The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Hotblack Desiato

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's because it's not legislation, it's a clause in the constitution and requires a referendum to change it.

Very bad idea to put what should be in legislation into the constitution, because it's so awkward to change it when it needs to be changed. e.g. there is a five year separation requirement for a divorce written into the constitution, many people regard this as ridiculous now but it can't be changed without a referendum. There is also a ridiculous clause requiring blasphemy to be a crime, we're stuck with that too along with a load of other outdated catholic guff about a woman's place being in the home, power deriving not from the people but from the christian god, 'due homage and worship' being due to that god. Also religious oaths for the presidency and judges. Basically if you're not a christian you're not really Irish according to our constitution - lovely.

NuMarvel

January wrote: »

My apologies I read your post wrong and thought you had said up to and not after 22 weeks. Must go back to specsavers.

Apologies again!

No probs at all .

NuMarvel

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's because it's not legislation, it's a clause in the constitution and requires a referendum to change it.

As an aside, we didn't have much success in legislating for the 8th either. Not quickly at least. When the X Case was heard 9 years after the referendum on the 8th, the court criticised the governments of the time for not introducing legislation after the referendum.

And it would be another 21 years, 2 referendums and 1 ECHR case later before a government would get around to legislating for the X Case.

Let's hope that whatever changes are made to the constitution in next year's referendum, the legislation is quicker in coming into being.

mahamageehad

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's because it's not legislation, it's a clause in the constitution and requires a referendum to change it.

Very bad idea to put what should be in legislation into the constitution, because it's so awkward to change it when it needs to be changed. e.g. there is a five year separation requirement for a divorce written into the constitution, many people regard this as ridiculous now but it can't be changed without a referendum. There is also a ridiculous clause requiring blasphemy to be a crime, we're stuck with that too along with a load of other outdated catholic guff about a woman's place being in the home, power deriving not from the people but from the christian god, 'due homage and worship' being due to that god. Also religious oaths for the presidency and judges. Basically if you're not a christian you're not really Irish according to our constitution - lovely.

Slightly beside the point, but we are also due more referendums over the next 2 years including a vote on removing the blasphemy thing, a vote on reducing the divorce waiting time and one about the wording of the "place of the women in the home" thing. So, plenty of fun to come! :P

Dotsie~tmp

mahamageehad wrote: »

Slightly beside the point, but we are also due more referendums over the next 2 years including a vote on removing the blasphemy thing, a vote on reducing the divorce waiting time and one about the wording of the "place of the women in the home" thing. So, plenty of fun to come! :P

Oh that wont be the end. The family will have to be redefined and destroyed. Gender fluid mental disorders will codified. Various other marxist or post-moderist rot.

pitifulgod

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Oh that wont be the end. The family will have to be redefined and destroyed. Gender fluid mental disorders will codified. Various other marxist or post-moderist rot.

How do any of the referendums referenced equal anything like that? I thought you guys thought the marriage referendum had already destroyed the family?

kylith

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Oh that wont be the end. The family will have to be redefined and destroyed. Gender fluid mental disorders will codified. Various other marxist or post-moderist rot.

Dogs will marry cats, birds will fly upside down, and the seas will turn to crème brulee!

baylah17

kylith wrote: »

Dogs will marry cats, birds will fly upside down, and the seas will turn to crème brulee!

There's more chance of a Nazi becoming Pope ffs!

PopePalpatine

kylith wrote: »

Dogs will marry cats, birds will fly upside down, and the seas will turn to crème brulee!

Shur the lads from Stormfront told me it all started when we freed the slaves, let the wimminz vote and stopped treating "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" as relationship advice and more like the words of a sex pest.

eviltwin

kylith wrote: »

Dogs will marry cats, birds will fly upside down, and the seas will turn to crème brulee!

Sure we were told parents would be marrying their kids and people marrying multiple partners none of which came to pass.

Hotblack Desiato

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Oh that wont be the end. The family will have to be redefined and destroyed. Gender fluid mental disorders will codified. Various other marxist or post-moderist rot.

It really sounds as if you wish we all lived in a 1950s catholic straitjacket.

Plenty of candidates have run for election on that sort of platform in the last 25 years or so - Catholic Centre Party, National Party, you could probably include Renua - and most of them were lucky to reach the low three figures in numbers of votes.

Tigger

mahamageehad wrote: »

Slightly beside the point, but we are also due more referendums over the next 2 years including a vote on removing the blasphemy thing, a vote on reducing the divorce waiting time and one about the wording of the "place of the women in the home" thing. So, plenty of fun to come! :P

whats the place of women in the home one

January

Tigger wrote: »

whats the place of women in the home one

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/remove-women-in-the-home-clause-from-constitution-says-nash-1.2483284

PopePalpatine

^The campaigning for that one (as well as a blasphemy referendum) should be a barrel of laughs thanks to 50-50 representation, we might get John Waters back on the airwaves.

frag420

Took 1964 posts before John Waters was mentioned....new record 😂😂😂

Billy86

kylith wrote: »

Dogs will marry cats, birds will fly upside down, and the seas will turn to crème brulee!

...make it happen.

Hotblack Desiato

PopePalpatine wrote: »

^The campaigning for that one (as well as a blasphemy referendum) should be a barrel of laughs thanks to 50-50 representation, we might get John Waters back on the airwaves.

"Balance" :rolleyes: this just gives unwarranted credibility to lunatic fringes.

mrkiscool2

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"Balance" :rolleyes: this just gives unwarranted credibility to lunatic fringes.

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that there shouldn't be balance? It's a referendum, no matter your personal believes it's important the electorate is informed of both sides.

222233

Press_Start wrote: »

You're signed on with the GP or whoever on prescription birth control. You're using it properly with a practical prevention change of 80-90% effectiveness. You become pregnant, and report this to the doctor. The doctor can make the descision and either go ahead with the abortion, giving you the options, or advise you to have the child and give it up through foster care. I'm fully aware that Birth Control fails, so do seatbelts, airbags and brakes but we still keep them and use them, and deal with the issues that arise after failure. I humbly believe that it will carry eventually, but I can't comprehend why people on the repeal argument can't understand why the moral implications make those of us on the other side feel uncmfortable.

*I'm on the side for heavy modification and reassessment of the 8th, not pro-life, abortion is nessessary at times*

It would be a very dangerous world where doctors made decisions about who can and can not opt for medical procedures...

As someone who is pro choice I can't understand the moral implications for others because :
A. They will not be forced to have an abortion
B. The 8th amendment isn't stopping abortions, those who wish to and have the means to access abortion are doing so any way (the law just makes this very stressful and difficult for them)

Huntergonzo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"Balance" :rolleyes: this just gives unwarranted credibility to lunatic fringes.

This is true, but those lunatics are often experts at shooting themselves in the foot, so while it may be unbearable listening to their outdated rubbish, they serve an important purpose = driving undecided people the other way.

spookwoman

Huntergonzo wrote: »

This is true, but those lunatics are often experts at shooting themselves in the foot, so while it may be unbearable listening to their outdated rubbish, they serve an important purpose = driving undecided people the other way.

That goes for the "sane" side as well. Like it or not the no choice lot are very united with the same views whereas the pro choice are not. There are those that are for limited abortions, there are those who are for abortion on demand and then there are the ones in between and all are nearly at each others throats because they all think they are right. Anyone with a different view no matter how slight is nearly seen as the enemy and the more vocal ones what you might call Social Justice Warriors are probably the worst especially on social media and are turning people off.

Billy86

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that there shouldn't be balance? It's a referendum, no matter your personal believes it's important the electorate is informed of both sides.

It is important both sides get representation, though in the interests of balance it should also be proportional. For example in terms of climate change, 97.5% of experts believe it to be real and so it would make far more sense for representation to reflect that.

Abortion is of course a trickier one to quantify in that sense, but exact 50/50 representation is not always a good or accurate thing.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can't wait to see who they wheel out to defend the references to the Holy Trinity and our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ.

NuMarvel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I can't wait to see who they wheel out to defend the references to the Holy Trinity and our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ.

As we saw with the marriage equality referendum, there are plenty of people who'll object to change if it means they get a bit of media attention. Broadcasters will have no problem finding someone for the No side for even the most unobjectionable referendum.

seamus

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that there shouldn't be balance? It's a referendum, no matter your personal believes it's important the electorate is informed of both sides.

"Balance" implies that the items on both sides have equal weight.

So if one speaker is a practising doctor of obstetrics and gynaecology, then the speaker on the opposite side for "balance", should be one of equal qualifications and not a Bishop or a "Professor of ethical studies" or a non-practising psychologist attached to the Iona institute. None of those people are qualified to speak in opposition to the Doctor - just like the Dr. is not qualified to talk about religious matters or psychology.

It's seen far too often in climate change debates where an actual climate change scientist discusses the issue, providing data from studies, and being capable of explaining that data. And then the person on the other side of the table is a Healy-Rae shouting numbers and nonsense from something he read on the internet.

That's the exact opposite of balance - that's giving one side more weight than they're due.

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

Broadcasters will have no problem finding someone for the No side for even the most unobjectionable referendum.

100% of legally competent people will say delete those references from the Preamble. 0% will defend them. So the people they dig up to defend those references will be incompetent, yet they will get equal time.

It is possible that the only people they can find will be not-joking insane.

Hotblack Desiato

spookwoman wrote: »

That goes for the "sane" side as well. Like it or not the no choice lot are very united with the same views whereas the pro choice are not. There are those that are for limited abortions, there are those who are for abortion on demand and then there are the ones in between and all are nearly at each others throats because they all think they are right. Anyone with a different view no matter how slight is nearly seen as the enemy and the more vocal ones what you might call Social Justice Warriors are probably the worst especially on social media and are turning people off.

Really? I think your imagination is running away with itself. There was a very wide range of groups and views on the pro-choice march. Nobody at each other's throats.

As for the old "I would have voted yes only them quares/wimmins were too in your face/shrill", that guff was shown up for what it was two years ago. It's just a way of trying to silence one side of the "debate".

.......

This post has been deleted.

A Little Pony

Do the pro life side need more funds for the campaign?

PopePalpatine

Nah, they've got a sugar daddy who made billions off mediocre pizza.

NuMarvel

A Little Pony wrote: »

Do the pro life side need more funds for the campaign?

Given the proliferation of professionally designed and printed flyers, posters, banners etc they have to hand, I'd guess not.

.......

This post has been deleted.

The Legend Of Kira

From tearing down pro life posters to getting pro life public meetings canceled now we re at the stage where pro life public meetings can,t be held without disruption, speaks volumes of their confidence when they need to shout people with opposing views down.

Billy86

Next thing you know they'll be trying to censor pro life publications!! Can you imagine the desperation of that!? :eek:

A Little Pony

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

From tearing down pro life posters to getting pro life public meetings canceled now we re at the stage where pro life public meetings can,t be held without disruption, speaks volumes of their confidence when they need to shout people with opposing views down.

They are running scared that pro life is going to win.

Billy86

Yep, I'd imagine the pro choice campaign is about every bit a terrified as the pro-SSM crowd were this time three years ago.

.......

This post has been deleted.

January

Oh well... pity for them.

If you don't think the anti-choice crowd do the exact same at pro-choice meetings then you're mistaken.

The Legend Of Kira

January wrote: »

Oh well... pity for them.

If you don't think the anti-choice crowd do the exact same at pro-choice meetings then you're mistaken.

How many public choice meetings have pro life groups disrupted over the course of last few years in Ireland ?

NuMarvel

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

From tearing down pro life posters to getting pro life public meetings canceled now we re at the stage where pro life public meetings can,t be held without disruption, speaks volumes of their confidence when they need to shout people with opposing views down.

This happened in the UK, so I'm not sure what the relevance is to a discussion about abortion laws in Ireland.

Besides which, with there being at least once confirmed instance of anti-repeal people here passing themselves off as pro choice, it's not entirely outside the bounds of possibility this was a stunt by other pro life people.

A Little Pony wrote: »

They are running scared that pro life is going to win.

Opinion polls are consistent in showing that the people want change. The only question is to what degree the change will be. And going by yesterday's poll, it looks like the people support changing it in line with the Citizens Assembly recommendations.

The pro life position, i.e. retain the 8th as is, has little chance of winning. Which is probably why they're throwing out red herrings like protests at meetings instead of putting forward cogent, rational arguments in favour of the 8th.

January

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

How many public choice meetings have pro life groups disrupted over the course of last few years in Ireland ?

In the last three months alone theyve had at least 3 prochoice meetings cancelled (douglas and kaldi Ashtown, one in a community centre in Tallaght and one in a community centre in the Dublin bay north constituency) and showed up to a meeting in captain Americas in blanchardstown (after they failed to get that one cancelled) and intimated attendees there.

I guess we're just not as shrill about events being cancelled as the anti choice side are

Hotblack Desiato

Poor Breda, she now only has her weekly Irish Times column and frequent appearances on RTE and Newstalk to fall back on now

#silenced

The Legend Of Kira

January wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

How many public choice meetings have pro life groups disrupted over the course of last few years in Ireland ?

In the last three months alone theyve had at least 3 prochoice meetings cancelled (douglas and kaldi Ashtown, one in a community centre in Tallaght and one in a community centre in the Dublin bay north constituency) and showed up to a meeting in captain Americas in blanchardstown (after they failed to get that one cancelled) and intimated attendees there.

I guess we're just not as shrill about events being cancelled as the anti choice side are

The Irish times reported about some choice meetings being canceled, not because of venues being pressured but because of venues adopting a " no politics " policy regarding political meetings being held in their venue- for the record I disagree with this as long as lawful group are willing to pay out their own money to hire a venue for an hour or two to hold a political meeting I don,t think a venue should be allowed refuse.

Hotblack Desiato

Funny how they'd allowed that councillor hold meetings there for years, seems politics is OK but abortion is 'political' :rolleyes:

The Legend Of Kira

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Funny how they'd allowed that councillor hold meetings there for years, seems politics is OK but abortion is 'political' :rolleyes:

Which councillor are you referring to ?

The Legend Of Kira

I have only heard this week- about what happened in Queensland/Australia regarding babies surviving late term abortions being left to die.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-15/babies-of-late-terminations-left-to-die-without-care/7512618

This was even discussed on Australian political shows, ( see link ) .

https://www.facebook.com/abcqanda/videos/10153496754451831/?hc_ref=ARQIwuuKZkfq_M5QdVgSSYnX0VhBys7i50c4BfGpWmGsW8iPlX8IByxK3c-rQZByGsk&pnref=story

Here is my question to anyone who believes in a full repeal of the 8th/abortion without any restrictions, ( Q )  when in cases a baby survives a late term abortion, what legal rights ( if any ) should that baby have under the law in your opinion ?

The Legend Of Kira

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

How many public choice meetings have pro life groups disrupted over the course of last few years in Ireland ?

Was this in Ireland?

uptherebels

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I have only heard this week- about what happened in Queensland/Australia regarding babies surviving late term abortions being left to die.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-15/babies-of-late-terminations-left-to-die-without-care/7512618

This was even discussed on Australian political shows, ( see link ) .

https://www.facebook.com/abcqanda/videos/10153496754451831/?hc_ref=ARQIwuuKZkfq_M5QdVgSSYnX0VhBys7i50c4BfGpWmGsW8iPlX8IByxK3c-rQZByGsk&pnref=story

Here is my question to anyone who believes in a full repeal of the 8th/abortion without any restrictions, ( Q )  when in cases a baby survives a late term abortion, what legal rights ( if any ) should that baby have under the law in your opinion ?

you seem to be confusing a foetus that still has "life signs" immediately after an abortion has been performed and a living baby being allowed to die.

you missed this at the end of the article -This copy has been modified to remove a statement that babies were "not rendered care and allowed to die"

which was replaced with
only to later die after not receiving life-saving treatment.

article seems deliberately vague on actual information

gctest50

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I have only heard this week- about what happened in Queensland/Australia regarding babies surviving late term abortions being left to die.
.....

Fatal Fetal Abnormalities would mean they would die at birth or very shortly afterwards

Like what these two were unfortunately faced with :

“I’m just a mom who didn’t want to put my kid through pain.”
― Heather, 45

I was kind of a late start mom when I got pregnant 10 years ago. My husband and I didn’t have any trouble getting pregnant, and all of our early screenings came back fine. Everything was kind of ‘happy happy, joy joy.’ There was no reason to worry. I had good prenatal care. I did all of the things you’re supposed to do.

Because I was over 35, I was eligible for a level-2 ultrasound, which is basically a much more detailed ultrasound at the 20-week mark. I went into it thinking everything was going to be fine and we were going to hear if we were having a boy or a girl. But then the sonographer got quiet part way through. I distinctly remember getting this weird feeling in my belly at that point. When she told us the doctor would be in to see us soon and left, I told my husband that something was wrong. He was kind of like, ‘What are you talking about? Everything’s fine.’ But I knew. That woman was not OK when she left the room.

The doctor came in and said, ‘I don’t really know how to tell you this, but we’ve detected a pretty devastating abnormality.’ It’s called Alobar Holoprosencephaly. Basically what it means is that the brain did not divide into two hemispheres. It’s a spectrum disorder, and this was the worst form. Everything just kind of fuses together in the middle. The child would have had one cyclopic eye and a proboscis, no nose. There was no chance of survival. They were stunned that my pregnancy had even made it that far. Normally, people miscarry. They knew that if I carried to term, the baby would not survive, but they weren’t sure what would happen with me. There was a chance I could have a late-term miscarriage, in which case my life would have been in danger, too.

They gave us our options, but I knew right away that I wanted to have a D&E [a surgical abortion]. I knew from the minute my husband and I got the news that I was not going to bring a child into the world that was going to die in my arms. If I had chosen to induce labor, I would have had to have been on the labor and delivery floor, and I didn’t want to be that woman with the little red tag on the door. I didn’t feel like I’d be able to recover from that. They referred me to a doctor [who performs late abortions] and who I call my angel of mercy.

There was a nine-day gap between the diagnosis and when the first part of the D&E started. That was nine days of feeling movement, and of showing, and having people ask about my pregnancy. Then it was a three-day procedure. First, they give you something to dilate your cervix, and then they send you home. It was Halloween, and I had to sit there while I was cramping and spotting and listen to trick-or-treaters. I pretty much hate Halloween.

I went back two days later, and honestly, it was pretty horrible. If the physician hadn’t been so wonderful, I don’t think I would have had the strength to get through it. He held my hand and told me it was going to be cold in the OR, and noisy and bright, and then I would drift off to sleep. When I woke up, I was not pregnant anymore. The awful thing, though, is that you’ve still got to deal with your milk coming in, and your womb shrinking and cramping and bleeding ― and you don’t have a newborn in your arms. At first, I didn’t want to know the baby’s gender, but then five years ago I finally asked if it was a boy or girl. It was a boy.

People in the far right like to try and paint you as a heartless baby killer, but I don’t think anyone knows what it feels like to have to let go like that. I’ve always been pro-choice, but it never occurred to me that I’d ever need to have an abortion, and certainly not at age 35 with a husband and a child who was very much wanted. I’m not any kind of genius mom here, but I do know that mothers will do anything they can to take away their child’s pain. And I’m just a mom who didn’t want to put my kid through pain. I have sadness, but I have no regrets.


* * * * *

“We knew that if he lived, it would be a life of suffering, period. No doctors were saying, ‘Well... there’s a tiny chance.’”
― Lindsay Bubar, 34

In July 2013, my husband and I found out that I was pregnant with our first child. It was a planned pregnancy and we were incredibly excited. At a prenatal checkup, they told us it looked like we were having a boy, but that they’d confirm at our 20-week anatomy scan.

In the middle of that appointment, I realized something was very wrong. When the doctor got to our son’s brain, he kept measuring it over and over again. He told us it looked like something was off. They got us in for an MRI the same day. I’d say we definitely understood the gravity of what has happening, particularly because they were getting us into appointments so fast. Based on the MRI, they suspected hydrocephaly [a severe condition sometimes known as “water on the brain”].

The next day, we got into a world-renowned specialist. He’s the kind of guy who, if you get news like ours, you fly halfway across the country to see because he does in utero brain surgery, and he just happened to be right where we live. He told us our son had a malignant brain tumor with a likely related case of hydrocephaly. I wasn’t far along enough to try and deliver him and have the doctor attempt brain surgery, and in utero surgery wasn’t an option. He told us that if I did carry to term, our son would either die at birth or a few hours later go into immediate surgery where he’d have only a 50-50 chance of living. And if he did live, it would be a life of suffering without being able to see, hear, talk or smile. Even given all that, he suggested we wait about a week to get another MRI to re, re, re-confirm that everything they were seeing was right. We definitely knew what was happening, but we also did keep saying to each other, “We’re not there yet.” Every step of the way, we held out that littlest bit of hope.

We had the last MRI, which was pretty awful. The machine was so loud and I think the baby did not like it. I could feel him squirming around, like he was trying to get away from the noise. That MRI confirmed everything.

At that point, it didn’t feel like it was a decision any more. It wasn’t like we had to consider odds, like, ‘What if?’ We knew that if he lived, it would be a life of suffering, period. No doctors were saying, ‘Well...there’s a tiny chance.’ We felt really grateful for that. I can’t imagine how difficult and complex the choice is for families where there’s more uncertainty.

I had a D&E and for me, it was a three-day procedure. My doctor was one of two in the area who provide late-term abortions, five minutes from our house. It is not lost on me how fortunate we were.

The people at the hospital clinic were incredibly empathetic. They explained it to me very thoroughly, which was comforting and hard. I knew that what was happening the first and second day was preparation for the procedure on the third day. My memory of it is a little fuzzy, partly because I was under anesthesia and then on pain medications.

My husband and I both work in politics, and we watched the debates. I was glad they asked a question about abortion, but then I was so horrified by what Trump said and so personally hurt. I had that moment that undocumented immigrants and sexual assault survivors (and the list goes on and on) have had. There he was saying that my husband and I were inhumane butchers who had our baby ripped out of me.

I think that what is important to note is that everyone’s experience is so different. My husband and I had a late-term abortion because our baby had a malignant brain tumor, and almost no one has that. It’s so, so, so rare. The reasons why people chose to get abortions at any stage are different and unique to them. That’s why I think that trying to legislate this choice is so dangerous.
These accounts have been edited and condensed

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/donald-trump-heres-what-its-really-like-to-get-a-late-term-abortion_us_580a179ee4b02444efa2bf58

.