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

RobertKK

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I wish that were true, but alas whenever this topic comes up the anti abortion side do not present that many arguments. We just get the kind of rhetoric like this user who throw emotive words like "murder" around in the hope the words will serve in place of any actual discourse on the matter.

I often tell of the time I went up to the anti abortion booths in Dublin City. You know the ones covered in pictures of fetuses and the like? And I asked them genuinely what their arguments were. I went up prepared to listen and not debate or answer back. I genuinely just wanted to know what the anti abortion arguments were.

All I got was "Dude, look at the pictures" and I said that yes, they were indeed unpleasant to look at.... but could they please tell me what the arguments were. After a pause and a look of confusion his mouth fell open and out fell "Mannn just look at the pictures mannnnnn".

So I am afraid my confidence that the issue will be decided by people hearing, and subscribing to, the "best argument" was somewhat crushed that day. As with the Homosexuality Marriage referendum it is likely to be actual arguments from one side.... put up against fallacious appeals to emotion on the other. And I can only hope that, like that referendum, the latter loses again.

As for your last paragraph, people using the fatal foetal abnormality argument make it out to be black and white, that the unborn will not live - die within hours of birth. My sister was told her unborn would not live, and up in a Dublin maternity hospital a nurse suggested she had another option, didn't spell it out but was suggesting an abortion.
Her own GP was supportive and told her while there is life there is hope. So time came for the delivery - she had to go to Dublin and Crumlin was standby.
The baby was delivered, he was taken to Crumlin, and now 8 years later is living a normal life, happy, plays sport and like any other child.
The pro-choice people make out fatal foetal abnormalities are black and white situations. They are not.
I know I have a nephew alive and happy, whom my sister was told was not going to live once born, and whom abortion was suggested to her.

questionmark?

pconn062 wrote: »

I agree it's a decisive issue, however I think that most people must agree that abortion in cases of rape, incest or in cases where the foetus cannot survive outside the womb is a necessity. Our draconian laws need to be updated in this regard at least. We can't call ourselves a modern European nation otherwise.

I agree. In fact I think this view point is the one most likely to acheive a yes vote.

c_man

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I wish that were true, but alas whenever this topic comes up the anti abortion side do not present that many arguments. We just get the kind of rhetoric like this user who throw emotive words like "murder" around in the hope the words will serve in place of any actual discourse on the matter.

What, you mean like the numerous posts you get on this from the pro-choice crowd saying "it shouldn't even be an issue," "men shouldn't get a say" etc?

I often tell of the time I went up to the anti abortion booths in Dublin City. You know the ones covered in pictures of fetuses and the like?...

I don't know what you were expecting from Youth Defence.

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

The pro-choice people make out fatal foetal abnormalities are black and white situations. They are not.

Then you will have to take it up with someone who has made that argument. It is not one I make. For me the abortion issue comes down to a simple question. When exactly between conception and birth does the egg develop into something we can usefully and coherently assign "human rights" to.

Anything before that point is, for me, ok in terms of pro-choice abortion. So arguments like "Is the fetus defective" or "Was the mother raped" and so forth are not ones I require, or use. I let other people in the pro-choice camp level those arguments. So take it up with them.

But if the counter arguments are "Look at these pictures, dont they look horrible" and "Murder murder I tell you" and "I have this invisible friend called god and he is against it, so we should be too" you can, I hope, forgive me for seeing no merit in the debate from the "other" side of the issue.

I am not, myself, heavily invested in being pro-choice in abortion. I am quite invested in the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" however and if someone can not argue to me why something is "wrong" then I am never against it. And so far no one has shown _me_ any arguments against the kind of pro-choice abortion most pro-choice people seem to advocate. So I am happy to remain in their camp at this time.

c_man wrote: »

What, you mean like the numerous posts you get on this from the pro-choice crowd saying "it shouldn't even be an issue," "men shouldn't get a say" etc? I don't know what you were expecting from Youth Defence.

I do not honestly know what I was expecting either. At the time I did not know who was financing or running the booths and may have been somewhat young and naive at the time.

I just knew they were there and they were anti abortion. And I somewhat expected.... perhaps erroneously..... that whoever was financing the booths would move to staff them with people who could put their best foot forward and at least discuss the issue(s).

So I guess what I was expecting was a coherent, or at least an attempt at a coherent, argument or two.... even learned off by rote.... on the issue of abortion. But it genuinely seemed like the photos of aborted fetuses (or what they claimed were aborted fetuses, some of the pictures did not gel with my knowledge of the biological processes of fetal development for the stages they were claiming) was quite literally all they got. Their _entire_ reason for being there was to ensure as many people as possible were upset by the photos. Nothing more.

Which made as much sense to me as.... say..... campaigning against the life saving procedure of heart bypass surgery by getting loads of photos of people with their chest cut open and showing everyone how unpleasant it looks. In other words..... how unpleasant a procedure LOOKS has nothing whatsoever to do with the morality of the procedure itself.

FortySeven

cnocbui wrote: »

Do you have photos?

Yes. She is my stepdaughter. Daddy didn't get a choice in that one. Hes paying 19 years so far and wants nothing to do with her. Happens all the time.

kjl

So abortions are a human right now? Must have missed that addition.

FortySeven

Can't we just ban the fairy believers from voting , ever, in anything? They hold back progress with their sky fairy nonsense and have done for generations. We could tattoo them at their fairy halls on Sundays to ID them and cast them out of normal society. Harsh I know but they keep Ireland from moving on. They'll all be gone in a generation anyway due to common sense, might as well make some progress while we wait for them to die.

MOD: Banned

jimgoose

Throughout the brief and fragile history of this State, there have regularly been certain groups who's human rights seem to matter somewhat less than regular, plain, decent, God-fearing folk. The poor, for example. Children are another good one. The elderly also, especially in recent years with all these old folks appearing out of the ether and living longer and turning the whole place upside-down with the wonder of what to do with them. It's almost as if those charged with collating and interpreting census data are innumerate primates, but sure that couldn't be so. Women of course, are the old favourite. And Heaven help you if you're all of the above, and sure suffering from an illness for good measure.

Paramite Pie

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.

While I could agree in principle but in reality the constitution does not confer weighted votes based on how the referendum result affects you personally. It could be a legal & procedural nightmare and would set a major precedent which could have complicated results.

Since our Constitution does mention god and the trinity (and so forth) opposition groups could lobby for more voting power for Christians. It's a huge can of worms.

But I sympathise with women who rely on a male vote to pass. The key problem is a spineless government who rely on public referendums to deflect public outrage on controversial issues (and can conveniently not give their own opinions during the build up) but claim the results as their own Parties triumph.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

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

Parasite terminology won't win-over undecided voters - a parasite is an invading organism, an embryo/foetus is a 'domestic' product of the body it's in (using some...um.. outsourced chromosomes). If the pro-side uses that analogy they'll loose a lot of ground - it's inaccurate & heartless.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

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.

It has it's own DNA -- it's not part of the mother's body, even when their blood 'mixes' their bloods remain separate. It's fascinating and that's what's taught in schools. Try to catch up.

Arytonblue

After the unprecedented good natured, rational and level headed debate we had during the marriage equality referendum I personally can't wait for the absolute barrel of laughs this next referendum will bring about, can't wait.

:pac:

Wompa1

Gaygooner wrote: »

Yes. But ultimately is the woman's body that undergoes all the changes

What if the woman wants to get an abortion for reasons other than the physical toll on her body?

One eyed Jack

Arytonblue wrote: »

After the unprecedented good natured, rational and level headed debate we had during the marriage equality referendum I personally can't wait for the absolute barrel of laughs this next referendum will bring about, can't wait.

Whatever about the campaign offline, there'd be no shortage of this crap on social media -

FortySeven wrote: »

Can't we just ban the fairy believers from voting , ever, in anything? They hold back progress with their sky fairy nonsense and have done for generations. We could tattoo them at their fairy halls on Sundays to ID them and cast them out of normal society. Harsh I know but they keep Ireland from moving on. They'll all be gone in a generation anyway due to common sense, might as well make some progress while we wait for them to die.

When, just like the marriage equality referendum, a referendum on abortion would be a civil matter, and would have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. The same drivel would be posted regardless of that fact though, and so any rational, reasonable discussion would be drowned out by waffle about religion, rather than what the issue of the referendum would actually be about - a change to the constitution to allow women to avail of abortion services and proper support services in the Republic.

Arbiter of Good Taste

FortySeven wrote: »

Can't we just ban the fairy believers from voting , ever, in anything? They hold back progress with their sky fairy nonsense and have done for generations. We could tattoo them at their fairy halls on Sundays to ID them and cast them out of normal society. Harsh I know but they keep Ireland from moving on. They'll all be gone in a generation anyway due to common sense, might as well make some progress while we wait for them to die.

MOD: Banned

Respect works both ways you know. Why does it always have to descend into this kind of tripe?

Gaygooner

Wompa1 wrote: »

What if the woman wants to get an abortion for reasons other than the physical toll on her body?

I'm not going to lecture a woman on her own body.

RobertKK

How do pro-choice people feel about Clare Daly being the face of repeal the 8th and wanting abortion on demand?

Personally I think she is great for the pro-life campaign.

topmanamillion

GarlicChilli Prawns wrote: »

Do you think it would be moral for a woman to abort at 30 weeks pregnant because she just doesn't fancy having a child anymore?

Do you think it would be moral for someone to drive 120miles/hour past a school?
Me either. Doesn't stop us letting people own cars. Ultimately people are responsible for their own morals and ethics.

One eyed Jack

RobertKK wrote: »

How do pro-choice people feel about Clare Daly being the face of repeal the 8th and wanting abortion on demand?

Personally I think she is great for the pro-life campaign.

I won't lie Rob, I've heard of her, but that's about it, the name's familiar, but as for whether she's the face of any campaign or otherwise is neither here nor there for me personally. She will be entitled to one vote just the same as anyone else, so what she campaigns for, as far as I'm concerned, is completely irrelevant for me personally.

I don't know enough about her to comment on her suitability for any campaign, let alone her suitability to campaign for anything related to a change in the constitution that would allow for abortion on demand.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the concept, from the moment a woman seeks an abortion, isn't that an abortion on demand? I would think the earlier in her pregnancy she is granted an abortion, the better the outcome for both the woman in question, and the unborn life she is carrying in her womb.

Wompa1

Gaygooner wrote: »

I'm not going to lecture a woman on her own body.

Ok but it's not always about her body. That's not even one side of the coin that's one possible reason in a book of possible reasons.

I think women are right on and should be permitted to get an abortion if they choose. The technology exists, the knowledge exists and it's relatively safe now.

I also think that women are doing a really good job of making themselves heard and campaigning for what they feel is right for them. Abortion should be the choice of the woman. Some have suggested men shouldn't have a vote. I wouldn't even mind that! Allow women to decide what they can and can't do with their own body.

However, maybe men should be extended the right to choose whether or not they want the child. Why should men not be allowed to opt out? Also, the argument of use a condom is pretty repugnant. Condoms split. Even when they don't split, they are not 100% effective. What about men that are raped or are manipulated (emotionally abused)

What if a woman says she's on the pill but isn't? I'll guess the answer: Should have used a condom..what's the guys recourse if that woman gets pregnant? None, it's all up to her.

What if a guy tells a woman he put on a condom but he didn't or if he pokes a hole in the condom. Or if he said he had a vasectomy?...whats the recourse for the woman if she gets pregnant?...Hopefully soon it will be that she can get an abortion in Ireland. Today she can take the morning after pill or go to the UK for an abortion. (Which is a shame, they shouldn't have to fly to the UK for it). At least there's some recourse for the women.

I think it would be great if legislation was passed to provide options for both men and women who feel they are not ready to raise a child or bring a child into the world. Men need to do a better job of representing for their own interests.

And no, I'm not making abortion about men. Women should be able to get an abortion if they so choose but I also believe that any legislation changes around the subject could also represent men equally. Having a son or daughter effects men and women.

The Randy Riverbeast

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When, just like the marriage equality referendum, a referendum on abortion would be a civil matter, and would have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. The same drivel would be posted regardless of that fact though, and so any rational, reasonable discussion would be drowned out by waffle about religion, rather than what the issue of the referendum would actually be about - a change to the constitution to allow women to avail of abortion services and proper support services in the Republic.

While true we did have religious groups leading the campaign against SSM and groups like youth defense (another religious group) along with Iona will be on the front lines against anything on abortion. This along with the majority of the population receiving education with a Catholic "ethos" you can't really say religion has nothing to do with it. They will probably try to cover it up with something non religious but you hardly expect anyone to believe that the Iona institute was against SSM for purely secular reasons.

He did go a bit far with his comments though.

Ave Sodalis

Wompa1 wrote:

I think it would be great if legislation was passed to provide options for both men and women who feel they are not ready to raise a child or bring a child into the world. Men need to do a better job of representing for their own interests.

I actually wouldn't mind that idea, but I think it should be subjected to the same rules as women i.e. they only have up to a certain few weeks to make that decision, once the child is born they get no choice in the matter. They can't decide in a few years time they want to be apart of the child's life, and they will have to sign a legal form to declare this. The only time they will be given the option is if the child, with permission from the mother if underage, requests this.

Of course, this has its own complications (woman not saying anything etc) but it would prevent people from using it as blackmail to force the mother to get an abortion, and it would also make people think long and hard about the long term effects. The problem will be men (and they are out there) that wouldn't think twice about knocking up a woman and then just signing a form and get scot free. Getting an abortion plays havoc on a woman's mental health and it isn't a decision taken lightly by most. For it to work with men, they would need something similar so it isn't a decision taken lightly by them.

Wompa1

sup_dude wrote: »

I actually wouldn't mind that idea, but I think it should be subjected to the same rules as women i.e. they only have up to a certain few weeks to make that decision, once the child is born they get no choice in the matter. They can't decide in a few years time they want to be apart of the child's life, and they will have to sign a legal form to declare this. The only time they will be given the option is if the child, with permission from the mother if underage, requests this.

Of course, this has its own complications (woman not saying anything etc) but it would prevent people from using it as blackmail to force the mother to get an abortion, and it would also make people think long and hard about the long term effects. The problem will be men (and they are out there) that wouldn't think twice about knocking up a woman and then just signing a form and get scot free. Getting an abortion plays havoc on a woman's mental health and it isn't a decision taken lightly by most. For it to work with men, they would need something similar so it isn't a decision taken lightly by them.

If the suggestion is 22 weeks for the woman to decide on an abortion. 16 for the man wouldn't be bad? Though it could get sticky if the lady doesn't tell the father because he was a one night stand and isn't around to see that she's pregnant or even if the guy is around, she doesn't show and doesn't tell him...There might need to be something to account for that. Would it be fair to force a guy to be involved if it was hidden from him?

I think most men and most women are good people and try to do what's right and best but yeah, there's some a-holes out there.

One eyed Jack

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

While true we did have religious groups leading the campaign against SSM and groups like youth defense (another religious group) along with Iona will be on the front lines against anything on abortion. This along with the majority of the population receiving education with a Catholic "ethos" you can't really say religion has nothing to do with it. They will probably try to cover it up with something non religious but you hardly expect anyone to believe that the Iona institute was against SSM for purely secular reasons.

Granted, people's opinions on the issue of abortion itself may be guided by their religious principles, but, when it comes to a referendum - that's a civil matter to implement a change to the Constitution, for every citizen and future citizens, regardless of their religious affiliations or gender, sex, etc. That's also why I have no time though for arguments that suggest we should exclude various demographics from voting on Constitutional changes that don't have an immediate and direct impact on their lives.

I have no issue with anyone from the Iona Institute or other religious leaders thinking anyone actually gives two fcuks for their opinion. They're entitled to their opinion, they're not entitled to an audience, and so when it comes to voting on civil matters that affect all citizens of this country, and all future citizens, regardless of their religious affiliations or none, it has been evidenced by the outcome of the marriage equality referendum, that most people have their minds made up already on these issues and aren't likely to be swayed either way by any campaigns.

My point being really that fundamentalist fcuknuts can be safely ignored and starved of the oxygen of publicity. I have no doubt they will try and rise people and bait them into attacking them, then play the victim and all the rest of it, but all they really are, is nothing more than a distraction from the real issue, and it's important to make that point early from the outset so that we don't alienate people and allow the likes of David Quinn and his band of merry misfits to play tbe victim and distract people's attention from focussing on the actual issues.

He did go a bit far with his comments though.

Tbh I think they were going for Poe on that one, I have to wonder did they realise how their post bore quite a few similarities to Hitler's treatment of Jews and the Final Solution...

Comments like that though aren't even out of the starting blocks in comparison to some of the comments I expect to be made, but I'd be loathe to be giving anyone ideas. Suffice to say I don't expect too much in the way of originality in that regard.

One eyed Jack

Wompa1 wrote: »

And no, I'm not making abortion about men. Women should be able to get an abortion if they so choose but I also believe that any legislation changes around the subject could also represent men equally. Having a son or daughter effects men and women.

You absolutely are making abortion about men (or at least you're making a good attempt at it anyway), when you try and suggest that any constitutional or legislative changes regarding abortion should represent men equally, particularly when men are not equally affected by the issue.

It's true that having a born child affects both men and women, but the decision to carry that child, or to give birth to a child, is solely the responsibility of a woman. Decisions with regard to a child once a woman gives birth, are nothing to do with her choice as to whether or not a woman actually wants to terminate her pregnancy by means of an abortion.

RDM_83 again

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Fully legal abortion on demand, zero reason to not have this.

What does that mean though

the law varies wildly among countries that have "on demand" abortion, I actually ended up arguing a Pro-life argument with a poster that wanted a stricter regime than I would have thought best for harm reduction.
For most people pro-life and pro-choice are meaningless unless the circumstances are clarified.
There is a huge difference between saying repeal the 8th and
-lets legalize for fetal abnormalities
-lets copy to UK's regime

eviltwin

RobertKK wrote: »

How do pro-choice people feel about Clare Daly being the face of repeal the 8th and wanting abortion on demand?

Personally I think she is great for the pro-life campaign.

I don't like her but I'm 100% in agreement with her on this

S.O

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whatever about the campaign offline, there'd be no shortage of this crap on social media -

When, just like the marriage equality referendum, a referendum on abortion would be a civil matter, and would have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. The same drivel would be posted regardless of that fact though, and so any rational, reasonable discussion would be drowned out by waffle about religion, rather than what the issue of the referendum would actually be about - a change to the constitution to allow women to avail of abortion services and proper support services in the Republic.

a referendum on abortion would be a civil matter, and would have nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

If someone takes a look at various online photos of anti abortion protests in Ireland such as the rally for life + the counter protesters in Cork opposing Ruth Coppingers tour bus, a good portion of them carry religious symbols such as rosary beards or crosses, in one photo from Cork they were pictured praying on a public street, if religion doesn,t play a part in people opposing abortion, why all the religious symbols ? please See pics attached.

RayM

RobertKK wrote: »

How do pro-choice people feel about Clare Daly being the face of repeal the 8th and wanting abortion on demand?

Personally I think she is great for the pro-life campaign.

She's an excellent campaigner. One of the best TDs in the Dáil.

One eyed Jack

S.O wrote: »

If someone takes a look at various online photos of anti abortion protests in Ireland such as the rally for life + the counter protesters in Cork opposing Ruth Coppingers tour bus, a good portion of them carry religious symbols such as rosary beards or crosses, in one photo from Cork they were pictured praying on a public street, if religion doesn,t play a part in people opposing abortion, why all the religious symbols ? please See pics attached.

But again, and I really shouldn't have to clarify this if you read my posts - a referendum on the issue of abortion is a civil matter, and not a matter for religion.

Think about it for more than a minute - how many women travelling abroad to avail of an abortion do you think also identify as religious?

It's a double-whammy that's often ignored by some people who would try and tar all people who identify as religious, with the same brush, because they don't actually stop and think about the person, they only think in single-minded mode, ignoring the fact that real people are far more complicated and complex than just "issues".

The Golden Miller

sup_dude wrote: »

I actually wouldn't mind that idea, but I think it should be subjected to the same rules as women i.e. they only have up to a certain few weeks to make that decision, once the child is born they get no choice in the matter. They can't decide in a few years time they want to be apart of the child's life, and they will have to sign a legal form to declare this. The only time they will be given the option is if the child, with permission from the mother if underage, requests this.

Of course, this has its own complications (woman not saying anything etc) but it would prevent people from using it as blackmail to force the mother to get an abortion, and it would also make people think long and hard about the long term effects. The problem will be men (and they are out there) that wouldn't think twice about knocking up a woman and then just signing a form and get scot free. Getting an abortion plays havoc on a woman's mental health and it isn't a decision taken lightly by most. For it to work with men, they would need something similar so it isn't a decision taken lightly by them.

Why? Because it's morally wrong?

Baggy Trousers

RobertKK wrote: »

How do pro-choice people feel about Clare Daly being the face of repeal the 8th and wanting abortion on demand?

Personally I think she is great for the pro-life campaign.

I like Clare Daly on a personal basis even though I mightn't agree with all her politics. What the Gardai did to her in 2013 (handcuffed on side of road on suspicion of drink driving) was very very wrong. She does a very good job unlike so so so many TDs.

Anyway, there are a lot of bitter yokes and religious nuts on the pro-life side so I don't see Clare doing much damage.