The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Thirdfox wrote: »

If you know about the X case then you would know that the family in question was already in England and (for some reason I cannot understand) complied with the Gardai's request to come back to Ireland.

What's hard to understand? The girl had been raped, she and her parents wanted to get an abortion, and they'd ask the Gardaí if doing so would jeopardise any criminal case. It's completely understandable why they'd comply with the Gardaí in that instance.

Thirdfox wrote: »

So the SC's judgment is clearly unenforceable

We must have different definitions of clearly, because you haven't shown that at all. The relevant SC judgement was that the 8th could be used to prevent travel. How have you shown that this judgement was "clearly unenforceable"?

Sweetemotion wrote: »

You've just said "Protection doesn't always work" that looks black and white to me, from your own words.

Why are all these people who don't want to get pregnant not getting pregnant?

Because contraception does have a high level of protection. It just doesn't always work. Condoms split/aren't put on properly. Pill can sometimes be ineffective.

LirW wrote: »

I'm really talking from a purely scientific point of view...It is so much easier to resent people we don't know for their decision to terminate a pregnancy.

A lot of people that see abortion as the elimination of life will genuinely never be in the situation where you are truly desperate. Most know they have the support of family, friends and the state. But not everyone has.
For example plenty of these people won't ever be victim of domestic violence that involves complete control about ones sexuality. It's not an uncommon practice to dictate the birth control intake of the abused and get them pregnant on purpose. Twisted individuals that want pure control over someone else. You wouldn't wanna bring up a child in this environment. But could you go to the police and declare this as rape? This is where it starts to get difficult.

But this is why I personally think it is very important to give all women the choice to decide against carrying a pregnancy to term. Because life isn't black and white. And you never know what's going on behind the curtain of ones relationship, personal life, health or mental health. These issues can be very complex. And while unfortunately there will be a minority of women using abortion as some form of birth control, it's a tough thing to even think about for the majority of women.

And I too have tried to look at it from a scientific (with a humanist bent) view - spiritual doesn't fact in the argument at all in my household. The scientific view is one that throws up 1 of my 2 key problems with abortion - that of imposing an arbitrary limit on the availability of abortions. As I've posted on the humanities side of boards (I'm not usually found perusing AH to be honest!) while as a lawyer, I understand the need for arbitrary time limits on certain activities - drinking age, driving age, voting age, age of consent etc. for human life - I find this arbitrariness highly troubling. Why is a 12 week 0 day 0 hour 0 minute 1 second foetus "unabortable"? What has intrinsically changed from 1 second ago that made this "thing" deserving of legal protection and not 1 second ago? For the drinking age - you can say bad luck, come back next year when you're old enough...for the time of determining when life is deserving of legal protections how do we decide, what are the distinctions (other than arbitrary) and do I trust the Irish politicians to be able to make that decision?

If there are people who resent others for getting an abortion then I feel sorry for them - why spend energy resenting someone when you could channel that energy into helping others and being constructive. Another thing I generally find myself in agreement with with pro-choicers is that we all want to minimise abortions as much as we can.

Just as with rape cases (which other posters rightly point out some "pro-lifers" seem to make an exception for) I did consider the pain and anguish a mother would go through giving birth to a baby caused by a heinous criminal act. But, and this is the humanist side of things, the crime is committed by the rapist, and not of the child. I can't see how someone can square the circle of allowing abortions in rape cases but not in "normal" cases - it's either all or nothing. Either the act itself is wrong or it's not and should be freely available.

And I would turn this around and ask - why set the limit at 12 weeks? If abortion should be freely available why not 24 weeks? 28 weeks? 35 weeks? There is a reason why 2nd trimester seems to be the max in most countries - but this goes back to point 1 of the arbitrary time limits. So 24 week 1 second is "unabortable" but 23 weeks 6 days is fine etc.

I work in law - I know that unfortunately life isn't perfect, and that black and white doesn't describe the world we live in. But on something as intrinsic as human life, its genesis and meaning/value in the end I've got to make the call that I feel is right.

Of course, criminals should be prosecuted - and mothers should be helped make a potentially difficult choice of either raising a child or putting the child up for adoption if unable or unwilling to care for it. It is my understanding that Irish couples adopt babies from abroad because of a severe shortage of Irish babies being put up for adoption. I personally would never resent anyone for feeling like abortion is an only choice, but I would perhaps try and persuade them to see that abortion is (to my knowledge) never the only choice.

My 2nd key problem with abortion (and something tangentially touched on in your post) is the lack of father's rights when it comes to abortion and the decision to abort. To my (admittedly limited) knowledge on this aspect of abortion law, no country currently takes into account the wishes of the father when deciding if a child is to be aborted or not. And now I would ask you to consider the same thing as you stated above - you may not know of a father who would wish to keep a child after the mother decides to abort it but would that make his pain any less in such a case? I am quite certain that if abortion is legalised in Ireland that it would not break new ground in this area and abortion will be solely at the choice of the person carrying the child. Perhaps you would argue that this is the correct legal view the state should take but I would not agree. To me, if I had a child with someone and knowing that prior to 12/24/X weeks they could decide to abort it without any consent required by myself feels abhorrent. If it's about the balance of responsibility/pain/suffering - surely my rights as a father who is willing to raise a child as a single father should be taken somewhat into account when choosing if a child is to be kept or not? It isn't in any country that I know of (but I'd be happy to be informed otherwise - here's a quick Wiki result - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_rights_and_abortion#Men_and_abortion_in_law ) and of course there is a potentially huge argument for whether fathers should have any rights over their foetuses in the first instance.

So, without being happy with 1. the arbitrary/fictitious time limit of humanity (this is the major concern for me) and 2. the paternal rights issue (the minor concern) I cannot see myself voting to legalise abortion in Ireland.

NuMarvel wrote: »

What's hard to understand? The girl had been raped, she and her parents wanted to get an abortion, and they'd ask the Gardaf doing so would jeopardise any criminal case. It's completely understandable why they'd comply with the Gardan that instance.



We must have different definitions of clearly, because you haven't shown that at all. The relevant SC judgement was that the 8th could be used to prevent travel. How have you shown that this judgement was "clearly unenforceable"?

What's hard to understand? The girl was in the UK already - the Gardai had no power to make her return to Ireland.

We must have different definitions of clearly indeed - isn't the fact that the X case came up a clear example that the 8th amendment (as understood by the SC in the X case) is unenforceable? The girl had already travelled to the UK so how does this show anything other than the unenforceability of the SC's interpretation of the 8th amendment?

The 8th didn't prevent the girl from travelling to the UK and the X case only went up to the SC because the family travelled back to Ireland voluntarily. Is it clearer to you now?

Sweetemotion wrote: »

That's just being ridiculous.

Just as ridiculous as saying that a pregnant woman who had used contraception that failed, should have taken the morning after pill if she didn't want to be pregnant, even though she likely didn't know that the contraception had failed until she did the pregnancy test.

Specialun wrote: »

they have access to the pills no. ie they can get them. i didnt say legally accessible

Yeah and then throw them in Jail? For upto 14 years?

Sweetemotion wrote: »

It is. I'm not driving my car in the morning knowing my brakes are defective.

That would be stupid.

People are not using contraception knowing it will fail either.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If I had known my brake line could have been the night before, do you think I would trust the brakes?

Would you?

The point is you don't know if its been broken.

Consonata wrote: »

The point is you don't know if its been broken.

The point is I know it could have because of something I did.

Thirdfox wrote: »

What's hard to understand? The girl was in the UK already - the Gardai had no power to make her return to Ireland.

We must have different definitions of clearly indeed - isn't the fact that the X case came up a clear example that the 8th amendment (as understood by the SC in the X case) is unenforceable? The girl had already travelled to the UK so how does this show anything other than the unenforceability of the SC's interpretation of the 8th amendment?

The 8th didn't prevent the girl from travelling to the UK and the X case only went up to the SC because the family travelled back to Ireland voluntarily. Is it clearer to you now?

What?

Are you not fully aware of the X Case at all?

Consonata wrote: »

Because we need to set arbitrary time limits in order to legislate effectively. For the age to vote for example, nothing meaningful has changed between 17 and 18. Its just thats the time when you can vote.

As a Lawyer, How do you propose to legislate for abortion if not by an arbitrary time limit?

You see that I addressed the age to vote time limit arbitrariness in my paragraph already? Mainly goes back to - missed the voting age by a day - the world isn't going to end (in all likelihood)...missed the abortion cut off date by a day/week/whatever leeway they give it - it could be the end of the foetus (or not).

No need for a capital L in lawyer - the profession isn't a proper noun - and indeed the only alternative to arbitariness is an even more unappealing subjectiveness i.e. at the discretion of the consulting physician or by some other arbitrary "human" definition - has the foetal heart started beating, brain activity etc.

But you may have missed my point which is I cannot distinguish when a human should be legally protected from abortion and when it should not - and that is one of the main reasons I am unable to vote for its legalisation.

And I should clarify - abortion obviously is already legal in Ireland (under the terms of the X case), but I currently cannot support the expansion of abortion.