Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

fatmammycat

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

YD have run a great campaign...

They have indeed, they've turned more middle of the road/on the fence people to the pro-choice side than I could have imagined possible.

Delirium

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

YD have run a great campaign...

If you read the excellent post oldrnwisr wrote about the YD you'll see that you're wrong. That or you have the bar below ground-level when you consider what is 'great'. Dishonesty, theft and cheating are hardly the hallmarks of greatness.

Silvio.Dante

YD have performed with nobility and honour throughout the anti-X cmapaign...

The Mad Hatter

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

YD have performed with nobility and honour throughout the anti-X cmapaign...

You mean apart from the lying, cheating and stealing oldrnwiser outlined?

Lingua Franca

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

YD have performed with nobility and honour throughout the anti-X cmapaign...

Ok, I get it now! Great work. Keep it up!

Silvio.Dante

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You mean apart from the lying, cheating and stealing oldrnwiser outlined?

I'm a huge admirer of YD, its core beliefs and strategy against the introduction of X...

The Mad Hatter

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I'm a huge admirer of YD, its core beliefs and strategy against the introduction of X...

So you approve of the lying, cheating and stealing oldernwiser outlined?

eviltwin

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

YD have performed with nobility and honour throughout the anti-X cmapaign...

Nearly spilled my tea there :eek: Pull the other one, they have done nothing to endear themselves anyone apart from idiots in America who know no better. Most pro life people distance themselves from them, they are a total embarrassment.

Lingua Franca

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

So you approve of the lying, cheating and stealing oldernwiser outlined?

He either didn't read the post he claimed to or he's actually taking the mick out of YD supporters. It's starting to look like the latter.

Nodin

From the Indo.......

*There was no review of treatment options, and the pattern was to "await events". Doctors monitored the foetal heartbeat in case "accelerated delivery" might be possible.
* There was over-emphasis on the need not to intervene until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/terrifying-errors-led-to-death-of-savita-29069243.html

B0jangles

I've followed this thread for a long time, and the Silvio vs. everyone else does tend to look like a very cheap tin can being battered down the road by a sucession of high-quality golf clubs.

As in. really good,well-constructed arguments were being used against puerile, repetitive rebuttals with no legitimacy or actual argumentative strength.

I also found it interesting that the only time Silvio got tetchy and seemed to be truely committed to the argument was when he thought someone was being flippant about his own conditions. That really pissed him off and there were no " ..." or smilies, there were some very tense and angry answers.

Once it was clarified that the poster was actually sincere in their comments, the crap responses returned. Seems like it is easy it be flippant about something that happens to someone else but any and all remarks about dyslexia or cerebral palsy need to be attacked instantly.

Dades

swampgas wrote: »

Of course they do - the ends justify the means I suppose?

This whole nonsense could end here now if we just accept this. To Silvio, YD and their ilk, the means does justify the end. They'll do whatever it takes to, in their view, save babies from the murdering liberal sluts.

Obviously most feel aggrieved at this, but there you have it. People are different. Infuriatingly so, but that's life.

So for the second time in this thread, let's accept the futility of banging on at each other, and try and post something fresh or newsworthy.

Silvio, the next time you drop a identikit one-liner into the discussion it will be treated as trolling. Your next posts are to have some substance to them or they will be your last.

aloyisious

John Bruton seem's to have caused a problem for the Gov't with this article.

The Irish Times - Friday, February 15, 2013
John Bruton says Government abortion legislation contrary to Constitution

STEPHEN COLLINS, Political Editor

Former taoiseach and Fine Gael leader John Bruton has created a political headache for his successor, Enda Kenny, by declaring the Government’s planned abortion legislation is contrary to the Constitution.

Mr Bruton claims it is “not consistent with the plain words of the Constitution” to include the threat of suicide in the terms of the legislation that will permit abortion where a woman’s life is at risk.

The Coalition has committed to introducing legislation to give effect to the Supreme Court judgment in the X case which found that a threat of suicide constituted a threat to a mother’s life.

Minister for Health James Reilly is due to bring the draft heads of the Bill on the subject to the Cabinet shortly.

Opposition

Some Fine Gael TDs, including Minister of State for European Affairs Lucinda Creighton, have expressed opposition to the inclusion of the suicide threat in the legislation.

