Abortion Discussion

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Christian beliefs are beliefs held by Christians... that is an astounding insight.

Aren't you rather avoiding the point?
Whether or not Christian beliefs are beliefs held by Christians, making an assumption based on two Christian beliefs held by Christians in order to leap to a conclusion not held by Christians, and then pillorying Christians for that conclusion, whilst deliberately ignoring other beliefs held by Christians is not logical, or reasonable.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Even if I continue to assume you're a theist (which I will continue to do), this doesn't alter the fact that whatever ****e Christians come out with is still witches and goblins, because that is the basis of all religion: fantasy nonsense.

Whether Pergrinus is a theist or not doesn't alter the points he made. And regardless of what Christians come out with (or even what you imagine they come out with), the point is still valid. Obplayers contention, is, as you put it, fantasy nonsense.

obplayer wrote: »

He did not jump in because he can see that in your defence of Christianity you are simply showing how it utterly contradicts itself in it's various tenets.

But, Peregrinus hasn't defended any tenets here, only pointed out your poor reasoning. Everything every Christian ever said might be demonstrably untrue, but he'd still be right; your construction doesn't stand up to examination.

obplayer wrote: »

First of all, Christians do clearly believe that going to heaven is good. If they don't then what is the point of the whole cult?

So; you assume going to heaven is the point of the cult. Have you checked? I'd say less than 10 seconds googling would tell you your assumption is wrong.

obplayer wrote: »

If a foetus being sent straight to heaven before being tested on Earth is somehow inferior to "living and growing" then are there two levels of heaven? So the foetus which is sent straight there is missing out through no fault of it's own?

So, you're assuming the point of the cult is to get to heaven, you're assuming a foetus being sent straight to heaven before being tested on Earth is somehow inferior, and you're assuming there are two levels of heaven. Have you any basis for any of those assumptions?

obplayer wrote: »

If there are not two levels of heaven then what are you talking about? I will leave the question of why a believer should regret being diagnosed with a terminal illness which God could easily prevent/cure and which the person had no part in acquiring for another day.

But Pergrinus didn't propose two levels of heaven, you did. What are you talking about?

obplayer wrote: »

As for Dan's 'assertion' that you are a theist....

I don't recall Peregrinus ever saying that he wasn't... though he has quite frequently said on A&A that he is. But it doesn't actually make any difference to the points he's making...

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think Mick Wallace is terribly representative of what way the government is likely to jump in fairness :-)
On the other hand, if Leo Varadkar thinks it'll give him a shot at Taoiseach, he'll be the first one to call for it. Personally though I think he'll push for a broadening of the circumstances in which abortion can be utilised (ffa, maybe rape) but stop short of calling for a repeal of the 8th, and thereby be seen to be doing a little bit for everyone.

Evidence of pressure for a referendum commitment within FG:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-faces-fg-revolt-over-partys-abortion-position-30971813.html

There are growing fears that the party will be punished by voters during the upcoming general election campaign unless its manifesto contains a pledge to hold a referendum on repealing the Eighth Amendment.

And no sign of anyone calling for a 'tweak the Eighth' referendum you favour. I think Clare Daly's bill has served its purpose in that anyone who voted against it but public says they favour a right to abortion on grounds of FFA is virtually obliged to support a referendum...

alaimacerc

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

And no sign of anyone calling for a 'tweak the Eighth' referendum you favour.

InB4 "Absolam objects to you characterising what he favours in this area (and demands links to direct quotes where he said this is precisely so many words), but declines to do so himself."

I think Clare Daly's bill has served its purpose in that anyone who voted against it but public says they favour a right to abortion on grounds of FFA is virtually obliged to support a referendum...

I think you may underestimate the cunningness of the trilemma at work here. They can't vote for the bill because they believe it to be unconstitutional, even though they support its aims. (No attempt to test this, of course.) They can't legislate to allow a referendum to change the constitution because it wasn't in their manifesto. We've already kicked into touch past the next election. After that, we're into "not in government", "in a situation not foreseen by our party policy", or simply "manifesto is silent due to need to agree policy, consult further, etc".

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Evidence of pressure for a referendum commitment within FG:

When the 'senior Fine Gael source" gives their name and says they will be campaigning for a referendum to repeal the 8th, that will be worth sitting up for. Until then, it really doesn't amount to any sort of commitment from anyone, does it?

