• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.



Amending the 8th (and other add ons in art. 40.3.3): what form will take?

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,210
Current wording:
"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 to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state."

The reality:
One cannot Repeal the 8th without deleting of amending the other sections.
FG and FF have no appetite to provide for any abortions on request.
Each are happy to have a divisive constitutional convention and then present a minimal amendment as a compromise.
What form will take?

Options:
1. Add in fourth paragraph allowing abortions in fatal foetal situations (though how would it be drafted).
2. Instead of "due regard" the woman's rights will be elevated
3. Mention rape and incest in the constitution
4. A vague "in accordance with law" type approach.

Or just repeal, tidy up information and travel and draft modern legislation?

What will happen?
 


Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,699
Twitter
No
'The state recognises the dignity of life and in the case of pregnancy gives due regard to the existence of such lives subject to and contingent upon the life of the pregnant adult female.

The state also recognises the right of pregnant women to defend their lives and health in cases where a pregnancy is determined medically to present a danger to the life and health of the pregnant female'.
 

neiphin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
5,604
[FG and FF have no appetite to provide for any abortions on request.
Each are happy to have a divisive constitutional convention and then present a minimal amendment as a compromise.
What form will take?/QUOTE]

they will kick it into touch
ostrich government
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,295
As long as healthy women with healthy babies are prevented from murdering their babies I don't care what form of words are sued.
 

Barna

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
3,055
Current wording:
"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 to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state."

The reality:
One cannot Repeal the 8th without deleting of amending the other sections.
FG and FF have no appetite to provide for any abortions on request.
Each are happy to have a divisive constitutional convention and then present a minimal amendment as a compromise.
What form will take?

Options:
1. Add in fourth paragraph allowing abortions in fatal foetal situations (though how would it be drafted).
2. Instead of "due regard" the woman's rights will be elevated
3. Mention rape and incest in the constitution
4. A vague "in accordance with law" type approach.

Or just repeal, tidy up information and travel and draft modern legislation?

What will happen?
I've said it before and I'll say it again,
If abortion was allowed in this kip there would be a 12 month waiting list.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,295
I've said it before and I'll say it again,
If abortion was allowed in this kip there would be a 12 month waiting list.
If it is such a "kip" why are you still here?
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,639
'The state recognises the dignity of life and in the case of pregnancy gives due regard to the existence of such lives subject to and contingent upon the life of the pregnant adult female.

The state also recognises the right of pregnant women to defend their lives and health in cases where a pregnancy is determined medically to present a danger to the life and health of the pregnant female'.
Nicely worded.

My preference is to simply remove any reference from the constitution, but the above would be acceptable.
 

Barna

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
3,055
If it is such a "kip" why are you still here?
Because, bad and all as it is, it's still my kip.
Obviously, people like yourself would rather that anyone who questions the status quo left.
Tough.
 

Sister Mercedes

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
20,663
I think a simple repeal would fail, because punters would fear a free for all.

So make it anything goes in the first trimester, then after that only if panel of doctors agree there is risk.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,699
Twitter
No
Nicely worded.

My preference is to simply remove any reference from the constitution, but the above would be acceptable.
It took about a minute of thought and I deliberately put in the reference to the Supreme Court's thoughts on the matter when they decided that the 'right to life' of the undead as they currently stand is actually contingent upon the 'right to life' of the pregnant female. So my proposed wording is designed also to be pleasing to the Supreme Court's deliberations on the matter which is a distinct advantage.
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
26,197
TBH I cant see any Constitutional Amendment to the 8th passing at all

Those who want its complete removal will accept nothing else

- those who want it retained in full will accept nothing else

As whatever is likely to be put before the People of this State will be a compromise of some sort

- then it will have a very narrow band of supporters on the day...

I will vote NO myself if the Constitutional wording protecting the Unborn

- is watered down to such an extent

- as to be meaningless....
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,699
Twitter
No
Not hard to propose an amendment to replace the 8th as I have shown above. I suspect my proposed wording would be acceptable to many and would only rile the mullahs of whom there are probably only about 3% -7% in the population overall.

And as we could reasonably expect none of them to sign up for termination and the wording I proposed does not traduce their rights as a minority then it is pretty much a problem solved.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
88,291
"The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the mother's right to life and her right to bodily autonomy, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."
 

ON THE ONE ROAD

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
4,612
put in a clause ring fencing supports for one parent families. The trajectory seems to be liberalising abortion laws while at the same time chipping away at one parent families.

In such a society that has no supports for single parents and also has abortion on demand when rational choice kicks in it is going to look ugly.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,699
Twitter
No
"The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the mother's right to life and her right to bodily autonomy, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."
I like that too. It seems to me that we should not at this stage have to spell out a female citizen's right to bodily autonomy but if it is uncertain elsewhere in the constitution then it may be a good idea to spell it out here while replacing the utterly tragic disaster of the 8th.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,693
It may be possible to reach a consensus acceptable to the majority but I have no idea what it will be. My guess is that a simple deletion will be rejected.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
26,699
Twitter
No
As Vicar General Designate (auxiliary, ancillary and pro-tem) of the Society of Mr Jesus I sometimes receive interesting letters from colleagues down the country.

The suggested wording I received this morning from Brearty S.J. is I fear unlikely to be approved in constitutional legalese.

'the church knows whats best so pack it in ye babby-murtherin' bastards'. Enthusiastic fellow is Brearty but getting on a bit now.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,090
Just what we needed - yet another thread on this fantasy subject. What do you people want to murder babies? Why not stay celibate if you hate children?
 

sic transit

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
25,662
It may be possible to reach a consensus acceptable to the majority but I have no idea what it will be. My guess is that a simple deletion will be rejected.
Indeed. Very hard one to call. Working around it and looking at the whole issue of foetal death is a far easier task.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top