nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortions for only a select few, citizens assembly wide of mark

Hooks Golf Handicap

Turns out we're not quite there yet whatever the citizens assembly said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll-voters-would-pass-limited-abortion-but-block-full-liberalisation-1.3246138

Was this citizens assembly made up of UCD first year art students or something.

Seven out of ten voters (70 per cent) say they would vote in favour of limited access in a referendum, with 17 per cent against and 12 per cent saying they don’t know.
On a referendum providing for general access to abortion up to 22 weeks, just over a third of voters (35 per cent) say they would vote in favour, with 50 per cent saying they would vote against such a proposal. Don’t knows were at 15 per cent.

On another point, they'd want to get this referendum over & done long before the Pope's visit.
Once he appears in the debate & wags his finger it's another 10% gone.

As these divisive topics normally narrow I think the Repeal campaign should concentrate fully on the ffa/rape/mother's health route & abandon any chance of getting full abortion over the line.
Sure don't they still have the Irish solution of the 2 tablets from Holland or a weekends shopping in Liverpool, what's the problem like.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

gctest50

Yay

boards.ie got another signup

_Kaiser_

I'll say the same thing I did last time this topic came up ...

Abortions are happening now anyway. The only difference is that many women have to travel to the UK for them, which causes even more stress and hardship on them. If they can't afford the trip it's even worse. All we've been doing is exporting the issue and expecting other countries to deal with it so we don't have to.

There are numerous reasons why someone may want to end a pregnancy.. all of which are dependent on the individual circumstances involved. It's not something the State or anyone else besides the woman/couple involved should be able to pass judgement on. You'd have a hard time convincing me that ANY woman who makes that decision does so lightly and doesn't agonise over it afterwards - possibly for the rest of their lives.

The ONLY limit I'd put on it would be the time involved. 8-12 weeks max I'd say myself which I'd think would give someone the time to make the decision, but not let it go too far either if abortion is the choice they make.

Jurgen Klopp

Any word on if medical professionals be given legal protection through the "conscientious objector" like Italy and most EU nations that have liberal abortion on demand?

They don't have to participate on an abortion if they are against it and are legally and rightly protected from having to do so.

PopePalpatine

thee glitz wrote: »

Those with no humanity

/polite

Nah, I've got homo sapiens DNA. I'd put pricks who take out insurance against liability in facilitating mass rape and torture, or work in the PR department for such people to belittle their victims, on that list.

The Legend Of Kira

I saw a clip of last saturday evenings Rte 6 news online to quote the repeal spokesperson she said

"" Nobody that,s marching here the 30.000 marching here aren,t looking for a little bit of abortion of access, we want full abortion access [font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]At the MINIMUM we want the recommendations of the 'Citizens' Assembly and we won't accept and we can't support any less than that" .[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]She basically saying they want unlimited access to abortion , there,s no way I will be voting for a repeal as repeal means the unknown post repeal , in some countries where they have very liberal abortion access there is a high per % of abortion of down syndrome babies where there is screening for down syndrome which results in discrimination where a lot of abortions happen on that ground, not a chance id vote for a repeal where something similar could be legalised here in future years.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The one exception I could vote for is there was a referendum for a amendment to the 8th, for cases in where there is no chance of survival/no chance of life outside the womb, if someone is in a fatal accident and the person is on life support in intensive care sometimes there may come a point in which the doctors know the person isn,t going to make it & they withdraw life support , when there is a case in which a unborn baby has no chance [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]of survival/no chance of life outside the womb I think an exception should apply as its wrong to prolong the pain for both the woman + the unborn baby.[/font]

Jurgen Klopp

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I saw a clip of last saturday evenings Rte 6 news online to quote the repeal spokesperson she said

