Sydney Rose Irish Times Article

Dick phelan

Jayop wrote: »

The likely legislation if it ever is drafted will be somewhere between 12 and 20 weeks imo.

However once the 8th is repealed that legislation will still have to then go through the Dail, it will have amendments and changes added. It will forever more be open to being changed again by a government.

This is the reality. You cannot legislate through the constitution though, you cannot write the abortion law into the constitution because that's not what a constitution is for.

True but i do wish more repeal campaigners were more honest about what they are actually aiming to achieve ie abortion on demand with very little time limits or in some cases no time limit, i kinda feel like a lot of them are being sneaky trying to have the 8th repealed so they can implement very liberal abortion law, i'm torn on it because on the one hand i support abortion up to a point while on the other i don't want to see canada like abortion laws which i fear is what we get once the 8th is gone.

Water John

No Irish Gov't is going to leave the issue open like that whilst the referendum is being held. That's a reality. I'm just observing as I read politics.

Jayop

Dick phelan wrote: »

True but i do wish more repeal campaigners were more honest about what they are actually aiming to achieve ie abortion on demand with very little time limits or in some cases no time limit, i kinda feel like a lot of them are being sneaky trying to have the 8th repealed so they can implement very liberal abortion law, i'm torn on it because on the one hand i support abortion up to a point while on the other i don't want to see canada like abortion laws which i fear is what we get once the 8th is gone.

Dick, I understand your concerns, and I have empathy for them. However, the reality of Irish politics is that while there's a clear groundswell pushing for the 8th to be repealed and you could be right, many of those could be looking for abortion on demand with no limits (although I see no evidence of that it's likely there are some), Ireland still is governed by a right of center party. Even if FG lose the next election they will be replaced with FF who are centrist if not slightly right when it comes to social issues.

There's simply no way for the foreseeable future will Ireland have radically liberal abortion laws in line with your worst fears. These parties pander to center Ireland, and it's center Ireland that hold all the power over issues like this. The extreme left can make a hell of a lot of noise, they can even get things like this and other social issues into the public consciousness, but they will always need the support of the masses, normally the 60% plus of the electorate who vote FG & FF to get any change.

Can you really see Enda Kenny presiding over a bill that completely liberalises abortion? I can see FFA, issues when the mothers life is in danger and possible AOD up to 14 weeks (or whatever arbitrary number they decide on).

rainbow kirby

I have no problem with saying that I want the 8th repealed and that I'd be happy enough with the UK's limits (24 weeks/no restrictions for FFA, 2 doctor sign-off).

I had my son in the UK and felt a lot safer without the (not abortion related) chilling effects of the 8th hanging over my care. Scans at the right time, proper prenatal testing done, my consent and right to refuse were respected.

Jayop

As a Pro-Choicer here asking the question to other pro-choicer, what exactly would you like to see after the 8th is repealed?

Personally I'd like as I listed above more or less....

FFA
Mothers life at risk
Obortion on demand up to a certain limit whatever the best medical advice is, but probably between 14/20 weeks.

Jayop

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I have no problem with saying that I want the 8th repealed and that I'd be happy enough with the UK's limits (24 weeks/no restrictions for FFA, 2 doctor sign-off).

I had my son in the UK and felt a lot safer without the (not abortion related) chilling effects of the 8th hanging over my care. Scans at the right time, proper prenatal testing done, my consent and right to refuse were respected.

What's the 2 doctor sign off? Late term FFA terminations or all abortions??

Grayson

Water John wrote: »

Grayson, its pretty certain the wording of the law will be decided before a constitutional referendum is held.
I suspect it will extend only to Fatal Feotal Abnormality and serious risk to the health of the mother, ie very limited.

I doubt it. It's such a toxic subject they'll just remove it and then legislate for fatal abnormalities and stuff like that. Besides that they'll keep it illegal. It's the safest political option. The votes they'd lose is minimal and they'd probably manage to get cross party support.

