Keep abortion out of Ireland

scidive

A message on http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com asks the Irish people to keep abortion out of Ireland

Virgin Mary: Introduce abortion in Ireland and you sever the link to my heart
Friday, February 17th, 2012 @ 03:30 pm
I am your beloved Mother, Queen of the Angels, the Virgin Mary, the Immaculate Conception.

Oh how I weep today as Ireland, the country most dedicated to me, their beloved Mother, falls prey to the evil one.

Great darkness has descended over this nation. So many have lost their faith, just as so many have turned their hearts away from my beloved Son, Jesus Christ.

...

Liamario

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

daithimac

Oh dear,

Whoever wrote this has a bad dose of the crazy.

swiftblade

It reads as some sort of rally speach.

Very, very weird.

qrrgprgua

Respect for human life, from Conception to death, should be above religion.

Going home in the car listening to a women who went into a clinic in the UK saying she wanted an abortion because she was having a Girl instead of a Boy and being told "you want a termination then you want a termination"......

Abortion panders to the lowest elements of lack of humanity... are we such animals that we would kill our young.

I will be voting NO to abortion. Because its wrong, not because of Religion or faith. But because killing a child is wrong.

Morbert

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

Festus

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Respect for human life, from Conception to death, should be above religion.

Going home in the car listening to a women who went into a clinic in the UK saying she wanted an abortion because she was having a Girl instead of a Boy and being told "you want a termination then you want a termination"......

Abortion panders to the lowest elements of lack of humanity... are we such animals that we would kill our young.

I will be voting NO to abortion. Because its wrong, not because of Religion or faith. But because killing a child is wrong.

Agreed but are you a TD? If so then we are glad of your vote and will vote you in to office again.

If you are a meer pleb then sorry, but you are unlikely to get another chance to vote on this issue.

the teachings that only say if you cause a woman to miscarry you should pay her a fine in compensation
not exactly "abortion is bad!!!111"

what a load of nonsense

PDN

While I'm opposed to abortion, I can't help noticing that Mary is getting very political with her opposition to socialism.

Her grammar and punctuation needs a bit of work as well.

wonderfulname

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/

vicwatson

But Mary it's their bodies, can't they do what they want with them....?:rolleyes:

Edit - You may go talk with God Mary, as he gave us free will didn't he?

Zombrex

In these difficult times let us turn to another blessed savior

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOwzy-vKaFI

Benny_Cake

I'm not a supporter of abortion, but this really is ludicrous nonsense. People who claim to have respect for Mary shouldn't be using made up rubbish like this to advance their narrow political views.

wonderfulname

Zombrex wrote: »

You totally read this in Obama's voice.

Yes we can I did.

newmug

WTF? Is there going to be a vote on abortion or something?

Festus

they're having a motion in the Dail

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0222/breaking54.html

The OP source is dated 17th. The Irish Times (T.I.T.) breaking news is date 22nd.

Clare Daly must have a leak

newmug

Liamario wrote: »

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

Really? You'd agree with abortion, and an article you appear to think is a whole pile of crazy is what would convince you?


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.

wonderfulname

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?

newmug

wonderfulname wrote: »

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.

A) I already did. Now, as a practicing Catholic, I'm putting my money where my mouth is, and I'm going to fast and pray.

wonderfulname wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with this position by the way?

"Terminating pregnancies", ie killing babies, is sick. No matter what the circumstance, the life of the child should be put first. Its what any mother would want, why should it be any different for a child who is minus x months old?

PDN

wonderfulname wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with this position by the way?

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.

HamletOrHecuba

Im opposed to abortion, just as Im opposed to contraception, but I cant believe that abortion at an early stage of the pregnancy is murder as such.

dead one

A generation dies within bellies, who will care for the generation, suffering outside

HamletOrHecuba

swiftblade wrote: »

It reads as some sort of rally speach.

Very, very weird.

The second line about Ireland being the country most dedicated to me really threw me. I wonder is this the fact of mental illness, demonic delusion or a very human scam artist?

JimiTime

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.

i'm pretty sure doctors can figure out someone giving out and someone genuinely suicidal :rolleyes: not to mention the actual physical health risks which could threaten her life

JimiTime

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.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

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

I am not "pro abortion". 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

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

All it takes is a doctor to believe that there is nothing wrong with abortion to use such a thing as a loophole

The legislation would require it to be for suicidal risks (and presumably other risk of life) only. A doctor is not going to risk their career to hand these out willy-nilly. Particularly since it's already technically legal in the country but doctors will be guilty of malpractice if they do it, afaik. 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.

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

lardossan

the Holy Mary has an e-mail address? amazeballs.

