The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

... i am simply against the allowing of unlimited abortion within the state of ireland, and i believe that nobody is "forced" to travel for an abortion, they choose to do it because they want an abortion outside necessary and extreme circumstances. there is no good reason to provide unlimited abortion and the state has no obligation to provide it. the fact that i believe it is not reasonable to impose travel banns due to the fact others would be effected simply means i recognise the realities in relation to the procurement of abortion. other then that it means nothing.

After telling us that we "cannot stop people from procuring it [abortion] abroad", you're now telling us we can, but it would be unreasonable to do so due to the effect on others. You go so far as to declare this as a "fact", making a lie of your first statement.

The actual fact is that you don't want to be able to stop them. It's not abortion on demand you're opposed to, it's some kind of "abortion on impulse", because you think if a woman can access abortion locally, she'll decide to have one on the spot without thinking about it. And that's because you don't trust women.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

i don't believe it is cruel for someone to have to go abroad for a non-necessary abortion. if we were talking about people having to go abroad in extreme circumstances because of the lack of availability of abortion for that particular circumstance then you would have a point, but we aren't.
people have to go abroad for many treatments that aren't availible within the state, and i'd bet there are treatments which aren't available but which should be long long before abortion on demand. i think really we have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

Most if not all of those other procedures are exceptionally specialised. Ireland is a small country and wouldn't have the capacity to build up the required experience to become specialised in those procedures. It's not because we want the patients to think about if they really want the procedure.

Abortion is nothing like these procedures, because in the majority of cases it will involve taking a pill and maybe scheduling a followup doctor's visit.

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

After telling us that we "cannot stop people from procuring it [abortion] abroad", you're now telling us we can, but it would be unreasonable to do so due to the effect on others. You go so far as to declare this as a "fact", making a lie of your first statement.

The actual fact is that you don't want to be able to stop them. It's not abortion on demand you're opposed to, it's some kind of "abortion on impulse", because you think if a woman can access abortion locally, she'll decide to have one on the spot without thinking about it. And that's because you don't trust women.

again this is false, my reasons for being against the killing of the unborn outside extreme circumstances is that it is wrong. i have been clear in my position through the thread in relation to my views including the travel bann, and have not changed it. no matter how much people twist my posts in an aim to make out i don't trust women, they are inaccurate and always will be. i trust women, i simply disagree with abortion on demand being availible in ireland.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Most if not all of those other procedures are exceptionally specialised. Ireland is a small country and wouldn't have the capacity to build up the required experience to become specialised in those procedures. It's not because we want the patients to think about if they really want the procedure.

Abortion is nothing like these procedures, because in the majority of cases it will involve taking a pill and maybe scheduling a followup doctor's visit.

i would still be happy to see money spent on those treatments over abortion on demand, as they will likely benefit society compared to abortion on demand, which doesn't benefit society.

Hannibal_Smith

end of the road wrote: »

i don't believe it is cruel for someone to have to go abroad for a non-necessary abortion. if we were talking about people having to go abroad in extreme circumstances because of the lack of availability of abortion for that particular circumstance then you would have a point, but we aren't.
people have to go abroad for many treatments that aren't availible within the state, and i'd bet there are treatments which aren't available but which should be long long before abortion on demand. i think really we have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

Why do you not believe it to be cruel? Why do you think, if medical treatment is required by citizens of the state, we shouldn't look after them? Can you not see that to you the abortion maybe non necessary, but to the people travelling, it is very necessary?

Maybe we do have treatments unavailable here that are available in other states, i cant think of them. But through increase demand and focus on those treatments, can become available.

The way it stands now, a woman must continue a pregnancy whether she wants to or not. And if she doesn't want to she has to travel abroad and have another state look after her and travel back in pain and I would imagine still heavily bleeding. You wouldn't send anyone on a plane in that condition, it is cruel.

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

Every argument put forward to keep the 8th is in reality an argument to repeal the 13th.

One I have never really understood is this nonsense that life begins at implantation. In reality, that is just a legal line in the sand, it is not based on any actual science.

Pro-lifers commonly say that a new human life exists from the start, and that there is continuous development from a single cell to birth and what we all agree is a human baby, so it is impossible to draw a line anywhere in that process and say abortion is OK up to here, but it's a baby a day later.

But factually, that "new life" moment is fertilization. That's when the mother's and father's genes are combined to create the DNA of a new individual, and guess what, we already DO draw a legal line and say absolutely no legal protections before that line.

That line is implantation of the embryo in a woman's womb, and it is open season on new human beings before that point. Created in a test tube? They can be frozen, thawed out, thrown away. Created during sex? Morning after pill to prevent implantation is A-OK.

And this legal line was not created after panels of experts studied all the evidence - judges did it simply by considering the meaning of the English word "unborn" in context. One decided that when an embryo is not implanted, meaning the woman is not pregnant, article 40.3.3 cannot apply since it is balancing the rights of a mother her unborn baby.

One of the other judges simply said that an implanted embryo is definitely unborn, but who the hell knows about a test tube embryo.

Yet here we are - no protection for those poor, poor fertilized cells, each one a unique human like you or me if you believe the pro-life spoofology.

Cabaal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And illusion it is.
25 legal abortions in Ireland in 2016.

http://www.thejournal.ie/legal-abortions-in-ireland-3469898-Jun2017/

Abortion is not illegal in Ireland. It is 'just' very restricted. Still legal in some circumstances.

Not to mention the countless pill abortions which pro life crowds totally ignore and the Irish state turns a blind eye too

Cabaal

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yet here we are - no protection for those poor, poor fertilized cells, each one a unique human like you or me if you believe the pro-life spoofology.

Not to mention there's no protection for potential life, why are there no restrictions on the wasted potential life from masterbation

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

again this is false, my reasons for being against the killing of the unborn outside extreme circumstances is that it is wrong.

And you presumably think it's as equally wrong outside Ireland as it would be within Ireland, yet you'd vote to keep the provision that puts the freedom to travel above our constitutional ban on abortion. This is not the decision of someone who thinks abortion is wrong. It's NIMBYism.

end of the road wrote: »

i have been clear in my position through the thread in relation to my views including the travel bann, and have not changed it.

The only thing that's been clear about your views on the travel ban is that they're keep changing.

end of the road wrote: »

no matter how much people twist my posts in an aim to make out i don't trust women, they are inaccurate and always will be. i trust women, i simply disagree with abortion on demand being availible in ireland.

People aren't twisting your posts. Please are reading them for what they are.

end of the road wrote: »

i would still be happy to see money spent on those treatments over abortion on demand, as they will likely benefit society compared to abortion on demand, which doesn't benefit society.

I think not subjecting women to the risks of travelling to another jurisdiction for a procedure that could be easily carried here benefits society. Even someone steadfastly opposed to abortion can surely see it's better that women who have abortions should have safer ones.

And as has been pointed out before, concerns that offering abortions would take resources away from other services are unfounded because pregnant women will be accessing our health service whether they have an abortion or not.

.......

This post has been deleted.

JMNolan

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What an ageist attitude :mad:

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

And you presumably think it's as equally wrong outside Ireland as it would be within Ireland, yet you'd vote to keep the provision that puts the freedom to travel above our constitutional ban on abortion. This is not the decision of someone who thinks abortion is wrong. It's NIMBYism.

it is the decisian of someone who thinks abortion on demand is wrong, yet who realises the realities in which we have to work in.

NuMarvel wrote: »

The only thing that's been clear about your views on the travel ban is that they're keep changing.

incorrect, they haven't changed. i just have a multitude of reasons for my view on it.

NuMarvel wrote: »

People aren't twisting your posts. Please are reading them for what they are.

no they are twisting them, to try and get them to fit their bogyman that they have created.

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think not subjecting women to the risks of travelling to another jurisdiction for a procedure that could be easily carried here benefits society. Even someone steadfastly opposed to abortion can surely see it's better that women who have abortions should have safer ones.

abortion on demand does not benefit society as it leads to less of an incentive to improve our systems. we have barely an incentive as it is, with abortion on demand the incentive will get less.

NuMarvel wrote: »

And as has been pointed out before, concerns that offering abortions would take resources away from other services are unfounded because pregnant women will be accessing our health service whether they have an abortion or not.

they aren't unfounded as we can see from britain.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't forget that someone who is 70 now was only 35 when the 8th passed.

I love this:

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i disagree that they are forced.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i don't and i haven't been discredited at all, as much as you would like it to be otherwise

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i haven't been clear on that as i never made such a statement.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

incorrect, they haven't changed. i just have a multitude of reasons for my view on it..

You've provided a multitude of reasons alright. They've swung between, "we can't stop them", to "stopping them would affect others", to "I don't even want to be able to stop them". These reasons are inconsistent with each other and don't portray someone who's given the matter any thought.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i'm not being disingenuous at all. i don't believe they are being forced to go abroad for the abortion, they are choosing to do it as they wish to have an abortion. nobody is holding a gun to their head.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i have 100% credibility, and i have debated and engaged in the discussion with nothing but good faith, dispite all the attacks and all else that have been thrown at me.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

again i have never made such a statement. no matter how much you want it to be true, it's not true.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

again, one eyed jack never made any such statement, and no matter how much you want it to be otherwise, that is a fact. also, considering he isn't in a position to defend himself, it is unreasonable to be bringing him into any argument.

.......

This post has been deleted.

lazygal

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Many older women have lent money to a sister or friend to 'get the boat'. Many of them got the boat themselves. Many of them remember smuggling in condoms and spermicidal jelly. Many of them remember having to bar a parish priest from the door to stop him taking a grandchild away because the mother wasn't married. Many of them know the eighth amendment is a mad law that leads to crazy practices around miscarriages and labour and birth. They might be very religious despite all that. But they are a force who know the eighth is bad law and want to get rid.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Delirium

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not being disingenuous at all. i don't believe they are being forced to go abroad for the abortion, they are choosing to do it as they wish to have an abortion. nobody is holding a gun to their head.

Please explain how they could legally avail of an abortion in Ireland.

Oldtree

Peadar Tóibín, Sinn Féin, was just on Newstalk this morning and does not want the 8th repealed, and is going against his parties line, but can continue to be a member of the party provided he states the party line in interviews.

He stated that no woman had died due to the 8th.

The Committee on the 8th Amendment was told the amendment undoubtedly contributed to the death of Savita Halappanavar at UHG, by Prof Sir Sabar Arul, the then incoming President of the British Medical Association and author of the report into Savita’s death.

I find it incredulous that Peadar not heard of Savita Halappanavar?

He also brought up a fear of eugenics with particular attention to downs syndrome and said in other European countries, (he mentioned Denmark specifically were at 98%) of those diagnosed with downs syndrome by prenatal screening are aborted.

But this would not appear to be the case in the Netherlands, where there has been no change in the number of babies being born with downs syndrome. See this article.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/number-of-babies-born-with-down-syndrome-has-not-decreased-in-netherlands-1.3303392

Bannasidhe

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Back in '82 when it became known this insane referendum was coming down the line my 17 year old self participated in my first 'political' action. Standing on Daunt's Square in Cork giving our pro-choice leaflets and ignoring the really vile abuse being hurled at me. When I went home to my then 47 year old mother and 70 year old Mass attending everyday grandmother I was all fired up and ready to go on a rant when I defiantly told them what I had spent my day doing. To my utter shock it was they who went on a pro-choice rant - they were not only pro-choice, they were in favour of abortion on demand and that only women of child baring years should be allowed to vote. They. were. Radical.

My grandmother is dead 19 years this month, my mother is now 83 - and she is still radical on this issue. Women's bodies - women vote is her mantra. Only death will stop her voting for full repeal and the full recommendations of the Citizen's Assembly.

NuMarvel

Oldtree wrote: »

Peadar Tóibín, Sinn Féin, was just on Newstalk this morning and does not want the 8th repealed, and is going against his parties line, but can continue to be a member of the party provided he states the party line in interviews.

He stated that no woman had died due to the 8th.

The Committee on the 8th Amendment was told the amendment undoubtedly contributed to the death of Savita Halappanavar at UHG, by Prof Sir Sabar Arul, the then incoming President of the British Medical Association and author of the report into Savita’s death.

I find it incredulous that Peadar not heard of Savita Halappanavar?

Let's face it, no matter how many experts would say the 8th was a factor, some people will refuse to hear it.

But even leaving aside the accuracy of his statement, it's bizarre that the threshold for changing our laws is set as high as requiring someone's death first. By that measure we'd never have changed anything.

Boulevardier

One of the options for repeal is to insert an article in the constitution saying that only the Oireachtas can decide on abortion.

The idea behind this seems to be to head off any rights which may be given by future court action to the unborn based on other parts of the constitution, or from unenumerated rights.

However, if that Oireachtas-only provision is put in, surely it would be tantamount to declaring that there is no right to life anywhere in the constitution for any unborn, even late-term unborn?

If so, perhaps that is going too far in the other direction from where things are now?

PS I favour simple repeal.

Billy86

end of the road wrote: »

that's not a solution, as in turn the systems we have will highly likely see less money as the belief will be that people can just have an abortion.

That doesn't fly and if anything you've made an argument in favour of providing for abortions on public healthcare as we would wind up saving an absolute rake of money on social services with this. Far, far, far more than the cost of of an abortion, which apparently ranges from about €500-€1,600.

https://www.mariestopes.ie/abortion-care/how-much-does-an-abortion-cost/

end of the road

Billy86 wrote: »

That doesn't fly and if anything you've made an argument in favour of providing for abortions on public healthcare as we would wind up saving an absolute rake of money on social services with this. Far, far, far more than the cost of of an abortion, which apparently ranges from about €500-€1,600.

https://www.mariestopes.ie/abortion-care/how-much-does-an-abortion-cost/

i haven't made an argument for abortion on demand at all, i have made one against it. we could only save money by stripping away the services afterwords, abortion itself wouldn't bring savings as the costs from what i can find seem to be hugely under-estimated.
essentially your point is looking for a problem for abortion on demand to be the solution.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pilly

Boulevardier wrote: »

One of the options for repeal is to insert an article in the constitution saying that only the Oireachtas can decide on abortion.

The idea behind this seems to be to head off any rights which may be given by future court action to the unborn based on other parts of the constitution, or from unenumerated rights.

However, if that Oireachtas-only provision is put in, surely it would be tantamount to declaring that there is no right to life anywhere in the constitution for any unborn, even late-term unborn?

If so, perhaps that is going too far in the other direction from where things are now?

PS I favour simple repeal.

I see where you're coming from but to me that simply means that when it's repealed then the Oireachtas comes up with the legislation, this makes sense to me.

I trust them enough to not all of sudden throw in a curve ball and legislate for abortion up to 30 week or something. All the indications are that it will be 12 weeks and that's fine by me.

pilly

end of the road wrote: »

i haven't made an argument for abortion on demand at all, i have made one against it. we could only save money by stripping away the services afterwords, abortion itself wouldn't bring savings as the costs from what i can find seem to be hugely under-estimated.
essentially your point is looking for a problem for abortion on demand to be the solution.

How many times do I have to post simple maths lessons here:

1 abortion costs less than 10 months maternity care. Simples.

What is confusing you about this?

Billy86

end of the road wrote: »

i haven't made an argument for abortion on demand at all, i have made one against it. we could only save money by stripping away the services afterwords, abortion itself wouldn't bring savings as the costs from what i can find seem to be hugely under-estimated.
essentially your point is looking for a problem for abortion on demand to be the solution.

I didn't say anything about abortion 'on demand' - I said abortion, which can mean in the case of it being necessary or extenuating circumstances such as rape or incest... quite a common one from what I've seen is sexual exploitation of the mentally disabled. I'm actually not too mad on 'abortion on demand' myself, and frankly find it cowardly and lazy that people resort to attempting to brush any changes being made as this, no differently to those claiming anyone not in favour of banning all non-white immigration are advocating "absolute open borders".

Your argument against my point was a financial one, and yes there is no doubt that a €500-1,500 abortion is a much less expensive option than what goes into the cost of social services towards these children.

I'm working in admin in Tusla the last year or so, and frankly you appear to have no idea how many of these children that parents did not have the means to get an abortion for in such instances cost so, so much for regular therapies of multiple forms over the course of years, after care services, foster payments, disability services, labour costs (social workers, family support workers, child in care teams, case conferences, out of hours services, admin wages, GALs, etc), and on and on. Not one of these services are required for a child that does not exist.

Loafing Oaf

Boulevardier wrote: »

However, if that Oireachtas-only provision is put in, surely it would be tantamount to declaring that there is no right to life anywhere in the constitution for any unborn,

NuMarvel

pilly wrote: »

I see where you're coming from but to me that simply means that when it's repealed then the Oireachtas comes up with the legislation, this makes sense to me.

I trust them enough to not all of sudden throw in a curve ball and legislate for abortion up to 30 week or something. All the indications are that it will be 12 weeks and that's fine by me.

I really can't see the Oireachtas going further than the Committee's recommendations. I wouldn't be surprised if there were attempts to be step back from some of them.

Water John

The Repeal is a totally separate issue from what the Oireacthais may legislate afterwards. Its being discussed simply to give people, a guide as to, what is likely.
Savita's sad death occurred mainly due to poor medical care. I have family in the business and know her complications should have been dealt with much earlier. It seems a secondary factor was some poor understanding of Art 8.
I don't agree with her case being involved in this Constitutional choice.

Boulevardier

Yes, but a constitutional provision which explicitly gives the Oireachtas sole powers over abortion is still tantamount to a declaration that there can be no unenumerated or implied rights in the constitution for any unborn, including late-stage unborn.

My own position on unborn rights is that where a woman's right to life and those of an unborn conflict, the woman must always come first. However, that does not mean that a late-term unborn should be left without rights of any kind.

Water John

Is there an alternative Constitutional Article being proposed for Art 8? I don't think so, Boulevardier.
The Constitution simply reverts to pre 1980.

Loafing Oaf

Boulevardier wrote: »

Yes, but a constitutional provision which explicitly gives the Oireachtas sole powers over abortion is still tantamount to a declaration that there can be no unenumerated or implied rights in the constitution for any unborn, including late-stage unborn.

My own position on unborn rights is that where a woman's right to life and those of an unborn conflict, the woman must always come first. However, that does not mean that a late-term unborn should be left without rights of any kind.

Do you have any reason to believe such rights are incorporated into any particular part of the constitution? In the absence of such a provision, is it not just as likely a court might decide any restriction on abortion is unconstitutional?

jimmycrackcorm

pilly wrote:

How many times do I have to post simple maths lessons here

1 abortion costs less than 10 months maternity care. Simples

What is confusing you about this?

A pack of condoms costs a fraction of either.

The vast majority of the debate and morality surrounding abortion could be removed if research was pushed into easier preventative pregnancy measures.

Even the decision process to abort an unwanted pregnancy is traumatic in its own right.

Water John

Some on here seem to think, it gets as much thought as going down to the shop for a packet of lozenges.

frag420

end of the road wrote: »

i haven't made an argument for abortion on demand at all, i have made one against it. we could only save money by stripping away the services afterwords, abortion itself wouldn't bring savings as the costs from what i can find seem to be hugely under-estimated.
essentially your point is looking for a problem for abortion on demand to be the solution.

Can you show us what you found that hugely underestimate the costs?

Just a heads up but looking inside your head for one of your facts does not count!!

Zubeneschamali

NuMarvel wrote: »

I really can't see the Oireachtas going further than the Committee's recommendations. I wouldn't be surprised if there were attempts to be step back from some of them.

Absolutely. The whole point of the Assembly and the Committee is to give cowardly politicians something to hide behind. They are never, ever going out in front.

Boulevardier

Yes. Judge Richard Humphrey recently said this:

"The judge repudiated the notion that Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution could be regarded as the sole repository of all the rights of the unborn child, pointing out that such rights were implicit in several articles of the Constitution, particularly in Article 40, long before the enactment of Article 40.3.3. “In addition to these rights”, he elaborated, “other significant rights of the unborn child are recognised, acknowledged or created by common law or statute, in turn reflecting inherent natural and constitutional rights of the unborn which are implied by the constitutional order. Since we were all unborn at one point, it is illogical to be dismissive of the natural, human and biological reality that there is continuity between the rights to be enjoyed before birth and those after birth”.

This is from this article in Village:

https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2016/09/laws-of-unintended-coherence/

Any such rights would presumably be abolished by an Oireachtas only provision on abortion law in the constitution.

Riskymove

Water John wrote: »

Is there an alternative Constitutional Article being proposed for Art 8? I don't think so, Boulevardier.
The Constitution simply reverts to pre 1980.

one option is to just repeal the 8th as recommended by the Committee


There is also consideration of replacing the text with something specifically giving power to Oireachtas to legislate for abortion...it is suggested that this would lessen the chance of any legislation being challenged.

Boulevardier

"There is also consideration of replacing the text with something specifically giving power to Oireachtas to legislate for abortion...it is suggested that this would lessen the chance of any legislation being challenged."

This is precisely where there may be danger of going too far the other way. Giving the Oireachtas such power clearly implies that unborn rights other than those contained in the 1983 amendment do not exist, and that the Oireachtas could legislate for unrestricted abortions up to full term.

I agree with the idea that simple repeal would bring us back to the pre-1983 situation, which I think would be the best constitutional situation.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Boulevardier

Right now that's true, they would not.

However the right-to-choose groups would favour it, and it could be brought in by a future government which includes, say Labour.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

Boulevardier wrote: »

Right now that's true, they would not.

However the right-to-choose groups would favour it, and it could be brought in by a future government which includes, say Labour.

It's possible, but I don't think it's likely. I think it's more likely that a government would make access to abortion more restrictive in the future, than less. But even then, I don't rate that as probable either.

I think the most likely outcome is that, assuming the referendum succeeds, whatever legislation passes will be the legislation for the foreseeable future. That's what's happened in other countries with similar legislation (eg France's laws have been in place since 1975), and I don't forsee Ireland being the exception to that.

Especially when you consider it took us 20 years to change our laws just for the X Case.