The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

ohnonotgmail

petalgumdrops wrote: »

My baby was born healthy with a misdiagnosis of a ffa or didn't you read that. The problem I faced was that I could not travel. I would like women with a ffa to be allowed to induce their pregnancies here in our materity hopsitals, on demand to 12 weeks but not unlimited abortion which repealing the 8th will provide

Why is it I was asked to look at the 100s of stories in - In her Shoes and you didn't dare dispute that their stories show how the 8th hurts women. Yet I say the 8th saved my child and you question it. Respectful tactic would be to acknowledge my experience -disagree if you like but please if something doesn't suit your narrative say nothing rather than dispute a horrific experience that I went through.

And people have you believe that this referendum is all about trusting and supporting women..... that should also be amended to..... "supporting and trusting women if it fits my narrative"

so because things worked out you other women should not be given a choice? what a horrible attitude to have.

Triceratops Ballet

petalgumdrops wrote:

My baby was born healthy with a misdiagnosis of a ffa or didn't you read that. The problem I faced was that I could not travel. I would like women with a ffa to be allowed to induce their pregnancies here in our materity hopsitals, on demand to 12 weeks but not unlimited abortion which repealing the 8th will provide

Repealing the 8th does not provide unlimited abortion!

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

You didn't answer what I asked you.

No it's not a human being as they are not seen so legally until birth.

NuMarvel

petalgumdrops wrote: »

...on demand to 12 weeks but not unlimited abortion which repealing the 8th will provide...

This is completely false. After repeal, the current laws stand, until the Oireachtas changes them. And they are NOT going to change them to allow "unlimited abortion" after 12 weeks.

Please don't repeat this lie again. It doesn't help your position in anyway to be so misleading or uninformed, and more importantly it doesn't help the discussion.

Ave Sodalis

petalgumdrops wrote: »

My baby was born healthy with a misdiagnosis of a ffa or didn't you read that. The problem I faced was that I could not travel. I would like women with a ffa to be allowed to induce their pregnancies here in our materity hopsitals, on demand to 12 weeks but not unlimited abortion which repealing the 8th will provide

Why is it I was asked to look at the 100s of stories in - In her Shoes and you didn't dare dispute that their stories show how the 8th hurts women. Yet I say the 8th saved my child and you question it. Respectful tactic would be to acknowledge my experience -disagree if you like but please if something doesn't suit your narrative say nothing rather than dispute a horrific experience that I went through.

And people have you believe that this referendum is all about trusting and supporting women..... that should also be amended to..... "supporting and trusting women if it fits my narrative"

I did read that. No need to be snotty about it. Abortions, even if the 8th is repealed, will not be compulsory. If someone with FFA does not wish to have one, they will not have to. I'm afraid your single example does not migrate the suffering of other women though.

Due to the numbers of women who do suffer. I am not disputing your experience. In fact I even said I wasn't. I'm disputing that repealing the 8th would have had any significant impact.

You're actually twisting my words... again.

Trasna1

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Repealing the 8th does not provide unlimited abortion!

Repealing the 8th removes the constitutional restriction on abortion, therefore leaving it up to the legislature to decide.

So in theory, though unlikely, a future government could introduce a Chinese type system if they wanted to.

Ave Sodalis

Trasna1 wrote: »

Repealing the 8th removes the constitutional restriction on abortion, therefore leaving it up to the legislature to decide.

So in theory, though unlikely, a future government could introduce a Chinese type system if they wanted to.

Or ban it completely. They could also change whatever laws they like, based on that argument.

seamus

Trasna1 wrote: »

Repealing the 8th removes the constitutional restriction on abortion, therefore leaving it up to the legislature to decide.

So in theory, though unlikely, a future government could introduce a Chinese type system if they wanted to.

"Unlikely" is understating it by a few light-years.

It would require several referendums and thousands of pages of rewritten legislation to remove all the EU and international treaties that currently prevent us from introducing "Chinese-style" (whatever that is) abortion in Ireland.

petalgumdrops

NuMarvel wrote: »

This is completely false. After repeal, the current laws stand, until the Oireachtas changes them. And they are NOT going to change them to allow "unlimited abortion" after 12 weeks.

Please don't repeat this lie again. It doesn't help your position in anyway to be so misleading or uninformed, and more importantly it doesn't help the discussion.

Contact lawyers for choice who seem to have a different view to you on this? The 12 weeks is merely a proposal, not even a bill. It will need to go in front of the oireactas to pass like any legislation. Changes to norama Legislation does not need the backing or approval of the people.,politicians will make these decisions. I have spent a long time researching this.

