FF opportunism on abortion

Boulevardier

I presume I am not the only person this morning who is nauseated by Micheal Martin's statement that he is "not convinced" of the need to legislate on the X case.

Translation: FF wants the pro-life vote and does not care what they have to do to get it.

Oddly, this item has disappeared from some news websites since I saw it earlier.

mikemac1

If they were going to legislate what would that mean?

Genuinely asking, I'm not sure what Martin means when he says that

The wiki page is good and I remember the three options in the referendum
But I'm not sure what the current topic is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X

Boulevardier

Legislating on the X case would mean allowing abortion where there is a threat to the mother, including (because of the Supreme Court X Case decision in 1992) the threat of suicide.

The point made by many legislators is that such legislation is needed in order to bring the law into line with court decisions. An attempt to go the other way - that is, to have an amendment to cancel out the supreme Court ruling - was defeated by popular vote a few years ago.

I think that FF's view on this, however, is not motivated by anything other than an opportunist atempt to grab the pro-life vote from under the feet of Fine Gael. It is political posturing of a particularly despicable kind.

Nodin

Boulevardier wrote: »

I presume I am not the only person this morning who is nauseated by Micheal Martin's statement that he is "not convinced" of the need to legislate on the X case.

Translation: FF wants the pro-life vote and does not care what they have to do to get it.

Oddly, this item has disappeared from some news websites since I saw it earlier.

Saw this earlier.

Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin says he "remains to be
convinced" that the Oireachtas should legislate for the X case on abortion
despite a 20-year failure to do so.

He fears such legislation could allow for abortion in more widespread
circumstances than envisaged by the 1992 Supreme Court judgment.

In an interview with the Irish Examiner, Mr Martin said that legislation could create "an open-door situation" that would turn out to be "very difficult to hold back".

His comments came as a Labour junior minister Kathleen Lynch
predicted the Government would ultimately have to legislate.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/martin-disputes-need-for-law-on-abortion-201680.html

It's rather a surreal statement. The Supreme court has ruled that the referendum requires legislation for abortion in limited circumstances. A referendum to remove suicide as a reason was rejected. He hasn't a leg to stand on.

hallelujajordan

Boulevardier wrote: »

Legislating on the X case would mean allowing abortion where there is a threat to the mother, including (because of the Supreme Court X Case decision in 1992) the threat of suicide.

The point made by many legislators is that such legislation is needed in order to bring the law into line with court decisions. An attempt to go the other way - that is, to have an amendment to cancel out the supreme Court ruling - was defeated by popular vote a few years ago.

I think that FF's view on this, however, is not motivated by anything other than an opportunist atempt to grab the pro-life vote from under the feet of Fine Gael. It is political posturing of a particularly despicable kind.

I don't agree with MM's view on this but it is hard to argue that this is an opportunistic position given that successive FF governments have had the chance to legislate on this for the last 20 years and did not.

C14N

Boulevardier wrote: »

I think that FF's view on this, however, is not motivated by anything other than an opportunist atempt to grab the pro-life vote from under the feet of Fine Gael. It is political posturing of a particularly despicable kind.

Is that really a big vote though? Could it cause more dislike of FF than support? It seems that people who oppose abortion are a dying breed (and I say that as one of them). I have seen a lot of hate for public figures who go against abortion too, so I could easily imagine it driving many voters firmly away.

Sierra Oscar

I fail to see how the state cannot legislate for it considering the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Actor

Papal Knighthood in the bag for anyone who stands up to the hard left on the issue of abortion.

I'd say Enda Kenny will have the good sense to tell the Labour ****-stirrers that this issue is off the agenda. We have more important things to be worrying about.

MadsL

Actor wrote: »

We have more important things to be worrying about.

Ah, the famous excuse for doing nothing. I'm getting heartily sick of this phrase.

SocSocPol

Actor wrote: »

Papal Knighthood in the bag for anyone who stands up to the hard left on the issue of abortion.

I'd say Enda Kenny will have the good sense to tell the Labour ****-stirrers that this issue is off the agenda. We have more important things to be worrying about.

What could be more important than the civil rights of women which have been ignored for decades, the right to choose is a civil right, especially when your life depends on it.

Dirk Gently

Actor wrote: »

I'd say Enda Kenny will have the good sense to tell the Labour ****-stirrers that this issue is off the agenda. .

I'm hoping Labour will have the backbone to tell FG conservatives to STFU tbh. Labour need some kind of success if they are to survive as a viable party after the next election so I'd expect them not to back down too easily on certain non economic issues.

seamus

hallelujajordan wrote: »

it is hard to argue that this is an opportunistic position given that successive FF governments have had the chance to legislate on this for the last 20 years and did not.

The legislation required would allow abortion to be provided in this country in limited circumstances.

This makes certain groups of people unhappy, they cite the slippery slope fallacy that this will allow for abortions on demand to be brought in. Primarily the over-50 conservative Catholics. And this group makes up the core of both FF and FG's votes. They've been fighting over this vote for years, and this is the only reason why we haven't seen the legislation - neither party give a toss about the morals or ethics, it's all about the vote.

The government who legislates as they are required to do, is the Government that will lose this vote at the next election, and therefore lose the election. This is why it's opportunism on FF's part - they can smell the blood in the water, they know that there's a good chance the current government will have to legislate during their term in office, and FF are stating their "no legislation" policy now so that they can mop up the core conservative vote at the next election.

The other non-conservative parties should be on the offensive against FF and trying to get FF's pro-choice voters to jump ship by painting them out as backwards conservatives.

Nodin

Actor wrote: »

Papal Knighthood in the bag for anyone who stands up to the hard left on the issue of abortion.

I'd say Enda Kenny will have the good sense to tell the Labour ****-stirrers that this issue is off the agenda. We have more important things to be worrying about.

The electorate voted for limited access to abortion. The supreme court ruled that legislation should be brought forward. The electorate subsequently rejected removing risk of suicide as a reason for access to abortion. I'm not seeing where "hard left" comes into that.

hallelujajordan

seamus wrote: »

The legislation required would allow abortion to be provided in this country in limited circumstances.

This makes certain groups of people unhappy, they cite the slippery slope fallacy that this will allow for abortions on demand to be brought in. Primarily the over-50 conservative Catholics. And this group makes up the core of both FF and FG's votes. They've been fighting over this vote for years, and this is the only reason why we haven't seen the legislation - neither party give a toss about the morals or ethics, it's all about the vote.

The government who legislates as they are required to do, is the Government that will lose this vote at the next election, and therefore lose the election. This is why it's opportunism on FF's part - they can smell the blood in the water, they know that there's a good chance the current government will have to legislate during their term in office, and FF are stating their "no legislation" policy now so that they can mop up the core conservative vote at the next election.

The other non-conservative parties should be on the offensive against FF and trying to get FF's pro-choice voters to jump ship by painting them out as backwards conservatives.

It's hardly a "no legislation policy" . . it was a one-off comment from the party leader saying that he wasn't convinced of the need to legislate. .

I don't agree with him but I am simply pointing out that his position is entirely consistent with previous FF governments who didn't see the need to legislate so to describe his statement as opportunistic is somewhat unfair.

Manach

Having read the X-case myself,given the action for this seems to be spurred on from the ECHR of a 2010 case, there are no significant negative consequences at a political level for retaining the status quo.

28064212

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

I fail to see how the state cannot legislate for it considering the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

It was 20 years ago, and they haven't legislated yet. Not that hard to see them ignoring it yet again

Manach wrote: »

Having read the X-case myself,given the action for this seems to be spurred on from the ECHR of a 2010 case, there are no significant negative consequences at a political level for retaining the status quo.

Except for the fact it makes a total mockery of the Constitution

Dave!

Didn't Fianna Fáil see fit to introduce a blasphemy law in the interest of constitutional consistency?

Nodin

Manach wrote: »

Having read the X-case myself,given the action for this seems to be spurred on from the ECHR of a 2010 case, there are no significant negative consequences at a political level for retaining the status quo.

...other than it ignoring the result of a constitutional referendum and a supreme court decision.

Boulevardier

"... there are no significant negative consequences at a political level for retaining the status quo."

Exactly. Hence my point about FF. That was the philosophy of FF governments to a T.

That is still the way they think, but, added to that, there is the cute hoor thing about picking up the (still strong) pro-life vote while committing themselves to nothing.

nuac

FF should consider allowing a free vote.

It would cut out a lot of discussion.

I don't know how good teh average TD FF or otherwise is on theology and gynaecology - politicos strayed into those areas last time out

seamus

nuac wrote: »

FF should consider allowing a free vote.

It would cut out a lot of discussion.

Considering that a FG TD was on Matt Cooper last night making proclamations about "God's law" and "Natural law" superceding all other laws, my suspicions is that any FF or FG party member wouldn't dare vote in favour of it lest their constituents find out.

An anonymous free vote would cover it, but even then I reckon they're just too scared ****less of their traditional vote to give it their approval. The party members will vote on what they think is best for the party, not what they think is best for the country.

Min

It must be remembered there are politicians who support the human rights of the unborn.
There are politician who believe there is a right to choose if the unborn are killed.

This is the issue and I believe it is more than simply pandering to certain voters, believe it or not politicians are people too and some will go with their own conscience rather than allow the unborn to be killed, for others their conscience tells the it is fine to allow the unborn to be killed.

One would expect FG and FF being centre right parties to be on the side of the rights for the unborn.
Labour and SF and socialists being on the left, would favour the right to choose and allow the unborn to be killed.

There is nothing surprising here.

I think the state is rather haunted by the girl whom they sent to England for an abortion after she had been raped and put in state care, she told the HSE she didn't want the baby. After the abortion, the girl asked to see her baby, not knowing an abortion killed the unborn, she simply wanted to give the baby away after it was born.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

It must be remembered there are politicians who support the human rights of the unborn.
There are politician who believe there is a right to choose if the unborn are killed.

This is the issue and I believe it is more than simply pandering to certain voters, believe it or not politicians are people too and some will go with their own conscience rather than allow the unborn to be killed, for others their conscience tells the it is fine to allow the unborn to be killed.

One would expect FG and FF being centre right parties to be on the side of the rights for the unborn.
Labour and SF and socialists being on the left, would favour the right to choose and allow the unborn to be killed.

There is nothing surprising here..

"pandering to certain voters"? You do realise that this is the result of two referenda and a supreme court decision?

Secondly, the legislation being brought forward is for abortion in a very limited set of circumstances, where the life of the mother is endangered.

Min wrote: »

I think the state is rather haunted by the girl whom they sent to England for an abortion after she had been raped and put in state care, she told the HSE she didn't want the baby. After the abortion, the girl asked to see her baby, not knowing an abortion killed the unborn, she simply wanted to give the baby away after it was born.

You've a source for that story...?

Shea O'Meara

Min wrote: »

It must be remembered there are politicians who support the human rights of the unborn.
There are politician who believe there is a right to choose if the unborn are killed.

So could I counter with; "There are politicians who support human rights and those who believe there is a right to choose killing women and young girls for the sake of the unborn"? Both viewpoints are simplictic and nonsense.

Min wrote: »

This is the issue and I believe it is more than simply pandering to certain voters, believe it or not politicians are people too and some will go with their own conscience rather than allow the unborn to be killed, for others their conscience tells the it is fine to allow the unborn to be killed.

So it's as simple as Kill babies or don't?

Min wrote: »

One would expect FG and FF being centre right parties to be on the side of the rights for the unborn.
Labour and SF and socialists being on the left, would favour the right to choose and allow the unborn to be killed.

There is nothing surprising here.

To return to, (although not quite free yet) an Ireland governed by crooked inbred FFailers and child rapist, women eslaving catholics would really buck up the country in these uncertain times.
Not saying all FFailers are crooks, nor all members of the catholic church into relations with children, but seeing as we're talking in broad strokes here...

Min wrote: »

I think the state is rather haunted by the girl whom they sent to England for an abortion after she had been raped and put in state care, she told the HSE she didn't want the baby. After the abortion, the girl asked to see her baby, not knowing an abortion killed the unborn, she simply wanted to give the baby away after it was born.

This would be one of the wee horror stories young girls are told by way of sex education.
That's the big problem with being closed minded. Young girls having abortions not knowing the full details prior to requesting one because conservative religious folk give simplictic one sided 'facts' and like to keep people plain and simple so they can more easily manipulate them, get them to vote for the churchiest party out there.

rightwingdub

I'm against abortion myself but I wouldn't Fianna Fail in a million years ever again as they presided over the economic destruction of Ireland. The conservative wing of FG need to stand up to Labour over abortion, also suprisingly there are a few Labour TDS who are opposed to abortion, Arthur Spring for one also as well Colm Keavney.

Nodin

rightwingdub wrote: »

I'm against abortion myself but I wouldn't Fianna Fail in a million years ever again as they presided over the economic destruction of Ireland. The conservative wing of FG need to stand up to Labour over abortion, also suprisingly there are a few Labour TDS who are opposed to abortion, Arthur Spring for one also as well Colm Keavney.

...its not about Labour. There was a referendum 20 years ago and a supreme court decision following that. They're obligated to bring in a law for abortion in limited circumstances.

Min

Nodin wrote: »

"pandering to certain voters"? You do realise that this is the result of two referenda and a supreme court decision?

Secondly, the legislation being brought forward is for abortion in a very limited set of circumstances, where the life of the mother is endangered.



You've a source for that story...?

No mother dies in Ireland as the doctors work to save both lives, and with no abortion we have lowest maternity deaths levels in the world.

This is what the people who have no problem allowing the unborn to killed allowed to happen.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0717/breaking35.html
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055624490
It was on the Pat Kenny where I heard it, I was shocked listening to how she was taken to England as a 16 year old against the wishes or her parent and given an abortion.
She said even years after the abortion, she is tramatised that her unborn baby was killed. It was very sad to listen to.

I agree with the FG position.

Harris reiterated Fine Gael’s general election commitment that pregnant women should receive whatever treatments are necessary to safeguard their lives – while upholding the duty of care to preserve the life of a baby.

Min

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

So could I counter with; "There are politicians who support human rights and those who believe there is a right to choose killing women and young girls for the sake of the unborn"? Both viewpoints are simplictic and nonsense.


So it's as simple as Kill babies or don't?



To return to, (although not quite free yet) an Ireland governed by crooked inbred FFailers and child rapist, women eslaving catholics would really buck up the country in these uncertain times.
Not saying all FFailers are crooks, nor all members of the catholic church into relations with children, but seeing as we're talking in broad strokes here...



This would be one of the wee horror stories young girls are told by way of sex education.
That's the big problem with being closed minded. Young girls having abortions not knowing the full details prior to requesting one because conservative religious folk give simplictic one sided 'facts' and like to keep people plain and simple so they can more easily manipulate them, get them to vote for the churchiest party out there.

Yes it is as simple as killing the unborn.

The girl never wanted her unborn to be killed, never asked for an abortion, she simply told the HSE she didn't want to keep her baby and they put 2 and 2 together and got 5, when all she meant was she wanted to give her baby away for adoption, not kill it before it was born.

Min

Nodin wrote: »

...its not about Labour. There was a referendum 20 years ago and a supreme court decision following that. They're obligated to bring in a law for abortion in limited circumstances.

They are not obligated to bring in a law for abortion, they can have another referendum.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

No mother dies in Ireland as the doctors work to save both lives, and with no abortion we have lowest maternity deaths levels in the world..

...and because women travel abroad when nessecary.

Min wrote: »

This is what .............listen to.

I agree with the FG position.

The times article is archived, so I can't comment. Do you have another source?
It would seem at the time it was her wish that the procedure be carried out.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/abortion-case-girl-treated-for-stress-460193.html

FG can have whatever "position" they like. However the electorates decision and subsequent legal rulings mean that the government is obliged to bring in legislation.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

They are not obligated to bring in a law for abortion, they can have another referendum.

A fourth, you mean. Why do you think the results going to be any different this time?

TheChizler

Initially when I read that article I was surprised that MM would sound so anti-abortion, and not reluctant to give an opinion like so many other leaders in similar positions. On subsequent readings I felt it was more the way the article was written and not his overall opinion on the issue.

To me it felt like he was actually saying it would be inappropriate to legislate (article gave no information on what this 'legislation' would entail) on this specific issue alone, and that broader legislation would be needed to cover the more wide-ranging issue.

28064212

Min wrote: »

No mother dies in Ireland as the doctors work to save both lives, and with no abortion we have lowest maternity deaths levels in the world.

That's not true, as shown here. The latest figures show we've slipped to 11th, linked from here

Min

28064212 wrote: »

That's not true, as shown here. The latest figures show we've slipped to 11th, linked from here

So among the very best in the world and ahead of most countries where abortion is legal.

28064212

Min wrote: »

So among the very best in the world and ahead of most countries where abortion is legal.

Lol, did you even read the links? Greece has extremely liberal abortion laws and it was top. In Afghanistan, abortion is illegal, and it was near the bottom. The WHO identified the factors contributing to maternity mortality rates. Abortion did not feature

hallelujajordan

Nodin wrote: »

...its not about Labour. There was a referendum 20 years ago and a supreme court decision following that. They're obligated to bring in a law for abortion in limited circumstances.

. . a little naive to think this is not about Labour ? Do you really think a FG majority government would be pushing to legislate ? As others have pointed out, we have ignored the obligation to legislate for 20 years with minimal consequences.

C14N

28064212 wrote: »

Lol, did you even read the links? Greece has extremely liberal abortion laws and it was top. In Afghanistan, abortion is illegal, and it was near the bottom.

Come on, Afghanistan is generally at the worse end of any list :rolleyes:

I don't understand this legislation. Is it simply to try and legalise abortion when the mother is in danger? I thought that was already legal?

28064212

C14N wrote: »

Come on, Afghanistan is generally at the worse end of any list :rolleyes:

And, as a first world country, Ireland is generally near the top of any list. Our low maternity mortality rate has nothing to do with whether abortion is legal or not.

C14N wrote: »

I don't understand this legislation. Is it simply to try and legalise abortion when the mother is in danger? I thought that was already legal?

It's illegal, but the law that makes it illegal is unconstitutional

C14N

28064212 wrote: »

And, as a first world country, Ireland is generally near the top of any list. Our low maternity mortality rate has nothing to do with whether abortion is legal or not.

Quite right. I didn't believe abortion access affected maternal mortality, I was just pointing out that Afghanistan was a bit of an extreme example.

28064212 wrote: »

It's illegal, but the law that makes it illegal is unconstitutional

Does that mean that they do not currently happen? Why hasn't it been pushed through yet? Is there really that much opposition to it?

28064212

C14N wrote: »

Quite right. I didn't believe abortion access affected maternal mortality, I was just pointing out that Afghanistan was a bit of an extreme example.

Which is why I used it.

C14N wrote: »

Does that mean that they do not currently happen? Why hasn't it been pushed through yet? Is there really that much opposition to it?

Because FF and FG are terrified of losing the "Catholic" vote. Ignoring that the Catholic vote actually voted against removing the right from the constitution.

Min

28064212 wrote: »

Lol, did you even read the links? Greece has extremely liberal abortion laws and it was top. In Afghanistan, abortion is illegal, and it was near the bottom. The WHO identified the factors contributing to maternity mortality rates. Abortion did not feature

There is a problem with pdf's on my pc at the moment so I could not read the link.

So the argument that abortion is needed to save the lives of pregnant mothers is a non issue, despite the people who are pro the use of abortion using it as an argument.

28064212

Min wrote: »

There is a problem with pdf's on my pc at the moment so I could not read the link.

So the argument that abortion is needed to save the lives of pregnant mothers is a non issue, despite the people who are pro the use of abortion using it as an argument.

You claimed that Ireland has a low maternity mortality rate because abortion is illegal here, that's not true.

And women don't die here because our "problem" is offloaded to the UK. The point is that they have a right to an abortion in this country

Nodin

C14N wrote: »

Come on, Afghanistan is generally at the worse end of any list :rolleyes:

I don't understand this legislation. Is it simply to try and legalise abortion when the mother is in danger? I thought that was already legal?

No. As far as I understand it's 'legal' (via the Supreme Court), but there is no legislation framing it. The European court had to issue a ruling telling the government it had to obey the 1992 Supreme court decision, which is a disgraceful situation for a supposedly modern western democracy to be in.

Min

28064212 wrote: »

Because FF and FG are terrified of losing the "Catholic" vote. Ignoring that the Catholic vote actually voted against removing the right from the constitution.

They could simply be pro-life, some here would have one believe that every politician is for allowing abortion, as if all of them secretly were for allowing abortion.
Believe it or not there are politicians who see it as being unethical to kill the unborn, most of these politicians reside in FF and FG.

If I remember correctly, the wording was kind of confusing in that referendum.

This is from the Irish times before that referendum

The No side in the referendum campaign has received a significant last-minute boost with a group of 25 obstetricians and gynaecologists calling for a No vote in tomorrow's poll.
The group includes three former Masters of maternity hospitals and three professors.
The joint call by the obstetricians has dented yesterday's declaration by the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, that medical practitioners supported the referendum and its accompanying legislation.
The 25 obstetricians and gynaecologists, in a statement issued yesterday, said that the current referendum would not address any of the reproductive difficulties affecting the women and men they dealt with every day.
The signatories also dissociated themselves from an earlier statement issued by the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology which urged a Yes vote in the referendum.
The signatories include Dr Peter Boylan, former Master of Holles St Hospital; Dr George Henry and Dr Michael Darling, both former Masters of the Rotunda Hospital; and three professors of obstetrics - Prof John Morrison, of NUI Galway, Prof Con O'Herlihy of University College Dublin and Prof Walter Prendiville of the College of Surgeons in Dublin.
"The final outcome of this referendum, be it a Yes or No vote, will not in any way change the current status of the morning-after pill, intra-uterine devices, IVF treatments or pregnancies showing lethal or other foetal abnormalities," they said.
They acknowledged that a Yes vote would support current obstetric practice, but questioned whether a referendum was necessary given that the mother's equal right to life was already enshrined in the Constitution.
"A No vote would certainly not interfere with an obstetrician's duty to do everything possible to preserve the lives of pregnant women.
"A Yes vote will however, outlaw abortion to save the life of a suicidal pregnant woman," the statement said.
They said a Yes vote would allow the State to demand sensitive information regarding women for whom life-saving operations are carried out, thereby seriously infringing doctor-patient relationships and patient confidentiality.
"Our Constitution is central to our national identity and integrity.Do we really want to alter it for so little gain, bearing in mind the genuine uncertainty and confusion that exists regarding the eventual outcome of the proposed alteration?"
The Taoiseach said yesterday that the "strength of the statement" in support of a Yes vote in the referendum, issued by the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists - "the very doctors whom women rely on during pregnancy" - had been "very important."
Speaking at Fianna Fáil's final campaign press conference, Mr Ahern said he would not be "in a hurry" to legislate for abortion, on the basis of the X case judgment, if the referendum was lost.
"Legislatively, we would have to go back to the drawing board. But I have given no thought to that.
"In fairness, it isn't something that I will do in a hurry," he told The Irish Times.
His final remarks differed from those made by him during Fianna Fáil's opening press conference of the campaign when he warned that a No vote would threaten a liberal abortion regime.
Insisting then that a No vote logically meant the X case would have to be covered by legislation, he added: "I do not want to see a pro-choice, liberal abortion regime in this country."
In a final call for a No vote, the Fine Gael leader, Mr Michael Noonan, warned it was impossible to predict how a future Supreme Court would interpret the wording proposed for adoption in the referendum and the Human Life in Pregnancy Act.

The thing is that referendum was confusing and badly worded.

Min

28064212 wrote: »

You claimed that Ireland has a low maternity mortality rate because abortion is illegal here, that's not true.

And women don't die here because our "problem" is offloaded to the UK. The point is that they have a right to an abortion in this country

Despite abortion being illegal.

Some women will refuse to kill their unborn and they don't die, the doctor under the constitution has a duty to try and save both lives.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

They could simply (......)badly worded.

There were three (3) referenda. There is a right to travel, information, and a right to abortion in limited circumstances. Its been decided. All this waffle and blather is irrelevant.

28064212

Min wrote: »

They could simply be pro-life, some here would have one believe that every politician is for allowing abortion, as if all of them secretly were for allowing abortion.
Believe it or not there are politicians who see it as being unethical to kill the unborn, most of these politicians reside in FF and FG.

Personal belief does not come into legislating for the X Case. The people have spoken, the Supreme Court have spoken

Min wrote: »

If I remember correctly, the wording was kind of confusing in that referendum.

This is from the Irish times before that referendum:

The thing is that referendum was confusing and badly worded.

That's from the 2002 referendum, not the 1983 or the 1992 ones, which are actually relevant.

Min wrote: »

Despite abortion being illegal.

What are you talking about now?

Min wrote: »

Some women will refuse to kill their unborn and they don't die, the doctor under the constitution has a duty to try and save both lives.

You mean by providing an abortion? No, they don't. If a pregnant woman has cancer which will kill her if left untreated for the full-term of the pregnancy, an Irish doctor cannot provide chemotherapy treatment if it will kill the foetus. The woman has to travel to the UK for an abortion first. Or she could let herself and the foetus die I suppose.

Min

Nodin wrote: »

There were three (3) referenda. There is a right to travel, information, and a right to abortion in limited circumstances. Its been decided. All this waffle and blather is irrelevant.

So what have the politicians decided, given they are the legislators and people don't want UK type abortion, and bad legislation could allow it to happen as what happened in other countries.
They have a duty to not allow what happened in the UK where the person who is responsible for abortion being allowed, says now abortion is just a form of contraception in most cases.
Near all cases of Irish women going abroad to kill their unborn is for contraception reasons rather than the extreme and exceptional arguments used to justify abortion.

There is no consensus on abortion, and I don't think people will be putting their conscience aside to allow something they view as bad for society to happen.
Most likely something will be done to keep the status quo as I don't see the FG TDs who value life along with other members of the Dáil with similar views allowing the killing of the unborn human life to be legalised.

No one has the right to decide who lives and who dies.

28064212

Min wrote: »

So what have the politicians decided, given they are the legislators and people don't want UK type abortion, and bad legislation could allow it to happen as what happened in other countries.

The politicians have to legislate to allow abortion in the cases where the woman's life is in danger. That is what the people want, that is what the constitution says

Nodin

Min wrote: »

So what have the politicians decided, given they are the legislators and people don't want UK type abortion, and bad legislation could allow it to happen as what happened in other countries.
They have a duty to not allow what happened in the UK where the person who is responsible for abortion being allowed, says now abortion is just a form of contraception in most cases.
Near all cases of Irish women going abroad to kill their unborn is for contraception reasons rather than the extreme and exceptional arguments used to justify abortion..

None of that has anything to do with the legislation being worked on, at all.

Min wrote: »

There is no consensus on abortion, and I don't think people will be putting their conscience aside to allow something they view as bad for society to happen.
Most likely something will be done to keep the status quo as I don't see the FG TDs who value life along with other members of the Dáil with similar views allowing the killing of the unborn human life to be legalised.

No one has the right to decide who lives and who dies.

You seem to be under a few misapprehensions. The "status quo" changed over 20 years ago. The Government is legally obliged to legislate. There are no "buts", "ifs" or anything else about it.

Min

Nodin wrote: »

None of that has anything to do with the legislation being worked on, at all.



You seem to be under a few misapprehensions. The "status quo" changed over 20 years ago. The Government is legally obliged to legislate. There are no "buts", "ifs" or anything else about it.

No legislation is being worked on, a review group are looking into it and it seems the Labour party seem to know what they will say before they say anything...makes one wonder...

The status quo hasn't changed, how many abortions take place in Ireland?

They are obliged to fix the difference between the Supreme court ruling and the constitution, that doesn't mean they have to legalise abortion, they can have a referendum based on the findings of the review group.
The Supreme court judges didn't consult the medical experts on pregnancy, and one could not accuse them of being medical experts.

The strange thing is suicide is seen a reason for abortion despite finding by medical experts in Finland where they posted a paper in the European Journal of Public Health where their findings were women who had an abortion were 6 times more likely to be suicidal.
In New Zealand a study by medics and posted in the British journal of psychiatry they found that women who had abortions were 30% more likely to suffer from mental health problems.

So what would judges know when it comes to suicide and pregnany - nothing. It is not their area of expertise and they did nothing to educate themselves that the woman who has an abortion has an increased risk of being suicidal.

We should not legislate based on something that is not the case. They are suicidal so allow an abortion is what the judges ruled, when the abortion actually increases the risk of suicide by 6 times and mental health problems by 30%.