Keep abortion out of Ireland

I'm neither for, nor against abortion, but this "message" is pushing me towards pro choice.

It reads as some sort of rally speach.

Very, very weird.

False alarm everyone. She contacted me yesterday.

Mary wrote:

Sorry, my bad. I was feeling mischievous last Friday. Late-term abortions are bad but that's it. Signing out...

Oh yes... Obama/Biden 2012

So, question on the hit and run: Is pretending to be the Virgin Mary considered blasphemous? I would have thought drafting a piece of writing in that manner to be very unchristian.

I also like that Mary is aware of, and opposes, a future nuclear Iran waging war, but won't do anything unless we say the rosary, and does not expect us to do anything other than say the rosary... classy interpretation of her they have... http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/virgin-mary-pray-that-nuclear-war-can-be-averted-in-iran/

Zombrex wrote: »

You totally read this in Obama's voice.

Yes we can I did.

newmug wrote: »

EDIT: As a Christian, I will pray and fast in the hope that this bill is not passed. I urge other Christians to do the same.

As a fan of a functioning democracy, but not at all your viewpoint, I suggest you redirect the sentiment to your local representative in written or verbal form.

Ms Daly’s is seeking to introduce the legislation to “provide for termination of pregnancy where a real and substantial risk to the life of the pregnant woman exists”

What exactly is wrong with this position by the way?

PDN wrote: »

The problem is that a phrase such as "a real and substantial risk to the life of the pregnant woman" can be interpreted very broadly indeed. How do you define that?

"Doctor, I like so can't believe I'm pregnant like. I only had a few vodka and red bulls that night, and my Shane gets like so forgetful about those condom thingies, you know. Siobhan has already measured us all for the bridesmaid dresses this Summer, you know. And I'll like just kill myself if I've put on weight and have to ask her to make me a fatter dress than Kylie, oh my God!"

"So you're suicidal, eh Stacey? We can't have that, sounds like a real and substantial risk to your life. Thankfully our enlightened legislators have provided for this very situation. Here, I'll write you a referral letter for a termination."

This is how bad laws can be made. People vote for a bill thinking of a scenario where the mother is lying on the operating table and faces certain death unless an abortion is performed. But sloppy wording gets interpreted by unelected judges, not by the bozos who voted in the Dail, and so in a few years 'suicidal' Stacey gets her abortion so she can squeeze her selfish body into a bridesmaid dress.

And, sadly, I'm old and cynical enough to suspect that Clare Daly was fully aware of this possibility when she phrased her bill as she did.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

bluewolf wrote: »

i'm pretty sure doctors can figure out someone giving out and someone genuinely suicidal :rolleyes:

First of all, you have much too much faith in the medical profession, and its capabilities, and second of all, whether they can figure it out or not is actually irrelevant. 1) A doctor is hardly going to take responsibility for saying, "nah, you're not really suicidal", and 2) All it takes is a doctor to believe that there is nothing wrong with abortion to use such a thing as a loophole. In fact, I'd be sure that it would actually just become the procedure for getting an abortion, 'Just say you're suicidal'. Eventually then, there will be a group that will be talking about how undignified it is to have to say you are suicidal in order to have an abortion, and before too long it'll be just like it is in other countries that have abortion.

not to mention the actual physical health risks which could threaten her life

Firstly, I'd like to see the stats on how many mothers have been left to die because they were denied abortions. Secondly, of the countries who have legalised abortion, how many are on the basis of a genuine threat to the life of the would be mothers.

By all means be pro-abortion, but lets be honest, its not based on health of would be mothers.

PDN wrote: »

And, sadly, I'm old and cynical enough to suspect that Clare Daly was fully aware of this possibility when she phrased her bill as she did.

Clare Daly didn't decide on the phrasing, the Supreme Court did in 1992. There is a constitutional right to an abortion "where a real and substantial risk to the life of the pregnant woman exists". This legislation is twenty years overdue

I'm amazed people are more offended by the issue of Abortion, rather than someone pretending to be the Virgin Mary. Isn't that some kind of blasphemy?

bluewolf wrote: »

I am not "pro abortion".

As in, you are not in favour of abortion being legalised, or that you don't like that term being applied instead of pro-choice? If its the latter then we'll just have to live with the terms we apply. I think Pro-choice is a very misapplied term. Pro-abortion describes it much better. You are FOR abortion being legal i.e. pro-abotion, or you are for it being illegal i.e anti-abortion. Its a misnomer to think that pro-abortion sounds like you want everyone to have abortions, it doesn't. Just like being pro-gay marriage does not imply you are saying everyone should have a same sex marriage. The term 'pro-choice', is just how abortion advocates want to spin things. pro or antiabortion is a lot more accurate and descriptive. If you want to be super specific due to, in my opinion the wrong belief, that people will misunderstand what the term 'pro-abortion' means then pro 'right to choose to have an abortion' would be better .

Anyway, pedantry aside I'm just using the term I think is most accurate.

And the OP bill is exactly about the health of pregnant women, not abortion in general.
legislation is required based on the x case supreme court judgement already - no vote is required

As has been pointed out by PDN, the reality is that there is an issue with the interpretation of the legislation.

And yes, I have more faith in the medical profession diagnosing suicide risks than random people on the internet who think they know better

That somewhat strawmans what was said. No-one mentioned that they were better than the medical profession at diagnosing genuine suicide cases.

The legislation would require it to be for suicidal risks (and presumably other risk of life) only.

Which is open to abuse. Spectacularly so.

A doctor is not going to risk their career to hand these out willy-nilly.

There is no risk to a doctors career if they take a person at their word. It would only be at risk, if they didn't believe them (for whatever reason) and the person subsequently followed through with it. So in practical terms, doctors would not be turning people away if they claim they're suicidal.

Remember that this is a country where there are still doctors and chemists refusing to deal with contraception - it's not exactly going to turn into some kind of free for all.

I would imagine, they are the very rare exceptions, rather than the rule. I've never been to a chemist that didn't sell condoms. Also, in relation to the 'free for all'. If abortion comes in on this basis, then its in, Thats it. The misnomer of 'health risk to mothers' will only be the horse of Troy that brings it in.

Debates aside, the supreme court ruling was made a long time ago already and all that's left is to legislate for it

As far as I'm aware. the constitution still protects the right to life of the unborn, viewing the unborn as entitled to the same right to life as the mother.

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

So in that respect, it would be very difficult to legislate for abortion being legal in the case of possible suicide cases. It would be like saying 'I want to kill bluewolf, if I can't, I'll kill myself'. I can certainly see the issue with legislating for it.

28064212 wrote: »

The Supreme Court has already ruled on the interpretation of that article. Where there is "a real and substantial risk to the life of the pregnant woman, including the risk of suicide", the woman is constitutionally entitled to an abortion.

There is no higher court to appeal to, no other interpretation to be made. That is what the constitution says. The only thing that would change that is a referendum, and twice the people of Ireland have been asked to change it, and twice they have rejected it. If this was any other issue, the outcry from the failure to legislate would be incredible. Imagine the government had gone ahead and signed the Lisbon Treaty after the first referendum had rejected it, or created the Oireachtas enquiries after it was voted against last year, that's how absolutely absured the failure to legislate is [/QUOTE]

Ok, so how do you legislate for it? Is there someway of knowing if someone saying they'll kill themselves is serious or not? Or will it be some token examination and signature that gives the go-ahead? How many doctors are actually going to say, 'I think you're bluffing'. This idea that a medical professional is going to be able to have the knowledge to discern is nonsense. I suspect legislators don't want to touch this inept judgement with a barge pole.

Not sure how legal eagley you are, but does that supreme court ruling mean that thats it? Thats what the constitution means now, because the supreme court has spoken?

JimiTime wrote: »

Ok, so how do you legislate for it? Is there someway of knowing if someone saying they'll kill themselves is serious or not?

Do you really think there's not already existing laws that rely on a qualified person's opinion?

JimiTime wrote: »

Or will it be some token examination and signature that gives the go-ahead? How many doctors are actually going to say, 'I think you're bluffing'. This idea that a medical professional is going to be able to have the knowledge to discern is nonsense. I suspect legislators don't want to touch this inept judgement with a barge pole.

Are you seriously calling the Supreme Court's judgement inept? The highest judicial authority in the land?

JimiTime wrote: »

Not sure how legal eagley you are, but does that supreme court ruling mean that thats it? Thats what the constitution means now, because the supreme court has spoken?

Yes, that's the principal function of the SC

JimiTime wrote: »

I think its inept on a grand scale.

Are you saying the Supreme Court was wrong in its interpretation of 40.3.3? That your interpretation is more accurate than 4 Supreme Court justices?