The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

Yet you are then comfortable to give no constitutional rights at all to the unborn.
That is fine by the way but many and I think the majority are not comfortable with that. Thus the whole thing could fail.

Can you explain how it is possible to give 'rights' to what the State itself does not consider a person without stripping the rights of an actual living, breathing, citizen?

.......

This post has been deleted.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can you explain how it is possible to give 'rights' to what the State itself does not consider a person without stripping the rights of an actual living, breathing, citizen?

That binary outlook means that all unborn up to the last few minutes before they are born have no rights what so ever.

If you are comfortable with that, fine. Many would not be and indeed many would view the abortion of an unborn person of say 38 weeks be the same as killing someone who was born at 40 weeks.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

markodaly wrote: »

That binary outlook means that all unborn up to the last few minutes before they are born have no rights what so ever.

But the user did not offer ANY outlook, let alone a binary one. The user asked you a question. One you have not answered here. Even a little.

markodaly wrote: »

If you are comfortable with that, fine. Many would not be and indeed many would view the abortion of an unborn person of say 38 weeks be the same as killing someone who was born at 40 weeks.

Who exactly is doing that though? PREGNANCIES have been terminated at 38 weeks, but generally the fetus is not. Who is EITHER seeking that OR doing it exactly?

I am pro-choice. Very staunchly so at this point given the lack of anti-abortion arguments coming from that camp. But even I see killing a 38 week old gestated baby as "the same as killing someone who was born at 40 weeks."

So who exactly or what exactly is it you feel you are addressing here?

patmac

This has probably been said before and this is my only contribution in any abortion debate. But can we get on with it.
Put out a leaflet, highlighting the main points, everybody votes, move on.
Christ this whole process is so tedious. I'm sure every point of view has been aired at this stage several times over.

markodaly

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I am talking about constitutional protections here for those past the 12 weeks, where there will be none.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm losing count of how many times this has been pointed out, and am good as sure it will need to be again at least once before the weekend.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Nettle Soup

applehunter wrote: »

Why scoff?

A cursory glance at the last 100 years would show you that anything is possible in the name of progress.

What??

Those blinkers are fitting you well

NuMarvel

markodaly wrote: »

I am talking about constitutional protections here for those past the 12 weeks, where there will be none.

It has been explained numerous times the difficulties that putting the grounds for abortion into the constitution would cause. Do you have a response to those posts?

NuMarvel

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't forget all the surrogacy. Sure you can't swing a cat in Ireland now for all the surrogate mothers.

SusieBlue

NuMarvel wrote: »

Don't forget all the surrogacy. Sure you can't swing a cat in Ireland now for all the surrogate mothers.

Don't forget the thousands of parents akin to Daddy Warbux from Annie queueing up to adopt all the children in our foster care system.
The demand is so high we can barely keep up.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Don't forget the thousands of parents akin to Daddy Warbux from Annie queueing up to adopt all the children in our foster care system.
The demand is so high we can barely keep up.

Shhh! That's supposed to be a secret!

ForestFire

NuMarvel wrote: »

It has been explained numerous times the difficulties that putting the grounds for abortion into the constitution would cause. Do you have a response to those posts?

You keep saying its difficult , its not a good idea and so on.

The response is:-

A)It might be difficult but that is want some people are only comfortable in voting for (Regardless if it is right or wrong).
How many I don't know. I am one, I'm not sure yet...

B)Overcome the difficulties to allow this to happen. You never said impossible, and I don't believe it is impossible.

We could discus this and keep going around in circles but at the end of the day there are only two options:-

1)Have the referendum without the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

2)Have the referendum with the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

The only question left is, if you think you can get enough support for 1) then lets proceed this way and let the people decide.

And if not then proceed with 2)

(Or is there another option?)

ohnonotgmail

ForestFire wrote: »

You keep saying its difficult , its not a good idea and so on.

The response is:-

A)It might be difficult but that is want some people are only comfortable in voting for (Regardless if it is right or wrong).
How many I don't know. I am one, I'm not sure yet...

B)Overcome the difficulties to allow this to happen. You never said impossible, and I don't believe it is impossible.

For all practical purposes it is impossible.

ForestFire wrote: »

We could discus this and keep going around in circles but at the end of the day there are only two options:-

1)Have the referendum without the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

2)Have the referendum with the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

The only question left is, if you think you can get enough support for 1) then lets proceed this way and let the people decide.

And if not then proceed with 2)

(Or is there another option?)

What we are voting on has already been decided. we will not be voting on adding even more clauses with unknown interpretations into the constitution. we made that mistake when the 8th was passed. we wont make it again.

ForestFire

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

For all practical purposes it is impossible.




What we are voting on has already been decided. we will not be voting on adding even more clauses with unknown interpretations into the constitution. we made that mistake when the 8th was passed. we wont make it again.

We do not have the referendum question so I would not say it is decided just yet..

Anyway if it is the case that it is a closed topic of what the referendum is going to ask, then we will know after the result if people are happy with this method and trust the legislation after the vote, I suppose.

ohnonotgmail

ForestFire wrote: »

We do not have the referendum question so I would not say it is decided just yet..

Anyway if it is the case that it is a closed topic of what the referendum is going to ask, then we will know after the result if people are happy with this method and trust the legislation after the vote, I suppose.

The specific wording has not been decided but we will not be voting on adding even more clauses to the constitution.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

That binary outlook means that all unborn up to the last few minutes before they are born have no rights what so ever.

If you are comfortable with that, fine. Many would not be and indeed many would view the abortion of an unborn person of say 38 weeks be the same as killing someone who was born at 40 weeks.

The proposals are quite clear. They do not recommend termination be allowed after such time as a fetus become sentient except where that fetus is incompatible with life so get away with your hyperbole.

We do not have protection in the Constitution for the born but brain dead, why should it be there for the unborn whose brain does not yet function? Both are human. Both are technically alive. Where are the posters showing those in a vegetative state pleading for them not be 'killed'?

Perhaps while answering that question you might also answer the question I originally asked you.

NuMarvel

ForestFire wrote: »

You keep saying its difficult , its not a good idea and so on.

I keep saying it because it's what the legal advice says, and it's what's happened with the 8th. This isn't some notion I came up with, it's a conclusion I arrived at after researching the issue.

Perhaps you can share with us the research and experiences that led you to think an altered amendment is a viable option.

ForestFire wrote: »

The response is:-

A)It might be difficult but that is want some people are only comfortable in voting for (Regardless if it is right or wrong).
How many I don't know. I am one, I'm not sure yet...

B)Overcome the difficulties to allow this to happen. You never said impossible, and I don't believe it is impossible.

A) We don't put provisions into the constitution simply because they might be popular. A constitutional provision has to first and foremost be fit for purpose, especially when it's about complex matters. If it can't be shown that it will or is likely to be that, then it has no business being put to a referendum in the first place.
I can't think of a way to overcome them. Neither can anyone else it seems, you included. Until someone does, then I guess it's impossible.

ForestFire wrote: »

We could discus this and keep going around in circles but at the end of the day there are only two options:-

1)Have the referendum without the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

2)Have the referendum with the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

The only question left is, if you think you can get enough support for 1) then lets proceed this way and let the people decide.

And if not then proceed with 2)

(Or is there another option?)

This is already been decided. We're going with Option 1. That's not likely to change because no one in political or legal circles is calling for anything like Option 2. The reaction can be split into three main camps:

1) Repeal and legislate as per the Committee's recommendations.
2) Repeal and legislate, but not as far as the Committee's recommendations.
3) Don't repeal.

All of the above fall into Option 1 in some shape or form.

Annasopra

ForestFire wrote: »

You keep saying its difficult , its not a good idea and so on.

The response is:-

A)It might be difficult but that is want some people are only comfortable in voting for (Regardless if it is right or wrong).
How many I don't know. I am one, I'm not sure yet...

B)Overcome the difficulties to allow this to happen. You never said impossible, and I don't believe it is impossible.

We could discus this and keep going around in circles but at the end of the day there are only two options:-

1)Have the referendum without the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

2)Have the referendum with the 12 week protection in the constitution and see if the people are happy with it.

The only question left is, if you think you can get enough support for 1) then lets proceed this way and let the people decide.

And if not then proceed with 2)

(Or is there another option?)

Have you read the reports from the Citizens Assembly and Oireachtas Committee that you asked for?

Annasopra

ForestFire wrote: »

We do not have the referendum question so I would not say it is decided just yet..

It is. The cabinet decided the 8th will be replaced with an enabling clause giving the Oireachtas the power to legislate.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The proposals are quite clear. They do not recommend termination be allowed after such time as a fetus become sentient except where that fetus is incompatible with life so get away with your hyperbole.

We do not have protection in the Constitution for the born but brain dead, why should it be there for the unborn whose brain does not yet function? Both are human. Both are technically alive. Where are the posters showing those in a vegetative state pleading for them not be 'killed'?

Perhaps while answering that question you might also answer the question I originally asked you.

A brain dead person is medically a dead person.
Apples and oranges but I see the hair splitting is strong in this one.

markodaly

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Therefore no constitutional protections for the unborn what so ever. I see this might be hard for you to see but this is the issue many people have.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

A brain dead person is medically a dead person.
Apples and oranges but I see the hair splitting is strong in this one.

I see the avoiding answering questions is strong in this other one.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I see the avoiding answering questions is strong in this other one.

I have answered but you don't like the given answer. That is your problem, not mine.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

I have answered but you don't like the given answer. That is your problem, not mine.

You most certainly have not answered this:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can you explain how it is possible to give 'rights' to what the State itself does not consider a person without stripping the rights of an actual living, breathing, citizen?

You have spouted hyperbole about 'unborn' while showing scant regard for the protection of already born women and girls. In fact - you haven't even mentioned them.
Where are their protections?

Where is the right to have timely life saving medical treatment?
Where is the right to be allowed to die with dignity not kept on 'life support'?
Where is the right to not be force fed?

Loafing Oaf

markodaly wrote: »

Therefore no constitutional protections for the unborn what so ever. I see this might be hard for you to see but this is the issue many people have.

Many people opposed to 'abortion on demand' regardless of term limits.

Candamir

markodaly wrote: »

Therefore no constitutional protections for the unborn what so ever. I see this might be hard for you to see but this is the issue many people have.

There are plenty of countries which don’t have a constitution at all - therefore no ‘constitutional protection’ for anyone - born, unborn or otherwise. And still we don’t see murderers run rampant on the streets with impunity.

So we really don’t need constitutional protection. It’s too complicated. It will cause more problems than it solves, foreseen and unforeseen.

Let our legislators legislate.

Zubeneschamali

markodaly wrote: »

Therefore no constitutional protections for the unborn what so ever. I see this might be hard for you to see but this is the issue many people have.

I accept that this is an issue for many people.

I expect that they will vote against repeal.

And lose.

ohnonotgmail

markodaly wrote: »

A brain dead person is medically a dead person.
Apples and oranges but I see the hair splitting is strong in this one.

bull****. People can lack brain function and still be medically alive. I have seen this first hand.

Candamir

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

bull****. People can lack brain function and still be medically alive. I have seen this first hand.

Well no. Brain death is the legal definition of death. People who are brain dead are medically and legally dead.

People who are alive however may lack some brain functions. That’s an entirely different scenario.

NuMarvel

markodaly wrote: »

Therefore no constitutional protections for the unborn what so ever. I see this might be hard for you to see but this is the issue many people have.

I'm sure it will be be an issue for some people. But the alternative is the status quo, which only a minority want (approximately 15% according to polls over the last few years).

So these people are going to have to decide which is the least worst option to them:

1) Keeping the 8th, which means women will have abortions elsewhere or in secret, thereby increasing the risks to their health
2) Repealing the 8th, which means women will have abortions here, mitigating those increased risks to their health.

As the outcome of the referendum is going to be the same for the unborn no matter what, I would imagine that most sensible people would decide to do what they could to decrease risks to the woman. It may not be their ideal choice, but it's the one that cause the least harm all round.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'm sure it will be be an issue for some people. But the alternative is the status quo, which only a minority want (approximately 15% according to polls over the last few years).

So these people are going to have to decide which is the least worst option to them:

1) Keeping the 8th, which means women will have abortions elsewhere or in secret, thereby increasing the risks to their health
2) Repealing the 8th, which means women will have abortions here, mitigating those increased risks to their health.

As the outcome of the referendum is going to be the same for the unborn no matter what, I would imagine that most sensible people would decide to do what they could to decrease risks to the woman. It may not be their ideal choice, but it's the one that cause the least harm all round.

Just on your last paragraph, are you sure?
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ad-claiming-100-000-lives-saved-by-ni-abortion-laws-accurate-1.3174415%3fmode=amp

ForestFire

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'm sure it will be be an issue for some people. But the alternative is the status quo, which only a minority want (approximately 15% according to polls over the last few years).

So these people are going to have to decide which is the least worst option to them:

1) Keeping the 8th, which means women will have abortions elsewhere or in secret, thereby increasing the risks to their health
2) Repealing the 8th, which means women will have abortions here, mitigating those increased risks to their health.

As the outcome of the referendum is going to be the same for the unborn no matter what, I would imagine that most sensible people would decide to do what they could to decrease risks to the woman. It may not be their ideal choice, but it's the one that cause the least harm all round.

While I don't disagree with the options we have, the reasons and intentions of the vote NO can be very different, i.e.

1b) Reject the repeal of the 8th in the current form, to force the government to come back with something more acceptable.

You may not think this is a valid reason to vote NO, but I am guessing that a lot of people will be doing.

Again I have stated many times, I am likely to vote for repeal, but I can see the issues people are going to have with this.

Loafing Oaf

ForestFire wrote: »

1b) Reject the repeal of the 8th in the current form, to force the government to come back with something more acceptable.

As I've said before, I think the government is likely to rule this out as part of the campaign to secure a yes vote.

Edward M

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

As I've said before, I think the government is likely to rule this out as part of the campaign to secure a yes vote.

I'd say you're right.
This current govt will certainly not address it again.
I'd say though that repeal will pass, but the pro life campaign are going to throw every spanner they can at this campaign, because they will realise if repeal passes then it is effectively game over for them as regards the constitutional rights of the unborn.
Highly unlikely any govt will revisit it if repeal is passed, unless to address time and reason limits.

Annasopra

markodaly wrote: »

Therefore no constitutional protections for the unborn what so ever.

Why does there need to be?

No other state in the world does it.

splinter65

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Every family or parents of someone who has down syndrome or has a family member/relative with a disability with all take a different view on the useage of the new billboard posters.

For example the O Dowd family appear happy to lend their support to the newly formed group ( Disability voices for life )

https://www.facebook.com/disabilityvoicesforlife/videos/211989529367440/

Everyone will Interpret the billboards message in their own way, the " 90% " abortion rate the billboard is quoting , I Interpret they re trying to tell the electorate [font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]the cold uncomfortable truth about how abortion impacts on a vulnerable section of society in another country.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Even if they didn,t change the billboard posters on their vans, known repeal campaigners took issue & offence with the previous billboard poster which had a young mother on the poster, who also gave their permission for their image to be used .[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][/font]

Why is that poster offensive?

Loafing Oaf

Edward M wrote: »

Highly unlikely any govt will revisit it if repeal is passed, unless to address time and reason limits.

And if they ever do, it'll be a low-key bit of admin, just like current proposals to adjust divorce laws.

January

splinter65 wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Every family or parents of someone who has down syndrome or has a family member/relative with a disability with all take a different view on the useage of the new billboard posters.

For example the O Dowd family appear happy to lend their support to the newly formed group ( Disability voices for life )

https://www.facebook.com/disabilityvoicesforlife/videos/211989529367440/

Everyone will Interpret the billboards message in their own way, the " 90% " abortion rate the billboard is quoting , I Interpret they re trying to tell the electorate [font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]the cold uncomfortable truth about how abortion impacts on a vulnerable section of society in another country.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Even if they didn,t change the billboard posters on their vans, known repeal campaigners took issue & offence with the previous billboard poster which had a young mother on the poster, who also gave their permission for their image to be used .[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][/font]

Why is that poster offensive?

Again its not the poster it's the claims on the poster. That woman has come out and said that she never even contemplated an abortion. So she and the anti choice side are lying through their teeth with her little statement.

ForestFire

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

As I've said before, I think the government is likely to rule this out as part of the campaign to secure a yes vote.

You cannot indefinitely rule out another referendum in the future, New governments, new people etc. etc., who's going to believe them if they tried that....They would be better just sticking to the core facts.

(Right now lads this is the lisbon treaty, let us know what you think.......hold on... I did not hear you properly, here's a few extras for you...let me know again there please.)

Bannasidhe

splinter65 wrote: »

Why is that poster offensive?

It's a lie designed to tug at people's emotions.

The Oireachtas committee recommended that termination after 12 weeks be permissible only when 1) The life of the woman is threatened.
2) There is a diagnoses that the fetus is incompatible with
life.
3) There is a diagnoses of 'significant' abnormality.


So lets look at this:

1) Being pregnant with a fetus diagnosed with DS is not itself life threatening.
2) Having DS is not incompatible with life.
3) People with DS are capable of living independent, productive, lives so it is highly questionable if it would qualify as a 'significant' abnormality unless other factors were present.

Additionally as January has said - this woman never contemplated having a termination so the geographical location of the termination she was never going to have is moot.

Bannasidhe

ForestFire wrote: »

You cannot indefinitely rule out another referendum in the future, New governments, new people etc. etc., who's going to believe them if they tried that....They would be better just sticking to the core facts.

(Right now lads this is the lisbon treaty, let us know what you think.......hold on... I did not hear you properly, here's a few extras for you...let me know again there please.)

If it fails this time I guarantee there will be another referendum.

ForestFire

January wrote: »

Again its not the poster it's the claims on the poster. That woman has come out and said that she never even contemplated an abortion. So she and the anti choice side are lying through their teeth with her little statement.

I don't see a problem with it if these two cases are met:-

1) The picture was approved by the Mother
2) The text if from at least one real case that is true.

All advertisement pictures use models/actresses etc. to put their point across.

Again I think contesting things like this is just stupid, were just sticking to the facts is better?

Edward M

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's a lie designed to tug at people's emotions.

The Oireachtas committee recommended that termination after 12 weeks be permissible only when 1) The life of the woman is threatened.
2) There is a diagnoses that the fetus is incompatible with
life.
3) There is a diagnoses of 'significant' abnormality.


So lets look at this:

1) Being pregnant with a fetus diagnosed with DS is not itself life threatening.
2) Having DS is not incompatible with life.
3) People with DS are capable of living independent, productive, lives so it is highly questionable if it would qualify as a 'significant' abnormality unless other factors were present.

Additionally as January has said - this woman never contemplated having a termination so the geographical location of the termination she was never going to have is moot.

I haven't seen that poster before myself.
But if she never contemplated an abortion then its definitely wrong to use it unless it states an actress or unaffected persons used.
Can anyone link to somewhere she says she never considered an abortion?

Loafing Oaf

ForestFire wrote: »

You cannot indefinitely rule out another referendum in the future, New governments, new people etc. etc., who's going to believe them if they tried that..

Well I suppose Varadkar could promise not to initiate one himself...Problem with having a referendum on 'limited abortion' in a couple of years is pretty much everyone supporting 12 weeks has said it would be unworkable. It would look like they were only saying that because were hellbent on 'abortion on demand'...

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

Just on your last paragraph, are you sure?
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ad-claiming-100-000-lives-saved-by-ni-abortion-laws-accurate-1.3174415%3fmode=amp

No one's been able to show me how it's stopping abortions, and I've asked plenty of times, so I'm going to say yes, I'm sure. Someone tried on this or another thread, but their methodology and assumptions were unsound, and I don't think they came back with revised data.

ForestFire wrote: »

While I don't disagree with the options we have, the reasons and intentions of the vote NO can be very different, i.e.

1b) Reject the repeal of the 8th in the current form, to force the government to come back with something more acceptable.

You may not think this is a valid reason to vote NO, but I am guessing that a lot of people will be doing.

Again I have stated many times, I am likely to vote for repeal, but I can see the issues people are going to have with this.

1B is more accurately described as "Maintain the status quo until a government proposes something more palatable to me". Which is just a variation of my first option.

I can understand why people might want that, but that's not going to be on this year's ballot paper and who know when it will be, if ever.

So again, people are going to have to choose the least worst option. I am not dismissing the difficulty some people may have with that, but I trust that most people in that situation will choose repeal.