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
-
It definitely prohibits the destruction of unborn human life within it's jurisdiction, 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.
No.
It does not definitely prohibit the destruction of unborn human life within it's jurisdiction.
It expressly allows abortions albeit in very limited circumstances.
So your statement is demonstrable false.0 -
My apologies.Bannasidhe wrote: »No.
It does not definitely prohibit the destruction of unborn human life within it's jurisdiction. It expressly allows abortions albeit in very limited circumstances. So your statement is demonstrable false.
It definitely prohibits the destruction of unborn human life within it's jurisdiction except in prescribed circumstances. I've amended my post accordingly.0 -
My apologies.
It definitely prohibits the destruction of unborn human life within it's jurisdiction except in prescribed circumstances. I've amended my post accordingly.
Meaning Ireland does permit the 'destruction of unborn life' despite the 8th Amendment.
Hardly abortion free so...0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26391
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/09/22/the-sixth-sense/
Seems abortion was fine and dandy in the days before the Vatican got involved in Ireland's church, even saints performed them....The roots of lay and clerical anti-abortionism in Ireland would appear to be a modern phenomenon as medieval sources indicate a country in which abortion could be seen as a less severe offence by clerics, for example, than bearing an unwanted child or committing ‘fornication’.
In the middle ages women commonly underwent abortions in Ireland and the fact that they did so is reflected in numerous sources. Enshrined in the medieval Irish legal code is that fact that a wife could be divorced if she had procured an abortion for herself. This prohibition is part of a long list of grounds for divorce which included infanticide, flagrant infidelity, infertility, and bad management.
Thus the circumstances in which a man could divorce his wife were obviously quite severe but even still the wife was allowed to receive her marriage-portion back (even after an abortion).
Ireland has four saints who are recorded as openly and miraculously carrying out abortions, Ciarán of Saigir, Áed mac Bricc, Cainneach of Aghaboe and Brigid of Kildare.The life of Saint Ciarán (c. 6th century) told the story of a young virgin, Bruinech, kidnapped by King Dimma who raped her, and she became pregnant. Bruinech appealed to Saint Ciarán, who miraculously aborted the foetus. Later, versions of this Life told of Ciarán making the foetus disappear rather than aborting it. Áed blessed a nun who was pregnant and the foetus disappeared, similarly with Cainneach. Brigid was the only female saint to carry out abortions. She is also the premier female saint of medieval Ireland.The Penitential of Finnian written c. 591 CE lists the punishment for women who abort
If a woman by her magic destroys the child she has conceived of somebody, she shall do penance for half a year with an allowance of bread and water, and abstain for two years from wine and meat and fast for the six forty-day periods with bread and water.
It is worth noting here that the penance is quite a lenient one and was much less for example than the time assigned to penance for childbirth which demanded six years fasting on bread and water. These sanctions appear to indicate a society where women were certainly acquainted with reproductive choices, exerted agency in choosing to abort and in which the penalties for doing so were quite minor.
Knowledge of abortifacients must have been passed down through the (female) generations and were thus greatly feared by the (male) Establishment because “they subversively aimed the devious weapon of spells and potions at the patrilineal kin group, the community, and all orderly, congenial gender relations.” Thus the killing of the foetus was not so much the issue at stake rather it was the power of the women who chose to do so (and had the means to do it) that was feared as it lay outside male knowledge. Making the link between a woman’s reproductive freedoms and witchcraft ranks as a severe challenge to female reproductive agency.
Abortion in medieval Ireland - http://perceptionsofpregnancy.com/2014/09/21/abortion-in-medieval-ireland/0 -
Hardly despite though? Surely, more as envisaged by the Amendment (since that's the way it was put).Bannasidhe wrote: »Meaning Ireland does permit the 'destruction of unborn life' despite the 8th Amendment. Hardly abortion free so...0 -
Advertisement
-
Surely, more as envisaged by the Amendment (since that's the way it was put).
Envisaged is a bad word to use, since it implies foresight.
The people who proposed the referendum were trying to copper-fasten our total ban on abortion. They certainly did not intend to make abortion legal under any circumstances.
They did it by mistake.0 -
Hardly despite though? Surely, more as envisaged by the Amendment (since that's the way it was put).
Nope.
I was there in the 80s and very involved. What what was envisaged by those who wanted the 8th Amendment was a total ban on abortions in Ireland.
They failed.
They also wanted to prevent information on abortion being made available in Ireland.
They failed.
They also wanted to prevent Irish women and girls travelling for abortions.
They failed.
Abortion takes place in Ireland.
Abortion information is available in Ireland.
Women leave Ireland for abortions everyday.
What an utterly useless amendment and complete waste of time and money.0 -
Well, personally I might agree that such substantial foresight seems unlikely, if it weren't for the notion that the framers of legislation (especially the Constitution) are people you really would expect to give a great deal of though to the wording they use. But as you pointed out yourself, the opinion of a SC Judge holds some weight, and I was simply drawing on McCarthys opinion in the X Case.Zubeneschamali wrote: »Envisaged is a bad word to use, since it implies foresight. The people who proposed the referendum were trying to copper-fasten our total ban on abortion. They certainly did not intend to make abortion legal under any circumstances. They did it by mistake.
Of course, Egan also felt that "The wording of the Eighth Amendment which guarantees to defend and vindicate the right to life of the unborn recognises by the inclusion of the words "with due regard for the equal right to life of the mother" and the words "as far as practicable" that an abortion will not in every possible circumstance be unlawful."
Add to that Chief Justice Finlays opinion that "I, therefore, conclude that the proper test to be applied is that if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible, having regard to the true interpretation of Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution." and it must be said that not just a Supreme Court Judge, but the Supreme Court itself has held that this is the true interpretation, and the Supreme Court is, of course, the final arbiter on Constitutional matters.
So whilst you may well believe it was a mistake, the Supreme Court has decided it was intentional.
I get the impression you may not have been in the 'inner circle' as such of those who were favouring the amendment, though. How certain are you that you know exactly what they were thinking? Would it not be more accurate to say that this is your opinion of what they envisaged?Bannasidhe wrote: »Nope. I was there in the 80s and very involved. What what was envisaged by those who wanted the 8th Amendment was a total ban on abortions in Ireland. They failed.
Well, whilst I've no doubt that some of them did, I suspect that some of them didn't. Or all those who voted in the 8th would have voted out the 13th and 14th. Unless you subscribe to the popular theory of mass hypocrisy on one or other of the days, as some do.Bannasidhe wrote: »They also wanted to prevent information on abortion being made available in Ireland. They failed.
They also wanted to prevent Irish women and girls travelling for abortions. They failed.
Oh I don't know. I suspect less abortions take place in Ireland than could have without the Amendment. I suspect less women leave Ireland to have abortions than possibly could have had abortions in Ireland otherwise. So possibly not an entirely useless amendment, or a complete waste of money, depending on your point of view.Bannasidhe wrote: »Abortion takes place in Ireland. Abortion information is available in Ireland. Women leave Ireland for abortions everyday. What an utterly useless amendment and complete waste of time and money.0 -
I was simply drawing on McCarthys opinion in the X Case.
This is why I say "envisaged" is the wrong word, since the X case judgement decided what the Amendment meant in law after it had been written into the constitution.
This was not at all what Binchy & co intended it to mean.
And before you start again asking how anyone knows anything - I know Binchy disagrees with the judgement in the X case because he has said so in public at tedious length, in front of Dail committees, even.0 -
Envisaged wasn't my choice of word I'm afraid; it was the one chosen by McCarthy, and the Supreme Court agreed.Zubeneschamali wrote: »This is why I say "envisaged" is the wrong word, since the X case judgement decided what the Amendment meant in law after it had been written into the constitution.
Maybe. & co is a fairly nebulous bunch, and both sides had varied opinions on the wording. Had there been a consensus that a more stringent form of wording ought to be used in order to preclude abortion in all circumstances, I'm guessing the wording would have been changed. It's certainly possible that the SC may have given too much credit to the parties involved in the wording, but it's also possible that there may be too great a colour of immoderation being applied to everyone who was involved in the process at the time.Zubeneschamali wrote: »This was not at all what Binchy & co intended it to mean. And before you start again asking how anyone knows anything - I know Binchy disagrees with the judgement in the X case because he has said so in public at tedious length, in front of Dail committees, even.
Either way, despite the 8th Amendment is an untrue statement following the X Case.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well, personally I might agree that such substantial foresight seems unlikely, if it weren't for the notion that the framers of legislation (especially the Constitution) are people you really would expect to give a great deal of though to the wording they use. But as you pointed out yourself, the opinion of a SC Judge holds some weight, and I was simply drawing on McCarthys opinion in the X Case.
