aloyisious wrote: » I think that that is what the SC should be able to rule on in the upcoming case of Justice Humphreys ruling.
Nick Park wrote: » It's not as if there is a conflict between the definition in Article 1 and the words of the Preamble. The key question, I suppose, is whether we class an unborn child as a human being. Under international law, since there is disagreement on this point, the Preamble becomes key to resolving that point. Irish law (quite apart from the Eighth Amendment and our ratification of international human rights treaties) would appear to class an unborn child as a human being, since it mandates that stillborn babies who died before the point of birth must be allocated a PPS number. Unless someone wants to argue that PPS numbers are allocated to creatures who are not, in fact, human beings?
recedite wrote: » spelling out the application limits of human rights and child rights (if any) to the unborn in Ireland.
Zerbini Blewitt wrote: » Birth & death certs for a stillborn birth @ 24 weeks makes sense but PPS numbers don't. PPS numbers are not mentioned in the Stillbirths Registration Act, 1994. I'm not sure but I think that the PPSN anomaly happens because the Oireachteas decided to piggy back stillbirths on top of normal births in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1972. If this is the case, it just looks like an indifferent legislative short cut.
recedite wrote: » No, you have that the wrong way round. POLDPA was brought in specifically to bring legislation into line with the Constitutional position.
It is better that it happened this way; because there can now be a proper challenge brought through the High Court and then likely the Supreme Court against this unjust and profoundly unconstitutional abortion legislation, with proper and full evidence put before the courts, by members of the public (who can challenge the legislation section by section).
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Heard the same sort of stuff re POLDPA, how it was definitely unconstitutional and there would be all these legal challenges to it...
seamus wrote: » Tbh, this all echoes the SSM referendum where there were so many claims about how many complexities it would create in legislation that it would be unworkable. I don't see any major legislative issues tbh.
Nick Park wrote: » Irish law (quite apart from the Eighth Amendment and our ratification of international human rights treaties) would appear to class an unborn child as a human being, since it mandates that stillborn babies who died before the point of birth must be allocated a PPS number. Unless someone wants to argue that PPS numbers are allocated to creatures who are not, in fact, human beings?
Nick Park wrote: » Is it possible to be partly a human being, but not fully? Or is someone either a human being or not? Should all human rights be extended to all? Or is there justification for Varadkar's position that some should receive some human rights, but not full human rights?
Nick Park wrote: » I suspect that our laws (which have evolved over time) reflect the view expressed by Leo Varadkar recently that an unborn child should have some human rights, but not equal human rights with an adult. (
recedite wrote: » If it was going to be changed, there would have to be some definite statement inserted instead, spelling out the application limits of human rights and child rights (if any) to the unborn in Ireland.
Mr Varadkar (38) gave an insight into his views on abortion ahead of the referendum next year on whether to repeal the Eight Amendment, which gives equal rights to the mother and the foetus. He said: "As a doctor, I would perform pregnancy scans and while I don’t accept the view that the unborn child, the fetus, if you prefer that term, should have equal rights to an adult woman, to the mother, I don’t share this view that the baby in the womb, the fetus, whatever term you want to use, should have no rights at all. "And there are people who take the view that human rights only begin after you’re born and that a child in the womb with a beating heart, the ability to hear, the ability to feel pain, should have no rights whatsoever. I don’t agree with that."
recedite wrote: » there would have to be some definite statement inserted instead, spelling out the application limits of human rights and child rights (if any) to the unborn in Ireland.
Nick Park wrote: » stillborn babies who died before the point of birth must be allocated a PPS number.
aloyisious wrote: » The part of the preamble quoted by Justice Humphreys is just one paragraph and is further defined by Article 1 of the convention: Article 1 - definition of a child... For the purposes of the present convention a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. Only the preamble uses the definition used by Justice Humphreys. So I'm not sure which has precedence in law here; the part of the preamble quoted by Justice Humphreys OR the actual article in the convention defining what the child is. I'd assume it would be article 1 itself.
Nick Park wrote: » Ireland is a signatory to international treaties which are of relevance here. Justice Humphreys, in his judgement, referred to the preamble of the Convention on the Rights of the Child which includes the phrase “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that the Preamble to a Treaty is part of the context within which interpretation of that Treaty should be conducted. On this basis, both the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights have ruled that Treaty preambles are key to interpreting ambiguity within the body of international treaties. So it is not just a case of a High Court challenging a Supreme Court ruling. If Ireland is a signatory to an International Human Rights Treaty which, taken in good faith, refers to an unborn child as a 'child', then Ireland's subsequent insertion (through a Referendum in 2012) of the recognition of the Human Rights of a 'child' in our Constitution also comes into play. Does the Supreme Court have the power to interpret the Irish Constitution in a way that is contrary to international treaties to which Ireland is a signatory?
recedite wrote: » I don't remember the SC ever ruling on whether constitutional/legislative rights assigned to "a child" applied to an unborn child though? That would be the question.
aloyisious wrote: » . There's another factor which may play into the referendum date, the date of the visit by Pope Francis. No one would be so crass as to set an abortion referendum date close to his visit date,,,,, or would they?
aloyisious wrote: » I don't see the 7 judges referred-to in the I/E report liking the idea of a lower court judge overturning the prior SC ruling and he not even in the appeal court
recedite wrote: » I heard something about The Pope and Queen Elizabeth coming over on a trip, but I thought it was just a joke.
recedite wrote: » They must be following this thread :pac: They will want this resolved before the referendum. If it went to the appeals court first, and then got referred on to the SC, they woudn't be in time. If Humprey's gets overturned, we can forget about it. If not, something might have to go into the referendum to resolve the paradox whereby the unborn could end up legally as children, but without rights.
aloyisious wrote: » There's another factor which may play into the referendum date, the date of the visit by Pope Francis.
aloyisious wrote: » Coincidentally in today's Irish Examiner..... Supreme Court to hear "leapfrogged" appeal by the state of Mr Justice Humphrey's ruling.
aloyisious wrote: » Coincidentally in today's Irish Examiner..... Supreme Court to hear "leapfrogged" appeal by the state of Mr Justice Humphrey's ruling.http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/supreme-court-to-hear-appeal-on-extent-of-rights-of-unborn-819663.html Part of his ruling wording.... Mr Justice Humphrey interpreted the word unborn used in the constitution to refer to and mean an unborn child. Mr Justice Humphreys held “unborn” means an “unborn child” with rights extending beyond the right to life under Article 40.3.3 (the 1981 anti-abortion amendment of the Constitution) He held that the unborn child enjoys "significant" rights and legal position ar common law, by statute, and under the constitution,"going well beyond the right to life alone". EDIT.. Before responding to mine above please note that I have edited and re-worded parts of the original to include parts of the I/E article of the judge's ruling of 2016.
aloyisious wrote: » So how far do the Humphrey rulings have legal standing reach when it comes to anything we might put in the costitution in the future when it might conflict with his rulings on how other articles [and their sections] in the constitution HAVE pertinence to the rights of the unborn If his rulings have NOT been appealed to and overturned by our Supreme Court before the upcoming referendum? Are we being walked into a constitutional fight being manipulated by parties opposed to abortion, courtesy of Judge Humphrey's RULING AND DECLARATIONS on how constitutional articles provide human rights coverage for the unborn? Is it a cute hoor way of playing EU and UN declarations of childrens rights?
aloyisious wrote: » Embarrassing if he'd have to go "OH, never thought about that" if a fire broke out and people lost their lives [and the lives of the unborn] because they weren't alerted to it due to lack of an alarm system.
robindch wrote: » So, "Catholic Answers" is a radio program which includes a segment called "Open Forum" where callers can ask questions of the host, Fr Paul Keller. Last week, a guy who installs fire alarms for a living rang in to ask Keller whether it's right and proper to install a fire alarm at Planned Parenthood. The reply is predictable, though Keller waits until the second sentence before godwinning himself.https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/8323 (question is at 36:52)
Paul Keller wrote: It would be not a good thing to be involved in helping somebody who’s taking a life [...] Think about if you were in Nazi Germany, and you were asked by Hitler to install a fire alarm, or a sprinkler system, in one of the guards’ shacks right next to the ovens that were killing Christians and Jews, and so forth. I don’t think you’d want to even set foot in an internment camp such as was had in that part of the world. Or the Ku Klux Klan. Suppose the Ku Klux Klan asked you to do this similar work in one of their offices, but they are completely devoted to being anti-Catholic and being totally racist and so forth. So no, you wouldn’t want to do that. And it’s the same thing, only worse, with this company, that is Planned Parenthood, because their business is to kill babies in the womb, and we should have nothing to do with it. We should not aid and abet them in any way whatsoever. So, yes, it would be unethical to work with them, for them, in any way.
