Legalise abortion

Wibbs · 30-04-2010 08:12PM

sparkling sea wrote: »

And many take up this right.

Many of whom? Men? When can a man interfere with a woman's right to an abortion in law(in jurisdictions where its on the books)and bring a case in law to prevent her from having one or not having one? Where can a man legally disown any child he does not want and walk away from a responsibility he did not want? Where can a man block an adoption? A man has few rights in this scenario. A man has much less control over his reproductive choices, beyond contraception. If that fails as these things can, then at that point he has no rights to speak off, except to be chased through the court for maintenance if the woman wants to go that route.

Indeed on the maintenance side; if hypothetically a mother abandons her child and the father takes over the primary care and gives up work to do so, can a man chase the woman for maintenance in the courts? Genuine question BTW. I always wondered what recourse is there in that situation.

StealthRolex · 30-04-2010 09:02PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm afraid that the right to life has never been so black and white.

Actually it is very black and white. The UN as well as our Constitution says so.

Article 3. (UNDHR)

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

The only time it could be argued that a right to life is being impinged is when the double-effect is invoked.

That has already been disparaged here by at least one poster and misrepresented by another.

The double-effect is used every day in all walks of life and not just in medical situations - Test pilots, doctors treating contagious patients, police or gardai apprehending armed criminals. Their right to life is not modified by their choice to take a risk with it.
The military use double-effect frequently. This still does not dilute the right to life of those killed.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. (UN)

It doesn't say anything about their age, sex, mental or physical health, or their socio-economic status.

It appears to be a black and white statement.

The Corinthian · 01-05-2010 01:44PM

sparkling sea wrote: »

And many take up this right.

Who? Men? If this is what you mean you have obviously ignored where more than one poster has pointed out that such a right does not legally exist for men. Don't let the facts get in the way of a prejudice though.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Hahaha - rational and reasoned and a debate.

And I was supposedly being churlish?

StealthRolex wrote: »

The double-effect is used every day in all walks of life and not just in medical situations - Test pilots, doctors treating contagious patients, police or gardai apprehending armed criminals. Their right to life is not modified by their choice to take a risk with it.
The military use double-effect frequently. This still does not dilute the right to life of those killed.

The justification of taking another life in law or morality sounds a lot like the dilution of the right to life to me.

With respects, I am uninterested in a discussion on semantics - I wasted enough time with Nozz on that. However, you cannot deny that justifiable homicide takes place in a large number of scenarios, and that is the bottom line, however you would prefer to label it.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. (UN)

I really don't understand why people keep on quoting the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as if it in some way a legal document. It's not.

The Corinthian · 01-05-2010 01:54PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed on the maintenance side; if hypothetically a mother abandons her child and the father takes over the primary care and gives up work to do so, can a man chase the woman for maintenance in the courts? Genuine question BTW. I always wondered what recourse is there in that situation.

I would imagine you would have great difficulty finding such cases. If a woman does not want to become a parent she will tend to have an abortion - this is one of the reasons that the number of children being given up for adoption in the West is so low.

Even in the adoption scenario, the mother does not require the consent of the father to put the child up for adoption, only that she has made a reasonable effort to consult him - which of course means he need not even be informed. Once put up for adoption, the mother is absolved of all parental responsibilities.

So 'deadbeat moms' are rare, largely because they never get to term in the first place.

I think we're in danger of going seriously OT though.

StealthRolex · 01-05-2010 03:32PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I really don't understand why people keep on quoting the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as if it in some way a legal document. It's not.

If it isn't you will have to substantiate that statement.

Legal or not - and as I understand it, it is legal in this country since 2003, it does support my position that the right to life is a black and white issue.

The Corinthian · 01-05-2010 04:14PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

If it isn't you will have to substantiate that statement.

It is a declaration - a wish list, if you will - and it's position in international law is tenuous, if it exists at all. I just keep on seeing people quote UN declarations in debates, as if they actually mean anything in the real World.

Legal or not - and as I understand it, it is legal in this country since 2003, it does support my position that the right to life is a black and white issue.

