Outright lies in Campaign

finbar10

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not about the political will, it is about the legal atmosphere in this country.

There is absolutely no doubt that any legislation put in place under such a constitutional provision would be subject to numerous legal challenges and review and we would run out of letters in the alphabet to list the poor women who would be faced with dealing with those court cases.

As a solution, it is only slightly less inhumane than the current misogynist inhumane 8th amendment.

Where there are lines, there will always be some grey areas. If "hard cases" are mostly dealt with in an amendment, then these cases are unlikely to involve cases anywhere near as hard or extreme as previous test cases. You either draw lines somewhere or you don't. And if there are meaningful lines, then inevitably there will be some court cases.

The only alternative is just not to have any lines, or have notional lines that just don't amount to much and aren't enforced. Frankly, I think our politicians will be happy to draw up rules in legislation that notionally have some restrictions (mostly all at the discretion of the doctors performing the abortions), be happy to be then shot of the issue, and be subsequently rather uninterested (look the other way) at how these rules will be implemented in practice.

Sardonicat

walshb wrote: »

Oh, and let's be real....this also happens........

Plenty women/girls are irresponsible and end up getting pregnant when they didn't intend to....It's life. I don't slate them for it, but I also don't tiptoe around it....it's their irresponsibility that led to it.

Yup, they are irresponsible all by themselves. Have sex all by themselves. Get pregnant all by themselves.

seamus

finbar10 wrote: »

The barrister giving testimony to the citizens assembly (CA) held it out as a feasible avenue, but the CA never explored the issue.

To be fair, Brian Murray set out a number of possible avenues; one of which is the referendum on which we are about to vote.

His proposals were explored, and the most feasible one was recommended.

When you explore the "defined circumstances" option, it quickly unravels and it becomes clear that you end up with either a massive constitutional article, or one which is vague to the point of being dangerous, or pointless (or both).

It's simply too complicated an issue to have a short set of (practically) unchangeable "defined circumstances".

walshb

Sardonicat wrote: »

Yup, they are irresponsible all by themselves. Have sex all by themselves. Get pregnant all by themselves.

Well, no point in passing the buck....males are not the ones getting pregnant. It's females, and it's females who need to be responsible. No point in trying to apportion blame (or make excuses) onto the males in these cases. Males will be males today and tomorrow and until the end of time...

People (and mostly females in this case) need to get real and live in the real world....

In other words it's the females left holding the babies....

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We are not voting on the 12 weeks, it's only a proposal. It's by no means certain that it will pass the Dail. It's by no means certain that the government will survive long enough to even put it to the Dail. We may get no new legislation at all. Until then, the POLDP Act stays in place, same as it is now, and abortion remains almost entirely illegal.

Technically, that's true. But the die has been fairly firmly cast in term of what the intent is. If a Yes, then the momentum is firmly in that direction.

We might suppose that the lobbying to further liberalize won't stop. Why should it. It's a common tactic to lobby for the most extreme, such that you get something shy of it.

Lobby your TDs. Vote. Same as you would over any other issue you care about.

Vote where? In a general election? People vote on the economy, healthcare and the like. It's not realistic to expect them not to vote for those interests just because the party they want to vote for introduced abortion up to 12 weeks

12 weeks is the norm in the developed world, the US and UK are very much outliers. No European country which introduced abortion on request up to 12 weeks - and many did this 30+ or 40+ years ago - has increased that limit.

Which raises the question of whether any of these countries had the chance to vote in a referendum on the issue. The notion of "doing what the others do", but which omits to mention the people there didn't have a say, is a tad hypocritical.

The experience of Irish politics shows that it is extremely unlikely to happen. Politicians are terrified of abortion becoming a general election issue, most of them see being forced to take a stance on it either way as a vote loser. The vast majority of them, and I would include No campaigner TDs in this, want to get the referendum over with (I am convinced the only reason Varadkar agreed to a referendum was to try to neutralise abortion as a political issue and get it off the table) and get the legislation out of the way and then never have to touch the issue again with a bargepole as long as their careers last.

I wouldn't be supposing them gagging at the bit. But then again, there is the lobby for liberalisation.

Risk to the mother - if that risk is anything less than a good chance of dying then nothing can be done. If the 8th is not repealed, there will be cases of women dying, it's inevitable.

The mod has shut down conversation on this. But since you bring it up I'd point out that current Medical Council guidelines (post Savita) don't suppose as you do. They are able to terminate long before there's a "good chance" of the mother dying. The mother doesn't have to actually in imminent exposure of risk to death. And the risk doesn't have to be one that would certainly transpire, if a termination isn't carried out. Another Savita isn't envisageable because of legal restrictions.

FFA - again nothing can be done under the 8th.[/quote

Amend the 8th so that something can be done

Rape, incest etc. - again nothing can be done under the 8th.

Amend the 8th. Legislation very difficult but some say it's possible. Certainly more easy to legislate for that any restriction on abortion up to 12 weeks

If you want the laws to change in any way then this can only happen by repealing the 8th.

To say that you can't amend the 8th include the power to legislate for FFA's, for example, is untrue.

