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

end of the road

that's no bad thing. take what they can get from the uk but not have to deal with the bad parts of it.

volchitsa

Cabaal wrote: »

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

*except when it suits our views

Which, funny enough, fits in rather well with prolife views down here : life begins at fertilisation*

* except when it suits us better for it to begin at implantation.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

that's no bad thing. take what they can get from the uk but not have to deal with the bad parts of it.

So, just in it for what they can take, then, rather than loyal citizens of a union?

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

So, just in it for what they can take, then, rather than loyal citizens of a union?

A union between different countries, which always had slightly different legal systems. You may as well say NI and Scotland have no right to their own football teams.

A ruling is expected today on whether the NI abortion laws are compatible with E Convention of Human Rights. Which is not as significant as a binding ruling by the E Court of justice would be.
Yet is more significant to NI than most other places because the ECHR is mentioned in the Good Friday Agreement.
If the ruling goes against NI it will increase pressure on the UK to pull out of the ECHR. I doubt it would have any other effect though.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

A union between different countries, which always had slightly different legal systems.

So, which one is the "country" - the UK or the four constituent parts? For a start, each part has different devolved rights and responsibilities and it would certainly be fun to have some court adjudicate on the issue.

recedite wrote: »

You may as well say NI and Scotland have no right to their own football teams.

But the UK fields one Olympic team (eligible people from NI, Scotland, Wales, England) but four soccer teams (NI, Scotland, Wales, England) and three rugby teams (Scotland, Wales, England, while the Republic of Ireland and NI play together as "Ireland").

A bit of consistency wouldn't go amiss here.

pleas advice

Supreme Court rejects NI abortion law case

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-44395150

The challenge to the law was brought by the NIHRC but, on Thursday, judges said it would have required the case to have been brought by a woman who was pregnant as a result of sexual crime or who was carrying a foetus with a fatal abnormality.
As a result, the judges did not make a formal declaration of incompatibility, which would normally lead to a change in the law

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

Supreme Court rejects NI abortion law case

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-44395150

I see they laid out the route through which a personal case could be laid before them by a woman [or girl] in respect of particular personal pregnancy medical and non-medical situations involving her directly through her pregnancy. A quote from the article you listed: But a majority of judges said the existing law was incompatible with human rights law in cases of fatal foetal abnormality and sexual crime. Said EXISTING law is a Northern Ireland law and apparently subject to a decision by them to overturn it otherwise they wouldn't have made the statement that it is incompatible with human rights law in cases of fatal foetal abnormality and sexual crime. Basically they were dropping a mile-wide hint that the law is an ass and should be changed by those with that responsibility. If the N/I persons responsible don't do it, then Westminster must. It's a UK Supreme Court ruling, not one from the N/I High Court and has precedence over N/I's squabbles and UK Govt not wanting to get involved in the issue on the grounds of the N/I having a devolved [local] Govt

There has just been an interview on the RTE Sean O'Rourke Show with a Belfast civil rights lawyer, and she set out the judgement. The NIHRC has issued a statement to the media, incl RTE news, that the fight does not end there.

Ta, pleas advice, for the article link. It's an excellent read.

volchitsa

Basically the judgment says that the current law is incompatible with human rights, but that the court didn't have the legal standing to order change because the plaintiff wasn't someone with the standing to take the case.

That's pretty strong advice all the same, in fact it's as far as the court can legally go for now.

If (when) a woman who has the correct legal standing (because she has had a diagnosis of FFA or has been raped etc) takes a case, the court is declaring that it will find in her favour.

OR, Westminster could pre-empt that inevitable judgment against them and move to change the law now.

Zubeneschamali

volchitsa wrote: »

If (when) a woman who has the correct legal standing (because she has had a diagnosis of FFA or has been raped etc) takes a case, the court is declaring that it will find in her favour.

but of course a woman in that position is not going to muck about taking court cases, she'll be in liverpool before her lawyer is out of bed.

volchitsa

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

but of course a woman in that position is not going to muck about taking court cases, she'll be in liverpool before her lawyer is out of bed.

I think these court cases can be taken, or heard anyway, after the fact can't they?

Sarah Ewart went to court well after her pregnancy. True I don't know when she first lodged her case but it's not reasonable to expect women to put everything medical on hold until after the courts have given their judgments, is it?

recedite

The whole thing is ridiculously complicated.
My understanding is that a specific pregnant woman with a FFA diagnosis should have taken the case, not the NI human rights commission.
Even if such a woman won, there would still be no obligation to do anything.

