Does anyone feel insulted by the abortion proposals?

Morag · 08-05-2013 01:54PM

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/td-calls-for-referendum-on-abortion-1.1385405

TD calls for referendum on abortion
‘We cannot continue to brush these cases under the carpet and pretend they are not happening’ Independent Waterford TD John Halligan said he defied any member of the Dáil to look in the eye of a pregnant rape victim, or a woman carrying a baby certain to die, and say the Oireachtas had a greater entitlement to control her body.

Morag · 08-05-2013 02:23PM

Look like the proposed legislation may not be good enough by the stadards of the EU Court of Human Rights.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/draft-abortion-bill-fails-to-clarify-risk-to-woman-s-life-1.1385169

ECHR scrutiny
The ECHR will not only be examining the proposed legislation in terms of provisions that might impose excessive delay, but also the procedures regarding risk to life which arises because of threat of suicide. The decision-making procedure regarding “risk of loss of life through self-destruction” are exceptionally onerous, requiring two psychiatrists and an obstetrician.

The Government’s Expert Group on Abortion’s report viewed the diagnosis of suicide intent as a routine process for psychiatrists. There is no justification for requiring a second psychiatrist when this does not occur when a pregnancy is not involved. Or for involving an obstetrician in making a decision about mental health.

The ECHR requires a framework to resolve differences of opinion between doctors or between a woman and her doctors. The heads of Bill, therefore, include an appeal procedure. However, the appeal procedure of up to 14 days involves unwarranted delay and could prevent women’s access to the most appropriate and timely treatment.

The ECHR considered that the existence of criminal penalties for having or assisting in an unlawful abortion constitutes a significant “chilling factor” for both women and their doctors. As it moves to examine the draft proposals on abortion, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children must question whether the retention of severe criminal penalties is consistent with the State’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, and international human rights law generally.

The inclusion of the very heavy maximum penalty of 14 years in prison will not only maintain, but substantially reinforce, the chilling effect.

nowanathiest · 08-05-2013 02:27PM

sorry, I forgot to say that my link is relevant to the current thread because it highlights what our mothers and grandmothers received at the end of their days, in return for their fertility incontinentence.......a big fat financial nada.

We have debated many facets of unwanted pregnancies - the emotional anguish, medical issues etc, but financial distress seems to get airily dismissed. Women are disproportionately disadvantaged by motherhood..........loss of wages and company pension contributions, company benefits if they leave employment to go childcare. Loss of annual pay increases with the accompanying benefits that go along with them, and then finally to cap it all - lower state and company pensions for the aforementioned reasons.

You can't expect your children to look after you in your old age - you then become a burden on them when they are trying to raise their own families. This expectation does still occur in very poor countries. I've lived in a few countries by now and noticed that those who have a distinct middle class - UK and Holland for example, are similar in their family financial planning habits. They limit their children to 2 or 3 max, save astidiously from birth to give the kids a deposit for property, save into pension funds to have a decent retirement, and have a funeral fund. That way the assets grow from generation to generation. They are not ending up penniless in their old age or a burden on anyone.

sunshine and showers · 08-05-2013 02:30PM

Morag wrote: »

Look like the proposed legislation may not be good enough by the stadards of the EU Court of Human Rights.

Sadly they have no jurisdiction over us to make us comply with any ruling they give. It's at times like these that I wish they did.

Morag · 08-05-2013 02:35PM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Sadly they have no jurisdiction over us to make us comply with any ruling they give. It's at times like these that I wish they did.

They do, other wise homosexuality would not have been decriminalized or the equal pay act enacted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norris_v._Ireland

Ash.J.Williams · 08-05-2013 02:43PM

nowanathiest wrote: »

sorry, I forgot to say that my link is relevant to the current thread because it highlights what our mothers and grandmothers received at the end of their days, in return for their fertility incontinentence.......a big fat financial nada.

We have debated many facets of unwanted pregnancies - the emotional anguish, medical issues etc, but financial distress seems to get airily dismissed. Women are disproportionately disadvantaged by motherhood..........loss of wages and company pension contributions, company benefits if they leave employment to go childcare. Loss of annual pay increases with the accompanying benefits that go along with them, and then finally to cap it all - lower state and company pensions for the aforementioned reasons.

