The new, vicious fight

Kev W

frostyjacks wrote: »

Wasn't she on a hunger strike? That doesn't sound like someone of sound mind to me. The authorities had a duty to protect her baby. What rights were denied/abused?

Extremely insulting to anyone who has ever protested in that way.

LorMal

Kev W wrote: »

Ah, so they should only take on the issues that YOU PERSONALLY feel 100% certain about.

Reasonable.

No. Did I say that? please keep to what I actually said rather than just making stuff up

Daith

LorMal wrote: »

No. Did I say that? please keep to what I actually said rather than just making stuff up

You pretty much did. Amnesty shouldn't be concerned with "subjective issues". If there were no subjective issues you wouldn't need a human rights org!

LorMal

volchitsa wrote: »

You seem to have a problem accepting that Miss Y was subjected to an outrageous abuse of her human rights because of our law. Forcibly sedating and performing major surgery on someone whose "informed consent" is unclear to say the least is an abuse in any democracy I know of.

A couple of possible conclusions may be drawn from that. That you are "anti-choice" is probably the least offensive of them.

Are you mixing me up with someone else?i don't know anything about that case and have expressed no opinion on it

volchitsa

frostyjacks wrote: »

Wasn't she on a hunger strike? That doesn't sound like someone of sound mind to me. The authorities had a duty to protect her baby. What rights were denied/abused?

So everyone who's ever gone on hunger strike is insane, are they? What about Tibetan monks and nuns who set themselves on fire as a political protest - are they automatically to be considered insane, so that the Chinese authorities are in fact being perfectly reasonable in locking them up as a preventive measure?

And if she was of unsound mind, how could she have consented to surgery? In that case the surgery was illegal, so either way there's a major problem.

As for the "duty to protect her baby" - I think you'll find they had absolutely no legal right to protect it to the extent of removing her freedom, otherwise there would be no right to travel for an abortion. And the prisons would be full of all those women who smoke and drink while pregnant.

So a country which bypasses its own laws by removing someone's physical liberty is exactly the sort of place liable to find itself named in an Amnesty report. No two ways about it.

volchitsa

LorMal wrote: »

Are you mixing me up with someone else?i don't know anything about that case and have expressed no opinion on it

So if you don't know anything about it, I suggest you inform yourself before getting involved in the discussion. It's a significant element of this debate and someone who genuinely doesn't know about it isn't capable of taking part.

Though how you could actually not know, unless you live under a rock, is beyond me. So to be frank, I don't really believe you.

frostyjacks

Kev W wrote: »

Extremely insulting to anyone who has ever protested in that way.

Going on hunger strike when you're pregnant is very, very dangerous, and not something someone of sound mind would do.

LorMal

Daith wrote: »

You pretty much did. Amnesty shouldn't be concerned with "subjective issues"

I pretty much didn't. there are some issues that are not black and white - such as Abortion. With those issues, I think a global independent organisation should remain outside the debate and not be canvassing for one particular side.
I happen to agree with their opinion but I think they should remain independent. Much like we prefer our President to remain independent of party political issues.
I think this allows a very powerful moral authority. Otherwise Amnesty can just become yet another political grouping.
It's just my opinion having supported Amnesty for over 30 years.

Daith

LorMal wrote: »

I pretty much didn't. there are some issues that are not black and white - such as Abortion.

And the authorities in Syria or wherever wouldn't view those issues as black and white.

Most issues are not black and white. That's why your points make no sense.

LorMal

volchitsa wrote: »

So if you don't know anything about it, I suggest you inform yourself before getting involved in the discussion. It's a significant element of this debate and someone who genuinely doesn't know about it isn't capable of taking part.

Though how you could actually not know, unless you live under a rock, is beyond me. So to be frank, I don't really believe you.

I don't care whether you believe me or not. I can hold a view about abortion without your permission, thanks.

Kev W

frostyjacks wrote: »

Going on hunger strike when you're pregnant is very, very dangerous, and not something someone of sound mind would do.

Why when pregnant specifically?

Kev W

volchitsa wrote: »

So everyone who's ever gone on hunger strike is insane, are they? What about Tibetan monks and nuns who set themselves on fire as a political protest - are they automatically to be considered insane, so that the Chinese authorities are in fact being perfectly reasonable in locking them up as a preventive measure?

And if she was of unsound mind, how could she have consented to surgery? In that case the surgery was illegal, so either way there's a major problem.

As for the "duty to protect her baby" - I think you'll find they had absolutely no legal right to protect it to the extent of removing her freedom, otherwise there would be no right to travel for an abortion. And the prisons would be full of all those women who smoke and drink while pregnant.

So a country which bypasses its own laws by removing someone's physical liberty is exactly the sort of place liable to find itself named in an Amnesty report. No two ways about it.

That's pretty much what I meant earlier, i just used fewer words and all caps.:)

volchitsa

frostyjacks wrote: »

Going on hunger strike when you're pregnant is very, very dangerous, and not something someone of sound mind would do.

In which case, her "consent" to the c-section was invalid. Yet we were told by the HSE that she consented.

Also, your logic indicates that anyone who commits suicide for any reason is of unsound mind - yet Dignitas (for exampl) is based in the fact that this is not necessarily the case.

Being driven to suicide by having your rapist's child in your body despite your repeated attempts to get rid of it can, according to our legislation, make someone suicidal without their being insane.

Daith

frostyjacks wrote: »

Going on hunger strike when you're pregnant is very, very dangerous, and not something someone of sound mind would do.

Likewise
Drinking alcohol
Smoking
Cycling without a helmet
Driving
Going to the gym

All things that may be dangerous if your pregnant. Pregnant women shouldn't do these?

volchitsa

LorMal wrote: »

I don't care whether you believe me or not. I can hold a view about abortion without your permission, thanks.

Of course you can. But when your main gripe on this subject seems to be with Amnesty "taking sides", without acknowledging that Miss Y was subjected to an outrageous abuse of her human rights, then the rest of us are also entitled to draw conclusions from that.

LorMal

Daith wrote: »

And the authorizes is Syria or wherever wouldn't view those issues as black and white.

Most issues are not black and white. That's why your points make no sense.

Sorry but that's just rubbish. Any reasonable person would fundamentally object to torture, rape, imprisonment without trial, mass executions. That is why Amnesty was set up. They are universal principals which all decent people would uphold.
Abortion is a very different matter and requires a tolerant and inclusive approach which respects many different and potentially conflicting agendas (the mother, the father, the child, the medical, the legal, the societal). It's not black and White.

LorMal

volchitsa wrote: »

Of course you can. But when your main gripe on this subject seems to be with Amnesty "taking sides", without acknowledging that Miss Y was subjected to an outrageous abuse of her human rights, then the rest of us are also entitled to draw conclusions from that.

For the last time, I said absolutely nothing about any Miss Y. How can I acknowledge Miss Y when I never mentioned her and don't know anything about her.
Go away.

Daith

LorMal wrote: »

Sorry but that's just rubbish. Any reasonable person would fundamentally object to torture, rape, imprisonment without trial, mass executions. That is why Amnesty was set up. They are universal principals which all decent people would uphold.

No that is rubbish. Absolute rubbish. This is your personal opinion. It still boils down to you wanting Amnesty to focus on issues you like. It's not black and white. Nothing is.

LorMal wrote: »

Syria is a very different matter and requires a tolerant and inclusive approach which respects many different and potentially conflicting agendas . It's not black and White.

volchitsa

LorMal wrote: »

Sorry but that's just rubbish. Any reasonable person would fundamentally object to torture, rape, imprisonment without trial, mass executions. That is why Amnesty was set up. They are universal principals which all decent people would uphold.
Abortion is a very different matter and requires a tolerant and inclusive approach which respects many different and potentially conflicting agendas (the mother, the father, the child, the medical, the legal, the societal). It's not black and White.

Miss Y was imprisoned without trial, and indeed without having committed a crime. Do you imagine the authorities in Syria couldn't also explain that they too are in a "different" situation and therefore this "justifies" something they would never otherwise do willingly?

frostyjacks

I'm just not seeing how her rights were denied/abused. She had no right to an abortion. If it was such a travesty how come Ireland wasn't hauled before the ECHR?

LorMal

Daith wrote: »

No that is rubbish. Absolute rubbish. This is your personal opinion. It still boils down to you wanting Amnesty to focus on issues you like. It's not black and white. Nothing is.

Again putting words in my mouth. I never said I want AI to focus on issues I like.
(Btw torture and rape are very black and white issues)

LorMal

volchitsa wrote: »

Miss Y was imprisoned without trial, and indeed without having committed a crime. Do you imagine the authorities in Syria couldn't also explain that they too are in a "different" situation and therefore this "justifies" something they would never otherwise do willingly?

Year but what about Miss Q?.you have never even mentioned her?

Daith

LorMal wrote: »

Again putting words in my mouth. I never said I want AI to focus on issues I like.

No you're splitting issues into "every decent person will agree" and "these issues are subjective"

Every issue is subjective. I don't see why any decent person voted No in the marriage referendum but you think that's "subjective" and Amnesty shouldn't be involved.

In fact it looks like you don't want Amnsety to be involved in any issue in Ireland but other countries yeah that's fine.

There is no difference between Amnesty getting involved in Syria and Amnesty in abortion here except for your personal opinion.

LorMal wrote: »

(Btw torture and rape are very black and white issues)

To some cultures, religions, countries, governments they're not. Some would consider what Miss Y went through as torture btw

volchitsa

LorMal wrote: »

For the last time, I said absolutely nothing about any Miss Y. How can I acknowledge Miss Y when I never mentioned her and don't know anything about her.
Go away.

Do you agree that someone who knows nothing about a fundamental aspect of a discussion is not able to take a full part in that discussion?

If a person who knew nothing about Ireland started lecturing us on Northern Ireland, I bet you'd be pretty quick to tell them they hadn't a clue what they were talking about. Miss Y was the first case of application of our new legislation around suicidality while pregnant, and the right to abortion in such cases. She is also one of the main reasons Amnesty has got involved (and if you like we can discuss Deirdre Conroy and others in the meantime, while you get up to speed on the Miss Y case).

But if you don't know about the reasons why Amnesty got involved, you aren't able to take part. And telling me to go away so you can make a show of your pride in your own ignorance is, as the poster said pages ago, truly ironic.

LorMal

Daith wrote: »

No you're splitting issues into "every decent person will agree" and "these issues are subjective"

Every issue is subjective. I don't see why any decent person voted No in the marriage referendum but you think that's "subjective" and Amnesty shouldn't be involved.

In fact it looks like you don't want Amnsety to be involved in any issue in Ireland but other countries yeah that's fine.

There is no difference between Amnesty getting involved in Syria and Amnesty in abortion here except for your personal opinion.

Whatever. You are arguing that the abortion issue here is the same as the ongoing torture and rape tragedy in Syria. Okay.

Daith

LorMal wrote: »

Whatever. You are arguing that the abortion issue here is the same as the ongoing torture and rape tragedy in Syria. Okay.

I really think you need to get more informed here. I would say what happened to Miss Y was a tragedy but as you haven't got a clue about that....

LorMal

volchitsa wrote: »

Do you agree that someone who knows nothing about a fundamental aspect of a discussion is not able to take a full part in that discussion?

If a person who knew nothing about Ireland started lecturing us on Northern Ireland, I bet you'd be pretty quick to tell them they hadn't a clue what they were talking about. Miss Y was the first case of application of our new legislation around suicidality while pregnant, and the right to abortion in such cases. She is also one of the main reasons Amnesty has got involved (and if you like we can discuss Deirdre Conroy and others in the meantime, while you get up to speed on the Miss Y case).

But if you don't know about the reasons why Amnesty got involved, you aren't able to take part. And telling me to go away so you can make a show of your pride in your own ignorance is, as the poster said pages ago, truly ironic.

What about Miss J?

LorMal

Daith wrote: »

I really think you need to get more informed here.

And you need to get more tolerant

Daith

LorMal wrote: »

And you need to get more tolerant

I'm not tolerant of people forming uninformed opinions. I agree there.

I really think you should read up on the Miss Y case tbh.

Kev W

LorMal wrote: »

Whatever. You are arguing that the abortion issue here is the same as the ongoing torture and rape tragedy in Syria. Okay.

Not the same. Comparable in certain relevant respects.