The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

drkpower

seamus wrote: »

The Supreme Court has struck down the High Court's ruling:

The unborn does not have inherent constitutional rights outside the right to life in the 8th amendment.

The judges' decision was unanimous.

*Phew*!

Mind you, this could strengthen the argument of the pro-life narrative that the 8th is the only thing maintaining any protection whatsoever for the unborn at all stages of gestation.

Obviously that is nonsense (the whole point of the referendum is to allow the Oireachtas to provide that protection via statute law) but it will be how it is spun.

PhoenixParker

Call me Al wrote: »

Can someone enlighten me... what other constitutional rights could a foetus have had, beyond the right to life of the woman? Iona requested to have a voice heard in this case. What were they arguing for?

Well if you regard a fetus as completely equal to a baby child benefit & child support would start from the moment of conception, any woman experiencing a miscarriage would be entitled to full maternity leave. . .

Those are things I can think of. I'm sure there are more.

seamus

Call me Al wrote: »

Can someone enlighten me... what other constitutional rights could a foetus have had, beyond the right to life of the woman? Iona requested to have a voice heard in this case. What were they arguing for?

Functionally the argument was that the unborn had the same rights as a born child, which would include their right to security of a home, etc etc. It potentially had wide-ranging issues, including the state appointing a "advocate" to every pregnant woman to represent the legal rights of the unborn while in the womb, down to more mundane things like the payment of child benefit for children not yet born.

The argument being made in this case was that an illegal immigrant should not be deported because he had a child on the way, and that child's constitutional rights would be infringed by the deportation of its parent.

The judgement is still being read afaik, the judges have added a footnote that even though the unborn has no additional inherent rights, the authorities need to acknowledge in such cases that there will be a child in the near future who has constitutional rights that can be asserted, and that should be taken into account when it comes to enforcing deportation orders.

volchitsa

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Don't see why this would happen with a GP-led service. How would anyone else find out why you are going to the doctor, any more than with any medical issue?

Doctor's secretary? Ours is shocking sometimes, with the personal information they either announce to the whole waiting room, or expect the person to announce, again in front of everyone.

Not to mention the chances of someone in the practice telling their best friend etc etc. Not saying it should happen, but it does - and concerning abortion women will be particularly worried about that, whether or not it's likely.

And even more so for any surgical intervention. Medical records sent to the GP afterwards too, perhaps?

Oh, and phone calls. In a small town a information can be gathered from hearing the secretary's phones calls - even when you dont want to!

seamus

drkpower wrote: »

Mind you, this could strengthen the argument of the pro-life narrative that the 8th is the only thing maintaining any protection whatsoever for the unborn at all stages of gestation.

Obviously that is nonsense (the whole point of the referendum is to allow the Oireachtas to provide that protection via statute law) but it will be how it is spun.

Indeed, though it's a card they've already been playing, so it really just lets them play it a little harder.

I think the opposite outcome was their preferred. Not just because it would delay the referendum, but because it would also legitimise the "foetuses are people too" canard that they love to state, but have no factual basis for.

JDD

So go to another town? You not restricted to your local gp's office. Any gp will be able to prescribe the termination pill. Or don't tell the doctors secretary what you're booking the appointment for - say a sinus infection and tell the doctor when you get in there. And if you don't trust your gp not to blab about it, pick a new gp.

Edward M

volchitsa wrote: »

Doctor's secretary? Ours is shocking sometimes, with the personal information they either announce to the whole waiting room, or expect the person to announce, again in front of everyone.

Not to mention the chances of someone in the practice telling their best friend etc etc. Not saying it should happen, but it does - and concerning abortion women will be particularly worried about that, whether or not it's likely.

And even more so for any surgical intervention. Medical records sent to the GP afterwards too, perhaps?

Oh, and phone calls. In a small town a information can be gathered from hearing the secretary's phones calls - even when you dont want to!

You could always still go to England!

Timberrrrrrrr

Edward M wrote: »

You could always still go to England!

This time next year they won't have to.

Edward M

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

This time next year they won't have to.

Well let's hope so, but if you fear the neighbours gossiping then maybe its a way to avoid it.
Later terminations,will probably still have to though anyway.

Water John

Iona ran the line, that William Binchy had expert experience on the law, in this area and would be able to assist the learned judges. Absolutely impartial, of course.