However, Mr Kenny has committed himself to legislating for the X case judgment and has insisted that the party whip will be applied to get the Bill through the Oireachtas.

Since the public hearings at the Oireachtas health committee in early January, tensions in Fine Gael appeared to have eased but Mr Bruton’s intervention is likely to open up fresh divisions in the party.

Writing in today’s Irish Times, Mr Bruton makes the case that article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution gave a right to life to an unborn child. He says that in the X case in 1992, the Supreme Court had decided, to the surprise of many, that this article could be construed as allowing for the life of the unborn to be ended if the mother was believed to be suicidal.

He urges the members of the Oireachtas, in considering forthcoming legislation, to read the words in the Constitution, and the X case judgment, and decide for themselves what they can, or must, do in respecting the Constitution.

He says the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the C case as well as the issues raised in the Savita Halappanavar case could be dealt with in a way consistent with article 40.

............................................................................................

I looked up John on the 'net, re this opinion and find that he's a trained barrister but there's a difference of opinion as to whether he's practicing law now, so his opinion might (or might not) be valueless. I've no doubt his article will be used in the debate. I have no opinion either way on his opinion.

Evi:John Bruton was born in Meath on May 18th 1947. He has been the Prime Minister of The Republic of Ireland. Bruton graduated from University College Dublin. He has worked as a barrister and a politician, and his current occupation is barrister. He now lives in Meath.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Wiki:John Gerard Bruton was born to a wealthy, Catholic[3] farming family in Dunboyne, County Meath and educated at Clongowes Wood College.

Bruton later went on to study at University College Dublin where he received an honours Bachelor of Arts degree and qualified as a barrister from King's Inns, but never went on to practice law.

PopePalpatine

I share a birthday with him.

Peregrinus

Bruton's opinion as to what Art. 40.3.3 requires is flatly contradicted by the opinion of the Supreme Court in the X case.

And, whether he has practised as a Barrister or not, Bruton's opinion on what the Constitution means lacks the authority that the opinion of the Supreme Court, expressed in a judgment, has. This is not a battle of opinions that Bruton can win.

If Bruton thinks the Supreme Court got it wrong, then the proper thing to do is to seek a constitutional amendment in which Art 40.3.3. will be reworded so that it explicitly and unambiguously says what Bruton thinks it currently means.

An amendment more-or-less to that effect was, of course, put to the voters in 1992 and was roundly defeated. There's nothing to stop a similar amendment being put again, but if Bruton is not prepared to advocate for that or the Oireachtas is not prepared to legislate for it then there is no alternative but to legislate to give effect to Art 40.3.3 as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X case.

Dades

Sounds like another case of "whatever it takes". It doesn't matter if there's any validity to the argument if it's made in "the cause".

I could be wrong, and maybe Bruton is weighing in purely from a legal perspective, but I suspect his involvement is more personal than that.

Peregrinus

Look, you can always think, in perfect good faith, that a court has got this or that decision wrong - not just in the sense that you don't like the decision or you think it will have undesirable outcomes but you think it is technically wrong.

But when it's the Supreme Court, and no appeal is possible, you're still stuck with the decision as an authoritative declaration of what the law - in this case the Constitution - provides.

And while you or I have the luxury of grumbling about this, legislators either have to put up or shut up. Either they bring forward an amendment to the Constitution, or they legislate in accordance with the Supreme Court's interpretation of of the Constitution as it stands. Ignoring the Supreme Court decision because you would have felt bound to decide differently is not an option. Constitutionally, it's not the legislators' job to declare what the Constitution provides; it's the Supreme Court's.

aloyisious

On a slightly different tack to the suicide threat part of this debate, there's this article in today's Irish Indo':

EILISH O'REGAN HEALTH CORRESPONDENT – 15 FEBRUARY 2013

A NEW computer-based system that has been developed by Irish researchers has a 75pc chance of predicting if a patient is at short-term risk of suicide.


The assessment, which could be used in areas such as hospital A&E departments, was developed by a research group at NUI Maynooth's Department of Psychology.

"The test can correctly identify those who are experiencing suicidal thoughts with 75pc accuracy," said a spokesman for the department.

"It could be called on in hospital and A&E settings to help evaluate whether an individual is at risk and better allocate scarce treatment resources."

