The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Water John

David, I wouldn't be taking such a high moral position on the Healy Raes. Danny may be limited, but Michael would run rings around most people in Dail Eireann.

Zubeneschamali

david75 wrote: »

The question is left hanging is this entire debate and issues at hand above the heads of many being asked to and entitled to vote on it.

That was the whole point of the Citizen's Assembly. A group of people who do not answer to questions about parish pumps who had time to listen to the actual experts.

And now the Government gets to hide behind them.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, the repeal campaign is roughly 2:1 ahead because repeal is popular. They should ignore concern trolls trying to get them to aim low or water down their message.

And if they don't win, well, we have abortion on demand in England anyhow. In the Constitution, even. It is awful for the women in direct provision, prison or mental hospitals who cannot travel, and tough for women who struggle to afford the trip, bu, you know what?

Your bullsh!t half-way appease-the-hyper-catholics-who'll-oppose-it-anyhow amendment wouldn't help any of those women in any case.

66:33 or whatever it is in polls right now is way too close for comfort, when the campaign narrative has been one way traffic thus far. This is going to get very close and if this opportunity is lost, it could be quite a while before it is tackled again.

While Leo Simon et al are behind this now, they are politicians at the end of the day and they are not going to touch this with a barge pole again in their political careers. This is not a conviction issue for most of them at the end of the day.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

1. That does not mean the law shouldn't address that situation.

Well, [sigh] if you must. But then we get the UK regime, where there is no, absolutely no way they have abortion on demand, the law says a doctor must say there is a reason.

Yet we all know that there really is abortion on demand, feck's sake, we outsource our abortion on demand to them. The doctors just ignore the spirit of the law, and no-one cares.

So, if you must, bring in some law with a 12 weeks hard limit, or 10, or 1 if you like, and exceptions only when a doctor says it is necessary. I mean, that rules out tons of cases where the doctor thinks he is performing an unnecessary late abortion, right?

freshpopcorn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, the repeal campaign is roughly 2:1 ahead because repeal is popular. They should ignore concern trolls trying to get them to aim low or water down their message.

And if they don't win, well, we have abortion on demand in England anyhow. In the Constitution, even. It is awful for the women in direct provision, prison or mental hospitals who cannot travel, and tough for women who struggle to afford the trip, bu, you know what?

Your bullsh!t half-way appease-the-hyper-catholics-who'll-oppose-it-anyhow amendment wouldn't help any of those women in any case.

We clearly have different views on this matter and neither of us are going to change.
In the weeks in the lead up to the marriage referendum yes equality ran loads of campaign about telling your religious granny/etc and all these votes helped for it to pass. Every vote is vital in my opinion and it's important you go out there and get them.
Even prior to the marriage referendum I had a chat with an older person and they went from being on the fence to voting Yes. If nobody reached out to them and showed them that it wasn't a big bad scary thing. They'd probably have voted no. All these people helped to get the marriage referendum to pass.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, [sigh] if you must. But then we get the UK regime, where there is no, absolutely no way they have abortion on demand, the law says a doctor must say there is a reason.

Yet we all know that there really is abortion on demand, feck's sake, we outsource our abortion on demand to them. The doctors just ignore the spirit of the law, and no-one cares.

So, if you must, bring in some law with a 12 weeks hard limit, or 10, or 1 if you like, and exceptions only when a doctor says it is necessary. I mean, that rules out tons of cases where the doctor thinks he is performing an unnecessary late abortion, right?

Sorry, I don't really follow your post/line of reasoning.

Zubeneschamali

freshpopcorn wrote: »

If nobody reached out to them and showed them that it wasn't a big bad scary thing. They'd probably have voted no. All these people helped to get the marriage referendum to pass.

Did you lie to those people?

freshpopcorn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Did you lie to those people?

No, I was able to answer there questions with fact and kind of put it in real life terms to them.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

Sorry, I don't really follow your post/line of reasoning.

The UK law does not technically allow abortion on demand. You have to get a doctor to say you need an abortion under paragraphs a, b, c or d. Turns out, lots of doctors are OK saying that, even for Irish women they never met before.

So, you can introduce a 12 week limit on abortion on request if you like, or a 2 week one - as long as there is an unlimited clause for rape, incest, and my GP says so.

Zubeneschamali

freshpopcorn wrote: »

No, I was able to answer there questions with fact and kind of put it in real life terms to them.

But you want pro-choice people to lie and pretend we don't think the Canadian system is best, and we shouldn't explain why, and pretend it is all about rape or whatever, at least until the referendum fails?

ForestFire

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The UK law does not technically allow abortion on demand. You have to get a doctor to say you need an abortion under paragraphs a, b, c or d. Turns out, lots of doctors are OK saying that, even for Irish women they never met before.

So, you can introduce a 12 week limit on abortion on request if you like, or a 2 week one - as long as there is an unlimited clause for rape, incest, and my GP says so.

Whats wrong with an unlimited clause for rape, incest, and decide before 12 weeks if you don't want a baby?

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The UK law does not technically allow abortion on demand. You have to get a doctor to say you need an abortion under paragraphs a, b, c or d. Turns out, lots of doctors are OK saying that, even for Irish women they never met before.

So, you can introduce a 12 week limit on abortion on request if you like, or a 2 week one - as long as there is an unlimited clause for rape, incest, and my GP says so.

Sorry, still not 100pc sure how this relates to what I said!

But in any case, there are a couple of points:

1. The uk position is peculiar and unique; the unintended 'ultra'liberalisation of the law there was in large part due to some loose drafting. The provision under which the vast majority of abortions are performed is where 'the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week and the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman'. There is no talk of necessity. It is just an incredibly loose of language which pretty much allows a termination in any case.

While you never can tell how legislative drafting will turn out, it's hard to imagine a similar provision being crafted here..

2.rape incest will not have its own provision. It will be allowed pre 12 weeks, not after in any circumstances.

3. There won't be a my GP says so provision.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But you want pro-choice people to lie and pretend we don't think the Canadian system is best, and we shouldn't explain why, and pretend it is all about rape or whatever, at least until the referendum fails?

Just temper your language for a few months; and resist the temptation to rub people's noses in it - be the bigger man/woman- it's not that hard.

david75

They’re their there

You’re your you

Know no

We we’re were

Two too to


Is it ok if the people we’re expected to take seriously can have an at least basic grasp of these fundamental elements of the English language and how the above mentioned should be used before we accept their point of view on their imaginary rights prevailing over a woman’s rights to make her an decisions for her own health and well being??

Typos be ****ed, anyone can make them but at least make an effort to know the difference between ‘know’ and ‘no’. And no, ‘ur’ is never acceptable as ‘your’ either.
You sound like a complete idiot on. Cop on.

drkpower

david75 wrote: »

They’re their there

You’re your you

Know no

We we’re were

Two too to


Is it ok if the people we’re expected to take seriously can have an at least basic grasp of these fundamental elements of the English language and how the above mentioned should be used before we accept their point of view on their imaginary rights prevailing over a woman’s rights to make her an decisions for her own health and well being??

Typos be ****ed, anyone can make them but at least make an effort to know the difference between ‘know’ and ‘no’. And no, ‘ur’ is never acceptable as ‘your’ either.
You sound like a complete idiot on. Cop on.

U ok?

ForestFire

drkpower wrote: »

Are you Okay?

Fixed dat 4 U:D

freshpopcorn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But you want pro-choice people to lie and pretend we don't think the Canadian system is best, and we shouldn't explain why, and pretend it is all about rape or whatever, at least until the referendum fails?

To the best of my knowledge we are voting to allow abortion up to twelve weeks. As in the marriage referendum we were voting to allow marriage regardless of gender.
If people are told by TD's they support abortion up to twelve weeks I believe it will pass but if there is to much doubt on this being expanded in the future I could see it causing the campaign trouble because lets face it people on the pro life side will use this as a tactic.
With the marriage referendum a line often used by the no side was it will lead to polygamy and the td's etc could say no it will not we are voting on allowing marriage regardless of gender. There was no doubt and it was clear cut. Similar with this referendum we need to make sure people known what they voting on and there is no doubt.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

1. The uk position is peculiar and unique; the unintended 'ultra'liberalisation of the law there was in large part due to some loose drafting.

2.rape incest will not have its own provision. It will be allowed pre 12 weeks, not after in any circumstances.

3. There won't be a my GP says so provision.

Bless your innocence.

Of course there will be a clause for "Medically necessary" cases after 12 weeks, and of course the law will not attempt to list the conditions which apply, it will be up to a Doctor to sign off.

Hurray! Same as England.

And, to really make that point clear, what have our politicians been pressing? Fetal abnormality? Nope. Rape? No. Incest? What?

Boat to England.

Thousands of women on their travels. Simon Harris read out the numbers from each county. At length. Tedious feckin length.

That is the problem they should fix, abortion on demand for Irish women, not some new nod-and-wink layer of hypocrisy to replace today's.

Billy86

drkpower wrote: »

True, in terms of legislative influence post repeal.

But if that cohort allow 'no restrictions' to be a talking point in the campaign, which the anti repeal will relish and seize upon, the damage may be done before any piece of legislation even has the chance t be debated.

I wouldn't think so to be honest, if the majority were making that noise it might put some off but it's not dissimilar to what was said about the likes of polygamists supporting same sex marriage and the efforts from some corners to push the "they'll want to marry their dogs next" type of stuff. It might be due to being a smaller nation and sew much harder to sew them but the Irish voter typically doesn't fall into that kind of us/them trap, which is something I take huge pride in us as a nation as.

It's also why the gobsh*tes at AAA-PBP (and I say that as someone who skews centre-left to left wing on most things) and what little semblance if any we have of a far right don't get taken seriously in national politics even as we're seeing the further reaches of both sides of the divide grow stronger in many other parts of the world at the expense of the centre.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

Just temper your language for a few months; and resist the temptation to rub people's noses in it - be the bigger man/woman- it's not that hard.

You sound exactly like the people telling Panti to drop the drag act for a few months.

Spooky.

ForestFire

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Bless your innocence.

Of course there will be a clause for "Medically necessary" cases after 12 weeks, and of course the law will not attempt to list the conditions which apply, it will be up to a Doctor to sign off.

Hurray! Same as England.

And, to really make that point clear, what have our politicians been pressing? Fetal abnormality? Nope. Rape? No. Incest? What?

Boat to England.

Thousands of women on their travels. Simon Harris read out the numbers from each county. At length. Tedious feckin length.

That is the problem they should fix, abortion on demand for Irish women, not some new nod-and-wink layer of hypocrisy to replace today's.

I hope your not on the campaign trail, because if this is want we are getting my "decision still to be made" will become a lot clearer.

thee glitz

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

Would it not be more democratic to gauge demand for some halfway house, and then see if there's a want for more?

No.

Well it would be, obviously.

drkpower

Z, if you think the drafting of the threat to health, life and FFA provisions (which will be the only post - 12 week provisions) will be as loose as the UK's, you have been living in a different Ireland to the one I have been living in.

What, by the way, do you think our politicians have been pressing?

Zubeneschamali

ForestFire wrote: »

I hope your not on the campaign trail, because if this is want we are getting my "decision still to be made" will become a lot clearer.

Well, good.

Let's all be clear.

david75

drkpower wrote: »

U ok?

No. I have a malignant Tumor growing in my head with Breda o briens stupid face on it and the wailing never ending fvcking stupidity of her and everyone like her, walking around the same streets as me, burning a painful hole in my will to live.

You did ask.

drkpower

Billy86 wrote: »

I wouldn't think so to be honest, if the majority were making that noise it might put some off but it's not dissimilar to what was said about the likes of polygamists supporting same sex marriage and the efforts from some corners to push the "they'll want to marry their dogs next" type of stuff. It might be due to being a smaller nation and sew much harder to sew them but the Irish voter typically doesn't fall into that kind of us/them trap, which is something I take huge pride in us as a nation as.

It's also why the gobsh*tes at AAA-PBP (and I say that as someone who skews centre-left to left wing on most things) and what little semblance if any we have of a far right don't get taken seriously in national politics even as we're seeing the further reaches of both sides of the divide grow stronger in many other parts of the world at the expense of the centre.

I hear what you are saying on the first para (not so much the second!).

But it doesn't take the majority view for the anti repeal to seize upon a talking point, and MAKE IT LOOK LIKE the majority/a sizeable minority are saying it. Of course not veryone willl be fooled, but that is not what they need. They just need a small prooortion of swing voters to be fooled, and the referendum is under real threat.

Don't help them.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

Z, if you think the drafting of the threat to health, life and FFA provisions (which will be the only post - 12 week provisions) will be as loose as the UK's, you have been living in a different Ireland to the one I have been living in.

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean exactly, but given that the UK rules require doctors to flat out lie to provide abortion on demand, and yet, they do so freely, including for Irish women, I must suppose that you think this 12-20 week period will, what, have some kind of penalty attached? A 14 year jall sentence attached like today?

And the state will have some credible standing to prosecute doctors for doing something they will swear in court they believe is medically necessary?

I really don't think so.

Zubeneschamali

david75 wrote: »

I have a malignant Tumor growing in my head with Breda o briens stupid face on it and the wailing never ending fvcking stupidity of her

I haf good news, mr. david75, the tumor is zhrinking. Ze long term outlook is still pretty zhitty, but not becoz of Breda.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You sound exactly like the people telling Panti to drop the drag act for a few months.

Spooky.

No, but even panti herself voluntarily took a step back from the SSM campaign for exactly those reasons. She was sensible and mature enough to see the big picture.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

No, but even pants herself voluntarily took a step back from the SSM campaign for exactly those reasons. She was sensible and mature enough to see the big picture.

WHAT???????

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean exactly, but given that the UK rules require doctors to flat out lie to provide abortion on demand, and yet, they do so freely, including for Irish women, I must suppose that you think this 12-20 week period will, what, have some kind of penalty attached? A 14 year jall sentence attached like today?

And the state will have some credible standing to prosecute doctors for doing something they will swear in court they believe is medically necessary?

I really don't think so.

UK doctors don't have to lie. Read the provision. Because of the drafting, termination is always permissible. That was the flaw (or perhaps the genius) in their law.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

WHAT???????

I thought you knew something about this stuff.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/ireland-says-yes-the-inside-story-of-how-the-vote-for-marriage-equality-was-won-book-review-1.2411456

Panti herself, as astute as she is intelligent, knew that too. She was keeping in touch with Brian Sheehan throughout the campaign; her lack of day-to-day involvement in the debates is drily summed up here: “They both agreed that, in the crucial last weeks, less was best when it came to media opportunities [for her].”

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

UK doctors don't have to lie. Read the provision. Because of the drafting, termination is always permissible. That was the flaw (or perhaps the genius) in their law.

You are going to make me paste it in, aren't you?

OK, you're wrong:

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—

(a)that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or

(b)that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or

(c)that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or

(d)that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.]

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

I thought you knew something about this stuff.

I do. The single most powerful speech in the entire debate was by panti. Do you want me to link that, too? You know perfectly well the one I mean.

drkpower

Read section a again.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I do. The single most powerful speech in the entire debate was by panti. Do you want me to link that, too? You know perfectly well the one I mean.

Do u accept she took a step back for strategic reasons?

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

Read section a again.

Are you are arguing about the value of X again? 12, 24, 10 weeks? That was not all all an accident, it is written there in black and white, and I don't care if it says 2 or 20.

The real meat of the law is before that: two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith

They don't have to be right. They don't have to be good at it. They just have to be registered.

And if anyone thinks they should be charged with anything, their defence is right there, I'm registered and I formed my opinion in good faith. Abortion on demand.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Are you are arguing about the value of X again? 12, 24, 10 weeks? That was not all all an accident, it is written there in black and white, and I don't care if it says 2 or 20.

The real meat of the law is before that: two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith

They don't have to be right. They don't have to be good at it. They just have to be registered.

And if anyone thinks they should be charged with anything, their defence is right there, I'm registered and I formed my opinion in good faith. Abortion on demand.

Section a.

Continuance of the pregnancy always involves greater risk than a termination. That is why doctors don't have to lie.

drkpower

The 1967 Abortion Act took the concept of wellbeing further, by indicating that an abortion was lawful if 'the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman' (emphasis added). In 2012, medical evidence is clear that, purely on a physical level, abortion carries less risk of maternal mortality and morbidity than does childbirth.

https://www.bpas.org/get-involved/advocacy/briefings/abortion-law/

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

Continuance of the pregnancy always involves greater risk than a termination. That is why doctors don't have to lie.

What exactly do you imagine the new Irish legislation will say?

That they should lie back and think of Erin?

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What exactly do you imagine the new Irish legislation will say?

Hard to say at this juncture, but not a chance that it will be as loose as the uk legislation. Lessons have been learned. It will be much much tighter, and sadly, court battles will probably lie ahead in a few edge cases.

I don't welcome that, Im just objective enough to have a sense of what will transpire.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

Do u accept she took a step back for strategic reasons?

Tactically, she may have preferred to make it not just about her, which I respect. It didn't work well, many outlets described Panti as the face of marriage equality.

And she did not lie, and did not hide what she thought we should do.

And we did it anyway.

david75

Let’s not forget Iona and co kicked off the marriage equality debate a year before it even started by spectacularly shooting themselves and their campaign in the face and suing panti and RTÉ for something Brendan o Conor actually said and panti got sued for just for replying to his question and by default agreeing. Yes they still are homophobic in case anyone was wondering.

Those same same people are running this campaign. Let’s look around and wonder how and why that is. And lets then allow them to continue to hang themselves every time they open their mouths.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Tactically, she may have preferred to make it not just about her, which I respect. It didn't work well, many outlets described Panti as the face of marriage equality.

And she did not lie, and did not hide what she thought we should do.

And we did it anyway.

It was a little bit more than 'just not about her' which is clear from both the article and the documentary which I'm sure you watched.

She recognised that her being a primary advocate would turn off some of the middle ground. She is owed a huge debt of gratitude for that selfless approach.

I am sigggesting you and others could learn from that approach. Or not.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

Lessons have been learned. It will be much much tighter, and sadly, court battles will probably lie ahead in a few edge cases.

How about we learn a lesson and pass a law that means we don't have to go to the Supreme Court just to find out what the law we just passed means?

The obvious solution is what Leo Varadkar said the other night:

No longer an article of our Constitution, but rather a private and personal matter for women and doctors. No more X cases, C cases, Miss Ys or Miss A, Miss B, or Miss C.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

I am sigggesting you and others could learn from that approach. Or not.

Eh, no. It was a stupid idea in 1983 and I told everyone in sight. Now it is a 1980s stupid idea dripping in blood.

Not going to lie.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How about we learn a lesson and pass a law that means we don't have to go to the Supreme Court just to find out what the law we just passed means?

The obvious solution is what Leo Varadkar said the other night:

No longer an article of our Constitution, but rather a private and personal matter for women and doctors. No more X cases, C cases, Miss Ys or Miss A, Miss B, or Miss C.

That was a sound bite. The legislation will be much more difficult.

History has shown us that it will be very difficult to craft legislation immune from challenge. Sure we could do what the uk did, but that simply won't pass in Ireland. Or at least today's Ireland. Step by step is what will have to happen.

But if you try and hurdle those steps, you will only risk losing the main objective.

drkpower

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Eh, no. It was a stupid idea in 1983 and I told everyone in sight. Now it is a 1980s stupid idea dripping in blood.

Not going to lie.

No one mentioned 1983. 1983 has nothing to do with the strategic approach that need to be adopted now. This referendum is not some sort of revenge for 1983.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

This referendum is not some sort of revenge for 1983.

Anyone who voted no in 1983 and has had to watch the slow motion train crash since will celebrate when this abomination is deleted from our Constitution.

It won't be revenge, the people responsible are mostly dead now, and their driving philosophy is in terminal decline, but when this one goes, it will be a milestone.

And I mean in 2018, 2028, 2038, whenever. I will see it gone before I die.

Zubeneschamali

drkpower wrote: »

But if you try and hurdle those steps, you will only risk losing the main objective.

I'm sorry, what is your main objective exactly?

I'm not sure we are on the same page there. Or book. Maybe in the same library, maybe not.