nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Irish Government violating the human rights of women

MadsL

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/irish-government-on-notice-it-is-violating-human-rights-of-women-34246181.html

Kenny's approach seems to be muddying the issue with a citizen's convention. The NI High Court's decision today would indicate that a referendum should be held asap, with the citizen's voice being heard through vote rather than "convention".

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

[Deleted User]

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I think it's right that men should get a vote.

But I think the female vote should be given more power. Their vote is bit more important than ours, because it's their body.

I've read a lot of people seeming to think women have a hive mind but a hive body is a new one too me.

ThinkProgress

PucaMama wrote: »

Do you think my vote no to abortion as a woman will be given as much power? I don't think so. It's very much "on trend" at the minute to be all for choice.

More power than whom?

Your vote will likely carry the same weight as everyone else. Regardless of which way you vote.

I was saying the female vote (irrespective of Y/N) is slightly more important than my vote as a male. Because I can never be forced to carry and birth a baby against my wishes...

josephryan1989

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Just let people do what they want with THEIR body!

It's a no-brainer.

Not even sure why it should be a national agenda... it's about individuals and THEIR bodies! Nobody else's business.

There is diversity of opinion and you have to respect that.

However this will be decided by a referendum and if the majority vote against your views you will have to respect that.

If the majority vote in favour of abortion on demand rather than just restricting abortion to rape, incest, fetal abnormalities and a threat to the life of the mother, I would be opposed but I would have to accept the decision of the majority.

You have to win people over with argument and not by simply insisting you get what you want.

josephryan1989

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It is part of their body. It's connected to them by a tube.

It feeds off them for 9 months.

If the mother stops eating, both will die.

If a woman stops eating the state can have her committed to save both her and her unborn child.

RobertKK

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It is part of their body. It's connected to them by a tube.

It feeds off them for 9 months.

If the mother stops eating, both will die.

So if you are having sex and your penis is inside the woman's body,are you a part of their body since you are connected by what could be described as a tube...?

A newborn baby feeds off a mother too.

If a mother doesn't feed her baby, it dies.

On regards to the last two points, should we allow infanticide?

Manach

Perhaps the OP might thank into consideration both the poor record of the ECHR at defining ( never-mind defending ) unborn in the cases brought before it and perhaps as well in the burst of progressive SJW enthusiasm as they storm barricades as to how many of the bright young generation in their cohort would have been present should the same regime in the UK had come to pass a generation earlier.

ThinkProgress

josephryan1989 wrote: »

her and her unborn child.

The unborn child that's part of her body because it's attached to her by a tube!

oppenheimer1

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/irish-government-on-notice-it-is-violating-human-rights-of-women-34246181.html

Kenny's approach seems to be muddying the issue with a citizen's convention. The NI High Court's decision today would indicate that a referendum should be held asap, with the citizen's voice being heard through vote rather than "convention".

Call a referendum today on what though?? It is highly unlikely a simple deletion of the 8th amendment would be carried.

josephryan1989

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Ok, Until it has a complex collection of cells that form a Brain it's not a baby.

Can I play devil's advocate here? By the time most women discover they are pregnant the zygote has implanted in the womb and embryo has formed and is not just a collection of cells. It is just a miniature of the baby that will be born in 9 months.

You can't reasonably say that it is not alive and if you are forced to admit it is alive, you are going to have a difficult time of it trying to convince many people that is not already a human being. If it is a human being then it has rights and if it is a human being with rights killing it without justification is murder.

A good many people who do not object to abortion in the case of rape or incest or abnormality would object to abortion on demand because they do not see it as justified. Others would object to abortion after 12 or so weeks and would view late term abortion as murder with the same conviction that hardline pro-lifers view all abortions as murder.

josephryan1989

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The unborn child that's part of her body because it's attached to her by a tube!

I'm only saying what has happened. There have been many cases of pregnant women who were not eating or self harming in some way or other who were committed. That state can and does do it.

RobertKK

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Ok, Until it has a complex collection of cells that form a Brain it's not a baby.

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

Week 5

Week 5 is the start of the "embryonic period." This is when all the baby's major systems and structures develop.
The embryo's cells multiply and start to take on specific functions. This is called differentiation.
Blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells all develop.
The embryo grows rapidly, and the baby's external features begin to form.
Your baby's brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop.
Baby's gastrointestinal tract starts to form.
It's during this time in the first trimester that the baby is most at risk for damage from things that may cause birth defects. This includes certain medications, illegal drug use, heavy alcohol use, infections such as rubella, and other factors.
Weeks 6 - 7

Arm and leg buds start to grow.
Your baby's brain forms into five different areas. Some cranial nerves are visible.
Eyes and ears begin to form.
Tissue grows that will become your baby's spine and other bones.
Baby's heart continues to grow and now beats at a regular rhythm.
Blood pumps through the main vessels.

c_man

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I was saying the female vote (irrespective of Y/N) is slightly more important than my vote as a male. Because I can never be forced to carry and birth a baby against my wishes...

Neither can infertile women or those past a certain age.

Here, I'll let you tell Ivana Bacik that she'll have a 'lessened' vote on it :pac:

ThinkProgress

Grunwalder wrote: »

An unborn baby is not part of a woman's body, it is a separate being.

No, it's not separate until it comes out and you cut the cord.

Before that it's very much part of the woman's body. It's growing inside her like a parasite.

A parasite is part of your body when it's attached to you. Even if it's not a permanent part.

RobertKK wrote: »

So if you are having sex and your penis is inside the woman's body,are you a part of their body since you are connected by what could be described as a tube...?

A penis is not connected to someone for nine months. It's not feeding off anyone.

And it also doesn't grow inside anyone.

Stupid comparison!

darkpagandeath

Grunwalder wrote: »

An unborn baby is not part of a woman's body, it is a separate being.

No it's not separate they are joined. Basic biology. That's why underdeveloped babies die as they are dependant on the mother. What biology is taught in schools these days ? Must be getting pretty bad.

RobertKK

ThinkProgress wrote: »

A penis is not connected to someone for nine months. It's not feeding off anyone.

And it also doesn't grow inside anyone.

Stupid comparison!

If you were semi flaccid it could very well grow...

ThinkProgress

c_man wrote: »

Neither can infertile women or those past a certain age.

Here, I'll let you tell Ivana Bacik that she'll have a 'lessened' vote on it :pac:

What's your point here? I don't disagree with you in principal.

If you're not capable of having children, then your vote carries lesser importance IMHO. (Not zero importance - just lesser importance)

Any such vote has a much bigger impact on the lives and bodies of fertile women, than any other demographic. Naturally.

ThinkProgress

josephryan1989 wrote: »

I'm only saying what has happened. There have been many cases of pregnant women who were not eating or self harming in some way or other who were committed. That state can and does do it.

No. Your original point was that the unborn child is not part of their body... which we have shown you is wrong!

It is very much part of their body, while they carry it. Basic biology here.

Human intervention to prevent mother and unborn from starving, does nothing to prove your point that they are separate entities. (it's actually an irrelevant point)

If a woman starves herself, the baby will starve too. This is proof that the unborn is definitely part of her body!

c_man

ThinkProgress wrote: »

What's your point here? I don't disagree with you in principal.

That limiting voting rights based on perceived effects of the vote is a recipe for disaster and pretty much against everything that modern, democratic states stand for.

Only those paying income tax should get a vote on the government who set the budget... etc.

Personally I like living in a constitutional, republic with clearly defined rights which can only be changed subject to society as large agreeing on it. Not Enda going off in a mad dictatorial huff to repeal the 8th because some people have no idea how the country runs.

If you're not capable of having children, then your vote carries lesser importance IMHO. (Not zero importance - just lesser importance)

As a fertile ( :pac: ) male, I'm capable of having children.

Before that it's very much part of the woman's body. It's growing inside her like a parasite.

A parasite is part of your body when it's attached to you. Even if it's not a permanent part.

Honestly, the pro-choice crowd haven't a hope in any referendum on the topic if this kind of language is brought up in debates.

ThinkProgress

RobertKK wrote: »

If you were semi flaccid it could very well grow...

And this is the point I bow out of this "discussion"... :rolleyes:

RobertKK

ThinkProgress wrote: »

No. Your original point was that the unborn child is not part of their body... which we have shown you is wrong!

It is very much part of their body, while they carry it. Basic biology here.

Human intervention to prevent mother and unborn from starving, does nothing to prove your point that they are separate entities. (it's actually an irrelevant point)

If a woman starves herself, the baby will starve too. This is proof that the unborn is definitely part of her body!

What about a baby that is born and needs the mother's colostrum? Does this mean the baby is part of her body still?

RobertKK

ThinkProgress wrote: »

And this is the point I bow out of this "discussion"... :rolleyes:

Well it was the truth :pac:

Wompa1

If women have the choice of abortion which could be required for various different reasons e.g. Career prospects, lack of money to support a child, fear of giving birth, fear of being a parent, uncertainty that they wish to raise a child with the possible father, the drastic change in lifestyle, what it can do to their body and the discomfort they will experience. As well as the even more tragic: rape and incest among other things...

Most of those areas of concern would be shared by men who participated in a one night stand or impregnated a girlfriend or wife. The only difference would be that the pain and discomfort and possible changes to the body.

What would people think about men having the option to opt out both financially and emotionally, say as long as they decide within 16 weeks of the pregnancy or something like that? Or is the attitude that the would be dad has to live with the womans decision?

super_furry

Enda Kenny is trying to copy the Fianna Fail trick of weaselling out of a decision and sweeping things under the carpet. Call a referendum, campaign for change.

super_furry

Wompa1 wrote: »

What would people think about men having the option to opt out both financially and emotionally, say as long as they decide within 16 weeks of the pregnancy or something like that? Or is the attitude that the would be dad has to live with the womans decision?

Abortion isn't a man's issue and you can't make it one. No man will ever be forced to have a baby against their will.

[Deleted User]

MadsL wrote: »

The decision addresses the same issues and legal climate that exists in the Republic, so it is relevant.

The difference is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. The Republic isn't.

RobertKK

super_furry wrote: »

Abortion isn't a man's issue and you can't make it one. No man will ever be forced to have a baby against their will.

It is in certain countries where girl babies are aborted and are leaving millions of men with no hope of finding a woman.
Abortion tells us females are inferior to male babies.

diomed

MadsL wrote: »

Irish Government violating the human rights of women, campaigners have warned.

Just adding the bit you left out. I thought you were reporting facts.

eviltwin

RobertKK wrote: »

It is in certain countries where girl babies are aborted and are leaving millions of men with no hope of finding a woman.
Abortion tells us females are inferior to male babies.

That has nothing to do with abortion here.

RobertKK

eviltwin wrote: »

That has nothing to do with abortion here.

It has been found that over in England that gender based abortions are happening among certain communities.

One can't try and ignore what they don't like.

josephryan1989

super_furry wrote: »

Abortion isn't a man's issue and you can't make it one. No man will ever be forced to have a baby against their will.

When a woman decides not to have an abortion when the man who impregnates her requests it by definition he is forced to have the baby against his will. In court a judge will order him to pay for the child whether he is in a relationship with the mother or not and whether he sees the child or not.