FF opportunism on abortion

Nodin

Min wrote: »

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....

They can only legislate along the lines laid out by the supreme court ruling. That makes guessing what comes out less than a test of psychic powers.

Min wrote: »

They are obliged to fix the difference between the Supreme court ruling and the constitution, that doesn't mean they have to legalise abortion, ....

Once again, you seem to be rather confused. The constitution permits abortion in certain circumstances. Therefore they must legislate in line with that.

28064212

Min wrote: »

how many abortions take place in Ireland?

None, it's illegal. The law that makes it illegal is unconstitutional though

Min wrote: »

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.

You mean like the referendum they had in 1992? And then 2002? And still didn't legislate?

Min wrote: »

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.

That's a lie, that is not what they found. Find the link and actually read the results, instead of posting whatever nonsense you've been spoon-fed

Min wrote: »

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.

Post a link to this study

Min wrote: »

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.

Beyond their remit, therefore irrelevant when it comes to legislation

Min wrote: »

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%.

You seem to think that the constitution says something it doesn't. It's quite clear what the constitution says, and the Supreme Court has ruled on it. If there is a substantial risk to the life of the woman, she is entitled to an abortion

B0jangles

The fact remains that any Irish woman (who has the means to do so) is currently perfectly free to travel to the UK to have an abortion if she chooses to do so. So Ireland's archaic laws on abortion only prevent the the poorest and most vulnerable from having full control over their own bodies. The anti-abortion crowd rely on shock-imagery of late-term miscarriages to create the impression that abortion = baby murder, and thus hope to frighten women away from this, in my opinion, perfectly valid alternative.

An American photographer chose to secretly photograph the abortion she chose to have at 6 weeks gestation, hoping to demystify and dehorrify (to coin a word) this procedure: check out the photographs.

(warning: no dead babies visible but there is some blood in a jar. Proceed with caution.)

http://www.thisismyabortion.com/

Min

Nodin wrote: »

They can only legislate along the lines laid out by the supreme court ruling. That makes guessing what comes out less than a test of psychic powers.




Once again, you seem to be rather confused. The constitution permits abortion in certain circumstances. Therefore they must legislate in line with that.

The constitution gives the right to life both to the mother and the unborn in equal measures.

They would have to legislate to change that.

Min

28064212 wrote: »

None, it's illegal. The law that makes it illegal is unconstitutional though


You mean like the referendum they had in 1992? And then 2002? And still didn't legislate?


That's a lie, that is not what they found. Find the link and actually read the results, instead of posting whatever nonsense you've been spoon-fed


Post a link to this study


Beyond their remit, therefore irrelevant when it comes to legislation


You seem to think that the constitution says something it doesn't. It's quite clear what the constitution says, and the Supreme Court has ruled on it. If there is a substantial risk to the life of the woman, she is entitled to an abortion

http://books.google.ie/books?id=G9ui-I1bMREC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false for increased suicide and substance abuse risk by having an abortion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19043144 - After adjustment for confounding, abortion was associated with a small increase in the risk of mental disorders; women who had had abortions had rates of mental disorder that were about 30% higher.


Please who is being spoon fed?
I posted facts that were part of the recent abortion debate in the Dáil and backed up by original reports.
You cannot accept that on average, abortion leads to more negative consequences for women than for those women who do not kill their unborn.

C14N

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.

How strong is the actual "Catholic" vote though? Officially, around 85% of Irish people are self-reported Catholics but I would be willing to bet considerably less than half actually live what one would call a "Catholic" lifestyle or use Catholic morals in their everyday life.

Dr Galen

Thread going Off Topic

This thread is not for discussing the rights and wrongs of Abortion etc, but rather MM and FF and the question around Political Opportunism on the issue.

Leave the more detailed discussions around Abortion to another thread or forum please

Cheers

DrG

28064212

C14N wrote: »

How strong is the actual "Catholic" vote though? Officially, around 85% of Irish people are self-reported Catholics but I would be willing to bet considerably less than half actually live what one would call a "Catholic" lifestyle or use Catholic morals in their everyday life.