If one party, say FG, decides they want to legislate for it and FF decide against it then it'll turn into a political issue that will be contested at an election. FG would lose some members who would defect or become independents and it would be a political cluster ****.

The only way it would be legislated for would be the high court decided that it was a rights issue and ruled on it. The government would then have to legislate it to allow it and prevent it being unrestricted.

That was the reason the 8th was brought in the first place. Abortion had been illegal for hundreds of years but the pro lifers were scared that there would be a roe vs wade result here. A high court can rule on if somethings constitutional but they can't rule on the constitution.

rainbow kirby

Jayop wrote: »

What's the 2 doctor sign off? Late term FFA terminations or all abortions??

It's part of the 1967 Abortion Act, it's all abortions.

Jayop

rainbow kirby wrote: »

It's part of the 1967 Abortion Act, it's all abortions.

Thanks, looked at it. So it's not that you need authorisation from the doctors rather that they just verify that you meet the conditions for the procedure to go ahead. How long you're pregnant etc. That's my understanding of it from reading the literature on the stopes website.

nozzferrahhtoo

Swanner wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, why do you start from the position that it's not a baby ?

A good question! And the answer is: I do not.

I start, as in all things, from a position of "I do not know what this is" and work from there. I study the terms and definitions, the science and biology, the philosophy and morality, and I work towards a conclusion. And I have seen nothing to lead me to the conclusion that "baby" is the accurate term in this context.

So I do not start from the conclusion that it is not a "baby"..... so much as I have seen nothing to lead me as far as the conclusion that it is one.

Swanner wrote: »

I only ask because when i see a picture of a fetus at 16 weeks, given that it looks like a fully formed baby, the fact that it has working eyes, ears, muscle and independent movement, the burden of proof for me would lie very much with demonstrating that it's not actually a baby.

That is indeed the issue pro-choice people have to deal with. The Emotional Subjective reaction that is illicited by seeing photos of what it looks like. Because it really does look human for many reasons and our emotions over ride our intellect and cajole us into treating it as such.

I have two children and can be overcome with emotion at the slightest things like seeing their tiny little fingers moving and grasping mine. It is a natural and powerful emotional effect that we are evolved to have. So when one, using modern technology, sees something we were never evolved to see..... those same fingers formed and moving around in the womb..... we very rightly, very naturally, and very powerfully react to that. And the heart and the emotion.... really is stronger than the mind and the intellect at times if you let it be.

But having working organs and sensory organs does not mean the lights are on and anyone is actually home reading, experiencing or processing the inputs from them. Saying "It has working eyes" for example does not actually tell us anything.

For example if I, using our ever advancing science, create a fully functional pair of eyes using a mix between technology and biology, and I stick them on the front of a shop mannequin, would it suddenly become human and have moral concern?

No, it would not. You would realize that working eyes on the front of something does not confer humanity upon it. It entirely depends what the eyes are connected to, and what level THAT is operating at. Subjectively eyes are emotive for us, but we need to "see" past that intellectually too.

"Independent movement" is similarly a red herring. An amoeba has that and will turn to move away from a light source or a needle prick. How much moral concern do you hold for amoebas? Very little I imagine and as such there is something past mere movement that you are attaching import to, and it behooves us to intellectually explore EXACTLY what that something is.

What a fetus at 12 or 16 weeks DOES have is a system that provides autonomic responses. And that, for very good natural and healthy reasons, causes us to link that in our own minds to actual sensory experience, awareness, subjectivity and consciousness. But it is an error to do so. Mere movement, like working eyes, tells us nothing about the operations behind it.

So I look PAST movement and sensory organs and ask "Is there anything conscious or sentient BEHIND these things" and if the answer is "no" then I simply have no moral or ethical concerns about the entity in question. And I have never been shown an argument as to why I might or should.

