The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Zubeneschamali

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So I would just fear that using such a moving target TODAY would result in parameters that would be out of date in 5, 10, 20 or so years.

This is precisely why any limit should be in legislation, not the constitution. The govt. of the day can then revise it in line with medical advice without a 2 year rigmarole to update the Constitution every time we need to do it.

Zubeneschamali

Spinach105 wrote: »

To those of you who would like to see abortion legalised, what cut off point would you want?

No cut-off point. Leave to women and their doctors. Pregnant women and their doctors do not do late terminations for the craic. Keep the law out of it, it is a personal matter.

This is the legal position in Canada since 1988, and society there has not descended into cannibal gangs, most abortions are done early, and abortion rates have been declining.

Zubeneschamali

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's a bit like the old Catholic Dad kicking his daughter out for getting pregnant - "Not under my roof!". It doesn't help anyone, in fact it makes things worse, but he gets to pretend that he is not responsible.

Likewise our abortion ban is generally ineffective, makes things worse in cases where it does anything at all, but it lets Holy Catholic Ireland say "Not on our Holy soil!", and let on to the neighbours that we don't have That Sort Of Problem Here.

.......

This post has been deleted.

volchitsa

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No cut-off point. Leave to women and their doctors. Pregnant women and their doctors do not do late terminations for the craic. Keep the law out of it, it is a personal matter.

This is the legal position in Canada since 1988, and society there has not descended into cannibal gangs, most abortions are done early, and abortion rates have been declining.

I've read that late abortions in Canada are less common than in the neighbouring US states, because difficulty in getting access to early abortions is what leads to unnecessarily late abortions.

AnGaelach

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No cut-off point.

And yet people on the pro-life side of the argument still say nobody is arguing for unrestricted access.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is the legal position in Canada.

In Canada 1 in 4 pregnancies ends up aborted. I'd much rather not see that statistic replicated here.

AnGaelach

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The Constitution doesn't get into the specific of laws, it simply makes those laws applicable in the jurisdiction.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I looked up the stats, there are about 400k births a year in Canada and about 65k abortions a year. That works out at about 1 abortion to 6 births

at least 88% of all these abortions take place before 12 weeks, probably much closer to 95% because the clinics don't report gestational age, only the hospitals do, and hospitals are more likely to deal with medically necessary abortions in later term.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo04a-eng.htm
http://abortionincanada.ca/stats/annual-abortion-rates/

NuMarvel

Spinach105 wrote: »

To those of you who would like to see abortion legalised, what cut off point would you want?

I'm happy with the recommendations of the CA:

• Up to 12 weeks without restriction
• Within the next 10 weeks due to rape, health risks, socio-economic reasons, and serious foetal disability
• At any point where there's a FFA, a risk to a woman's life and a serious risk to her health.

I think some of them might have some practical difficulties and might not be implemented as proposed. But if the 12 weeks without restriction ground is included, difficulties with some of the other grounds won't make a major difference as roughly 90% of abortions occur within that timeframe.

EDIT: Just to repeat .....'s point, I want nothing in the Constitution. This is waaaay too complex for something as broad and general as a constitution.

ohnonotgmail

Akrasia wrote: »

I looked up the stats, there are about 400k births a year in Canada and about 65k abortions a year. That works out at about 1 abortion to 6 births

at least 88% of all these abortions take place before 12 weeks, probably much closer to 95% because the clinics don't report gestational age, only the hospitals do, and hospitals are more likely to deal with medically necessary abortions in later term.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo04a-eng.htm
http://abortionincanada.ca/stats/annual-abortion-rates/

while even 1 abortion to 6 births is nowhere near the 1 in 4 mentioned even that 1:6 doesnt take into account miscarriages. I think we can safely dismiss the 1 in 4 stat.

.......

This post has been deleted.

AtomicHorror

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

while even 1 abortion to 6 births is nowhere near the 1 in 4 mentioned even that 1:6 doesnt take into account miscarriages. I think we can safely dismiss the 1 in 4 stat.

Also, 1 in 4 (25%) is equal to 1:3, and so 1:6 is, in the manner the poster expressed the statistic, 1 in 7 (14.25%). Further away again from the suggested stat.

The rate for Ireland is at minimum 6%, but we don't know because we can only know a certain proportion of those who travel for abortions, or whatever number of abortion pill imports are detected.

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

In Canada 1 in 4 pregnancies ends up aborted.

The vast majority before the cut-off limit which applies in the UK and is available to most women here already.

Hotblack Desiato

AnGaelach wrote: »

In Canada 1 in 4 pregnancies ends up aborted. I'd much rather not see that statistic replicated here.

(Ignoring for a moment that that stat is BS)

Why?

What difference does it make to you how many women do or do not have abortions?

Riskymove

NuMarvel wrote: »

[*]Within the next 10 weeks due to rape, health risks, socio-economic reasons, and serious foetal disability

[/LIST]

The difficulty, as ever, is how these work in pracice and what is required to be proven etc.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Riskymove wrote: »

The difficulty, as ever, is how these work in pracice and what is required to be proven etc.

I'd be very interested in hearing from posters who think there should be an exception for rape in that timeframe, but not open access. How does that work, exactly?

222233

I was so delighted to hear the final results from the citizens assembly, I'm assuming the Govt. are now surely in some way obliged to hold a referendum?

NuMarvel

Riskymove wrote: »

The difficulty, as ever, is how these work in pracice and what is required to be proven etc.

The health and serious foetal disability grounds have precedence in other jurisdictions so there's shouldn't be massive difficulties there.

There may be difficulties with the rape ground, especially to deciding what burden of proof is placed on it. Here's how other countries deal with it:


This is all assuming that TDs legislate in line with the CA recommendations, which they may not choose to do in all cases.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

NuMarvel wrote: »

There may be difficulties with the rape ground, especially to deciding what burden of proof is placed on it. Here's how other countries deal with it:

This is all assuming that TDs legislate in line with the CA recommendations, which they may not choose to do in all cases.

There absolutely, certainly, 100% would be huge difficulties with it and I'd say anyone who ever thinks it's a good idea has never had to deal with or learn about rape survivors. It would be either adding to the trauma of potentially very vulnerable women or else just taking the word of every woman who seeks an abortion and alleges rape, in which case what's the point in differentiating.

Outlaw Pete

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

No, I mean what would the process be, not the 'women should be punished if they have sex on purpose' bit. Walk me through how it would happen, what would the guidelines and rules be so that the dirty hoor who let her knickers down stays pregnant and serves her right, and the poor fallen woman who was raped is allowed an abortion because sure she'd probably never have one normally the poor thing.

Ah here we go with the martyrdom..

Haven't seen one user refer to women (who have become pregnant through consensual sex) in that manner, or anything close to it.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah here we go with the martyrdom..

Haven't seen one user refer to women (who have become pregnant through consensual sex) in that manner, or anything close to it.

Not in so many words no.

I'd love to continue the debate but I'd imagine you're busy. Somewhere there's a picture of a premature baby with nobody to post it and the words murder and ripped with nobody to type them pete

Zubeneschamali

Riskymove wrote: »

The difficulty, as ever, is how these work in pracice and what is required to be proven etc.

I think we should let a doctor take the woman at her word and get on with it - no legal board of busybodys at all.

B_Wayne

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah here we go with the martyrdom..

Haven't seen one user refer to women (who have become pregnant through consensual sex) in that manner, or anything close to it.

One user referred to them as 'hussies' and another came along to back them up on the use of the term... So it's pretty spot on.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

B_Wayne wrote: »

One user referred to them as 'hussies' and another came along to back them up on the use of the term... So it's pretty spot on.

Well yeah, and I mean apparently this is news to some people but the abortion debate does also take place outside the confines of boards on sites where people let their true colours show a bit more.

AtomicHorror

B_Wayne wrote: »

One user referred to them as 'hussies' and another came along to back them up on the use of the term... So it's pretty spot on.

Actually, two other users came along to thank ricero for his judgment.

So there's at least three of them in it, and although ricero hasn't shown his face since then, the other two are still posting here:

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

Murrisk

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah here we go with the martyrdom..

Haven't seen one user refer to women (who have become pregnant through consensual sex) in that manner, or anything close to it.

B_Wayne wrote: »

One user referred to them as 'hussies' and another came along to back them up on the use of the term... So it's pretty spot on.

Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: »

Well yeah, and I mean apparently this is news to some people but the abortion debate does also take place outside the confines of boards on sites where people let their true colours show a bit more.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Actually, two other users came along to thank ricero for his judgment.

So there's at least three of them in it, and although ricero hasn't shown his face since then, the other two are still posting here:

Yep, and another person in the thread opined that women need make "better choices". I'm interested in what you think the user meant when they typed that, Pete? What's your take on what they meant by 'better choices'? I'm also interested to know if you read the thread before making your 'martyrdom' post? There are clear examples of people being incredibly judgemental of the sexual activity of women. Yet you claim nobody made any posts of that nature. Reading comprehension fail. Or wilful ignorance win. One or the other.

