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…274275277279280…325

Comments

  • Options
    #8282
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    professore wrote: »
    And putting the 8th in the constitution reflected the opinions of people AT THE TIME. It worked extremely well for what it was designed to do.

    The 8th was meant to prevent a constitutional right to abortion being found, and ended up being the basis of one.

    Its resulted in injunctions on the distribution of information and on accessing an abortion abroad, both of which required referendums to overturn. It's meant that on at least two instances, families in absolutely horrible situations had to go through the courts to get some basic dignity (X Case and Ms P). It continues to put us in breach of internationally recognised human rights. And it's means that pregnant women don't have the same right of consent that the rest of us enjoy when receiving medical treatment.

    It has not be any measure "worked extremely well" and the sooner we see the back of it, the better.


  • Options
    #8283
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    It worked so well we had 2 further referendums to correct problems caused by the 8th?

    I was going to say 4, but in fairness, the two we passed were to fix problems, the two we rejected were to make the problems worse.


  • Options
    #8284
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,458 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    There was no problem with same sex marriage?

    This is very likely to fail too. The Referendum Commission said so themselves. Basically no one really knows what the position will be after the 8th is repealed.

    the constitutional amendment around marriage was a lot simpler. Everybody understands what
    Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

    means. There is no ambiguity. The 8th was nothing but ambiguity.


  • Options
    #8285
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    professore wrote: »
    There was no problem with same sex marriage?

    This is very likely to fail too. The Referendum Commission said so themselves. Basically no one really knows what the position will be after the 8th is repealed.

    Have you been drinking?


  • Options
    #8286
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    The Yes side are tolerant towards everyone's beliefs. Its the No side that are restrictive and controlling.
    You can vote yes and be against abortion and never avail of abortion services for the rest of your life - but you allow others who don't share your feelings get the healthcare they need.

    The No side are telling lies, using emotional blackmail and using graphic posters to manipulate people into agreeing with them. Its a really aggressive and forceful campaign that they are running.

    I agree with everything you are saying here except the first sentence. I don't believe the yes side (or the vocal ones at least) are tolerant of everyone's beliefs either. Try saying to someone on the Yes side you are thinking of voting no and see what happens.

    It's the old Hilary Clinton calling Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables" all over again. Well guess what, if someone thinks you are worthless anyway why prove them wrong?

    If the Yes side were clear about what they actually want then they would be far more convincing to the middle ground who are going to decide this vote. The middle ground meaning people like me - middle aged, registered to vote and actually votes in elections and referenda by thinking about it and not along ideological, religious or party lines. I'm the kind of person you need to convince. Insulting me isn't going to do it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8287
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Have you been drinking?

    No, just the Referendum Commission.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/no-guarantee-a-yes-vote-will-lead-to-abortion-up-to-12-weeks-watchdog-36838099.html
    The booklet states the legal effect of a Yes vote would be that the Oireachtas has full authority "to pass laws regulating the termination of pregnancy".

    "These laws need not limit the availability of termination to circumstances where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. Any law may be changed by the Oireachtas," the commission says.

    The clear outline of the referendum is likely to be seized upon by No campaigners who argue that a future Dáil could extend the availability of abortion beyond the first trimester.

    It also reinforces the fact that TDs and senators may not be able to reach agreement on what type of legislation should be passed, in which case the existing laws will apply even if the Eighth Amendment is repealed.


  • Options
    #8288
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    professore wrote: »
    Basically no one really knows what the position will be after the 8th is repealed.

    It's pretty clear what the position will be after the 8th is replaced. The Oireachtas will be able to legislate.


  • Options
    #8289
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,458 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    No, just the Referendum Commission.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/no-guarantee-a-yes-vote-will-lead-to-abortion-up-to-12-weeks-watchdog-36838099.html

    you posted that already.


  • Options
    #8290
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,458 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    I agree with everything you are saying here except the first sentence. I don't believe the yes side (or the vocal ones at least) are tolerant of everyone's beliefs either. Try saying to someone on the Yes side you are thinking of voting no and see what happens.

    It's the old Hilary Clinton calling Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables" all over again. Well guess what, if someone thinks you are worthless anyway why prove them wrong?