You can't expect your children to look after you in your old age - you then become a burden on them when they are trying to raise their own families. This expectation does still occur in very poor countries. I've lived in a few countries by now and noticed that those who have a distinct middle class - UK and Holland for example, are similar in their family financial planning habits. They limit their children to 2 or 3 max, save astidiously from birth to give the kids a deposit for property, save into pension funds to have a decent retirement, and have a funeral fund. That way the assets grow from generation to generation. They are not ending up penniless in their old age or a burden on anyone.

our company have stopped paying maternity leave and i haven't seen a new female employee in a very long time..the last batch of newbies were 6 blokes.

GalwayGuy2 · 08-05-2013 02:44PM

Found some relevant Irish data

http://www.cardi.ie/userfiles/Older%...20(Web)(3).pdf

Hmm, did woman, of an age eligible for the pension, work, for want of a better term, as many hours as men? I think pension is on how much you put back in, so to speak? I may be wrong though:o

meeeeh · 08-05-2013 02:59PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmm, did woman, of an age eligible for the pension, work, for want of a better term, as many hours as men? I think pension is on how much you put back in, so to speak? I may be wrong though:o

Change maternity leave to paternal leave so it doesn't matter which of the parents stays at home and at the same time subsidize the childcare with taxing everybody not just parents. If after all this women still want to be stay at home mothers then it's their problem.

nowanathiest · 08-05-2013 03:01PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmm, did woman, of an age eligible for the pension, work, for want of a better term, as many hours as men? I think pension is on how much you put back in, so to speak? I may be wrong though:o

You are entirely right.........and that is my point. Women who have children lose the opportunity to contribute both the hours at work and the Social Welfare credits. They further lose the compounding annual wage increases and pension contributions, which depending on salary can add up to quite a loss of current and future income.

nowanathiest · 08-05-2013 03:04PM

and of course lose promotional opportunities.........

sunshine and showers · 08-05-2013 03:09PM

Morag wrote: »

They do, other wise homosexuality would not have been decriminalized or the equal pay act enacted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norris_v._Ireland

No, they don't. Decisions of the ECHR are not binding on Ireland's domestic laws. Judgments of the ECHR are binding as a matter of international law. The ECHR cannot and has never been able to change our constitution or make us change our constitution. They can make our judges take ECHR cases into account in future cases, but they can't make them apply them.

Under s. 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 Irish courts are required to take account of ECtHR judgments in their decisions (they are not bound by them and the Constitution maintains its superiority). And under s. 3 of the ECHR Act 2003 organs of the state (such as the HSE) are obliged to carry out their functions in a manner compatible with the Convention.

But really, all it is is an international compulsion to change and beyond that, politic decides what happens.

username123 · 08-05-2013 03:24PM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

No, they don't. Decisions of the ECHR are not binding on Ireland's domestic laws. Judgments of the ECHR are binding as a matter of international law. The ECHR cannot and has never been able to change our constitution or make us change our constitution. They can make our judges take ECHR cases into account in future cases, but they can't make them apply them.

source

The European Court of Human Rights was established in 1959. It accepts applications (complaints) from both individuals and Member States concerning breaches of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. The decisions of the Court are binding on the infringing Member State, but also indirectly influence the extent of the human rights protection in all the other European states.

sunshine and showers · 08-05-2013 03:37PM

username123 wrote: »

source

ECHR decisions are not binding on Ireland.The ECHR cannot make Ireland legislate on the X Case/abortion rights.

FAQ on A, B & C V Ireland from Professor of Law Dr Fiona de Londras

Are judgments of the Court binding on Ireland?

The Convention provides that judgments of the Court are binding as a matter of international law on the states who are parties to those judgments. In other words, Ireland will be bound internationally by the judgment tomorrow.

Can the Court change the Constitution?

Absolutely not. The Constitution is Irish supreme law (let’s leave aside for the purposes of this the status of EU treaties) and the Convention does not impact on it, nor do the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. They might point out ways in which constitutional provisions place Ireland in violation of the Convention, but they cannot change the Constitution. The Irish Constitution can be amended only by a referendum of the people.

Will the judgment mean anything in real terms?

Yes; the fact that the judgment is international law doesn’t mean it has no meaning. First of all if Ireland is found to be in breach of the Convention that means that it is in breach of a fundamental international obligation, so there is an international compulsion to change. Also the execution (or compliance with) the judgment will be supervised (i.e. checked) by the political branches of the COE. Secondly, under s. 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 Irish courts are required to take account of ECtHR judgments in their decisions (they are not bound by them and of the course the Constitution maintains its superiority). Furthermore, s. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 provides that organs of the state (such as the HSE) are obliged to carry out their functions in a manner compatible with the Convention. Perhaps most importantly, the judgment (whichever way it goes) will create political pressure for action to—at the least—clarify the law in Ireland relating to abortion following the decision of X v Attorney General.

