Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

recedite wrote: »

The Y-case was different in that it was possible to save the two lives.

It certainly was possible, and it demonstrated that doctors couldn't just prioritise one, they had to have regard for preserving both.

recedite wrote: »

In the scenario I described it was a straight choice; one life or the other. I think most people would disagree with your opinion that an abortion to save the life of the mother is not authorised by POLDPA in such a situation.

I very much doubt there is ever a scenario when there is a straightforward one life or the other, but I'm certain the POLDPA doesn't say anywhere that one life can be prioritised over the other.

recedite wrote: »

However the fact that you even suggest this opinion indicates that the legislation has not been entirely successful, given that it was introduced after EU demands that the state must give legal clarity to the situation regarding abortion in Ireland.

I'm not sure why you think my suggesting an opinion (or what opinion you think I'm suggesting) would indicate anything at all about the success of the legislation to be honest.

recedite wrote: »

Clinging to this opinion enables you to believe that the POLPA does not go further than the 8th amendment, and does not prioritise the life of the mother over the foetus. And is not therefore unconstitutional.

Like I said, I'm not sure what opinion you think I'm clinging too, but I have pointed out specifically where the legislation observes the Constitutional right to life of the unborn. You have yet to point out anything in the legislation contrary to the Constitution, only your opinion on how you think people might behave in a circumstance you haven't pointed to ever occurring.

recedite wrote: »

Also I think your constant repetition of the word "practicable" is clouding the issue. You are trying to say that if it is not "practicable" to save both lives, then an abortion is authorised, but this is not the same as giving "priority" to the mothers life. Therefore both lives are equal.

Well, I don't know about constant repetition; I have used it when repeating what the POLDPA sets out as a Doctors obligations though. The word features both in Article 40.3.3 and more significantly in the POLPDA (six times), and in the POLDPA specifies the degree to which Doctors are required to give regard to the need to preserve unborn human life. Rather than clouding the issue, it's a fundamental part of delineating Doctors obligations. The words priority and prioritise, however, do not appear in the POLDPA. Not even once. Perhaps your use of them is clouding your perception of the issue?

recedite wrote: »

Its a Mad Hatter use of language. In such a situation it is eminently "practicable" to save either life, but not both. Therefore "priority" must be decided. These two words have different meanings. Once "priority" is introduced, "equality" goes out the window.

It's not; it's a specific use of language. It's the language that both the Constitution and the legislation use in this context, unlike 'priority', which isn't used by either.

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think the POLDPA does, in fact, sanction an abortion if the mothers life is at risk, even if the unborn would be likely to survive though. I think the POLDPA specifically requires that the doctors have regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable; if the child is likely to survive then it is practicable to preserve it's life. Hence (as I noted previously) the fact that doctors in the Y case when terminating the pregnancy which threatened her life performed a C section and preserved the life of her unborn child.

The Y-case was different in that it was possible to save the two lives.

In the scenario I described it was a straight choice; one life or the other.
I think most people would disagree with your opinion that an abortion to save the life of the mother is not authorised by POLDPA in such a situation.

However the fact that you even suggest this opinion indicates that the legislation has not been entirely successful, given that it was introduced after EU demands that the state must give legal clarity to the situation regarding abortion in Ireland.
Clinging to this opinion enables you to believe that the POLPA does not go further than the 8th amendment, and does not prioritise the life of the mother over the foetus. And is not therefore unconstitutional.

Also I think your constant repetition of the word "practicable" is clouding the issue. You are trying to say that if it is not "practicable" to save both lives, then an abortion is authorised, but this is not the same as giving "priority" to the mothers life. Therefore both lives are equal.
Its a Mad Hatter use of language. In such a situation it is eminently "practicable" to save either life, but not both. Therefore "priority" must be decided. These two words have different meanings. Once "priority" is introduced, "equality" goes out the window.

smacl wrote: »

That the unborn currently is accorded the right to life under our constitution is the fact here. The existence of the legislation in its current form is the fact, not the right to life itself.

Yes(ish), that is what I was saying, though the existence of the right to life here is also a fact. Which means it's a fact the unborn has a right to life. I have a feeling you don't care for how it's phrased, but you understand all the same.

smacl wrote: »

A number of Islamic states legislate that apostasy is punishable by death and hence the apostate loses their right to life. This does not mean that as a matter of fact apostates have no right to life, it simply means that certain countries have some rather barbaric religiously inspired legislation. The fact that certain legislation exists does not make the content of that legislation fact, it merely means it is local law.

I think I'd have to dispute that. Firstly, I don't know if any of the States you're talking about provide a right to life, and secondly I don't know if they say people lose it if they are apostates; killing them doesn't necessarily mean they lose the right to life, only that (if it exists at all) it may be qualified. Either way, as a matter of fact they only have a right to life insofar as the State affords it; whether or not the legislation is barbaric, or religiously inspired, or anything else you feel denigrates it. The fact that certain legislation exists does make the legislation a fact, and if that legislation creates a right, then the right is only a fact because the legislation is.

smacl wrote: »

Just as most people here would consider aspects of Sharia law inhumane, on the wider stage of the UN and among international human rights groups, Ireland's anti-abortion laws are similarly considered inhumane.

Which doesn't speak at all to the factual nature of them, though I can see you'd like to create an association between Ireland not allowing people to be killed, and other States killing people, which is an odd thing to attempt when you think about it

smacl wrote: »

I find the notion that you do not consider pregnant women to be people to be a matter of fact but rather one of philosophy to be entirely bizarre.

Really? Since the concept of personhood is a philosophical one, it doesn't seem at all bizarre to me; that anyone at all is a person would seem to be obviously a matter of philosophy.

nozzferrahhtoo

aloyisious wrote: »

In live scans the feotus is reportedly seen as moving around in the womb.

There is a lot of autonomic responsiveness in the fetus at early enough stages alright, such as observing the fetus recoiling from needles and other pain sources. This has muddied the water on abortion discussion for pretty clear reasons alas. People who observe these responses are left with the impression the fetus must actually be feeling and experiencing pain. The fact that even a single cell amoeba will recoil from a needle prick is not likely to register in the face of the power of the emotive response people will have to such observations in a fetus.

However while our knowledge of sentience and consciousness is clearly very far from complete at this time, by a long way, I think we are more than capable of listing some of the things required for it to exist in a fetus. And with that knowledge we can identify stages in fetal development where everything we know tells us it simply must be entirely absent.

The analogy I often use is to radio waves. If consciousness/sentience is radio waves, then we are not simply identifying stages in fetal development where the radio waves are absent.... but stages where the radio towers that produce them are not even built yet!

And, as we have seen even on this thread, the only religious rebuttal to that is to come out with lines like "Well you have no evidence there is NOT a soul which existed before conception or is infused into the zygote at conception do you".... retreating instantly into "prove the negative of my lack of substantiation" type arguments.

aloyisious wrote: »

Some women say the feotus in their wombs respond to what they say to it.

And some people think that when they consciously think of a good friend, that friend just happens to phone them 5 minutes later. The reason people have that impression is we are psychologically prone to notice and note the positive hits to a pet theory, while simply ignoring and forgetting the negatives. We probably think of friends 1000 times a week and they never ring, but we do not notice. But when they do ring just after thinking about them.... we think "Oh my god, thats amazing".

I would imagine there is no small proportion of parents who think the fetus is responding to their voice or singing or movements or other stimulus which can be ascribed to a rather similar effect. I even caught myself and my partner at it at various early stages in our two pregnancies.

But I hasten to repeat that mere response to stimulus alone is not indicative of consciousness or sentience. To understand that I think we need to stop merely observing things that emotively make us respond in that way.... and take a more science based approach to understanding the foundations of those faculties, and understand when they are formed and come on line in the developmental process.

Such knowledge would arm us mightily in our philosophical concerns towards a developing fetus and without that knowledge I am forced more into a position of identifying stages in development that are less vague and more drastic in terms of our relative certainty that consciousness and sentience simply can not exist. And perhaps the cut off times for abortion that I would argue for for those reasons are significantly shorter than they otherwise need to be. I simply remain thankful that the cut off times I do argue for, happen to be the ones within which over 88% of abortions actually already happen in!

aloyisious wrote: »

I was musing on the possibility of sentience or consciousness in a feotus when writing my long post above about people looking at a scanned image of a feotus in a womb, looking at it's outline and particulars and thinking of it almost as a human in their arms but deleted that part. In live scans the feotus is reportedly seen as moving around in the womb. Some women say the feotus in their wombs respond to what they say to it. If that is true, then there is surely some form of receptors within the feotus linked to a nervous system in order for it to react to sounds. That would indicate a control of sorts within the feotus (moving about in reaction to sound) even if it was NOT of intelligent human level but just an animal action.

True, but it is also worth remembering that as people we tend to be quick to anthropomorphise, i.e. to ascribe human form or attributes to things. As per nozzferrahhtoo's post, my opinion would be that you need more robust predictors as to what point there is the first possibility of an independent consciousness in order to consider according independent human rights.

Absolam wrote: »

That the unborn has a right to life is also a fact. Why people decided it should may come down to unsubstantiated beliefs, deep introspection, a carefully cultivated philosophical outlook, an overwhelming sense of empathy, or any number of possibilities, but either way I'd say the fact that the unborn has a right to life is a far more factual assertion than the fact that a pregnant woman is a person; the former can be proven by what is written in our Constitution, the latter relies on one's philosophical view of what a person is (even if we all agree a pregnant woman is a person, as you say there is rather more to fact than majority opinion).

That the unborn currently is accorded the right to life under our constitution is the fact here. The existence of the legislation in its current form is the fact, not the right to life itself. A number of Islamic states legislate that apostasy is punishable by death and hence the apostate loses their right to life. This does not mean that as a matter of fact apostates have no right to life, it simply means that certain countries have some rather barbaric religiously inspired legislation. The fact that certain legislation exists does not make the content of that legislation fact, it merely means it is local law. Just as most people here would consider aspects of Sharia law inhumane, on the wider stage of the UN and among international human rights groups, Ireland's anti-abortion laws are similarly considered inhumane.

I find the notion that you do not consider pregnant women to be people to be a matter of fact but rather one of philosophy to be entirely bizarre.

I was musing on the possibility of sentience or consciousness in a feotus when writing my long post above about people looking at a scanned image of a feotus in a womb, looking at it's outline and particulars and thinking of it almost as a human in their arms but deleted that part. In live scans the feotus is reportedly seen as moving around in the womb. Some women say the feotus in their wombs respond to what they say to it. If that is true, then there is surely some form of receptors within the feotus linked to a nervous system in order for it to react to sounds. That would indicate a control of sorts within the feotus (moving about in reaction to sound) even if it was NOT of intelligent human level but just an animal action.

If that is only a concept within the brains and minds of born humans, and not a reality, then those who claim to have observed reactions from feotus in wombs to sounds are all erroneous and maybe just guilty of wishful thinking and desire.

Either way, as a sentient human, I must follow with having a regard for those I know to be sentient humans, women, and allow them to choose for their own future.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Dolphins will spend a lot of time looking at themselves in a mirror from different angles, if given that opportunity. Which demonstrates a higher level of consciousness than a new born human baby. Yet dolphins are obviously not human.

Which I am sure will be relevant in some way when Dolphins start looking for human rights or abortion rights. But I would rather stick to humans here.

But seriously, the point I am making is talking about the faculty of consciousness itself. Not comparing different manifestations of it for which is "higher" or "lower" than the other.

Sure there is a conversation to be had about whether the rights of an individual (be it human animal or other animal) go up in proportion to the level of consciousness they are capable of. No doubt about it. I would have more moral concern for a dolphin than I would for a dog, and more for a dog than I would for an ant for those very reasons.

But notice how specific my position on abortion is in this regard. I am not differentiating between points of higher and lower levels of consciousness. I am identifying points in the developmental process where there is no consciousness or sentience AT ALL. Not different levels of it. None. At. All. So comparisons between differing stages or "levels" of consciousness is actually very little to do with the position I espouse and you risk merely talking past me rather than with me.

recedite wrote: »

IMO there is no one, single, unique, thing to differentiate "human" from "animal" or "born" from "unborn". Other than the rather obvious observation that any non-human animal is usually referred to as an animal, and any not-yet-born human can be called "unborn".

