Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Cabaal wrote: »

"Concerned Christians" doing leaflet drops

Hmmm, Timothy 2:1,2?

I hope they follow Timothy's exhortations in 2:12, which means they probably shouldn't vote for women candidates.

Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

Pherekydes wrote: »

Hmmm, Timothy 2:1,2?

Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

That's just a metaphor/out of context/doesnt apply anymore

Wrong Randy Riverbeast, that definitely still applies in RCC!

aloyisious wrote: »

Just seen this posted on FaceBook.... http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/taoiseach-wants-appropriate-woman-to-chair-expert-group-examining-changes-to-the-eighth-amendment-34478061.html

I wonder does Enda have:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No worries, my reply can wait till you're back

So, any time you like Jack.

Here was my post, trying to clarify what I'd been saying previously, since you appear not to have understood it, judging by your previous reply :

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No worries, my reply can wait till you're back

volchitsa wrote: »

I've no idea what you think you're saying there, genuinely not a clue what your point is. However on the point of "judging" people, I think you've misunderstood what I was saying.

Lots of people make major decisions for reasons that I would think terrible reasons, whether getting married because they want a party and a white dress, or having a baby because that's what you do. Or because they want to feel validated in some way, or whatever.

Does that mean I think they should be stopped? Well, no. The consequences of trying to micromanage people's lives like that, even if it were possible, would be disastrous. IMO.

I think the same about abortion : there are reasons that I personally think absolutely justified that some others might not, and reasons that I would find insufficient, but that the couple concerned might find absolutely compelling. Since I have come to the conclusion that there are some cases in which pregnancy termination is acceptable, then it seems to me that (at the same term of fetal development) forcing someone else to give birth for reasons I find acceptable is really not my business. Parenthood is far too major a decision to force on someone else.

So there you go. HTH.

volchitsa wrote: »

So there you go. HTH.

Have to go back to your previous post before that, which is the post I had originally addressed:

volchitsa wrote: »

Quick question. For those people here who support contraception on demand, does that include a woman's right to use contraception because she's afraid of having a child of a particular gender or hair colour?

Isn't that what "on demand" means, after all?

People are entitled to be unpleasant people if they like, and disliking someone because of their gender or their hair colour is pretty high up on the scale of nasty IMO, but if choosing to have an abortion because you've been raped is considered to be your own business and no-one else's, then clearly abortion is not the equivalent of killing the resulting child. 1. It's ending a pregnancy, which is a different thing. 2. That is because a fetus is not a child, no matter how much the forced birthers try to say it is.

(Though how one would identify a red-haired fetus is a puzzle.)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

1. It's not any different other than the wording you're more comfortable with using to describe the same end result.

2. See 1.

The question was regarding abortion on demand, not contraception on demand, and by way of answering that specific question, I would suggest it doesn't matter what a woman's reasons are for wanting an abortion, and this is not directed at you personally, but at anyone who thinks they have any right to decide what are or aren't legitimate reasons for an abortion, or whether that woman is nasty or not for whatever reason she decides to have an abortion, should really go away and think about that position.

Ok, so the point I was making is that you were trying to make out there was a difference between abortion, and killing the resultant child, suggesting that abortion is different because it's not killing the resultant child, it's ending the pregnancy. That just looks like using semantics you're more comfortable with, as the outcome of either perspective is exactly the same.

The same semantics are used again when you suggest that the foetus is not a child, no matter how much the forced birthers try to say it is. This again is simply a matter of perspective, and all you're doing in trying to dehumanise the unborn child and call it a foetus and all the rest of it, there are going to be many people who simply do not share your wish to refer to their unborn child as a foetus or whatever other terms you'd use to distance yourself from reality as much as possible.

It's not just "forced birthers" would say this btw, I'm saying it and I would absolutely be against the idea of forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will, let alone force her to give birth against her will. But I'm also not going to attempt to be so reductionist in an attempt to distance myself from reality because it makes me uncomfortable.

I absolutely detest the politics that surrounds the issue, and I hate some of the nonsense terminology and spin used by anyone to try and make out like they're in the right and everyone else is wrong, or anyone who doesn't align with them is the enemy and all the rest of that nonsense. Those types of people (not specifically aiming this at you volchista, but it feels like it sometimes), seem to be more taken up with flinging shìt at each other, than remembering the reality of, or being mindful of, what they're actually arguing over.

Absolam wrote: »

Is that not a right to travel? Regardless of your intent?

I'm not so sure, if someone informed the Garda of an intent to travel for the specific purpose of having an actual child killed, I doubt it would be completely ignored.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I'm not so sure, if someone informed the Garda of an intent to travel for the specific purpose of having an actual child killed, I doubt it would be completely ignored.

I don't believe you could be prevented from travelling though, could you?
I'm sure if they took it seriously they'd inform the relevant authorities of the jurisdiction you were travelling to. Unless it wasn't illegal to kill children in the jurisdiction you were travelling to, in which case there'd be no point. I can't imagine they'd ignore it, just as you say.
But your right to travel, regardless of your intent, would remain, wouldn't it?

Absolam wrote: »

I don't believe you could be prevented from travelling though, could you?
I'm sure if they took it seriously they'd inform the relevant authorities of the jurisdiction you were travelling to. Unless it wasn't illegal to kill children in the jurisdiction you were travelling to, in which case there'd be no point. I can't imagine they'd ignore it, just as you say.
But your right to travel, regardless of your intent, would remain, wouldn't it?

When Gail O'Rouke was charged with assisting her friends suicide (although the charges were later dropped), included was a charge that she had attempted to arrange euthanasia for her friend in a jurisdiction where it is legal. If it was simply a case of a right to travel, how could the state even consider pressing these charges? Would an Irish parent be charged on their return from Belgium if they had taken their terminally ill child there for the purpose of euthanasia? Would the right to travel cover this too?

Would my husband and I be charged on our return to Ireland if we had organised an abortion abroad?

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

When Gail O'Rouke was charged with assisting her friends suicide (although the charges were later dropped), included was a charge that she had attempted to arrange euthanasia for her friend in a jurisdiction where it is legal. If it was simply a case of a right to travel, how could the state even consider pressing these charges?

She wasn't charged with travelling (or prevented from doing so), she was charged with "aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide." The assistance having been provided within the jursidiction of the State. The charges weren't dropped by the way, she was acquitted.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Would an Irish parent be charged on their return from Belgium if they had taken their terminally ill child there for the purpose of euthanasia? Would the right to travel cover this too?

They could be; whilst they would have a right to travel, it would still be illegal to assist in the suicide, and arranging the travel for the suicide, or even accompanying the person travelling (as long as it occurred within the State) could be considered assisting, and could lead to a prosecution.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Would my husband and I be charged on our return to Ireland if we had organised an abortion abroad?

No; it's not illegal to assist someone to intentionally destroy unborn human life, only to intentionally destroy unborn human life. And the limit of jurisdiction is, as with the offence of assisting a suicide, the jurisdiction of the State.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

As you point out though, it is unclear whether or not someone could be charged with assisting suicide by travelling with a person who intends to avail of euthanasia in a jurisdiction where it is legal. So although the person may have had a right to travel, they do not have the right to assist a person seeking euthanasia while travelling, specifically protected.

They could be charged; it's unclear if they could be convicted. And they would be charged with assisting the suicide, not 'by travelling'. The travelling isn't illegal, it's the assistance they provide the person who is committing suicide. So they don't have a right to assist a person committing suicide, whether or not they are travelling. But they still have a right to travel, even with someone committing suicide, so long as they don't assist them in the jurisdiction.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

On the other hand the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act specifically protects a person travelling to another jurisdiction for the purpose of terminating a pregnancy. The exemption from prosecution for carrying out legal activities in other jurisdictions that are illegal in Ireland in this case, only refers to Section 22 of this Act, not any other illegal activities. Therefore it is not simply the right to travel, the Act reads that you have the right to travel specifically to kill a foetus.

It's not really on the other hand, since assisting suicide has nothing to do with the right to travel.
However, the Act doesn't confer a right to travel specifically to kill a foetus; it prevents the offence of destroying unborn life being used to restrict the existing right to travel, as is required by the Constitution. The Constitution says one persons right to life may not be used to prevent another exercising their right to travel; the legislation protecting life during pregnancy must observe that requirement, hence Clause 18. Without that Clause 18, the POLDPA is open to challenge and being struck out based on it's Constitutionality, as it could be used to restrict a person contrary to Article 40.3.3.; not just in travel but in the availability of information.

What would be an interesting 'on the other hand' would be if someone could find another expressed right the State is required to defend by the Constitution which could be irreversibly destroyed by a person travelling to another jurisdiction. The X Case judgement seems to hold that the High Court would be entitled (and obliged) in such a case to prevent a person from travelling to do so; it was only because X was suicidal that the Supreme Court overturned the injunction.