The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

horseburger

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To answer your first question here...... I think it is ok to end the life of ANY entity for ANY reason, including a 12 week old human fetus, that A) Entirely lacks the faculty of sentience and has never at any stage had the faculty of sentience in any way.

Do you have an argument as to why an entity lacking that faculty and always having lacked that faculty should have a right to life? Or can I simply assume that you actually believe shouting the word "Human" at that question over and over and over and over again actually answers it in some magical la la land way?



If you understand the answer to the first question, you will already know the answer to this question. If you find you do not though, feel free to let me know and I will answer it happily.



So is killing cows to obtain meat, or chopping down trees to make paper. We end life all the time. No one here AT ALL is denying we are ending life. Yet you keep saying it over and over like you are telling people something they either do not know, or have been denying.

The point that you are so DESPERATE to dodge however is that you seem entirely ignorant about where the line is, and what the line is, between life we end all the time and life we should not end. You just shout the word "Human" over and over because you think that is the line, yet you can not even begin to explain why.



The third outright lie I have caught you at now. The questions you just asked me were almost word for word the questions you asked earlier today and everyone here saw me answer you.

Lying in person is one thing, and people do it often. But lying when the truth is right beside the lie in black and white.... that takes some gall.



Because at 12/16 weeks we are ending the life of an entity that is not and never has been sentience or conscious. At much later stages however, we would be ending the life of a human sentience.

The two are therefore not comparable, even though you want to pretend they are. Pretence, alas, being the main substance of pretty much everything you have written here today.

It is still the ending of a life, at any stage of its development.

Not everyone supports your view.

The issue is the human aspect of the abortion debate.

If the human aspect of the debate wasn't central to the issue, the word foetus wouldn't be used as frequently, in arguments for abortion.

petalgumdrops

NuMarvel wrote: »

They're not the ones spouting lies.

Their response to me in relation to increasing 12 week limit;

Hi as with any ordinary legislation, it would be politicians in parliament who pass the legislation. Time limits won't be written into the Constitution. However, if the legislation is unconstitutional, it can be struck down by the Supreme Court.


'We can't say at this point whether it would be unconstitutional or not. But 18-21 weeks on request would be well outside the European and global norm'

"Proposed" just means that the government can't pass this new legislation unless the referendum passes. It's a proposal now, not even a Bill, because it can't be introduced in the Oireachtas until after the referendum passes. It would be unconstitutional at the moment.


'The trouble is that if the government doesn't replace it quickly, it could be challenged in the Supreme Court. Because the constitution will have changed once the Amendment is repealed, the current legislation will be unconstitutional'

'So the government really should act quickly after the referendum to avoid any uncertainty in the law'

NuMarvel

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.

The courts have shown they are slow to legislate from the bench in matters of social policy, eg recent cases on surrogacy and the right to die.

What case law exists that would support the notion that the courts would strike down term limits as unconstitutional?

captbarnacles

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

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

Nonsense. Look at the continuous outrage and protests not to mention societal breakdown, gay marriage has caused.:pac:

Triceratops Ballet

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.

Politicians will draft and vote on the legislation, that's correct. Who elects the politicians though? No politicians have wanted to touch this issue with a bargepole for 35 years, do you honestly think that after this successive governments are going to all of a sudden risk their necks on this issue just because they can, when none of them have before now?

horseburger

DubInMeath wrote: »

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

What is it if not human before birth? It was created by two humans yet you seem to be suggesting that it suddenly becomes human upon birth?

petalgumdrops

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Admire your 100% faith In politicians

Seems you don't have any faith in your own gender, but that's a different thing perhaps.

Still wondering how the 8th managed to save your child's life. From your posts even news of FFA did not influence your decision to carry to term as is your right.

Repealing the 8th isn't going to change that situation, people are not going to be forced to have abortions if they don't want one.

It just means that they don't have to travel or order pills online is they did decide to terminate.

seamus

petalgumdrops wrote: »

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

Sure. Nobody said anything to the contrary.

I was simply pointing out the fact that you are wrong to claim the supreme court recently made any comment about the status of the unborn without the eighth amendment.

The supreme court ruled that no additional rights are conferred on the unborn outside of the right to life provided by the eighth amendment.

One may infer that this means when the eighth has been removed that the unborn will have no constitutional rights. But it is plain wrong to declare that the Supreme Court said that.

That might seem like splitting hairs, but precision is important if you're going to make legal arguments.

And it's a common tactic of disinformation groups to claim that an authority or court has said something important, when in fact it hasn't at all.

It's also incorrect - just because the supreme court has ruled the unborn have no additional constitutional rights, does not mean that the unborn will have no implicit right to life when the eighth is removed. That is a matter that would have to be separately resolved.

Triceratops Ballet

petalgumdrops wrote:

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.

Yes I understand what we're voting on, I know what a repeal means, I'm ready to vote to repeal, have been since my 18th birthday.

The 8th amendment is an abomination, how it got placed in the constitution in the first place is deeply disturbing and its long overdue for repealing

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

What is it if not human before birth? It was created by two humans yet you seem to be suggesting that it suddenly becomes human upon birth?

It's a foetus, not a human being which occurs on birth, that's when it gets a PPS number etc.

We can continue posting like this if you want but it'll just be a waste of your bandwidth and time

Trasna1

NuMarvel wrote: »

The courts have shown they are slow to legislate from the bench in matters of social policy, eg recent cases on surrogacy and the right to die.

What case law exists that would support the notion that the courts would strike down term limits as unconstitutional?

They're is no case law because the 8th would have prevented it. In my opinion the right to bodily integrity which is moderated at present by the rights afforded the unborn by the 8th, would imply that a person would have a right to abortion treatment, up to the point of viability at least,

petalgumdrops

Still wondering how the 8th managed to save your child's life. From your posts even news of FFA did not influence your decision to carry to term as is your right.

Sorry? So if I told you I got pregnant by accident and was forced to travel to london I.Would be more deserving of telling you the 8th had an affect on me?

How can you dare speculate on whether I wanted to carry to term or not? Whether I had the means to travel or not or whether I even had the physical ability to travel. Would love to see you question a woman who "could" travel. Please don't even respond to me again.

NuMarvel

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Their response to me in relation to increasing 12 week limit;

...

'The trouble is that if the government doesn't replace it quickly, it could be challenged in the Supreme Court. Because the constitution will have changed once the Amendment is repealed, the current legislation will be unconstitutional'

'So the government really should act quickly after the referendum to avoid any uncertainty in the law'

And yet, here's what two of their members say on a public blog:

A vote for repeal will not create a legal vacuum. The current legislation (the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013) will continue to operate until a new law for the regulation of abortion is introduced.

So on one hand a public post that clearly says it won't be unconstitutional, and on the other a poster claiming she's got an email that says otherwise. I wonder which one is more reliable...

petalgumdrops

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Yes I understand what we're voting on, I know what a repeal means, I'm ready to vote to repeal, have been since my 18th birthday.

The 8th amendment is an abomination, how it got placed in the constitution in the first place is deeply disturbing and its long overdue for repealing

Completely respect your decision

petalgumdrops

NuMarvel wrote: »

And yet, here's what two of their members say on a public blog:



So on one hand a public post that clearly says it won't be unconstitutional, and on the other a poster claiming she's got an email that says otherwise. I wonder which one is more reliable...

Seems it doesn't suit your narrative? Also not an email Facebook messenger 😊

Ave Sodalis

petalgumdrops wrote:

Sorry? So if I told you I got pregnant by accident and was forced to travel to london I.Would be more deserving of telling you the 8th had an affect on me?

Nobody is saying that either, you seem determined to twist people's words. You are the original person to dismiss anyone else's story and yet the reason the 8th is being repealed is due to the other stories and the ones travelling England. It's great that it worked out for you but it's questionable how much of an impact the 8th had on that, and it has little to know baring on the fact that there are women who do not get misdiagnosed and have to suffer through it.

petalgumdrops

NuMarvel wrote: »

And yet, here's what two of their members say on a public blog:



So on one hand a public post that clearly says it won't be unconstitutional, and on the other a poster claiming she's got an email that says otherwise. I wonder which one is more reliable...

Perhaps you could maybe ask them a specific question rather than inferring your own meanings

Trasna1

NuMarvel wrote: »

And yet, here's what two of their members say on a public blog:



So on one hand a public post that clearly says it won't be unconstitutional, and on the other a poster claiming she's got an email that says otherwise. I wonder which one is more reliable...

The question is though, that in the absence of the 8th is the 2013 act constitutional? In the absence of the 8th, does the right to bodily integrity infer a right to abortion?

I'm not sure if the original act was ever constitutionally tested, perhaps someone here will know.

petalgumdrops

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Still wondering how the 8th managed to save your child's life. From your posts even news of FFA did not influence your decision to carry to term as is your right.

Sorry? So if I told you I got pregnant by accident and was forced to travel to london I.Would be more deserving of telling you the 8th had an affect on me?

How can you dare speculate on whether I wanted to carry to term or not? Whether I had the means to travel or not or whether I even had the physical ability to travel. Would love to see you question a woman who "could" travel. Please don't even respond to me again.

I'm not sure how if you got pregnant by accident you would be forced to travel, unless you mean you would have an abortion in this case and are prevented by the 8th to availing of the service here.

As for the rest of your post your pretty much describing the situation that some women face in that they cannot travel for certain reasons but wish to have an abortion but are not permitted to do so due to the 8th.

Why would I be questioning a woman who decided to travel, her reasons for travelling are their own.

You stated that your child (thankfully) is still alive because of the 8th but surely your beliefs and personal decision also played a part?

January

Let.me ask you a few questions petalgumdrops, if I may?

What ffa was your baby misdiagnosed with?

By which method?

Were you preparing to travel to England when you found out about the diagnosis?

Did you seek a second opinion yourself or were you offered further diagnostic testing which picked up the misdiagnosis?

January

I also see that aul Bertie hasn't bothered to come back and reply to JDD...

seamus

It took 33 years, several maternal deaths, a corpse being used as an incubator, hundreds of thousands of tragic stories and decades of tireless campaigning to get politicians to even *consider* the abortion question in Ireland.

Simple fact is that once repeal is through and the legislation in place, no Irish government for fifty years will do anything but tweak the legislation slightly to correct errors and omissions. We know this because the past informs us that this is so.

Claims about what they could theoretically do are nothing but hysterical scaremongering

Trasna1

seamus wrote: »

It took 33 years, several maternal deaths, a corpse being used as an incubator, hundreds of thousands of tragic stories and decades of tireless campaigning to get politicians to even *consider* the abortion question in Ireland.

Simple fact is that once repeal is through and the legislation in place, no Irish government for fifty years will do anything but tweak the legislation slightly to correct errors and omissions. We know this because the past informs us that this is so.

Claims about what they could theoretically do are nothing but hysterical scaremongering

I wouldn't agree. Divorce was very contentious and we are looking at a major overhaul of the law in this area in the next year or so, some 20, not 50 years after the referendum. And campaigning on divorce effectively stopped after the referendum.

I still see both sides battling away after this referendum, whatever way it goes. The law will be continuing to evolve

petalgumdrops

DubInMeath wrote: »

I'm not sure how if you got pregnant by accident you would be forced to travel.

As for the rest of your post your pretty much describing the situation that some women face in that they cannot travel for certain reasons but wish to have an abortion but are not permitted to do so due to the 8th.

Why would I be questioning a woman who decided to travel, her reasons for travelling are their own.

You stated that your child (thankfully) is still alive because of the 8th but surely your beliefs and personal decision also played a part?

By that standard whether we terminate or not is all based on beliefs and personal decision?

I have no personal ethos on terminations bar that for healthy babies there should be a limit.

Abortion in ireland was not something that was offered to me. It did not inform doctors practice on how my case was dealt with at a time when I was at my most vulnerable. Had I have been in England and based on how fetal medicine there had pushed reccomendation for termination- I would have grabbed it with both hands . When you are told your baby is one if only 4 cases ever to be born alive then you can't tell me that the 8th didn't have an impact on my outcome. Simlarily like how I can't tell other women that the 8th didn't impact negatively on them. It seems that this group will pledge undying faith and will not question the stories that support their narrative. '
The depts of despair is all I can describe what we went through.
I know that women also mention that having full bodily autonomy in maternity care is also an issue related to the 8th. That interventions are carried out against their will.
I didn't want my birth to go the way it did, my baby was being born earlier than I wanted and fear and panic took over for me. If intervening in the way they did to save both my life and my childs then yes the 8th saved him. I didn't want the level of intervention I received but we are here.

Until you hear a doctor telling you that your baby has no chance of life, that death is certain that termination would be easier on you, that you can try again -all while not being able to do anything about it then you can tell me that I'm wrong.

The biggest travesty of these issues are public couselling waiting lists meant I suffered immensely because of it...... or maybe I didn't shout the loudest.

Leaving this thread now before I'm asked to produce my CVS and Amniocenthese reports

petalgumdrops

January wrote: »

Let.me ask you a few questions petalgumdrops, if I may?

What ffa was your baby misdiagnosed with?

By which method?

Were you preparing to travel to England when you found out about the diagnosis?

Did you seek a second opinion yourself or were you offered further diagnostic testing which picked up the misdiagnosis?

January I think I actually spoke.privately to you about this in the pregnancy forum 2 years ago when it was diagnosed.

Intially something was detected as being not right at 12 week scan. High NT, shortening of nasal bone which they said could suggest DS.
CVS FISH result for 12, 18, 21 came back clear but was called in and told Trisomy (ill pm you the number as my case is only one of 11 so it will identify me) confirmed on CVS. So rare that they couldn't tell impact except it was very bad. Fetal medicine in london lab suggested termination. Geneticist in crumlin took on my case and for complete clarity an amino was done but as with how rare the case was I would have to wait weeks rather than the 10/12 days some people waited. Waiting period between results of CVS and Amnio was obviously horrific as I needed to ne at least 15/16 weeks for amnio.

You might remember talking to me before

petalgumdrops

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Nobody is saying that either, you seem determined to twist people's words. You are the original person to dismiss anyone else's story and yet the reason the 8th is being repealed is due to the other stories and the ones travelling England. It's great that it worked out for you but it's questionable how much of an impact the 8th had on that, and it has little to know baring on the fact that there are women who do not get misdiagnosed and have to suffer through it.

If you read any of my posts you will actually see that I clearly said that........ everyone has their story

horseburger

DubInMeath wrote: »

It's a foetus, not a human being which occurs on birth, that's when it gets a PPS number etc.

We can continue posting like this if you want but it'll just be a waste of your bandwidth and time

Not a foetus that is also human?

Ave Sodalis

petalgumdrops wrote:

If you read any of my posts you will actually see that I clearly said that........ everyone has their story

Which, in context of what you were replying to, seems like a dismissal of those stories.

NuMarvel

Trasna1 wrote: »

They're is no case law because the 8th would have prevented it. In my opinion the right to bodily integrity which is moderated at present by the rights afforded the unborn by the 8th, would imply that a person would have a right to abortion treatment, up to the point of viability at least,

If there is no case law, then what would a person challenging the law base their case on? It's not enough for someone to say they're challenging a law and there should be no term limits; they have to support their arguments.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Perhaps you could maybe ask them a specific question rather than inferring your own meanings

I don't need to. The meaning of their post couldn't be clearer. There is no legal vacuum after a Yes win. The current law remains in place until it's changed.

Trasna1 wrote: »

The question is though, that in the absence of the 8th is the 2013 act constitutional? In the absence of the 8th, does the right to bodily integrity infer a right to abortion?

I'm not sure if the original act was ever constitutionally tested, perhaps someone here will know.

Acts passed by the Oireachtas have the presumption of constitutionality, and that includes the 2013 Act after the 8th is replaced. It has to be proven that acts are unconstitutional, i.e. they contravene a provision of the constitution.

petalgumdrops

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Which, in context of what you were replying to, seems like a dismissal of those stories.

So you say that I dismissed every ither story and now yoy say it "seems" a dismissal.

Nobody's story is dismissed I said clearly consensus will never be met by Yes/No side and regardless of all the 100s of stories this is a matter of individual conscience.... but you seem to want to have the last word.