Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

At the risk of being pedantic, this is just not true.
40.3.3 (the 8th amendment) has already been successfully repealed twice; the 13th and 14th amendments.
Two other attempts, the 12th and 25th amendments failed.
If you now want all of article 40.3.3 in its current form removed, just say so.

If you're going to be pedantic, it helps to be right.

The 13th and 14th amendments didn't repeal the 8th; they amended the sub-section that it created.

My understanding (which I believe to be the commonly-used meaning) of "repeal" is to reverse the effect of a legal instrument. The 8th amendment added subsection 3 to Article 40.3. I (and others) want subsection 3 removed. "Repeal the 8th" is a convenient shorthand for that desire.

The Black Oil

Cora Sherlock was tweeting away at the weekend because of the protest and today as well. The usual sort of spiel 'Irish people don't want abortion', she got some push back since, well, she obviously speaks for everyone. Given recent coverage she dropped Planned Parent into some of her commentary as well.

https://twitter.com/thecailinrua/status/648441302829408256

Nodin wrote: »

There's a new Breda O'Brien article on there somewhere about abortion as well. Can't face it meself tbh.

lazygal wrote: »

Here's a handy and concise summary of Breda yesterday: I know best. Women talk to me about abortion which is fierce useful for my anecdotes as data approach to my columns. References to dead refugee child for some reason. Abortion always murder. I know best, so just follow my lead.

Here's a response from a GP, Dr. Ciara Kelly.

Source

Breda says firstly that Irish women do talk about their abortions and what's more they talk to her. Intuitively, it feels unlikely that women who believe their abortions were the right decision, would choose Breda, a known anti-abortion campaigner to discuss such a deeply personal matter with. So I can only presume that those who do are part of the 2pc of women, who've had abortions and who feel distressed afterwards and regret them. Which may, of course, skew Breda's impression of women's reactions to having had an abortion - perhaps making her think more women proportionally regret them, than is actually the case.

But I must take exception to her point that Irish women generally do talk about abortions because that simply isn't so in my experience. Since I went on record as being pro-choice, innumerable women have told me their stories about abortion. Women who've been bottling this up, often for years, afraid to tell a soul. Up to one in ten Irish women have had an abortion but many never tell their GP - so strong is the sense of shame. So powerful is their fear. One women told me she never even told her obstetrician, even though she knew that complications, relevant to her imminent delivery, had occurred. She put her own health at risk, rather than be subjected to the unbearable judgement she thought she might receive. She felt tormented by her weakness but too vulnerable to speak.

Breda also cites as a bad thing, the fact that pro-choice counselling organisations, allegedly tell women - who are distressed post abortion - that they made 'the right decisions for themselves at the time'. Presumably if that's bad, these organisations should instead agree that yes, the distressed woman has in fact done something dreadful. The sad logic of that is completely depressing.

he talks about attempts to dehumanise babies by referring to them - factually correctly (depending on the stage of development) as embryos and foetuses. Instead she wants us to refer to microscopic clusters of cells as babies. Is that to reinforce to women that they actually are murderers - deserving the 14 years maximum sentence, currently the law here, for procuring an abortion?

There are women distressed by having had an abortion. Two per cent of women. And although their number is small their experiences are important. However, those women are most likely to be experiencing distress, if they come from a jurisdiction where abortion is illegal. And where society condemns them as sinful, criminal and bad.

Overheal

If you're going to be pedantic, it helps to be right.

Zing!

Links234

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IPrw0NYkMg

Cabaal

A satirical swipe at Amnesty International by Youth Defence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctZXxsvjHi0

“When Amnesty International isn’t busy fighting for the rights of pimps and johns by trying to legalise prostitution, they’re working tirelessly to stop the very worst terrorists among us and the greatest threat to all human rights: babies. Little tiny babies. Specifically, by lobbying to legalize abortion, or “abertion” as they call it, in Ireland.”

PopePalpatine

This is a good example of "punch-down" "satire".

The Black Oil

Whilst taking this with a grain of salt, this is still a bit wtf.

https://twitter.com/Luighseach/status/650344477400387584

Shrap

The Black Oil wrote: »

Whilst taking this with a grain of salt, this is still a bit wtf.

https://twitter.com/Luighseach/status/650344477400387584

Ha ha! No. 200 Psychiatrists? Would be seriously overawed to find out there were 200 qualified psychiatrists in the whole country.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Somebody out there draws an analogy:

alaimacerc

PopePalpatine wrote: »

This is a good example of "punch-down" "satire".

Unfortunately, like a lot of analysis on "privilege", "kyriarchy", etc, it depends on first agreeing what the ladder/hierarchy in question actually is. (Cf the whole "feminists vs trans" debacle, which often seems to be especially bitter because of a fundamental disagreement on this point.) The anti-abortion types will simply maintain that the poor blastocytic "persons, but not persons qua persons" are the real "down".

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

40.3.3 (the 8th amendment) has already been successfully repealed twice; the 13th and 14th amendments.

Repealing something twice? Is that some sort of double negative?

I'm not sure what definition of "repeal" you're working from, but it seems sharply different from everyone else's.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Roe v Wade isn't good law if it doesn't reflect the will of the people, and it's fairly apparent that there's still quite some discussion about that in the US.

Interestingly different take on the presuppositional correctness of various constitutional processes. Outcome you happen to agree with: axiomatically correct, to the point of endlessly pestering people about only ever talking about "rights" that happen to be presently vindicated in that framework. Outcome you happen to disagree with: "bad law".

It's readily apparent that one does not to be autonomous to have a legal existence. Even people wholly dependant on life support with no autonomy whatsoever still have a legal existence.

I think John Stuart Mill is spinning in his grave (to get all Vitalist for a moment), just as biologists everywhere are shuddering, at your spinning of the concept of "autonomy".

And given that they didn't rely on the 8th in offering the distinction, I would think that in the absence of the 8th jurisprudence will still hold the unborn is a person, but it will be up to the courts and the legislature to determine what rights that person should have.

Given that the courts have almost invariably not offered that characterisation, and have only ever found the one right expressly stipulated in the 8th, this all strikes me as a massive, massive stretch of imagination, and of language.

I'm not aware of any common law jurisdiction has found foetal (much less embryonic, zygotic, etc...) personhood to arise therefrom. Or indeed, any (with the highly arguable exception of Ireland) that has legislated for it.

MrPudding

Interesting article here:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/05/abortion-opposition-religious-atheists-must-help-fight-for-choice

MrP

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Interestingly different take on the presuppositional correctness of various constitutional processes. Outcome you happen to agree with: axiomatically correct, to the point of endlessly pestering people about only ever talking about "rights" that happen to be presently vindicated in that framework. Outcome you happen to disagree with: "bad law".

Not to put too fine a point on it (since I know you realised this already), I never presented the 8th as axiomatically correct. I agree with it, and just like Roe Vs Wade, I'm quite prepared to agree it's a fact. And let's be honest, pointing out the right to life does exist (it's still a fact, isn't it?) isn't exactly endlessly pestering; if you're participating in a discussion about abortion in Ireland it a fairly salient fact. Unfortunately you're going to hear opinions (and indeed, facts) you find disagreeable as part of the discussion; if you think you're being pestered by it you need only not read them.
If it helps you along, I'm happy to stipulate Roe V Wade isn't axiomatically incorrect either, though I don't want to ruin any future diatribe you may have planned. Love the rights 'that happen to be presently' vindicated line though.. it almost makes it look accidental, and just a bit inconsequential, doesn't it? Though I don't think this discussion would be happening if that were the case.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think John Stuart Mill is spinning in his grave (to get all Vitalist for a moment), just as biologists everywhere are shuddering, at your spinning of the concept of "autonomy".

I think Mr Mill is beyond caring, and any biologist who wants to take issue is free to do so, though I doubt a biologist anywhere has even essayed a tremor just yet. If they ever do then we can discuss why they'd imagine the concept of biological autonomy is likely to be a requirement for a legal existence, any more than Volchitsas ill-fated notion that autonomy should be.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Given that the courts have almost invariably not offered that characterisation, and have only ever found the one right expressly stipulated in the 8th, this all strikes me as a massive, massive stretch of imagination, and of language.

Weren't we here before? At the time I offered you three instances where the members of the Supreme Court characterised the unborn as persons. You didn't actually offer a reply, so maybe you just decided to move on; I'm not certain whether you consider repeating it now as 'pestering'... still the notion that 'the courts have almost invariably not offered that characterisation' does seem a bid misleading. Having been established by the Supreme Court, what other Court would ever need to offer a characterisation?
If it helps though, the High Court in W. -v- M. & Anor (2010) referred to the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 as part of it's judgement:
2.1 In s. 23 “relevant person” is defined, in relation to a relevant trust, as meaning any of the following:
(a) a person who has a vested or contingent interest under the trust but who is incapable of assenting to an arrangement by reason of lack of capacity (whether by reason of minority or absence of mental capacity),
(b) an unborn person,
(which as you'll note wasn't exactly unprecedented) so I don't think the High Court (or the legislature) are averse to mirroring the Supreme Courts characterisation when needed.
And that's obviously before we even get to the huge number of HC and SC judgements that refer to the unborn child (unless you want the dispute the fact that children are people).

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not aware of any common law jurisdiction has found foetal (much less embryonic, zygotic, etc...) personhood to arise therefrom. Or indeed, any (with the highly arguable exception of Ireland) that has legislated for it.

I'm not aware of another jurisdiction with the same jurisprudence and legal history as Ireland either, so I guess it's reasonably fair to say it will be up to the courts and the legislature to determine what rights that person should have. As I did.
But let's not pretend it's entirely non-existant in other common law jursidictions either; the above case drew on jurisprudence from the United Kingdom, and the Variation of Trusts Act 1958 which states:
1.-(1) Where property, whether real or personal, is held on Jurisdiction trusts arising, whether before or after the passing of this Act, of courts to under any will, settlement or other disposition, the court may vary trusts. if it thinks fit by order approve on behalf of-
(a) any person having, directly or indirectly, an interest, whether vested or contingent, under the trusts who by reason of infancy or other incapacity is incapable of assenting, or
(b) any person (whether ascertained or not) who may become entitled, directly or indirectly, to an interest under the trusts as being at a future date or on the happening of a future event a person of any specified description or a member of any specified class of persons, so however that this paragraph shall not include any person who would be of that description, or a member of that class, as the case may be, if the said date had fallen or the said event had happened at the date of the application to the court, or
(c) any person unborn, or
So we're not exactly the only common law jursidiction that accords personhood to the unborn in legislation, the UK has been doing it since the 50s, regardless of the 8th...

recedite

MrPudding wrote: »

Interesting article here:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/05/abortion-opposition-religious-atheists-must-help-fight-for-choice
MrP

Based on a false premise though; that "abortion opposition is a religious stance". It can be, and it often is. But not always.

Hotblack Desiato

Look at the European countries with the most restrictive abortion stances though. Malta, Poland. Ireland. What have they got in common?

South America also.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Cabaal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ding, Ding, Ding
We have a winner

Dan_Solo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Look at the European countries with the most restrictive abortion stances though. Malta, Poland. Ireland. What have they got in common?

South America also.

This doesn't invalidate what was said above though. The comments under that Guaridan article tear it to shreds TBH.

Edit: look at my spelling of Guardian... sheesh, that paper is rubbing off on me after all these years reading it.

robindch

Rich American Televangelist, Jim Bakker, announces that abortion clinics are 'legal cover' for Satanic child sacrifice.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/televangelist-satanic-temples-are-hidden-in-planned-parenthood-clinics-as-legal-cover-for-child-sacrifice/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcG1USDpfUQ

Hotblack Desiato

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This doesn't invalidate what was said above though. The comments under that Guaridan article tear it to shreds TBH.

You can spin it any way you want, it doesn't change the facts, anti-choice correlates strongly with religious influence in general and catholicism in particular.

Now if you have a specific comment or comments that you want to discuss, fire ahead, I'm not going to plough through hundreds of them to try to find out what your point is.

Dan_Solo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You can spin it any way you want, it doesn't change the facts, anti-choice correlates strongly with religious influence in general and catholicism in particular.

"Correlation" doesn't prove any specific connection between two things. The only "fact" is the correlation itself. See pirates v global warming.
In this case, the proposition in The Guardian is that being pro-choice is the only possibility for an atheist. This is completely untrue, whatever "correlations" you find. Now if you want to talk about correlations that's fine, but they have no connection to what that article proposes is a self evident universal truth.

oscarBravo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

In this case, the proposition in The Guardian is that being pro-choice is the only possibility for an atheist.

The article doesn't say that. If you're going to extrapolate that proposition from the article, you can't exactly complain about someone else extrapolating the proposition that opposition to abortion is a religious thing.

Dan_Solo

oscarBravo wrote: »

The article doesn't say that. If you're going to extrapolate that proposition from the article, you can't exactly complain about someone else extrapolating the proposition that opposition to abortion is a religious thing.

The Guardian wrote:

Abortion opposition is a religious stance.

No qualifier there I'm afraid, so you are wrong. Opposition to abortion need not be religious, just as you don't have to be atheist to be pro-choice.
They correlate but they are not absolutes as presented.
Very first reply sums it up totally for you:

Atheists’ hugely lopsided support for choice is a simple reflection that opposition to abortion is inherently a religious position

Err no. The fact that quite a few atheists oppose abortion proves that opposition is not inherently a religious position.

oscarBravo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No qualifier there I'm afraid, so you are wrong. Opposition to abortion need not be religious, just as you don't have to be atheist to be pro-choice.

I'm not sure why that reply quoted me, because it's a complete non-sequitur to what I posted.

recedite

The headline clearly states "Abortion opposition is a religious stance. Atheists must help fight for choice."

The first proposition is wrong. The second sentence implies that atheists need to get more involved in the fight, and those that don't are apathetic. That's also wrong.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

The headline clearly states "Abortion opposition is a religious stance. Atheists must help fight for choice."

The first proposition is wrong. The second sentence implies that atheists need to get more involved in the fight, and those that don't are apathetic. That's also wrong.

Sorry, I was discussing the article, not the headline. My mistake.

volchitsa

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sorry, I was discussing the article, not the headline. My mistake.

Presumably it's the article that counts, when the two are at odds?

It certainly wouldn't be the first time a headline oversimplified or even contradicted the content of the article it headed, and if so, I think it's generally the headline that's considered to be wrong. Apart from anything else, the headline may not even have been chosen by the author of the article.

Hotblack Desiato

If there were no religious opposition to abortion, the non-religious opposition would be so small as to be lost in the statistical noise. The premise of the article is correct.