The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

drillyeye

Water John wrote: »

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.

And that's no problem, a yes or no should be based on a definitive outcome, not a "lets see what happens!"

We should be voting on a clear-cut, precise list of changes to which we can answer yes or no.

My ideal situation would be a list of changes, have them made (or not), and then its plonked back into the constitution so as it cant be fooked with ad infinitum, so as it doesn't become yet another vote-getter forever.

The referendum, as it stands, is quite literally pointless. That is to say, it doesn't make any proposal. None. Zero.

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.

Also basically pro choice campaigners just do not trust voters either! Why is that?

drillyeye

Kurtosis wrote: »

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:



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

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Theres a difference between a bill that may or may not be enacted, and an actual vote upon clear changes.

A guideline can be changed at any given second, so whats the point of voting on something that only has a guideline?

Its as clear as anything, the government are afraid to make any position known. So they'll let people take it out of the constitution and then they will be free to make it up as they go along.

Annasopra

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.

Yes.

People are being asked to remove the amendment from the constitution. Whats the problem?

drillyeye

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes.

People are being asked to remove the amendment from the constitution. Whats the problem?

"Would you like to not come into work for the rest of your life?" says your boss, "yes or no?"

You: "What do you mean? Do you mean I still have a job? Will I be paid? Do I work from home? What about other employees?"

Boss: "Just answer yes or no! Whats the problem?!"

Bannasidhe

drillyeye wrote: »

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!

Have you read the Constitution?
It consists of frameworks not specifics of "why" and "how" - for example it state the maximum number of ministers but doesn't specify what departments they head so theoretically there could be a Minister for Hot Beverages and Salty Snacks.

The Constitution is the Framework and it charges the Government with taking care of the specifics in line with that framework. That's the whole point. Why on Earth do you think having specifics in the question would clarify things? The Constitution is not the place for specifics - that is what legislation is for. We are not voting on legislation. What other Referendumquestion contained specifics???

It's very simple - as it should be - either a) Keep the 8th or b) Repeal the 8th and allow Government to legislate.

IMHO it should be even simpler than that - a basic a) Keep or b)Repeal - as The Constitution already says it's Government's role to legislate according to the results of Referenda so stating it in the question is superfluous repetition put there at the advice of the Attorney General in an attempt to head off any delaying tactics should Repeal win.

volchitsa

drillyeye wrote: »

"Would you like to not come into work for the rest of your life?" says your boss, "yes or no?"

You: "What do you mean? Do you mean I still have a job? Will I be paid? Do I work from home? What about other employees?"

Boss: "Just answer yes or no! Whats the problem?!"

That's why a constitution is not, and never was, the place for complex issues like abortion. It should neverr have been put there in the first place, and most countries had enough wit (aka independence from religion) to realize that.

Annasopra

drillyeye wrote: »

And that's no problem, a yes or no should be based on a definitive outcome, not a "lets see what happens!"

We should be voting on a clear-cut, precise list of changes to which we can answer yes or no.

My ideal situation would be a list of changes, have them made (or not), and then its plonked back into the constitution so as it cant be fooked with ad infinitum, so as it doesn't become yet another vote-getter forever.

The referendum, as it stands, is quite literally pointless. That is to say, it doesn't make any proposal. None. Zero.

This is just pointless whataboutery. The electorate is voting on amending the constitution. There is a draft heads of bill with proposed legislation accompanying the referendum. The oireachtas will vote on that.

Minister Harris has published the draft bill

http://health.gov.ie/blog/publications/general-scheme-of-a-bill-to-regulate-termination-of-pregnancy/

And a policy paper


http://health.gov.ie/blog/publications/policy-paper-on-regulation-of-termination-of-pregnancy/

Bannasidhe

drillyeye wrote: »

"Would you like to not come into work for the rest of your life?" says your boss, "yes or no?"

You: "What do you mean? Do you mean I still have a job? Will I be paid? Do I work from home? What about other employees?"

Boss: "Just answer yes or no! Whats the problem?!"

Annnnd your Contract of Employment will contain the specifics.

Annasopra

drillyeye wrote: »

"Would you like to not come into work for the rest of your life?" says your boss, "yes or no?"

You: "What do you mean? Do you mean I still have a job? Will I be paid? Do I work from home? What about other employees?"

Boss: "Just answer yes or no! Whats the problem?!"

That doesnt answer my question?

January

https://twitter.com/amyohconnor/status/980790980721958912?s=19

drillyeye

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Have you read the Constitution?
It consists of frameworks not specifics of "why" and "how" - for example it state the maximum number of ministers but doesn't specify what departments they head so theoretically there could be a Minister for Hot Beverages and Salty Snacks.

The Constitution is the Framework and it charges the Government with taking care of the specifics in line with that framework. That's the whole point. Why on Earth do you think having specifics in the question would clarify things? The Constitution is not the place for specifics - that is what legislation is for. We are not voting on legislation. What other Referendumquestion contained specifics???

It's very simple - as it should be - either a) Keep the 8th or b) Repeal the 8th and allow Government to legislate.

IMHO it should be even simpler than that - a basic a) Keep or b)Repeal - as The Constitution already says it's Government's role to legislate according to the results of Referenda so stating it in the question is superfluous repetition put there at the advice of the Attorney General in an attempt to head off any delaying tactics should Repeal win.

As to the first bolded part, the framework exists because the "why" and "how" have already been answered. That's like a fundamental lack of understanding as to how decisions are made.

As to the second bolded part......?!

This referendum is the very definition of forcing people to make an uninformed decision. That's the problem.

Kurtosis

drillyeye wrote: »

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Theres a difference between a bill that may or may not be enacted, and an actual vote upon clear changes.

A guideline can be changed at any given second, so whats the point of voting on something that only has a guideline?

Its as clear as anything, the government are afraid to make any position known. So they'll let people take it out of the constitution and then they will be free to make it up as they go along.

Yes I'm afraid I still do not follow what you would like the government to have done. Could you maybe spell out exactly what you would like to have seen?

To my mind the government have laid out their position in the general scheme linked earlier.

drillyeye

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That doesnt answer my question?

I think youre taking the piss. The problem is that it is an UNINFORMED decision.

drillyeye

Kurtosis wrote: »

Yes I'm afraid I still do not follow what you would like the government to have done. Could you maybe spell out exactly what you would like to have seen?

To my mind the government have laid out their position in the general scheme linked earlier.

In another post I did already.

I don't see how people can be entirely comfortable with uninformed voting.

drillyeye

drillyeye wrote: »

I think youre taking the piss. The problem is that it is an UNINFORMED decision.

It's really quite simple, repeal the 8th amendment to the constitution or not.
You do know it was only put in in 1983 right?
The law covered abortion before that, & the law will cover it when it's gone.
I don't see what is so complicated

Annasopra

drillyeye wrote: »

I think youre taking the piss. The problem is that it is an UNINFORMED decision.

No. I am not taking the piss at all. There is no need to put things in caps lock. That is the equivalent of online shouting.

It is a perfectly informed decision. Essentially the electorate is bring asked do they want to remove article 40.3.3 and replace it with a sentence that gives the Oireachtas power to legislate.

drillyeye

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This is just pointless whataboutery. The electorate is voting on amending the constitution. There is a draft heads of bill with proposed legislation accompanying the referendum. The oireachtas will vote on that.

Minister Harris has published the draft bill

http://health.gov.ie/blog/publications/general-scheme-of-a-bill-to-regulate-termination-of-pregnancy/

And a policy paper


http://health.gov.ie/blog/publications/policy-paper-on-regulation-of-termination-of-pregnancy/

How the hell is me asking for "clear list of changes for this referendum" whataboutery?!

Anyway, as I said a few times already, this referendum is a non-runner for me. There is no conversation to be had, because there is no informed decision to be made here.

We are not being asked to make changes, we are being asked to allow any government, at any time, to make whatever changes whenever they want.

And that, to sum up, is b*llocks. Thanks for the exchange on here, it was certainly informative.

drillyeye

drillyeye wrote: »

As to the first bolded part, the framework exists because the "why" and "how" have already been answered. That's like a fundamental lack of understanding as to how decisions are made.

As to the second bolded part......?!

This referendum is the very definition of forcing people to make an uninformed decision. That's the problem.

Maybe for you it is but for most people it's not. There are multiple articles in newspapers and other media formats explaining what people are being asked to vote. What exactly are we being uninformed about?

drillyeye

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. I am not taking the piss at all. There is no need to put things in caps lock. That is the equivalent of online shouting.

It is a perfectly informed decision. Essentially the electorate is bring asked do they want to remove article 40.3.3 and replace it with a sentence that gives the Oireachtas power to legislate.

"vote for something, and we'll decide what that "something" is later."

Yeah, totally informed decision making.

That's me done anyway.

Bannasidhe

drillyeye wrote: »

As to the first bolded part, the framework exists because the "why" and "how" have already been answered. That's like a fundamental lack of understanding as to how decisions are made.

As to the second bolded part......?!

This referendum is the very definition of forcing people to make an uninformed decision. That's the problem.

Actually, we inherited most of our why and how from the British and their unwritten Constitution. TBH, the only fundamental lack of understand I am seeing here is from you about the purpose of a Constitution.

Here's a mad idea - imagine a world where people inform themselves. Like adults.
Adults who are about to vote on an important issue.

The Government has posed the question and provided specifics on what they wish to do should Repeal win. They cannot do better than that as the Bill needs to be debated in the Dail and the Seanad and could yet be changed - or defeated.

I'm not sure what else you want them to do?
Do you wish every single aspect of every single piece of legislation put to the people or are you content to allow government to legislate within the existing Constitutional framework for everything except this?

Annasopra

drillyeye wrote: »

In another post I did already.

I don't see how people can be entirely comfortable with uninformed voting.

This is not uninformed voting. I am quite informed on the 8th amendment and its harmful affects on women. I am informed on the consequenes of a yes or no vote. Many voters like me are well informed. I have heard this muddying the waters tactic before. It is an attempt to sow a seed of doubt in voters minds. It is an attempt to trick voters into thinking they dont know and should vote no as a safer option. It wont wash. We do know what we are voting for. It is frankly patronising guff to try and con the electorate.

Kurtosis

drillyeye wrote: »

In another post I did already.

I don't see how people can be entirely comfortable with uninformed voting.

Could you point me in the direction of where you described this? Thanks.

drillyeye

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This is not uninformed voting. I am quite informed on the 8th amendment and its harmful affects on women. I am informed on the consequenes of a yes or no vote. Many voters like me are well informed. I have heard this muddying the waters tactic before. It is an attempt to sow a seed of doubt in voters minds. It is an attempt to trick voters into thinking they dont know and should vote no as a safer option. It wont wash. We do know what we are voting for. It is frankly patronising guff to try and con the electorate.

Fanatics.

Theres no way I have a legitimate question or have legitimate concerns of course. No, I'm a bad guy for going against the uninformed grain. I surely hate women or something, there will be no tolerance of dissenting views!

Throughout the last few pages I have argued in good faith, only to be met with, mostly, the same re-worded statements. Whereas your post above proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that all you were really looking for was an excuse to dismiss me and an obvious, important question.

That makes you disingenuous. No matter what is said to you, its all by the by, its all about establishing that biased angle in order to dismiss something you don't like.

That is not to say that all people who want to vote yes are like this, but there at definitely some people, like you, that are like talking to brick walls.

All people need to do is re-read the last few pages, whether registered on here or not, and they will see the blatancy of ignorance on display. People like you, who make the mistake of showing true colours are only going to turn more people against voting yes.

Pointless trying to converse on here, its just seems to be, mostly, a pack of fanatics who will back-up ("like") ANYTHING that establishes their sense of right while dismissing anyone and anything that goes to the contrary.

You let your mask slip. Bye.

(bonus points for trying to flip this against me!)

Nettle Soup

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

drillyeye wrote: »

In another post I did already.

I don't see how people can be entirely comfortable with uninformed voting.

This is not uninformed voting. I am quite informed on the 8th amendment and its harmful affects on women. I am informed on the consequenes of a yes or no vote. Many voters like me are well informed. I have heard this muddying the waters tactic before. It is an attempt to sow a seed of doubt in voters minds. It is an attempt to trick voters into thinking they dont know and should vote no as a safer option. It wont wash. We do know what we are voting for. It is frankly patronising guff to try and con the electorate.

Will there be debates on the referendum? I am worried that voters will swallow the anti-choice rubbish and scare mongering.

TheValeyard

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Will there be debates on the referendum? I am worried that voters will swallow the anti-choice rubbish and scare mongering.

Damn an other side getting to air their views!!

Bannasidhe

drillyeye wrote: »

Fanatics.

Theres no way I have a legitimate question or have legitimate concerns of course. No, I'm a bad guy for going against the uninformed grain. I surely hate women or something, there will be no tolerance of dissenting views!

Throughout the last few pages I have argued in good faith, only to be met with, mostly, the same re-worded statements. Whereas your post above proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that all you were really looking for was an excuse to dismiss me and an obvious, important question.

That makes you disingenuous. No matter what is said to you, its all by the by, its all about establishing that biased angle in order to dismiss something you don't like.

That is not to say that all people who want to vote yes are like this, but there at definitely some people, like you, that are like talking to brick walls.

All people need to do is re-read the last few pages, whether registered on here or not, and they will see the blatancy of ignorance on display. People like you, who make the mistake of showing true colours are only going to turn more people against voting yes.

Pointless trying to converse on here, its just seems to be, mostly, a pack of fanatics who will back-up ("like") ANYTHING that establishes their sense of right while dismissing anyone and anything that goes to the contrary.

You let your mask slip. Bye.

(bonus points for trying to flip this against me!)

Translation:
Ohhh noes... turns out the liberalz understand the concept of a written Constitution and how it works and have the audacity to libsplain it several times in clear and concise terms while also asking me to explain what I mean and clarify my points so I'm going to return to a discussion I said I was "done with" to spit the dummy out, indulge in flinging some insults, and scream I'm being oppressed...(cunning plan is to get thread banned so I can say I'm being censored by the "libtard" and biased mods )

average_runner

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Will there be debates on the referendum? I am worried that voters will swallow the anti-choice rubbish and scare mongering.

Well the anti.choice are one step ahead on getting their posters up. Powerful posters also.

The pro choice need to wake up.

PopePalpatine

average_runner wrote: »

Well the anti.choice are one step ahead on getting their posters up. Powerful posters also.

The pro choice need to wake up.

You can say that again. It's hard to think of anything starker than "BABIES WILL DIE".

Simi

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You can say that again. It's hard to think of anything starker than "BABIES WILL DIE".

I see they're going for the reasoned and nuanced approach then :rolleyes: