aloyisious wrote: » Ah right, Instead of you agreeing that there is NO actual difference between the lawful ending of an unborn life and the destruction of an unborn life for any feotus, the best you can come up with [but I'm certain no one has argued that a life isn't ended in both cases, have they?]
aloyisious wrote: » :-) at your response to my question: Aloyisious: Things of interest to people, like here, are part and parcel of a debate, wouldn't you accept? Absolom: That's probably just a bit too nebulous for me to venture an opinion on I'm afraid.........
aloyisious wrote: » Repeating the legal wording of POLDPA as a mantra won't do away with the fact that both the lawful ending of an unborn human life AND the destruction of an unborn human life end up with the physical destruction of an unborn human life.
aloyisious wrote: » It does not answer my question: if POLDPA allows for the actual lawful destruction of an unborn human life, how does the deed declared legal there differ to the intentional destruction of an unborn human life? Except for mere words declaring one is good, and one is bad, it doesn't.
aloyisious wrote: » Things of interest to people, like here, are part and parcel of a debate, wouldn't you accept?
aloyisious wrote: » If it's merely because of what's written in POLDPA, it seem's likely to me that a Govt Minister, with the agreement of a majority of his/her fellow ministers and a majority in both houses, could alter the wording with an amendment. The wording of any such amendment could be aimed for greater or lesser use of the act for abortions.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » By the time a repeal referendum is passed and replacement legislation is introduced this government will be well into is term. Given the massive effort getting all that done will require, I find it hard to see the circumstance in which they would want to pursue further liberalisation of abortion law soon afterwards, in defiance of such a guarantee. If you're paranoid enough to think that they would, well you're quite likely to be voting against any referendum proposed by the government.
aloyisious wrote: » The point I was making was that not all intentional endings of unborn human life are an offense under POLDPA. My point is in line with this from POLPDA: The POLDPA specifies when it is lawful to end an unborn human life. That wording is, IMO, fairly specific, making a clear reference to when it is lawful to end an unborn human life. That seem's, IMO, to refer to a specific lawful act or deed..
aloyisious wrote: » I included this question - Or is it that the meaning of [in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended] in POLDPA totally refer's to the chance of a medical misadventure during the said medical procedure? - to ascertain if that POLDPA section meant an ending of unborn human life by medical misadventure whereby the ending could be caused by a unforseen or accidental medical error to rule out any other way the ending of unborn human life could have happened during the lawful medical procedure. The reply to my question was: No, it is not.
aloyisious wrote: » This; the intentional destruction of human life is a criminal offense; the lawful ending of an unborn human life in accordance with the Act is not the intentional destruction of unborn human life, because the former is lawful and the latter is a criminal offense, are mere words.
aloyisious wrote: » IMO, the end result of "the lawful ending of an unborn human life" AND "the destruction of an unborn human life" are exactly the same, ending in a dead feotus, or whatever other word you choose to use in lieu of feotus. What else are both if not the physical destruction of unborn human life?
aloyisious wrote: » I am surprised, given the mention that POLDPA specifies when it is LAWFUL to end an unborn human life and following the ruling out of unforseen or accidental medical errors, that it is still argued that the lawful ending of an unborn human life is NOT an intentional ending of an unborn human life.
aloyisious wrote: » Perhaps the specific way the ending of unborn human life could occur could be listed, if not by way of accidental or unforseen medical error, or by lawful ending.
Absolam wrote: » Well, the government certainly should... whether it would have to, or would, is a different matter. But the immediate answer is; what is a cast iron guarantee from a government worth? Will you trust that guarantee from someone who told you you should never have to pay for water, then charged you for it? Exactly how many guarantees have any government held to? But keeping the Constitutional provision, that is a cast iron guarantee. No government has ever been allowed to flout the Constitution..
Cabaal wrote: » http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/d%C3%A1il-to-vote-on-bill-allowing-abortion-in-cases-of-fatal-foetal-abnormality-1.2688924?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fd%25C3%25A1il-to-vote-on-bill-allowing-abortion-in-cases-of-fatal-foetal-abnormality-1.2688924
robdonn wrote: » Non-paywall version.
aloyisious wrote: » There are situations listed in Part 2 of POLDPA, Medical Procedures lawful under act (chapter 1) Risk of loss of life of pregnant woman, in which medical procedures can be carried out on Pregnant Women. I quote from the chapter in respect of one; It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended. Is the ending of unborn human life listed above included in the definition of intentional destruction of unborn human life offered in this question: You weren't aware that the intentional destruction of unborn human life is a criminal offense ; Or does the POLDPA, when including that mention of an unborn human life is ended, mean a medical doctor is permitted to cause the end of life of an unborn human life in order to save the pregnant woman's life within the meaning of the act?
aloyisious wrote: » I am referencing the part where it say's [in the course of which} because it's separate from [or as a result of which}. It seem's to me that the wording "in the course of which" is open to speculation that it could mean a decision could be made to end an unborn human life, purely of course to save a pregnant woman's life within the meaning of the act. The other wording "or as a result of which" could be read differently as specific to an unborn human life being ended by medical misadventure.
aloyisious wrote: » If a doctor is legally permitted, under POLDPA, to cause the end of life of an unborn human life purely to save a pregnant woman's life, then doesn't that mean that the intentional destruction of an unborn human life is not always a CRIMINAL offense?
aloyisious wrote: » Or is it that the meaning of [in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended] in POLDPA totally refer's to the chance of a medical misadventure during the said medical procedure?
aloyisious wrote: » http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/alison-oconnor/when-it-comes-to-abortion-maturity-gets-checked-in-at-dail-cloakroom-405406.html. All contrary arguments can be directed to Alison O'Connor at The Irish Examiner.
aloyisious wrote: » Quote:the destruction of unborn human life is a distinct offense from any other, including murder - would that distinct offense be criminal in nature or just against one's sensibility and point of view of what's right and wrong? Examined my question above for wording content and editing, find's neither the word "intentional" nor any editing to delete any mention or use of that word in it. Open the question to the floor again.
aloyisious wrote: » If there was to be a referendum on keeping or deleting the 8th amendment form our constitution, I wonder whether the No side would ask for careful checks on the voting list to ensure that Irish Citizens abroad coming home for the vote were eligible to vote? The No To Marriage Equality side cast doubt on the eligibility of voters in that referendum. Some people are on the NO committee side on both issues. I've got in mind the image of David Quinn standing at his local polling station with a voters list asking the Returning Officer to check people he had doubts about for eligibility to vote.
robdonn wrote: » So why is abortion not considered murder? Since the unborn is apparently considered a person by law and, apart from instances where the mother's life is at risk, abortion fits the definition of murder as it is an intentional, unlawful killing.
robdonn wrote: » But the question put forward in the Irish Times poll was "The 8th amendment to the Constitution gives equal rights to the mother and to the unborn child. Are you in favour of repealing this amendment so that terminations in, for example, the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality could be made legal, or are you in favour of keeping the amendment?" This is not a multiple choice question, it is a yes or no question. And it doesn't need to ask if they want to remove the right to life from the unborn as a personal right does not need to be in the Constitution. Legislation can be written to give rights to the unborn that better conform to the nuanced views of the people. Rights are granted by the people, they are not god-given, and the people can change those rights over time.
robdonn wrote: » Of course there is no guarantee, I never said there was. But numerous opinion polls indicate a change in attitude that contradicts your viewpoint.
robdonn wrote: » And at no point has anyone said that the majority want abortion in any circumstance. You're completely right, if that was the question asked then there would definitely be a swing towards keeping it, but that is not what is being asked by the polls because it is not what would happen if the 8th was repealed.
robdonn wrote: » As for the smartphone comment:To presume that older people wouldn't have a smartphone is a bit closed-minded of you, my gran loves her iPad. In that particular poll 29% of respondents were aged 55+.
robdonn wrote: » And nobody is declaring victory. The opinion polls are simply an indication as to the leanings of society and they indicate that they lean further towards repealing the 8th than keeping it. You are simply more inclined to find any reason to maintain your personal opinion as being the correct opinion.
The Dáil will later this month vote on a Bill that would allow for the termination of pregnancies in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities. The newly formed business committee has agreed to debate a Private Members’ Bill tabled by Independents TD Mick Wallace on June 30th. The legislation will mirror that presented by his colleague Clare Daly last year. The very specific piece of legislation allows for an abortion to take place in cases of fatal foetal abnormality.Under the measure, two suitably qualified medical professionals – a perinatologist and an obstetrician – would be asked to in good faith certify if the foetus is incompatible with life. Mr Wallace and Ms Daly are in favour of repealing the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the equal right to life of the mother and the unborn, but are eager to allow the Dáil its say on these specific cases. The Wexford TD is understood to have consulted a number of legal advisers, including a former attorney general, before presenting the legislation. His Bill has the support of deputies Thomas Pringle, Ms Daly, Catherine Connolly, Joan Collins, Maureen O’Sullivan and Tommy Broughan. It is also likely to attract support from Sinn Féin, Labour, the Social Democrats, the Green Party and the Anti-Austerity Alliance-People Before Profit. Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said Fine Gael TDs would have a free vote if and when the Government brings forward its proposal on a referendum but a senior Government source indicated there was unlikely to be a free vote on Mr Wallace’s Bill – or any other – when it reaches the floor of the House. Fianna Fáil members will be allowed a free vote but there are varying views within the parliamentary party on the issue. There is a little evidence of support among many Fianna Fail TDs for a broader liberalisation of the law on abortion but there is a significant amount of support for abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality. The Taoiseach has pledged to establish a citizens’ assembly to consider a number of proposed constitutional reforms and other issues. He has said the question of the strict ban on abortion in the Constitution would be the first matter put before the assembly. Depending on the recommendations of the assembly, the issue will then be referred to a special all-party committee before the question of any constitutional amendment is considered by the Government and the Dáil. Mr Kenny is to bring a memo to Cabinet next week on the establishment of the convention, which Government sources say will be set up by September. Ireland’s position on abortion has been condemned by the United Nations Human Rights Committee. It found that an Irish woman carrying a foetus with a fatal abnormality was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment due to the ban on abortion.It is understood the UN is considering a second case. The committee said Amanda Mellet was forced in 2011 to choose between carrying her baby to term, knowing it would not survive, or travelling abroad for a termination.
Dáil to vote on Bill allowing abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality TDs will vote on the legislation proposed by Mick Wallace on June 30th
Absolam wrote: » But it isn't; it is considered the destruction of unborn human life under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. I thought we all knew that? Still, if there's anything I've proven that you think is incorrect, I'm happy to discuss it. It's not though; you know it's not. You know it's considered the destruction of unborn human life, and you've deduced that it ought to be considered murder, but it isn't. The fault is in your own deduction I'm afraid; your theory doesn't fit the facts. No, it allows women to travel abroad without being impeded by the right to life of the unborn which is a person. They can no more be prevented from traveling abroad because they intend to destroy an unborn human life than they could if they intended to murder someone.
aloyisious wrote: » Quote:the destruction of unborn human life is a distinct offense from any other, including murder - would that distinct offense be criminal in nature or just against one's sensibility and point of view of what's right and wrong?
Absolam wrote: » Yes, it's based on the fact that most of the polls that we've seen don't tend to straight out ask whether respondants favour removing the right to life from the unborn. They tend to rely on multiple options of abortion availability and then show these as favouring repeal of the eight. Like your Irish Times poll which says "A substantial majority of people would like to see the repeal of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution to allow abortion in certain circumstances". Sounds like they want to repeal the Eight, but really what they want is abortion in certain circumstances. When it comes to a referendum, no one will be left in any doubt that repealing the Eight will only allow abortion in certain circumstances; it will be clear that repealing the Eight could allow abortion in any circumstances. And I think that's what will sway voters; there's support for a slightly more liberal abortion regime, but not a substantially more liberal one.
Absolam wrote: » Yes, there are lots of people who couldn't vote last time that can this time; there's no guarantee they'll vote for repeal though.
Absolam wrote: » And the question was "Are you in favour of repealing this amendment so that terminations in, for example, the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality could be made legal, or are you in favour of keeping the amendment?” Like I say... slightly more liberal. Faced with "Are you in favour of repealing this amendment so that terminations in any circumstances whatsoever could be made legal, or are you in favour of keeping the amendment?” my feeling is we'd see a swing towards keeping it.
Absolam wrote: » Yet we don't even know the specifics of the question asked, but we do know that the respondents all own smartphones... which would certainly reduce the inclusion of 'predecessors'. You'll pardon me if I don't leap on board with the findings with such a paucity of information.
Recruitment: The Claire Byrne Live / Amarách Research Panel consists of over 1,000 Irish adults, all aged 18+. Recruitment guidelines were set in place to ensure the sample meets the following criteria: Matched to national population figures from the CSO Quotas are set on gender, age, region, and social class Participants were recruited face-to-face across the country Individuals could not put themselves forth for inclusion in the panel Panel members all own a smartphone Individuals who play a role in government were not accepted onto the panel Potential panel members were informed that they would be asked to respond to a weekly survey including 2-3 questions via their smartphone
Absolam wrote: » Well, my opinion is informed by those results, I'm just more inclined to think about what was asked and how it was asked, as well as who was asked, before declaring victory as a result of some careful addition...
aloyisious wrote: » It seem's to me that the destruction of unborn human life is the same as abortion, as allowed for (in certain circumstances) under POLDPA. Given that, then it seem's to me that Pro-life people have to recognize that what they sometimes term as the killing of a person [see the definitions of the word "person" below] is the same as the destruction of unborn human life or an abortion allowed for under POLDPA and carried out under the strictures of POLDPA, killings allowed for under Irish Law. That is the difference between killing and murder.
aloyisious wrote: » It seem's to me some people use the word murder in an emotional way when discussing abortion because they don't like the thought that such killing is legal, or choose NOT to acknowledge the difference they know is there between the legality of abortion and the illegality of murder, which is defined as the unlawful killing of a person.
aloyisious wrote: » We use the word person when referring to others. In that connection, in conversation/dialogue, the word person can mean what the user want's it to mean, not what the others (hearing/seeing the word in use) understand it to be meant. Therein lies the rub, the way the word "person" cover's several definitions, all of which can/are used as we see fit:
aloyisious wrote: » POLDPA was enacted into law after the charge of murder was, so I assume that in it's legal drafting, allowance was made for defining abortion as NOT being an act or deed of murder of a person. Bit confusing at times....
Loafing Oaf wrote: » 'Could' is the operative word here. If the article guaranteeing freedom to travel were removed from the Constitution, the government could theoretically impose all sorts of restrictions on freedom of movement, but everyone knows that would not happen in practice.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » If a referendum on straight repeal of the 8th was held, the government would have to set out the legislation that would replace it in advance and give a cast iron guarantee that there would be no further liberalisation of the law in its lifetime. 'Aha,' the Pro-Lifers will say, 'but what would stop the next government introducing abortion on demand?'
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Enda, if he is well advised, will treat the voters like adults and reply: "All parties will have to set out their stall on abortion before the next election, and it will be up to you to vote for the one that best represents your views, as you do on every other issue in a representative democracy."
Absolam wrote: » Like your Irish Times poll which says "A substantial majority of people would like to see the repeal of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution to allow abortion in certain circumstances". Sounds like they want to repeal the Eight, but really what they want is abortion in certain circumstances. When it comes to a referendum, no one will be left in any doubt that repealing the Eight will only allow abortion in certain circumstances; it will be clear that repealing the Eight could allow abortion in any circumstances.
robdonn wrote: » If the unborn is considered a person in Ireland, as you have gone to great lengths to prove, then an abortion would be considered murder according to section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1964:
robdonn wrote: » As the intention of an abortion is to end the pregnancy, which before 24 weeks is all but guaranteed to have "the natural and probable consequences" of killing the unborn person, then abortion in cases where it is not legally allowed is considered murder.
robdonn wrote: » So according to Irish criminal law, our constitution allows women to travel abroad to commit murder (by Irish definition) without any legal ramifications, if the unborn is a person.
