The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

end of the road

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So, you are pro-life in the sense that you only care that a fetus is brought to term and born?

nope. but you know that. of course it's much easier for you to twist what people say to suit your agenda then deal with the facts though.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

If you were really pro-life, you wouldn't agree with the way some children are brought up in horrible foster care or are homeless.

well you will be glad to hear that i don't agree with the way some children are trated in ireland, or the conditions of some foster homes or the behaviour of some foster parents. however, it's not a justification for abortion. you can disagree with how children are treated but still disagree with abortion bar extreme circumstances.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

But nope, none of that matters, protecting a fetus is more important than making sure children who are suffering in our country don't suffer any more.

children suffering is no justification for abortion in itself.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

How? Why? You are just making a claim and not backing it up. By the way, in the case of a mother having mental health issues and may take her life, nope, it's not taken care of.

in what way isn't that being dealt with. her mental health issues can be dealt with, we have a mental health system. it's not perfect by any means i'd agree but we have such a system.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

In terms of having a dead thing inside her, nope, it's not taken care of. By the way, that dead thing can lead to infection and an infection inside the body is harder to deal with to save the mother than just aborting a fetus that has no chance of surviving outside the womb or is already dead.

i have already stated that where the baby will not be able to be caried to term that abortion should be availible. but you know that.

mrkiscool2

Before I reply to you EOTR, just know that you have broken up my responses to make me look like a d1ck. This is indicative of what pro-lifers do.

end of the road wrote: »

nope. but you know that. of course it's much easier for you to twist what people say to suit your agenda then deal with the facts though.

Okay, so what do you do when a mother, who doesn't want a child, is forced to have that child because of what you belief is just? How do you help those mothers and those kids? If you say nothing, you prove you are pro-birth and not pro-life.

well you will be glad to hear that i don't agree with the way some children are trated in ireland, or the conditions of some foster homes or the behaviour of some foster parents. however, it's not a justification for abortion. you can disagree with how children are treated but still disagree with abortion bar extreme circumstances.

So, you admit there is a problem....but want to add to the problem but not allowing abortions? Do you not see that people like you cause the problems? There is more children in the foster system than couples looking to adopt!

children suffering is no justification for abortion in itself.

Explained above, don't know why you broke up that part. Probably to make me look like an ass. Not gonna work.

in what way isn't that being dealt with. her mental health issues can be dealt with, we have a mental health system. it's not perfect by any means i'd agree but we have such a system.

So, you have a fundamental lack of biology clearly. Our mental health system is awful, like, atrocious. They have literally asked people why they haven't killed themselves that's how bad it is. But, I digress

When a woman is pregnant, her hormones are all over the shop. If she is already suffering with mental health issues before pregnancy, she is far more likely to either self-harm or attempt suicide. Which is a problem!

i have already stated that where the baby will not be able to be caried to term that abortion should be availible. but you know that.

No, you said if there was a risk to the mothers health, their are systems in place to deal with that. (Pro-tip, that law is extremely poorly written and worded and if a doctor refuses to provide an abortion, nothing would happen). I'm telling you cases in which the mother will be at risk and you just skirt over them. It's like you are putting your hands over your ears and just going. "LALALALALA, NOT LISTENING, LALALALALA"

gctest50

end of the road wrote: »

................

the current system is ultimately stopping some abortions. therefore it is doing it's job in some form.......

The only ones it is stopping are for those who are not wealthy enough

NuMarvel

Edward M wrote: »

Just on the prosecution of abortion travellers, how could that be enforced anyway?
I'm no legal expert, but how would it be possible to prosecute someone for an offence committed in a foreign state that isn't illegal in that other state anyway?
That argument wouldn't stand up I'd say.

There's a couple of ways you could do it in the absence of the 13th and 14th amendments.

For one, someone could follow the path of the X case and seek an injunction on someone leaving the State to procure an abortion that would be unlawful here. The Supreme Court in 1992 held that such an injunction would be constitutional under the 8th. So fathers objecting to their wives or partners having an abortion could seek an injunction. Anti-abortion crisis pregnancy agencies could seek an injunction. I'm sure we can all think of many more examples. And if such an injunction were granted, breaking it could see the woman facing fines and/or a prison term.

Another may be to take a leaf out of the laws against assisted suicide. As you say, we can't criminalise an act that takes place outside our jurisdiction, but you could criminalise the act of arranging an abortion, in the same way that arranging the suicide of someone else is a criminal offence, even if it is due to take place outside the state. And while it may not be easy to bring a prosecution in these circumstances, it wouldn't be impossible, especially in an age of surveillance like we live in today.

There's preventative measures you can take too, to make it harder to arrange travel in the first place. The repeal of the 14th amendment would make it possible to criminalise the distribution of any information about abortion (as it was prior to 1995). Access to websites about abortion could be easily restricted.

And all these are just things I can think of. I'd say if the Pro Life Campaign paid a lawyer to think about it, there would be plenty more they could come up with.

BTW, if anyone in favour of the 8th thinks these actions would be extreme or even callous, then I suggest re-reading the 8th. Because the 8th is clear that with the exception of the right to life, all of the woman's rights are secondary. And that includes the freedom to travel, the right to privacy and dignity, and anything else you think my suggestions violate.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

the current system is ultimately stopping some abortions.

How many abortions did the current system stop last year?

end of the road

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Okay, so what do you do when a mother, who doesn't want a child, is forced to have that child because of what you belief is just? How do you help those mothers and those kids? If you say nothing, you prove you are pro-birth and not pro-life.

we have a wellfare system in place to help those mothers and children who are in difficulty.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So, you admit there is a problem....but want to add to the problem but not allowing abortions? Do you not see that people like you cause the problems? There is more children in the foster system than couples looking to adopt!

i don't cause the problems. the problems are the lack of good foster parents. that will not be solved by abortion and it's not justification to allow abortion in this state in my view.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

So, you have a fundamental lack of biology clearly. Our mental health system is awful, like, atrocious. They have literally asked people why they haven't killed themselves that's how bad it is. But, I digress

i have stated the system has a hell of a lot of problems and they need to be fixed.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

When a woman is pregnant, her hormones are all over the shop. If she is already suffering with mental health issues before pregnancy, she is far more likely to either self-harm or attempt suicide. Which is a problem!

of course it is, but it is why our mental health system needs to be up to scratch.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

No, you said if there was a risk to the mothers health, their are systems in place to deal with that. (Pro-tip, that law is extremely poorly written and worded and if a doctor refuses to provide an abortion, nothing would happen). I'm telling you cases in which the mother will be at risk and you just skirt over them. It's like you are putting your hands over your ears and just going. "LALALALALA, NOT LISTENING, LALALALALA"

yes, i stated that we have ways to deal with the issues of the mother's health, including abortion where the mother's life is at risk, or where the baby will be unable to be caried to term.

Consonata

Is it really practical to discuss the philosophical points about abortion. A person who believes that life begins at conception is very very unlikely to have their opinion swayed by an internet post. That sort of belief stems from various different moral rules that are built over decades.

It is also important to remember that people who believe that abortion should be outlawed in all/nearly all circumstances are, not only in the minority, but in the very small minority.

In an Amnesty poll done last year for example:

• Only 5% of Irish adults believe that Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
• 7% believe that it should be illegal in all, except where the mothers life is at risk
• 7% also believe it should be illegal in all except when the mothers life is at risk and/or there is a fatal foetal abnormality

These are tiny numbers. That is 19% of Irish People. the other 81% are open to varying degrees of abortion legislation, replacing the 8th Amendment, who's views on which are exceptionally diverse.

So in the next category, we have the largest %, the plurality, where 42% believe abortion should be allowed in the case of danger of life/health to the mother, FFA and, rape. For these people, the philosophical argument of the childs right to life is out of the window, because they do believe abortion should be allowed in certain cases. Rape, seemingly being the differentiating factor.

This is why I think, instead of coming to these voters on a philosophical level, which inevitably results in them returning to the trenches of Pro-Choice/Pro-Life, I think its more useful to discuss the legal implications of what they believe. If a voter believes abortion should be allowed in the case of rape for example, they have to come to terms with the fact that:

• Not all women want/can easily admit to having been raped
• The conviction rate for rape is notoriously low
• By the time it reaches a judge, 6 out of the 9 months of the pregnancy term have already elapsed in which case the child is only 12 weeks away from being born and it is ultimately more difficult to abort.

If they still believe that that can work, then sure. However, from talking to people on this issue, that is rarely the case.

I don't think Ireland is ready to pass an abortion law, bringing our legislation in line with the British. However a 12 week limit is probably the closest we can get to getting it past the electorate.

markodaly

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I will vote against a referendum to change the constitution unless it includes a clause stipulating that the constitution must remain exactly the same...

Exactly the same, no didnt say that.

markodaly

Consonata wrote: »

I don't think Ireland is ready to pass an abortion law, bringing our legislation in line with the British. However a 12 week limit is probably the closest we can get to getting it past the electorate.

Actually the law that is proposed is more open than that of the British system,the big difference is the time limit. Hence why I do not think it will pass unless there are strong guarantees to protect the unborn.

Consonata

markodaly wrote: »

Actually the law that is proposed is more open than that of the British system,the big difference is the time limit. Hence why I do not think it will pass unless there are strong guarantees to protect the unborn.

Is the British system not 22 weeks? or is it 18

NuMarvel

Consonata wrote: »

Is the British system not 22 weeks? or is it 18

In general it's 24 weeks, if continuing the pregnancy would pose a greater risk to the woman's health than having an abortion. It's only allowed after that if there's a risk to the woman's life, there's a risk of a "grave permanent injury" to the woman's health, or if there's a substantial risk of "serious handicap".

markodaly wrote: »

Actually the law that is proposed is more open than that of the British system,the big difference is the time limit.

I don't know how you can say that considering we don't know the full details of the proposed Irish laws. All we know is that general access would be available within the first 12 weeks, compared to 24 for Britain. And that our laws won't provide for abortion in the cases of a serious, but not fatal, fetal abnormality, whereas the UK laws do.

All we know after that is the general outline of the reasons that abortion will be allowed, but none of the detail, including term limits.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Annasopra

gctest50 wrote: »

The only ones it is stopping are for those who are not wealthy enough

Exactly ultimately the 8th amendment allows us to ship abortion abroad but ban it for poor women and migrants.

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

in reality no . it would not be practical to prosecute someone for having an abortion abroad. the evidence couldn't be gathered to prove that such took place. so again this is another non-realistic question to ask, given that it cannot happen anyway.

If you are not prosecuting people who have abortions abroad, what is the point of the ban on abortion except being a giant facade of virtue signalling by the Irish Government?

end of the road

Consonata wrote: »

If you are not prosecuting people who have abortions abroad, what is the point of the ban on abortion except being a giant facade of virtue signalling by the Irish Government?

the point is that it does go some way to protecting the life of the unborn via not allowing abortions to be caried out within the state bar extreme circumstances. it is the state saying that while it cannot stop people from carying out the act elsewhere, such an act will not be able to be caried out within the state. virtue signalling is a myth.

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

the point is that it does go some way to protecting the life of the unborn via not allowing abortions to be caried out within the state bar extreme circumstances. it is the state saying that while it cannot stop people from carying out the act elsewhere, such an act will not be able to be caried out within the state. virtue signalling is a myth.

If there was a definition of virtue signalling that would be it. The state abdicates responsibility, and instead penalises those who are weakest in order to keep up appearances that they are actually doing something.

end of the road

Consonata wrote: »

If there was a definition of virtue signalling that would be it. The state abdicates responsibility, and instead penalises those who are weakest in order to keep up appearances that they are actually doing something.

no . the state is saying that while it cannot stop someone from going abroad to procure abortion, it does not condone the act and that it is not up to the irish state to provide access to it bar extreme circumstances. in my view the state is not penalising anyone by not providing access to abortion on demand, nor is it abdicating on any responsibility as it has no responsibility to provide abortion on demand. the state isn't keeping up appearances that it is doing something, it is actually doing something. it just isn't going to work in every case. we have laws for a number of things within the state, and while they won't always work, they do often work whether it be a big or small amount. we don't just abolish them because they don't work in every single case. in my view the protections that exist for the unborn are for the greater good and i support them remaining. even if they stop 1 abortion that's a good thing.

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

no . the state is saying that while it cannot stop someone from going abroad to procure abortion, it does not condone the act and that it is not up to the irish state to provide access to it bar extreme circumstances. in my view the state is not penalising anyone by not providing access to abortion on demand, nor is it abdicating on any responsibility as it has no responsibility to provide abortion on demand. the state isn't keeping up appearances that it is doing something, it is actually doing something. it just isn't going to work in every case. we have laws for a number of things within the state, and while they won't always work, they do often work whether it be a big or small amount. we don't just abolish them because they don't work in every single case. in my view the protections that exist for the unborn are for the greater good and i support them remaining. even if they stop 1 abortion that's a good thing.

If the state does not condone the act then why isn't it penalising people who have an abortion abroad.

Being realistic there is no such thing as a legal barrier to abortion in Ireland, only a financial one. That has been clear to all ever since the X Case.

end of the road

Consonata wrote: »

If the state does not condone the act then why isn't it penalising people who have an abortion abroad.

i presume because it wouldn't be practical to do so. the protections that exist only exist as much as is practical. i presume it would not be possible to gather the evidence required to not only prove the woman had an abortion, but to bring a successful prosecution against her.

Consonata wrote: »

Being realistic there is no such thing as a legal barrier to abortion in Ireland, only a financial one. That has been clear to all ever since the X Case.

maybe so, but at least there is some sort of barrier, there is no access to abortion on demand within the irish state, and the unborn have some protections and rights. what exists now in terms of protection is better then the little that will exist should the 8th be repealed and abortion on demand brought in.

Zubeneschamali

gctest50 wrote: »

The only ones it is stopping are for those who are not wealthy enough

That is not true at all.

It also stops women in the care of the State like in prison or mental institutions, women in direct provision with asylum status, women like Savita who are in a late medical crisis...

Zubeneschamali

Consonata wrote: »

If the state does not condone the act then why isn't it penalising people who have an abortion abroad.

The state would have been absolutely legally required to do so, but we passed the 13th to stop it. Which makes the whole 8th thing worthless.

frag420

end of the road wrote: »

the point is that it does go some way to protecting the life of the unborn via not allowing abortions to be caried out within the state bar extreme circumstances. it is the state saying that while it cannot stop people from carying out the act elsewhere, such an act will not be able to be caried out within the state. virtue signalling is a myth.

Would you support a ‘grassing up’ or ‘squeeling’ charter whereby people like yourself who know or suspect that their sister or mother or neighbour or aunt or colleague or even some stranger was going abroad to procure a termination and that you could call the abortion hotline ( don’t worry it will be a free line) so that they could be stopped from traveling to procure the termination?

And seeing as your believe in saving the babies so much you would have to give details such as your name and copy of passport or ID, not too much to ask to save th babies no?

January

frag420 wrote: »

Would you support a whistleblowing charter whereby people like yourself who know or suspect that their sister or mother or neighbour or aunt or colleague or even some stranger was going abroad to procure a termination and that you could call the abortion hotline ( don’t worry it will be a free line) so that they could be stopped from traveling to procure the termination?

Je. Sus. Don't be giving them ideas will you not.

Its like the time they proposed to picket Dublin and Shannon Airport with giant posters and offering to refund the flight costs if women didn't travel to procure abortions.

Consonata

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is not true at all.

It also stops women in the care of the State like in prison or mental institutions, women in direct provision with asylum status, women like Savita who are in a late medical crisis...

Because those are the people we need to stop like.

Not nimbys from D4 clearly

*sarcasm*

Consonata

end of the road wrote: »

maybe so, but at least there is some sort of barrier, there is no access to abortion on demand within the irish state, and the unborn have some protections and rights. what exists now in terms of protection is better then the little that will exist should the 8th be repealed and abortion on demand brought in.

"Abortion on demand" makes it sound like you think these women are just running down to the shops for a haircut.


Have you any idea how difficult it is to have an abortion? 70+% of women who do have an abortion only have 1 in their whole life, because of how traumatic it is.

Yet you think its fine and dandy to stop people who cant afford the flight to birmingham to have an abortion, and nimbys who send their kids to private school can.

frag420

January wrote: »

Je. Sus. Don't be giving them ideas will you not.

Its like the time they proposed to picket Dublin and Shannon Airport with giant posters and offering to refund the flight costs if women didn't travel to procure abortions.

I hear you! My point is that people like EOTR can never address the issue of women going abroad for terminations, they are forever citing the practicalities of stopping them.

If a solution as above was put forward to help with these practicalities I am curious to see if people would be brave enough to use them to stop women travelling for terminations.

I am going to edit my post as a ‘whistleblower charter’ may not be the best term to use as I think if you believe in something strong enough as the pro birth lobby do then you should stand by your beliefs and give your name and details when grassing up someone....

nice_guy80

abortion on demand?
very powerful statement.
do you think that the women involved won't consider everything thats best for them and the foetus, if born?

its not like they are getting a tooth out

pilly

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I have complained about this in feedback.

No response.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

the point is that it does go some way to protecting the life of the unborn via not allowing abortions to be caried out within the state bar extreme circumstances.

How many abortions did the 8th stop last year?

mrkiscool2

NuMarvel wrote: »

How many abortions did the 8th stop last year?

Just the ones of women who couldn't afford the travel and clinic costs in the UK cause they live paycheck to paycheck.

NuMarvel

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Just the ones of women who couldn't afford the travel and clinic costs in the UK cause they live paycheck to paycheck.

Not necessarily. The number of abortion pills being ordered online has risen over the last few years, and there are other, more extreme steps someone can take (there was an article about this a few months back, but I can't find it!)

And there's research that shows that there is little difference in abortion rates in countries that have restrictive abortion laws vs countries that don't.

Yet, End of the Road keeps telling us the 8th stops at least some abortions. Hence my question to him about how many it stopped last year. If someone's going to make a statement like that, I'm expecting them to back it up with at least some kind of facts or statistics.

CruelCoin

For those of you who are worried about abortion on demand, even with the 12 week window they're looking at, there will not be "Abortion on demand".

Most women don't know untill week 8. And then with the time it will take in the Irish system to get an appointment, referral, consultation, etc, you'll sail past that 12 week mark.

People will still travel for abortions, as the system will just not be fast enough here.

CruelCoin

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yet, End of the Road keeps telling us the 8th stops at least some abortions. Hence my question to him about how many it stopped last year. If someone's going to make a statement like that, I'm expecting them to back it up with at least some kind of facts or statistics.

I never agree with EOTR but he is right there.

You cannot just say that 100% of people who want an abortion travel for one.

That is a lazy argument.

There are obviously a certain amount who will not travel, and that validates his opinion that the 8th stops some abortions. There is no proof needed for such a simple claim.

January

CruelCoin wrote: »

For those of you who are worried about abortion on demand, even with the 12 week window they're looking at, there will not be "Abortion on demand".

Most women don't know untill week 8. And then with the time it will take in the Irish system to get an appointment, referral, consultation, etc, you'll sail past that 12 week mark.

People will still travel for abortions, as the system will just not be fast enough here.

Under 12 weeks the abortion can be performed with pills. All that will take is a gp appointment.

Also its very rare a woman doesn't find out she's pregnant until week 8. Week 5/6 is the usual time.

NuMarvel

CruelCoin wrote: »

I never agree with EOTR but he is right there.

You cannot just say that 100% of people who want an abortion travel for one.

That is a lazy argument.

There are obviously a certain amount who will not travel, and that validates his opinion that the 8th stops some abortions. There is no proof needed for such a simple claim.

I think I addressed this in the parts of my post that you edited out:

Not necessarily. The number of abortion pills being ordered online has risen over the last few years, and there are other, more extreme steps someone can take (there was an article about this a few months back, but I can't find it!)

And there's research that shows that there is little difference in abortion rates in countries that have restrictive abortion laws vs countries that don't.

SusieBlue

Consonata wrote: »

"Abortion on demand" makes it sound like you think these women are just running down to the shops for a haircut.


Have you any idea how difficult it is to have an abortion? 70+% of women who do have an abortion only have 1 in their whole life, because of how traumatic it is.

Yet you think its fine and dandy to stop people who cant afford the flight to birmingham to have an abortion, and nimbys who send their kids to private school can.

He knows all this, I've seen others try to explain this to him on maybe 3/4 previous threads to this. He doesn't care. He has his fingers in his ears. Save the unborn at all costs, f*ck everyone else, etc.

He is impossible to debate with because there is no reasoning to his opinions, which he states as if they are facts. He talks in riddles. Its extremely frustrating but it seems to be his posting style across boards.

You won't get any satisfaction out of him. There is unfortunately no point in even trying to reason with him cause he'll just reply with another blanket statement contradiction full of NIMBY-isms.

Edward M

I see this has become the attack EOTR thread, what happens to attack the post not the poster rule?
There is an ignore button I think!

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Consonata wrote: »

Is it really practical to discuss the philosophical points about abortion. A person who believes that life begins at conception is very very unlikely to have their opinion swayed by an internet post.

Perhaps, but I have had people tell me directly that me having such discussion with them, or where they have read along with them, is exactly what DID change their mind on the topic.

Plus discussing with people who believe "life begins at conception" does not automatically mean you are trying to change the minds of those people. Often when you enter into discourse and debate with another person, the target is not that person but the gallery. And it is usually from there that I am informed I have influences the most minds personally.

And quite often the arguments of one side in a debate are so egregiously bad and vacuous and even self contradictory (see the accusations being leveled against EOTR of late for example)........ that one of the most effective things you can do for your own side of the argument is merely to keep such people talking.

Consonata wrote: »

This is why I think, instead of coming to these voters on a philosophical level, which inevitably results in them returning to the trenches of Pro-Choice/Pro-Life, I think its more useful to discuss the legal implications of what they believe.

What I think however is that when campaigning on an issue such as this there is no utility in saying "instead of this.... do this" or "this is more useful than that". Rather what benefits a movement is to have a diversity of voices, each specializing in a diversity of approaches and arguments.

Those that know law better than me should be talking the law angle. Those who know religion and philosophy and biology and so forth better, as I do, should be coming from that angle.

And together we make a diversity of people and voices and arguments that hopefully will be even more than the sum of it's parts.

NuMarvel

The Oireachtas Committee on the 8th has published their official report - http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/eighthamendmentoftheconstitution/Report-of-the-Joint-Committee-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-web-version.pdf (opens in PDF).

I haven't read it yet, but I can't imagine there's any major changes from what was voted on last week.

This puts the matter back into the hands of government who'll now (presumably) draft a referendum bill to be debated by the Oireachtas, and start work on drafting proposed changes to legislation in the event of a referendum passing. In both cases, the government and oireachtas aren't bound by the Committee's recommendations, but I'd be surprised if those recommendations didn't form the basis of first drafts of the referendum and post-repeal bills.

mrsdewinter

CruelCoin wrote: »

For those of you who are worried about abortion on demand, even with the 12 week window they're looking at, there will not be "Abortion on demand".

Most women don't know untill week 8. And then with the time it will take in the Irish system to get an appointment, referral, consultation, etc, you'll sail past that 12 week mark.

People will still travel for abortions, as the system will just not be fast enough here.

What on earth are you talking about?
The point is not to keep abortion out of Ireland (that's been attempted via the 8th - it hasn't worked) but to help women who need an abortion get an abortion as early as possible, under the relevant medical supervision.
What proof have you got that the GP system will fall down at supplying abortion pills in a timely manner?

Zubeneschamali

12 week no-restrictions limit is still there, no higher limit for rape or socio-economic reasons (the assembly recomended 22 weeks).

I think this refusal to go with the Citizens Assembly recommendation guarantees that no matter what the Dail passes, we won't know what it means for sure until a case is appealed to the Supreme Court:

Having regard to the profound, and relatively unprecedented, effect a provision such as that recommended by the Citizens’ Assembly would have on the separation of powers as it is traditionally understood under the Irish
Constitution, the Committee is unwilling to recommend the removal of thisimportant supervisory jurisdiction of the Courts in an area which, without such a constitutional amendment, would so clearly fall within their jurisdiction.

Taking all of the above factors in to consideration, the Joint Committee is of the opinion that the Citizens’ Assembly recommendation arising out of ballot 3 would be more adequately addressed by way of simple repeal.

I like this bit: The Committee is of the view that no differentiation should be made between the life and the health of the woman. This is consistent with the evidence from medical experts made available to the Committee regarding the difficulty medical professionals have in defining where a threat to health becomes a threat to life.

Da Boss

This report is a biased report published by a biased committee established with the pre-determined goal to repeal the 8th. Not a single reference is made to the unborn child , this alone highlighting what Mullen McGrath Fitzpatrick have been saying for quiet some time. There minority report highlights all the failings of the committee

volchitsa

Da Boss wrote: »

This report is a biased report published by a biased committee established with the pre-determined goal to repeal the 8th. Not a single reference is made to the unborn child , this alone highlighting what Mullen McGrath Fitzpatrick have been saying for quiet some time. There minority report highlights all the failings of the committee

Shouldn't a minority report highlight the failings in the arguments made by the majority report, rather than criticizing the other members?

Did they make an argument, apart from the fact that the majority report doesn't mention the unborn child? (POLDP doesn't mention abortion, did they complain about that?)

NuMarvel

Da Boss wrote: »

This report is a biased report published by a biased committee established with the pre-determined goal to repeal the 8th. Not a single reference is made to the unborn child , this alone highlighting what Mullen McGrath Fitzpatrick have been saying for quiet some time. There minority report highlights all the failings of the committee

Yeah, those three are bound to produce an impartial and ubiased report. :rolleyes:

BTW, you should probably read the report before criticising it. Because the term "unborn child" is used 9 times by my count.

seamus

Da Boss wrote: »

This report is a biased report published by a biased committee established with the pre-determined goal to repeal the 8th. Not a single reference is made to the unborn child , this alone highlighting what Mullen McGrath Fitzpatrick have been saying for quiet some time. There minority report highlights all the failings of the committee

The lies and disinformation regurgitated straight from the Iona press office.

Do you routinely not form your own opinions, or are you being paid to not have them?

mariaalice

Any hope of short sensible debate on the issue, then the vote and that the end of the matter any chance of that what do you think.

What is really disturbing is hearing one of the masters of the maternity hospitals say although he has never mad a public comment on the issue he has been branded pro choice. Imagine how creepy that is there are people he does not know probing him dissecting his words watching everything he does, all the while the poor man is just trying to get on with his job.

Zubeneschamali

mariaalice wrote: »

Any hope of short sensible debate on the issue, then the vote and that the end of the matter any chance of that what do you think.

If we repeal the 8th and introduce sensible legislation as recommended by the Committee (or the Assembly) that will be the end of the matter.

Once they lose, the pro-lifers will mostly give up. You don't hear many people arguing to ban gay marriage, divorce or contraception these days - once the consensus moves on, these battleground issues become non-issues.

The Pro-Life movement will be no more important here than in the UK.

If we do not repeal the 8th, then that will certainly not be the end of the matter, and we'll go another few rounds and repeal it in 10 years time, or 20.

Zubeneschamali

I see Mullen wants another Citizen's Assembly - the last one evidently got their homework wrong, and it needs to be done over until they agree with him.

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I see Mullen wants another Citizen's Assembly - the last one evidently got their homework wrong, and it needs to be done over until they agree with him.

Just reading you're last two posts, seems they are of the same mindset as Mullen!
We must keep going till we get what you want?