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

And no sign of anyone calling for a 'tweak the Eighth' referendum you favour. I think Clare Daly's bill has served its purpose in that anyone who voted against it but public says they favour a right to abortion on grounds of FFA is virtually obliged to support a referendum...

Well, it certainly serves the purpose of pointing out that there is a political view that legislating for ffa would require a referendum to 'tweak the Eight' as you say. Personally, I'd like to have seen it passed and have the President refer it to the SC; I suspect it is unconstitutional, but I'd be interested in the SCs judgement.
As to obliging anyone who supports the bill to support a referendum, I'd say only insofar as the limit of the referendum matches the limit of the bill. I wouldn't think they'd necessarily feel any obligation to support a referendum to repeal the 8th for instance.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

InB4 "Absolam objects to you characterising what he favours in this area (and demands links to direct quotes where he said this is precisely so many words), but declines to do so himself."

Whilst it's obviously very kind of you to offer posts on my behalf, I think I'll stick with making my own thanks That way I can say what I want, rather than what you want me to say.

recedite

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think you may underestimate the cunningness of the trilemma at work here. They can't vote for the bill because they believe it to be unconstitutional, even though they support its aims. (No attempt to test this, of course.) They can't legislate to allow a referendum to change the constitution because it wasn't in their manifesto. We've already kicked into touch past the next election. After that, we're into "not in government", "in a situation not foreseen by our party policy", or simply "manifesto is silent due to need to agree policy, consult further, etc".

That's pretty much the situation as it is, except that when you say "No attempt to test this, of course" the govt. probably did run the draft bill past their legal people (possibly including the AG)

This whole thing arises on foot of the High Court decision a few weeks ago allowing the withdrawal of life support for a foetus where it was in a situation "incompatible with life".
What Claire Daly is proposing is an active intervention to prematurely end life in similar circumstances. Euthanasia in other words. The same HC judgement specifically clarified that its decision did not apply to any active interventions.
Personally, I'm not against the euthanasia option for certain cases of terminally ill patients, whether born or unborn, but Varadkar is correct that at the moment any such bill would be unconstitutional.

But I would question whether a democratic govt. needs a "mandate" to run a referendum. The referendum result itself expresses the democratic will of the people. If a govt. were to spring a piece of legislation on the electorate without having mentioned it in their election campaign, that would be undemocratic. But the result of a referendum is its own mandate.

Its more a matter of "political expediency" whether or not to call a referendum, so they should just admit that. On balance, and at this moment, they don't feel it would add to their popularity.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

This whole thing arises on foot of the High Court decision a few weeks ago allowing the withdrawal of life support for a foetus where it was in a situation "incompatible with life".

You seem to think this bill only occurred to Daly because of the recent case in the Midlands, and is based entirely on that ruling. That just isn't true.

From Clare Daly's site in November 2013:
http://claredaly.ie/no-need-to-change-the-constitution-to-allow-for-terminations-where-there-is-a-fatal-foetal-abnormality/#

There is no need to repeal the 8th Amendment. The Irish governments own argument in D v Ireland at the European Court of Human Rights 2006 bear this out, where the court found:“There was ‘at least a tenable’ argument which would be seriously considered by the domestic courts to the effect that the foetus was not an ‘unborn’ for the purposes of Article 40.3.3 or that, even if it was an ‘unborn’, its right to life was not actually engaged as it had no prospect of life outside the womb.”It was on these grounds, argued by the Irish government – that an Irish court might rule that a woman should not be denied the right to abortion in D’s circumstances – that the European Court of Human Rights dismissed Deirdre Conroy’s case: she had not exhausted all domestic avenues.Thus the Irish government’s argument in D v Ireland was that termination on grounds of fatal foetal abnormality was constitutionally permissible.

So in 2006 the government was claiming that Deirdre Conroy could potentially have had an abortion under the. Irish constitution.

Now they may not have believed it would be accepted as the law then was, but they cannot also make an honest claim that it is self-evidently impossible to incorporate FFA into 40.3.3 through legislation.

recedite

I don't think Daly's conclusion.. "Thus the Irish government’s argument in D v Ireland was that termination on grounds of fatal foetal abnormality was constitutionally permissible." ... is supported by the facts.
The govt. seems to have successfully argued at the time that the ECHR did not have jurisdiction because the person had not been through the domestic courts first. That is completely different. If the person was convinced they were right, they should have gone back to the Irish courts. And if they lost there, they could have then returned to ECHR, as a sort of EU appeal.

Here's what the Irish High Court said a few weeks ago;

It should also be stated that the courts could never sanction positive steps to terminate life. The court will, in exceptional circumstances, authorise steps not being taken to prolong life, but could never authorise a course of action which would accelerate death or terminate life.

So its fairly certain that a person would lose a FFA abortion case in the Irish courts.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

I don't think Daly's conclusion.. "Thus the Irish government’s argument in D v Ireland was that termination on grounds of fatal foetal abnormality was constitutionally permissible." ... is supported by the facts.
The govt. seems to have successfully argued at the time that the ECHR did not have jurisdiction because the person had not been through the domestic courts first. That is completely different. If the person was convinced they were right, they should have gone back to the Irish courts. And if they lost there, they could have then returned to ECHR, as a sort of EU appeal.

Here's what the Irish High Court said a few weeks ago;
So its fairly certain that a person would lose a FFA abortion case in the Irish courts.

So are you saying that the government lied when they said there was a tenable argument for FFA being constitutional?

recedite

No, saying that there is "a tenable argument" is completely different to saying "it is constitutionally permissable".
That argument is even less tenable now, after the recent HC judgement as quoted above.

recedite

What I am saying is that while the publicity surrounding the recent HC case has created a political climate in which Clare Daly and others could benefit themselves by producing their draft bill at this time, the actual judgement in the case has strengthened the view that their draft bill is unconstitutional.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

What I am saying is that while the publicity surrounding the recent HC case has created a political climate in which Clare Daly and others could benefit themselves by producing their draft bill at this time, the actual judgement in the case has strengthened the view that their draft bill is unconstitutional.

So you are just speculating.
Since the government refuses to publish the AC's advice, we don't actually know that. What we do know is what was said in 2006.

At the very least the situation is unclear, and may need to be tested by the courts.

recedite

Maybe Clare Daly will divert some of her substantial Dail salary and secretarial facilities to sponsoring a FFA test case then.

volchitsa

Why should she? Do any of the other TDs use their personal salaries to further their political aims? It's her job to push for legislation she believes matters, and possible complications or failings in the system are not her personal fault.

You've just shown your true agenda there. That was a very underhand and unfair crack at Clare Daly, trying to hold her to a different level of accountability to the others, just because you don't agree with ther aims, nothing else.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

It's her job to push for legislation she believes matters..

Its her duty to make some attempt to ascertain whether her proposed legislation is constitutional before pushing it.
The AG is the solicitor acting for the govt.
Not the opposition, or the Dail, or the State. Daly should get her own legal advice.
Also, whatever advice the AG may have given to the govt. is only opinion, or "speculation" as you put it. Just like yours or mine, even if it carries a bit more weight with the govt.
IMO there is almost no chance that abortion for reasons of FFA is legal, but whoever is committed enough to that "cause" is free to support a test case. Only a test case going all the way to the SC, and possibly on to ECHR could provide 100% certainty.

I agree with Varadkar, abortion should be allowed in cases of FFA, but trying to bring in legislation which cannot succeed is a waste of public resources. Its just political posturing.

volchitsa

No, the AG's advice isn't just speculation, shouldn't be (though it hasn't always been borne out by subsequent judgments, for example the then AG's opinion about X was wholly disproven when it went to court). But my point was that you don't know what that advice was, since it hasn't been made public.

I suggest that the reason it hasn't been made public is that it is probably a lot more equivocal than Joan Burton has admitted. That too is speculation, of course, but no less plausible than your own. After all, the supposed reason for not making it public is confidentiality - but in that case she shouldn't have made any of it public at all.

Also, even if true that it was a lost cause without constitutional reform, that still wouldn't make it "just posturing" - it's about keeping the pressure up, and ensuring that we don't wait about few decades and more lost court cases, or even deaths, until the question is really taken in hand by our politicians.

Kiwi in IE

recedite wrote: »

Its her duty to make some attempt to ascertain whether her proposed legislation is constitutional before pushing it.
The AG is the solicitor acting for the govt.
Not the opposition, or the Dail, or the State. Daly should get her own legal advice.
Also, whatever advice the AG may have given to the govt. is only opinion, or "speculation" as you put it. Just like yours or mine, even if it carries a bit more weight with the govt.
IMO there is almost no chance that abortion for reasons of FFA is legal, but whoever is committed enough to that "cause" is free to support a test case. Only a test case going all the way to the SC, and possibly on to ECHR could provide 100% certainty.

I agree with Varadkar, abortion should be allowed in cases of FFA, but trying to bring in legislation which cannot succeed is a waste of public resources. Its just political posturing.

Why can the government not just bring about a referendum to appeal the 8th Ammendment? Why does it have to be so complicated and what is the holdup? There is clearly public support for doing this. Can they not just take the bull by the horns and be done with it? The last referendum was in the early 80's if I remember rightly. So women that are currently of childbearing age were not eligible to vote, if they were even born! The generations who have come of voting age in the last 30 years are far more likely to be pro choice than those who were eligible to vote the last time. It is a laughable international embarrassment to say nothing of the infringement on the rights of Irish women. It is time to get rid of that achaic Ammendment and bring Ireland into line with the rest of the 1st World where it belongs.

aloyisious

On the issue of avoiding pregnancy, I listened to RTE's history-docu's on the condom-train and how one doctor was prosecuted here some decades ago for providing a condom to a girl over a weekend when the chemist was shut. The judge found him guilty, and fined him, wondering from the bench "why the girl had to have sex over the weekend and not wait til Monday to have sex". Lol. Hopefully the courts view of modern life will be aware of how the clock has advanced, if a case was brought against a passed referendum for change or deletion of the amendment.

lazygal

Mary McGee, who e have to thank for starting the contraception changes, was asked why her and her husband couldn't live as brother and sister if she'd be at risk if she got pregnant again. Imagine anyone thinking a married couple would just not have sex and that would be a reasonable course of action. Of course Catholics aren't supposed to use contraception so the 84% who are obviously aren't worried about getting hold of condoms.

Loafing Oaf

lazygal wrote: »

Mary McGee, who e have to thank for starting the contraception changes, was asked why her and her husband couldn't live as brother and sister if she'd be at risk if she got pregnant again. Imagine anyone thinking a married couple would just not have sex and that would be a reasonable course of action.

I remember reading a newspaper article about the personal life of our former leader when a priest was pressed - off the record - to explain how Bertie could continue to receive the sacraments when apparently 'living in sin'. His response: "We don't know the nature of the relationship". So some people still believe in the 'separate bedrooms' scenario. Or affect to...

recedite

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why can the government not just bring about a referendum to appeal the 8th Ammendment?

Because people can't agree on what to amend it to, or how far they want to go. If it was simply for FFA and nothing else, it would probably succeed easily enough.
But immediately afterwards there would be calls for another referendum to repeal that one, and proposing to go further.

lazygal

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I remember reading a newspaper article about the personal life of our former leader when a priest was pressed - off the record - to explain how Bertie could continue to receive the sacraments when apparently 'living in sin'. His response: "We don't know the nature of the relationship". So some people still believe in the 'separate bedrooms' scenario. Or affect to...

Mental reservations or some such.

Kiwi in IE

recedite wrote: »

Because people can't agree on what to amend it to, or how far they want to go. If it was simply for FFA and nothing else, it would probably succeed easily enough.
But immediately afterwards there would be calls for another referendum to repeal that one, and proposing to go further.

But does it have to be decided at the time of the referendum what the law will eventually be changed to? Can it not be worded in a way that the amendment is either removed or not? Clean slate, out of constitution and start over? Can people not simply be asked if they think the constitution should continue to grant the foetus an equal right to life to the woman who carries it? If the majority vote no then the amendment can simply be removed. Why does it need to be replaced exactly? Does every law have to have a constitutional reference?

Loafing Oaf

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But does it have to be decided at the time of the referendum what the law will eventually be changed to? Can it not be worded in a way that the amendment is either removed or not? Clean slate, out of constitution and start over? Can people not simply be asked if they think the constitution should continue to grant the foetus an equal right to life to the woman who carries it? If the majority vote no then the amendment can simply be removed. Why does it need to be replaced exactly? Does every law have to have a constitutional reference?

Are you presuming in this scenario that the PFLPA would remain in force? If so how would things be improved by women with FFA or other 'hard case' situations?

recedite

If you simply removed the 8th amendment altogether, and rolled back the legislation that followed it you would go back to the situation that existed before it; abortion was illegal and there was no exemption at all, even if the life of the mother was threatened.

If you wanted to remove all constitutional rights to life for the unborn, but retain the current legislation and have the flexibility to change it whenever suited, then you could remove all of Article 40.3, not just the 8th amendment. Even then, there would be doubt about the implied rights of the unborn, so you would have to insert a new Article 40.3 stating explicitly that the unborn had unequivocally no right to life.
Whether this would succeed is doubtful IMO.

Article 40.3 wrote:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.
This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

Kiwi in IE

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Are you presuming in this scenario that the PFLPA would remain in force? If so how would things be improved by women with FFA or other 'hard case' situations?

Perhaps I'm being slow but what is a PFLPA?

I'm certainly not suggesting that women with FFA be left with current absurd law! But why should it just be FFA? If the constitution is changed to allow for termination in the case of FFA that's great, but in 6 months time there will be another case where a woman's health, as opposed to her life are seriously endangered by pregnancy and Irish law states that's tough luck unless she has enough money to go to UK. Then there is another uproar and what should happen then? Another referendum? The Ammendment is so problematic that it just needs to go and I think that is what the referendum should be about, not individual or particular circumstance. I really don't understand why there is such a problem? Almost every other western country has managed to adequately legislate for this several decades ago. I admit I don't know the entirety of the constitution and my understanding Irish politics is certainly not comprehensive, but can't laws be changed, made and passed without each and every one requiring a constitutional reference?

alaimacerc

lazygal wrote: »

Mary McGee, who e have to thank for starting the contraception changes, was asked why her and her husband couldn't live as brother and sister if she'd be at risk if she got pregnant again. Imagine anyone thinking a married couple would just not have sex and that would be a reasonable course of action. Of course Catholics aren't supposed to use contraception so the 84% who are obviously aren't worried about getting hold of condoms.

Over at p.ie, I had some bluffer bluffing his way over the "substantial risk" threshold, and saying that a 10% risk of death would be perfectly acceptable. To be precise, he said this when asked what the law should be, and deflecting with a response about his personal view -- though as the pronouns imply, this would necessarily never be as "person" for him as it would be for some.

I heard the same radio programme, and had much the same thought. In another 40 years time, how will people look back at these "how much risk of death is 'enough' to be afforded the right of bodily integrity?" discussions? Will they seem as strange as the McGee case does to us now?

Kiwi in IE

recedite wrote: »

If you simply removed the 8th amendment altogether, and rolled back the legislation that followed it you would go back to the situation that existed before it; abortion was illegal and there was no exemption at all, even if the life of the mother was threatened.

If you wanted to remove all constitutional rights to life for the unborn, but retain the current legislation and have the flexibility to change it whenever suited, then you could remove all of Article 40.3, not just the 8th amendment. Even then, there would be doubt about the implied rights of the unborn, so you would have to insert a new Article 40.3 stating explicitly that the unborn had unequivocally no right to life.
Whether this would succeed is doubtful IMO.

Ok can all references to abortion and unborn be removed then? Any referendum needs to focus on this rather than particular sets of circumstance in my opinion. Is it necessary to refer to such things in a countries constitution?

alaimacerc

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Perhaps I'm being slow but what is a PFLPA?

AKA the PoLDPA, with a couple of helpful typos thrown in. The "significant risk of death" legislation.

I admit I don't know the entirety of the constitution and my understanding Irish politics is certainly not comprehensive, but can't laws be changed, made and passed without each and every one requiring a constitutional reference?

Yes. The idea that there's some deep legal difficulty with just repealing the 8th is nonsense.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

If you simply removed the 8th amendment altogether, and rolled back the legislation that followed it [...]

Hence you don't necessarily do part "b)". You could simply repeal the 8th, in the first instance. You can repeal and amend. You can repeal and replace.

Note the common factor. Let's start with the "repeal" part.