JupiterKid

Forcing a woman who has been raped to carry her fetus to full term is utterly barbaric, and anyone on this thread advocating this should be ashamed of themselves.

dav3

JupiterKid wrote: »

Forcing a woman who has been raped to carry her fetus to full term is utterly barbaric, and anyone on this thread advocating this should be ashamed of themselves.

Well we had Mattie Mcgrath on the radio the morning after the Citizens’ Assembly once again stating he is opposed to abortion in all circumstances. He is quite happy forcing a women to have a baby against her will, even if she was raped. I’m sure he’s not the only TD who thinks in this way.

Unfortunately he wasn’t pushed on this by the interviewer, he never is. I believe people with this mindset should be encouraged to come forward and give a full explanation as to why they think forcing a woman to have a baby against her will is a reasonable belief to have.

It’s the only way to show these people that their belief is no longer held by the majority of people in Ireland.

AtomicHorror

dav3 wrote: »

Well we had Mattie Mcgrath on the radio the morning after the Citizens’ Assembly once again stating he is opposed to abortion in all circumstances. He is quite happy forcing a women to have a baby against her will, even if she was raped. I’m sure he’s not the only TD who thinks in this way.

Unfortunately he wasn’t pushed on this by the interviewer, he never is. I believe people with this mindset should be encouraged to come forward and give a full explanation as to why they think forcing a woman to have a baby against her will is a reasonable belief to have.

It’s the only way to show these people that their belief is no longer held by the majority of people in Ireland.

I think at a certain point media outlets have to ask themselves if they're really obliged to offer a platform to everyone with a brain-fart about an important topic. And ask themselves if they're offering it for the sake of good journalism or good sales.

A lunatic is free to stand on a box on Grafton Street and speak as he wishes, we don't have to make the decision to hand him a megaphone.

dav3

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think at a certain point media outlets have to ask themselves if they're really obliged to offer a platform to everyone with a brain-fart about an important topic. And ask themselves if they're offering it for the sake of good journalism or good sales.

A lunatic is free to stand on a box on Grafton Street and speak as he wishes, we don't have to make the decision to hand him a megaphone.

Unfortunately he’s an elected TD. By not pushing him further on what he means by ‘opposed to abortion in any circumstances’ or challenging him on his beliefs, there’s a sense of giving credence to his comments and beliefs due to his profile nationally. This applies to the same half dozen names, that we all know, constantly on the airwaves attempting to misinform and muddy the waters when it comes to the abortion debate.

The lunatic on the corner can be dealt with easily. It’s the same faces that they put on rotation from the likes of, the iona institute, pro life campaign, NUI senators, TDs and misguided journalists, that require a bit more effort as they will always be handed a megaphone.
We can see from the Citizens’ Assembly that when people are presented with the all facts in calm and reasonable debate and not influenced by outsiders like the ones mentioned above, they will make the correct choices.

Zubeneschamali

dav3 wrote: »

Well we had Mattie Mcgrath on the radio the morning after the Citizens’ Assembly once again stating he is opposed to abortion in all circumstances. He is quite happy forcing a women to have a baby against her will, even if she was raped.

Most of them fall back to "can't she do the walk of shame to England" if pushed.

kunst nugget

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I think at a certain point media outlets have to ask themselves if they're really obliged to offer a platform to everyone with a brain-fart about an important topic. And ask themselves if they're offering it for the sake of good journalism or good sales..

There's pretty strict rules in place in terms of balanced reporting in relation to referenda (or even potential referenda like repeal the 8th) where both sides have to get equal airing - organisations on both sides seem to monitor the airwaves obsessively and make complaints if they think the other side is getting preferential treatment.

Zubeneschamali

dav3 wrote: »

This applies to the same half dozen names, that we all know, constantly on the airwaves attempting to misinform and muddy the waters when it comes to the abortion debate.

Folks in RTE believe that they have to have a "balanced" debate with views on both sides given equal and respectful treatment.

The gay marriage referendum was strange that way, since they were unable to dig out anyone half-way normal to oppose it with "balance", although they tried.

So was their failure to round up opposition due to the fact it was so popular, or did it end up so popular because the anti side were so pathetic?

AtomicHorror

kunst nugget wrote: »

There's pretty strict rules in place in terms of balanced reporting in relation to referenda (or even potential referenda like repeal the 8th) where both sides have to get equal airing - organisations on both sides seem to monitor the airwaves obsessively and make complaints if they think the other side is getting preferential treatment.

This I know, but I don't have to like how "balanced" is interpreted by a spineless organisation that fears complaints more than it respects expertise or good journalism.

There will be plenty of voices on the No side with a coherent argument to make. We won't want for balance.

dav3

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Folks in RTE believe that they have to have a "balanced" debate with views on both sides given equal and respectful treatment.

The gay marriage referendum was strange that way, since they were unable to dig out anyone half-way normal to oppose it with "balance", although they tried.

So was their failure to round up opposition due to the fact it was so popular, or did it end up so popular because the anti side were so pathetic?

It was similar to the Citizen’s Assembly where one side of the debate was unable to put their points across in a meaningful manner. They, like the same-sex marriage referendum relied on misinformation and false facts.

As an aside, there are disgraceful attempts to undermine the Citizens’ Assembly by certain people in the media. One point being that the outcome does not tally with previous polls.

This is a false equivalence. The only way you can compare a poll and the outcome of the Citizen’s Assembly would be to expose the people taking to poll to the same facts, logic and evidence by leading experts and then poll them and compare it to the Citizens’ Assembly outcome. I imagine we would get the same results as the Assembly.

When you expose people to misinformation and fearmongering, having a skewed poll on abortion is inevitable. The attempts to discredit the Citizen’s Assembly should be challenged at every opportunity.

AtomicHorror

dav3 wrote: »

As an aside, there are disgraceful attempts to undermine the Citizens’ Assembly by certain people in the media. One point being that the outcome does not tally with previous polls.

This is a false equivalence. The only way you can compare a poll and the outcome of the Citizen’s Assembly would be to expose the people taking to poll to the same facts, logic and evidence by leading experts and then poll them and compare it to the Citizens’ Assembly outcome. I imagine we would get the same results as the Assembly.

When you expose people to misinformation and fearmongering, having a skewed poll on abortion is inevitable. The attempts to discredit the Citizen’s Assembly should be challenged at every opportunity.

This was something that came to my mind last week as well.

Although I'm happy with the outcome of the CA, I still do think that a sample so small cannot be considered statistically representative of the population.

What I think would be really interesting would be any data on the participants attitudes on entry into the CA. And then of course equivalent polling on exit.

Was the wording of the ballots known at the start of the CA meetings on Article 40.3.3? Was any entry polling done?

It would be very interesting to see if the CA were similar to the general populace in attitudes and whether access to experts moved people's position on various matters.

kunst nugget

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Folks in RTE believe that they have to have a "balanced" debate with views on both sides given equal and respectful treatment.

It's not that the folks in RTÉ believe they have to have a balanced debate - all radio stations are required by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland to have balanced coverage with both sides being given equal treatment.

NuMarvel

dav3 wrote: »

It was similar to the Citizen’s Assembly where one side of the debate was unable to put their points across in a meaningful manner. They, like the same-sex marriage referendum relied on misinformation and false facts.

As an aside, there are disgraceful attempts to undermine the Citizens’ Assembly by certain people in the media. One point being that the outcome does not tally with previous polls.

This is a false equivalence. The only way you can compare a poll and the outcome of the Citizen’s Assembly would be to expose the people taking to poll to the same facts, logic and evidence by leading experts and then poll them and compare it to the Citizens’ Assembly outcome. I imagine we would get the same results as the Assembly.

When you expose people to misinformation and fearmongering, having a skewed poll on abortion is inevitable. The attempts to discredit the Citizen’s Assembly should be challenged at every opportunity.

What's somewhat encouraging is that the first poll after the Assembly concluded showed broadly similar results to the opinions of the Assembly members.

The Claire Byrne Live poll showed that, when don't knows were excluded, 60% of people favoured access to abortion with no restrictions with 40% against. The result from the Assembly was 64% in favour, 36% against. There is a caveat with that, because the Don't Knows in the CB Live poll were at 17%, so sizeable enough to make a different either way. But it's a good start just one day later.

I think it would be beneficial for everyone if the media used the CA criteria; reasons and timeframes, for future polls. It's what the Oireachtas will be looking at, so it will build a better picture of public opinion.

AtomicHorror

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's not that the folks in RTÉ believe they have to have a balanced debate - all radio stations are required by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland to have balanced coverage with both sides being given equal treatment.

Sure, but if, for the sake of argument, a TD wished to opine that we should vote no because it is the will of the faeries, does BAI require that his opinion get an airing, or is it sufficient that equal time and exposure be granted to the no side, but with discretion as to the bonkersness of the actual voices given a platform?

eviltwin

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This was something that came to my mind last week as well.

Although I'm happy with the outcome of the CA, I still do think that a sample so small cannot be considered statistically representative of the population.

What I think would be really interesting would be any data on the participants attitudes on entry into the CA. And then of course equivalent polling on exit.

Was the wording of the ballots known at the start of the CA meetings on Article 40.3.3? Was any entry polling done?

It would be very interesting to see if the CA were similar to the general populace in attitudes and whether access to experts moved people's position on various matters.

They were asked before they were selected on their views on abortion. Anyone with links to a pro choice or pro life campaign was not selected.

kunst nugget

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This I know, but I don't have to like how "balanced" is interpreted by a spineless organisation that fears complaints more than it respects expertise or good journalism.

There will be plenty of voices on the No side with a coherent argument to make. We won't want for balance.

In referenda like the one for the Marriage Equality one, it did end giving a lot of power to fringe groups like the Iona Institute as they were one of the few groups opposing it but thems the breaks.

I still think the fair and balanced approach is the only way to go - it stops dissent about unfair treatment in the media if the vote goes against them.

AtomicHorror

kunst nugget wrote: »

In referenda like the one for the Marriage Equality one, it did end giving a lot of power to fringe groups like the Iona Institute as they were one of the few groups opposing it but thems the breaks.

But was that the BAI or RTE's fear of the BAI erring on the side of caution?

kunst nugget wrote: »

I still think the fair and balanced approach is the only way to go - it stops dissent about unfair treatment in the media if the vote goes against them.

I hope so. My only worry on it, is that in the US elections, DJT was getting knocked down in the polls when directly debating his opponent, but as soon as the debates ended, so did his declining polls. Unless the direct confrontation of a dishonest/illogical/post-factual side is near-continuous to an exhausting extent, the effect of that challenge in polling seems to be very short-lived. I'm just not so convinced anymore that granting fringe voices a platform is as wise or effective as we assume.

NuMarvel

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's not that the folks in RTÉ believe they have to have a balanced debate - all radio stations are required by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland to have balanced coverage with both sides being given equal treatment.

The 50/50 balance rule only applies during referendum campaigns. Outside of that, the rules are that broadcasters must be fair and objective. But as the BAI said, there's no automatic requirement for balance or equal airtime to be fair.

kunst nugget

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Sure, but if, for the sake of argument, a TD wished to opine that we should vote no because it is the will of the faeries, does BAI require that his opinion get an airing, or is it sufficient that equal time and exposure be granted to the no side, but with discretion as to the bonkersness of the actual voices given a platform?

No, it wouldn't mean that his opinion would have to be aired, it just means that if it is aired, equal coverage has to be given to an opposing argument. Like I said, I think the problem has been with the previous couple of a referendum (Marriage Equality, Children's Rights) only fringe groups were in the opposition camp which lead to them being given a lot of media power - it didn't do much damage to the outcome of the votes.

kunst nugget

NuMarvel wrote: »

The 50/50 balance rule only applies during referendum campaigns. Outside of that, the rules are that broadcasters must be fair and objective. But as the BAI said, there's no automatic requirement for balance or equal airtime to be fair.

They seem to get a lot of complaints from both sides any time this issue is raised outside of referenda about balance and fairness if only one side of the argument is being favoured. Hasn't Ray D'arcy been stung a couple of times in relation to it?

kunst nugget

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But was that the BAI or RTE's fear of the BAI erring on the side of caution?

RTÉ would be following the BAI guidelines to avoid complaints being upheld against them.

AtomicHorror

kunst nugget wrote: »

RTÉ would be following the BAI guidelines to avoid complaints being upheld against them.

I think they have a duty to push the envelope and exercise some discretion though, complaints or otherwise.

kunst nugget wrote: »

No, it wouldn't mean that his opinion would have to be aired, it just means that if it is aired, equal coverage has to be given to an opposing argument. Like I said, I think the problem has been with the previous couple of a referendum (Marriage Equality, Children's Rights) only fringe groups were in the opposition camp which lead to them being given a lot of media power - it didn't do much damage to the outcome of the votes.

In which case we can hope that the loonies are crowded out by more moderate No's... well ok, I hope so.

In theory that is what should happen since this is a more divisive topic, but I guess we'll see if RTE get that quite soon.

eviltwin

NuMarvel wrote: »

The 50/50 balance rule only applies during referendum campaigns. Outside of that, the rules are that broadcasters must be fair and objective. But as the BAI said, there's no automatic requirement for balance or equal airtime to be fair.

does that apply across the board? I can't see ,for example, Spirit FM, which has a strong Christian ethos, taking on a balanced view on this issue

Zubeneschamali

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's not that the folks in RTÉ believe they have to have a balanced debate - all radio stations are required by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland to have balanced coverage with both sides being given equal treatment.

But when one side consists of a bunch of hypercatholic pre Vatican 2 dinosaurs, and the other side consists of everybody else, this "balance" is entirely artificial.

Take the SSM referendum - the only way to have a balanced debate would be no debate. The anti crew were mad, just letting them speak destroyed their own side.