nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

lawred2

recedite wrote: »

There are no sore losers on this thread.
We are discussing the outcome so far.
Outside of this thread, however, there may be.

what exactly is her problem?

she took issue with the children's rights referendum as well. Is she just a serial objector?

professore

robindch wrote: »

More for reference than anything else, but if woman has sex with a man other than her husband, or if her husband suspects she has had sex with another man, then the Old Testament (Numbers 5) prescribes that the woman should consume what appears to be an abortifact and be prepared to have the foetus aborted. Additionally, even if the husband is simply suspicious, the bible prescribes that it's the fault of the woman alone.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5&version=NIV&interface=amp

I didn't read it that way. I read it as a trial by god because by putting this curse on the woman she has nothing to fear if she is innocent. If she's guilty she will be punished. If she actually cheated on her husband then it is her fault alone. Of course God here doesn't exist so it's arbitrary, but for the belief system in operation it's a fair trial.

Hotblack Desiato

endacl wrote: »

"It is not yet known on what grounds Jordan is appealing the result of the referendum."

On the grounds of 'I don't want things to be the way things are I'll come up with a reason in a bit bear with me'?

I'd imagine the challenge was waiting in the wings, just on the offchance the result didn't go the way she wanted.

Three words. Isaac Wunder order.

Zubeneschamali

aloyisious wrote: »

Has there been any further Irish newspaper confirmation of the original English newspaper report that Joanna Jordan has put in a petition to the courts here about the referendum? I can't find any mention yet of it except for in the Journal.

No, that Journal article is the only reference I see to her since 2015.

aloyisious

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The 8th was replaced.

Oh Yes, got that. It's the people on the marches with repeal signs that may not have understood the difference or just wanted it repealed and nothing else in it's place. The majority choice by 11 votes at the assembly was to replace as against repeal. A straight repeal vote there, and repeated in the referendum, might have left Simon Harris & others scratching their heads as to what to do next with no go-ahead for new legisilation.

aloyisious

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/three-court-challenges-initiated-to-abortion-referendum-result-1.3520188

Three petitions handed into high court will be heard next Monday by Mr Justice Kelly.

new
Sam Coates, Deputy Political Editor
June 5 2018, 5:00pm,
The Times

Theresa May’s intervention will encourage other MPs to follow suit

Theresa May has signalled that she personally backs a relaxation of the abortion law in Northern Ireland, as momentum in parliament gathers for changing the rules.

Karen Bradley, the Northern Ireland secretary, also said that she “personally” wanted to see reform, as senior ministers came out unexpectedly decisively in favour of change.

The intervention by both women is likely to rile the Democratic Unionist Party, which supports the minority Tory administration in the Commons in a confidence and supply arrangement. Mrs May’s decision to ask Mrs Bradley to reveal her personal stance significantly increases the chances of reform passing the Commons, since it will encourage others to follow suit.
Speaking after a referendum in Ireland overturned the abortion ban, Mrs Bradley said the prime minister…

recedite

Well, there are a couple of different issues raised there.
The most likely to be pursued IMO is the one that people in this very thread were making allegations about not so long ago; the mysterious de-registration of voters. I'd imagine the judge will be sympathetic to anyone who tells him equal numbers of yes and no voters were subjected to the same fate, because that might allow him to dismiss this issue as "not materially relevant".
Personally, I have no idea whether or why it really happened.

Next up we have the lack of impartiality shown by govt. ministers. However that is not in itself unusual or illegal. Unseemly maybe, but not grounds to dispute the referendum result.

"Home to Vote" illegal voting is impossible to prove after the event. I remember Harris saying something about some of them being people "who had been on inter-railing holidays"

Lastly we have the alleged lack of clarity among people about what they were doing. While I do sympathise with the guy, there is no test to pass before casting a vote. Even if you know nothing you can still vote.

I did notice that the referendum commission leaflet was so vague as to be useless, but it was impartial which is what it must be.
He mentions D V Ireland in which the Irish govt. said in cases of FFA

termination for fatal foetal abnormalities might not be illegal...
More centrally, it was an open question as to whether Article 40.3.3 could have allowed a lawful abortion in Ireland in the applicant's circumstances. The X case demonstrated the potential for judicial development in this area and, further, the X case did not exclude possible evolution in cases such as the applicant's: the foetus was viable in the X case whereas in the present case there might be an issue as to the extent to which the State was required to guarantee the right to life of a foetus which suffered from a lethal genetic abnormality. The meaning of "unborn" in Article 40.3.3 had attracted some public and academic comment (notably, the Green Paper on Abortion at paragraphs 35-38 above and a leading textbook on Irish constitutional law "The Irish Constitution", Kelly, at § 7.3.28). However, there had been little judicial examination of the meaning of "unborn" and certainly no case comparable to the present. Accordingly, although it was true that Article 40.3.3 had to be understood as excluding a liberal abortion regime, the courts were nonetheless unlikely to interpret the provision with remorseless logic particularly when the facts were exceptional. If therefore it had been established that there was no realistic prospect of the foetus being born alive, then there was "at least a tenable" argument which would be seriously considered by the domestic courts to the effect that the foetus was not an "unborn" for the purposes of Article 40.3.3 or that, even if it was an "unborn", its right to life was not actually engaged as it had no prospect of life outside the womb. In the absence of a domestic decision, it was impossible to foresee that Article 40.3.3 clearly excluded an abortion in the applicant's situation in Ireland.

So no test cases for FFA abortion ever happened in RoI and nobody ever tried to legislate for it under the 8th.
On the other hand, govt. ministers assured us during the campaign that removal of the 8th would be necessary to allow abortion for FFA.

But again, lying politicians is not a good reason to dispute a referendum result, nor is a badly informed public. Its up to people to educate themselves.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Well, there are a couple of different issues raised there.
The most likely to be pursued IMO is the one that people in this very thread were making allegations about not so long ago; the mysterious de-registration of voters. I'd imagine the judge will be sympathetic to anyone who tells him equal numbers of yes and no voters were subjected to the same fate, because that might allow him to dismiss this issue as "not materially relevant".
Personally, I have no idea whether or why it really happened.

Next up we have the lack of impartiality shown by govt. ministers. However that is not in itself unusual or illegal. Unseemly maybe, but not grounds to dispute the referendum result.

Lastly we have the alleged lack of clarity among people about what they were doing. While I do sympathise with the guy, there is no test to pass before casting a vote. Even if you know nothing you can still vote.

I did notice that the referendum commission leaflet was so vague as to be useless, but it was impartial which is what it must be.
He mentions D V in which the govt. said in cases of FFA So no test cases for FFA abortion ever happened in RoI and nobody ever tried to legislate for it under the 8th.
On the other hand, govt. ministers assured us during the campaign that removal of the 8th would be necessary to allow abortion for FFA.

But again, lying politicians is not a good reason to dispute a referendum result, nor is a badly informed public. Its up to people to educate themselves.

They never tried because the legal advice is that it would be clearly unconstitutional.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

They never tried because the legal advice is that it would be clearly unconstitutional.

Ah c'mon now, that's not the same legal advice they produced when fighting the ECHR case.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Ah c'mon now, that's not the same legal advice they produced when fighting the ECHR case.

what part of equal right to life do you not understand?

Cabaal

Total of 3 high court cases now been taken against the ref outcome,

If the groups bank rolling these cases instead spent the money on a modern sex education programme and lobbying for reduce tax on condoms it would be money better spent.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/three-separate-challenges-initiated-to-8th-amendment-referendum-result-847049.html

Instead all they want to do is delay the legislation and over turn the wishes of the citizens of Ireland to repeal the 8th.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what part of equal right to life do you not understand?

What part of "open question" do you not understand?
If you read the quote back there you would have seen

(possibly) even if it was an "unborn", its right to life was not actually engaged as it had no prospect of life outside the womb

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

What part of "open question" do you not understand?
If you read the quote back there you would have seen

There is nothing in the word "unborn" that could lead to that conclusion. To me that is just baseless speculation. It took a supreme court case to define what unborn meant. The supreme court was unlikely to reverse its own decision on what unborn meant.

