The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

January

It's not vague at all, the government will be able to legislate for abortion in future. If a government tried to change the law and people didn't want that then it wouldn't happen. Just like the water charges were reversed, the national maternity hospital being ran by nuns was reversed etc etc.

gctest50

In countries where abortions are legal on a woman’s request, 34 women in every 1,000 have one. In countries where abortions are always illegal or legal only if a woman’s life is in danger, 37 women in every 1,000 have one.


http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30380-4/abstract

ArmaniJeanss

drillyeye wrote: »

I don't feel comfortable at all with the proposal, it is essentially "we'll take it out and then......sure who knows!"

In fact, its a terrible proposition. Although I'd be in favour of certain changes being made, I am most certainly not in favour of a wild-west scenario where it could be changed and altered ad infinitum.

Your 'wild west' scenario is actually the way everything happens in any country - successive governments chop and change the previous ones legislation, make additions, clarifications and tweaks either to solve problems or because of pledges made during election campaigns. 100s of pieces of legislation pass through parliament every session.
It's perfectly normal.

drillyeye

January wrote: »

It's not vague at all, the government will be able to legislate for abortion in future. If a government tried to change the law and people didn't want that then it wouldn't happen. Just like the water charges were reversed, the national maternity hospital being ran by nuns was reversed etc etc.

I fail to see how "they can legislate in the future" is not the very idea of vague.

Essentially, people are being asked to remove the amendment from the constitution. And nothing more besides that.

drillyeye

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Your 'wild west' scenario is actually the way everything happens in any country - successive governments chop and change the previous ones legislation, make additions, clarifications and tweaks either to solve problems or because of pledges made during election campaigns. 100s of pieces of legislation pass through parliament every session.
It's perfectly normal.

That's precisely my problem, then.

Water John

Drilleye, I think we all could see through your pretend ignorance, but I decided to answer your question, as fairly as possible anyway. Could see the line coming, oh we couldn't trust the politicians, vote no, from a mile off.

Divorce is in the hands of politicians. Many are looking for the length of time, in a divorce, to be shortened, with a good while. Don't see the politicians jumping in quickly, to do so.
If yes prevails, whatever law makes it through the Oireactais, will be how it will stay, for a long time.

January

Just another anti-choicer dressed up in sheep's clothing...

January

drillyeye wrote: »

I fail to see how "they can legislate in the future" is not the very idea of vague.

Essentially, people are being asked to remove the amendment from the constitution. And nothing more besides that.

Well no, the wording being entered into the constitution if the referendum is passed will be

Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies

It's not vague. If future governments feel the will of the country is make abortion more freely available past 12 weeks then they can enact legislation to do that, but again, as we've seen stuff like that has been voted down, not every law that is billed in governement is passed.

drillyeye

Water John wrote: »

Drilleye, I think we all could see through your pretend ignorance, but I decided to answer your question, as fairly as possible anyway. Could see the line coming, oh we couldn't trust the politicians, vote no, from a mile off.

Divorce is in the hands of politicians. Many are looking for the length of time, in a divorce, to be shortened, with a good while. Don't see the politicians jumping in quickly, to do so.
If yes prevails, whatever law makes it through the Oireactais, will be how it will stay, for a long time.

Don't be so fast with the presumptions. I merely asked the question, which as I stated, I was fairly sure I knew the answer to. I was after clarification.

As I already said in relation to divorce, it is generally a yes or no, whereas abortion is a spectrum with too many potential variations to list.

I'll say it again, the referendum is a terrible proposal. You simply saying "it will last a long time" isn't worth a jot.

It brings into question the very need for a constitution at all. Why bother having one if it politicians can be trusted from month to month?

I already stated that I'd be in favour of certain changes. But there is no criteria put forward, no indications that cant change in a day, no idea of whether it will be put back into a protected state within the constitution....

Its a non-runner as far as I'm concerned. There is no way to have a conversation because, quite simply, there is nothing to talk about. (but I will check the information independently.

drillyeye

January wrote: »

Well no, the wording being entered into the constitution if the referendum is passed will be



It's not vague. If future governments feel the will of the country is make abortion more freely available past 12 weeks then they can enact legislation to do that, but again, as we've seen stuff like that has been voted down, not every law that is billed in governement is passed.

You just seem to be re-wording the same statement. What if they decide to change it in 6 months time? And 4 months after that?

What about opposition governments using it as a contrarian selling point to the sitting government ad infinitum? Sure like everything then, they can just change their minds when in power.

The referendum barely meets the criteria of a decision. Its a question of "take it out or leave it in". But why? What will change? What are the proposals? And even then, proposals outside the enshrined rights of a constitution aren't worth anything.

Its as vague as you could possibly get.

drillyeye

January wrote: »

Just another anti-choicer dressed up in sheep's clothing...

Holy moses! Talk about jumping to conclusions.

I asked for clarification on a pivotal point for me, personally. God forbid people have opinions and concerns if they go against your notions, right?!

You come across like a whacko kind of cult member. "Hes not one of us!"

I suppose you can just gloss over the fact that I'd be on for some changes......but no, I'm a bad guy for asking the most basic question of all. How dare I.

volchitsa

drillyeye wrote: »

Don't be so fast with the presumptions. I merely asked the question, which as I stated, I was fairly sure I knew the answer to. I was after clarification.

As I already said in relation to divorce, it is generally a yes or no, whereas abortion is a spectrum with too many potential variations to list.

I'll say it again, the referendum is a terrible proposal. You simply saying "it will last a long time" isn't worth a jot.

It brings into question the very need for a constitution at all. Why bother having one if it politicians can be trusted from month to month?

I already stated that I'd be in favour of certain changes. But there is no criteria put forward, no indications that cant change in a day, no idea of whether it will be put back into a protected state within the constitution....

Its a non-runner as far as I'm concerned. There is no way to have a conversation because, quite simply, there is nothing to talk about. (but I will check the information independently.

Why only for abortion though?

The goverment could bring the age of consent down to puberty or lower, but nobody ever seems to worry about that. Why do they trust the government on that?

Or they could remove the concept of rape within marriage, but again, nobody ever seems to think there is any danger of that. Why not?

So why so much concern about the risk of future unplanned and unannounced legislation for abortion?

January

drillyeye wrote: »

Holy moses! Talk about jumping to conclusions.

I asked for clarification on a pivotal point for me, personally. God forbid people have opinions and concerns if they go against your notions, right?!

You come across like a whacko kind of cult member. "Hes not one of us!"

I suppose you can just gloss over the fact that I'd be on for some changes......but no, I'm a bad guy for asking the most basic question of all. How dare I.

Nope, isn't it amazing how in your first post in this thread you're 'just asking a question because you don't understand' yet the rest of the posts you're dead against it? It's basic anti-choice posting style.

The fact is the 8th amendment puts women's lives at risk, whether they want to have an abortion or they want to continue their pregnancy. It needs to be deleted from the constitution and the government need to be able to legislate for all the different scenarios that arise from such a complex thing as pregnancy and giving birth. If we put it back into the constitution then we will need a referendum for every single change that needs to be made as they arise. Whereas if we insert the wording being proposed we don't need to do that and we can act quickly if a scenario arises where the law isn't working as it should, whether that means making abortion more accessible or tightening those restrictions.

drillyeye

volchitsa wrote: »

Why only for abortion though?

The goverment could bring the age of consent down to puberty or lower, but nobody ever seems to worry about that. Why do they trust the government on that?

Or they could remove the concept of rape within marriage, but again, nobody ever seems to think there is any danger of that. Why not?

So why so much concern about the risk of future unplanned and unannounced legislation for abortion?

You're just flipping my question upside down.

From "why bother having a constitution?" to "Why bother NOT having a constitution?"

The first part is easy enough to answer, I am asking about this referendum issue because it is the referendum in question. What you are trying to get at is "whataboutism"

What is the basic problem with questioning the vacuum of information here?

What are you voting for? "change", I'm sure. But wheres the information on what form that change will take, where are the indications, where are the guarantees, where are the protections, what is the direction?

As I said above, there is barely any conversation to be had, simply because the referendum is so vague.

drillyeye

January wrote: »

Nope, isn't it amazing how in your first post in this thread you're 'just asking a question because you don't understand' yet the rest of the posts you're dead against it? It's basic anti-choice posting style.

The fact is the 8th amendment puts women's lives at risk, whether they want to have an abortion or they want to continue their pregnancy. It needs to be deleted from the constitution and the government need to be able to legislate for all the different scenarios that arise from such a complex thing as pregnancy and giving birth. If we put it back into the constitution then we will need a referendum for every single change that needs to be made as they arise. Whereas if we insert the wording being proposed we don't need to do that and we can act quickly if a scenario arises where the law isn't working as it should, whether that means making abortion more accessible or tightening those restrictions.

No its not amazing. For the third time, I said I was already fairly sure of the answer. I wasn't playing dumb, as youre hoping to "prove".

The aggression for asking the most simple question of all!

As for your tirade about needing change, yeah, no problem, in and of itself. However, that simply comes to the same fundamental issue; Why bother having a constitution, then?

volchitsa

drillyeye wrote: »

You're just flipping my question upside down.

From "why bother having a constitution?" to "Why bother NOT having a constitution?"

The first part is easy enough to answer, I am asking about this referendum issue because it is the referendum in question. What you are trying to get at is "whataboutism"

What is the basic problem with questioning the vacuum of information here?

What are you voting for? "change", I'm sure. But wheres the information on what form that change will take, where are the indications, where are the guarantees, where are the protections, what is the direction?

As I said above, there is barely any conversation to be had, simply because the referendum is so vague.

No, I think you don't know what "whataboutery" is.

What I am saying is that you are making an assertion about something that hasnt happened, and that not only is there no evidence for assuming it will happen, but looking at other examples where personal rights are not protected in the constitution, ie they depend only on the government not legislating to remove those rights, shows that it is not a reasonable fear to have.

Water John

A Constitution sets out the basic rules of how a country is governed and the basic rights of the citizens within it. The detailed laws of the country are then framed within the parameters of the Constitution.
So the Constitution is the overall concept and the Laws are the detail within.

amdublin

drillyeye wrote: »

The aggression for asking the most simple question of all!

Ah jaysis. What are you on about??!

Bannasidhe

drillyeye wrote: »

No its not amazing. For the third time, I said I was already fairly sure of the answer. I wasn't playing dumb, as youre hoping to "prove".

The aggression for asking the most simple question of all!

As for your tirade about needing change, yeah, no problem, in and of itself. However, that simply comes to the same fundamental issue; Why bother having a constitution, then?

Some countries don't have a written Constitution e.g. The U.K., however when the Irish Free State came into existence it was decided that a written Constitution would be the best way to express what this new Statelet would be and set down in writing how it would differ from the Ireland that was part of the U.K. In the 1930s Dev decided the 1922 version wasn't fit for purpose (why that was we can speculate as I think it covers the basics admirably and is a superior version to the one that replaced it but that's just my opinion).

A written Constitution is not strictly necessary, but where it does exist it is there to provide protection for citizens, guidelines for legislators, and a framework for the 'rules' governing the State. It's purpose is not to be the legislation but to guide the legislation and as such it clearly says that the role of government is to legislate.

drillyeye

volchitsa wrote: »

No, I think you don't know what "whataboutery" is.

What I am saying is that you are making an assertion about something that hasnt happened, and that not only is there no evidence for assuming it will happen, but looking at other examples where personal rights are not protected in the constitution, ie they depend only on the government not legislating to remove those rights, shows that it is not a reasonable fear to have.

"Why are interested in the particular referendum at hand, when I can ask you about other things?"

That's "whataboutism". An attempt to avoid the actual question by talking about theoretical issues instead.

How can you fail to see the concern here? Even by reading your own words?

Look at the bolded. Think about it for a second.

I am not the one making assertions here, I am the one questioning assertion. There is NOTHING in this referendum. Its ALL assertion and guesses.

And THAT is the problem.

The best thing that can happen is that this referendum is met with a "no" vote. And then an actual, well-thought out, referendum can take its place that has something to actually decide upon.

Kurtosis

drillyeye wrote: »

As I said above, there is barely any conversation to be had, simply because the referendum is so vague.

How is the referendum vague? The details are pretty clear, the referendum will ask whether article 40.3.3 of the constitution should be removed and replaced with "Provision may be made in law for regulation of termination of a pregnancy."

If the referendum is passed, the government intends to introduce a bill to the Dáil to regulate the termination of pregnancy in line with the following General Scheme.

drillyeye

drillyeye wrote: »

"Why are interested in the particular referendum at hand, when I can ask you about other things?"

That's "whataboutism". An attempt to avoid the actual question by talking about theoretical issues instead.

How can you fail to see the concern here? Even by reading your own words?

Look at the bolded. Think about it for a second.

I am not the one making assertions here, I am the one questioning assertion. There is NOTHING in this referendum. Its ALL assertion and guesses.

And THAT is the problem.

The best thing that can happen is that this referendum is met with a "no" vote. And then an actual, well-thought out, referendum can take its place that has something to actually decide upon.

The referendum is only on whether to repeal the 8th amendment or not.
Given that the amendment has been shown time & time again to put women's health at risk, then it seems completely reasonable to take it out.
As said before, there won't be thousands of abortions the next day!
The government legislate all the time, that is their job, that is why we vote for them, to make the law. Not everything is in the constitution & we have thousands of laws.

drillyeye

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Some countries don't have a written Constitution e.g. The U.K., however when the Irish Free State came into existence it was decided that a written Constitution would be the best way to express what this new Statelet would be and set down in writing how it would differ from the Ireland that was part of the U.K. In the 1930s Dev decided the 1922 version wasn't fit for purpose (why that was we can speculate as I think it covers the basics admirably and is a superior version to the one that replaced it but that's just my opinion).

A written Constitution is not strictly necessary, but where it does exist it is there to provide protection for citizens, guidelines for legislators, and a framework for the 'rules' governing the State. It's purpose is not to be the legislation but to guide the legislation and as such it clearly says that the role of government is to legislate.

I can agree with that. Its a sensible framework, a fundamental basis for a state.

I don't think its a good idea to be without a constitution.

My problem with this referendum (and the exchange here so far is just pushing me more and more in this direction!) is that the question put to the public is borderline nonsense.

It is avoiding the specifics of "why" and "how". You can blame the government for that, afraid to make a position clear in case they lose votes. Its just silly, really!

drillyeye

bubblypop wrote: »

The referendum is only on whether to repeal the 8th amendment or not.
Given that the amendment has been shown time & time again to put women's health at risk, then it seems completely reasonable to take it out.
As said before, there won't be thousands of abortions the next day!
The government legislate all the time, that is their job, that is why we vote for them, to make the law. Not everything is in the constitution & we have thousands of laws.

But it doesn't! If it had ANY kind of proposal behind it, a framework of what will take its place.....then we'd have something to talk about.

But the government has chicken-shytted its way out of providing a basis for a vote.

gctest50

Ireland is unique in the democratic world in having a ban on abortion in its constitution because :

https://tinyurl.com/yauez78c

John O’Reilly ( of COSC )explicitly regarded a successful anti-abortion amendment as a prelude to action against contraception and “illegitimacy”: “The campaign for a pro-life amendment would enjoy widespread support now and the success of the campaign would serve to halt the permissive tide in other areas.”

He seems to have been the person who first conceived the idea of an anti-abortion constitutional amendment, as far back as 1974.

drillyeye

Kurtosis wrote: »

How is the referendum vague? The details are pretty clear, the referendum will ask whether article 40.3.3 of the constitution should be removed and replaced with "Provision may be made in law for regulation of termination of a pregnancy."

If the referendum is passed, the government intends to introduce a bill to the Dáil to regulate the termination of pregnancy in line with the following General Scheme.

Is this some kind of a joke?

"How is it vague?" you ask, followed by "it will be removed and something can happen later"

Why haven't they proposed a bill beforehand, so as people have something over which to think and make an actual decision upon?

This is like a fundamental block in reason!

Annasopra

RobertKK wrote: »

She was hardly an impartial chairperson though?

Actually I found she was. She came originally from a pro life bsckground. She went out of her way to accomodate all voices. The disruptive nonsense put out by Mullen et all was mythical.

Water John

You can only frame a Constitutional Referendum on a Yes/No basis. This is waht is proposed to put in/take out. You cannot set out a list of choices. That would amount to an advisory opinion poll.
The complexities of all situations are best dealt with, in law. That is why Repeal is the better option.

You can only enact a law, on what is allowed by the Constitution. So, no law can be passed until the prohibition is removed from the Constitution. The Govn't have set out the terms of the law they propose to bring in. That is as far as they can go, legally.

Annasopra

RobertKK wrote: »

btw this 'trust women' argument is not going to work. People usually trust people they know they can trust, people don't trust women or men just because someone says they must 'trust women'.
It just makes one think about trust, politicians will control abortion if repeal wins, does one trust politicians who flip flop and tell lies to get elected?
Trust women, one would find a lot of women who wouldn't trust other women in a random matter that is being asked, just as one wouldn't trust a random man if asked to.
Trust avoids the argument which is about the unborn and their current status of a right to life.

Its hilarious that pro life campaigners are jumping on the bandwagon of distrust of politicians. It was their use of trust of politicians that got us the 8th in the first place.

Kurtosis

drillyeye wrote: »

Is this some kind of a joke?

"How is it vague?" you ask, followed by "it will be removed and something can happen later"

Why haven't they proposed a bill beforehand, so as people have something over which to think and make an actual decision upon?

This is like a fundamental block in reason!

If you check the latter half of my post, you will see they have proposed the heads of a bill beforehand, which people can think over and make an actual decision on:

Kurtosis wrote: »

How is the referendum vague? The details are pretty clear, the referendum will ask whether article 40.3.3 of the constitution should be removed and replaced with "Provision may be made in law for regulation of termination of a pregnancy."

If the referendum is passed, the government intends to introduce a bill to the Dáil to regulate the termination of pregnancy in line with the following General Scheme.

Or do you want this bill to be put to the people in a plebiscite?