The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Odhinn

Edward M wrote: »

ACH, that's not very fair. People have concerns about abortion on demand, based on a whim rather than a necessity.
.........

You might expand as to "based on a whim".

Edward M

Odhinn wrote: »

You might expand as to "based on a whim".

Maybe I worded it wrongly.
Based on just wanting to get rid of the baby perhaps because it brings complications in to their life they don't want.
Such as perhaps, career, finances and just plain being tied down to baby minding.
There can be many reasons for it, I'd need a page to list them all and you know it.
The post was in response to a fairly accusing post, an unhelpful post really that points to ignorance of anyone who opposes abortion on demand.
Just to edit, abortion on demand up to 12/16 weeks, which ever, doesent have to be based on anything other than any whim as I originally said!

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

People shouldn't trust them at all. .

Yet, you are prepared to hand them the keys to determine the how the unborn are treated.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

...the miss Y case in 2014, the dead woman kept alive on a respirator.....

Which was resolved as per the law. Moving the goal posts though.

markodaly

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Do you mean the one 34 years ago where many of the Yes voters have since died? The one that everyone currently of reproductive age had no say in?

No, the poll you based your answer on.

markodaly

volchitsa wrote: »

You misunderstand. You said that we could have a new law which would give the 12 week old fetus "the same rights as everyone else". That isn't actually the case at the moment, (despite what prolife at the time thought they were doing) because of the clause that says "as far as is practicable".

If we did as you suggested, that is exactly what would happen : I'm not allowed to kill you to save my own life (let's say I need your liver) so a woman with a fetus over 12 weeks would not be allowed to kill it in order to save her own life either. Otherwise it wouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.

The law is quite clear in regards in protecting the life of the mother.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

Yet, you are prepared to hand them the keys to determine the how the unborn are treated.

Selective quoting = bad. The only way what you propose could enter law is if the population supported.

markodaly wrote:

Which was resolved as per the law. Moving the goal posts though.

No, they were problems which had to be resolved through the courts because of the amendment, and the end in the miss y case was exactly the debacle predicted some years ago.

thee glitz

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yeah cause if you get cancer when you're pregnant it's obviously your own fault :rolleyes:

I don't think anyone said that - the below was.

Shenshen wrote:

The woman who has just been diagnosed with cancer and has to delay the chemo that might save her life because she also found out she's pregnant?

end of the road wrote:

the third one would definitely come under the abortion in extreme circumstances, which i am willing to support even though i don't agree with abortion, as the mother's life is ultimately under threat

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

Or maybe she was 'asking for it' if she got raped.

I don't think anyone said that either, not even George. Pregnancies arising from rape are a 'special circumstance', whether they should be treated as such or not.

You have a low opinion of women but so do many of your fellow travellers.

wtf is this

Hotblack Desiato

Edward M wrote: »

ACH, that's not very fair. People have concerns about abortion on demand, based on a whim rather than a necessity.

The idea that women would seek abortion on a whim is idiotic, and highly offensive.

Where did anyone say that anyone raped was asking for it.

That bit about how personal responsibility can prevent unwanted pregnancy. Personal responsibility does not prevent rape.

There are probably a great amount of unwanted pregnancies where more responsible behaviour would have prevented them.

Perilously close to 'slut shaming' but let's run with it. Much earlier and better sex education is needed along with better access to contraception - preferably free. Catholics who are oh so concerned about abortion are blocking the things which reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Odhinn

Edward M wrote: »

Maybe I worded it wrongly.
Based on just wanting to get rid of the baby perhaps because it brings complications in to their life they don't want.
Such as perhaps, career, finances and just plain being tied down to baby minding.
There can be many reasons for it, I'd need a page to list them all and you know it.
The post was in response to a fairly accusing post, an unhelpful post really that points to ignorance of anyone who opposes abortion on demand.
Just to edit, abortion on demand up to 12/16 weeks, which ever, doesent have to be based on anything other than any whim as I originally said!

Right. If a woman is prepared to terminate a pregnancy because she doesn't want to be tied down to baby minding, does that really strike you as somebody that should have a child?

Hotblack Desiato

thee glitz wrote: »

wtf is this

You suggested that abortion is the result of 'personal irresponsibility' whatever that is.

Edward M

Odhinn wrote: »

Right. If a woman is prepared to terminate a pregnancy because she doesn't want to be tied down to baby minding, does that really strike you as somebody that should have a child?

She doesent have to rear the child though, she can put it up for adoption.

thee glitz

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You suggested that abortion is the result of 'personal irresponsibility' whatever that is.

It's your phrase...

What I meant was women having their babies aborted rather than caring from them.

Also, my views make me a traveller, thus explaining my low opinion of women?

Odhinn

Edward M wrote: »

She doesent have to rear the child though, she can put it up for adoption.

And in an ideal world thats exactly what would happen. However thats not the world we live in. There are people who have suffered untold horror in their early lives because of unsuitable mothers and the failure of the state to provide any decent alternative. If somebody unsuitable for motherhood has the abortion option open, it help solve the problem.

Hotblack Desiato

Edward M wrote: »

She doesent have to rear the child though, she can put it up for adoption.

Why should she be forced to complete a pregnancy to get to that point?

eviltwin

Edward M wrote: »

She doesent have to rear the child though, she can put it up for adoption.

No. Not an option. Fine for those who want to do that, not so fine for others.

Besides, we cannot cope with 3000 odd babies entering the care system and there are not enough potential parents to take them.

thee glitz

Odhinn wrote: »

There are people who have suffered untold horror in their early lives because of unsuitable mothers and the failure of the state to provide any decent alternative. If somebody unsuitable for motherhood has the abortion option open, it help solve the problem.

And there's probably a high correlation between unsuitable mothers and women who would have an abortion for selfish reasons.

Edward M

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The idea that women would seek abortion on a whim is idiotic, and highly offensive.



That bit about how personal responsibility can prevent unwanted pregnancy. Personal responsibility does not prevent rape.



Perilously close to 'slut shaming' but let's run with it. Much earlier and better sex education is needed along with better access to contraception - preferably free. Catholics who are oh so concerned about abortion are blocking the things which reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

I've lived over fifty years, in different times growing up I know, but I've seen young girls going to england all my life, not always their own choice even, forced to by family and uncaring boyfriends who didn't want the stigma or the responsibility at the time.
I've also seen young women, helped by family and their baby's father, sometimes even when the relationship had ended, have and bring up happy children with the mother being happy in the situation they are in.
I just feel that the foetus, which I believe to be a human form, should have to suffer the consequences of irresponsible behaviour that leads to their conception.
I know, you think that's me showing disrespect for women and the choices some make, that's not true though, I presume the amount of abortions would be small percentage wise as compared to birth, but abortion on demand would I believe lead to a small percentage of girls aborting on no more than a whim and the fact that they just can.

Hotblack Desiato

thee glitz wrote: »

It's your phrase...

Nope the 'personal responsibility' phrase was yours. Care to clarify?

Also, my views make me a traveller, thus explaining my low opinion of women?

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

:rolleyes: this is a common English language phrase, I am not buying into your claim to not know what it means.

Hotblack Desiato

thee glitz wrote: »

And there's probably a high correlation between unsuitable mothers and women who would have an abortion for selfish reasons.

Again the low opinion of women.

What is the evidence for your rush to judgment?

Odhinn

Edward M wrote: »

I've lived over fifty years, in different times growing up I know, but I've seen young girls going to england all my life, not always their own choice even, forced to by family and uncaring boyfriends who didn't want the stigma or the responsibility at the time.
I've also seen young women, helped by family and their baby's father, sometimes even when the relationship had ended, have and bring up happy children with the mother being happy in the situation they are in.
I just feel that the foetus, which I believe to be a human form, should have to suffer the consequences of irresponsible behaviour that leads to their conception.
I know, you think that's me showing disrespect for women and the choices some make, that's not true though, I presume the amount of abortions would be small percentage wise as compared to birth, but abortion on demand would I believe lead to a small percentage of girls aborting on no more than a whim and the fact that they just can.

You can be perfectly responsible and end up pregnant (or so I've observed).

As regards the "no more than a whim" brigade - excellent.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why should she be forced to complete a pregnancy to get to that point?

because the unborn have a right to live.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why should she be forced to complete a pregnancy to get to that point?

because the unborn have a right to live.

Based on what exactly? 5apart from the law which ca be changed).
Because if it is that self evident, then why aren't there autopsies every time a woman has a miscarriage?
It seems to be more about preventing a woman from deciding about her own pregnancy rather than any actual concern for the unborn.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why should she be forced to complete a pregnancy to get to that point?

because the unborn have a right to live.

Based on what exactly? (Apart from the law which can be changed).
Because if it is that self evident, then why aren't there autopsies every time a woman has a miscarriage?
It seems to be more about preventing a woman from deciding about her own pregnancy rather than any actual concern for the unborn.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

Based on what exactly? 5apart from the law which ca be changed).
Because if it is that self evident, then why aren't there autopsies every time a woman has a miscarriage?
It seems to be more about preventing a woman from deciding about her own pregnancy rather than any actual concern for the unborn.

no it's about concern for the unborn, and insuring their rights and protections remain.

NuMarvel

markodaly wrote: »

Laws are easily change but the constitution is not. As I said, there is no protection for the unborn if the 8th is repealed, so a law could be brought in where anyone can abort a baby up to the day before they are due for any reason.

The number of countries in the world where the law allows this can be counted on one hand. There is no basis to believe that Ireland would join them, especially given our record of hesitancy in changing abortion laws even when constitutionally permitted.

markodaly wrote: »

People do not trust the politicians as much you think they do. So, there should be an additional amendment protecting the life of the unborn, from 12 weeks.

Saying, leave it in the hands of future politicians is not good enough.

People don't mistrust politicians as much as you think either. There's nothing legally stopping politicians closing the public health system tomorrow and telling people to pay for their own care. But no one's advocating for a constitutional amendment to prevent that, are they? And that's because it's not bloody likely.

I said before there was no logical or rational reason to keep abortion in the constitution, and that point still stands. The best people can put forward is scaremongering or extreme hypotheticals, and I don't think that's enough of a reason to constitutionalise the matter.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

because the unborn have a right to live.

That right is already subject to a number of exceptions, eg a woman's' freedom to travel for an abortion elsewhere. At the very least, a woman's right to bodily autonomy early in the pregnancy should have the same status as being able to get on a boat or a plane.

thee glitz

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nope the 'personal responsibility' phrase was yours. Care to clarify?

You said 'personal irresponsibility'.

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

:rolleyes: this is a common English language phrase, I am not buying into your claim to not know what it means.

I'm genuinely not sure what you're accusing me of - being a commie sympathiser? Fellow travellers certainly aren't 'mine'... gonna let that one go. I don't buy your claim for requirement of clarity over 'personal responsibility', but anyway

https://www.wikiquote.org/wiki/Personal_responsibility

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Again the low opinion of women.

What is the evidence for your rush to judgment?

Well, hands up, I dont have any - but it's not a far stretch to believe that the kind of person who would seek a lifestyle choice abortion may not be the best to person raise a child.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Based on what exactly? 5apart from the law which ca be changed).
Because if it is that self evident, then why aren't there autopsies every time a woman has a miscarriage?
It seems to be more about preventing a woman from deciding about her own pregnancy rather than any actual concern for the unborn.

no it's about concern for the unborn, and insuring their rights and protections remain.

So women who drink too much can be arrested?
Or smokers?
Or women who go horse riding or eevn cycling and have an accident - what about the rights of their unborn? Zilch?

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

no it's about concern for the unborn, and insuring their rights and protections remain.

There's one thing about that. The rights and protections didn't exist within law or constitution until the 8th amendment brought them into existance in 1983. Until then, as there was nothing specific in law referring to such rights, the only protection here was by default, due to abortions being illegal here.

So it seems, remarkably, neither the state nor the church seemed to be aware of the lack of rights and protection until the debate about abortion got really going here and it became an issue for the state and it's voting citizens. Here ends, my involvement in this particular abortion V the 8th rights issue, as I'm posting in another thread on the same issue here.

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

That right is already subject to a number of exceptions, eg a woman's' freedom to travel for an abortion elsewhere. At the very least, a woman's right to bodily autonomy early in the pregnancy should have the same status as being able to get on a boat or a plane.

a woman's right to bodily autonomy does have the same status as being able to get on a boat or a plane. however where a woman's decisian effects the right to life of the unborn then that life has to be protected bar extreme circumstances.

volchitsa wrote: »

So women who drink too much can be arrested?
Or smokers?
Or women who go horse riding or eevn cycling and have an accident - what about the rights of their unborn? Zilch?

someone going horse riding and being involved in an accident is irrelevant to the discussion. there are many who believe women who drink themselves into oblivian, and who smoke during pregnantsy should be arrested yes.

Hotblack Desiato

Edward M wrote: »

I've lived over fifty years, in different times growing up I know, but I've seen young girls going to england all my life, not always their own choice even, forced to by family and uncaring boyfriends who didn't want the stigma or the responsibility at the time.
I've also seen young women, helped by family and their baby's father, sometimes even when the relationship had ended, have and bring up happy children with the mother being happy in the situation they are in.
I just feel that the foetus, which I believe to be a human form, should have to suffer the consequences of irresponsible behaviour that leads to their conception.
I know, you think that's me showing disrespect for women and the choices some make, that's not true though, I presume the amount of abortions would be small percentage wise as compared to birth, but abortion on demand would I believe lead to a small percentage of girls aborting on no more than a whim and the fact that they just can.

I disagree that abortion will become an easy or whimsical decision whatever the law may be.

Women who need support in pregnancy and in parenthood should absolutely get it, and if that leads to fewer abortions then that is a good thing.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

No, they were problems which had to be resolved through the courts because of the amendment, and the end in the miss y case was exactly the debacle predicted some years ago.

The courts ruled as per law,which sets a precedent. That argument is nonsense.

Returning the eight should be replaced with something that gives the Dail the ability to legislate for the first 12 weeks, but after there should be protections for the unborn.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

a woman's right to bodily autonomy does have the same status as being able to get on a boat or a plane. however where a woman's decisian effects the right to life of the unborn then that life has to be protected bar extreme circumstances.

You need to read the constitution, because you're wrong on both counts. A woman's freedom to travel has greater status than her right to bodily autonomy during pregnancy. And last year at least 3265 women made a decision that affected the unborn's rights, and the constitution makes sure the 8th can't interfere in that.

As I said before, the unborn's right to life is already subject to exceptions. I see no reason why bodily autonomy early in a pregnancy can't be another one.

NuMarvel

markodaly wrote: »

Returning the eight should be replaced with something that gives the Dail the ability to legislate for the first 12 weeks, but after there should be protections for the unborn.

The constitution already gives the Dáil power to legislate, so repealing the 8th is all that's needed. The Dáil can then legislate as per the Committee's recommendations, which is similar in practice to what you're suggesting.

If someone wants to put that into the constitution, then good luck coming up with a wording that won't cause more trips to the high court, supreme court and/or international human rights authorities.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

it is black and white when it comes to abortion on demand.

Yet somehow you say its gray in cases or rape. Hypocrytical stance really.

Annasopra

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Posters like this is what is really harming the pro-choice side.

Signature, A picture of repeal, location repeal. Blame the Catholic Church and then make it a class issue about poor people.

Most people don't give a feck about the church. Never have and never will, it's the class issue that gets to people. Most people in Ireland grew up poor and know what it like to be hungry through no fault of the own and trying their best to put food on the table in the 70's and 80's and now we are finally getting through the latest recession. Jumped up little fecks looking to be cool who never went hungry and now want to control their fertility?

I bet you wouldn't wouldn't dare say that about any other race, religion or creed other than the poor Irish.

It is a class issue. Wealthy people can afford to travel for abortions. Poor people cant.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

there is adoption. or if they really want to kill their baby they can hop to england. in terms of abortion on demand ireland doesn't need to meet that need. it does need to meet the need to have an abortion in extreme circumstances where someone's life is at stake or in the cases where the baby will sadly die anyway.

Again with the hypocrysy. "Its fine if they want to do it. Just not on this Island"

Annasopra

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So where do we put limits if not in law?

It should be in law but not in the constitution.

Annasopra

markodaly wrote: »

Why would it? The 8th could be repealed but replaced with something that protects the life of the unborn post 12 weeks.

It could define 'life' as being a baby that is 12 weeks in the womb and that the state endows it with all the constitutional protections afforded to everyone else. You could still have the choice to abort before this.

Otherwise its open season to what is the fashionable opinion of the day.

That sounds disastrous....court cases deciding if it is 12 weeks or not

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

You need to read the constitution, because you're wrong on both counts. A woman's freedom to travel has greater status than her right to bodily autonomy during pregnancy. And last year at least 3265 women made a decision that affected the unborn's rights, and the constitution makes sure the 8th can't interfere in that.

As I said before, the unborn's right to life is already subject to exceptions. I see no reason why bodily autonomy early in a pregnancy can't be another one.

because there is no need for it as those who really wish to have an abortion on demand have the opportunity to avail of it elsewhere, and the irish state has a duty to insure there are rights and protections for the unborn. people traveling abroad doesn't make those protections less valid. we have laws in this country which people break but we don't scrap them because people break them. so just because people travel abroad for abortions doesn't mean that we need to scrap the protections for the unborn. if the protections work in 1 case then it's a good thing.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Again with the hypocrysy. "Its fine if they want to do it. Just not on this Island"

it's actually not fine, but we have to be realistic. people can't be stopped from traveling abroad.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

because there is no need for it as those who really wish to have an abortion on demand have the opportunity to avail of it elsewhere, and the irish state has a duty to insure there are rights and protections for the unborn.

1. There is a need for it
2. They want it here not elsewhere
3. What is the duty of the Irish State that you claim here and if you back that up, what prevents it from being changed by due process?

As always, you post opinions - pretty vapid ones, often offensively so in sensitive topics such as this- as if they were fact.

You post facts which are not facts

You don't respond to points made in any meaningful way.

I dont believe for a second youre anything but a disturbingly committed (if ideologically incoherent) troll account

Frankly it's astonishing how you are allowed to destroy threads on this site the way that you do and it's a pretty pisspoor judgement on the moderators and the systems they have in place, given how busy they are handing out infractions and bans for much less corrosive behaviour every minute of every day.

Obviously I'll be banned for saying this but I can't be the only one sick of this. Carry on everyone!

Edward M

Odhinn wrote: »

You can be perfectly responsible and end up pregnant (or so I've observed).

As regards the "no more than a whim" brigade - excellent.

I've explained my reasons for my beliefs over a few posts, if that doesent sit with you then that's just our differing belief on the subject.
I feel a repeal of the eighth to help those in life and death situations is necessary and would vote for such, but not for abortion for all up to any stage.
I feel that if those who want abortion on demand want the allowance of abortion up to a certain stage, they might cause change of the eighth at all to fail.

pilly

end of the road wrote:

the life of the unborn has to be protected. i believe that is right and just. if i vote yes to repeal then i would be completely endorsing the taking of the life of the unborn regardless of circumstances. i'm not going to do that as i don't agree with it. if repealing the 8th didn't bring abortion on demand to ireland then i would vote to repeal it.

WE KNOW.

nozzferrahhtoo

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

For the record I am pro choice. I don’t believe I have the right to dictate what another woman chooses to do with her body.

That being said I think a complete repeal of the 8th is unreasonable. I don’t want to end up in a situation where you can simply walk in off the street, demand an abortion and be given one then and there. There has to be proper legislation and guidelines in place.

Abortion is not just another form of contraception and I admit that I worry that is how many of the more militant pro choicers see it.

Well firstly abortion can not be a form of contraception because that is simply not what the word contraception means. If conception happens, one is already past the point of contraception.

However I find your position internatlly incoherent. If you are "pro choice" and "don’t believe I have the right to dictate what another woman chooses to do with her body" then when you say they should "simply walk in off the street, demand an abortion and be given one then and there" or when you worry about the reasons WHY they are having an abortion........ then that is exactly what you are doing......... dictating their choices.

The simple fact is that if you can not argue against X, then peoples reasons for doing X might bother you but that is irrelevant. For example I believe in your right to drink coke and eat McDonalds. If you told me you were specifically eating and drinking it because you intended to get so obese that you could claim disability........... while your motivation might disgust me I still believe in your right to do so.

I am sure people will seek abortions for reasons that disgust me personally. Such as, to take an example mentioned on the thread already, because they find out they are having a girl when they wanted a boy. But I have to realize the border between personal disgust.... and ACTUAL reasons for curtailing the rights and choices of others. The former, is not the latter. Nor should it ever be.

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

Self-inflicted in fairness - matters of personal responsibility.

So are most sports injuries. But we do not stand over them lording our moral high horse at them that they got themselves into this mess. Rather we stand with them, and tell them what their options to go forward are.

The same should be true of pregnancy. Because that is what personal responsibility means. Assessing your current situation, your options, and deciding what is the best way for YOU to move forward.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So are most sports injuries. But we do not stand over them lording our moral high horse at them that they got themselves into this mess. Rather we stand with them, and tell them what their options to go forward are.

Presumably you wouldn't start off with amputation though?

The same should be true of pregnancy. Because that is what personal responsibility means. Assessing your current situation, your options, and deciding what is the best way for YOU to move forward.

Apparently,

wikipedia wrote:

Personal responsibility or Individual Responsibility is the idea that human beings choose, instigate, or otherwise cause their own actions. A corollary idea is that because we cause our actions, we can be held morally accountable or legally liable.

Say you knock someone off a bike one night in the middle of nowhere, and they're probably in a bad way. The best thing for You might be to get out of there asap and say nothing, so we have laws against that to disincentivise it.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

because there is no need for it as those who really wish to have an abortion on demand have the opportunity to avail of it elsewhere, and the irish state has a duty to insure there are rights and protections for the unborn. people traveling abroad doesn't make those protections less valid. we have laws in this country which people break but we don't scrap them because people break them. so just because people travel abroad for abortions doesn't mean that we need to scrap the protections for the unborn. if the protections work in 1 case then it's a good thing.



it's actually not fine, but we have to be realistic. people can't be stopped from traveling abroad.

So in summary: you're against abortion on demand but you're not against abortion on demand, and you're not against the freedom to travel but we must protect the unborn even if it only works in one case, except in that one case where stopping someone travelling worked because we can't stop people travelling even when we did and something something something abortion on demand!!!

Here's a simple yes or no question: Would you vote Yes or No in a referendum to repeal the constitutional protection of the freedom to travel for an abortion?

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

Presumably you wouldn't start off with amputation though?

I would assume that would depend on the injury in question. But what we "start off with" is not my point. My point is that rather than lording our personal moral high horse of "You got yourself into this" we offer them all the options we can, and realize that "personal responsibility" does not involve them making the choices WE would make in that situation. Which is, functionally at least, essentially what you are espousing..... that personal responsibility means them not making the choices YOU would not yourself make.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

that personal responsibility means them not making the choices YOU would not yourself make.

Whether I would or not make a certain choice is hypothetical. Actually in that situation, I'd be subject to the same laws.