volchitsa wrote: » The right? Because there's only one? Where is the right of a person defined in the constitution then?
volchitsa wrote: » It gives a right to life, which by the way is not the right of a person, who don't have that right at all. That's why the life support machine of a non pregnant woman could be switched off on the advice of her doctors, but the right to life of the fetus made them afraid to do so. If the baby had been born it would no longer have that right either.
volchitsa wrote: » This is just silly and irrelevant. You may have nothing else to do with your life. I do.
looksee wrote: » I would only highlight a link for the purpose of c/p ing it. Your second link does go to the full article, the first one does not.
looksee wrote: » The point about the ownership of the hospital(s) if an order of nuns ceased to exist had occurred to me too. I think the whole question of ownership is going to require complex legal negotiation in the near future, but in the meantime, why add another property to the portfolio of a failing institution?
volchitsa wrote: » Posting something that doesn't prove what you say it does can be an honest mistake. Reposting it after your mistake has been pointed out to you is usually dishonest. To repeat what was said to you the first time, and which you didn't refute: The death certificate was being considered on the basis that the baby had been "born" during the autopsy, i.e. birth is required. And in any case, no certificate was issued in the end - because being removed from the womb, dead, is not legally a birth.So your article does not illustrate the conclusion you claim it does at all
King Mob wrote: » They are additional issues with your position. Firstly: The right to life does not imply either citizenship or personhood. There is nothing that specifically does grant a fetus either citizenship or personhood. Similarly, personhood and citizenship are not interchangeable or imply each other. Secondly: There is nothing else beyond your interpretation of this article that indicates that a fetus has citizenship, or (the actual point remember) personhood. If this part of the article did not exist, you would not even have this tenuous foundation. Thirdly, as looksee said: Your argument is self contradictory. If fetuses were citizens/persons then there'd be no need for a specific mention, they would be included in the rights already extended to citizens and persons. The specific mention is an admission that fetuses are an exceptional case. I asked you to explain your position based on these issues. So: If the provision in article 40 didn't exist, what would show that a fetus is a person/citizen? If a fetus is considered a person/citizen, then what purpose does the section of the article serve and why is it needed?
“unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman; “woman” means a female person of any age.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Your argument is left wanting for the fact that you're quite right in that the foetus as such doesn't have any legal recognition, but ...
King Mob wrote: » You've ignored the point and dodged the questions. No interest in nitpicking arguments if all of my points are to be ignored. There is nothing in the law that grants personhood to a fetus or the unborn, contrary to claims made here.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I'm not ignoring your point, nor am I dodging the question. You're asking for certainties in law where I've pointed out that the law is open to interpretation in this area depending upon the circumstances and context of each case.
One eyed Jack wrote: » The very first line recognises the unborn as a legal person? 1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. The unborn is a citizen of Ireland, and has legal recognition bestowed upon them on that basis in the context of Article 40. That right is as far as practicable defended and vindicated by our laws.
King Mob wrote: » No, I'm asking you clear direct questions of fact. Can you point to anything else at all in the law that grants personhood to a fetus(/unborn or whatever nitpicking term you'd like)? It's a yes or no question. You don't want to say "no", so you're avoiding the question. The only part of the law you can point to requires your tenuous interpretation of it, so we are lead to the other point you ignore: If a fetus(/unborn) is considered a person/citizen, then what purpose does the section of the article serve and why is it needed? Why isn't it already covered in the rights already extended to other persons? Why does it need a specific, special exception if it's a person and clearly so?
King Mob wrote: » Remember your claim was: Do you still stand by this interpretation?
One eyed Jack wrote: » I've already explained to you that the foetus isn't specifically recognised in law! The unborn has a specific legal definition in Irish law, so it's not me nit-picking or using whatever term I like, it's you who is using terminology outside of the context of any legal interpretation. You must surely be aware that the foetus is a medical term that refers to the development of human life from the 8th week gestation to birth. The term 'unborn' refers to the development of human life from implantation to birth, in Irish law.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I don't need to say yes or no to your question because it simply doesn't arise. You're talking about me ignoring your questions, but you're purposely ignoring the law as it is currently written, in order to propose the question!
One eyed Jack wrote: » I've already answered why the specific term is used in relation to the unborn and why the distinction in law exists, but you appear to have chosen to ignore that too.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Yes I do. If you'd care to present an argument to refute my interpretation, I'm all ears.
King Mob wrote: » It's nitpicking because you know what I mean and the distinction has no baring on any of my points.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It's not nit-picking, because it's an incredibly important definition, particularly if you're trying to argue that in spite of it's status as a separate legal entity with it's own legal identity and the inherent protections of the right to life, the unborn could not be considered a person in a legal context.
One eyed Jack wrote: » The rest of your post I won't address because I think I've made the point numerous times already. You simply refuse to acknowledge anything which doesn't support your own lack of an argument. I'd sooner an evenings navel-gazing tbh than continue to wait for an argument that it appears is never going to come.
The very first line recognises the unborn as a legal person? 1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. The unborn is a citizen of Ireland, and has legal recognition bestowed upon them on that basis in the context of Article 40. That right is as far as practicable defended and vindicated by our laws.
Absolam wrote: » Weeelll.... the Constitutional provision gives the unborn the right of a person. That's legal evidence, isn't it? You can't get much more legal. As for explicit mentions... the Criminal Justice Act of 1990 explicitly mentions the murder of a Garda, and the murder of a prison officer, but not once in 80 mentions of murder does it ever refer to the murder of a person. I don't think you can argue murder is not the killing of a person though, despite the fact that it's not said explicitly. There are obviously a number of consequences (whatever about them being automatic...) of killing a person, depending on the crime. A person who intentionally destroys unburm human life may be sentenced to a prison sentence of up to fourteen years. A person who engages in dangerous driving causing death may be sentenced to a prison sentence of up to five years. A person who commits infanticide may serve twelve years, a capital murderer forty. Consequences for killing a person evidently vary, yet you can't really extrapolate from this that someone who isn't imprisoned for capital murder didn't actually kill a person when they took their life whilst driving a car, can you?
King Mob wrote: » You only get citizenship when you are born (or through naturalisation), therefore unborn cannot be citizens of Ireland. Therefore your claim that unborn are persons because they are citizens fails on the outset. So your claim is factually wrong using a cursory look at the law..
King Mob wrote: » But again you are avoiding the main point... A right to life does not equate to personhood. The fact that the law must make an exception to extend this right to the unborn/fetuses is an indication that they are not already protected by the rights already granted to persons, because they are not persons.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Is the unborn held as equal before the law in Ireland in terms of the right to life as it is bestowed upon citizens in Irish law by virtue of the fact that they are human persons? I would say yes, it is. The argument as to when we confer personhood is more of a social and philosophical argument than it is a legal one, The legal arguments as to personhood would be informed by a social and philosophical context.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I would argue that it does, as how can you apply a legal right to a separate legal entity without acknowledging that legal rights are applied to persons on condition of their existence.It's why we acknowledge the difference for example between animal and human rights. It's not that the law is extending this right to the unborn, it's that the unborn has this right before they are born, and it can be interpreted in different ways and with different limitations depending upon the context in which one would like to argue within a legal framework.
King Mob wrote: » No, you are moving the goal posts now. And it's rather sad. You claimed that the unborn are Irish citizens. This is factually incorrect and it's hilarious given how you gave out to me for not being careful with my use of unborn and fetus. Your position is predicated on the idea that citizens are defined as persons. However, legally, the unborn are not citizens. So legally, your argument fails. Which is important since you are trying to argue that legally, the unborn/fetuses are persons. If you are saying it's a philosophical argument because you've been proven wrong, you're moving the goalposts. Do you stand by your claim that the unborn have citizenship? You can argue and waffle all you like, but this is your tenuous interpretation only.
Another key aspect of the case was the fact that Mrs Enright’s widower Pat and her father David Walsh received a letter from gardaí saying they had amended their record of the crash. This was to recognise that three people had died – Mrs Enright’s unborn daughter Mollie being the third – instead of two as had been previously stated. Mr Walsh said after the inquest: ‘We have a very important piece of paper in our hands which recognises there was a third fatality. We set out to get that and we now have that. ‘And it’s now up to the powers that be to ensure that all these children are recognised.’
King Mob wrote: » You admit that things that aren't persons can be given rights, so it does not follow and being given a right to life makes something a person. It's also a fact that a person's rights are predicated on the condition of their existance, because again, you need to be born to be a citizen.
King Mob wrote: » It also fails to answer my questions about why the unborn is not already covered by the rights given to persons. If an unborn fetus is a person, why does it need a separate provision to insure it has a right to life? Does the person's right to life not already cover when they are unborn?
One eyed Jack wrote: » I've argued that it would be dependent upon the circumstances and context of each case, and that interpretation is made by the Courts. You're looking for certainties where I can't give you any as there simply isn't a one-size-fits-all interpretation of the law,
King Mob wrote: » Yea, i cant exactly compete when you're going the alternative facts route. You claimed that the unborn have citizenship. This is false. You are now pretending that this is not the case. I'm out.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It's not going the alternative facts route at all. I have every right to claim that the unborn is a citizen of the Irish State, and it would depend upon the circumstances of the case as to whether this would be considered a valid argument or not in the context of the Constitutional protection we afford to the unborn. If the interpretation were accepted by the Courts, then the legislation could be amended by Government without the need for a referendum. It's not alternative fact, it's alternative interpretation of the law.
MrPudding wrote: » Interesting argument, but I think it is wrong, your problem (with the comparison and examples) is with the mens rea. When someone kill a person with a car and are charged by death with dangerous driving, the sentence is smaller than for murder because the driver lacks the same culpability as a murderer. Yes, they did kill someone, but that was not the intention of their act. If, however, a person sets out with a car to kill someone, and does kill them (and this is known or suspected) then they will be charged with murder and not death by dangerous driving.
MrPudding wrote: » You are quite correct, there are differences in how a person might be sentenced for taking another persons life, but those differences are down the level of culpability and intention. So, I am sure you can see where I am going here, and this is your other problem. Where one intentionally kills another person that is murder. You example of the intention destruction of an unborn human life, which you seem to be using to try to bolster your argument, actually shows the exact opposite. If an unborn foetus was considered in law to be a person, then why do the rules of homicide not apply? If a women procures an illegal abortion and kills/destroys the unborn foetus inside her, she has intentionally killed, according to you, a person. Now, if that is actually the case, and it was recognised in law, then why is she not charged with murder?
MrPudding wrote: » The very fact that there is a specific offence for the destruction (note, not killing) if an unborn human life (note, not unborn person), is an indication that whatever personhood you think a foetus has is not the same quality of personhood that us born persons enjoy.
Absolam wrote: » I certainly wouldn't dispute that mens rea is a significant component in many crimes, though I'd shy away from imagining that it's exclusively applicable to murder. For instance, absent mens rea the intentional destruction of unborn human life is simply the destruction of unborn human life; not a crime under the POLDPA. It's not just intention or culpability that determines the crime though is it? Every form of unlawful killing has it's own particular circumstances that determine whether it's that crime, or another, which has been committed. Where one person intentionally kills another person that may be murder, but there's quite a bit more to it than simple intent. And as I pointed out earlier, the Criminal Justice Act does not mention the killing of a person at all... just like the POLDPA. In fact, if we take the examples I provided, we can see than the Criminal Justice Act 1990, the Infanticide Act 1949, and the Protection of Life During Pregancy Act 2013 all deal with the intentional (there's your mens rea) killing of other people, and none of them actually use the term kill a person. Evidently a person may intentionally kill an unborn person, an infant person, or a grown person, and be charged with different crimes without rising to murder; voluntary manslaughter, for instance, admits of intent (mens rea again) with exculpatory circumstances. So... someone might (intentionally) kill a person and be charged with an offence other than murder, because there are offences that better fit the act and circumstances. Well, I wouldn't try to speak to quality of personhood; that's seems to be a new introduction and I've no idea how, or why, you'd measure it. Though it apears to me that argument claims an infant also does not have the same quality of personhood that other born persons enjoy, if it's mother can be convicted of infanticide rather than murder for intentionally causing it's death. I'd be dubious about that.
aloyisious wrote: » This wikipedia link might be enlightening as it includes the ecclesiastical courts. The whole is titled Beginning of human personhood and it's respective (Christian) Para is titled Fetal personhood in law.....https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi0_YnYpeDTAhXDCsAKHfMHA5IQFgg2MAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBeginning_of_human_personhood&usg=AFQjCNHcEY4QAPPWD6jbBm6dGtW2tlHa_Q
recedite wrote: » Looking at the historical views, the basic arguments have not really changed that much. One thing that has happened in modern times is that a greater value has been placed on infants and children than before, but a lesser value on the unborn. IMO its due to the "permanence" that we assign to these entities (subconsciously and psychologically). There was a time, long ago, when a visible pregnancy normally resulted in a birth, but there was a good chance that the infant would not make it to adulthood. The pregnancy was a sure thing, but the survival of the infant was not. Nowadays a pregnancy can just disappear, but once a child is born, we consider them permanent members of society. So now the pregnancy is considered an ephemeral thing, but the ongoing survival of the newborn infant is taken for granted. These new medical capabilities have influenced our views on the ethics surrounding abortion and child mortality. Not the other way round as we sometimes like to think.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
