Abortion Discussion

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

Oh, I don't think I've tried to deny anything I've said.

Of course not. You write things which deliberately convey an impression which you are hoping others in the conversation will take up and dispute, generating lots or argument and pages of print, while the construction of the original allows you to deny ever having said anything meaning what everyone takes you to mean.

For example, compare these sentences:

1) I have never denied anything I've said.

2) I have never tried to deny anything I've said.

3) I don't think I've tried to deny anything I've said.

See how I'm adding extra layers of deniability here? If I write 3), and then someone produces an example of me denying something I said, I can say that I never said I never denied anything I said, and it will be literally true, and in my own head, I can award myself debating points.

And I can challenge people to produce quotes showing that I ever said that I never denied anything I said. And if they try, I can show how they are wrong, and award myself more points.

None of which is at all relevant to a discussion of abortion, it's all about my points on this imaginary debating scoreboard.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course not. You write things which deliberately convey an impression which you are hoping others in the conversation will take up and dispute, generating lots or argument and pages of print, while the construction of the original allows you to deny ever having said anything meaning what everyone takes you to mean.
For example, compare these sentences: 1) I have never denied anything I've said. 2) I have never tried to deny anything I've said. 3) I don't think I've tried to deny anything I've said. See how I'm adding extra layers of deniability here? If I write 3), and then someone produces an example of me denying something I said, I can say that I never said I never denied anything I said, and it will be literally true, and in my own head, I can award myself debating points. And I can challenge people to produce quotes showing that I ever said that I never denied anything I said. And if they try, I can show how they are wrong, and award myself more points. None of which is at all relevant to a discussion of abortion, it's all about my points on this imaginary debating scoreboard.

And yet it seems to be what you want to discuss rather than abortion. I didn't introduce the subject I'm afraid; you did.

aloyisious

Absolom (and I'm not playing the player here) you're wizard! By any chance would you be in Dublin and have some time to spare on Sat next, the 27th at about 2PM, to show your support for woman who want the right to abort when they feel it is right and proper for them. There's a Pro-choice protest starting at Parnell Square then. I reckon they will be happy to take support from people who believe in a woman's right to abortion, however restricted the person believes the right should be

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

And yet it seems to be what you want to discuss rather than abortion.

Well, I'd prefer that folks talk about abortion in this thread, but since a high percentage of the words in this thread are from you, I think it is worth pointing out to folks like Bannasidhe that responding to what it appears you are saying is a waste of time and only amuses you, and that reading what you write carefully, you are seldom actually saying anything which needs a response at all.

To take something you wrote recently which does have the word "abortion" in it:

Absolam wrote: »

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.

The "I didn't notice..." bit reads like a challenge to see if I can produce a quote with chapter and verse backing up my assertion, but it isn't. If I were to go and dig that up it would be a complete waste of time, because you actually don't care, and would just say "I never said it wasn't a reference to that, I just said I didn't notice that it was". So let's ignore that bit.

Then you say "I think most people would have considered..." with some total spoof which no-one in their sane senses would have considered. If anyone produces chapter and verse showing how wrong that spoofery is, you'll say "I never said I thought it meant that, or that Noonan meant that, or that I thought Noonan meant that, or that most people considered that Noonan meant that. I said I think most people would consider that it meant that. You can't show I was wrong unless you provide proof that most people in 1992 (edit: 1983) would not consider that it meant that. I await your proof with a subtle smile playing on my lips as I stroke my persian cat".

Which, again, is a bunch of whataboutery of no relevance at all to abortion, and of interest only inside your little debating game.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Absolom (and I'm not playing the player here) you're wizard! By any chance would you be in Dublin and have some time to spare on Sat next, the 27th at about 2PM, to show your support for woman who want the right to abort when they feel it is right and proper for them. There's a Pro-choice protest starting at Parnell Square then. I reckon they will be happy to take support from people who believe in a woman's right to abortion, however restricted the person believes the right should be

Well, I've given it some some thought, but I don't see how that advances the discussion?

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, I'd prefer that folks talk about abortion in this thread, but since a high percentage of the words in this thread are from you, I think it is worth pointing out to folks like Bannasidhe that responding to what it appears you are saying is a waste of time and only amuses you, and that reading what you write carefully, you are seldom actually saying anything which needs a response at all.

And yet you respond. You don't have to you know.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The "I didn't notice..." bit reads like a challenge to see if I can produce a quote with chapter and verse backing up my assertion, but it isn't. If I were to go and dig that up it would be a complete waste of time, because you actually don't care, and would just say "I never said it wasn't a reference to that, I just said I didn't notice that it was". So let's ignore that bit.

Sure, but if you're ignoring it, probably best not to mention it at all? Otherwise it looks like you're saying you could address it, if you wanted, but choose not to. Because you're ignoring it.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Then you say "I think most people would have considered..." with some total spoof which no-one in their sane senses would have considered.

Well, that's a well founded argument I'm curious as to what you think most people in their sane senses would say 'abortion in the ordinary sense' means, but I'm guessing that's just 'whataboutery'.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If anyone produces chapter and verse showing how wrong that spoofery is, you'll say "I never said I thought it meant that, or that Noonan meant that, or that I thought Noonan meant that, or that most people considered that Noonan meant that. I said I think most people would consider that it meant that. You can't show I was wrong unless you provide proof that most people in 1992 (edit: 1983) would not consider that it meant that. I await your proof with a subtle smile playing on my lips as I stroke my persian cat".

Well, you're doing a wonderful job of telling me what I'll say, I'll give you that.
But we kind of knew you liked to do that already.....

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

I'm curious as to what you think most people in their sane senses would say 'abortion in the ordinary sense' means

No, what it slightly interesting from a historical perspective is what Noonan meant when he said "abortion in the ordinary sense" in 1983. I'll give you a hint: the entire hoo-hah was about an imagined threat to the 1861 act. The 1861 act banned a lot more than abortion on demand or abortion at will.

All of very minor interest now.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I've given it some some thought, but I don't see how that advances the discussion?

Well, in that it's the thought that count's. hearts and minds aren't won by debate on the 'net alone on giving women in our republic the right to decide on how much freedom of choice on abortion they should have (for themselves) by themselves. People-power on the streets also counts as indicators of how many, and by how far, people have changed their minds on the issue.

Richard Bingham

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazygal
If only they'd direct some of their energy towards the born.

Richard Bingham wrote: »

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)?

Come on Lazygal. You're normally more forthright than this. What do you do for the born?

Or is it only people like me who should feel obligated to put our shoulder to the wheel. Your only contribution is to advocate for the extermination of people who don't have the same opportunities as you, on the basis of a technicality, that they haven't been born i.e. they haven't passed through the birth canal, which doesn't change them physically at all but just means that they are in a different place i.e. outside the womb.

And that leaves you with a clear conscience, because they're not suffering. No requirement for you to do anything. How convenient, which is of course what all this is about, not women's rights, just convenience, a sense of entitlement and lack of responsibility for your actions.

PopePalpatine

Yeah, a sense of "entitlement" to not being left crippled by pregnancy. :rolleyes:

lazygal

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier Richard. I was very busy suckling my born child who's been breast-feeding for a year now. And then looking after my other born child as well with dinner and baths and whatnot. A bit of In the Night Garden too. Neither of whom, incidentally, exited me via the birth canal. I suppose you'll tell me I acted out of sheer selfish convenience because I had two elective sections to deliver my babies. Are babies who don't exit the uterus via the birth canal different?

Oh and I also went to work and earned money and gave some nice born Americans directions to the National Gallery and helped some born visiting contractors get through a door they couldn't access because they didn't have the right pass and I gave up my seat for a born women carrying an unborn baby and I donated some money to help born women who do want to kill their unborn babies but don't have the money to do so.

How is killing your unborn child not taking responsibility for your actions? According to some women who do kill their unborn children live with their decision every day, sounds like they're taking responsibility for their actions by going through all that.

Maybe you can fill me in on how your day went, helping the born. I'm sure I don't even come close but there's only so much you can do with two toddlers, one of whom still needs his mother's milk.

alaimacerc

Richard Bingham wrote: »

What do you do for the born (after you have decreed in your infinite wisdom that they should actually be allowed to live)?

Curious that after your own "great big ball of smoke" answer about the "plenty" you claim to do for the "born", you feel in some sort of righteous position to demand information that you didn't trouble to provide yourself from others. And then spam the thread with a repost with baselessly presumptuous editorialising.

Let me talk you through your confusion on this, as best as I can. It's not a contest to see which the "good" people are, whose arguments therefore automatically "win", or get weighted in some manner. The point is whether there's any consistency whatsoever in "pro life" rhetoric that seeks to impose, often (as in your case) in scurrilously judgemental terms, an extreme "burden of care" on one category of (pre-legal-personhood, mind) "life", but is very quick to give people a pass when it comes to caring for, well, actual manifest, independent people. "They might live in a rural area", indeed. Well, that changes everything, doesn't it? Gets people a free pass to not do a tap for their fellow citizens, while thundering about how brazen hussies need to not be murdering the poor innocent blastocytes, what with it only being their place in life to accept the small natural sacrifice of being hostage to nine months of bodily and hormonal duty.

alaimacerc

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

Obviously less "ideologue" than some, and to be somewhat fair, is less apt to be constantly using "As a moderate on these matters..." in some obviously golden-mean-fallacious manner, as as a caveat when taking "friendly fire" from (other) "pro-life" posters. (Which itself is something of a testament to how hardline that self-identifier is seen to be.)

I think, however, A. is very clearly well to the conservative end of the political spectrum in Ireland -- much less in Europe, or in the West generally. So you'd want to be taking such a descriptor with a pinch of salt, whatever its motivation.

- 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.

Admittedly he is posting in the "A&A" forum, so perhaps feels some sort of compulsion for "fair and balanced" contribution, in which the urgency of presenting "the other side" overrides any possible case to pedant with any actual even-handedness, or come to that, useful precision.

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?

Depends how "liberal" you have in mind! Apparently the old (1985) law characterised "therapeutic" abortion in cases of "serious risk to physical or mental health of the pregnant woman". The proposed new one permitted it "when there is a serious (but as yet undefined) health risk to the mother". In neither case will I hazard much on what "serious" might imply, beyond that it seems somewhat more "liberal" than the Polish "go blind first" model, or the Irish "go to England instead" one.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

I suspect less abortions take place in Ireland than could have without the Amendment.

You don't mean, as best as I can divine, with and without the amendment ceteris paribus, but must logically be presuming with-amendment-and-present-and-recent-law, as against without-amendment-and-unspecified-other-change-to-law. Very much posing the question of what that change might have been.

I suspect less women leave Ireland to have abortions than possibly could have had abortions in Ireland otherwise.

I pointed out as much earlier (to as I recall, many lengthy protests from yourself, amounting to very little). Many people are supportive of the current regime, not on the basis of the supposed "illegal here, because we can't make it illegal everywhere", but precisely because it has a "thresholding" effect, and hence "pushes" the total numbers down.

What such people think about that the fact that it does so on a completely iniquitous basis, one must leave to their consciences. (Or compartmentalisation of their own cognition, as the case may be.)

obplayer

alaimacerc wrote: »

You don't mean, as best as I can divine, with and without the amendment ceteris paribus, but must logically be presuming with-amendment-and-present-and-recent-law, as against without-amendment-and-unspecified-other-change-to-law. Very much posing the question of what that change might have been.


I pointed out as much earlier (to as I recall, many lengthy protests from yourself, amounting to very little). Many people are supportive of the current regime, not on the basis of the supposed "illegal here, because we can't make it illegal everywhere", but precisely because it has a "thresholding" effect, and hence "pushes" the total numbers down.

What such people think about that the fact that it does so on a completely iniquitous basis, one must leave to their consciences. (Or compartmentalisation of their own cognition, as the case may be.)

Or, as I have said before, their real aim is to prevent not just abortions in Ireland but to prevent women from travelling from Ireland for abortions and this is just a wedge in the door. I know they deny this but, then, they would, wouldn't they?

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, what it slightly interesting from a historical perspective is what Noonan meant when he said "abortion in the ordinary sense" in 1983.

Yes, that's why I'm asking you what you think most people in their sane senses would have thought Noonan meant in 1983 when he said 'abortion in the ordinary sense'. So long as you don't think that's 'whataboutery'.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'll give you a hint: the entire hoo-hah was about an imagined threat to the 1861 act. The 1861 act banned a lot more than abortion on demand or abortion at will.

No doubt, we all recall the 'hoo-hah', though I must admit I don't remember a great deal of discussion of the 1861 Offenses, so I hardly think these would have leapt to the mind of most people in their sane senses if asked what does 'abortion in the ordinary sense' mean. More likely they would have identified it with the concept of abortion being bruited by SPUC at the time, which was a notion not likely to be lost on Noonan when he composed his address.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

All of very minor interest now.

Of course it is only interesting in a historical sense, particularly as to how it might inform the perception of whether the current limited abortion regime exists in spite of the 8th Amendment, or as envisioned by the 8th Amendment.

alaimacerc

obplayer wrote: »

Or, as I have said before, their real aim is to prevent not just abortions in Ireland but to prevent women from travelling from Ireland for abortions and this is just a wedge in the door. I know they deny this but, then, they would, wouldn't they?

Different "many people" there. But yes, some such people clearly exist, as I've also remarked. Some even seem to not quite understand the nature of the present freedom-to-travel in the particular context of the "right of life of the unborn", and frame them as "competing" or "parallel" rights. But I think few of them harbour such ideas as a political prospect. Not this side of the Tribulation, or the development of Trek's "foetal transport beam", whichever comes first.

obplayer

alaimacerc wrote: »

Different "many people" there. But yes, some such people clearly exist, as I've also remarked. Some even seem to not quite understand the nature of the present freedom-to-travel in the particular context of the "right of life of the unborn", and frame them as "competing" or "parallel" rights. But I think few of them harbour such ideas as a political prospect. Not this side of the Tribulation, or the development of Trek's "foetal transport beam", whichever comes first.

I understand that they do not think of these ideas as realistic prospects now, but I believe they hope if they can win their current anti abortion battle then the right to travel will be next on their hit list.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Well, in that it's the thought that count's. hearts and minds aren't won by debate on the 'net alone on giving women in our republic the right to decide on how much freedom of choice on abortion they should have (for themselves) by themselves. People-power on the streets also counts as indicators of how many, and by how far, people have changed their minds on the issue.

Oh, I understand how demonstrations advance a point of view (in this case the point of view that we need free, safe, legal abortion in Ireland now), just not how inviting me to attend a rally I could simply attend without invitation if I wanted to support that point of view advances the discussion.

alaimacerc

obplayer wrote: »

I understand that they do not think of these ideas as realistic prospects now, but I believe they hope if they can win their current anti abortion battle then the right to travel will be next on their hit list.

I'm not seeing it, myself. A few may cherish it as a distant prospect, but I simply can't square "next" with any halfway-rational worldview. "Make the population vastly more socially conservative and religious faithful than they were in 1992" would be a necessary precondition, which is no small task as all the indications point very much to the opposite.

obplayer

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not seeing it, myself. A few may cherish it as a distant prospect, but I simply can't square "next" with any halfway-rational worldview. "Make the population vastly more socially conservative and religious faithful than they were in 1992" would be a necessary precondition, which is no small task as all the indications point very much to the opposite.

Ah, I think we are approaching this from different viewpoints / worries. I am not saying they have a rational chance of achieving this now, simply that the fact that this is in their view the ultimate end game means that this is what we have to bear in mind every time we deal with them. This is what they want and we must always keep this in mind.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Obviously less "ideologue" than some, and to be somewhat fair, is less apt to be constantly using "As a moderate on these matters..." in some obviously golden-mean-fallacious manner, as as a caveat when taking "friendly fire" from (other) "pro-life" posters. (Which itself is something of a testament to how hardline that self-identifier is seen to be.)
I think, however, A. is very clearly well to the conservative end of the political spectrum in Ireland -- much less in Europe, or in the West generally. So you'd want to be taking such a descriptor with a pinch of salt, whatever its motivation. Admittedly he is posting in the "A&A" forum, so perhaps feels some sort of compulsion for "fair and balanced" contribution, in which the urgency of presenting "the other side" overrides any possible case to pedant with any actual even-handedness, or come to that, useful precision.

With such careful analysis (or at least attribution) of my motivation, I should think I'll never need to consider how I feel or think about anything... I've already been told!

alaimacerc wrote: »

You don't mean, as best as I can divine, with and without the amendment ceteris paribus, but must logically be presuming with-amendment-and-present-and-recent-law, as against without-amendment-and-unspecified-other-change-to-law. Very much posing the question of what that change might have been.

I don't? I suppose either or could suffice; supposing any other change that might have occurred would have lessened restrictions rather than tightening them, the probability falls on a greater number of abortions taking place as a result.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I pointed out as much earlier (to as I recall, many lengthy protests from yourself, amounting to very little).

You know, I don't think you did? I certainly don't recall arguing against the idea that less women leave Ireland to have abortions than possibly could have had abortions in Ireland otherwise, but I'm sure if it was as lengthy a discussion as you say, you'll have no trouble linking it.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Many people are supportive of the current regime, not on the basis of the supposed "illegal here, because we can't make it illegal everywhere", but precisely because it has a "thresholding" effect, and hence "pushes" the total numbers down.

Possibly, but wouldn't they just be different people from the ones who are supportive of the current regime, on the basis of the supposed "illegal here, because we can't make it illegal everywhere"?

alaimacerc wrote: »

What such people think about that the fact that it does so on a completely iniquitous basis, one must leave to their consciences. (Or compartmentalisation of their own cognition, as the case may be.)

Well, of course. You could hardly suppose their motivation was iniquitous, and not leave them to deal with their own conscience could you? They have to have some say in their own opinion somewhere, even if it's only to deal with the moral consequences of the motivation you've ascribed to them.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Oh, I understand how demonstrations advance a point of view (in this case the point of view that we need free, safe, legal abortion in Ireland now), just not how inviting me to attend a rally I could simply attend without invitation if I wanted to support that point of view advances the discussion.

You've such an excellent way with words. I regret that I wasn't in a position to offer you anything more than a suggestion about use of personal spare time if you had the notion of showing your person at a Pro-choice street event with the intent of supporting Pro-choice women. As with all things, the choice is your's, if you deem it practicable.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

I must admit I don't remember a great deal of discussion of the 1861 Offenses, so I hardly think these would have leapt to the mind of most people in their sane senses

Even if you were only a little kid at the time, you must surely remember the constant use of the word "copperfasten", since it is a funny old word.

The whole point of the referendum was to protect the illegality of abortion as set out in that act from any legal challenge, using either our constitution or European law to attack that act.

Richard Bingham

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's not a contest to see which the "good" people are, whose arguments therefore automatically "win", or get weighted in some manner.

Tell it to Lazygal - she asked the question.

alaimacerc wrote: »

The point is whether there's any consistency whatsoever in "pro life" rhetoric that seeks to impose, often (as in your case) in scurrilously judgemental terms, an extreme "burden of care" on one category of (pre-legal-personhood, mind) "life", but is very quick to give people a pass when it comes to caring for, well, actual manifest, independent people.

There is consistency in my approach and I don't have to answer for others, much the same as a person might be against animal cruelty doesn't mean they have to answer for the actions of people who break the law in the name of that cause.

alaimacerc wrote: »

"They might live in a rural area", indeed. Well, that changes everything, doesn't it? Gets people a free pass to not do a tap for their fellow citizens

Just because your a big city dweller who wouldn't be able to breathe if he got further out of Dublin than the M50, don't bother turning your nasty little mouth on me. I wasn't using that as a defence - I don't need to as I do my bit and I have nothing to prove to the likes of you.

alaimacerc wrote: »

while thundering about how brazen hussies need to not be murdering the poor innocent blastocytes

Here we go again. You can't debate against my argument as you will lose so you attribute statements to me that I never made. I've pointed this out several times in this thread but you lot have no argument so you have to resort to mis-quoting me.

Why don't you use the quote button to show me stating that?

Pathetic.

Richard Bingham

lazygal wrote: »

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier Richard. I was very busy suckling my born child who's been breast-feeding for a year now. And then looking after my other born child as well with dinner and baths and whatnot. A bit of In the Night Garden too.

You want credit for minding your kids. We'll name a day after you.

lazygal wrote: »

Neither of whom, incidentally, exited me via the birth canal. I suppose you'll tell me I acted out of sheer selfish convenience because I had two elective sections to deliver my babies. Are babies who don't exit the uterus via the birth canal different?

I'm glad you brought that up. The fact that a baby hasn't traveled through the birth canal is sufficient justification to allow a late term abortion in some states in the U.S. Where your kids any different by virtue of the fact that they didn't travel through the birth canal? Doubtful, but not having made that short journey should qualify you to be legally killed according to your camp. Or are you one of these Pro Abortion people who thinks that you can legislate only for early term abortions which are for good reasons we would all agree with (not that any country has managed to do that).

lazygal wrote: »

Oh and I also went to work and earned money and gave some nice born Americans directions to the National Gallery and helped some born visiting contractors get through a door they couldn't access because they didn't have the right pass and I gave up my seat for a born women carrying an unborn baby and I donated some money to help born women who do want to kill their unborn babies but don't have the money to do so.

Bravo. You have a job and you held a door open for someone. Oh and you sponsored a murder, well done.

lazygal wrote: »

How is killing your unborn child not taking responsibility for your actions? According to some women who do kill their unborn children live with their decision every day, sounds like they're taking responsibility for their actions by going through all that.

You think that killing another human is taking responsibility for your actions. You'd love this sick poem;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaQmoKe8rFQ

lazygal wrote: »

Maybe you can fill me in on how your day went, helping the born. I'm sure I don't even come close but there's only so much you can do with two toddlers, one of whom still needs his mother's milk.

Don't ask the question and then get all sulky when you get the answer. You implied that Pro-Life people only care about the unborn and I answered you. The truth is that you do fnck all that isn't in your own interest. If I detail what I do, you and your ilk will accuse me of grandstanding, and if I don't you'll say I don't do it. There's no talking to a person with murder on their mind.

lazygal

I didn't ask a question, Richard. I merely commented on how those who are prolife might express some concern for the born.

I do fnuk all that isn't in my own interest? How nice that you can sum me up so accurately when I outline how I spend one day of my life for you.

What, exactly, is my 'ilk'? Breastfeeding women? Mothers of two? Working women? Women who've had c sections? Women who've made a choice to remain pregnant while recognizing others may want to make different choices? Polite people who give directions and hold doors and offer seats to pregnant women?

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Even if you were only a little kid at the time, you must surely remember the constant use of the word "copperfasten", since it is a funny old word.

I do, and though it is an old word it doesn't occur in the 1861 Act. Nor do I recall anyone saying they intended to copper fasten the 1861 Act, I remember them say they intended to copper fasten the ban on abortion.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The whole point of the referendum was to protect the illegality of abortion as set out in that act from any legal challenge, using either our constitution or European law to attack that act.

Which is not to say that the framers of the Amendment didn't envision abortion being available in limited circumstances as the SC found they did; Noonan quite clearly said that the underlying principle of the amendment was that the practice of abortion in the ordinary sense of that term should not be permitted to creep into our law. So clearly he acknowledged the intent to 'copperfasten' existing restrictions on abortion, whilst equally clearly acknowledging that abortion not in the ordinary sense of that term was not a part of that principle.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

I do, and though it is an old word it doesn't occur in the 1861 Act. Nor do I recall anyone saying they intended to copper fasten the 1861 Act, I remember them say they intended to copper fasten the ban on abortion.

Sigh.

Instead, the amendment made the 1861 act unconstitutional. By mistake.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sigh.

I'll admit I didn't bother going past the first page, but did you notice that out the ten links three talk about copperfastening the ban, and two talk about copperfastening the legislation?
copperfasten the notion that a woman has rights
copperfasten the legislation
copperfasten an exception
copperfasten a statement
copperfasten the right to life
copperfasten the ban
copperfasten the ban
copperfasten the ban
copperfasten the legislation
copperfasten the right to travel and information
The others are quite interesting, I suppose it just shows it's still well used for a funny old word.
But anyways, that would seem to be a 60/40 split in favour of copperfastening the ban rather than the legislation from your research...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Instead, the amendment made the 1861 act unconstitutional.

That's a really interesting assertion. Do you mean the provisions relating to the procuring of abortions, or the entire Act? In either case, how do you think it was rendered unconstitutional by the Amendment?