    If the Yes side were clear about what they actually want then they would be far more convincing to the middle ground who are going to decide this vote. The middle ground meaning people like me - middle aged, registered to vote and actually votes in elections and referenda by thinking about it and not along ideological, religious or party lines. I'm the kind of person you need to convince. Insulting me isn't going to do it.

    nobody needs to convince you of anything. you need to make your own decision.


  • Options
    #8291
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    you posted that already.

    Yeah well Zubeneschamali seemed to think I was making stuff up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8292
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    professore wrote: »
    No, just the Referendum Commission.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/no-guarantee-a-yes-vote-will-lead-to-abortion-up-to-12-weeks-watchdog-36838099.html
    Right, so RefCom have pointed out exactly what the position will be after a repeal.

    So your statement was a flat-out lie.


  • Options
    #8293
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    professore wrote: »
    There was no problem with same sex marriage?

    This is very likely to fail too. The Referendum Commission said so themselves. Basically no one really knows what the position will be after the 8th is repealed.


    The mothers right to her life and health will no longer be restricted by the 8th if this passes.
    That is a cert


  • Options
    #8294
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    professore wrote: »
    I agree with everything you are saying here except the first sentence. I don't believe the yes side (or the vocal ones at least) are tolerant of everyone's beliefs either. Try saying to someone on the Yes side you are thinking of voting no and see what happens.

    The Yes side is tolerant in that no-one who is pro-repeal will ever force someone to have an abortion against their will. With Repeal the individual is free to believe that abortion is wrong and no-one will force them to have one. Unlike the No side who would enforce their beliefs on everyone.


  • Options
    #8295
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    professore wrote: »
    Yeah well Zubeneschamali seemed to think I was making stuff up.

    You are. The referendum commission haven't said this referendum "is very likely to fail too." In fact that would be against the entire idea of being a neutral, impartial source of information!

    And it's also untrue to say "Basically no one really knows what the position will be after the 8th is repealed."


  • Options
    #8296
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the constitutional amendment around marriage was a lot simpler. Everybody understands what



    means. There is no ambiguity. The 8th was nothing but ambiguity.

    "There is no protection for a fetus before X weeks of gestation or in the case of fatal fetal abnormalities, or in the case that the mother's life will be endangered. In other cases the fetus will have the same rights as a living person."

    OK the terms I used aren't legal terms, but you get the gist. Pretty unambiguous I would say.


  • Options
    #8297
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    The Yes side are tolerant towards everyone's beliefs. Its the No side that are restrictive and controlling.
    You can vote yes and be against abortion and never avail of abortion services for the rest of your life - but you allow others who don't share your feelings get the healthcare they need.

    The No side are telling lies, using emotional blackmail and using graphic posters to manipulate people into agreeing with them. Its a really aggressive and forceful campaign that they are running.

    You might need to take step back. Yes is also using emotional blackmail. Yes is also aggressive and forceful. You're possibly entrenched in your beliefs.


  • Options
    #8298
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,458 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    "There is no protection for a fetus before X weeks of gestation or in the case of fatal fetal abnormalities, or in the case that the mother's life will be endangered. In other cases the fetus will have the same rights as a living person."

    OK the terms I used aren't legal terms, but you get the gist. Pretty unambiguous I would say.

    so you are happy for the mothers health to be endangered?


  • Options
    #8299
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,458 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You might need to take step back. Yes is also using emotional blackmail. Yes is also aggressive and forceful. You're possibly entrenched in your beliefs.


    the irony is unreal.


  • Options
    #8300
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    You are. The referendum commission haven't said this referendum "is very likely to fail too." In fact that would be against the entire idea of being a neutral, impartial source of information!

    That was my opinion on what they said. Another one of these idiots that likes winning an argument. Nice strawman.
    NuMarvel wrote: »
    And it's also untrue to say "Basically no one really knows what the position will be after the 8th is repealed."

    This isn't untrue. Other than the 8th not being in the constitution, no one really knows what the position will be. Quoting from the Indo article:
    It also reinforces the fact that TDs and senators may not be able to reach agreement on what type of legislation should be passed, in which case the existing laws will apply even if the Eighth Amendment is repealed.


  • Options
    #8301
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    http://35.197.238.155/ref2018/ Referendum Commission Website
    http://35.197.238.155/ref2018/refcom-guide-2018-english.pdf Referendum Commission Guide


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8302
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the irony is unreal.

    How so? I think you should read my posts more carefully


  • Options
    #8303
    baylah17
    Closed Accounts Posts: 790 ✭✭✭baylah17


    professore wrote: »
    That was my opinion on what they said. Another one of these idiots that likes winning an argument. Nice strawman.



    This isn't untrue. Other than the 8th not being in the constitution, no one really knows what the position will be. Quoting from the Indo article:

    Actually it is, since once the 8th is removed there will no longer be a Constitutional requirement of a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman as opposed to health of the woman.
    That, dear boy, is a huge change


  • Options
    #8304
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    so you are happy for the mothers health to be endangered?

    No of course I'm not. Could put in a proviso for that too. However would have to be serious health consequences, not stretch marks for example. This is where legislation could step in. As I said it could definitely be done to put this in the constitution. All academic at this point anyway.


  • Options
    #8305
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,074 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    It worked so well we had 2 further referendums to correct problems caused by the 8th? I dont think you really understand this at all if you are making statements like that.

    Its now at 5 in total
    Plus legal cases of
    Miss X, Miss A, Miss B, Miss C, Miss D, Amanda Mellett, Siobhan Whelan, Miss P, Miss Y

    And then of course the deaths of
    Sheila Hodgers, Savita Halapanavar, Bimbo Onanuga

    If the 8th is such a success how come all these cases ended up in the courts and all these women died?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #8306
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,458 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    That was my opinion on what they said. Another one of these idiots that likes winning an argument. Nice strawman.

    Can you clarify what they said that led you to believe that the referendum would fail?
    professore wrote: »

    This isn't untrue. Other than the 8th not being in the constitution, no one really knows what the position will be. Quoting from the Indo article:

    can you quote the actual line that says that?


  • Options
    #8307
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    professore wrote: »
    "There is no protection for a fetus before X weeks of gestation or in the case of fatal fetal abnormalities, or in the case that the mother's life will be endangered. In other cases the fetus will have the same rights as a living person."

    OK the terms I used aren't legal terms, but you get the gist. Pretty unambiguous I would say.

    I cannot see an attorney general worth their salt agreeing to letting a phrase like this anywhere near the constitution. This would open up a massive can of worms. It's basically saying the High Court was right in that recent deportation case.

    I can also see issues with the phrase fatal foetal abnormalities seeing as we're told by pro lifers that there is no such term.


  • Options
    #8308
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,458 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    professore wrote: »
    No of course I'm not. Could put in a proviso for that too. However would have to be serious health consequences, not stretch marks for example. This is where legislation could step in. As I said it could definitely be done to put this in the constitution. All academic at this point anyway.

    so already your proposed amendment is unmanageable. you cant use a phrase like "Serious health consequences" in the constitution without defining it. So you would end up with a long list of medical conditions in the constitution? can you see now why this was not proposed?


  • Options
    #8309
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,074 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    professore wrote: »
    There was no problem with same sex marriage?

    This is very likely to fail too. The Referendum Commission said so themselves. Basically no one really knows what the position will be after the 8th is repealed.
    What?

    The referendum commission said this will fail?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #8310
    zedhead
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭zedhead


    professore wrote: »
    No of course I'm not. Could put in a proviso for that too. However would have to be serious health consequences, not stretch marks for example. This is where legislation could step in. As I said it could definitely be done to put this in the constitution. All academic at this point anyway.

    How do you define what is serious? I mean there is a whole myriad of possibility between stretch marks and life threatening. Surely it is up to the woman to decide what sort of risk she is willing to take.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8311
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users Posts: 16,138 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I cannot see an attorney general worth their salt agreeing to letting a phrase like this anywhere near the constitution. This would open up a massive can of worms. It's basically saying the High Court was right in that recent deportation case.

    I can also see issues with the phrase fatal foetal abnormalities seeing as we're told by pro lifers that there is no such term.

    I wonder what the pro lifers would say if the carried a baby with anencephaly ? Some people truly have not got a bloody clue what they spout


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement