The problem with the State encouraging positive options by providing better supports for the disadvantaged parent(s), disabled or terminally ill children is the ongoing costs. Providing free and easy access to abortion will save the State money. Over time they will be able to wind down certain supports as demand diminishes.
Proposed abortion Referendum
- Thread starter cremeegg
- Start date
dereko1969
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,046
To those who say they'd be in favour of a "hard cases" law - how can that be achieved through the constitution? I haven't heard any proposed wording for same that would work in conjunction with 40.3.3. So then they should be in favour of repeal and then lobby for the proposed legislation to be changed back as soon as possible to solely allow for terminations for the hard cases, this is feasible only following repeal.
Those in favour of a hard cases law are then permitting termination of pregnancy on grounds that they feel are acceptable - most talk about FFA, rape and incest, how are they to be "proven" within an appropriate timeframe? Or does that mean they are favouring late term terminations?
I think having to prove a "good" reason for a termination is unfair, we have abortion in this country already we just export the procedure to another jurisdiction or where it takes place here is done without medical supervision which puts women's lives at risk.
Those in favour of a hard cases law are then permitting termination of pregnancy on grounds that they feel are acceptable - most talk about FFA, rape and incest, how are they to be "proven" within an appropriate timeframe? Or does that mean they are favouring late term terminations?
I think having to prove a "good" reason for a termination is unfair, we have abortion in this country already we just export the procedure to another jurisdiction or where it takes place here is done without medical supervision which puts women's lives at risk.
Some jurisdictions allow abortion once a rape complaint has been made to the police. Some allow birth to be induced on compassionate grounds where there is little prospect of survival for the unborn. An amendment could have been fashioned to allow for such but this was never seriously considered. Instead we have a nuclear option. Harris risks being hoist on his own petard.
Last edited:
So could legislation.
The constitution is no place for this law.
dereko1969
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,046
Any chance of a wording there Michael?
I agree.
I am a fan of representative democracy and think the will of the people should be expressed through their parliament. That's where I think specifics should be legislated for. The Constitution is a guiding document which should inform legislation but not be so specific as to effectively frame it.
I love all this talk about constitutional rights. What are they? As a country we have had decades of children being systematically raped and abused and neglected by the State and Church. Today, we have children going hungry in school. We have children living in hotel bedrooms. Children living in asylum centres not fit for human life. We have children on long waiting lists for medical attention. We have children with special needs having to fight for resources. We get up in arms about 'constitutional rights' for the unborn child when we have done a rubbish job protecting the rights of our existing ones. Look at the how many people moaned and challenged the 31st amendment referendum around children's rights. Same people are now going on about constitutional rights of the unborn...It's sanctimonious claptrap. Pro abortion and anti abortion has nothing to do with constitutional rights....Abortion has happened despite the constitution. Abortion is happening now despite the constitution. Abortion will happen in the future despite the constitution. So forget about the constitution.
More abortion won't solve any of that . . but may put a dent in it.
I never said abortion will solve it or was even an attempt to solve it. I would never be that flippant about the subject. I am saying why aren't people shouting about children's constitutional rights to a breakfast before school? To a safe place to sleep? To medical attention? I hear a lot about the rights of the unborn but I don't hear a lot from the same people talking about the rights of the ones already born.
Constitutional argument is just a red herring
It's hard to legislate against bad parenting and that's the major cause of children not having a safe place to sleep and the sole cause of children not getting breakfast before school. That said I struggle to get my daughter up in time to have breakfast before we leave in the morning so maybe at 14 she has to take some of the blame...
Ceist Beag
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,426
Some of the campaigning, especially on the No side, is getting out of hand. This morning there were loads of small white crosses along the road to Letterkenny (source http://www.highlandradio.com/2018/0...e-of-white-crosses-on-letterkenny-derry-road/). Next Friday can't come quick enough at this rate.
Argo.
You know there's a referendum next week, right? To decide whether or not to expunge all constitutional rights of the unborn, on the promise of a liberal abortion regime if we do.
Really? So you are telling me that would jail every single woman currently going to the UK to get an abortion as they are breaking their unborn childs constitutional rights??? Because unless you are willing to jail them or ban them from travelling, then your precious constitutional rights that you are so up in arms about are not worth the paper they are written on. So we can vote no and you can go to bed at night sleeping well and yet there will still be abortion.....
Lets keep burying our heads in the sand then telling ourselves how great we are for protecting children. Why not be grown up about it, find ways to reduce the need or want for any woman to feel like they have to or want to go for a termination and support those women who do decide to go down that path instead of demonising them.
Keep your hair on. Your strawman not withstanding, abortion is lose/lose . . those procuring abortions have to live with that decision for the rest of their lives and the unborn have their lives abruptly ended. We should of course, as you say, "find ways to reduce the need or want for any woman to feel like they have to or want to go for a termination", but legalising abortion is not the way.
It's not a strawman argument. Even if every case of abortion was lose-lose (and I am not saying it is because again it is over simplification), the reality is that termination can often be the best of bad options. Doesn't make the parents bad. And it certainly doesn't mean they should be told that they are breaking the law because their unborn child has some sort of conceptual constitutional right to life unless the mother travels outside the country. Then we just ignore the unborn childs constitutional rights because we can't face the fact that these women should be prosecuted so we ignore the issue....Irish solution to an Irish problem........
Again, it comes down to this. Childrens referendum was supposed to lead to the State taking a load of children into care and taking over parents roles. Same sex marriage was supposed to lead to all these gay people looking to adopt and foster kids...Divorce was supposed to lead the end of families...Lisbon treaty was supposed to lead to an invasion of immigrants....And now voting yes in this referendum is supposed to lead to a sudden surge in abortion numbers because apparently Irish women can't be trusted to keep doing what they are currently doing when they have 'abortion on demand'.....
You are either pro-choice or pro-life. There is nothing wrong with either and both sides have very valid and justified views but there is so much noise in this debate around stuff that is completely irrelevant to the vote. People talking about surges in abortion is as unfounded as Leo's statement today saying it was only a matter of time before a woman died or was prosecuted. Stop with the ridiculous fear campaigns on both sides....
dereko1969
Registered User
- Messages
- 3,046
All studies with any scientific backing to them indicate that for the vast majority of women who have had terminations are happy with their decision, despite the best efforts of anti-choice people into trying to shame them and make them feel guilty.
I am not getting worked up over anything. Just tired of reading the same stuff. Reckon if I read back on gay marriage threads and children referendum thread, I would find similar comments from you. Bet you voted no to both. That’s fine but stop hiding behind constitutional rights. Just say you are against it because of your beliefs just like nearly everyone else voting either yes or no.
And you are spouting the usual rubbish about constitutional rights and abortion on demand. What constitutional rights are you fighting to protect? Are they protected at the moment? Do we jail women who travel for abortion? How are we protecting them now? So why go on about how children are currently protected by these so called constitutional rights. They are not. They are complicating an already complicated situation. You still haven’t answered that question. What are you voting to protect?
Also What evidence do you have about abortion on demand? Do you really think women who currently don’t travel for abortions are suddenly going to flood gp offices looking for one??? Do you not think it is better that women currently taking abortion XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX off the internet can access safe treatment. That’s not abortion on demand. That’s just bringing what is happening at the moment into the open.
Last edited:
While it seems unlikely that we will agree on much, see if you think there is any merit in this reasoning . .
On paper Britain has a restrictive abortion regime but in practice they have a liberal regime deployed on an industrial scale. On paper Ireland's proposed law is less restrictive than that of Britain and there is no reason to expect that our law won't operate in the same box-ticking abortion-on-demand basis.
If that happens we will have free and easy access to abortion and numbers will rise. I don't believe that we are a special case, the fundamentals are not different in Ireland.
If on the other hand our law does prove to be restrictive beyond 12 week we will still see many who miss the 12 week cut-off travel to England. Additionally, Rhona Mahony has said that half of those who receive a Down's Syndrome diagnosis procure an abortion and the Taoiseach told Sean O'Rourke yesterday that there is no provision for abortion on disability grounds and that those people will have to travel to England.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Is this satisfactory to you?
Regardless of whether the Taoiseach says one thing or another thing, regardless of what is actually written in the constitution now, or after referendum, the issue I think you need to deal with is - why do half of those who receive a downs syndrome diagnosis opt for an abortion in the first place?
Last edited: