JPNelsforearm wrote: » Absolutely, whether those treaties are right or wrong is immaterial, they should not be put above our own laws,.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » So say if FGM was legal and widely practiced in a country and the Human Rights Committee called on that country's government to outlaw the practice and try to stamp it out, that government should feel free to ignore the instruction? I don't see much point in such international covenants so...
Cabaal wrote: » Nonsense, If we sign up to a something then either we implement standards and change laws or we shouldn't sign up to begin with,Clearly we do listen to international agreements when it suits us....we've made numerous changes to our own laws over the decades due to the UN and EU. The issue with the 8th and abortions is because of parish pump politics TD's refuse to deal with the issue and instead kick it down the road and pretend its not an issue. They would have done the same with marriage equality only it got too big to ignore.
JPNelsforearm wrote: » And I think that is awful, irrespective of whether its progressive or regressive law, we are an independent nation, we fought for that independence, its up to us to make it work, to evolve, not exchange masters.
JPNelsforearm wrote: » FGM is legal, and practised in many countries, I dont care...
Cabaal wrote: » JPNelsforearm wrote: » And I think that is awful, irrespective of whether its progressive or regressive law, we are an independent nation, we fought for that independence, its up to us to make it work, to evolve, not exchange masters. Nobody's exchanging masters, but sometimes it takes a third party to point out where you fail. In this case Ireland fails providing support for women in cases were abortion access and support should be provided. We've our head in the sand for the issue and the basis for which are strongly in a religious setting.
ABC101 wrote: » Are you stating that only religious / spiritual people are against abortion?
ABC101 wrote: » Anyway no matter how many times Irish people vote against abortion, those who support it will never stop trying to get the 8th admendment repealed, and of course blame the RCC in the process. The idea that some non binding bunch of snake oil salesmen have a greater say in formation of the Irish Constitution than the voting public is juvenile.
oscarBravo wrote: » I'd be shocked if you did.
JPNelsforearm wrote: » FGM is legal, and practised in many countries
frostyjacks wrote: » The UN can go and whistle. The people of Ireland will decide (have already decided) on our abortion laws. Crazy to think of genuine human rights abuses getting overlooked by the UN because of this crazy feminist crusade.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » You already did exchange masters! The minute independence from Britain was achieved, you replaced them with the RCC.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » It is yes, in countries that think Human Rights and UN declarations should not apply to them. Something similar to what you seem to be advocating for this country.
JPNelsforearm wrote: » And most people on this thread would agree that was a disaster, just now those morals have been replaced with another set of "secular" overlords telling us what to do. Home rule, not Rome rule, not Brussels rule, and I guess, in the case of the UN, New York rule, fairly simple, we should aspire to be an independent nation, not hang on the coattails of our betters.. Yes, that about sums it up, Irish Dail, Irish laws, Irish courts, Irish Judges, Irish constitution, for Irish people.
JPNelsforearm wrote: » When was the last vote on abortion? The state can have as many referenda as they like on the issue. If it fails every time so be it, but you cannot suddenly get the result you want on a particular issue and declare its set in stone forevermore. Would you dispute that until recently, they did have a greater say in both the writing and formation of the constitution right up until the 8th was inserted.. Combine that with said snake oil salesmen controlling the flow of information and education in the state.... Their influence looms large over this issue.
ABC101 wrote: » So just how often then should everything in the Irish Constitution be voted on, not just abortion? Every 5 years, 10 years, 30 years? I don't recall Articles two and Three been reviewed every 10 years. They were only voted on once as part of the Good Friday agreement in the late 1990's. That is a lot of referenda! It's not as if other nations review their entire constitution on a periodic basis via referendum.
eviltwin wrote: » There is a growing call for a change in the law. When the constitution appears to be at odds with public opinion it needs to be revisited.
ABC101 wrote: » Yes a growing call from the UN committee who don't even live here.
eviltwin wrote: » There is clearly growing public support for legal abortion in some form from Irish people and if you can't see that you're blind.
ABC101 wrote: » I am also aware that certain people working in the media are using their positions to influence a pro abortion agenda. This was highlighted recently by the pro life movement which conclusively showed Irish media's biased coverage of pro abortion arguments, 33:1 was the ratio. That is 33 articles proposing abortion and 1 article against. Yes, I am aware that there are some people who are pro abortion, there always will be. But to what extent, full term, partial birth, 21 weeks?
lazygal wrote: » Exactly how far should the state go to protect unborn babies? If I'm pregnant and don't want to be, what should happen? How many partial birth abortions take place every year? What's a full term abortion? And one more question, has the pro life movement published its data on the 33:1 claims it made and repeated the study? Or did that claim relate to a period when a clinically dead woman was kept alive while decomposing because she was pregnant?
ABC101 wrote: » Well if my memory serves me correctly the state should go further than what you yourself have admitted in protecting baby humans. WRT the 33:1 media articles, I was merely making the point that a lot of pro Z articles promoted by various by Pro Z persons does not mean there are a huge number of Pro Z voters in the country. Substitute Z with what ever example you wish. Fundamentally, it is about respecting the right to life of a human being in its most vulnerable stages of development. I believe that that is something which is worth protecting.
lazygal wrote: » So why do we let unborn lives be terminated abroad? How far should the state go to protect those at vulnerable stages of development? And you've ignored my point on the timing of the 33:1 claims. It was a time when a decomposing woman was kept alive because she was pregnant, wasn't it?
frostyjacks wrote: » A brain-dead woman recently gave birth to a healthy baby. If you had your way, that child would never have seen the light of day. Who made you God?https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/08/baby-born-to-brain-dead-mother-in-portugal
ABC101 wrote: » As far as reasonably practicable, which would prohibit abortion here because the right to life for a human being valued here. It's the principle which counts. Obviously it would not be practible to monitor every pregnant woman's travel movements, nor would it be possible. WRT the article, it may have been, but the point still stands, which was media bias.
