The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

pilly

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, the point is that everyone knows which way they will vote on the day, so let's vote.

I do not for a second believe the noise we are hearing here that todays No voters would vote Yes to some imaginary half-way house amendment limited to rape and incest. It makes no sense to suppose that a fetus is a little human being and then kill it because its Dad was a rapist. They would vote No to that as well, citing some other imaginary quarter-way house.

I don't agree, I think there are genuinely people out there who are undecided. Some people don't think too long or hard about this sort of thing unless they have to.

Loafing Oaf

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mmm. It might be a bit premature to consult with them about a scheme that requires constitutional amendment when you haven't got your amendment, or even published your proposed text.

Surprising that a guy as on top of things as Varadkar hasn't done it privately though. I'm sure he knows the top guys in the GP Association personally. *dons tinfoil hat* Maybe he has and this whole thing is choreographed...

drkpower

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Part of the reason why we are having this debate, and having this referendum, is to ensure that women have the appropriate medical advice and support when having a termination. Counselling is part of that support. It shouldn't be considered to be an onerous requirement and im sure it wont be forced. But it should of course be offered.

Captain Obvious

pilly wrote: »

I don't agree, I think there are genuinely people out there who are undecided. Some people don't think too long or hard about this sort of thing unless they have to.

The wording of the referendum hasn't even been decided yet. There will be plenty waiting to see what the 8th will be replaced with before making uo their minds.

markodaly

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is quite clear they lied. They presented a woman talking about considering an abortion when no such consideration actually took place. what would you call that?

How do you know that no such consideration took place?

January

markodaly wrote: »

How do you know that no such consideration took place?

Because she's openly admitted it numerous times.

.......

This post has been deleted.

markodaly

January wrote: »

Because she's openly admitted it numerous times.

Link to this statement ?

Riskymove

markodaly wrote: »

Link to this statement ?

If you read any of the articles her basic point is:

Theoretically, if abortion had been legal in Ireland when she became pregnant and a clinic was nearby she might have rushed into having an abortion

She never refers to actually deciding to have an abortion and changing her mind

MrPudding

ForestFire wrote: »

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??

The second amendment isn't a law. It is an amendment to the constitution that set out a new (at the time of passing) right, The right to bear arms. The right to bear arms isn't a law either, it is a... well... right.

If a federal or state legislature wants to pass a law, and a person's 2nd amendment right is engaged, then that law will be measured against that right.

I don't think there are any "laws" in the US constitution. Even if there were, that does not mean that having laws in a constitution isn't stupid, cos it is.

MrP

.......

This post has been deleted.

Riskymove

MrPudding wrote: »

The second amendment isn't a law. It is an amendment to the constitution that set out a new (at the time of passing) right, The right to bear arms. The right to bear arms isn't a law either, it is a... well... right.

I've always seen it's original point as a right to rise up against oppressors rather than the right to own weapons

Water John

Might agree with you Risky, problem is US Supreme Court has a different interpretation. That's why amendments to constitutions, can have unintended consequences.

MrPudding

Riskymove wrote: »

I've always seen it's original point as a right to rise up against oppressors rather than the right to own weapons

It actually talk about having an armed militia to protect the state. I am not a US constitutional lawyer, but there are arguments that it is not actually a right for an individual to bear arms, but for members of a militia to bear arms. As the US now has a reasonable sized military the whole thing seems even more stupid.

So what you have here isn't even a law, it is a right, but it has caused, and continues to cause a fair amount of strife. Adding things like time limits, and specifics about a particular thing is a crazy thing to do in a constitution. Our constitution is considerably easier to change that the US constitution, but it is still difficult, as it is supposed to be, but there should be a clear line between what is a matter for the constitution and what is a matter for legislation.

MrP

Billy86

MrPudding wrote: »

The second amendment isn't a law. It is an amendment to the constitution that set out a new (at the time of passing) right, The right to bear arms. The right to bear arms isn't a law either, it is a... well... right.

If a federal or state legislature wants to pass a law, and a person's 2nd amendment right is engaged, then that law will be measured against that right.

In some parts of the US you can even get proper prison time for carrying a gun, a high profile NFL player got two years for it about a decade back.

January

markodaly wrote: »

Link to this statement ?

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/773908732912730112

'I'm not saying I would have done it'

She didn't even try to organise an abortion in England.

Edward M

January wrote: »

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/773908732912730112

'I'm not saying I would have done it'

She didn't even try to organise an abortion in England.

But she doesn't say she didn't consider abortion either.
At that time she couldn't legally have one here, her only option would have been to travel.
I think her point is that if it was just a matter of going to a local doctor or clinic, she may well have aborted in the short term, but, whether she looked in to travel or not, by the time she had a chance for any of this to happen she changed her mind perhaps.
Nice insertion of "Dr Evil" there, that's a bit ridiculous too, of course discredit her at all costs by mocking her, that's just great.

January

When asked if she didn't have a problem with abortion so she says 'oh I'm not saying I would have' she's implying women have loads of time to change their mind but wouldn't if the 8th was repealed. The claim on the side of the truck says 'the time it took to plan an abortion in England is the time I needed to change my mind' she never planned an abortion in England, therefore, she didn't need the time to change her mind. The claim is false.

Also, I didn't make the video and didn't even see the Dr. Evil thing at the end...

Edward M

January wrote: »

When asked if she didn't have a problem with abortion so she says 'oh I'm not saying I would have' she's implying women have loads of time to change their mind but wouldn't if the 8th was repealed. The claim on the side of the truck says 'the time it took to plan an abortion in England is the time I needed to change my mind' she never planned an abortion in England, therefore, she didn't need the time to change her mind. The claim is false.

Also, I didn't make the video and didn't even see the Dr. Evil thing at the end...

We should do a fat check on whether she planned it or not, I often plan things in my head that never see the time of day.:)
You posted a video without actually seeing it? That's blind faith for ya.
But she sounds like someone who before she had her child would certainly have been pro choice. I would say her situation is being exploited by the pro life side too, but ridiculing her by mocking her is also wrong IMO.

Water John

Interesting to see the Pro Life Campaign seek to become involved in the Supreme Court Case. They reckon, they cam be of help to the Judges in reaching their conclusions on the 'unborn' question. Most of the reasoning seems to be, political, on their submission.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/supreme-court-to-rule-on-pro-life-campaign-application-1.3382398

does that mean if the Judges refuse their involvement, that they may seek to use that as evidence of a State bias?

January

Edward M wrote: »

January wrote: »

When asked if she didn't have a problem with abortion so she says 'oh I'm not saying I would have' she's implying women have loads of time to change their mind but wouldn't if the 8th was repealed. The claim on the side of the truck says 'the time it took to plan an abortion in England is the time I needed to change my mind' she never planned an abortion in England, therefore, she didn't need the time to change her mind. The claim is false.

Also, I didn't make the video and didn't even see the Dr. Evil thing at the end...

We should do a fat check on whether she planned it or not, I often plan things in my head that never see the time of day.:)
You posted a video without actually seeing it? That's blind faith for ya.
But she sounds like someone who before she had her child would certainly have been pro choice. I would say her situation is being exploited by the pro life side too, but ridiculing her by mocking her is also wrong IMO.

I didn't watch to the end of the video not that I didn't watch the video.

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

I never knew that people who lean pro-choice are able to reads peoples minds and intentions. Quite a gift you have there.

Rather than waiting for me to read your mind howabout you answer this?
Or would you prefer to continue making snarky remarks in a frankly pathetic attempt at deflection?

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?

The longer you snark the more obvious it becomes you don't have an answer.

Edward M

January wrote: »

I didn't watch to the end of the video not that I didn't watch the video.

Well if you watch to the end, its 36 seconds, it cuts her off mid sentence too.
Now I didn't see the interview at all except for your link, but once I saw the bould Dr inserted I felt it was just unfair.

Spanish Eyes

Water John wrote: »

Interesting to see the Pro Life Campaign seek to become involved in the Supreme Court Case. They reckon, they cam be of help to the Judges in reaching their conclusions on the 'unborn' question. Most of the reasoning seems to be, political, on their submission.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/supreme-court-to-rule-on-pro-life-campaign-application-1.3382398

does that mean if the Judges refuse their involvement, that they may seek to use that as evidence of a State bias?

Not unless pro choice groups are excluded too. Otherwise many will think their presence without a counter balance might have swayed things if the SC backs their view.

I think the pro choice are keeping out of this just in case pro life are allowed in.

Anyway the case is not about abortion at all, it is about the status of an unborn child in relation to a right to remain/deportation orders. And the judge said that would be the basis of the case nothing else.

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

We should do a fat check on whether she planned it or not, I often plan things in my head that never see the time of day.:)

Well, here she is, about 6 months after her daughter was born talking about dealing with a pregnancy in college. It's clear that the pregnancy was a crisis at the time she found out she was pregnant, but she doesn't mention anything about even thinking about an abortion, never mind planning one. She says herself that her first reactions were about looking after the baby when it comes, who'll look after it, what will her parents think, etc.

I don't expect her to spend the entire video talking about abortion, but considering the video is aimed at students who become pregnant in college, and she's staunchly pro-life in later appearances, I'm surprised she didn't make some reference to "thinking about travelling" or something like that.

But, nothing. Just the usual reactions you'd expect from a teenager who suddenly finds out they're pregnant.

Water John

I would presume the odds are it application would be rejected. So we'll see, after Wed, how it's played.

Spanish Eyes

Water John wrote: »

I would presume the odds are it application would be rejected. So we'll see, after Wed, how it's played.

Yep, I am watching it closely myself. I think I would be a bit miffed if the PL are allowed in. But I hope the learned judge will know that he does not need hand holding at this stage of his legal career.

Still..... who knows?

NuMarvel

Water John wrote: »

Interesting to see the Pro Life Campaign seek to become involved in the Supreme Court Case. They reckon, they cam be of help to the Judges in reaching their conclusions on the 'unborn' question. Most of the reasoning seems to be, political, on their submission.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/supreme-court-to-rule-on-pro-life-campaign-application-1.3382398

does that mean if the Judges refuse their involvement, that they may seek to use that as evidence of a State bias?

They'll certainly make claims of bias and being silenced if their application is refused, but they'd be laughed out of court if they lodged some kind of legal appeal against the referendum result on the basis. It'd be up there with the lads who claimed Valentine's day stamps and CCTV in polling stations invalidated the marriage equality referendum.

Spanish Eyes

NuMarvel wrote: »

They'll certainly make claims of bias and being silenced if their application is refused, but they'd be laughed out of court if they lodged some kind of legal appeal against the referendum result on the basis. It'd be up there with the lads who claimed Valentine's day stamps and CCTV in polling stations invalidated the marriage equality referendum.

I don't see how they could claim bias if refused, where the pro choice side are not a feature.

But it is not up to me is it.

Water John

But it would add to the narrative of, not trusting judges, politicians et al. Que, reason to have 8th in the Constitution, but we'll await.

Akrasia

Edward M wrote: »

But she doesn't say she didn't consider abortion either.
At that time she couldn't legally have one here, her only option would have been to travel.
I think her point is that if it was just a matter of going to a local doctor or clinic, she may well have aborted in the short term, but, whether she looked in to travel or not, by the time she had a chance for any of this to happen she changed her mind perhaps.
Nice insertion of "Dr Evil" there, that's a bit ridiculous too, of course discredit her at all costs by mocking her, that's just great.

If she had an abortion, her life would be different and her child would never have existed.

The exact same situation she would have been in if she had used contraception or if the contraception she did use hadn't have failed.

This whole 'I have a baby now therefore abortion is wrong' is a stupid argument, especially from the kinds of people who are opposed to sex outside of marriage. (if they had all had unprotected sex outside of marriage, there would be way more precious babies around today for us all to dote over)

Having a baby is (should be) an enormous decision, one that profoundly affects the parents, but also, the baby being brought into the world. You shouldn't have a puppy if you're not in a position to look after a dog, you shouldn't be forced to have a baby on the principle that you'll grow to love it after it's born. (and if you don't, sure you can always have it adopted or something)

NuMarvel

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I don't see how they could claim bias if refused, where the pro choice side are not a feature.

But it is not up to me is it.

The inclusion or lack of the pro choice side wouldn't make a difference to the court's decision. The PLC have to show they are impartial, that they have the relevant expertise, and that they would raise significant issues that wouldn't be raised in their absence. If they meet that criteria, then they're in. If they don't, they're not.

Of course, those are the facts of the matter. If their application is rejected, the PLC won't let things like facts get in the way.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

Well, here she is, about 6 months after her daughter was born talking about dealing with a pregnancy in college. It's clear that the pregnancy was a crisis at the time she found out she was pregnant, but she doesn't mention anything about even thinking about an abortion, never mind planning one. She says herself that her first reactions were about looking after the baby when it comes, who'll look after it, what will her parents think, etc.

I don't expect her to spend the entire video talking about abortion, but considering the video is aimed at students who become pregnant in college, and she's staunchly pro-life in later appearances, I'm surprised she didn't make some reference to "thinking about travelling" or something like that.

But, nothing. Just the usual reactions you'd expect from a teenager who suddenly finds out they're pregnant.

Just the usual reactions?
So wanting an abortion would be unusual?
She expressed her fears, she didn't say it of course, but probably, or at least maybe, abortion was thought of and having to travel if that was her decision.
The video there is about college, not abortion anyway.
But tbf, she sounds like she had great support, a lot of young girls and women wouldn't have that, I could just as easily see a young girl explaining she had no choice but to abort and believing them too and seeing their choice as perhaps the best for them too.

Spanish Eyes

NuMarvel wrote: »

The inclusion or lack of the pro choice side wouldn't make a difference to the court's decision. The PLC have to show they are impartial, that they have the relevant expertise, and that they would raise significant issues that wouldn't be raised in their absence. If they meet that criteria, then they're in. If they don't, they're not.

Of course, those are the facts of the matter. If their application is rejected, the PLC won't let things like facts get in the way.

I do not agree with you. But it is not up to me or you either.

The decision to be made by the SC involves deportations, but could have other implications. That is why the State is objecting to the PLC being involved.

There should be no involvement by either side in this important judgment. The law has to be seen to be impartial. I cannot see that happening if PLC are allowed in. It would also be so patronising to the judges of the SC.

But again, I have no idea how it will pan out, just my views on the matter.

Edward M

Akrasia wrote: »

If she had an abortion, her life would be different and her child would never have existed.

The exact same situation she would have been in if she had used contraception or if the contraception she did use hadn't have failed.

This whole 'I have a baby now therefore abortion is wrong' is a stupid argument, especially from the kinds of people who are opposed to sex outside of marriage. (if they had all had unprotected sex outside of marriage, there would be way more precious babies around today for us all to dote over)

Having a baby is (should be) an enormous decision, one that profoundly affects the parents, but also, the baby being brought into the world. You shouldn't have a puppy if you're not in a position to look after a dog, you shouldn't be forced to have a baby on the principle that you'll grow to love it after it's born. (and if you don't, sure you can always have it adopted or something)

The point of my posts on this are simple.
This poor girl is being ridiculed because of her decision, mocked even, but her experience has seemed to change, or at least strengthen her beliefs perhaps.
Instead of trying to ridicule her and her decision, produce a counter argument that make sense.
No need to ridicule anyone to prove a point, just make people aware that not everyone has the same advantages as her.

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

She expressed her fears, she didn't say it of course, but probably, or at least maybe, abortion was thought of and having to travel if that was her decision.
The video there is about college, not abortion anyway.

The video is about becoming pregnant in college. But even though she doesn't even hint at it anywhere at all in the 6 minutes she's talking you're still saying that she "probably" thought about having an abortion. Riiiight :rolleyes:

I'm a great believer in someone's first reaction being their most honest one. This is the earliest reaction we have to her talking about her pregnancy scare and she doesn't mention abortion in any way shape or form. There's certainly nothing here to make anyone believe that "the time it took to plan an abortion in England" is the reason she didn't have one.

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

The point of my posts on this are simple.
This poor girl is being ridiculed because of her decision, mocked even, but her experience has seemed to change, or at least strengthen her beliefs perhaps.
Instead of trying to ridicule her and her decision, produce a counter argument that make sense.
No need to ridicule anyone to prove a point, just make people aware that not everyone has the same advantages as her.

She's categorically not being mocked for her decision. She's being challenged on her statements about what influenced her decision.

Maybe you should follow your own advice and produce a counter argument that makes sense, instead of stooping to misrepresenting people's comments.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

The video is about becoming pregnant in college. But even though she doesn't even hint at it anywhere at all in the 6 minutes she's talking you're still saying that she "probably" thought about having an abortion. Riiiight :rolleyes:

I'm a great believer in someone's first reaction being their most honest one. This is the earliest reaction we have to her talking about her pregnancy scare and she doesn't mention abortion in any way shape or form. There's certainly nothing here to make anyone believe that "the time it took to plan an abortion in England" is the reason she didn't have one.

Ah well continue on with the discrediting.
Can't you find a video of a student that had an abortion or wanted one?

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

Ah well continue on with the discrediting.
Can't you find a video of a student that had an abortion or wanted one?

I have no need to look for one because, to the best of my knowledge, none of them are putting themselves forward as spokespeople for campaigns about constitutional provisions and making contradictory claims on the subject.

ForestFire

NuMarvel wrote: »

The video is about becoming pregnant in college. But even though she doesn't even hint at it anywhere at all in the 6 minutes she's talking you're still saying that she "probably" thought about having an abortion. Riiiight :rolleyes:

I'm a great believer in someone's first reaction being their most honest one. This is the earliest reaction we have to her talking about her pregnancy scare and she doesn't mention abortion in any way shape or form. There's certainly nothing here to make anyone believe that "the time it took to plan an abortion in England" is the reason she didn't have one.

Maybe it was something that was hard for her to say at the time, even if she only thought about it herself and told nobody, and even harder now, as she has a toddler beside her.

Do you know many women going around talking about their kids and how they contemplated abortion.

We may never know what her exact thoughts at the time. There may be some truth in it or not.

But do you believe this choice or deilema has been faced by other women?

Spanish Eyes

People need to watch the Supreme Court appeal. Just saying.

pitifulgod

ForestFire wrote: »

Maybe it was something that was hard for her to say at the time, even if she only thought about it herself and told nobody, and even harder now, as she has a toddler beside her.

Do you know many women going around talking about their kids and how they contemplated abortion.

We may never know what her exact thoughts at the time. There may be some truth in it or not.

But do you believe this choice or deilema has been faced by other women?

And you'll find a large proportion of women don't regret their abortions. It's not an easy choice for anyone to make, as many seem to like to portray it as an alternative to contraception. I do believe that women are perfectly capable of making the decision themselves without the state intervening.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

She's categorically not being mocked for her decision. She's being challenged on her statements about what influenced her decision.

Maybe you should follow your own advice and produce a counter argument that makes sense, instead of stooping to misrepresenting people's comments.

OK, no confrontation necessary, I wasn't referring to you or anyone on here.
I was referring to the video posted and DR Evil inserted.
I regard that as mocking a serious subject.
No offence to anyone here intended.

Edward M

There's a very interesting video, fictional, but it's a good glimpse at the dilemma facing people in the situation of being pregnant and not wanting the baby.
https://youtu.be/TUbIV-KRlJg

Spanish Eyes

Pro Life now want access to the Supreme Court in the case involving a deportation order. OMG.

Sure the judges know nothing without help.

NuMarvel

ForestFire wrote: »

Maybe it was something that was hard for her to say at the time, even if she only thought about it herself and told nobody, and even harder now, as she has a toddler beside her.

It doesn't appear harder for her now, what with her appearances in the media and being a literal posterchild on anti-repeal posters. Which by the way is the only reason we're talking about her in the first place.

ForestFire wrote: »

Do you know many women going around talking about their kids and how they contemplated abortion.

I've seen a number of women, with and without children, talking about why they chose to have an abortion. Here's the most recent example. Click the date stamp to see the follow thread on Twitter.

ForestFire wrote: »

We may never know what her exact thoughts at the time. There may be some truth in it or not.

We know what she's saying now and what she said then. There is nothing in what she said then that even suggests that "the time it took to plan an abortion in England" is why she didn't have an abortion, which is what she's saying now.

ForestFire wrote: »

But do you believe this choice or deilema has been faced by other women?

The particular discussion isn't about the decisions women make in these situations. It's about a person giving contradictory versions of her experiences, with the aim of restricting the choices available to women in these situations.

She had a crisis pregnancy, and she chose to continue with it. She certainly seems happy with her choice, and I'm happy that the law facilitated her choice. What I would like to see the law facilitating girls and women who make other choices.

Da Boss

The life of the mother is important and must be persevered, however the unborns life is equal and must also be preserved. Everyone must acknowledge that two people exsist here, and that the unborn mustn’t be forgotten

Annasopra

thee glitz wrote: »

Not very much, but I'm going to go with because it was easier and/or more appealing to do so?

Read them. Then come back on it because you will be actually informed rather than guesswork.

markodaly

January wrote: »

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/773908732912730112

'I'm not saying I would have done it'

She didn't even try to organise an abortion in England.

That actually doesn't mention anything about England, whether she did try or did not try and plan an abortion. What she does say is that easy access to abortion would make it much more tempting for people to avail of one, especially at the early stages when there could be panic.


So, yea no proof of lies here, just people projecting a bias against a poster.

mrkiscool2

Da Boss wrote: »

The life of the mother is important and must be persevered, however the unborns life is equal and must also be preserved. Everyone must acknowledge that two people exsist here, and that the unborn mustn’t be forgotten

Firstly, the unborn fetus isn't life at 12 weeks, I've explained this before. Your feelings don't factor into scientific fact. Secondly, no, one person exists and sustains what is a growing clump of cells that may or may not eventually become a person.