volchitsa wrote: » In fact (NB further personal speculation, anyone is free to disagree) I wonder if the father may not have been "encouraged" to see that he wasn't going to be allowed to win, because the legal repercussions in obstetric care and human rights for pregnant women would be enormous. Obviously it may not have been put to him in that way. IOW I'm not sure the state just "got lucky"..
volchitsa wrote: » But on the actual point, it's untrue that the state has done or will do what you were implying, i.e., grant a legal existence to the unborn.
Absolam wrote: » Yes, they legally exist. They are assigned a right in the Constitution, they are protected by legislation, and have been provided counsel in Court actions. Not talking morally or philosophically. I'm not sure what distinctions you think are or ought to be made between an abortion or a miscarriage, but the very fact that you're using two different terms show you see a distinction.
eviltwin wrote: » They are two different things, of course there is a distinction
eviltwin wrote: » I'm curious from a legal point of view why a miscarriage isn't treated as a death but an abortion is. And I appreciate this probably makes no sense beyond my own musings but as someone who has experience of both its an interesting distinction.
freshpopcorn wrote: » However my question is if Ireland was to have a referendum about it and the keep side won. What would happen?
Maximus Alexander wrote: » Nothing.
Discodog wrote: » Until & if the EU Court of Human rights intervenes
freshpopcorn wrote: » Edit: My question is would the repeal side accept the peoples decision?
AtomicHorror wrote: » Accept in what sense? Accept that the constitution and the law remain unchanged? Of course, but to do otherwise would be delusional. Accept in the sense of obeying the law? It is already circumvented by thousands every year, that won't change. If you mean, would they call it a day on the repeal cause... no, why would they? When the repeal movement started, it was unpopular. By many measures, it still is. A failure to carry the referendum would just mean they're not done.
freshpopcorn wrote: » Thanks, for the reply. The reason I asked was because after the marriage referendum the NO campaign basically gave up apart from the odd appeal which you'll always get. The repeal campaign often say Ireland is crying out for a referendum to change this law and it's what the Irish people want bur if the Irish people decided that they wanted to keep it.Would they have to admit they're in the minority.(I hope that makes sense)
Calhoun wrote: » Question is would they really want to be seen to be messing with a counties constitution. Europe is getting a scare the past while, the right hasn't had any big win really other than in the UK but they are getting close enough that change will have to be on the cards. At a time when they need to assure the citizens of Europe that they are not an unelected group dictating how things happen it would be very unwise of them. I am not saying that's how it should be but the macro environment may change the status quo under which they operate atm.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » The European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU. It is entirely separate. There are 47 countries under it's jurisdiction as opposed to the EU with 27.
Calhoun wrote: » Why hasnt it challenged Ireland on this before or has it?
freshpopcorn wrote: » The reason I asked was because after the marriage referendum the NO campaign basically gave up
NuMarvel wrote: » The European Court of Human Rights is like any other court and can only act on the basis of cases it hears. It can't proactively evaluate a country's laws to determine if they are in compliance with the Convention. That said, Ireland's abortion laws have been the subject of at least three ECHR cases: Well Woman & Open Door in 1992, D v Ireland in 2006, and A,B, & C v Ireland in 2010. Well Woman/Open Door related to the provision of information, and Ireland lost that case, with our laws as they were then being found to be a breach of the human rights granted by the Convention. That's at least part of the reason we held a referendum on access to information in 1992. D v Ireland was about accessing abortion in the case of FFA, but the case was dismissed as Ms D hadn't gone through the courts in Ireland first, which is a requirement of bringing a case to the ECHR. A, B, & C v Ireland was an amalgamation of cases brought by 3 separate women (referred to as Ms's A, B, and C) around accessing abortion in differing circumstances. A and B lost their cases, but C's rights were found to be breached as our laws didn't set out how the a woman could access a legal abortion in Ireland. In other words, there was no legislation for the X Case. The outcome of that was the introduction of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act in 2013. In addition, the courts in Northern Ireland have found that their laws, which would be similar to ours, are also a breach of the Convention by not allowing access to abortion in cases of rape, incest, and FFA. That finding is being appealed, so it may change, and it doesn't directly apply to us. But at the same time, legislators would be remiss not to consider the finding when drafting post-repeal/change laws on abortion.
Calhoun wrote: » Thanks for that, i wasn't aware of the status of cases taking against Ireland on this, i would have thought something so unpopular would have been challenged. If you will allow me to be a little bit lazy, what kind of fines would Ireland face if it broke such laws? I need to do my own research but dont have the time at the moment but would like to tease this argument out.
RobertKK wrote: » I am totally converted now to the prochoice argument...https://twitter.com/jpy_kurdish/status/861404580768362496
B_Wayne wrote: » Perfectly fair point. Eg during the marriage referendum. Gay people marrying wasn't my battle but I offered help and support during the campaign. Basically, she's saying that she doesn't want men to take control of the campaign. Nothing wrong with saying that. What's much more worrying is all the racist slurs and sexist remarks about her appearance in the responses, there's literally hundreds and it's all tends to be racist and sexist. So well done at finding a really old video that was reposted that's being spread by a racist alt right account.
RobertKK wrote: » Yeah, the women are all virgins and have immaculate conceptions, so nothing to do with men. It is strange how for some women when the unborn in is their womb, it is their body and a man should have no say, but if she was to let it be born she wouldn't be saying the man has no say, they would be after money to raise the child.
Calhoun wrote: » Its great to see this one surface again, its actually what set me on the path to be contrary to feminist point of view. She is basically saying that men don't have a vote in a democratic process and should shut up. There is allot wrong with that i don't know where to begin.The comments i have seen are not bad they are questioning the high standard she has for Ireland compared to her own country. People don't like outsiders who have come to this country and benefited greatly from it to be telling half the voting population that its none of their business. Its views like hers that will sink this whole referendum when it does come around.
What is a negro doing in Ireland?!
B_Wayne wrote: » No, the comments are largely from people not in Ireland. Even the originating account is Canadian. How dare anyone use her race or appearance to judge her. That's what most of the comments are. I have no idea if she is originally from her Ireland, her points are valid and absolutely do not justify a bunch of racists going on rants against her. That's what 90% of the comments are. The most favourited response simply reads. So stop bs'ing and claiming that it's not a racist pile on.
B_Wayne wrote: » If somebody got to make decisions on the behalf of your body, would you be fine with that? She was also discussing allies in her speech and how the campaign should be conducted.