The ECHR ruling was nothing to do with the possibility of abortion for FFA under the eight. It only concerned itself with the court process taken or lack of it.

aloyisious

Ms Jordan alleges there was de-listing of voters as part of her petition. It doesn't help her case to allege that some disenfranchised voters were members of religious communities and that there were potential NO voters and that there was an unexplained swing towards the YES side, as close as possible an implication that there was vote-rigging or box-stuffing in the time between the closure of voting on the 25th and the counting of the ballots on the 26th. Her allegation people were paid to return to vote is very serious, in as far as [on the face of it] it's implied voter bribery. She includes a foreign journalist telling her of a poll indicator in favout of a NO vote as evidence in her case.

Mr Byrne is also alleging there was disenfrancisement of voters, including religious community members. A lot of what he is basing his petition is on what others allegedly told him.

Mr Treacy seem's to be relying on different allegations to prove his case, that the Electoral Commission was faulty in it's work and that Govt Ministers mislead the voters.

The hole in their "unable to vote because of disenfranchiement" claims is the fact that it's the duty of the voters to ensure they are on the list and there were literally dozens of reminders from the Electoral Commission in the media telling people to check that they were on the register. We even had reminders posted to that effect here by debators here.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

Her allegation people were paid to return to vote is very serious

Plenty of evidence for people offering to pay for the trip. Of course, giving a paid holiday is not quite the same thing as giving a payment. For example, doctors frequently go on "seminars" to exotic locations such as the Maldives, paid for by pharma companies, with one or two optional lectures while they are there.

Others just take money directly. I wonder which ones have been getting money from the abortion pill manufacturers?

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

Plenty of evidence for people offering to pay for the trip.

Do we get to see this evidence?

recedite

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/why-uk-universities-are-funding-irish-students-to-come-home-to-vote-1.3505503

Loads of posts on FB and social media from people offering to pay for tickets and others offering free accommodation in Ireland. Probably some offering both, but I have not searched for them. You can search if you are interested.

Zubeneschamali

recedite wrote: »

Loads of posts on FB and social media from people offering to pay for tickets and others offering free accommodation in Ireland. Probably some offering both, but I have not searched for them. You can search if you are interested.

I think King Mob may have meant law-talking court type evidence rather than social media rumours.

[Deleted User]

recedite wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/why-uk-universities-are-funding-irish-students-to-come-home-to-vote-1.3505503

Loads of posts on FB and social media from people offering to pay for tickets and others offering free accommodation in Ireland. Probably some offering both, but I have not searched for them. You can search if you are interested.

Ah, so no then. Funny way of saying that...

recedite

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think King Mob may have meant law-talking court type evidence rather than social media rumours.

Maybe you forgot to read the link above regarding official travel funding from UK university sources.
Also, a firm offer made and accepted electronically via the internet has full legal effect. Have you never made an online purchase?

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Maybe you forgot to read the link above regarding official travel funding from UK university sources.
Also, a firm offer made and accepted electronically via the internet has full legal effect. Have you never made an online purchase?

but even if some people did have their trips home paid for, so what? Once they are here they dont even have to vote. they weren't escorted to the a polling station. It also doesnt guarantee how they voted. It is complete nonsense and all three court cases are bound to fail.

recedite

Anyway, I never said the "home to vote" grounds for complaint had any merit.
IMO its too late to complain about that now, voter eligibility should have been checked at the polling stations.

The only argument with any legs is the de-registration one. But even then you would have to show

a) systematic de-registration of likely No voters, while leaving Yes voters alone.
b) that it had a material effect on the outcome.

Apparently they are citing whole convents being de-registered, which is a good start to proving the former.
But the latter seems out of reach given the two thirds majority.

I'd be very surprised if any of these complaints succeed then. Whether the court can throw them out in a timely manner is really the issue now. But I think the politicians will be quite happy with this delay, because now they can enjoy their long summer hols without having to worry about taking the blame for the lack of action following the referendum.

aloyisious

Unless Joanna turn's up with both actual evidential proof and witnesses that some party/ies and/or persons paid for/provided fares and accommodation for voters to return to vote here in a guaranteed particular way in favour of one side over the other, then it seem's to me that her alleged "evidence" of vote-fiddling will be like a cloud of vapour, hard for the judge taking the hearing to grasp.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

Oh Yes, got that. It's the people on the marches with repeal signs that may not have understood the difference or just wanted it repealed and nothing else in it's place. The majority choice by 11 votes at the assembly was to replace as against repeal. A straight repeal vote there, and repeated in the referendum, might have left Simon Harris & others scratching their heads as to what to do next with no go-ahead for new legisilation.

It was repealed - all of the existing 40.3.3. will be deleted

It was replaced - with an explicit provision stating that the Oireachtas have the power to legislate in this area

The reason for this is to ensure that the SC doesn't find future abortion legislation unconstitutional even though the people voted to remove 40.3.3.

The idea with Repeal was to remove the restrictions in 40.3.3 from the constitution entirely and allow legislation to be enacted, this is what has happened. The alternative to Repeal was inserting some sort of half-measure e.g. FFA into the constitution while keeping most of the existing 40.3.3 restrictions.

To try to suggest that people didn't know what they were voting for is laughable. The No side even had a large number of posters saying "A yes vote means 12 weeks on demand", which is correct presuming the government's proposals get through the Dail but there is little appetite to oppose them.

Hotblack Desiato

None of those cases will go to a hearing.

Where is her evidence that hundreds of thousands of voters were deregistered?

Where is her evidence that said hundreds of thousands were wrongly deregistered?

Where is her evidence that said hundreds of thousands of wrongly deregistered voters would have voted No in sufficient numbers to change the result? She cannot know the actual intention of would-be voters no matter what they tell her or anyone else, it is a secret ballot.

The register is updated each year. People get deregistered all the time, they just don't bother responding to the forms they get through the door or checking the register in enough time in advance of a vote to get onto the supplementary register.

As for convents etc. I wonder how much of a 'dead vote' there is from there?

Including a reference by a 'foreign journalist' to a poll. Polls have no standing. And every poll that we are aware of showed the Yes side strongly ahead, excluding don't knows. The No side's only real hope was that not only some of the soft Yeses but also basically all don't knows would swing to No. Wasn't going to happen and it's clear now that ten days out they knew the game was up, hence the kerfuffles and infighting over TV appearances and the last minute change in message to 'ah maybe we'll consider some sort of amendment even though we've been saying not an inch for the last 35 years'. As if.

As for misleading statements, the No side is way ahead on that one, ministers were clear on govt's position and intended future legislation. It is insulting to imply that the Yes voters did not know what they were voting for.

Calina

recedite wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think King Mob may have meant law-talking court type evidence rather than social media rumours.

Maybe you forgot to read the link above regarding official travel funding from UK university sources.
Also, a firm offer made and accepted electronically via the internet has full legal effect. Have you never made an online purchase?

Headline on article could be more accurate. There is a difference between universities and student unions.

aloyisious

What I like about the hearing is that Judge Kelly decided to hear the three petitions at the one sitting on Monday to see if they, and the submitters, have any worthy argument to be allowed proceed to a full hearing. Roll on late Monday evening or the mid-week for a published decision, crosses fingers. I have no doubt that Judge Kelly will not allow himself to make an error in judgement wording or opinion and give the petitioners cause to appeal his decision.

robindch

aloyisious wrote: »

Theresa May has signalled that she personally backs a relaxation of the abortion law in Northern Ireland, as momentum in parliament gathers for changing the rules. [...] The intervention by both women is likely to rile the Democratic Unionist Party [...]

Funny to see that the DUP demands full alignment with the rest of the UK, but demands a border down the middle of the Irish Sea when it comes to abortion.

aloyisious

robindch wrote: »

Funny to see that the DUP demands full alignment with the rest of the UK, but demands a border down the middle of the Irish Sea when it comes to abortion.

Lol, patrolled on both sides by the RN doubtlessly.

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

Funny to see that the DUP demands full alignment with the rest of the UK, but demands a border down the middle of the Irish Sea when it comes to abortion.

Their slogan is "We are part of the uk*"

*except when it suits our views