The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

RobertKK

seamus wrote: »

Coveney this morning suggesting a "two-thirds lock" on any abortion regulations into the future.

In essence this would mean that any change to the abortion laws would require the consent of a two-thirds majority of the Dail.

It's not something I personally would prefer, but in terms of shutting down the "I don't trust politicians to legislate" or "It'll be abortion up to 60 weeks soon enough" crowd, it would be very effective.

The pro-life campaign would lose one of the last pillars of their campaign. Fair play to Coveney, it's a good idea.

What Simon Coveney proposes would raise questions other constitutional issues.

Article 15 11 1 states:
All questions in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting other than the Chairman or presiding member.

Given abortion would be outside the constitution, then what Simon Coveney is proposing would be unconstitutional and would need another referendum to change the 15th amendment, our democracy is based on a simple majority over 50%.
If we were to apply what Simon Coveney proposes to referendums for example, a lot of referendums that had passed would have failed, so it would be a bit of a pandora's box changing from what we always used, who is to decide in the future whether a 50% plus vote is applied or a 66% plus vote applied.
One could have a Taoiseach with a majority and bring in rules that a 66% is applied if there is a motion of no confidence.
Whatever side one is on, I think the 66% idea is not a good idea and is unconstitutional.

Ave Sodalis

Thankfully (somewhat), the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act means that physical illnesses like cancer is now a grounds for abortion if an obstetrician and another medical expert deem the illness is life threatening without treatment that would harm the foetus.

It's a bit flimsy and completely open to interpretation, but it's better than nothing.

baylah17

RobertKK wrote: »

What Simon Coveney proposes would raise questions other constitutional issues.

Article 15 11 1 states:
All questions in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting other than the Chairman or presiding member.

Given abortion would be outside the constitution, then what Simon Coveney is proposing would be unconstitutional and would need another referendum to change the 15th amendment, our democracy is based on a simple majority over 50%.
If we were to apply what Simon Coveney proposes to referendums for example, a lot of referendums that had passed would have failed, so it would be a bit of a pandora's box changing from what we always used, who is to decide in the future whether a 50% plus vote is applied or a 66% plus vote applied.
One could have a Taoiseach with a majority and bring in rules that a 66% is applied if there is a motion of no confidence.
Whatever side one is on, I think the 66% idea is not a good idea and is unconstitutional.

Never thought I would say this, but I agree with Robert.

Zubeneschamali

January wrote: »

Coveneys literal 180 degree turn has surprised me so much.

You have to remember that FG as a whole were very anti-abortion. Lucinda Creighton burned a ministerial career and possible future leadership/Taoiseach position because FG were not anti-abortion enough for her.

Varadkar has an MD, is young enough and his Dad is an Indian immigrant - I strongly suspect that his anti-abortion views were always just to line up with the parties core vote, while Coveney is more traditional FG.

Yeah_Right

preacher2 wrote: »

What? I am not asking for you to build me a rocket ship here, I am not here trying to argue with you, which you are clearly trying to do with me and I promise it wont end well.

Just bring me a basic argument for abortion. 1 argument, I seen a women do it a few posts up but Im not sure if shes here for a debate.

Most of you people dont want to listen so I am asking for one of you to come to a debate here.

One argument for abortion? Okay, here's one.

We were 2 consenting adults enjoying a sexual relationship. We weren't married and did not want to be in an exclusive relationship with each other (or anyone at that time) :eek: We did not want children (or STIs) so we used protection. She still got pregnant. So she had an abortion. We carried on with our lives and we are happy and content. I believe (going by FB posts) she is now married with a couple of kids. And I'm in a loving relationship myself. It all worked out for the better because abortion was a safe and legal option.

Zerbini Blewitt

david75 wrote: »

Seriiusly?? That’s appalling

I think it’s far, far worse than appalling!

I think the 8th amendment is legalised criminality (for the cancer treatment reason alone but also for all the other reasons listed throughout the thread eg. FFA) and makes Ireland an outlaw state amongst the civilised countries of the world.

Other than this one area: coercing women to be incubators against their will, this is a modern civilised country.

Madscientist30

Ismisejack wrote: »

Using positive words such as choice etc and calling unborn child fetus etc is pro abortion contingents way of making abortion sound less inhumane than it actually is

Using positive catchphrases such as "love both" and "pro-life" is the anti-choice contingents way of making forced pregnancy and the degradation of women sound less inhumane than it actually is.

January

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Thankfully (somewhat), the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act means that physical illnesses like cancer is now a grounds for abortion if an obstetrician and another medical expert deem the illness is life threatening without treatment that would harm the foetus.

It's a bit flimsy and completely open to interpretation, but it's better than nothing.

No the actual life has to be at threat not just without treatment. Like imminently at threat. Don't forget the poldp kept a woman force fed by tubes until the pregnancy became viable so they could perform a c section on a woman.

nice_guy80

Coveney is just playing to his conservative fg constituency base imho

he probably wants to support it but doesn't want to appear too liberal

its funny that politicians don't even seem to trust fellow politicians

seamus

RobertKK wrote: »

What Simon Coveney proposes would raise questions other constitutional issues.

Yeah, unfortunately that does appear to be the case. Seems like a very simple thing for him to have overlooked before making this recommendation though, so I wonder if this is something that's already been resolved as a possibility elsewhere.

Or has he made the mistake of having a great idea and running to the media before the lawyers?

david75

Weirdly timed comment from coveney given the attorney generals bizarre rant the other day

Ave Sodalis

January wrote: »

No the actual life has to be at threat not just without treatment. Like imminently at threat. Don't forget the poldp kept a woman force fed by tubes until the pregnancy became viable so they could perform a c section on a woman.

Is that not a separate section to the act? It seems to have physical illness, and then emergency physical illness.

RobertKK

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, unfortunately that does appear to be the case. Seems like a very simple thing for him to have overlooked before making this recommendation though, so I wonder if this is something that's already been resolved as a possibility elsewhere.

Or has he made the mistake of having a great idea and running to the media before the lawyers?

I think he felt himself being in a corner and had this idea as being an exit from it.
The Dail would need a separate debate on the 15th amendment, no work has been done on that and for it to be workable the way Coveney wants it, it would have needed to have been put to the people and passed before the 8th amendment referendum.
So yeah I think he did as you say, overlooked a key part of our democracy that is written into our constitution and didn't think it through.

Amirani

No issues with Coveney changing position on abortion, I actually think it can often be viewed as commendable when politicians change views on issues in light of new information etc.

The two-thirds majority thing is a poorly-thought out proposal though and I disagree with it.

January

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Is that not a separate section to the act? It seems to have physical illness, and then emergency physical illness.

That's what the act says but again we've seen it in motion where rather than give a woman an abortion because she was suicidal they held her against her will until the pregnancy was viable.

Coveney's proposal is ridiculous and thankfully it appears to be unconstitutional. To think that repeal could win the referendum and yet the pro-life minority in the Dail would be allowed continue dictating to women, it's just appalling. I'm sure Coveney himself knows it and is just trying to appease the prolifers after his comments yesterday.

Ave Sodalis

January wrote: »

That's what the act says but again we've seen it in motion where rather than give a woman an abortion because she was suicidal they held her against her will until the pregnancy was viable.

Oh absolutely, which is why I said it's flimsy and completely open to interpretation.

nozzferrahhtoo

preacher2 wrote: »

So go ahead and give me a reason babies should be killed.

I am not clear what the military has to do with any of this, or your need to bring it up. So I will leave that mostly aside and correct some of your other misconceptions.

The biggest misconception you have is demonstrated in the sentence you write here above. No one is saying "babies should be killed". Quite the opposite as the majority of people who are pro-choice and the majority of people who are anti-choice share a common goal. We all want less (ideally no) abortions occurring. We merely disagree on how to work towards and attain that goal. And that is before we also point out that "fetus" and "baby" are much different constructs and the termination of a fetus is not the baby murdering campaign of death you want to pretend it is when calling people who simply do not agree with you "disgusting".

It would be similar to me asking you "Why do you feel we need to murder loads of people" when you express your desire to want to join the military. Clearly the first goal and choice of armies is not to kill anyone. The ideal would be no wars, no fighting and no death. But since we do not live in the ideal world we require OPTIONS. And wanting the option to do X does not mean we feel we should be doing X. And if you can not separate those two concepts then you are not really equipped for an abortion debate, or to be a member of any army.

preacher2 wrote: »

Why do you call eachother ''pro choice''? You have choice? You can go out and cut your own ears off if and feed them to birds, nobody cares.

You appears somehow to have missed a simple fact that language is contextual. Context defines the meaning of words and terms every bit as much as a dictionary does. And the fact we have many choices in life has nothing to do with the contextual use of the words "pro choice" with regards abortion. We use terms like "pro choice" and "anti choice" because it accurately defines the groups. Whereas phrases like "anti life" and "pro death" and "pro abortion" do not. Alas I suspect you have more interest in posturing than accuracy in the words you use..... so it is not a distinction I expect you to adhere to. But let us not pretend you do not understand it while you flout it.

preacher2 wrote: »

But when it comes to a DIFFERENT body (not your body - basic biology) then no, you do not nor will you EVER have the right to decide what happens to it.

Well here you are simply wrong at the most basic of levels. We have the right to decide what happens to "bodies" all the time. Become a farmer and you will be manipulating the bodies of, and even ending the life of, other animals all the time. So contrary to your erroneous claim of "you do not nor will you EVER have the right" we in fact "do and likely will always have the right" over other bodies.

So the question becomes when and why should we LOSE that right. Your anti-choice cohort on this thread and other areas of this forum seem to think screeching the word "human" at the question somehow answers it. But it does not as that is both circular AND begging the question. It does not address the abortion or rights issue at all.

My right to swing my fists around at will ends at your face. There is a reason why this is so and it is not merely because you are "human". There are attributes you have as an entity, specifically a conscious and sentient entity, that curtail my rights to do what I will with, or to, you.

The issue to overcome, but has not been overcome, for the anti-choice speaker/debator is that when one identifies what those attributes are..... one quickly realizes that they are PRECISELY the attributes the fetus at 0-16 weeks lacks. Not just partially lacks, but wholly and entirely lacks. In fact it also entirely lacks many of the pre-requisites to them too.

Therefore the idea that such a fetus has, or should have, any rights at all.... or illicit in us any moral or ethical concern..... simply has no basis.

There are two types of anti-choice campaigner. One who wants to hear their own voice and soap box and preach..... and one who actually does want to change minds. Anyone who is the latter needs to address that point first and foremost. They need to provide some coherent and consistent and convincing basis upon which to presume that such a fetus should hold any such concerns for us.

This, for all your posturing, you have not yet done. But nor has anyone else, so you should not take that observation personally. As if you genuinely want one argument from the pro-choice camp as you claim.... then that is it. The pregnant woman is a sentient and conscious agent with rights and choices and for whom we should hold moral and ethical concern. The fetus is not. And if we want to curtail the freedoms, rights, choices and well being of such a woman in deference to a non-sentient agent of no concern..... then the anti-choice camp needs to do better to justify that move. Because in a world of "innocent until proven guilty" the onus and burden of argument should very much lie with them.

baylah17

preacher2 wrote: »

So go ahead and give me a reason babies should be killed.

Who is suggesting killing babies???
Didnt this state and it's Religious arm not kill enough of them already? And then throw into cesspits!
I see plenty of poster concerned about women's health and women's rights, havnt seen a poster yet advocate killing babies!
Time to grow, wake up, and get some sense and a modicum of education.

Repeal The 8th
Don't feed the trolls!

January

Claims to be atheist but says rapists will burn in hell...

david75

January wrote: »

Claims to be atheist but says rapists will burn in hell...

A quick look at the previous posts tells you all you need to know.

Simi

Flying Fox wrote: »

Coveney's proposal is ridiculous and thankfully it appears to be unconstitutional. To think that repeal could win the referendum and yet the pro-life minority in the Dail would be allowed continue dictating to women, it's just appalling. I'm sure Coveney himself knows it and is just trying to appease the prolifers after his comments yesterday.

I'm concerned by this constant rolling back of the proposals in an attempt to satisfy pro life voters. Concessions aren't going to satisfy them and could end up turning the law into a bureaucratic mess for doctors and women to try to navigate.

The 72 hrs waiting period is simple misogyny, if a woman has made it to the point of asking her GP for help terminating a pregnancy, she has already agonized over it and doesn't need to be told to go away & think about it.

Coveneys other proposals all smack of a distrust for women, forcing GP's to list all the alternatives and hinting at sending women for counselling if the GP doesn't think they're decision is informed enough.

The forced delivery in lieu of abortion after 24 wks is another Y case waiting to happen. There will almost certainly be instances of withholding abortion until a pregnancy has reached viability if that becomes law.

markodaly

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Please stop making stuff up.

Au Contraire mon ami.

If the 8th is repealed there will be no legal protection for the unborn, so an abortion could take place an hour before birth that would be fully legal. Unless you can show me where it would not be so?

If the legislation you linked was sufficient, then why is there still a discussion on cabinet level to the 'what happens after'.

Also, the supreme court ruling was pretty strong on this, that the unborn would have no constitutional rights once the 8th was repealed.

david75

markodaly wrote: »

Au Contraire mon ami.

If the 8th is repealed there will be no legal protection for the unborn, so an abortion could take place an hour before birth that would be fully legal. Unless you can show me where it would not be so?

If the legislation you linked was sufficient, then why is there still a discussion on cabinet level to the 'what happens after'.

Also, the supreme court ruling was pretty strong on this, that the unborn would have no constitutional rights once the 8th was repealed.

Have you even bothered to do any research at all???

Zubeneschamali

markodaly wrote: »

If the 8th is repealed there will be no legal protection for the unborn, so an abortion could take place an hour before birth that would be fully legal.

If the 8th is repealed, the PLDPA will still be the law of the land and an abortion an hour before birth will carry a 14 year jail sentence, the same as it does today.

Sofiztikated

Simi wrote: »

Coveneys other proposals all smack of a distrust for women, forcing GP's to list all the alternatives and hinting at sending women for counselling if the GP doesn't think they're decision is informed enough.

I'm ok with doctors listing alternatives, they should be anyway. Ensuring women are informed of all options so that they can make an informed decision would be the best way to go. And there's nowt wrong with counseling, to ensure they are in the best place to make a decision, no matter what that decision is. As long as it's timely, and doesn't interfere with her medical care.

I haven't formed an opinion yet on the rest.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Counselling is fine if the woman wants it. But if she's sure of her decision why make her wait?

NuMarvel

markodaly wrote: »

If the 8th is repealed there will be no legal protection for the unborn, so an abortion could take place an hour before birth that would be fully legal. Unless you can show me where it would not be so?

Joey already did: the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. This remains in force after the referendum. A Yes vote doesn't strike it down.

markodaly wrote: »

If the legislation you linked was sufficient, then why is there still a discussion on cabinet level to the 'what happens after'.

The cabinet discussion is around what changes to make to legislation in the event of a Yes vote. There is clear public opinion for change and that can only happen with a Yes vote.

And until those changes are passed by the Dail and Seanad, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act remains in force.

markodaly wrote: »

Also, the supreme court ruling was pretty strong on this, that the unborn would have no constitutional rights once the 8th was repealed.

Which is not the same as saying there would be no LEGAL rights. Legal rights can, and often do, exist without being in the constitution, eg the ban on abortion up to 1983.

FutureGuy

markodaly wrote: »

Au Contraire mon ami.

If the 8th is repealed there will be no legal protection for the unborn, so an abortion could take place an hour before birth that would be fully legal. Unless you can show me where it would not be so?

If the legislation you linked was sufficient, then why is there still a discussion on cabinet level to the 'what happens after'.

Also, the supreme court ruling was pretty strong on this, that the unborn would have no constitutional rights once the 8th was repealed.

I’m happy to debate points but this is a fcuking moronic and uneducated post.