kumate_champ07 wrote: » you lost your argument if you dont even know what the definition is
eviltwin wrote: » I can't repeat it verbatim no and I'm not in a position to copy and paste it either. But having read it before, I don't have any problems with the current legal definition.
kumate_champ07 wrote: » you might need to read it again also, its not unusual for the law to be ignored in certain instances by the police
gctest50 wrote: » A few minutes ago you posted up something like : " If i was attacked when walking home and murdered the attacker to save myself "
end of the road wrote: » very easily. i'm not willing to vote for changes that will allow abortion on demand to get the changes i want.
kumate_champ07 wrote: » ............ the definition of murder is 'an unlawful killing' .
eviltwin wrote: » True but I find it hard to believe not not one person has been charged because the police aren't bothered or are under resourced etc.Plenty of illegal abortion pills have been seized by customs. It's fairly easy to go to the address and charge the person involved. But even if they did it wouldn't be an attempted murder charge.
kumate_champ07 wrote: » you left out this part that I wrote at the end "perhaps its just an acceptable type of murder."
gctest50 wrote: » Nope Manslaughter is an unlawful killing Murder occurs if a person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, another person who dies as a result.
kumate_champ07 wrote: » gctest50 wrote: » A few minutes ago you posted up something like : " If i was attacked when walking home and murdered the attacker to save myself " I didnt write that! whats your point?I wrote something else structured much better but decided to delete it as theres not much actual discussion here so it was wasted but whats your point anyway
kumate_champ07 wrote: » FYI to anyone who wants to score points against me, I've had enough internet for today so wont be explaining my argument any further or replying for now
gctest50 wrote: » My point ? you don't know what murder is See the word like above in the quote box ? - very important word that or you are trying to "win points" ???? - which would be a bit sad really Must be time for your tea soon .
kumate_champ07 wrote: » ......I wrote something else structured much better but decided to delete it as theres not much actual discussion here so it was wasted
kumate_champ07 wrote: » anyone with a bit of intelligence would figure out how to find a deleted post,.......
gctest50 wrote: » Show me step be step how to find your deleted quote When you do find it, paste it in
kumate_champ07 wrote: » ..... there is a reason I deleted the post in the first place
gctest50 wrote: » What reason ?
kumate_champ07 wrote: » .............. I wrote something else structured much better but decided to delete it as theres not much actual discussion here so it was wasted .......
kumate_champ07 wrote: » anyone with a bit of intelligence would figure out how to find a deleted post
veronymus wrote: » Definition of murder for those of you quibbling: Criminal Justice Act 1964 4.—(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or not. (2) The accused person shall be presumed to have intended the natural and probable consequences of his conduct; but this presumption may be rebutted. Not the use of the term 'person'. As the unborn has not achieved personhood, I imagine they are precluded from being a 'murder' victim.
kumate_champ07 wrote: » isnt a corporation legally considered a person too? so what age does a human become a person? can a corporation be considered as a person before a human being even if they are both the same age? if it is not considered legally defined as murder, its still considered killing? and if the killing is done unlawfully what would the correct definition be?
veronymus wrote: » A corporation is a legal rather than a natural person. And one could not kill a legal person. Unlawful killing, outside of murder is captured under the rubric of manslaughter. Manslaughter is still a common law offence and, at least to date, we have not extended manslaughter to cover abortion. The offence of child destruction exists in the UK statute books. Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 provides for the following offence:- Destruction of unborn human life 22. (1) It shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life. (2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, or both. (3) A prosecution for an offence under this section may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
SusieBlue wrote: » Its not murder. No matter how many times you try to insist, it simply isn't.
SusieBlue wrote: » No it isn't. If it was considered murder, we wouldn't have written it into our constitution to permit women to travel for abortions. That isn't just allowing it, or sweeping it under the carpet, we actually wrote it into our constitution that this is allowed. Surely if it were considered murder, we'd be prosecuting these women to the highest point of the law, for the crime of going abroad to cruelly execute an innocent child? Surely nothing would be too much trouble to prevent these callous murders from happening? Oh wait. We don't. Because aborting Irish children is absolutely fine, according to the Pro Lifers, so long as it doesn't happen in Ireland. Which is the biggest load of hypocritical NIMBYism whataboutery ever.
SusieBlue wrote: » Exactly. I don't believe a pre 12 week old fetus is of equal worth to me, unless I decide it to be so. In other words, if there are risks to my health, wellbeing, or life, and I am happy to continue with a pregnancy, that is on me. However I should be allowed to avoid those risks if I want to. At the moment I have no choice. The choice is made for me by the constitution. As a living, breathing woman my rights, wants, and needs, as well as those of any existing children I have, should be prioritised over that of a potential person. Unless I decide otherwise. Its no one else's decision but mine to make. Strangers on the internet know nothing of my life, my past, my health, my circumstances. Which is why its very hard for me to stomach that they would try to force me, or any woman, into a pregnancy she didn't want. Taking away choices from living people is absolutely not in the best interests of anyone.
veronymus wrote: » I would just add to the above that the UK legislation appears to be more akin to a murder or manslaughter charge and has been traditionally levied where (in the relatively few cases it has been used) a pregnant woman has been attacked while pregnant.The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Actis what would be utilised here to prosecute illegal abortion. The terminology is quite different to that used to describe other forms of unlawful killing.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » We're not voting on murder though are we? We're not even voting on abortion, we're voting on the 8th amendment.
cnocbui wrote: » I really admire your position but it might be a lost cause. Ultimately, if the 8th isn't repealed, women should just emigrate to a civilised country and leave the Irish men to the abortion free society they want.
cnocbui wrote: » People want to change the law so this country joins the rest of the OECD countries that allow abortions and recognise the intrinsic human rights of women. Only women should have a say in whether they do or don't continue with a pregnancy. Men can also have a say if they find themselves pregnant, before anyone accuses me of insensitivity or bias.
kumate_champ07 wrote: » so the legal meaning and literary meaning of a word differs in some cases. is manslaughter not defined by intent?
eviltwin wrote: » The legal definition sums it up for me
eviltwin wrote: » True but I find it hard to believe not not one person has been charged because the police aren't bothered or are under resourced etc. Plenty of illegal abortion pills have been seized by customs. It's fairly easy to go to the address and charge the person involved. But even if they did it wouldn't be an attempted murder charge.
lawred2 wrote: » ? No changes are possible without constitutional changes so I'll call bullsh!t on your desire for 'changes' Why can't you trust your Parliament to legislate?
end of the road wrote: » ireland recognises the intrinsic human rights of women by supporting their right to be born in the first place. there is no human right to abortion, abortion seems to be a discretionary right.