And the analogy I often use, and used once on this thread already, is that if we make human consciousness, sentience and awareness an analogy to Radio waves........ then at 16 weeks we are looking not JUST at a period where the fetus lacks radio waves........ but in fact the radio tower itself that broadcasts them has not even been built yet. Which renders concern for those radio waves a simple nonsense.

For me moral and ethical concern is predicated upon, and proportional to, the faculty of sentience and awareness and consciousness. I have more ethical concern for a fly than I do a rock. More for a dog than I do a fly. More for an ape than I do a dog. And more for a human than I do an ape.

And since the fetus at 12 weeks has the sentience, awareness and consciousness of a rock.... my moral and ethical concerns towards it are therefore equivalent.

When that changes, somewhere around the 24-28-32 week area.....

(placing that accurately is another long conversation not worth derailing this already long post into, so I am being deliberatly vague there for good reason and not dishonest ones.... but for example K.J.S. Anand, a researcher of newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM say "intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.

.......... then I start having moral and ethical concerns towards it and it's right to life..... but context dependent I then begin to view that not just independently but ALSO relative to the rights to life and other moral and ethical concerns of the mother.

Swanner wrote: »

Why is that ? Do they have an ethical reservation or is just a case of not wanting to endure the procedure ? I only ask as it struck me while reading your post.. Seems a lot of people do have a reservation but would be prepared to weigh that up against circumstances at the time which is fine as long as people are honest about that.

I can not answer for the other user but I can answer for myself. In previous posts I said the ideal is that 100% of women COULD have an abortion but 0% of them ever actually do.

The reason for that is pretty simple. Make an analogy to heart bypass surgery. I, and I imagine you, would clearly want 100% of people who want or need such surgery to be able to readily obtain it. Would we not?

But similarly we would like to live in a world where 0% of people ever actually need them. So we promote a healthy lifestyle and diet, and the production of a medical science that can prevent it.

When you understand why you would want 100% of people to have bypass surgery available, but 0% of people every actually having that surgery..... you will then pretty much understand why I would say the same of abortion.

My motto on my ideal for abortion is "100% access, 0% implementation".

Swanner wrote: »

I am however, deeply uncomfortable with abortion on demand and i am totally opposed to later term abortions.

I mostly am too but I deliberately mentioned above that I afford the child at that point a "right to life" in my mind.... but with the caveat that I consider this in relation to the rights of the mother.

I think you have a right to life and would die to protect it for example. However if somehow your existence was impinging on the life of another and they were in mortal danger.... I would not hesitate to kill you or remove you myself. In an equation where X is leading to the death of Y, and neither X nor Y want to die...... but one of them has to........... then for me it is X nearly every time, even if it is not premeditated by X. The aggressor, intentioned or not, for me is usually the target for removal.

So I would do anything and everything to protect the life of a late term child..... unlike OEJ for example who thinks abortions should be just fine right up to the due date of the child.... a moral position he supports with one argument only which is "I think Hillary Clinton agrees with me"............ up to the point where the situation is that the developing child is a threat on the life of the mother. At which point it becomes an X/Y scenario like the one above.

Swanner wrote: »

Polls are meaningless unless we have the actual wording we will be asked to vote on and have had an opportunity to discuss any implications..

There are way too many variables for generic polls to be an indicator of anything in my view.

Agreed, I fear people read too much into the polls. The only thing I think we can SOMEWHAT safely conclude from polls at this time is that the majority appear to want SOME kind of change. What change they want, and what they would vote for.... is for me still a very open question.

Annasopra

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

Just you tube marches for life etc.. .it's hard to find the "auld biddies" you talk about. That is what the media try to portray and you too it seems. The reality is very very different.

Its called propaganda.

Yellow pack crisps

Being a father abortion seems very cold and wilfully sad and completely abnormal to me. Being a person who likes to think of myself as understanding and rational i would think abortion should be a right and as a modern country we should have the means to offer the services and supports that countless women have to travel to procure.

This is not to say that the right support mechanisms should not be put in place to make abortion the absolute last resort for women. There is nothing perfect about anti or pro choice here but if we value our humanity then such an enormous physical and emotional decision should not be ignored by us or those we vote into power and we as a society deserve and should expect that such an issue is in our hands to deal with and give the best possible resources regardless of how we personally feel.

seamus

Like the vast majority of other pro-choice people I would rather that abortion was never carried out, but I recognise the right of every individual to bodily autonomy whether pregnant or otherwise.

And that simply being born isn't a guarantee of a happy, healthy and safe life; sometimes it's the humane choice to stop life from beginning.

I would tend to go allow up to 20 weeks normally, 24 weeks in exceptional circumstances (denial, mental illness, cancer, etc), and unlimited for FFA. With a caveat on the former that the limits are periodically reviewed to align with the current level of medical technology. If we somehow discover how to "deliver" a foetus at 16 weeks and have them grow into a perfectly healthy person, then there are discussions to be had.

Outlaw Pete

seamus wrote: »

Like the vast majority of other pro-choice people I would rather that abortion was never carried out, but I recognise the right of every individual to bodily autonomy whether pregnant or otherwise.

And that simply being born isn't a guarantee of a happy, healthy and safe life; sometimes it's the humane choice to stop life from beginning.

I would tend to go allow up to 20 weeks normally, 24 weeks in exceptional circumstances (denial, mental illness, cancer, etc), and unlimited for FFA. With a caveat on the former that the limits are periodically reviewed to align with the current level of medical technology. If we somehow discover how to "deliver" a foetus at 16 weeks and have them grow into a perfectly healthy person, then there are discussions to be had.

The second line here contradicts the first, seamus.

You can't say you believe that everyone should have control over what they do with their bodies, but yet then point out just what it is that you feel people shouldn't be allowed to do with their bodies. That makes no sense. Either you believe in body autonomy or you don't, and it's quite clear, you do not and so why not just that?

Tbf, you're not alone in that contradiction, see it all the time.

seamus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The second line here contradicts the first, seamus.

You can't say you believe that everyone should have control over what they do with their bodies, but yet then point out just what it is that you feel people shouldn't be allowed to do with their bodies. That makes no sense. Either you believe in body autonomy or you don't, and it's quite clear, you do not and so why not just that?

Tbf, you're not alone in that contradiction, see it all the time.

I guess you could say it does, but I'm happy to concede out that there is no clear line where viable life begins.

Ultimately the right to bodily autonomy is always going to come with caveats. Do we give people the means to lop off limbs if they want? Should suicidal people be given the tools to take their own lives?

Likewise we can agree that at some point within a pregnancy the developing foetus becomes a viable entity and the individual's right to bodily autonomy remains, but comes with complications.

Ultimately when we talk about abortion, we talk about the termination of both the pregnancy and the developing foetus. I would still recognise the individual's right to bodily autonomy after 24 weeks, but that's a more complex scenario which requires an early term delivery to take place and a child to be placed up for adoption.

In this case, at best we could say the right of a woman under the constitutionto demand a pre-term delivery is somewhat untested, but the demand for such a procedure is so low as to be practically non-existent.

Annasopra

Magicmatilda wrote: »

The Rose of Tralee is not the place to raise these issues. Such issues have never been raised before, the 2014 Rose by virtue of being gay and non drinking started a discussion but she did not explicitly start talking about these issues while being interviewed by Daithi.

Thats not true. She explicitly discussed being a pioneer on tv.

Annasopra

Jayop wrote: »

The likely legislation if it ever is drafted will be somewhere between 12 and 20 weeks imo.

However once the 8th is repealed that legislation will still have to then go through the Dail, it will have amendments and changes added. It will forever more be open to being changed again by a government.

This is the reality. You cannot legislate through the constitution though, you cannot write the abortion law into the constitution because that's not what a constitution is for.

I actually think a full (pro choice) repeal wont goto referendum and we will get an Irish solution to an Irish problem of an amendment to cater for cases of fatal foetal abnormality.

Jayop

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I actually think a full (pro choice) repeal wont goto referendum and we will get an Irish solution to an Irish problem of an amendment to cater for cases of fatal foetal abnormality.

So legislation via the constitution. Idiotic solution.

Mary63

I have read nozzferrahhtoos essayy and its just nonsense.

We don't actually know does a sixteen week old foetus feel pain and this is irrelevant.

It is a human being and was a human being from the moment of conception.Reducing it to the equivalent of a rock makes no sense.

You either believe a woman has the right to terminate a life she has conceived or you don't,its your right to hold an opinion but what is at stake is a human life which has the potential to be a live baby,a foetus is nothing more and certainly nothing less.

I do not want abortion in this country past twelve to fourteen weeks for any reason.

If we remove the Eighth Amendment what do we replace it with,no has has answered this question yet.

seamus

Mary63 wrote: »

If we remove the Eighth Amendment what do we replace it with,no has has answered this question yet.

We replace it with law. Everyone has already answered this question.

Jayop

Mary63 wrote: »

.

If we remove the Eighth Amendment what do we replace it with,no has has answered this question yet.

This has been discussed in depth over the last few pages.

You don't replace it with anything in the constitution because it's not the place for legislation.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mary63 wrote: »

I have read nozzferrahhtoos essayy and its just nonsense.

Because you say so, or can you point to something I said and explain what is nonsense specifically? Because it is easy to just call something nonsense. It is harder to actually establish it to be so.

Mary63 wrote: »

We don't actually know does a sixteen week old foetus feel pain and this is irrelevant.

We "know" it as much as we "know" anything in science. The pre-requisites for being capable of subjectively feeling and being aware of pain are simply absent.

If there is reason to think it is capable of experiencing pain then I am unaware of it.... and you do not appear to be offering it.

Mary63 wrote: »

It is a human being and was a human being from the moment of conception.Reducing it to the equivalent of a rock makes no sense.

That entirely depends on what you mean by "Human Being". The issue in the discourse on abortion is that people throw the word "Human" in and demand that it be treated with reverence.

A fetus or zygote has Human DNA, so in that sense it is "Human" no doubt. But so does a cancer cell. So would what is on my finger were I to pick my nose.

In the context of the discourse of moral and ethical concerns therefore, mere Human DNA is not enough. We need a definition of "Human" that is contextually relevant. And in the context of morality and ethical concern I am aware of no definition of "Human" that incorporates the fetus.

Mary63 wrote: »

a human life which has the potential to be a live baby,a foetus is nothing more and certainly nothing less.

Which just tells us it is NOT a baby. Because the moment you call it a POTENTIAL baby you have instantly admitted it is not one. You can not be X and potentially X at the same time. That is a logical nonsense. So you make my point for me while attempting to refute it, and without even being aware you are doing it seemingly.

My moral and ethical concerns lie with ACTUAL Human Beings. Not potential ones. Because a potential human being is, as I said, not a human being.

As I said I would modify my position on abortion over night if an argument could be provided to treat that fetus with moral and ethical concern. You have not done this, and a misuse, or dilute, application of the word "Human" is not going to do it.

Mary63 wrote: »

I do not want abortion in this country past twelve to fourteen weeks for any reason.

Not ANY reason? That is quite extreme. So if at 20 weeks it is discovered the fetus is VERY likely not to reach term and it will die taking the life of the mother with it as it goes, or just before..... then you would still be against abortion?

So because of your "For any reason" mantra you would therefore prefer the death of two rather than the death of one?

And you dismiss my position as nonsense? Wow, just wow. You can not make this stuff up.

niamhstokes1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Because you say so, or can you point to something I said and explain what is nonsense specifically? Because it is easy to just call something nonsense. It is harder to actually establish it to be so.



We "know" it as much as we "know" anything in science. The pre-requisites for being capable of subjectively feeling and being aware of pain are simply absent.

If there is reason to think it is capable of experiencing pain then I am unaware of it.... and you do not appear to be offering it.



That entirely depends on what you mean by "Human Being". The issue in the discourse on abortion is that people throw the word "Human" in and demand that it be treated with reverence.

A fetus or zygote has Human DNA, so in that sense it is "Human" no doubt. But so does a cancer cell. So would what is on my finger were I to pick my nose.

In the context of the discourse of moral and ethical concerns therefore, mere Human DNA is not enough. We need a definition of "Human" that is contextually relevant. And in the context of morality and ethical concern I am aware of no definition of "Human" that incorporates the fetus.



Which just tells us it is NOT a baby. Because the moment you call it a POTENTIAL baby you have instantly admitted it is not one. You can not be X and potentially X at the same time. That is a logical nonsense. So you make my point for me while attempting to refute it, and without even being aware you are doing it seemingly.

My moral and ethical concerns lie with ACTUAL Human Beings. Not potential ones. Because a potential human being is, as I said, not a human being.

As I said I would modify my position on abortion over night if an argument could be provided to treat that fetus with moral and ethical concern. You have not done this, and a misuse, or dilute, application of the word "Human" is not going to do it.



Not ANY reason? That is quite extreme. So if at 20 weeks it is discovered the fetus is VERY likely not to reach term and it will die taking the life of the mother with it as it goes, or just before..... then you would still be against abortion?

So because of your "For any reason" mantra you would therefore prefer the death of two rather than the death of one?

And you dismiss my position as nonsense? Wow, just wow. You can not make this stuff up.

You are discussing something that will never happen in Ireland. We will not be amending the 8th or allowing the slicing to pieces of babies.

ohnonotgmail

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

You are discussing something that will never happen in Ireland. We will not be amending the 8th or allowing the slicing to pieces of babies.

well that remains to be seen. hopefully the citizens of this country will get to have their say on this. If they vote to leave things as they are then so be it. It is entirely possible that politicians will attempt to gerrymander any vote on the topic.

nozzferrahhtoo

niamhstokes1 wrote: »

You are discussing something that will never happen in Ireland. We will not be amending the 8th or allowing the slicing to pieces of babies.

Nice of you to reply to me without COMPLETELY distorting or lying about my position this time. Only partially. That is progress at least.

I do not pretend to have a magic ball to see the future. I am a wait and see kinda person. But if you bothered to read my post I was not discussing the 8th at all, or what will or will not happen in Ireland. I was discussing my position on the morality and ethics of abortion.

But I am more than happy to meet you here in 10 years from today's date so that one of us will have the satisfaction of telling the other "I told you so" if you like.

conorhal

Jayop wrote: »

This has been discussed in depth over the last few pages.

You don't replace it with anything in the constitution because it's not the place for legislation.

They constitution is exactly the place for legislation designed to protect human rights from unscrupulous legislators and populist demagogues.
The 8th needs to be staunchly defended from the likes of you who talk in circles about 'law' because you don't want to say, replaced with 'abortion on demand'.

Jayop

conorhal wrote: »

They constitution is exactly the place for legislation designed to protect human rights from unscrupulous legislators and populist demagogues.
The 8th needs to be staunchly defended from the likes of you who talk in circles about 'law' because you don't want to say, replaced with 'abortion on demand'.

Had you bothered to read any of the few previous posts I made over the last few pages you'll see I mentioned abortion on demand quite a few times.

The constitution is not the place for legislation, the constitution is the place that lays framework for how a country is governed and also in some instances certain rights of the people of that country. The Dail is the place for legislation and after the 8th is repealed you and anyone else is welcome to lobby your TD and vote for someone who will then represent your views.

Tasden

Yellow pack crisps wrote: »

Being a father abortion seems very cold and wilfully sad and completely abnormal to me. Being a person who likes to think of myself as understanding and rational i would think abortion should be a right and as a modern country we should have the means to offer the services and supports that countless women have to travel to procure.

I get what you mean, but being a mother myself I can see many reasons where terminations would not be a sad or cold decision, but a decision made to protect the children you already have. (Which may also be sad, but is done out of care and compassion for the children they already have and not out of coldness)

Many women/couples choose to terminate so that their children will not be put at risk of poverty due to a baby the parents cannot afford. Going through a pregnancy and putting it up for adoption would cause so much confusion/hurt for the kids.
If there are mental health issues and another pregnancy is going to have serious implications on the mother's mental state, again a termination would protect the children they already have.
If parents are looking after a child with special needs that requires full time care and they are already at their wits end trying to care for that child, physically and financially, termination would mean they won't be bringing another child into an already difficult situation. The woman can hardly continue with the pregnancy and consider adoption if she has to physically care for her disabled child.
There are so many reasons where a termination is decided upon out of care for the current children in the situation and not selfishness or anything like that.

conorhal

Jayop wrote: »

Had you bothered to read any of the few previous posts I made over the last few pages you'll see I mentioned abortion on demand quite a few times.

The constitution is not the place for legislation, the constitution is the place that lays framework for how a country is governed and also in some instances certain rights of the people of that country. The Dail is the place for legislation and after the 8th is repealed you and anyone else is welcome to lobby your TD and vote for someone who will then represent your views.

I think you mean it's not the place for things you want but would none the less require the majority of people to agree with you.
While you many have mentioned abortion on demand, the vast majority of the repeal the 8th crowd are very reluctant to state boldly what they want and insetead bleat on about hard cases (which make bad law) because they don't want to scare the sheep in the hope that they can back door abortion on demand through minority parties in the Dail that could hold the ballance of power.

Jayop

conorhal wrote: »

I think you mean it's not the place for things you want but would none the less require the majority of people to agree with you.
While you many have mentioned abortion on demand, the vast majority of the repeal the 8th crowd are very reluctant to state boldly what they want and insetead bleat on about hard cases (which make bad law) because they don't want to scare the sheep in the hope that they can back door abortion on demand through minority parties in the Dail that could hold the ballance of power.

You had explicitly said me in reference to Abortion on Demand. Anyway...

No, the constitution is not the place for legislation because that's not what a constitution is for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution

It's not about what I specifically want or do not want that has any bearing. If in 1983 the government had wanted to outlaw Abortion then it should have and could have been done in the Dail.

Triceratops Ballet

conorhal wrote: »

I think you mean it's not the place for things you want but would none the less require the majority of people to agree with you.
While you many have mentioned abortion on demand, the vast majority of the repeal the 8th crowd are very reluctant to state boldly what they want and insetead bleat on about hard cases (which make bad law) because they don't want to scare the sheep in the hope that they can back door abortion on demand through minority parties in the Dail that could hold the ballance of power.

The constitution is a guideline document around which laws of a country are constructed. It's a set of ideals that a group of people agree to live under, hence needing a consensus from the people to change it. Laws, are then developed around the rights that are outlined in the constitution and no law can be enacted that contravenes a constitutional article.

If we all woke in the morning and the 8th amendment was just gone, abortion would still be illegal in Ireland, we would still retain, all acts and bills that have been implemented in relation to abortion. Repealing the 8th amendment would allow us to construct, new and definite laws governing access to abortion, they can be as restrictive or unrestrictive as we want. They will allow us to move forward on the issue, rather than having individual judges having to make decisions on a case by case basis and having medical professionals reluctant to act for fear of breaking the law. Repealing the 8th only affords us clarity on the issue, not abortion on demand.

Elliott S

conorhal wrote: »

They constitution is exactly the place for legislation

You are showing rudimentary ignorance of the legal system here. Like, seriously, the first lecture law students receive in college, Irish Law 101.

Grayson

conorhal wrote: »

I think you mean it's not the place for things you want but would none the less require the majority of people to agree with you.
While you many have mentioned abortion on demand, the vast majority of the repeal the 8th crowd are very reluctant to state boldly what they want and insetead bleat on about hard cases (which make bad law) because they don't want to scare the sheep in the hope that they can back door abortion on demand through minority parties in the Dail that could hold the ballance of power.

You mean the deaths of women.

Yellow pack crisps

Tasden wrote: »

Yellow pack crisps wrote: »

Being a father abortion seems very cold and wilfully sad and completely abnormal to me. Being a person who likes to think of myself as understanding and rational i would think abortion should be a right and as a modern country we should have the means to offer the services and supports that countless women have to travel to procure.

I get what you mean, but being a mother myself I can see many reasons where terminations would not be a sad or cold decision, but a decision made to protect the children you already have. (Which may also be sad, but is done out of care and compassion for the children they already have and not out of coldness)

Many women/couples choose to terminate so that their children will not be put at risk of poverty due to a baby the parents cannot afford. Going through a pregnancy and putting it up for adoption would cause so much confusion/hurt for the kids.
If there are mental health issues and another pregnancy is going to have serious implications on the mother's mental state, again a termination would protect the children they already have.
If parents are looking after a child with special needs that requires full time care and they are already at their wits end trying to care for that child, physically and financially, termination would mean they won't be bringing another child into an already difficult situation. The woman can hardly continue with the pregnancy and consider adoption if she has to physically care for her disabled child.
There are so many reasons where a termination is decided upon out of care for the current children in the situation and not selfishness or anything like that.

Yep! I'm saying how I see it and how I feel about it. Should women have the right to choose? Yes. I am able to deduct myself why and when it would be an option for some people. I can also point you to reasons why it's so abused in some cases. But I won't because you're an adult and I don't have to explain it too you.

Abortion should be a choice. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

Tasden

Yellow pack crisps wrote: »

Yep! I'm saying how I see it and how I feel about it. Should women have the right to choose? Yes. I am able to deduct myself why and when it would be an option for some people. I can also point you to reasons why it's so abused in some cases. But I won't because you're an adult and I don't have to explain it too you.

Abortion should be a choice. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

I was just pointing out how being a parent can also change your views in favour of it too. I wasn't actually disagreeing with you or trying to change your opinion, just quoted your post in relation to being a father and how you view it as a father.

We're all adults here and it's a discussion board so it'd be pretty useless if we all said "you're an adult and I don't have to explain it to you" :pac:

Yellow pack crisps

Tasden wrote: »

Yellow pack crisps wrote: »

Yep! I'm saying how I see it and how I feel about it. Should women have the right to choose? Yes. I am able to deduct myself why and when it would be an option for some people. I can also point you to reasons why it's so abused in some cases. But I won't because you're an adult and I don't have to explain it too you.

Abortion should be a choice. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

I was just pointing out how being a parent can also change your views in favour of it too. I wasn't actually disagreeing with you or trying to change your opinion, just quoted your post in relation to being a father and how you view it as a father.

We're all adults here and it's a discussion board so it'd be pretty useless if we all said "you're an adult and I don't have to explain it to you" :pac:[/quote

I wasn't being obtuse. I was merely pointing out I understand it's necessity sometimes and I understand reasons that brings a person to that decidion. I think most people do.I don't particularly like or agree with abortion except in medical cases where needs must. That is not to say I don't think people should have the choice. They should.

arayess

The Truth Man wrote: »

So not being pro Abortion is fascism now ? Wow

Bit ironic to be talking of re regs aren't you the ex poster Nodin

RayM wrote: »

Denying people the right to a say on their own bodily autonomy is, along with all your other rotten right-wing views, fascism, yes.

And no, I am not and never was the ex poster Nodin.

seriously?
I can't believe there are two of you out there....the world is fcuked.