‘People think I’m the devil for having an abortion, but it’s the only option that&

sunshine and showers

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Are you sure? I might be wrong but I seem to recall there being a case where they were asked this and they said it began at implantation. Perhaps it was a case related to assisted reproduction and disposal of embryos? I need to check, sorry!

I found this:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1115/82562-embryo/

Where they said the right to life does not extend to embryos outside the womb.

That case decided that frozen embryos are not "the unborn" and only get the protection of the unborn once they become implanted in the womb. It didn't address the question of when life begins because that was outside the scope of the case.

Basically that case was just about whether frozen embryos are unborn children or not.

volchitsa

sunshine and showers wrote: »

That case decided that frozen embryos are not "the unborn" and only get the protection of the unborn once they become implanted in the womb. It didn't address the question of when life begins because that was outside the scope of the case.

Basically that case was just about whether frozen embryos are unborn children or not.

That's the case I was vaguely remembering too. Logically, how could frozen embryos not be "unborn" though? If not, what are they? They must be something, since implanted embryos of the same age are considered unborn?

IMV, that is clearly a case of the courts shying away from an uncomfortable truth about what the full implications of the Irish constitution really are.

One eyed Jack

sunshine and showers wrote: »

That case decided that frozen embryos are not "the unborn" and only get the protection of the unborn once they become implanted in the womb. It didn't address the question of when life begins because that was outside the scope of the case.

Basically that case was just about whether frozen embryos are unborn children or not.

The 2013 Act was written to conform with a 2009 Supreme Court judgment regarding the beginning of life, which is why "the unborn" is defined in the Act as existing from the moment of implantation in the womb, to the time of emergence from the womb.

sunshine and showers

volchitsa wrote: »

That's the case I was vaguely remembering too. Logically, how could frozen embryos not be "unborn" though? If not, what are they? They must be something, since implanted embryos of the same age are considered unborn?

IMV, that is clearly a case of the courts shying away from an uncomfortable truth about what the full implications of the Irish constitution really are.

They're not "the unborn" I'm Article 40.3 of the Constitution as that was clearly meant to mean the "child in the womb" as far as I remember. As ever with the Constitution, it's all about interpretation. Court decided that the eighth amendment couldn't have been referring to frozen embryos as that's not what the people had in mind when voting in 1983.

Edit: Sorry, One eyed Jack, was only thinking of 2006 case.

volchitsa

sunshine and showers wrote: »

They're not "the unborn" I'm Article 40.3 of the Constitution as that was clearly meant to mean the "child in the womb" as far as I remember. As ever with the Constitution, it's all about interpretation. Court decided that the eighth amendment couldn't have been referring to frozen embryos as that's not what the people had in mind when voting in 1983.

Edit: Sorry, One eyed Jack, was only thinking of 2006 case.

Still not very logical. The fact that the people who voted then couldn't have been asked about frozen embryos because they didn't yet exist doesn't mean they would have approved of frozen embryos. In fact we know they almost certainly wouldn't, since the vote was very much about catholic teaching, which does indeed ban frozen embryos.

Like I said, the court seems to have held back from a logical decision which would have opened an "appalling vista" of either banning IVF or revisiting the 8th.

FatherTed

TBH I'm not going to read through the +1000 posts of the usual back and forth between the pro lifers and the pro choicers.

Of course abortions should be legal in Ireland. Welcome to the 21st century. To the pro lifers, if you don't like abortions, then don't have one.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Still not very logical. The fact that the people who voted then couldn't have been asked about frozen embryos because they didn't yet exist doesn't mean they would have approved of frozen embryos. In fact we know they almost certainly wouldn't, since the vote was very much about catholic teaching, which does indeed ban frozen embryos.

Louise Brown was celebrating her 5th birthday in 1983. I was only 7 myself at the time and I remember the media circus surrounding the referendum well.

Like I said, the court seems to have held back from a logical decision which would have opened an "appalling vista" of either banning IVF or revisiting the 8th.

I think it's because the embryos are frozen, they're obviously not going to develop without implantation, which was the matter the Supreme Court was addressing. IVF had nothing to do with the 8th at the point before implantation, so they didn't have to revisit the 8th, nor did they have to ban IVF?

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding what you mean above about whatever decision you think the Court avoided making?

PopePalpatine

FatherTed wrote: »

TBH I'm not going to read through the +1000 posts of the usual back and forth between the pro lifers and the pro choicers.

Of course abortions should be legal in Ireland. Welcome to the 21st century. To the pro lifers, if you don't like abortions, then don't have one.

Or, they could just move to their paradise in El Salvador.

