Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Precis of quotes from the latest Irish Examiner interview with Katherine Zappone...

The Government cannot be allowed to “back-slide” on the historic Oireachtas abortion committee recommendations and must put a straight repeal-or-not question to voters in the planned summer referendum. Children’s Minister and long-time abortion campaigner Katherine Zappone demanded the action as she separately said she “expects” Taoiseach Leo Varadkar to campaign in favour of a repeal vote, regardless of his personal views.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/katherine-zappone-straight-repeal-or-not-question-must-be-put-to-voters-465234.html

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's pretty sickening to hear him and the disability lobby weighing in to the abortion debate, when their concerns are and should be limited to children i.e. those who are born.

I think you're being unfair to McGrath here, AFAIK he supports repeal of the 8th. He didn't say so specifically, but it looks to me like he is urging pro-lifers not to use those with Down Syndrome etc. for propaganda purposes.

Nick Park wrote: »

It's 'sickening' that the disability lobby are lobbying for the right of the disabled to be born?

Have you stopped to consider that 'the disability lobby' don't just campaign for equal rights but also for something much more fundamental, that their lives should be recognised as being of as much worth or value as anyone else?

Using emotive talk like 'eradication of Down syndrome' is just an attempt to guilt women into not considering abortion, and I consider any such attempt to place guilt on distressed, pregnant women to be sickening.

The vast majority are unpaid. Many of them are genuinely horrified at the notion that they or their children would be better off not being born. You might not agree with them, but they deserve better than such cynicism.

Clearly when referring to pay rises I was not referring to the unpaid. We all know there are charity execs who do very-well-for-themselves-thank-you and often on the back of our taxes not just donations. It's in their campaigning for their own financial interest by guilt-tripping society which is where the true cynicism lies.

Presumably, the same logic applies to other equality campaigners. Should feminists smile happily at the practice of gender-based abortions, confining their efforts to winning equality for females who have already been born?

It's inequality for born females which leads to sex-selective abortions. It is not an issue in equal societies.

A more accurate analogy would be if Gorta or Concern opposed the practice of targeting for abortion any child likely to be born into poverty. Would that make them 'sickening' and self-serving too?

Yes. A woman's choice is none of their business.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's pretty sickening to hear him and the disability lobby weighing in to the abortion debate, when their concerns are and should be limited to children i.e. those who are born.

It's almost as if they want more disabled babies to be born, to keep them in jobs and the donations rolling in.

It's 'sickening' that the disability lobby are lobbying for the right of the disabled to be born?

Have you stopped to consider that 'the disability lobby' don't just campaign for equal rights but also for something much more fundamental, that their lives should be recognised as being of as much worth or value as anyone else?

It's almost as if they want more disabled babies to be born, to keep them in jobs and the donations rolling in.

Watch you don't trip yourself up while you're stooping so low.

A large number of 'the disability lobby' are themselves disabled or are parents of disabled children. The vast majority are unpaid. Many of them are genuinely horrified at the notion that they or their children would be better off not being born. You might not agree with them, but they deserve better than such cynicism.

their concerns are and should be limited to children i.e. those who are born.

Presumably, the same logic applies to other equality campaigners. Should feminists smile happily at the practice of gender-based abortions, confining their efforts to winning equality for females who have already been born?

Imagine if Gorta or Concern said that they didn't want to end hunger, but instead maintain it?

A more accurate analogy would be if Gorta or Concern opposed the practice of targeting for abortion any child likely to be born into poverty. Would that make them 'sickening' and self-serving too?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The history I've read claims that the RCC (or, at least, elements within it) were disappointed that he did not explicitly do so.

A 'special position' is legally a long way away from an established church. But the RCC didn't need to be established in 20th-century Ireland to be able to achieve its aims - and we got something very close to a nightmarish theocracy in any case.

Another discussion for another thread, perhaps.

It's pretty sickening to hear him and the disability lobby weighing in to the abortion debate, when their concerns are and should be limited to children i.e. those who are born.

It's almost as if they want more disabled babies to be born, to keep them in jobs and the donations rolling in.

Imagine if Gorta or Concern said that they didn't want to end hunger, but instead maintain it?

Really? You must be reading about a different debate for the last ten or twenty years than the one I have.

I meant Recedite slipping in Downs Children pregnancies as a specific target for those seeking to change legislation for abortion alongside the mention of rape pregnancies and consentual-sex pregnancies, and continuing the different debate trend you included, more-over with the explicit reference to how rape pregnancy women allegedly would be seen as having more right to abortion than consentual-sex pregnancies women, due to the consent, and following that to mention that rape-pregnancy offspring would [in a reverse manner] have lesser right to life than those of consentual-sex pregnancy offspring.

I know there were different angles of blaming the women for being pregnant: [not being chaste by one group] and the other; the Social Welfare payments to single mothers being rolled out in the same [MOTS] way to claim women went out with the specific intent of becoming pregnant to claim greater S/W payments.

Turtwig wrote: »

Postponing it would actually have the benefit of not allowing the Pope to cancel the visit in protest of the referendum being passed. Which, for a politician, could have an impact on the economy and local votes. It also justifies the kicking the can down the road approach until the next sufficent excuse for postponement can be found.

If Leo does not deliver a repeal the 8th amendment by end May (while students are still in the country) his credibility is at an end. The days of Taoisigh kowtowing to bishops of Rome are, or should be, at an end.

Nick Park wrote: »

Btw, de Valera's religious insertions in the Constitution were not as benign as you suggest. You might want to read up on the history of how he tried, and failed, to make Ireland a nightmarish theocracy.

The history I've read claims that the RCC (or, at least, elements within it) were disappointed that he did not explicitly do so.

A 'special position' is legally a long way away from an established church. But the RCC didn't need to be established in 20th-century Ireland to be able to achieve its aims - and we got something very close to a nightmarish theocracy in any case.

Another discussion for another thread, perhaps.

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's Simon Harris does not want mention of [EDIT] NON-FATAL illness to be used by either side in the debate about the debate and upcoming referendum. I think he doesn't want illnesses deliberately conflated for use as a weapon by either side to cudgel the opposition and the public into submission or disinterest.

Finion McGrath is asking that the future-disabled not be thrown into the mix when any legislation is enacted. He might be referring to mention already made to the disabled during the debate on abortion to date, incl at the Dail Committee hearing by a minority there, that those diagnosed [pre-birth] with Downs Syndrome would be targetted for elimination here through abortion.

It's pretty sickening to hear him and the disability lobby weighing in to the abortion debate, when their concerns are and should be limited to children i.e. those who are born.

It's almost as if they want more disabled babies to be born, to keep them in jobs and the donations rolling in.

Imagine if Gorta or Concern said that they didn't want to end hunger, but instead maintain it?

aloyisious wrote: »

Nice try, Recedite. No one is saying anything of the sort about anyone's offspring when it comes to rape victims pregnancies and consentual sex pregnancies, nor to putting any "blame" on pregnant women when it comes to non-rape pregnancies.

Really? You must be reading about a different debate for the last ten or twenty years than the one I have.

Turtwig

Postponing it would actually have the benefit of not allowing the Pope to cancel the visit in protest of the referendum being passed. Which, for a politician, could have an impact on the economy and local votes. It also justifies the kicking the can down the road approach until the next sufficent excuse for postponement can be found.

Following on from hearing in "what it say's in the papers" about an abortion referendum delay, I found the Examiner running a very short story that it seems to have got from the Sunday Indo, in that it says the S/indo is reporting that a senior Govt source said the abortion referendum may be put back til Oct, after the Papal visit in Aug. I had a look at the S/Indo page and can't locate the story, being side-tracked to the official Indo page.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/repeal-supporters-concerned-that-referendum-may-take-place-after-popes-visit-820731.html

recedite wrote: »

Certainly it has the advantage of making no distinction between the rights of rape and non rape offspring.

My understanding of this is that it relates to the "equal right" of both in the sense that if the mother's life is in peril, then the life of the foetus is too. If the choice is between saving one life or losing two, then all practical efforts should be concentrated on saving the one.
That would still be compatible with the abstract concept that both are equal.

Now that's good. I was actually expecting an argument that the 8th still meant what everyone had originally seen it as, and not an abstract concept. It would still leave the medics to decide which one to try save based on their "on the spot" diagnosis and prognosis of survivability and face the might of the law if the powers that be said "you got it wrong, doc".

recedite wrote: »

FFA, Downs syndrome, rape.... for each extra one that is added in, the proposed liberalisation of the law loses more support.

Everyone has sympathy for rape victims, but if that is a reason for allowing abortion then you are saying that non rape victims should not be allowed an abortion because its their own fault they are pregnant. That implies the pregnant woman is being punished for her sin in some way.

It also implies that the offspring of a rapist has less right to life than the offspring of consensual sex.

Nice try, Recedite. No one is saying anything of the sort about anyone's offspring when it comes to rape victims pregnancies and consentual sex pregnancies, nor to putting any "blame" on pregnant women when it comes to non-rape pregnancies.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

I think the recommendation of the committee, and the stance subsequently adopted by most politicians, to allow unrestricted access to abortion within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy deals with this to a large extent ...

Certainly it has the advantage of making no distinction between the rights of rape and non rape offspring.

aloyisious wrote: »

the words "as far as practical" are in the 8th meaning the state saw, and sees, there can be a "practical" limit to that right in law.

My understanding of this is that it relates to the "equal right" of both in the sense that if the mother's life is in peril, then the life of the foetus is too. If the choice is between saving one life or losing two, then all practical efforts should be concentrated on saving the one.
That would still be compatible with the abstract concept that both are equal.

Nick Park wrote: »

The Referendum will solely be on the wording of the Constitution, not any other legislation.

Such legislation may change completely in 1 month, 12 months, or at a time when a minority government needs one more vote to function.

I cannot think of anything more foolish than voting to remove the constitutional protection currently afforded to all unborn children unless one is prepared for the scenario that a future government may choose to implement any kind of abortion legislation it chooses. Based on the experience of other countries, one would be extremely naive to argue that this would never mean the aborting of unborn children diagnosed with Down Syndrome.

If we want a Referendum where the debate is predominantly about fatal conditions or rape, then the solution is simple. Propose an extra clause be added to the Constitution permitting abortion in such circumstances.

But we should not treat people like idiots by saying, "We want you to vote to remove the Eighth Amendment, but don't worry, we can trust politicians to never legislate for abortion in any circumstances other than fatal conditions or rape."

I think honestly, we behaved like good compliant children back in 1983, doing exactly what the politicians and clergy guided us to believe about the sanctity of life of the unborn and voted in the 8th amendment as desired by the persons who guided the scripting of the amendment. There was no consideration give by them whatsoever to the pregnant women. The voters, largely, didn't examine the issue properly where the unfolding extention of womens rights were concerned. The writers avoided the use or mention of women altogether in the amendment by using the title "mother" instead.

Look at the wording of the 8th itself..... The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right..... it's bloody vague as to whom has been given the rights guarantee in laws that the words defend and vindicate that right refers to.

It was at the time [and still is] assumed to refer to the unborn but as the amendment also references the mother as having an equal right to life, I could dance on the head of a legal pin and point out the obvious in the amendment. It doesn't state clearly whom has the right guranteed in the 8th when the words "defend and vindicate as far as practical" are used.

If it refers [as is presumed] to the unborn, than the 8th itself even then didn't, and I argue still doesn't, provide an absolute to the unborn, as the words "as far as practical" are in the 8th meaning the state saw, and sees, there can be a "practical" limit to that right in law. The possibilities stemming from that wording could have been fascinating if any doctor or lawyer had thought outside the constraints put on them by their professional bodies. Imgine if the doctors here had thought outside their professional boxes had seen that the 8th included those words.

It's almost like the writers of the time forsaw there would be changes in the law in the future.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

FFA, Downs syndrome, rape.... for each extra one that is added in, the proposed liberalisation of the law loses more support.

Everyone has sympathy for rape victims, but if that is a reason for allowing abortion then you are saying that non rape victims should not be allowed an abortion because its their own fault they are pregnant. That implies the pregnant woman is being punished for her sin in some way.

It also implies that the offspring of a rapist has less right to life than the offspring of consensual sex.

I think the recommendation of the committee, and the stance subsequently adopted by most politicians, to allow unrestricted access to abortion within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy deals with this to a large extent and would bring Ireland into line with the majority of other European countries. I think if anything the proposed liberalisation of the law is gaining support.

recedite

FFA, Downs syndrome, rape.... for each extra one that is added in, the proposed liberalisation of the law loses more support.

Everyone has sympathy for rape victims, but if that is a reason for allowing abortion then you are saying that non rape victims should not be allowed an abortion because its their own fault they are pregnant. That implies the pregnant woman is being punished for her sin in some way.

It also implies that the offspring of a rapist has less right to life than the offspring of consensual sex.

aloyisious wrote: »

REPLY.. The legislation brought in at/around the same time as the referendum could be worded to specify that it doesn't pertain to anything outside Rape and Fatal Conditions and could be used to provide the cover removed by deletion of the 8th. The F/C,s could be certified by doctors in the same way they do in POLDPA.

The Referendum will solely be on the wording of the Constitution, not any other legislation.

Such legislation may change completely in 1 month, 12 months, or at a time when a minority government needs one more vote to function.

I cannot think of anything more foolish than voting to remove the constitutional protection currently afforded to all unborn children unless one is prepared for the scenario that a future government may choose to implement any kind of abortion legislation it chooses. Based on the experience of other countries, one would be extremely naive to argue that this would never mean the aborting of unborn children diagnosed with Down Syndrome.

If we want a Referendum where the debate is predominantly about fatal conditions or rape, then the solution is simple. Propose an extra clause be added to the Constitution permitting abortion in such circumstances.

But we should not treat people like idiots by saying, "We want you to vote to remove the Eighth Amendment, but don't worry, we can trust politicians to never legislate for abortion in any circumstances other than fatal conditions or rape."

Nick Park wrote: »

I think the only way to ensure that non-fatal illnesses are not used in the debate would be to frame the Referendum in a way that unborn children with non-fatal illnesses retain their constitutional right to life.

The accompanying legislation that the government proposes on abortion is not part of the Referendum - and it should not be part of the debate in a Referendum to change the Constitution.

If the wording on the Referendum proposes to remove the Constitutional protection from all unborn children, then anyone thinking the debate should only be about the tiny minority of cases involving rape or fatal conditions is living in a fool's paradise.

If the Referendum proposes removing Constitutional Protection for unborn children with Down's Syndrome then it is only right and proper that becomes a major consideration in how people vote.

REPLY.. The legislation brought in at/around the same time as the referendum could be worded to specify that it doesn't pertain to anything outside Rape and Fatal Conditions and could be used to provide the cover removed by deletion of the 8th. The F/C,s could be certified by doctors in the same way they do in POLDPA.

I believe that some of those opposed to abortion will unscrupulously choose to conflate all sorts of pre-birth diagnosed illnesses with F/C's in order to have their way, and will say that F/C abortions in themselves must not be provided for [without any regard to the born woman]. In that manner I believe they will inlude any proposed legislation to cover the unborn by the Govt in the referendum debate whih is bound to occur and it would be foolish to think such a ruse unlikely to be used.

The S.C. may rule on Justice Humphrey's ruling, having regard to how the new legisltion may comply with the other constitutional section referred to by Judge Humphrey in his ruling, protecting the unborn in line with the conventions. It might also rule that the conventions don't apply to the constitution in the way Judge Humphrey's thought.

The constitutional proviso on the right to life also has equal effect when it comes to the woman in who's womb the unborn exists. The woman can live without the unborn in her womb, the same doesn't apply to the unborn as it is wholly reliant on the woman for it's existence.

The referendum seem's [so far] to be to delete the 8th, and not as you describe it, proposing to remove any constitutional protection for unborn Downs Syndrome children.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nick, are you suggesting that these international treaties and/or their preambles are intended to prohibit abortion?

No, that was not what I was suggesting - however, it is an interesting question to which we should return in a minute!

I was actually pointing out why Justice Humphreys, operating on strictly legal grounds, would reach the conclusion that he did, namely that the provisions of the Constitution in Article 42A (the 31st Amendment) apply to unborn children as well as born children. Ireland has chosen to be bound by international treaties that, taken in good faith, affirm that unborn children are indeed children. We have also, following the Children's Referendum, inserted a clause in our Constitution that declares: "The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children"

Preambles seem to be a way of getting flowery stuff and nonsense into a document to appease certain factions, while not actually putting it into the document proper and antagonising everyone else. Our own constitution's preamble has a lot of flowery stuff about the trinitarian god of a specific religion, for instance - de Valera could have put this into a constitutional article itself so why didn't he? (although he did put in blasphemy - which could be applied to any religion - and 'due homage to almighty god' which is again open to interpretation, and is notably not explicitly stated to be the trinitarian Christian god unlike in the preamble.)

You are making the mistake of lumping all preambles together. Legally, the preamble to an international treaty has a very different status to that of a Constitution.

Btw, de Valera's religious insertions in the Constitution were not as benign as you suggest. You might want to read up on the history of how he tried, and failed, to make Ireland a nightmarish theocracy.

Now, let's go back to the intention behind the Preamble to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. When the phrase about children needing protection before as well as after birth was first written it was as part of an earlier 'Declaration of the Rights of the Child' which was passed by a Resolution of the UN General Assembly in 1959. At that time abortion was pretty much illegal throughout the western world, but was legal in the Soviet Union and its satellites.

Bear in mind that, in 1959, even Planned Parenthood was opposed to abortion - seeing it as a failure of sex education and widely available contraception. So it is not surprising that the UN made an assertion about children's human rights that encompassed the unborn child as well.

Later, when the Convention on the Rights of the Child was drafted in 1989, attitudes, and national laws, had changed (eg UK Abortion Act in 1967 and Roe Versus Wade in 1973). The 1959 UN Declaration was still the basis for the Convention, but attempts were made to remove the reference to "before birth". However, they were unsuccessful as such a removal would have hindered widespread ratification of the Convention.

So the words probably were intended as a barrier to abortion when they were first written and adopted in 1959, but a number of nations chose to cross their fingers in 1989 and determined to interpret them differently.

This should not surprise us. People are quick to make nice all-embracing statements about human rights, but then to dodge the implications of such statements. Think about the Enlightenment thinkers who waxed lyrical about "the rights of man" yet were racist and supported slavery. Or the American founding fathers who spoke about all men being created equal with unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, yet still supported slavery.

There are several ways in which States can dodge the commitments they have made in international treaties on human rights. One way is to have a tame judiciary who will interpret law (both national and international) in the way their political masters dictate. Another way is to reduce the extent of what it means to be a human being. By arguing that certain individuals are not fully human, then you can deny that human rights apply to them. This is much more politically palatable then actively and explicitly narrowing the scope of human rights.

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's Simon Harris does not want mention of [EDIT] NON-FATAL illness to be used by either side in the debate about the debate and upcoming referendum. I think he doesn't want illnesses deliberately conflated for use as a weapon by either side to cudgel the opposition and the public into submission or disinterest.

Finion McGrath is asking that the future-disabled not be thrown into the mix when any legislation is enacted. He might be referring to mention already made to the disabled during the debate on abortion to date, incl at the Dail Committee hearing by a minority there, that those diagnosed [pre-birth] with Downs Syndrome would be targetted for elimination here through abortion.

I think the only way to ensure that non-fatal illnesses are not used in the debate would be to frame the Referendum in a way that unborn children with non-fatal illnesses retain their constitutional right to life.

The accompanying legislation that the government proposes on abortion is not part of the Referendum - and it should not be part of the debate in a Referendum to change the Constitution.

If the wording on the Referendum proposes to remove the Constitutional protection from all unborn children, then anyone thinking the debate should only be about the tiny minority of cases involving rape or fatal conditions is living in a fool's paradise.

If the Referendum proposes removing Constitutional Protection for unborn children with Down's Syndrome then it is only right and proper that becomes a major consideration in how people vote.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm thinking we'd have to ask the Dept of Foreign Affairs to tell us what we've agreed to comply with on this. I'm not sure if that info could be obtained through a Freedom of Info request or a deputy asking a minister, by way of Dail question, to provide him/her with the answer. .

Ah no need for all that, I just asked Google. https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/treatyseries/uploads/documents/treaties/docs/200604.pdf

I think the link makes clear that the Vienna Convention is binding upon Ireland under international law. Articles 31 and 32 also make clear that preambles are important for resolving issues of ambiguity within international treaties.

So, if there is ambiguity in the text of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as to what we actually define a 'child' as being, then the preamble obviously comes into play. The preamble makes clear that a 'child' is a child before or after birth.

Now, since Ireland has agreed to be bound by these various treaties, and since Ireland has subsequently adopted by popular Referendum (the Children's Referendum) a Constitutional amendment on the rights of 'the child' - it is easy to see why Justice Humphreys would rule that the Constitutional rights of a child, quite apart from the Eighth Amendment, also apply to unborn children.

It seem's Simon Harris does not want mention of [EDIT] NON-FATAL illness to be used by either side in the debate about the debate and upcoming referendum. I think he doesn't want illnesses deliberately conflated for use as a weapon by either side to cudgel the opposition and the public into submission or disinterest.

Finion McGrath is asking that the future-disabled not be thrown into the mix when any legislation is enacted. He might be referring to mention already made to the disabled during the debate on abortion to date, incl at the Dail Committee hearing by a minority there, that those diagnosed [pre-birth] with Downs Syndrome would be targetted for elimination here through abortion.

Nick Park wrote: »

I think you're misunderstanding what Ratification and Accession mean when it comes to international treaties. Ireland Acceded to the Vienna Convention in 2006. The countries that originally signed the Convention in 1969 & 1970 ratified it, all countries that have subsequently agreed to be bound by the Convention acceded to it - but the legal force is the same.

According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/treaty/glossary.htm

I'm thinking we'd have to ask the Dept of Foreign Affairs to tell us what we've agreed to comply with on this. I'm not sure if that info could be obtained through a Freedom of Info request or a deputy asking a minister, by way of Dail question, to provide him/her with the answer.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/treaty/glossary.htm

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm thinking that the 1986 Vienna Convention on international treaties between individual countries and interational organisations [and their preambles] does not put any legal obligation on our country to have regard to preambles under the convention rules as it seem's we have not ratified [agreed to be bound by] that convention, according to the countries listed in Wikipedia as having ratified/not ratified the convention.

I think you're misunderstanding what Ratification and Accession mean when it comes to international treaties. Ireland Acceded to the Vienna Convention in 2006. The countries that originally signed the Convention in 1969 & 1970 ratified it, all countries that have subsequently agreed to be bound by the Convention acceded to it - but the legal force is the same.

According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:

Accession

Accession is the act whereby a State that has not signed a treaty expresses its consent to become a party to that treaty by depositing an "instrument of accession" with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Accession has the same legal effect as ratification, acceptance or approval. However, unlike ratification, which must be preceded by signature to create binding legal obligations under international law, accession requires only one step, namely, the deposit of an instrument of accession. The Secretary-General, as depositary, has tended to treat instruments of ratification that have not been preceded by signature as instruments of accession, and the States concerned have been advised accordingly.

The conditions under which accession may occur and the procedure involved depend on the provisions of the relevant treaty. Accession is generally employed by States wishing to express their consent to be bound by a treaty where the deadline for signature has passed. However, many modern multilateral treaties provide for accession even during the period that the treaty is open for signature. See articles 2(b) and 15 of the Vienna Convention 1969.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/simon-harris-i-felt-ashamed-at-abortion-treatment-and-changed-my-view-36443198.html

Part of the article....

For the first time today, Mr Harris outlines in detail his personal views on the topic, revealing that until recently he saw no reason to change Ireland's restrictive laws. The minister, who will be in charge of drafting the legislation to govern abortion laws in the event of the Eighth Amendment being repealed, said: "I came in here [to Leinster House] thinking that there wasn't a need for change in this country. Genuinely, I didn't believe it."

lazygal

There needs to be a decision made by Cabinet to hold a referendum, it might be a formality but still necessary. Perhaps he's covering his arse with his phrases.

Listening to Simon Harris on RTE news now that he changed from a No Abortion here position to agreeing with women being allowed abortion here, by listening to women here. He said the Govt would have a report in January which it would debate, and the Dail would have a debate on it in Jan as well. He said the Govt would put a bill forward in Feb or March AND the Govt would decide whether to put a referendum to the people.

I'm a bit surprised by that, as if the Govt hasn't decided to go for a referendum yet. It might be the wording part of it he's referring to, re a Govt decision but I don't know.

Justice Laffoy, according to RTE, will be on the station after the news, giving a statement/interview about the Citizens Assembly. It might include a reference to it's report.

Edit: it seem's the Justice Laffoy programme was recorded at a public event on 18th Dec.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nick, are you suggesting that these international treaties and/or their preambles are intended to prohibit abortion? Because we are very much in the minority of developed countries in the extent to which we prohibit same, yet it's not France, UK, US, etc being repeatedly cited by international bodies, it's us for failing to provide abortion rights to women.

Preambles seem to be a way of getting flowery stuff and nonsense into a document to appease certain factions, while not actually putting it into the document proper and antagonising everyone else. Our own constitution's preamble has a lot of flowery stuff about the trinitarian god of a specific religion, for instance - de Valera could have put this into a constitutional article itself so why didn't he? (although he did put in blasphemy - which could be applied to any religion - and 'due homage to almighty god' which is again open to interpretation, and is notably not explicitly stated to be the trinitarian Christian god unlike in the preamble.)

I'm thinking that the 1986 Vienna Convention on international treaties between individual countries and interational organisations [and their preambles] does not put any legal obligation on our country to have regard to preambles under the convention rules as it seem's we have not ratified [agreed to be bound by] that convention, according to the countries listed in Wikipedia as having ratified/not ratified the convention.

IMO, the only obligation we have towards the preamble in the UNCRC is whatever that convention itself obliges us to have. IMO, Article 1 of the UN convention trumps what ever is in the convention preamble. I see the preamble as guidelines to the countries signed up to the convention as to the intent of the articles proper within the convention, on the same basis as the preamble in our own constitution being a similar guideline to the articles therein.

I reckon any of our SC decisions on what has been decided as unconstitutional in our constitution have only been in regard to the articles and/or their sections & sub-sections, not in the preamble itself as they see it as a guideline towards the intent of the constitution and articles within it, the articles being the things having effect on our citizenry rights.

However, all the above are my personal opinions only.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

That [sentence 1] will be if they hear the case before the fate of the 8th is decided on by us/people with voting rights on the eletoral register.

Yup on sentence 2. If the hearing is after the referendum on the 8th happens, their work may be shortened, possibly confined to how the other article in the constitution mentioned in justice Humphreys ruling interacts with the UN Childrens Rights Convention articles and preamble, eg; when does the unborn come to have the definition of a child in Irish law, giving due consideration to our UN treaty obligations. God alone knows what their decision will be or what happens next.

Agreed. I was assuming they fast tracked it straight to the SC because they wanted to know the judgement before the referendum, but who knows. If before the referendum, the judgement would really have to be known before the wording of the referendum was drafted, if it was going to be useful for anything (unless the No side in the referendum wins, in which case it would continue to be relevant)

Nick, are you suggesting that these international treaties and/or their preambles are intended to prohibit abortion? Because we are very much in the minority of developed countries in the extent to which we prohibit same, yet it's not France, UK, US, etc being repeatedly cited by international bodies, it's us for failing to provide abortion rights to women.

Preambles seem to be a way of getting flowery stuff and nonsense into a document to appease certain factions, while not actually putting it into the document proper and antagonising everyone else. Our own constitution's preamble has a lot of flowery stuff about the trinitarian god of a specific religion, for instance - de Valera could have put this into a constitutional article itself so why didn't he? (although he did put in blasphemy - which could be applied to any religion - and 'due homage to almighty god' which is again open to interpretation, and is notably not explicitly stated to be the trinitarian Christian god unlike in the preamble.)