The 8th - Repealed! |
Post Reply | Page <1 1920212223 42> |
Author | |||||
sid waddell
Roy Keane On a dark desert highway Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 12173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
But the legislature should be the place for abortion laws to be decided, not the constitution. This is what every other country does. We are an extreme outlier in this, certainly by European standards, and pretty much by world standards too. The people elect politicians. Politicians frame legislation and law. If you don't want abortion, you can vote for politicians who will campaign to get rid of it. But polls consistently show a majority are in favour. Under the current constitutional situation, it is impossible to legislate for abortion in cases of rape or fatal foetal abnormality. It is also impossible to carry out best medical practice. That is because the 8th Amendment is by definition a blunt instrument. Think about it. The 8th Amendment says the unborn has an equal right to life as that of the mother. If the mother is pregnant as a result of rape or incest, and unless her life is in danger. ie., if she is judged to be suicidal, the unborn still has an equal right to life as her. There is no way around that without getting rid of the 8th Amendment. Now, let's say the 8th Amendment is abolished, and legislators are free to frame legislation. The problem with legislating only for, say, rape and incest, is that it would place at least some burden of proof on the mother to prove she had been raped. Under normal circumstances, and as we saw so clearly in Belfast recently. rape is a very difficult crime to prove, and it will never, ever be proved in the time frame of a resulting pregnancy. So first of all, how do you prove it? We know rape is a hugely underreported crime and in reality there are a huge number of rape victims out there who have never even reported it. What burden of proof would be required? It would have to be reported for a start. Then a woman would presumably have to come before a panel a very short time after her rape and attempt to prove to some as yet unknown burden of proof that she had been raped. After Belfast we talked about how it felt it was the complainant on trial, not the defendants. Legislating only for cases such as rape is a recipe for victims to be put on trial. I really don't think we want that. The only solution is to make abortion safe, legal and available to all within the prescribed time limits. I can get that people don't like abortion. Nobody "likes" abortion. But it is necessary for women's welfare for it to be available. The alternative is that a particular, narrow view of morality continues to be imposed on everybody. Whereas pro-choice campaigners are not attempting to impose their morality on anybody. Nobody would be forcing anybody to have an abortion. The other reality that No campaigners must face up to is abortion is already happening in Ireland. Anybody can buy abortion pills online. They work up to 12 weeks. So we have thousands of women carrying out their own abortions (currently illegally, of course). Now these pills will generally be safe, but there always the chance of something going wrong. So what happens if something goes wrong? What if a woman has an adverse reaction to the pill and needs urgent medical help? She'll already have been in a vulnerable position given she is taking the pill to terminate her crisis pregnancy in the first place. So what goes through her mind? If she goes to a public hospital, she'll have to tell the staff that she has had an abortion via a pill. And what if somebody on the staff is a strict Catholic and reports her? A 14 year prison sentence hangs over her. So, should we leave women who encounter complications as a result of taking abortion pills to face a nightmarish dilemma between i) not seeking medical help which coould have grave health implications and ii) presenting at a hospital and possibly facing prison time? Or do we face up to reality and legalise it and make it safe for everybody?
Edited by sid waddell - 09 May 2018 at 10:33pm |
|||||
Lenny82
Liam Brady Joined: 20 Aug 2010 Location: Ireland Status: Offline Points: 2914 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
There are 6,000 children currently in foster care in Ireland. 100 babies are born with drug addictions every year in Ireland. There are 10,000 registered drug addicts in Ireland availing of methadone clinics, the vast majority of those were born in to families with drug or alcohol problems and/or passed through foster care. A lot of these people are here as their mothers didn't have the means or the wherewithal to travel to England. 'Love Both' my bollix! These people have had nobody to love them.
All of the above aside, if anyone had the misfortune to see their sister go through, what my sister went through, you would all be voting 'Yes', like me, and the rest of my family!
|
|||||
Het-field
Roy Keane By Appointment to His Majesty The King Joined: 08 Mar 2016 Status: Online Points: 10345 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
That is a very salient point. One of the major deficiencies of the so-called "pro-life" movement is the fact that they don't seem to be overly interested in what happens after the baby is born, and has to be cared for. John Oliver dealt with this issue recently, in which he had audio footage of a pro-life advocate claiming that the next major goal of mothers who would otherwise go for terminations is to make them "self-sufficient", which is right-wing virtue signalling of the highest order. |
|||||
sid waddell
Roy Keane On a dark desert highway Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 12173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Sure the fookers spend half their time demonising single mothers. If they're not calling them "sluts", they're claiming that they "pop out" kids to avoid responsibility and "enjoy" a "lifestyle" on social welfare. They routinely caricature them as "pyjama-wearing freeloaders". The hypocrisy is fooking breathtaking. |
|||||
UCDFAN
Liam Brady Joined: 10 May 2009 Location: Ireland Status: Offline Points: 1700 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Thanks for the replies, I'm glad you see the connection between Ref 27th and the current Ref 8th/36th. The 27th Referendum excludes based on Ethnicity. It was born in the wards of Irish Maternity Hospitals. I'm sorry you appear to see no harm in the Masters of Irish Maternity Hospitals going to Minister Michael McDowell of Dept Of Justice, Equality & Law Reform in 2003 to complain about patients in their own wards. I believe you are taking a political view on those meetings. (The normal pathway would be Department of Health). @Het-Field in recent posts you want the Electorate to trust the decision-making of physicians but in our conversation you devalue the concerns of the Dr. from Waterford Gen Hosp and instead take the sympathetic side of the manager/ceo Masters of the Irish Maternity Hospitals. Can I ask you to explain the inconsistency? |
|||||
www.ucdsupporters.ie
|
|||||
Het-field
Roy Keane By Appointment to His Majesty The King Joined: 08 Mar 2016 Status: Online Points: 10345 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
No, I don't see a connection between the two. You're vigorously straining to make a correlation between the two. Like I said, immigration policy is within the purview of the Minister, and Department of Justice. At the time efforts would being made to manage Irish immigration policy. This doctor was speaking on a matter of policy, as opposed to the discrete relationship between the patient and the doctor in a frontline healthcare matter.I don't have to accept everything a doctor says, on every single matter, although I will do on healthcare. Given that it was an immigration matter, there was nothing sinister about the department seeking out statistics, which is what I can gather from your links. Simply because this matter related to patients in hospitals, it does not mean that it is exclusively a Department of Health issue.
|
|||||
sid waddell
Roy Keane On a dark desert highway Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 12173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I am voting No to stick it to the government over re-running the 2001 Nice referendum.
That was not very Nice. |
|||||
randyrandolph
500 Club la la la Joined: 09 May 2016 Status: Offline Points: 685 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
for me this debate on here has become toxic at times and i'm out. to have an unborn baby (or if you prefer the term foetus - which is as pointed out by a poster is the correct medical/ legal term) described by a poster as a 5cm piece of flesh (or something along those lines) was for me a shocking and highly offensive statement.
the reality though is that this debate is toxic. On one hand you have the Catholic Church and flock preaching ancient religious doctrine in an all knowing, far too often condensing tone. These folk will never convince those on the other side to turn or even invite them to debate. then on the repeal side (at times), you have a herd like group ganging up on anyone who is even considering voting against repeal. "loonies". "bible bashers" are the terms thrown around again and again. these people are are turning away the undecided - and ironically making reform less likely. what both sides are missing, and alienating, is that there is a huge middle ground of undecided voters. many of these are not religious. many are liberal in their broader outlook and would be more inclined to vote with policies that loosen the chains of the church on society. most would want to see a way of sensibly reforming abortion laws to protect women more. many of these undecided are being influenced by personal experience, whether rightly or wrongly and this will influence their decisions. this group will decide which way the referendum goes. many of these folk have have family members or friends born with imperfections. many will have family members with disorders such as down syndrome. some will have the heartbreak of being unable to have children despite years of trying. Many will have lost their children before they were born. for those who have lost babies - the term foetus is difficult to use because it takes away life from their child. for those that have seen a scan of their baby, or heard a heart beat or had to make a decision what to do with their unborn (i.e. weather to name them or bury them) - believe me it is a living nightmare and very difficult to think of their child in a medical term. quiet simple it dehumanizes their child and often in the most traumatic circumstances. these issues are naturally difficult to fully understand if you have no experience of pregnancy/ child birth etc but a bit of consideration and understanding towards these issues would be welcomed in the debate. repealers will say that these issues are nothing to do with the debate and in some respects they are right. but you cannot discount personal experience when being asked to vote on emotive issues. A yes vote will allow women to put an end to a pregnancy for any reason up until 12 weeks - bringing us inline with most of our neighbors. abortion after this point will be considered based on mental health grounds and finally, the "unborn" will lose all protection it had under the constitution. for many undecideds the final part of that is the most difficult and that really depends on how you view life. this brings us back to the question of medical terminology for many. if you view the unborn as an embryo - foetus up until birth (as sid pointed out is the correct medical terminology) then it is unlikely you would consider the unborn as a life and therefore might deem they have no rights under the constitution. many undecideds however will view life from inception and therefore will believe rightly or wrongly that an unborn child should be protected under our constitution. anyway morning rant over. back to work. good luck. vote with your conscious. read the evidence on all sides and keep the debate informative and clean
|
|||||
Roberto Baggio
Robbie Keane UNBELIEVABLE JEFF Joined: 28 Jan 2010 Status: Offline Points: 37149 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Well said Randy.
|
|||||
the_walls
Jack Charlton 6 in a row, alive alive oh.. Joined: 13 Feb 2009 Location: Walkinstown Status: Offline Points: 5182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Even if I was to agree with everything you've said, you have still not pointed out how anyone has been criminalised for being pregnant as a result of the 27th Amendment. No woman is going to be thrown in jail or fined because she is pregnant and her child will not be entitled to Irish citizenship. No woman is going to be denied healthcare during her pregnancy on the basis that her child will not be automatically entitled to Irish citizenship.
|
|||||
UCDFAN
Liam Brady Joined: 10 May 2009 Location: Ireland Status: Offline Points: 1700 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
It's not a strain for me to associate the exclusion of women who are pregnant in Irish Maternity Hospitals (2003) and messages from YES vote on the exclusion of women who are pregnant (2018). The difference is in 2003 the pregnant women were excluded based on Ethnicity/Nationality and 2018 the messages are campaigning against exclusion based on Gender. I can make a connection with the two environments and put the two Equality Grounds together (Ethnicity/Nationality and Gender) for a slightly more representative discussion than Single Equality Ground politics. I believe it's a political view that doesn't want to associate the two. When Masters of the Irish Maternity Hospitals goes to the Dept of Justice to outlaw women who are pregnant in their own wards. I would like to see that challenged as part of the YES campaign. The message s of the YES campaign use Gender Equality messages but not Ethnicity/Nationality Equality messages. Since legislation was introduced after the 27th Referendum in 2004, their are children born in Ireland (some of the 15 years of age) who don't have the same entitlements as children born in Ireland (some of them 15 years of age). In previous posts you suggested the Electorate take Medical decisions on trust and let the doctors judgement prevail. But when challenged after taking the Masters of Irish Maternity Hospitals (manager/Ceo/Blazer) side over the practicing doctor (Doctor/Physician/Athlete), you got into the specifics of the doctor/patient relationship. You changed from trust the Medical to the Bureaucrat because of your politics, that's alright that's the environment. My politics, I want to see different single equality grounds layered in discussion so at the very least they are not single equality grounds. |
|||||
www.ucdsupporters.ie
|
|||||
Het-field
Roy Keane By Appointment to His Majesty The King Joined: 08 Mar 2016 Status: Online Points: 10345 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
Thank you RR. And like others in this thread, I sympathise with your loss. It is something that is incredibly common, but no less soul destroying and heart breaking. I hope that you and your other half have been a source of strong support to each other, and that as time has progressed the wounds of loss have gradually healed, even if they are never fully washed away. The loss of a pregnancy at any stage can hit people very hard. You have encapsulated a lot of why I don't like this debate, and have never enjoyed the subject. Fundamentally, as I believe it is something not everybody understands, nor do I believe they come to the table with clean hands in terms of intent, and often times there is something significantly more political at play, which doesn't give a damn about the life. That is one of the major struggles of the "pro-choice", and "pro-life" movement. People have set themselves up as "us v them", and it has become a more personal battle about beating the other side. We saw the term "feminists and hipsters" used yesterday to describe one side, and you have correctly used the terms "bible bashers" and "god botherers" to describe the other. In a bizarre twist, I know socialists who oppose repeal, and hardcore classical liberals who vigorously support it. I also know females who oppose repeal, and men who support it. I know old people who are anxious to vote yes, and young people knocking on doors to canvass a no vote. Normal political cleavages don't apply in this instance, as the issue is nuanced, morality driven, and open to interpretation. I understand what this vote entails. That is why I will vote yes. It is to ensure the repeal of a constitutional anomaly which creates significant grey areas, and prevents medical practitioners from having a clear path to treat their patients in the best way possible. It was the construct of a time when Ireland had a strong belief in the unborn life, but saw that it was not a black and white situation. That is why the fudge of the 8th was created. When you look back at debates from 1983 and you see the "liberals" opposing the amendment, they were people like Mary Robinson, Adrian Hardiman (RIP), SC Judge John McMenamin, Monica Barnes etc. These are sensible people who rightly were promoted to the highest offices in the land, and understood what the amendment could do. On the other hand you had people like Michael Cleary, and Alice Glenn supporting the amendment. I suspect they didn't forsee the consequences, but reduced the case down to the simple "do you agree with abortion" argument, which was so prevalent during the 1980s, and was not actually the issue. Like I have said, there is no guarantee that legislation around the issue will pass, and legislation can be repealed in the future. Yes, that means a particularly liberal government might extend the term limits, but that also means a particularly conservative government could repeal all legislation and place a very restrictive system. This means that the amendment itself will not actually do much in relation to permitting abortion. What has been overlooked is the voting intentions of TD's. A number of TDs actually voted against the holding of the referendum. There will also be TDs happy to hold a referendum, but will balk at voting for legislation. There will be opposition TDs who will cross the house, and are likely to make up the numbers, but that will need to be confirmed. |
|||||
sid waddell
Roy Keane On a dark desert highway Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 12173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I'm voting NO to stick it to the government based on what I feel were lies told during the 1992 Maastricht Referendum campaign.
Or as I call it: MASS (goers) TRICKED.
|
|||||
Het-field
Roy Keane By Appointment to His Majesty The King Joined: 08 Mar 2016 Status: Online Points: 10345 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
It is a strain, as this referendum has nothing to do with "exclusion". That was an immigration issue. The repeal issue relates to an amendment which created medical anomalies and grey areas. In 2004, Ireland joined the vast majority of the world is operating a Jus sanguinis approach to immigration. Nations like the USA which operate the jus soli system, where the benefits and burdens of citizenship follow you around the world (you can vote in Presidential elections, but still have to file a tax return). I'm not exactly sure how you can see them as the same or even similar. Now you're splitting hairs. I made clear that immigration policy is a matter for the DOJ. I also didn't change my views on who I trust. That is an invention.
|
|||||
bhob
Roy Keane YBIGs Donald Trump Joined: 13 Feb 2009 Location: Ireland Status: Offline Points: 10470 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
I feel like a lot of the pro lifers are more pro birth than pro life because they seem to just want children born and don't give a f**k about them after that.
|
|||||
newrynyuk
Liam Brady Joined: 29 Mar 2010 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1543 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
True. Always struck me as being a bit hypocritical that "anti-abortionists" are against abortion, but also against proper sex education in scools that would prevent a lot of unwanted pregnancies. They're against abortion. but also against welfare for single mothers to look after these children once they are born. They're against abortion, but for capital punishment |
|||||
sid waddell
Roy Keane On a dark desert highway Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Status: Offline Points: 12173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
|
|||||
the_walls
Jack Charlton 6 in a row, alive alive oh.. Joined: 13 Feb 2009 Location: Walkinstown Status: Offline Points: 5182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
RR outlined why he would vote no. I didn't take from anything he said that he was against sex education, welfare for single murders or was in favour of capital punishment
|
|||||
Post Reply | Page <1 1920212223 42> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |