Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Abortion debate thread

1…1920222425…59

Comments

  • #632
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    You don't, if doing so puts my life in iminent danger ... but you do have a right to reasonable assistance from me to preserve your life, in a life or death situation, once my own life isn't iminently threatened in the process.
    JC, I'm not sure this is true, that someone has the "right to reasonable assistance". Sure, there may be social contracts and personal moral obligations, but as far as I know, no legally enshrined right (assuming the refusal to offer assistance isn't deemed malicious).


  • #633
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    doctoremma wrote: »
    JC, I'm not sure this is true, that someone has the "right to reasonable assistance". Sure, there may be social contracts and personal moral obligations, but as far as I know, no legally enshrined right (assuming the refusal to offer assistance isn't deemed malicious).
    There is no right to reasonable assistance. The only time where a person might find themselves in trouble, legally, for failing to act is where they owe a duty of care towards the person in danger or where they caused the hazard. This is, I believe, even where the refusal is "malicious"; the intent in refusing assistance is irrelevant for the purposes of law.

    I actually find Wicknight's example of the woman who allowed her child to drown. I had not heard that one. Parents are generally held to owe a duty of care to their (born) children, though in extreme circumstances (which this case appears to be) this can be avoided.

    MrP


  • #634
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I actually find Wicknight's example of the woman who allowed her child to drown. I had not heard that one. Parents are generally held to owe a duty of care to their (born) children, though in extreme circumstances (which this case appears to be) this can be avoided.

    The example is not meant to show that parents do not have a duty of care to children, but rather how far that duty of care extends. A mothers duty of care to her child does not extend to allowing the child to pull her hair out, even in such an extreme situation.

    Another example would be a doctor who has a duty of care to their patient. That duty of care though does not mean the doctor is required to give you a kidney if you require a kidney. The doctor is not required to take any invasive action upon his own body in order to help you.

    As I said to JC one must focus on the issue of bodily privacy/autonomy and the nature of the child being inside the parents body (and the nature of abortion being an action upon the parents body)


  • #635
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Zombrex wrote: »
    The example is not meant to show that parents do not have a duty of care to children, but rather how far that duty of care extends. A mothers duty of care to her child does not extend to allowing the child to pull her hair out, even in such an extreme situation.

    Another example would be a doctor who has a duty of care to their patient. That duty of care though does not mean the doctor is required to give you a kidney if you require a kidney. The doctor is not required to take any invasive action upon his own body in order to help you.

    As I said to JC one must focus on the issue of bodily privacy/autonomy and the nature of the child being inside the parents body (and the nature of abortion being an action upon the parents body)
    I am neither disagreeing with you, nor am I disbelieving you. I am genuinely interested in the case as I had not come across it.

    MrP


  • #636
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    JC, I'm not sure this is true, that someone has the "right to reasonable assistance". Sure, there may be social contracts and personal moral obligations, but as far as I know, no legally enshrined right (assuming the refusal to offer assistance isn't deemed malicious).
    You're correct to be unsure that someone has the "right to reasonable assistance" ... because in many countries they do.

    There is a moral obligation to render assistance (without undue risk to your own life) to somebody in all life or death situations ... and it is also enshrined in criminal and/or civil law in many countries ... and rightly so.
    ... and it doesn't need to be deemed malicious ... although such a refusal, at minimal cost to the bystander, could indeed be construed to be malicious, if a person died as a result.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

    The operation of these laws tend to protect the responder from civil liabilty for any damage they may do in rescuing the person in countries under the Common Law Code ... and in addition, the law tends to impose criminal liability for not performing the 'duty to rescue' in countries under the Napoleonic Code, like France and Germany ... but there are many exceptions (both ways) to these generalisations.
    ... so if anybody is thinking of ignoring somebody in a life or death situation, apart from the inhumanity of such a non-response ... they should also think about the fact that they could serve time 'behind bars' for their selfishness ... depending on the juristiction they find themselves in!!:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #637
    georgieporgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭georgieporgy


    A new story is beginning to make its way around the world. Once again the international community have reason to laugh at the stupid Irish.



    In a major change in the debate related to the death of a woman in Ireland that abortion activists are using to push legalizing abortion, a newspaper admits that the woman may not have sought an abortion before she died.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2012/12/03/ireland-activist-admits-savita-may-not-have-wanted-abortion/


  • #638
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Savita's husband said that a termination was requested. Nothing in that "article" suggests otherwise.


  • #639
    Siuin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,659 ✭✭✭Siuin


    And the source, lifenews.com says...
    LifeNews.com is an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community.
    Yep, so no agenda whatsoever there, eh?


  • #640
    Keylem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 532 ✭✭✭Keylem


    It seems that there were major discrepencies in Praveen Halappanavar's story. Interview with Irish Times journalist.


  • #641
    Onesimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Onesimus


    It will all be out in the HSE report soon enough. We will know then.


  • Advertisement
  • #642
    georgieporgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭georgieporgy


    Siuin wrote: »
    And the source, lifenews.com says...

    Yep, so no agenda whatsoever there, eh?
    The source is Coleman at Large Newstalk radio. Lifenews merely carried the story in its international news bulletin. Did you not listen to the radio interview and hear the original reporter try to cover her tracks?


  • #643
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    the woman may not have sought an abortion before she died.

    Lol, oh well that is ok then, problem solved :rolleyes:

    These types of things just show how desperate "Pro-Life" groups are to spin the whole situation and to deflect from the actual issue, and how utterly out of touch they actually are.

    It is irrelevant if she did or didn't ask for an abortion, the whole point of the case was that it highlighted she couldn't have one. She couldn't have one whether she requested it or not. She couldn't have one whether it would have made a difference or not.

    The indictment of the current Irish system is over the issue of whether she could have one, whether there is proper legal clarity about abortion and whether the current set up is what the Irish people actually want.

    This type of nonsense is just like Sean Galleger complaining about how the tweet on the debate wasn't really from SF, as if that clears up everything about him collecting money for FF, the thing that people were actually concerned about (ie misses the point entirely over why people were annoyed).

    But by all means Pro-lifers, keep shooting yourselves in the foot.


  • #644
    georgieporgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭georgieporgy


    its a 20 minute radio clip. listen to it before making a fool of yourself ;)


  • #645
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    I think it would be wiser for those on both sides of the debate to wait for all the facts to emerge.

    Of course that won't make any difference to those who insist that the facts are irrelevant.


  • #646
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    There is no right to reasonable assistance. The only time where a person might find themselves in trouble, legally, for failing to act is where they owe a duty of care towards the person in danger or where they caused the hazard. This is, I believe, even where the refusal is "malicious"; the intent in refusing assistance is irrelevant for the purposes of law.
    You'd better not try that excuse in France or Germany ... is all I'll say to that particular piece of self-serving selfishness!!!

    MrPudding wrote: »
    I actually find Wicknight's example of the woman who allowed her child to drown. I had not heard that one. Parents are generally held to owe a duty of care to their (born) children, though in extreme circumstances (which this case appears to be) this can be avoided.
    MrP
    Everybody owes a duty of care to everybody else ... and if somebody (whether born or unborn) dies or is injured as a direct or indirect result of your actions ... you can be held to be civilly and/or criminally liable, depending on the circumstances of the case.

    What's wrong with you guys? ... would your common Humanity not move you to rescue somebody in imminent danger of death or injury ... or is it actually true that Christians are the only ones that are motivated to do good to their fellow man without reward ... or the threat of legal sanction?


  • #647
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    The example is not meant to show that parents do not have a duty of care to children, but rather how far that duty of care extends. A mothers duty of care to her child does not extend to allowing the child to pull her hair out, even in such an extreme situation.
    The mother may save herself from drowning, just like anybody else, may act in self defense.
    ... but if there is no threat to her life from the hair-pulling ... and the child doing the hair pulling is doing so because they are in iminent danger of death, if they let go ... then criminal liability could result, if the person (who could be male or female and not a relative at all) is proven to have deliberately released the grip of the child on their hair - and sent them to their death, when viable alternatives for rescue existed ... and there was no immediate threat to their own life from the hair pulling.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Another example would be a doctor who has a duty of care to their patient. That duty of care though does not mean the doctor is required to give you a kidney if you require a kidney. The doctor is not required to take any invasive action upon his own body in order to help you.

    As I said to JC one must focus on the issue of bodily privacy/autonomy and the nature of the child being inside the parents body (and the nature of abortion being an action upon the parents body)
    Of course the doctor doesn't have to donate a kidney ... but neither does any pregnant woman donate any of her organs to her children during pregnancy either.
    Comparing pregnancy to organ donation is a complete 'red herring'.


  • #648
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PDN wrote: »
    I think it would be wiser for those on both sides of the debate to wait for all the facts to emerge.
    Your advice is wise and good ... but ...
    ... the mass media, with few exceptions ... haven't taken your advice, for the past three weeks.


  • #649
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    The mother may save herself from drowning, just like anybody else, may act in self defense.

    "Self defense" under who's judgement?
    J C wrote: »
    Of course the doctor doesn't have to donate a kidney ... but neither does any pregant woman donate any of her organs to her children during pregnancy either.
    Comparing pregnancy to organ donation is a complete 'red herring'.

    Do you understand what "pregnancy" is JC?


  • #650
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    "Self defense" under who's judgement?
    ... legally speaking the test is the judgement or perception of a 'reasonable person' ... and this test is applied to all cases where death results from 'self-defense'. For example, if a burglar is coming up your stairs and you have a gun and have warned him that you will fire if he continues to come up ... and he does ... and you kill him ... this would be accepted as 'self-defense' in the judgement and perception of a 'reasonable person'. However, if you take a shot at him as he escapes through your front gate ... this would not be accepted as 'self-defense' in the judgement and perception of a 'reasonable person'.
    In the case of two people drowning ... if the second person cannot swim and is pulling the first person under and threatening to drown them both ... the first person could be accepted as acting in 'self-defense' if they knocked out the second person in order to save themselves, even if this resulted in the second person drowning. However, a 'reasonable person' wouldn't accept that somebody who let somebody else drown, simply because they pulled their hair, was acting in 'self-defense'!!!

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Do you understand what "pregnancy" is JC?
    You're the one with the problem in understanding what 'pregnancy' is, if you are comparing it to 'organ donation'.

    Do you understand that there is a fundamental and substantive difference between 'pregnancy' and 'organ donation' ... and they are not ethically or logically comparable?


  • #651
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    You'd better not try that excuse in France or Germany ... is all I'll say to that particular piece of self-serving selfishness!!!
    But we aren't talking about France or Germany, are we? Of course I realise that, after it was pointed out to you that you were wrong, you changed your original post to add "in some countries" but, your dishonesty aside, it seems clear that we were talking about Ireland or the UK.

    J C wrote: »
    Everybody owes a duty of care to everybody else ... and if somebody (whether born or unborn) dies or is injured as a direct or indirect result of your actions ... you can be held to be civilly and/or criminally liable, depending on the circumstances of the case.
    This is simply not true. Everybody does not owe everybody else a duty of care. We are talking about legal term here, duty of care is a legal term. If I see a person drowning I can, quite legally, take a seat and crack out the popcorn and watch them drown, assuming that I did not somehow cause the person to be in the position they are in or owe them a duty of care for some reason.
    J C wrote: »
    What's wrong with you guys? ... would your common Humanity not move you to rescue somebody in imminent danger of death or injury ... or is it actually true that Christians are the only ones that are motivated to do good to their fellow man without reward ... or the threat of legal sanction?
    That isn't what we are talking about, and what I would do in actuality has little relevance to a conversation about what I am required to do legally.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #652
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    The mother may save herself from drowning, just like anybody else, may act in self defense.
    ... but if there is no threat to her life from the hair-pulling ... and the child doing the hair pulling is doing so because they are in iminent danger of death, if they let go ... then criminal liability could result, if the person (who could be male or female and not a relative at all) is proven to have deliberately released the grip of the child on their hair - and sent them to their death, when viable alternatives for rescue existed ... and there was no immediate threat to their own life from the hair pulling.
    I am pretty sure that even in this case a duty of care would need to exist. So, if you were on a bus which crashed into a river and a complete stranger was holding your hair then you would have no duty of care towards them. Speaking legally, and not morally or ethically, you would be unlikely to face any legal action.

    A poignant example of this can be seen in the herald of Free Enterprise tragedy. A number of people were using a ladder to escape form danger. A man on the ladder panicked and froze. People tried to convince him to move but he wouldn't. Eventually he was kicked off the ladder and fell to his death. There were no prosecutions as a result of this.

    J C wrote: »
    ... legally speaking the test is the judgement or perception of a 'reasonable person' ... and this test is applied to all cases where death results from 'self-defense'. For example, if a burglar is coming up your stairs and you have a gun and have warned him that you will fire if he continues to come up ... and he does ... and you kill him ... this would be accepted as 'self-defense' in the judgement and perception of a 'reasonable person'. However, if you take a shot at him as he escapes through your front gate ... this would not be accepted as 'self-defense' in the judgement and perception of a 'reasonable person'.
    You are missing an important step. Before the reasonable person test there is a subjective test. The court will first asses what the person believed was happening, the risk they believed they were in. Once that is established they will ask if a reasonable person would have acted the same way in the circumstances the person believed they were in. This is a very important distinction. Two people could have a very different opinion on how dangerous or life threatening a particular scenario was. All that is relevant is what the person who has defended themselves thinks.

    I would also doubt you example. Case law has shown that a home owner shooting a fleeing burglar will not necessarily lose the ability to claim self defence.

    MrP


  • #653
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,174 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    georgieporgy wrote: »
    The source is Coleman at Large Newstalk radio.
    I couldn't trust that man as far as I can throw him. He's nothing more than a Glenn Beck wannabe.


  • #654
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Lol, oh well that is ok then, problem solved :rolleyes:

    These types of things just show how desperate "Pro-Life" groups are to spin the whole situation and to deflect from the actual issue, and how utterly out of touch they actually are.

    It is irrelevant if she did or didn't ask for an abortion, the whole point of the case was that it highlighted she couldn't have one. She couldn't have one whether she requested it or not. She couldn't have one whether it would have made a difference or not.

    The indictment of the current Irish system is over the issue of whether she could have one, whether there is proper legal clarity about abortion and whether the current set up is what the Irish people actually want.

    This type of nonsense is just like Sean Galleger complaining about how the tweet on the debate wasn't really from SF, as if that clears up everything about him collecting money for FF, the thing that people were actually concerned about (ie misses the point entirely over why people were annoyed).

    But by all means Pro-lifers, keep shooting yourselves in the foot.

    I don't think I fully agree with this. Sure, there is a perpetual abortion issue in Ireland that exists regardless of what happened in this specific case. We simply export our abortion issue instead of tackling it, and that scandal was there long before Savita's death.

    But at the same time, if Savita's husband lied, the narrative of the case completely changes. It brings into question whether or not the abortion legislation really was the problem, as was implied by early reports. Maybe she really could have had a termination. It also means her husband is a particularly vile individual.

    Of course, it goes without saying that, since georgie's source is a pro-life group, it is almost certainly dishonest. I'm not having any confidence in the claim until the upcoming report comes out.


  • #655
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    I can't bring myself to listen to Marc Coleman.Judging by his antics on Twitter he strikes me as either dishonest or ignorant - on a wide range of issues.I'd certainly be wary before I accuse an accomplished journalist or a grieving husband of lying.

    Either way, it seems both sides have for the most part made up their minds what happened in Galway.We'll find out the truth of what happened in due course no doubt so why not withhold judgement?


  • #656
    georgieporgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭georgieporgy


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    I couldn't trust that man as far as I can throw him. He's nothing more than a Glenn Beck wannabe.
    Never mind Coleman or Glen Beck.

    What's important is that the Irish Times reporter says she doesn't know if her original Times article was factual. She doesn't know if Savita requested an abortion (or D&C) as there is no corroborating evidence she said. As there are inconsistencies between that article and one she wrote in another paper shortly afterwards , clearly she had doubts right from the beginning.


  • #657
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Morbert wrote: »
    Of course, it goes without saying that, since georgie's source is a pro-life group, it is almost certainly dishonest.

    Leaving the death of Savita to one side for the moment, could you elaborate what you mean by above? Are you commenting on the specific claims made in the article? For example, they are so outlandish that dishonesty seems the most likely. Or are you speaking in general terms about the honesty of pro-life groups?

    I certainly hope it's not the latter.


  • #658
    georgieporgy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,927 ✭✭✭georgieporgy


    Morbert wrote: »
    Of course, it goes without saying that, since georgie's source is a pro-life group, it is almost certainly dishonest. I'm not having any confidence in the claim until the upcoming report comes out.

    My source is the reporter herself who wrote the original article that gave rise to all the brouhaha. Her comments were made clearly on the radio.
    Now 2 days later this revelation of "muddled facts" (facts are so annoying) is receiving attention from mainlstream media. eg
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100192639/doubts-over-savitas-tragic-death-she-may-not-have-been-denied-an-abortion/


  • #659
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Leaving the death of Savita to one side for the moment, could you elaborate what you mean by above? Are you commenting on the specific claims made in the article? For example, they are so outlandish that dishonesty seems the most likely. Or are you speaking in general terms about the honesty of pro-life groups?

    I certainly hope it's not the latter.

    Here's what I specifically mean: In the past, when the facts have been presented by a pro-life agency, it has served me well to take those facts with a pinch of salt.

    [edit]-I found this article that goes through common examples of what I mean.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1204/1224327437622.html
    My source is the reporter herself who wrote the original article that gave rise to all the brouhaha. Her comments were made clearly on the radio.
    Now 2 days later this revelation of "muddled facts" (facts are so annoying) is receiving attention from mainlstream media. eg
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cr...d-an-abortion/

    No, your source was this article. The "muddled facts" statement, for example, did not pertain to the termination request, but rather the specifics of the medicine administered to Savita, which is perfectly understandable.

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/savita-story-possibly-muddled-reporter-3315595.html
    'Ms Holland was reported on RTE.ie yesterday saying she stood by her report, saying Praveen Halappanavar is "a credible witness".'


  • #660
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    I don't think I fully agree with this. Sure, there is a perpetual abortion issue in Ireland that exists regardless of what happened in this specific case. We simply export our abortion issue instead of tackling it, and that scandal was there long before Savita's death.

    But at the same time, if Savita's husband lied, the narrative of the case completely changes. It brings into question whether or not the abortion legislation really was the problem, as was implied by early reports. Maybe she really could have had a termination. It also means her husband is a particularly vile individual.

    Of course, it goes without saying that, since georgie's source is a pro-life group, it is almost certainly dishonest. I'm not having any confidence in the claim until the upcoming report comes out.

    It changes the narrative of Savita's case completely, obviously. But that wasn't my point. The case, just like the X-case, is merely highlighting to many the actual state of abortion law in Ireland and what the law means for people. This is the state of abortion law in Ireland, whether or not any of the Galway events happened as described or not.

    The details of what happened in Galway don't change the state of Irish law, any more than finding out that the girl in the X case wasn't raped and was actually 25 would have changed the fact that based on the law a raped teenager couldn't have an abortion and couldn't travel.

    If we find out tomorrow that Savita didn't actually exist, that would have no baring on the route problem of abortion law in this country.

    That was my point about Sean Galleger. He seems to think that highlighting that the tweet in the debate didn't actually come from SF as reported some how changes the important facts of the case, when in fact they don't, since what people care about is that he collected for FF, not who sent the text

    It is rather depressing that it seems common in this country that we need a personal story, a personal tragedy to actually get people thinking about something like this.


  • Advertisement
  • #661
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It changes the narrative of Savita's case completely, obviously. But that wasn't my point. The case, just like the X-case, is merely highlighting to many the actual state of abortion law in Ireland and what the law means for people. This is the state of abortion law in Ireland, whether or not any of the Galway events happened as described or not.

    The details of what happened in Galway don't change the state of Irish law, any more than finding out that the girl in the X case wasn't raped and was actually 25 would have changed the fact that based on the law a raped teenager couldn't have an abortion and couldn't travel.

    If we find out tomorrow that Savita didn't actually exist, that would have no baring on the route problem of abortion law in this country.

    That was my point about Sean Galleger. He seems to think that highlighting that the tweet in the debate didn't actually come from SF as reported some how changes the important facts of the case, when in fact they don't, since what people care about is that he collected for FF, not who sent the text

    It is rather depressing that it seems common in this country that we need a personal story, a personal tragedy to actually get people thinking about something like this.

    I understood your point perfectly, and I don't agree with your point. You specifically said "the whole point of the case was that it highlighted she couldn't have one". The narrative could changes in such a way that Ireland's problems with abortion would not be evidenced by the Savita case, as it would be no longer established that she couldn't have one.


Advertisement