Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

aloyisious

What I'm waiting for is some months down the road, and it'll only happen if the present coalition stay's put. On Tuesday's RTE TV news both Eamon and his deputy minister, Lucinda, gave a joint interview and there was a certain distance between what they said on the issue. On Wed Morning Eamon was on RTE Radio news and said he expected all Govt party TD's would vote with the Govt on the issue when it came to Govt legislation. So I'm wondering if Lucinda will vote against it and lose the FG whip and her job. Would Eamon take his party and walk if Enda didn't fire Lucinda.

Re the point made by Dr Rhona O'Mahoney about the chance that either/or the doctor or the pregnant woman could be prosecuted under the present legislation if some-one decided there were grounds enough, despite the Supreme Court ruling allowing for medical intervention to save a woman's life. I'm wondering what would happen if a woman was suicidal enough to attempt to take her life on being refused an abortion, but survived the attempt and the foetus in her womb died as a result of the attempt. Would that put the cat among the pigeons if such an incident occurred before any change in legislation?

lazygal

Sarky wrote: »

Who the hell let Mullen out of his box?

Mullins or Mullen? Both are pretty much anti choice.

Obliq

Ronan Mullen. Our favourite.

UDP

Obliq wrote: »

and then she gets another go:

13.22 – Barrister Maria Steen says all barristers believe there to be no legal reality of the prospect of a prosecution brought under the 1861 rules, once a doctor acts in good faith. If it were thought necessary to allay the fears of the medical community, then it may be possible to amend the 1861 laws to explicitly include a ‘good faith’ defence for doctors.
If a law deals with taking an innocent life, that law needs to be justified. This can be done under current medical practice, but if we talk about enacting a law that intentionally takes an innocent life, we need an even stronger justification for doing so. How can one agree with taking the life of an innocent child, Steen says, when its only crime is to have existed at all?

I liked how she could speak for every single barrister.

Obliq

UDP wrote: »

I liked how she could speak for every single barrister.

Oh, she got worse. Didn't even bear copying to put up here.

lazygal

Obliq wrote: »

Ronan Mullen. Our favourite.

Ah yes. The man who accused women who had to carry their dead unborn children to another country to avail of abortions of having a wider agenda and of comparing the murder of live children to a medical procedure. What would Jesus think of you Ronan? Feel free to reply if you read this.

Nodin

UDP wrote: »

I liked how she could speak for every single barrister.

Sure theres no point in pontificating if ye don't do it on a grand scale.

Sarky

He'll just go running to the print media about his hurt feelings.

Morag

Sarky wrote: »

Shame about the flouride poster on the right. :pac:

well they didn't put it there...

lazygal

Sarky wrote: »

He'll just go running to the print media about his hurt feelings.

Him and John Waters can team up. Have an auld rosary session together.

Sarky

Thanks to that picture from a few days back I am now thinking Mullen and Waters "teaming up" involves nudity.

lazygal

Sarky wrote: »

Thanks to that picture from a few days back I am now thinking Mullen and Waters "teaming up" involves nudity.

If David Quinn joins them they could be a threesome.

Obliq

Oh good grief - the thought of a picture of Ronan Mullen in the nip is making me want to run down to the shop for a pack of fags and a bottle of something 40%. Waters was bad enough :eek:

Obliq

Might not vomit at that pic if there was a bag over Quinn's head.

Sarky

I imagine it would look kinda like those nudey paintings of Brian Cowen that RTE apologised for a few years ago because they're spineless.

swampgas

Obliq wrote: »

and then she gets another go:

13.22 – Barrister Maria Steen says all barristers believe there to be no legal reality of the prospect of a prosecution brought under the 1861 rules, once a doctor acts in good faith. If it were thought necessary to allay the fears of the medical community, then it may be possible to amend the 1861 laws to explicitly include a ‘good faith’ defence for doctors.
If a law deals with taking an innocent life, that law needs to be justified. This can be done under current medical practice, but if we talk about enacting a law that intentionally takes an innocent life, we need an even stronger justification for doing so. How can one agree with taking the life of an innocent child, Steen says, when its only crime is to have existed at all?

Ailbhe Smyth dealt with this point very well, I thought, by turning her argument against her: if the legislation will never be used, why not remove it as it is clearly obsolete and no longer needed on the statute book?

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Might not vomit at that pic if there was a bag over Quinn's head.

I'd prefer the bag was over my head then see that.

mikom

Obliq wrote: »

Oh good grief - the thought of a picture of Ronan Mullen in the nip is making me want to run down to the shop for a pack of fags and a bottle of something 40%.

Obliq

Awww ****e. Mikom, I may never forgive you for that.

Obliq

Here's the Oireachtas youtube post from today - hopefully it'll start at Michael Nugent (watch out for the "Atheist Church" sign). Quite good this is available - going looking for Mullen now, to see how out of order I think his "point of order" is.

jimd2

fisgon wrote: »

Apparently John Crowne tweeted during the Catholic Church's submission to the committee (I'm slightly paraphrasing..) "Every time they speak I lapse a little more."

Irrespective of a persons views on the topic under debate, to tweet like that while a submission is being made is very disrespectful.

In fact it is my opinion that tweeting during a debate in the Dail or Senad should be banned.

Sarky

About as disrespectful as jotting down some notes while someone speaks, or sighing with boredom. Which is to say not really. Now if his phone had gone off playing "Mulatto Butts" at full volume, that'd probably be disrespectful.

Hotblack Desiato

jimd2 wrote: »

In fact it is my opinion that tweeting during a debate in the Dail or Senad should be banned.

Just watching Obliq's clip now, the chair asked right at the start that all mobile phones be turned off - not out of respect but to avoid interference with the microphones...
Maybe he used a wifi-only tablet :pac:

ShooterSF

Sarky wrote: »

About as disrespectful as jotting down some notes while someone speaks, or sighing with boredom. Which is to say not really. Now if his phone had gone off playing "Mulatto Butts" at full volume, that'd probably be disrespectful.

You sir get a thanks for the obscure reference to the best animated show going at the minute.

Sarky

I've just discovered that a sure-fire way of gaining flocks of followers on Twitter is to call out David Quinn on his despicable bull****.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Sarky wrote: »

I've just discovered that a sure-fire way of gaining flocks of followers on Twitter is to call out David Quinn on his despicable bull****.

Are you more popular than Aengus Mac Grianna?

loveisdivine

YD and Precious Life claiming that abortion wont be going ahead at the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast.

GREAT NEWS! Lools like abortion providers Marie Stopes won't be performing abortions in Belfast. Well done to all at Precious Life for this marvellous outcome.

Precious Life attended a Hearing by the Committee for Justice of the Northern Ireland Assembly, who are investigating Marie Stopes International's plans to commit abortions in Northern Ireland.

Precious Life contacted the Justice Committee in October 2012 when Marie Stopes announced they were opening an abortion centre in Belfast.

Today (10th January,) representatives of Marie Stopes were brought before the Assembly Justice Committee and faced a grilling of 3 hours of questioning.

However, Marie Stopes FAILED to convince the Justice Committee how they could legally operate an abortion business in Northern Ireland if they worked within the law that protects unborn children.

Director of Precious Life Bernadette Smyth, who attend the Committee Hearing, said "Abortion in Northern Ireland is a serious criminal offence. Marie Stopes International were unable to explain how they could establish an abortion business in Northern Ireland based on the assumption that they may have a defence to this serious crime."

Marie Stopes tried to hoodwink the Justice Committee by claiming they would operate within the law by submitting an application to health regulators, the RQIA.

However Bernadette Smyth exposed Maire Stopes' deception - "Marie Stopes tried to throw up a smokescreen of legality by claiming they want to be regulated by RQIA. But this is irrelevant. The RQIA only registers and inspects health and social care services. It does not and cannot monitor criminal issues like abortion."

Bernadette Smyth concluded, "We presented evidence to the Justice Committee of Marie Stopes' illegal activities in other countries. Marie Stopes must be stopped now from committing any criminal breaches of the law in Northern Ireland that protects our unborn children."

The Justice Commitee will now carry out further investigations into the legality of Marie Stopes' Centre in Belfast

lazygal

I love the reference to 'our' unborn children. Who do they belong to after pregnancy?

seamus

Direct quote from the Catholic representative at the talks yesterday: "It is not necessary to satisfy the European Court of Human Rights"

Exactly the kind of attitude I'd expect from that scummy organisation, "Let's ignore the authority on human rights, what do they know?"

swampgas

Somebody in the Health Committee hearings in the last few days referred to "pre-born children". This is probably how many anti-abortion people really think though - they really think abortion in the first trimester is the same as killing a 3 year old.