Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
In our Q&A: Eighth Amendment Referendum series, we are answering questions our readers have submitted in relation to the upcoming vote on 25 May.
THE QUESTION
A number of people have asked a version of this question. Here are some of those queries:
THE ANSWER
We examined previously whether legislation could be enacted for cases of fatal foetal abnormality if the Eighth Amendment was retained, leaving Article 40.3.3 unchanged. Successive ministers, on the advice of their Attorney Generals have said it is not possible. That investigation is here.
Here we will look at the possibility that the Eighth Amendment could be further amended to deal with what have become known as the ‘hard cases’ of rape and incest, as well as fatal foetal abnormality.
WOMEN WHO BECOME pregnant as a result of incest or rape can not currently access lawful terminations in Ireland for that reason.
Women who have received diagnoses that their babies will die in the womb or shortly after birth cannot access lawful terminations in Ireland.
These situations have been dubbed ‘hard cases’ throughout this debate.
The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 does allow for the termination of a pregnancy in Ireland, but only in three specific circumstances:
If a woman is pregnant as a result of rape, but doctors do not believe there is a real and substantial risk of loss of life, she will not be able to access a termination.
If a woman is pregnant and has had a fatal foetal abnormality diagnosed, but there is no risk to her own life, she will not be able to access a termination.
Many people, including eminent lawyers and former judges, have made claims during this campaign that fatal foetal abnormality, rape and incest cases could be legislated for without repealing the Eighth Amendment, or by amending Article 40.3.3.
The latter has become a point of legal discussion – with the legal world divided.
A group of about 200 lawyers advocating for a No vote have said such pregnancies could have been dealt with by an amendment to the Constitution.
Writing in TheJournal.ie, Benedict Ó Floinn, a practising barrister in the Four Courts, argued:
It was legally possible for the Government to have crafted a proposal which was limited to the ‘hard’ cases that pluck at the heartstrings of us all. They chose not to. Instead, they gave in to the demands of a small minority who believe that they know what is best for us and who advocate for abortion on demand.
On the opposite side of the debate to O Floinn is Senior Counsel John Rogers, who served as attorney general from 1983 to 1987 and is a member of the Lawyers – Together for Yes group comprising 1,076 people. He recently explained why he believes attempting to make Constitutional provision for terminations in cases of rape, although possible, would be problematic.
“You’d have endless case law, cases going to the courts, on the question of whether or not there was a rape at all,” he told reporters during a press conference.
“That would be an interminable process. It would end of course, but it would be a very dilatory, slow process because it would involve the making of an inquiry about whether or not there had been a rape or a consent. Which is the equivalent of a criminal trial in effect.”
What was examined?
The Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment, which made recommendations to the government before the referendum was called, did look at the possibility of legislating specifically for cases of rape and incest.
Its final report expressed concerns about doing this:
While the Committee accepts that it should be lawful to terminate a pregnancy that is the result of a rape or other sexual assault, it has concerns about whether the recommendation of the Citizens’ Assembly can be implemented in practice.
These concerns arise from:
(a) the difficulty presented in the verification of a rape or sexual assault, and
(b) the opinion of the Committee that:
The committee also noted the “underreporting of rape and sexual offences to An Garda Síochána and the authorities generally in Ireland”.
It said it would be “unreasonable to insist on reporting as a precondition for exercising any right to terminate a pregnancy that has resulted from rape or sexual assault”.
It is one of the reasons the committee recommended permitting terminations with no restriction as to reason up to 12 weeks. (See more on that here.)
The committee came to its conclusions, in part, after testimony from constitutional experts, including assistant professor at Trinity College David Kenny, Professor Fiona de Londras and Mary O’Toole, SC, who described suggestions that very specific grounds for abortion could be laid out constitutionally as “unworkable” and lacking flexibility.
However, O Floinn insists that we should scoff at the idea that only simple issues on which we are all agreed should make the Constitution.
TheJournal.ie asked the lawyers’ group advocating for a No vote and the Save the 8th campaign to outline what such an amendment to Article 40.3.3 could look like and how they would see it working.
TheJournal.ie also asked if the groups had any proposal in relation to their suggestion that could be provided as a response to our readers’ questions on the matter.
No details were provided at time of publication.
However, two spokespeople said that ‘anything could be included in the Constitution’ once the people have voted to do so. They pointed to the amendments to the same article in 1992 (which allowed for the freedom of travel and the right to information) as examples or possible templates.
Detail
Without a detailed proposal to examine, we returned to the scenarios that the Constitutional experts ran through at the Eighth Amendment Committee hearings for the purposes of answering this question.
Here are some of the important phases of that day that dealt with this specific idea.
Fiona de Londras said the following about removing Article 40.3.3 and replacing it with a provision that permits abortion in limited circumstances:
“Such a provision would produce some legal certainty as it would make it clear that legislation for abortion is permitted in respect of the specified grounds, subject to those grounds being defined with sufficient specificity to allow for legislative action.
A change of this kind would greatly limit the power of the Oireachtas to legislate and would not address the most prevalent reasons for women in Ireland accessing abortion care.
“It would produce an unduly complex and detailed constitutional provision. It would constrain the power of the Oireachtas to react to medical, scientific or political developments in the future. It would be cumbersome and impractical, unlikely to stand the test of time and it would be inconsistent with the recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly.”
David Kenny told the committee from the outset he was “happy to discuss” any proposed replacement to the current Article 40.3.3, and responded to questions following de Londras’s above testimony. He said:
“Professor de Londras discussed the repeal with specific grounds, and I agree with her on that. She described it as cumbersome and impractical and that is exactly right.
It would require a level of detail that is incredibly difficult to do in constitutional text or some other constitutional mechanism.
“It would lock in something that would require substantial elaboration and leave no room to adapt it on the ground or change it if a problem arose. It is very hard to do from a constitutional law perspective.”
Senior Counsel Mary O’Toole added: “Putting a long list or elaborate provisions into the Constitution runs the risk that it will end up meaning something a little bit different to what it was intended to mean. In any event, once it is interpreted, then that interpretation is likely to pertain for a long period.
“One does not have the flexibility one would have in legislation where one could amend or repeal if there was public disquiet about it. One would need another referendum to the change it…
The point I am making is that putting in a long amendment may actually not be helpful because once it is interpreted, it is inclined to be fixed in a way that is very difficult to unfix if it causes any disquiet. The benefit of legislation is that it can be amended much more easily than the Constitution, a change to which would require a referendum.
Answering another specific question about rape from a deputy, de Londras told the committee:
“There are a couple of potential challenges that probably would be the case if one was trying to specify rape or incest in a constitutional or legislative sense. The first is around the process use of proof and qualification. How would somebody actually establish that they are legally permitted to access abortion on the basis of those grounds? Would it require engagement with criminal justice systems? Would it require verification by a medic? In either case, it is likely to be quite damaging and also difficult to work…
While I understand entirely the concern to make sure people in those situations might be able to access abortion care, if they should wish to do so, that can be achieved under different means such as health grounds or grounds on request up to a certain limit.”
The trio talked of three countries that do lay out grounds for lawful terminations in their constitutions - Kenya, Somalia and Swaziland.
“As regards other European states and constitutional courts, there are some courts that have dealt with similar issues,” explained de Londras.
“It is perhaps particularly interesting to talk a little about the Slovak Republic because in that jurisdiction there is a recognition that prenatal life is worthy of protection, but there is no right to life. The way the court has dealt with that issue is to state regulation of abortion is permissible but that one cannot disturb the essence of the rights women hold under the constitution…
“It might be worth noting that the German constitutional court relatively early on in its jurisprudence on abortion did recognise a prenatal right to life, but it has progressively accepted that it does not preclude making abortion services available within certain schemata or certain limitations.
“The constitutional courts of Austria, France, the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic and Portugal – the list may be longer, but that is my understanding of it – have all refused to recognise a prenatal right to life.”
You can read more from the expert witnesses at the committee here.
What is possible?
There is agreement across the legal world that the constitution can be amended to list a number of scenarios, including fatal foetal abnormality, rape and incest.
This could be done through the passing of a referendum (separate to the one being held on 25 May) which asks a specific question to amend Article 40.3.3.
However, the lawyers who looked at the possible scenarios in the event of such an amendment coming to pass have said the outcomes would be unworkable.
Reporting by Sinéad O’Carroll and Michelle Hennessey.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Under the wildlife act of 1976 if we vote yes on Friday the frog, newt, lizard, pigmy shrew & stoat will have complete protection in law whereas an unborn human will have none. Am I the only one who sees a problem here?
@Phil Swan: logical fallacy of false equivalence
@Phil Swan: what about headlice. Parasites, primitive bunches of cells that need us to survive. Should we not be including them in the Save the 8th campaign? Ban chemical shampoos and preserve life at all costs?
@Phil Swan: we’re not depending on your vote so
@Phil Swan: what about unborn frogs?
@Dave O Keeffe:
Frogspawn or tadpoles?
@Phil Swan: those animals don’t have constitutional protection Phil.
@Phil Swan: post of the week. Well played. Be prepared for “clump of cells”, “proto human”, “unviable foetus” responses from pro abortionists quickly fumbling through their abortion manual of well worn dehumanising phrases when retorting. But hats off for a perceptive and very telling observation. The world that we will soon inhabit unfortunately.
@Phil Swan: no Phil you’re not the only one, you are however in the minority on here. It doesn’t seem right to me either but neither does a woman dying along with her unborn child because she wasn’t given the treatment she needed.
@El Diego: be good to live in Ireland, where women’s lives will no longer be put at risk after Friday
@happinessnow: yes but children’s will. What a shame.
@Stephen Adam: neither will unborn children on Saturday Steohen.
@El Diego: at least you admit that the eighth ours women at risk and are happy to keep it doing so.
@Dave O Keeffe: sorry I don’t have Google translate installed for that post.
@El Diego: That’s likely true.
@El Diego: neither does Steohen
@Phil Swan: What about swans?
@Phil Swan: not your problem Phil unless Phil is short for Philomena, you’ll never be in a position like this to make such a heart wrenching decision
@El Diego: you got more edgy over the final few days,Sean:) But at least we found out that you don’t care about women that jump off Liberty Hall,you don’t care about the foetus that was created through rape/incest,you don’t care about the foetus that has half it’s brain and skull missing,that you only “care” if the mother of three had consensual sex with her hubby..xoxoxoxo
..then that foetus means “everything” to you..xoxoxo
@Phil Swan: a vote no will still mean that a day old corpse will have more right to it’s bodily autonomy than a pregnant woman has ..Oops,I nearly forgot…your right to your bodily autonomy will be fine too..
@happinessnow: very presumptuous. You may be surprised and I hope you are.
@Phil Swan: A newt doesn’t get raped.
@El Diego: again mi amigo, frogs et al don’t have to deal with rape.
Abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks is too extreme.
@F. Wood: well vote yes and you can lobby to have the proposed legislation changed. A no vote means no possibility of any legislation
@F. Wood: In your opinion.
@F. Wood: It’s already happening though. Whether by pills or travel, abortion is a choice being made daily by the women of Ireland whether we like it or not. Let’s get our heads out of the sand and just care for our women in our own country.
@Dave O Keeffe: no it doesn’t. A vote No stops abortion on demand and the fuhrer will demand a rerun which will pass with the on demand clause removed.
@Celine McGowan: homicide is happening almost daily too. What’s your point? Do you want 13,000 abortions per year in Ireland the vast majority for any reason? Is this the “healthcare” of the future?
@El Diego:the rate is going down by the day,,,great news :)
@El Diego: the most basic of No campaign lies “abortion on demand”. It works if people are absolutely clueless as to the restrictions and provisions.
@Dave O Keeffe: are there restrictions before 12 weeks?
@Jane: yes, you can only have one if you’re pregnant. But thanks for proving my point, it is not unrestricted abortion.
@Dave O Keeffe: what restrictions up to 3 months Dave?
@El Diego: a no vote means women can still have ‘abortion on demand’ until 24 weeks by going to England. Women who would, of course, have preferred an early termination. And to hell with the ‘hard cases’.
But that doesn’t matter to you, does it? It’s a case of ‘Not in my backyard’, fingers in your ears, head in the sand.
Maybe that makes you feel good. It makes me want to vote Yes.
@Dave O Keeffe: that’s not true Dave. You know it’s not true Dave. There will be no restrictions to obtaining an abortion up to 12 weeks. Why would you not admit that? What’s wrong with saying that?
@Jane: lies from Dave there. Amazing the denial that exists in the Yes camp.
@Jane: “unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks” the last four words are the restriction. To call it unrestricted abortion is simply not true.
@El Diego: “abortion on demand” could a 15 week pregnant woman get an abortion by simply demanding it under the proposed legislation?
@EvieXVI: you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m for abortion to deal with the hard cases. I want the unborn child protected, as I was, in other cases. Vote No to social abortion and keep the lives of our unborn offspring protected.
@Dave O Keeffe: once more Dave, what restrictions are in place up to 12 weeks?
@Francis Mc Carthy: you’re ok with 13,000 lives ended Francis? Good man.
@Larry Doyle: And over 1,000 solicitors and lawyers.
@El Diego: why are you pointing out the restrictions? Shouldn’t you be making this difficult for me?
@Dave O Keeffe: but I called it unrestricted abortion up to twelve weeks. I didn’t say 15 weeks. I said 12.
@Jane: yeah, and I have no issue with someone calling it unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. But that’s not what the commenter I replied to said. The phrase abortion on demand was what I was challenging. Then the commenter came back to say that abortion on demand means unrestricted up to 12 weeks, those are two different things. That’s why I didn’t say anything about 15 weeks to you.
@El Diego: I know what I’m talking about. I’m a woman who has been pregnant. I know what it is to be be pregnant and have no options. It is never an ‘easy option’
@Dave O Keeffe: once more Dave the restrictions up to 12 weeks please? I’ll give you a hint Dave, to make it easier for you – there are none! That’s right, abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. I’m beginning to worry that you actually don’t understand what you’re voting on here and the consequences of opening the door for the proposed wording.
@El Diego: strange that you didn’t mention that restriction in your original comment. If you had you wouldn’t have wasted both of our time. Abortion on demand it is not. Abortion on demand with a time limit and further restrictions thereafter
@F. Wood: in your opinion. Unfortunately not enough people care about or share your opinion.
@El Diego: you are correct that there are no restrictions up to 12 weeks. But that doesn’t mean the women don’t have a reason outside the so called hard cases ie poverty, illness, age, mental health, domestic violence, etc. Every girl or woman who chooses an abortion has her reason.
@F. Wood: The 8th amendment is too extreme.
@El Diego:why should any woman have to give a reason to end her *unwanted* pregnancy in the first 12 weeks -as the answer is already there ? The pregnancy is not wanted by the girl/woman, & she also shouldn’t be answerable to some womb watcher :-)This is why i absolutely love love the Canadian abortion laws..
Am I ok with 13,000 pregnancies been ended in this country ? I would if it meant that an Irish woman/girl had the right to end her pregnancy.Bit of a daft question to ask of me,eh \O/
But I’m happy to see that as the polling day gets even closer that the talk of the removal of the 8th has already brought those ‘pretend’ figures of yer’s down by 2,000 in a space of a couple of days…that is impressive..
@Larry Doyle: that’s a pretty redundant statement. Everything said here is the opinion of the person saying it.
@F. Wood: How else do you deal with rape? I know it’s only a small percentage of pregnancies. I also know that’s not the point. Unless you’ve thought of something no one else has, it’s either a case of unrestricted access for 12 weeks or force rape and incest victims to carry their pregnancies to term.
After all the arguments presented by both sides it really comes to two things life and death. If the 8th is repealed a lot more innocent lives are lost. I can’t in good conscience vote for this. I’d urge anyone on the fence to consider the value of life
@Jack: couldn’t disagree more.
Abortion was illegal before the 8th amendment. So how can it have saved any lives?
@Stephen Adam: sure you can disagree till the cows come home….but his post is 100% spot on….the referendum on Friday comes down to 2 things …life or death.
VOTE NO
@Jack: women will be a lot safer so be good to vote Yes
@Stephen Adam: common sense will tell you that there will be more abortions if the 8th is repealed. So it will would save plenty. Imagine all the lives that will be allowed to be lived.
@Conor Ryan: imagine all the women forced to carried unwanted or unviable pregnancies to term because of the 8th amendment.
@Jack: Yeah, well your alright Jack.
@Frank Dubogovik: Even if it did come down to just life and death, there are life and death decisions on both sides. It is immature to ignore the complexity of the matter.
@Jack: There are no lives being saved. Read the stats for Irish women availing if services in the UK.
@Frank Dubogovik: Black or white. Really. That’s all you have to offer when a mother of three is facing cancer. Black or white for a 13 year old who has been raped. Shur your great.
Can we just get a reality check and ask the Catholics to stand back and see who of the Nos are still standing…
@Sinead Mooney: So not satisfied with removing equal rights for babies in the womb, you want to do the same with those of a different faith to yourself?
@Thomas O’ Donnell: I do when they want religion to inform our legislation
@Sinead Mooney: You will find that all other religions are against abortion. My guess is that most catholics will vote yes. Your religious argument is defunct.
@Thomas O’ Donnell: I’d like a woman to have the same rights during pregnancy as she has before conception. What’s wrong with that?
@F. Wood: No, the religious argument is not defunct, the Wiccan religion for instance thinks it should be entirely the woman’s choice whether or not to carry a fetus to term. A woman who gives birth should be honored for doing so, and not considered simply a container whose life must be subordinated to another’s.
@F. Wood: while they may well be there is no doubt that the 8ths existence was to a large extent driven by the Catholic Church and the devout Catholic right in the 80s.
Our constitution is for everyone. It’s simply not acceptable to have provisions of it which codify the moral viewpoint of a private institution.
Imagine what would happen today if Facebook lobbied to have the constitution amended so that its view of privacy rights was enshrined in the constitution. We’d think it was insane.
@Sinead Mooney: me for one Sinead and many more agnostics and non-Catholics like me. Taking life is just wrong. This is a moral question not a religious one. You should stick to posing questions about why all men are evil and what is society doing wrong, in the context of those poor women’s murders. That question from you makes about as much sense as this Catholic one.
@Stephen Adam: our constitution is not for everyone, our constitution is for the majority of those eligible the vote. Almost half of our people will not vote to remove the 8th amendment and protection of the unborn. This will be a change to our constitution. In your eyes this is a change for everyone. It’s clearly not. It’s a change for a slim majority.
@El Diego: No it isn’t el Diego. the constitution is amended by majority vote but it is for and governs everyone.
I don’t escape the effects or application of the constitution simply because of disagree with a lot of it.
It’s absolutely absurd to suggest the constitution is only for the majority.
@Sinead Mooney: Il still be standing. I have no affiliation to a church and despise the atrocities carried out by the Catholic church. Most No voters I personally know also share my views. This isn’t a vote against the Catholic church, it’s nothing to do with the church, not a thing. And if your voting Yes because of your hate for religion then you need a serious lesson before Friday. Your voting for entirely the wrong reason. A yes vote will not affect the church in any way shape or form, it will only kill innocent healthy unborn babies. Simple.
@Andrew Cosgrave: the vote very much does have something to do with the church – the 8th itself only exists because of the church to begin with.
Many no voters here aren’t church people necessarily. That’s fair.
But the 8th itself very much IS of the church.
@Stephen Adam: Your wrong Stephen. How will a Yes vote on Friday affect the church? Please tell me.
@Andrew Cosgrave: you didn’t read the post.
I didn’t say it would affect the church. I said the 8th was caused by the church. The 8th is a religious driven clause in our constitution – which is why it shouldn’t be there.
@Stephen Adam: I apologise. It doesnt really matter how or why a law comes into place, all that matters is that 35 years later, people want it to remain in place to protect the lives of Ireland’s unborn, people who may hate the church that brought it in, in the first place.
@Stephen Adam: you misunderstand me Stephen. The constitution is to satisfy the will of the majority so although it may legally bind all it is not to the will of all.
@Andrew Cosgrave: of course it matters. How and why we put things into our constitution is vitally important.
If Facebook demanded we put something into our constitution now would we allow it?
There are a great many reasons why the 8th should be removed but that it’s a remnant of a bygone Catholic stranglehold on the country’s government is a good one.
@El Diego: No el Diego the constitution is the guiding principles by which the country is run and the laws are made which govern us all. It is amended by democratic vote but only after a government chosen by democratic vote asks us a question.
The constitution is all of ours and we are all subject to it irrespective of how we change it.
@Stephen Adam: you haven’t proven anything with that post Stephen. Come Saturday almost 50% of our electorate will not have voted for the removal of the protection of the life of the unborn child yet that protection will be removed. Although our citizens will be bound by this it will only be there to satisfy the will of a slim majority, not of all, not nearly of all but for just over half. This is the citizens voting not our elected representatives.
@Stephen Adam: How does it matter? If anything the massive divide in this country on this issue will show you is that many many many people still find this law extremely relevant in today’s society and carry it every day dearly. What makes Yes voters more important than No voters? We are all the citizens who make this country what it is, all of our opinions matter and all of our voices need to be heard. You try to make it sound like No are a minority, but Yes will find out on Friday just how small our numbers are. The Church endorsed the 8th, that is true but that becomes irrelevant when people in 2018 who have no religious affiliation believe in the law.
@El Diego: “Our Constitution is not for everyone, it is for the majority” – that’s what you said.
Fundamentally incorrect. It’s for everyone. Changes to it represent the democratic will of the majority but it’s for everyone. Brush up on jurisprudence. Try Dworkin and Kafka. Maybe read the Trial.
@Andrew Cosgrave: it has enormous relevance. The notion that a private religious institution should have such a sway over the nations government and its people is something we’d condemn if it was the Middle East.
The sensible thing to do for the No side would be to have the 8th changed so that it no longer carries the stigma of being brought in by the Church.
We’re an increasingly secular society – having a constitution which has such a serious clause with such serious consequences for women designed by religious pressure is no longer appropriate.
@Stephen Adam: Your really not taking my point or else you just don’t want to. Either way, I’m banging my head off the wall here. If you cannot see the relevance of the law today, when possibly millions want to keep it in 2018, then I don’t know how to explain it here. This is how democracy works. The people vote and the votes are respected. I’d agree 100% that The churches sway was present, but that was 35 years ago, times were different but people’s desire to protect unborn life has stayed the same today, and that is where we are today.
@Sinead Mooney: I’m an atheist and I’m voting no. I don’t need religious conviction to believe that a babies life has sufficient value to warrant saving it. I might as well ask would all the people who like killing babies stand down and see who is left in the yes vote. It’s that kind of dismissive and denigrating remark that ensures this debate is so divisive.
@Dave O Keeffe: I don’t think a woman has the right to terminate a baby before conception either. So her rights before and after conception are currently the same.
@Stephen Adam: the entire constitution was informed by the church. It’s my understanding that Charles mcquaid was hugely involved in its conception. bearing that in mind are we to assume that the constitution in its entirety should be rewritten so as to ensure its secularity.
@Andrew Cosgrave: So the 8th amendment had nothing to do with the church? That’s not true and I think you know it. And when it’s time has passed on Friday it will show that the position of the church has weakened in this country. It would be stupid to vote yes or no for that reason alone. But some will. And in fairness that’s their choice. You can vote based on a coin flip if you want. I’ll be voting yes to give women the rights they deserve, finally. It does also tickle me that my Yes vote will piss off religious and social conservatives.
@Ivan Connolly: How do you terminate before conception. Kinda joking now but, are you against contraceptives or masturbation, pulling out even? They seem to me to be the only ways to terminate before conception.
@Mark Gearey: I never said that, I think u will find I agreed that the church brought it in. But my point is that, 35 years later, non religious people find the law extremely relevant so therefore it has nothing to do with the church in today’s world.
@F. Wood: your guess is defunct many Catholics of my acquaintance are voting no. You seem to have solid stats tho. No? Oh my bad.
So yes is the answer it can be.
The conclusion says above:
“There is agreement across the legal world that the constitution CAN be amended to list a number of scenarios, including fatal foetal abnormality, rape and incest.”
@Greg Kelly: You ignored the second part and most of the article.
The bias and close mindedness from both sides has been staggering. Choosing the little bits that suit them and shutting minds to all else.
It’s how we got here.
@Stephen Adam: reword the legislation, repeal, enact. Even Leo and Harris now realise that this is possible but they took their heads out of the sand too late.
@El Diego: it’s laid out quite clearly above el Diego. Lawyers and judges and attorneys general disagree quite a bit.
@Stephen Adam: eh no. They agree that repeal is required before legislation can be enacted but we all know this that’s why I suggested that sequence.
@El Diego: Good man Diego. So at least you’re in favour of repeal. That’s a start.
@Stephen Adam: I am and always have been Stephen. Have you never read any of my posts? I’ve been saying this for weeks, to you also. I’m just not in favour of abortion on demand, so like many will Vote No as a result.
@El Diego: I’ve read them. Brute generally speaking aggressive and snide.
But if I take your comment at face value – well that’s an enormous mistake. Because you won’t get another opportunity for at least a decade.
The notion that a second referendum is around the corner after a No vote is simply not credible.
@Stephen Adam: but perhaps when it comes to matters of a humans right to exist it should not be an easy matter to amend. I don’t think it is too much to have a referendum in order to ensure that a subject such as this is given to the people to have their say. How inconvenient can a referendum be compared to the importance of the matter contained within in?
@Stephen Adam: its was when it came to getting everyone to vote yes for Nice I believe. Referendums can be had everyday if the population so demand. Or the government decide. It’s a mere scaremongering to say we won’t be able to have another say for at least ten years. This is a democracy after all.
@Ivan Connolly: Referendums cannot be had if the public so demand. A referendum can only be had if a government decides. And the government decides what’s we vote on also.
It’s naive to suggest that the power is in the hands of the people if it stays in the constitution. Power remains in the hands of government because they offer us a vote or not.
At this stage, roll on 2 pm tomorrow when the media blackout starts.
This is not about trusting women. Its not about wishing to harm women or tell them what they can or cant do with their bodies. Its about a collective responsibility to decide who is most worthy of protection in this country…the mother or the unborn. It is unfortunate that the 2 things are in direct opposition to one another. Its a bad deal no matter what way you look at it. And really for the majority of people the decision comes down to which entity, the mother or the unborn you want to have society care for and protect the most. You cant care for and protect both to the maximum of your ability within the constitution so no matter what this is a raw deal. If you vote Yes, then undoubtedly you are voting to remove any constitutional protection of the unborn. If you vote No then you are undoubtedly forcing women to keep going abroad to procure the abortion they feel they need. Either that or send away for abortion pills of dubious quality in the post. Its not an easy decision. Not for most average people anyway. The only way I have of deciding is to try see which entity has the most culpability for the actual situation, and that for me is the mother. Unless she was raped, then she willingly partook in the sexual activity and her choice is ended there if the pregnancy comes along. Its a crass way to look at it…I know that. But so is the obverse of seeing the fetus / unborn, whatever you want to call it, as a problem and diminish the legitimacy of its existence and say it doesnt matter or it matters less because it is in a situation that it had nothing to do with creating. Im sorry but nobody can convince me that the fetus doesnt constitute a form of life. We were all of us, every single person that was or ever will be that fetus…it is just a part of the life cycle that is dependent on another…its mother. And its status is entirely dependent on whether the mother is prepared to have it. I genuinely feel sorrow and pity for any woman that is put in the situation of considering an abortion, and that situation speaks volumes about the way the motherhood, parenthood and the bringing of children into the world is actually a terrifying thing for some women. Because the supports arent there, the feeling that they can not provide any sort of a life for that fetus after birth…who knows. If the 8th were replaced with something which catered for the hard cases…rape, FFA or direct threat to the mother, then I would be happier…and it is unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks which bothers me. And I want to say I dont hate women. I think women are by and large wonderful for the most part…and I have been blessed to know some epically strong women in my life…including my wife. In deciding to vote no…Im not hating them. Im not wanting to chastise them, harm them, create any antipathy towards them. Life is hard enough and its a struggle from start to end for everyone in many ways…and thats the point. Part of the point in life is meeting it head on, and being courageous enough to face it with dignity, honour and responsibility…and in voting No Im just trying to save the only piece of our constitution that requires us to act responsibly where the fetus is involved. Its a dichotomy that is when you look at it unfair…utterly, and completely and I wish there was any other way in the entire universe to make it otherwise but there isnt. And sadly this is not about trusting women. Its not about ignoring the inevitable abortions that will happen anyhow on foreign shores…its not even about the hard cases because I believe they could be legislated for responsibly…its the changing of what we actually stand for, what life means within the borders of our country…Eire…its the written intention and stated will of the people that the unborn be protected inside its borders. I know everyone would support that, encourage that, even value that as a highest and most esteemable virtue in any other situation…if the pregnancy was not a crisis situation in any way for the mother. Im sure even the most ardent pro-choice person would agree if this did not affect the mother in any way…it would be a laudable thing. Its just a raw deal for both sides of the argument that it does. And the real difference between Yes and No is actually more or less down to where the majority of your compassion lies within that dichotomy. Its not about hating any woman or wanting to kill anything…its just the average human being put in a situation of having to choose between two things it would otherwise value to highest order. And that is the raw deal here. Its the truth in most instances. it certainly is in mine. The way you vote will be determined just along those lines. Where does your greater sympathy and compassion lie? Its got nothing to do with religion, feminism, any ideology or dogma…its just what you value more in this car crash of a situation. Its the unanswerable question…its the runaway train on the tracks that is coming to a junction and you can direct it only one of two tracks…and no matter what way you direct it somebody or something (if you dont recognize the fetus as an individual living entity) is going to be hit by it. Who in their right mind wants to make that decision and who in their right mind is convinced its right!!! Only the fool…only the idiot has no doubts and is sure of their moral high ground on either side of this debate.
@Kevin Tyrrell: Paragraphs and brevity.
@Kevin Tyrrell: TL:DR
@Kevin Tyrrell: very well said.
@Kevin Tyrrell: Culpability seems to be what you hang your reasoning on. What about personhood? IVF clinics and morning after pills already end the lives of fertilised eggs. Unless you are against them then you already accept that there are stages of human life that deserve less protection. And as has been said above. Fewer words. More structure.
Nothing stopped the government from proposing an amendment specifically to deal with FFA, rape an incest. Instead it has proposed a 12 week anything goes amendment. Contrary to what they tell us, this will allow abortion for disability, gender, sexual preference, etc. There are no rules before 12 weeks. After 12 weeks, mental health grounds are permitted, again no holds barred. Virtually all abortions in England are provided under these grounds. The government’s proposal is not compassionate, it is grotesque.
@Eric De Red: as you can see the future can you give me the numbers for Saturday’s lotto please
@Eric De Red: Unworkability stopped them. I think that info has been out there a while. Also, we’re not voting on the legislation.
to answer the very critical question asked in the headline….the answer is a resounding yes. IF, and it looks like a BIG ” If” the repeal side don’t carry ( I abhor people using the word ‘win’ as regards the referendum….there will be no ‘ winner’s come Saturday) the referendum it will be a clear cut instruction to the government to legislate for the ” hards” cases.
@Frank Dubogovik: I completely agree. Some Yes headcases on here going on about “winning”, “victory” and Yes are even planning celebratory parties in some cafes and pubs. I mean really! These are life and death decisions one way or the other. No will see more women dealing with rape and FFA abroad. Yes will see a predicted widespread abortion on demand culture. People want to celebrate this, suffering? It’s a certain mentality I guess.
@El Diego: abortion on demand what’s that? Talk is cheap
@happinessnow: look up a dictionary bud.
@El Diego: Get a life, then you won’t need to stick your nose in women’s lives
@happinessnow: ha ha. Speaks volumes about you bud. Vote No and save lives.
@El Diego: Ah come on. “Yes will see a predicted widespread abortion on demand culture” But you can say anything will see a predicted anything because anyone can predict anything. Who’s predicting this abortion culture. What are their motives, their evidence and their expertise behind this prediction?
The woman’s life or the pin sized non viable embryos ‘life’…? Hmmmm.let me mull this one over for a millisecond…ok..it has to be the woman’s life comes first..babies will still be born to loving homes…vote yes..
@Francis Mc Carthy: Once, all the women of Ireland, as indeed You and I were pin sized foetus, then we became babies / children onto adulthood….by Your twisted logic any and all rights / protection afforded to those YET to be born babies should be eradicated and they can be ” terminated” Willy nilly up to 12 weeks on Friday.
Vote NO
@Frank Dubogovik: ah leave him alone Frank he’s alright. He’s secretly a No voter, a double agent if you will. Doing great work for the No campaign.
@Frank Dubogovik: So the rights of future non-existant embryos or children are more important than our sisters, partners and wives?
This is why you guys lose on Friday .
@Frank Dubogovik ; that has brought a tear to my glass eye :(
My wife went through five PLANNED pregnancies.In every single one of them,we agreed that if anything went wrong with her physical health- that that non viable foetus would be removed from her body.Why would we both have agreed on that ? Because WE both agreed that her life was worth more than that non viable foetus.,..Because we both agreed that after the last couple of pregnancies that it was taking a huge toll on her physical and on her mental health..How come you never knew about her her physical/mental health issues during/after giving birth ? oh yah,you don’t know sfa about us…Do you get it now ?
I don’t care if some stranger CHOOSES to have that non viable embryo removed from her body.It’s her decision to make,not yours..
And look,i’m sure that out of the 50% of UNPLANNED pregnancies in this country each year,there will still be over half of them that will go on to give birth :-)
@El Diego: i like to keep my posts factual,unlike you.I’m 100% a ‘yes’ voter and I hope that the Irish people will vote that way come Friday.You are happy that rape victims will still have to go to the UK for what should be a simple medical procedure in their own country,,,but look,ye do like to bring shame and add shame onto those victims
@Francis Mc Carthy: ireland has one of the lowest mortality rates for pregnant women in the world. An average of less than 5 a year out of well over 60,000 births. I say births because obviously we can’t know exactly how many pregnancies there may have been. The argument that this is about the medical Heath of women seems to be a fallacy. This is about giving women the choice to terminate a pregnancy because it doesn’t suit or is inconvenient. Just because women currently choose to travel to commit what would be a crime in ireland and this is inconvenient for them is hardly a credible reason to legalise it here. Were the yes side able to make a credible argument that these unwanted pregnancies were in fact detrimental to the women rather that an unwanted responsibility that they should
@Ivan Connolly: have the choice to do away with perhaps the debate would not be so divisive. As it stands this appears to be about the right to not have to be responsible or deal with a difficult situation over the right to have a life. In no other facet of life do we offer people the chance to deal with a complex problem by simply eradicating one of the parties to the problem. Women have the gift of creating life and I’m afraid there comes a corollary responsibility with that.
What’s really repulsive here is the attitude of some of the Yes campaigners towards an unborn baby. ‘Sure what is it only a foetus,that thing has no rights’ Neither side has painted themselves in glory here. Not one single side willing to listen to both sides of the argument, just who can shout loudest and who can get more posters on a pole. Somebody will be a victim on Friday and most of you don’t care as long as you win.
if you have children take a good look at them ,because if you would of had an abortion they are what you would of aborted . vote NO because the taken of a life is wrong,
@Elvis Polkasalad: the weird fantasy world that you’re living in where parents would abortion wanted children if the eighth is repealed is very disturbing
@Elvis Polkasalad: Yes it is Elvis but there is no just black or white here. There are many sides to listen to in this referendum. You say that taking an innocent life is wrong. The woman or young girl that was raped and didn’t choose to become pregnant will want to decide for themselves if they carry on with the unwanted pregnancy. The mother of a child that will not be alive when it is delivered will want the choice of deciding when to say goodbye to her child. I myself am not in favour of terminating any life but you have to think of the woman involved as well as the child you want us to look at.
@Dave O Keeffe: weird fantasy world , your the one voting yes to the killing of innocent Healthy unborn children that would have been a son or daughter .. Healthy women aborting Healthy unborn children, If you have children dave take a good look at them, would you kill them ? if you vote yes thats what you are doing ,
@Elvis Polkasalad: This post makes no sense. Are you saying that if the 8th is repealed people’s children will be aborted with out their parents permission?
@Elvis Polkasalad: would I choose my wifes health over the life of our unborn baby? I don’t know. I would like to have all options available to us. “Tough shit babes” doesn’t cut it.
@Jennifer Harpur: No
@Elvis Polkasalad: well you did say a yes vote was me killing my already born children to be fair.
@Dave O Keeffe: so your confused ? does your wife know that you dont know? Do you know why your voting yes dave, it doesnt sound like you do
@Elvis Polkasalad: my children know that my wife’s life ‘always’ came first if her life was at risk.Just because you “adore” the non viable foetus doesn’t mean that the rest do…
@Elvis Polkasalad: I have a child. I will be voting Yes. You are saying that by doing this I will be killing my child. Thats wrong and you must know it. Expressing one’s self clearly is hard sometimes. I’m sure some of my comments are jibberish. But you really need to try harder unless this is your way of advocating for a Yes.
@Jennifer Harpur: but it’s ok to abort them with the parents permission?
@Ivan Connolly: and apparently just the mothers will suffice.
The article started by asking a number of questions including:
‘Why is the referendum to repeal the 8th and not amend it? Can Article 40.3.3 not be amended to allow for unrestricted terminations up to 12 weeks and cases where there is a risk to the life of the mother or fatal foetal abnormality up to 23 weeks?’
The article avoids answering this question. It is one of the first questions that should have been asked in this debate but has received no attention. Now the people go to the polls without understanding the full legal impact of their vote.
Is Ronan Mullen on the yes side
@bmul: he does seem to be. It is very funny seeing people suggest alternatives and then admit that they wouldn’t support those alternatives.
@bmul: I wish he was to be honest. He’s a clown. But I wouldn’t swap him for the Soros sponsored speaker.
@El Diego: “Soros sponsored speaker” < bwahahaha..
You’re actually factually incorrect.
A good majority of yes voters I’ve spoken to are against the “abortion on demand”, so too are a large portion of no voters. If the no side wins there could be a new referendum where the people could vote on legislation in parallel with repealing the 8th ammendment.
There are extremists on both sides but I’m fairly certain that if the government proposed stricter legislation, than the one being presented at present, it wouldn’t be close at all.
Most people are both logical and empathetic, don’t forget that. Don’t let this referendum ruin your relationships with friends and loved ones. *Peace and love*
Who voted you to be here to vote tomorrow.
have your say