The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

robarmstrong

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Most of the no posters have either " love both " or " save the 8th " on em stating who they re from.

... They're still illegal if they're placed on ESB/eir poles.

They still lack the publishers and printers name, all they do is list the campaigners names.

ohnonotgmail

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Most of the no posters have either " love both " or " save the 8th " on em stating who they re from.

they require the name of the printer as well.

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I read those but what I'm asking is, does the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 not legislate for those type of scenarios already?

not all of them no, hospitals can still act without the consent of their pregnant patients, they don't actually even have to inform them because they have no right to consent. They can also refuse lifesaving treatments to patients who are pregnant as it might go against the right to life of the unborn. None of this has anything to do with abortion, but is a direct result of the 8th amendment

v638sg7k1a92bx

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

not all of them no, hospitals can still act without the consent of their pregnant patients, they don't actually even have to inform them because they have no right to consent. They can also refuse lifesaving treatments to patients who are pregnant as it might go against the right to life of the unborn. None of this has anything to do with abortion, but is a direct result of the 8th amendment

Act without consent as in do nothing an not carry out an abortion?

ohnonotgmail

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Act without consent as in do nothing an not carry out an abortion?

perhaps do some reading yourself and avoid the trickle of questions?

to answer specifically on medical consent for pregnant women.

http://parentsforchoice.ie/the-8th-amendment-and-maternity-care/

The HSE’s National Consent Policy restricts informed consent and informed refusal of treatment for pregnant women. To quote the policy page 41, Section 7.7.1 “because of the Constitutional provisions on the right to life of the unborn [Article 40.3.3] there is significant legal uncertainty regarding a pregnant woman’s right to [consent]”. This section of the policy allows the HSE to apply for injunctions from the High Court which compel pregnant women to receive treatment where they do not consent to proposed treatment plans, whether these are in line with international best practice or not.

Zubeneschamali

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I read those but what I'm asking is, does the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 not legislate for those type of scenarios already?

No, it just puts into law the Supreme Court ruling in the X case from the 90s.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

Act without consent as in do nothing an not carry out an abortion?

no as in nothing to do with abortion at all. The 8th amendment affects every single pregnancy that happens in Ireland.
Act without consent as in c sections when the woman wants a natural birth (because the consultant has a schedule) excessive episiotomy etc

v638sg7k1a92bx

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's a but of a non sequitur as the debate isn't focused around women being forced to have c sections...

ohnonotgmail

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

That's a but of a non sequitur as the debate isn't focused around women being forced to have c sections...

you asked a question about how the 8th impacts on womens healthcare. you are told that it can result in women forced to have c-sections. and somehow that is non-sequitar? i can see exactly how this is going to go.

robarmstrong

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

That's a but of a non sequitur as the debate isn't focused around women being forced to have c sections...

It's subtly pointing out that women do not seem to have a say/choice in their pregnancies in Ireland.

Triceratops Ballet

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

That's a but of a non sequitur as the debate isn't focused around women being forced to have c sections...

The debate is about repealing or not repealing the 8th amendment, these are consequences of the 8th amendment, they are very much relevant to the debate, it could be argued they're more relevant to the debate than all the back and forth about abortion and when life begins

blanch152

robarmstrong wrote: »

There's a difference, person in the first video was removing a poster that was legally placed there.

The pro-life posters are in breach of an act and are therefore illegal, fair game.

Does anyone have a link to the regulations on posters?

To be fair to the guy taking down the Yes posters, I seem to recall something about minimum height, maybe 8-10 feet above the ground. The fact that he was able to reach them without standing on a ladder may mean they are illegal.

ohnonotgmail

blanch152 wrote: »

Does anyone have a link to the regulations on posters?

To be fair to the guy taking down the Yes posters, I seem to recall something about minimum height, maybe 8-10 feet above the ground. The fact that he was able to reach them without standing on a ladder may mean they are illegal.

even if they are illegal that does not give him the right to take them down. two wrongs dont make a right and all that.

dublin city council rules

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-your-council-register-vote/election-postering

volchitsa

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

NuMarvel wrote: »

FYI, there have a few posters who have started off on that track when it's become clear it just a tactic to wind people up or disrupt the thread. As such, it's hard for the rest of us to separate the genuine posters with questions from the messers, especially when they're new to the thread.

Can I suggest that you expand a little bit more on your own thoughts and position first to help the rest of us understand where you're coming from. You'll probably get better answers too because it'll give us some context as to where your question is coming from.

My understanding was that that after Savita Halappanavar's inquest we have the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which is suppose to st out the circumstances when a woman can have an abortion. Does this not mitigate the health risk argument that is being put forward especially when the risk is as a result of the abortion rather than the pregnancy? In summary, what will repeal achieve that the Act doesn't if the argument for repeal is a healthcare issue?

No it doesn't. It doesn't change the law, which says that the woman's health is not a good enough reason for terminating a pregnancy, even when she is miscarrying. In fact it's not clear that another Savita would be any safer tomorrow than the original one was, and that is largely because the law was not written with her in mind, but was the result of the A, B and C cases in the ECHR (or ECJ perhaps?) which found against Ireland.

The only way that a risk to health can be taken into account is by repealing.
By the way, what do you mean by "when the risk is as a result of the abortion rather than the pregnancy"?

NuMarvel

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

My understanding was that...

A phrase commonly used by posters who turn out to be messers, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

My understanding was that that after Savita Halappanavar's inquest we have the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act which is suppose to st out the circumstances when a woman can have an abortion. Does this not mitigate the health risk argument that is being put forward especially when the risk is as a result of the abortion rather than the pregnancy?

The Act sets out the circumstances in which a woman has an abortion. As I described earlier, that's when there's a real and substantial risk to her life. This is not the same as a risk to her health, as the courts said in the X Case.

If doctors think there's a risk to a woman's life, they can carry out an abortion in accordance with the Act. If they think there's a risk to her health, even if it's a serious risk that could result in a life long condition or disability, they can't. She either continues with the pregnancy, or travels overseas if she has the means to do so.

A question for you. Leaving aside what the law does or doesn't allow for the time being, in your opinion, when do you think a woman should be able to have an abortion?

v638sg7k1a92bx

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you asked a question about how the 8th impacts on womens healthcare. you are told that it can result in women forced to have c-sections. and somehow that is non-sequitar? i can see exactly how this is going to go.

The debate is not taking place within the context of women being forced to have c sections. For example, if legislation was introduced which addressed your concerns around medical consent, would you still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

Rogelio Tinkling Cue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

The debate is not taking place within the context of women being forced to have c sections. For example, if legislation was introduced which addressed your concerns around medical consent, would you still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

the government cannot enact legislation that is unconstitutional.
therefore the 8th amendment has to be repealed.

NuMarvel

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

The debate is not taking place within the context of women being forced to have c sections. For example, if legislation was introduced which addressed your concerns around medical consent, would you still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

But the 8th has resulted in at least one case where the HSE sought a court order to carry out a c-section against a woman's will. And while the judge declined it in that instance, that's not a guarantee other applications to the courts would have the same outcome.

The 8th isn't just about abortion, it can affect all pregnancies and as has been pointed out to you already, it affects women's capacity to freely give or withhold consent during pregnancy. That can't be remedied without a Yes vote in the referendum.

v638sg7k1a92bx

NuMarvel wrote: »

A phrase commonly used by posters who turn out to be messers, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time.



The Act sets out the circumstances in which a woman has an abortion. As I described earlier, that's when there's a real and substantial risk to her life. This is not the same as a risk to her health, as the courts said in the X Case.

If doctors think there's a risk to a woman's life, they can carry out an abortion in accordance with the Act. If they think there's a risk to her health, even if it's a serious risk that could result in a life long condition or disability, they can't. She either continues with the pregnancy, or travels overseas if she has the means to do so.

A question for you. Leaving aside what the law does or doesn't allow for the time being, in your opinion, when do you think a woman should be able to have on?

So if legislation was introduced that facilitated termination in cases where there is a risk to a woman's health would that not satisfy both sides of the debate? I think most rationale people would accept that the mothers health/life should be a priority. Would that type of legislation not mitigate the concerns of pro life advocates who believe that abortion is taking a human life. I think most people who would lean towards an anti abortion position would accept that in circumstances where a mothers health or life was in jeopardy.

v638sg7k1a92bx

bubblypop wrote: »

the government cannot enact legislation that is unconstitutional.
therefore the 8th amendment has to be repealed.

We've amended the constitution numerous times?

Rogelio Tinkling Cue

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

We've amended the constitution numerous times?

amending the constitution isn't enacting leglislation.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

So if legislation was introduced that facilitated termination in cases where there is a risk to a woman's health would that not satisfy both sides of the debate? I think most rationale people would accept that the mothers health/life should be a priority. Would that type of legislation not mitigate the concerns of pro life advocates who believe that abortion is taking a human life. I think most people who would lean towards an anti abortion position would accept that in circumstances where a mothers health or life was in jeopardy.

That legislation would be impossible because it would contradict the constitution, specifically the 8th amendment. The 8th amendment impacts all maternity care because of the way it's worded, which is very awkward for the PLC. The 8th amendment needs to be repealed in order to draft the legislation you're in favour of.

v638sg7k1a92bx

NuMarvel wrote: »

But the 8th has resulted in at least one case where the HSE sought a court order to carry out a c-section against a woman's will. And while the judge declined it in that instance, that's not a guarantee other applications to the courts would have the same outcome.

The 8th isn't just about abortion, it can affect all pregnancies and as has been pointed out to you already, it affects women's capacity to freely give or withhold consent during pregnancy. That can't be remedied without a Yes vote in the referendum.

Surely the HSE didn't take out an injunction to to perform a c section just for the craic! I'm going out on a limb here but I would hazard a guess and say that the doctors and staff in the HSE who applied for that injunction were doing so based on their professional judgement. We rely on doctors to make these type of judgements all the time because we recognise that this is part of their job. There are many examples of when doctors carry out procedures in operating theatres or in after serious car accidents where medical consent is not given but we rely on them as professionals to use their professional judgement.

Are we really saying that we need to amend the 8th amendment because a woman may be forced to have a c section against her will, is that really the issue here?

NuMarvel

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

So if legislation was introduced that facilitated termination in cases where there is a risk to a woman's health would that not satisfy both sides of the debate? I think most rationale people would accept that the mothers health/life should be a priority. Would that type of legislation not mitigate the concerns of pro life advocates who believe that abortion is taking a human life. I think most people who would lean towards an anti abortion position would accept that in circumstances where a mothers health or life was in jeopardy.

Before we continue, can I get an answer to my question to you first. Fair's fair

NuMarvel wrote: »

A question for you. Leaving aside what the law does or doesn't allow for the time being, in your opinion, when do you think a woman should be able to have an abortion?

It wasnt me123

baylah17 wrote: »

but I will put you om ignore from here on in and advise others to do similarly.

I already did that to him and thinking of adding few more to the list. If you stop answering their questions, which they just amend and then ask the same think again, under the guise of being on the fence or voting yes BUT....., life can be much quieter.

Repeal all the way - no busy body has any say in my body

v638sg7k1a92bx

bubblypop wrote: »

amending the constitution isn't enacting leglislation.

Misael Echoing Horse wrote: »

That legislation would be impossible because it would contradict the constitution, specifically the 8th amendment. The 8th amendment impacts all maternity care because of the way it's worded, which is very awkward for the PLC. The 8th amendment needs to be repealed in order to draft the legislation you're in favour of.

But rather than having a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment, could a referendum not be held to amend the text and add an article to the constitution that allowed for terminations in cases where the mothers health was at risk?

Would you be willing to accept those circumstances?

v638sg7k1a92bx

NuMarvel wrote: »

Before we continue, can I get an answer to my question to you first. Fair's fair

I don't think it's for me to say when a woman should have an abortion.

I'm actually thinking of abstaining from the vote and from speaking to a few friends and colleagues who are on the fence they're considering doing the same.

Sofiztikated

Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »

I don't think it's for me to say when a woman should have an abortion.

I'm actually thinking of abstaining from the vote.

But its fair to say when she shouldn't?

v638sg7k1a92bx

Sofiztikated wrote: »

But its fair to say when she shouldn't?

I don't believe I said that...