The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Discodog

So much of our bad law results from the constitution. We should throw it out & make a new one fit for this century.

AtomicHorror

Discodog wrote: »

So much of our bad law results from the constitution. We should throw it out & make a new one fit for this century.

Would you trust the current shower to write a new one from scratch? They couldn't agree on where to eat lunch, let alone something with real consequences.

Zubeneschamali

Discodog wrote: »

So much of our bad law results from the constitution. We should throw it out & make a new one fit for this century.

Yes, but every narrow interest group would have an objection to some section or other of the new text, so everyone would have some reason to vote it down.

It doesn't help that it was crap when it was written - worse than the Free State one it replaced. Voted in with nearly exactly the same percentage as FF in the General Election, it was Dev and FF ramming through a party political broadcast.

volchitsa

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Men used to legally be able to rape their wives... would you suggest that was evidence that the majority of society was okay with that? Of course not.

I've no idea how that's a reply to my point that if people believed it to be the case, they would want the laws adjusted so as to take that into account.

Clearly they don't believe that.

Some laws are simply unworkable, doesn't mean that society is okay with the associated crimes taking place, that's where you're thinking is flawed. Women have been jailed for taking abortion pills late into pregnancies, have they not? And men have been jailed for the death of fetuses also. Therefore, it is quite clear that we put value on the life of a fetus as a society. It's poppycock to be trying to suggest that because we don't chain women to beds, we really must therefore be okay with developing babies being killed.

All you're trying to do really is get people to say that they agree with women being restrained so that yet more martyrdom can be injected into the debate, as if there wasn't enough of it already.

If a law is unworkable, it needs to be changed or removed.

It's very poor legislating to knowingly leave a law that is unworkable on the statutes to send a signal or whatever - because one of the signals it sends is that breaking the law doesn't necessarily matter very much.

And no, I'm not trying to "inject martyrdom", I'm saying that simple observation tells us that the claim that abortion is much like killing a person is false.

Whether that's a good thing or not is pretty much irrelevant - the point is that there's a massive inconsistency at the center of the prolife view that blows a hole in their own claim to believe what they say they believe. Since nobody (including you apparently) is arguing that we should imprison a woman for having an abortion, that shows that it's not nearly as good a comparison as the usual pro life argument would claim.

Basically they don't believe their own argument.

Consonata

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The 8th only affects outliers.

Women who can't afford to leave Ireland are outliers?

Women who can't leave due to residency statu's?

Women who can't get time off work to go to the UK?

It's pretty ridiculous to suggest that the 8th only effects outliers haha.

Zubeneschamali

Consonata wrote: »

Women who can't afford to leave Ireland are outliers? Women who can't leave due to residency statu's? Women who can't get time off work to go to the UK?

Yes, they are. Thousands of Irish women every year are inconvenienced but not prevented from getting an abortion by the 8th.

How many do you think are in the residency/poverty classes?

There are also women who are under age (and dependent on parents) or in prison or a psychiatric institution, but not, I think, thousands every year.

Consonata

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, they are. Thousands of Irish women every year are inconvenienced but not prevented from getting an abortion by the 8th.

How many do you think are in the residency/poverty classes?

There are also women who are under age (and dependent on parents) or in prison or a psychiatric institution, but not, I think, thousands every year.

I don't think you quite understand how expensive it is to have an abortion in the UK. A combination of that + the waiting lists mean it can be quite difficult to get one.

Zubeneschamali

Consonata wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand how expensive it is to have an abortion in the UK. A combination of that + the waiting lists mean it can be quite difficult to get one.

I am not saying is easy or cheap. I am saying that the groups who cannot access abortion in the UK are folks with particular issues, not the majority/mainstream.

The pro-life crew still seem to be under the impression that the 8th is preventing a lot of abortions. I don't believe that it is. I think it is only those with visa issues, the underage dependent on pro-life parents, people in institutions and those who cannot afford to travel, while thousands of average women can and do travel every year.

.......

This post has been deleted.

AnGaelach

Consonata wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand how expensive it is to have an abortion in the UK. A combination of that + the waiting lists mean it can be quite difficult to get one.

"My body and my choice and that's final."

"What the fúck do you mean I have to pay for it? Society should pay for it".

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

"My body and my choice and that's final."

"What the fúck do you mean I have to pay for it? Society should pay for it".

Because I totally said that it should be all covered by the tax payer :pac:

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

"My body and my choice and that's final."

"What the fúck do you mean I have to pay for it? Society should pay for it".

There is a booming industry in flying to Eastern Europe to have your teeth done because it is that much cheaper than here - maybe the UK would still be cheaper even if local clinics here were offering terminations.

But my point is that the groups who are really denied by the 8th (as opposed to being unable to afford it) are the ones who really need the 8th repealed - and they are the corner cases.

AnGaelach

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Using the argument that abortion is "expensive" in the UK as being a barrier to abortion here. If you're going to use that argument as to why it should be legal here, then the logical conclusion is that abortion here will have its costs socialised.

Consonata wrote: »

Because I totally said that it should be all covered by the tax payer :pac:

But you think most or some of it should be?

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

But you think most or some of it should be?

If it is done within the HSÉ then it is inevitable that it will be covered in some way or form by the tax-payer.

Tax payer €'s pay for equipment, the doctors, the nurses carrying out the operation.

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

Using the argument that abortion is "expensive" in the UK as being a barrier to abortion here. If you're going to use that argument as to why it should be legal here, then the logical conclusion is that abortion here will have its costs socialised.

No, that is a giant leap, not a logical conclusion.

One reason it is expensive in the UK is because it involves a trip to the UK, plane tickets, accommodation, days off work - none of which would be needed if it was a lunchtime appointment at your local clinic.

AnGaelach

Consonata wrote: »

If it is done within the HSÉ then it is inevitable that it will be covered in some way or form by the tax-payer.

Tax payer €'s pay for equipment, the doctors, the nurses carrying out the operation.

That's a very nice way of sidestepping the question. We're talking about the procedure itself, and whether you think it should be made deliberately affordable for people (and thus subsidised by the State) or if it's at an "at-cost" price.

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's a very nice way of sidestepping the question. We're talking about the procedure itself, and whether you think it should be made deliberately affordable for people (and thus subsidised by the State) or if it's at an "at-cost" price.

Personally, no, as I think of it as just a medical operation.

However if that were the pro-life's red line, I would be quite happy to keep it confined to clinic's so long as it were legalised in those cases, and more importantly, legalised if there are medical complications etc.

There are still vast savings to be made on plane tickets, hotels, time off that are still to be made for Irish women in that situation.

eviltwin

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's a very nice way of sidestepping the question. We're talking about the procedure itself, and whether you think it should be made deliberately affordable for people (and thus subsidised by the State) or if it's at an "at-cost" price.

Why shouldn't it be free? All other maternity care is free, health care in general isn't costed on the basis of bad choices which is what you are getting at. Why should the tax payer cover the cost when the silly girl got herself knocked up. We have a non judgemental health system for a reason.

AnGaelach

eviltwin wrote: »

Why shouldn't it be free? All other maternity care is free, health care in general isn't costed on the basis of bad choices which is what you are getting at. Why should the tax payer cover the cost when the silly girl got herself knocked up. We have a non judgemental health system for a reason.

Because not only is abortion in most cases reprehensible to me, having to pay for it through taxes is a slap in the face to my beliefs (and a great many other people in the country).

Maternity care is free because it provides a long-term benefit to the State - those children are going to become adults and workers, they're going to contribute to the State over the long-term. I have no problem providing assistance to single mothers or young families.

An abortion isn't maternity care... The entire point of the argument is that the person getting the operation doesn't want to be a mother.

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because not only is abortion in most cases reprehensible to me, having to pay for it through taxes is a slap in the face to my beliefs (and a great many other people in the country).

Maternity care is free because it provides a long-term benefit to the State - those children are going to become adults and workers, they're going to contribute to the State over the long-term. I have no problem providing assistance to single mothers or young families.

An abortion isn't maternity care... The entire point of the argument is that the person getting the operation doesn't want to be a mother.

So you would settle with it being confined to clinics I take it.

AnGaelach

Consonata wrote: »

So you would settle with it being confined to clinics I take it.

I wouldn't like it, but I dislike being made to pay for something I disagree with even more.

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

I wouldn't like it, but I dislike being made to pay for something I disagree with even more.

Everyone pays for something they disagree with in fairness. Thats generally the point of government, to pool resources and utilise them in ways for the greater good even though sections of society wouldn't agree with the way they are used.

ohnonotgmail

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because not only is abortion in most cases reprehensible to me, having to pay for it through taxes is a slap in the face to my beliefs (and a great many other people in the country).

Maternity care is free because it provides a long-term benefit to the State - those children are going to become adults and workers, they're going to contribute to the State over the long-term. I have no problem providing assistance to single mothers or young families.

An abortion isn't maternity care... The entire point of the argument is that the person getting the operation doesn't want to be a mother.

We all pay for things that we dont agree with. What makes this so special?

eviltwin

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because not only is abortion in most cases reprehensible to me, having to pay for it through taxes is a slap in the face to my beliefs (and a great many other people in the country).

Maternity care is free because it provides a long-term benefit to the State - those children are going to become adults and workers, they're going to contribute to the State over the long-term. I have no problem providing assistance to single mothers or young families.

An abortion isn't maternity care... The entire point of the argument is that the person getting the operation doesn't want to be a mother.

You could say that about anything, free contraception, free methadone, support for those with HIV etc. Luckily we don't bring morality into healthcare, only ethics and abortion is considered a normal ethical procedure. And abortion is part of the maternity system, it's a procedure that is carried out in maternity hospitals across the world. It doesn't make sense a woman who needs an abortion during her pregnancy should have to pay for it when the rest of her maternity care is free.

gctest50

AnGaelach wrote: »

I wouldn't like it, but I dislike being made to pay for something I disagree with even more.

Do you agree with this :

http://independent.ie/irish-news/statesponsored-heroin-addicts-costing-us-20m-26675936.html


In north Dublin, including the city centre, it costs €7,034 per patient each year to provide methadone and clinical support.

.

"The latest national data [end of May 2014] show that 3,325 people were on methadone for 10 years or more, a third of the total," it states.

AnGaelach

Consonata wrote: »

Everyone pays for something they disagree with in fairness. Thats generally the point of government, to pool resources and utilise them in ways for the greater good even though sections of society wouldn't agree with the way they are used.

You might disagree with Government expenditure in some areas - but it's the reaction and the argument that is different to opposing something like foreign aid or welfare.

The entire premise of the more vociferous pro-choice side has been "it's my body so it's my choice and it's nothing to do with you", as if to discredit someone's opinion on the matter. All the while they largely expect to have their choice paid for by the people whose opinion "doesn't matter".

I'm not saying that you've argued that way, but a lot of the pro-choice side certainly do/did.

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

I have no problem providing assistance to single mothers or young families.

Nor do I, but a very large constituency seem to very much resent paying young wans benefits for doing nothing but get pregnant.

They still have to pay, though.

AnGaelach

gctest50 wrote: »

.

That's all good and well, but what does that have to do with anything? I don't support the use of methadone clinics - methadone is just as addictive as heroin.

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

You might disagree with Government expenditure in some areas - but it's the reaction and the argument that is different to opposing something like foreign aid or welfare.

The entire premise of the more vociferous pro-choice side has been "it's my body so it's my choice and it's nothing to do with you", as if to discredit someone's opinion on the matter. All the while they largely expect to have their choice paid for by the people whose opinion "doesn't matter".

I'm not saying that you've argued that way, but a lot of the pro-choice side certainly do/did.

Bodily autonomy and right to healthcare aren't mutually exclusive.

We don't force people to pay for a heart transplant because "it's their body, so they pay for it" that's ridiculous. There is a standard of health to be expected if you believe in a socialised healthcare system. If you don't then there really isn't much point to this argument.

AnGaelach

Consonata wrote: »

Bodily autonomy and right to healthcare aren't mutually exclusive.

We don't force people to pay for a heart transplant because "it's their body, so they pay for it" that's ridiculous. There is a standard of health to be expected if you believe in a socialised healthcare system. If you don't then there really isn't much point to this argument.

Having a heart transplant and having an abortion are not the same thing, not in the eyes of a huge portion of the electorate.

One of them involves a simple medical procedure. The other involves the killing of what will be a human.

You might not consider it an important distinction to make, but I certainly do.

OldNotWIse

eviltwin wrote: »

You could say that about anything, free contraception, free methadone, support for those with HIV etc. Luckily we don't bring morality into healthcare, only ethics and abortion is considered a normal ethical procedure. And abortion is part of the maternity system, it's a procedure that is carried out in maternity hospitals across the world. It doesn't make sense a woman who needs an abortion during her pregnancy should have to pay for it when the rest of her maternity care is free.

Does it not seem even a little odd to have unborn babies having their lives deliberately ended in the same place as other babies are being born? We could in theory end up in the bizarre situation where a premie born at 23 weeks is placed in intensive care and has a team of medical professionals working around the clock to save it's life while in another part of the same building an unborn baby at 23 weeks gestation has it's life deliberately terminated - and the only factor differentiating the two babies is that one has passed through the birth canal and is wanted. The other has not passed through the birth canal and is not wanted. I don't care what side of the fence someone might be on when it comes to abortion - to me that is a strange set up!

Consonata

AnGaelach wrote: »

Having a heart transplant and having an abortion are not the same thing, not in the eyes of a huge portion of the electorate.

Source.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Consonata

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Does it not seem even a little odd to have unborn babies having their lives deliberately ended in the same place as other babies are being born? We could in theory end up in the bizarre situation where a premie born at 23 weeks is placed in intensive care and has a team of medical professionals working around the clock to save it's life while in another part of the same building an unborn baby at 23 weeks gestation has it's life deliberately terminated - and the only factor differentiating the two babies is that one has passed through the birth canal and is wanted. The other has not passed through the birth canal and is not wanted. I don't care what side of the fence someone might be on when it comes to abortion - to me that is a strange set up!

Nobody said abortion is not complicated? Also a baby born at 23 weeks has a very very very low rate of survival. iirc it is something close to 20% and thats not accounting for the life long health and mental disabilities that child will have as a result of such a premature birth.

Zubeneschamali

AnGaelach wrote: »

Having a heart transplant and having an abortion are not the same thing, not in the eyes of a huge portion of the electorate.

One of them involves a simple medical procedure.

The other involves a colossally expensive and complicated medical procedure.

Consonata

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The other involves a colossally expensive and complicated medical procedure.

Oh I like this line. I chuckled.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Does it not seem even a little odd to have unborn babies having their lives deliberately ended in the same place as other babies are being born? We could in theory end up in the bizarre situation where a premie born at 23 weeks is placed in intensive care and has a team of medical professionals working around the clock to save it's life while in another part of the same building an unborn baby at 23 weeks gestation has it's life deliberately terminated - and the only factor differentiating the two babies is that one has passed through the birth canal and is wanted. The other has not passed through the birth canal and is not wanted. I don't care what side of the fence someone might be on when it comes to abortion - to me that is a strange set up!

the "pro-life" lot are obsessed with bringing up this example. terminations at 23 weeks are extremely rare, even in the UK, and are usually done for medical reasons.

AnGaelach

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The other involves a colossally expensive and complicated medical procedure.

Which saves a person's life.


As opposed to the procedure which ends one.

OldNotWIse

Consonata wrote: »

Nobody said abortion is not complicated? Also a baby born at 23 weeks has a very very very low rate of survival. iirc it is something close to 20% and thats not accounting for the life long health and mental disabilities that child will have as a result of such a premature birth.