Potatoeman

volchitsa wrote: »

My theory (though it isn't mine, it's fairly well accepted science) is that children who grow up feeling rejected by either or both parents tend to have very low self esteem and psychological issues that can cause all sorts of problems, including criminality, promiscuity etc among teenagers and, later, adults.

Children from single parent families are at a greater risk of a lot of things so the child is already at a disadvantage even if the father provides financial support. If we really want what's best for the child we would actively discourage single parent families. Good look trying to sell that one.

The woman should be free to choose to do what she wants abortion, adoption or parent but the father should also have a choice. If the child was adopted he would not be financially liable so her choice has implications on the fathers life.

One eyed Jack

Potatoeman wrote: »

Children from single parent families are at a greater risk of a lot of things so the child is already at a disadvantage even if the father provides financial support. If we really want what's best for the child we would actively discourage single parent families. Good look trying to sell that one.

What's this "we" business with regard to your own personal opinion? That's what you think would be best for the child. You're the only person trying to sell such nonsense. The father (or as has already been pointed out, in some cases the mother) is obliged to provide financial support for their child or children, and there's nobody stupid enough to stand up in public and campaign for a father's right to abdicate his responsibility towards his child or children, when the vast majority of unmarried fathers are campaigning because they currently have less rights than the child or children's mothers re automatic guardianship, etc (which would mean legally they would have to provide financial support for their child or children, totally nuking your ridiculous and utterly irrelevant strawman).

The woman should be free to choose to do what she wants abortion, adoption or parent but the father should also have a choice. If the child was adopted he would not be financially liable so her choice has implications on the fathers life.

The man does not become a father until the unborn child is born. If a woman chooses not to give birth, then she does not become a mother, and the man does not become a father. Adoption doesn't come into the issue of legislating for abortion. Adoption only becomes a consideration if the woman chooses to give birth. Under upcoming legislation, the father will be granted the same automatic guardianship rights as the mother so both parents will have an equal say in the matter.

It's simply impractical to suggest that the man who impregnated her should have any say in whether a woman can elect to terminate her pregnancy, be forced to terminate her pregnancy, or be forced to give birth against her will. That would take away any fundamental right the woman has to freedom of choice.

swampgas

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

I 've changed nothing.
- A fully human Blood -cell is a Blood Cell.
- A fully human zygote is a fully human being.

Sticking to the script, are we?

Nobody disputes that a human zygote is human.

Something simply being human (or "fully human", whatever that means) doesn't somehow magically mean abortion is wrong, which is your implication.

An early stage zygote (in the first week or so) is less than 2 mm in size. Does your "fully human" argument mean that this tiny entity has the same rights as a fully grown woman, or as (say) a 12-year old girl?

Do you think it's right that a woman should be forced to protect a tiny 2mm entity, which might go on to become a baby given enough time and plenty of luck, even if she really really doesn't want to be pregnant at this moment in time? If you do, then you would be in favour of banning the morning after pill. Is this the case?

volchitsa

Potatoeman wrote: »

Children from single parent families are at a greater risk of a lot of things so the child is already at a disadvantage even if the father provides financial support. If we really want what's best for the child we would actively discourage single parent families. Good look trying to sell that one.

Not sure why you think that. Governments often do try to encourage marriage, or sometimes just stable family units, in various ways - though of course coercion is no longer one of these ways.
Why should incentives like tax breaks for married couples seem so unthinkable to you?

Potatoeman wrote: »

The woman should be free to choose to do what she wants abortion, adoption or parent but the father should also have a choice. If the child was adopted he would not be financially liable so her choice has implications on the fathers life.

There is no disagreement about the fact that the existence of a child has implications on the parents' lives. But there is still no simple equivalence that allows the father to "abort" because the father isn't carrying the child in his body. Once the child is born, it has its own rights, independent of the parents'. It's true that Irish law doesn't really recognize unmarried fathers, but that is a hangover from the legal concept of "bastardy", not to granting extra rights for the mother.

Morag

The program has been uploaded on to Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dSICoqnFGA

Potatoeman

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's this "we" business with regard to your own personal opinion? That's what you think would be best for the child. You're the only person trying to sell such nonsense. The father (or as has already been pointed out, in some cases the mother) is obliged to provide financial support for their child or children, and there's nobody stupid enough to stand up in public and campaign for a father's right to abdicate his responsibility towards his child or children, when the vast majority of unmarried fathers are campaigning because they currently have less rights than the child or children's mothers re automatic guardianship, etc (which would mean legally they would have to provide financial support for their child or children, totally nuking your ridiculous and utterly irrelevant strawman).

The man does not become a father until the unborn child is born. If a woman chooses not to give birth, then she does not become a mother, and the man does not become a father. Adoption doesn't come into the issue of legislating for abortion. Adoption only becomes a consideration if the woman chooses to give birth. Under upcoming legislation, the father will be granted the same automatic guardianship rights as the mother so both parents will have an equal say in the matter.

It's simply impractical to suggest that the man who impregnated her should have any say in whether a woman can elect to terminate her pregnancy, be forced to terminate her pregnancy, or be forced to give birth against her will. That would take away any fundamental right the woman has to freedom of choice.

Children from single parent homes are at greater risk to any number of negative factors so if we as a society want what's best for children our choices should reflect this.

I've already stated that I believe no one should be forced to be a parent. Adoption is a form of abdicating personal responsibility to the child. If a woman chooses to adopt or raise the child then that decision has consequences for the man.

inocybe

Potatoeman wrote: »

Children from single parent homes are at greater risk to any number of negative factors so if we as a society want what's best for children our choices should reflect this.

Update your stereotyping... concludes that education level of parents and subsequent risk of poverty has a far greater effect on children than family type.

http://www.ucd.ie/news/2013/01JAN13/docs/Family_Relationships_and_Family_Well-Being_Dec_2012.pdf

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

It's true that Irish law doesn't really recognize unmarried fathers, but that is a hangover from the legal concept of "bastardy", not to granting extra rights for the mother.

I think it's important to put that word 'bastard' in it's proper legal context as it was at the time referring to the child as an illegitimate child, one born outside of marriage, and all the repercussions for that child, as opposed to a 'legitimate' child, a child born within marriage, because the contrast in legal recognition really shows the kind of cruel mindset that existed at the time (and still exists to some extent today in society).

According to the Illegitimate Children (Affiliation Orders) Act, 1930, the mother would have to prove paternity (with corroborative evidence) in the District Court before the father could be made to pay maintenance -

No Justice of the District Court shall be satisfied that a person is the putative father of an illegitimate child without hearing the evidence of the mother of such child and also evidence corroborative in some material particular or particulars of the evidence of such mother.

Often that meant that the woman would simply keep quiet about paternity rather than bring more "shame" upon herself.

Then there was the fact that the child was offered no legal protection of the State, as they were legally unrecognized by the State and so not entitled to education like legitimate children were -

“Article 42, section 5, of the Constitution, while dealing with the case of failure in duty on the part of parents towards the children, speaks of 'the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child' .... Those 'natural and imprescriptible rights' cannot be said to be acknowledged by the Constitution as residing only in legitimate children any more than it can be said that the guarantee in section 4 of the Article as to the provision of free primary education excludes illegitimate children. While it is not necessary to explore the full extent of the 'natural and imprescriptible rights of the child' they include the right to 'religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education.' An illegitimate child has the same natural rights as a legitimate child though not necessarily the same legal rights. Legal rights as distinct from natural rights are determined by the law for the time being in force in the State. While the law cannot under the Constitution seek to deprive the illegitimate child of those natural rights guaranteed by the Constitution it can, as in the Adoption Act 1952, secure for the illegitimate child legal rights similar to those possessed by legitimate children”.

Some more interesting case law and analysis here -

REPORT ON ILLEGITIMACY IRELAND


In short - women were demonised and made to suffer for bearing illegitimate children, and illegitimate children were demonised and made to suffer, ignored by society, while men were able to get off the hook for any responsibility towards the child unless it could be proven somehow that they were the father.

Not particularly different to the way things are today really now I actually think about it. It's not that the law doesn't recognise the rights of unmarried fathers. It's that all too often unmarried fathers want to abdicate their responsibility towards the child, and we've even seen that tried to be argued for in this thread that they should be able to do so. That's a position which completely ignores the welfare of the child and would be a step backwards rather than a step forward in father's rights.

One eyed Jack

Potatoeman wrote: »

Children from single parent homes are at greater risk to any number of negative factors so if we as a society want what's best for children our choices should reflect this.

I see inyocybee has already addressed this misguided and ill informed perception. Here's my own personal take on it though fwiw - I don't think you give a damn about "what's best for the children", or you would already have done your research.

Your thinly veiled 'concern' for society is barely disguising the fact that you're trying to argue that silly 'paper abortion for men' nonsense, that you couldn't care less about the rights or choices or welfare of a woman whether she chooses to terminate her pregnancy via an abortion or giving birth.

I've already stated that I believe no one should be forced to be a parent. Adoption is a form of abdicating personal responsibility to the child. If a woman chooses to adopt or raise the child then that decision has consequences for the man.

You cannot argue that no one should be forced to be a parent, without recognising that you are impeding on a woman's right to choose, and good luck to you as you say in trying to argue that a man should have the right to force a woman to have an abortion against her will. I'll say it to you again - adoption has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. When it is medically possible for men to bear children, then we can talk about the right to an abortion for men.

nozzferrahhtoo

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

There's no misrepresentation

Except there is, and I pointed out where. More that once.

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

it seems clear that once biologically human, other connotations of the word 'Human' are implied.

Nope. They are not. That is just the lazy thinking that belies the anti choice campaigner I am afraid. When we get into a discussion on morality, ethics, law, protections, rights and so forth, merely establishing it as biologically human still leaves all your work ahead of you.

And it is not just me saying this. The author of the white paper you yourself cited says it too. But you merely ignored that part of the paper while cherry picking the passages out of it you liked.

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

When you say "There appears to be some move by them to establish the zygote as "Human", you didn't make clear which other meanings you are referring to

Except yes I did. Both in the original post and the subsequent two posts clarifying my position for you. So your little historical revisionism here merely fails.

swampgas

And Duffer is gone, a closed account, after a mere 99 posts. Make of that what you will.

swampgas

Morag wrote: »

The program has been uploaded on to Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dSICoqnFGA

Just watched that, I thought it was a well made program. One thing that struck me was the plush offices and IT gear the Youth Defence people have. Who the hell is bankrolling them?

There really should be penalties for "charities" refusing to detail their finances, as required by law.

mikom

swampgas wrote: »

And Duffer is gone, a closed account, after a mere 99 posts. Make of that what you will.

Shifted to a different parish.
God speed........

swampgas

swampgas wrote: »

And Duffer is gone, a closed account, after a mere 99 posts. Make of that what you will.

Guess we can add that user to the list with philologo, ngarric, rozie and more than The Nozz has intellectually hammered off the forum. With the number of closed accounts and retrated he leaves in his wake - I am surprised the powers that be have not banned him to keep the usership numbers up

OldNotWIse

sunshine and showers wrote: »

That case decided that frozen embryos are not "the unborn" and only get the protection of the unborn once they become implanted in the womb. It didn't address the question of when life begins because that was outside the scope of the case.

Basically that case was just about whether frozen embryos are unborn children or not.

Yup, I know.

Potatoeman

inocybe wrote: »

Update your stereotyping... concludes that education level of parents and subsequent risk of poverty has a far greater effect on children than family type.

http://www.ucd.ie/news/2013/01JAN13/docs/Family_Relationships_and_Family_Well-Being_Dec_2012.pdf

It also says:

The present study falls within that broad remit but since it is confined to the first wave of data collection it is less able to talk about children’s development over time and the factors that affect it than will become possible as later waves of data are accumulated.

I would agree that the parents education level plays a big part as it would directly impact their financial situation however single income families are usually more at risk of poverty. Any persons education level reduces their risk of poverty though.

Look at these statistics:
https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/

inocybe

Potatoeman wrote: »

I would agree that the parents education level plays a big part as it would directly impact their financial situation however single income families are usually more at risk of poverty. Any persons education level reduces their risk of poverty though.

Look at these statistics:
https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/

Well that's not exactly an unbiased source... Besides which why are you assuming that children from single parent households are fatherless? Those I know have fathers, they just happen not to live in the same house as the mothers.

gandalf

swampgas wrote: »

And Duffer is gone, a closed account, after a mere 99 posts. Make of that what you will.

He'll be back I can nearly guarantee it. They always do come back!

swampgas wrote: »

Just watched that, I thought it was a well made program. One thing that struck me was the plush offices and IT gear the Youth Defence people have. Who the hell is bankrolling them?

There really should be penalties for "charities" refusing to detail their finances, as required by law.

The majority of Youth Defence members are also members of Opus Dei, they also get a lot of finance from Right wing Religious Christian extremists from the US.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Watched the show last night, found it pretty good. It would have been nice if she'd pushed the YD people on where all this money is coming from, but I'd imagine they had quite an extensive rider list before agreeing to work with her.

Potatoeman

inocybe wrote: »

Well that's not exactly an unbiased source... Besides which why are you assuming that children from single parent households are fatherless? Those I know have fathers, they just happen not to live in the same house as the mothers.

If you don't like the source use that sources citations. Also the study you linked was for nine year olds so it's preteens.

As for being fatherless they of course have a biological father and you can find statistics on children from fatherless homes (where he is not in the childs life) or broken homes where he is but not cohabiting with the mother.

Smidge

I've just watched the Claire Daly show there and their take on the abortion issue regarding the terminating of a pregnancy that isn't considered viable.

I must commend Boyd Barrett for speaking from personal opinion about his own daughter(it was clearly emotive for him)

Are we still that parochial and utterly cruel as a nation that we still cannot concede that where a fetus isnt considered viable and is never going to live, that we would make the already heartbroken parents travel abroad to resolve it?
For shame.

Smidge

Massively voted against, just on the news there now