8th Amendment

volchitsa · 04-06-2015 12:03PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's part of the Catholic Church double-speak on the subject, but not the law.

The intentional taking of unborn human life is A-OK before implantation, and after it where the equal right to life of the mother is at risk.

And the law, as you say, has no issue with intentionality - that is a strictly religious "justification" for abortion. In fact, in law, intention to harm someone is generally considered to be proven if a reasonable person could have predicted that harm would result. A doctor couldn't reasonably claim not to have expected harm to come to a fetus by performing a D and C or to an embryo during surgery for an ectopic pregnancy. So in law, whatever about theologically, it wouldn't be possible to claim non intentionality. And the law doesn't, whatever Black Menarche may claim.

Black Menorca · 04-06-2015 07:24PM

volchitsa wrote: »

AFAIAA the concept of intention is not part of our legislation on abortion. Do you have any reason it think it is?

Destruction of unborn human life

22. (1) It shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, or both.

Glad to clarify that for you.

volchitsa · 04-06-2015 10:41PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

Destruction of unborn human life

22. (1) It shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, or both.

Glad to clarify that for you.

I don't know why you imagine that being that dishonest helps your case. You missed out the multiple exceptions to that, ie the situations where it is lawful to intentionally kill "unborn human life". It's all in the very same act, unsurprisingly:

MEDICAL PROCEDURES LAWFUL UNDER ACT
CHAPTER 1
Risk of loss of life of pregnant woman
Risk of loss of life from physical illness
7. (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended where —
(a) subject to section 19, two medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, have jointly certified in good faith...

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2013/en.act.2013.0035.pdf
See? Lawful, and "as a result of which". Nothing about it having to be unintentional. That's because in law it wouldn't be feasible to make the claim that the death of the fetus was "unintentional". It was foreseeable by a reasonable person, therefore lack of intention can't be claimed.

Edit : and a little bit about intention in criminal law for you, since you do seem to be particularly slow of understanding : http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod3a/3_10_principles/10_principles_mens_intention.htm

Direct intention

If D points a gun and fires it is immaterial if poor shot or out of range. He has intention, he has:
Purpose
foresight of certainty

Therefore D has intention if he realised the result was certain to follow.

In which case the person is considered to be guilty. A doctor carrying out surgery for an ectopic pregnancy can't claim he didn't foresee that the embryo would die, since that was the point of the surgery!
Here is one judgment from that link as an example :

Hyam
intention = foreseen as highly probable (or merely probable)
Therefore wider than certainty.

Which means that he doesn't even have to be certain the embryo will die, only that it's highly probable that it will die.

So give over about intention, it's only good for Jesuits.

Black Menorca · 05-06-2015 12:03AM

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't know why you imagine that being that dishonest helps your case. You missed out the multiple exceptions to that, ie the situations where it is lawful to intentionally kill "unborn human life". It's all in the very same act, unsurprisingly:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2013/en.act.2013.0035.pdf
See? Lawful, and "as a result of which". Nothing about it having to be unintentional. That's because in law it wouldn't be feasible to make the claim that the death of the fetus was "unintentional". It was foreseeable by a reasonable person, therefore lack of intention can't be claimed.

Edit : and a little bit about intention in criminal law for you, since you do seem to be particularly slow of understanding : http://sixthformlaw.info/01_modules/mod3a/3_10_principles/10_principles_mens_intention.htm

In which case the person is considered to be guilty. A doctor carrying out surgery for an ectopic pregnancy can't claim he didn't foresee that the embryo would die, since that was the point of the surgery!
Here is one judgment from that link as an example :
Which means that he doesn't even have to be certain the embryo will die, only that it's highly probable that it will die.

So give over about intention, it's only good for Jesuits.

Intention is where its at.

Where the intention is to save the mother's life, the termination is lawful. I don't do dishonesty, despite your attempted slur.

volchitsa · 05-06-2015 12:12AM

Black Menorca wrote: »

Intention is where its at.

Where the intention is to save the mother's life, the termination is lawful. I don't do dishonesty, despite your attempted slur.

You've changed your mind again, that wasn't your original claim. It's still am abortion, causing the intentional death of the embryo or fetus, from a legal stance. Contrary to your earlier claim.

Glad you've accepted you were talking nonsense before.

Black Menorca · 05-06-2015 12:13AM

volchitsa wrote: »

You've changed your mind again, that wasn't your original claim. It's still am abortion, causing the intentional death of the embryo or fetus, from a legal stance. Contrary to your earlier claim.

Glad you've accepted you were talking nonsense before.

Sillyness like this doesn't warrent serious consideration.

volchitsa · 05-06-2015 12:20AM

Black Menorca wrote: »

The intentional taking of unborn life is a criminal offence in this country.

Black Menorca wrote: »

Intention is where its at.

Where the intention is to save the mother's life, the termination is lawful. I don't do dishonesty, despite your attempted slur.

You think those two posts say the same thing, do you?

Zubeneschamali · 05-06-2015 08:39AM

Black Menorca wrote: »

Where the intention is to save the mother's life, the termination is lawful.

When a woman's life is in danger, it is lawful to abort the fetus deliberately, intentionally and on purpose.

In particular, when the woman is at risk of suicide, it is legal to give her an abortion even though there is nothing physically wrong with her at all. I don't see how that can be said to be the unintentional side-effect of a necessary medical procedure (which is why the Pro-Life movement threw a wobbler and tried to get this removed from the Constitution by referendum).

You are mixing this up with the Roman Catholic double-speak on the issue, where in the case of ectopic pregnancy, it is necessary to remove a healthy chunk of the woman to distract God from the fact that you are really giving her an abortion. This "double effect" nonsense has no basis in law.

FreudianSlippers · 05-06-2015 08:47AM

volchitsa wrote: »

AFAIAA the concept of intention is not part of our legislation on abortion. Do you have any reason it think it is?

I can't believe I'm typing this, but in fairness to Black Menorca, intention (mens rea) is a part of almost all of our criminal law.

Zubeneschamali · 05-06-2015 09:41AM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I can't believe I'm typing this, but in fairness to Black Menorca, intention (mens rea) is a part of almost all of our criminal law.

Yes, but it doesn't mean what Blck Menorca thinks it means.

volchitsa · 05-06-2015 09:57AM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I can't believe I'm typing this, but in fairness to Black Menorca, intention (mens rea) is a part of almost all of our criminal law.

Maybe I expressed myself badly then, because that was exactly my point : mens rea says that intention may be considered to have been present if the consequences of the action were foreseeable by a reasonable person. Maybe I should have said that absence of intention was not part of that particular piece of legislation.

Removing a Fallopian tube with an embryo inside it will cause the death of the embryo, therefore lack of intention to kill the embryo isn't a defence in law.

Which is why the law allowing certain abortions doesn't say anything about these procedures being legal because there was no intention to destroy the embryo (BM's actual claim, which he then tried to wriggle out of) - only that they're legal when the intention is to save the woman's life.

No Voter And Proud · 05-06-2015 12:53PM

Is this still ongoing!

05-06-2015 01:20PM

Yes; unbelievably, it continued in your absence.

Unless you mean the 8th amendment (which is also still ongoing)

am946745 · 07-06-2015 10:14PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's part of the Catholic Church double-speak on the subject, but not the law.

The intentional taking of unborn human life is A-OK before implantation, and after it where the equal right to life of the mother is at risk.

A-OK for who?

Church Double speak you say. There are hundreds of abortions laws around the world. The the US each state has their own. Pro-choice can't even agree among themselves. Some arguing its ok to about up to birth if the mother does not want the child.

Atlantis50 · 07-06-2015 10:20PM

A referendum on repeal of the 8th will fail because the campaign will be about abortion on demand which polls show having not more than 40% support.

am946745 · 07-06-2015 10:23PM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

A referendum on repeal of the 8th will fail because the campaign will be about abortion on demand which polls show having not more than 40% support.

Yes its still about abortion on demand, They will still push it.

I agree it would not pass.

Black Menorca · 07-06-2015 10:24PM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

A referendum on repeal of the 8th will fail because the campaign will be about abortion on demand which polls show having not more than 40% support.

I also have confidence in the Irish People and feel any attempt to liberalise abortion will be defeated.

Atlantis50 · 07-06-2015 10:47PM

Whereas most pro-abolition campaigners will claim that they are interested in repealing the 8th to allow abortions in the cases of rape and foetal abnormality and that's what the referendum is about, their argument is easily undermined because if that were the case they would put those questions to the people and not a full frontal assault on the 8th amendment which is most certainly about introducing abortion on demand in Ireland.

For those who view a repeal of the 8th amedment as indicative of momentum for a "liberal agenda" in Ireland, defeat of the referendum to repeal the 8th will turn out to be the "liberal agenda's" Waterloo.

oscarBravo · 07-06-2015 11:40PM

"Liberal agenda", my hole.

Some of us recognise the fact that a woman who wants an abortion will procure one by whatever means necessary, and feel that that reality should be reflected in our laws instead of singing "kumbaya" as loudly as we can to drown out the shocking hypocrisy of exporting the problem and pretending that as a result it doesn't exist.

If seeing women as more than incubators is the "liberal agenda", sign me up.

volchitsa · 07-06-2015 11:44PM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

For those who view a repeal of the 8th amedment as indicative of momentum for a "liberal agenda" in Ireland, defeat of the referendum to repeal the 8th will turn out to be the "liberal agenda's" Waterloo.

If defeat at a referendum signifies one side's "Waterloo", what did we learn last week about the state of Ireland's ultra-conservative religious right today?

Or does that logic only work when you win?

Loafing Oaf · 08-06-2015 12:00AM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Whereas most pro-abolition campaigners will claim that they are interested in repealing the 8th to allow abortions in the cases of rape and foetal abnormality and that's what the referendum is about, their argument is easily undermined because if that were the case they would put those questions to the people and not a full frontal assault on the 8th amendment

No, because all but hardcore pro-lifers have decided that trying to regulate abortion through the constitution is a crazy endeavour. What will almost certainly happen is a straight repeal referendum, preceded by the publication of the legislation that would be enacted should the referendum pass, which would legalise abortion on the grounds of fatal foetal abnormality and possibly others. Would this leave the way open for a future government to further liberalise Irish abortion law. Yes, and proponents of the referendum will have to be upfront about this, pointing out this is how democracies work...

ardmacha · 08-06-2015 12:40AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Liberal agenda", my hole.

Some of us recognise the fact that a woman who wants an abortion will procure one by whatever means necessary, and feel that that reality should be reflected in our laws instead of singing "kumbaya" as loudly as we can to drown out the shocking hypocrisy of exporting the problem and pretending that as a result it doesn't exist.

The same could be said for heroin addicts.

Zubeneschamali · 08-06-2015 08:37AM

ardmacha wrote: »

The same could be said for heroin addicts.

Yes, I support giving registered addicts medical grade heroin in a safe clinic.

Not sure what it has to do with the 8th amendment though.

08-06-2015 01:39PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, I support giving registered addicts medical grade heroin in a safe clinic.

Not sure what it has to do with the 8th amendment though.

As much as I disagree with him, your reply doesn't quite answer his point.

Safe clinics simply facilitate the administration of the drug. They don't supply the heroin, which remains illegal.

The weakness of taking a "people do it, therefore legalise it" approach is probably widely recognized.

Relying on fairly broad disregard for the law in order to repeal it is logically akin to legalising heroin in dependence blackspots, or responding to an outbreak of political corruption by decriminalising it. It's not a strong argument, is it?

Instead, the argument for abortion revolves around personal integrity and freedom.

It is straightforward: an independently living human body is the personal property of the owner, and others' claims over that body should be resisted in all but the most extreme circumstances.

No Voter And Proud · 08-06-2015 01:50PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

As much as I disagree with him, your reply doesn't quite answer his point.

Safe clinics simply facilitate the administration of the drug. They don't supply the heroin, which remains illegal.

The weakness of taking a "people do it, therefore legalise it" approach is probably widely recognized.

Relying on fairly broad disregard for the law in order to repeal it is logically akin to legalising heroin in dependence blackspots, or responding to an outbreak of political corruption by decriminalising it. It's not a strong argument, is it?

Instead, the argument for abortion revolves around personal integrity and freedom.

It is straightforward: an independently living human body is the personal property of the owner, and others' claims over that body should be resisted in all but the most extreme circumstances.

Interesting
So independant living is the ground needed for control over your body?
Is living in an old folks home independant?

08-06-2015 01:56PM

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Interesting
So independant living is the ground needed for control over your body?
Is living in an old folks home independant?

An independently-living body = a body that is independently alive, i.e. not hooked-up to machines or humans.

Surely that is obvious.

No Voter And Proud · 08-06-2015 01:57PM

Perhaps in your head.
As a sentence it is clear as mud however.

Zubeneschamali · 08-06-2015 03:09PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Safe clinics simply facilitate the administration of the drug. They don't supply the heroin, which remains illegal.

That is my point: I think it shouldn't be illegal.

Still not much to do with the 8th amendment.

08-06-2015 04:18PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is my point: I think it shouldn't be illegal.

Still not much to do with the 8th amendment.

But you can see the fundamental flaw in the logic, surely?

Most Europeans would reject the extremes of Swiss banking secrecy, or Irish corporation tax, regardless of whether their compatriots can avail of these facilities abroad. Similarly, just because corruption laws are flouted and disregarded in tin-pot African republics, it doesn't mean they should be repealed.

A sovereign, democratic society simply upholds its principles within its own borders as best it can.

What needs to change in Ireland, is an extension of the freedom of our own bodies regardless of gender, as a core principle.

Mimicry is not a tenable policy for a civilised society.

Black Menorca · 09-06-2015 06:08PM

Amnesty International advocating for the Abortion Industry and turning its back on the most vulnerable human life on this planet, unborn babies. An organisation in the guise of a Human Rights Defender calling for intentionally killing human life. George Orwell is alive and well.

8th Amendment

Comments