What will the government have to do if the applicants win?

This will depend on a few things, especially what we mean by ‘winning’. What the Government will need to do to bring Irish law into compliance with the Convention if they are found to be in breach tomorrow will depend very much on the judgment itself. In other words, on how the European Court of Human Rights says the Irish law is incompatible with the Convention. Whether the Government does or does not actually do anything in response to the judgment will ultimately be a matter of political choice.

kylith · 08-05-2013 03:59PM

IIRC they are binding, but also completely unenforceable. They can tell Ireland to do X, Y, or Z, till they're blue in the face but they have no way of compelling the government to comply.

sunshine and showers · 08-05-2013 04:13PM

kylith wrote: »

IIRC they are binding, but also completely unenforceable. They can tell Ireland to do X, Y, or Z, till they're blue in the face but they have no way of compelling the government to comply.

Yes. This. Binding in an international law setting, but not in domestic law or really at all in actuality. They can't make us do anything.

Morag · 08-05-2013 04:16PM

kylith wrote: »

IIRC they are binding, but also completely unenforceable. They can tell Ireland to do X, Y, or Z, till they're blue in the face but they have no way of compelling the government to comply.

They pretty much shame the governments into making changes by embarrassing them on an international scale.

sunshine and showers · 08-05-2013 04:18PM

Morag wrote: »

They pretty much shame the governments into making changes by embarrassing them on an international scale.

That is not the same as having binding legal jurisdiction to compel Ireland to act. And I really don't think embarrassment will work with the issue of abortion. Not in Ireland, anyway.

username123 · 08-05-2013 04:20PM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Yes. This. Binding in an international law setting, but not in domestic law or really at all in actuality. They can't make us do anything.

Very interested. I am educated.

Although in this particular case, the legislation has not been approved yet? So they could make a binding decision - as in, it wouldnt be changing our constitution? Or is that wrong?

sunshine and showers · 08-05-2013 04:37PM

username123 wrote: »

Very interested. I am educated.

Although in this particular case, the legislation has not been approved yet? So they could make a binding decision - as in, it wouldnt be changing our constitution? Or is that wrong?

I meant that the ECHR's decisions don't have to have any effect on our domestic legislation. The ECHR can make any ruling they like about Ireland's laws, but at the end of the day there is nothing they can do to force us to change them.

This abortion legislation is partly in response to the A, B, C v Ireland case that was heard by the ECHR in 2010. If this new law still doesn't satisfy the ECHR that Ireland is abiding by the European Convention on Human Rights on this matter, they will say so. But that's really all they can do. They can tell us we're breaching the Convention and say that we should alter our laws accordingly, but it's down to the government of the day to decide whether they will actually listen and do something.

Pretzill · 08-05-2013 04:53PM

I haven't read the entire thread but I'd just like to add my frustration about this too. I'm also turning off the tv when I hear the red herring arguments - women have rights in this country the right to choose a safe method of termination if needed here without having to outsource to another country is needed - a termination in the case where mother is at risk is crucial - being suicidal because of an unexpected pregnancy is not unheard of - having to go infront of a board of 6 is ludicrous -

I think women will have to take to the streets again and protest just like the contraception row. The ironically named prolifers are in the minority but seem to shout louder. Yes it insults my intelligence and it makes me very angry!

Kooli · 09-05-2013 01:47PM

Pretzill wrote: »

The ironically named prolifers are in the minority but seem to shout louder.

This is what is really getting to me lately. The access the Iona Institute have to TV, radio and print newspapers is completely disproportionate to their size and membership and the number of Irish people they represent with their bonkers views. How do they have so much power? I just don't understand it!!

kylith · 09-05-2013 02:05PM

Kooli wrote: »

This is what is really getting to me lately. The access the Iona Institute have to TV, radio and print newspapers is completely disproportionate to their size and membership and the number of Irish people they represent with their bonkers views. How do they have so much power? I just don't understand it!!

They receive an awful lot of funding from anti-choice groups in the USA.

loveisdivine · 09-05-2013 02:05PM

Kooli wrote: »

This is what is really getting to me lately. The access the Iona Institute have to TV, radio and print newspapers is completely disproportionate to their size and membership and the number of Irish people they represent with their bonkers views. How do they have so much power? I just don't understand it!!

$$$!!

Kooli · 09-05-2013 02:32PM

I know they have BIG bucks behind them, but how does that funding actually affect the editorial decisions of the Irish Times, RTE (TV and radio), TV3 etc?
I doubt they are actually paying to appear, so I still don't get how it works.

It's like they've fooled everyone with talk of 'balance' and their constant accusations that the media is 'biased', so they demand 50% of the airtime on any of these issues even though 85% of the country disagree with them.

I feel like it's akin to having a panel discussion on racism or civil rights, and the KKK insisting that they get 50% representation because otherwise it's 'biased'.

username123 · 09-05-2013 02:49PM

Kooli wrote: »

It's like they've fooled everyone with talk of 'balance' and their constant accusations that the media is 'biased', so they demand 50% of the airtime on any of these issues even though 85% of the country disagree with them.

Where are you getting the 85% from? I mentioned earlier in this thread that it was due to the presence of these people that I truly wondered what the population actually thinks. We dont know, in the absence of a proper full referendum.

inocybe · 09-05-2013 04:24PM

Kooli wrote: »

This is what is really getting to me lately. The access the Iona Institute have to TV, radio and print newspapers is completely disproportionate to their size and membership and the number of Irish people they represent with their bonkers views. How do they have so much power? I just don't understand it!!

this annoys me too. And then they demoralise single parents by constantly bringing forward 'evidence' that children are so much worse off in this kind of family, and that only 2 parents can raise a happy child. So if you're alone you're damned either way.

GalwayGuy2 · 09-05-2013 05:34PM

I know they have BIG bucks behind them, but how does that funding actually affect the editorial decisions of the Irish Times, RTE (TV and radio), TV3 etc?
I doubt they are actually paying to appear, so I still don't get how it works.

It's like they've fooled everyone with talk of 'balance' and their constant accusations that the media is 'biased', so they demand 50% of the airtime on any of these issues even though 85% of the country disagree with them.

I wouldn't be so sure about the above boded. To go on a bit of a tangent, and I apologize in advance if it is incoherent.

But the abortion is such a heavily emotive issue that very few will be entirely honest, even, arguably, to themselves. So, it is very, very difficult to tell what people actually think when you are called a monster by many no matter what side of the fence you are on. And, I don't believe opinion polls are entirely reliable in an issue like this. For all the obvious reasons of statistics and the doubts that will begin just when you are abotu to make a vote.

Also, Ireland's mentality is still Catholic, even if the majority (which they aren't) are Aithiest. The above is my opinion.

And Catholicism does seem to place the soul, and this has slipped in to Ireland's cultural value, of a potential child as paramount.

And, if you are under the Patriarchal persuasion, then both men and women could, for various reasons, see abortion on demand as wrong. As Patriarchy is cultural that doesn't discriminate by sex. It could be anything from "a woman should be a mother" to "well, it's hardly the child's fault".

And on top of this hodge podge of opinion, is the debate about whether getting rid of a life when it has a chance of become a living being is in fact a wrong act. And the view that it is, is not, in my opinion, solely propagated by the church, or misogynists, or any other group, as it relies on the individuals own conclusions about this important philosophical question.

Obliq · 09-05-2013 05:39PM

So answer the philosophical question in relation to "ah sure it's not the child's fault" and weigh it up against the contexts involved, such as "It's a non-sentient fetus" and "you wouldn't keep a dog like that" and what do you get? Women having abortions FOR THE SAKE OF not bringing a baby into a world that they can't manage.....

Fine. Irish culture, blah de blah. Now...Irish culture can get down off their feckin underfed high horse and get real. :mad:

GalwayGuy2 · 09-05-2013 05:47PM

So answer the philosophical question in relation to "ah sure it's not the child's fault" and weigh it up against the contexts involved, such as "It's a non-sentient fetus" and "you wouldn't keep a dog like that" and what do you get? Women having abortions FOR THE SAKE OF not bringing a baby into a world that they can't manage.....

Fine. Irish culture, blah de blah. Now...Irish culture can get down off their feckin underfed high horse and get real.

I wasn't defending those viewpoints, I was musing aloud why people may vote no to abortion on demand.

Obliq · 09-05-2013 05:50PM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I wasn't defending those viewpoints, I was musing aloud why people may vote no to abortion on demand.

Yeah, I know :P I've seen your posts before, it's cool. But frankly, people who can't see beyond the notion of "the poooar childe, shur", is a lost cause in this cause. I live in rural Ireland surrounded by them (galway not too far away...), so yeah - your description hit a nerve :mad:

Does anyone feel insulted by the abortion proposals?

Comments