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
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
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.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.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.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-years0 -
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.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
-
That would be an incorrect supposition on your part.So you don't think we should allow abortion in the case of ffa either?
"Point" may be begging the question; let's compromise on "intent", perhaps? I think it was very much the latter, which is to say "not statute". Of course, these days it somewhat serves both "purposes", because it relieves the legislature of troubling their little heads (and more to the point, their reelection prospects) of wondering whether to pass laws in line with what the public would apparently support, due to said "impediment".Wasn't the point of voting to place the right to life of the unborn in the Constitution to prevent it being altered by statute? Or at least statute resulting from the opinion of the Supreme Court.
What, "broad principles" do? My point is precisely that these measures already go well beyond "broad principles". And adding in further "middle ground" exceptions would still more so.Well, it can be said that they tend to lead to Supreme Court judgements, Constitutional Amendments, and increasing amounts of statute. Before we even get to prosecuting all the women abroad who have abortions.0 -
No, I'm merely shading in the ridiculousness in what you're saying more and more heavily until you eventually notice it yourself. Well done, I think you might be getting there, at last.Tim Robbins wrote: »You're being ridiculous.
Two offences would be one of the bumpier ideas I've come across of a "sliding scale". And neither of these is "OK", per your original phrase, they're both "contrary to the criminal law".There are sliding scales in other parts of law for example manslaughter / murder.0 -
Because "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" was most assuredly a rebuttal of a post I made? It doesn't seem so.alaimacerc wrote: »Baseless imputation of vaguely-construed bad faith, much?
In fairness, if you think it was a misuse you really ought to take it up with the Oxford English Dictionary rather than me, since the usage was entirely compliant with their definition, if not your understanding.alaimacerc wrote: »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,
Which seems to be verbiage without cause, unless there was a particular post where I claimed 'reasonable doubt' that you're taking issue with?alaimacerc wrote: »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.)
Oh gosh. Am I to be damned by association? Are you excluding the compilers of dictionaries from your concept of 'any reasonable person'? What about the users of the English language (of whom there are a few) who have never shown an interest in statistical analysis, surely it's a little cruel to say they're not reasonable people (or worse, the equivalent of management consultants!)? It would seem to me (and for the further avoidance of doubt, that means it is my opinion) that the use of an English word ought first to be considered in its linguistic intent, before any specialist interpretation might be allowed, particularly when the specialist interpretation belongs to a field not actually under discussion. But perhaps you're right; it may even be the case that the thread is actually the discussion ground of covert statisticians and I simply didn't notice.alaimacerc wrote: »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.
I think you may be inserting a little extra there. For instance, I didn't say I was using the word 'in an entirely woolly and metaphorical manner that's not subject to any logical analysis'; that appears to be your personal translation of using the word in it's 'plain English' sense, which is the term I actually did use. If you find plain English to be wooly, metaphorical, and not subject to any logical analysis, well, maybe a discussion forum isn't the best place to be?alaimacerc wrote: »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.
So, replacing the words with their dictionary definitions (rather than their statistical ones), the statement "Pointing out that there is a relationship between the AG taking out an an injunction to prevent X having an abortion, and the fact that X did not have an abortion, does not imply that the AG taking out an injunction caused X not to have an abortion", whilst using the words in an unashamedly linguistic fashion, does seem to advance (which is to say, put forward) the point that Zubeneschamali hasn't demonstrated that the thing which prevented the abortion was the injunction.0 -
In that case I'll give Zubeneschamali back his label gun the next time I see him.alaimacerc wrote: »That would be an incorrect supposition on your part.
And yet doesn't impede them putting the question to public should they feel it would be politically beneficial to them, so they are well served; they can't legislate for something people might not want, but if they think people really want it, they can let them choose to have it.alaimacerc wrote: »"Point" may be begging the question; let's compromise on "intent", perhaps? I think it was very much the latter, which is to say "not statute". Of course, these days it somewhat serves both "purposes", because it relieves the legislature of troubling their little heads (and more to the point, their reelection prospects) of wondering whether to pass laws in line with what the public would apparently support, due to said "impediment".
So having enacted the broad principle of the right to life of the unborn, we ended up with the measures we have. That would appear to be what can be said for keeping to broad principles when making ringing declarations in the Constitution; it will lead to measures defining the specificity of the principles.alaimacerc wrote: »What, "broad principles" do? My point is precisely that these measures already go well beyond "broad principles". And adding in further "middle ground" exceptions would still more so.0 -
I obligingly clicked this link a couple of days ago, typed a long point-by-point, and was about to post it when... laptop powerout. No autosave. Durr. Mostly a win for most of the participants, I imagine.If you trying to remind me that I pointed out what it would take for Ireland to extend universal jurisdiction, don't worry, my memory is not that short.
But the gist of it is: introducing a new law or tweaking the scope of an old one (with regard to the threshold for inchoate offences, say, if one isn't criminalising enough people in the first instance...) requires primary legislation. Shock. TDs have to be rolled out of the Dail bar, or got up from attending weddings and funerals down country. Why is that either surprising, or something being lengthily trailed as if it were some sort of fatal objection?
Eh? Where'd you get "every single woman" from? You're in essence saying that if you can't enforce something infallibly, throw up your hands (another change of pace from wringing or indeed rubbing them, you'll note) and say "impractical! better do nothing whatsoever!"?Once you've done [null step of 'allowing' limited universal jurisdiction, which already exists], you need to figure out how you're going to obtain evidence of what every single woman of child bearing age has done whilst she was outside the jurisdiction.
Well, certainly some people have been making one heck of a song and dance about the supposed "difficulties"... That's not even extraterritoriality, that's a domestic inchoate offence (well, presupposing small matters like its constitutionality, existence, and precise scope as against the facts of the planning/preparation in any given case).No one is saying it would be impossible to to claim similar extraterritorial jurisdiction over abortions planned within Ireland but carried out abroad on Irish residents (Although limiting it to Irish residents seems fairly half hearted. What's the logic there?).
No, what's missing is the will. This is the one thing we can be very, very sure is indeed "missing". But nothing so modest as the mere lack of will for such legislation: there's an active will that such legislation must not exist, which has been given force of constitutional law. So little will for this, one might say, as it's quite literally negative.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.
One imagines not, to put it very mildly indeed. OTOH, the existence of such a law would be a basis for a formal diplomatic request that the UK (mm) desist from carrying out such procedures in such cases, certainly with regard to Ireland's own citizens. This would be by no means have any force on them, of course, but it's not like we don't have embassies firing off letters to the BBC telling them not to use the phrase "Republic of Ireland" in a sentence, and so forth. Now, if we gloss over small details like the fact that this isn't going to happen due to the aforementioned palpable anti-will, that the EU would hit the roof, the UK (mm) would have an epic snit, and Ireland's name would be "mud" around the world (and something altogether less printable in any women's organisation), they might actually comply with such a request, at least in a pro forma basis. There seems to be some doubt periodically cast over the long-term availability of this provision as it stands, after all.Yet somehow I can't see Britain (or whoever) giving us information about activities that are not criminal in their jurisdiction, especially when it could be their citizens we're planning to prosecute.0 -
It's not surprising; simply an observation that as you say, it potentially requires the assembly of the Dail amongst other possible measures. Which is to say, it's not something that can easily be legislated for as Volchista said, but something that would require some degree of effort.alaimacerc wrote: »introducing a new law or tweaking the scope of an old one requires primary legislation. Shock. TDs have to be rolled out of the Dail bar, or got up from attending weddings and funerals down country. Why is that either surprising, or something being lengthily trailed as if it were some sort of fatal objection?
From the idea that the law ought to be applied equitably? It would seem a little unfair to only apply legislation to prevent women from having abortions abroad to only those who, for instance, suffer ffa, or those decide they should inform the AG that they're intending to break the law.alaimacerc wrote: »Eh? Where'd you get "every single woman" from?
Oh no not at all, neither in essence nor in fact. I've no doubt that if we had full international cooperation, with the endorsement and support of the EU and the UN in a campaign to wipe out the scourge of international abortion, we still wouldn't manage to enforce the law infallibly. Which, all novelty hand gestures aside, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to enforce it equitably, don't you think?alaimacerc wrote: »You're in essence saying that if you can't enforce something infallibly, throw up your hands (another change of pace from wringing or indeed rubbing them, you'll note) and say "impractical! better do nothing whatsoever!"?
Well, that doesn't seem to amount to saying it's impossible.alaimacerc wrote: »Well, certainly some people have been making one heck of a song and dance about the supposed "difficulties"... That's not even extraterritoriality, that's a domestic inchoate offence (well, presupposing small matters like its constitutionality, existence, and precise scope as against the facts of the planning/preparation in any given case).
Mmm, in fairness, there's not a great deal of will to do it, it must be said. Which is not to say none, never mind a literal negative. But still, it's not the will to do it that may or may not make it practicable (and you might have noted my reply was to Volchistas assertion that all that was missing was the will); it's the entire panoply of cooperation and agreement that is also missing.alaimacerc wrote: »No, what's missing is the will. This is the one thing we can be very, very sure is indeed "missing". But nothing so modest as the mere lack of will for such legislation: there's an active will that such legislation must not exist, which has been given force of constitutional law. So little will for this, one might say, as it's quite literally negative.
Which would appear to be a long winded way of saying it doesn't seem to be terribly practicable?alaimacerc wrote: »One imagines not, to put it very mildly indeed. OTOH, the existence of such a law would be a basis for a formal diplomatic request that the UK (mm) desist from carrying out such procedures in such cases, certainly with regard to Ireland's own citizens. This would be by no means have any force on them, of course, but it's not like we don't have embassies firing off letters to the BBC telling them not to use the phrase "Republic of Ireland" in a sentence, and so forth. Now, if we gloss over small details like the fact that this isn't going to happen due to the aforementioned palpable anti-will, that the EU would hit the roof, the UK (mm) would have an epic snit, and Ireland's name would be "mud" around the world (and something altogether less printable in any women's organisation), they might actually comply with such a request, at least in a pro forma basis. There seems to be some doubt periodically cast over the long-term availability of this provision as it stands, after all.0 -
From the idea that the law ought to be applied equitably? It would seem a little unfair to only apply legislation to prevent women from having abortions abroad to only those who, for instance, suffer ffa, or those decide they should inform the AG that they're intending to break the law.
Why the assumption of guilt for all women? Innocent until proven guilty also includes not arresting or questioning people without reasonable grounds for suspicion.
Merely being of the female persuasion is hardly going to fall into that category, one would hope.
The point about someone who goes abroad for a termination for FFA is that there obviously are reasonable grounds for suspicion when she comes to her next appointment no longer pregnant. A competent police interrogation of a vulnerable and upset woman would get a confession in the vast majority of cases, and a court order to provide bank details would show any payments to the Marie Stopes Clinic or whoever. And the deterrent effect for other couples of the 14 year sentence would be enormous.
Job done - if anyone really thought there was anything wrong with what the couple had done. Or there would be an outcry against the law, if in fact most people think it is a reasonable response to an unbearable situation.0 -
Who proposed an assumption of guilt? I said you'd have to obtain evidence of what every single woman of child bearing age has done whilst she was outside the jurisdiction. Without that evidence, how would you know which of them was likely to have had an abortion?Why the assumption of guilt for all women? Innocent until proven guilty also includes not arresting or questioning people without reasonable grounds for suspicion.
The category of people who might have had an abortion? This might be gender stereotyping, but the probability would seem to be higher amongst women than men..... that said, let's not be sexist. By all means extend the provision to men as well.Merely being of the female persuasion is hardly going to fall into that category, one would hope.
Indeed; it seems that deliberately targetting women with ffa who go abroad for abortions rather than simply providing them with abortions within the jurisdiction would yield the results you want. Of course, deliberately targetting women with ffa doesn't seem to be quite reaching the ambition of the purpose of the legislation you were proposing?The point about someone who goes abroad for a termination for FFA is that there obviously are reasonable grounds for suspicion when she comes to her next appointment no longer pregnant. A competent police interrogation of a vulnerable and upset woman would get a confession in the vast majority of cases, and a court order to provide bank details would show any payments to the Marie Stopes Clinic or whoever. And the deterrent effect for other couples of the 14 year sentence would be enormous.
So what you're saying is, we should feel obligated to enact a piece of legislation we either don't want or don't think will work, then use it to specifically target a portion of the people it supposedly is intended to prosecute, which will cause outrage, resulting in... the abandonment of the legislation? Why not just not do it at all, if the end result is the same bar a few women with ffa being prosecuted?Job done - if anyone really thought there was anything wrong with what the couple had done. Or there would be an outcry against the law, if in fact most people think it is a reasonable response to an unbearable situation.0 -
Who proposed an assumption of guilt? I said you'd have to obtain evidence of what every single woman of child bearing age has done whilst she was outside the jurisdiction. Without that evidence, how would you know which of them was likely to have had an abortion?
The category of people who might have had an abortion? This might be gender stereotyping, but the probability would seem to be higher amongst women than men..... that said, let's not be sexist. By all means extend the provision to men as well.
Indeed; it seems that deliberately targetting women with ffa who go abroad for abortions rather than simply providing them with abortions within the jurisdiction would yield the results you want. Of course, deliberately targetting women with ffa doesn't seem to be what you said the purpose of the legislation ought to be?
So what you're saying is, we should feel obligated to enact a piece of legislation we either don't want or don't think will work, then use it to specifically target people, which will cause outrage, resulting in... the abandonment of the legislation? Why not just not do it at all, if the end result is the same bar a few women with ffa being prosecuted?
Your suggestion that all women should be targeted is as sensible as questioning all men in case they might have committed a rape somewhere. Or else be about to commit rape. And when someone points out that this isn't sensible or fair, you say "by all means, let's extend to women too."
Eh, no, you are missing the point spectacularly.
And again, the rest of your post is similar: picking up on a point wrongly and then making some weird response to it.
What I'm saying is, if we really want to reduce the numbers of Irish women having abortions, we can. Your supposed insurmountable objections are not insurmountable at all, if anyone had the will to tackle the issue.
So the only reasonable conclusion is that the law is a pretence that Irish women are not having abortions. Which would be unimportant, if hypocritical, were it not that the most vulnerable women are the ones who fall foul of this pretence.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well, I didn't say all women should be targeted, I said you'd have to obtain evidence of what every single woman of child bearing age has done whilst she was outside the jurisdiction. But I'm guessing you've now come up with a better way, other than just targeting those who suffer ffa? Which you'll be sharing with us because it will demonstrate just how practicable this new law would be?Your suggestion that all women should be targeted is as sensible as questioning all men in case they might have committed a rape somewhere. Or else be about to commit rape. And when someone points out that this isn't sensible or fair, you say "by all means, let's extend to women too."
Ah, this is a new idea then? We hadn't discussed reducing the number of Irish women having abortions before. We discussed prohibiting abortion in Ireland, and extending that prohibtion beyond our jurisdiction. Of course, I never said anything was insurmountable either, only not practicable, and you've clearly shown that you could target women with ffa and forget the rest. But that's probably beside the point; were you going to tell us how we can reduce the number of women having abortions if we really want to?What I'm saying is, if we really want to reduce the numbers of Irish women having abortions, we can. Your supposed insurmountable objections are not insurmountable at all, if anyone had the will to tackle the issue.
Is this conclusion based on your new ideas, or your old ones? Only, the current law doesn't seem to pretend that Irish women aren't having abortions (feel free to point us to the part where you think that is being expressed though). It definitely prohibits the destruction of unborn human life within it's jurisdiction except in prescribed circumstances, which doesn't seem to be pretend; there are penalties and processes. Nor does it pretend to extend further than it can. So I don't see how you can pretend your conclusion is reasonable.So the only reasonable conclusion is that the law is a pretence that Irish women are not having abortions. Which would be unimportant, if hypocritical, were it not that the most vulnerable women are the ones who fall foul of this pretence.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement