We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
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.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Updated 6.55pm
LEO VARADKAR HAS said that Simon Coveney’s call for the inclusion of a two-thirds majority lock on the law that would be enacted if the Eighth Amendment is repealed is unconstitutional.
This evening Cabinet approved the “general scheme” of the legislation on abortion that would be brought forward if the referendum is passed.
TheJournal Politics / TwitterHarris says Cabinet has approved general scheme for abortion legislation. pic.twitter.com/aNpFvWD4UK
— TheJournal Politics (@TJ_Politics) March 27, 2018
Last night, a spokesperson for the Tánaiste said he was “looking for a two-thirds majority to be necessary if there was ever any attempt to alter the law in the future”.
“To put that into context, that is more than the combined strength of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil in the current Dáil.
“The Tánaiste hopes this will go some way towards countering the reckless claims that our parliament can’t be trusted and to reassure voters that there will be no creeping change over time if they vote repeal.”
Coveney believes such a mechanism would make it impossible for any one political grouping to change the law in the future as is being claimed by those against repealing Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution.
It is understood that the Tánaiste did not brief the Taoiseach about his proposal before floating the idea last night.
The call was criticised by members of the opposition and, speaking in the Dáil today, Varadkar confirmed the suggestion is indeed contrary to the Constitution.
“In relation to the proposal to have a two-thirds majority to change any legislation, I sought advice from the Attorney General on that matter today and the Attorney General advised me that it would be contrary to Article 15 of the Constitution and therefore could not be included in this legislation and therefore will not be,” the Taoiseach said.
‘Simon is just wrong’
Speaking on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland earlier, Labour leader Brendan Howlin said the two-thirds majority lock would be unconstitutional.
“I think Simon is just wrong on this issue. Article 15.11 of the Constitution couldn’t be clearer that all questions in each House of the Oireachtas must be determined by a majority of votes by members present and voting,” Howlin said.
A majority is a majority, it doesn’t require a majority plus anything. The Constitution is crystal clear.
“In essence, what Simon is suggesting is that one-third of the members elected to Dáil Éireann could out-vote two-thirds, that it would be unconstitutional and that’s as clear as day,” Howlin said.
He noted that the only exception in the Constitution where a simple majority wouldn’t determine the matter would be in the case of the impeachment of the president.
Health Minister Simon Harris said that although Attorney General has advised that Coveney’s proposal is unconstitutional, he will examine ways in which future changes to abortion law will be considered.
Proposed legislation
Outlining the proposed legislation, Harris confirmed that terminations would only be lawful where an appropriate medical practitioner has certified that pregnancy has not exceeded 12 weeks.
The wait-time of 72 hours between the certification and the termination being carried out was also confirmed by the minister.
Beyond the first 12 weeks, terminations will only be available in exceptional circumstances, such as the risk of serious harm to the health or life of the woman, in emergency situations, or in cases of fatal foetal abnormality.
The minister plans to give a date of the referendum this week.
With reporting by Órla Ryan and Christina Finn
So he supports repealing the eight but admits subsequent politicians and Dails cannot be trusted with legislation going forward.
@Oliver Klozov: who could trust present or future they don’t trust themselves
@Mickey Fennessy: pro-life one minute then undertake dramatic journey’s that turn them into hardcore abortionist the next. Coveney the perfect example.
@Oliver Klozov: howlin supported the charge for water, who is he to argue about this, hed let a citisen go thirsty in our first world nation. labour traitor
@Oliver Klozov: The man is a fool,its not a murder trial but a referendum
@Oliver Klozov: He’s the exact opposite of a ‘hardcore abortionist’. He only supports abortion in cases of rape, incest and fatal fetal abnormalities. He also believes that free contraception should be brought in and that there should be a mandatory waiting time after a woman has had all of her choices explained to her. Why are we so quick to put extreme labels on people that can see problems with the eight ammendment but also don’t personally agree with abortion as a contraceptive. He also only changed his view after listening to the experts in the field, something we should all do to ensure we are fully informed before voting.
@Lauren Swan: he supports abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, that is an extreme abortion position, especially for someone who was supposedly “pro-life” a week ago!
@Oliver Klozov: he only supports it with all of the restrictions in place. If you agree with a woman being allowed to have an abortion in the cases of rape, incest and fatal fetal abnormalities and if you understand the complexities involved in only legislating for abortion in these cases then you would also agree that a 12 week no restriction rule has to be implemented. People who believe that abortion should never be allowed in any situation are as bad as people who believe abortion should be allowed in every situation. That’s not a pro-life stance it’s a pro-pregnancy stance.
@Matthew O’Kane: charges for water hardly mean people going thirsty. Let’s live on planet earth shall we?
@Oliver Klozov: your not by any chance one of those pesky russians who try to interfere with the democratic process in other countries?
@Oliver Klozov: Sinister Simon has never sat on the bench over any issue. He uses a see-saw instead.
@Oliver Klozov: it seems you assume any future government would be more liberal than the current one, why is that?
@Paul Fahey: Nearly everyone assumes that, because that’s been the general direction of travel during living memory. Assumptions are the things you don’t know you’re making
@Lauren Swan: Completely agree,why is it so extraordinary that people listen to doctors instead of the far right and Catholic priests when it comes to abortion?Think its brave of him to admit he has changed his mind.Look at the poisonous abuse he’s getting from the courageous key board warriors and twitter bullies.
@Ben McArthur: are you Oliver too? Parliament is there to represent the electorate and as society is becoming more liberal than so should the laws of this Republic. It would be an affront to democracy, especially that of a Republic, if the conservative mindset of the past generations was enforced on the future generations.
@Lauren Swan: How can you equate both extremes? There is no such thing as a little bit of abortion. They either kill the unborn or they don’t. What you are actually saying is babies in certain circumstances can be killed. We have no right to decide who lives. Our Constitution does not give us the right to life; it merely acknowledges it. Taking out the Amendment that protects that inherent right for all humans is wrong. Apart from that, in every country where abortion was legalised, the restrictions were ignored or ‘got around’ by using the language to fit. Saying one is suicidal is enough to get past the 12 week hurdle proposed even though doctors can’t diagnose for certain if someone is genuinely suicidal. That is why these hard to diagnose cases are reasons used.
@Sighle A. Ni Chuana: “Taking out the Amendment that protects that inherent right for all humans is wrong. ”
How does the amendment protect that right if abortion pills can be ordered online willy nilly? All the 8th does is give people like you the delusion that it protects rights and condemn women seeking abortions to have them in unsafe circumstances.
Politicians have shown their lack of trustworthiness repeatedly. The bank crisis, public spending, taxes going up and up, less-than-honest dealings with business. The only place we can protect children, unborn or born, from them is in the constitution. Article 40.3.3 must be maintained.
@Eric De Red: ‘The only place we can protect children, unborn or born, from them is in the constitution.’
And how is the constitution protecting ‘children’ (embryos and fetuses actually) when abortion pills can be ordered online? All the 8th does is ensure that a woman seeking abortion who does not have the money to travel has an unsafe, unsupervised, abortion instead.
@Eric De Red: the right to life of the unborn cannot be left in the hands of politicians like Varadkar and Coveney who were both pro-life candidates at the last election and then betrayed voters who voted for them because of that position.
@Oliver Klozov:
By having a referendum it is being left to the people to decide, not Leo & Coveney
@Nick Allen: it demonstrates that we cannot take FG TDs at their word on this life and death issue. One minute they’re pro-life the next the support abortion on demand. The right to life cannot be left in those hands.
@Eric De Red: that’s the People’s fault. You get the politicians you deserve.
If you vote for the local bible thumper, solicitor, teacher or publican based on him being a good local fella or a great GAA player or cos he got young Sean a passport then frankly you deserve absolutely everything you get when the economy implodes.
@Oliver Klozov:
But it is your decision whether you vote yes or no. You don’t have to blindly vote based upon any particular politician’s view.
@Oliver Klozov: the unborn what ? If it can’t survive outside the womb it’s not a child.
@Kevin Slater: says who?
@Kevin Slater: Science is amazing sometimes -
@The Risen: Abortion pills are bought online every day in the UK and other countries that have legal abortion so why should we be any different? This is not a reason to legalise abortion. There isn’t an argument brought up by repealers that stands up. All the same old tactics being used hoping someone will be changed and no truth behind any of it.
@Nick Allen: No, it is being handed over to politicians to legislate if, after the people have voted, the Amendment is repealed. NEVER AGAIN will Irish citizens have a say in the future of whether the unborn children will live or die!
@The Risen: man you’re here every single day, give it a rest. I totally agree with you but do you not get tired of fighting with strangers on a useless platform? Honestly like, put the phone/laptop away for a while.
@Gav Quinn: l see your picture that the ‘Yes Together’ crowd have adopted the multi-coloured logo of the last referendum. Your last comment about Risen makes you sound like a pimple squeezing kid .
@Oliver Klozov: But it isn’t being left in their hands though – it’s being left in the hands of those it affects to make the choice. Surely more reasonable no?
@The Risen: another day another ridiculous comment by ‘The Risen’.
He/ she argues that because you can buy a drug online then it should automatically be legalized and promoted.
Clearly politicians cannot be trusted and a Vote NO to Repeal is the smart choice.
@Kevin Slater: My son was born at 36 weeks and wouldn’t have survived without medical assistance. He was certainly a child.
A copmpletely useless face saving device from Coveney. No Dail can be beholden to the decisions of a previous Dail. He’s in the game long enough to know that. Same as the ‘plebicite’ clause in FG/labours water legislation. Not worth the paper it’s written on.
Whatever the term limit, it will be the woman who decides on the abortion, not the legislation.
@The Risen: Exactly, no Dáil can be beholden to the decisions of a previous Dáil. Which is precisely the difficulty many people have with the repeal proposal. “Trust Women” is one catchphrase that has a chance of working. “Trust Politicians” won’t be a runner, especially when so many of them look on the Repeal and Legislate proposal as just a half way house to start with.
@Garry Coll: We don’t need to trust politicians on this matter, as it will ultimately be the woman who chooses. It’s a complete strawman, and another non argument to add to the pro life pile.
@The Risen: whatever provision is put in the Constitution to replace the 8th can have a clause inserted thar requires a 2/3rd majority to amend the aborttion enabling legislation and/or the 12 week limit.
@BigSFLou..ny: Parliamentary voting rules are already defined in the constitution. Just because one politician is trying to save face is not a reason to put a separate question to the people.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en#part4
THE NATIONAL PARLIAMENT
CONSTITUTION AND POWERS
ARTICLE 15
11 1° All questions in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting other than the Chairman or presiding member.
@The Risen:
Two days in a row! I agree, a face saving ploy. However, I do agree in principle that to change the constitution we should need a majority of greater than 1 vote over 50% but it is not the right time to bring this up now
This is all very sinister, Coveney is a loon.
@The Risen: if you amend constitution then it’s not unconstitutional.
@The Risen: Strawman? Non-argument? Your exercise in denial fools nobody. The substantive issue being debated is what value the nation and it’s citizens place on the protection of unborn life that is currently part of our constitution. You may not wish to engage in this debate, and try and deflect and distort the discussion with your cheap and flippant comments, but people will soon see through such shallowness. The legislative proposals, notwithstanding Mr Coveneys two-thirds buffer, will be contrasted with the development of the abortion industry in countries that followed a similar path, and will be seen as the facilitation of abortion on demand at some point in the future. The question is whether at this point the Irish people are ready to vote for that?
@Garry Coll: why do you assume that future governments will be made up of a majority of TDs with incredibly progressive views on reproductive rights?
@Karen Wellington: That’s quite a leap Karen. I don’t regard the make up of the current Dáil or government as Progressive in their ideology, but they are more than willing to take the country well down the road of the aspiration of the Progressive Elites, which is abortion on demand without restriction. If this proposal is passed at the referendum, the legislative restrictions will melt away over time as abortion providers and activists ramp up legal and constitutional challenges. Neither the people nor the Oireachtas will have a say in it afterwards.
@Garry Coll: I’m sorry I thought you were a reasonable commenter, I didn’t realise you harbour a deep seeded fear of some sort of abortion boogeyman rubbing it’s hands together with glee at the prospect of preforming unwanted terminations. Do you genuinely believe there’s some sort of abortion lobby, or that anyone ever enjoyed an abortion?
Our elected officials enter into office with a mandate, the best way to ensure that that mandate is acceptable to you is exercise your democratic right to vote, and not by preventing future generations from being able to do the same.
@Karen Wellington: A bit harsh Karen. You asked me a question about the possibility of a government of Progressives, to which I gave you my point of view. I’m not asking you to agree with me, but your immediate descent into vitriol, abuse and emotive grandstanding suggests that you don’t have an alternative argument.
@Garry Coll: reality can be harsh sometimes. So are you going to answer any of the questions I actually put to you or will you continue to deflect with sensationalist and implausible scenarios?
@Karen Wellington: It’s not sensational and far from implausible, in fact it has already happened.
@Garry Coll: source?
@Garry Coll: is that no to answering the question I posed to you?
Howlin is right. Coveney is wrong: his ‘two-thirds’ idea is crazy on various levels.
@Brendan O’Brien:ITS NOT VERY OFTEN THAT I AGREE WITH BRENDAN HOWLIN BUT IN THIS CASE HE IS RIGHT.WHO IS ADVISING COVENEY,LEOS HAND PICKED ADVISERS
@Brendan O’Brien: Agreed. It would be ridiculous if a ruling party could impose legislation that could not be undone by another government in the future because the original government imposed arbitrary conditions. If you can make it two thirds why couldn’t someone else make it 100%? Legislation that could never be undone? Can’t be constitutional, can it?
@Squiddley Diddley: It’s not. The straight majority rule is written into the constitution.
@James Mc Loughlin: your caps lock is on bud.
@Squiddley Diddley: It can hardly be Constitutional to remove a whole section of society’s right to life but they’re doing it.
Which side is Simon shouting for?
For one week, against the next!
Northern wind this evening should give a different result…
@Willy Malone:
Both, depends upon which has more votes at the time of speaking.
It seems that Simon Coveney is now scrabbling about trying to justify his change of mind by proposing limits to how the 12 week legislation will be framed, and to how the referendum will be won or lost based on the level of majority. Perhaps he should have stayed true to what he actually believes instead of allowing himself to be persuaded by others to adopt a position favourable to the government.
@Catriona Galster: we don’t know what he actually believes. Nor Leo or Harris or any of them.
I suspect they don’t really care one way or another. The votes are their primary concern. That’s all.
@Stephen Adam: Anyone with a little gumption knows what he really thinks. We also know that he as a weak man who is easily turned by the opinions of other weak men and women.
@Johnny Bellew: really? What does he really think Oh Oracle?
Has he bent the knee before he weak minded 60-70% of the country? Art thou the only one left with strength of mind and moral certainty?
Or, mayhap, thou art just a silly loon.
@Johnny Bellew: You’re a weak man. You hate women and won’t admit it.
@Gav Quinn: If you don’t do what the dictators want you are a ‘hater’. “only the dead fish go with the flow”. Whether you believe it or not, there are people who hate killing, especially big adults killing little babies.
@Catriona Galster: jaysus are you on the journal ..
In any case it doesn’t seem right that current voters could stop future voters changing the constitution with a simple majority.
@Bull Spite: he wants to stop future voters changing legislation without a majority, not the constitution
@Karen Wellington: surely if future politicians want to change legislation it’s because there’s an appetite from voters? It has to be unconstitutional for Covney to constrain that.
@Deborah Behan: I didn’t, and don’t, disagree with you (and I did say future voters, not future politicians).
I was pointing out that Coveney wants to prevent changes to legislation that might be passed by this Dáil, not future referendums/changes to the constitution.
John McGuirk called it unconstitutional first, he was on it like white on rice.
@The Risen: we all make mistakes like that time the Irish Examiner ran with an online twitter poll as some sort of scientific measurement of GPs opinion. Thejournal retracted.
wtf happened to the risens link to that news article? it didnt break any rules did it??
@We Love Katamari: it must have been potentially defmatory as a lot of the claims he made are highly contested.
@Oliver Klozov: a lot of the claims who made? the risen or john mcgurk?
@Oliver Klozov: Whats to contest? McGuirks poster boy was exposed as a fake, and the nurse who exposed him was threatened with legal action by McGuirk. It was despicable.
@Change Everything: likely because she made a series of unverifiable claims, looks like the journals legal team agreed that it is potentially defamatory.
Coveny and Leo should really stay out of the china shop ,they are beginning to looking like laural and hardy ,Another fine mess .
@Anthony Gallagher:
Does anyone in FG know what the word DEMOCRACY actually means.
The public service card did a u-turn today.
The SCU has done a complete circle.
The Judiciary Appointment Bill has gone to the dogs.
FG are a dogs dinner.
Sure put it to a referendum then.
The prolifers, not content with trying to undermine democracy by stalling the referendum not want to rip up the part of our constitution which underpins our parliamentary democracy without putting it to the people… These people are a danger to the very fabric of our nation…
@Vigo the Carpathian: Oh, now I don’t think it was prolifers who proposed these changes. Since the repealers let their document with the 31 tactics for canvassing etc. be leaked, they have nothing to fall back on. I wonder how much they paid the Consultant for drawing up the list.
I don’t blame the man as reasonable Irish citizens find themselves in a position where the present humane ambiguity for miscarriages and pregnancies is difficulties is under an assault by one section of society. It is why the slogan ‘trust women/trust doctor’ doesn’t make sense as inherently the referendum is not about mother and developing child but about controlling language to make a completely negative extermination policy seem normal.
Are people so desperate that they have to surround a developing child with voodoo in order to execute it ?. It is other countries that will eventually see sense in future so as not to inflict self deception on their citizens in the same manner the Soviets did in the 1920′s and the German society did in the 1930′s.
Give the man a break .
@Gerald Kelleher: “Are people so desperate that they have to surround a developing child with voodoo in order to execute it ?”
Maybe you should put your book of voodoo down for long enough to do your homework. Then you might realise that the developing embryo/fetus in the womb does not meet the definition of a ‘child’
@The Risen: “Then you might realise that the developing embryo/fetus in the womb does not meet the definition of a ‘child’” Yes, let’s just use the dictionary as a moral guide! Clutching at straws. It ain’t you who decides what language means, just because it serves your purpose to dehumanise the developing child in the womb
@The Risen: When does it become a child then?….When it is actually born…..Would you allow abortion right up to the last week of pregnancy……
@The Risen: On the day the Government will enact a token expulsion against a Russian, they are importing a communist extermination policy wholesale from 1920′s Russia which was then called “Decree on Women’s Healthcare.” -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia
How to enact extermination in Western society involved dehumanizing language by hijacking an alternative term for pregnancy and dumping it on the developing child so nobody should feel proud at this sly maneuver to make extermination acceptable.
@Gerald Kelleher: ” they are importing a communist extermination policy wholesale ”
Gerard, on behalf of the repeal side, I would like to thank you for your tireless work of pushing undecided voters towards giving women the choice.
@The Risen: You should take down that picture of An Piarsach. He would be horrified by the idea of child murder. He did not shed his noble blood so that our Future Generations should be butchered in the abortion abattoir.
@The Risen: There are no sides, it how far an individual is prepared to go to accept an act of self deception so a referendum is the wrong move regardless. Like the brexit mess, it depends on the health of the political system to not act against the interests of all citizens rather than just one side so unfortunately the vandalism using language which undermines the humane side of Irish nature is set in a Yes/No question and answer.
@The Risen: i just love how the antis swarm all over your comments :-)
“would you allow abortion right up to the last week of pregnancy” – absolutely.C-sections are legal.
“when does it become a child then ?
Is a zygote a child ? seven week old embryo ? 12 week old foetus ?
a neo nate ?
@Bin Shapiro :): There are no ‘anti’ , there are people with a more balanced and expansive approach that are not easily intimidated by judicial or medical language. It is a political game for some but for others it is a loss of what we hold dear on this island as ‘fair play’ and especially for those in a helpless position.
@Bin Shapiro :): The Risen is particularly dishonest on this subject.
“would you allow abortion right up to the last week of pregnancy” – absolutely.C-sections are legal.
“Caesarean section, also known as C-section or caesarean delivery, is the use of surgery to deliver one or more babies. A caesarean section is often necessary when a vaginal delivery would put the baby or mother at risk. This may include obstructed labour, twin pregnancy, high blood pressure in the mother, breech birth, …” Oh dear…
@Gerald Kelleher: eh? Before 12 weeks ,can you tell me what ‘choices’ that you want to give the woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy ?
Will you offer her the choice of a safe,legal abortion? yes or no?
@Bin Shapiro :): Like so many you are trying to control language however the dehumanizing process is fairly straightforward by isolating the life in the womb using the term ‘fetus’ when that term is an alternative word for pregnancy. It was understandable to use the term for humane medical reasons outside its actual meaning but once ‘unwanted pregnancy’ enters the picture it brings in extermination policies which no society wants.
The judiciary and the medical community insult themselves and this society by opting for the sly misuse of language that diminishes us as a society. I think it is pretty clear but obviously even those with decent views don’t see what the referendum actually represents.
Judging from the proportion of views to responses in these articles, most are taking the lazy way out.
@wrong side: You relaise that it was bin shapiro who made the c-section comment, right?
@wrong side: oh dear- you asked The Risen,”would you allow abortion right up to the last week of pregnancy” –
abortion -the deliberate termination of a pregnancy – is a c-section the deliberate termination of a pregnancy ? Yes or No ?
we can all play your stupid games
@The Risen: Yes I do, that’s why I was answering him/her.
@Bin Shapiro :): No I didn’t, somebody else did which prompted your claim that a c-section was an abortion, but keep digging why don’t you!
Just to remind you since you seem to have comprehension as well as reading difficulties: A c-section is the delivery of a baby, not the termination of a pregnancy, which is called an … abortion.
You’re the only one playing stupid games, as stupid people do!
@wrong side: You replied to my comment so i took it for granted that it was you.Why should i have to look at who or who didn’t say that ? That would be a waste of my precious time..
“would you allow abortion right up to the last week of pregnancy”
Abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy -usually before the embryo/foetus is viable
So i would allow a c-section to end that pregnancy.
Maybe he should have asked ,would you allow feticide to be used against a viable foetus in the last week of the woman’s pregnancy ?
Don’t be calling people stupid,stupid.
@The Risen: Why do you keep harping back to an argument that has been demolished by science?
@Bin Shapiro :): A C-section is an alternative method of delivering a live baby and there is no direct attack on the baby to kill it. If a baby has to be delivered in an emergency before its due date, it is given every assistance to survive and not put in a side room to die. Huge difference.
The fear that a lot of people have regarding repealing the 8th is that the politicians are selling us “abortion light” that being 12 week limit.
However how long will we have to wait before see an amendment to the legislation extending that limit. One year two years ……
@Skipper Mac: I think the bigger fear is people seem to think they will be forced to have abortions. It’s really not going to affect any of us and the ones unlucky enough to have to make such a decision for whatever reason shouldn’t be affected by other people’s beliefs. Where is the outcry for the thousands of kids already born dying everyday?? Where are the protests at IVF clinics if life begins at conception?? Seems to me the women in this horrible situation are an easy target and people want them punished for having sex.
@Skipper Mac: is the pro-life side worried that they’ll accidentally vote for a majority of TDs with excessively progressive views on reproductive rights?
Why do you imagine elected officials would attempt to revise legislation at future date?
@Karen Wellington: Progressive tends to suggest positive but in this case taking away a life is not. Reproductive innovations would ease concerns and remove the language of extermination under the heading of ‘rights’ although that Government minister responsible for this act of self deception looks like a bright eyed student waving what he is convinced is a positive manifesto.
@Gerald Kelleher: I can see how reached that erroneous conclusion, but that’s not what progressive means. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/progressive
We each get a vote, the majority will be heard; so what are you worried about?
@Karen Wellington: Seeing this referendum is not about gender rights but about using alternative words to obscure it is an extermination policy, the synonym of progressive is tends towards positive just as I stated -
@Gerald Kelleher: I regret responding to you in the first place, I’ve seen your weird nonsense about god and science so I have no excuse, I knew better.
I disagree with you on this point of language, but my original point was not one of vocabulary, care to address it?
@Karen Wellington: Your original point is the use of ‘progressive’ as a positive for society when extermination policy is the destination.
Neither men or women here yet have to stomach to deal with how the term ‘fetus’ morphed from an alternative description of pregnancy into a separate entity that can now be targeted for willful execution because like all extermination policies it requires dehumanizing language.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fetus#Latin
Pro-life vs pro-choice is not a choice at all, it is a clear act of national self deception promoted as ‘healthcare’. This is criminal irresponsibility.
@Gerald Kelleher: I hate myself a little bit for responding again, but here goes;
Why are you so worried that future Dáils (or possibly even the next one) will relax the proposed 12 week limit? Is it because you believe they will have a mandate from the voters to do so (and if so why do you want to take this democratic right from the voters), or do you believe a majority of TDs will go rogue and disregard the will of the electorate (and if so; for what possible reason)?
@Karen Wellington: Karen you’re getting sucked in by the crazies.
A) if he’s just a loon (and he hasn’t posted once without mentioning is “language” theory) you’re wasting your time.
B) if he’s for real and a die hard pro-life – you’re wasting your time.
C) he’s a troll – he’s wasting your time.
Do what the pro life (and many or choice) won’t do. Find undecided middle grounders. Don’t tell them your views. Ask them their concerns. Address those. Referendum won.
@Karen Wellington: You have the same convictions as the health minister so are unlikely to escape the self deception that it is anything other than extermination policy promoted as healthcare. Far from being progressive , it is cruel, primitive and behind the times as reproductive innovations now or in future will ease concerns and prevent the humane language that links one generation to the next from being swamped by the demands of one side of society.
As for hating yourself, you have to love someone other than yourself to feel the dismay surrounding this act of deception on this island.
@Stephen Adam: The real people in trouble are those who argue that a fetus is not a developing child in the womb in order to terminate life while arguing that fetus as an alternative term for pregnancy (woman/developing child) is invalid. The way extermination policy was initiated is by sacrificing the original meaning of fetus for a nondescript entity that can be removed from the womb hence the dehumanization.
There is no theory, the referendum is nothing other than a sly use of language to make termination of life socially acceptable.
@Rob Cahill: Yes, it does affect others – Doctors will have to take part in the killings, nurses too. Who will get rid of the bodies? Porters? nurses assistants? Will they get jobs in hospitals if they refuse to sign up for the killings of babies? Will they be forced to go against their consciences as is happening elsewhere? How many other medical personnel will be tainted with this horror industry?
@Karen Wellington: simple all you need do is look at what transpired in the UK. Successive governments made two amendments.
@Skipper Mac: there have been two amendments made to the 1967 Abortion Act;
1. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The time limits were lowered from 28 to 24.
2. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. Regulation of Fertility Treatment/clinic, ban sex selection (for non-medical reasons), recognise same-sex couples as legal parents of children conceived through the use of donated sperm, eggs or embryos.
I don’t know where you’re getting “successive” governments from, and these amendments are by no means radically liberalising the abortion laws. If anything the 1990 amendment made the laws more stringent.
@Karen Wellington: *lowered from 28 to 24 weeks
What this fool Coveney is suggesting is that any future laws making abortion even more liberal than what is now proposed – abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and right up to birth in cases of rape or incest or disability – will have to be passed by a two thirds majority in Leinster House. Of course, this is totally unconstitutional and would be overturned immediately in any court. But the underlying thought process is what’s more interesting. Coveney knows that politicians can’t be trusted not to make abortion more and more liberal, and he knows that the public also know they can’t be trusted – so he’s trying to pull the wool over the eyes of voters with a bogus proposal about a two thirds voting rule. Maybe he’s even trying to pull the wool over his own eyes. Coveney has never been on good terms with reality.
lol trust howlin? who supported the charge for water, who is he to argue about this, hed let a citisen go thirsty in our first world nation. labour traitor
@Matthew O’Kane: Howlin’s record is irrelevant to the merits/demerits of Coveney’s crazy idea.
He’s the exact opposite of a ‘hardcore abortionist’. He only supports abortion in cases of rape, incest and fatal fetal abnormalities. He also believes that free contraception should be brought in and that there should be a mandatory waiting time after a woman has had all of her choices explained to her. Why are we so quick to put extreme labels on people that can see problems with the eight ammendment but also don’t personally agree with abortion as a contraceptive. He also only changed his view after listening to the experts in the field, something we should all do to ensure we are fully informed before voting.
@Lauren Swan: Nobody is an expert when the use of language is directed towards extermination , in this case the term fetus is an alternative description of pregnancy rather than isolated to the life in the womb -
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fetus#Latin
One other contributor was correct in that the referendum is based on the misuse of the dictionary and that is a cheap way to undermine the present humane ambiguity for willful extermination.
@Gerald Kelleher: the fact that you call it an ‘extermination’ says a lot.
@Lauren Swan: Murdering a baby because of how he or she was conceived is as extreme as you get.
@Lauren Swan: Yes, abortion is an extermination of the disabled and of the children of the poor. Look at the figures from the USA and the UK and you will see that confirmed for you. Abortion and eugenics always go hand in hand.
@Denis Patrick Gill: You don’t get any information on possible disabilities before the 10 week gestation period so what are you talking about?
@Denis Patrick Gill: but making a woman fly to England while her baby is dying inside her, or not allowing women receive chemotherapy while pregnant or forcing children who become pregnant through rape and incest to continue with their pregnancy isn’t extreme at all.
@Lauren Swan: What else is it ?, while mothers and couples are suffering the loss of a child to miscarriage, others are terminating the life inside them for no good reason. It is a weak referendum for it is based on replacing the willful turning of a life into a corpse for the socially acceptable ‘removal of the fetus’, maybe some people can fool themselves but technically language doesn’t support the term ‘fetus’ as it is used for termination of life.
A strong and balanced politician would realize that their job is to protect the humane middle road whereas a weak politician will push this through as a gender issue.
@Lauren Swan: And why not call it what it actually is? Perhaps we should call it the liquidation of a living being? Or we can find a nice euphemism that makes it sound quite normal?
@Johnny Bellew: “liquidation of a living being” – the living,autonomous ‘being’ is the woman.Do you not care about her life ?
@Lauren Swan: And what of the women that will kill their unborn simply because it will interrupt their social lives? Many such women will do that in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, should the 8th be repealed.
@Bin Shapiro :): I care about BOTH lives.
@Johnny Bellew: But you cannot “love both” if the woman is determined to end her pregnancy.Why do you want Irish women to procure ‘unsafe’ illegal abortions/surgical abortions ? Where is the “love” there ?
@Denis Patrick Gill: “Murdering a baby because of how he or she was conceived is as extreme as you get.” -babies are born.So yes,that reason is extremely extreme.She deserves a life in prison for that crime
..
But you believe that “abortion is murder” -amirite ?
Murder -’premeditated’ killing of one’ human being’ on another ‘human being’ -hmmmm ,there’s a few obstacles in your way for that to be “murder”
Try again
@Bin Shapiro :): Nobody should have the right to kill another living being. Nobody. There is a collective madness on the left where unborn human life has become worthless. First comes the dehumanization of the unborn (which is necessary for what comes next). Then comes the killing without conscience. And rather ironically they call this “progress”. It is not progress, rather it is a combination of madness,decadence and decaying moral fibre.
@Johnny Bellew: Abortion is mandated by God in the bible, as is the slaughter of children.
Have you actually read your ‘good book’?
@Johnny Bellew: how’s moral force coming along Johnny? 2-1 in favour of repeal when undecideds are discounted.
It’s far too late at this stage but perhaps if pro-life tried understanding the views of women in crisis pregnancies they’d be further ahead in the polls.
Your arguments are the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALALALALAL as loud as you can.
@Johnny Bellew: There was always an element in Irish society that took an ‘out of sight,out of mind’ view and put their daughter and their child into State laundries because of social pretense yet how many other families accepted daughters and kids into the wider family with all the good nature that Irish people have, often when they themselves had next to nothing.
The same social pretense among the judiciary, the medical community and politicians pushing this through using dehumanizing language is every bit as disgraceful as the atmosphere decades ago. Irish people are better than this, they can act with the style and class in this matter as they have in others.
@Johnny Bellew: how narrow-minded, where are all these women just waiting to get pregnant so they can get unlimited access to abortions? I don’t agree with abortions being used just because people fall pregnant and it doesn’t suit their situation but to act like there isn’t severe problems with the eight amendment is the same as burying your head in the sand
@Lauren Swan: I wouldn’t pay too much attention to Johnny Bellew Lauren. Either a fringe Catholic hardcore conservative – highly irrational. Or just an internet troll. Either way not worth the time to have stationary debate with.
@Beyond Belief: You need to move on to the New Testament and the New Law. Keep up.
@Lauren Swan: Narrow-minded? Not at all, just look across the water to see what is happening.
@Johnny Bellew: ‘@Beyond Belief: You need to move on to the New Testament and the New Law. Keep up.’
In the new testament, Jesus reaffirms the old law, lets hear the big JCs take on it…..
http://biblehub.com/nlt/luke/16.htm
“16“ Until John the Baptist, the law of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is eager to get in. But that doesn’t mean that the law has lost its force. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest point of God’s law to be overturned.”
Ouch! Nothing like a bible scholar to put your average catholic back in their box LOL!!
@Beyond Belief: Augustine was right when it comes to people using these writings for bad purposes or a more detailed and realistic assessment than Shakespeare’s ” the devil can quote scripture for his purpose”.
“If’ anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and
manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken;
for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is
beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what
is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be
there.” Augustine
Being spiritual is to be inspired and inspiring so for the genuine Christian there is no handwringing about different books of the bible from different traditions. The Pharisees were always challenging Jesus from points of their secular/moral law and indeed Paul was from that community until it suddenly dawned on him that the law was suffocating life and that it is there to stop bad people from doing worse and not as a driver of life. People grow into understanding by experience .
@Beyond Belief: The Ten Commandments still stand true today the same as the day they were given to Moses. Old Laws such as circumcision were replaced by the New law of Baptism.
@Johnny Bellew: “You need to move on to the New Testament and the New Law. Keep up.”
Or we could just keep our superstitions out of it once and for all.
@Rob Cahill: Is it too much common sense to understand that a society trying to legislate for the taking away of life through the same laws that prevent bad people from doing worse is a society deceiving themselves.
There is no ‘new’ laws in contrast to Hebrew laws other than to love life and work to make life better for people around you or the world.
“I do not set aside the grace of God, for if justification could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” Paul
This bold new world of convictions based on secular laws joins the laws of nature or the laws of whatever other human contrivance in obscuring that love of life soars above and State dictate.
@Lauren Swan: He changed his mind to protect his career so that he wouldn’t be sent the same road as other prolife politicians.
In 2011 we rejected proposal to increase powers to Oireachtas members and committees. The reason was we did not trust them to make correct decision.
What has changed in the meantime. The Oireachtas is still made up of same people. How can we now trust them.?
@Philip Howlin: the truth is you don’t know why that referendum was rejected.
And untrustworthy politicians are our fault. Don’t trust them? Then vote for better Philip. Bad politicians are our fault, they’re your fault.
In a way this has been fantastic for politics because they can’t hide. They have to take position that offends someone. Coveney Leo Harris lost lots of pro life votes recently. Brilliant. Lying comes back to hurt them.
Vote for better Philip. Take responsibility.
When a government politician says he does not trust politicians,and they expect the public to trust any of them,says enough.
“Economic Management Council Brendan”?
*cough,cough,cough,cough,cough!
People should have the choice and I agree with that but if you choose to end a life then there is something fundamentally wrong with you minus a few exceptional live saving circumstances.
“It is understood that the Tánaiste did not brief the Taoiseach about his proposal before floating the idea last night.”
This is not an isolated incident. Do these people not talk to each other?
If the 2/3rd majority for abortion legislation was put into the constitution it would not then be unconstitutional. It could be put in along with the line proposed giving the Oireachtas the right to legislate for this issue. I.e. Limiting their right to legislate only when the legislation I supported by 2/3rd of the deputies.
@Ciaran Tracey: Incorrect. It would conflict with the provision already in the constitution regarding parliamentary voting.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en#part4
THE NATIONAL PARLIAMENT
CONSTITUTION AND POWERS
ARTICLE 15
11 1° All questions in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting other than the Chairman or presiding member.
@Ciaran Tracey: But it would be completely and utterly undemocratic: antidemocratic, in fact.
@The Risen: Coveney and Ciaran presumably wish to amend that article. Madness.
@The Risen: I think the phrase ‘save as otherwise provided by this constutution’ means a restriction could be put into the constitution. Would be a terrible precedent though. Or maybe all this is just clever distraction tactics…
@The Risen: “save as otherwise provided” would take care of that if it was provided!
Looking at the numbers. The 8th will be repealed but the legislation that follows will be though to get past the Dail.
@Pilib O Muiregan: the poll data is trending the right way for retain. In the weekends main major poll “reoeal” was -6%!! Alarm bells.
Repeal*
@Oliver Klozov: You keep neglecting to mention that once undecideds are excluded from the poll, repeal is still 2 to 1 versus retain.
In most referendums the no side numbers increase closer we get to the vote…..This action by Coveney was meant to turn that around and appeal to undecided voters to be reassured and move to yes…..Does not seem to be working….
@Pilib O Muiregan: Keep saying that to yourself. You are almost convinced.
@Johnny Bellew: I am pro repeal and pro for the 12 weeks. All I am saying is with many in FF opposing the referendum, many in FG will have reservations about 12 weeks. Then you will have constituency’s that will vote against repeal, where TDS may respect that when voting for the 12 week limit. Its far from done.
@Pilib O Muiregan: The Abortionist cause is loosing ten points with every poll taken. By the middle of May, Irish people will understand that wholesale abortion on demand is being proposed and they will rejected that.
@Denis Patrick Gill:”the abortionist cause” -impressive bollocks talk by you..
@Bin Shapiro :): At least they used it at the start of the post.. Saved us reading the rest.. Use that term and you lose every argument.
Didn’t take long for these complete clowns to fall out. Coveney has proven to be quite out of his depth generally and Leo has proven to be the sneaky, self centred & arrogant individual most assumed he is. Astonishing FG are maintaining a lead in the polls
Left hand and the Right hand – very much the RIGHT!
I am sure the repealers will be happy at Coveney’s proposal seeing that they say this legislation won’t be a stepping stone to even more liberal abortion rules & any suggestion it will is just scaremongering.
Just waiting for another general election so I can vote Coventry out ! He is an imbecile
@Mary Mc Carthy: Lets just vote FG out and be done with it.
Suorised a politician of Conveys experience would not already have k ow this (tongue firmly planted in cheek)
Who died and made him God !!! Either support the referendum or don’t typical politician sit on fence !
@Anne Honer:
Nobody.
Although his Dad died in mysterious circumstances with thousands of taxpayers’ cash ‘resting’ in his account, while young Simon (a man who never had a job before inheriting Daddy’s) was sailing in his yacht in the Galapagos Islands.
#rightsfortheunborniskillingmyhorn
I think this point is a distraction. For now, I think get the referendum out there, vote according to what each of us believes in, then let them haggle over how to handle result. How they handle the result could be a future election decider too.
Confession – on this topic I couldn’t give a sh** and will probably not bother voting.
have your say