Catxscotch

That is the craziest thing I have ever read. That is brain washing people who are completely taken in by Religion. I am a Catholic, but people must wake up to the scam of the Church, they still believe Aids are killing only bad people, and artificial contraception is wrong. As for Abortion, if a woman takes the decision to have an abortion, 99% do not do it lightly. To force her then to make a difficult journey to England or elsewhere is wrong. Grow up and smell the 21st Century people!!

Benny_Cake

Catxscotch wrote: »

they still believe Aids are killing only bad people

Really!!? I don't agree with the position that the Catholic Church has taken with regard to condoms, but to suggest that the Church believes that "AIDS is only killing bad people" simply isn't true.

As regards the issue of a threat to a woman's life, if she doesn't get an abortion, it's a tough one. The Government doesn't have the option of not legislating for it after the court judgement, but I would be concerned that it would be the backdoor to full abortion, on demand. That said, I think that were a woman in a genuine situation where she would die if the pregnancy continued, an intervention in that instance couldn't be considered an abortion like any other. I'm inclined to support this once there are stringent safeguards, but I'm not sure how such safeguards could be arrived at.

Tea 1000

Catxscotch wrote: »

That is the craziest thing I have ever read. That is brain washing people who are completely taken in by Religion. I am a Catholic,

Really? Doesn't sound like you are to be honest.

Catxscotch wrote: »

but people must wake up to the scam of the Church, they still believe Aids are killing only bad people

What idiot believes that?

Catxscotch wrote: »

As for Abortion, if a woman takes the decision to have an abortion, 99% do not do it lightly.

Really? 99%? Besides made up percentages, who says they don't take it lightly?

Catxscotch wrote: »

To force her then to make a difficult journey to England or elsewhere is wrong.

It's not about forcing someone to go to England. It's about which value you hold higher, choice or life.

Catxscotch wrote: »

Grow up and smell the 21st Century people!!

What do you mean by that? That we can't progress unless we allow unborn to die? That we can't call ourselves modern unless we all agree with you? That people who believe that the right to life of the unborn are stuck in the past? I think it'd be more modern of you to respectfully oppose other people's beliefs instead of mockingly oppose them.

28064212

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

SonOfAdam

@JimiTime - This is the crux of the issue. The Medical Council has stated that there is no medical reason that warrants an abortion (intentional terminationof life) but acknowledges there are rare cases where the death of the unborn is the unintentional side-effect of certain treatments.
It's time to leave the health issue to one side and be honest about the real reasons.

Baggio1

well if theres a bill pending then obviously Our Lady IS correct in trying to get people to pray against it,
unfortunately the fools who mock this message and the website that has been set up to distribute the last seer's messages have no idea of what they are doing or dealing with. Nuclear war is only a step away as part of the chastisement for the world for ALL of our sins, prayer/fasting ARE the only things we can do to mitigate its effect on our country, but allowing the killing of the innocents here will only bring more pain to this country.
If the clowns of this country only knew how close this war is theyd be on their knees now.. Syria is the spark for this war,, and if people actually had a good look at the way its shaping up with Putin about to take power in Russia and his determination to oppose with China ANY intervention well again they might learn something, for those with no faith they will NEVER understand till its too late, for those so called catholics who mock this last see'r ,, well your in for one hell of a shock when all hell breaks lose from this war.

anyone with faith needs to read carefully and understand that these are the final messages from God the Father. Christ and Mary before the chastisement.. simple as... now throw al the abuse ya want ,,upcoming events will waken you all up to the reality of where we are.. abortion is evil to the core , anyone supporting it will reap what they sow simple as...

Baggio1

Baggio1 wrote: »

well if theres a bill pending then obviously Our Lady IS correct in trying to get people to pray against it,
unfortunately the fools who mock this message and the website that has been set up to distribute the last seer's messages have no idea of what they are doing or dealing with. Nuclear war is only a step away as part of the chastisement for the world for ALL of our sins, prayer/fasting ARE the only things we can do to mitigate its effect on our country, but allowing the killing of the innocents here will only bring more pain to this country.
If the clowns of this country only knew how close this war is theyd be on their knees now.. Syria is the spark for this war,, and if people actually had a good look at the way its shaping up with Putin about to take power in Russia and his determination to oppose with China ANY intervention well again they might learn something, for those with no faith they will NEVER understand till its too late, for those so called catholics who mock this last see'r ,, well your in for one hell of a shock when all hell breaks lose from this war.

anyone with faith needs to read carefully and understand that these are the final messages from God the Father. Christ and Mary before the chastisement.. simple as... now throw al the abuse ya want ,,upcoming events will waken you all up to the reality of where we are.. abortion is evil to the core , anyone supporting it will reap what they sow simple as...

lol

by the way putin has been in power for ages, he just took a short break

Catxscotch wrote: »

I am a Catholic, but people must wake up to the scam of the Church,

you might be a christian but you sure dont sound like a catholic

Benny_Cake

Baggio1 wrote: »

well if theres a bill pending then obviously Our Lady IS correct in trying to get people to pray against it,
unfortunately the fools who mock this message and the website that has been set up to distribute the last seer's messages have no idea of what they are doing or dealing with. Nuclear war is only a step away as part of the chastisement for the world for ALL of our sins, prayer/fasting ARE the only things we can do to mitigate its effect on our country, but allowing the killing of the innocents here will only bring more pain to this country.
If the clowns of this country only knew how close this war is theyd be on their knees now.. Syria is the spark for this war,, and if people actually had a good look at the way its shaping up with Putin about to take power in Russia and his determination to oppose with China ANY intervention well again they might learn something, for those with no faith they will NEVER understand till its too late, for those so called catholics who mock this last see'r ,, well your in for one hell of a shock when all hell breaks lose from this war.

anyone with faith needs to read carefully and understand that these are the final messages from God the Father. Christ and Mary before the chastisement.. simple as... now throw al the abuse ya want ,,upcoming events will waken you all up to the reality of where we are.. abortion is evil to the core , anyone supporting it will reap what they sow simple as...

You do realise that anyone can set up a website and say anything they want on it - it's a little much to call people fools simply because they doubt what some anonymous person says on a website. Throughout history, there have been wars, famine and suffering, at many times it was far worse than it is now. If I don't believe the Jehovah's Witnesses about Armageddon being iminent, you'll forgive me for not believing an anoymous online source either.

campo

Baggio1 wrote: »

well if theres a bill pending then obviously Our Lady IS correct in trying to get people to pray against it,
unfortunately the fools who mock this message and the website that has been set up to distribute the last seer's messages have no idea of what they are doing or dealing with. Nuclear war is only a step away as part of the chastisement for the world for ALL of our sins, prayer/fasting ARE the only things we can do to mitigate its effect on our country, but allowing the killing of the innocents here will only bring more pain to this country.
If the clowns of this country only knew how close this war is theyd be on their knees now.. Syria is the spark for this war,, and if people actually had a good look at the way its shaping up with Putin about to take power in Russia and his determination to oppose with China ANY intervention well again they might learn something, for those with no faith they will NEVER understand till its too late, for those so called catholics who mock this last see'r ,, well your in for one hell of a shock when all hell breaks lose from this war.

anyone with faith needs to read carefully and understand that these are the final messages from God the Father. Christ and Mary before the chastisement.. simple as... now throw al the abuse ya want ,,upcoming events will waken you all up to the reality of where we are.. abortion is evil to the core , anyone supporting it will reap what they sow simple as...

Step away from the keyboard......

I am anti abortion ( but I do agree with in certain instances ) but statement like the above only give pro choice ammunation

Sonics2k

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?

oldrnwisr

SonOfAdam wrote: »

@JimiTime - This is the crux of the issue. The Medical Council has stated that there is no medical reason that warrants an abortion (intentional terminationof life) but acknowledges there are rare cases where the death of the unborn is the unintentional side-effect of certain treatments.
It's time to leave the health issue to one side and be honest about the real reasons.

The Medical Council position says no such thing.

From the "Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics for Registered Medical Practitioners":

Section 21 - Abortion

21.1 Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and
substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the
mother. Under current legal precedent, this exception includes
where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother
arising from a threat of suicide. You should undertake a full assessment
of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.

21.2 It is lawful to provide information in Ireland about abortions
abroad, subject to strict conditions. It is not lawful to encourage
or advocate an abortion in individual cases.

21.3 You have a duty to provide care, support and follow-up services
for women who have an abortion abroad.

21.4 In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where
therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy)
is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the
baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these
exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to
terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while
making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.


Furthermore, such a position would go against established research on the need for therapeutic abortion where the life of the mother is endangered either through a medical condition where the continuation of the pregnancy would be dangerous or through a foetal abnormality like a trisomy syndrome where the premature death of the foetus may present serious risk to the health of the mother.

Health issues are not the only issues involved in debating abortion but they should not be dismissed so readily.

JimiTime

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

JimiTime wrote: »

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.

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

JimiTime

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?

SonOfAdam

I don't see how that differs from 21.4

28064212

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

hattoncracker

I think abortion should be legalised. I think if it was put to the vote again, it may not be legalised, but the voting statistics would definitely be different.

You are withholding a woman's right to make a choice about her future.. If you don't believe in it, don't have one. But you shouldn't be able to take that decision away from someone else.

Benny_Cake

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? 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?

It's the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. This goes back to the X case where the Court found by a 4 to 1 majority that Article 40.3.3 of the constitution:

"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"

allowed for abortion where there was a "real and substantial risk" to her life (and it was stated that this included the risk of suicide, but didn't include non-life threatening health issues). Looking at the constitution dispassionately (nearly impossible to do in relation to this issue), it seems to me that the conclusion they drew was the correct one, I don't think that they can be accused of being inept.

JimiTime

Benny_Cake wrote: »

It's the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. This goes back to the X case where the Court found by a 4 to 1 majority that Article 40.3.3 of the constitution:

allowed for abortion where there was a "real and substantial risk" to her life (and it was stated that this included the risk of suicide, but didn't include non-life threatening health issues). Looking at the constitution dispassionately (nearly impossible to do in relation to this issue), it seems to me that the conclusion they drew was the correct one, I don't think that they can be accused of being inept.

I think its inept on a grand scale. The unborn child has a right to life or it doesn't. If it does, then a woman who threatens suicide is basically making a threat against a person that the constitution says has a right to live. Don't get me wrong, I empathise greatly with certain circumstances, such as the one in the X-Case. I'm not looking to judge anyone for making a decision to abort their child due to such horrendous circumstance. I very much understand why they'd want to do it, and if it was a friend of mine that decided to go to England and get one, I'd be there to support them in empathy, not judging them (I know that may seem hard to believe due to my vociferous opposition to abortion, but my issue is with the system that allows it. We should be looking to support women, as well as defending the lives of our unborn).

Zombrex

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? 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'.

Your issue seems to be more about not trusting the motivations of doctors than this legilsation.

Doctors and social workers assess the suicide risk of patients all the time.

Often it is a very difficult decision (don't accept they are serious and they might kill themselves, do decide they are serious and you might lock someone up on suicide watch for days or weeks, possibly under medication).

But your assessment of this as some "token examination", either because the doctor doesn't want the responsibility of actually assessing if they are suicidal or because the doctor is super pro-choice and just wants to rub stamp an abortion through technicalities, is quite dismissive to doctors and what is expected of them.

These are not light decisions, and I don't think doctors or other medical staff take them lightly.

Benny_Cake

JimiTime wrote: »

I think its inept on a grand scale. The unborn child has a right to life or it doesn't. If it does, then a woman who threatens suicide is basically making a threat against a person that the constitution says has a right to live. Don't get me wrong, I empathise greatly with certain circumstances, such as the one in the X-Case. I'm not looking to judge anyone for making a decision to abort their child due to such horrendous circumstance. I very much understand why they'd want to do it, and if it was a friend of mine that decided to go to England and get one, I'd be there to support them in empathy, not judging them (I know that may seem hard to believe due to my vociferous opposition to abortion, but my issue is with the system that allows it. We should be looking to support women, as well as defending the lives of our unborn).

The number of cases where a woman is suffering from an illness where a termination is required to save her life is incredibly small I would imagine (I'm not including cases where a woman requires a standard treatment or procedure which may or will, as a side effect, result in the death of the unborn child). Now, the Supreme Court including suicide as a reason was controversial in many quarters, and did lead to a referendum where the government proposed to remove suicide as a risk which would allow a woman to seek an abortion. This was rejected by the electorate. I don't think we have any way of knowing whether this would be abused or not, or to what extent - given that a woman would still be able to travel to Britain and get an abortion on demand, it seems unikely that it would be abused in an Irish context. In any case, ruling out suicide as a risk to a woman's life would seem to tie the hands of medical professionals. Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to abortion and I don't think there is any perfect answer to this - it could be abused if allowed, it could lead to suicides if not allowed.

Your closing sentences hit the nail on the head for me - far more should be done to support women in order that over time, they may no longer feel the need to seek an abortion. Whatever side of the debate someone is on, surely we can all agree that abortion is not a desireable outcome. It annoys me when I hear judgemental, spiteful remarks against single mothers who are often being very brave in difficult circumstances.

28064212

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?

philologos

Liamario wrote: »

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

There's not really much middle ground in this issue. You either tolerate it or you don't essentially.

I can see Ireland legalising abortion within a decade. People simply have rejected sexual ethics, and as a result the fall out from that will result in this happening whether people like it or not.

If people lived by what the Gospel teaches concerning sexual ethics, then there would be no abortion, no marital unfaithfulness, and no unplanned pregnancies. The very fact that these things exist are a result of a fallen world, and are truly lamentable.

There will be no end to abortion until the end of time, unfortunately. It's a human injustice and it's a fundamental denial of human rights. The most critical of all.