The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Annasopra

ELM327 wrote: »

That's enforced .. I enforce *choice*...


slighltly different opinion to yours, and I must be trolling?
Riiiiiiight.

Slightly different? No. You are promoting a form of genetic supremacism. Eugenics was much more than killing people.

ELM327

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Slightly different? No. You are promoting a form of genetic supremacism. Eugenics was much more than killing people.

Right.
That's not even close to what I was saying. Way to miss the point.

I'm convinced some people here just hear/read what they want to hear to have a ridiculous argument with someone.

Edward M

ELM327 wrote: »

I've said the opposite.
We should eradicate disorders if possible. No one is talking about euthanasia or anything, but preventing the creation of the life in the first place.

You'd be a good advertisement against repeal really!

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

ELM327 wrote: »

Because it's a common used term on these boards, and you will find I am not the first to use it as it is in common parlance

There must be no straw left on the camel's back with all these straw men you are sending.

There's no need for it. Pro abortionists is commonly used too like.

Name calling doesn't help anyone. Pro life and pro choice are the terms each movement chose for themselves, it's not hard to stick to them.

ELM327

Edward M wrote: »

You'd be a good advertisement against repeal really!

So we should not allow female bodily autonomy because you don't like something you've read online? And have failed to post one rational related non strawman counterpost? Riiight. Good one jim

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

There's no need for it. Pro abortionists is commonly used too like.

Name calling doesn't help anyone. Pro life and pro choice are the terms each movement chose for themselves, it's not hard to stick to them.

Whatever you want, it's the same thing. Pro life/Pro Birth/Birth Enforcers/The god squad/whatever else.
It's people who want to deny the female population bodily autonomy.


I'm making this one post on this thread then unsubscribing.
To anyone thinking of voting against repeal... please please please read up on the Miss P case.

ELM/out

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

Ah look, that's what we are being told now.
My argument as yours is based on current information.
Why not tell people the most likely scenario.
You called my statement, or at least the portion you highlighted secondly, though that wasn't the full sentence so it took the statement as a whole out of context, false.
You haven't provided any evidence it is false or indeed will later be false.
All the evidence points to it being true, in fact you even said you wanted it to be true in different words in one of your posts.

If the referendum is passed, here is the most likely scenario:

1) The Oireachtas will legislate for access to abortion. It's uncertain at this point what precisely will be in that legislation, but it won't go any further than the recommendations of the Committee. There's a chance that those recommendations won't be legislated for in full. And, as an aside, those recommendations don't include disability as a grounds for abortion so it is highly unlikely the final legislation will include it.
2) Barring unforseen circumstances, this will remain our law for the forseeable future. Irish politicians as a group like to avoid controversy, and have a great track record in being slow to change abortion laws, eg 30 years just to legislate for the woman's right to life in the 8th.
3) Any proposed changes will garner significant media attention. If the electorate are opposed to the change, they will make their voice heard through protests, lobbying their TDs, and all the other mechanisms open to the electorate. This won't happen behind their backs.

There are of course other possible scenarios, but none of them would be the most likely scenario.

nozzferrahhtoo

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Slightly different? No. You are promoting a form of genetic supremacism. Eugenics was much more than killing people.

I do not get to disagree with you often as I love and agree with the majority of what you post. So I relish the chance to query you on this.

I am not entirely sure what you mean here though so I am not sure if I am right to query it. But to test the waters, put it this way..... If I could press a button that meant no MORE people would ever be born in our species with a condition like that, I would happily press it. Would you not? IF not, I am curious why not.

Tigger

ELM327 wrote: »

Completely.
It is a red herring from the pro birthers... considering medically you (in 99% of cases) cannot detect DS before 12 weeks.

Guess they must be running out of logical arguments (seeing as there are none, other than emotive fear and wish to control others)

of course you can its a blood test

Pedro K

Tigger wrote: »

of course you can its a blood test

The medical professionals seem to suggest otherwise.

It is clear therefore that diagnosis of chromosomal abnormality, while technically possible, can rarely or realistically be achieved before twelve weeks. To suggest therefore that disability will be eliminated by enacting legislation in line with the recommendations of the Oireachtas committee is misleading.

Tigger

Pedro K wrote: »

The medical professionals seem to suggest otherwise.

thats gibberish, they are talking about screening and diagnostic as two different things if you use the diagnostic blood test

from the article

A second method of screening is a blood test to analyse free fetal DNA in the mother’s blood stream. This test (eg Harmony, Panorama) can be performed from nine weeks onwards. These tests cost upwards of €500 and are not funded by the State which is an obvious limiting factor for many women. If organised through the public system women still have to pay for it. There is no facility in Ireland to analyse the samples so they have to be sent to the UK or the USA for analysis. Results are generally available within two weeks. These tests are not 100 per cent reliable, and so a further, diagnostic, test must be performed to confirm or refute the diagnosis.

at 9 weeks then you'll be able to have a final test which is 100% conclusive.
At the moment the tests need to be sent outside the state but that would change as would the price once people realise they can easily get rid of the risk of down syndrom children. btw the blood test is highly accurate

Tigger

btw i'm all for up to 16 week abortion on demand and 12 would be a start but i'd like to see it as a constitutional amendment not to leave to the government of any time to do as they want

Edward M

Tigger wrote: »

btw i'm all for up to 16 week abortion on demand and 12 would be a start but i'd like to see it as a constitutional amendment not to leave to the government of any time to do as they want

That's a point of view many hold re the constitution, I'm glad someone else can see the problem, there are a good few out there who might vote for repeal if there was some other constitutional guarantee inserted in its place.

I don't understand the obsession with having a provision in the constitution, this is a uniquely Irish mindset. We elect politicians to legislate, and it works in every other country we consider to be our peers.

Realistically if we vote repeal no politician will want to touch this issue again for a very long time, and if they do it will be because there's a demand from the public.

NuMarvel

Tigger wrote: »

btw i'm all for up to 16 week abortion on demand and 12 would be a start but i'd like to see it as a constitutional amendment not to leave to the government of any time to do as they want

You probably could add an amendment like that, but you're still excluding access on the grounds of serious risk to health, FFA, etc. And trying to add exceptions like those into the constitution is asking for more trouble, because the constitution isn't the place to set rules about complex clinical, scientific, and moral issues.

This is the Attorney General's legal advice on the 8th back in 1983:

"The overall reason, which crops up in almost every facet of any attempted solution is that the subject matter of the amendment sough is of such complexity, involves so many matters of medical and scientific, moral and jurisprudential expertise as to be incapable of accurate encapsulation into a simple constitution-type provision."

That can apply to pretty much any other matter that involves "matters of medical and scientific, moral and jurisprudential expertise".

pitifulgod

Edward M wrote: »

That's a point of view many hold re the constitution, I'm glad someone else can see the problem, there are a good few out there who might vote for repeal if there was some other constitutional guarantee inserted in its place.

I and others have pointed out that such a move would be overly complex. Secondly, we elect the legislators. They represent the public. Not trusting legislators with certain things is absolutely ridiculous unless you want all future legislation in constitution?

Tigger

pitifulgod wrote: »

I and others have pointed out that such a move would be overly complex. Secondly, we elect the legislators. They represent the public. Not trusting legislators with certain things is absolutely ridiculous unless you want all future legislation in constitution?

the constitution is better for single massive issues like this that populist politicians would have to have an opinion on every time they canvassed

Annasopra

Edward M wrote: »

That's a point of view many hold re the constitution, I'm glad someone else can see the problem, there are a good few out there who might vote for repeal if there was some other constitutional guarantee inserted in its place.

The 8th was supposed to be a guarantee and look how that ended up. Putting a guarantee in the constitution would just end up tying the courts and legislature in knots again and again.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Tigger wrote: »

at 9 weeks then you'll be able to have a final test which is 100% conclusive.
At the moment the tests need to be sent outside the state but that would change as would the price once people realise they can easily get rid of the risk of down syndrom children. btw the blood test is highly accurate

I'm sorry but isn't that the opposite of what that says?

It's not 100% accurate and needs to be combined with another test to get a meaningful result, and those tests can't be carried out before 11 weeks, from my reading at that. With the limit for accessing abortion being at 12 weeks.

pitifulgod

Tigger wrote: »

the constitution is better for single massive issues like this that populist politicians would have to have an opinion on every time they canvassed

What other pieces of legislation do you want to lob in the constitution? Ireland will change in the next twenty years, so another referendum in 20 years for any changed attitudes? We're getting another on divorce wording soon as well.

Annasopra

pitifulgod wrote: »

What other pieces of legislation do you want to lob in the constitution? Ireland will change in the next twenty years, so another referendum in 20 years for any changed attitudes? We're getting another on divorce wording soon as well.

The constitution really should not be the place to be specific on law. In fact Josepha Madigan wants to change the 4 year divorce rule in the constitution to 2. I dont agree. Take time limits out and let legislators decide.

pitifulgod

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The constitution really should not be the place to be specific on law. In fact Josepha Madigan wants to change the 4 year divorce rule in the constitution to 2. I dont agree. Take time limits out and let legislators decide.

I would concur with you on that, no idea why anyone thinks the solution is effectively be setting variables in the constitution when legislators are there to do it.

Tigger

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

I'm sorry but isn't that the opposite of what that says?

It's not 100% accurate and needs to be combined with another test to get a meaningful result, and those tests can't be carried out before 11 weeks, from my reading at that. With the limit for accessing abortion being at 12 weeks.

The test is 9 weeks its very accurate and the second test is 100%
The testing only takes two weeks cos there’s no dedicated lab here
There will be soon of course

markodaly

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The constitution really should not be the place to be specific on law.

A misnomer considering many of our rights are derived from the Constitution. I think the pro choice people have dropped the ball, but that is what echo chambers do.

Most want the 8th repealed but most do not want unlimited abortion. If they put in a fail-safe into the constitution to protect the life of the unborn, they would win. The more this debate is going to drag on, the more likely it will not pass.

pitifulgod

markodaly wrote: »

A misnomer considering many of our rights are derived from the Constitution. I think the pro choice people have dropped the ball, but that is what echo chambers do.

Most want the 8th repealed but most do not want unlimited abortion. If they put in a fail-safe into the constitution to protect the life of the unborn, they would win. The more this debate is going to drag on, the more likely it will not pass.

We don't write strict guidelines/legislation into the constitution. With the exception of abortion and divorce, the reason for that is because of the influence of the Catholic Church. A constitution is supposed to be an interpretive and living document. Not the place for legislation or removing the ability to legislate entirely.

markodaly

pitifulgod wrote: »

We don't write strict guidelines/legislation into the constitution. With the exception of abortion and divorce, the reason for that is because of the influence of the Catholic Church. A constitution is supposed to be an interpretive and living document. Not the place for legislation or removing the ability to legislate entirely.

Not really. The constitution is a document that protects peoples fundamental rights, things like property, free speech, right to life.

Removing the 8th from the constitution will mean that all unborn will have no rights, apart from what is fashionable in the Dail of the day. If you trust politicians then more fool you.

NuMarvel

markodaly wrote: »

Removing the 8th from the constitution will mean that all unborn will have no rights, apart from what is fashionable in the Dail of the day. If you trust politicians then more fool you.

There is no realistic alternative for people who want change.

ForestFire

NuMarvel wrote: »

There is no realistic alternative for people who want change.

No alternative seems a very closed position.

Would you prefer to keep the status quo, rather than have 12 weeks in the constitution?

Why can't there be a 12 week limit in the constitution? Not working for divorce is a separate argument, as this is about the protect and right to life.

It should not be messed around with every general election, and if you think they won't what's wrong with the constitution then of we are happy to keep 12 weeks. Why would we want to change?

I have been out of this thread for a while, but all previous arguments not to keep protection in constitution is it's not the place, remember divorce, that's what we have now.

Thank some time to write it test it and put it in.

Annasopra

Neither the 8th or time limits in the constitution are acceptable in my opinion.

Can you imagine the court cases on whether a woman is 10 or 13 weeks pregnant.

This is much more complex than having a divorce 4 year separation in the constitution.

The X case was in 92. The judgement wasnt legislated for till well over 20 years later. This idea that every general election will turm into fighting over abortion is just a red herring.

Replacing the 8th with time limits is a really really bad way of doing this.

Annasopra

markodaly wrote: »

A misnomer considering many of our rights are derived from the Constitution.

And? The vast majority of our law is not directly written into the constitution.

Zubeneschamali

ForestFire wrote: »

Would you prefer to keep the status quo, rather than have 12 weeks in the constitution?

Yes, and hold another vote in 5 years.

NuMarvel

ForestFire wrote: »

No alternative seems a very closed position.

Would you prefer to keep the status quo, rather than have 12 weeks in the constitution?

Why can't there be a 12 week limit in the constitution? Not working for divorce is a separate argument, as this is about the protect and right to life.

It should not be messed around with every general election, and if you think they won't what's wrong with the constitution then of we are happy to keep 12 weeks. Why would we want to change?

I have been out of this thread for a while, but all previous arguments not to keep protection in constitution is it's not the place, remember divorce, that's what we have now.

Thank some time to write it test it and put it in.

I set out the problems with a replacement amendment earlier today.

The provision in the constitution for divorce reinforces my point. Getting a divorce is a legal matter, so it's easy to provide for it in a legal document (I don't think it should be in this particular document, but that's a different argument). We haven't had any court cases testing that provision and we haven't had to hold referendums to remedy unforseen problems.

Abortion on the other hand has resulted in multiple court cases. We've had four subsequent referendums, with at least one more on the way. And the 8th, which was meant to be a cast iron guarantee against abortion ended up actually legalising it. Which is exactly what the opponents of the 8th said back in 83.

If you've got text that would work like the divorce clause instead of how the 8th has, I'd love to hear it. Because I've thought about it, and I can't think of any. Which is why I say there is no realistic alternative, and why I favour repeal or something similar.

ForestFire

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Neither the 8th or time limits in the constitution are acceptable in my opinion.

Can you imagine the court cases on whether a woman is 10 or 13 weeks pregnant.

This is much more complex than having a divorce 4 year separation in the constitution.

The X case was in 92. The judgement wasnt legislated for till well over 20 years later. This idea that every general election will turm into fighting over abortion is just a red herring.

Replacing the 8th with time limits is a really really bad way of doing this.

The length of pregnacy(age ) is dertermined by a doctor from the date of last cycle and fixed from this point. Yes there can be some error in this but the date is set a nd you know how long you have to decide.

So if you think there is an issue with 11 and 13 weeks then put 14 weeks into the constitution.

If you want an abortion, you should not be waiting till the last minute to decide.

Also if we put 12 weeks in legislation we still have the same issue in determing the 11 to 13 weeks cases? So there is no difference.

Bannasidhe

ForestFire wrote: »

The length of pregnacy(age ) is dertermined by a doctor from the date of last cycle and fixed from this point. Yes there can be some error in this but the date is set a nd you know how long you have to decide.

So if you think there is an issue with 11 and 13 weeks then put 14 weeks into the constitution.

If you want an abortion, you should not be waiting till the last minute to decide.

Indeed. If a person is in crises they should bloody well just hurry up and make a decision :rolleyes:

Your lack of understanding about how difficult a decision it can be or indeed the biological realities of being pregnant is astounding.

Annasopra

ForestFire wrote: »

The length of pregnacy(age ) is dertermined by a doctor from the date of last cycle and fixed from this point. Yes there can be some error in this but the date is set a nd you know how long you have to decide.

So if you think there is an issue with 11 and 13 weeks then put 14 weeks into the constitution.

If you want an abortion, you should not be waiting till the last minute to decide.

Putting terms and time limits into the constitution is an absolute legal nightmare waiting to happen. We were warned about the 8th. We were warned of the unintended consequences.

ForestFire

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed. If a person is in crises they should bloody well just hurry up and make a decision :rolleyes:

Your lack of understanding about how difficult a decision it can be or indeed the biological realities of being pregnant is astounding.

Sorry now I never said that. They are planning on putting 12 weeks in legislation anyway.

So you don't think it's going to work by limited in legislation to 12 weeks like they are telling us?

Or it's going to be changed very quickly to a longer and longer period?

njs030

ForestFire wrote: »

Sorry now I never said that. They are planning on putting 12 weeks in legislation anyway.

So you don't think it's going to work by limited in legislation to 12 weeks like they are telling us?

Or it's going to be changed very quickly to a longer and longer period?

Edit - I'm getting confused with your posts because your jumping between wanting timeframes in the constitution to talking about legislation.
The below is related to if it's put in the constitution!

What about the alternative that putting 12 weeks in means it can't be made into a shorter time frame either? There may come a time 12 weeks is too long and imagine we all have to have another referendum to change it.


I can't imagine any government touching this for a long, long time if its repealed.
Politicians don't like making unpopular decisions and will avoid anything controversial as long as possible.

pitifulgod

ForestFire wrote: »

Sorry now I never said that. They are planning on putting 12 weeks in legislation anyway.

So you don't think it's going to work by limited in legislation to 12 weeks like they are telling us?

Or it's going to be changed very quickly to a longer and longer period?

If unintended consequences arose, it would be an amendment to existing legislation rather than amending the constitution all over again...

ForestFire

notjustsweet wrote: »

Edit - I'm getting confused with your posts because your jumping between wanting timeframes in the constitution to talking about legislation.
The below is related to if it's put in the constitution!

What about the alternative that putting 12 weeks in means it can't be made into a shorter time frame either? There may come a time 12 weeks is too long and imagine we all have to have another referendum to change it.


I can't imagine any government touching this for a long, long time if its repealed.
Politicians don't like making unpopular decisions and will avoid anything controversial as long as possible.

My assumption is that, as part of the repeal, they are proposing on bringing forward legislation to be in place to allow abortion up to 12 weeks only unless in the certain conditions?

This is what the TDs and media are talking about?

If this is the case, then my point is, if you are going to legislate for 12 weeks, why not just put in the constitution as a guarantee.

If it needs to be changed then let's do it in another referendum.

Someone else has already said they would prefer to keep the 8th than put 12 weeks in the constitution and have another referendum in 5 years. This seems very bizarre to me.

Well why not put 12 weeks in now, as a very very good first step, and still have another change if needed in 5 years.

NuMarvel

ForestFire wrote: »

Well why not put 12 weeks in now, as a very very good first step, and still have another change if needed in 5 years.

Instead of asking why not, let's ask why first Why should we do this? What problem is it supposed to be addressing?

ForestFire

NuMarvel wrote: »

Instead of asking why not, let's ask why first Why should we do this? What problem is it supposed to be addressing?

I am still assuming that there will be a magic number (12 weeks) that they plan to legislate for. There will be medical and other criteria to pick this date and I do not know how they will pick the date, but lets assume this is done correctly and a majority agree with the date proposed.

The point then of including it in the constitution, is that we are removing the absolute right to life of the unborn and replacing it with a new agreed date after 12 weeks, as part of the repeal vote.

To protect this and to protect life after 12 weeks from further change, it should be enshrined in the constitution so that successive governments cannot change it without going back to the people.

I assume that, like me, there are many people that are open to abortion up to a defined date (Be that 12 weeks) but against a complete removal of protection, and who also do not trust to have this important moral decision in the hands of politicians (as nice as they all are)

If you think the repeal has enough support without these people, then fair enough, but without clear defined and constitutional protect you may lose votes (regardless of your own belief and stance).

So what is the issue including the 12 week date?
Do you want to be easily want to change it?
Easily remove it?
Is 12 weeks not enough, What do you propose.

And to make it clear, I am not deciding the 12 weeks, just that there is going to be a limit set in legislation in any case as per the current plan.

Water John

Maybe approach this, the other way. Some people eg Coveney, Creed, Humphries, agree with the 8th being removed from the Constitution. They do not agree with the law saying 12 weeks. They need to put forward an alternative. Michael Martin echoed that today;
'He called on Oireachtas members who are suggesting an alternative to the committee's recommendations to formulate it.' RTE.

Consonata

ForestFire wrote: »

I am still assuming that there will be a magic number (12 weeks) that they plan to legislate for. There will be medical and other criteria to pick this date and I do not know how they will pick the date, but lets assume this is done correctly and a majority agree with the date proposed.

The point then of including it in the constitution, is that we are removing the absolute right to life of the unborn and replacing it with a new agreed date after 12 weeks, as part of the repeal vote.

To protect this and to protect life after 12 weeks from further change, it should be enshrined in the constitution so that successive governments cannot change it without going back to the people.

I assume that, like me, there are many people that are open to abortion up to a defined date (Be that 12 weeks) but against a complete removal of protection, and who also do not trust to have this important moral decision in the hands of politicians (as nice as they all are)

If you think the repeal has enough support without these people, then fair enough, but without clear defined and constitutional protect you may lose votes (regardless of your own belief and stance).

So what is the issue including the 12 week date?
Do you want to be easily want to change it?
Easily remove it?
Is 12 weeks not enough, What do you propose.

And to make it clear, I am not deciding the 12 weeks, just that there is going to be a limit set in legislation in any case as per the current plan.

Because if it needs to be changed or altered due to unforseen circumstances, that would require a second referendum, and as we have seen from how politicians have hoofed this particular can down the road, that may not be for a while

ForestFire

Consonata wrote: »

Because if it needs to be changed or altered due to unforseen circumstances, that would require a second referendum, and as we have seen from how politicians have hoofed this particular can down the road, that may not be for a while

So you don't trust politicians to hold a second referendum if absolutely needed, but you do trust them (Or asking me too trust them) with the absolute law on the right to life of the unborn for them to change at will (However likely or unlikely that may be)?

Water John

You are totally undermining the construct of a written constitution, if you use it, in place of law.
The construct of a written constitution, frames the areas, where Parliament make laws.

ForestFire

Water John wrote: »

You are totally undermining the construct of a written constitution, if you use it, in place of law.
The construct of a written constitution, frames the areas, where Parliament make laws.

If the USA can have "the right to bear arms" in there constitution (Which I personnel don't agree with, but it's there) then I think we can have a absolute date for the protection of humane life in ours(if the people want it there)?

pitifulgod

ForestFire wrote: »

So you don't trust politicians to hold a second referendum if absolutely needed, but you do trust them (Or asking me too trust them) with the absolute law on the right to life of the unborn for them to change at will (However likely or unlikely that may be)?

Getting legislation through is a hell of a lot faster than organising a referendum. So you'll be directly affecting women while you wait for a referendum. Secondly, any time you put a referendum on abortion before the public, it will be a brutal experience that is highly emotive for many people. I would prefer to trust our representatives rather than potentially sending us through multiple referendums that are as bad as the next 5 months will be.

You'll also get plenty of efforts to block any referendum as is happening now. So yep, trust the legislators rather than adding numerous blocks to getting anything done.

Bannasidhe

ForestFire wrote: »

If the USA can have "the right to bear arms" in there constitution (Which I personnel don't agree with, but it's there) then I think we can have a absolute date for the protection of humane life in ours(if the people want it there)?

You are suggesting that an amendment written 1791 that has been the direct cause of so much violence and division in the U.S. is the example to follow?

Kurtosis

ForestFire wrote: »

If the USA can have "the right to bear arms" in there constitution (Which I personnel don't agree with, but it's there) then I think we can have a absolute date for the protection of humane life in ours(if the people want it there)?

So what would you suggest the wording of this should be? This is what 40.3.3 states at the moment:

The states acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right

ForestFire

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are suggesting that an amendment written 1791 that has been the direct cause of so much violence and division in the U.S. is the example to follow?

You have not read my post and come up with your own version, but here is some clarification.

I said, if they can stick this unbelievably stupid "law" in their constitution then what is the issue with us (Ireland) putting something in the actually protects life??

ForestFire

Kurtosis wrote: »

So what would you suggest the wording of this should be? This is what 40.3.3 states at the moment:

The states acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right

I am far from a legal lawyer, so you will have to forgive me that my version would, be easily challenged wording, But that's probably want you want me to do to shoot down this proposal.

But then its not up to me to make this water tight, is it?

That's what we are paying our politicians and their consultants for.
We also have an Attorney General to refer matters to.
And we can send anything proposed to the courts to be tested...is that not enough?