Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

King Mob wrote: »

What in your view would be an example of someone abusing the system?

given the topic is about abortion, i don't believe it's relevant. abuses of our systems are certainly an issue but are a separate issue which i think is more suited to being discussed in a different thread.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

given the topic is about abortion, i don't believe it's relevant. abuses of our systems are certainly an issue but are a separate issue which i think is more suited to being discussed in a different thread.

So dodging the question again.
It is relevant because again, this is what these people are doing.
You are sticking your head in the sand and pretending that they have nothing but pure intentions and denying reality.

Or, you are again, lying like you did when you claimed you never said abortion is murder.

You are not arguing on good faith.

aloyisious wrote: »

Good article to read. I'm surprised [or maybe shouldn't be] that David Quinn is broadly hinting that the Pro-life polls taken on the street/at doorways were faulty because those responding were being nice - read dishonest - to the Pro-life pollsters disguising how large the vote would really be against the Pro-Life campaign. Mary Kenny made some good points but I reckon she was wrong where she thinks the church - or the bishops, as Archbishop Martin understands some blame-words to mean - should have been overtly & publicly involved. I reckon that the church was right in its thinking that that would have been a counter-productive move given how there has been a very large populace swing against faith in the church because of its dishonesty and a subsequent disbelief in anything spoken or written coming from the church spokespersons - anger on the streets as it were. This is just my reading on some of the article points.

I travel a lot for work, so I met at least three different NO campaign teams, one who even tho the house had a choice poster still kept leaving in their posters, which while their right, convinced floating voters that there was no respect for them in the process.

The two other houses, the flyer was left but the doorbell unrung, unsurprising as word of intimidating children and bad behaviour at stalls ran through the populace like wildfire. So in a different circumstance, I would have agreed with them to get them away from me/kids before they started on the 'aren't you lucky your mum didn't have you chopped up when you were in her tummy' ?conversation to the kids in the house at the time.

As an aside, when I was looking for info from No campaign before the ref was even called, I was given very little in a format I could read(white on red is a disaster for dyslexics, similarly pink) was called lazy when I asked for a different format, was told I was too old to be bothered anyway when I called at stalls, uneducated when I queried the 'science' in the flyers that had been handed to the kids in some church-based activities. If I didn't know the system backwards as it stands, I would have voted YES just to send the message that treating ppl with questions that way, attempts at brainwashing and outright lies were not acceptable in my circle.

King Mob wrote: »

What in your view would be an example of someone abusing the system?

Perhaps if, for example, the public had voted for a right-wing Catholic socially conservative measure, and that was held up for two-and-a-half years by people with a self-confessed track record of filing such suits for the express purpose of holding up their enactment.

Let's say.

Calina

end of the road wrote: »

aloyisious wrote: »

As in here in Ireland, and not abroad, by delaying at least the signing into law the referendum vote result and subsequent Govt legislation being enacted through Leinster House?

yes that's correct, we are talking about here. however i don't believe any rights are being denied. the result is going to be signed into law at some stage, and people have a right to challenge it as has been done via these failed cases before it would be signed in . so everyone's rights have actually been upheld here IMO.

As long as it is not being signed into law, legislation for abortions cannot be enacted. This results in access to abortion being held up. As pregnancy is time sensitive then yes, the cases result in women not being able to have abortions in Ireland for an unspecified period. That right is being deliberately blocked.

ohnonotgmail

Calina wrote: »

As long as it is not being signed into law, legislation for abortions cannot be enacted. This results in access to abortion being held up. As pregnancy is time sensitive then yes, the cases result in women not being able to have abortions in Ireland for an unspecified period. That right is being deliberately blocked.

a right that EOTR thinks they should not have so he is ok with it.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

a right that EOTR thinks they should not have so he is ok with it.

i don't believe being able to kill the unborn for any reason is a right in the first place. so no i don't believe any right is being blocked.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

i don't believe being able to kill the unborn for any reason is a right in the first place. so no i don't believe any right is being blocked.

so you are happy for democratic decision to be held up? You seem to be really in favour of democracy except when you dont agree with the decision. There is a word for that.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

kill the unborn

But you said that abortion isn't murder...

end of the road wrote: »

i don't believe being able to kill the unborn for any reason is a right in the first place. so no i don't believe any right is being blocked.

What if a pregnant woman and her baby die before the legislation is enacted? what about their right to life?
Would the remaining family be able to sue the govt/save campaign/the individuals holding up the will of the ppl, for compensation?

Bredabe wrote: »

What if a pregnant woman and her baby die before the legislation is enacted? what about their right to life?
Would the remaining family be able to sue the govt/save campaign/the individuals holding up the will of the ppl for compensation?

i wouldn't imagine so.

end of the road wrote: »

i wouldn't imagine so.

I don't doubt that, but Im curious as to what others would say.
Now, as the 'challenges' have held up changes around the 8th, a woman's life is still worthless in a mum-v-baby scenario, so what about her right to life as things stand? In your view.

As I have experienced a scenario such as this recently, don't tell me that the 8th WILL save mum over baby, that simply isn't what happened in practice.

Bredabe wrote: »

Now, as the 'challenges' have held up changes around the 8th, a woman's life is still worthless in a mum-v-baby scenario, so what about her right to life as things stand? In your view.

As I have experienced a scenario such as this recently, don't tell me that the 8th WILL save mum over baby, that simply isn't what happened in practice.

I can't speak to the your experience, but the law is pretty clear: POLDPA covers this situation. Actual medical practice may not, but by that token even post-8th it might take a while to conform to it.

But it's certainly currently the case that every other right of the woman is out the window, if it conflicts with "the unborn's". Mental and physical and health, medical consent, bodily autonomy, you name it. So those are still being denied while the "rights" of serial filibusterers are vindicated over them.

Bredabe wrote: »

What if a pregnant woman and her baby die before the legislation is enacted? what about their right to life?
Would the remaining family be able to sue the govt/save campaign/the individuals holding up the will of the ppl, for compensation?

If she dies, her next of kin should be able to sue on the basis of failure to act properly on the basis of the POLDPA, if that can be shown.

A better example might be where the woman experiences severe medical harm, in a situation not covered by the present act. I doubt there'd be any liability on the government or the No side at large; the law is the law, until it's changed.

As to the litigants here... I've no real idea. I suspect you'd at the least have to demonstrate that it was a bad-faith exercise on their part, and they could or should have foreseen the harm incurred.

alaimacerc wrote: »

If she dies, her next of kin should be able to sue on the basis of failure to act properly on the basis of the POLDPA, if that can be shown.

A better example might be where the woman experiences severe medical harm, in a situation not covered by the present act. I doubt there'd be any liability on the government or the No side at large; the law is the law, until it's changed.

As to the litigants here... I've no real idea. I suspect you'd at the least have to demonstrate that it was a bad-faith exercise on their part, and they could or should have foreseen the harm incurred.

This is where my question stems from, we know that in a mum-v-baby scenario it goes to professional judgement as to how treatment proceeds and when, so indeed in the case, I was involved in, she was within hours of death.
She will have ongoing life impacting conditions because of it. I can't see how anyone who is fillabusting or legally holding up repeal, would be unaware that someone may suffer negatively because of the delay their actions are causing.

aloyisious

Bredabe wrote: »

This is where my question stems from, we know that in a mum-v-baby scenario it goes to professional judgement as to how treatment proceeds and when, so indeed in the case, I was involved in, she was within hours of death.
She will have ongoing life impacting conditions because of it. I can't see how anyone who is fillabusting or legally holding up repeal, would be unaware that someone may suffer negatively because of the delay their actions are causing.

Pardon me from transposing on your discussion. I'm wondering if the recent HSE and hospital errors In medical treatment of women patients may have a bearing on the issue of claims submitted legally for ANSWERS [whatever about recompense] in respect of pregnant women also. I'm looking at court-room steps agreements between the Govt agencies and the claimants, which also included rejected calls for confidentiality clauses and didn't end with failure of the legal discussions outside the courts. It's just a thought I had and wonder if legal persons working on behalf of pregnant women facing legal difficulties might see the agreements as precedent in faulty medical cases.

State entitled to costs in abortion referendum legal challenge

Bredabe wrote: »

This is where my question stems from, we know that in a mum-v-baby scenario it goes to professional judgement as to how treatment proceeds and when, so indeed in the case, I was involved in, she was within hours of death.

There's going to be a professional judgement involved regardless. I suppose in theory you're grand if you have a health-threatening condition in the first 12 weeks, and can afford to wait three days, but that's going to be the minority of cases. (Largely the "I have a long-term condition that makes any pregnancy dangerous" ones, rather than the "complications have arisen" sort.)

Granted, there's a difference in that while the POLDPA gives doctors effectively very broad discretion, it does little to say how they must use it. They don't have to prove "real and substantial risk", just that they made a good faith decision that it was their professional judgement that was the case. But conversely, difficult to demonstrate they've made an error in the opposite direction, too.

She will have ongoing life impacting conditions because of it. I can't see how anyone who is fillabusting or legally holding up repeal, would be unaware that someone may suffer negatively because of the delay their actions are causing.

(Edit: sorry, forgot to reply to this bit, though I'd intended to!

I don't know either. But people have used their "pro-life" beliefs to justify firebombing and murder. To prevent what they see as a "greater crime", somehow. I'm these people would disassociate themselves from that, but equally they're happy to substitute their own beliefs, over a democratic decision of their fellow citizens.

robindch

King Mob wrote: »

But you said that abortion isn't murder...

Let's not waste any more time on that point.

aloyisious

RTE news has reported that the High Court has awarded costs against both applicants in regard to charges occurred during the Friday hearing. Both applicants applied for their costs and were refused by Judge Kelly, that they didn't reach the standard required. According to RTE, Ms Jordan has indicated she is going to the Court of Appeal in respect of some part of the rulings. RTE also stated that the Returning Officers certificate can be brought to Michael D for signature to allow the Govt proceed with legislation action to bring in abortion here.

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

Let's not waste any more time on that point.

I get the point being made but the previous claims prove the poster is being intentionally disingenuous when posting.

It's hard to take anything they say seriously in any thread given their proven posting history.

If they'd just properly address the issue I'm sure everyone can move on.

Hotblack Desiato

The State and Referendum Commission are entitled to their legal costs, estimated at more than €200,000, of successfully opposing two separate bids to challenge the abortion referendum result, the president of the High Court has ruled.

One of the two, Joanna Jordan, said she intends to appeal the refusal to let her bring a petition challenging the result. In that context, a stay applies until at least Friday preventing the referendum result being formally certified.

On Tuesday, Mr Justice Peter Kelly said the State and Commission are entitled to their legal costs against Charles Byrne, whose application involved both.

He ruled the State was also entitled to its costs against Joanna Jordan, whose case only involved State parties.

Because Mr Byrne is not pursuing an appeal over the dismissal of his application for permission to bring a petition challenging the referendum outcome, and the court was told his only asset is a piano, the judge recommended the State and Commission might consider not pursuing him for costs.

FFS :mad: fcuking chancer.

Cabaal

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/church-may-lose-control-of-hospitals-s3hd225h7

Church may lose control of hospitals
Varadkar backs shake-up after abortion ban row

Public hospitals may be taken out of religious ownership to ensure that the Catholic church is no longer at “the centre of public life”, Leo Varadkar has said.

A report outlining a plan to separate church and state in healthcare is due before the government next month.

Timberrrrrrrr

About time too

.......

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"Buying them out" wouldn't necessarily be the only way of separating church and state, though. The more important question is not, "who owns the land/buildings?", but "who controls the conduct of the hospital/on what terms is the hospital conducted?". It may be possible to change the answers to the latter questions without necessarily buying the land.

That, in fact, is the kind of question that a policy paper should be exploring.

Timberrrrrrrr

....... wrote: »

Is it possible though?

Do the Church own the land that some hospitals are on rendering it too expensive for the government to buy them out?

Just take it off them, they still owe how much over the child abuse scandal?

.......

This post has been deleted.

volchitsa

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So stop funding them, see how far they get without the HSE paying the running costs, salaries, investments etc.

A severe case of having your cake and eating it. Catholic hospitals in America don't get massive subsidies from the tax payer to provide their Catholic medicine.