Of course, Egan also felt that "The wording of the Eighth Amendment which guarantees to defend and vindicate the right to life of the unborn recognises by the inclusion of the words "with due regard for the equal right to life of the mother" and the words "as far as practicable" that an abortion will not in every possible circumstance be unlawful."
Add to that Chief Justice Finlays opinion that "I, therefore, conclude that the proper test to be applied is that if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible, having regard to the true interpretation of Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution." and it must be said that not just a Supreme Court Judge, but the Supreme Court itself has held that this is the true interpretation, and the Supreme Court is, of course, the final arbiter on Constitutional matters.
So whilst you may well believe it was a mistake, the Supreme Court has decided it was intentional.
I get the impression you may not have been in the 'inner circle' as such of those who were favouring the amendment, though. How certain are you that you know exactly what they were thinking? Would it not be more accurate to say that this is your opinion of what they envisaged?
Well, whilst I've no doubt that some of them did, I suspect that some of them didn't. Or all those who voted in the 8th would have voted out the 13th and 14th. Unless you subscribe to the popular theory of mass hypocrisy on one or other of the days, as some do.
Oh I don't know. I suspect less abortions take place in Ireland than could have without the Amendment. I suspect less women leave Ireland to have abortions than possibly could have had abortions in Ireland otherwise. So possibly not an entirely useless amendment, or a complete waste of money, depending on your point of view.
I suspect you were not involved in any part of either the pro- or anti 8th Amendment campaigns.
Could you vote in Ireland the early 80s?0 -
Had there been a consensus that a more stringent form of wording ought to be used in order to preclude abortion in all circumstances, I'm guessing the wording would have been changed.
No need to guess, it's all in the public record.
Peter Sutherland pointed out the possibility that the amendment would force abortion to be legalised, and Fine Gael proposed a simpler wording:
3° Nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to invalidate, or to deprive of force or effect, any provision of a law on the ground that it prohibits abortion.
But that wasn't "pro-life" enough for the campaigners, so they pressed on with their stupid amendment, and legalised abortion by mistake.0 -
I was up in Dublin Saturday, and passing down Henry St. by the GPO there was one of those Hitler Jugend Defence anti-abortion set-ups.
Along with the usual lies and damned lies there was a new picture, that of a baby hooked up to a breathing tube and with a few sensors attached. Above the picture was a headline "Terminally ill {or "babies with FFA" I forget exactly which} babies have a right to life". Only for I was up with my mother and didn't want to drag her into a scene, I'd have gone over and given the young wan manning the station the third degree over this, frankly hate filled, idiocy, starting with the question "why are you so insistent on having a baby's short few hours on earth be filled with pain, terror and anguish?" and going on from there.
The sign was quite disgusting in its meaning.0 -
Do you think either is relevant to the discussion? May I not hold an opinion if I wasn't on the palisades?Bannasidhe wrote: »I suspect you were not involved in any part of either the pro- or anti 8th Amendment campaigns. Could you vote in Ireland the early 80s?
Excellent; so as I guessed, from what you posted, there wasn't a consensus that a more stringent form of wording ought to be used in order to preclude abortion in all circumstances.Zubeneschamali wrote: »No need to guess, it's all in the public record. Peter Sutherland pointed out the possibility that the amendment would force abortion to be legalised, and Fine Gael proposed a simpler wording: 3° Nothing in this Constitution shall be invoked to invalidate, or to deprive of force or effect, any provision of a law on the ground that it prohibits abortion. But that wasn't "pro-life" enough for the campaigners, so they pressed on with their stupid amendment, and legalised abortion by mistake.
In fact, given that both Sutherland and Shatter pointed out that the wording could permit abortion in some circumstances in plenty of time to allow alteration of the wording, it's interesting that the wording wasn't altered to remove that leeway. This, even though by defeating the governments proposed alternate wording, it was demonstrated that the votes were there to carry whatever wording might be chosen, which does make it difficult to imagine that the wording was retained by accident (or as you say, mistake).
That rather suggests the SC may have been more perspicacious than they're being given credit for when they considered what was envisioned by the wording that was passed.0 -
which does make it difficult to imagine that the wording was retained by accident (or as you say, mistake).
I'm not sure why you think you have to imagine things, since this is all part of the public record. The pro-life campaign were absolutely horrified when the Supreme Court gave its judgement in the X case. They immediately started a campaign to change the constitution again, to make it mean what they intended the first time: no using the threat of suicide as a reason for abortion.0 -
No, you misunderstand the point, which is that Binchy and those responsible for the wording of the amendment were warned that their wording was unclear and could actually force the SC into introducing abortion. They wouldn't accept that.Do you think either is relevant to the discussion? May I not hold an opinion if I wasn't on the palisades?
Excellent; so as I guessed, from what you posted, there wasn't a consensus that a more stringent form of wording ought to be used in order to preclude abortion in all circumstances.
In fact, given that both Sutherland and Shatter pointed out that the wording could permit abortion in some circumstances in plenty of time to allow alteration of the wording, it's interesting that the wording wasn't altered to remove that leeway. This, even though by defeating the governments proposed alternate wording, it was demonstrated that the votes were there to carry whatever wording might be chosen, which does make it difficult to imagine that the wording was retained by accident (or as you say, mistake).
That rather suggests the SC may have been more perspicacious than they're being given credit for when they considered what was envisioned by the wording that was passed.
http://www.broadsheet.ie/tag/william-binchy/
But it did exactly that. So no, limited abortion was not envisaged by those pushing for the amendment, quite the opposite, they were warned against it but accused anyone against it of having a secret pro-abortion agenda.
Here's a reminder of what was going on, for those too young to have lived through it all first time around:
http://www.broadsheet.ie/tag/william-binchy/0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »I'm not sure why you think you have to imagine things, since this is all part of the public record. The pro-life campaign were absolutely horrified when the Supreme Court gave its judgement in the X case. They immediately started a campaign to change the constitution again, to make it mean what they intended the first time: no using the threat of suicide as a reason for abortion.
The sense of entitlement that the "pro-life" movement in Ireland has is quite frightening. Seems like they just want to be able to snap their fingers and have what they want as law.0 -
Here's a reminder of what was going on, for those too young to have lived through it all first time around:
It is worthwhile posting this detail for the benefit, as you say, of those who don't know these blackguards first hand from the 80s. But note that Absolam says he voted in 1992.
His tactic of asking seemingly innocent questions, and then nit-picking every answer to death in an effort to paint the pro-life campaign and status quo in the best possible light is not a consequence of being young and ignorant.
I get the impression that Absolam did not vote in 1983, but still, he's at least 39, no innocent spring chicken.0 -
In all fairness, that's what they think previous governments have let them do.rainbow kirby wrote: »Seems like they just want to be able to snap their fingers and have what they want as law.0 -
rainbow kirby wrote: »The sense of entitlement that the "pro-life" movement in Ireland has is quite frightening. Seems like they just want to be able to snap their fingers and have what they want as law.
If only they'd direct some of their energy towards the born.0 -
Advertisement
-
Do you think either is relevant to the discussion? May I not hold an opinion if I wasn't on the palisades?
It is highly relevant since you took it upon yourself to discuss the aims and intentions of the pro-8th Amendment movement at the time of the referendum campaign and lecture us on what they envisaged.
You may indeed hold an 'opinion' but you are going far beyond that and presenting yourself as an authority on what was happening at the time.
It is patently obvious to anyone who encountered SPUC and their comrades in the early 80s that you haven't the faintest idea what their intentions were. Not for one second did they hide their intention to achieve not only a complete and total ban of all abortions in Ireland but a complete and total ban on all women resident in Ireland accessing abortion.
In stating their aims they were as subtle as a sledgehammer so all your wordiness just demonstrates you don't actually know what they envisaged and are simply attempting to spin things to suit your meandering argument.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »(addressing Absolam)It is patently obvious to anyone who encountered SPUC and their comrades in the early 80s that you haven't the faintest idea what their intentions were.
I think it is quite possible that Absolam knows very well, which is why his posts are so carefully worded with "it is interesting...", "it is difficult to imagine...", "this rather suggests..." and all sorts of other phrases which add layers of plausible deniability to everything he writes.
I think it is quite possible that Absolam is actually a pro-choice atheist, and is carefully crafting things which look pro-life (without ever actually lying) so as to laugh at us all responding to them.0 -
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »I think it is quite possible that Absolam is actually a pro-choice atheist, and is carefully crafting things which look pro-life (without ever actually lying) so as to laugh at us all responding to them.
People affecting to adopt an 'on-the-fence' position on abortion that is 'critical of the extremists on both sides' are a fairly common Internet phenomenon and appear to fall into two camps:
- 'pro-life' ideologues who think their arguments sound more convincing in this light
- contrarians with too much time on their hands who enjoy arguing for the sake of it and have latched onto this topic because it gets people more het up than any other.
I would say Absolam falls squarely into the latter category.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/23/spain-abandons-plan-introduce-tough-new-abortion-lawsGovernment fails to reach consensus over making abortion illegal except in case of rape or when mother’s health is at risk
Out of interest, is anyone aware of a jurisdiction where the rape/incest exception was successfully implemented, or even seriously attempted, without a broader liberalisation of abortion law? I have yet to see a plausible proposal as to how this might be done in practice, but I presume the Spanish government in this case, for instance, must have had one?0 -
I can't find it in the public record where it says the wording was retained by accident? Perhaps you can provide a link?Zubeneschamali wrote: »I'm not sure why you think you have to imagine things, since this is all part of the public record.
Oh, I've no doubt about that at all. But when Noonan introduced the Bill for its second hearing (in the public record), he made two interesting points clear:Zubeneschamali wrote: »The pro-life campaign were absolutely horrified when the Supreme Court gave its judgement in the X case. They immediately started a campaign to change the constitution again, to make it mean what they intended the first time: no using the threat of suicide as a reason for abortion.
First that he was prepared to consider alterations to the bill (so it was open to submission by anyone looking to 'tighten' or 'loosen' any loopholes so long as it didn't affect the core point of the Amendment:
"When I say that I have an open mind about suggestions for amendment, I mean of course suggestions that would not affect or erode the underlying principle of the amendment which is that the practice of abortion in the ordinary sense of that term should not be permitted to creep into our law."
And of course he used the term 'abortion in the ordinary sense', implying that abortion in the not ordinary sense was not precluded by the Amendment. Which rather puts the lie to the idea that the framers of the Amendment intended it to be a total ban on abortion. If further evidence that abortion in certain circumstances was envisioned by the framers of the Amendment, as the SC agreed it was, he went on to say;
"But there could be some hard cases where the “treatment” sought would constitute abortion which conflicts both with existing law and with the proposed amendment. The question may, therefore, legitimately be asked whether what I have said amounts to saying that neither the law nor society can take account of hard cases no matter how heartrending they may be and that there can be no allowance for a woman who breaks this rigid law. Of course it does not mean that. "
So Noonan certainly envisioned it, and he was the one who brought the Bill before the Dail.
No, I honestly didn't miss it at all. Binchy campaigned on behalf of the Amendment, but those who were responsible for the wording were those who brought it before the Dail; Michael Woods who introduced the original Bill, but more significantly Michael Noonan, who shepherded it through. As I've said above, there was obviously no doubt in Noonans mind that the wording left abortion in some circumstances possible, and there was no attempt made to address that.No, you misunderstand the point, which is that Binchy and those responsible for the wording of the amendment were warned that their wording was unclear and could actually force the SC into introducing abortion. They wouldn't accept that.
Well, perhaps not by those pushing the Amendment, but the SC didn't find that those who pushed the Amendment envisaged abortion in some circumstances, it found that those who framed it did. Which, from what Noonan said when he introduced the Bill, looks to be a well founded finding.But it did exactly that. So no, limited abortion was not envisaged by those pushing for the amendment, quite the opposite, they were warned against it but accused anyone against it of having a secret pro-abortion agenda.
Actually, I haven't discussed the aims or intentions of the pro-8th Amendment movement at all (though I don't think I would have to have been there to do so). I've discussed the legislation, and the X Case judgement.Bannasidhe wrote: »It is highly relevant since you took it upon yourself to discuss the aims and intentions of the pro-8th Amendment movement at the time of the referendum campaign and lecture us on what they envisaged.
I don't think I've presented myself as an authority? I'm certain I never said any such thing.Bannasidhe wrote: »You may indeed hold an 'opinion' but you are going far beyond that and presenting yourself as an authority on what was happening at the time.
Again, I haven't discussed SPUC (though I was certainly well aware of them at the time).Bannasidhe wrote: »It is patently obvious to anyone who encountered SPUC and their comrades in the early 80s that you haven't the faintest idea what their intentions were. Not for one second did they hide their intention to achieve not only a complete and total ban of all abortions in Ireland but a complete and total ban on all women resident in Ireland accessing abortion.
But I never spoke about what they envisioned. Which may be why you find the argument meandering; you think we're discussing something we're not.Bannasidhe wrote: »In stating their aims they were as subtle as a sledgehammer so all your wordiness just demonstrates you don't actually know what they envisaged and are simply attempting to spin things to suit your meandering argument.0 -
And of course he used the term 'abortion in the ordinary sense', implying that abortion in the not ordinary sense was not precluded by the Amendment.
This a reference to fears expressed by Dr. (of botany) Michael Woods that catholic double-effect non-abortion abortion might be banned.0 -
-
If only they'd direct some of their energy towards the born.
I do plenty for the born actually.
I believe that if you're Pro-Life it's a good thing to back that up by helping those less fortunate than you. I don't believe that you have to do this in order to be Pro-Life, as not everyone can help all the time. People might have enough commitments at a particular time in their life, they might be struggling themselves, they might live in a rural area and not have transport etc. Not being in a position to help doesn't invalidate a persons Pro-Life beliefs but its good to do it if you can.
What do you do for the born (after you have decreed in your infinite wisdom that they should actually be allowed to live)?0 -
I can't imagine what a seemingly innocent question would be in a discussion where the participants are so determined to firmly place others in boxes based on the questions and answers they provide, but it's funny to see you class the discussion as 'nit-picking every answer to death'. I'm guessing your own questions were probably insightful dissections of your opponents premises, with not a nit in sight :-)Zubeneschamali wrote: »His tactic of asking seemingly innocent questions, and then nit-picking every answer to death in an effort to paint the pro-life campaign and status quo in the best possible light is not a consequence of being young and ignorant.
Oh, I don't think I've tried to deny anything I've said. If I've been careful to avoid phrasing my opinions as fact, or attributing my own opinions of others motivations to them as their own, I'd suggest I'm simply attempting to be more honest in my approach than some others might be.Zubeneschamali wrote: »I think it is quite possible that Absolam knows very well, which is why his posts are so carefully worded with "it is interesting...", "it is difficult to imagine...", "this rather suggests..." and all sorts of other phrases which add layers of plausible deniability to everything he writes.
I've heard it said that all things are possible, though it should be said that quite a lot of things are not probable.Zubeneschamali wrote: »I think it is quite possible that Absolam is actually a pro-choice atheist, and is carefully crafting things which look pro-life (without ever actually lying) so as to laugh at us all responding to them.
I have certainly noticed an inclination amongst posters on the subject to prefer refuting their perception of the poster over refuting the post (as well as placing posters into nicely definable groups). I suppose it could charitably be attributed to not having enough time to engage, but feeling a need to be seen to be involved nonetheless. Of course, that would only be my perception of such posters; I wouldn't want to haul out Zubeneschamalis labelling gun and start pointing it around...Loafing Oaf wrote: »People affecting to adopt an 'on-the-fence' position on abortion that is 'critical of the extremists on both sides' are a fairly common Internet phenomenon and appear to fall into two camps:
- 'pro-life' ideologues who think their arguments sound more convincing in this light
- contrarians with too much time on their hands who enjoy arguing for the sake of it and have latched onto this topic because it gets people more het up than any other.
I would say Absolam falls squarely into the latter category.0 -
Advertisement
-
Is it? I didn't notice that he said that it was a reference to Dr Woods' fears in the public record, though I think most people would have considered the term 'abortion in the ordinary sense' to mean 'abortion on demand', or 'at will abortion' depending on your preferred nonclemature.Zubeneschamali wrote: »This a reference to fears expressed by Dr. (of botany) Michael Woods that catholic double-effect non-abortion abortion might be banned.
But it's certainly possible that he was attempting to convey that in framing the Amendment, there was no intention to take a harder line than the RCC position that you've put forward, being that in some circumstances abortion is necessary (or at least a necessary side effect of that which is necessary). Which is to say, that he appeared to envision (and did convey in his address to the Dail) that abortion would not in every possible circumstance be unlawful as a result of the Amendment.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement