The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

nozzferrahhtoo

I will leave the personal insults out of the reply, as there is no need for them. Insults demean only the insulter, never the target.

pilly wrote: »

Yeah I'll read it in a couple of years when we have actual figures.

The post I linked to refers to actual figures. So I am not clear what you mean here. Perhaps you mean actual figures from Ireland? Well clearly we do not have them yet, as it has not happened yet.

But the figures from the citations I made are very real and show little effect of it being made legal. So it is not like we are completely devoid of figures here. The 2007 article for example was done in collaboration with WHO and Guttmacher together and were published in Lancet.

“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

But what making it legal DID do, they noted, was influence the dangers involved. Making it legal resulting in making it much safer.

pilly

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

I will leave the personal insults out of the reply, as there is no need for them. Insults demean only the insulter, never the target.

You're patronising tone insults every day but do carry on.

nozzferrahhtoo

pilly wrote: »

You're patronising tone insults every day but do carry on.

The wonderful thing about the internet is it allows us to communicate with many more people. The downside of this however is that we can not always put the tone into our posts that we wish to convey. We lack the context of expression and vocal inflections and more. Over the years I have removed tone from a lot of what I write, and write it in an emotionless way.

For many people this works. For a minority they insert the tone themselves where I have not. And then project that on to me like it is my fault. It is not.

If you find you have to throw insults or make it personal, rather than reply to the content of a post I have made though, then the fault is with you not with me. But that is of course your choice.

To return to the topic then. You claimed it is not logical for you to assume anything but an increase in the numbers should abortion be made legal. However this comment comes in the context of two things:

1) We have actual data compiled on a global rather than local scale showing consistently that it actually does have little to no effect.

And

2) Some logical reasons have actually been presented to you to suggest why this might be so. Such as people against abortion being more willing to support initiatives to reduce abortion, when they have failed to keep abortion illegal.

So you have numbers AND logical reasoning on offer here. So where you feel the lack of logic of plausibility now lies is unclear to me and I suspect, if you pause to consider it, to you too. And I invite you to consider that fact openly and dispassionately rather than getting personal for no good reason. Or you could simply not reply at all. To my knowledge no one is forcing you to.

Captain Obvious

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well she did raise an important issue in regards to legal liability. What happens if a woman simply lies and a GP ends up prescribing the pills for a 14 week old fetus? Will the GP be criminally or civilly liable?

ohnonotgmail

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Well she did raise an important issue in regards to legal liability. What happens if a woman simply lies and a GP ends up prescribing the pills for a 14 week old fetus? Will the GP be criminally or civilly liable?

well we dont know what the criminal law will say on the matter so we can only speculate. As for civil liability who do you think they would be liable to?

Captain Obvious

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well we dont know what the criminal law will say on the matter so we can only speculate. As for civil liability who do you think they would be liable to?

Primarily the woman if she had regret afterwards. Maybe the father also.

is there any word of dates for the referendum yet?
i am overseas and will be coming home to vote hopefully

ohnonotgmail

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Primarily the woman if she had regret afterwards. Maybe the father also.

liable to the woman because they believed a lie she told him?

Captain Obvious

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

liable to the woman because they believed a lie she told him?

Yes.

ohnonotgmail

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yes.

Not sure how you think that would work.

Captain Obvious

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Not sure how you think that would work.

Medical negligence. Prescribed a medication they shouldn't have. Much like if they prescribed pain medication based on a lie.

ohnonotgmail

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Medical negligence. Prescribed a medication they shouldn't have. Much like if they prescribed pain medication based on a lie.

do you have any examples of doctors sued for negligence by a patient due the patient lying to them? I'm struggling to think of one.

Captain Obvious

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

do you have any examples of doctors sued for negligence by a patient due the patient lying to them? I'm struggling to think of one.

Not off hand no.

thee glitz

bubblypop wrote: »

is there any word of dates for the referendum yet?
i am overseas and will be coming home to vote hopefully

I don't think so. Just make sure you were ordinarily resident in the State on 1st September last year.

nice_guy80

pilly wrote: »

Coming from a very strong pro-choice view even I would have to agree that abortion figures probably will go up. It's not logical to me to presume otherwise.

or official recording of abortions

January

25th of May seems to be the date being cited. Polling officers have been asked to keep that date free.

Loafing Oaf

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

it actually does have little to no effect.

I suppose the pro-lifers would say that even if only 5 or 10 women would have abortions in a given year who would not have them if the 8th was still in place, then it is worth keeping...

david75

And the pope visiting before the referendum?

Happy accident? Hardly.

applehunter

Notable increase in the use of cute/humerous baby memes from the pro life side.

Clever move.

thee glitz

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't think so. Just make sure you were ordinarily resident in the State on 1st September last year.

Yep, I'm quite entitled to vote thanks

erica74

Edward M wrote: »

She raises some valid questions though, especially the one re the affirming that the fetus is no more than 12 weeks.
I can see GPs referring a lot of cases on to gynecology to deal with the issue if its passed.
Perhaps that would be best all round as she pointed out that a GP surgery is an unsafe place for emergency treatment if necessary.
I think the implementation of an abortion policy has to be done right, the basic premise of how it will be handled has to be included in any pre vote material on the issue.
Some, and maybe even a large percentage of GPs don't want to take the responsibility of the repercussions of bad side affects possible from an abortion?
There is a difference in being in favour of abortion and having to administer it!

I don't see why there would be any problem with GPs carrying out abortions and I think, if the 8th is repealed, it's in everybody's interest to keep this service out of our already massively overstretched hospitals. Now, obviously there may be some more complex individual cases but, for the most part, this procedure is something that can be looked after by a GP.

What "bad side effects" are you talking about?

nice_guy80

david75 wrote: »

And the pope visiting before the referendum?

Happy accident? Hardly.

thought it was August?

Edward M

erica74 wrote: »

I don't see why there would be any problem with GPs carrying out abortions and I think, if the 8th is repealed, it's in everybody's interest to keep this service out of our already massively overstretched hospitals. Now, obviously there may be some more complex individual cases but, for the most part, this procedure is something that can be looked after by a GP.

What "bad side effects" are you talking about?

I know they are rare, I suppose all medications carry risks and possible side affects.
My point really was just that many doctors might not want to deal with it because of concerns they aren't expert enough if complications do arise and would have to refer the patient on anyway.
But some possible complications are listed here.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill/how-safe-is-the-abortion-pill

Annasopra

pilly wrote: »

Coming from a very strong pro-choice view even I would have to agree that abortion figures probably will go up. It's not logical to me to presume otherwise.

There is no evidence that this happens anywhere though. How can it be logical to presume something when all the evidence presents the opposite.

Annasopra

Wombatman wrote: »

Given the very restrictive conditions the exist at present I think that is a safe assumption. A total of 25 legally-permitted abortions were carried out in Ireland in 2016. Of that total number, the procedures were carried out for a range of reasons:
- 8 procedures were due to a risk of physical illness
- 1 was due to a risk from suicide
- 16 were carried out because of emergencies arising from physical illnesses.

If the recommendations of the Citizen’s Assembly are adopted you could expect 10-20 abortions per 1,000 women between ages of 15-44 per annum. Obviously this will represent a big increase.

The rate of unwanted pregnancies however will probably will remain about the same. If it is repealed, the choices available to these women, will increase.

Thats silly. You cant compare them. You are comparing a legal context now to a different legal context.

Annasopra

bubblypop wrote: »

is there any word of dates for the referendum yet?
i am overseas and will be coming home to vote hopefully

No but May 24th or 25th have been mentioned as possible dates. Dont book tickets yet though.

Annasopra

david75 wrote: »

And the pope visiting before the referendum?

Happy accident? Hardly.

He is coming in August

Hooks Golf Handicap

With regard to figures I know there'll be a kneejerk if the number jumps to say 6,000 per annum.
But remember it will be the first time we'll have had proper reliable data.
With the unknown amount taking the online pills perhaps we are there already.

Plus you'll still have people ordering online for anonymity & +12 weeks cases going to the UK.

Hooks Golf Handicap

Mods:
It's been a good debate up to now so I wonder if we could add a poll to the OP to gauge the opinion of Boards contributors.

If the referendum was tomorrow which option would you vote for:
No repeal
Repeal + unlimited abortion up to 12 weeks

I wouldn't add an abstain option or any mention of FFA, keep it as simple as possible.

Thanks

.......

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Mods:
It's been a good debate up to now so I wonder if we could add a poll to the OP to gauge the opinion of Boards contributors.

If you're looking for a gauge of opinion, then you should ask accurate questions. Nobody is ever going to be asked to vote on a 12 week limit. The options will be

- Repeal + Oireachtas has power to legislate
- Keep things the way they are

While, yes, the proposed legislation will mention 12 weeks, that's legislation, that can be changed. So voting on the basis of a 12 week limit is folly because that's not what you're voting for, long term.

Hooks Golf Handicap

seamus wrote: »

If you're looking for a gauge of opinion, then you should ask accurate questions. Nobody is ever going to be asked to vote on a 12 week limit. The options will be

- Repeal + Oireachtas has power to legislate
- Keep things the way they are

While, yes, the proposed legislation will mention 12 weeks, that's legislation, that can be changed. So voting on the basis of a 12 week limit is folly because that's not what you're voting for, long term.

Do you not think they will put the 12 week wording into the referendum rather than give themselves the power/problem of legislating ?
A lot of TD's don't want to enact the legislation if repeal is passed.

Also, giving the power to the Dail may put off potential repeal voters who are worried about it being pushed upwards over time.

seamus

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Do you not think they will put the 12 week wording into the referendum rather than give themselves the power/problem of legislating ?

I'd be very disappointed if they did.

Because remember, this mostly isn't about the 12 weeks. It's about cases of rape, risk to the mother and fatal feotal abnormality. And they won't be limited to 12 weeks, because they can't be.

So in order to properly capture everything, you either insert 500 lines into the constitution - making it incredibly difficult for voters to know what they're voting for, and leaving us wide open to decades of challenges on interpretation - or you insert a single empowering line into the constitution and those 500 lines of complication go into legislation.

January

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

With regard to figures I know there'll be a kneejerk if the number jumps to say 6,000 per annum.
But remember it will be the first time we'll have had proper reliable data.
With the unknown amount taking the online pills perhaps we are there already.

Plus you'll still have people ordering online for anonymity & +12 weeks cases going to the UK.

Its worth noting that once abortion becomes available here that women on web and women help will most likely be with drawing their services from the Republic. They dont ship pills to countries where abortion is legal.

Hooks Golf Handicap

seamus wrote: »

I'd be very disappointed if they did.

Because remember, this mostly isn't about the 12 weeks. It's about cases of rape, risk to the mother and fatal feotal abnormality. And they won't be limited to 12 weeks, because they can't be.

So in order to properly capture everything, you either insert 500 lines into the constitution - making it incredibly difficult for voters to know what they're voting for, and leaving us wide open to decades of challenges on interpretation - or you insert a single empowering line into the constitution and those 500 lines of complication go into legislation.

Mods:

Ok, Seamus has talked me round.
I propose a poll wording to be the following:

Which option would you vote for were the referendum tomorrow ?
No repeal
Repeal & Dail to legislate

Anyone care to add anything else ?

volchitsa

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ultrasound scans are very accurate in determining fetal age for the first half of a pregnancy at least. After that you get variations in fetal growth but still nothing like the variability you see after birth. All fetuses basically develop at the same rate.

Belfast

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That's the point of some people all along.
To them there is zero difference to aborting a weeks old foetus to grabbing a random child off the street and bashing it's skull in with a brick whilst laughing maniacally.
The "abortion of children already born" argument is saying exactly that.

Infanticide was not that uncommon in the past in Ireland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

Nowhere to turn: These Irish women killed their babies to avoid lives of scandal and poverty
http://www.thejournal.ie/infanticide-babies-mothers-2059732-Apr2015/

Female infanticide

Infanticide is the unlawful killing of very young children. It is found in both indigenous and sophisticated cultures around the world.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/medical/infanticide_1.shtml

The roots of infanticide run deep, and begin with poverty | Aeon Essays
https://aeon.co/essays/the-roots-of-infanticide-run-deep-and-begin-with-poverty

Belfast

seamus wrote: »

I'd be very disappointed if they did.

Because remember, this mostly isn't about the 12 weeks. It's about cases of rape, risk to the mother and fatal feotal abnormality. And they won't be limited to 12 weeks, because they can't be.

So in order to properly capture everything, you either insert 500 lines into the constitution - making it incredibly difficult for voters to know what they're voting for, and leaving us wide open to decades of challenges on interpretation - or you insert a single empowering line into the constitution and those 500 lines of complication go into legislation.

or they could try some thing different approach. They could set the penalty for abortion to nil or a nominal fine. This could be done in the Dail without changing the constitution.

seamus

Belfast wrote: »

or they could try some thing different approach. They could set the penalty for abortion to nil or a nominal fine. This could be done in the Dail without changing the constitution.

I've seen that suggested before but it's just not possible.

From the ideological viewpoint, it would be ridiculous - "Abortion is technically illegal in Ireland, but there are abortion clinics in every town that operate on the good grace of the Gardai not to prosecute them".

But there's also a constitutional bar preventing such a non-criminal scenario to be set up.

The constitution requires the state to defend the right to life of the unborn "as far as is practicable". This has the implication that a minor or otherwise inconsequential penalty for abortion would be a failure on the state's part to uphold the constitution - because the constitution requires that the state does everything reasonable to defend the right to life of the unborn.

This is why the current penalty of 14 years is so severe and way out of proproportion even if you're pro-life; because a poorly written part of the constitution demands it.

Zubeneschamali

Belfast wrote: »

They could set the penalty for abortion to nil or a nominal fine. This could be done in the Dail without changing the constitution.

No, that would definitely be unconstitutional.

That's why we had to have travel and information amendments back in the day - the DPP showed in the X case that there were perfectly practical steps to prevent some foreign abortions, which means the Constitution obliged him to take those steps.

Likewise foreign abortions would have to be criminalized with penalties comparable to murder to follow the 8th as originally passed.

NuMarvel

Belfast wrote: »

or they could try some thing different approach. They could set the penalty for abortion to nil or a nominal fine. This could be done in the Dail without changing the constitution.

It could be done but it would almost certainly be unconstitutional. The constitution says the unborn has an equal right to life as the mother, and that the State must "defend and vindicate" that right. It follows then that the State is required to apply penalties for illegal abortions, (defend and vindicate), and that it must be similar in nature to the taking of the life of a mother, i.e. attract a criminal penalty.

If a law like that was passed, it would be struck down by the courts in a flash.

At the end of the day, if people want change, especially if it's for complex situations like rape, incest, FFA, etc they have to vote to get rid of the 8th.

chalkitdown1

I noticed this morning on my way out of Cork city that the big 'Save The 8th' billboards with the down syndrome lies on them have been replaced by Tesco ads. :pac: That didn't last long. I don't know how paying for ad space on billboards works but I was expecting to be looking at these eyesores right up to election day. Glad they've been replaced already. They'll probably be up again at some point.

applehunter

chalkitdown1 wrote: »

I noticed this morning on my way out of Cork city that the big 'Save The 8th' billboards with the down syndrome lies on them have been replaced by Tesco ads. :pac: That didn't last long. I don't know how paying for ad space on billboards works but I was expecting to be looking at these eyesores right up to election day. Glad they've been replaced already. They'll probably be up again at some point.

Great to have someone on the ground reporting things as they happen.

Keep up the good work.

PopePalpatine

chalkitdown1 wrote: »

I noticed this morning on my way out of Cork city that the big 'Save The 8th' billboards with the down syndrome lies on them have been replaced by Tesco ads. :pac: That didn't last long. I don't know how paying for ad space on billboards works but I was expecting to be looking at these eyesores right up to election day. Glad they've been replaced already. They'll probably be up again at some point.

I guess the billboards' owners must have found their spines. Either that, or the pro-lifers were caught using stock photos without permission again.

Water John

They may be working on, ad bursts. Trying to get the best out of their budget. Be back in a few weeks with a new billboard, I suspect.

Belfast

seamus wrote: »

I've seen that suggested before but it's just not possible.

From the ideological viewpoint, it would be ridiculous - "Abortion is technically illegal in Ireland, but there are abortion clinics in every town that operate on the good grace of the Gardai not to prosecute them".

But there's also a constitutional bar preventing such a non-criminal scenario to be set up.

The constitution requires the state to defend the right to life of the unborn "as far as is practicable". This has the implication that a minor or otherwise inconsequential penalty for abortion would be a failure on the state's part to uphold the constitution - because the constitution requires that the state does everything reasonable to defend the right to life of the unborn.

This is why the current penalty of 14 years is so severe and way out of proproportion even if you're pro-life; because a poorly written part of the constitution demands it.

The State 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.

You could say with abortion pills and easy travel to countries where abortion is allowed that there are no practical steps that the state can take to protect the unborn children from abortion.

]
The Act also repeals sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 act;[29] these criminalise attempted or actual procurement of miscarriage, and assisting such procurement. It replaces them with a new offence of "destruction of unborn human life", with a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Life_During_Pregnancy_Act_2013

"destruction of unborn human life" could also cover a violent attack on the mother that results in the death of the unborn. I imagine violent attacks on the unborn would be getting the maximum sentence.

Unborn child adds to Dublin bomb toll
Juno McEnroe

November 23 2003, 12:00am, The Sunday Times

The bombs that exploded on Parnell Street, Talbot Street and South Leinster Street on May 17 almost 30 years ago killed 26 people including a pregnant woman. Colette Doherty was days from giving birth to her baby when she was killed in the blast. Her unborn child is to be recorded as a victim of the bombing by Brian Farrell, the Dublin city coroner.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unborn-child-adds-to-dublin-bomb-toll-dmh2lpjb8lw

Unborn twins `raise Omagh deaths to 31'
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/unborn-twins-raise-omagh-deaths-to-31-1.1100036

nice_guy80

I'm willing to help crowd fund a billboard campaign calling for people to vote to stop women having to travel to the uk

"stop shoving the problem under the carpet"
5000 women have to travel abroad for proper health care

Edward M

chalkitdown1 wrote: »

I noticed this morning on my way out of Cork city that the big 'Save The 8th' billboards with the down syndrome lies on them have been replaced by Tesco ads. :pac: That didn't last long. I don't know how paying for ad space on billboards works but I was expecting to be looking at these eyesores right up to election day. Glad they've been replaced already. They'll probably be up again at some point.

Wait till this one comes atcha.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/anti-abortion-campaign-to-show-image-of-11-week-old-foetus-467059.html

volchitsa

Belfast wrote: »

You could say with abortion pills and easy travel to countries where abortion is allowed that there are no practical steps that the state can take to protect the unborn children from abortion.

Not easy, no, but surely if people are taking their children abroad to murder them we shoudo make an effort? Instead we actually changed the constitution to make it legal for them to do so,because the AG found that he could, and therefore had to, injunct C to stop her having an abortion abroad.

So when it comes to cold facts, it doesnt seem like people really think it's anything like killing babies.

"destruction of unborn human life" could also cover a violent attack on the mother that results in the death of the unborn. I imagine violent attacks on the unborn would be getting the maximum sentence.

I can't say for the Dublin bombings, though it may be something of a circular argument anyway, given the constitution, but it isnt true for the Omagh bombings, and it's very dishonest of you to present a report about an application for the unborn twins to be counted among the victims when that application was refused and their older sister, Maura, is officially the youngest victim at 18 months.

I have a family member who died in the Omagh bombing, so I very much dislike people lying about it to further their own agenda.

pitifulgod

Edward M wrote: »

Wait till this one comes atcha.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/anti-abortion-campaign-to-show-image-of-11-week-old-foetus-467059.html

The Iona Institute's name is on the billboard, they've actually managed billboard even more toxic than it already is the pro life campaign. Very few people will view these billboards positively and Iona are viewed by many in a pretty negative light.