The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Zubeneschamali

me_right_one wrote: »

...within the bounds of the 8th. So I'd imagine the wording will change from the current "equal right to life as far as is practicable", which already allows for abortion where a pregnancy is non practicable, ie a health threat, to "equal right to life bar in the cases of rape, ffa, or health up to 12 weeks"... or something like that.

No, the proposal is to delete 40.3.3, have no right-to-life of the unborn in the Constitution, and replace it with an explicit statement that the Oireachteas is empowered to make law on these matters.

I think this is because there is a risk that simply deleting it would leave it open to the courts to say the unborn still have a right to life equal to the mothers since they explicitly had one from 1983-2018 and deleting that clause does not delete a right unless you add a clause explicitly saying so (even though nobody knows to this day what an unborn is).

volchitsa

Joshua Steelhammer wrote: »

Can you define what bodily autonomy is?

Do you need a dictionary or something? Why ask me to define a term I've probably never used.

Do you have anything to say about what I actually said, rather than your own hobby horse? If not, then I suggest you find someone who uses that term and ask them - if you really can't work it out using a dictionary and some biological/medical knowledge.

January

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Exactly, nobody believes that... but they would need to believe that if they TRULY believed in body autonomy in the context --- that's.the.point --- and so not sure what the gotcha tone of your post is all about given that confirming that nobody believes that (as you did) just reinforces the point.



lol. Love how this post got so well thanked. This thread is effectively an echo chamber at this stage.

Oh and some of those who thanked your post knew well that wasn't my suggestion either

Look, the point I was making is that IF someone truly believed that women should be able to do what they want with a fetus given that it is "their body" (the infamous body autonomy argument) then they would have to support women aborting babies at ANY stage of their pregnancy. The point is not made to suggest that there are hordes of women that want to abort babies at 39 weeks for heaven sake and so arguing against that notion is pointless, as that's not an argument I'm making.

In short: EVERYBODY with a view on when a healthy woman should be legally able to abort a healthy baby comes down to at what stage of development they feel it is morally and ethically justifiable. NOBODY on Planet Earth (barring the insane) bases their abortion beliefs on body autonomy. It's just a hollow right-on mantra.

Four or five years ago in these abortion threads I said that if the pro-choice would just argue for abortion for FFA and and up to 12 weeks then they would have my (and many others) support but they never have. Even up until very recently they were marching and covering themselves in blood, whinging on abort how Ireland cares more for cattle than them, 'get your rosaries off our ovaries', etc etc but now finally this week their hand was forced and now at last we are actually hearing talk about FFA and early stage abortions rather than body autonomy bollox.

If the pro-choice would just stfu about women being oppressed and quit making abortion abort their fight against the patriarchy (and the church) as so many of their campaigns have so disingenuously done, then they would have far more people on their side. It's the scurrilousness nature of their actions over the past decade, or more, that has put a spoke in their wheels far more than any one on the pro life side of the debate could have done.

They don't have to support women aborting babies at any stage. You're being hysterical about this now.

If a woman walked into a hospital at 39 weeks pregnant and said 'I want to abort my baby' she'd be placed under psychiatric observation and the baby would be delivered via cesearean birth and placed in foster care until the mother was evaluated and either given back or placed up for adoption if the mother decides that's what she wants.

It doesn't happen anywhere in the world. Anywhere, that a woman can demand that someone ends the life growing inside her at that stage and it happens and it won't happen here either.

AtomicHorror

me_right_one wrote: »

...within the bounds of the 8th.

No, very wrong. This has been explained to you several times now.

The 8th Amendment made only one change to the Constitution, it created Article 40.3.3, with this text:

Article 40.3.3 wrote:

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.

Later amendments made additions to Article 40.3.3:

Article 40.3.3 wrote:

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.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

Only the first paragraph of Article 40.3.3 would be referred to as "the 8th Amendment", though that is a colloquialism, a shorthand name for this paragraph of the constitution.

Here's what the CA decided about Article 40.3.3 and "the 8th".

The first ballot of the CA:
asked if Article 40.3.3 (not the 8th Amendment but the full Article) should be:

1. retained in full or;
2. not retained in full (i.e edited or deleted)

The vote was to edit/delete.

The second ballot:
asked if Article 40.3.3 (not the 8th Amendment but the full Article) should be:

1. deleted or;
2. amended

The vote was to amend.
There was no limit specified on how much of an amendment should be made. (Were it not for ballot 3, it could be anything up to deletion of all text from Article with the exception of a single legally meaningful phrase of any kind).

The third ballot:
asked if the amendment of Article 40.3.3 (not the 8th Amendment but the full Article):

1. should specify the conditions under which the unborn have rights and under which abortion may be allowed or;
2. should require the Oireachtas to legislate on the rights of the unborn and on the conditions under which abortion may be allowed

The vote was to require the Oireachtas to legislate on the rights of the unborn and on the conditions under which abortion may be allowed.

The fourth ballot asked what recommendations should be made to the Oireachtas for them to put into legislation, and specifically not into the Constitution.

The third ballot is crucial to understand. If implemented, the recommended amendment is in direct conflict with paragraph 1 of Article 40.3.3. Paragraph 1 would be deleted and replaced with a statement allowing the Oireachtas to legislate.

So Article 40.3.3 would look more like this:

Article 40.3.3 wrote:

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.

The Oireachtas shall enact law addressing any rights of the unborn, and the lawful availability, in the State, of any services impacting the life and welfare of the unborn.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

(Obviously, that won't be the text, but you get the meaning and how it would be placed.)

Therefore, as recommended by the CA, Article 40.3.3 is

1. not fully retained
2. edited/amended, but not fully deleted
3. amended to explicitly allow for legislation

And since the first paragraph (aka "the 8th Amendment") is in conflict with (3) above, it has to be removed.

This is, simultaneously, an amendment of Article 40.3.3 and full repeal of the 8th Amendment.

(As an aside, this retains the rights to travel and information, it even offers protection against future government efforts to legislate against abortion, requiring yet another referendum if they want to curtail travel and information.)

me_right_one wrote: »

So I'd imagine the wording will change from the current "equal right to life as far as is practicable", which already allows for abortion where a pregnancy is non practicable, ie a health threat, to "equal right to life bar in the cases of rape, ffa, or health up to 12 weeks"... or something like that.

This would be in direct conflict with the recommendation from ballot 3. No conditions to be directly added to the constitution.

me_right_one wrote: »

Maybe it'll be in a new, different section, eg 40.3.4, which says the Oireachtas can make exceptions in the cases of...

The CA made no recommendation for any additional amendment to the constitution and specifically rejected adding the conditions for abortion into the constitution.

me_right_one wrote: »

But either way, the 8th will be staying. Any changes the Oireachtas can make will still have to be constitutional.

If this happens, it will not be what the Citizens Assembly recommended. They recommended amendment of Article 40.3.3, and repeal of the 8th Amendment. Laws must be constitutional, but as above, the intention is to change the constitution, so this point is irrelavant.

But will it actually happen as recommended by the CA? Your guess is as good as mine. Or would be if you'd research the subject properly.

ohnonotgmail

Excellent summary AtomicHorror.

A Little Pony

Akrasia wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Fully agree. People don't like personal responsibility in society now. It's everyone else fault now.

Yeah, let's punish irresponsible 'hussies' by forcing them to have a defenseless newborn baby to raise for the next 2 decades. That's a consistent world view

Yes they should be. If you can't take responsibility you must face the consequences. People are smart enough to know now that unsafe sex brings the risk of pregnancy. Time for personal responsibility.

Parchment

A Little Pony wrote: »

Yes they should be. If you can't take responsibility you must face the consequences. People are smart enough to know now that unsafe sex brings the risk of pregnancy. Time for personal responsibility.

So a child should be born to teach them a lesson?

ohnonotgmail

A Little Pony wrote: »

Yes they should be. If you can't take responsibility you must face the consequences. People are smart enough to know now that unsafe sex brings the risk of pregnancy. Time for personal responsibility.

even safe sex brings the risk of pregnancy. what then?

A Little Pony

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

ricero wrote: »

Liberals are trying to ruin this countries morality. I for one will not vote in abortion to be used as a easy fix for hussies who forget to use contraception

Fully agree. People don't like personal responsibility in society now. It's everyone else fault now.

Slave moralists. Pitiable.

What is morality if it is laid out for you in a set of rigid rules and laws? In what way is following such rules- regardless of context- "taking responsibility"?

You are both afraid of the responsibility of figuring out right from wrong without a guidebook. You need immutable laws, not so that you can take responsibility, but so that the hard choices never had to be made. Just obeying the law, just following orders.

The "hussies" who have to make the hard choices about their pregnancy, health and life are the ones taking personal responsibility, the ones taking the time to really weigh the morality of circumstances that they alone can fully appraise. And they are the ones who will have to live with the full consequences.

I doubt either of you could take responsibility for picking desert from a menu.

I have to say that post was absolutely laughable and boiled down to "please don't make me face consequences for my actions, I am a 21st century moron, I can't bear the responsibility to look after myself".

A Little Pony

Parchment wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Yes they should be. If you can't take responsibility you must face the consequences. People are smart enough to know now that unsafe sex brings the risk of pregnancy. Time for personal responsibility.

So a child should be born to teach them a lesson?

The child should not be murdered because a moron (in 'normal' abortions) didn't take precautions. Absolutely it should go ahead. It isn't the child's fault his/her mother is a complete idiot.

Parchment

A Little Pony wrote: »

The child should not be murdered because a moron (in 'normal' abortions) didn't take precautions. Absolutely it should go ahead. It isn't the child's fault his/her mother is a complete idiot.

So then what happens with the child when they are born?

AtomicHorror

A Little Pony wrote: »

I have to say that post was absolutely laughable and boiled down to "please don't make me face consequences for my actions, I am a 21st century moron, I can't bear the responsibility to look after myself".

In what way was it so? Explain.

A Little Pony

A Little Pony wrote: »

The child should not be murdered because a moron (in 'normal' abortions) didn't take precautions. Absolutely it should go ahead. It isn't the child's fault his/her mother is a complete idiot.

But you think the child should be stuck with a 'complete idiot'for a parent!!
No one should be punished for having sex, or even making a mistake, or getting pregnant. It's not the 1950s you know

A Little Pony

bubblypop wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

The child should not be murdered because a moron (in 'normal' abortions) didn't take precautions. Absolutely it should go ahead. It isn't the child's fault his/her mother is a complete idiot.

But you think the child should be stuck with a 'complete idiot'for a parent!!
No one should be punished for having sex, or even making a mistake, or getting pregnant. It's not the 1950s you know

You have to give the child a chance. I don't know what is wrong  with some people. It is a pretty basic morality question, not a religious question. Morally I can not see any justification for it.

Who said anything about religion?
Morally, I don't believe in punishing people for mistakes or just for having sex.

ohnonotgmail

A Little Pony wrote: »

You have to give the child a chance. I don't know what is wrong with some people. It is a pretty basic morality question, not a religious question. Morally I can not see any justification for it.

why should you get to impose your morals on others?

tigger123

A Little Pony wrote: »

The child should not be murdered because a moron (in 'normal' abortions) didn't take precautions. Absolutely it should go ahead. It isn't the child's fault his/her mother is a complete idiot.

And what about the father in all this?

Its always an element missing from the debate; where is the father in these conversations. Punish the woman? Sure, why not!

Akrasia

A Little Pony wrote: »

You have to give the child a chance. I don't know what is wrong ?with some people. It is a pretty basic morality question, not a religious question. Morally I can not see any justification for it.

A foetus isn't a child.

frag420

A Little Pony wrote: »

Yes they should be. If you can't take responsibility you must face the consequences. People are smart enough to know now that unsafe sex brings the risk of pregnancy. Time for personal responsibility.

When you cross the road you accept there is a possibility that you may be hit by a car no matter how careful you are. Or in your case crossing a field and getting hit by a tractor?

Say you got hit by a car and broke every bone in your body...should we tell you that you should not get treatment for this as you should take full responsibility for crossing the road, you knew the risks involved and you must now face the consequences of your actions!?

You are smart enough to know that crossing the road brings the risk of being hit by a car yeah?

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So Article 40.3.3 would look more like this:

Originally Posted by Article 40.3.3

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.

The Oireachtas shall enact law addressing any rights of the unborn, and the lawful availability, in the State, of any services impacting the life and welfare of the unborn.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

(Obviously, that won't be the text, but you get the meaning and how it would be placed.)

I think you could delete the text of the 13th and 14th Amendments as well. They were only required because the 8th was found to restrict those freedoms in the first place, so in the absence of the 8th they can be removed without consequence.

Meaning the new 40.3.3 would look simply like this:

Originally Posted by Article 40.3.3 (Version 2.0)
The Oireachtas shall enact law addressing any rights of the unborn, and the lawful availability, in the State, of any services impacting the life and welfare of the unborn.

AtomicHorror

frag420 wrote: »

When you cross the road you accept there is a possibility that you may be hit by a car no matter how careful you are. Or in your case crossing a field and getting hit by a tractor?

Say you got hit by a car and broke every bone in your body...should we tell you that you should not get treatment for this as you should take full responsibility for crossing the road, you knew the risks involved and you must now face the consequences of your actions!?

You are smart enough to know that crossing the road brings the risk of being hit by a car yeah?

We must ensure people take personal responsibility by banning them from taking any action we consider to be risky or immoral.

AtomicHorror

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think you could delete the text of the 13th and 14th Amendments as well. They were only required because the 8th was found to restrict those freedoms in the first place, so in the absence of the 8th they can be removed without consequence.

As I mentioned, it would not be without consequence, since a future Oireachtas could then not only legislate against abortion but also ban travel and access to information. All without consulting the people.

We'd be right back to the situation before the X case.

nice_guy80

Yes, we are all individuals!!

except we're not because the state is stopping women's freedom of choice

NuMarvel

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As I mentioned, it would not be without consequence, since a future Oireachtas could then not only legislate against abortion but also ban travel and access to information. All without consulting the people.

We'd be right back to the situation before the X case.

That's what I get for speed reading (badly).

Outlaw Pete

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Yes, we are all individuals!!

except we're not because the state is stopping women's freedom of choice.

No it's not, women have the choice of where to work, where to go, what to eat, whether to have tea or coffee... women have lots of choice. What they don't have however is the choice of whether or not they should be able to kill their own babies in the womb... and that is a choice that men also don't have either, as were a man to get pregnant in Ireland tomorrow (and that is quite probable given that we have a Gender Recognition Act here) he would be subject to very same laws which women currently are. The fact that he would be a pregnant man and not a pregnant woman would be an irrelevance and that is simply because our abortion laws are framed in such a way as to protect prenatal human beings from being murdered, not on preventing people doing what they want with their own bodies... that is just incidental.

Zubeneschamali

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As I mentioned, it would not be without consequence, since a future Oireachtas could then not only legislate against abortion but also ban travel and access to information. All without consulting the people.

That's what we want. Take all this crap out of the constitution. Then we can vote for a pro-choice party, the Pro-lifers can vote for Renua, and the Dail can legislate.

AtomicHorror

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's what we want. Take all this crap out of the constitution. Then we can vote for a pro-choice party, the Pro-lifers can vote for Renua, and the Dail can legislate.

You want the Oireachtas to be allowed to legislate for a travel ban and a ban on access to information on abortion? Why?

Zubeneschamali

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What they don't have however is the choice of whether or not they should be able to kill their own babies in the womb

As a practical matter, yes, they do, they just have to travel to England to avail of it.

As a legal matter, they have a constitutionally guaranteed right to travel to England for an abortion, upheld by a referendum.

pilly

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We must ensure people take personal responsibility by banning them from taking any action we consider to be risky or immoral.

Tbf that could be said about most laws.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You want the Oireachtas to be allowed to legislate for a travel ban and a ban on access to information on abortion? Why?

Because leaving those clauses in the Constitution is asking for trouble. The pro-lifers thought their 8th would ban abortion for ever - instead it made abortion legal by accident.

If we amend 40.3.3 as suggested, those right to travel and information clauses are unmoored from the right to life of the unborn, who knows what effect they might have on legislation in years to come?

The need for them will be gone - clean up. The Constitution has enough crazy crap in it as is.

Akrasia

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No it's not, women have the choice of where to work, where to go, what to eat, whether to have tea or coffee... women have lots of choice. What they don't have however is the choice of whether or not they should be able to kill their own babies in the womb... and that is a choice that men also don't have either, as were a man to get pregnant in Ireland tomorrow (and that is quite probable given that we have a Gender Recognition Act here) he would be subject to very same laws which women currently are. The fact that he would be a pregnant man and not a pregnant woman would be an irrelevance and that is simply because our abortion laws are framed in such a way as to protect prenatal human beings from being murdered, not on preventing people doing what they want with their own bodies... that is just incidental.

Are you opposed to the morning after pill?

What about IFV where more embryos are created than will ever be implanted?

In other words, when is there a 'baby' to be killed?

AtomicHorror

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Because leaving those clauses in the Constitution is asking for trouble. The pro-lifers thought their 8th would ban abortion for ever - instead it made abortion legal by accident.

If we amend 40.3.3 as suggested, those right to travel and information clauses are unmoored from the right to life of the unborn, who knows what effect they might have on legislation in years to come?

The need for them will be gone - clean up. The Constitution has enough crazy crap in it as is.

I can't think of any possible negative, unintended consequence of leaving them in place. Of course that doesn't mean there can be none, but isn't that also true of any amendment we now make to 40.3.3? Can you suggest such a possible consequence in this example?

I can immediately see a risk to removing those clauses.

I admit, I did consider suggesting a slight rewording of both to more clearly connect them to the new paragraph 1. The CA recommendations certainly don't rule out your approach, either.

AtomicHorror

pilly wrote: »

Tbf that could be said about most laws.

Except for the personal responsibility bit, which makes no sense when speaking about law. You don't make people personally responsible for a choice by writing a law denying them the right to choose. All you do is add consequences.

A Little Pony

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

You have to give the child a chance. I don't know what is wrong  with some people. It is a pretty basic morality question, not a religious question. Morally I can not see any justification for it.

why should you get to impose your morals on others?

We don't allow slavery in law based on morals. It is forced on people to not allow slavery via law. So you can easily impose morality on people as we see everyday.

Akrasia

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I can't think of any possible negative, unintended consequence of leaving them in place. Of course that doesn't mean there can be none, but isn't that also true of any amendment we now make to 40.3.3? Can you suggest such a possible consequence in this example?

I can immediately see a risk to removing those clauses.

I admit, I did consider suggesting a slight rewording of both to more clearly connect them to the new paragraph 1. The CA recommendations certainly don't rule out your approach, either.

The more changes they make to the constitution, the more likely it is that the referendum will be rejected. All it would take is someone to invent some nonsense about the constitutional change giving people rights to travel to Syria to join ISIS, and you'll end up with a bunch of people abstaining because of uncertainty

The simplest change is the best, by the end of a referendum campaign, we're going to have no shortage of people deliberately obfuscating and muddying arguments to confuse voters.

A Little Pony

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Then feel free not to have an abortion.

But leave me to make my own decisions.[/quote]
That is like saying if you don't like murder don't commit one. People aren't just allowed to make their own decisions on multiple things.

AtomicHorror

Akrasia wrote: »

The more changes they make to the constitution, the more likely it is that the referendum will be rejected.

I agree, but I'd suggest that entirely removing 40.3.3 and replacing it represents more changes that just replacing paragraph 1.

Akrasia wrote: »

All it would take is someone to invent some nonsense about the constitutional change giving people rights to travel to Syria to join ISIS, and you'll end up with a bunch of people abstaining because of uncertainty

Wouldn't removing those protections sew similar uncertainty in the pro-choice camp? Is it only the pro-lifers who are vulnerable to these tactics?

Akrasia wrote: »

The simplest change is the best, by the end of a referendum campaign, we're going to have no shortage of people deliberately obfuscating and muddying arguments to confuse voters.

On this we agree, but I don't think that's sufficient reason to risk dumping protections that were hard fought-for by the predecessors to the modern repeal movement.

ohnonotgmail

A Little Pony wrote: »

We don't allow slavery in law based on morals. It is forced on people to not allow slavery via law. So you can easily impose morality on people as we see everyday.

your analogy is flawed. having laws against how we treat other people is good public policy. the only person an abortion affects is the woman involved.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Murrisk

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No it's not, women have the choice of where to work, where to go, what to eat, whether to have tea or coffee... women have lots of choice. What they don't have however is the choice of whether or not they should be able to kill their own babies in the womb... and that is a choice that men also don't have either, as were a man to get pregnant in Ireland tomorrow (and that is quite probable given that we have a Gender Recognition Act here) he would be subject to very same laws which women currently are. The fact that he would be a pregnant man and not a pregnant woman would be an irrelevance and that is simply because our abortion laws are framed in such a way as to protect prenatal human beings from being murdered, not on preventing people doing what they want with their own bodies... that is just incidental.

Oh, well women actually do indeed have the choice to have an abortion in this country. Not on these shores but thankfully the choice is there. Later along than is ideal though. But still, yeah, the choice is there.

AtomicHorror

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

your analogy is flawed. having laws against how we treat other people is good public policy. the only person an abortion affects is the woman involved.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well we know where this goes next- back to the personhood argument again. Pony will say a foetus is a person, we'll say it's not, or that it's a person with less value than the mother...

My take on it is that even if you consider a foetus to be a person it does not matter. Pregnancy is a unique scenario where the rights of a dependent person are in conflict with rights of a provider person. I believe the provider trumps the dependent, and so in the case of pregnancy, mother takes priority.

The only good analogies to pregnancy are science fiction-sounding stuff.

ohnonotgmail

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Well we know where this goes next- back to the personhood argument again. Pony will say a foetus is a person, we'll say it's not, or that it's a person with less value than the mother...

My take on it is that even if you consider a foetus to be a person it does not matter. Pregnancy is a unique scenario where the rights of a dependent person are in conflict with rights of a provider person. I believe the provider trumps the dependent, and so in the case of pregnancy, mother takes priority.

The only good analogies to pregnancy are science fiction-sounding stuff.

i agree. I'm getting dizzy at this stage

volchitsa

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I can't think of any possible negative, unintended consequence of leaving them in place. Of course that doesn't mean there can be none, but isn't that also true of any amendment we now make to 40.3.3? Can you suggest such a possible consequence in this example?

I can immediately see a risk to removing those clauses.

I admit, I did consider suggesting a slight rewording of both to more clearly connect them to the new paragraph 1. The CA recommendations certainly don't rule out your approach, either.

I can : what about families taking children out of the country to places where FGM is allowed/tolerated?

Or men going to Southeast Asia for sex tourism? They could possibly organize a group visit perfectly openly and legally, because of their right to travel. Ireland could be a centre for organizing sex travel for Europeans

Just a thought.

A Little Pony

AtomicHorror wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

your analogy is flawed.  having laws against how we treat other people is good public policy.  the only person an abortion affects is the woman involved.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well we know where this goes next- back to the personhood argument again. Pony will say a foetus is a person, we'll say it's not, or that it's a person with less value than the mother...

My take on it is that even if you consider a foetus to be a person it does not matter. Pregnancy is a unique scenario where the rights of a dependent person are in conflict with rights of a provider person. I believe the provider trumps the dependent, and so in the case of pregnancy, mother takes priority.

The only good analogies to pregnancy are science fiction-sounding stuff.

I take the opposite take on that regarding the provider or dependent. The dependent has the higher moral and righteous argument simply because it has no say, it doesn't have a voice but it is a living being. Those without a voice are more vulnerable.

volchitsa

A Little Pony wrote: »

I take the opposite take on that regarding the provider or dependent. The dependent has the higher moral and righteous argument simply because it has no say, it doesn't have a voice but it is a living being. Those without a voice are more vulnerable.

So whenever there is a conflict between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus, the woman has to take her chances, right? We save the most vulnerable because it has no voice?

Seriously?

(I don't know if you're a male or a female, but I do wonder if you can ever have been pregnant.)

AtomicHorror

volchitsa wrote: »

I can : what about families taking children out of the country to places where FGM is allowed/tolerated?[/q

Or men going to Southeast Asia for sex tourism? They could possibly organize a group visit perfectly openly and legally, because of their right to travel. Ireland could be a centre for organizing sex travel for Europeans

Just a thought.

The rights to travel and information both start with the words "This subsection shall not..."

In other words, no law enacted within the context of 40.3.3 can interfere with those two rights. So no law on the rights of the unborn, or the practice of services impacting the unborn, would be allowed to contravene the rights to travel and information. Any other law could be subject to such bans, depending on the rest of the constitution outside 40.3.3.

There's nothing to stop the Oireachtas from enacting laws against travelling for FGM, and indeed it's already illegal to travel for FGM. I wouldn't support a ban on information on FGM, even though it is an abhorrent practice.

I don't know about sex tourism, but I assume the principle above holds.

pilly

volchitsa wrote: »

I can : what about families taking children out of the country to places where FGM is allowed/tolerated?

Or men going to Southeast Asia for sex tourism? They could possibly organize a group visit perfectly openly and legally, because of their right to travel. Ireland could be a centre for organizing sex travel for Europeans

Just a thought.

Christ on a fcuking cross if I hear FGM once more. I'll say it again and again and again until people drop it.

FGM and Abortion-2 completely different issues.

I'm not sure what the motivation behind dropping it in every so often is?

Currently anyone has the right to travel and go on a bleeding sex crazed orgy wherever they want, again nothing to do with abortion.

me_right_one

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

your analogy is flawed. having laws against how we treat other people is good public policy. the only person an abortion affects is the woman involved.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You two guys must be having a laugh. At least some pro-abortionists have the backbone to admit they know they're killing a perfectly healthy separate person. You have to hand it to them, they have guile.