There's a sizable contingent of pro-lifers who vote solely on the abortion issue. It's exact size is debatable, but FF do not have the backbone to risk it

Boulevardier

I continue to be nauseated by FFs weasely behaviour on this issue. Once again they have signalled to conservative voters that they are with them, and yet they have not actually stated a position of their own. They are also doing this with the Children's referendum.

They really are beneath contempt.

droidus

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.

Im sorry - are you making this up? What case are you referring to here? Do you have any evidence to back up these claims?

Presumably you're not talking about the X case, as that unfortunate girl had a miscarriage.

Min

droidus wrote: »

Im sorry - are you making this up? What case are you referring to here? Do you have any evidence to back up these claims?

Presumably you're not talking about the X case, as that unfortunate girl had a miscarriage.

I don't make things up to suit my argument, for the simple reason evidence will be asked for. I heard it on the Pat Kenny show a few years ago, I was of the impression before then that the lady at the centre of the C case wanted the abortion given it is what the media had fed us, it turned out it was something she didn't want and I was just stunned at what the state did to this girl who is now a woman.

Evidence:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055624490

http://www.rte.ie/about/en/press-office/press-releases/2009/0717/292673-ccasewoman160709/

Speaking to RTÉ’s Pat Kenny, the young woman, now 25, will describe the attack and the traumatic circumstances of the abortion that followed. She will tell how her life was “destroyed” following the rape itself and the subsequent controversy.
Set to speak on RTÉ Radio 1’s Today with Pat Kenny, Miss C will reveal how she tried to take her own life as a result of the trauma she suffered.
Talking frankly about her past, Miss “C” reveals she called her baby “Shannon” on the death certificate. She would have liked, she says, if the child had been adopted.

Boulevardier

FF opportunism, folks???

droidus

Min wrote: »

I don't make things up to suit my argument, for the simple reason evidence will be asked for. I heard it on the Pat Kenny show a few years ago, I was of the impression before then that the lady at the centre of the C case wanted the abortion given it is what the media had fed us, it turned out it was something she didn't want and I was just stunned at what the state did to this girl who is now a woman.

Evidence:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055624490

http://www.rte.ie/about/en/press-office/press-releases/2009/0717/292673-ccasewoman160709/

Do you have a working link to that interview or Irish Times article?

As I understand it, the girl threatened suicide if she could not get an abortion and the health board took a case against her parents who wished to prevent the girl from travelling. That she now regrets this course of action is, of course, tragic.

The alternative is that the state, unprompted, decided that the girl should have an abortion, then forced her to do so whilst the media covered up the entire thing. Is this your belief?

Is this scenario plausible when you consider the states handling of similar situations - all of which have resulted in denial of the right to travel (X case) or to abortion in Ireland (A-B-C case)?

Silvio.Dante

Boulevardier wrote: »

FF opportunism, folks???

FF has a long and proud history of protecting the unborn. I'd be very disappointed if any FF leader advocated to legislate for abortion...

Boulevardier

"FF has a long and proud history of protecting the unborn. "

Really? All I can see from them is that they have sat on their hands over the X case.

FF are cute, spineless weasels. They have no right whatever to say they are "the Republican party."

Min

droidus wrote: »

Do you have a working link to that interview or Irish Times article?

As I understand it, the girl threatened suicide if she could not get an abortion and the health board took a case against her parents who wished to prevent the girl from travelling. That she now regrets this course of action is, of course, tragic.

The alternative is that the state, unprompted, decided that the girl should have an abortion, then forced her to do so whilst the media covered up the entire thing. Is this your belief?

Is this scenario plausible when you consider the states handling of similar situations - all of which have resulted in denial of the right to travel (X case) or to abortion in Ireland (A-B-C case)?

No working link as it is subscriber and I don't have a sub.

I remember listening to it, she never wanted an abortion.
She simply never wanted to keep the baby once it was born, the thing is the state via the HSE never explained to her what an abortion was, they just presumed she knew and they thought they knew what she wanted given some believe every rape victim who becomes pregnant wants an abortion, which isn't the case in reality. The media played a role as the case got a lot of coverage of what the HSE were saying what the girl wanted, which in reality is not what she wanted.
The parents were dismissed in all of this, the courts assumed the girl wanted to travel for an abortion.
It is not something the state will be shouting about given their role in adding to the distress of the girl, with the publicity when all she wanted was her baby to be adopted when it was born.

Instead we had an abortion debate with an abortion that was never asked for. No one as far as we know was held accountable for this.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

I don't make things up to suit my argument, for the simple reason evidence will be asked for. I heard it on the Pat Kenny show a few years ago, I was of the impression before then that the lady at the centre of the C case wanted the abortion given it is what the media had fed us, it turned out it was something she didn't want and I was just stunned at what the state did to this girl who is now a woman.

Evidence:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055624490

http://www.rte.ie/about/en/press-office/press-releases/2009/0717/292673-ccasewoman160709/

She wanted the procedure at the time. Considering that the woman was essentially in emotional turmoil, its of no suprise she may have had second thoughts over the years.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79897765&postcount=30

This is the second time I've had to point this out to you.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Just a reminder - and this is not the first reminder on this thread - this is NOT a thread about the ethics of abortion. It is about how Irish political parties have legislated on the issue.

Since many of the people bringing the ethics of abortion into this thread did so on the religious lobbying thread despite multiple mod warnings to stay on topic, there will not be any more warnings or infractions - if you cannot stay on topic, you will be banned.

Min

Nodin wrote: »

She wanted the procedure at the time. Considering that the woman was essentially in emotional turmoil, its of no suprise she may have had second thoughts over the years.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79897765&postcount=30

This is the second time I've had to point this out to you.

FF have always been pro-life, they didn't legislate and what you posted as a link was back in 1997 when the myth she wanted an abortion was alive, she had said she didn't want to keep the baby, she said herself she had never wanted the abortion, heard her with my own ears.

FF would have known later after the abortion that what had happened after the abortion when she had asked to see the baby, as she thought it would be alive, your link adds nothing as she said herself on the PK show she was tramatised.

I don't think FF would have wanted to go near abortion after that, and the pro-life side is what one expects them to be on, the title of this thread talks about FF opportunism in relation to abortion, but FF have not changed their position on it. They more than most will know that hard cases make bad law.

poeticseraphim

Min wrote: »

No working link as it is subscriber and I don't have a sub.

I remember listening to it, she never wanted an abortion.
She simply never wanted to keep the baby once it was born, the thing is the state via the HSE never explained to her what an abortion was, they just presumed she knew and they thought they knew what she wanted given some believe every rape victim who becomes pregnant wants an abortion, which isn't the case in reality. The media played a role as the case got a lot of coverage of what the HSE were saying what the girl wanted, which in reality is not what she wanted.
The parents were dismissed in all of this, the courts assumed the girl wanted to travel for an abortion.
It is not something the state will be shouting about given their role in adding to the distress of the girl, with the publicity when all she wanted was her baby to be adopted when it was born.

Instead we had an abortion debate with an abortion that was never asked for. No one as far as we know was held accountable for this.

She was always kept anonymous and it would be impossible to know the full details....very possible to make them up i have witnessed one particular pro-lifer Niamh Ní Bhriain make such things up.

That case is represented differently from as what you have described and that is a matter of public record.

As Miss x was anon it is impossible really for anyone 'to have heard her with their own ears' unless she went public and said yes i was the girl who was incestously raped, which i very much doubt she did.

The idea of a teenager not understanding what abortion is , is quite frankly ludicrous. The idea that the HSE would not fully explain this is insane.

I accept a woman may change her mind but she wanted the procedure.

As for the way parties have legislated , well legislation has always been from the perspective of actually AVOIDING ever legislating on abortion. Parties have skirted around the edges but really it's been about the right to travel etc ..never ablut abortion.





I am unashamedly pro-choice.:)

PopePalpatine

Boulevardier wrote: »

FF are cute, spineless weasels. They have no right whatever to say they are "the Republican party."

I dunno about that, they seem a lot like the Republicans in the US when it comes to social issues. :rolleyes:

Min

poeticseraphim wrote: »

She was always kept anonymous and it would be impossible to know the full details....very possible to make them up i have witnessed one particular pro-lifer Niamh Ní Bhriain make such things up.

That case is represented differently from as what you have described and that is a matter of public record.

As Miss x was anon it is impossible really for anyone 'to have heard her with their own ears' unless she went public and said yes i was the girl who was incestously raped, which i very much doubt she did.

The idea of a teenager not understanding what abortion is , is quite frankly ludicrous. The idea that the HSE would not fully explain this is insane.

I accept a woman may change her mind but she wanted the procedure.

As for the way parties have legislated , well legislation has always been from the perspective of actually AVOIDING ever legislating on abortion. Parties have skirted around the edges but really it's been about the right to travel etc ..never ablut abortion.





I am unashamedly pro-choice.:)

She did not want the procedure, ring Pat Kenny and find out when he is back on air and with a FF politician and ask Pat about the woman and any FFer if they felt guilt for what the HSE did to this girl and if that is what they didn't want to make any law to allow abortion, because if they had brought in a law had been made based on the C case it would be a law based on lies.
I do not like being called a liar because it doesn't suit your position.
She never changed her mind on anything, she said she told the HSE that she didn't want to keep the baby, this is what they interpreted as she wanted an abortion.
Please do as I say rather than make out one is a liar because they are pro-life and ring Pat Kenny, then when he confirms the C case never wanted an abortion, ask someone in FF if they felt guilt for what the state did to this girl who never wanted an abortion and if that is why they never brought in abortion, even in limited circumstances.
The poor woman said on the PK show that she was still grieving the death of Shannon, whom she never wanted killed.
You can be sure that FF and the PDs at the time realised later on what the state did to this woman on top of the trauma of being raped.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

She did not want the(.........) realised later on what the state did to this woman on top of the trauma of being raped.

It's a matter of record that she did indeed request an abortion.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/abortion-case-girl-treated-for-stress-460193.html
If a traumatised woman has 'problems' with regard to memory, thats understandable. There is, however, no excuse for others to pile in and take and advantage.

Min

Nodin wrote: »

It's a matter of record that she did indeed request an abortion.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/abortion-case-girl-treated-for-stress-460193.html
If a traumatised woman has 'problems' with regard to memory, thats understandable. There is, however, no excuse for others to pile in and take and advantage.

..and you fail to look at the date.

Wednesday December 31 1997, I don't believe they would be publishing what a girl of 13 years of age reportedly said as she was suppose to be in state care and anonymous.
It was more than likely that someone from the HSE leaked false information out of guilt for what they did and the reason she needed the treatment for stress.
Ring Pat Kenny and he will clearly tell you that she never wanted the abortion and it was that which left her in a bad state because she wanted to give it away for adoption.

I don't think FF took advantage of it but pro-choice people are, because the girl at the centre of this clearly told Pat Kenny that the HSE took her up wrong.


The link says it 'was reported to have said,', the guilty party in this is the HSE and given she was in their care, do you think they would be releasing a statement with the girl saying she didn't want an abortion at all.
Imagine the uproar in this country if the truth had come out then just after the abortion, rather than in 2009.

The state was never going to admit it and FF who ran the country then wouldn't have wanted the truth coming out then either, given the state was at fault.

TheChizler

Min wrote: »

..and you fail to look at the date.

Wednesday December 31 1997, I don't believe they would be publishing what a girl of 13 years of age reportedly said as she was suppose to be in state care and anonymous.
It was more than likely that someone from the HSE leaked false information out of guilt for what they did and the reason she needed the treatment for stress.
Ring Pat Kenny and he will clearly tell you that she never wanted the abortion and it was that which left her in a bad state because she wanted to give it away for adoption.

I don't think FF took advantage of it but pro-choice people are, because the girl at the centre of this clearly told Pat Kenny that the HSE took her up wrong.


The link says it 'was reported to have said,', the guilty party in this is the HSE and given she was in their care, do you think they would be releasing a statement with the girl saying she didn't want an abortion at all.
Imagine the uproar in this country if the truth had come out then just after the abortion, rather than in 2009.

The state was never going to admit it and FF who ran the country then wouldn't have wanted the truth coming out then either, given the state was at fault.

So speculation = fact now??

Nodin

Min wrote: »

..and you fail to look at the date..

I'm aware of the date. It's entirely deliberate, because it indicates a change of story.

Once again, I question the ethics of those who would use a traumatised womans state to springboard their own agenda.

Min wrote: »

Wednesday December 31 1997, I don't...... then either, given the state was at fault.

When you deviate from the facts into wild speculation, what you believe is of no real relevance. This case came under extreme scrutiny, as it went to the highest courts, rendering your conspiracy nonsense rather laughable.

The consequences of the HSE ignoring wishes in such a manner - financially - would be enormous. There has been no suit, nor an attempt at one, nor do I expect to hear of one. That itself is rather telling.

christmas2012

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

Youre confusing womens rights with abortion,if you can argue that cant you argue abortion is a mans right too?Whenever i hear marie stopes or any of these other clinics harp on about rights,womens ears prick up and they immediately side with the argument of abortion,even though some of them know near half to NOTHING about the trauma of abortion,it almost makes me laugh.

BTW im not hardline for or against abortion,i do think it depends on the situation,for suicidal rape victims i think it should not be an issue or those bearing a foetus incompatible with life.


Abortion is a horribly invasive procedure,its painful and extremely traumatic,it is a phsyical trauma with no proper pain medication for the aftermath you are basically left there.

I dont think ireland is ready for abortion,i dont think its down the personal feelings of FF members,its a population issue,we already have an ageing population in ireland,whats legalised abortion going to do to it.If youre a shrewd politician you have to answer these hard questions to yourself.

28064212

christmas2012 wrote: »

i do think it depends on the situation,for suicidal rape victims i think it should not be an issue or those bearing a foetus incompatible with life.
...
I dont think ireland is ready for abortion

So what should suicidal rape victims in Ireland do?

christmas2012

Get the service they need obviously,i would make concessions for those who lets say bear handicaps or those incompatible with life,or those victims of rape,within the 3 month period.

28064212

christmas2012 wrote: »

Get the service they need obviously,i would make concessions for those who lets say bear handicaps or those incompatible with life,or those victims of rape,within the 3 month period.

...so Ireland should legislate for abortion?

28064212

christmas2012 wrote: »

NO,i dont think abortion for all is the way forward.

Who mentioned anything about abortion for all? In order for suicidal rape victims to be able to get abortions, legislation has to be enacted to allow them to get them.

Do you think legislation for abortion in certain circumstances should be brought in to Ireland?

christmas2012

Only in certain circumstances ie life threateing,those with serious cases ie the x case yes most definatly but abortion for all would be dire for us..

SocSocPol

Abortion is a civil right which, under the terms of the X Case and A/B/C/ judgement of the EHCR is wholly legal in Ireland once certain conditions are met. It ill behoves any person to demand that a woman carry any unwanted pregnancy to full term.
For myself I wholly support demands that our cowardly politicians at the very least legislate for the X Case, or more preferably introduce the right to free choice as it exists in the rest of Europe and most of the western world.
It appears the anti choice / anti woman movement are determind to persist in their demands to roll back on the rights of women to control their bodies and their lives.

Shea O'Meara

I can never understand why any woman would consider themselves a catholic, because lets face it, it's the death grip of the church that keeps Ireland the sad outdated pathetic place that it is socially.
To have a male led institution, which has the ear of government, who pander to them purely for the votes of the ignorant and blind tell a woman when she can or can't have an abortion is a disgrace and at best an embarrassment.

Am I reading some posts correctly; no abortions because we've more old than young. Abortions are okay if the child will be disabled? Very christian.

oppenheimer1

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...?

Legislating for allowing suicide as grounds for abortion is in essence legislating for abortion on demand. Thats the problem and why its so divisive.

Nodin

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Legislating for allowing suicide as grounds for abortion is in essence legislating for abortion on demand. Thats the problem and why its so divisive.

Yet the electorate has already voted quite specifically to leave it in as grounds for abortion, divisive though that choice may be.

oppenheimer1

Nodin wrote: »

Yet the electorate has already voted quite specifically to leave it in as grounds for abortion, divisive though that choice may be.

But there is not complete support for abortion on demand as far as I know. It is not possible to legislate to allow abortion in the case of suicide and not essentially have abortion on demand. The same argument is also true in the case of rape.


I guess thats what makes it a political minefield. I don't think the coalition will end up legislating for this as it will be too divisive. Labour would be in no mood for an early election either.

Nodin

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But there is not complete support for abortion on demand as far as I know. It is not possible to legislate to allow abortion in the case of suicide and not essentially have abortion on demand. The same argument is also true in the case of rape.
.

....I'd beg to differ, as would others.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I guess thats what makes it a political minefield. I don't think the coalition will end up legislating for this as it will be too divisive. Labour would be in no mood for an early election either.

How would they avoid doing so? They're obligated to legislate for it. Should they fail to do so, they're wide open to court action both here and in Europe, with the attendant expense. Then theres the possibility of civil action for damages.

SaoriseBiker

I cannot stand FF, but when any party takes a stand on an issue if you want to be negative you could just say it's " oppurtunism " regardless.

oppenheimer1

Nodin wrote: »

....I'd beg to differ, as would others.



How would they avoid doing so? They're obligated to legislate for it. Should they fail to do so, they're wide open to court action both here and in Europe, with the attendant expense. Then theres the possibility of civil action for damages.

I'd love to know how they could legislate for those two specific instances.

If someone tells a doctor they are suicidal for example there is no way a doctor can determine otherwise. In other words the patient could lie. The question would become a box ticking exercise like it is in the UK and we would essentially have abortion-on-demand. The same is true of rape, the patient could lie about consent, even if the act was consensual. No one is going to question it and rightly so.

Now a lot of people do not have a problem with that becoming the norm and would like it (abortion) to be freely available. Others do and would only like it available in restricted circumstances and therein lies the problem, it is impossible to restrict in practicality. Its all or nothing.

The government is sovereign, it can ignore what it wants to. There is no risk of international sanction over what is an internal issue. I'm not saying thats right, but its true. Its a tactic that has worked successfully for 20 years.

28064212

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If someone tells a doctor they are suicidal for example there is no way a doctor can determine otherwise.

That's not true. There are numerous places where legislation already exists where doctors are required to decide whether someone is truly suicidal.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The question would become a box ticking exercise like it is in the UK and we would essentially have abortion-on-demand.

The legislation in the UK is a totally different scenario. It only references the health of the mother, not the life. If there are any negative effects of pregnancy on the mother, they can opt to abort. Morning sickness is grounds for abortion in the UK if the mother chooses.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The same is true of rape, the patient could lie about consent, even if the act was consensual. No one is going to question it and rightly so.

Well firstly, rape isn't a reason under the Irish constitution where a woman has a right to abort. Secondly, it would be quite easy to bring in legislation if it was consitutionally required, since rape is a legal term. Legislation would require a conviction (although obviously that would be pretty impractical in reality, since you couldn't get a conviction quickly enough)

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The government is sovereign, it can ignore what it wants to. There is no risk of international sanction over what is an internal issue. I'm not saying thats right, but its true. Its a tactic that has worked successfully for 20 years.

If a doctor performed an abortion here where there was a substantial risk to the life of the mother, and was jailed for it, they could appeal it, and they would win. The courts would award a judgement against the state.

And of course they can be sanctioned internationally. Countries are sanctioned for internal rights issues all the time.

Nodin

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I'd love to (..........)d successfully for 20 years.

As has been pointed out, Doctors can and do rule on whether or not somebody is suicidal.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The government is sovereign, it can ignore what it wants to. There is no risk of international sanction over what is an internal issue. I'm not saying thats right, but its true. Its a tactic that has worked successfully for 20 years. .

The Government can't ignore the Irish Supreme Court, which has ruled that it must legislate for abortion in limited circumstances. The tactic used for 20 years was to put the matter on the long finger. That's now run its course.

28064212

Nodin wrote: »

The Government can't ignore the Irish Supreme Court, which has ruled that it must legislate for abortion in limited circumstances. The tactic used for 20 years was to put the matter on the long finger. That's now run its course.

Sadly, I reckon they can continue with the same tactic. There isn't anything the courts can do, unless someone actually takes a case. And you can't take a case on a hypothetical, so unless there's both a doctor who's happy to put their career on hold (and possibly face jail time) and a woman who is going through an already tough situation who's willing to fight a very public case where they will be vilified by some very loud and very active sections of society, it's not going to happen.

The current set of circumstances were never foreseen by the writers of our Constitution. It would have been totally inconceivable for them to have a law which openly contravenes the Constitution. Imagine the Government had decided they weren't going to legislate for divorce after the 15th amendment? There would have been riots. The only consequence for a government putting it on the long finger is the potential they might be voted out, and the pro-choice movement have never been organised enough to make that threat real

passarellaie

the pro-choice movement have never been organised enough to make that threat real[/QUOTE]

No what they do instead is tell Irish citizens they arent entitled to have an opinion nor indeed tell others what that opinion.But then again we all know minsiter Rabbittes totalitarian roots.

Nodin

passarellaie wrote: »

No what they do instead is tell Irish citizens they arent entitled to have an opinion nor indeed tell others what that opinion.But then again we all know minsiter Rabbittes totalitarian roots.

...bit of an odd statement, considering that the legislation - if its forth coming - is the result of referenda carried out many years ago.

28064212

passarellaie wrote: »

No what they do instead is tell Irish citizens they arent entitled to have an opinion nor indeed tell others what that opinion.But then again we all know minsiter Rabbittes totalitarian roots.

Not actually what was said at all, but feel free to back up your claims with actual quotes

oppenheimer1

Nodin wrote: »

...bit of an odd statement, considering that the legislation - if its forth coming - is the result of referenda carried out many years ago.

There was no referendum, it was a supreme court judgement.

I think the SC overstepped the mark with its judgement, effectively legislating. Its not for the courts to legislate but the Oireachtas. For that reason it was why the British Courts refused to rule in favour of assisted suicide.

Nodin

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

There was no referendum, it was a supreme court judgement.

I think the SC overstepped the mark with its judgement, effectively legislating. Its not for the courts to legislate but the Oireachtas. For that reason it was why the British Courts refused to rule in favour of assisted suicide.

It was the SC interpreting the constitution, as amended by the referenda. The referenda made amendments that protect the life of the child, but allow for abortion where the life of the mother is at risk.

28064212

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

There was no referendum, it was a supreme court judgement.

That would almost (but not quite) be a valid argument, except there were, not one, but two referendums in light of the Supreme Court judgement, and both times the people voted to leave the constitution as the court interpreted it

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I think the SC overstepped the mark with its judgement, effectively legislating. Its not for the courts to legislate but the Oireachtas.

It is not "effectively legislating". If it was, we would have had legalised abortion 20 years ago. It is for the courts to decide what the constitution means.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

For that reason it was why the British Courts refused to rule in favour of assisted suicide.

What is this in reference to? On the face of it, it seems a total non-sequitur to bring up a state which does not have a constitution.

oppenheimer1

28064212 wrote: »

That would almost (but not quite) be a valid argument, except there were, not one, but two referendums in light of the Supreme Court judgement, and both times the people voted to leave the constitution as the court interpreted it.

This is incorrect. The people voted on a change to the constitution, not on leaving it as is. Just because the amendment was rejected does not imply implicit approval of the current situation.

It is not "effectively legislating". If it was, we would have had legalised abortion 20 years ago. It is for the courts to decide what the constitution means.

The decision was effectively legislating because the courts told the government and the people how to interpret the abortion amendment and that interpretation would require a change to law to incorporate their interpretation. The original amendment was poorly written, however the SC should have not defined what is a threat to the mother. The decision was always going to be divisive so the SC should have said that the definition of a "threat to the life of the mother" should be made by the people. I understand what the role of the SC is thanks, but I think they should show greater care with their judgements since their judgements become part of the constitution when given. There are plenty of vague bits in the constitution that the judges can interpret whatever way they like - essentially they can rewrite bits of it and use it in ways that were never intended.

What is this in reference to? On the face of it, it seems a total non-sequitur to bring up a state which does not have a constitution.

The reason I bring this up is that it was a case with similarities to the X case, but came down on the other side. Although the UK doesn't have a written constitution per-se, it does operate on the principle that a judgement sets precedent. Had the Judge in the assisted suicide case a few weeks ago come doen in favour of Tony Nicholson, it would have forced the UK government to legislate for assisted suicide. In part of the judges ruling he stated that it would be wrong for him to to rule in favour of Tony Nicholson because that would mean that he, an unelected officer was effectively making law, not just interpreting it. He said that only Parliament should write laws and I wholeheartedly agree. The parallels with the X-case should be clear.