Also, the UK might have pulled out of the ECHR by then anyway (because lack of sovereignty and too hard to deport terrorists)

But this judgement still gives a morale boost to the pro-choice campaign.
If politicians decide to take note, it will have to be those in Stormont who pursue it, not those in Westminster. Hence when PM May says "I personally would be in favour..." she is really saying "Its not up to me".
Unless Direct Rule (by Westminster and Dublin) gets imposed on NI, which is not on the cards at the moment for various other political reasons.

Supposing legislators decided to act in some future scenario, they still have two options.
1. They could bundle FFA with abortion as happened in RoI and use it as the thin end of the wedge to drive in a relatively liberal abortion regime.
2. Or, they could bundle it with general "right to die" human rights issues involving the terminally ill (which are topical in the UK) thereby allowing termination for FFA cases while leaving NI abortion legislation totally unchanged.

aloyisious

volchitsa wrote: »

I think these court cases can be taken, or heard anyway, after the fact can't they?

Sarah Ewart went to court well after her pregnancy. True I don't know when she first lodged her case but it's not reasonable to expect women to put everything medical on hold until after the courts have given their judgments, is it?

Sarah's was, after the event. She went to the UK in 2013 for her FFA abortion and took the case later with the NIHCR, case ruled on in 2015 by Belfast High Court, appealed by NI AG who won, then to UKSC which ruled against Sarah [and her mother].

30 November 2015: A High Court judge in Northern Ireland rules Northern Ireland's law breached the European Convention on Human Rights in cases of fatal foetal abnormality or sexual crime

11 February 2016: Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly vote against legalising abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality (by 59 votes to 40) and cases of sexual crime (by 64 votes to 30)

14 June 2017: Supreme Court rejects an appeal by an anonymous mother and daughter that NI women should be able to access free NHS abortions in England.

29 June 2017: Northern Ireland's Department of Justice (DoJ) and Attorney General successfully appeal against 2015 High Court human rights ruling, prompting the NIHRC to go to the Supreme Court.

Edit: Irish News. Belfast Newspaper, 21 October, 2017 01:00. A WOMAN [Sarah Ewart] whose experience of abortion has placed the issue back before the courts has expressed disappointment that a Stormont report on abortion law remains unpublished a year after its completion.

recedite

If Sarah Ewart was named in the original case, then she would have had the legal standing to be named in this recent SC case.
We're not told why NIHRC went ahead without her. Maybe to spare her the glare of publicity. Or maybe she does not share all their objectives.

She is not in favour of a broader liberalisation of the law to bring it in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The vast majority of women currently travelling to England for terminations would still have to do so even if the changes she proposes were implemented.“I don’t agree with getting rid of a baby that would have survived,” she said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/07/northern-ireland-abortion-ban-sarah-ewart-interview

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

1. They could bundle FFA with abortion as happened in RoI and use it as the thin end of the wedge to drive in a relatively liberal abortion regime.

Bundle a.k.a.bloatware

aloyisious

Personally speaking, I've come a long way from my original position on abortion where I argued against another debater here some years back. Her position was that a woman could, by right of choice, choose to abort the feotus in her womb if she thought the money she was using on supporting her pregnancy was better spent buying a can of paint to do up a room instead. I was aghast at the reason given for her choice and thought [at the time] what a shocking valuation for her to make and let her know.

I was not properly educated/learned on the four issues involved: 1. pregnancy [choice] itself, 2. the rights of women when it come to their bodies and pregnancy, 3. the health risks to women due to being pregnant, 4. and the way nature has of not getting things right where it comes to the formation of a feotus in the womb. So I've a big thank's to give to the other debators here, incl some here from the NO side for providing part of that education.

Edit: I see there's another pro-choice rally in Belfast this Sunday, tickets for journey from Dublin sold out even.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Also, the UK might have pulled out of the ECHR by then anyway (because lack of sovereignty and too hard to deport terrorists)

I suppose once you start drinking the kool-aid you might as well go all in.

antiskeptic

aloyisious wrote: »

Personally speaking, I've come a long way from my original position on abortion

It's noteworthy that the life in the womb doesn't figure in your assessment. Since it didn't, you haven't really come that far at all.

I mean, if the life in the womb doesn't even figure in the equation, then abortion vs. the colour in your living room is a perfectly valid reasoning.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Also, the UK might have pulled out of the ECHR by then anyway (because lack of sovereignty and too hard to deport terrorists)

Far more likely that the UK will have pulled out of the EHCR on account of chauvinistic nationalism (as understood by the voting public) and a wish to transfer rights away from individuals and into profit-earning corporations (as understood by the individuals driving this moronic policy and who sell chauvinistic nationalism to the voting public).

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I suppose once you start stop drinking the kool-aid you might as well go all in.

FYP

robindch wrote: »

Far more likely that the UK will have pulled out of the EHCR on account of chauvinistic nationalism.. and a wish to transfer rights away from individuals and into profit-earning corporations .

You seem to want NI to be ruled by Westminster, and Westminster to be ruled by Brussels, which is ruled by these guys.
You need to lay off the Kool-Aid for a while

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's noteworthy that the life in the womb doesn't figure in your assessment. Since it didn't, you haven't really come that far at all.

The difference would appear to be that he is measuring progress in terms of his position gaining nuance over time. You are measuring progress in terms of him reaching YOUR conclusions by YOUR measures. A standard he is as unlikely to use or find useful as you are to describe why it is useful.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mean, if the life in the womb doesn't even figure in the equation, then abortion vs. the colour in your living room is a perfectly valid reasoning.

The issue there is that despite months of me asking you and a few other users.... over and over and over again.... I am yet to hear a single argument as to why I should hold any moral and ethical concern for something just because it is "alive"........ not only in and of itself, but also specifically in a world where we hold somewhere between little a no moral or ethical concern for a whole HOST of things that are alive.

I either get people running away, inventing new rights they can not defend like "the right to become sentient", or getting all emotional because they have completely misinterpreted the implications and relevance of it's tongue moving.

Not one of them, literally not one, have managed to adumbrate a value structure whereby they can lend coherence to the idea of what they thing humans should value, why they should value it, in what way that valuing should manifest, and specifically why a 10 week old fetus (when the significant majority of abortion occurs by) should qualify for it.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am yet to hear a single argument......

You couldn't make it up.........

Again: for over ten years users have been putting arguments forward in response to your utterings.

Just because you don't feel they are sufficient retorts to your dog> cat> mouse nonsense, doesn't mean they aren't making them.

nozzferrahhtoo

Well you could make it up, because you JUST DID. You quoted half my sentence and then responded to something I never actually said. I did not say "I am yet to hear a single argument.....". I have, as you pointed out, heard many. So why would I claim I have not? Clue: I didn't claim it, you just made it up.

But what I actually wrote was "I am yet to hear a single argument as to why I should hold any moral and ethical concern for something just because it is "alive""

This is just perfectly representative of the level of honesty you bring to this discussion. You completely misquote people into saying something that absolutely did not say, and then pretend like you are rebutting it.

If you think somewhere in the last 10 years someone has made an argument that actually rebuts my position, rather than distorts it, misrepresents it, dodges it or ignores it.......... then link to it. Because THAT I certainly have not seen yet. Least of all from you and your interest in tongues.

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's noteworthy that the life in the womb doesn't figure in your assessment. Since it didn't, you haven't really come that far at all.

I mean, if the life in the womb doesn't even figure in the equation, then abortion vs. the colour in your living room is a perfectly valid reasoning.

Ref your assessment on what I included in my equation, just because it was not seen by you, does not mean something did not exist.

Actually I reckon that changing my position from being aghast at some-one having an abortion merely because she wanted to buy paint to where I have learned and accepted that abortion is sometimes an essential requirement for a woman, her health and her life is noteworthy. Later I realised that the OP was bluntly using that tin of paint figuratively speaking, to make her point about a woman's right to choose.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

You seem to want NI to be ruled by Westminster, [...]

Nope, I'd like it to be ruled by the people who were elected to rule it, rather than the elected politicians choosing to go into a multiyear sulk and who are currently refusing to rule anything. I'd also like Sinn Fein to take up their positions in the UK parliament to which they were elected.

Essentially, I'd like the politicians of the region to do the job they were elected to do.

recedite wrote: »

and Westminster to be ruled by Brussels, [...]

Despite the chauvinistic, neo-fascist bleatings of people like Johnson, Farage and Dacre, the UK parliament retains its sovereign in all matters pertaining to UK law.
As regards EU directives, the UK government maintains a veto at multiple points during the EU's legislative process.

recedite wrote: »

[...] Brussels,
which is ruled by these guys.

Nope, the EU is "ruled" (inasmuch as the word is applicable to the EU) by the leaders of the member states via the EU Council and the institution of the European Parliament - assent from both parties is required before legislation may be adopted. Your claim that it's run by Goldman Sachs, or Manuel Barroso is both idiotic and unsupported by the article you quote. Though I do notice that Russia Today certainly does take a carefully-studied interest in Mr Barroso's career (here, here and here).

The EU's actual decision-making process is summarized in the following diagram which, I hope and trust, clarifies reality for you!

recedite

robindch wrote: »

The EU's actual decision-making process is summarized in the following diagram which, I hope and trust, clarifies reality for you!

Nice colourful diagram, but it falls at the first hurdle; No.1 "Proposal from Commission". Where do these guys get their proposals from? From the lobbyists that grease their palms. Hence my link which showed the kind of petty squabbling they get up to, mainly over who gets the biggest backhander.

Also your entire diagram refers to the E Parliament, which is not where all the power lies. More power lies with the Council of Ministers.
It works like this... Merkel gets an idea and discusses it with Macron. If both are happy they individually make trips to the second tier (UK and Italy) to convince those PMs of what the plan is going to be. A little bit of horsetrading may ensue at this point. Once the Italians and british have extracted their concessions and/or derogations, the third tier PMs are told what will happen and are summoned to a CoM meeting to rubber stamp it.
Future versions of this scenario will vary, because the Brits will be out and the Italians will likely have joined the Austrians in supporting the Visegrad countries establishing a new more eastern centre of power. But that is still in the future.

Our man Varadkar is one of those Tier 3 ministers. Before he sets off, he signals to the domestic audience that he intends to support the proposal.
On his return, he proudly announces that the proposal passed, which confirms to us that our perceived influence in these matters is real.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

Nice colourful diagram, but it falls at the first hurdle; No.1 "Proposal from Commission".

In what sense "fails at the first hurdle"? It sets out the actual process. Factually accurately, as far as I can see -- and certainly far better than you're argued otherwise. Perhaps the "hurdle" was "suits a particular conspiratorial narrative"?

Also your entire diagram refers to the E Parliament, which is not where all the power lies. More power lies with the Council of Ministers.

No, the "entire diagram" refers to which steps each body is responsible for. It even colour-codes which are the EP ones. Senior Infants would be able to follow along pretty handily.

The CoM are the elected national governments. A post or so ago you were complaining that NGs are run by "Brussels". Now your moan is that "Brussels" is run by the NGs. Can you at least pick one crude, populist, euroskeptic oversimplication and stick with it? Rather than flip-flopping between two utterly opposite ones?

alaimacerc

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's noteworthy that the life in the womb doesn't figure in your assessment. Since it didn't, you haven't really come that far at all.

It seems to be a running theme with One-Thirders that any time someone reports having moved any distance along the line from "criminalise exercise of reproductive rights" to "maybe not so much", their instinct is just to declare that obviously those people were hardline pro-choicers all along. I mean, it's clearly not possible that the likes of Billy Kelleher listened to evidence, and changed their minds. Obviously they were on the contrary, elaborate multii-decade false-flag operations all along. Besides, it's the duty of people not to listen to evidence, when there's perfectly fine dogma and cliché to fall back on!

Given the success of these types of rhetorical tactics, let's hope they continue on the same lines for the foreseeable.

end of the road

alaimacerc wrote: »

It seems to be a running theme with One-Thirders that any time someone reports having moved any distance along the line from "criminalise exercise of reproductive rights" to "maybe not so much", their instinct is just to declare that obviously those people were hardline pro-choicers all along. I mean, it's clearly not possible that the likes of Billy Kelleher listened to evidence, and changed their minds. Obviously they were on the contrary, elaborate multii-decade false-flag operations all along. Besides, it's the duty of people not to listen to evidence, when there's perfectly fine dogma and cliché to fall back on!

Given the success of these types of rhetorical tactics, let's hope they continue on the same lines for the foreseeable.

no exercising of reproductive rights was criminalised in ireland within the last couple of decades. abortion is not a reproductive right.
as for politicians changing their view, i don't believe for one second varadkar and simon harris changed their minds. i think they chopped and changed to the view they think will get them re-elected but i'm not sure it will work as people are getting board of fg and want change

Overheal

"end wrote:

abortion is not a reproductive right.

Says who?

“Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.” - World Health Organisation

end of the road

Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.” - World Health Organisation[/QUOTE]

agreed, thankfully that can all be achieved without killing the unborn for any reason.