Outright lies in Campaign

NuMarvel

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



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.



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.






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.





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.



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

One last time:

We're not talking about how we'd deal with exceptional cases in legislation.
We're talking about if and how we would properly provide for exceptional cases in the constitution in the first place.

If you can show how we can do that, then we can talk. Otherwise, I'll get off this merry go round here.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

Legislation in the constitution is not a matter of accident. It goes through the rigors of the court system. They don't do accidents.

It is a fact that the framers of the 8th did not intend to allow abortion for suicidal women. We know this, because as soon as the Supreme Court ruled that the 8th does allow it, they tried to change it, failed, and tried again 10 years later (and failed).

The pro-life crew, by passing the 8th, intending to ensure abortion remained illegal, forced the Dail to legalise abortion.

To make it even more ridiculous, they were warned that this would happen. Alan Shatter stated this on the Dáil record in 1983. They did not believe him.

NuMarvel

finbar10 wrote: »

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:



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.

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).

That change wouldn't have a significant impact though. It's still in effect saying abortion in these areas is a matter for the Oireachtas. It isn't clear that judicial review remains an option, and there would have to be a court case to get certainty on that alone. If judicial review was an option, then it's still effectively saying it's up to the courts to make decisions on clinical issues such as serious threat, or likliehood of foetal death. And given how fast medicine can change, that's asking for more trouble.

What's more, it's definitely not true to say other people won't be affected in this new version. The Miss P case, where the family of the pregnant woman on life support had to go to the courts get permission to turn off the life support, would still have happened under this version. Her case doesn't fall into the specified circumstances you've outlined. That's one of the issues with the 8th; it has the potential to impact on all pregnancies, not just those where abortion is a consideration. The exceptions you've outlined don't address that at all, so it remains in place.

finbar10

NuMarvel wrote: »

That change wouldn't have a significant impact though. It's still in effect saying abortion in these areas is a matter for the Oireachtas. It isn't clear that judicial review remains an option, and there would have to be a court case to get certainty on that alone. If judicial review was an option, then it's still effectively saying it's up to the courts to make decisions on clinical issues such as serious threat, or likliehood of foetal death. And given how fast medicine can change, that's asking for more trouble.

Sure. It's mostly a matter of appropriate wording. My intent is to exclude judicial review in particular circumstances. Now, in my wording, judges aren't entirely excluded from adjudicating on where the boundaries are, what "serious" means. But if the courts are satisfied that the procedures in place for determining what "serious" is, then for those cases the Oireachtas has full power (in my first wording anyway).

What's more, it's definitely not true to say other people won't be affected in this new version. The Miss P case, where the family of the pregnant woman on life support had to go to the courts get permission to turn off the life support, would still have happened under this version. Her case doesn't fall into the specified circumstances you've outlined. That's one of the issues with the 8th; it has the potential to impact on all pregnancies, not just those where abortion is a consideration. The exceptions you've outlined don't address that at all, so it remains in place.

Sure, and I wasn't trying to be exhaustive in my exceptions. Though there is now some case law now regarding the eighth for such circumstances. The courts took the view that "as far as is practicable" meant that if medics thought there was little prospect of the child surviving, termination, or turning off life support, was permissible. However, if the mother was, say, around 20 weeks gestation, and perhaps only a few weeks to viability, then the courts may have taken a different view. Again, you could put in an exception if you wished for this rare circumstance.

In general, there aren't an unending list of possible exceptions for abortion. Abortion regimes of various types have been in place around the world for decades. The possible "hard case" exceptions are known and limited in number.

NuMarvel

finbar10 wrote: »

Sure. It's mostly a matter of appropriate wording. My intent is to exclude judicial review in particular circumstances. Now, in my wording, judges aren't entirely excluded from adjudicating on where the boundaries are, what "serious" means. But if the courts are satisfied that the procedures in place for determining what "serious" is, then for those cases the Oireachtas has full power (in my first wording anyway).

That's my ultimate point; that the appropriate wording can't be found.

Look at this point alone, about determining what the courts can or can't adjudicate on. Your intention was one thing but the text can be easily interpreted as allowing another. And it's simply not possible to limit the extent of the judicial review. If you're saying it's in the court remit to rule on serious threats to health, then it's entirely in their remit. You can't limit their scope to determining whether the right procedures are in place, they'd have a role in determining if serious itself has been properly defined in law in accordance with the rest of the constitution.

This isn't a case of tweaking the text to make it right. The courts either have a judicial review role, or they don't. Saying they do means they'll be the ultimate arbiters of what's serious health or not, saying they don't is a significant departure from the norm, and as you've said, not something that was intended.

finbar10 wrote: »

Sure, and I wasn't trying to be exhaustive in my exceptions. Though there is now some case law now regarding the eighth for such circumstances. The courts took the view that "as far as is practicable" meant that if medics thought there was little prospect of the child surviving, termination, or turning off life support, was permissible. However, if the mother was, say, around 20 weeks gestation, and perhaps only a few weeks to viability, then the courts may have taken a different view. Again, you could put in an exception if you wished for this rare circumstance.

In general, there aren't an unending list of possible exceptions for abortion. Abortion regimes of various types have been in place around the world for decades. The possible "hard case" exceptions are known and limited in number.

The hard cases for abortion are known. But the hard cases that are caused by the 8th and are not about abortion aren't known. They are unknowable, because we don't know about them until they happen.

Could anyone have predicted the Miss P case before it happened? Does anyone want to see another case like that again? And if not, how can anyone hope to properly account for those scenarios in the constitution without having to hold referendums everytime something unexpected happens?

finbar10

NuMarvel wrote: »

That's my ultimate point; that the appropriate wording can't be found.

Look at this point alone, about determining what the courts can or can't adjudicate on. Your intention was one thing but the text can be easily interpreted as allowing another. And it's simply not possible to limit the extent of the judicial review. If you're saying it's in the court remit to rule on serious threats to health, then it's entirely in their remit. You can't limit their scope to determining whether the right procedures are in place, they'd have a role in determining if serious itself has been properly defined in law in accordance with the rest of the constitution.

This isn't a case of tweaking the text to make it right. The courts either have a judicial review role, or they don't. Saying they do means they'll be the ultimate arbiters of what's serious health or not, saying they don't is a significant departure from the norm, and as you've said, not something that was intended.

My first wording immunized those particular cases from judicial review (leaving it entirely up to the Oireachtas) as regards how to treat the right to life of the unborn (when those cases were triggered), but my first wording didn't immunize the process of determining whether the exceptions were triggered to judicial review. The first wording looks alright to me if people are OK with no judicial review within those particular circumstances.

The hard cases for abortion are known. But the hard cases that are caused by the 8th and are not about abortion aren't known. They are unknowable, because we don't know about them until they happen.

Could anyone have predicted the Miss P case before it happened? Does anyone want to see another case like that again? And if not, how can anyone hope to properly account for those scenarios in the constitution without having to hold referendums everytime something unexpected happens?

My wording simply sets out circumstances where the original eighth doesn't apply (a legal sandbox is constructed around them). It doesn't then matter what the original eighth said.


Of course the circumstances of Miss P could have been foreseen and an appropriate exception constructed. It's a rare occurrence but nonetheless is well known to occur. There have been quite a few cases in various countries (many where the child was eventually healthily born). It's not as if a Miss P type case was totally unprecedented.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

finbar10 wrote: »

My wording simply sets out circumstances where the original eighth doesn't apply (a legal sandbox is constructed around them). It doesn't then matter what the original eighth said.


Of course the circumstances of Miss P could have been foreseen and an appropriate exception constructed. It's a rare occurrence but nonetheless is well known to occur. There have been quite a few cases in various countries (many where the child was eventually healthily born). It's not as if a Miss P type case was totally unprecedented.

But it does matter what the 8th says about other situations. Do you want the 8th to still have that reach? And if not, how are you going to restrict that reach?

Hitman3000

So how about this for a lie. Ciara Sherlock on some of the Referendum articles on the Times website has accused John Delaney of the FAI of suggesting someone should rape Maria Steen. I captured a screenshot of her outrageous allegation and forwarded it to several news outlets.

gmisk

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So how about this for a lie. Ciara Sherlock on some of the Referendum articles on the Times website has accused John Delaney of the FAI of suggesting someone should rape Maria Steen. I captured a screenshot of her outrageous allegation and forwarded it to several news outlets.

Wow! What a thing to say about someone!

gmisk

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So how about this for a lie. Ciara Sherlock on some of the Referendum articles on the Times website has accused John Delaney of the FAI of suggesting someone should rape Maria Steen. I captured a screenshot of her outrageous allegation and forwarded it to several news outlets.

I can see from her twitter she is now furiously back peddling


Hi everyone that was a mistake about John Delaney from the FAI. Just want to clarify that it was not him that said Maria Steen should be raped, it was another guy from Athy. with the same name...and I Just wanted to clarify that.

Hitman3000

gmisk wrote:

Hi everyone that was a mistake about John Delaney from the FAI. Just want to clarify that it was not him that said Maria Steen should be raped, it was another guy from Athy. with the same name...and I Just wanted to clarify that.

Well it's gone to several news media hope she likes uncomfortable attention. Serious allegation to make without first checking her facts.

Hotblack Desiato

After "Pantigate" you'd think the No side would be well aware of what sort of speech is actionable.

There again, John McGurk is pretty free and easy with his tweets. I'd say the Save the 8th legal counsel must be having conniptions on a regular basis.

pleas advice

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

97% of abortions are carried out under the supposed 'risk to the mental health of the mother' grounds.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hitman3000

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

They don't but the healthy mum's killing healthy babies is far more emotive soundbite. Well they think it is.....

.......

This post has been deleted.

pleas advice

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You mean some of them could have had Down Syndrome?

'97% of abortions are carried out on unborn babies with no known illness'

Gunmonkey

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Probably the reason for abortion wasnt a medical problem with the fetuses....so therefor it is technically right...but they are still wording it as women randomly wandering into an abortion clinic to get an abortion.

Not really a lie but more obfuscating the whole truth.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pleas advice

Hence 'no known illness'

Maybe 97% includes some terminations carried out under other grounds, and excludes some under the mental health ground, I just did a quick google and the numbers seemed to correlate.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hitman3000

pleas advice wrote:

'97% of abortions are carried out on unborn babies with no known illness'

83% of abortions in the UK are in the first trimester. Tests rarely are carried out till after 10 weeks. But hey your sounds more dramatic.

antiskeptic

How about this for a lie.

No talk of men in this.

It's a measure of the value of life in the womb that the co-creators of it simply don't feature in the discussion.

Ed Sheeran down the abortion suite (if you choose to interpret that way)

spookwoman

antiskeptic wrote: »

How about this for a lie.

No talk of men in this.

It's a measure of the value of life in the womb that the co-creators of it simply don't feature in the discussion.

Ed Sheeran down the abortion suite (if you choose to interpret that way)

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ed-sheeran-denounces-anti-abortion-campaigners-1.3500785

Infini

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is a fact that the framers of the 8th did not intend to allow abortion for suicidal women. We know this, because as soon as the Supreme Court ruled that the 8th does allow it, they tried to change it, failed, and tried again 10 years later (and failed).

The pro-life crew, by passing the 8th, intending to ensure abortion remained illegal, forced the Dail to legalise abortion.

To make it even more ridiculous, they were warned that this would happen. Alan Shatter stated this on the Dáil record in 1983. They did not believe him.

It actually goes to show you how toxic the pro-life lobby that pushed this in in the first place are when you think about it. They want to control the whole issue regardless of the consequences.

Regardless I'll be happy should this be repealed as I find that the constitution was never the proper place for this in the first place to begin with. I also personally find the whole pro-life crew in many way's rather annoying as every time this subject come's up it's always full of bull from them as they quickly resort to inaccurate and downright distorted statements when confronted by facts.

I'll be glad once this is all over and I dont have to put up with their carryon anymore.

antiskeptic

spookwoman wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ed-sheeran-denounces-anti-abortion-campaigners-1.3500785

Your kind of missing the point.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your kind of missing the point.

It's a bit like quoting MLK out of context to support a push a against rights for blacks.

Overheal

Hitman3000 wrote: »

83% of abortions in the UK are in the first trimester. Tests rarely are carried out till after 10 weeks. But hey your sounds more dramatic.

True, it's hard for a zygote to develop or show Down Syndrome, Autism, or webbed feet when its still just a clump of cells.

Hitman3000

Overheal wrote:

True, it's hard for a zygote to develop or show Down Syndrome, Autism, or webbed feet when its still just a clump of cells.

Yeah but their claim is more dramatic and emotional.

Hotblack Desiato

Just had two love boaters at the door saying that Yes means we would have abortion on demand up to six months. That's an outright lie and I told them that. If they had convincing arguments they would have no need to make up stuff.

Outlaw Pete

Hope Ed's as quick to come out and declare that prochoicers didn't have permission to use a mock up of his Multiply album cover on the front of Vote Yes leaflets handed out before some of the gigs here.

Sam Russell

Since the eighth referendum passed in 1983, there have been four attempts to modify it by referendum, and this last referendum is to remove it. It has proved a difficult article in the constitution to comply with and not have unacceptable side effects of hard cases. Each injustice caused by those hard cases has led to either another referendum, or to legislation, to soften the effect of the words in the constitution.

The only real way of solving this is to remove the article and replace it with comprehensive primary legislation that can deal with hard cases. The proposed legislation will pass through the Dail and be modified as it passes, so it represent a more detailed set of rules that the doctors and midwives can comply with while not fearing the clang of the prison doors behind them.

That is the system we call democracy.

Remember, doctors take an oath - to do no harm. Lawyers practice law that allows them to defend the guilty, no matter what.

I would rather trust my health to the judgement of a doctor than to that of a lawyer.

Zubeneschamali

Sam Russell wrote: »

Remember, doctors take an oath - to do no harm.

No, they really don't. Irish doctors do not take the Hippocratic oath, and that oath does not include the phrase "First, do no harm" anyhow.

Hitman3000

Sam Russell wrote:

Remember, doctors take an oath - to do no harm. Lawyers practice law that allows them to defend the guilty, no matter what.

Nope they doctor's don't, no lawyers in Ireland either unless they are on holidays from somewhere else.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Hope Ed's as quick to come out and declare that prochoicers didn't have permission to use a mock up of his Multiply album cover on the front of Vote Yes leaflets handed out before some of the gigs here.

Did he culturally appropriate the letter X in a checkbox?

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

True, it's hard for a zygote to develop or show Down Syndrome, Autism, or webbed feet when its still just a clump of cells.

Well, considering you recently said on another thread that a fetus wasn't alive until it was born, mind if I ask you when, roughly, you think it is no longer apt to refer to a fetus as a mere 'clump of cells'?

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, considering you recently said on another thread that a fetus wasn

Back to the lies....


this one was the "best" of all:

spookwoman

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, considering you recently said on another thread that a fetus wasn't alive until it was born, mind if I ask you when, roughly, you think it is no longer apt to refer to a fetus as a mere 'clump of cells'?

:rolleyes:
They didn't say "fetus" they said Zygote. there is a difference
In humans, zygote stage of development occurs during the first day in week one following fertilization (GA week 3) and is described as Carnegie stage 1
This stage is followed by mitosis to form 2 blastomeres and then a solid cell mass called the morula
Foetal stage is weeks 9 to 37

BMMachine

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, considering you recently said on another thread that a fetus wasn't alive until it was born, mind if I ask you when, roughly, you think it is no longer apt to refer to a fetus as a mere 'clump of cells'?

Edgelord Pete there, big on the No campaign. Very shocking. Was it the 'SJW's' yeah? They force your hand on this one? You are amazingly predictable. I wonder why that is. Probably your very high intelligence and complete understanding of the intricacies and complexities of society. Not you just being edgy on the internet because feminists make you feel uncomfortable, that would be too simple for a mind like yours

and Peter - its a different X. You can see it there on the picture you gone and posted. Why would you, of all people, ever feel the need to over compensate for something like this? You aren't one to over compensate ever. No way.

Outlaw Pete

gctest50 wrote: »

Back to the lies....

Please don't accuse me of lying. Thanks. Quote is below.

spookwoman wrote: »

:rolleyes:
They didn't say "fetus" they said Zygote. there is a difference
In humans, zygote stage of development occurs during the first day in week one following fertilization (GA week 3) and is described as Carnegie stage 1
This stage is followed by mitosis to form 2 blastomeres and then a solid cell mass called the morula
Foetal stage is weeks 9 to 37

The user actually said: "An unborn thing is not yet alive." Here's the quote.

Overheal wrote: »

To kill something is to stop it from being alive. An unborn thing is not yet alive.

antiskeptic

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

"An unborn thing is not yet alive."

Wonder would the YES poster campaign pick up on that in the run in?

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Please don't accuse me of lying. Thanks. Quote is below.
..,.....

#it'sallaboutmeeeeeee


I didn't accuse you of lying

Obviously i meant " Lets get back to the outright lies in the campaign "


and this one is a cracker :

of course it was all outright lies

A pattern of lies

spookwoman

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Please don't accuse me of lying. Thanks. Quote is below.



The user actually said: "An unborn thing is not yet alive." Here's the quote.

You forgot the add the bid about they dont issue death certs for miscarriages. why because it is deemed not alive or a person when it doesnt meet the criteria

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, considering you recently said on another thread that a fetus wasn't alive until it was born, mind if I ask you when, roughly, you think it is no longer apt to refer to a fetus as a mere 'clump of cells'?

This was already addressed a few posts ago but the zygote is the earliest point of conception, when the sperm enters the egg. Then through mitosis this becomes the clump of cells known as the blastocyst, which attaches to the uterine wall (placenta) becoming an embryo. The beginning of the 9th week of development post-fertilization is when it is clinically considered to be a fetus, up through 37 weeks (and delivery). Hope that answers your question.

blanch152

Infini wrote: »

I'll be glad once this is all over and I dont have to put up with their carryon anymore.

The biggest lie of the lot from the NO campaign is that repeal means abortion on demand.

The one thing you can be sure of is that when the referendum passes (and I am now certain that it will pass) the NO campaign will move on to target TDs and their families with vigils, protests and such-like in an effort to change the legislation.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

The one thing you can be sure of is that when the referendum passes (and I am now certain that it will pass) the NO campaign will move on to target TDs and their families with vigils, protests and such-like in an effort to change the legislation.

That's a given. Mattie McCarty has said he will challenge ever word in any legislation brought before the house.

gmisk

gctest50 wrote: »

#it'sallaboutmeeeeeee


I didn't accuse you of lying

Obviously i meant " Lets get back to the outright lies in the campaign "


and this one is a cracker :

of course it was all outright lies

A pattern of lies

Ah "nurse" noel one of my favourites.


He wasnt a nurse (he was a porter for possibly 8 months - so very little time if nay at all in a theatre). He stated he was performing abortions in great detail....

His bizarre "qualifications" which were misspelled and fake.

His criminal convictions (which John Mc Guirk said were not true - Despite him admitting he had them, for armed robbery...).


They quickly tried to scrub the video, photo ops, billboards etc from their site but alas.

antiskeptic

Hitman3000 wrote: »

That's a given. Mattie McCarty has said he will challenge ever word in any legislation brought before the house.

It won't matter. If a women is restricted here she'll simply head to the UK.

The "bring em home" cry will keep coming back until that objective is achieved.

Any cultures resident in our land for whom a boy is preferable (even as a firstborn) to a girl?

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

Any cultures resident in our land for whom a boy is preferable (even as a firstborn) to a girl?

I hear you're a racist now, Father?