Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yet you are inviting Americans to influence our laws?

We are delighted to receive the moral and financial support forom Life advocates in America...

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

The Right to Travel within the EU is something I whole heartedly support. I'm not going to start advicating people cannot avail of services in other jurisdictions, legally. No matter how horrific I view them...

So you would be ok with an Irish person travelling to Spain to have sex with a 13 year old? :eek:

Silvio.Dante

Sarky wrote: »

And again we're back to you accepting bribes from other countries to subvert the Irish constitution. The hypocrisy is staggering.

So if the Dail votes against X you will be calling on them to be tried for Treason I take it...:D

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So you would be ok with an Irish person travelling to Spain to have sex with a 13 year old? :eek:

Is it legal to have sex with a 13yr old in Spain...

Thsi is getting silly again. I do hope the Mods are monitoring...;)

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

We are delighted to receive the moral and financial support forom Life advocates in America...

But what about the 'Irish baybees being killed in the UK' do they not deserve to benefit from' the moral and financial support forom Life advocates in America' too?

Why is it OK for Americans to try and influence our laws but not for Irish people to try and influence UK ones? It's not like American fetus' are being aborted here?

Sarky

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

So if the Dail votes against X you will be calling on them to be tried for Treason I take it...:D

They're not voting. X legislation is a constitutional right. It's happening. How are you still not getting this? The last 20 years of governments have been denying women a constitutional right. You're damn right I'd see them in court for treason.

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Is it legal to have sex with a 13yr old in Spain...

Thsi is getting silly again. I do hope the Mods are monitoring...;)

Yup - the age of consent in Spain is 13.

Just showing you that your position is not exactly consistent.

Sarky

Each of his posts sounds like a cry for help. I think he desperately needs someone to tell him he's right, instead of a deluded misinformed rube with a fetish for suffering women and foetuses.

Dades

I think the second coming of Silvio has been fairly forthcoming in their answers. For that reason I don't have a problem with questions about what exactly people want long-term in terms of legislation here, either.

At this stage, we sort of all know where we individually stand. Now it's just a kind of bickering about the minutiae of it.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So you would be ok with an Irish person travelling to Spain to have sex with a 13 year old? :eek:

As a matter of interest - would you advocate stopping someone whose intent was to travel to Spain to have sex with a 13 year old? There's a difference between morally repulsed by something and legislating for someone to be detained so they couldn't leave the country to do it legally elsewhere.

JimiTime

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Re: UK legislation - you answered the question yourself 'be under a certain amount of weeks' is a limit.

Ah come on. Thats what you meant when you alluded to it not being abortion 'on demand'? You know the 'on demand' refers to the fact that you can merely want one, i.e. demand it, to acquire one. It is assumed that we all know that there are time limits in place.

oldrnwisr

JimiTime wrote: »

Ah come on. Thats what you meant when you alluded to it not being abortion 'on demand'? You know the 'on demand' refers to the fact that you can merely want one, i.e. demand it, to acquire one. It is assumed that we all know that there are time limits in place.

I think its grounds you mean rather than limits Jimi but to answer your question:

Section 1.1 of the Abortion Act 1967

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith -

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or

(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or

(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated

(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

Bannasidhe

Dades wrote: »

As a matter of interest - would you advocate stopping someone whose intent was to travel to Spain to have sex with a 13 year old? There's a difference between morally repulsed by something and legislating for someone to be detained so they couldn't leave the country to do it legally elsewhere.

Open to correction on this, but it is my understanding that an Irish citizen who has sex with a person whom Irish law defines as underage can be prosecuted in Ireland even if that person is over the age of consent in the country where the sexual act took place.

Mostly only been able to find lengthy pdfs on this, but did happen upon this

The Sexual Offences Jurisdiction Act 1996 makes it an offence to advertise child sex tourism in Ireland or to transport, or arrange to transport, children out of Ireland for the purposes of sex tourism. The Children Act 2001 updates and modernises some of the provisions of the Children Act 1908. The provisions of this Act have been brought into force selectively. The Act provides a statutory framework for the protection of children and the prosecution of those who commit or solicit offences against children, and provides for some legal protections of child victims. The Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 penalises a variety of crimes in relation to trafficking in children for sexual exploitation and the manufacture and distribution of child pornography. The Act complies with Article 3 of the CRC. In relation to trafficking,The Sexual Offences Jurisdiction Act 1996 makes it an offence to advertise child sex tourism in Ireland or to transport, or arrange to transport, children out of Ireland for the purposes of sex tourism. The Children Act 2001 updates and modernises some of the provisions of the Children Act 1908. The provisions of this Act have been brought into force selectively. The Act provides a statutory framework for the protection of children and the prosecution of those who commit or solicit offences against children, and provides for some legal protections of child victims. The Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 penalises a variety of crimes in relation to trafficking in children for sexual exploitation and the manufacture and distribution of child pornography. The Act complies with Article 3 of the CRC. In relation to trafficking, Section 3(1)(a) penalises the “entry into, transit through or exit from the State of a child for the purposes of his or her sexual exploitation”. The maximum penalty for this crime is life imprisonment.. The maximum penalty for this crime is life imprisonment.

http://www.e-notes-observatory.org/legislation/irland/

It could be argued that were a 25 year old man to travel to Spain with a 13 year old girl in order to have sexual intercourse with her that he is infringing Section 3(1)(a) “entry into, transit through or exit from the State of a child for the purposes of his or her sexual exploitation”. The maximum penalty for this crime is life imprisonment.'

My point is that legislation already exists which makes it illegal for an Irish citizen (or person normally resident in Ireland) to engage in a particular act abroad which is illegal in Ireland even though that act may be legal in the country in which it takes place.

Lingua Franca

Dades wrote: »

As a matter of interest - would you advocate stopping someone whose intent was to travel to Spain to have sex with a 13 year old? There's a difference between morally repulsed by something and legislating for someone to be detained so they couldn't leave the country to do it legally elsewhere.

UK law has made child sex tourism a crime.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/be-a-responsible-tourist/child-sex-tourism

The UK has refused to allow travel to people they suspect would be seeking sex with a child.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/garyglitter/3103578/Glitter-banned-from-France-and-Spain.html


...and I'm OK with that.

swampgas

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

1. So efectively abortion on demand in all but name...:(

2. No... [to preventing women from travelling abroad for abortions]

Thanks for giving a clear answer.

So you think abortion is the killing of innocent babies, and are against it in almost all circumstances. Presumably you consider any embryo or foetus, i.e. any post-conception entity, to be an unborn baby with human rights and a right to life.

So why are you so cavalier about these unborn babies being taken out of the country to be killed? We can both agree that an individual adult has a right to travel freely, but in your case you seem to be ignoring the right of the unborn baby to be given protective custody. Surely the unborn baby's right to life trumps the mothers right to travel?

Or are you admitting that you are not prepared to lock women up if they want to travel for an abortion, because the unborn babies don't really have any special right to life after all?

_rebelkid

JimiTime wrote: »

Just curious, what limits are on abortion in the UK? I was under the impression that you merely had to want one, and be under a certain amount of weeks with child. Have I got it completely wrong?


Just an observation too, but the poster you answered said women should NOT be prevented from going to the UK if they wish. It seems by your question there, you think he said the opposite.

As far as I'm aware, in the UK it's up to 26 weeks on demand, and only medical emergencies after that.

_rebelkid

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Well its never been used by myself...

AHEM, synonyms mean the same thing.

You had brandished me as a baby killer, which is the same as murderer.

Hypocrisy, Silvio, hypocrisy.

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But what about the 'Irish baybees being killed in the UK' do they not deserve to benefit from' the moral and financial support forom Life advocates in America' too?

Why is it OK for Americans to try and influence our laws but not for Irish people to try and influence UK ones? It's not like American fetus' are being aborted here?

Why the need to type 'baybees'. Does it make you feel all superior or something?

I'd be happy to see American Life dollars funding pro life organisations in the UK...

Silvio.Dante

Sarky wrote: »

They're not voting.

No?

Expalin that one to me. Oh, please wait until I get my popcorn, this one should be good...:D

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yup - the age of consent in Spain is 13.

Just showing you that your position is not exactly consistent.

Well I never.

So, what are you suggesting we do if we find out soeone plans to go to Spain to have sex wirth a 13yr old..?

Silvio.Dante

Sarky wrote: »

Each of his posts sounds like a cry for help. I think he desperately needs someone to tell him he's right, instead of a deluded misinformed rube with a fetish for suffering women and foetuses.

Why the need to be so, deliberately and continuously, personally offensive..?

Silvio.Dante

swampgas wrote: »

Thanks for giving a clear answer.

So you think abortion is the killing of innocent babies, and are against it in almost all circumstances. Presumably you consider any embryo or foetus, i.e. any post-conception entity, to be an unborn baby with human rights and a right to life.

So why are you so cavalier about these unborn babies being taken out of the country to be killed? We can both agree that an individual adult has a right to travel freely, but in your case you seem to be ignoring the right of the unborn baby to be given protective custody. Surely the unborn baby's right to life trumps the mothers right to travel?

Or are you admitting that you are not prepared to lock women up if they want to travel for an abortion, because the unborn babies don't really have any special right to life after all?

Realism is a concept I value.

though I find it abhorrant that Irish babies are killed in UK abortion clinics I am realistic enough to know that I am powerless to do anything about it nad would be watnig valuable advocacy time calling for it to end.

While I could be focussing on a battle that is winnable, like stopping X being legislated for...

Turtwig

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Realism is a concept I value.

though I find it abhorrant that Irish babies are killed in UK abortion clinics I am realistic enough to know that I am powerless to do anything about it nad would be watnig valuable advocacy time calling for it to end.

While I could be focussing on a battle that is winnable, like stopping X being legislated for...

In short you basically think being anti-democratic is the most efficient method to get your own way.

Silvio.Dante

_rebelkid wrote: »

You had brandished me as a baby killer,

No, I didn't...:rolleyes:

Really guys. this shi'ite from rebelkid, sarky and one or two others is quite childish...

Silvio.Dante

Jernal wrote: »

In short you basically think being anti-democratic is the most efficient method to get your own way.

Whats anti-democratic about lobbying for a no vote..?

JuliusCaesar

I don't know if this (A fetus is not a person if it costs us money, says Catholic Church) has been linked here - I can't see a date on it, but was sent it today. Delete if ancient or already noted.


Headed over to After Hours, where it's headlining at the moment. Ooops!

Turtwig

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I don't know if this (A fetus is not a person if it costs us money, says Catholic Church) has been linked here - I can't see a date on it, but was sent it today. Delete if ancient or already noted.


Headed over to After Hours, where it's headlining at the moment. Ooops!

Made this thread several times, first by Morag, then by Penn, then by efb, then maybe somebody else and then you.

oldrnwisr

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Whats anti-democratic about lobbying for a no vote..?

Anti-democratic in the sense that the people have already voted to see x legislated for but the inaction of the governments over the last 20 years has left us in this situation. So you are lobbying for a position which is contrary to the stated will of the people, which is anti-democratic.

Sarky

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

No?

Expalin that one to me. Oh, please wait until I get my popcorn, this one should be good...:D

I already did, in my post that explained how this country's legislation works. Bannasidhe also went into it in great detail. Your memory appears to be worse than Caroline Simons'.

Laws are made to match the rights granted people in the constitution. The constitution can only be changed by a public referendum. If the constitution guarantees a right, laws must be made to protect that right.

The X case found via the Supreme Court that X had a constitutional right to an abortion as her life was in danger, via suicide. That means a law MUST be passed to protect that right, unless the constitution is changed. Now, the country has had two referenda on this very issue, to change the constitution so that X doesn't actually have that right.

In both referenda, the Irish people overwhelmingly voted that the constitution not be changed. The Irish people were consulted directly, by a government cowed by whining arseholes like youth Defence, and the Irish people said "No. Get up off your arses and make a law to protect this constitutional right."

The government don't get to vote on it. That's not how the country works. The people get to vote on it, and they have always said that the X case should be legislated for. Despicable people holding the poisonous views you support have managed to delay this process for twenty years, for some reason. Perhaps they hate how this democratic republic works? Maybe they just hate Ireland? considering how many of your ilk don't actually come from Ireland, the latter mightn't be all that far-fetched.

So you see, Silvio, fighting the X case legislation is pointless. The battle was lost 20 years ago. The recent business with Savita Happalannavar, whether an abortion would have saved her life or not, has shown just how furious the majority of Irish people are that the process has been delayed, and this government cannot stall any longer.

It's a done deal. The constitutional rights guaranteed by the Supreme Court decision, two referendums, and the ruling of the European Court for Human rights, have declared that the constitution stay as it is regarding the X Case. The government isn't there to vote on whether the constitution be legislated for. They're there to legislate for the rights guaranteed by it.They have no choice, and neither do you. The right to an abortion when the mother's right is in danger including the risk of suicide is constitutionally guaranteed and upheld by the Irish people. It's getting legislated for. Deal. With. It.

Or you can continue to defy the democratic will of the people and rail against the constitution with the help of your foreign buddies. As we discussed earlier, that's treason. I don't think you want to be a traitor to this country, do you?

Silvio.Dante

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Anti-democratic in the sense that the people have already voted to see x legislated for but the inaction of the governments over the last 20 years has left us in this situation. So you are lobbying for a position which is contrary to the stated will of the people, which is anti-democratic.

If it makes you feel better to think the, fine

However there will be a vote to legislate for X sooon and its is perfectly legitimate to lobby for a no vote...

Sarky

There will be no vote, it was settled a long time ago. How is this not getting through to you?