I don't understand the context of your first sentence.

There are more and more babies surviving at younger ages with the advancement of medical technology. What does the fact that they might suffer disabilities have to do with my point? Should they not be cared for, even if that is their parents wish?

Consonata

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I don't understand the context of your first sentence.

There are more and more babies surviving at younger ages with the advancement of medical technology. What does the fact that they might suffer disabilities have to do with my point? Should they not be cared for, even if that is their parents wish?

Because might implies that the probability is low. We're talking 1 in 5 will live at all, and those who live will likely have major on going issues that they will have to deal with.

eviltwin

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Does it not seem even a little odd to have unborn babies having their lives deliberately ended in the same place as other babies are being born? We could in theory end up in the bizarre situation where a premie born at 23 weeks is placed in intensive care and has a team of medical professionals working around the clock to save it's life while in another part of the same building an unborn baby at 23 weeks gestation has it's life deliberately terminated - and the only factor differentiating the two babies is that one has passed through the birth canal and is wanted. The other has not passed through the birth canal and is not wanted. I don't care what side of the fence someone might be on when it comes to abortion - to me that is a strange set up!

I don't think oddness comes into it. Its doing the procedure where it's clinically best to do so. Is it odd to have fertility clinics in maternity hospitals too? Maybe we could have a designated wing for all the nasty women having abortions so they don't have to upset anyone just like we used to do with the unmarried mothers.

Zubeneschamali

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think the idea is that we should have a separate building for killing babies, preferably one that is out of sight, maybe in England or Spain.

Then we can all pretend it doesn't happen at all, at all.

This is the bizarre situation we are actually in, no hypotheticals needed.

OldNotWIse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the "pro-life" lot are obsessed with bringing up this example. terminations at 23 weeks are extremely rare, even in the UK, and are usually done for medical reasons.

But the "pro-choice" lot are obsessed with bringing up hard cases such as rape and FFA at every opportunity as if these form the majority of reasons for the millions of terminations each year.

Consonata

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think the idea is that we should have a separate building for killing babies, preferably one that is out of sight, maybe in England or Spain.

Then we can all pretend it doesn't happen at all, at all.

This is the bizarre situation we are actually in, no hypotheticals needed.

Like we should have for single mothers + babies born out of wedlock

I wonder what that reminds me of :rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

OldNotWIse wrote: »

But the "pro-choice" lot are obsessed with bringing up hard cases such as rape and FFA at every opportunity as if these form the majority of reasons for the millions of terminations each year.

are they? the main mantra from the pro-choice lobby is about choice.

OldNotWIse

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't think oddness comes into it. Its doing the procedure where it's clinically best to do so. Is it odd to have fertility clinics in maternity hospitals too? Maybe we could have a designated wing for all the nasty women having abortions so they don't have to upset anyone just like we used to do with the unmarried mothers.

Nobody mentioned segregation because the women are nasty. What a childish comeback. I just think it's odd that one wing might be dedicated to bringing babies into the world and the other would be dedicated to ending their lives. For me, oddness does come into it.

Consonata

OldNotWIse wrote: »

millions of terminations each year.

hmm.

Outlaw Pete

eviltwin wrote: »

Why shouldn't it be free? All other maternity care is free, health care in general isn't costed on the basis of bad choices which is what you are getting at. Why should the tax payer cover the cost when the silly girl got herself knocked up. We have a non judgemental health system for a reason.

Unless an abortion is medically necessary, then killing babies while they are developing in the womb has nothing to do with "health" and so maybe best not to refer to it as health care... if accuracy is at all important to you.

And as for the "silly girls" comment, haven't seen anyone suggesting someone would be a silly girl for "getting herself knocked up" (as you so quaintly put it). On the contrary, many have pointed out that there is another party involved here who should have a say seeing that they have played a part in getting the woman pregnant. You know, that person many are saying is not even entitled to an opinion and should "know his place".

Until that is the baby is no longer in a woman's womb and then the same people will have the term "dead beat dads" rolling of their tongues no doubt.