I mostly entirely agree and there are interesting and deep philosophical discussions to be had as to what makes us "human" and what differentiates us from a rock or a god or an ape or dophin in the zoo.

But at the same time I think it is pretty clear that human rights, morality, ethics and other such concerns simply would not exist if human consciousness and sentience did not exist. Rocks certainly are not producing it. Nor are dogs, ants, apes or dolphins. And I merely feel that it is not only FROM these faculties that the concept of rights comes, but TO those faculties that we assign them. I certainly do not think we assign them to DNA, limbs, bones, internal organs or anything else. So if it is not the faculty of consciousness and sentience.... what IS it?

So as I said when an entity.... say a rock, a table leg or a zygote..... not only do not have these faculties but lack even the elements for producing them.... then I see no basis upon which to afford them moral concern of any kind. As such my position on abortion is made for me. I simply see no moral issue with people choosing to abort at those stages. Nor has anyone, least of all on this thread or at anti-abortion stalls in several cities, or in debates both public and private, ever offered me an argument for why I might or should.

I understand THAT people have such concerns. Some because they imagine some magical "soul" thing that appears from the outset. Some because they over read into the value and use of the term "Human". But since the concept of a soul is, at best, entirely unsubstantiated.... and their use of the word "Human" does not appear valid..... I simply can not share their concerns.

smacl wrote: »

So is the unborn child an Irish citizen once it is conceived in Ireland, or does the child have to be born here? All seems rather dubious to say the least, but an interesting possible loophole for would be migrants.

I think the requirements for citizenship are set out; being born here is no longer sufficient, never mind being conceived here.
But that unborn children can have certain rights other that the right to life isn't that odd; they tend to be contingent on being born alive eventually (the principle of in ventre sa mere which has been discussed here before), and later in the piece it does say "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."

I think maybe more is being made of what he said than ought to be.....

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd like to know what branch, section or whatever of Common Law that Judge Humphreys had in mind when he made that statement. Common law marriage does NOT have any legal recognition here in Ireland.

He didn't say anything about common law marriage though, he said that 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”. And Ireland does have a common law legal system. Common law isn't set out in branches or sections, it's (generally) set out in jurisprudence.

smacl wrote: »

There is rather more to fact than majority opinion, or for that matter indoctrinated belief, which tends to be rather fluid.

I didn't say that their opinion on when a person exists from would be correct though, I said that if they say a right exists from that point, then the right exists from that point; case in point a majority said the unborn has a right to life, so it does. That's a fact, regardless of whether the basis for assigning the right is a fact or not.

smacl wrote: »

That a pregnant woman is a person is a fact. That you consider a tiny embryo inside that woman's womb to be a person is an unsubstantiated belief. The fact that this belief is shared by millions of people who were taught it during their upbringing no more makes it a fact than the existence of God, Santa or Shiva.

That the unborn has a right to life is also a fact. Why people decided it should may come down to unsubstantiated beliefs, deep introspection, a carefully cultivated philosophical outlook, an overwhelming sense of empathy, or any number of possibilities, but either way I'd say the fact that the unborn has a right to life is a far more factual assertion than the fact that a pregnant woman is a person; the former can be proven by what is written in our Constitution, the latter relies on one's philosophical view of what a person is (even if we all agree a pregnant woman is a person, as you say there is rather more to fact than majority opinion).

aloyisious wrote: »

It's probable that people, when they read the information given them at the time of the 8th referendum prior to voting on it, did not think through or foresee the various scenarios which might occur to a pregnant woman and the feotus in her womb.

Do you have a basis for saying what other people though was probable, other than your own specified lack of thought at the time? I can certainly see how it's possible, but not how you can say what other people were thinking with any assurance of likelihood; particularly when you say you didn't discuss it with anyone at all.

aloyisious wrote: »

No one apparently saw that the wording of the 8th was strange, giving that [as I've posted before] it includes the wording "<...>". That seem's open-ended to me now for some time [acknowledging the right to life of the unborn] while further on in the amendment, there's this [guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right]. I've looked at it, devil's advocate style, and see that it doesn't give the unborn a full and complete guarantee.

I have to say, I still don't see the wording is strange. It's legalistic, certainly, and set in a format that is particular, as legalistic things should be. But it was known, and discussed, both at the time and since, that it doesn't give the unborn a full and complete guarantee; even Noonan, in introducing the Amendment in the Oireactas said ""When I say that I have an open mind about suggestions for amendment, I mean of course suggestions that would not affect or erode the underlying principle of the amendment which is that the practice of abortion in the ordinary sense of that term should not be permitted to creep into our law.
and
But there could be some hard cases where the “treatment” sought would constitute abortion which conflicts both with existing law and with the proposed amendment. The question may, therefore, legitimately be asked whether what I have said amounts to saying that neither the law nor society can take account of hard cases no matter how heartrending they may be and that there can be no allowance for a woman who breaks this rigid law. Of course it does not mean that.".
I reckon it's fair to say that from the outset, like most rights, there was no intent that the right to life be considered absolute, though I've no doubt that some people would have liked (and would still like) to see it so.

aloyisious wrote: »

How far does the word "practicable" go in law and how should it be read? To my mind, it's possible that it foresaw and allowed for situations where defending the right to life of the unborn would NOT be practicable by and of the State. POLDPA bridges the gap to legislative law. I've no doubt that you may/would argue against that view.

I'd say it goes as far as "able to be done or put into practice successfully". If the State cannot successfully defend and vindicate the right to life of the unborn by it's laws, it is then not obliged by 40.3.3 to attempt to do so. The POLDPA is the State, by it's laws, protecting and vindicating the right to life of the unborn.

aloyisious wrote: »

The full amendment wording reads <...>. If one was to give due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, as against that same given to the unborn, one is inevitably in a quandary when it comes to naturally occurring pregnancy mishaps and what to do medically to resolve the situation. It seems almost like a "it's in the lap of God" view of circumstance was inevitable due to the 8th amendment, AND no human intervention was allowable.

I think it's true to say that no human intervention intended solely to destroy the life of the unborn is or was allowable, but it's clear from both Noonans comments at the time, the judgement in the X Case, and the current POLDPA, that human intervention is and was allowable, even if it took until the POLDPA was enacted for it be legislated for.

aloyisious wrote: »

People reading the full wording of the amendment, due to the way it's written with it's commas etc, would think/assume that the last word in it referred solely to the unborn. I've looked at it devil's advocate and I'd have written the words "of the unborn" as the final words in it to tie it down absolutely [because the word "right" is used for both the mother and the unborn] or maybe put the part referring to the mother in brackets, to have a degree of separation between the "right" of the unborn and the "right" of the mother, otherwise one might ask to whom the last use of the word "right" referred-to, the feotus or the mother, a devils advocate question. It ain't safe to assume something is in law unless it's there in writing........

People would think that because that is what it refers to. I think we've been over your particular issues with the phrasing of 40.3.3 before, but maybe you've forgotten. Since you're not presenting anything new above, perhaps reviewing what was said last time might refresh your memory? Even with all the commas it's not all that tricky to negotiate (in fact, grammatically the commas make it easier to negotiate), and we also have the advantage of the as gaeilge version to provide further clarity.

aloyisious wrote: »

EDIT... actually I can't remember discussing the issue or debating the wording of the referendum with anyone at all, even within my family, or at work either.

That would seem to copper fasten the notion that you've no basis for assuming it's probable that you know what other people thought, right enough.

aloyisious wrote: »

2nd edit; I wonder what WB's answer would be if I were to ask him now what he thought the word "practicable" meant.

He doesn't seem to have an issue with in the discussion Emmet02 posted, is there any reason to think he should now?

aloyisious wrote: »

I've given up debating with Absolam but can't help wondering if this part of his/her quote; [Those circumstances are invariably where the unborn life would certainly be destroyed anyway] is a reference to a naturally occurring event but the timing of which was uncertain and consequently, if no abortion operation was performed, would definitely put the woman's life at risk of death. Then again, maybe it refer's to the woman committing suicide which would have an inevitable result for the feotus in her womb.

You could ask rather than speculating, though I agree that would mean potentially having to debate (or at least discuss) what's I'm saying rather than pontificating on it.

Still, both the circumstances you've described above come reasonably close to what is described in the POLDPA as being circumstances in which the destruction of unborn human life would not be an offense under the Act, so they more or less fit as circumstances where invariably the unborn life would certainly be destroyed anyway.

volchitsa wrote: »

That's my point though, the fact that "something" exists does not mean it necessarily has rights that may be opposed to those of an actual person.
You assumed an immediate moral equivalence between the two, not I.

Actually, I said that the fact that something exists is beyond debate, contrary to your actual point that it's "a being for whom the word "existence" is debatable".
Your second assertion, that it's supposed rights come into conflict with the acknowledged rights of actual people, is what I addressed when I said that the notion someone can't have a supposed right simply because it may conflict with someone else's supposed right seems like a fairly sketchy proposition.

I didn't propose that the fact that "something" exists means it necessarily has rights that may be opposed to those of an actual person; I think I've been pretty clear that I acknowledge the notion that different 'somethings' can be accorded different rights. We do know though, that what you want us to consider as a 'something' is already treated as an actual person insofar as is already has a personal right, and you haven't established that that right is opposed to any actual right of any other actual person.

volchitsa wrote: »

In other words, if you want to apply a precautionary principle and restrict your own rights just in case the sperm or embryo or fetus is a person, that's fine, but "just in case" is not a good enough reason to remove rights from other people who don't see things as you do.

I'm afraid your precautionary principle was entirely your own idea; I never suggested applying one. Nor did I suggest removing rights from anyone either, that's your own idea too. So I suppose you don't need to worry about arguing those points, at least.

recedite wrote: »

"Invariably" and "certainly" are incorrect words to use here because as I mentioned, there can be certain types of ectopic pregnancies for example, where the unborn could survive to a viable age if it was left alone. But at that stage the mother would die.

You did mention them, and I said I'm quite certain the legislation doesn't mention those circumstances, does it? But I suspect that such ectopic pregnancies don't come to a single point in time where the child will certainly live and the mother will certainly die; as they progress over time the chance of the child surviving and the mother dying both increase. The POLDPA allows a doctor to end the life of the child when where there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life which can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure, and with regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable. So it doesn't allow them to prioritise one life over the other, only to end one where the risk to the other is real and substantial but both cannot practicably be preserved.

recedite wrote: »

You are consistently refusing to acknowledge this type of situation because it undermines the foundation of your own arguments; that the legislation only permits abortion when it saves one life, in a situation where two would have died. Therefore a net gain of one life.

I did acknowledge it though; I said the the legislation doesn't mention those circumstances. So you can't actually say the legislation prioritises one life over another based on those circumstances.

recedite wrote: »

So in my example, it is a straight "one for one"; there is no net gain of saved lives. Therefore one life is "prioritised" over the other. I don't see how you can say the mother is not getting priority in that scenario. Ergo, the legislation is, strictly speaking, unconstitutional because both lives are not being treated exactly equally, as per the requirement of the 8th.

Well, in your example, I think the legislation permits a doctor to end the life of the unborn only when the risk it presents to the life of the mother is sufficiently substantial as to require action, even though the life of the unborn cannot yet be practicably preserved, so there doesn't appear to be any prioritisation at all; not saving the life of the mother risks her death, and if the life of the child cannot be practicably preserved the same risk applies to the child. So both lives are at risk, and only one can be saved. They still have the same right to life throughout (as evidenced by the fact that the doctor is obliged to have regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable), so the legislation is entirely Constitutional.

recedite wrote: »

The only way you can get this scenario to fit into your worldview is to employ the Mad Hatter's technique of making words mean whatever you want them to mean. And you're not the only one; it actually seems to be the official line. But my interpretations are based on plain English as per the normal usage of words.

The scenario fits fine into my world view though? If it seems the official line is to abandon plain English as per the normal usage of words and instead make words mean whatever you want them to mean, then perhaps the normal usage of words simply isn't what you think it is? It's a more likely explanation than the entirety of the Oireachtas, Attorney Generals office, and the general population have become 'Mad Hatters'.

recedite wrote: »

Possibly in a Savita type scenario, but there are other possible scenarios hence his use of the word "invariably" is wrong. It is in these other scenarios such as the one I mentioned, that the legislation goes beyond the actual wording of the 8th amendment. By sanctioning an abortion if the mothers life is at risk, even if the unborn would be likely to survive.

I don't think the POLDPA does, in fact, sanction an abortion if the mothers life is at risk, even if the unborn would be likely to survive though. I think the POLDPA specifically requires that the doctors have regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable; if the child is likely to survive then it is practicable to preserve it's life. Hence (as I noted previously) the fact that doctors in the Y case when terminating the pregnancy which threatened her life performed a C section and preserved the life of her unborn child.

lazygal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Every so often the High Court comes up with a ruling which can only be described as bizarre. It's the reason we have a Supreme Court.

Like ruling that suicidal pregnant children can't have abortions, for example?

Hotblack Desiato

Every so often the High Court comes up with a ruling which can only be described as bizarre. It's the reason we have a Supreme Court.

I'd like to know what branch, section or whatever of Common Law that Judge Humphreys had in mind when he made that statement. Common law marriage does NOT have any legal recognition here in Ireland.

aloyisious wrote: »

How far does the word "practicable" go in law and how should it be read?

To my mind, it's possible that it foresaw and allowed for situations where defending the right to life of the unborn would NOT be practicable by and of the State. POLDPA bridges the gap to legislative law. I've no doubt that you may/would argue against that view.

Some of the practicalities were raised by Mary Robinson in that 1983 video, eg the impracticality of the state stopping pregnant women from travelling, or the state interfering in the use of the IUD by women to prevent implantation. Stopping a potential suicide would be another impractical one, which came up later with the x-case ruling. The suicide risk abortion therefore comes under Absolam's oft quoted mantra of "saving one life where two would otherwise die". It can still be seen as valuing both equally.

I see a difference in kind between those examples and the newer POLDPA legislation which specifically authorises abortion if the life of the mother is at risk. If one must die, it should be the foetus. That prioritises the "born" over "the unborn" every time, regardless of the practicalities of any given scenario.

silverharp wrote: »

I dont know if Humphreys is doing a bit of trolling but fk me

So is the unborn child an Irish citizen once it is conceived in Ireland, or does the child have to be born here? All seems rather dubious to say the least, but an interesting possible loophole for would be migrants.

[Deleted User]

silverharp wrote: »

I dont know if Humphreys is doing a bit of trolling but fk me

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/unborn-child-has-significant-legal-rights-judge-rules-1.2741697

Sure just wheel Binchy out to tell him he's wrong and we're grand.

Isn't that how he told us it would be?

silverharp

I dont know if Humphreys is doing a bit of trolling but fk me

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/unborn-child-has-significant-legal-rights-judge-rules-1.2741697

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.
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.

Absolam wrote: »

If enough people agree that a person exists from conception to confer the right to life from that point, then that is in fact the case

There is rather more to fact than majority opinion, or for that matter indoctrinated belief, which tends to be rather fluid. The belief of the majority at one point was that the world was flat. Similarly, in the Christian world people were taught that all animals on the planet are descended from single mating pairs that escaped a huge flood by living on a large boat for a month. Some of them apparently still believe it, but that doesn't make it fact.

That a pregnant woman is a person is a fact. That you consider a tiny embryo inside that woman's womb to be a person is an unsubstantiated belief. The fact that this belief is shared by millions of people who were taught it during their upbringing no more makes it a fact than the existence of God, Santa or Shiva.

Deleted User wrote: »

Always worth remembering that some were very much aware of the potential ramifications.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLWnoQjTNiw

04:50 - Robinson
08:20 - Binchy
09:00 - Robinson

Ta for that. Very informational. Downloaded it & then googled for the video using that link. Saved the new link & deleted your one.

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

recedite wrote: »

Dolphins will spend a lot of time looking at themselves in a mirror from different angles, if given that opportunity. Which demonstrates a higher level of consciousness than a new born human baby. Yet dolphins are obviously not human.

IMO there is no one, single, unique, thing to differentiate "human" from "animal" or "born" from "unborn". Other than the rather obvious observation that any non-human animal is usually referred to as an animal, and any not-yet-born human can be called "unborn".

But in this context we're using terms such as self aware or conscious as qualifiers to what makes a human foetus a person. Flipper and Lassie need not apply, as that would be animal rights rather than human rights, where all humans are animals but not all animals are humans. As for unborn, it seems to refer to a living foetus at any stage of pregnancy unless otherwise qualified. (i.e. in-utero) It's strange word when you think about it, as to extend it to the living would imply you and I are undead

At a guess, the word unborn was coined by the pro-lifers as a more emotive alternative to in-utero foetus.

[Deleted User]

Always worth remembering that some were very much aware of the potential ramifications.

04:50 - Robinson
08:20 - Binchy
09:00 - Robinson

recedite wrote: »

Possibly in a Savita type scenario, but there are other possible scenarios hence his use of the word "invariably" is wrong. It is in these other scenarios such as the one I mentioned, that the legislation goes beyond the actual wording of the 8th amendment. By sanctioning an abortion if the mothers life is at risk, even if the unborn would be likely to survive.

This is a bit long. It's probable that people, when they read the information given them at the time of the 8th referendum prior to voting on it, did not think through or foresee the various scenarios which might occur to a pregnant woman and the feotus in her womb. I can safely assume that I am one of those people.

Times and beliefs of the people were different back then, with considerable faith put into what the religious, legal and political hierarchy had them believe. No one apparently saw that the wording of the 8th was strange, giving that [as I've posted before] it includes the wording "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". That seem's open-ended to me now for some time [acknowledging the right to life of the unborn] while further on in the amendment, there's this [guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right]. I've looked at it, devil's advocate style, and see that it doesn't give the unborn a full and complete guarantee.

How far does the word "practicable" go in law and how should it be read?

To my mind, it's possible that it foresaw and allowed for situations where defending the right to life of the unborn would NOT be practicable by and of the State. POLDPA bridges the gap to legislative law. I've no doubt that you may/would argue against that view.

The full amendment wording 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]. If one was to give due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, as against that same given to the unborn, one is inevitably in a quandary when it comes to naturally occurring pregnancy mishaps and what to do medically to resolve the situation. It seems almost like a "it's in the lap of God" view of circumstance was inevitable due to the 8th amendment, AND no human intervention was allowable.

People reading the full wording of the amendment, due to the way it's written with it's commas etc, would think/assume that the last word in it referred solely to the unborn. I've looked at it devil's advocate and I'd have written the words "of the unborn" as the final words in it to tie it down absolutely [because the word "right" is used for both the mother and the unborn] or maybe put the part referring to the mother in brackets, to have a degree of separation between the "right" of the unborn and the "right" of the mother, otherwise one might ask to whom the last use of the word "right" referred-to, the feotus or the mother, a devils advocate question.
It ain't safe to assume something is in law unless it's there in writing........

EDIT... actually I can't remember discussing the issue or debating the wording of the referendum with anyone at all, even within my family, or at work either.

2nd edit; I wonder what WB's answer would be if I were to ask him now what he thought the word "practicable" meant.

Possibly in a Savita type scenario, but there are other possible scenarios hence his use of the word "invariably" is wrong. It is in these other scenarios such as the one I mentioned, that the legislation goes beyond the actual wording of the 8th amendment. By sanctioning an abortion if the mothers life is at risk, even if the unborn would be likely to survive.

I've given up debating with Absolam but can't help wondering if this part of his/her quote; [Those circumstances are invariably where the unborn life would certainly be destroyed anyway] is a reference to a naturally occurring event but the timing of which was uncertain and consequently, if no abortion operation was performed, would definitely put the woman's life at risk of death. Then again, maybe it refer's to the woman committing suicide which would have an inevitable result for the feotus in her womb.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In the context of affording someone "human rights" however one probably should be clear what one means by "Human" or is hanging that term off. Mere DNA does not appear to me to suffice for this. Nor does merely passing through a birth canal.

For me hanging Human Rights therefore has to be done off something a little less arbitrary. And the only thing that makes sense to me is Human Sentience and consciousness itself.

Dolphins will spend a lot of time looking at themselves in a mirror from different angles, if given that opportunity. Which demonstrates a higher level of consciousness than a new born human baby. Yet dolphins are obviously not human.

IMO there is no one, single, unique, thing to differentiate "human" from "animal" or "born" from "unborn". Other than the rather obvious observation that any non-human animal is usually referred to as an animal, and any not-yet-born human can be called "unborn".