Abortion Discussion

Brown Bomber

swampgas wrote: »

As do most people, to a lesser or greater extent. How far to you want to allow other people to resolve that dilemma for themselves (i.e. choose for themselves if an abortion is right) or do you think the current blanket ban is reasonable ?

I can respect anyone's position on abortion provided they acknowledge this dilemma. It's the zero-sum extremists on both sides which have made it into such an ugly debate.

As for your second point I don't believe I have the right to interfere in anyone else's personal decisions though I would want my government to restrict the excesses such as abortions based on the sex of the child or people using public funds to use abortion as contraception.

Ralphdejones

Nodin wrote: »

Again, simplistic nonsense. She was in care, being (a) a minor and (b) an asylum seeker. They contacted a Nurse in the HSE. It now emerges that another organisation contacted the HSE and the Department of Justice.

"It is believed she was around 16 weeks pregnant when she was referred to Spirasi.

So from 8 to 16 weeks, the IFPA and a HSE nurse played pass the parcel with a serious medical issue, and she didn't get to see a doctor until her friend got her to one at 16 weeks.

volchitsa

Ralphdejones wrote: »

So from 8 to 16 weeks, the IFPA and a HSE nurse played pass the parcel with a serious medical issue, and she didn't get to see a doctor until her friend got her to one at 16 weeks.

I asked you earlier, but your reply still seems vague : what exactly should the IFPA have done, more than what they did, ie contacted the HSE repeatedly by letter and telephone, with their concerns about her state of mind? Why would they contact a GP when the procedure requires that a doctor request the intervention of the HSE, and their doctor had done exactly that?

irishpancake

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think a termination of pregnancy on the grounds of risk to life from suicide at between8-16 weeks is acceptable?

Does Irish law currently, and since 1992, allow for such an abortion, subject to the right to life of the fetus being vindicated, where practicable?

Or not?

Whether or not an individual or group of individuals feel otherwise?

Is fetal viability a factor or feasible at 8-16 weeks?

Is it practicable, in attempting to vindicate the right to life of the unborn.

These tests are all in Irish Law.

One is not obliged to seek an abortion, in circumstances which are not life-threatening, but if there is a threat to the life of the mother, which is due to suicide ideation, and is confirmed by the Panel of Practitioners, including Psychiatric Practitioners and an Obstetrician, it would be legally indicated.

lazygal

irishpancake wrote: »

Does Irish law currently, and since 1992, allow for such an abortion, subject to the right to life of the fetus being vindicated, where practicable?

Or not?

Whether or not an individual or group of individuals feel otherwise?

Is fetal viability a factor or feasible at 8-16 weeks?

Is it practicable, in attempting to vindicate the right to life of the unborn.

These tests are all in Irish Law.

One is not obliged to seek an abortion, in circumstances which are not life-threatening, but if there is a threat to the life of the mother, which is due to suicide ideation, and is confirmed by the Panel of Practitioners, including Psychiatric Practitioners and an Obstetrician, it would be legally indicated.

I'm seeking clarification on what prolife people think should happen when a pregnant women presents with a risk of suicide. If she's just a month pregnant is a termination ok? If she's three months gone should she be hospitalized until viability? Prolife views often referred to supports, counselling and treating"both" patients. But their answer is always to remain pregnant. I'm guessing some on the prolife side would have preferred the woman in this case to remain pregnant until full term. The bishop of Elfin said as much. So do people think women at risk of suicide should be forced to remain pregnant until full term? How would that be possible? Would the right to travel for such women be restricted? And if it's restricted for them, why are other women allowed to travel to kill the unborn?

Ralphdejones

volchitsa wrote: »

I asked you earlier, but your reply still seems vague : what exactly should the IFPA have done, more than what they did, ie contacted the HSE repeatedly by letter and telephone, with their concerns about her state of mind? Why would they contact a GP when the procedure requires that a doctor request the intervention of the HSE, and their doctor had done exactly that?

She didn't get to see any doctor until her friend got her to one at 16 weeks.
First and foremost get her checked out by a doctor, like her friend had to do 8 weeks later.
She presented to them in a serious medical condition seeking medical help. If they are able to arrange an abortion in the UK, they are more than capable of also getting her medically examined.
The IFPA have already admitted they can and do get patients seen by a doctor, but refused to answer why they did not in this case.

Nodin

Ralphdejones wrote: »

So from 8 to 16 weeks, the IFPA and a HSE nurse played pass the parcel with a serious medical issue, and she didn't get to see a doctor until her friend got her to one at 16 weeks.