Whatever - all this is completely irrelevant to my argument. The UN Declaration of Human Rights does not change the fact that the right to life is superseded in many circumstances - now you can start playing with terms and call it double-effect or whatever, but in the end someone got killed and it was acceptable in the eyes of society.

Tell me, where do you stand on my earlier organ doner scenario - is it moral to force someone to donate an organ (such as a lung or kidney) to protect the right to life of another?

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 02:36AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Tell me, where do you stand on my earlier organ doner scenario - is it moral to force someone to donate an organ (such as a lung or kidney) to protect the right to life of another?

Morally you cannot force a person to donate against their will.
Therefore the morality of the decision rests with the person who can choose to provide the organ. However in the examples you give the donation will not cause the death of the donor.
In abortion one person is deciding for another and as it involves the death of one who has no choice your example is not equitable.

If you want to argue equal rights with another poster it would be good manners to use examples where the rights are equitable in all posts.

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 02:39AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Whatever - all this is completely irrelevant to my argument. The UN Declaration of Human Rights does not change the fact that the right to life is superseded in many circumstances - now you can start playing with terms and call it double-effect or whatever, but in the end someone got killed and it was acceptable in the eyes of society.

In the examples you provided, as well as mine to counter, the individuals involved had decided for themselves that they were taking risks. Their right to life was never invalidated.
A test pilot has a right to life. The test vehicle may crash but that is nothing to do with their right to life.
A police officer has a right to life and may be fatally injured in the line of duty but their right to life was never invalidated. Likewise a soldier.
A doctor has a right to life and may risk catching a contagious and possibly fatal disease when treating others but his or her right to life was never invalidated.
A senior military officer may decide that collateral damage is acceptable for the greater good. Even so the victims of any action still have a right to life.
A donor may decide that their bodily integrity supersedes the needs of a patient and if that decision denies the patient a life the donor has to live with that decision. In any case the right to life if a patient requiring a donor organ has nothing to do with the availability of donor organs. The right to life of a patient requiring an organ protects them from being killed deliberately, not accidentally.

But back to the topic - Is society willing to accept the killing of defenceless innocent humans?

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 02:48AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is a declaration - a wish list, if you will - and it's position in international law is tenuous, if it exists at all. I just keep on seeing people quote UN declarations in debates, as if they actually mean anything in the real World.

As I understand it since we ratified the Lisbon treaty it is law.

Everyone has a right to life.

Granted when it comes to abortion the UN has decided to abdicated that to the sovereign governments and in Irish law everyone has a right to life.
While the double effect is not explicit in our constitution it is implied by due regard to the equal right to life of the mother.

GarlicBread · 02-05-2010 03:19AM

"But back to the topic - Is society willing to accept the killing of defenceless innocent humans?"

I think the point is that many people dont consider it human life. For humans to be brought into this world you first need a willing female. If you dont have that, you dont have any basis to bring unwanted people into existence.

I wish pro-lifers would cop on to the fact that its perverse and weird to try and have a say about the reproductive systems of private people. Go police your own and keep away from the rest of us.

Forcing somone to be pregnant is a horrendus crime in its own right.

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 03:21AM

celticbest wrote: »

Can anybody please explain how aboration is not murder after reading link article below..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/7652889/Baby-that-survived-botched-abortion-was-rejected-for-cleft-lip-and-palate.html

This case is now being investigated as homicide(Murder).

No-one can argue it is not murder. The purpose of the exercise of legalised abortion is to allow in law justifiable homicide for certain individuals.

If a cleft palate is a legal reason for an abortion why is loosing your arms in an industrial accident not also a reason to kill armless victims.

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 03:25AM

GarlicBread wrote: »

"But back to the topic - Is society willing to accept the killing of defenceless innocent humans?"

I think the point is that many people dont consider it human life.

That is indeed the point but those that do not consider it a human life cannot prove that it is not a human life.

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 03:31AM

GarlicBread wrote: »

For humans to be brought into this world you first need a willing female. If you dont have that, you dont have any basis to bring unwanted people into existence.

Actually you need both a female and a willing male if you want to create another human and you will probably find that this third human had no choice in the matter and has no concept of whether they were wanted or not.

GarlicBread · 02-05-2010 03:36AM

StealthRolex wrote: »

That is indeed the point but those that do not consider it a human life cannot prove that it is not a human life.

Its not for you or me to decide wheather its human or not, its up to the pregnant woman. If theres any pain or mourning involved its hers and hers alone and is nothing to do with anyone else, except maybe if theres a partner involved.

You cant go trying to have a say about some strangers vagina. If some stranger approached me with an opinion about how my genitals may or may not function, id beat him to death then and there for being a freak.

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 03:44AM

GarlicBread wrote: »

Its not for you or me to decide wheather its human or not, its up to the pregnant woman. If theres any pain or mourning involved its hers and hers alone and is nothing to do with anyone else, except maybe if theres a partner involved.

You cant go trying to have a say about some strangers vagina. If some stranger approached me with an opinion about how my genitals may or may not function, id beat him to death then and there for being a freak.

First of all it is not you or I who say it is human or not. Medical science has already decided that it is human.

Secondly we are not talking about some strangers vagina we are talking about a human life that through circumstances of biology happens to be living in a womans uterus.

If you want to go around beating up medical professionals that is your business but I caution you that it is against the law.

GarlicBread · 02-05-2010 04:02AM

StealthRolex wrote: »

First of all it is not you or I who say it is human or not. Medical science has already decided that it is human.

Secondly we are not talking about some strangers vagina we are talking about a human life that through circumstances of biology happens to be living in a womans uterus.

If you want to go around beating up medical professionals that is your business but I caution you that it is against the law.

I was a bit harsh with the last statement, but i stand by it. People have the right to decency and privacy particularly when it their own bodies.

Heres a quote from the linked story -

"Since 1978, abortion has been available on demand in Italy in the first three months of pregnancy but is restricted to specific circumstances - such as disability"

Catholic Italy has had legal abortion on demand since 1978 and we are still here in 2010 exporting our abortions to every country around us. Regardless of your views on the right to life, its a disgraceful situation we have festering here in this country.

Do you think its ok to pretend that we are so morally better than everyone else and then send our abortions abroad because we are to ignorant to do it for ourselves?

Irish women have just as much abortions as any other women. We need to grow up fast and legalize it.

The Corinthian · 02-05-2010 09:44AM

StealthRolex wrote: »

Morally you cannot force a person to donate against their will.
Therefore the morality of the decision rests with the person who can choose to provide the organ. However in the examples you give the donation will not cause the death of the donor.
In abortion one person is deciding for another and as it involves the death of one who has no choice your example is not equitable.

Well, strictly speaking that is not true. Some abortion procedures will cause the death of the fetus, but others simply 'evict' it, after which it dies because it is outside of an environment that can support it.

Of course the doner scenario is not exactly the same as abortion - there are a number of differences - so I am not saying that it justifies abortion morally.

If you want to argue equal rights with another poster it would be good manners to use examples where the rights are equitable in all posts.

Good manners? Please, get off the cross, someone needs the wood.

I have put forward an argument, you have disagreed and I have rebutted your rejection. It is part of a debate.

StealthRolex wrote: »

In the examples you provided, as well as mine to counter, the individuals involved had decided for themselves that they were taking risks. Their right to life was never invalidated.

That too is incorrect. Manslaughter, while still a crime, is not treated in the same way as murder. Neither is death by misadventure or self-defense. Civilian casualties in war are regrettable, but if not specifically targeted are not considered a war crime. Did they choose to take a risk?

Why do you insist on claiming that the right to life is a black and white concept, when it is blatantly obvious that society does not and never has seen it in such terms?

In any case the right to life if a patient requiring a donor organ has nothing to do with the availability of donor organs. The right to life of a patient requiring an organ protects them from being killed deliberately, not accidentally.

So you cannot commit murder through inaction? I think you will find the law will disagree with you on that one.

The Corinthian · 02-05-2010 09:58AM

GarlicBread wrote: »

Its not for you or me to decide wheather its human or not, its up to the pregnant woman. If theres any pain or mourning involved its hers and hers alone and is nothing to do with anyone else, except maybe if theres a partner involved.

Seriously, that is some seriously gynocentric misandry there...

First of all you are suggesting that an individual decides if something/one is a human being or not, outside of law or morality. By that logic one woman may decide that a zygote is human and another choose to snap the child's neck as it is coming out at nine months - which is an untenable position; individuals do not have the right to subjectively decide who is human or not.

Secondly, you practically ignore even the possibility that there is any pain or mourning involved from anyone other than the woman - it's tagged on as an "except maybe" afterthought. It's frankly offensive.

GarlicBread wrote: »

Catholic Italy has had legal abortion on demand since 1978 and we are still here in 2010 exporting our abortions to every country around us.

Catholic Italy is not all that Catholic; the relationship between Church and State or people is historically a complex one, full of contradictions and hypocrisies - "vizi privati, pubbliche virtù" - so the comparison is poor.

Do you think its ok to pretend that we are so morally better than everyone else and then send our abortions abroad because we are to ignorant to do it for ourselves?

Well this is not so much something to do with whether abortion is right or wrong, but with a classic Irish solution to an Irish problem. Regardless of whether one is is pro-Life or Choice, we are in a bizarre legal situation whereby we consider something a crime, yet allow it's facilitation (protecting travel and information) abroad. It's like having a law against child sex abuse, but openly allow tour operators to advertise and organize holidays to Indochina for this purpose.

Ireland is full of such 'solutions' - the oldest of which is our 'neutrality', which is not really all that neutral.

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 11:34AM

GarlicBread wrote: »

Heres a quote from the linked story -

"Since 1978, abortion has been available on demand in Italy in the first three months of pregnancy but is restricted to specific circumstances - such as disability"

Catholic Italy has had legal abortion on demand since 1978 and we are still here in 2010 exporting our abortions to every country around us. Regardless of your views on the right to life, its a disgraceful situation we have festering here in this country.

Do you think its ok to pretend that we are so morally better than everyone else and then send our abortions abroad because we are to ignorant to do it for ourselves?

It was a lack of ignorance that saw us bring in our Constitutional protection for all life. It was ignorance that saw that law watered down when hard cases were presented.

In my opinion it would be better if the other countries saw fit to make abortion illegal in their jurisdictions and educate their people in to the realities of human reproduction and how to lead responsible sex lives.

The reality is that abortion, where it is legal, is legal for reasons of eugenics and to deal with contraceptive failure or failure to use contraceptives.

If women don't want to get pregnant they should not expose themselves to that risk. If they do wish to take that risk they should be prepared to deal with the consequences without resorting to murder.

drkpower · 02-05-2010 11:57AM

StealthRolex wrote: »

It was a lack of ignorance that saw us bring in our Constitutional protection for all life. It was ignorance that saw that law watered down when hard cases were presented.

Ignorance or not, it was bad judgment that saw us bring in Article 40.3.3. Seeking to regulate such a complex area by way of a one-liner in the Constitution was always dooomed to failure.

Of course there were (genuine) concerns at the time that a general right to privacy would allow a court to bring in abortion 'by the back door' (as happened in the US/other jurisdictions). But the appropriate way to deal with that would have been to await such a development and react appropriately if it happened. Given that medical professions were then (and still are) essentially prevented from actuallly performing abortion ('on demand'), there was no real risk that abortion would have been introduced here so rapidly that the Government and the people had a chance to respond appropriately.

But the 'pro-life' movement chose to invent, or at least grossly exaggerate, this fear, to flex its muscles and to pressure a Government to act to insert a piece of constitutional language which has led to a pretty unsatisfactory stae of affairs. Until the medical profession changes its ethical rules, its all a little academic anyway.

StealthRolex · 02-05-2010 12:15PM

drkpower wrote: »

Ignorance or not, it was bad judgment that saw us bring in Article 40.3.3. Seeking to regulate such a complex area by way of a one-liner in the Constitution was always dooomed to failure.

Of course there were (genuine) concerns at the time that a general right to privacy would allow a court to bring in abortion 'by the back door' (as happened in the US/other jurisdictions). But the appropriate way to deal with that would have been to await such a development and react appropriately if it happened. Given that medical professions were then (and still are) essentially prevented from actuallly performing abortion ('on demand'), there was no real risk that abortion would have been introduced here so rapidly that the Government and the people had a chance to respond appropriately.

But the 'pro-life' movement chose to invent, or at least grossly exaggerate, this fear, to flex its muscles and to pressure a Government to act to insert a piece of constitutional language which has led to a pretty unsatisfactory stae of affairs. Until the medical profession changes its ethical rules, its all a little academic anyway.

I do wish you would get your facts right. It was not medicial ethics that prevented abortion but a 19th century law that had already been overturned in the UK.It was a legislative decision that the people had no say in. At least in Ireland the people were given a democratic choice. The sad fact is our elected representatives failed to back it up with any appropriate laws and that is what has led to the current state which is unsatisfactory for both sides of the debate.

Zulu · 02-05-2010 12:17PM

GarlicBread wrote: »

Its not for you or me to decide wheather its human or not, its up to the pregnant woman.

What makes her an authority on the matter?

If theres any pain or mourning involved its hers and hers alone and is nothing to do with anyone else, except maybe if theres a partner involved.

A society has an obligation to it's citizens.

If some stranger approached me with an opinion about how my genitals may or may not function, id beat him to death then and there for being a freak.

...and you'd be rightly found guilty of murder and locked away for a long time.

The whole "big (wo)man" approach doesn't really get you too far in the real world, that said it does look cool on the internet.

The Corinthian · 02-05-2010 12:45PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

In my opinion it would be better if the other countries saw fit to make abortion illegal in their jurisdictions and educate their people in to the realities of human reproduction and how to lead responsible sex lives.

We should educate people so as to eliminate crime and poverty while we're at it. And teach cats and dogs to live in perfect harmony.

If women don't want to get pregnant they should not expose themselves to that risk. If they do wish to take that risk they should be prepared to deal with the consequences without resorting to murder.

I find this line of argument quite amusing as it is used on both sides of the discussion:

sparkling sea wrote: »

Its fairly simple for a man not to be burdened with a child and for a woman not to have control over whether or not she has the final say over the birth of a child. Don't have sex - its that simple.

It is amazing how an unrealistic, dogmatic and pretty offensive demand that (selected) people should refrain from sex is pulled out of the hat by all sides as suits them.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I do wish you would get your facts right. It was not medicial ethics that prevented abortion but a 19th century law that had already been overturned in the UK.It was a legislative decision that the people had no say in. At least in Ireland the people were given a democratic choice. The sad fact is our elected representatives failed to back it up with any appropriate laws and that is what has led to the current state which is unsatisfactory for both sides of the debate.

It's a bit more complex than that. As was earlier pointed out (ironically against a pro-Life example), emotive cases make for bad laws and the X Case is an excellent example of this.

Prior to the X Case Ireland was very decidedly pro-Life. The X Case threw this all up into the air as the media whipped up sentiment and people round the country were heard muttering "I'm against abortion, but if it was my daughter" into their pints.

The government probably saw that this kind of swing was a democratic disaster - that in the short term people would turn pro-choice, until they calmed down or got distracted by something else. As a result, I think they chose to limit how far things would swing in favour of abortion, so that once people calmed down we would not be faced with demands of a second referendum, but as a result ended up with the pig's ear of legislation we have today.

All just IMHO.

drkpower · 02-05-2010 01:01PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

I do wish you would get your facts right. It was not medicial ethics that prevented abortion but a 19th century law that had already been overturned in the UK.It was a legislative decision that the people had no say in. At least in Ireland the people were given a democratic choice. The sad fact is our elected representatives failed to back it up with any appropriate laws and that is what has led to the current state which is unsatisfactory for both sides of the debate.

Prior to 1983, section 58/59 of the Offences against the State Act prohibited abortion (that law is still law in Ireland). In a practical sense, in 1983 (and now), the Medical Council ethical guidelines prohibited abortion (in that any doctor who performed (an 'on demand') abortion would be almost certain to be struck off). Even if the SC had 'struck down' the 1861 Act, abortion could not have become a practical reality unless the Medical Council guidelines changed. So, prior to the 1983 amendment, abortion was prohibited legally and practically, both by law and by medical council ethical guidelines. My facts on this are precisly correct.

As for it being a legislative provision that the people had no say in, you might clarify what you mean. I assume you are aware that the people do not have a direct say in any legislation; the elected Goverment act on behalf of the people. And I assume you aware that the elected Goverment specifically 'assented' or co-opted the 1861 Act into the body of our own law. So the 1861 Act is as 'valid' as any other piece of legislation. If you mean that the people never had a chance to vote on this issue specifically, well, the people did vote for our original constitution, which had no specific prohibition on abortion. And, by 1983, as abortion was explicitly outlawed by legislation, there was absolutely no reason for the people to vote on this issue; we are not Switzerland, the people arent asked their views on things every couple of weeks. You may like a democracy where the people are asked to give their views on issues where the law is clear; that is not the democracy we have.

The 1983 amendment was unnecessary at the time. It simply brought confusion to an area of law which was clear at the time. The fear of the 'pro-life' movement that the 1861 Act would be declared unconstitutional here were not unfounded, but acting in haste was the inappropriate manner of dealing with that; as I said, even if the SC had found the 1861 Act unconstitutional, in practice abortion could not have been a pratcical reality because of the Medical Council's ethical guidelines. If the SC had made such a finding there would have been ample time and opportunity for a rational and sober process that would have led to a properly thought out 'solution'. The unsatisfactory nature of abortion law now is wholly down to A. 40.3.3 - with a large dose of Governmental cowardice thrown in too.

drkpower · 02-05-2010 03:09PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.The only time it could be argued that a right to life is being impinged is when the double-effect is invoked. That has already been disparaged here by at least one poster and misrepresented by another.

Double effect is not a valid justification for the pro-life position (or at least the position of most pro-lifers). Nor is it a justification for current Irish law, where a substantial risk to the life of the mother is sufficient to warrant death of the foetus. This is why. Double effect relies on three criteria:

1. the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
2. the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
3. the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

Consider the case of a woman with cervical cancer, an example where most pro-lifers would say termination is permissable (and Irish law certainly says it is). In order to improve her chances of survival, an immediate hysterectomy would be medically appropriate treatment. Clealry that will involve a termination of pregnancy/death of the foetus. Criteria 1 & 2 are clearly satisfied. But 3 is not.

The good effect is not prevention of death; it is decreasing the possibility of death. The bad effect is death of the foetus. If decreasing the possibility of death of the mother outweighs the death of the foetus, then clearly the mother and foetus are not equal. So the idea of double effect and equality of mother and foetus cannot co-exist in this situation; one has to give. Nor is it possible to say that there is no alternative, as treatment could be delayed in order to allow the foetus to live, while still giving the mother a chance to live (albeit a reduced chance). 'Exercising due diligence to minimize the harm', if the theory of double effect were to be followed properly, would naturally favour an outcome consisting of delaying treatment to both save the life of the foetus and to preserve a reasonable chance that the mother would also survive.

The only way in which double effect works is if the mother will (or almost certainly will) die without treatment. Then the good effect genuinely outweighs the bad effect and it can honesty be said that exercising due diligence to minimize the harm was not possible.

Rationalsing double effect as a justification for hysterectomy/termination in this case is only possible if you consider foetal life to be subservient, not to maternal life, but to a maternal 'better chance'. If that is the pro-life position (or your position, Stealth), I would like to hear the basis for that view and the explanation for how that accords with equality of foetus and mother, the supposed bedrock of the pro-life position.

drkpower · 02-05-2010 04:04PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

Actually it is very black and white.The UN as well as our Constitution says so (error - see 2)
Article 3. (UNDHR)
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. (UN)
It appears to be a black and white statement.
Legal or not - and as I understand it, it is legal in this country since 2003 (error - see 1), it does support my position that the right to life is a black and white issue (error - see 3).

1. The UNDHR has no legal effect in Ireland.

http://rightsmonitor.org/international-human-rights-law
In 1948 and in the aftermath of World War Two, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). This was the first international document to consolidate the basic civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that should be enjoyed by everyone. Based on the principles of the declaration, a range of subsequent international human rights treaties have been adopted. These differ from the UDHR in that the Declaration has no legal effect.

2. The right to life in our constitution is not absolute. That has been stated and restated repeatedly by the SC. In fact, the provision which provides the right to life clearly envisages that it is not absolute. But regardless of the text, the text of the Constitution must be read with the SC judgments, and they make it clear that the right to life, like any other right, is not absolute.
A. 40.3.2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen

3. While it is irrelevent anyway (given its lack of legal effect), even the UNDHR itself declares that the rights therein are not absolute. It is amusing that you managed to find the UNDHR but failed to scroll down to Article 29 where you would have found this:
A. 29(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

The right to life is not absolute; it is not black & white; and it is tiring having to correct your repeated ignorance and errors of law and fact. If you have only a passing knowledge of the law, you should refrain from making positive statements about it - it only serves to embarrass you.

Wibbs · 02-05-2010 05:07PM

GarlicBread wrote: »

Its not for you or me to decide wheather its human or not, its up to the pregnant woman. If theres any pain or mourning involved its hers and hers alone and is nothing to do with anyone else, except maybe if theres a partner involved.

Except maybe eh? Ok....
What if I took the position as a man, that pregnancy is entirely the woman's responsibility. That Ive got nada to do with it or her choices and any baby resulting from that choice is also entirely her responsibility? Funny it doesnt seem to work like that. Like TC said earlier, cake and eat it thinking.

If you want all that responsibility then dont look for any from me down the line when it suits.

The Corinthian · 02-05-2010 05:28PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Except maybe eh? Ok....
What if I took the position as a man, that pregnancy is entirely the woman's responsibility. That Ive got nada to do with it or her choices and any baby resulting from that choice is also entirely her responsibility? Funny it doesnt seem to work like that. Like TC said earlier, cake and eat it thinking.

But that's different... the logic is that once the fetus reaches a certain level of maturity (the mother has decided not to terminate it) it suddenly not only becomes a person, but a person who's rights (other than being automatically interpreted by the mother) magically supersede the rights of the father. No idea why this jump in logic occurs, but it's a terribly convenient one for women.

The reason I introduced the male abortion topic was to demonstrate that the often mooted "woman's right to choose" is typically based on gynocentric position rather than any moral framework - it is not created to serve humanity, only women - and thus can be rejected upon this basis (unless you believe that we should live in a gynocentric society).

So while it is an interesting topic in itself, I only introduced it to debunk one of the arguments presented, and I think it is OT in itself.

Riddickcule · 03-05-2010 02:24AM

This day in age it is absolutly ridiculous we have not legalized abortion. Didn't the EU come in a while back and say we have no choice but to change that because it breachs international law?

I swear this country needs a good kick up the arse.

The Corinthian · 03-05-2010 07:04AM

Riddickcule wrote: »

This day in age it is absolutly ridiculous we have not legalized abortion. Didn't the EU come in a while back and say we have no choice but to change that because it breachs international law?

No, Ireland specifically is exempt from legal EU interference on the subject of abortion.

Secondly, what international law does Ireland's ban on abortion breach? I was not aware that abortion had been not only legalized but made mandatory internationally?

Legalise abortion

Comments