The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

petalgumdrops

bubblypop wrote: »

Personally, no I don't believe there should be any protection in the constitution for the unborn. The reason is, that protection impacts on the rights of the living women in society.
I believe the constitution should protect the rights of all living members of society.
So not the unborn, no.

So the unborn at any stage right up until birth have no place in our society?

Spanish Eyes

Ronan Mullen and his ilk should shut the F up now.

Honestly what the F are he and other men talking about. Do they have any experience of women's lives or are they controlling freaks.

Guessing it is the latter.

petalgumdrops

gctest50 wrote: »

And if the woman has the money and is able ( time off etc etc etc ) to travel ( and all the disadvantages that go with that ) ?

But with a definitive limit of 12 weeks they wouldn't need to travel though? A limit that could not be changed without the say of the people.

Nettle Soup

I actually reckon nobody will take any notice or be swayed by any of the posters. This issue has been thrashed out so much that people know its way more complex than an 80s style poster.

petalgumdrops

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Except it isn't. Only Ireland and the Philippines give constitutional protection to the unborn, equal to that of the women carrying them. The Supreme Court rules that the unborn have no other rights other than the right to life, as dictated by the 8th. The UN have already determined that our abortions laws violate human rights.

Sorry my wording/understanding was wrong. Yes the 8th gives the right of life to the unborn. I don't see how a definitive limit of 12 weeks (one that can't be moved by successive governments)for termination of healthy babies and unlimited teterminations for FFA, illness etc would be an issue. Unless of course you think healthy babies should terminated at any limit?

Hannibal_Smith

petalgumdrops wrote: »

So the unborn at any stage right up until birth have no place in our society?

Of course they don't. They have a place in society when they're born. Even with the 8th amendment as it stands, doesn't offer the unborn a place in society.

petalgumdrops

petalgumdrops wrote: »

So the unborn at any stage right up until birth have no place in our society?

I don't believe they deserve constitutional protection, no.
& until they are born, they are not part of society

nozzferrahhtoo

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I am wondering if those who identify as pro-choice feel there should be any protection in the constitution for the unborn at all?

I do not see any reason why such a thing would be required. Searching this article here for example for the word "constitution"....... the list of countries who actually have such a thing is not that interesting or impressive. The list of countries who do NOT have it do not appear to be havens of depravity and horror and war against the fetal populations.

Further.......

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Unless of course you think healthy babies should terminated at any limit?

.....the thing that has struck me since the days I first started looking into information on abortion debates, and it still strikes me today....

When you look at countries with no abortion where women travel to other jurisdictions to have one, or horrifically do it themselves...... or you look at countries with specific limits like the UK........ or you look at countries where the limits are more theoretical like Canada........ one thing jumps out......

Basically the statistics in ALL of the above come out looking the same. That by 10 weeks gestation 80% of abortions have already been performed. Over 90% (usually 92-4) by week 12. And pretty much the totality of the remaining 8% by week 16.

So no abortion or no limit does not seem to make a blind bit of difference. The abortions happen anyway and they happen in a timely fashion.

SO you are to say the least moving to invent a solution for a concern that is not even valid in the first place.

Laneyh

petalgumdrops wrote: »

So the unborn at any stage right up until birth have no place in our society?

It is unborn, so therefore not yet in society

Ave Sodalis

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Sorry my wording/understanding was wrong. Yes the 8th gives the right of life to the unborn. I don't see how a definitive limit of 12 weeks (one that can't be moved by successive governments)for termination of healthy babies and unlimited teterminations for FFA, illness etc would be an issue. Unless of course you think healthy babies should terminated at any limit?

Where on earth did you get the idea for your last line? You actually just pulled that out of nowhere.

Why do you want it in a constitution? A constitution can be changed, as proved many times. Do you really think any government would touch it unless they have to? It took how many deaths and how many women suffering before they even considered repealing the 8th.

Water John

So petalgumdrops, if this Admendment to the Constitution of a 12 week limit was what was proposed, for the Constitution, you'd be on here supporting that?
Not a chance. All you are about, is sowing doubt and then following it up with the standard line, if in doubt vote no.

petalgumdrops

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Of course they don't. They have a place in society when they're born. Even with the 8th amendment as it stands, doesn't offer the unborn a place in society.

Wow

petalgumdrops

Water John wrote: »

So petalgumdrops, if this Admendment to the Constitution of a 12 week limit was what was proposed, for the Constitution, you'd be on here supporting that?
Not a chance. All you are about, is sowing doubt and then following it up with the standard line, if in doubt vote no.

I would 100% support it but thanks for the quick analysis.

NuMarvel

I apologise in advance for breaking up your post, but there's a lot in here that needs addressing and correction.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I really wish the government had made this referendum easier by giving a clear clear limit for termination of heathy babies. I believe that women should have choice and while I wouldn't necessarily have a termination myself I do believe that a limit of 12 weeks should have been written into the constitution. If we repeal the 8th we hand over all power to move these limits to the government. what we vote for now may not be a reality in a couple of years. So many people assume that 12 weeks will be the limit for healthy babies but people need to know that this is far from the reality. Is there really a need for choice beyond 12 weeks for a healthy baby?

I've said it before and I'll say it again; putting the grounds for abortion into our constitution is asking for more trouble. It is simply not the place to deal with these types of issues.

There is no basis in our experience or in international experience for believing that politicians will start changing the 12 week period willy nilly. 12 weeks is the European norm, and for most countries it's been that way for decades. And our own experience with the X Case shows that Irish politicians are equally averse to changing abortion laws; it took them 20 years just to legislate for the woman's right to life after all.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

As it stands by repealing the 8th the supreme court have said that we take away all rights of the unborn which is not something that sits well with me. I am wondering if those who identify as pro-choice feel there should be any protection in the constitution for the unborn at all?

Repealing the 8th will not remove all of the unborn's rights. The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act would still stand, including the ban on illegal abortions. That would remain the law until the Oireachtas changes it, and the government has set out what they're proposing.

And no, as a pro-choice person, I don't feel there should be constitutional protection for the unborn. It's not because I don't think they deserve protection, but because it's simply not the place to deal with that issue. Protections for the unborn have to be balanced with the rights of the woman, and the constitution isn't capable of addressing that balance properly.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

If repeal is passed the trouble is that unless the government replace it quickly it could be challeneged in the supreme court.

I can't see any basis for which a successful challenge will be brought. The constitution will have been changed to say termination of pregnancy is a matter for the Oireachtas. It would have to be a matter of significant importance to the public for the courts to decide they need to act instead of the oireachtas.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Because the constitution will have changed , once the amendment is repealed the current legislation will be unconstitutional. Unless the government act quickly there could be uncertainty in the law.

Absolutely wrong. There will be no uncertainty and repeal doesn't make the current laws unconstitutional. The PLDP Act still stands, and there is nothing in the replacement text that renders it unconstitutional.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

The surprising thing is is that the government could have legistated for FFA years ago without repealing the 8th.

Absolutely, categorically, not. TDs have tried at least twice in the last number of years to legislate for FFA under the 8th, and each time they were told that the Attorney General said it would be unconstitutional.

If you have legal advice to the contrary, then please share it, because it will be news to everyone else.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

A limit placed into the constitution of 12 weeks would ensure that we are giving women the choice they desire while also ensuring that rights are giving to the unborn.

Like I said many time before, putting grounds for abortion into the constitution is asking for more trouble. Something straight forward like a 12 week limit might work, but you certainly couldn't include things like serious risk to health, or FFA, which is also in the proposed legislation.

It would just lead to more uncertainty, more court cases, and more referendums. And the only ones who would benefit from that would be lawyers; not the unborn, not doctors, and certainly not women.

Hannibal_Smith

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Wow

:pac: well that's told me :pac:

Tell me. What place in society does the unborn have now?

horseburger

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No that is not the issue and I have explained why it is not the issue AND what the issue actually is more than once already.

Is your usual approach to conversation to ignore what is said to you and then repeat the questions that the very thing you ignored had already answered?

Because if it is, then that is something useful to know about you and it tells us a lot.



When a 12 week old fetus is terminated it is not that pain is not felt, it is that there is not even anyone there TO feel the pain in the first place. Is that simple difference really such a complex one for you?

Why should anyone be concerned with "pain" when there is no one there actually feeling any? You are inventing the pain in your own imagination and then acting like we should be concerned by it.

The issue of pain felt was brought up at the Citizens Assembly.

There are items online that suggest that there is something tangible there at 12 weeks.

https://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-12-weeks_1101.bc

https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-12-weeks

https://www.babycenter.com/400_12-weeks-and-no-heartbeat-what-does-this-mean_13132635_507.bc

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

There are items online that suggest that there is something tangible there at 12 weeks.

"something tangible"? Are you entering the world championship contest for most vague statement with no actual substance?

There are PLENTY of things there at 12 weeks. None of them constitute a person. And none of them are the presence of anything capable of experiencing pain.

There are no lights on, there is no body home, and there will not be for many weeks to come.

Something tangible. I have heard it all now.

petalgumdrops

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Where on earth did you get the idea for your last line? You actually just pulled that out of nowhere.

Why do you want it in a constitution? A constitution can be changed, as proved many times. Do you really think any government would touch it unless they have to? It took how many deaths and how many women suffering before they even considered repealing the 8th.

Legislation can be changed by politicians, a constitution by the people. In order to change the constitution we need to have a referendum. Ordinary legislation does not!!!!!

Why would you not support a 12 week constitutional limit for terminations of healthly babies if all other cases were limitless?

Abortion will not stop deaths. The UK MMR - available on MBRACE-UK shows that in The UK the MMR is 9.5/100,000 in comparison to 6.5/100,000 here in Ireland. More pregnant women in the uk died by suicide in the UK in 2014 than as a direct result of pregnancy related complications. Terminations are legal here so the stats don't support your argument.

One death per year for 2015/16 as a result of terminations in the UK also. Abortion will not cure every ill. We have an overburdened mental health system here. Are the government going to do anything to support these women?

NuMarvel

€502,120!!!!!!!!!!!!! In just over 3 and a half days!

(No more updates from me, don't want to spam the thread)

Spanish Eyes

Thing is, if there is a NO vote, which is democracy, and that is fine

Will it actually stop pills and travelling? No it won't

But I suppose that is victory for the blinkered.

petalgumdrops

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

:pac: well that's told me :pac:

Tell me. What place in society does the unborn have now?

I have family who have given birth to stillborn babies. The are very much people in my eyes with a name and a place within our family.

horseburger

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"something tangible"? Are you entering the world championship contest for most vague statement with no actual substance?

There are PLENTY of things there at 12 weeks. None of them constitute a person. And none of them are the presence of anything capable of experiencing pain.

There are no lights on, there is no body home, and there will not be for many weeks to come.

Something tangible. I have heard it all now.

You said there was nothing there at 12 weeks.

Tangible is something that is "perceptible by touch", or "real".

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/tangible

https://www.google.com/search?ei=9hXRWq3YHM7GwAK4t6DQAQ&q=tangible&oq=tangible&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0.0.59970.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.P_Xnedy9M_0

Ave Sodalis

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Legislation can be changed by politicians, a constitution by the people. In order to change the constitution we need to have a referendum. Ordinary legislation does not!!!!!

Why would you not support a 12 week constitutional limit for terminations of healthly babies if all other cases were limitless?

Abortion will not stop deaths. The UK MMR - available on MBRACE-UK shows that in The UK the MMR is 9.5/100,000 in comparison to 6.5/100,000 here in Ireland. More pregnant women in the uk died by suicide in the UK in 2014 than as a direct result of pregnancy related complications. Terminations are legal here so the stats don't support your argument.

One death per year for 2015/16 as a result of terminations in the UK also. Abortion will not cure every ill. We have an overburdened mental health system here. Are the government going to do anything to support these women?

Do you trust our government with any of our laws and legislation?

I do believe, and some major organisations would agree with me, that it is far too complicated a situation to be put into constitution.

The stats don't support my argument? My argument was that it took deaths and suffering before they even considered changing the 8th. These deaths have already happened as a direct result of the 8th. Have you seen the state of what women need to be in before the legal terminations can happen? Do you realise how much it is open to interpretation?

Absolutely nobody has said that abortion would cure every ill.

Are you doing anything to support these women?

Ave Sodalis

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I have family who have give birth to stillborn babies. The are very much a people in my eyes with a name and a place within our family.

The bold part is the important bit in this post.

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

You said there was nothing there at 12 weeks.

Tangible is something that is "perceptible by touch", or "real".

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/tangible

https://www.google.com/search?ei=9hXRWq3YHM7GwAK4t6DQAQ&q=tangible&oq=tangible&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0.0.59970.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.P_Xnedy9M_0

I'm pretty sure the poster meant that the foetus is not capable of feeling pain due to the lack of a nerve system that would allow for pain receptors. Not that there's nothing there at all...

Spanish Eyes

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I have family who have give birth to stillborn babies. The are very much a people in my eyes with a name and a place within our family.

Good to hear, so what is the problem there?

I know it was not always the case. That is for pro birth/life to answer though. The forgotten stillbirth babies. Yes it happened for many a mother who was not allowed to grieve either, or bury the baby.

Such fkn double standards annoy me intensely.

nozzferrahhtoo

horseburger wrote: »

You said there was nothing there at 12 weeks.

Nope. I did not. Why are you now adding outright lies to everything else? Before quoting dictionaries at people who know the language better than you do, why not look up the words "nothing" and "anyone" and learn the difference between them. Then go read my post again. You do not get to lie about what someone said and then pretend it is THEM that needs a dictionary.

NuMarvel

petalgumdrops wrote: »

The UK MMR - available on MBRACE-UK shows that in The UK the MMR is 9.5/100,000 in comparison to 6.5/100,000 here in Ireland.

On a point of order, the UK rate is 8.76, not 9.5, as per the most recent Confidential Maternal Death Enquiry report:

For the triennium 2013 – 2015, the Irish MMR was 6.5 per 100,000 maternities and the UK MMR was 8.76 per 100,000 maternities. This does not represent a statistically significant difference in MMR between countries.

That's also the rate cited by MBRACE in their most recent report.

Hannibal_Smith

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I have family who have give birth to stillborn babies. The are very much a people in my eyes with a name and a place within our family.

You didn't ask whether stillborn babies have a place in society. You asked whether the unborn have a place in society. So reel in your 'wow' and tell me what place in society does the UNBORN hold ?

Madscientist30

horseburger wrote: »

Madscientist30 wrote: »

So then do you consider abortion to meet the definition of murder?

It is the deliberate ending of a human life. Would you accept that abortion is the deliberate ending of a human life?

here is an interesting discussion where a campaigner for repeal is reluctant to concede that abortion is the deliberate ending of a human life:

You are avoiding the question. Is it murder? Or not? Should women that have abortions be charged with murder?