Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

J C

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Respecting the fact that others believe different things than you do, is a very basic thing to do as well.

That has been very hard to accept for many in Ireland. But thankfully that is changing.

Everyone is entitled to believe what they wish ... but they must conform to basic ethical principles set down by society for the common good.
For example some people believe that they should be able to drink and drive ... but drinking and driving clearly increases the risk of injury and death on our roads ... and the law reflects this. Similarly when it comes to abortion, this results in the certainly of death for an unborn child ... and the law also reflects this too.

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to believe what they wish ... but they must conform to basic ethical principles set down by society for the common good.
For example some people believe that they should be able to drink and drive ... but drinking and driving clearly increases the risk of injury and death on our roads ... and the law reflects this. Similarly when it comes to abortion, this results in the certainly of death for an unborn child ... and the law also reflects this too.

Drink driving potentially causes harm to living citizens. The unborn is not a living citizen. Ridiculous comparison to make.

"Basic ethical principles" is a matter of opinion. I feel anyone who would force pregnancy on an unwilling woman who was seeking a termination as lacking basic ethical principles.

Regardless, why should I have to live my life arrested by your precious principles? The fact that we're even having this referendum establishes that there is a desire for change, significant enough that the public is divided on the matter. Those wanting change are absolutely not in a minority. A large portion of society are in favour of repeal.

I do not believe that abortion pre 12 weeks is wrong. Why is your belief more important than mine, and others who agree?

We do not need to be saved from ourselves. We are more than capable of making decisions without your intervention with your own personal morals and ethics.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to believe what they wish ... but they must conform to basic ethical principles set down by society for the common good.
For example some people believe that they should be able to drink and drive ... but drinking and driving clearly increases the risk of injury and death on our roads ... and the law reflects this. Similarly when it comes to abortion, this results in the certainly of death for an unborn child ... and the law also reflects this too.

You keep throwing this out there as if it is reflective of the issue (is this to replace the cartoons you were told to stop posting?)

Person A wants to drink and drive, Not drinking and driving will not affect thier life in any way, the necessity to drink and drive is not a life changing one it's just ignorance and therefore rightly against the law. A drink driver can kill or maim a person, they can destroy whole families through recklessness.

Person B wants an abortion. Not having an abortion WILL affect them for the rest if thier lives so the necessity for that abortion (for whatever the reason) is why it shouldn't be against the law. Yes I know you will come back with oh the poor innocent baby but as stated time and again most of us don't see a few week old fetus as a baby.

Zubeneschamali

J C wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to believe what they wish ... but they must conform to basic ethical principles set down by society for the common good.

No, not always.

When enough people disagree with those ethical principles, we change them. Which is what we are about to do with abortion - delete the 8th amendment and allow unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks, later in cases of FFA or where the woman's life or health is in danger.

The basic ethical principles set down by society will change to say that is now OK.

J C

J C wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to believe what they wish ... but they must conform to basic ethical principles set down by society for the common good.
For example some people believe that they should be able to drink and drive ... but drinking and driving clearly increases the risk of injury and death on our roads ... and the law reflects this. Similarly when it comes to abortion, this results in the certainly of death for an unborn child ... and the law also reflects this too.

Drink driving is absolutely not comparable in any way.
However, the government allowing a part of the constitution to cause risk to women's health & to allow women to be treated as less than equal, is a very bad reflection on society.
Abortion , on the other hand, has no effect on society.

J C

Frito wrote: »

Volchitsa is correct, suicidality alone is not grounds for detention. The 2001 Act is clear that it's a nature and degree argument.
Firstly, you must be suffering from a mental illness that would materially benefit from treatment in an approved centre (nature).
Secondly, because of the mental illness, there is a risk of harm to the person/others, or, the person's judgment is so impaired that they cannot act in their best interests (degree).

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/25/enacted/en/html

Whilst suicidality can be viewed as a degree of mental illness, it can't be viewed as a nature of mental illness. A person needs to be mentally ill AND suicidal.
As detention in an approved centre must materially benefit the person, a woman who is suicidal because she does not want to continue her pregnancy will not be materially benefitted by involuntary detention, simply because approved centres cannot terminate pregnancies.

That all depends on whether she is suicidal because of her pregnancy or suicidal because of acute depression or some acute mental illness ... or a combination of causes.

Zubeneschamali

J C wrote: »

That all depends on whether she is suicidal because of her pregnancy or suicidal because of acute depression or some acute mental illness ... or a combination of causes.

A woman who is, per the post you quote: suicidal because she does not want to continue her pregnancy is clearly the first of those.

J C

Moonmumbler wrote: »

I agree but do you know if you are doing that on a daily basis? Do you shop ethically, for example? And how about respecting a woman's decision to do what she wants with her own body?

A woman has no more right to use her body to kill than a man.
The 'its my body, so I can kill my unborn child' ... is an argument devoid of moral legitimacy ... or even basic human compassion for someone more vulnerable than yourself. It's one of the most basic instincts to protect one's young.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

And you shouldn't talk about "killing" the unborn when it is not the same as killing someone who is born already otherwise you are on the "slippery slope" of imprisoning women who have had miscarriages as they do in El Salvador.

The fact is that abortion kills ... and this isn't some kind of side-effect ... the objective of abortion is to intentionally kill the unborn child.

We are not El Salvador ... and what is proposed isn't the imprisonment of women who have had miscarriages ... what is being proposed and to be voted upon is the introduction of unrestricted abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and thereafter following a few medical formalities.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

It's so easy for people who are "pro-life" to think this is such a simple issue, that it is only about the life/death of the unborn, to keep abortion illegal and yet not enact any laws against "offenders". To graciously allow women to travel abroad for abortion but, sure, Ireland is abortion free! It's cloud cuckoo land.

More 'slippery slope' arguments (with no validity)... like the non sequitur that because people are allowed to travel freely within Europe ... we must therefore introduce unlimited abortion in Ireland.
Are we going to have to introduce bull fighting into Ireland, because Irish people can travel to Spain and attend bull fights?

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And here we have the crux of the matter, NIMBY at its finest. If you really did care about the unborn you would be fighting to stop any Irish woman from having an abortion anywhere, the reality is that you don't care about the women or the fetus they carry you just don't want abortions happening in Ireland.

We don't want needless abortions happening anywhere ... but the practical legal reality is that what somebody gets up to anywhere, is their own business, once that are obeying the laws of the jurisdiction they find themselves in.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

We don't want needless abortions happening anywhere ... but the practical legal reality is that what somebody gets up to anywhere, is their own business, once that are obeying the laws of the jurisdiction they find themselves in.

And those 2 words right there are the reason why you will never understand why a woman would procure an abortion.

J C

Love nor Money wrote: »

The right to travel was a battle lost by pro life. But its not hypocrisy to concede that it's lost. Pro choice argued it as a separate right to abortion rights in 1992. It's hypocrisy to piggyback that victory for pro choice and characterise the concession by some pro lifers as hypocrisy.

I'm not convinced that it was a 'battle' in the first place. Yes, some pro-life people opposed the amendment on the right to travel ... but I think that the right to travel exists independently of the 8th and its amendment. The amendment was a 'belt and braces' copper-fastening of a right that existed anyway ... and I for one, support for legal and justice reasons.

Zubeneschamali

J C wrote: »

We don't want needless abortions happening anywhere ... but the practical legal reality is that what somebody gets up to anywhere, is their own business, once that are obeying the laws of the jurisdiction they find themselves in.

In 1992, the 8th meant abortion in England was just as much a crime as abortion in Ireland. 600,000 people voted to keep it that way.

Your statement is only true today because the prolife people lost that campaign.

Zubeneschamali

J C wrote: »

I think that the right to travel exists independently of the 8th and its amendment. The amendment was a 'belt and braces' copper-fastening of a right that existed anyway ... and I for one, support for legal and justice reasons.

No, the Supreme Court ruled that you are wrong in its judgement on the X case.

JDD

More 'slippery slope' arguments (with no validity)... like the non sequitur that because people are allowed to travel freely within Europe ... we must therefore introduce unlimited abortion in Ireland.

Can I ask a further question on this. Firstly, the legislation that is mooted to be put in place after the referendum does not allow for unlimited abortion. Nor does any other European country that you refer to. Why do you think the prochoice campaign is looking for unlimited abortion?

Secondly, I understand the argument that just because something is legal in another country doesn't mean it should be legal here. Let me make an analogy. If I want to smoke dope legally, I can hop on a plane to Amsterdam. That doesn't mean that cannabis should be legal in Ireland. However, if I am in the care of the HSE, and declare that I want to go to Amsterdam and smoke dope, the HSE would be well within their rights to prevent me from doing so. Herein lies the difference. The right to travel abroad, to obtain an abortion, is protected in our consititution. So if I am in the care of the HSE, and want to travel to Amsterdam to obtain an abortion, I am legally allowed to do so. Why do you think, as a pro-life advocate, that the Irish people chose to allow that very specific narrow legal right, only in cases of abortion.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

Drink driving potentially causes harm to living citizens. The unborn is not a living citizen. Ridiculous comparison to make.

the comparison is problematic i'd agree because drink driving has the potential to kill someone, whereas abortion will definitely kill the unborn, who are still living.

SusieBlue wrote: »

"Basic ethical principles" is a matter of opinion. I feel anyone who would force pregnancy on an unwilling woman who was seeking a termination as lacking basic ethical principles.

it's a matter of opinion, which in many cases will be trumped by the need to insure the greater good.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Regardless, why should I have to live my life arrested by your precious principles?

the same reason that we all have to live our lives according to principals that we may not necessarily share. the greater good of society.

SusieBlue wrote: »

The fact that we're even having this referendum establishes that there is a desire for change, significant enough that the public is divided on the matter. Those wanting change are absolutely not in a minority. A large portion of society are in favour of repeal.

there is a want for change yes, but that doesn't necessarily make that change correct, or mean those people should get what they want.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I do not believe that abortion pre 12 weeks is wrong. Why is your belief more important than mine, and others who agree?

because abortion pre-12 weeks is still ending a life of a human being. which is something that should not become normalised.

SusieBlue wrote: »

We do not need to be saved from ourselves. We are more than capable of making decisions without your intervention with your own personal morals and ethics.

agreed. however that ultimately means nothing in terms of this debate. at the end of the day, all of us are prevented by law from making some decisians, even though we wouldn't necessarily make those decisians ourselves.

J C

SusieBlue wrote: »

Drink driving potentially causes harm to living citizens. The unborn is not a living citizen. Ridiculous comparison to make.

Drink driving potentially causes harm to living citizens and their unborn children in utero ... and a drink driver who has an accident that causes a miscarriage or the death of a pregnant woman can be charged with causing the death of the unborn child.
... and while drink driving only potentially causes harm ... abortion always kills.

SusieBlue wrote: »

"Basic ethical principles" is a matter of opinion. I feel anyone who would force pregnancy on an unwilling woman who was seeking a termination as lacking basic ethical principles.

Regardless, why should I have to live my life arrested by your precious principles? The fact that we're even having this referendum establishes that there is a desire for change, significant enough that the public is divided on the matter. Those wanting change are absolutely not in a minority. A large portion of society are in favour of repeal.

If we had a referendum to repeal the drink driving laws there would also be a split in public opinion and voting intentions as well ... wouldn't make it right though ... and would likely result in a 'no' vote as well because people instinctively protect life, if for no other reason than because disrespecting any life, disrespects all lives.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I do not believe that abortion pre 12 weeks is wrong. Why is your belief more important than mine, and others who agree?

We do not need to be saved from ourselves. We are more than capable of making decisions without your intervention with your own personal morals and ethics.

... all legislation placing restrictions on personal behavior is about saving people from themselves (or others) ... and abortion legislation is no different.

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

the government allowing a part of the constitution to cause risk to women's health & to allow women to be treated as less than equal, is a very bad reflection on society.

and had the government not decided to go for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, then it would be a certainty that the 8th will be repealed on referendum day.

bubblypop wrote: »

Abortion , on the other hand, has no effect on society.

that is a hugely debatible statement.

JDD wrote: »

Can I ask a further question on this. Firstly, the legislation that is mooted to be put in place after the referendum does not allow for unlimited abortion. Nor does any other European country that you refer to. Why do you think the prochoice campaign is looking for unlimited abortion?

Secondly, I understand the argument that just because something is legal in another country doesn't mean it should be legal here. Let me make an analogy. If I want to smoke dope legally, I can hop on a plane to Amsterdam. That doesn't mean that cannabis should be legal in Ireland. However, if I am in the care of the HSE, and declare that I want to go to Amsterdam and smoke dope, the HSE would be well within their rights to prevent me from doing so. Herein lies the difference. The right to travel abroad, to obtain an abortion, is protected in our consititution. So if I am in the care of the HSE, and want to travel to Amsterdam to obtain an abortion, I am legally allowed to do so. Why do you think, as a pro-life advocate, that the Irish people chose to allow that very specific narrow legal right, only in cases of abortion.

because there was a risk that any measures implemented to prevent travel would effect pregnant women who would not have been traveling to procure abortions.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

the comparison is problematic i'd agree because drink driving has the potential to kill someone, whereas abortion will definitely kill the unborn, who are still living.



it's a matter of opinion, which in many cases will be trumped by the need to insure the greater good.



the same reason that we all have to live our lives according to principals that we may not necessarily share. the greater good of society.



there is a want for change yes, but that doesn't necessarily make that change correct, or mean those people should get what they want.



because abortion pre-12 weeks is still ending a life of a human being. which is something that should not become normalised.



agreed. however that ultimately means nothing in terms of this debate. at the end of the day, all of us are prevented by law from making some decisians, even though we wouldn't necessarily make those decisians ourselves.

Hi EOTR, I have no intention of derailing the thread by engaging in a multiquote nitpicking battle. That isn't because my arguments are weak or because I secretly think you are right, its because its exhausting to do so and gets us nowhere. Thanks.

seamus

J C wrote: »

I'm not convinced that it was a 'battle' in the first place. Yes, some pro-life people opposed the amendment on the right to travel ... but I think that the right to travel exists independently of the 8th and its amendment. The amendment was a 'belt and braces' copper-fastening of a right that existed anyway ... and I for one, support for legal and justice reasons.

So in your eyes, the right of the individual to travel, comes before the right of the unborn to life.

This is the kind of stuff that the pro-life campaign tied themselves in knots over, and still can't reconcile even with themselves. "Every unborn is sacred...while they're in Ireland".

What actually happened is that the logistical realities and political fallout of enforcing a travel ban became clear. The idea that women at airports would have to be required to take a pregnancy test before boarding, or would be arrested stepping off a plane because their neighbour reported them.

Even the church realised that only immoral psychos and fascist dictatorships would think this was a good idea, so instead they meekly agreed that somehow the right to travel was more important than the unborn's right to life.

Even though it makes no sense. My right to life is not in any way trumped by my, or anyone else's, right to travel. And if the unborn's right to life is equal to that of the mother's, then logically the mother's right to travel does not trump the unborn's right to life.

It's a contradiction, written into the constitution. And begrudgingly supported by people calling themselves "pro-life" because being truly pro-life requires one to be a authoritarian dictator.

JDD

End of the Road - when you say that legalizing abortions will lead to the "normalization" of ending the life of a human being, do you honestly think that the introduction of abortion on request up to 12 weeks in Ireland will

a) lead other changes in the law which will reduce the right to life of living citizens - i.e. the introduction of capital punishment or other similar laws? Can you point to any other western country where the introduction of legal abortion has led to this?

or

b) you don't think it'll lead to changes in the law for living citizens, but you do believe it will lead to abortion on request up to a later limit at some future date. Can you show any other western country where this has occurred? I genuinely don't know if this has happened elsewhere. I know in the UK the limit has been 24 weeks since they legalized terminations in 1967. I also know that the same argument was used during the divorce referendum in the mid-90's where the anti-divorce campaign said that it was a slippery slope to allowing quickie divorces. As far as I'm aware, the divorce laws in Ireland haven't substantially changed in over 20 years.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

and had the government not decided to go for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, then it would be a certainty that the 8th will be repealed on referendum day.



that is a hugely debatible statement.



because there was a risk that any measures implemented to prevent travel would effect pregnant women who would not have been traveling to procure abortions.

If pro life people have an issue with the legislation that comes after repeal, then they need to fight for that. Lobby, March whatever they need to, to deal with the legislation.
The fact that they will leave the 8th amendment in so it can continue to risk health & safety of living breathing members of society, says a lot for their 'pro life' beliefs.

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

Drink driving potentially causes harm to living citizens and their unborn children in utero ... and a drink driver who has an accident that causes a miscarriage or the death of a pregnant woman can be charged with causing the death of the unborn child.
... and while drink driving only potentially causes harm ... abortion always kills.

If we had a referendum to repeal the drink driving laws there would also be a split in public opinion and voting intentions as well ... wouldn't make it right though ... and would likely result in a 'no' vote as well because people instinctively protect life, if for no other reason than because disrespecting any life, disrespects all lives.

... all legislation placing restrictions on personal behavior is about saving people from themselves (or others) ... and abortion legislation is no different.

You only say that because it suits your own personal agenda, not because there is any truth in it. I highly doubt there would be any public appetite to repeal the drink driving laws, they are of benefit to everyone, unlike your extremely conservative abortion views.

The truth of the matter is you are so self involved that you cannot see beyond the end of your nose.
I implore you to read some of the stories on "In Her Shoes - Women of the Eighth" on facebook and try to have some compassion and understanding.
Despite what you seem to think, this isn't all about you and your morals and beliefs, its about whats best for society.

And what's best for society is to protect its living citizens, giving them choices and freedoms and not bringing unwanted children into the world simply to punish their mother for being careless.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

because abortion pre-12 weeks is still ending a life of a human being.

No, no it's not.

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

If pro life people have an issue with the legislation that comes after repeal, then they need to fight for that. Lobby, March whatever they need to, to deal with the legislation.
The fact that they will leave the 8th amendment in so it can continue to risk health & safety of living breathing members of society, says a lot for their 'pro life' beliefs.

we could lobby but realistically, if the 8th is repealed then the government will be expected to implement the legislation either as proposed, or as near to the proposal as they can get. our lobbying is likely to have little effect on that score unfortunately. so voting no is for many of us, the least worst option.

bubblypop wrote: »

No, no it's not.

of course it is . what else is it ending the life of.

JDD wrote: »

End of the Road - when you say that legalizing abortions will lead to the "normalization" of ending the life of a human being, do you honestly think that the introduction of abortion on request up to 12 weeks in Ireland will

a) lead other changes in the law which will reduce the right to life of living citizens - i.e. the introduction of capital punishment or other similar laws? Can you point to any other western country where the introduction of legal abortion has led to this?

or

b) you don't think it'll lead to changes in the law for living citizens, but you do believe it will lead to abortion on request up to a later limit at some future date. Can you show any other western country where this has occurred? I genuinely don't know if this has happened elsewhere. I know in the UK the limit has been 24 weeks since they legalized terminations in 1967. I also know that the same argument was used during the divorce referendum in the mid-90's where the anti-divorce campaign said that it was a slippery slope to allowing quickie divorces. As far as I'm aware, the divorce laws in Ireland haven't substantially changed in over 20 years.

b would be my answer. for me, it's about minimizing the risk of the limit being upped, regardless of the possibility of it happening. other western countries not upping their limits wouldn't be enough to convince me that in the future we wouldn't do the same. it's not a risk i'm prepared to take.

SusieBlue wrote: »

You only say that because it suits your own personal agenda, not because there is any truth in it. I highly doubt there would be any public appetite to repeal the drink driving laws, they are of benefit to everyone, unlike your extremely conservative abortion views.

The truth of the matter is you are so self involved that you cannot see beyond the end of your nose.
I implore you to read some of the stories on "In Her Shoes - Women of the Eighth" on facebook and try to have some compassion and understanding.
Despite what you seem to think, this isn't all about you and your morals and beliefs, its about whats best for society.

And what's best for society is to protect its living citizens, giving them choices and freedoms and not bringing unwanted children into the world simply to punish their mother for being careless.

if anyone is interested in punishing the mother of an unwanted child for being careless, they are in a very very very very tiny minority. i certainly haven't come across them, and i doubt many of us actually have.

Zubeneschamali

seamus wrote: »

Even the church realised that only immoral psychos and fascist dictatorships would think this was a good idea, so instead they meekly agreed that somehow the right to travel was more important than the unborn's right to life.

They didn't meekly agree, they fought and lost.

They campaigned against the right to travel and information. 620,000+ people voted against the right to travel - roughly the same number as defeated Seanad Abolition or passed Children's Rights.

Now they pretend they agree, because they know they cannot win that one.

Zubeneschamali

JDD wrote: »

End of the Road - when you say that legalizing abortions will lead to the "normalization" of ending the life of a human being

And if this was a real effect, how has this not already happened, when women have a constitutional right to travel to England for an abortion, and 170,000 (or whatever the number is today) have availed of it?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

we could lobby but realistically, if the 8th is repealed then the government will be expected to implement the legislation either as proposed, or as near to the proposal as they can get. our lobbying is likely to have little effect on that score unfortunately. so voting no is for many of us, the least worst option.

of course it is . what else is it ending the life of.
.

From what I have seen , no one Has even tried to Do anything about the proposed legislation, it's just a straight no to repeal. As I said, no consideration for living breathing humans.

Oh, & someone is not a human being until they are born. It is the termination of a pregnancy.
Yes there is potential for it to become a human being, but it's far from a guarantee

Zubeneschamali

bubblypop wrote: »

From what I have seen , no one Has even tried to Do anything about the proposed legislation, it's just a straight no to repeal.

Coveney made some noises about being for Yes but against 12 weeks, but then he changed his mind.

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

From what I have seen , no one Has even tried to Do anything about the proposed legislation, it's just a straight no to repeal. As I said, no consideration for living breathing humans./QUOTE]

a straight no to repeal insures abortion on demand up to 12 weeks can't be legislated for. if that is achieved, then we can campaign for legislation that allows abortion in all extreme circumstances but not in circumstances where it isn't necessary. pro-life care about humans both born and unborn and want an outcome that takes both lives of both human beings into account as much as is practical to do so.

JDD

b would be my answer. for me, it's about minimizing the risk of the limit being upped, regardless of the possibility of it happening. other western countries not upping their limits wouldn't be enough to convince me that in the future we wouldn't do the same. it's not a risk i'm prepared to take.

So... and I know this is a purely hypothetical question... would you vote for repeal if there was no risk the limit would be upped? If say - and I'm not advocating this - Section 40.3 was repealed and replaced with a provision that said that abortion on request would only be allowed up to 12 weeks, would you vote for that?

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

a straight no to repeal insures abortion on demand up to 12 weeks can't be legislated for. if that is achieved, then we can all campaign for legislation that works to adress all concerns.

If the 8th stays, then we can campaign all we like, we cannot have legislation which addresses all concerns.

The reasons for this are spelled out in the report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, a report you may have heard of.

end of the road

JDD wrote: »

So... and I know this is a purely hypothetical question... would you vote for repeal if there was no risk the limit would be upped? If say - and I'm not advocating this - Section 40.3 was repealed and replaced with a provision that said that abortion on request would only be allowed up to 12 weeks, would you vote for that?

no . i couldn't vote for anything that would allow abortion on request.

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

no . i couldn't vote for anything that would allow abortion on request.

Did you vote against against the 14th amendment allowing travel?

oscarBravo

JDD wrote: »

If say - and I'm not advocating this - Section 40.3 was repealed and replaced with a provision that said that abortion on request would only be allowed up to 12 weeks, would you vote for that?

I would vote against it. Trying to tie future governments' hands through legislation in the Constitution is anti-democratic and will have unforeseen consequences.

J C

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, the Supreme Court ruled that you are wrong in its judgement on the X case.

The Supreme Court actually ruled that X had a right to abortion because she was suicidal ... so the right to travel per se never was actually ruled upon.

seamus

J C wrote: »

The Supreme Court actually ruled that X had a right to abortion because she was suicidal ... so the right to travel per se never was actually ruled upon.

Not by the Supreme Court. However, the High Court did rule that the girl did not have a de facto right to travel and that she should be detained until she gave birth.

The High Court had deemed that the issue of suicide was irrelevant. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling about suicide only, meaning that the High Court ruling about the right to travel remained in place, and was the official legal position.

For a brief period in Irish history, the Irish courts had ruled that a pregnant child who wanted an abortion, but was not suicidal, could be detained until the conclusion of the pregnancy, and a right to travel did not exist in the constitution.

.......

This post has been deleted.

JDD

oscarBravo wrote: »

I would vote against it. Trying to tie future governments' hands through legislation in the Constitution is anti-democratic and will have unforeseen consequences.

I know, I know, I agree. I was just trying to tease out End of the Road's position.

I think we all agree that there are a set of rights, attaching to each person, that are limited in some way for the "greater good".

End of the Road, I'm not quite getting my head around your position here. You're saying that you don't believe the legalization of abortion will lead to reduction in the right to life for existing citizens of the state. You also would not vote for repeal even if the right to life of a 13 week+ foetus was enshrined in the constitution, thus putting the strongest barrier against an increase in the limitation dates. So you believe that bestowing the right to life on a foetus from implantation to birth (and specificially from implantation to 12 weeks) is for the greater good?

I mean, you know that a pregnancy - even an uncomplicated one - can take a huge physical and mental toll on a pregnant woman. Lets again use an analogy. Say you drunkenly signed up to a bet that you would take on the physical toll of being pregnant for nine months, but when you sobered up you wanted to get out of it. However, it's a valid contract, and it's enforced by the courts. The courts stipulate the following:

• You will be injected with a hormone that will make you nauseous and/or vomit every day for six to eight weeks
• You will then have a backpack duct taped on to you where three pounds weight will be added every two weeks for a period of six months, ending up with you carrying around two stone in weight at the end of the six months.
• Electrodes will be added to the backpack which will give you a very mild electric shock intermittedly from weeks 16 to week 24. These electric shocks will increase in frequency and intensity from week 24 onwards, until they are painful enough to stop you in your tracks and prevent you from sleeping.
• You will be injected with a substance from week 12 to week 40 which will have varying side effects. As a standard list, your hormone will make your back muscles weaker so that you suffer from constant backpain, it will give you two kidney infections, make your hair fall out and give you heartburn.
• At week 40 you will be given the choice to either have two fingers broken where you will get a painkiller three hours later, or stomach surgery. Breaking your fingers may or may not result in permanent issues in using those fingers. Stomach surgery will result in six weeks recovery.

On a scale of what a court would consider an assault, the above list would be considered an assault causing serious harm. You could be imprisoned for life for that in Ireland. And yet, it's considered acceptable to force the equivalent on a person when there is an argument that a non-sentient foetus has a higher right to continue to exist. How, in a situation that you agree there are no other attendant consequences (changes to the law in other ways) is that considered to be "for the greater good"?

End of the Road, may I ask, are you religious? Do you believe the foetus has a soul, and because of that it automatically has a right to life? Because if that's the case, I respect that. I don't agree with it, but I understand your stance a lot more. If it's not because you're religious, I just can't get my head around it.

Triceratops Ballet

end of the road wrote: »

a straight no to repeal insures abortion on demand up to 12 weeks can't be legislated for. if that is achieved, then we can campaign for legislation that allows abortion in all extreme circumstances but not in circumstances where it isn't necessary. pro-life care about humans both born and unborn and want an outcome that takes both lives of both human beings into account as much as is practical to do so.

Legislation can not be introduced that contravenes anything enshrined in the constitution. Therefore, lobbying to alter the proposed legislation after you have voted to reject the repeal is utterly nonsensical. If the 8th amendment is not repealed then no legislation on abortion no matter how restrictive/liberal can be introduced.
If the pro life side want to see legislative changes that allow for abortion in restricted cases (ffa etc) but not in other cases, there is no scenario in which they can see them introduced without first repealing the 8th amendment.

J C

SusieBlue wrote: »

You only say that because it suits your own personal agenda, not because there is any truth in it. I highly doubt there would be any public appetite to repeal the drink driving laws, they are of benefit to everyone, unlike your extremely conservative abortion views.

Plenty of people think that 'a few drinks' doesn't significantly impair their driving ... so there would be an appetite in some quarters for amending the drink driving laws.

In any event, these laws are guided by the scientific evidence of impairment ... and our abortion laws should be similarly guided by the scientific fact that abortion kills unborn human beings.

SusieBlue wrote: »

The truth of the matter is you are so self involved that you cannot see beyond the end of your nose.
I implore you to read some of the stories on "In Her Shoes - Women of the Eighth" on facebook and try to have some compassion and understanding.
Despite what you seem to think, this isn't all about you and your morals and beliefs, its about whats best for society.

And what's best for society is to protect its living citizens, giving them choices and freedoms and not bringing unwanted children into the world simply to punish their mother for being careless.

Nobody is talking about punishing anybody here ... but of course the mother and her partner should not be so careless as to cause an unwanted pregnancy to arise, in the first place.

It's all about what is best for mothers and their unborn children ... and killing one partner (except in extremis) cannot be good for either partner in a pregnancy.

J C

JDD wrote: »

I know, I know, I agree. I was just trying to tease out End of the Road's position.

I think we all agree that there are a set of rights, attaching to each person, that are limited in some way for the "greater good".

End of the Road, I'm not quite getting my head around your position here. You're saying that you don't believe the legalization of abortion will lead to reduction in the right to life for existing citizens of the state. You also would not vote for repeal even if the right to life of a 13 week+ foetus was enshrined in the constitution, thus putting the strongest barrier against an increase in the limitation dates. So you believe that bestowing the right to life on a foetus from implantation to birth (and specificially from implantation to 12 weeks) is for the greater good?

I mean, you know that a pregnancy - even an uncomplicated one - can take a huge physical and mental toll on a pregnant woman. Lets again use an analogy. Say you drunkenly signed up to a bet that you would take on the physical toll of being pregnant for nine months, but when you sobered up you wanted to get out of it. However, it's a valid contract, and it's enforced by the courts. The courts stipulate the following:

• You will be injected with a hormone that will make you nauseous and/or vomit every day for six to eight weeks
• You will then have a backpack duct taped on to you where three pounds weight will be added every two weeks for a period of six months, ending up with you carrying around two stone in weight at the end of the six months.
• Electrodes will be added to the backpack which will give you a very mild electric shock intermittedly from weeks 16 to week 24. These electric shocks will increase in frequency and intensity from week 24 onwards, until they are painful enough to stop you in your tracks and prevent you from sleeping.
• You will be injected with a substance from week 12 to week 40 which will have varying side effects. As a standard list, your hormone will make your back muscles weaker so that you suffer from constant backpain, it will give you two kidney infections, make your hair fall out and give you heartburn.
• At week 40 you will be given the choice to either have two fingers broken where you will get a painkiller three hours later, or stomach surgery. Breaking your fingers may or may not result in permanent issues in using those fingers. Stomach surgery will result in six weeks recovery.

I see ... you could make the same argument about any bodily function ... and there are positive side-effects to pregnancy as well:-
https://www.thebump.com/a/pregnancy-benefits

Pregnancy may be somewhat uncomfortable ... but the vast majority of women go through with their pregnancies with little or no ill effects - and unlike many other issues with one's body ... pregnancy is something that women and their partners voluntarily enter into ... and it ends after nine months, unlike chronic conditions.
If they don't want to become pregnant ... they shouldn't have unprotected sex and they should take the MAP, if something went wrong.
Carelessly creating a new human life and then killing it is simply wrong.

J C

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Legislation can not be introduced that contravenes anything enshrined in the constitution. Therefore, lobbying to alter the proposed legislation after you have voted to reject the repeal is utterly nonsensical. If the 8th amendment is not repealed then no legislation on abortion no matter how restrictive/liberal can be introduced.
If the pro life side want to see legislative changes that allow for abortion in restricted cases (ffa etc) but not in other cases, there is no scenario in which they can see them introduced without first repealing the 8th amendment.

The 8th can easily be amended to cater for any other 'hard cases' if they are not already covered.
In many cases all that is required is legislation or medical protocols ... this has already happened with the POLDPA ... and this should have been enacted thirty years earlier, in line with the 8th.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

Plenty of people think that 'a few drinks' doesn't significantly impair their driving ... so there would be an appetite in some quarters for amending the drink driving laws.

In any event, these laws are guided by the scientific evidence of impairment ... and our abortion laws should be similarly guided by the scientific fact that abortion kills unborn human beings.

In your opinion

Nobody is talking about punishing anybody here ... but of course the mother and her partner should not be so careless as to cause an unwanted pregnancy to arise, in the first place.

It's all about what is best for mothers and their unborn children ... and killing one partner (except in extremis) cannot be good for either partner in a pregnancy.

And yet again you show your total ignorance of how contraception works and the rate of failure. If you had your way it would be back to the dark days where women were possessions and sex is for creation onky.

Disgusting comments by you yet again.

SusieBlue

‘Pregnancy may be somewhat uncomfortable’.....

I stopped reading at that point. You have very clearly never been pregnant to be making such a statement, JC.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

In your opinion

Its a fact that abortion kills unborn human beings.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And yet again you show your total ignorance of how contraception works and the rate of failure. If you had your way it would be back to the dark days where women were possessions and sex is for creation onky.

Disgusting comments by you yet again.

Disgusting unfounded personal insults by you yet again.
I have no issue with contraception or women's rights to equality with men.
... but I do have issue with killing unborn human beings ... just like I have issues with killing born human beings.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

Pregnancy may be somewhat uncomfortable ... but...

Oh yay, we're into the mansplaining phase of the campaign to retain forced pregnancies. Where's Margaret Atwood when we need her?

J C

SusieBlue wrote: »

‘Pregnancy may be somewhat uncomfortable’.....

I stopped reading at that point. You have very clearly never been pregnant to be making such a statement, JC.

I'm a man ... so I've never been pregnant ... but I've lived with a woman who has been pregnant (on a number of occasions) ... the fact that it was a number of occasions testifies to it not being the terrible thing the pro-aborts would have us believe it to be ... in order to justify killing a human being to end it.

Here are 8 positives from being pregnant ... that balance up some of the negatives of being pregnant:-
https://www.thebump.com/a/pregnancy-benefits

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

Its a fact that abortion kills unborn human beings.

Its a fact in your head, it's not a scientific fact (real science, not the makey up one you subscribe to)

Disgusting unfounded personal insults by you yet again.

Not an insult JC but a fact that anyone reading the thread can see for themselves.

I have no issue with contraception or women's rights to equality with men.
... but I do have issue with killing unborn human beings ... just like I have issues with killing born human beings.

I know you have no issue with contraception, the problem is you seem to have no idea about contraception and the failure rate. You seem to think that every unwanted pregnancy is simply down to carelessness.

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh yay, we're into the mansplaining phase of the campaign to retain forced pregnancies. Where's Margaret Atwood when we need her?

I will explain myself to man or woman as the case may be ... without being derided for it, thank you very much ... and I will not be put off doing so by rude male or female feminists and their false sexist generalizations ... 'mansplaining' indeed.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

I'm a man ... so I've never been pregnant ... but I've lived with a woman who has been pregnant (on a number of occasions) ... the fact that it was a number of occasions testifies to it not being the terrible thing the pro-aborts would have us believe it to be ... in order to justify killing a human being to end it.

Here are 8 positives from being pregnant ... that balance up some of the negatives of being pregnant:-
https://www.thebump.com/a/pregnancy-benefits

Hey ladies! Don't bother going to the salon this week and waste your money, get pregnant instead and you too can have bigger boobs, longer finger nails and shiny hair :rolleyes: