Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Options
1…194195197199200…325

Comments

  • Options
    #5882
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    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?

    we need to repeal the 8th amendment because it restricts the medical treatment a woman is given when she is pregnant.
    do you think women should have to go through unneccesary surgery?
    do you think women should have to have a pregnancy test before cancer treatment? if it is positive, what do you think happens to that womans medical treatment?
    do you think a woman should be left to suffer for days/weeks with a slow miscarraige that could cause serious problems?
    do you think a woman should be refused any medical treament because she is pregnant?

    do you really think a woman should actually be dying before her treatment is put first?


  • Options
    #5883
    It wasnt me123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭It wasnt me123


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    That's what I'm asking...

    Read the thread, all 5,000 posts and then come and ask your questions. Use the search top right and see what has been said - stop asking the same questions that have been answered time and time again. Spend a bit of time doing your own research if you are that bothered about the subject.


  • Options
    #5884
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    bubblypop wrote: »
    we need to repeal the 8th amendment because it restricts the medical treatment a woman is given when she is pregnant.
    do you think women should have to go through unneccesary surgery?
    do you think women should have to have a pregnancy test before cancer treatment? if it is positive, what do you think happens to that womans medical treatment?
    do you think a woman should be left to suffer for days/weeks with a slow miscarraige that could cause serious problems?
    do you think a woman should be refused any medical treament because she is pregnant?

    do you really think a woman should actually be dying before her treatment is put first?

    As I said, if the constitution was amended and a new article introduced which addressed the health concerns that you mention. Would that solution work for both sides?


  • Options
    #5885
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,553 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    As I said, if the constitution was amended and a new article introduced which addressed the health concerns that you mention. Would that solution work for both sides?

    Not particularly. There are far too many different valid reasons for having an abortion that we couldn't possibly constitutionalise all of them. Then when we account for rape victims, it's entirely unfair for them to expect to have to go through the legal system before getting an abortion, when that would leave it late term, or too late entirely.

    Is there a reason it needs to stay in the constitution at all, when very few countries do?


  • Options
    #5886
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    It wasnt me123 wrote: »
    Read the thread, all 5,000 posts and then come and ask your questions. Use the search top right and see what has been said - stop asking the same questions that have been answered time and time again. Spend a bit of time doing your own research if you are that bothered about the subject.

    I have but it seems that it's either all or nothing for both sides. If it were possible to amend the constitution rather than repealing the 8th but by amending the text or adding an article that gave precedence to the mothers health, would this not be amenable to both sides?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5887
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    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?

    In the case of Mother B, she was making an informed decision to refuse a cesarean based on the fact that she wanted a trial of labour to try to have a vaginal birth. She wasn't refusing a cesarean flat out, we all know multiple cesareans hold certain risks within themselves. In this case the baby was not in distress and there was no indication for a cesarean. Previous cesarean is not indication for repeat cesarean unless there is an emergent situation, of which there was none.

    The doctors had no reason to bring her to court, but they felt their hands were tied by the 8th into forcing her into a cesarean because if anything had happened to the baby they could have been found liable. Thankfully the judge disagreed and Mother B was allowed to labour until she consented to a cesarean.


  • Options
    #5888
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote:
    As I said, if the constitution was amended and a new article introduced which addressed the health concerns that you mention. Would that solution work for both sides?


    No because that's not what the constitution is for. The 8th never should have been put in in the first place religious lobbying is what got it there and it has to go.
    You can't have 2 constitutional articles that contradict each other either.
    It's a moot point anyway because we are having a referendum on the 8th amendment.


  • Options
    #5889
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    It wasnt me123 wrote: »
    Read the thread, all 5,000 posts and then come and ask your questions. Use the search top right and see what has been said - stop asking the same questions that have been answered time and time again. Spend a bit of time doing your own research if you are that bothered about the subject.

    Just reading the last two weeks would probably be enough, considering how often we get the "I'm just asking questions" brigade.

    Thing is, I can understand why someone would daunted by searching through a large thread like this and would just launch right in. It might be no harm doing an FAQ and ask the mods to sticky it to the first post or something. I can have a stab at one next week, but if anyone else wants to give it a go in the meantime, they're more than welcome!


  • Options
    #5890
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Ave Sodalis wrote: »
    Not particularly. There are far too many different valid reasons for having an abortion that we couldn't possibly constitutionalise all of them. Then when we account for rape victims, it's entirely unfair for them to expect to have to go through the legal system before getting an abortion, when that would leave it late term, or too late entirely.

    Is there a reason it needs to stay in the constitution at all, when very few countries do?

    But are we going to start legislating for marginal cases? The primary concern for pro choice advocates seems to be on health grounds. If those were addressed would this not account for the vast majority of instances that people are concerned about. How many women are impregnated as a result of being raped?


  • Options
    #5891
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    I have but it seems that it's either all or nothing for both sides. If it were possible to amend the constitution rather than repealing the 8th but by amending the text or adding an article that gave precedence to the mothers health, would this not be amenable to both sides?

    I don't think you have read the thread because the difficulties with this type of proposal have been addressed before by me and others. Your post gives no indication that you're read these comments or if you have, you're not paying any heed to what was said.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5892
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,238 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    As I said, if the constitution was amended and a new article introduced which addressed the health concerns that you mention. Would that solution work for both sides?

    No but it might help pro lifers who are in favor of abortion when the mothers life is in danger.
    The majority of pro lifers don't and abortion completely banned. They just don't want it to be unrestricted.
    However the pro life campaign is run by the zealots who take the most extreme views.

    As for the pro choicers. Moat want unrestricted access until week 12. Although they'd be happy with a relaxation of the existing rules they wouldn't stop campaigning.

    Personally though I think the constitution is the dumbest place to legislate for abortion. You will always find edge cases that aren't covered and it'll be impossible to legislate for them. Medical issues should not be covered in the constitution.


  • Options
    #5893
    pq0n1ct4ve8zf5
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    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?

    Absolutely not because first of all the last 35 years has shown that the constitution is not the place for maternity and healthcare issues. I'm sure (pretty much) nobody who was in favour of it foresaw or would have condoned shítshows like this or this, for example.

    If the 8th was amended to something like:
    The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life and health of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

    which I'd imagine is what you're talking about, it'd just lead to more dilemmas for doctors, more challenges to the courts on what constitutes a risk to health etc etc.

    Second of all, such an amendment would do nothing for people who need an abortion for reasons other than or not limited to their physical health. I am personally in favour of what's blithely referred to as abortion on demand or lifestyle abortions.


  • Options
    #5894
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    But are we going to start legislating for marginal cases? The primary concern for pro choice advocates seems to be on health grounds. If those were addressed would this not account for the vast majority of instances that people are concerned about. How many women are impregnated as a result of being raped?

    Yes, hopefully, we will start legislating for marginal cases, as that is what should happen. If it's taken out of the constitution and a situation arises where someone needs to access abortion and it's not currently covered under the current legislation, then legislation can be enacted without having to hold a referendum.


  • Options
    #5895
    dudara
    Registered Users Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    As I said, if the constitution was amended and a new article introduced which addressed the health concerns that you mention. Would that solution work for both sides?

    I don’t think that would be legally very smart. The 8th was a poor piece of lawmaking, and it has led to uncertainty. We should be seeking to legislate rather than have these cases in the constitution.


  • Options
    #5896
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,971 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Whatever side you are on the word COMPASSION should be there somewhere along with empathy too.

    It is very easy to jump up and down on the pro or anti side with all the slogans and so on. But to me this issue is a very personal one between the pregnant woman and her doctor.

    So to be honest everyone else can butt out and stop saying things like "it's a woman's choice", or " one in five" or whatever. But it's command and control I suppose.

    Honestly you would think that people have not thought this through and are incapable of deciding for themselves. I think personally there are too many men speaking about this, with due respect to the male gender.

    I do think at the end of the day, the more hectoring from the anti side will be counter productive, as will hectoring from the pro side.

    We are adults and quite capable of researching the issue and deciding for ourselves. I am sick of all this "you need to be told with pictures" quite frankly.


  • Options
    #5897
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    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.

    No, we have already had them on here saying that exceptions for the woman's health after 12 weeks means no restrictions whatever because doctors will simply lie about it so they must vote NO.

    So, anything which allows for the womans health or mental health is right out according to the pro-life crew.


  • Options
    #5898
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,971 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    dudara wrote: »
    I don’t think that would be legally very smart. The 8th was a poor piece of lawmaking, and it has led to uncertainty. We should be seeking to legislate rather than have these cases in the constitution.

    Moral issues have no place in the Constitution. The same should have applied to divorce IMO. Far too restrictive. But there are winds of change there too.

    We elect our TDs to legislate on our behalf. Strange as that might seem to some who expect every pothole to be fixed and forget about the big picture.

    A list system is what is needed sometime soon. Might concentrate the minds on a whole of country basis rather than local issues.

    I could go on..... but I will desist for now.


  • Options
    #5899
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    How many women are impregnated as a result of being raped?

    even if one woman got pregnant by rape, its disgusting that she cant be treated in her own country & that we make it worse by sending her away, further trauma to an already traumatised woman.
    same goes for FFA actually.


  • Options
    #5900
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,553 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    But are we going to start legislating for marginal cases? The primary concern for pro choice advocates seems to be on health grounds. If those were addressed would this not account for the vast majority of instances that people are concerned about. How many women are impregnated as a result of being raped?

    Are we going to put these "marginal cases" into the constitution?

    We have absolutely no idea how many people are impregnated as a result of rape. We don't even have a good stat on how many women are raped.

    To be honest, the biggest reason the 8th needs to go (in my opinion) is because it's a ridiculous piece of writing that should never have gone into the constitution in the first place. It has cause far far too much suffering and death of born Irish women. If any other piece of the constitution caused that many problems, it would be gone.


  • Options
    #5901
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    January wrote: »
    Yes, hopefully, we will start legislating for marginal cases, as that is what should happen. If it's taken out of the constitution and a situation arises where someone needs to access abortion and it's not currently covered under the current legislation, then legislation can be enacted without having to hold a referendum.

    Sorry not legislation, holding referendums.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5902
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    What I haven't been able to get to the bottom of is that if all the health risks, rape, cancer etc was addressed. Would choice* life advocates still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

    *amended


  • Options
    #5903
    amdublin
    Registered Users Posts: 20,653 ✭✭✭✭amdublin


    Michael Harding's thoughts on repealing the 8th:

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2070586469888433&id=1742154706064946


    "I trust women. If your child ends up in trouble, you don't turn her away and you don't blame her. You put your arms around her and you say no matter else , I will stand by you. and you say that not conditionally, not I will stand by you if I agree with what you're doing. You stand by your children ,you may not understand them , you may not undersatnd the complexity of why they want to do this that or the other but you stand by them not because you approve but because it's love, it's comapssion, it's care. To support somebody at a time when they need your support

    This country for too long has been putting people outside the door ,go to England if you're like that, get out of my house if you're like that, all that sort of way of excluding people didn't help anybody

    This article in the constitution was a bad idea and it didn't work, because women still go and have abortions, and the issue about repealing the eighth is about women's health , it's about having proper healthcare for women .... Do you put them outside the door.....do you say go off to England or somewhere else, or do you say, you're in a difficult situation, you've made a choice and I will stand by you ?"


  • Options
    #5904
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,553 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155434564661186&set=a.147974516185.128710.575761185&type=3&theater

    I love the idea of posters like this!


  • Options
    #5905
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    What I haven't been able to get to the bottom of is that if all the health risks, rape, cancer etc was addressed. Would pro life advocates still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

    i think you need to do some more reseach........

    unless there has been a big change in the pro life camp!


  • Options
    #5906
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,553 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    What I haven't been able to get to the bottom of is that if all the health risks, rape, cancer etc was addressed. Would pro life advocates still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

    Pro-choice I assume you mean?

    The 8th needs to go. Even if it meant abortion was legislated to be illegal after, I would still vote to get rid of the 8th.

    Adding patches to a major problem is not fixing it. It's like using cellotape to fix a crack in a foundation.


  • Options
    #5907
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    Sorry not legislation, holding referendums.
    We won't need to if the 8th is repealed because cases like that could be dealt with within legislation. Meaning no need for further referendums
    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    What I haven't been able to get to the bottom of is that if all the health risks, rape, cancer etc was addressed. Would pro life advocates still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

    I'm assuming you mean pro-choice advocates? Yes, I'd still want the 8th repealed because it goes beyond abortion in cases of health risk, rape, cancer etc.


  • Options
    #5908
    It wasnt me123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭It wasnt me123


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Just reading the last two weeks would probably be enough, considering how often we get the "I'm just asking questions" brigade.

    I'm sure it will be appreciated by the pro choice side - not sure it will make any difference to the "I'm voting yes but" or "i'm not sure how I'll vote but" as its fairly obvious they are pro life and just trying to wind us all up (it worked with me I have a few on block as I just couldn't deal with the same questions being asked over and over again).

    For the genuine people who want to way up all the information, it will be a good idea.


  • Options
    #5909
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    What I haven't been able to get to the bottom of is that if all the health risks, rape, cancer etc was addressed. Would pro life advocates still be in favour of repealing the 8th?
    No, because those running the pro life campaign believe that raped and pregnant children should be forced to carry to term and sick mothers required to risk their lives to give a foetus a chance instead.


  • Options
    #5910
    dudara
    Registered Users Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    Rogelio Tinkling Cue wrote: »
    What I haven't been able to get to the bottom of is that if all the health risks, rape, cancer etc was addressed. Would pro life advocates still be in favour of repealing the 8th?

    What about a woman that doesn’t want to be pregnant, because she is in education, doesn’t have enough money to support, doesn’t want to stop her career development, doesn’t want her husband to beat her etc. Can you write a piece of legislation that covers all the reasons a woman may not want to be pregnant.

    Legislating for minority cases is downright daft. It’s poor lawmaking


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5911
    v638sg7k1a92bx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭v638sg7k1a92bx


    Ave Sodalis wrote: »
    Pro-choice I assume you mean?

    The 8th needs to go. Even if it meant abortion was legislated to be illegal after, I would still vote to get rid of the 8th.

    Adding patches to a major problem is not fixing it. It's like using cellotape to fix a crack in a foundation.

    Yes pro choice. I amended the post.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement