Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Abortion Discussion
Comments
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »'Lesser of two evils' - is the rape foetus so evil it has no 'right to life'?
Unless you use your intestines to change nappies, continually do this for months and then excrete them out in large bundles (some cutting may be required) I fail to see how that is a relevant comparison... or perhaps you think being pregnant for 9 months is really only as onerous as disposing of a packet of poo.
Carrying a baby around for nine months is about the same for a woman as changing a nappy is for a guy, don'tchaknow?0 -
@Absolom: Re your quote at 1435, page 440... No. Because the fact that it may have affected their decision, does not mean that it was effective in it's purpose.
And, since you appear to be in danger of conflating the two;
The injunction we were discussing when I said "The injunction was issued; it did not have an effect" was the injunction to prevent X from travelling.
The injunction we were discussing when I said "the injunction may have influenced their decision" was the injunction to prevent X from obtaining an abortion in another jurisdiction.unquote...
I wondered about the injunction/s, so "googled" on it. There was only one injunction granted to Harry Whelehan. This time-line of the events explains.
December 1991: A 14-year-old girl is raped by a man known to her and her family. She becomes pregnant and it is later discovered that the teenager was being sexually abused by the same man for the previous two years. Court judgements subsequently call him an “evil and depraved” man.
27 January 1992: The teenager and her parents are made aware of the pregnancy after seeking the assistance of a doctor.
30 January 1992: The rape is reported to the Gardaí and investigations begin.
4 February 1992: The victim and her parents decide to travel to the UK to undergo an abortion. The family informed the Gardaí of their decision and asked whether the foetus could be tested after it was aborted to provide proof of the paternity of the accused in the rape case. The Gardaí then asked the Director of Public Prosecutions whether such evidence would be admissible in court. The DPP liaised with the Attorney General Harry Whelehan.
6 February 1992: The defendant and her parents travelled to England and arrangements were made for an abortion to take place in London. On the same date, the Attorney General obtained an interim injunction stopping the teenager and her parents from leaving the country or arranging the termination of the pregnancy. Once they were informed of the injunction the family returned to Ireland.
The AG’s order was based on Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, more specifically on the 1983 amendment that puts the right of the unborn child’s right to life on an equal footing of the mother’s right to life.
2012 Link for info:https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Ftwenty-years-on-a-timeline-of-the-x-case-347359-Feb2012%2F&ei=xh0bVNrgBqef7Ab584DQDw&usg=AFQjCNFw7OCt0v4g5Wp-HfHnfIwDEYw2sQ
The following link is for info only, as a 2014 update from The Journal.ie, same source as the one above... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fabortion-1631314-Aug2014%2F&ei=xh0bVNrgBqef7Ab584DQDw&usg=AFQjCNG87oa6I5-Z30cjGr6hG3PmS_95Bg
....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Edit: having read the judgement of Justice Costello below, I am glad that times have changed, His dismissing the expert evidence of the Clinical Psychologist, then his order of restraint, my mind boggles as to how he envisaged the girl was to be "restrained" from leaving Ireland for a period of nine months. It definitely gives freedom to imagine that the girl was seen as merely a vessel for the fetus for nine months by Justice Costello, giving rise to the authenticity of claims by lazygal and others here that that is still how some people in Ireland see pregnant girls and women.
10 February 1992: The first injunction only lasted until this date but a hearing of the action was tried before Justice Costello over two days – 10 and 11 February. During the trial the judge heard how the girl at the centre of the case told her mother that she wanted to throw herself down a flight of stairs and while in London contemplated throwing herself under a train. A clinical psychologist determined that there was a risk of suicide as she expressed a desire to end her life to “solve matters”.
17 February 1992: After reserving his judgement for a week, Justice Costello ordered that the right to life of the unborn child should not be interfered with and said that the defendant must be restrained from leaving Ireland for a period of nine months. Although he did accept that the defendant was suicidal, he said the risk was not sufficient to override the right to life of the unborn.0 -
Lazygals' terrible point was because the woman's body was being used then she should have say whether the baby lives or dies. This is as ridiculous as man saying I don't have to use my body o change a nappy if I don't want.If pregnancy is at all comparable to changing nappies, how could terminating one, thereby killing the fetus, ever be the lesser of two evils? In a single post you have completely contradicted yourself.
Sadly, there are many would rather kill the fetus than change that fetus's nappy a few weeks later.Can you conceive of any circumstances under which a reasonable person would agree to kill a baby rather than change its nappy?0 -
No, it's only as ridiculous as a man not wanting to change a nappy if you think either that the two things (nappy changing and pregnancy) are directly comparable, or else you think that they aren't comparable, but that for a man to change a nappy is equivalent to a woman carrying and giving birth to a baby.Tim Robbins wrote: »Lazygals' terrible point was because the woman's body was being used then she should have say whether the baby lives or dies. This is as ridiculous as man saying I don't have to use my body o change a nappy if I don't want.
Both of which are clearly nonsense. Whose health or life could ever be damaged by nappy changing?
i don't even understand what you're saying. Do you think women have abortions because they don't want to change nappies?Tim Robbins wrote: »Sadly, there are many would rather kill the fetus than change that fetus's nappy a few weeks later.
As a matter of interest, do you actually know any women? In real life, I mean.
Only it doesn't sound like you do, going by the mad things you seem to think about them.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
Sorry your wrong.No, it's only as ridiculous as a man not wanting to change a nappy if you think either that the two things (nappy changing and pregnancy) are directly comparable, or else you think that they aren't comparable, but that for a man to change a nappy is equivalent to a woman carrying and giving birth to a baby.
Both of which are clearly nonsense. Whose health or life could ever be damaged by nappy changing?
If "use my body" is valid excuse not to let something else live.
Well then, I don't have to "use my body" to change my baby's nappy where the baby exists because of me is just as valid I don't have to "use my body" to let a fetus grow where the fetus exists because of me.
I have refuted the "use my body" crap using the Socratic method. Perhaps, you should look it up.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tim Robbins wrote: »Sorry your wrong.
If "use my body" is valid excuse not to let something else live.
Well then, I don't have to "use my body" to change my baby's nappy where the baby exists because of me is just as valid I don't have to "use my body" to let a fetus grow where the fetus exists because of me.
I have refuted the "use my body" crap using the Socratic method. Perhaps, you should look it up.
If your objection to abortion is based on the right to life trump card you can't then say "oh but that doesn't count if the fetus got there through rape" - that makes no sense. The fetus didn't commit any crime, why should it lose any of its "rights"?
In fact - how are they rights if someone else can take them away from you any time they decide you aren't entitled to them, and through no fault of your own?Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
I answered that already - twice. It is the lesser of two evils.If your objection to abortion is based on the right to life trump card you can't then say "oh but that doesn't count if the fetus got there through rape" - that makes no sense. The fetus didn't commit any crime, why should it lose any of its "rights"?
Didn't get that tongue twister.In fact - how are they rights if someone else can take them away from you any time they decide you aren't entitled to them, and through no fault of your own?0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »Sorry your wrong.
If "use my body" is valid excuse not to let something else live.
Well then, I don't have to "use my body" to change my baby's nappy where the baby exists because of me is just as valid I don't have to "use my body" to let a fetus grow where the fetus exists because of me.
I have refuted the "use my body" crap using the Socratic method. Perhaps, you should look it up.
I'm really struggling to understand how pregnancy and changing nappies are comparable. If you didn't change your child's nappy could someone else do it instead?0 -
I'm really struggling to understand how pregnancy and changing nappies are comparable. If you didn't change your child's nappy could someone else do it instead?
I have used my body to change thousands of nappies. Some of which were worn by children I hardly knew but such was life as a community worker in the East End of London. All races, all colours, all genders, all religions (maybe not Shinto...) yet not once have I used my body to carry a child for someone else. Nor would I. I carried my own child and that **** hurts. A. Lot.
No effing way would I go through that for someone else. Not even for a large sum of money. I will change a nappy for free. For any child that requires it. I can hold my breathe during the rough stuff.
If Tim thinks the two are comparable he must be incredibly squeamish and never, ever, ever, encountered a pregnant woman.0 -
If she wanted to have the abortion she had no need to challenge it either; she simply had to stay where she was and have it.Zubeneschamali wrote: »If she wanted to do what the injunction said - not have the abortion - she had no reason to challenge the injunction.
The fact that she challenged the injuction does not require that it logically follow her will was to have the abortion; she could have willed to have an abortion without challenging the injunction, and she could have challenged the injunction without willing to have the abortion.Zubeneschamali wrote: »She did challenge it, so her will was to have the abortion. Instead of doing what she willed, she complied.
No, you've constructed a logically flawed argument that leads you to conclude that she complied with the injunction against her will. Which is an entirely different thing from knowing.Zubeneschamali wrote: »So, she complied with the injunction against her will. We know this for a fact, despite all your inane hairsplitting.
Hang on, of course she wanted to come home, or the AG caused her to return from England against her will? Those two seem to be somewhat at odds with each other.Zubeneschamali wrote: »She lived here! Of course she wanted to come home.
Could that be because you don't actually know what she wanted, and you're trying to ascribe motivations to back up whichever point you're making at the time?
I'm not asking; since neither X nor her parents have said why they didn't do just that, there's no way you can know why they did as they did, so what point would there be in asking you?Zubeneschamali wrote: »If you are asking (clumsily) why she didn't have the abortion and then come back, that is not generally a good way to treat High Court injunctions. As you said yourself earlier: having broken any of these injunctions she could indeed have been charged with contempt after the fact.
Interesting. You're saying a statement is necessarily factual if a Supreme Court Judge agrees with it?Zubeneschamali wrote: »I don't think it is a trivial matter, either, but it is a matter of fact, and I am right. Supreme Court judge McCarthy agrees with me:The short answer, in the instant case, is that the order was effective; it may well be that others will be less responsible than the family involved here but that would not, of itself, be a ground for not making the order.
So you can agree that what Hederman said (and you so kindly quoted) is also fact?
It has not been argued that the words "having regard to the equal right of life of the mother" should be construed more widely than preserving the life of the mother and should be construed to be wide enough to include a situation where the best expert opinion is to the effect that the continuance of the pregnancy would be to make the mother a physical wreck. I do not think the word "life" in this context is to be construed any differently from the word "life" in the earlier part of the same Article though the State would be obliged to do all it reasonably possibly can to take steps to prevent anybody becoming a physical or a mental wreck, short of taking innocent life to achieve it. Fortunately the Court does not have to decide this matter now but has to decide the matter in the context of a threat of suicide. Suicide threats can be contained. The duration of the pregnancy is a matter of months and it should not be impossible to guard the girl against self-destruction and preserve the life of the unborn child at the same time. The choice is between the certain death of the unborn life and a feared substantial danger of death but no degree of certainty of the mother by way of self-destruction.
That's quite a reversal of your position, considering you earlier said it gave you 'the willies'.
If however, you feel that a Supreme Court Judges opinion simply lends some weight to your own opinion, I'd agree it does, without raising your opinion to the level of fact.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry if you find it confusing.aloyisious wrote: »Confuscation?
From the Supreme Court Record:aloyisious wrote: »@Absolom: Re your quote at 1435, page 440...
I wondered about the injunction/s, so "googled" on it. There was only one injunction granted to Harry Whelehan. This time-line of the events explains.
"On the next day the Attorney General obtained interim injunctions in the High Court restraining the girl and her parents from interfering with the right to life of the unborn; restraining the same defendants from leaving the jurisdiction for nine months; and restraining them from procuring or arranging an abortion within or outside the jurisdiction."
I'd draw your attention to the use of the word injunctions in the record, and the fact that the sentence contains three different requirements separated by semi-colons.
The account of the High Court proceedings goes on to specify that:
"The summons in which the young expectant mother was joined as the first defendant and her parents as second and third defendants claimed the following orders:”
(a) An order restraining the defendants their servants or agents or anyone having knowledge of the order from interfering with the right to life of the unborn as contained in Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution of Ireland on such terms as to this honourable court shall seem meet and just.
(b) An order restraining the first defendant from leaving the jurisdiction of this honourable court or the second and third defendants, their servants or agents or anyone having knowledge of the said order from assisting the first defendant to leave the aforesaid jurisdiction for a period of nine months from the date hereof or such other period as may be specified by this honourable court.
(c) An order restraining the first defendant her servants or agents or anyone having knowledge of the said order from procuring or arranging a termination of pregnancy or abortion whether within or without the jurisdiction of the honourable court."
So, we have a specific account of the three orders made. I'd suggest the Supreme Court account may be a more reliable source than that of thejournal.ie.
In fairness, it didn't take terribly long for 'times' to change, since the Supreme Court discharged his injunctions quite quickly afterwards.aloyisious wrote: »Edit: having read the judgement of Justice Costello below, I am glad that times have changed, <...> Although he did accept that the defendant was suicidal, he said the risk was not sufficient to override the right to life of the unborn.0 -
you haven't explained why in the case of rape but not for any of a multitude of other reasons.Tim Robbins wrote: »I answered that already - twice. It is the lesser of two evils.
Look, you are the one who compares pregnancy to changing a nappy. I think that's crazy, like comparing my headache to your cancer and calling you selfish for not paying enough attention to my problems. After all, they're both health issues.
But nappy-changing were like pregnancy, then it's not possible to also make the argument that sometimes it can be so horrible as to merit killing what you say is a child with rights to life. Those two arguments each have merit, but not as part of the same argument.
That you refuse to see the complete contradiction inherent in your views is not my problem, you can repeat them as often as you like, you still won't make any sense.
Let me paraphrase then. It is in the nature of "rights" to be independent of other people. Otherwise they aren't rights.Tim Robbins wrote: »Didn't get that tongue twister.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
-
No, you've constructed a logically flawed argument that leads you to conclude that she complied with the injunction against her will. Which is an entirely different thing from knowing.
You could be a brain in a jar connected to a computer feeding you lies about the real world. This is a logical possibility immune to refutation. The X case never happened. There are no actual human beings. Pregnancy is a complete invention, along with abortion, human rights and Supreme courts.
But in the ordinary meaning of the word "know", I know that isn't true.
And since we all know that you know the facts of the X case as well as I do, and that you are just wittering on for the sake of pretending to yourself that you never lose an argument, I will stop here, and allow you to have the last million words on the subject.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »I think you should try and understand the Socratic method first.
I just used it there.
You can't reveal a contradiction in logic if the other person disputes your summation of their argument.
Your position is that body autonomy cannot be used to justify abortion because it cannot be used to justify killing a baby to avoid changing it's nappy. For your position to be a true reflection of the initial premise, we need to agree that pregnancy and nappy changing are comparable. I don't agree.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »I think you should try and understand the Socratic method first.
Or maybe you could just explain what you mean, in your own words.0 -
Sorry if you find it confusing.
From the Supreme Court Record:
"On the next day the Attorney General obtained interim injunctions in the High Court restraining the girl and her parents from interfering with the right to life of the unborn; restraining the same defendants from leaving the jurisdiction for nine months; and restraining them from procuring or arranging an abortion within or outside the jurisdiction."
I'd draw your attention to the use of the word injunctions in the record, and the fact that the sentence contains three different requirements separated by semi-colons.
The account of the High Court proceedings goes on to specify that:
"The summons in which the young expectant mother was joined as the first defendant and her parents as second and third defendants claimed the following orders:”
(a) An order restraining the defendants their servants or agents or anyone having knowledge of the order from interfering with the right to life of the unborn as contained in Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution of Ireland on such terms as to this honourable court shall seem meet and just.
(b) An order restraining the first defendant from leaving the jurisdiction of this honourable court or the second and third defendants, their servants or agents or anyone having knowledge of the said order from assisting the first defendant to leave the aforesaid jurisdiction for a period of nine months from the date hereof or such other period as may be specified by this honourable court.
(c) An order restraining the first defendant her servants or agents or anyone having knowledge of the said order from procuring or arranging a termination of pregnancy or abortion whether within or without the jurisdiction of the honourable court."
So, we have a specific account of the three orders made. I'd suggest the Supreme Court account may be a more reliable source than that of thejournal.ie.
In fairness, it didn't take terribly long for 'times' to change, since the Supreme Court discharged his injunctions quite quickly afterwards.
Ta for the above court records. I now know that's a source to get info from. It also explains one part of the journal.ie report which used the words "first injunction" before the two-day court hearing 10/11 Feb '92. I thought that was an editorial error. It is good to see that, at least in his rulings made from his understanding of Irish law, the Supreme Court found Justice Costello to be wrong.
I'll have to check and see if the changes in Irish law since 1992 changed the remit of the High Court to issue rulings which, in it's opinion, have effect in areas outside the jurisdiction of the honourable court (injunction No 3). I imagine that at least it would have to have some courtesy and regard for the foreign territory's judicial independence before trying to enforce it's orders on foreign territory medical clinics.0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26430
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/09/19/im-no-witch-im-a-catholic/An anti-abortion protester accused of behaving like a witch told a Belfast court: “I’m no witch, I’m a Catholic”.
Bernadette Smyth, who leads the anti-abortion group Precious Life, was replying to a prosecution lawyer.
Mrs Smyth, of Suffolk Street, Ballymena, County Antrim, denies harassing Marie Stopes clinic director Dawn Purvis.
The lawyer suggested she had laughed at Ms Purvis in a “cackling, jeering, mocking way, in a witch’s manner.”
Ms Smyth replied: “I can’t agree with this court that I’m a witch. I’m a Catholic.”
The case concerns two incidents involving the accused that happened outside the Marie Stopes Clinic, Great Victoria Street, Belfast, in January and February.
The case continues.
This women previous won a golden cleric award Irish Catholic Of The Year Award back in 2013 - http://www.preciouslife.com/news/72/director-of-precious-life-bernadette-smyth-honoured-in-list-of-top-catholics-for-2013/0 -
-
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/09/19/im-no-witch-im-a-catholic/
This women previous won a golden cleric award Irish Catholic Of The Year Award back in 2013 - http://www.preciouslife.com/news/72/director-of-precious-life-bernadette-smyth-honoured-in-list-of-top-catholics-for-2013/
Down with that sort of thing![/cliche]0 -
Advertisement
-
I think you missed the points I made.
1) What's the logic in limiting it to residents?
2) How do you imagine Britain obtains evidence of crimes committed abroad to be prosecuted in the jurisdiction? The same standard of proof pertains in those cases as those of crimes committed within the jurisdiction.
I understand that Britain has sections within its laws which simply say that if a resident of the UK commits something that would be a crime in the UK, then for the purposes of the Act, they are (since 'he is' implies that it only applies to men, an interesting construction) considered as having committed it within the UK. That means the same standard of evidence is required to prosecute the crime as if it had occurred in Britain. Which will, believe it or not, often require international cooperation to obtain, and that makes cooperation very relevant.
Britain may assert its' right to prosecute its citizens who commit fgm in any country (just as Ireland might assert its' right to prosecute its citizens who commit the destruction of unborn human life in any country) , but the inability to obtain enough evidence to secure a conviction might be a factor in the fact than in the eleven years that it has been an offence for British citizens to carry out or procure FGM abroad, even in countries where the practice is legal, no one has been successfully prosecuted for doing so.
You might even be led to wonder if the British law is practicable.
I've no doubt that asserting our right is as simple, as you say, as making the statement. Enforcing that assertion is what I believe is not practicable, as would appear to be the situation in the case of the British law. And that's when Britain does have the cooperation of various international bodies.
You don't think the feelings of the Irish population ought to be considered before legislation is put in place and prosecutions are attempted? It would seem to be a necessary step in determining if it's practicable..
I'd suggest that less (though possibly not substantially less, after all, it's estimated that 20,000 British women are at risk of fgm every year) women would dare go abroad for abortions, and pro abortion advocates would have another argument to make. Whether the majority would be so horrified as to insist the law be changed; maybe, but then, all it would take is excluding ffa from the legislation as it's enacted to remove that potential. Since we're enacting legislation anyway, as I previously said, we could simply legislate to have abortion in the case of ffa available in the jurisdiction.
Well, let me see. Article 3 of the Constitution does define the limits of Irish jurisdiction, and they don't extend as far as other countries.
Your example of the 1976 Criminal Jurisdiction Act is a particularly suitable one give your arguments above; the Supreme Court specifically stated in that instance that Ireland is a sovereign State and that its national parliament has full power to legislate with extraterritorial effect in accordance with the accepted principles of international law, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution which state that "the laws enacted by that parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstát Éireann and the like extra-territorial effect."
So, should legislation to prosecute the deliberate destruction of unborn human life outside the area and extent of Ireland (the State) be found to not be in accordance with the principles of international law (and I'd be very interested in your thoughts on whether it would), then it would fall foul of Article 3, unless we had a Constitutional Amendment. Which is why I think it might be necessary.
Not really... I just checked how we went about asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction despite the Constitutional restriction on previous occasions. Since I was trying to figure out if Lazygals proposition to prevent women from travelling aboard to have abortions, and to determine if women entering the country have ever had an abortion, was practicable, it seemed like the sensible thing to do.
So the gist of all that (as far as it is possible to ascertain!) is that because a particular Irish law can't be applied to all the citizens of the world, there is no point in Ireland doing anything other than pretending it is applying that law to Irish citizens?
I would suggest that if your problem is that a law can't be applied then the current law should equally be removed - there is no reason to continue the pretence that some mysterious right to travel for women takes priority over the fetus' right to life, even though the right to health for women doesn't.
This is a law that prevents no-one with money and in good health from having an abortion, and deliberately so, since that was the question at the time of the referendum, as a result of the X case. Whereas women with no money, and/or a sudden emergency in their health that prevents travel are prevented from having an abortion, unless their lives are clearly in danger, but hoping that they are not so much in danger that they actually die. As we saw just a couple of years ago in Galway.
Either we apply the law or we get rid of it. And in this case, any Irish woman with money can circumvent the 8th amendment. Which makes more of a mockery of it than trying to apply it would!Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
Ms Smyth replied: “I can’t agree with this court that I’m a witch. I’m a Catholic.”
This is almost slapstick.0 -
An anti-abortion protester accused of behaving like a witch told a Belfast court: “I’m no witch, I’m a Catholic”.
Well she may be a devout Catholic but her religious beliefs have nothing whatsover to do with her position on abortion. And the same goes for 99.99% of Irish "pro-lifers"...0 -
The guidelines for application of the Protection of life during pregnancy Act have at last been published.
http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Guidance-Document-Final-September-2014.pdf
I'd be interested in any comments anyone has about them.
One thing that strikes me is section 3.1.1.b, about the risk to life from physical illness, which specifies that the risk to life is real and "can only be averted by termination of pregnancy" (in bold in the Act).
That seems to eliminate any illness where the risk of death is real but where there may be other, less effective treatments which might work. Would these all have to be tried first before deciding that a termination was the only treatment left? That's how it looks to me.
(I probably wouldn't have been so cynical if it hadn't been for how that poor woman was messed around earlier this year. Now it seems to me they are capable of anything.)Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
Would these all have to be tried first before deciding that a termination was the only treatment left?
Yes, I think FG were quite clear that they were implementing the most restrictive thing possible which was legal per the X case judgement. This agrees with the "leave the woman a physical and mental wreck if necessary" Hederman minority view in the X case.
And Creighton & co. still quit the party over it. Unbelievable in this day and age.0 -
If there was a part you found particularly difficult to understand I'd be happy to go through it with you in more detail? I did break it down in response to the specific points you yourself made....So the gist of all that (as far as it is possible to ascertain!) is that because a particular Irish law can't be applied to all the citizens of the world, there is no point in Ireland doing anything other than pretending it is applying that law to Irish citizens?
The gist is that in line with the principle that a law that cannot be enforced should not be enacted (practicability), which is a fairly common one and can be found in many jurisdictions (just as MrPudding also pointed out) introducing legislation that purported to assert Irelands universal jurisdiction over the deliberate destruction of unborn human life (either for citizens or anyone committing the crime) would not result in a practicable law, just as it appears has been the case with the legislation introduced by Britain for universal jurisdiction over fgm (even restricted as it was to it's own citizens) which you provided as a workable example of how it could be done.
So, no, going by the UK's example it's quite clear there's no point in pretending we are applying a law to just our citizens, it's clear there's no point in pretending we could apply such laws at all except in such exceptionally limited circumstances as to be a legal nonsense.
But the current legislation does appear to be practicable? Unless you have some evidence that it cannot be (or is not being) applied?I would suggest that if your problem is that a law can't be applied then the current law should equally be removed - there is no reason to continue the pretence that some mysterious right to travel for women takes priority over the fetus' right to life, even though the right to health for women doesn't.
I'm sorry, but I don't recall the question at the time of the referenda being about money or good health? I suspect you may be trying to colour the events with your own agenda there...This is a law that prevents no-one with money and in good health from having an abortion, and deliberately so, since that was the question at the time of the referendum, as a result of the X case.
Actually, everyone in Ireland (citizens and otherwise) is prevented from having an abortion, regardless of how much money they have, unless their life is at risk. We just cannot, as we discussed, prevent them from having an abortion when they are not in Ireland.Whereas women with no money, and/or a sudden emergency in their health that prevents travel are prevented from having an abortion, unless their lives are clearly in danger, but hoping that they are not so much in danger that they actually die. As we saw just a couple of years ago in Galway.
Oh, we should apply the law. We just shouldn't imagine we can apply a similar one in other countries.Either we apply the law or we get rid of it. And in this case, any Irish woman with money can circumvent the 8th amendment. Which makes more of a mockery of it than trying to apply it would!0 -
This: “Once certification [for termination] has taken place a pregnant woman has a right to a termination of pregnancy as soon as it can be arranged. The ++clinicians responsible for her care will need to use their clinical judgement as to the most appropriate procedure to be carried out, in cognisance of the constitutional protection afforded to the unborn, ie a medical or surgical termination or an early delivery by induction or Caesarean section,” it reads. “Following certification, if the pregnancy is approaching viability, it is recommended that a multi-disciplinary discussion takes place to ascertain the most appropriate clinical management of the case.” might offer a clue as to how the clinicians might proceed.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/abortion-guidelines-provide-for-induction-or-caesarean-section-1.1935578. Para on Changed Emphasis refers. In it, four different ways are mentioned. It's page 31 of the document link in volchitsa's post. It does differentiate between a medical or surgical termination or an early delivery by induction or Caesarean section, which might be seen to infer that an early delivery by induction or a caesarean are not terminations. Health warning: don't hold your breath. I was left with the distinct feeling that the "Y" case caesarean delivery was seen as a termination. That word, and what procedure it may be interpreted to mean, seem's to be key to any (future) clinician decision.
The Irish Times article mention's an earlier version of the document (which it has seen and printed as part of the report) and lists differences in the wording used in both documents on page 31.0 -
So it is enough that a law is applied, in your view? To be quite clear, are you saying that a law which appears to have meant that a suicidal woman who asked for a termination at 8 weeks ended up at 24 weeks getting a more or less forced Caesarean section, meaning that there is now a baby which has an 80% risk of being severely disabled is a satisfactory law if it is shown to have been applied correctly? Does the actual outcome of a law not have some importance too when evaluating it?But the current legislation does appear to be practicable? Unless you have some evidence that it cannot be (or is not being) applied?
Because it seems to me that going by its outcome, then if the law was applied correctly, it is a disastrous law, and if it wasn't, then it is still a disastrous law.
You are being dishonest if you are claiming that the referendum over travel was not about travelling for an abortion.I'm sorry, but I don't recall the question at the time of the referenda being about money or good health? I suspect you may be trying to colour the events with your own agenda there...
Actually, everyone in Ireland (citizens and otherwise) is prevented from having an abortion, regardless of how much money they have, unless their life is at risk. We just cannot, as we discussed, prevent them from having an abortion when they are not in Ireland.
Oh, we should apply the law. We just shouldn't imagine we can apply a similar one in other countries.
But even if it weren't, it would still be problematic to have an amendment to protect unborn human life with the following priorities of rights:
1) travel
2) protection of the pregnant woman's life but not health
2B) protection of unborn life
3) protection of the pregnant woman's health
So how are we applying the law when we are clearly circumventing the constitution, by definition the most crucial part of the nation's law, by putting a right to travel for abortion above the right to life of the unborn.
Unless you think that the Irish people really believed that the right to travel, but not the right to own a house or have a job or any other secondary "right" really is more important than the right to life of someone, whether born or unborn. I don't believe that for a second. We all knew what we were voting about.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
For a law to be practicable, it is enough that the law should be capable of being put into practice and doing what it is supposed to.So it is enough that a law is applied, in your view?
To be even clearer, there's nothing in what you've said that (even it were a full and accurate rendition of the facts) shows the law is not practicable. In fact, given that the woman informed the relevant people of her problems when she was 23 weeks pregnant, they acted remarkably quickly; the only substantial delay took place when she when on hunger strike because she wanted the child killed rather than delivered. Which means so far, the law is considerably more practicable than many people, including myself, thought it would be.To be quite clear, are you saying that a law which appears to have meant that a suicidal woman who asked for a termination at 8 weeks <...> is a satisfactory law if it is shown to have been applied correctly?
Which part of the legal process that occured do you think was disastrous, or is it just that a live child resulted that you think is disastrous?Because it seems to me that going by its outcome, then if the law was applied correctly, it is a disastrous law, and if it wasn't, then it is still a disastrous law.
I said it wasn't about money or good health, which is what you said the question was at the time. It's dishonest to pretend I might have been claiming something I didn't mention.You are being dishonest if you are claiming that the referendum over travel was not about travelling for an abortion.
I don't think anyone is proposing that we should amend the constitution to do that?But even if it weren't, it would still be problematic to have an amendment to protect unborn human life with the following priorities of rights:
1) travel
2) protection of the pregnant woman's life but not health
2B) protection of unborn life
3) protection of the pregnant woman's health
Well, I don't believe we are circumventing the Constitution. To save the argument though, the Supreme Court rules on whether a law is Constitutional or not. If you think the law is circumventing the Constitution, you surely think someone else would have noticed it and endeavored to bring it before the Supreme Court at some point in the last 22 years?So how are we applying the law when we are clearly circumventing the constitution, by definition the most crucial part of the nation's law, by putting a right to travel for abortion above the right to life of the unborn.
Well, I don't know about 'secondary' rights, but I'm sure the right to travel is not more important than the right to life. Yet, for all the reasons that have been discussed in the hundreds of pages of this thread, that does not mean that someone's right to travel can be restricted in case they might kill someone in another jurisdiction. Or even because they might kill something.Unless you think that the Irish people really believed that the right to travel, but not the right to own a house or have a job or any other secondary "right" really is more important than the right to life of someone, whether born or unborn.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well, I don't know about 'secondary' rights, but I'm sure the right to travel is not more important than the right to life. Yet, for all the reasons that have been discussed in the hundreds of pages of this thread, that does not mean that someone's right to travel can be restricted in case they might kill someone in another jurisdiction. Or even because they might kill something.
The presumption of innocence. plus I was thinking that there's definitely an Irish position of not presuming to know what the reason is behind a pregnant girl or woman travelling abroad, and of not assuming or saying that she might have the intent to have a medical procedure while abroad that would be in contravention of article 40.3, plausible-deniability cover's all. The reason can be because people don't give a damn any more, don't care to inquire, or believe that it is none of their business, or wish for the time of squinting windows to be gone forever.0 -
Is a secondary right?aloyisious wrote: »The presumption of innocence.
I would have thought it's not uncommon not to frame laws on the basis of what someone may intend to do, rather than what they have actually done.aloyisious wrote: »I was thinking that there's definitely an Irish position of not presuming to know what the reason is behind a pregnant girl or woman travelling abroad, and of not assuming or saying that she might have the intent to have a medical procedure while abroad that would be in contravention of article 41.3, plausible-deniability cover's all.
And even so, having a 'medical procedure' abroad doesn't contravene the Constitution, since the the area of effect of the Constitution doesn't reach that far.
Article 41.3 by the way, states that "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack".
I'm not sure which medical procedure would contravene that, even within the Constitutions jurisdiction.
There's no doubt there can be any number of reasons.aloyisious wrote: »The reason can be because people don't give a damn any more, don't care to inquire, or believe that it is none of their business, or wish for the time of squinting windows to be gone forever.0 -
Article 41.3 by the way, states that "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack".
I'm not sure which medical procedure would contravene that, even within the Constitutions jurisdiction.
There's no doubt there can be any number of reasons.
Vis a vis article 40.3, doesn't that depend on what type of procedure? Ta for pointing out my typo, lol.0 -
Where to start? Do you think it is a satisfactory outcome that a woman who was apparently raped and suicidal was then forced by our government to become a mother, to have a child with a 4 out of 5 chance of being seriously disabled, against her will? And that the child whose existence the Irish state helped create against the will of the mother, a second rape in fact, will almost certainly grow up in care, with all that that entails, going by the known outcomes of children in the care system. And this child has a lot of extra baggage right from the start. None of which is its mother's fault, but quite a lot of it the HSE's.Which part of the legal process that occured do you think was disastrous, or is it just that a live child resulted that you think is disastrous?
But even if it had been born healthy (unlikely in the circumstances) the fact of the HSE forcing the woman to become a mother against her will when she asked for a first trimester termination of her pregnancy when it was still probably at the embryonic stage would not be a good outcome, no.
What you think it wasn't about is your own problem.I said it wasn't about money or good health, which is what you said the question was at the time. It's dishonest to pretend I might have been claiming something I didn't mention.
My point is what it was about, ie the right to travel for an abortion (subject to having enough money and to being in a fit state to travel). A right that only makes sense if the protection of the unborn comes lower down on the list of rights than travel. Which, while it may be what the constitution says, means we have a constitution which makes no legal or ethical sense.
But we are circumventing the constitution, because we decided not to protect the unborn, by putting an exception into the amendment about protecting the unborn which specifically allows for the right to travel.Well, I don't believe we are circumventing the Constitution. To save the argument though, the Supreme Court rules on whether a law is Constitutional or not. If you think the law is circumventing the Constitution, you surely think someone else would have noticed it and endeavored to bring it before the Supreme Court at some point in the last 22 years?
Well, I don't know about 'secondary' rights, but I'm sure the right to travel is not more important than the right to life. Yet, for all the reasons that have been discussed in the hundreds of pages of this thread, that does not mean that someone's right to travel can be restricted in case they might kill someone in another jurisdiction. Or even because they might kill something.
I'm not saying it's unconstitutional, I'm saying it's nonsensical, and as such not one whit better than creating an unenforceable law. Whereas punishing women who are found to have travelled for an abortion, after the fact, would be like punishing someone for murder after the killing, ie the best you can do in most cases.
You can't usually imprison someone for murder beforehand, but you don't refuse to legislate because of that, you just punish the cases you can prove and hope that will have a deterrent effect on other would be murderers.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
Are you claiming that's a part of the legal process? Because it doesn't seem to be written in the law?Where to start? Do you think it is a satisfactory outcome that a woman who was apparently raped and suicidal was then forced by our government to become a mother, to have a child with a 4 out of 5 chance of being seriously disabled, against her will?
When was she raped a second time? Again bearing in mind we're talking about a legal process here, so I assume you're going by the legal version rather than your own notional one? And to be fair, bearing in mind that no one has been convicted of rape in the first case, so really a second claim of rape, rather than a second rape.And that the child whose existence the Irish state helped create against the will of the mother, a second rape in fact, will almost certainly grow up in care, with all that that entails, going by the known outcomes of children in the care system. And this child has a lot of extra baggage right from the start. None of which is its mother's fault, but quite a lot of it the HSE's.
That's pretty nebulous, that "she asked for a first trimester termination of her pregnancy". Don't you think you should be specific about who she asked? It seems pretty relevant don't you think? Yet you keep avoiding specifiying, as if you didn't want to point out that she didn't ask anyone in a position to provide an abortion in her circumstances until she was 23 weeks pregnant. Which makes a bit of a difference.....But even if it had been born healthy (unlikely in the circumstances) the fact of the HSE forcing the woman to become a mother against her will when she asked for a first trimester termination of her pregnancy when it was still probably at the embryonic stage would not be a good outcome, no.
Maybe. I wasn't the one who said "This is a law that prevents no-one with money and in good health from having an abortion, and deliberately so, since that was the question at the time of the referendum". I just rebutted your assertion that money and good health were what the question about. Hmm. Should I just have said what you think it was about is your problem? It doesn't seem conducive to discussion though.What you think it wasn't about is your own problem.
Nah, that wasn't your point. I repeated it (verbatim) above so you can see. No mention of the right to travel. Just money and good health.My point is what it was about, ie the right to travel for an abortion (subject to having enough money and to being in a fit state to travel).
You're going to have to explain that I'm afraid. It makes perfect sense that the State asserts, protects and vindicates the rights of citizens (and the unborn), but doesn't try to prevent people from travelling in case they might be thinking of infringing those rights in a place where they might not be rights at all. Yet the rights remain undiminished as far as I can tell.A right that only makes sense if the protection of the unborn comes lower down on the list of rights than travel.
And yet no one has successfully challenged the legality of it in 22 years? Why do you think that is?Which, while it may be what the constitution says, means we have a constitution which makes no legal or ethical sense.
No we definitely decided to protect the unborn, that's why there's no abortion (except in specific cirmcumstances) in Ireland. Abortions where the Constitution has no standing don't circumvent it, because it has no standing there.But we are circumventing the constitution, because we decided not to protect the unborn, by putting an exception into the amendment about protecting the unborn which specifically allows for the right to travel.
Perhaps you're saying that because it doesn't do what you like? It seems pretty logical and sensible to me, but if you choose to deliberately misinterpret and say it, for instance, prioritises rights that it doesn't, then you've simply created the nonsense you're claiming to be observing.I'm not saying it's unconstitutional, I'm saying it's nonsensical, and as such not one whit better than creating an unenforceable law.
How like it do you think it would be? For instance, would you care to describe the system the UK uses to remove citizens to remove citizens from other jurisdictions and try them for murders committed in those jurisdictions? Since I'm guessing you've moved on from your fgm comparison now?Whereas punishing women who are found to have travelled for an abortion, after the fact, would be like punishing someone for murder after the killing, ie the best you can do in most cases.
We already have a system that punishes case of illegal abortion we can prove, which we would hope also provides a deterrent effect on would be abortionists. In fact, we just updated the legislation; we certainly didn't refuse to legislate just because we wouldn't imprison someone for simply thinking about the destruction of unborn human life. But I think you're trying to mix your argument about abortion where we do have jurisdiction and abortion where we don't have jurisdiction. Probably better not to.You can't usually imprison someone for murder beforehand, but you don't refuse to legislate because of that, you just punish the cases you can prove and hope that will have a deterrent effect on other would be murderers.0 -
Your position is that body autonomy cannot be used to justify abortion because it cannot be used to justify killing a baby to avoid changing it's nappy. For your position to be a true reflection of the initial premise, we need to agree that pregnancy and nappy changing are comparable. I don't agree.
Incorrect, using the Socratic method "cannot use my body" needs to be revised and made more specific.0 -
Advertisement
-
Apparently this is in today's Sunday Indo'..... http://www.thejournal.ie/referendum-8th-amendment-abortion-1682171-Sep2014/
However, when I googled for a M/B for S/I poll, I could only find it in the Journal.ie. All other results were for 2013 polls.0 -
I'm saying that is what happened. So either the law is functioning correctly, in which case it's a disaster, or the law didn't function correctly, and led to disaster.Are you claiming that's a part of the legal process? Because it doesn't seem to be written in the law?
But I've said all this before, so you restating your own questions which have already been answered is a bit pointless.
You seem to have more time than I do, or care to, spend on this forum repeating stuff over and over, so I won't respond yet again to your misrepresentations of the arguments.
Except possibly this:
Why?But I think you're trying to mix your argument about abortion where we do have jurisdiction and abortion where we don't have jurisdiction. Probably better not to.
It isn't a question of just not legislating where we don't have jurisdiction, that would be understandable. But in this case, Irish legislation banning something specifically includes a subsection allowing organisations operating in the jurisdiction to provide information and help to arrange abortions abroad.
France and Germany, and possibly others, have both prosecuted residents of their own countries for FGM carried out abroad. The UK can do so, but hasn't yet, probably for the same "culturally-sensitive" reasons they allowed child abuse gangs to operate with impunity in Rochdale, but that is not an argument against the fact that it can be done.
As I said, it's only a question of wanting to. And the reasons why Ireland doesn't want to protect Irish unborn life to the extent of punishing women when they come back, or even just fining the IFPA for illegal activities is because they don't really want to ban abortions, they only want to pretend there is a ban.
Unfortunately that hypocrisy has led to the death of at least one woman, possibly more, and now to a woman who imagined she could get asylum here after being raped and possibly tortured (she was being coudpselled by Spirasi) being forced to become a mother to the child of her rapist. A child which is almost certainly severely disabled directly because of the way the law supposedly protecting her mental health currently works here.
Now unless you can show some evidence that none of that happened, I don't think I have anything more to reply to you - the rest of your post is just deflection and distraction and I really can't be bothered with that.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »Incorrect, using the Socratic method "cannot use my body" needs to be revised and made more specific.
I think the problem is that you interpret the expression "using my body" in such a large sense as to be meaningless. "Using someone's body" doesn't normally mean paying for their work, for instance, it has a more limited application.
Similarly, you don't "use your body" to change a nappy, any more than you use your brain to do so. Your brain is engaged, or you couldn't move, but a job which requires that you "use your brain" has a more limited meaning, and one which we all understand, except you apparently.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
Just on this question of whether the principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction is possible for crimes involving such personal issues as FGM and, by extension, abortion, here are a couple of links that offer a useful illustration of how and why it could be done, and reasons why it sometimes hasn't been. (And "it can't actually be done" isn't one of them!) Though "nobody really wants to" is indeed one that does apply, albeit for different reasons in the case of FGM.
http://www.endfgm.eu/en/female-genital-mutilation/fgm-in-europe/fgm-and-criminal-law/
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/03/why-did-first-prosecution-female-genital-mutilation-take-30-yearsReem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
I don't see how your opinion that the result of a particular case was disastrous (leaving aside your selective rendition of the facts) points in any way to the fact that the law cannot be applied though, which is what you said. If anything, your argument is that you don't like the result of it being applied.I'm saying that is what happened. So either the law is functioning correctly, in which case it's a disaster, or the law didn't function correctly, and led to disaster.
I'm only replying to the points you've made, which do in fairness seem to go in circles.But I've said all this before, so you restating your own questions which have already been answered is a bit pointless.
I'm happy to defend anything you think I've misrepresented...You seem to have more time than I do, or care to, spend on this forum repeating stuff over and over, so I won't respond yet again to your misrepresentations of the arguments.
Because when you base your argument for the one on the other, you're spending a lot of your time (which you obviously don't want to spend) achieving nothing; what it is possible to do in our country is different from what it is possibly to do in another, and if we fail to do something in another, it doesn't necessarily follow that we're also failing to do it in our own.Except possibly this:
Why?
Which people voted for.It isn't a question of just not legislating where we don't have jurisdiction, that would be understandable. But in this case, Irish legislation banning something specifically includes a subsection allowing organisations operating in the jurisdiction to provide information and help to arrange abortions abroad.
So, we've gone from the UK being a poster child for how we could do this, to the UK could do it but hasn't yet? Why do you think you didn't mention the 'probable' motivation for absolutely no prosecutions in the UK in the eleven years of legislation, when you were telling us how well the UK manages to assert universal jurisdiction for fgm?France and Germany, and possibly others, have both prosecuted residents of their own countries for FGM carried out abroad. The UK can do so, but hasn't yet, probably for the same "culturally-sensitive" reasons they allowed child abuse gangs to operate with impunity in Rochdale, but that is not an argument against the fact that it can be done.
I do recall you saying that. And as I said, what's missing is not the will to do so; I'm sure there are plenty (if perhaps not a majority) of people who might wish to do so given the opportunity. What is missing is the kind of international agreements we have with other countries that make extraterritorial jurisdiction possible in the case of crimes like murder. Agreements that permit the sharing of evidence, the maintenance of custody chains, the extradition of prisoners. But let's indulge your latest example; would you care to explain the process by which Germany prosecuted its' most recent citizen convicted of fgm carried out outside it's jurisdiction? It will be interesting to see how much could in fact be replicated by Ireland if we were to choose to assert universal jurisdiction for the destruction of unborn human life.As I said, it's only a question of wanting to.
Are you sure? Have you checked with everyone? Because, I don't want to pretend there's a ban. And I think there are other people who don't want to pretend there's a ban, even though I won't pretend that I actually know 'the reasons' why people do what they do. I think that's one of those things you say to get around what you can't understand; people chose not to have abortion in the country where they get a say about it.And the reasons why Ireland doesn't want to protect Irish unborn life to the extent of punishing women when they come back, or even just fining the IFPA for illegal activities is because they don't really want to ban abortions, they only want to pretend there is a ban.
It's amazing how only the pro abortion people in Ireland managed to escape this nation hypocrisy pandemic isn't it? It only affected people who disagree with you.....Unfortunately that hypocrisy has led to the death of at least one woman, possibly more, and now to a woman who imagined she could get asylum here after being raped and possibly tortured (she was being coudpselled by Spirasi) being forced to become a mother to the child of her rapist. A child which is almost certainly severely disabled directly because of the way the law supposedly protecting her mental health currently works here.
So this woman, how do you know she was raped and possibly tortured? Which is to say, why aren't you saying she was possibly raped and possibly tortured? Not that I think you're trying to play on peoples sympathies, but, well, actually that's what I do think. But moving on, if you're (and you have repeated it so many times!) so worried about the child being almost certainly (so, to anyones knowledge so far, not?) disabled, would you rather she had been restrained until there was an almost certainty of it not being disabled? I thought you were arguing against that earlier. And finally, the law supposedly protecting her mental health. Which one was that? I thought it was the law protecting her life that was the reason the baby was delivered early?
Evidence none of which happened? I don't think you've shown any evidence for what you're saying did happen (but especially for how you know what we were all thinking when we voted, that one is extra special), though if you'd like to present your evidence for the fact that the girl was raped I'm sure it will be useful to someone. Oh, evidence for why the UK hasn't prosecuted anyone for fgm in eleven years? Maybe evidence that hypocrisy led to the death of a woman?Now unless you can show some evidence that none of that happened, I don't think I have anything more to reply to you - the rest of your post is just deflection and distraction and I really can't be bothered with that.
The rest of my post, again, was only answering your points.
If you think it's deflection to ask you to be specific about the systems you're advocating, well, I guess we'd be disputing the meaning of deflection.
If it's distraction to point out your specific assertion wasn't the assertion you claimed it was, I'm sorry for returning your attention to reality.
Interesting indeed... though I couldn't find 'by extension, abortion' in either of them. And only six instances of extra jurisdictional prosecution too in the whole of Europe. I wonder how France & Denmark would feel about providing information to Ireland for the purpose of prosecuting people who had abortions there? I did notice that End FGM felt that strong cross jurisdictional cooperation via Europol & Eurojust should be urged and encouraged.Just on this question of whether the principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction is possible for crimes involving such personal issues as FGM and, by extension, abortion, here are a couple of links that offer a useful illustration of how and why it could be done, and reasons why it sometimes hasn't been. (And "it can't actually be done" isn't one of them!) Though "nobody really wants to" is indeed one that does apply, albeit for different reasons in the case of FGM.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yet again, a load of nonsense. I'm sorry I have to refuse to reply to it point by point, because I refuse to spend an even larger chunk of my life on your rubbish.I don't see how your opinion that the result of a particular case was disastrous (leaving aside your selective rendition of the facts) points in any way to the fact that the law cannot be applied though, which is what you said. If anything, your argument is that you don't like the result of it being applied.
I'm only replying to the points you've made, which do in fairness seem to go in circles.
I'm happy to defend anything you think I've misrepresented...
Because when you base your argument for the one on the other, you're spending a lot of your time (which you obviously don't want to spend) achieving nothing; what it is possible to do in our country is different from what it is possibly to do in another, and if we fail to do something in another, it doesn't necessarily follow that we're also failing to do it in our own.
Which people voted for.
So, we've gone from the UK being a poster child for how we could do this, to the UK could do it but hasn't yet? Why do you think you didn't mention the 'probable' motivation for absolutely no prosecutions in the UK in the eleven years of legislation, when you were telling us how well the UK manages to assert universal jurisdiction for fgm?
I do recall you saying that. And as I said, what's missing is not the will to do so; I'm sure there are plenty (if perhaps not a majority) of people who might wish to do so given the opportunity. What is missing is the kind of international agreements we have with other countries that make extraterritorial jurisdiction possible in the case of crimes like murder. Agreements that permit the sharing of evidence, the maintenance of custody chains, the extradition of prisoners. But let's indulge your latest example; would you care to explain the process by which Germany prosecuted its' most recent citizen convicted of fgm carried out outside it's jurisdiction? It will be interesting to see how much could in fact be replicated by Ireland if we were to choose to assert universal jurisdiction for the destruction of unborn human life.
Are you sure? Have you checked with everyone? Because, I don't want to pretend there's a ban. And I think there are other people who don't want to pretend there's a ban, even though I won't pretend that I actually know 'the reasons' why people do what they do. I think that's one of those things you say to get around what you can't understand; people chose not to have abortion in the country where they get a say about it.
It's amazing how only the pro abortion people in Ireland managed to escape this nation hypocrisy pandemic isn't it? It only affected people who disagree with you.....
So this woman, how come she was raped and possibly tortured? Which is to say, why wasn't she possibly raped and possibly tortured? Not that I think you're trying to play on peoples sympathies, but, well, actually that's what I do think. But moving on, if you're (and you have repeated it so many times!) so worried about the child being almost certainly (so, to anyones knowledge so far, not?) disabled, would you rather she had been restrained until there was an almost certainty of it not being disabled? I thought you were arguing against that earlier. And finally, the law supposedly protecting her mental health. Which one was that? I thought it was the law protecting her life that was the reason the baby was delivered early?
Evidence none of which happened? I don't think you've shown any evidence for what you're saying did happen (but especially for how you know what we were all thinking when we voted, that one is extra special). The rest of my post, again, was only answering your points. If you think it's deflection to ask you to be specific about the systems you're advocating, well, I guess we're talking a different language.
If it's distraction to point out your specific assertion wasn't the assertion you claimed it was, I'm sorry for returning your attention to reality.
Interesting indeed... though I couldn't find 'by extension, abortion' in either of them. And only six instances of extra jurisdictional prosecution too in the whole of Europe. I wonder how France & Denmark would feel about providing information to Ireland for the purpose of prosecuting people who had abortions there? I did notice that End FGM felt that strong cross jurisdictional cooperation via Europol & Eurojust should be urged and encouraged.
But for instance, the last point where you pretend to believe that End FGM calling for cross European cooperation is somehow proof that without the countries involved in FGM giving information to European countries, nothing can be done. That isn't what they mean, unless you think that the countries they suggest should pool information are the ones where FGM is occurring!
If you do think that, you're so wrong there's no point in me trying to explain to you until you educate yourself first - or learn to read!
And if you don't think it, then that just shows you're being dishonest.
Either way, I can only help you as far as you are able or willing to go and no further, only you can do that.Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"0 -
I have to say, I'm not surprised.Yet again, a load of nonsense. I'm sorry I have to refuse to reply to it point by point, because I refuse to spend an even larger chunk of my life on your rubbish.
Sorry, I guess your psychic ability to determine motivation must be a little off today. I pointed out that End FGM is calling for cross European cooperation because I think it demonstrates that I'm not the only who thinks this is a means to achieve enforcement of extraterritorial legislation. I may be wrong; maybe they just want the police in various countries to be better friends.But for instance, the last point where you pretend to believe that End FGM calling for cross European cooperation is somehow proof that without the countries involved in FGM giving information to European countries, nothing can be done. That isn't what they mean, unless you think that the countries they suggest should pool information are the ones where FGM is occurring!
Damned if I do and damned if I don't eh? It's amazing how people can be dishonest just by not thinking how you say they must....If you do think that, you're so wrong there's no point in me trying to explain to you until you educate yourself first - or learn to read! And if you don't think it, then that just shows you're being dishonest.
Hmmm. You've been trying to help me? By telling me I'm a hypocrite, uneducated, or by telling me I can't read? I think I'm probably unwilling to go with your kind of help to be honest......Either way, I can only help you as far as you are able or willing to go and no further, only you can do that.0 -
I think the problem is that you interpret the expression "using my body" in such a large sense as to be meaningless. "Using someone's body" doesn't normally mean paying for their work, for instance, it has a more limited application.
Similarly, you don't "use your body" to change a nappy, any more than you use your brain to do so. Your brain is engaged, or you couldn't move, but a job which requires that you "use your brain" has a more limited meaning, and one which we all understand, except you apparently.
Brain is your body, so if you use your brain you are also using your body - if you want to be pedantic.
The problem this "using my body" argument is just rhetoric, it either needs to be refined because as it stands it is simple to refute.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »Brain is your body, so if you use your brain you are also using your body - if you want to be pedantic.
The problem this "using my body" argument is just rhetoric, it either needs to be refined because as it stands it is simple to refute.
Or perhaps, refutes the simple. If you don't understand the concept of bodily integrity, google it. If you think of a proper argument concerning it, do be sure and let us know.0 -
Attempting to confuse correlation with causation [...]
Fond of as you are with endless semantic quibbles amounting to many words, and little actual distinction that anyone could ever take to the bank, you may be interested to learn that "correlation" on single-point data sets (as with both your usages in the referenced post) is undefined as a statistical and mathematical concept, and thus literally meaningless in such cases.
You are therefore confusing something entirely different with "correlation", in your above accusation at to someone else's "confusion".0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »Yes, abortion ok in that circumstance.
You see, I think we could get that in this government. I think you'd get a lot of consensus there. Abortion on demand is still a step too far too many people and maybe if the middle ground spoke up on this matter instead of it just being the extremes on both sides we could get some progress.
Precisely how? It'd mean changing the constitution. FG seem as if they're spoiling to do that? And if they did, to what exact effect? Drop the 8th and deal with it in primary legislation? Instant bellowing about "slippery slope to abortion on demand". Add yet more verbiage into BnhE, spelling out at open-ended length some stream-of-consciousness "middle ground" position to the effect of "yes, health grounds, OK right, but only yer proper "health" grounds like "going blind", and not your "wanton hussy" or "accept it as a sacrifice" sort of "health" grounds that a straw poll of the readership of the Irish Daily Mail wasn't completely comfortable having on the sacred Catholic soil of Ireland". Which might be indeed what the legislation ends up being a lot like, but rather that than the constitution...0 -
Well, perhaps not so fond as to feel the need to delve through posts in order to find a single word to disagree with, but since you have; I didn't actually offer it as a statistical or mathematical concept. Since Zubeneschamali was offering the point in plain English, my response was in the same vein, using correlation in it's plain English sense of a relationship between two or more things. The two things, in order to avoid the possibility of your confusion, being the action of the AG, and the (non) occurrence of the abortion. So not actually literally meaningless in this case, if perhaps statistically meaningless. If that isn't too confusing?alaimacerc wrote: »Fond of as you are with endless semantic quibbles amounting to many words, and little actual distinction that anyone could ever take to the bank, you may be interested to learn that "correlation" on single-point data sets (as with both your usages in the referenced post) is undefined as a statistical and mathematical concept, and thus literally meaningless in such cases.You are therefore confusing something entirely different with "correlation", in your above accusation at to someone else's "confusion".0 -
Presumably mainly on the one hand, people whom the concept of "sub-category" entirely eludes, and on the other, people lamely attempting to cover the category error implicit in their ad hoc and hand-waving extension of the use of the word "child" beyond its traditional linguistic scope.Tim Robbins wrote: »And there are those that would say when it is born it is not child, it is a baby.
Embryos have "many of the characteristics of life". Zygotes have "many of the characteristics of life". Gametes have "many of the characteristics of life". Somatics cells have "many of the characteristics of life". Any guesses as to why? (It's because they're all alive.) That does not qualify them as "children" or indeed as "persons".I would say that the fetus has many of the characteristics of life and therefore should be treated as such.
In other words, then. "fundamentally the same grounds as the UK allow it, but in some unspecified way much more "strict" and less "on demand" than the UK." Good luck making that bombproof in your redrafted Article 8.I would like to see abortion legal for rape, any threat to the health of the mother, fetal abnormalities, suicide.0 -
Baseless imputation of vaguely-construed bad faith, much? I'm "delving" through the thread in the sense that I'm reading it. Your assumption that may intent in doing so hardly bears any serious examination. Your misuse of the word does, however, quality as an outstanding example of "being the most wrong in the shortest passage of text", and thus makes a fairly good candidate for response, as oppose to the endless screeds saying very little about less and less, in order to maintain some sort of claim of "reasonable doubt" about something you said 40 pages earlier. (We'll doubtless be doing much the same about this in another 40.)Well, perhaps not so fond as to feel the need to delve through posts in order to find a single word to disagree with
Then unless you aspire no higher than management consultants wittering on about "organisational DNA", perhaps you ought to not be using a word in a context that any reasonable person associates precisely with that sense. Because to say "correlation does not imply causation, and here I'm using the word 'correlation' in an entirely woolly and metaphorical manner that's not subject to any logical analysis" is not to advance your original point one iota.but since you have; I didn't actually offer it as a statistical or mathematical concept.0 -
And is there some magical level of prospective enforcement that it's acceptable to legislate in anticipation of? Because we're not dealing here with things that are in any sense inherently unenforcible. If the proposed legislation were "thinking about having an abortion", this would a more substantive objection.The principle that a law that cannot be enforced should not be enacted is a fairly common one and can be found in many jurisdictions.
This seems a lot more like a difference of degree to me (which may be as large as one wishes, of course, all depending). This is simply extending jurisdiction for something that's already criminal here, so there's nothing inherent in the offence to preclude this, it's simply a matter if anticipated availability of evidence. And likewise for the inchoate offences: the difficulty of bringing prosecutions for those in not in principle orders of magnitude harder than the corresponding offences of attempt or conspiracy, and so on, for other offences. (To wit, often prohibitive in practice, but not so much that these have been struck down by the judiciary as contrary to natural justice, or removed by the legislature as bad public policy.)There is also a very large difference between a crime that will be nigh on impossible to prosecute, because of the nature of that crime, and a crime that might be difficult to prosecute simply because the criminal tried to hide it.The offence we are talking about here is extremely impractal and it is difficult to see how many, if any, prosecutions could be brought. If they is the case, then what is it for?
Deterrence, clearly! After all, we're repeatedly told that it's not the intent of the Irish body politic to "export" this problem. Merely a mysterious, completely unforeseeable side-effect of the fact that it is very, very strongly opposed to the idea of abortion (anywhere!) and equally strongly opposed to restrictions on travel to places where abortion is available... for the purposes of getting an abortion. Thus clearly, such a law would reduce the number of women doing so (so some unknown extent), and would in no way produce a backlash against it. Right?0 -
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement