2 million were not eligible to vote in 1983. (Based on 15-24 results in 2011 census which only covers those who are now 20+, so number is higher than 2 million).

So we are looking at a split of ~56% / ~43%, although if we factor in death rate over the past 5 years and the 18-19 year olds not included in the figures, it's probably ~60% / ~40%
(Rough estimates based on birth rates in 1997 and 1998 and death rates between 2011-2015)

Opinion Poll Results

Majority for repeal of Eighth Amendment, poll shows - Irish Times, 2016

Some 64 per cent said they were in favour of repealing the amendment, 25 per cent were against and 11 per cent had no opinion.

There was decidedly more support for repealing the amendment from younger and middle-aged voters than older people. Up to the age of 49, about 70 per cent backed repeal of the amendment but this dropped to 58 per cent for those aged 50-64 and 49 per cent for those aged over 64.

*******************************

People are divided on the Eighth Amendment, but half want it repealed

Some 49% of people surveyed in a recent opinion poll want the amendment – which gives the life of the unborn equal status to the life of a mother – to be removed.

A further 19% of people said they are not in favour of it being repealed, while 32% aren’t sure.

Going by your statement "my opinion is the majority of 'the present day fare' as you say are sufficiently like their predecessors to want to retain a right to life for the unborn" it would appear you are incorrect. According to this particular poll, only 19% say they want to retain that right, and that includes the predecessors.

*******************************

I understand that you've raised concerns before about the validity of such opinion polls, but their results are a lot more informed than yours.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

True. And anyone who holds the right to engage in political franchise more highly than the right to life will err on the side of a referendum. Anyone who feels the opposite isn't likely to though.

Or anyone who believes that the right to life of an unborn human requires more nuanced legislation rather than a blanket boolean statement.

Absolam wrote: »

Whereas I'd choose to hold them equal, or at least their lives. Health is a bit trickier; I certainly wouldn't hold someones health over someone elses life.

And I would hold someone's health over another's life in a situation where the life is being sustained at the unwilling expense of another's health.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

No; it's not the case that someone would be charged with murder when they kill a person. There are a number of charges available for unlawful killing, as I'm sure you'r well aware. The foetus has a right to life enumerated in the Constitition as a 'Personal Right'; so the Constitution certainly classes it as a person.

If the unborn is considered a person in Ireland, as you have gone to great lengths to prove, then an abortion would be considered murder according to section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1964:

(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or not.

(2) The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his conduct; but this presumption may be rebutted.

As the intention of an abortion is to end the pregnancy, which before 24 weeks is all but guaranteed to have "the natural and probable consequences" of killing the unborn person, then abortion in cases where it is not legally allowed is considered murder.

So according to Irish criminal law, our constitution allows women to travel abroad to commit murder (by Irish definition) without any legal ramifications, if the unborn is a person.

inocybe

aloyisious wrote: »

This reported event, planned and publicized for next Tuesday should be interesting to see whether any official action will be carried out North or South of the border in the air, from the land or the water to stop it and/or seize the pills mid-flight, or detain anyone involved in it either side of the border.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/plan-to-use-drone-to-fly-abortion-pills-to-the-north-gets-mixed-reaction-740180.html

Aren't they flying them in the wrong direction???

aloyisious

inocybe wrote: »

Aren't they flying them in the wrong direction???

Naw, I think the women should try out the issue in the N.I. courts, instead of the 4 courts, make it a cross-border issue. It might be educational for the N.I. judiciary and the N.I political set of controllers of women's destiny. The peace people were women on the streets at the start. I'm surprised that the border smugglers haven't copped on to a new income source, though the women using drones might be a new one on them.

@pheredykes: now you've got me excited. Even absolom has some ideas on publicity for the women; Couple of Typhoons sent to bring it down maybe? That would certainly provide the publicity Rosa are seeking....

The image of a Royal Navy cutter shooting down abortion-pill carrying drones as they fly over the water would be great, with HM customs retrieving the pills from the water. Sky News and the Daily Mail would have a field-day.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven't asked for your agreement, so I'm not sure what the relevance is here?

Well you did say 'if you like'... which I rather took as an invitation to comment. Though I'm perfectly happy to comment without one

Deleted User wrote: »

Asking the people to make binary decisions on extremely nuanced legislation when we have a representative democracy in which we empower people on our behalf to educate themselves and make those decisions, whilst also retaining the ability to shape and change that legislation seems from a simple logistical point of view a nightmare. From an informed decision point of view, also quite a difficult task.

We're (well, you're) not asking them to make binary decisions on extremely nuanced legislation though. You're asking for a binary decision, on which legislators will make extremely nuanced legislation. If you think the legislators aren't up to it, don't have a referendum and retain the prohibition on abortion.

Deleted User wrote: »

In direct contradiction of the various polls that have been taken and posted in this thread?

Not quite; we've certainly seen polls that show a majority would like to see a change to the law; by and large that majority is only really substantial when it comes to ffa, and dwindles as the proposition widens. Hence my feeling that a straight repeal the 8th referendum would stand a good chance of failing.

Deleted User wrote: »

Certain of what exactly? That if a Government brings forth legislation that doesn't tally with the electorate that they are liable to lose their seat at the table? And that the replacements are entitled to 'undo' what changes caused such problems? Joan Burton & End Kenny would be hard pressed to agree there, and that's only on the trifling matter of job creation and water charges, nevermind this extraordinary matter of importance!

Nope, certain of what you actually said "in the case that Enda's successor did indeed do exactly that, and if that act were in direct contention with the electorate's wishes, then that successor would not last long would they? And inevitably, if indeed the electorate did want that provision to be kept within the legislation, their successor would surely triumphantly return that law?". My own feeling is Enda wouldn't bring forward legislation banning abortion following a successful repeal referendum, and that it would become a political football for parties to endlessly undo what the others had done whilst in power.

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven't attempted to offer any assurance on the matter. I have stated that if the Government wished and were backed by the Dáil to legislate almost exactly the same protection on the day following the removal of the article from the constitution, that that would be in their remit. Are you saying that this is not the case?

No, I'm saying they wouldn't do it.

Deleted User wrote: »

If they then choose not to, or were not indeed able to, that is a secondary matter.

Well not really, not if you're trying to persuade is that repealing the 8th is grand, sure Enda will only make abortion illegal afterwards anyway. I don't think that would happen... I kind of doubt you do either.

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh I agree, I just noted the tonal change.

But not the content change? Of the two, I assure you the content you could read was more important that the tone you inferred...

Deleted User wrote: »

Great. Which person's rights are currently affected by the 8th Amendment? edit: Ah, I see we're going back in the lovely big circle again from above.

The one who's right to life would be removed... yes, you heard that before. The only reason you're going in a circle is because you still felt the need to ask...

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

So abortion is killing people? Which is ok, so long as that killing takes place in another jurisdiction?

Yes, and no?

Pherekydes wrote: »

And the unborn is autonomous? When does that happen? Is it when sperm meets egg? Just curious...

I didn't offer the characterisation I'm afraid, that was Justice Hederman I was quoting. He's since passed away, so I don't think you'll get the opportunity to ask him, sorry.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

And does that opinion have any basis?

Yes, it's based on the fact that most of the polls that we've seen don't tend to straight out ask whether respondants favour removing the right to life from the unborn. They tend to rely on multiple options of abortion availability and then show these as favouring repeal of the eight. Like your Irish Times poll which says "A substantial majority of people would like to see the repeal of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution to allow abortion in certain circumstances". Sounds like they want to repeal the Eight, but really what they want is abortion in certain circumstances. When it comes to a referendum, no one will be left in any doubt that repealing the Eight will only allow abortion in certain circumstances; it will be clear that repealing the Eight could allow abortion in any circumstances. And I think that's what will sway voters; there's support for a slightly more liberal abortion regime, but not a substantially more liberal one.

robdonn wrote: »

Let's just look at a couple of facts and statistics to set the scene.
<...>So we are looking at a split of ~56% / ~43%, although if we factor in death rate over the past 5 years and the 18-19 year olds not included in the figures, it's probably ~60% / ~40%
(Rough estimates based on birth rates in 1997 and 1998 and death rates between 2011-2015)

Yes, there are lots of people who couldn't vote last time that can this time; there's no guarantee they'll vote for repeal though.

robdonn wrote: »

Opinion Poll Results
Majority for repeal of Eighth Amendment, poll shows - Irish Times, 2016

And the question was "Are you in favour of repealing this amendment so that terminations in, for example, the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality could be made legal, or are you in favour of keeping the amendment?”
Like I say... slightly more liberal. Faced with "Are you in favour of repealing this amendment so that terminations in any circumstances whatsoever could be made legal, or are you in favour of keeping the amendment?” my feeling is we'd see a swing towards keeping it.

robdonn wrote: »

Going by your statement "my opinion is the majority of 'the present day fare' as you say are sufficiently like their predecessors to want to retain a right to life for the unborn" it would appear you are incorrect. According to this particular poll, only 19% say they want to retain that right, and that includes the predecessors.

Yet we don't even know the specifics of the question asked, but we do know that the respondents all own smartphones... which would certainly reduce the inclusion of 'predecessors'. You'll pardon me if I don't leap on board with the findings with such a paucity of information.

robdonn wrote: »

I understand that you've raised concerns before about the validity of such opinion polls, but their results are a lot more informed than yours.

Well, my opinion is informed by those results, I'm just more inclined to think about what was asked and how it was asked, as well as who was asked, before declaring victory as a result of some careful addition...

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Or anyone who believes that the right to life of an unborn human requires more nuanced legislation rather than a blanket boolean statement.

I think without the right being conferred (by blanket boolean statement as there is no other way) in the first place, no amount of nuanced legislation is worth having... because there is no right.

robdonn wrote: »

And I would hold someone's health over another's life in a situation where the life is being sustained at the unwilling expense of another's health.

There you go; that's a fundamental difference that probably cannot be resolved.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

If the unborn is considered a person in Ireland, as you have gone to great lengths to prove, then an abortion would be considered murder according to section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1964:

But it isn't; it is considered the destruction of unborn human life under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. I thought we all knew that? Still, if there's anything I've proven that you think is incorrect, I'm happy to discuss it.

robdonn wrote: »

As the intention of an abortion is to end the pregnancy, which before 24 weeks is all but guaranteed to have "the natural and probable consequences" of killing the unborn person, then abortion in cases where it is not legally allowed is considered murder.

It's not though; you know it's not. You know it's considered the destruction of unborn human life, and you've deduced that it ought to be considered murder, but it isn't. The fault is in your own deduction I'm afraid; your theory doesn't fit the facts.

robdonn wrote: »

So according to Irish criminal law, our constitution allows women to travel abroad to commit murder (by Irish definition) without any legal ramifications, if the unborn is a person.

No, it allows women to travel abroad without being impeded by the right to life of the unborn which is a person. They can no more be prevented from traveling abroad because they intend to destroy an unborn human life than they could if they intended to murder someone.