Irish Government violating the human rights of women

MadsL

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/irish-government-on-notice-it-is-violating-human-rights-of-women-34246181.html

Kenny's approach seems to be muddying the issue with a citizen's convention. The NI High Court's decision today would indicate that a referendum should be held asap, with the citizen's voice being heard through vote rather than "convention".

DarkyHughes

Call Joe.

tobsey

A judgement in a court outside of the jurisdiction should not be a reason to do anything here.

I'd say all the parties will commit to a referendum in their manifesto but we'll see.

MadsL

tobsey wrote: »

A judgement in a court outside of the jurisdiction should not be a reason to do anything here.

The decision addresses the same issues and legal climate that exists in the Republic, so it is relevant.

c_man

Realistically I think it's very unlikely to happen before the GE.

Nodin

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/irish-government-on-notice-it-is-violating-human-rights-of-women-34246181.html

Kenny's approach seems to be muddying the issue with a citizen's convention. The NI High Court's decision today would indicate that a referendum should be held asap, with the citizen's voice being heard through vote rather than "convention".

Pointless **** designed to kick this into touch.

the groutch

Everything is after the election.
That's the FG (aka FF Lite) way.
In the meantime enjoy these tax cuts and welfare increases that the country can't actually afford.

kettlehead

A convention! More pointless chatter. This issue needs to be put to bed once and for all and put to the people.

sidneykidney

Abortion for all and guns too and miniature american flags for those that want them.

inocybe

A referendum - but you have to have ovaries to get a vote.

darkpagandeath

Convention is just electioneering. People will be fooled into a vote that will not mean anything happens other than talking.

questionmark?

kettlehead wrote: »

A convention! More pointless chatter. This issue needs to be put to bed once and for all and put to the people.

If the 'wrong' result happens it won't be put too bed and we will back on the merrypreggersgoround for the next 10 years.

RobertKK

I am for keeping the 8th amendment, we have not heard what replaces it, and the people who argue for it's removal will need to present what they want to replace it.
A majority will not accept the abortion situation they have in England for example.

questionmark?

RobertKK wrote: »

I am for keeping the 8th amendment, we have not heard what replaces it, and the people who argue for it's removal will need to present what they want to replace it.
A majority will not accept the abortion situation they have in England for example.

Prepare yourself for abuse as debate is not normally allowed. Your rightly ****ed if a Facebook page is started!

RobertKK

questionmark? wrote: »

Prepare yourself for abuse as debate is not normally allowed. Your rightly ****ed if a Facebook page is started!

I am use to it...older and wiser so won't be debating as no one changes their opinion anyway.

Orangebrigade

The babies who are murdered in the thousands seem to have no human rights. The disgrace of our time.

c_man

inocybe wrote: »

A referendum - but you have to have ovaries to get a vote.

Well only those with ovaries and capable of reproducing right? The polling booth operators are gonna have to up their game from merely checking the voting card that's for sure.

ThinkProgress

Just let people do what they want with THEIR body!

It's a no-brainer.

Not even sure why it should be a national agenda... it's about individuals and THEIR bodies! Nobody else's business.

c_man

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Not even sure why it should be a national agenda...

Because it's in the constitution

ThinkProgress

c_man wrote: »

Because it's in the constitution

Yes I know. And it's wrong!

darkpagandeath

lol, Was it not a FG/Lab government that introduced the 8th amendment ?

Wompa1

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Just let people do what they want with THEIR body!

It's a no-brainer.

Not even sure why it should be a national agenda... it's about individuals and THEIR bodies! Nobody else's business.

Would you support euthanasia being legalized too? That's not meant to be a snarky question to show you up. Actually interested in what people who would be pro-choice would think of that too.

At this stage of my life, I'm in the camp that would say, legalize both.

eviltwin

Wompa1 wrote: »

Would you support euthanasia being legalized too? That's not meant to be a snarky question to show you up. Actually interested in what people who would be pro-choice would think of that too.

At this stage of my life, I'm in the cap that would say, legalize both.

I support both. Most pro choice people do cause they are, you know, pro choice

ThinkProgress

Wompa1 wrote: »

Would you support euthanasia being legalized too?

Yes

Your life, your choice.

The_Valeyard

inocybe wrote: »

A referendum - but you have to have ovaries to get a vote.

Unless you can virgin Mary up a baby without the need of a man, then we get to vote also.

Buona Fortuna

Wompa1 wrote: »

Would you support euthanasia being legalized too? That's not meant to be a snarky question to show you up. Actually interested in what people who would be pro-choice would think of that too.

At this stage of my life, I'm in the cap that would say, legalize both.

Me too

Zamboni

Are you fed up of religion dictating our laws?
It's definitley time to tick no religion in the census.

https://www.facebook.com/events/534512320046998/

ThinkProgress

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Unless you can virgin Mary up a baby without the need of a man, then we get to vote also.

I think it's right that men should get a vote.

But I think the female vote should be given more power. Their vote is bit more important than ours, because it's their body.

vienne86

eviltwin wrote: »

I support both. Most pro choice people do cause they are, you know, pro choice

Spot on. Agree completely.

PucaMama

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I think it's right that men should get a vote.

But I think the female vote should be given more power. Their vote is bit more important than ours, because it's their body.

Do you think my vote no to abortion as a woman will be given as much power? I don't think so. It's very much "on trend" at the minute to be all for choice.

josephryan1989

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/irish-government-on-notice-it-is-violating-human-rights-of-women-34246181.html

Kenny's approach seems to be muddying the issue with a citizen's convention. The NI High Court's decision today would indicate that a referendum should be held asap, with the citizen's voice being heard through vote rather than "convention".

We are a democracy and the Crotty judgement many years ago has forced constitutional changes to be put to the people to decide by referendum.

If the majority want abortion not to be allowed under any circumstances, in some circumstances or available on demand, that is their decision.

The majority will be influenced by what they consider is the best argument.

ThinkProgress

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I think it's right that men should get a vote.

But I think the female vote should be given more power. Their vote is bit more important than ours, because it's their body.

I've read a lot of people seeming to think women have a hive mind but a hive body is a new one too me.

ThinkProgress

PucaMama wrote: »

Do you think my vote no to abortion as a woman will be given as much power? I don't think so. It's very much "on trend" at the minute to be all for choice.

More power than whom?

Your vote will likely carry the same weight as everyone else. Regardless of which way you vote.

I was saying the female vote (irrespective of Y/N) is slightly more important than my vote as a male. Because I can never be forced to carry and birth a baby against my wishes...

josephryan1989

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Just let people do what they want with THEIR body!

It's a no-brainer.

Not even sure why it should be a national agenda... it's about individuals and THEIR bodies! Nobody else's business.

There is diversity of opinion and you have to respect that.

However this will be decided by a referendum and if the majority vote against your views you will have to respect that.

If the majority vote in favour of abortion on demand rather than just restricting abortion to rape, incest, fetal abnormalities and a threat to the life of the mother, I would be opposed but I would have to accept the decision of the majority.

You have to win people over with argument and not by simply insisting you get what you want.

josephryan1989

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It is part of their body. It's connected to them by a tube.

It feeds off them for 9 months.

If the mother stops eating, both will die.

If a woman stops eating the state can have her committed to save both her and her unborn child.

RobertKK

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It is part of their body. It's connected to them by a tube.

It feeds off them for 9 months.

If the mother stops eating, both will die.

So if you are having sex and your penis is inside the woman's body,are you a part of their body since you are connected by what could be described as a tube...?

A newborn baby feeds off a mother too.

If a mother doesn't feed her baby, it dies.

---

On regards to the last two points, should we allow infanticide?

Manach

Perhaps the OP might thank into consideration both the poor record of the ECHR at defining ( never-mind defending ) unborn in the cases brought before it and perhaps as well in the burst of progressive SJW enthusiasm as they storm barricades as to how many of the bright young generation in their cohort would have been present should the same regime in the UK had come to pass a generation earlier.

ThinkProgress

josephryan1989 wrote: »

her and her unborn child.

The unborn child that's part of her body because it's attached to her by a tube!

oppenheimer1

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/irish-government-on-notice-it-is-violating-human-rights-of-women-34246181.html

Kenny's approach seems to be muddying the issue with a citizen's convention. The NI High Court's decision today would indicate that a referendum should be held asap, with the citizen's voice being heard through vote rather than "convention".

Call a referendum today on what though?? It is highly unlikely a simple deletion of the 8th amendment would be carried.

josephryan1989

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Ok, Until it has a complex collection of cells that form a Brain it's not a baby.

Can I play devil's advocate here? By the time most women discover they are pregnant the zygote has implanted in the womb and embryo has formed and is not just a collection of cells. It is just a miniature of the baby that will be born in 9 months.

You can't reasonably say that it is not alive and if you are forced to admit it is alive, you are going to have a difficult time of it trying to convince many people that is not already a human being. If it is a human being then it has rights and if it is a human being with rights killing it without justification is murder.

A good many people who do not object to abortion in the case of rape or incest or abnormality would object to abortion on demand because they do not see it as justified. Others would object to abortion after 12 or so weeks and would view late term abortion as murder with the same conviction that hardline pro-lifers view all abortions as murder.

josephryan1989

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The unborn child that's part of her body because it's attached to her by a tube!

I'm only saying what has happened. There have been many cases of pregnant women who were not eating or self harming in some way or other who were committed. That state can and does do it.

RobertKK

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Ok, Until it has a complex collection of cells that form a Brain it's not a baby.

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

Week 5

Week 5 is the start of the "embryonic period." This is when all the baby's major systems and structures develop.
The embryo's cells multiply and start to take on specific functions. This is called differentiation.
Blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells all develop.
The embryo grows rapidly, and the baby's external features begin to form.
Your baby's brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop.
Baby's gastrointestinal tract starts to form.
It's during this time in the first trimester that the baby is most at risk for damage from things that may cause birth defects. This includes certain medications, illegal drug use, heavy alcohol use, infections such as rubella, and other factors.
Weeks 6 - 7

Arm and leg buds start to grow.
Your baby's brain forms into five different areas. Some cranial nerves are visible.
Eyes and ears begin to form.
Tissue grows that will become your baby's spine and other bones.
Baby's heart continues to grow and now beats at a regular rhythm.
Blood pumps through the main vessels.

c_man

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I was saying the female vote (irrespective of Y/N) is slightly more important than my vote as a male. Because I can never be forced to carry and birth a baby against my wishes...

Neither can infertile women or those past a certain age.

Here, I'll let you tell Ivana Bacik that she'll have a 'lessened' vote on it :pac:

ThinkProgress

Grunwalder wrote: »

An unborn baby is not part of a woman's body, it is a separate being.

No, it's not separate until it comes out and you cut the cord.

Before that it's very much part of the woman's body. It's growing inside her like a parasite.

A parasite is part of your body when it's attached to you. Even if it's not a permanent part.

RobertKK wrote: »

So if you are having sex and your penis is inside the woman's body,are you a part of their body since you are connected by what could be described as a tube...?

A penis is not connected to someone for nine months. It's not feeding off anyone.

And it also doesn't grow inside anyone.

Stupid comparison!

darkpagandeath

Grunwalder wrote: »

An unborn baby is not part of a woman's body, it is a separate being.

No it's not separate they are joined. Basic biology. That's why underdeveloped babies die as they are dependant on the mother. What biology is taught in schools these days ? Must be getting pretty bad.

RobertKK

ThinkProgress wrote: »

A penis is not connected to someone for nine months. It's not feeding off anyone.

And it also doesn't grow inside anyone.

Stupid comparison!

If you were semi flaccid it could very well grow...

ThinkProgress

c_man wrote: »

Neither can infertile women or those past a certain age.

Here, I'll let you tell Ivana Bacik that she'll have a 'lessened' vote on it :pac:

What's your point here? I don't disagree with you in principal.

If you're not capable of having children, then your vote carries lesser importance IMHO. (Not zero importance - just lesser importance)

Any such vote has a much bigger impact on the lives and bodies of fertile women, than any other demographic. Naturally.

ThinkProgress

josephryan1989 wrote: »

I'm only saying what has happened. There have been many cases of pregnant women who were not eating or self harming in some way or other who were committed. That state can and does do it.

No. Your original point was that the unborn child is not part of their body... which we have shown you is wrong!

It is very much part of their body, while they carry it. Basic biology here.

Human intervention to prevent mother and unborn from starving, does nothing to prove your point that they are separate entities. (it's actually an irrelevant point)

If a woman starves herself, the baby will starve too. This is proof that the unborn is definitely part of her body!

c_man

ThinkProgress wrote: »

What's your point here? I don't disagree with you in principal.

That limiting voting rights based on perceived effects of the vote is a recipe for disaster and pretty much against everything that modern, democratic states stand for.

Only those paying income tax should get a vote on the government who set the budget... etc.

Personally I like living in a constitutional, republic with clearly defined rights which can only be changed subject to society as large agreeing on it. Not Enda going off in a mad dictatorial huff to repeal the 8th because some people have no idea how the country runs.

If you're not capable of having children, then your vote carries lesser importance IMHO. (Not zero importance - just lesser importance)

As a fertile ( :pac: ) male, I'm capable of having children.

Before that it's very much part of the woman's body. It's growing inside her like a parasite.

A parasite is part of your body when it's attached to you. Even if it's not a permanent part.

Honestly, the pro-choice crowd haven't a hope in any referendum on the topic if this kind of language is brought up in debates.

ThinkProgress

RobertKK wrote: »

If you were semi flaccid it could very well grow...

And this is the point I bow out of this "discussion"... :rolleyes:

RobertKK

ThinkProgress wrote: »

No. Your original point was that the unborn child is not part of their body... which we have shown you is wrong!

It is very much part of their body, while they carry it. Basic biology here.

Human intervention to prevent mother and unborn from starving, does nothing to prove your point that they are separate entities. (it's actually an irrelevant point)

If a woman starves herself, the baby will starve too. This is proof that the unborn is definitely part of her body!

What about a baby that is born and needs the mother's colostrum? Does this mean the baby is part of her body still?