The removal of the 8th makes the ammendment unconstitutional and can be challenged in the supreme court. Who have already said that the unborns right to life will cease to exist with the passing of repeal.

I wait in anticipation for you to tell me differently.

Trasna1

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Or ban it completely. They could also change whatever laws they like, based on that argument.

Without the 8th a constitutional judgement on a woman's right to medical treatment would almost certainly guarantee a right to an abortion. I've felt something like that would have been unlikely to succeed in the 80s but the Constitution is considered a living document so that interpretation might be considered reasonable now.

And yes, the government can change whatever laws it likes.. It does so, regularly.

NuMarvel

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Or ban it completely. They could also change whatever laws they like, based on that argument.

A) Examples of thing politicians can legislate for because there is no constitutional provision stopping them:

Closing all public hospitals
Repealing drink driving laws
lowering the age of consent
increase taxes to 99%

Examples of things that politicians are not fecking likely to legislate for despite there being no constitutional amendment

See A.

captbarnacles

Trasna1 wrote: »

Without the 8th a constitutional judgement on a woman's right to medical treatment would almost certainly guarantee a right to an abortion. I've felt something like that would have been unlikely to succeed in the 80s but the Constitution is considered a living document so that interpretation might be considered reasonable now.

And yes, the government can change whatever laws it likes.. It does so, regularly.

Gasp! the government will enact laws based on the will of the people as in a functional representative democracy.

You have a problem with the system of government we have - any other suggestions?

ohnonotgmail

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Contact lawyers for choice who seem to have a different view to you on this? The 12 weeks is merely a proposal, not even a bill. It will need to go in front of the oireactas to pass like any legislation. Changes to norama Legislation does not need the backing or approval of the people.,politicians will make these decisions. I have spent a long time researching this.

The removal of the 8th makes the ammendment unconstitutional and can be challenged in the supreme court. Who have already said that the unborns right to life will cease to exist with the passing of repeal.

I wait in anticipation for you to tell me differently.

how horribly condescending. and the part in bold is just so wrong it hurts.

seamus

petalgumdrops wrote: »

The removal of the 8th makes the ammendment unconstitutional and can be challenged in the supreme court.

You are literally throwing words on the screen and hoping that it sounds like a cogent argument. The above sentence makes no sense. Not like, "I don't understand your point", like, "This is a load of words strung together by someone who doesn't understand what most of them mean".

Who have already said that the unborns right to life will cease to exist with the passing of repeal.

That's not correct. The supreme court have made no such declaration in regards to what will happen when the eighth is repealed.

You're close, but your wording is so specific that I wonder if you're deliberately miswording it or regurgitating something you heard from a pro-life group.

petalgumdrops

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Repealing the 8th does not provide unlimited abortion!

Have you read the proposals or the wording of the 36th amendment? When you do get back to me. While there may be no appetite to increase or impose a limit beyond 12 weeks, limits will not be placed into our constitution. When we vote on repeal we will never vote again and it will be our politicians who can and will provide for an upper limit. From reading the posts here it seems many people feel the unborn should have zero rights and so the increasing of limits are not beyond the realm of possibility in near future. European average would not be likelt to exceed 18 weeks but limits CAN be moved by the government and not the people
. This is what repealing an amended does.

Trasna1

NuMarvel wrote: »

A) Examples of thing politicians can legislate for because there is no constitutional provision stopping them:

Closing all public hospitals
Repealing drink driving laws
lowering the age of consent
increase taxes to 99%

Examples of things that politicians are not fecking likely to legislate for despite there being no constitutional amendment

See A.

Politicians are doing their best to get a minimum alcohol pricing bill implemented though there is little to no public support for one.

Governments are strongly influenced by their supporters not the public.

captbarnacles

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Contact lawyers for choice who seem to have a different view to you on this? The 12 weeks is merely a proposal, not even a bill. It will need to go in front of the oireactas to pass like any legislation. Changes to norama Legislation does not need the backing or approval of the people.,politicians will make these decisions. I have spent a long time researching this.

The removal of the 8th makes the ammendment unconstitutional and can be challenged in the supreme court. Who have already said that the unborns right to life will cease to exist with the passing of repeal.

I wait in anticipation for you to tell me differently.

Can't have politicians making law...wait isn't that in the constitution too?

Spanish Eyes

Every country in Europe is obviously devastated by now. Even Italy. The Pope has said it, at is fkn peril lol!

I don't hear anything about terminations anywhere now. Does anyone.

The woman's choice,

Trasna1

Trasna1 wrote: »

Politicians are doing their best to get a minimum alcohol pricing bill implemented though there is little to no public support for one.

Governments are strongly influenced by their supporters not the public.

Really Irish Water would disagree with you there.

One of the reasons the vote is happening is because of public out cry over women dying when an abortion could have saved their lives.

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Viability.

Can you answer my questions now?

Even if it is a question of viability, it is still the intentional ending of a life, if abortion occurs at a stage of unviability.

petalgumdrops

seamus wrote: »

You are literally throwing words on the screen and hoping that it sounds like a cogent argument. The above sentence makes no sense. Not like, "I don't understand your point", like, "This is a load of words strung together by someone who doesn't understand what most of them mean".

This came from Lawyers from choice. Who have said that repeal will make the 8th amendment
Will make current legislation unconstitutional. But hey they are the pro- choice laywer group.


That's not correct. The supreme court have made no such declaration in regards to what will happen when the eighth is repealed.

You're close, but your wording is so specific that I wonder if you're deliberately miswording it or regurgitating something you heard from a pro-life group.

Outside of article 40.3.3 there is no constitutional protection for the unborn.

Again why assume I'm pro-life because I feel the unborn should have rights at some point.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I have spent a long time researching this. .

Not long enough if you don't know the difference between legislation and a constitutional amendment. That is literally first semester stuff in law.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

The removal of the 8th makes the ammendment unconstitutional and can be challenged in the supreme court.

Repeal makes nothing unconstitutional, be it in legislation or in the constitution. By definition, anything in the constitution can't be unconstitutional. The present law still stands until it's changed by the Oireachtas. And you've presented nothing to indicate how a challenge to the courts would be successful.

By the way, the challenge would be in the High Court first, not the Supreme Court. They'd only hear an appeal to a lower courts' decision, and even then only if they thought the appeal had sufficient merit to warrant being heard.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I wait in anticipation for you to tell me differently.

Congratulations on getting something right.

petalgumdrops

NuMarvel wrote: »

Not long enough if you don't know the difference between legislation and a constitutional amendment. That is literally first semester stuff in law.



Repeal makes nothing unconstitutional, be it in legislation or in the constitution. By definition, anything in the constitution can't be unconstitutional. The present law still stands until it's changed by the Oireachtas. And you've presented nothing to indicate how a challenge to the courts would be successful.

By the way, the challenge would be in the High Court first, not the Supreme Court. They'd only hear an appeal to a lower courts' decision, and even then only if they thought the appeal had sufficient merit to warrant being heard.



Congratulations on getting something right.

God I wonder why a pro-choice Lawyer group would spout lies then so?

NuMarvel

seamus wrote: »

You are literally throwing words on the screen and hoping that it sounds like a cogent argument. The above sentence makes no sense. Not like, "I don't understand your point", like, "This is a load of words strung together by someone who doesn't understand what most of them mean".

Reminds me of this. :D

NuMarvel

petalgumdrops wrote: »

God I wonder why a pro-choice Lawyer group would spout lies then so?

They're not the ones spouting lies.

petalgumdrops

captbarnacles wrote: »

Can't have politicians making law...wait isn't that in the constitution too?

Admire your 100% faith In politicians

Trasna1

captbarnacles wrote: »

Gasp! the government will enact laws based on the will of the people as in a functional representative democracy.

You have a problem with the system of government we have - any other suggestions?

I've no problem with our system of government. I was responding to the point that the government could retain the ban on abortion following removal of the 8th, or reintroduce a ban at some future time. The argument I was making was that would be unlikely since a right to bodily integrity would in a modern context infer a right to abortion. This was one of the original arguments for the 8th in 83 - which in the context of the time was a stretch but not now.
Indeed, any such challenge on the basis of the Constitution could find the idea of term limits unconstitutional.

captbarnacles

Trasna1 wrote: »

I've no problem with our system of government. I was responding to the point that the government could retain the ban on abortion following removal of the 8th, or reintroduce a ban at some future time. The argument I was making was that would be unlikely since a right to bodily integrity would in a modern context infer a right to abortion. This was one of the original arguments for the 8th in 83 - which in the context of the time was a stretch but not now.
Indeed, any such challenge on the basis of the Constitution could find the idea of term limits unconstitutional.

Agreed. Our laws should have a modern context which I gather by looking at other western countries is pro-choice.

Spanish Eyes

Honestly, if the 8th is repealed, I think it will be all be forgotten about within a few weeks