Zubeneschamali

Water John wrote: »

Iona ran the line, that William Binchy had expert experience on the law, in this area

He is certainly the man who has made the biggest mistake in the history of Constitutional Law in Ireland, so presumably he has learned the most from his mistakes.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Well I was thinking about the implied claim that even if we bring in abortion up to 12 weeks, many women will just go to the UK anyway after 12 weeks just because they can wait until later that way. Or that there would be pressure to align the Irish system with the UK because of those extra weeks.

IMO that is not the issue, but what might happen is that women won't feel safe using the Irish system (confidentiality and the risk of crazies turning up outside your house). I think I would need to be desperate before I'd risk it myself. But some women are desperate of course.

So yeah, I wasnt talking about costs in money terms, but more whether women might continue using the UK healthcare system even after abortion is legalized in Ireland. I think it will be more difficult, expensive and complicated for them to do so, but that some women will still prefer the anonymity and lack of judgmentalism of the UK, especially in the earaly months and maybe years, if problems arise in Ireland.

Whether that option will continue to be available to them in the longer term is another question, as I said.

The proposed 12-week limit for free abortion is lower than the corresponding limit in Great Britain, but it's not out of line with European norms. In most western European countries, abortions become significantly more difficult to get once you enter the second trimester. But that doesn't seem to lead to a flood of women from those countries going to Britain, and I doubt that it will in Ireland. Generally speaking, if you want an abortion, the sooner you have it the better, from every point of view, and there is no particular advantage in delaying it until the second trimester. Even in the UK, where the law does not encourage or require this, the overwhelming bulk of abortions happen in the first trimester.

I take the point that concerns about confidentiality and/or social attitudes might make women cautious about seeking an abortion locally, but I doubt that they will be faced with a simple binary of going to their regular GP, shared with their family members and neighbours, or going to Britain. There will surely be the option of going to GP practices or specialised clinics in other towns or cities in Ireland.

nice_guy80

and yet the unborn baby had plenty of protection before the 8th amendment was inserted into the constitution anyway

I don't remember hearing about the thousands of back alley abortions being carried out in the 60s, 70s, 80s
was there a concerted campaign against unborn babies before the 8th was voted in?

Peregrinus

nice_guy80 wrote: »

and yet the unborn baby had plenty of protection before the 8th amendment was inserted into the constitution anyway

I don't remember hearing about the thousands of back alley abortions being carried out in the 60s, 70s, 80s
was there a concerted campaign against unborn babies before the 8th was voted in?

There was an illegal abortion trade in Ireland until legal abortion became available in the UK. For obvious reasons, hard figures are not available, but the trade certainly existed and there are, for example, records of prosecutions of people for administering abortions.

And, yes, it was a back-alley trade. It was unlawful, unregulated and unsafe. Google "Nurse Cadden" for an instance of someone being prosecuted for murder when a woman died during the administration of an abortion. At least one other women had previously died during an abortion administered by Nurse Cadden, and she had several convictions for administering abortions and for child abandonment (of an infant born alive) before her murder conviction. And there were many practitioners other than Nurse Cadden.

Business pretty much dried up once legal abortion became available in the UK, but this obviously had nothing to do with the unborn baby having "plenty of protection".

beertons

I was told a story last night about a woman who previously had an abortion, went for a smear in Holles street. The master of the hospital did the smear, and remarked of some abnormal cells. Woman said to master that she recently had an abortion. The master was making notes, looked up and said you can't tell me that. Both you and I can be prosecuted. He wrote down miscarriage on the sheet as an explanation. Happened around 2003.

Peregrinus

beertons wrote: »

I was told a story last night about a woman who previously had an abortion, went for a smear in Holles street. The master of the hospital did the smear, and remarked of some abnormal cells. Woman said to master that she recently had an abortion. The master was making notes, looked up and said you can't tell me that. Both you and I can be prosecuted. He wrote down miscarriage on the sheet as an explanation. Happened around 2003.

You may have been told this story, but it is not credible. Neither the woman nor the Master could have been prosecuted - it is not an offence to have had an abortion, and it is not an offence to know that someone has had an abortion - and the Master would have been well aware of the fact.

January

beertons wrote: »

I was told a story last night about a woman who previously had an abortion, went for a smear in Holles street. The master of the hospital did the smear, and remarked of some abnormal cells. Woman said to master that she recently had an abortion. The master was making notes, looked up and said you can't tell me that. Both you and I can be prosecuted. He wrote down miscarriage on the sheet as an explanation. Happened around 2003.

That's pretty much horse****... for the reasons stated by Peregrinus.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

Peregrinus wrote: »

You may have been told this story, but it is not credible. Neither the woman nor the Master could have been prosecuted - it is not an offence to have had an abortion, and it is not an offence to know that someone has had an abortion - and the Master would have been well aware of the fact.

when I told my midwife in the rotunda that I'd had an abortion - she was taking my medical history - she said it would be better not to include it. Not sure why, I didn't ask.

Ineedaname

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/03/08/a-pro-life-pattern/

So it turns out one of the people featured on the "My Abortion Story" billboards was a fake.

Not only did he not work in an abortion theatre as he claimed he's actually a convicted armed robber.

david75

Ineedaname wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/03/08/a-pro-life-pattern/

So it turns out one of the people featured on the "My Abortion Story" billboards was a fake.

Not only did he not work in an abortion theatre as he claimed he's actually a convicted armed robber.

This the pro life campaign guy that said he was a nurse? And found to be neither on the registry in Ireland or the UK? Apparently all mention of him has been removed from the PLC websites and social media platforms.
Colour me shocked. Surprised they haven’t said he was a Pro choice plant

Zubeneschamali

Ineedaname wrote: »

Not only did he not work in an abortion theatre as he claimed he's actually a convicted armed robber.

These people are rising to the stunning incompetence level of the Trump campaign.

So they could still win :pac:

PopePalpatine

Ineedaname wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/03/08/a-pro-life-pattern/

So it turns out one of the people featured on the "My Abortion Story" billboards was a fake.

Not only did he not work in an abortion theatre as he claimed he's actually a convicted armed robber.

Hey, maybe he targeted a bank holding money for one of The Spooky Hungarian Jew's front organisations! #LoveBoth

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

There was an illegal abortion trade in until legal abortion became available in the UK. For obvious reasons, hard figures are not available, but the trade certainly existed and there are, for example, records of prosecutions of people for administering abortions.

And, yes, it was a back-alley trade. It was unlawful, unregulated and unsafe. Google "Nurse Cadden" for an instance of someone being prosecuted for murder when a woman died during the administration of an abortion. At least one other women had previously died during an abortion administered by Nurse Cadden, and she had several convictions for administering abortions and for child abandonment (of an infant born alive) before her murder conviction. And there were many practitioners other than Nurse Cadden.

Business pretty much dried up once legal abortion became available in the UK, but this obviously had nothing to do with the unborn baby having "plenty of protection".

Some in Dublin of a certain age might be familiar with Nurse Cadden,a famous backstreet abortionist. She was sentenced to death after one of the girls died. Ended up in the Central mental hospital.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamie_Cadden

david75

Amazing turn out and brilliant to see the majority are all young. Gotta be up around 10k

January

david75 wrote: »

Amazing turn out and brilliant to see the majority are all young. Gotta be up around 10k

It's amazing.

Unfortunately the anti choice side will horribly inflate their numbers on Saturday and say ours was a measly turn out today.

david75

January wrote: »

It's amazing.

Unfortunately the anti choice side will horribly inflate their numbers on Saturday and say ours was a measly turn out today.

I went to a pro life rally last summer. There was about 3000 there. Mostly elderly people and their very young grandkids. Really unsuitable for them to be hearing some of the stuff coming off the stage but there ye go.

The vast majority of people here tonight are college age.

January

Watching the debate live and it's amazing.

Mattie is on now, he's doing wonders for the pro-choice people.

nice_guy80

yer wan from UCD is being given a national platform to spread her views

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/facts-will-convince-many-young-people-to-vote-no-to-repeal-1.3419933?mode=amp

david75

That gob****e McGuirk is on twitter saying there were neonazis marching yesterday. It seems there were people handin out placards with ‘strike for Repeal’ On them but with the fascist Britain first logo behind it.

The plc are up to some really desperate tactics.

average_runner

Whoever allowed the march to go through rush hour should lose their job.

I don't care which side it was, but please have marches at a time that won't affect
people trying to get to creches and kids sports.

PopePalpatine

I'm surprised McGuirk would mention neo-Nazis rather than his comrades' new favourite bogeymen.

.......

This post has been deleted.

david75

THis was the guy handing out the placards in question. What a goon. And yes that is a make America great again hat he is wearing at the irexit thing a few weeks back

https://twitter.com/nursepollyrgn/status/972090906223562752?s=21

January

average_runner wrote: »

Whoever allowed the march to go through rush hour should lose their job.

I don't care which side it was, but please have marches at a time that won't affect
people trying to get to creches and kids sports.

Isn't it terrible people were inconvenienced like that... It's exactly why it was done at that time. To highlight how hard it is for women to travel to England.

JDD

I have to agree with Average Runner January. It was a bad tactics to do it at rush hour. I see the reason for it in a strike - you inconvenience people to a point where pressure is put on an employer to resolve an issue, but that's not the right tactic to win over votes. It would have been better to organize a march on a Saturday when more people (of my age, who do have to get home to creches and sports) could have attended.

To get someone to empathise with a cancer sufferer you don't have to give them a dose of chemotherapy.

eviltwin

January wrote: »

Isn't it terrible people were inconvenienced like that... It's exactly why it was done at that time. To highlight how hard it is for women to travel to England.

yeah but a lot of those people would be pro repeal anyway. I don't think it's going to make anyone change their vote either way regardless. I just wish it had been on a weekend because I couldn't attend yesterday. It was a bad day and time imo. There is a March for Life at the weekend, I think it's a pity the Repeal side didn't do similar.

NuMarvel

average_runner wrote: »

Whoever allowed the march to go through rush hour should lose their job.

I don't care which side it was, but please have marches at a time that won't affect
people trying to get to creches and kids sports.

JDD wrote: »

I have to agree with Average Runner January. It was a bad tactics to do it at rush hour. I see the reason for it in a strike - you inconvenience people to a point where pressure is put on an employer to resolve an issue, but that's not the right tactic to win over votes. It would have been better to organize a march on a Saturday when more people (of my age, who do have to get home to creches and sports) could have attended.

To get someone to empathise with a cancer sufferer you don't have to give them a dose of chemotherapy.

This is the second or third march to be held on International Women's Day and none of the previous marches have dented public support for repeal. If yesterday's march caused more inconvenience than normal, it's probably a sign of how much more support the cause has now.

JDD

I don't think a point of a march is to actually dent support for the reason you're marching. And so it follows that the fact that support for repeal hasn't dropped because you held the march during rush hour isn't exactly something to be shouted from the rooftops. And of course there are more people coming out in support for pro-choice marches with the referendum so close. Somebody in the organizing bodies should have anticipated that, thought about the increased level of inconvenience, considered whether a bigger impact would have been made with a weekend march, and made their decision accordingly. Perhaps they did. I believe they made the wrong one. It's not a fatal mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

Laneyh

average_runner wrote: »

Whoever allowed the march to go through rush hour should lose their job.

I don't care which side it was, but please have marches at a time that won't affect
people trying to get to creches and kids sports.

Not really that much disruption some buses along O'Connell St and Eden Quay might have needed to be rerouted but other than that other modes of transport were running.

I can't imagine there would be too many parents driving via O'Connell St - Custom House Quay to collect kids from creche or sports activities.
Considering the volume of people traffic and transport was back on track quite quickly

david75

As if anyone is going to let this sway their vote and stay annoyed about it enough to remember it in May.

Laneyh

JDD wrote: »

I don't think a point of a march is to actually dent support for the reason you're marching. And so it follows that the fact that support for repeal hasn't dropped because you held the march during rush hour isn't exactly something to be shouted from the rooftops. And of course there are more people coming out in support for pro-choice marches with the referendum so close. Somebody in the organizing bodies should have anticipated that, thought about the increased level of inconvenience, considered whether a bigger impact would have been made with a weekend march, and made their decision accordingly. Perhaps they did. I believe they made the wrong one. It's not a fatal mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

I think they wanted to do something on the 8th for International Women's day.
There were multiple events around the country yesterday

Having a counter march at the same time as the pro-life march would be a definite mistake. It would descend into shouting matches and be fairly ugly.
The pro-life campaign will have one national event and bus people in

I'm sure a pro-choice weekend march will arranged in advance of the referendum.

NuMarvel

Laneyh wrote: »

Not really that much disruption some buses along O'Connell St and Eden Quay might have needed to be rerouted but other than that other modes of transport were running.

I can't imagine there would be too many parents driving via O'Connell St - Custom House Quay to collect kids from creche or sports activities.
Considering the volume of people traffic and transport was back on track quite quickly

And that's saying something considering what the LUAS extension has done to travel times in that area.

pleas advice

doesn't sound like there were that many people there

January wrote: »

david75 wrote: »

Amazing turn out .... Gotta be up around 10k

Unfortunately the anti choice side will horribly inflate their numbers on Saturday ...

any other estimates of numbers? i saw three to five thousand mentioned on reddit

average_runner

Laneyh wrote: »

Not really that much disruption some buses along O'Connell St and Eden Quay might have needed to be rerouted but other than that other modes of transport were running.

I can't imagine there would be too many parents driving via O'Connell St - Custom House Quay to collect kids from creche or sports activities.
Considering the volume of people traffic and transport was back on track quite quickly

A Lot of buses use that route. Wife got home at 730 instead of 630 and I was later as had to go to in-laws first on the bus.

I don't mind people trying to get their point across but show respect to others that might actually be on your side.

david75

pleas advice wrote: »

doesn't sound like there were that many people there


any other estimates of numbers? i saw three to five thousand mentioned on reddit

That was me said 10. It wasn’t but it looked like that the amount of people rubber necking and milling around walking on the road cos they could and given the time of day. Somewhere around 4-5 more likely.

Ismisejack

The propaganda sprouted at the recent pro-abortion/ anti-life/ anti-children/pro-murder demonstration avoided any mention the unborn child, as that suited them. They are still in denial regards abortion being murder, it is murder that’s a fact you can’t have abortion without killing life

eviltwin

pleas advice wrote: »

doesn't sound like there were that many people there


any other estimates of numbers? i saw three to five thousand mentioned on reddit

what does it matter how many people there are? I think marches are moot. The original repeal March was to show support for a referendum which we now have. The March for life was to show there was no public support for a referendum, well that didn't happen.

Either way I don't see a March as being a way to sway voters, they only attract those who support the message in the first place.

So we can have a petty "my march was bigger than your march" bunfight but it's immature and silly given how the only thing that matters is May.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ismisejack wrote: »

The propaganda sprouted at the recent pro-abortion/ anti-life/ anti-children/pro-murder demonstration avoided any mention the unborn child, as that suited them. They are still in denial regards abortion being murder, it is murder that’s a fact you can’t have abortion without killing life

Oh good another user who does not actually understand the word murder. It means to kill unlawfully. In a context where abortion is legal, no one is killing anything unlawfully. So the word murder does not apply.

But it seems your mis-use of language is manifold, and not limited to not knowing what murder is. Calling people "anti life" and "anti children" is so blatant a plunge into linguistic propaganda and misrepresentation that you you excel everyone on the thread so far at both.

As far as I know EVERY person on BOTH sides of this issue value the sanctity and preciousness of human life. Acknowledgement of that likely goes against your agenda so you will not do that.

The difference between the sides lies solely in WHEN we think an entity attains that "human life". No mere biological life, but that level of "Life" that is more than mere taxonomy. That moment that elevates us (at least in our own human estimation) over all other life on this planet.

Some people think that is at conception. Some when the heart starts beating. Some later. Some earlier even thinking the sperm itself is sacred and contraception and masturbation are "sinful" or wrong.

The difference is of course that some of us can explain and argue where we think that line lies and why. Some other merely assert it or scream it or misuse terms to attack people they do not agree with as you have here.

But by all means try. Drop the ad hominem rhetorical tools of misrepresentation and tell us on what basis, other than an appeal to mere taxonomy, you think we should have any moral and ethical concerns for a 12 week old fetus. "You can not have abortion without killing life" tells us nothing. You can not take an anti-biotic, eat pretty much any meal, write on paper, or many other things without "killing life" either. Clearly there is more than merely "killing life" in play in our morality and ethics therefore. And I would be curious to see if you even know what that something is.

eviltwin

Ismisejack wrote: »

The propaganda sprouted at the recent pro-abortion/ anti-life/ anti-children/pro-murder demonstration avoided any mention the unborn child, as that suited them. They are still in denial regards abortion being murder, it is murder that’s a fact you can’t have abortion without killing life

That kind of hysterical nonsense doesn't endear you to most reasonable people, it's also completely irrelevant. Everyone knows what an abortion is, if people are going to vote to repeal that rubbish won't change their mind.