The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

kylith

SafeSurfer wrote: »

There is that claim again. That women "are being criminalised", because of the 8th amendment. Who, when, where?
More women are criminalised for abortion related offences in England than in the Republic of Ireland.

The fact that no-one has, of yet, been prosecuted is neither here nor there. The fact that they legally can be prosecuted is the issue.

It is simply the fact that, in Ireland in the 21st century, a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape and procures an abortion LEGALLY CAN be sent to jail for longer than the person who raped her. That is a despicable thing.

SafeSurfer

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You seem entirely ignorant of the reality of the 8th Amendment - I respectfully suggest you educate yourself.

From here:

In this State, the 2013 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act repealed section 58 of the 1861 Act, replacing it with a prison sentence of up to 14 years for anyone unlawfully procuring an abortion here.
Anyone who helps a woman or girl to unlawfully procure an abortion can face a similar sentence.

Here:

It is illegal to procure an abortion in Ireland outside of the circumstances specified in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013.

Here:

You can get it here in the State, you can also get 14 years for procuring it, for taking it and for helping yourself to have an abortion at home.

Here:

People who procure an abortion in the State risk 14 years imprisonment.

If you need more information I suggest you use Google - plenty available.[/quote]

With respect I think that it is you who are entirely ignorant of the 8th amendment and it's criminalising effect.
Do you think someone can be jailed for breaking the 8th amendment?

You posted 4, yes 4 links which don't show anyone who was been criminalised by abortion law in Ireland.
The poster I was replying to said women were "being criminalised", not had the potential to be criminalised.

If someone told me breakfast was "being served" in the dining room and there wasn't a sausage in sight I would rightfully conclude they were mistaken.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

If you discovered a small malignant tumor would you ignore it because it is not a threat NOW

No because I am not ignorant of basic medical science and I know such a tumor IS a threat NOW. The clue is in the word "malignant".

But you are not getting the point I was conveying. I am not advocating ignoring everything about the future. That would be ridiculous.

But when it comes to affording moral and ethical concern to an entity that is in front of me, I need a basis to do so. And "it might be sentient some day" is just a statement that tells me it is not NOW. I do not see allocating rights NOW to something that MIGHT one day qualify for them as being coherent. Just as incoherent as me saying you should have no rights NOW because in all likelihood you will be long dead in the future. Why would I allocate it on the basis of potential rather than remove it on the basis of potential. Makes no sense to me.

And that is just in isolation. But the fetus is not in isolation. It is inside a moral agent for whom we SHOULD have moral and ethical concern.

So not only do I see no reason to give a fetus rights, I certainly do not see any reason to give it rights that over ride the right of choice of the mother.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

Whatever about the pro-choice side, it's the middle that needs to be won over. And the "shrillness" will cost votes if it continues. FFS I saw someone post a video with the title "The 8 most annoying things about being pregnant" with #RepealThe8th after it. Who is that going to win over?

That's the exact same argument that was made time and again during the SSM referendum to be fair, and we saw exactly how that turned out.

SafeSurfer

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You cannot provide one example of anyone criminalised as a result of the 8th amendment.

How about a deal,

Pro choice posters stop dismissing late term abortions as irrelevant because they rarely happen and I will stop dismissing the emotive 14 year jail term argument because it NEVER happens.

Also the POTENTIAL life of the unborn has been dismissed by repealers while the POTENTIAL imprisonment of those procuring abortions is highlighted. To me this is hypocrisy and double standards.

I also find it interesting that whenever difficult questions are asked pro choicers fret about the thread being shut down, despite us directly discussing the 8th amendment as in the thread title.

sunshine and showers

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You cannot provide one example of anyone criminalised as a result of the 8th amendment.

How about a deal,

Pro choice posters stop dismissing late term abortions as irrelevant because they rarely happen and I will stop dismissing the emotive 14 year jail term argument because it NEVER happens.

Also the POTENTIAL life of the unborn has been dismissed by repealers while the POTENTIAL imprisonment of those procuring abortions is highlighted. To me this is hypocrisy and double standards.

I also find it interesting that whenever difficult questions are asked pro choicers fret about the thread being shut down, despite us directly discussing the 8th amendment as in the thread title.

Depends entirely on what you mean by "late term abortion".

nozzferrahhtoo

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Also the POTENTIAL life of the unborn has been dismissed by repealers while the POTENTIAL imprisonment of those procuring abortions is highlighted. To me this is hypocrisy and double standards.

Well I personally have not discussed what is or is not criminal, let alone dismissed it. But I would point out that the potential life is just that..... a potential. Whereas when one is talking about potential imprisonment in some context or other one is likely therefore talking about something that is currently ACTUALLY a crime, which is not a potential.

So I am not seeing any hypocrisy or double standards there. one is a potential, the other is a current actual.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I also find it interesting that whenever difficult questions are asked pro choicers fret about the thread being shut down, despite us directly discussing the 8th amendment as in the thread title.

Again as a pro choice person I have not fretted about any such thing myself on here. So be wary as you might come across as sweeping the brush a little two wide.

But since you bring it up, I am personally.... interested.... with how boards will choose to deal with the coming string of threads I expect the abortion debate to generate in the coming months. Will they shut it down? Merge it into a mega thread? Engage in extreme or no moderating?

I would be genuinely surprised if it is not a hot topic in the back rooms of the mod team as we speak.

The Legend Of Kira

( Seen this photo elsewhere )

Over the last month we have seen 3 pro life public meetings get canceled due to pressure & threats, we also people tearing down pro life posters in Cork + Dublin, now a pro life van gets vandalised in the photo you can see white paint splashed over parts of the van + repeal painted on the van in white paint. whoever vandalised this van is not doing their side any favours.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

whoever vandalised this van is not doing their side any favours.

That would, possibly, depend on which "side" the vandal in question is on? I would certainly not assume it either way when we see, as we likely will, such "attacks" on the posters and properties of BOTH sides.

Birdie Num Num

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well I personally have not discussed what is or is not criminal, let alone dismissed it. But I would point out that the potential life is just that..... a potential. Whereas when one is talking about potential imprisonment in some context or other one is likely therefore talking about something that is currently ACTUALLY a crime, which is not a potential.

So I am not seeing any hypocrisy or double standards there. one is a potential, the other is a current actual.


Apologies as I am just new to this thread and just stubbled across your post but you really are mixing someone else's words around there to suit your angle.

nozzferrahhtoo

Birdie Num Num wrote: »

Apologies as I am just new to this thread and just stubbled across your post but you really are mixing someone else's words around there to suit your angle.

If you say so, but having just joined the thread you might not be aware that the practice of declaring someone is doing something (mixing words, being dishonest, or whatever) without THEN showing how and where and why you think they are doing it........... is so common a move that I doubt anyone is fooled by it any more. I am not m ixing someone else's words solely because you have waltzed in and declared it to be so.

But I see nothing inaccurate in what I said, so do help me out with your thinking here.

When one is discussing the POTENTIAL life of a fetus, in the sense of "human life" or "person hood" then one is doing just that.......... discussing a potential.

If however one is discussing the potential that they might be imprisoned for a crime, then they are likely discussing an ACTUAL crime that is CURRENTLY in the legal doctrines. That is not a potential, that is something that is actual, current, and real.

Quite a difference, doncha think?

captbarnacles

Had the first door to door campaigners this week from the save the 8th side and they were mostly pleasant, one walked off when I said I'd be voting to repeal and the other stayed to discuss. The discussion was mainly her trying to convince me abortions at 8 months plus happen all the time in England including for D babies. A man came over to join her after awhile. Both said they would imprison a suicidal girl if she wanted to go to England no matter how she became pregnant but they would send the offending father to jail forever as if that balanced it out?

nozzferrahhtoo

captbarnacles wrote: »

The discussion was mainly her trying to convince me abortions at 8 months plus happen all the time in England

In that situation I would have said "This could indeed be compelling, would you mind coming back with official statistics on how often that happens, broken down preferably into how many of those abortions happened purely by choice and how many happened due to actual medical necessity".

Trust me, she would not have come back with the numbers or any official sources.

captbarnacles wrote: »

Both said they would imprison a suicidal girl if she wanted to go to England

So they would advocate stopping someone from doing something pretty much legal, by themselves committing a highly actionable offence punishable quite heavily by law? Yeah that makes sense. Shame we can not test it with a volunteer actor who could wander into their path somehow and suggest to them she was in fact the very girl they described. Be interesting to see if they actually would stage a kidnap or if they are, as I somewhat suspect, all bluster and talk.

Amazing how many people on the opposite side of arguments to me want to imprison young girls though. At one point I possessed a relatively large quantity of catholic crackers.

During this period I received quite a large number of emails from Catholics. And quite a few of them said the same thing in a number of ways to the effect of "How would you like it if I was going around kidnapping your daughter or little sister".

Not withstanding how poor a comparison that is to me possessing a cracker that was FREELY given to me.............. it is weird to me how the minds of these people go so quickly to a combination of kidnap, and small girls.

January

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/committee-votes-not-to-retain-eighth-amendment-in-full-1.3260573?mode=amp

Seconded by ff. After the ard fheis at the weekend this is surprising to say the least.

NuMarvel

SafeSurfer wrote: »

With respect I think that it is you who are entirely ignorant of the 8th amendment and it's criminalising effect.
Do you think someone can be jailed for breaking the 8th amendment?

You posted 4, yes 4 links which don't show anyone who was been criminalised by abortion law in Ireland.
The poster I was replying to said women were "being criminalised", not had the potential to be criminalised.

You appear to misunderstand the meaning of the word criminalise. It doesn't mean that someone has been prosecuted. It means that an activity is illegal and that someone engaging in that activity is breaking the law and can be prosecuted.

It's similar to how our laws on sexual activity between men are regarded as criminalising gay men. To the point that the change in the laws are referred to as homosexuality being decriminalised, even though no one had been charged under those laws for decades at that point.

So, to answer your question above (Do you think someone can be jailed for breaking the 8th amendment?), yes they can, and the fact that they can means they are being criminalised, even if no one has even been charged for breaking that law.

Tigger

Billy86 wrote: »

That's the exact same argument that was made time and again during the SSM referendum to be fair, and we saw exactly how that turned out.

the ssm was obvious
everyone deserves to get married ots a social contract between adults

Tigger

captbarnacles wrote: »

Had the first door to door campaigners this week from the save the 8th side and they were mostly pleasant, one walked off when I said I'd be voting to repeal and the other stayed to discuss. The discussion was mainly her trying to convince me abortions at 8 months plus happen all the time in England including for D babies. A man came over to join her after awhile. Both said they would imprison a suicidal girl if she wanted to go to England no matter how she became pregnant but they would send the offending father to jail forever as if that balanced it out?

clearly crazy people

NuMarvel

Tigger wrote: »

clearly crazy people

They wanted to imprison a pregnant girl and the father of her child even though neither of them appeared to have broken any laws. Those are not the opinions of rational people.

January

https://twitter.com/roisiningle/status/920681077198544902

thee glitz

kylith wrote: »

It is simply the fact that, in Ireland in the 21st century, a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape and procures an abortion LEGALLY CAN be sent to jail for longer than the person who raped her. That is a despicable thing.

It's not true though.

January

thee glitz wrote: »

It's not true though.

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't or cant happen.

uptherebels

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Over the last month we have seen 3 pro life public meetings get canceled due to pressure & threats,

you have a source for those threats?

freshpopcorn

I think wording will play a big part in this and that repealing with out knowing what exactly the 8th will be replaced with won't help the repeal campaign.

What will happen if the repeal campaign fails?
If it's by a good few percent will people be saying it's a land slide No similar to people saying it was a landslide Yes with the marriage referendum?

thee glitz

January wrote: »

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't or cant happen.

It's the law that says it can't happen.

January

uptherebels wrote: »

you have a source for those threats?

No they don't.

Meanwhile there's proof from captain Americas in blanchardstown that the anti choice movement tried to get a prochoice meeting cancelled by saying they would picket outside and boycott the restaurant if it went ahead. A meeting a week later in Douglas and kaldi Ashtown was cancelled because of similar claims, ditto a community centre in Tallaght and another out in the Dublin bay north area.

But it's the pro choice side playing dirty and being shrill.

Zubeneschamali

freshpopcorn wrote: »

What will happen if the repeal campaign fails?

We go again in 10 years when more 8th fans are dead.

thee glitz

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think wording will play a big part in this and that repealing with out knowing what exactly the 8th will be replaced with won't help the repeal campaign.

Very true. I think many people would vote to repeal the 8th if it meant allowing abortion is limited cases only, likely a majority in the case of FFA.

Most pro abortion rights supporters seem to fail to realise this, or are unwilling to compomise on their wants to facilitate it.

NuMarvel

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think wording will play a big part in this and that repealing with out knowing what exactly the 8th will be replaced with won't help the repeal campaign.

It's standard practice for governments to publish draft legislation when proposing a referendum. We saw that with both the Children's referendum and the marriage equality referendum, so I can't see why that wouldn't be the case here.

freshpopcorn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We go again in 10 years when more 8th fans are dead.

You never know how the world will be in 10 years!

Sheeps

NuMarvel wrote: »

They wanted to imprison a pregnant girl and the father of her child even though neither of them appeared to have broken any laws. Those are not the opinions of rational people.

What was the pregnant woman's name?

January

Sheeps wrote: »

What was the pregnant woman's name?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms_Y

And only recently another young girl was held against her will in a mental health facility after first being led to believe she was being granted an abortion but then being told she wasn't suicidal enough.

These are well publicised cases. Don't tell me you don't know about them.

NuMarvel

Sheeps wrote: »

What was the pregnant woman's name?

I take it from captbarncales' post that he and the people he was talking to were speaking hypothetically.

eviltwin

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think wording will play a big part in this and that repealing with out knowing what exactly the 8th will be replaced with won't help the repeal campaign.

What will happen if the repeal campaign fails?
If it's by a good few percent will people be saying it's a land slide No similar to people saying it was a landslide Yes with the marriage referendum?

Why does it needs to be replaced by anything? I agree though it's pointless have repeated threads on abortion and the referendum when we don't as yet know what we are being asked to vote on.

freshpopcorn

eviltwin wrote: »

Why does it needs to be replaced by anything? I agree though it's pointless have repeated threads on abortion and the referendum when we don't as yet know what we are being asked to vote on.

Well from speaking to people/etc some people would happy voting to allow abortion in the cases of FFA for example and they'd like to be able to vote on the day for this. If the vote was just to repeal/remove the 8th the government could legislate to allow abortions in cases that they wouldn't feel comfortable with. So, they'd probably end up voting no!
Does that make sense?

thee glitz

eviltwin wrote: »

Why does it needs to be replaced by anything? I agree though it's pointless have repeated threads on abortion and the referendum when we don't as yet know what we are being asked to vote on.

You get the government and referendums you deserve.

If you support abortion rights in limited circumstances, tell your TD's, make it known. If you acknowledge the right to life of the unborn absolutely, do the same. The same again if you seek a relaxed abortion regime but aren't too concerned about those in special circumstances.

I believe the popular opinion lies in the middle, who would seek reassurance in the case of the 8th being repealed. There's been little to no discussion of this.

NuMarvel

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Well from speaking to people/etc some people would happy voting to allow abortion in the cases of FFA for example and they'd like to be able to vote on the day for this. If the vote was just to repeal/remove the 8th the government could legislate to allow abortions in cases that they wouldn't feel comfortable with. So, they'd probably end up voting no!
Does that make sense?

I don't think people realise that a constitution is not an appropriate place to deal with complex clinical and moral issues. Look at what the 8th has done; it's 43 pretty straightforward words, and we've had 4 subsequent referendums, with at least one more on the way. Saying we should put something as complicated as FFA in there is basically saying please sir, lets have more referendums.

Issues like this are more appropriately dealt with by parliaments and politicians. And while I can understand why people might be uncomfortable with that, they have to appreciate the alternative is worse. And besides, it's not as if people are completely without a voice. If a government legislates in a way people aren't happy with, they can be voted out and replaced.

freshpopcorn

NuMarvel wrote: »

I don't think people realise that a constitution is not an appropriate place to deal with complex clinical and moral issues. Look at what the 8th has done; it's 43 pretty straightforward words, and we've had 4 subsequent referendums, with at least one more on the way. Saying we should put something as complicated as FFA in there is basically saying please sir, lets have more referendums.

Issues like this are more appropriately dealt with by parliaments and politicians. And while I can understand why people might be uncomfortable with that, they have to appreciate the alternative is worse. And besides, it's not as if people are completely without a voice. If a government legislates in a way people aren't happy with, they can be voted out and replaced.

Well in my opinion if the referendum is simply removing the 8th amendment and allowing the government to legislate.It will be a major advantage for the keep the 8th side because they can simply say oh the government can legalese for abortion in all cases/etc.

Tigger

Tigger wrote: »

clearly crazy people

NuMarvel wrote: »

They wanted to imprison a pregnant girl and the father of her child even though neither of them appeared to have broken any laws. Those are not the opinions of rational people.

what part of clearly crazy did i not make clear?

NuMarvel

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Well in my opinion if the referendum is simply removing the 8th amendment and allowing the government to legislate.It will be a major advantage for the keep the 8th side because they can simply say oh the government can legalese for abortion in all cases/etc.

The pro-8th side are going to say all sorts of things, no matter what the referendum's about. That's not a good enough reason to keep it in the constitution. There is no good reason to keep abortion in the constitution.

As I said before, it's likely draft post-repeal legislation will be released before the referendum is held so people will know what will be the outcome of their vote. And I think most people will accept that it's unlikely a future government would drastically overhaul that. Especially when some of the people claiming otherwise don't have a great track record in being right in matters like these; eg Quinn or Mullen.

The Legend Of Kira

captbarnacles wrote: »

Had the first door to door campaigners this week from the save the 8th side and they were mostly pleasant, one walked off when I said I'd be voting to repeal and the other stayed to discuss. The discussion was mainly her trying to convince me abortions at 8 months plus happen all the time in England including for D babies. A man came over to join her after awhile. Both said they would imprison a suicidal girl if she wanted to go to England no matter how she became pregnant but they would send the offending father to jail forever as if that balanced it out?

Out of interest, what age demographic were the save the 8th canvassers ?

freshpopcorn

I think it will be interesting to see who'll come around my area campaigning for this referendum. I live about a mile outside a town and during the marriage we had nobody and in the local town Yes equality popped around with posters to the local shops one Saturday afternoon and knocked around a few estates the for a few hours. The No side campaigned outside mass and handed a few leaflets out in the town. It was disappointing over all.

captbarnacles

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Out of interest, what age demographic were the save the 8th canvassers ?

55+

I felt a bit sorry for them as they said they were being told to f**k off at most doors.

captbarnacles

I meant to ask them (genuinely) if after the referendum they'd be campaigning for sex education and access to cheap affordable contraception including MAP for everyone. They really seemed to hate abortion so those are two practical ways of ensuring less of them.

Strazdas

It's extraordinary that Ireland is tying itself up in knots in 2017 trying to legislate for this.

It's making us look like the most dysfunctional country in Europe by some distance. Main problem is that political parties seem petrified of a voter backlash if they step out of line.

Dotsie~tmp

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll

Any opinions on how the Ref might play out? Looks like a difficult one for repeal if question is overly liberal.

Dotsie~tmp

Strazdas wrote: »

It's extraordinary that Ireland is tying itself up in knots in 2017 trying to legislate for this.

It's making us look like the most dysfunctional country in Europe by some distance. Main problem is that political parties seem petrified of a voter backlash if they step out of line.

Your problem is with democracy then. Politicians are supposed to represent their constituents.

mahamageehad

So the committee voted tonight 15 to 5 (3 nos and 2 abstained) to not keep the 8th in it's current form. It's not repeal, but it is an acknowledgement that the status quo is no longer acceptable. The next stage is that 6 options on what to do next - premutations of repeal, replace etc. will be investigated.

Tigger

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll

Any opinions on how the Ref might play out? Looks like a difficult one for repeal if question is overly liberal.

should be 13 weeks

Tigger

mahamageehad wrote: »

So the committee voted tonight 15 to 5 (3 nos and 2 abstained) to not keep the 8th in it's current form. It's not repeal, but it is an acknowledgement that the status quo is no longer acceptable. The next stage is that 6 options on what to do next - premutations of repeal, replace etc. will be investigated.

permutations are what id like to dscuss
but theres a lot of allthe repeal going on
fcuk it i dont vote sobwho cares
im kinda nervous when i take tests