NuMarvel

finbar10 wrote: »

As I've argued earlier in this thread, setting out the broad parameters/exceptions of an abortion regime in the constitution is probably not as unworkable as some propose (one of the legal experts to the citizens assembly discussed it as a viable avenue but this was never explored). One doesn't have to have reams of medical conditions or words in the constitution. Just a few sentences would do outlining some basic choices:

• Do we have an exception for serious threats to the health of the mother?
• Do we have a rape exception?
• Do we have a term limit?
• Do we have an exception for FFA?

and permit the Oireachtas to legislate for the fine details of these circumstances. I'm sure some adequate way could be found to frame an appropriate constitutional article if the political will was there. I have never really bought the all-or-nothing argument in this debate.

In 35 years, not a single person, be they legislator, lay person, or lawyer, who tells us it can be done is able to tell us how it would be done. No one has been able to actually produce this alternative constitutional text that would properly address these matters.

It's all well and good to talk about what the intention would be, but if the 8th has shown us anything, it's that the intended effect and the actual effect can be worlds apart. The 8th was intended to prevent a constitutional right to abortion being found, and ended up being the basis of one. On top of that, it's been used to prevent the distribution of information, stop a girl having an abortion abroad, and was cited as the reason for the Miss P case.

The 8th isn't fit for purpose and needs to go. Those who say it can be altered instead of removed have had ample opportunity to tell us how this can be done, to no avail. I see no reason for believing that's going to change soon, so let's be rid of the 8th, while the opportunity is before us.

.......

This post has been deleted.

walshb

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You can't really know this, as the term irresponsible is quite subjective, isn't it?

Example: Female using the pill and gets pregnant. Is that responsible or irresponsible? Taking into consideration that the pill is not a guarantee that you won't get pregnant. To ensure an even less chance of pregnancy said female could also insist on the male using a condom. There are folks who would say that the female getting pregnant (who allowed intercourse minus a condom) was irresponsible....

Not that a condom is a guarantee of non pregnancy. It's just another tool to help prevent pregnancy. Pill fails? At least there is some possible backup plan.

That's just one take....

.......

This post has been deleted.

walshb

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, they are not....

If your daughter came home pregnant aged 16/17/18... and was upset because she became pregnant and was not wanting to keep the baby would you not ask how it happened, and after finding out that her sole reliance on not getting pregnant was the pill, you then wondered why she didn't also employ the use of a condom?

You are a moron , as a father or mother to ask this and maybe call it irresponsible?

Calling people morons here is just a buck passing exercise and burying one's head in the sand.

Hey, maybe the parents are irresponsible here if they didn't stress to their daughter about pregnancy and how it can happen.

Overheal

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Being brutally honest, I think there is a racist element to the fact that people don't accept the 8th was responsible for Savita's death. I saw that first hand in Galway when she died.

True. Anti quoted for me the infant mortality rate in India the other week to dismiss the idea the 8th has any affect on her death.

southstar

For Forks Sake wrote: »

More on "Noel the nurse".

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/03/08/a-pro-life-pattern/

... also worked in theatres in UK for number of years ...saw many terminations..never saw anything gruesome as is being portrayed.The ODP as this guy is claiming to be is essentially an anaesthetic technician...assists the anaesthetist.They rarely scrub up but yes are is theatres all the time..don't understand what he saw.

.......

This post has been deleted.

walshb

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So, as a parent of an upset teen you wouldn't ask any questions? Why? Because you may upset her further? I don't get this....

You are using ifs here.....there shouldn't be ifs where your young daughter is concerned....

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

To say that you can't amend the 8th include the power to legislate for FFA's, for example, is untrue.

Sure: technically you could include an entire "regulation of termination of pregnancy act" in the Constitution.

But it would be a stupid thing to do.

This idea that we should hard-code legislation into the Constitution in order to prevent future governments from representing the views of their electorates has got to go away. It's anti-democratic, it's counter-productive, and it's just plain wrong.

We need to stop having abortion referendums in this country for our own sanity and cohesiveness as a society. The pro-life agenda has created more division over the last three decades than can ever possibly be justified. It has to stop - this must be our last referendum on abortion.

.......

This post has been deleted.

walshb

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The ifs are related to parenting.....there shouldn't be ifs when parents are parenting and responsible for their children..when children become adults and legally responsible then ifs can creep in...

.......

This post has been deleted.

walshb

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But if she was upset and questioning "how could this happen." Surely a responsible parent would ask what contraception she was using, and were condoms part of her contraception plan? That would be astute and responsible parenting. Plus it may prevent another unwanted episode.

Seth Brundle

....... wrote: »

Someone who says "a female getting pregnant her (who allowed intercourse minus a condom) was irresponsible" is a moron.

There are a large number of people who have inadequate levels of knowledge in this area simply because they weren't taught.
Many people don't know there is a link between sex and pregnancy.


Anyhow shall we get back onto the discussion about the lies within the campaigns?

SafeSurfer

Seth Brundle wrote: »

There are a large number of people who have inadequate levels of knowledge in this area simply because they weren't taught.
Many people don't know there is a link between sex and pregnancy.


Anyhow shall we get back onto the discussion about the lies within the campaigns?

You claim “many” people don’t know there is a link between sex and pregnancy and want to talk about lies in the campaign?

blanch152

walshb wrote: »

No, they are not....

If your daughter came home pregnant aged 16/17/18... and was upset because she became pregnant and was not wanting to keep the baby would you not ask how it happened, and after finding out that her sole reliance on not getting pregnant was the pill, you then wondered why she didn't also employ the use of a condom?

You are a moron , as a father or mother to ask this and maybe call it irresponsible?

Calling people morons here is just a buck passing exercise and burying one's head in the sand.

Hey, maybe the parents are irresponsible here if they didn't stress to their daughter about pregnancy and how it can happen.

As the age of consent is 16, I would not be asking her any of those questions, are they are her business and her business alone.

Zubeneschamali

walshb wrote: »

If your daughter came home pregnant aged 16/17/18... and was upset because she became pregnant and was not wanting to keep the baby would you not ask how it happened, and after finding out that her sole reliance on not getting pregnant was the pill, you then wondered why she didn't also employ the use of a condo?

As a father, these would be your questions to a pregnant 16 year old daughter?

I'm guessing she'd go to her mother, and they'd go "shopping" in London without you.

finbar10

NuMarvel wrote: »

In 35 years, not a single person, be they legislator, lay person, or lawyer, who tells us it can be done is able to tell us how it would be done. No one has been able to actually produce this alternative constitutional text that would properly address these matters.

It's all well and good to talk about what the intention would be, but if the 8th has shown us anything, it's that the intended effect and the actual effect can be worlds apart. The 8th was intended to prevent a constitutional right to abortion being found, and ended up being the basis of one. On top of that, it's been used to prevent the distribution of information, stop a girl having an abortion abroad, and was cited as the reason for the Miss P case.

The 8th isn't fit for purpose and needs to go. Those who say it can be altered instead of removed have had ample opportunity to tell us how this can be done, to no avail. I see no reason for believing that's going to change soon, so let's be rid of the 8th, while the opportunity is before us.

I don't think it has been because no one couldn't; it's just that no one really wanted to try to formulate one in the first place. The people who were really passionate about this weren't interested in some middle-of-the-road compromise amendment. Pro-life people, against abortion in all circumstances, were happy with the status quo. Dedicated pro-choicers had no interest in some watered down amendment. Politicians could have commissioned some lawyers or legal draftsmen to write one. However, cowardly politicians over this period really didn't want to touch this topic with a barge-pole. It's an extremely contentious issue that probably will only lose them votes. To given an example, an elderly neighbour of mine told me last night that two members of her weekly sewing circle in the local community centre literally nearly came to blows on the issue (this is usually a friendly place where they go every week to do a bit of sewing and mostly have a bit of a natter). Lots of extremely passionate people out there (seemingly in sewing circles too! ).

I just don't see any insurmountable issues. Balancing rights of mother and child is complex. However, if one just had a replacement amendment which lays out in broad terms: here is where the Oireachtas may legislate for termination of pregnancy (under some of the broad categories I mentioned) and otherwise here it may not.

The two main camps fighting this battle over the previous decades have had no interest in any grey compromise proposal. Pro-life has been defending the status quo (and simple repeal gives them the best chance of victory). Pro-choice has a vested interest in any such amendment being impossible (whether it is or not). They are not really interested in any such proposal. No one has been really.

NuMarvel

finbar10 wrote: »

I don't think it has been because no one couldn't; it's just that no one really wanted to try to formulate one in the first place. The people who were really passionate about this weren't interested in some middle-of-the-road compromise amendment. Pro-life people, against abortion in all circumstances, were happy with the status. Dedicated pro-choice were not interested in some watered down amendment. Politicians could have commissioned some lawyers or legal draftsmen to write one. However, cowardly politicians over this period really didn't want to touch this topic with a barge-pole. It's an extremely contentious issue that probably will only lose them votes. To given an example, an elderly neighbour of mine told me last night that two members of her weekly sewing circle in the local community centre literally nearly came to blows on the issue (this is usually a friendly place where they go every week to do a bit of sewing and mostly have a bit of a natter). Lots of extremely passionate people out there (seemingly in sewing circles too! ).

I just don't see any insurmountable issues. Balancing rights of mother and child is complex. However, if one just had a replacement amendment which lays out in broad terms: here is where the Oireachtas may legislate for termination of pregnancy (under some of the broad categories I mentioned) and otherwise here it may not.

The two main camps fighting this battle over the previous decades have had no interest in any grey compromise proposal. Pro-life has been defending the status quo (and simple repeal gives them the best chance of victory). Pro-choice has a vested interest in any such amendment being impossible (whether it is or not). They are not really interested in any such proposal. No one has been really.

It isn't just pro choice people that are telling us it can't be done though.The Attorney General back in 1983 was completely opposed to the 8th. Not because of his stance on the issue of abortion, but because he saw the problems with trying to put this type of issue into the Constitution. As he put it:

The overall reason, which crops up in almost every facet of any attempted solution is that the subject matter of the amendment sough is of such complexity, involves so many matters of medical and scientific, moral and jurisprudential expertise as to be incapable of accurate encapsulation into a simple constitution-type provision.

He went on to add:

“Words which one would expect in normal usage to be quite clear in their simplicity, in the context of a proposed amendment, take on complex but vital ambiguities which make their use in a constitution not only undesirable but dangerous in their uncertainty…

These issues would apply equally to exception-based amendment as it did to the 8th. Drafting constitutional provisions isn't like writing a message on a birthdaycard; it's more akin to trying to explain the offside rule in 140 characters, in a language you don't completely understand.

finbar10

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, Brian Murray set out a number of possible avenues; one of which is the referendum on which we are about to vote.

His proposals were explored, and the most feasible one was recommended.

When you explore the "defined circumstances" option, it quickly unravels and it becomes clear that you end up with either a massive constitutional article, or one which is vague to the point of being dangerous, or pointless (or both).

It's simply too complicated an issue to have a short set of (practically) unchangeable "defined circumstances".

I've listened to a lot of those talks. This avenue wasn't explored really at all. Anyway, even prior to the CA being selected I pointed out some problems with the random selection process.

The polling company had to ask approximately 40 people for every single one they persuaded to sign up for numerous weekends involved attending the assembly. This generated a strong self-selection bias. Naturally, those most interested signed up (probably including a disproportionate number inordinately interested in the headline topic abortion). I predicted here and elsewhere that chances are the CA would either make only quite restrictive or quite permissive recommendations (depending on the ratio of pro-life to pro-choice hardcore in the population). It turned out to be the later. I'd say a genuinely random representative sample of the population might have opted to explore this particular avenue. It was never likely, though, give the CA format.

finbar10

NuMarvel wrote: »

It isn't just pro choice people that are telling us it can't be done though.The Attorney General back in 1983 was completely opposed to the 8th. Not because of his stance on the issue of abortion, but because he saw the problems with trying to put this type of issue into the Constitution. As he put it:



He went on to add:



These issues would apply equally to exception-based amendment as it did to the 8th. Drafting constitutional provisions isn't like writing a message on a birthdaycard; it's more akin to trying to explain the offside rule in 140 characters, in a language you don't completely understand.

I can see how equally balancing possibly conflicting rights to life of mother and child could be complex and fraught. I don't see why an exception-based amendment would be as problematic. Or just adding specific exceptions to the status quo saying: however, pregnancy may be terminated for these particular cases. It simply significantly relaxes what we have.

AFAIK Sutherland was commenting there on the particular wording involved in the eighth. Sutherland also expected that the courts would find some at least partial right to life for the unborn in the constitution (perhaps like the German constitutional court did based on the right to life in their eternity clauses). Maybe they would have, but there was no guarantee. They could have taken a legal positivist approach like the judges in the recent Supreme Court case did and reason that if it wasn't specifically written down, then it wasn't there.

The functioning of the eighth is well understood at this stage. Relaxing its application in some limited and specific circumstances would have fairly well understood effects I think.

Anyway, I think I've mostly said what I've wanted to say here on this topic. We're starting to go in circles, and it doesn't look like I'm going to get people here who disagree to agree. So probably enough of this and I'll let other people have the last word if they want!

Danger781

On the topic of outright lies here's an interesting one for you.. My mother is a zealot whose views of the world are completely warped by any sane person's standards but that's not my story.. A woman in her prayer meeting told her that all people who work in abortion clinics are satanists and their only desire is to sacrifice the baby to Satan. They are forcing women into having abortions against their will just so they can please Satan. She was not being satirical unfortunately and get visibly angry when I laughed in her face. :pac: Apparently this woman in the prayer meeting heard it directly from a satanist who visited Medjugorje.. That part just confused me

The fact that someone like her is legally allowed to vote and influence decisions is incredibly concerning. Out of curiosity.. Under what scenarios can someones right to vote be taken away? This is not me asking how I go about starting this process; I'm genuinely just curious.

Overheal

Not surprising. The big lie over here on that slant is Planned Parenthood is only interested in promoting abortions to wipe out humanity or for Satan depending on your take, or for profit, even though they offer free contraceptives and abortions overall have continued to go down year after year.

NuMarvel

finbar10 wrote: »

I can see how equally balancing possibly conflicting rights to life of mother and child could be complex and fraught. I don't see why an exception-based amendment would be as problematic. Or just adding specific exceptions to the status quo saying: however, pregnancy may be terminated for these particular cases. It simply significantly relaxes what we have.

I can see plenty of problems, and I can't see any solutions to those problems from you or anyone else.

Anyway, I think I've mostly said what I've wanted to say here on this topic. We're starting to go in circles, and it doesn't look like I'm going to get people here who disagree to agree.

You won't get anyone to agree to something they haven't seen yet. Get someone to draft up a feasible alternative, and then we can talk.

finbar10

NuMarvel wrote: »

I can see plenty of problems, and I can't see any solutions to those problems from you or anyone else.



You won't get anyone to agree to something they haven't seen yet. Get someone to draft up a feasible alternative, and then we can talk.

Sure, I'll get right onto any of the former AGs who are up for it. Expect the draft wording any time soon now! ...

Nettle Soup

pleas advice wrote: »

Well that's an outlandish accusation.

I am telling you, if Savita had been white Irish she would have received a lot more sympathy from certain cohorts in Galway - especially amongst the older ladies. And I do think there is a racist element to people still believing that her death was not related to the 8th.

MightyMunster

blanch152 wrote: »

As the age of consent is 16, I would not be asking her any of those questions, are they are her business and her business alone.

The age of consent is 17 in Ireland.....

NuMarvel

finbar10 wrote: »

Sure, I'll get right onto any of the former AGs who are up for it. Expect the draft wording any time soon now! ...

Just ask one of those lawyers for No who said it could be done. Or just get onto Ronan Mullen. Wasn't he saying on Claire Byrne that an alteration would work?

I'm sure all these No siders who said it can be done will have something in their back pocket to give you. It's not as if they're just throwing out red herrings, I'm sure...

blanch152

finbar10 wrote: »

I don't think it has been because no one couldn't; it's just that no one really wanted to try to formulate one in the first place. The people who were really passionate about this weren't interested in some middle-of-the-road compromise amendment. Pro-life people, against abortion in all circumstances, were happy with the status quo. Dedicated pro-choicers had no interest in some watered down amendment. Politicians could have commissioned some lawyers or legal draftsmen to write one. However, cowardly politicians over this period really didn't want to touch this topic with a barge-pole. It's an extremely contentious issue that probably will only lose them votes. To given an example, an elderly neighbour of mine told me last night that two members of her weekly sewing circle in the local community centre literally nearly came to blows on the issue (this is usually a friendly place where they go every week to do a bit of sewing and mostly have a bit of a natter). Lots of extremely passionate people out there (seemingly in sewing circles too! ).

I just don't see any insurmountable issues. Balancing rights of mother and child is complex. However, if one just had a replacement amendment which lays out in broad terms: here is where the Oireachtas may legislate for termination of pregnancy (under some of the broad categories I mentioned) and otherwise here it may not.

The two main camps fighting this battle over the previous decades have had no interest in any grey compromise proposal. Pro-life has been defending the status quo (and simple repeal gives them the best chance of victory). Pro-choice has a vested interest in any such amendment being impossible (whether it is or not). They are not really interested in any such proposal. No one has been really.

If you don't see any insurmountable issues, why don't you propose a text for an amendment and we will explain to you the unintended consequences and the legal nightmare that will follow.

The simple formula of the 8th has already resulted in many deaths of women, it has put dozens more through court cases and many thousands have had to endure hazardous trips to England for healthcare. A more complicated amendment would make this even worse.

blanch152

MightyMunster wrote: »

The age of consent is 17 in Ireland.....

http://www.medicalprotection.org/ireland/booklets/consent-to-medical-treatment-in-ireland

"Young people of 16 or over can consent to treatment on their own behalf but it is not yet clear if they can refuse treatment if they are under 18"

I thought we were speaking about contraception, but we could have mixed it up with sex.

Though when you think about, you can get married, decide your own medical treatment, etc. when you are 16, but can't have sex until you are 17, that really sums Ireland up.

antiskeptic

finbar10 wrote: »

As I've argued earlier in this thread, setting out the broad parameters/exceptions of an abortion regime in the constitution is probably not as unworkable as some propose (one of the legal experts to the citizens assembly discussed it as a viable avenue but this was never explored). One doesn't have to have reams of medical conditions or words in the constitution. Just a few sentences would do outlining some basic choices:

• Do we have an exception for serious threats to the health of the mother?
• Do we have a rape exception?
• Do we have a term limit?
• Do we have an exception for FFA?

and permit the Oireachtas to legislate for the fine details of these circumstances. I'm sure some adequate way could be found to frame an appropriate constitutional article if the political will was there. I have never really bought the all-or-nothing argument in this debate.

+1

Much is made by Yes about the fact that since the 2013 Act, only 77 (iirc) cases have occurred where abortion on the grounds of threat of suicide have been carried out.

' "Opening the floodgates" the No side was heard to cry'. ' "Abortion on demand" they said'.

No floodgate. No abortion on demand.


"They said that suicide ideation is impossible to measure - anyone could now avail of an abortion on those grounds. But it never happened" say Yes. "No thought suicide ideation impossible to legislate for, without the floodgates opening. Yet it happened".



What difference rape? No difference: it's not measurable, it's not disprovable. Yet it's supposedly "impossible to legislate for" - say Yes this time.



Which is it? It seems experience has shown us that such intangible things are to be legislated for.

antiskeptic

blanch152 wrote: »

The simple formula of the 8th has already resulted in many deaths of women

I don't know where you've got your "many" from. Not only are there not many, but Ireland is officially a very safe place to be pregnant.


The mod of this thread has halted discussion on the matter of whether or not the 8th killed anyone. But your commenting thus enables, I feel, a right of reply.

The current medical council guidelines, introduced following the 2013 act

- permit termination where the risk to a woman's life is substantial. That is, it has substance - it is not spurious

- don't require that the risk is imminent. A woman who would be forced off pills, to stave off cancer, because of a pregnancy, doesn't have to wait until the cancer returns before a termination is carried out. If the risk of return of cancer is a reasonable outcome of her being forced off pills by a pregnancy then a termination is possible

- doesn't require that the risk is inevitable. Even if the risk isn't sure to develop into danger, the termination can be carried out.


Substance / not imminent / not inevitable.





Has anyone died due to refusal of a termination since the new guidelines, formulated under the 8th were introduced? 5 years ago. No-one?


Even if someone did die, it still need not be the fault of the 8th. Law can be blamed, guidelines can be blamed. Clinical practices can be blamed. Why the 8th alone?


Accusing the 8th of killing people is accusing the people who formulated the 8th of killing people. That's a pretty hefty charge. And to land it, you ought, out of sheer decency, know that you can make it stick.

Don't just parrot what you've heard.

NuMarvel

antiskeptic wrote: »

+1

Much is made by Yes about the fact that since the 2013 Act, only 77 (iirc) cases have occurred where abortion on the grounds of threat of suicide have been carried out.

' "Opening the floodgates" the No side was heard to cry'. ' "Abortion on demand" they said'.

No floodgate. No abortion on demand.


"They said that suicide ideation is impossible to measure - anyone could now avail of an abortion on those grounds. But it never happened" say Yes. "No thought suicide ideation impossible to legislate for, without the floodgates opening. Yet it happened".



What difference rape? No difference: it's not measurable, it's not disprovable. Yet it's supposedly "impossible to legislate for" - say Yes this time.



Which is it? It seems experience has shown us that such intangible things are to be legislated for.

Considering they were wrong on both the effects of the 8th and the effects of the 2013 Act, what experience actually tells us is that supporters of the 8th aren't the people to listen to when it comes to the potential consequences of constitutional and statutory law.

Their claims that the constitution could be amended to cater for exceptional cases can be rightly dismissed, not only because they don't have a track record of expertise in this area, but also due to the absence of examples of how this could be done properly.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't know where you've got your "many" from. Not only are there not many, but Ireland is officially a very safe place to be pregnant.

“The majority of deaths in the years 2013 - 2015 were from indirect causes, i.e. from pre- existing disorders exacerbated by pregnancy. The proportion of maternal deaths due to direct and indirect causes was 30% and 70% respectively. This reflects findings in the UK and underscores the importance of preconception counselling for all women of childbearing years with pre-existing medical and mental health disorders. It also serves to emphasise the importance of a comprehensive history being documented at the first booking visit to a maternity unit.”

Sounds like the number would be even lower if some women who didn’t want to conceive - due to preexisting conditions - would have been allowed to remain out of the pregnancy club.

https://www.ucc.ie/en/media/research/maternaldeathenquiryireland/Confidential-Maternal-Death-Enquiry-Report-2013---2015--Web.pdf

antiskeptic

NuMarvel wrote: »

Considering they were wrong on both the effects of the 8th and the effects of the 2013 Act, what experience actually tells us is that supporters of the 8th aren't the people to listen to when it comes to the potential consequences of constitutional and statutory law.

Blame the No campaign then, that's fine. We're looking at blaming the 8th.

Their claims that the constitution could be amended to cater for exceptional cases can be rightly dismissed, not only because they don't have a track record of expertise in this area, but also due to the absence of examples of how this could be done properly.

I've just given you one. Legislation for suicide grounds. Something that isn't provable like physical ailment is provable. If you can legislate for something that isn't provable once, why can you not twice?

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

“The majority of deaths in the years 2013 - 2015 were from indirect causes, i.e. from pre- existing disorders exacerbated by pregnancy. The proportion of maternal deaths due to direct and indirect causes was 30% and 70% respectively. This reflects findings in the UK and underscores the importance of preconception counselling for all women of childbearing years with pre-existing medical and mental health disorders. It also serves to emphasise the importance of a comprehensive history being documented at the first booking visit to a maternity unit.”

Sounds like the number would be even lower if some women who didn’t want to conceive - due to preexisting conditions - would have been allowed to remain out of the pregnancy club.

https://www.ucc.ie/en/media/research/maternaldeathenquiryireland/Confidential-Maternal-Death-Enquiry-Report-2013---2015--Web.pdf

Deaths due to a failure to terminate where the there was a risk to the life of the mother. Not deaths per se.

finbar10

blanch152 wrote: »

If you don't see any insurmountable issues, why don't you propose a text for an amendment and we will explain to you the unintended consequences and the legal nightmare that will follow.

The simple formula of the 8th has already resulted in many deaths of women, it has put dozens more through court cases and many thousands have had to endure hazardous trips to England for healthcare. A more complicated amendment would make this even worse.

OK, that's a fair request. I'm not a lawyer. Hence this probably sounds clunky and some things could probably be better qualified, e.g. perhaps I should mention something about a medical practitioner determining the 12 weeks. Anyway, you probably get the general idea from this. Here we go:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws, except in the specific circumstances set out in this subsection, to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

In circumstances where:
1) there is a medical condition affecting the foetus that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before birth or shortly after birth
2) there is a serious threat to the physical and/or mental health of the mother
3) the pregnancy has not exceeded 12 weeks of pregnancy
the Oireachtas alone shall determine by law what right to life, if any, the unborn shall have and determine the appropriate balance between any such right and the right to life of the mother. In these specific circumstances, the Oireachtas also shall have the full power and discretion to permit and regulate the termination of pregnancies by law.

NuMarvel

antiskeptic wrote: »

Blame the No campaign then, that's fine. We're looking at blaming the 8th.



I've just given you one. Legislation for suicide grounds. Something that isn't provable like physical ailment is provable. If you can legislate for something that isn't provable once, why can you not twice?

I think you're confused about what's being discussed. It's about how (and if) we can account for exceptional circumstances in the constitution. The No side keep telling us we can do this way, but as I've pointed out they haven't shown how that can be done, and they don't have a great track record in constitutional and legislative interpretation to begin with.

Your example of legislating for suicide isn't proof of how it can be done, because we're not talking about legislating for something, we're talking about how to properly provide for it in the constitution. The issue isn't whether something is provable, it's the fact that the constitution isn't designed for complex clinical matters in the first place. If anything your example shows why legislation is better than the constitution, because it can cover all the bases in detail.

So to bring us back on topic, it would seem that this is another lie of the campaign. The problems with this approach have been highlighted numerous times in numerous threads, and none of the proponents have shown how these problems would be properly addressed.

pitifulgod

antiskeptic wrote: »

Blame the No campaign then, that's fine. We're looking at blaming the 8th.



I've just given you one. Legislation for suicide grounds. Something that isn't provable like physical ailment is provable. If you can legislate for something that isn't provable once, why can you not twice?

To use rape as an example. Many women don't report because they're not in a mental state to. So force them to report so they can avail of an abortion? That's absolutely cruel. In addition, the suicide grounds assess the mental health of a woman via 3 psychiatrists, you can assess likelihood. Not a fan of the process though.

You do tend to ignore those who have been substantially impacted by the 8th.the reality is Savita would likely be alive if it were not for it.

NuMarvel

finbar10 wrote: »

OK, that's a fair request. I'm not a lawyer. Hence this probably sounds clunky and some things could probably be better qualified, e.g. perhaps I should mention something about a medical practitioner determining the 12 weeks. Anyway, you probably get the general idea from this. Here we go:

There are some big issues with it, but before I get into those, I have to give you credit for attempting it at all, and not doing a half bad job at it either.

Now for the issues. The big one for me is this line:

"the Oireachtas alone shall determine by law what right to life, if any, the unborn shall have and determine the appropriate balance between any such right and the right to life of the mother. In these specific circumstances, the Oireachtas also shall have the full power and discretion to permit and regulate the termination of pregnancies by law".

I can see what you're trying to do, but you're granting politicians a massive amount of power, even more than the current referendum would. You're saying that they alone will determine in law what's a serious threat to the woman's health, and what determines likelihood of death in cases of FFA. You're also constitutionally protecting abortion "on demand" up to 12 weeks when the Oireachtas legislates for it. All of this means there would be no recourse whatsoever to the courts in these cases. I can't think of any other example in the constitution where this is expressed so emphatically. Judicial review is one of the fundamental cornerstones of a democracy, and this would eliminate that in the circumstances you've specified.

I think Yes campaigners would have some concerns with this approach, but would probably ultimately support it. I think No campaigners on the other hand would have a complete meltdown and would be saying everything they're saying now PLUS saying it effectively creates constitutional protection for abortion, both on demand and in other circumstances.

There are other smaller issues, like the lack of a timeframe for abortion on grounds of health, or not clarifying abortion in terms of right to life. But the big issue is the one I mention above, and I really can't see it helping to assuage anyone who is undecided on the issue, and could potentially persuade soft Yes voters to change their minds.

antiskeptic

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think you're confused about what's being discussed. It's about how (and if) we can account for exceptional circumstances in the constitution.

We have accounted for an exceptional case in the constitution. The exceptional case is threat of suicide dealth with by legislation permitted under the constitution

The No side keep telling us we can do this way, but as I've pointed out they haven't shown how that can be done, and they don't have a great track record in constitutional and legislative interpretation to begin with.

And I've pointed out that it's not the No we ought to be looking at. It's the existence of legislation to deal with an exceptional case we ought to be looking at.

Your example of legislating for suicide isn't proof of how it can be done, because we're not talking about legislating for something, we're talking about how to properly provide for it in the constitution.

The suicide example shows that it is possible to legislate for an exceptional case under the constitution. The constitution is shown able to provide for it, so we don't need to reconsider how to provide for it. We need to consider can we now legislate for it.

The issue isn't whether something is provable, it's the fact that the constitution isn't designed for complex clinical matters in the first place.

Suicide is a complex psychological matter. And it's adequately dealt with by legislation (if lack of open floodgates is a measure of adequacy. The only question to be asked of the constitution is whether it, the constitution, allows for legislation: legislation being the place where the complexity is dealth with.

If anything your example shows why legislation is better than the constitution, because it can cover all the bases in detail.

There is no argument that legislation is the place to deal with the details. Could you focus on the fact that this sequence: Constitution permits legislation > legislation deals with the complexities has already been demonstrated in the case of suicide.

So to bring us back on topic, it would seem that this is another lie of the campaign. The problems with this approach have been highlighted numerous times in numerous threads, and none of the proponents have shown how these problems would be properly addressed.

Hand wave. You appear to be shooting for a mod-imposed stalemate on this.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

We have accounted for an exceptional case in the constitution. The exceptional case is threat of suicide dealth with by legislation permitted under the constitution

But that was only permitted by accident - the framers of the 8th did not intend it to be permitted, and the prolifers tried twice to remove that exception by amendment (and failed both times).

This is what people are trying to tell you - trying to do this stuff with a sentence in the Constitution is impossible.

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But that was only permitted by accident - the framers of the 8th did not intend it to be permitted, and the prolifers tried twice to remove that exception by amendment (and failed both times).

I couldn't give a rat's arse what a lobby group do or don't do. This is about the constitution and the law. What the legislature can and cannot do.

I must dismiss your contention about accidents. Legislation in the constitution is not a matter of accident. It goes through the rigors of the court system. They don't do accidents.

This is what people are trying to tell you - trying to do this stuff with a sentence in the Constitution is impossible.

"The people agree to allow the government to introduce legislation for abortion in the cases of rape / incest / ffa"

It's no different that the current line proposed. It just puts limits on what the government can do.

finbar10

NuMarvel wrote: »

There are some big issues with it, but before I get into those, I have to give you credit for attempting it at all, and not doing a half bad job at it either.

Now for the issues. The big one for me is this line:

"the Oireachtas alone shall determine by law what right to life, if any, the unborn shall have and determine the appropriate balance between any such right and the right to life of the mother. In these specific circumstances, the Oireachtas also shall have the full power and discretion to permit and regulate the termination of pregnancies by law".

I can see what you're trying to do, but you're granting politicians a massive amount of power, even more than the current referendum would. You're saying that they alone will determine in law what's a serious threat to the woman's health, and what determines likelihood of death in cases of FFA. You're also constitutionally protecting abortion "on demand" up to 12 weeks when the Oireachtas legislates for it. All of this means there would be no recourse whatsoever to the courts in these cases. I can't think of any other example in the constitution where this is expressed so emphatically. Judicial review is one of the fundamental cornerstones of a democracy, and this would eliminate that in the circumstances you've specified.

I think Yes campaigners would have some concerns with this approach, but would probably ultimately support it. I think No campaigners on the other hand would have a complete meltdown and would be saying everything they're saying now PLUS saying it effectively creates constitutional protection for abortion, both on demand and in other circumstances.

There are other smaller issues, like the lack of a timeframe for abortion on grounds of health, or not clarifying abortion in terms of right to life. But the big issue is the one I mention above, and I really can't see it helping to assuage anyone who is undecided on the issue, and could potentially persuade soft Yes voters to change their minds.

Giving full powers to the Oireachtas on something does, of course, tend to increase clarity. However, it comes with downsides as you say. The Oireachtas inquiries amendment tried to do the same with regard to the rights of people coming before an Oireachtas inquiry (probably one of the reasons it failed). One could use somewhat weaker language, which may be open to some degree of judicial review, for example:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws, with provisos for the specific circumstances set out in this subsection, to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

In circumstances where:
1) there is a medical condition affecting the foetus that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before birth or shortly after birth
2) there is a serious threat to the physical and/or mental health of the mother
3) the pregnancy has not exceeded 12 weeks of pregnancy
the Oireachtas may determine in law the extent, if at all, to which the unborn's right to life is vindicated, acknowledged or defended, and, in these specific circumstances, shall have the power and discretion to permit and regulate the termination of pregnancies by law.

Here, the Oireachtas is free to vindicate or not this right to life in specific circumstances and I've toned down the wording of its power to regulate abortion.

Sure, you're giving the Oireachtas full power, but only to attenuate the right to life of the unborn (no other right is impacted and for no other person) and only in specific circumstances. Still a limited carte blanche, but perhaps the limitations are clearer here. Again, my wording is clunky and, no doubt, has holes which a proper legal draftsperson could phrase much better. I agree on possible niggles with the wording of the exceptions also.

Basically, you create a legal sandbox where the Oireachtas has full power over the right to life of the child but only in certain limited circumstances.

Sure, core pro-lifers would resist this. However, these are only a subset of potential NO voters for this referendum. I'd say most people who'll vote NO and many who'll vote YES will have conflicting feelings on this issue (and will vote YES or NO depending on what they see is the less worse option).