"" Nobody that,s marching here the 30.000 marching here aren,t looking for a little bit of abortion of access, we want full abortion access [font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]At the MINIMUM we want the recommendations of the 'Citizens' Assembly and we won't accept and we can't support any less than that" .[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]She basically saying they want unlimited access to abortion , there,s no way I will be voting for a repeal as repeal means the unknown post repeal , in some countries where they have very liberal abortion access there is a high per % of abortion of down syndrome babies where there is screening for down syndrome which results in discrimination where a lot of abortions happen on that ground, not a chance id vote for a repeal where something similar could be legalised here in future years.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The one exception I could vote for is there was a referendum for a amendment to the 8th, for cases in where there is no chance of survival/no chance of life outside the womb, if someone is in a fatal accident and the person is on life support in intensive care sometimes there may come a point in which the doctors know the person isn,t going to make it & they withdraw life support , when there is a case in which a unborn baby has no chance [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]of survival/no chance of life outside the womb I think an exception should apply as its wrong to prolong the pain for both the woman + the unborn baby.[/font]

I believe down syndrome has almost been "eradicated" in Sweden due to most parents aborting when they are told the child will have downs.

As well as certain communites even in the UK aborting female fetuses due to preferring sons which has some quarters who were pro choice now losing the rag

I personally can get behind

Threat to mothers life
Rape
Incest
Genetic abnormalities

I just can't get around abortion after those circumstances a babies heartbeat is at about 6 to 8 weeks. I'm sorry but I'd never be able to vote for that unless it was due to one of the above circumstances

NickNickleby

George Sunsnow wrote: »

The fly in this ointment is the amount of people who regard abortion as murder
No right demanded by anyone to someone with that opinion will trump that belief
I come across those kind of views regularly
I’m just letting you know lest anyone think repeal is going to be easy
Those holding that view will vote no to any change that doesn’t prohibit all but medically necessary but currently illegal abortions and ffa etc

This is why the poll doesn’t surprise me
Trying to take Abortion out of the debate won’t happen either
The pro life crowd and the homophobes are only bulling to get stuck into the ‘liberalati’ after the marriage equality defeat they got

I'm astonished at this remark, and also very surprised that others thanked it. Essentially you're painting a bad picture of people like me. I have no interest in expressing opinions of people who hold 'pro-choice' views. I believe in simply expressing my own reasons for my stance, and if others come round to my way of thinking, that's fine. My hope is that my view will be reflected in any referendum outcome and that it will be in the majority. If my view is not the majority view, then I accept that society changes to reflect the views of the majority. But I reserve my right to attempt to influence the outcome. Also, there are opposing views within my own extended family, across three generations and who says what is actually surprising (to me). In our talks no one has resorted to calling each other 'homophobes' , 'child murderers' or any of the other charming epithets that are thrown around so gleefully on the Internet.

My own view is that I'm against abortion on demand (not a term I like ). I understand how a woman would have to have an abortion for various reasons (rape/incest/FFA and perhaps others). I admit that I don't use 'logic' in my opinion, because if I did, I'd either completely ban abortion or allow it with absolutely no restrictions. When my wife was pregnant, we consciously chose not to have certain prenatal checks like amniocentesis, as to do so would have led to the misery of knowing there was a way out if a problem was found, ie, killing the baby in the womb, which we could never have contemplated. I also understand that others disagree with my calling 'it' a baby, but there you have it.

thee glitz

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'll say the same thing I did last time this topic came up ...

Abortions are happening now anyway. The only difference is that many women have to travel to the UK for them, which causes even more stress and hardship on them. If they can't afford the trip it's even worse. All we've been doing is exporting the issue and expecting other countries to deal with it so we don't have to.

Nonsense - to what extent do we expect another country to deal with this issue for us? If women decide to go the UK to have done what is illegal here, that is their decision. It's not like we can call them out on it if the UK refuse abortions to Irish women

There are numerous reasons why someone may want to end a pregnancy.. all of which are dependent on the individual circumstances involved. It's not something the State or anyone else besides the woman/couple involved should be able to pass judgement on. You'd have a hard time convincing me that ANY woman who makes that decision does so lightly and doesn't agonise over it afterwards - possibly for the rest of their lives.

It's not just the couple it affects, it's their offspring too. It's literally a matter of life and death. It doesn't really matter how agonising the decis... what gives a woman, or anyone else, the right to rank the value of another human life below their own to the point where they can justify destroying it?

The ONLY limit I'd put on it would be the time involved. 8-12 weeks max I'd say myself which I'd think would give someone the time to make the decision, but not let it go too far either if abortion is the choice they make.

Makey up numbers.

RobertKK

The prejudices against Down Syndrome tells DS people and their loved ones that they should not have been allowed to live...

PopePalpatine

RobertKK wrote: »

The prejudices against Down Syndrome tells DS people and their loved ones that they should not have been allowed to live...

"Not allowed" by whom? Good luck finding someone who's pro-choice and yet favours mandatory abortions if the foetus has Down's Syndrome.

blanch152

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Immediately just off the top of my head, I can think of one example at least -

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". There are no exceptions or limitations on this right.

This provision usually applies, apart from torture, to cases of severe police violence and poor conditions in detention. The European Court of Human Rights has further held that this provision prohibits the extradition of a person to a foreign state if they are likely to be subjected there to torture. This article has been interpreted as prohibiting a state from extraditing an individual to another state if they are likely to suffer the death penalty. This article does not, however, on its own forbid a state from imposing the death penalty within its own territory.

Source: Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

I am fairly certain that such a right is limited as there would be an exception for times of war, and there would be differences around the definition.

From a moral point of view, if torturing a terrorist and getting information would save the lives of 1,000 people, is it allowed?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd consider forcing women to give birth against their will should qualify as a form of torture. It certainly qualifies as inhuman or degrading treatment.

You might consider that. Others will not.

Aborting and killing an otherwise viable 37-week foetus could qualify as torture and certainly as inhumane and degrading treatment.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The right to life of the unborn would still exist, as would the right to life of the mother, but the right to life of the unborn should not be equal to and should not supersede the woman's right to self-determination, and it's the right to self-determination that means a woman has the right to decide what either does, or doesn't happen with or within her own body. It's a fundamental principle of basic human rights. Otherwise we're simply talking about when does everyone else have the right of ownership over a woman's body - when she's pregnant.

No right consistently triumphs another right, in any conflict of rights, there must be balance, even if one right is much more important than the other, as in this case. Undoubtedly the right to life of a mother trumps the right to life of a 12-week old foetus. Similarly the right to health of a mother would similarly trump the foetus. But the right to self-determination? Not so sure. Does my right to self-determination mean that I can force someone else to marry me? No. So does the right to self-determination of a woman mean she can kill a 37-week old foetus? Good luck arguing that one before the ECHR.

Again, these are questions of choice and morals and society mores. There are no correct answers.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would be guided by what a woman chooses for herself, and that as a society we support that decision, because that to me at least is respecting a woman's right to make decisions regarding her own welfare, and the question of the welfare of any children she is forced to give birth to, simply never arises.

Again, a woman can choose within the limits of the law, the same way that anyone else can choose within the limits of the law.

I support a fairly liberal abortion regime but the type of unfettered right advocated by you is way too far for Irish society to accept.

RobertKK

PopePalpatine wrote: »

"Not allowed" by whom? Good luck finding someone who's pro-choice and yet favours mandatory abortions if the foetus has Down's Syndrome.

The unborn has Down Syndrome and then their life becomes a choice for some. To terminate that life is due to a prejudice.

nozzferrahhtoo

pilly wrote: »

What you're not getting though nozz is no-one is reading your posts because they're too long winded.

YOU might not be, but the replies I get from some users and the PMs I get from others tells me otherwise. So.... speak for yourself I guess. No one is forcing you to read them or reply to them though, so that is your problem not mine.

IF you want to write anything on topic though, rather than making this personal about me, I am all ears.

thee glitz wrote: »

what gives a woman, or anyone else, the right to rank the value of another human life below their own to the point where they can justify destroying it?

"Justifying" a position or action implies there is something wrong with the position or action though. The problem is the vast majority of abortions (well into the 90%s) occur in or before week 16 and no one, least of all the anti choicers on this thread, have put forward an argument as to what is wrong with doing that.

So no "justifying" is required. I am not sure the same can be said about any one who suggests killing after 37 weeks of gestation with little basis for it other than things like thinking hilary clinton agrees with them though. At that point one would be killing a human being with the faculty of sentience and consciousness who has every bit as much "right to life" as the person killing them.

Richard Bingham

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"Justifying" a position or action implies there is something wrong with the position or action though. The problem is the vast majority of abortions (well into the 90%s) occur in or before week 16 and no one, least of all the anti choicers on this thread, have put forward an argument as to what is wrong with doing that.

So no "justifying" is required. I am not sure the same can be said about any one who suggests killing after 37 weeks of gestation with little basis for it other than things like thinking hilary clinton agrees with them though. At that point one would be killing a human being with the faculty of sentience and consciousness who has every bit as much "right to life" as the person killing them.

Where do you draw the line so. Who do you allow to live?

hatrickpatrick

As far as I'm concerned, life does not exist until the brain has formed, which is in and around 9-10 weeks in. So as far as I'm concerned, abortion before this point is no more "destroying life" than having a w@nk and sending millions of sperm to their doom, or taking a morning after pill.

Ultimately, that's what this debate is going to come down to - where do people believe that life actually begins. Personally, I just find the "life begins at conception" argument to be so massively simplistic as to be moronic in nature.

Richard Bingham

Great documentary on Channel 4 this evening - Unreported World; Irelands Big Decision. Total muck in terms of quality of production or standing as an actual documentary. c22 minutes of pro abortion rubbish followed by 3 minutes with a family in Longford and their child who probably wouldn't be here today if the pro aborts had their way, because she had an abnormality in the womb. I didn't catch it clearly but I think the documentary stated that the abnormality she had often ends in death or severe disability (maybe someone else can clarify). It put the whole thing in perspective. Of course pro aborts have no problem with a few innocent deaths; all in the name of CHOICE.

I feel sorry for all the women who were lied to by medical professionals and advised to go to the UK for an abortion when the fact is that their kids may have survived. Consultants love certainty and the truth is that they don't know when viewing a scan, how sick an unborn baby is. But if the convince the mother to abort, they will never be wrong and they love that. The God Complex. When you consider that the Consultants who gave evidence at the so called Protection of Life During Pregnancy hearings stated that no mother has ever died in Ireland due to lack of an abortion, what else can they want abortion for only to elevate themselves to the level of a deity.

They don't always use the word abnormality in the UK and US now when talking about abortion. Sometimes it's just an anomaly. And sure haven't we always discriminated against those that are different (of a different colour, creed, sexuality etc).

blanch152

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Where do you draw the line so. Who do you allow to live?

A very good question.

There is no issue at one day (morning-after pill), there is no issue at 37 weeks (baby should not be terminated). Both of those situations are clear and unambiguous to the average normal person without extreme views.

The sensible debate is where to draw the line in the middle.

Unfortunately, there are too many shrill voices who either have the view that termination at 37 weeks is fine if the woman wants it or that the morning-after pill is the root of all evil. Those views are actually in the minority, the vast majority of people are somewhere in the middle and we really need to discuss the various options that they will accept.

Kermit.de.frog

Omackeral wrote: »

I'm alright with abortions for some, as long as there are miniature American flags for others.

Post the video, it's better

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

Richard Bingham

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, life does not exist until the brain has formed, which is in and around 9-10 weeks in.

Can you not see that that is a totally subjective qualification.

Some people say when the heart starts beating (c20 days)

Some think when it looks like a baby. You hear them saying it's ok to abort as it's just a blob of cells so it must follow on that once it doesn't look like a bunch of cells i.e. at about 5 weeks then they are against aborting it.

Some say first trimester (totally subjective and worse still based on mathematics - how could that be a limit based on any kind of moral judgement).

I'm sure there's loads of other 'limits' all equally without moral justification.

Richard Bingham

Aaahhh there's a Simpsonism for every situation.

blanch152 wrote: »

Unfortunately, there are too many shrill voices who either have the view that termination at 37 weeks is fine if the woman wants it or that the morning-after pill is the root of all evil.

But you surely don't expect Pro Life people (like me), to say it's ok up to a certain point?

I realise that you are putting me in the extremist camp because I don't believe in abortion at all, but I don't see it as extreme. I was a baby in the womb once. I think it would be extremely hypocritical of me, having secured my life, to turn around and say, fnck the rest of ye.

By the way, a friend of mine used to take the morning after pill fairly regularly and it isn't the walk in the park that everyone makes it out to be. She used to have to take three days sick off work and used to go through an awful time. It's hardly something to be recommending.

thee glitz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"Justifying" a position or action implies there is something wrong with the position or action though.

Ending a life is no trivial matter.

The problem is the vast majority of abortions (well into the 90%s) occur in or before week 16 and no one, least of all the anti choicers on this thread, have put forward an argument as to what is wrong with doing that.

Well it's ending someone else's life, something which you or anyone other than the concerned has no good reason to feel in a position to do, save exceptional circumstances.

So no "justifying" is required.

No justifying is possible.

I am not sure the same can be said about any one who suggests killing after 37 weeks of gestation with little basis for it other than things like thinking hilary clinton agrees with them though. At that point one would be killing a human being with the faculty of sentience and consciousness who has every bit as much "right to life" as the person killing them.

To me, the faculties of sentience and consciousness don't define what is and is not human life, which I believe has value. It's a bit odd to value those, but not a being which will expectedly develop them.

gctest50

Richard Bingham wrote: »

........

They don't always use the word abnormality in the UK and US now when talking about abortion. Sometimes it's just an anomaly. And sure haven't we always discriminated against those that are different (of a different colour, creed, sexuality etc).

Richard Bingham wrote: »

........

By the way, a friend of mine used to take the morning after pill fairly regularly and it isn't the walk in the park that everyone makes it out to be. She used to have to take three days sick off work and used to go through an awful time. It's hardly something to be recommending.

have to get the bit of propaganda type stuff in

lucky enough the CAPSLOCK ENGAGED is an early warning when yer reading posts

Richard Bingham wrote: »

........

all in the name of CHOICE.

Richard Bingham

gctest50 wrote: »

lucky enough the CAPSLOCK ENGAGED is an early warning when yer reading posts

I'm sure this is a great argument for abortion. Well done.

gctest50

Richard Bingham wrote: »

...........

I realise that you are putting me in the extremist camp because I don't believe in abortion at all, but I don't see it as extreme. I was a baby in the womb once. I think it would be extremely hypocritical of me, having secured my life, to turn around and say, fnck the rest of ye.
...........

The drivel in that post would only encourage more people to be pro-choice

thee glitz

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, life does not exist until the brain has formed, which is in and around 9-10 weeks in.

I disagree, and believe that life begins at conception. If you say around 9-10 weeks, what exists in that time?

The Legend Of Kira

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I saw a clip of last saturday evenings Rte 6 news online to quote the repeal spokesperson she said

"" Nobody that,s marching here the 30.000 marching here aren,t looking for a little bit of abortion of access, we want full abortion access [font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]At the MINIMUM we want the recommendations of the 'Citizens' Assembly and we won't accept and we can't support any less than that" .[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]She basically saying they want unlimited access to abortion , there,s no way I will be voting for a repeal as repeal means the unknown post repeal , in some countries where they have very liberal abortion access there is a high per % of abortion of down syndrome babies where there is screening for down syndrome which results in discrimination where a lot of abortions happen on that ground, not a chance id vote for a repeal where something similar could be legalised here in future years.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The one exception I could vote for is there was a referendum for a amendment to the 8th, for cases in where there is no chance of survival/no chance of life outside the womb, if someone is in a fatal accident and the person is on life support in intensive care sometimes there may come a point in which the doctors know the person isn,t going to make it & they withdraw life support , when there is a case in which a unborn baby has no chance [/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]of survival/no chance of life outside the womb I think an exception should apply as its wrong to prolong the pain for both the woman + the unborn baby.[/font]

I believe down syndrome has almost been "eradicated" in Sweden due to most parents aborting when they are told the child will have downs.

As well as certain communites even in the UK aborting female fetuses due to preferring sons which has some quarters who were pro choice now losing the rag

I personally can get behind

Threat to mothers life
Rape
Incest
Genetic abnormalities

I just can't get around abortion after those circumstances a babies heartbeat is at about 6 to 8 weeks. I'm sorry but I'd never be able to vote for that unless it was due to one of the above circumstances

I remember the speech Maria Steen gave at the citizens assembly earlier on in the year, 6.10 into the youtube video ,she mentioned a case that happened in Poland in where a 20+ week down syndrome boy survived an abortion & was left crying for an hour alone before he died.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4j08-_6j_U

I done a google search on the story she referred to & got these news links.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/another-polish-baby-born-alive-after-abortion

https://www.liveaction.org/news/polish-baby-survives-abortion-cries-hour-left-die/

Since I have heard about this story that happened in Poland, Id be afraid of similar botched abortions ever happening in Ireland if the 8th amendment was completely repealed.

gctest50

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

..........

& was left crying for an hour alone before he died..........

“if the fetus is too sick to live on its own, it can be allowed to die.”

Daniel Sulmasy, a Catholic bioethicist and director of the Program on Medicine and Religion at the University of Chicago.

It's because of "abortion laws" no-one went near him - fear of prosecution

It was a botched medical procedure : perhaps it was botched on purpose ?

Hard to see how a doctor could fail in it
.

Sweetemotion

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, life does not exist until the brain has formed, which is in and around 9-10 weeks in. So as far as I'm concerned, abortion before this point is no more "destroying life" than having a w@nk and sending millions of sperm to their doom, or taking a morning after pill.

Ultimately, that's what this debate is going to come down to - where do people believe that life actually begins. Personally, I just find the "life begins at conception" argument to be so massively simplistic as to be moronic in nature.

Having a **** and sending millions of sperm to their doom doesn't create life nor deny it. There is no intension there to create life.

You can also choose to have sex without creating life. Just because you made a stupid mistake and life is formed doesn't give you the right to kill it.

What shall we do with people in comas and head injuries who's brain isn't functioning formally. Should we just switch of their machines? In your opinion there is no life there.

One eyed Jack

blanch152 wrote: »

I am fairly certain that such a right is limited as there would be an exception for times of war, and there would be differences around the definition.

From a moral point of view, if torturing a terrorist and getting information would save the lives of 1,000 people, is it allowed?

I'm fairly certain it's not, as there is no exception for times of war, but certainly there are differences around the definition, and this is one of the issues with Article 3:

Even the approach adopted by the Court in the Irish Case does not seem to be fully borne out by the case law relating to Article 3. In reality, the notion of 'absolute right' has proved rather Imprecise and the supervisory organs still seem unsure about its scope. The case law gives an impression of shifting boundaries as regards the character and scope of the absolute nature of the prohibitions in Article 3. The Court is guided in its decision-making by such principles as 'effective protection' and 'margin of appreciation' through which relativity is injected into its thinking. Its practice under Article 3 is based not on objective criteria but on the effects of various subjective factors on the particular facts of each case, leading to decisions which can be hard to reconcile at least at first sight. Indeed, that may be the only realistic way of addressing the various issues which can arise under Article 3.

Source: Does Article 3 of The European Convention on Human Rights Enshrine Absolute Rights?

To answer your last question there, it is prohibited, but if a case were to come before the Court, then it could only be determined after the fact whether there was a breach of Article 3, or not.

blanch152 wrote: »

You might consider that. Others will not.

Well, yes, that's rather stating the obvious. However, the UN considers it a violation of women's rights, and has criticised Ireland continuously for it's position on abortion -

Abortion

The Committee reiterates its previous concern regarding the highly restrictive circumstances under which women can lawfully have an abortion in the State party owing to article 40.3.3 of the Constitution and its strict interpretation by the State party. In particular, it is concerned at: (a) the criminalization of abortion under section 22 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, including in cases of rape, incest, fatal foetal abnormality and serious risks to the health of the mother, which may lead to up to 14 years of imprisonment, except in cases that constitute a “real and substantive risk” to the life of a pregnant woman; (b) the lack of legal and procedural clarity concerning what constitutes “real and substantive risk” to the life, as opposed to the health, of the pregnant woman; (c) the requirement of excessive degree of scrutiny by medical professionals for pregnant and suicidal women leading to further mental distress; (d) the discriminatory impact of the Act on women who are unable to travel abroad to seek abortions; (e) the strict restrictions on the channels via which information on crisis pregnancy options may be provided to women and theimposition of criminal sanctions on health-care providers who refer women to abortion services outside the State party under the Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State For Termination of Pregnancies) Act, 1995; and (f) the severe mental suffering caused by the denial of abortion services to women seeking abortions due to rape, incest, fatal foetal abnormality or serious risks to health (arts. 2, 3, 6, 7, 17, 19 and 26).

Source: Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Ireland, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

blanch152 wrote: »

Aborting and killing an otherwise viable 37-week foetus could qualify as torture and certainly as inhumane and degrading treatment.

It could well be. However that is unlikely given the context of the UN report above, and the fact that the ECHR has already determined that the unborn does not meet the criteria under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but they have already judged that each State has the right to determine it's own domestic laws regarding abortion, which again leaves the door open to subjective interpretation.

blanch152 wrote: »

No right consistently triumphs another right, in any conflict of rights, there must be balance, even if one right is much more important than the other, as in this case. Undoubtedly the right to life of a mother trumps the right to life of a 12-week old foetus. Similarly the right to health of a mother would similarly trump the foetus. But the right to self-determination? Not so sure. Does my right to self-determination mean that I can force someone else to marry me? No. So does the right to self-determination of a woman mean she can kill a 37-week old foetus? Good luck arguing that one before the ECHR.

Again, these are questions of choice and morals and society mores. There are no correct answers.

The bit in bold there - you're contradicting yourself. You say that in a conflict of rights, no right consistently trumps another, then go on to say that undoubtedly the right to life of the mother trumps the right to life of the unborn*, then go on to say that there must be balance... but that's exactly what the 8th amendment does - it provides balance by vindicating and protecting the right to life of the unborn as equal to the right to life of the pregnant woman. I think you may need to revisit that whole notion.

*that's the legal term in Irish law btw, rights are supported by legal statutes, and the unborn in Irish law is defined as -

“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;

Source: Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013

I think you're also misunderstanding the concept of self-determination if you're asking does it mean you can force someone else to act in a way that isn't determined by themselves, so no, you can't force someone else to marry you, any more than you can force someone to remain pregnant against their will, or to give birth against their will. I wouldn't argue that anyone should have the right to kill anyone, let alone kill a foetus at 37 weeks gestation. There's no point in involving the ECHR either as I've pointed out in the previous paragraph that they have already determined that the foetus has no inherent right to life under Article 2, and also allows for each State to determine it's own laws with regard to abortion. Not murder. Abortion.

The only person in a position to determine the correct answer for themselves, is the woman who is pregnant, who would rather she wasn't, and doesn't want to continue the pregnancy, and doesn't want to give birth, therefore under Article 2 and Article 3, women have the right to seek a termination of their pregnancy, though let's be clear - nobody is advocating murder here. That would be the unlawful killing of a human being, the unlawful taking of a human life even, if you prefer? The key word there is unlawful.

blanch152 wrote: »

Again, a woman can choose within the limits of the law, the same way that anyone else can choose within the limits of the law.

And if there are no term limits on when she can choose, then she can still choose within the limits of the law, and she is even more bound by the biological limits of human gestation - generally around the 40 week mark, before she gives birth. Then of course abortion is no longer an option, and we've already discounted the unlawful killing, the unlawful taking of the life of another human being.

blanch152 wrote: »

I support a fairly liberal abortion regime but the type of unfettered right advocated by you is way too far for Irish society to accept.

Is it? We haven't asked Irish society to vote on anything yet, well, I suppose we did with previous referenda regarding the issue of abortion, and that's how we've ended up with the ****ty, half arsed legislation we have now which is wholly unfit for purpose (though I suppose that depends on what purpose it was supposed to achieve). However, I wouldn't refer to any legislation on abortion as either liberal or conservative, it's irrelevant. What matters is really the point that either you're willing to trust women enough to allow them to make decisions regarding their own welfare, or you're not, and if you're only going to allow them to make decisions for their own welfare up to a certain point, then you really don't trust women at all. Are you prepared to live with the idea that we can still force women to remain pregnant against their will, and force them to give birth against their will, then take no responsibility for the outcomes of your decisions for their welfare?

I'm not.

The Legend Of Kira

I saw that programme ( Unreported world ) on channel 4 earlier, Im gonna be honest I kinda cringed when I saw people bringing their religious beliefs into the argument , one guy said " our bodies are not our own, our bodies are the temple of the holy spirit " & then another with rosary beads , if you re trying to get younger people on the fence to side with your argument , bringing your personal religious beliefs into it isn,t the way to win over undecided people .