Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

robdonn

volchitsa wrote: »

I seem to remember reading that the OATP act was superseded by POLDP but I can't remember how reliable a source that was.

Absolam wrote: »

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act repealed the relevant provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act, and replaces them with the new offence. The POLDPA would still stand as the legislation which makes the destruction of unborn human life an offence, regardless of the abolition of the 8th Amendment, as the Act itself does not rely on the Constitution.

I stand corrected.

PROTECTION OF LIFE DURING PREGNANCY ACT 2013

An Act to protect human life during pregnancy; to make provision for reviews at the instigation of a pregnant woman of certain medical opinions given in respect of pregnancy; to provide for an offence of intentional destruction of unborn human life; to amend the Health Act 2007; to repeal sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act repealed the relevant provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act, and replaces them with the new offence. The POLDPA would still stand as the legislation which makes the destruction of unborn human life an offence, regardless of the abolition of the 8th Amendment, as the Act itself does not rely on the Constitution.

That's an angle that does NOT seem as being pursued in respect of the "scrap the 8th amendment" movement. If the 8th fall's, existing legislation on the books will likely be back in use fully without any constitutional hindrance. The laws will have to go as well, with new legislation on the books giving legalization to abortion as a woman's right.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

That's an angle that does NOT seem as being pursued in respect of the "scrap the 8th amendment" movement. If the 8th fall's, existing legislation on the books will likely be back in use fully without any constitutional hindrance. The laws will have to go as well, with new legislation on the books giving legalization to abortion as a woman's right.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying? The POLDPA is the existing legislation; without the 8th it remains the existing legislation, and prohibits abortion other than in certain circumstances. No legislation will 'likely be back in use fully'; removing the 8th doesn't magically unrepeal repealed laws. If the 8th were removed by referendum, it would be up to the Oireachats to amend the POLDPA to include any other circumstances where it felt there was a mandate for abortion, or repeal it and replace it with other legislation that sets out when abortion is or isn't acceptable. The point of the 8th is it places whether or not we have abortion in the hands of the people; removing it places whether or not we have abortion (and to what degree we permit abortion) in the hands of the Oireachtas.

Given the construction of the POLDPA I suspect that were the 8th to be removed or amended, the existing legislation would be amended rather than new legislation drafted; it would be quicker and easier. Though how quick and easy would depend on the parties in government; it could actually take decades after removing the 8th to liberalise abortion if both FF & FG decided to be bloody minded about it.

Finally, removing the 8th would not confer a right to abortion on women; an additional amendment to the Constitution would be required for that. Legislation could provide women with a legal entitlement to abortion in certain circumstances; that would be up to the parties in government.

Hotblack Desiato

The existing legislation may be interpreted as unconstitutional without the 8th. However, that could take years for a Supreme Court decision.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you're saying? The POLDPA is the existing legislation; without the 8th it remains the existing legislation, and prohibits abortion other than in certain circumstances. No legislation will 'likely be back in use fully'; removing the 8th doesn't magically unrepeal repealed laws. If the 8th were removed by referendum, it would be up to the Oireachats to amend the POLDPA to include any other circumstances where it felt there was a mandate for abortion, or repeal it and replace it with other legislation that sets out when abortion is or isn't acceptable. The point of the 8th is it places whether or not we have abortion in the hands of the people; removing it places whether or not we have abortion (and to what degree we permit abortion) in the hands of the Oireachtas.

Given the construction of the POLDPA I suspect that were the 8th to be removed or amended, the existing legislation would be amended rather than new legislation drafted; it would be quicker and easier. Though how quick and easy would depend on the parties in government; it could actually take decades after removing the 8th to liberalise abortion if both FF & FG decided to be bloody minded about it.

Finally, removing the 8th would not confer a right to abortion on women; an additional amendment to the Constitution would be required for that. Legislation could provide women with a legal entitlement to abortion in certain circumstances; that would be up to the parties in government.

Eh, you make the point I was referring to, the laws existing on the statute books. Re the Oireachtas bringing in new legislation, humph.... that'd be like the proverbial "take a horse to water, wont make it drink the water". We've seen the courts here attempt to do that without much success, only for both houses bouncing it to us as a referendum issue. Re repealed laws, they're not revenant as they are off the books, dead and gone, waste of time mentioning.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The existing legislation may be interpreted as unconstitutional without the 8th. However, that could take years for a Supreme Court decision.

How? Without the 8th there's no Constitutional provision that may require access to abortion beyond the scope of what exists in the POLDPA is there?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Eh, you make the point I was referring to, the laws existing on the statute books. Re the Oireachtas bringing in new legislation, humph.... that'd be like the proverbial "take a horse to water, wont make it drink the water". We've seen the courts here attempt to do that without much success, only for both houses bouncing it to us as a referendum issue. Re repealed laws, they're not revenant as they are off the books, dead and gone, waste of time mentioning.

Yes, the law existing in the statute books is the POLDPA. It's not " likely be back in use fully without any constitutional hindrance", it's already in use fully without any Constitutional hindrance.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, the law existing in the statute books is the POLDPA. It's not " likely be back in use fully without any constitutional hindrance", it's already in use fully without any Constitutional hindrance.

Does it have precedence over the 8th amendment in law?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Does it have precedence over the 8th amendment in law?

No law can have 'precedence' over the Constitution, if I take your meaning correctly.
But the 8th doesn't currently hinder either the full (or partial) use of the POLDPA, nor would its absence.

aloyisious

For what it's worth, having looked at the wording of the 8th amendment, I am actually amazed at how we were bamboozled into voting that wording into primary constitutional law, in so far as it guarantees the right to life without actually listing which of the two rights to life mentioned in it that it was referring to. According to Wikipedia, it was brought in to allay the fears of anti-abortionists that the Irish Courts would fill the gap left in law by the Oireachtas. It must have been because we were hide-bound by religion and not able to coldly clinically examine the wording presented to us to vote on and point out it's deficiencies to the Oireachtas.

Wikipedia;

The Amendment inserted a new sub-section after section 3 of Article 40. The resulting Article 40.3.3° reads:

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.

Background[edit]

In 1983, abortion was illegal in Ireland under the Offences against the Person Act 1861; the Eighth Amendment was introduced to prevent it being legalised at any time in the future. Opponents of abortion sought the amendment partly because of fears that the Irish Supreme Court might infer an implicit right to an abortion in the provisions of the constitution

link: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiSudHd0YDLAhVKDxoKHctRAbEQFggpMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland&usg=AFQjCNHyBXGc93-mVk5Jy9ctHhtadEKs7Q

Ref POLDPA, IMO it's also washy-worded in that it allows doctors to decide in "good faith" to proceed with procedures. It doesn't say medical necessity opinion, just "good faith" which can be read in a religious context.

Absolam

Should we take it then that you're no longer concerned with which extant legislation would cover abortion and have moved on?

aloyisious wrote: »

For what it's worth, having looked at the wording of the 8th amendment, I am actually amazed at how we were bamboozled into voting that wording into primary constitutional law, in so far as it guarantees the right to life without actually listing which of the two rights to life mentioned in it that it was referring to.

It doesn't seem all that bamboozling? The english is quite plain: "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." I can't see how there could be any doubt as to which of the two rights to life it's referring to. Though since it specifies that they are both equal, it hardly seems to matter even if someone did find it bamboozling. If anyone were in doubt (or bamboozled), the Irish language version ("Admhaíonn an Stát ceart na mbeo gan breith chun a mbeatha agus, ag féachaint go cuí do chomhcheart na máthar chun a beatha, ráthaíonn sé gan cur isteach lena dhlíthe ar an gceart sin agus ráthaíonn fós an ceart sin a chosaint is a shuíomh lena dhlíthe sa mhéid gur féidir é") having legal primacy is equally specific?

aloyisious wrote: »

Ref POLDPA, IMO it's also washy-worded in that it allows doctors to decide in "good faith" to proceed with procedures. It doesn't say medical necessity opinion, just "good faith" which can be read in a religious context.

'Also' along with what? Good faith does have a legal meaning; that's hardly 'washy-worded'. Simply, it means in the doctors honest opinion; it protects the doctor from the consequences of having made a decision which was materially wrong in hindsight but which they honestly believed to have been correct based on the information available to them at the time. The likelihood that a doctor would state 'in a religious context' that there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life from a physical illness, and in their reasonable opinion that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure seems pretty slim, don't you think? Or are you just worrying because the word 'faith' is often used in a religious context, and someone might not be aware that it's also used in non religious contexts? Like this one for instance.

volchitsa

aloyisious wrote: »

For what it's worth, having looked at the wording of the 8th amendment, I am actually amazed at how we were bamboozled into voting that wording into primary constitutional law, in so far as it guarantees the right to life without actually listing which of the two rights to life mentioned in it that it was referring to. According to Wikipedia, it was brought in to allay the fears of anti-abortionists that the Irish Courts would fill the gap left in law by the Oireachtas. It must have been because we were hide-bound by religion and not able to coldly clinically examine the wording presented to us to vote on and point out it's deficiencies to the Oireachtas.

Wikipedia;

The Amendment inserted a new sub-section after section 3 of Article 40. The resulting Article 40.3.3° reads:

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.

Background[edit]

In 1983, abortion was illegal in Ireland under the Offences against the Person Act 1861; the Eighth Amendment was introduced to prevent it being legalised at any time in the future. Opponents of abortion sought the amendment partly because of fears that the Irish Supreme Court might infer an implicit right to an abortion in the provisions of the constitution

link: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiSudHd0YDLAhVKDxoKHctRAbEQFggpMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FEighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland&usg=AFQjCNHyBXGc93-mVk5Jy9ctHhtadEKs7Q

Yes, several people warned at the time that the wording was unclear and that this would lead to problems, as indeed it did. So in fact the amendment is what introduced abortion in the X case.

Ref POLDPA, IMO it's also washy-worded in that it allows doctors to decide in "good faith" to proceed with procedures. It doesn't say medical necessity opinion, just "good faith" which can be read in a religious context.

I think the issue is not so much the "in good faith" which just means that they had to have reasonable expectation that this was the best treatment, even if the results weren't as hoped for, as the fact that euphemisms are used for the procedure itself. That has already led to ambiguities, for example it's not clear whether a c-section can be included in the expression "the procedure" or not.

aloyisious

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, several people warned at the time that the wording was unclear and that this would lead to problems, as indeed it did. So in fact the amendment is what introduced abortion in the X case.

Ref POLDPA, IMO it's also washy-worded in that it allows doctors to decide in "good faith" to proceed with procedures. It doesn't say medical necessity opinion, just "good faith" which can be read in a religious context.[/QUOTE]
I think the issue is not so much the "in good faith" which just means that they had to have reasonable expectation that this was the best treatment, even if the results weren't as hoped for, as the fact that euphemisms are used for the procedure itself. That's a genuine problem, for example whether a c section is included in "the procedure" or not.[/QUOTE]

Just replying to your last sentence above, that's part of the problem and argument on women's bodily integrity rights. There's a world of difference in what a pregnant woman may want done in reference to an unwanted pregnancy (an actual abortion) and the wording used by the Irish medical profession to get past what the woman want's and what's provided by them, a termination AKA a Caesarian operation; the medics equating a termination with an actual abortion and leaving the woman holding the baby.

Cabaal

Catholic Bishops and by extension the Vatican are once again interfering with the Irish political system

http://www.thejournal.ie/bishops-abortion-election-2610517-Feb2016/

CATHOLIC BISHOPS ARE weighing in on the general election in a big way today.

A statement from the Irish Bishops’ Conference reiterates the Church’s views on a range of issues from education to climate change.

You cannot pretend to be a Catholic and say ‘I leave aside a very vital part of Catholic teaching’. But it’s the individual makes that decision.

Clearly they missed the part where a majority of Ireland told them where to go when it came to the church's backwards and bigoted teachings on gay people.

First comment on this story sums things up perfectly

Why are they all coming out against a referendum ? Surely in a democracy nobody can be against a referendum

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Should we take it then that you're no longer concerned with which extant legislation would cover abortion and have moved on?

It doesn't seem all that bamboozling? The english is quite plain: "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." I can't see how there could be any doubt as to which of the two rights to life it's referring to. Though since it specifies that they are both equal, it hardly seems to matter even if someone did find it bamboozling. If anyone were in doubt (or bamboozled), the Irish language version ("Admhaíonn an Stát ceart na mbeo gan breith chun a mbeatha agus, ag féachaint go cuí do chomhcheart na máthar chun a beatha, ráthaíonn sé gan cur isteach lena dhlíthe ar an gceart sin agus ráthaíonn fós an ceart sin a chosaint is a shuíomh lena dhlíthe sa mhéid gur féidir é") having legal primacy is equally specific?
'Also' along with what? Good faith does have a legal meaning; that's hardly 'washy-worded'. Simply, it means in the doctors honest opinion; it protects the doctor from the consequences of having made a decision which was materially wrong in hindsight but which they honestly believed to have been correct based on the information available to them at the time. The likelihood that a doctor would state 'in a religious context' that there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life from a physical illness, and in their reasonable opinion that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure seems pretty slim, don't you think? Or are you just worrying because the word 'faith' is often used in a religious context, and someone might not be aware that it's also used in non religious contexts? Like this one for instance.

Do you genuinely think there is NO CHANCE that a doctor's personal religious belief would hold sway over a decision he/she would make on whether to perform an actual abortion, instead of a termination - aka a caesarian operation, on a woman if she had requested an actual abortion? Do you think a medical doctor MUST defer to religion when it comes to saving a woman's life, as distinct from saving a feotus from an untimely end. Our country has had evidence of doctors trying to square the circle of the wording of their professional guidelines and our law with it costing the woman her actual life. IMO, it's a medical matter, NOT something religious in nature. The wording, as I've stated, is wishy-washy and NOT the cold and clinical wording that the medical world needs when it comes to life-saving. I reckon I've said enough on the matter to satisfy you as to where I stand on the matter. The law, as it stand's, is an ass.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, several people warned at the time that the wording was unclear and that this would lead to problems, as indeed it did. So in fact the amendment is what introduced abortion in the X case.

I think we can reasonably say none of them were bamboozled by the parsing though

volchitsa wrote: »

I think the issue is not so much the "in good faith" which just means that they had to have reasonable expectation that this was the best treatment, even if the results weren't as hoped for, as the fact that euphemisms are used for the procedure itself. That has already led to ambiguities, for example it's not clear whether a c-section can be included in the expression "the procedure" or not.

Actually, it's been made abundantly that a c-section is a procedure that could be used under the Act; it was done.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Just replying to your last sentence above, that's part of the problem and argument on women's bodily integrity rights. There's a world of difference in what a pregnant woman may want done in reference to an unwanted pregnancy (an actual abortion) and the wording used by the Irish medical profession to get past what the woman want's and what's provided by them, a termination AKA a Caesarian operation; the medics equating a termination with an actual abortion and leaving the woman holding the baby.

The difference might reasonably stem from the fact that the doctors aren't under any obligation with regard to what a pregnant woman may want done in reference to an unwanted pregnancy (an actual abortion).
They're not attempting to get past it (as if there's some Doctors against abortion conspiracy?) because it has nothing to do with them; their obligation is to the health of their patients, not their wishes. Where a pregnancy must be terminated under the POLDPA they must undertake it with 'regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable'. That means whether or not a woman wants to kill her unborn child, they are obliged to save it's life if possible in the course of the termination.

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you genuinely think there is NO CHANCE that a doctor's personal religious belief would hold sway over a decision he/she would make on whether to perform an actual abortion, instead of a termination - aka a caesarian operation, on a woman if she had requested an actual abortion? Do you think a medical doctor MUST defer to religion when it comes to saving a woman's life, as distinct from saving a feotus from an untimely end.

Why would I have to think either thing?
For the first case; the Doctor has a legal obligation to save both lives if possible, and I genuinely think that their obligation as a Doctor would hold sway over their decision. Whether a woman requests an abortion makes no difference; it is not a matter of choice, it's a matter of medical necessity, is it not? The termination must occur in order to save the womans life. And if doctors can save the life of the child as well then they must.
For the second case, what possible reason do you imagine you have for thinking I think a medical doctor MUST defer to religion in any circumstance at all?

aloyisious wrote: »

Our country has had evidence of doctors trying to square the circle of the wording of their professional guidelines and our law with it costing the woman her actual life.

Well, we've certainly seen some hysterical scare-mongering (and a fair bit of pure make-believe) from certain posters. As for evidence... not so much.

aloyisious wrote: »

IMO, it's a medical matter, NOT something religious in nature. The wording, as I've stated, is wishy-washy and NOT the cold and clinical wording that the medical world needs when it comes to life-saving. I reckon I've said enough on the matter to satisfy you as to where I stand on the matter. The law, as it stand's, is an ass.

Right. Though the only only who is saying anything about religion being involved is you; it's certainly not in the legislation (notwithstanding your liberal reinterpretation of 'good faith'). I get that it's your opinion that the wording is wishy washy, and despite the fact that you know the terminology is legal terminology, you don't want to change tha opinion. That says a lot more about you than about the legislation, so yes you certainly have said enough on the matter to satisfy me as to where you stand on it. Still, if you're intent on being outraged about something you've made up being in the law despite knowing it's not in the law... it's not the law that's an ass here.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

The difference might reasonably stem from the fact that the doctors aren't under any obligation with regard to what a pregnant woman may want done in reference to an unwanted pregnancy (an actual abortion).
They're not attempting to get past it (as if there's some Doctors against abortion conspiracy?) because it has nothing to do with them; their obligation is to the health of their patients, not their wishes. Where a pregnancy must be terminated under the POLDPA they must undertake it with 'regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable'. That means whether or not a woman wants to kill her unborn child, they are obliged to save it's life if possible in the course of the termination.
Why would I have to think either thing?
For the first case; the Doctor has a legal obligation to save both lives if possible, and I genuinely think that their obligation as a Doctor would hold sway over their decision. Whether a woman requests an abortion makes no difference; it is not a matter of choice, it's a matter of medical necessity, is it not? The termination must occur in order to save the womans life. And if doctors can save the life of the child as well then they must.
For the second case, what possible reason do you imagine you have for thinking I think a medical doctor MUST defer to religion in any circumstance at all?
Well, we've certainly seen some hysterical scare-mongering (and a fair bit of pure make-believe) from certain posters. As for evidence... not so much.


Right. Though the only only who is saying anything about religion being involved is you; it's certainly not in the legislation (notwithstanding your liberal reinterpretation of 'good faith'). I get that it's your opinion that the wording is wishy washy, and despite the fact that you know the terminology is legal terminology, you don't want to change tha opinion. That says a lot more about you than about the legislation, so yes you certainly have said enough on the matter to satisfy me as to where you stand on it. Still, if you're intent on being outraged about something you've made up being in the law despite knowing it's not in the law... it's not the law that's an ass here.

Thank's, I'll keep your opinion about religion not being involved in abortion, except for where I see it, in mind. As for this piece from you - For the second case, what possible reason do you imagine you have for thinking I think a medical doctor MUST defer to religion in any circumstance at all? - I'm not at all sure where you thought in my reference to what a doctor/doctors of religious belief would be swayed in making a medical decision I was referring to you. I'm sorry that you seem to be getting things personal when it comes to me describing the law (an impersonal fact of life) as an ass.

robdonn

aloyisious wrote: »

Thank's, I'll keep your opinion about religion not being involved in abortion, except for where I see it, in mind.

Absolam never said anything about religion being or not being involved in abortion, only that it should have no effect over how a doctor makes a decision about abortion under the current legislation.

I'm sure there are people on the pro-life side who believe that doctors should make this kind of decision with their own personal morals in mind (or more accurately, pro-life morals in mind), but Absolam has not expressed that opinion.

Under the current legislation doctors are obliged to save the life of both the mother and the foetus if possible, even if the woman requests a termination. Any doctor who, in this situation, provides the abortion without trying to save the foetus is not only breaking the law but is also basing their medical decisions on their own personal beliefs, which is what you are arguing that they should not do.

The law is the problem.

aloyisious

robdonn wrote: »

Absolam never said anything about religion being or not being involved in abortion, only that it should have no effect over how a doctor makes a decision about abortion under the current legislation.

I'm sure there are people on the pro-life side who believe that doctors should make this kind of decision with their own personal morals in mind (or more accurately, pro-life morals in mind), but Absolam has not expressed that opinion.

Under the current legislation doctors are obliged to save the life of both the mother and the foetus if possible, even if the woman requests a termination. Any doctor who, in this situation, provides the abortion without trying to save the foetus is not only breaking the law but is also basing their medical decisions on their own personal beliefs, which is what you are arguing that they should not do.

The law is the problem.

I agree with you om the law. My response to Absolom in respect to religion and doctors was a reply to his - For the second case, what possible reason do you imagine you have for thinking I think a medical doctor MUST defer to religion in any circumstance at all? I never said he thought a medical doctor MUST defer to religion in any circumstances at all. I said doctors do take personal religious belief into account when making decisions on abortion.

Loafing Oaf

Ivana Bacik says if 8th repealed Labour's Bill would be very like 1967 British Abortion Act, according to David Davin Power
https://twitter.com/theddp/status/700327778445631488

Wonder if this is a solo run by Ms Bacik, would be surprised if Labour as a party was pushing the boat out so far...

Certainly no chance of this passing muster with FG on the outside chance the current government is returned...

aloyisious

There seem's to be a Labour Party promise that, if it sit's with F/G in the next Govt, it would insist on abortion being legalized. It's an election-time promise. Unless there was a seats-in-Govt deal struck and published publicly guaranteeing abortion rights in law greater than in the existing law on abortion, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it, even though a large number of women voters want such rights put in law for them.

In a counter-move, Fidelma Healy Eames, the anti-abortion rights independent from Galway has alleged that if abortion is legalized, Downs-syndrome will be added to the list of reasons for abortions. Her statement was made at a public meeting covered by an RTE camera-crew and shown on the 9PM news.

PopePalpatine

aloyisious wrote: »

In a counter-move, Fidelma Healy Eames, the anti-abortion rights independent from Galway has alleged that if abortion is legalized, Downs-syndrome will be added to the list of reasons for abortions. Her statement was made at a public meeting covered by an RTE camera-crew and shown on the 9PM news.

Oh golly gee, I wonder what the Litigious One will write in his Indo column tomorrow? Surely it won't be a sappy story about a Downs Syndrome sufferer, would it?

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

In a counter-move, Fidelma Healy Eames, the anti-abortion rights independent from Galway has alleged that if abortion is legalized, Downs-syndrome will be added to the list of reasons for abortions.

I think we are all supposed to be horrified, or something.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Thank's, I'll keep your opinion about religion not being involved in abortion, except for where I see it, in mind.

I never said it was my opinion that religion is not being involved in abortion; you're obviously doing your very best to involve religion in abortion, so it would be a foolish opinion.

aloyisious wrote: »

As for this piece from you - For the second case, what possible reason do you imagine you have for thinking I think a medical doctor MUST defer to religion in any circumstance at all? - I'm not at all sure where you thought in my reference to what a doctor/doctors of religious belief would be swayed in making a medical decision I was referring to you.

I got it from your question "Do you think a medical doctor MUST defer to religion when it comes to saving a woman's life, as distinct from saving a feotus from an untimely end.".

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm sorry that you seem to be getting things personal when it comes to me describing the law (an impersonal fact of life) as an ass.

I can't help it if you make an ass of yourself; I can only help by pointing out when you do it.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Under the current legislation doctors are obliged to save the life of both the mother and the foetus if possible, even if the woman requests a termination. Any doctor who, in this situation, provides the abortion without trying to save the foetus is not only breaking the law but is also basing their medical decisions on their own personal beliefs, which is what you are arguing that they should not do.

The law is the problem.

I don't agree that the law is the problem; the problem is that people think the law should do something the law is not intended to do (provide women with a choice to terminate the lives of their unborn children). The law was intended to address the lack of legislation (an obligation pointed out by the ECtHR) to define the circumstances and processes within which abortion in Ireland can be legally performed. Certain posters took that to mean that in those circumstances abortion must be performed, which was never a notion put forward by the Supreme Court, the ECtHR, or the Oireactas when creating the legislation.

The Randy Riverbeast

aloyisious wrote: »

In a counter-move, Fidelma Healy Eames, the anti-abortion rights independent from Galway has alleged that if abortion is legalized, Downs-syndrome will be added to the list of reasons for abortions. Her statement was made at a public meeting covered by an RTE camera-crew and shown on the 9PM news.

If she said something will happen we can safely assume it won't be happening

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

There seem's to be a Labour Party promise that, if it sit's with F/G in the next Govt, it would insist on abortion being legalized. It's an election-time promise.

Well that there would be a referendum to repeal the 8th and on foot of that, some liberalisation of abortion law. I don't think that's a big ask, and FG might even be minded to do it if was in government on its own. The broad liberalisation envisaged by Ivana Bacik would never get FG support though...

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I agree with you om the law. My response to Absolom in respect to religion and doctors was a reply to his - For the second case, what possible reason do you imagine you have for thinking I think a medical doctor MUST defer to religion in any circumstance at all? I never said he thought a medical doctor MUST defer to religion in any circumstances at all. I said doctors do take personal religious belief into account when making decisions on abortion.

You seem to be going around the house here a bit; you asked me
"Do you think a medical doctor MUST defer to religion when it comes to saving a woman's life, as distinct from saving a feotus from an untimely end." and I asked what possible reason you might have for imagining I would think such a thing; if you had no possible reason, why would you ask the question?
You didn't say doctors do take personal religious belief into account when making decisions on abortion; you've certainly tried to tell us that the legal concept of Good Faith is wishy washy, and inferred from your notion that a doctor's personal religious belief would hold sway over a decision he/she would make on whether to perform an actual abortion, instead of a termination despite their legal obligation. If you are going to tell us that doctors do take personal religious belief into account when making decisions on abortion (particularly decisions under the POLDPA) I'd really like to see some evidence to support your assertion. And when I say evidence, I mean evidence, not wild speculation.

Hotblack Desiato

It would be an incredible achievement to both repeal the 8th and enact something similar to the UK 1967 Abortion Act here within the next Dail. TBH I wouldn't see it happening short of Labour being the largest government party which obviously isn't going to happen. And even then there is a socially conservative wing within Labour :rolleyes: so even if they had 70 Labour TDs they couldn't count on 70 votes for an Abortion Act.

We can't even sort out providing a proper education system and apart from half of Labour, the SDs and PBP none of the rest give a damn.

This country is fcuked for the foreseeable. I hope voluntary euthanasia comes in before I might need it, but no guarantees there either. The RCC will have their say in how I die, whether I like it or not.

I turn 45 this year... it's very depressing to think that it's unlikely I will see adequate social change in my lifetime.