Again. that's not what happened -

"It is believed she was around 16 weeks pregnant when she was referred to Spirasi. The physician who examined her found her to be suicidal and was so concerned for her welfare that she wrote to the HSE medical team at her accommodation centre, warning she was in need of "psychological care".Mr Straton said the physician also wrote to the medical director of the Reception and Integration Agency (RIA), a division of the Department of Justice that processes and accommodates asylum seekers, on learning that the young woman was to be moved to an accommodation centre in another part of the country, apparently at her own request.Mr Straton said the letter "strongly advocated" against the move, because of her distress.

He said
Spirasi received no written response from the HSE or the RIA."I do know that we did follow up by phone," Mr Straton added.Later that month the woman was moved to another location.She lost contact with Spirasi until July 18 when she attended a meeting organised by the support group. She again indicated that she was suicidal and wanted an abortion.Mr Straton said "we strongly advised her to get to a GP" and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital shortly afterwards.

He wrote to the HSE last week notifying it of Spirasi's involvement with the young woman after the story of her traumatic request for an abortion broke. He confirmed his agency has a record of 22 interactions with the young woman, the HSE and the RIA. "
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-30531662.html

lazygal

^This kind of thing highlights the inequality of access to abortion. If you're any way outside the norm accessing abortion services means relying on charities and non governmental organisations. If you know someone in the UK who can get the information for you and you've the money and means to travel you can avail of abortion services in a timely manner. If I needed an abortion for reasons outside my life being at risk I could go tomorrow. Ok I'd have to do some organisation but nothing too onerous. If I'm a single mum with no money and no family around I wouldn't be able to access abortion.

Ralphdejones

Nodin wrote: »

Again. that's not what happened -

"It is believed she was around 16 weeks pregnant when she was referred to Spirasi. The physician who examined her found her to be suicidal and was so concerned for her welfare that she wrote to the HSE medical team at her accommodation centre, warning she was in need of "psychological care".Mr Straton said the physician also wrote to the medical director of the Reception and Integration Agency (RIA), a division of the Department of Justice that processes and accommodates asylum seekers, on learning that the young woman was to be moved to an accommodation centre in another part of the country, apparently at her own request.Mr Straton said the letter "strongly advocated" against the move, because of her distress.

He said
Spirasi received no written response from the HSE or the RIA."I do know that we did follow up by phone," Mr Straton added.Later that month the woman was moved to another location.She lost contact with Spirasi until July 18 when she attended a meeting organised by the support group. She again indicated that she was suicidal and wanted an abortion.Mr Straton said "we strongly advised her to get to a GP" and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital shortly afterwards.

He wrote to the HSE last week notifying it of Spirasi's involvement with the young woman after the story of her traumatic request for an abortion broke. He confirmed his agency has a record of 22 interactions with the young woman, the HSE and the RIA. "

You keep skipping to 16 weeks on when she got to see a doctor, but she first sought medical help at 8 weeks, what happened from 8 to 16 weeks and why would someone with such serious medical issues not get to see one ?

volchitsa

Ralphdejones wrote: »

You keep skipping to 16 weeks on when she got to see a doctor, but she first sought medical help at 8 weeks, what happened from 8 to 16 weeks and why would someone with such serious medical issues not get to see one ?

16 weeks is not 24 weeks, right?

There may - or there may not - be a question over the IFPA's actions, but that does not explain why the woman found herself at over 24 weeks before she saw a psychiatrist under the terms of the protection of life during pregnancy act. Does it?

Richard Bingham

swampgas wrote: »

This boils down to telling a woman that the only available solution to an unwanted pregnancy is ... to continue the pregnancy.

You can dress it up any way you like, but all you are doing is offering padded handcuffs instead of leg-irons.

How hard would it be just to offer her an abortion, like in most other civilized countries?

Tell you what, why not go out and run your proposal past some actual women, and see what their take on it is?

I think it is more civilised to have regard for all human life than to be so selfish as to place no importance on the life of the baby. I appreciate you stating your position so honestly as there are loads of people with your view who claim they have regard for both but in reality they just want the convenience of being able to destroy a human being because it's existence doesn't suit them.

Ralphdejones

volchitsa wrote: »

16 weeks is not 24 weeks, right?

There may - or there may not - be a question over the IFPA's actions, but that does not explain why the woman found herself at over 24 weeks before she saw a psychiatrist under the terms of the protection of life during pregnancy act. Does it?

Nope, another unacceptable delay, but no worse than the IFPA's.

Does anyone know how many women have had abortions under the new law to date, the HSE are supposed to publish the figures every June 30th, I can find no sign of it.

volchitsa

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Nope, another unacceptable delay, but no worse than the IFPA's.

What is your beef with the IFPA? (As though we didn't know!)

The IFPA are a charity, set up against the wishes of many in the government, who try to take responsibility for the Irish government's failures.

Are they mandated by the government with getting an abortion for women who request it on grounds of suicide? Are they officially part of the official pathway detailed in the Protection of Life during pregnancy Act? (They may be I don't know)

Richard Bingham

lazygal wrote: »

Richard do you think the right to travel to kill an unborn child should be repealed?

Lazygal I have had this conversation before here. My response was

I don't think about it any more than people who travel to The Netherlands to smoke weed or to Croatia to shoot guns. Each country is entitled to set its own laws and I don't believe that a particular country can limit travel if the authorities suspect it will result in an act which is unlawful in the home country. It wouldn't be workable anyway as you would have to be able to read minds.

Someone referred to paedophiles being prevented from travelling to abuse kids. I pointed out that they were convicted criminals etc. Someone said what about the UK preventing football holigans from travelling. I pointed out that football hooligans if convicted can be issued with a football banning order (fbo) - this is how they are prevented from traveling. Someone referred to Belgium having universal jurisdiction for certain crimes. I said that I thought that about 0.0001% of convictions were got this way.

Generally you have to abide by the law of the land (your standing on). I agree with that - it's workable. Clearly, if every country tried universal jurisdiction, the entire planets legal system would come to a halt within weeks with so many cases being brought by so many countries in so many other countries.

I'm not campaigning to restrict the right to travel. I don't believe that it will ever be achievable as practically speaking you would have to stop all pregnant women going on holidays to achieve what you are talking about. Governments don't generally pass laws which can't be policed so unless this turns into a police state (or should I say into more of a police state), you might as well be asking me if I want to lasso the moon.

I anticipate that you will now either a) accuse me of being happy to export the problem or b) ask me if I would stop them if I could. I'm not happy to export it, I don't want any direct abortion. Regarding b) I don't want any direct abortion but, in my opinion, the question is a hypothetical with no real answer as its not possible to do it.

Richard Bingham

lazygal wrote: »

Richard do you think the right to travel to kill an unborn child should be repealed?

Lazygal I have had this conversation before here. My response was

I don't think about it any more than people who travel to The Netherlands to smoke weed or to Croatia to shoot guns. Each country is entitled to set its own laws and I don't believe that a particular country can limit travel if the authorities suspect it will result in an act which is unlawful in the home country. It wouldn't be workable anyway as you would have to be able to read minds.

Someone referred to paedophiles being prevented from travelling to abuse kids. I pointed out that they were convicted criminals etc. Someone said what about the UK preventing football holigans from travelling. I pointed out that football hooligans if convicted can be issued with a football banning order (fbo) - this is how they are prevented from traveling. Someone referred to Belgium having universal jurisdiction for certain crimes. I said that I thought that about 0.0001% of convictions were got this way.

Generally you have to abide by the law of the land (your standing on). I agree with that - it's workable. Clearly, if every country tried universal jurisdiction, the entire planets legal system would come to a halt within weeks with so many cases being brought by so many countries in so many other countries.

I'm not campaigning to restrict the right to travel. I don't believe that it will ever be achievable as practically speaking you would have to stop all pregnant women going on holidays to achieve what you are talking about. Governments don't generally pass laws which can't be policed so unless this turns into a police state (or should I say into more of a police state), you might as well be asking me if I want to lasso the moon.

I anticipate that you will now either a) accuse me of being happy to export the problem or b) ask me if I would stop them if I could. I'm not happy to export it, I don't want any direct abortion. Regarding b) I don't want any direct abortion but, in my opinion, the question is a hypothetical with no real answer as its not possible to do it.

Richard Bingham

lazygal wrote: »

^This kind of thing highlights the inequality of access to abortion. If you're any way outside the norm accessing abortion services means relying on charities and non governmental organisations. If you know someone in the UK who can get the information for you and you've the money and means to travel you can avail of abortion services in a timely manner. If I needed an abortion for reasons outside my life being at risk I could go tomorrow. Ok I'd have to do some organisation but nothing too onerous. If I'm a single mum with no money and no family around I wouldn't be able to access abortion.

There is inequality everywhere we look. What makes you think abortion should be any different. Rich people get major heart surgery 12 hours after they feel the wiggle in their chest while the rest of us get it when there is a bed or we die before there is a bed. Rich people get great educations if they want to, holidays in Cannes, yachts etc.

You might as well argue that cannabis should be legalised as only the rich can afford to travel to The Netherlands regularly to partake.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Yeah, there's a name for what you're doing there. Cognitive dissonance. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

If I experience any stress or discomfort I'll be sure to let you know

irishpancake

lazygal wrote: »

I'm seeking clarification on what prolife people think should happen when a pregnant women presents with a risk of suicide. If she's just a month pregnant is a termination ok? If she's three months gone should she be hospitalized until viability? Prolife views often referred to supports, counselling and treating"both" patients. But their answer is always to remain pregnant. I'm guessing some on the prolife side would have preferred the woman in this case to remain pregnant until full term. The bishop of Elfin said as much. So do people think women at risk of suicide should be forced to remain pregnant until full term? How would that be possible? Would the right to travel for such women be restricted? And if it's restricted for them, why are other women allowed to travel to kill the unborn?

thanks lg....I didn't mean to interrupt.

It really does not matter what so-called "Pro-life", actually Anti-choice people, think, or say, in regard to abortion rights under each of the circumstances you instance.

The facts are that termination procedures, when such situations exists, are already legal under Irish Law, and can proceed, subject to the appropriate certification.

A woman/girl/child who is pregnant, and suicidal as a result, and at 12/13 weeks, is considered to be in danger of death, due to her suicide ideation, and has been certified by the examining Panel, thus:

Risk of loss of life from suicide

Three physicians must concur; an obstetrician, a psychiatrist with experience treating women during or after pregnancy, and another psychiatrist. At least one of them should consult the woman's GP with her consent. The termination would be an elective procedure performed at an appropriate institution.

so she meets the test, above, under the new legislation, giving effect to and regulating the ISC "X" case ruling.

Under no circumstances could such a suicidal person be detained, restrained or imprisoned until fetal viability, presumed to be 24 weeks at the earliest.

You mention hospitalized....

it would actually be the illegal detention and forcible restraint, or sedation, possibly/probably including forcible feeding and hydration of such a person, until forced birth can be achieved, without consent....which is legally necessary and must be forthcoming for any medical procedure...

It would place this Country in a situation of being a denier of civil and human rights of citizens and other residents, and would put us beyond the pale Internationally, probably leading to indictment before the various International and European Courts for cruel and unusual punishment.

Ireland would be a Rogue State, rightly so, and would probably be expelled from the European Union, which has certain minimum standards member States must uphold.

Denying the right to travel is contrary to the Constitutional right to travel for procedures legal in the State you are going to, as enumerated in 1992 Amendment to that effect.

Saying "why are other women allowed to travel to kill the unborn?" is revealing.

The Bishop of Elphin is entitled to his opinion.....

and he is a "He", and will never have to deal with a personal crisis/unwanted or dangerous pregnancy, ever, never in his life.

He is entitled as long as he does not attempt, ever again, to force his fundamentalist opinions down the throats of the population of this Republic.

hinault

volchitsa wrote: »

What is your beef with the IFPA? (As though we didn't know!)

The IFPA are a charity, set up against the wishes of many in the government, who try to take responsibility for the Irish government's failures.

Are they mandated by the government with getting an abortion for women who request it on grounds of suicide? Are they officially part of the official pathway detailed in the Protection of Life during pregnancy Act? (They may be I don't know)

One of your ilk here the other day confirmed that the IFPA get funding from the government.

hinault

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

because basically they blow all your arguments out of the water.

The first article is on the phenomenon of anti-abortion campaign women getting abortions. And the question you have to ask yourself is "are my points worth anything when even those who agree with me take the action I am trying to prevent when faced with a crisis pregnancy?" And clearly the answer is no. So if you are truthful and honest you have to admit your arguments in this debate are worthless.

The second article speaks about the dangers of criminalising abortion (which many countries have done). And the question here is, "Am I willing to live with the blood of 48,000 women dying every year because of my support for the criminalisation of abortions?" And if you were truly compassionate and empathetic to your fellow humans you would say "no, I am not."

The fact of the matter is that if you think having an abortion is wrong, then never have one. Nobody is forcing you to have an abortion, nor is there anybody out there in their right mind likely ever to do so; so why should you be put into a position where you can force other people not to have abortions when they feel that it is in their best interests (and maybe their children's too)? Morally and ethically you shouldn't.

Your link with the stories carries the following caveat.

The stories are presented in the providers' own words, with minor editing for grammar, clarity, and brevity. Names have been omitted to protect privacy.

Stories written by Choice Joyce.:rolleyes:

alaimacerc

alaimacerc wrote: »

Pro-abortion lies! Lies, I tell you!

Well, I called that one, didn't I. Just call me Mystic MacErc. If only the Lotto numbers were quite so easy.

Absolam

irishpancake wrote: »

He knows this, this Absolam person, he is at his game of obfuscation and sowing confusion again, by using Orwellian newspeak to attempt to prove black is white, while knowing full well that black is black. If not this, he is a very stupid person to think he can pull the wool over the eyes of people who were involved in 1983 and 1992. But, some will take what this person says as truth, unfortunately.

I don't think you're addressing any actual points I've made here? As character assassination goes however, it's certainly an effort, but I'm sure you could do better.

irishpancake wrote: »

What is this gobbledygook you are spouting. Can't you write in English.

If there's a particular word or phrase you're having difficulty with, let me know and I'll try to clear it up for you?

irishpancake wrote: »

You are saying, I think, that the proposed Twelfth Amendmenth you link, was a liberalising proposal, in respect of existing abortion rights conferred by 40.3.3, as interpreted by the ISC, where there was a right enshrined in the Constitution to abortion where there is a threat to the life of a pregnant woman/girl including a threat due to suicide ideation??

Ah I think I can see where you got confused there.
I was saying that the ban on abortion emplaced by 40.3.3 would have been liberalised by Amendment 12 to a greater degree than the unemumerated right to abortion posited by the ISC did (with the exception of the suicide clause) by actually enshrining it in the Constitution as part of the text of 40.3.3, unlike the unenumerated right conferred by the ISC which does not appear in the Constitution. However, if you'd like to point out the section of the Constitution in which you believe is enshrined the right to abortion where there is a threat to the life of a pregnant woman/girl including a threat due to suicide ideation, I'd be fascinated.

irishpancake wrote: »

You do know that the proposed, defeated, Amendment, was about removing that existing right due to a suicide threat to life??

Well, it certainly would have removed the unenumerated right. But since it would have also conferred an express right, it really was about more than just one thing, eh?

irishpancake wrote: »

Or do you?? Or are you just a liar by nature??

Tut tut. Character attacks again?

irishpancake wrote: »

My dear confused and clearly attempting to confuse and obfuscate Absolam.......

There's those words again. Well, if there's anything I've said that confuses you, or that seems obscure, I'd be happy to try and clarify for you.

irishpancake wrote: »

your apparent lack of understanding and/or deliberate obfuscation of the term "unenumeated", as it applies the the Irish Constitution generally, and particularly in relation to Article 40.3.3, inserted at the behest of PLAC in 1983, and interpreted by the ISC in 1992, is breathtaking.

Hmm, perhaps you can illuminate my understanding of the term "unenumerated" as it applies to constitutional rights specifically? To save you some time, I'm happy that my understanding is compliant with the ISCs own construction (though I disagree with Kennys assertion that they derive from the Christian nature of the State) , so maybe go from there?

irishpancake wrote: »

I will explain.....Background to 40.3.3:
Abortion is a criminal offence in Ireland under s.58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 –> “To procure an unlawful miscarriage…”

Which made abortion illegal under law, but did not provide a right to life in the Constitution which was beyond amendment by law.

irishpancake wrote: »

However, after the legal prohibition of the importation and sale of contraceptives was found to be unconstitutional <...>
resulted in the insertion of a new provision recognizing the right to life of the unborn in Article 40.3.3. Enumerating certain rights of the unborn and the mother, guaranteeing to defend and vindicate, as far as is practicable, in it's laws, those rights so enumerated. <...>

Which clearly shows a distinction between an enumerated right as enshrined in the Constitution (by virtue of having been voted for by the people of Ireland), and an unenumerated right as determined by the Supreme Court.

irishpancake wrote: »

I hope I don't need to recite again all the facts of X??

I hope you don't too.

irishpancake wrote: »

Just this.....a short recitation of the relevant facts:

But you did anyway.

irishpancake wrote: »

The Supreme Court overturned the HCt decision <...> This allowed for the abortion to take place in Ireland.

So the SC established an unenumerated right. Pretty sure we're all still on the same page here.
Can you just recap on which bits are confused or obfuscated?

irishpancake wrote: »

And, of course, your colleague in all things "Pro-Life", or more correctly, Anti-Choice, that old warrior from PLAC, Dr. Gerard Casey, is of the very firm opinion that there is no such thing at all as "unenumerated rights" in Bunreacht na hEireann.

Oh gosh, I just acquired a new colleague? Wonderful. Are you suggesting that because you've nominated him as my colleague I must accept his opinion instead of my own? If so, can I please reciprocally nominate Niamh Uí Bhriain for you?

irishpancake

Absolam wrote: »

It is, I actually word searched it just to be certain it didn't contain the word remove before I replied
That depends on the constitution. But in the case of the Irish one, I'd refer you to the above post re express and unenumerated rights.

My dear Absolam:

You needed to word search to try to find any lack of mention of a word??

So you are unsure as to what the proposed Amendment meant?? I]Which, of course, is obvious to everyone except your good self[/I.

Like your totally confused and untrue nonsensical opinion regarding "unenumerated rights" in the Irish Constitution.

You don't even know that Article 40.3.3, the PLAC Amendment, was inserted into the Constitution, to address an apparent fear by PLAC, that these "unenumerated rights" could pave the way for an extension of those alleged rights to allow for Abortion, by invalidating the criminalisation of abortion in the ordinary Law??

As I said already:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91882996&postcount=5657

Abortion is a criminal offence in Ireland under S.58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 –> “To procure an unlawful miscarriage…”

However, after the legal prohibition of the importation and sale of contraceptives was found to be unconstitutional as a breach of an unenumerated right in McGee v Attorney General [1974] 1 IR 284....

fears arose that the doctrine of unenumerated rights might be stretched so as to invalidate the criminalization of abortion.

Indeed, this is what had already happened under similar provisions in the US Constitution; the right to privacy had been applied to the issue of contraception in Griswold v Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965) and this was found to legalize abortion in certain circumstances in Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Consequently in Ireland, a successful campaign (PLAC) resulted in the insertion of a new provision recognizing the right to life of the unborn in Article 40.3.3.

Thus enumerating certain rights of the unborn and the mother, guaranteeing to defend and vindicate, as far as is practicable, in it's laws, those rights so enumerated.

So, what was your genius point again, relating to these "unenumerated rights"??

Just run it by us again, for the craic, so we can all appreciate your gigantic brain in action.

Oh yeah, here it is:

The 12th Amendment would have taken the unenumerated right determined by the Supreme Court and raised it to the level of an express right with Constitutional protection (with the exception of the provision for suicide).

Forgetting altogether, or conveniently, that the Article, 40.3.3, which the ISC interpreted, had placed enumerated rights relating to a mother and an unborn into our Constitution, at the behest of PLAC, to avert the possibility that existing unenumerated rights could be used to introduce Abortion!!!!!

The equal right to life of the mother, and that of the unborn, are both enumerated in 40.3.3.

The ISC did not introduce any new unenumerated right, they simply interpreted the existing right to life of the mother, as they are were entitled to do, in considering an Appeal by X, to vindicate the mother's right to life, which exists as a consequence of it's enumeration in 40.3.3.

Would ya go read a book or something.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Eh, this one, the Twelfth which proposed to Constitutionally emplace the mothers right to abortion in the event of a threat to her life, which to this day remains only a right conferred by judgement rather than a Constitutional one.

Meaning it's "only" a right present in the Supreme Court's reading of the constitution, rather than (necessarily) one present in, say, yours? If that's a distinction you consider deep and significant in this case, it seems curiously at odds with views you've expressed in other threads in this very forum about SC vs BnhE (like what can't possibly count as "endowing religion", for example).

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So what were the 'services lawfully available in another country' referenced in the information referendum? Did people think they were voting on a right to travel to get their teeth done in Budapest?

I think you're mixing the right to travel referendum with the right to information referendum there?
The right to travel referendum was on the clause
"This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state"
Which means that subsection 3 of article 40 cannot be used to (amongst the obvious previous assertions) prevent me from travelling to another state even if I have publicly asserted that I intend to attack and violate the person, good name, and property rights of a substantial number of Irish citizens whilst I am there.

The right to information referendum was on
"This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state."
Which means that I'm entitled to (amongst the obvious previous assertions) obtain and disseminate information on the consumption of narcotics in the Netherlands, or operating a brothel in Nevada, or even the conduct of stem cell research.

So to your point; the services lawfully available in another country referenced in the information referendum were any such services; the Amendment didn't limit them. The fact that these freedoms could have been curtailed by an act of law was a good enough reason (for me anyway) to vote that they should be protected in the Constitution, even if those freedoms would be used to facilitate engaging in an act I might disagree with (like travelling to another state to attack and violate the person, good name, and property rights of a substantial number of Irish citizens).

alaimacerc

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I don't think about it any more than people who travel to The Netherlands to smoke weed or to Croatia to shoot guns.

A curious statement. Does this imply, by extension, that liberalising domestic abortion laws would concern you no more than would liberalising laws on "smoking weed" and "shooting guns"? Because your rhetoric on this topic certainly does not give that immediate impression. I don't see you fulminating against Ming Flanagan and all his works (or whoever the "gun" equivalent of that would be).

Each country is entitled to set its own laws and I don't believe that a particular country can limit travel if the authorities suspect it will result in an act which is unlawful in the home country. It wouldn't be workable anyway as you would have to be able to read minds.

Which is obviously why there are no criminal offences of conspiracy, incitement, or attempting-without-completing other criminal acts. Oh, wait...

Someone referred to Belgium having universal jurisdiction for certain crimes. I said that I thought that about 0.0001% of convictions were got this way.

And 83% of statistics are made up on the spot. What does supposed prevalence have to do with anything? Surely in any case what you want is a strong deterrent effect, rather than actual convictions? Or to be more precise, what you would want if your protestations were accurate.

It was possible here for the Sexual Offences Jurisdiction Act in 1996; why not for abortion, pray tell?

I anticipate that you will now either a) accuse me of being happy to export the problem or b) ask me if I would stop them if I could.

No, this isn't "anticipation", this is "eventually acknowledging that this has already happened many, many times".

I'm not happy to export it, I don't want any direct abortion. Regarding b) I don't want any direct abortion but, in my opinion, the question is a hypothetical with no real answer as its not possible to do it.

Of course it's possible. It's self-evident that it's possible. We repeatedly get feeble objections about supposed difficulty of implementation -- juxtaposed with your insistence that you'd like to perform public acts you've repeatedly declared yourself "morally" opposed to, and which would contravene the law of the land, for the sake of their supposed propaganda value. (To "balance out" reality's liberal bias and the supposed "exploitation" of cases that have actually happened.) It's hard to regard these as serious, or indeed sincerely held, propositions.

The Irish people weren't asked if they felt prohibiting travel were "practicable", as framed in any particular piece of legislation. They were asked if they wanted the right to travel to get abortions. And they did.

That, then, is the only real sense it's "not possible": it's not politically possible to get people to agree to remove that expressly stated right. For some people in the "abortion, but not here" camp, this might be for the "access" and "compartmentalisations" reasons previously discussed. For others, I think it's more to do with the art of the possible: not much point -- and indeed, counterproductive -- to loudly agitate for measures that are certain to fail, when there's other business to take care of that seems somewhat more tractable.

Absolam

irishpancake wrote: »

My dear Absolam: You needed to word search to try to find any lack of mention of a word??

I didn't want to churlishly correct Volchitsas assertion that my link to wikipedia stated that the 12th was a proposition to remove the right to an abortion in the case of suicide, without being certain that the article did not, in fact, include the word 'remove'. Do you think it would have been better if I had made an assumption instead?

irishpancake wrote: »

So you are unsure as to what the proposed Amendment meant??

Like the assumption you've made here?

irishpancake wrote: »

Like your totally confused and untrue nonsensical opinion regarding "unenumerated rights" in the Irish Constitution.

I do recall asking you to illuminate my understanding of the term "unenumerated" as it applies to constitutional rights specifically. Assertions like confused, untrue, and nonsencial aren't especially illuminating though; something a bit factual might be more helpful?

irishpancake wrote: »

You don't even know that Article 40.3.3, the PLAC Amendment,

Really? When was the name changed to the PLAC Amendment? We've all been calling it the 8th Amendment up until now?

irishpancake wrote: »

was inserted into the Constitution, to address an apparent fear by PLAC, that these "unenumerated rights" could pave the way for an extension of those alleged rights to allow for Abortion, by invalidating the criminalisation of abortion in the ordinary Law??

So, a majority of the people voted to place an enumerated right in the Constitution which prevented abortion being potentially legalised by the Supreme Court determining an unenumerated right to abortion?

irishpancake wrote: »

As I said already:<...>Thus enumerating certain rights of the unborn and the mother, guaranteeing to defend and vindicate, as far as is practicable, in it's laws, those rights so enumerated.

So you did, though I'm not sure what cause you served repeating it?

irishpancake wrote: »

So, what was your genius point again, relating to these "unenumerated rights"??

Well, I'll make no claim to genius, but if you need to hear the point again:
The right to life is an enumerated right that is expressed in the Constitution as a result of a majority vote by the people of Ireland.
The right to abortion (such as it is) is an unenumerated right that is not expressed in the Constitition as it was determined by a majority decision of the Supreme Court.
Had the 12th Amendment passed, the right to abortion (such as it was expressed) would have become an enumerated right that is expressed in the Constitution as a result of a majority vote by the people of Ireland.

irishpancake wrote: »

Just run it by us again, for the craic, so we can all appreciate your gigantic brain in action.

I have to say, I really don't think these personal attacks help your argument.

irishpancake wrote: »

Forgetting altogether, or conveniently, that the Article, 40.3.3, which the ISC interpreted, had placed enumerated rights relating to a mother and an unborn into our Constitution, at the behest of PLAC, to avert the possibility that existing unenumerated rights could be used to introduce Abortion!!!!! The equal right to life of the mother, and that of the unborn, are both enumerated in 40.3.3.

Just to clear up any potential confusion or obfuscation for you; the ISC interpretation of the Amendment did not occur until after the right to life was enumerated in the Constitution by a majority vote of the people.

irishpancake wrote: »

The ISC did not introduce any new unenumerated right, they simply interpreted the existing right to life of the mother, as they are were entitled to do, in considering an Appeal by X, to vindicate the mother's right to life, which exists as a consequence of it's enumeration in 40.3.3.

On the contrary, the Supreme Court determined that a woman had a right to an abortion under Article 40.3.3 if there was a real and substantial risk to her life( which you yourself pointed out). As that right is not enumerated in 40.3.3, the right to an abortion, as determined by the Supreme Court, is an unenumerated right.

irishpancake wrote: »

Would ya go read a book or something.

Hmm.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Meaning it's "only" a right present in the Supreme Court's reading of the constitution, rather than (necessarily) one present in, say, yours?

Not at all; the Supreme court is (currently) entitled to declare a right based on it's understanding of natural law in the context of the Constitution as a result of the decision in “Ryan v. Attorney General” where it found that that the ‘personal rights’ mentioned in Article 40.3 are not exhausted by the enumeration of ‘life, person, good name and property rights’ in Article 40.3.2 as is shown by the use of the words ‘in particular’; nor by the more detached treatment of specific rights in the subsequent sections of the Article.
Such rights, not being enumerated in the Constitution are termed unenumerated rights, but having been determined to exist by the Supreme Court are considered to be guaranteed by the Constitution. They have legal force and effect (obviously), as opposed to my reading of the Constitution which has none whatsoever (equally obviously).

alaimacerc wrote: »

If that's a distinction you consider deep and significant in this case, it seems curiously at odds with views you've expressed in other threads in this very forum about SC vs BnhE (like what can't possibly count as "endowing religion", for example).

Now the endowment of religion (per your point) is not a right, which takes us a little off course. The Constitution simply specifies "The State guarantees not to endow any religion". Given the straightforward nature of the guarantee, the Supreme Court could not rule on whether the State guarantees it (which can only be altered by a plebistice), but it could rule on what does and does not constitute endowment (or even on what constitutes a guarantee); and I'm sure people like me might argue the points of it. However, it has only been established that the SC can determine the existence of rights under Article 40, and the prohibition of religious endowment falls under Article 44, so I don't see how any judgement on the point could create new rights. But to answer your point, the Supreme Court's ruling has a legal effect, sufficient even to establish rights in certain circumstances, and my opinion doesn't (unless I convince the SC that it should), though I'm not sure how you think that is at odds with what I think could possibly count as endowing religion?

MrPudding

Richard Bingham wrote: »

The X case and the referendum which followed it are 22 years old and come from a time when people didn't know what the word pedophile meant or that child abuse was going on under their own noses in every parish in the country but you (the pro abortion side) don't mind relying on that.

I find this odd. If several diocese in Ireland took out insurance to cover themselves for claims as a result of child sexual abuse around 27 years ago, how could it be that 5 years later they didn't know what child sexual a use was?

MrP

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

I think you're mixing the right to travel referendum with the right to information referendum there?
The right to travel referendum was on the clause
"This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state"
Which means that subsection 3 of article 40 cannot be used to (amongst the obvious previous assertions) prevent me from travelling to another state even if I have publicly asserted that I intend to attack and violate the person, good name, and property rights of a substantial number of Irish citizens whilst I am there.

The right to information referendum was on
"This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state."
Which means that I'm entitled to (amongst the obvious previous assertions) obtain and disseminate information on the consumption of narcotics in the Netherlands, or operating a brothel in Nevada, or even the conduct of stem cell research.

So to your point; the services lawfully available in another country referenced in the information referendum were any such services; the Amendment didn't limit them. The fact that these freedoms could have been curtailed by an act of law was a good enough reason (for me anyway) to vote that they should be protected in the Constitution, even if those freedoms would be used to facilitate engaging in an act I might disagree with (like travelling to another state to attack and violate the person, good name, and property rights of a substantial number of Irish citizens).

It's a shame condescension wasn't an Olympic sport, you'd be a shoe-in for a gold medal.

I'm just pointing out that given the context in which the referendums were held, it would be ludicrously disingenuous to pretend their purpose was not to legally guarantee the right to travel to another country for abortion and to access information on abortion services in other countries.