Je_suis_Jean wrote: » You make it sound like it could survive at 12 weeks which you know it can't, right?
NuMarvel wrote: » Both.
Delirium wrote: » The input of care rises in requirement from that of being biologically attached to a person for 9 months? seriously?
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » If only there was the appetite for it I'd be 100% in favour of having a referendum which gave voters two choices:- 1. Repeal the 8th as is being suggested. 2. Introduce a new amendment which made prosecuting any Irish citizen having an abortion regardless of whether that's within the Rep of Ireland or not. That would truly test the appetite within the country for banning abortion. At the moment a large cohort can smugly pat themselves on the back for being protectors of the unborn yet all they have achieved is the export of abortion so in true NIMBY fashion they can raise their hands and declare "there's no on demand abortion here"!!
Gerry T wrote: I haven't moved the goal post, if a woman needs an abortion because of risk to her life (physical or mental), then yes that in my book is a priority. But if a woman only wants an abortion and the father wants the child then she should be compelled to carry it and let the father have sole custody. She of course should contribute to the cost of raising the child, means tested. I then went on to say it also makes sense if the reason for the abortion is only a "want" then the mother should carry the child and then give it up for adoption.
J C wrote: » Yes there is practically no care required until a child is born ... everything proceeds quietly and automatically with little or no conscious input required from the pregnant mother. ... then the baby is born ... and there is a free-willed being crying for attention, having to be fed at all hours of the day and night ... and requiring nappy changing, clothing and constant monitoring and love. Its a full-time job !!! ... whereas before the birth, the mother could hold down a full time job with little or no difficulty, in many cases up to and beyond the seventh month.
J C wrote: It is an accurate and anatomically correct representation of a 12 week old unborn child.
J C wrote: » Very interesting ... and an amazing testimony from this woman, who had an abortion. It proves that abortion certainly isn't the panacea that the abortion lobby would like us to think that it is, for vulnerable pregnant women. ... and, of course it always results in the needless death of an unborn child. Good to see that this women has had a good life since she recovered from the trauma and deep regrets that her abortion caused ... by accepting the forgiveness of Jesus Christ ... and becoming a Christian.
pilly wrote: » So how about if a woman wants the baby and the man doesn't? Should she be compelled to have an abortion? For your argument to work it has to go both ways.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » How would you go about implementing and enforcing this ridiculous law?
Nick Park wrote: » Fifthly, I wouldn't swap my 29-year old daughter for the child that was miscarried earlier in our marriage. I wouldn't swap her for my other daughter who died at 4 years of age. I wouldn't swap her for anyone. But, of course, none of that has any bearing on who we should or should not grant human rights to.
Nick Park wrote: » That's the spirit! Why let people vote for things they actually believe in? Force them to choose between two bad options which both violate human rights.
Delirium wrote: » No care?? There's a biological connection required for survival. That's beats changing diapers any day of the week!
J C wrote: » How does carrying a baby, during which everything generally proceeds quietly and automatically with little or no conscious input required from the pregnant mother ... 'beat' the very serious input of time and effort involved in looking after a newborn baby. Unless some serious medical complication arises, pregnancy proceeds smoothly and without any substantive issues.
NaFirinne wrote: » Have a listen to this very Interesting interviewhttp://www.spiritradio.ie/louises-story/
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » So you prefer a situation where on demand abortion is illegal but there are no consequences for breaking the law by taking an unborn who has the protection of the Irish constitution and having it aborted in England. That makes perfect sense!!
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » I'm truly sorry for your loss Nick. And I hope that you and your family have come to a place of acceptance (we must eventually come to accept the things we cannot change, after all, however horrible they may be.) We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. You have your reasons to support your position, and I have mine. The people will vote, let's not diss them regardless of the position they choose. What I'm worried about is what extremists outside the state may do.
Nick Park wrote: » It does make perfect sense if you take human rights treaties seriously. The right to travel is guaranteed by Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.I, and many other people, believe that our country should not be complicit in the taking of human life and should, as far as practicable, defend the right to life of the unborn child.
Nick Park wrote: » Removing the human right of freedom of movement is not practicable. You do not promote one person's human rights by restricting another person's human rights.
Nick Park wrote: » You are free to disagree with me, but you betray your own intolerance when you advocate a denial of my democratic right to vote for options that express my views.
Nick Park wrote: » Your proposal, in seeking to force people to choose between two bad options is, sadly, typical of the confrontational approach that wants the debate over the 8th amendment to be one of misrepresentation, name-calling and intolerance.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » If you truly believed that you would have no issue with the country preventing people travelling to have an abortion just as the country currently prevents people from travelling if they know they are on their way to commit a murder, smuggle drugs or join ISIS etc. Next time someone is stopped at the airport on their way to commit a crime all they need say to the Gardai is "No, you can't stop me because I read on a Boards thread a comment by Nick Park who knows loads about stuff that the freedom to travel means you can't stop me on my way to commit a crime"
If you are travelling to England to have an abortion you are attempting to commit an offence as the constitution is currently framed. The right to travel, like the right to freedom is subject to you not being engaged in or have intent to commit a criminal act.
You do like to make a lot of stuff up don't you?
So your suggestion is that the choice should be abortion on demand in Ireland is unlawful but if you want to have one you can as there are no consequences providing that in one of your most stressful times of need and support you take a flight over to England where you can find your way in a strange city to a clinic you've never been to before where people you've never met before will carry out the abortion after which you'll have to fly back to Ireland because that way we can say this is a country of christian values and there's no on demand abortion here.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » So your suggestion is that the choice should be abortion on demand in Ireland is unlawful but if you want to have one you can as there are no consequences providing that in one of your most stressful times of need and support you take a flight over to England where you can find your way in a strange city to a clinic you've never been to before where people you've never met before will carry out the abortion after which you'll have to fly back to Ireland because that way we can say this is a country of christian values and there's no on demand abortion here. Nice.
Nick Park wrote: » It does make perfect sense if you take human rights treaties seriously. The right to travel is guaranteed by Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I, and many other people, believe that our country should not be complicit in the taking of human life and should, as far as practicable, defend the right to life of the unborn child. Removing the human right of freedom of movement is not practicable. You do not promote one person's human rights by restricting another person's human rights. This is why, for example, most of us see torture as unacceptable even if it purports to save lives. I realise that there are those (active in this thread) who want to portray concern for one group's human rights as somehow not caring for another group of people. That is bogus. My position is to seek a state of affairs that respects the human rights of all, and to do so in a way that is educational and compassionate rather than punitive or judgemental. You are free to disagree with me, but you betray your own intolerance when you advocate a denial of my democratic right to vote for options that express my views. Your proposal, in seeking to force people to choose between two bad options is, sadly, typical of the confrontational approach that wants the debate over the 8th amendment to be one of misrepresentation, name-calling and intolerance.
NuMarvel wrote: » The human rights approach supports the call for further change in our abortion laws. The UNDHR, as well as other UN treaties, also guarantees the right to be free of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (Article 5 of the UNDHR). But Ireland has twice been cited by UN bodies in recent years for contravening these rights. And the source of those contraventions is our abortion law, which is set out in line with the 8th. If we’ve already changed our constitution to ensure the 8th doesn’t restrict the human right to freedom of travel, then it follows we also need to change our constitution to ensure it doesn’t restrict the right to be free of cruel, degrading, or unusual treatment. Our legislation (eg the PLDP Act) and regulations would need to follow suit.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » If you truly believed that you would have no issue with the country preventing people travelling to have an abortion just as the country currently prevents people from travelling if they know they are on their way to commit a murder, smuggle drugs or join ISIS etc. Next time someone is stopped at the airport on their way to commit a crime all they need say to the Gardai is "No, you can't stop me because I read on a Boards thread a comment by Nick Park who knows loads about stuff that the freedom to travel means you can't stop me on my way to commit a crime" Are you familiar with the concept of "attempt" in criminal law? "attempted offenses occur when an individual has an actual intent to commit a crime (in legal terms, specific intent), and takes direct action toward completion of the crime." If you are travelling to England to have an abortion you are attempting to commit an offence as the constitution is currently framed. The right to travel, like the right to freedom is subject to you not being engaged in or have intent to commit a criminal act. Do you still think we should have a law which prohibits abortion on demand but through lack of enforcement all it does is add the cost of return flights and some significant personal inconvenience to the process thus enabling women with complete carte blanche to travel to England to have their abortion without any fear whatsoever of any consequence on their return? You do like to make a lot of stuff up don't you? So your suggestion is that the choice should be abortion on demand in Ireland is unlawful but if you want to have one you can as there are no consequences providing that in one of your most stressful times of need and support you take a flight over to England where you can find your way in a strange city to a clinic you've never been to before where people you've never met before will carry out the abortion after which you'll have to fly back to Ireland because that way we can say this is a country of christian values and there's no on demand abortion here. Nice.
Nick Park wrote: » The ECHR has ruled that there is no such thing as a human right to an abortion. No core human rights treaty refers to the right to have an abortion. Ireland has certainly been criticised for the way in which our laws have been applied, and that would certainly be relevant if this thread were discussing whether there should be any change whatsoever to our laws and the way they are applied. But, as you well know, this thread is actually about whether Christians can vote for unlimited abortion. Refusing to legislate for unlimited abortion does not constitute cruel, degrading or unusual treatment.
NuMarvel wrote: » There's the goal post moving again. I said nothing in my post about a human right to abortion, or legislating for unlimited abortion. And your exchange with Je Suis Jean doesn't refer to the thread subject at all. I was applying your logic, that we removed travel from the scope of the 8th because it breached human rights, to other human rights.
You said yourself, that we "do not promote one person's human rights by restricting another person's human rights.". We have two clear examples of the human right to be free of cruel and degrading treatment being restricted, so it logically follows that you'd agree our abortion laws shouldn't impinge this right in the same way it doesn't impinge the right to travel.
But instead of agreeing, or disagreeing and setting out your reasons why, you’ve chosen instead to evade and deflect. Which is basically the same as disagreeing but having no rationale to back up your stance.
