Unborn child’ has significant legal rights, judge rules

Smondie

Deported in 2008, this lad is still here and knocking up the ladies. Never mind his child in Nigeria he's using his unborn child here in order to make an application to revoke the deportation order.

Pro-lifers and pro-Deathers what do you make of this ruling?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/unborn-child-has-significant-legal-rights-judge-rules-1.2741697?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

the_syco

I read;

A High Court judge has said the word “unborn” in the Constitution means an “unborn child” with rights beyond the right to life, which “must be taken seriously” by the State.

And the rest is behind "have to pay for it" block.

Smondie

the_syco wrote: »

I read;

A High Court judge has said the word unborn in the Constitution means an unborn child with rights beyond the right to life, which must be taken seriously by the State.

And the rest is behind "have to pay for it" block.

Do you think it will have an effect on the repeal the eight crowd?

the_syco

Smondie wrote: »

Do you think it will have an effect on the repeal the eight crowd?

I have no idea, as I can't read the article.

Smondie

the_syco wrote: »

Smondie wrote: »

Do you think it will have an effect on the repeal the eight crowd?

I have no idea, as I can't read the article.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/unborn-child-has-significant-legal-rights-judge-rules-1.2741697?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The unborn child, including the unborn child of a parent facing deportation, enjoys significant rights and legal position at common law, by statute, and under the Constitution, going well beyond the right to life alone , Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said.
Many of those rights were actually effective rather than merely prospective.
He said article 42a of the Constitution, inserted as a result of the 2012 Children s Referendum, provides the State must protect all children.
Because an unborn is clearly a child , article 42a means all children both before and after birth .
He said while neither article 42a nor article 40.3.3 (requiring the State to vindicate the right to life of the unborn) were intended to confer immigration rights, that did not displace any legal consequences flowing from the prospective position of an unborn child with a parent facing deportation.

Your Face

Be honest, that's a fib.

Smondie

Your Face wrote: »

Be honest, that's a fib.

Too late mate, see above post

Your Face

Smondie wrote: »

Too late mate, see above post

What are you on about?
I don't read anything you post.

Smondie

Your Face wrote: »

Smondie wrote: »

Too late mate, see above post

What are you on about?
I don't read anything you post.

Be honest, that's a fib.

RobertKK

Only 30% turned out to vote in the Children's referendum. I vote against it as I thought it was giving the state too much power over children.
I wonder how many of the repeal the 8th brigade went out and voted then, given they seem more concerned with murals and badges.

Your Face

Smondie wrote: »

Be honest, that's a fib.

What?

Smondie

RobertKK wrote: »

Only 30% turned out to vote in the Children's referendum. I vote against it as I thought it was giving the state too much power over children.
I wonder how many of the repeal the 8th brigade went out and voted then, given they seem more concerned with murals and badges.

That as a very low turn out. It mustn't have been an important enough of an issue for the home to vote lot. This ruling perhaps will have serious consequences for the repeal the eight campaign i'd imagine.

From The Irish Times Article

He dismissed the State’s arguments the couple have no family rights under the Constitution due to not being married

Seems like an odd thing to dismiss. The Constitution says the Family is one based on marriage alone, and indeed for decades the courts have insisted that the Family's unique constitutional protection arises from the institution of marriage, they have repeatedly said there is 'no such thing' as a de facto family.

Maybe the Irish Times have screwed-up or misreported the judge.

Otherwise, I think that's the really important part of the judgment. The fact that the unborn has constitutional rights, apart from the right to life, is probably not surprising.

RobertKK

Smondie wrote: »

That as a very low turn out. It mustn't have been an important enough of an issue for the home to vote lot. This ruling perhaps will have serious consequences for the repeal the eight campaign i'd imagine.

It certainly makes things far more complicated, the court said the unborn is an unborn child and have the same rights as a child that is born.
The thing is, would abortion in circumstances outside of the X case and that to save the life of the mother still be unconstitutional with the 8th amendment removed?
A constitutional lawyer is needed...

Bubbaclaus

How about we repeal the 8th for everyone that wants it repealed and leave it for the people that want to keep it. Everyone happy

Smondie

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

From The Irish Times Article

He dismissed the State s arguments the couple have no family rights under the Constitution due to not being married

Seems like an odd thing to dismiss. The Constitution says the Family is one based on marriage alone, and indeed for decades the courts have insisted that the Family's unique constitutional protection arises from the institution of marriage, they have repeatedly said there is 'no such thing' as a de facto family.

Maybe the Irish Times have screwed-up or misreported the judge.

Otherwise, I think that's the really important part of the judgment. The fact that the unborn has constitutional rights, apart from the right to life, is probably not surprising.

that's an interesting point aswell.
I wonder we're they living together for 5 years or 2 years if they have another child? seems strange to just dismiss it.

Smondie

Double post

Smondie

The rest of the article for the can't pay won't pay crowd

COURTS


He said fundamental shifts in society and various constitutional amendments, including providing for same-sex marriage, also required the State to recognise unmarried parents enjoy wider inherent constitutional rights in relation to their children and each other.
He made the findings when granting leave to a Nigerian man, his Irish partner and their now almost one-year-old child who was born after the case was initiated for judicial review over the man s intended deportation.
Legal rights
When considering the application to revoke a 2008 order for the man s deportation, the Minister for Justice must consider not just the right to life of the unborn but also the legal rights the child will acquire on birth, insofar as those were relevant to deportation, the judge held.
The Minister must consider the constitutional, statutory, EU and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) rights of the man, his partner and the child, including their family rights under article 8 of the ECHR, he ruled.

He dismissed the State s arguments the couple have no family rights under the Constitution due to not being married, no rights under article 8 because their situation is precarious and the only right their unborn child had was to life.
The State s submissions were mired in the middle of the last century while its citizens are voting with their feet and engaging in a much wider variety of family relationships than the State was prepared to acknowledge as having constitutional rights.
Deportation order
He stressed his findings did not mean a person in the position of this man, unlawfully in the State, was automatically entitled to remain here.
The Nigerian man came here in 2007, was refused asylum and subsidiary protection, and a deportation order was made in 2008.
He remained working here, had a short-lived marriage to an EU national and failed to get residency based on marriage to an EU citizen.
He later had a child with a non-EU national before starting a relationship with an Irish woman.
In July 2015 the man and his then pregnant Irish partner sought leave for judicial review and got an interim injunction restraining deportation.
Their child was born in August 2015.
In his decision Mr Justice Humphreys dismissed as entirely without merit the Minister s argument that, when considering the man s application, the only relevant right of his unborn child was a right to life.
He said the Minister s undertaking not to deport the man should continue pending a decision on his application for residency based on parentage of an unborn child, with liberty to apply should the Minister seek to withdraw the undertaking.

Bubbaclaus

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

How about we repeal the 8th for everyone that wants it repealed and leave it for the people that want to keep it. Everyone happy

How about we replace the 8th Amendment with a prohibition on populism like that statement?

A society is entitled to regulate how rights are apportioned and how we interact with one another.

In modern Ireland, we have shown ourselves to be capable of deliberative, inclusive, mature debates on how we regulate various rights, such as the rights of children, the rights of gay couples to marry, and so on.

I am pro-choice, but I think an abortion should be assumed to be a personal tragedy in a woman's life. There is a populist individualism emerging in this countries, peddled on Twitter by Margaret Thatchers of the Uterus who seem to demand that anything which is regulated or curtailed by society is inherently oppressive. I think that's an immature and regressive outlook, and far-removed from the left-wing politics that these people claim to identify with.

We need to remove the 8th amendment and replace it with something that allows women greater control over their bodies, but arriving at the magic formula will have to be careful, and never glib.