The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) asks patients to confirm or refute statements while under time pressure.

"Reaction times are tracked and passed through a computer algorithm, which is used to reveal unconscious attitudes or biases that are used to predict actual behaviour," said the spokesman.

The system was tested over the past year with 24 patients from St Patrick's Hospital in Dublin.

Professor Dermot Barnes-Holmes, of Maynooth's Psychology Department, said: "Some of the most difficult behaviours to predict are those that occur very rarely but have large and devastating consequences, such as suicide.

"Ireland is no stranger to the issue of suicide and we have higher rates than the European average, especially among young men."

He pointed out that most research into suicide had largely focused on long-term risk factors to indicate whether someone was vulnerable over many years .

This has concentrated on a range of factors, such as hopelessness, serious health complaints and previous suicidal behaviour.

Self-harm

"The Maynooth project focuses on short-term suicide risk assessment," he explained.

Ian Hussey, another researcher, said: "The task uses tiny reaction-time biases to reveal unconscious attitudes and intentions.

"It can pick up on things that the individual themselves might not be aware of. This makes it ideal to study self-harmful and suicidal behaviour."

aloyisious

This is the JB opinion article in full:

The Irish Times - Friday, February 15, 2013
No equal right to life if law embraces suicide risk

A recent pro-life rally. "The words in the Constitution should be interpreted as the same words would be understood in daily usage." photograph: alan betson
In this section »
Words can change our capacity for reason
John Bruton

The Constitution, in article 40.3.3, gives a right to life to an unborn child. It says: “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”


The underlying idea behind putting human rights in the Constitution is to ensure that they cannot be easily reduced just because a (possibly temporary) majority in public or parliamentary opinion wants to do that to meet a popular demand.

This constitutional right to life of a yet unborn child was inserted into the Constitution by the people in a referendum in 1983. In the X case in 1992,the Supreme Court decided, to the surprise of many, that this article could be construed as allowing for the life of an unborn to be ended if the mother was believed to be suicidal.

Following a recent European Court of Human Rights case, the Government is now contemplating introducing a law that would say the life of an unborn child may be ended when there is a threat of suicide by the mother-to-be.

It also proposes to clarify that where there are medical threats to the life of the mother, and an appropriate medical treatment may involve the ending of the life of the unborn child, this may be permitted.

Would a law including a provision allowing a suicide threat to be a basis for ending the life of an unborn child be consistent with the plain words of the Constitution, which require the State to “defend and vindicate” the unborn child’s “equal” right to be allowed to live? I believe the answer to the question is no.

The Irish Constitution belongs to the people. It uses language, ie words, to convey certain understandings of what the Irish people guarantee one another. Because the words in the Constitution may be changed only by the people, it follows that the words in the Constitution should be interpreted as the same words would be understood in daily usage.

They should not be reinterpreted in some arcane way that can be understood only by a priesthood of constitutional lawyers. If that were to be the standard of interpretation, how could the people be expected to make informed and intelligent decisions in constitutional referendums?

Look at the actual words in the Constitution: article 40.3.3 acknowledges an equal (my emphasis) right to life of a mother and of her unborn child. The sentence would have made have sense even if the word “equal” was not there. It would also have made sense if the sentence had said that “due regard” was to be had to a “superior right to life” of the mother. But that is not the wording of the Constitution.

The word “equal” is there, referring to the right to life of both mother and unborn child, and it was put there with the explicit approval of the people. It would be hypocritical to pretend that the Constitution is not framed as it is, and hypocrisy is not a solid basis for constitutional interpretation.

How ought the words “equal right to life” be interpreted? Many words we use in daily language have ambiguous or various meanings, but the word “equal” has only one meaning. Equal means equal, whether the word “equal” is used by lawyers or by mathematicians.

And, in any normal language, a risk is not equal to a certainty. A risk that someone might unilaterally end their life is not equal to a certainty of the ending of another person’s life by the actions of that person or of another. That, in simple terms, is the difficulty with legislation that says that a threat or an idea of suicide is a ground for ending the life of a constitutionally recognised third party, an unborn child.

A law that took away a right to life of that unborn child before the right in question could be exercised independently could hardly be interpreted as “defending and vindicating” the same right, as the Constitution requires.

Judge Hederman put it this way, in his minority judgment, in the Supreme Court on the X case. “The eighth amendment establishes beyond any dispute that the constitutional guarantee of the vindication and protection of life is not qualified by the condition that the life must be one which has achieved an independent existence after birth.

“The right of life is guaranteed to every life, born or unborn. One cannot make distinctions between individual phases of the unborn life before birth, or between unborn and born.”

The other judges in their X case judgments offered two reasons for not treating the right to life of the unborn child as equal, in practice, to that of its mother, notwithstanding the words of the Constitution.

One was that the mother’s life is to be preferred because she has wider responsibilities. Then chief justice Finlay said that the court must concern itself “with the position of the mother within a family group, with persons on whom she is dependent”.

Given that in every case a mother of an unborn child will already be a member of a family group, that interpretation could allow abortion in almost any case. In any event, how is it to be argued that the as yet unborn child is not also a member of a family group, consisting not only of its mother, but also of its father?

The other argument used in the Supreme Court was that the life of the mother was a life in being, whereas the life of the unborn child was “contingent”. The late judge McCarthy said: “The right of the girl here is a right to a life in being; the right of the unborn is to a life contingent; contingent on survival in the womb until successful delivery.”

Essentially he was arguing that once a right is contingent on the behaviour of another person, it does not enjoy the protection of the Constitution. That is a really radical doctrine, which, carried to its conclusion, would undermine almost all human rights law. All lives are “contingent” on the behaviour of others. The life of a baby after birth is certainly “contingent” on the care given to it by its mother and by others.

For these reasons, I would argue that the Oireachtas should interpret the words in the Constitution in their normal meaning, particularly the simple word “equal”.

In considering legislation, the members of the Oireachtas should read for themselves the words in the Constitution, and the X case judgment, and decide for themselves what they can or must do in respecting the Constitution.

The Supreme Court does not instruct the legislature on how to legislate, and participants in each branch of the State should interpret the words of the Constitution as they are actually written, rather than as some of them might retrospectively prefer them to have been written.Members of the Oireachtas, in particular, should read the words of the Constitution, in the same way their constituents, who are the authors of the Constitution, would read them.

That should leave them fully free to frame legislation to deal with the C case as decided by the European Court of Human Rights, and with the Savita Halappanavar case, that would be consistent with article 40 of the Constitution. Neither case involved a threat of suicide. They involved medical judgment of objective medical risks.

On the other hand, to introduce a law providing that an expression of a threat of suicide by one person would be sufficient ground for the taking away of the life of another, would not be in accord with the actual words in the Constitution. There would be no “equal” right to life in such a law, and an equal right to life is what the Constitution requires.

If the Oireachtas does not like the way article 40.3.3 of the Constitution is framed it could of course ask the people if they wished to amend it. Personally I would not favour such a change.

But, in the meantime, the Oireachtas should interpret plain language plainly, and forbear from legal sophistry. To do otherwise would be to leave the constitutional protection of the most profound of all human rights, the right to be allowed to live and breathe, resting on sand. It would institute a rule of convenience, at the expense of a rule of rights.

JOHN BRUTON is a former taoiseach

OldNotWIse

There are many different types of constitutional interpretation.

swampgas

The key part, IMO, is this - where John Bruton implies that article 40.3.3 is impeding the Oireachtas in legislating as required. One view might be that the Oireachtas simply shouldn't legislate in possible contradiction of the constitution, another view would be that JBs article simply highlights inherent problems with article 40.3.3. and that a constitutional change will become necessary via referendum sooner or later.

If the Oireachtas does not like the way article 40.3.3 of the Constitution is framed it could of course ask the people if they wished to amend it. Personally I would not favour such a change.

Silvio.Dante

B0jangles wrote: »

Once it was clarified that the poster was actually sincere in their comments, the crap responses returned. Seems like it is easy it be flippant about something that happens to someone else but any and all remarks about dyslexia or cerebral palsy need to be attacked instantly.

I try (and fail at times) to keep personal comments out of my posts. When someone comes wading in with personlas thrown at me I try to nip them in the bud. It usually qworks.

I've never worn my CP on my sleeve but neither am I ashamed of it...

lazygal

I still don't understand leaving abortion out of legislation on X. If the 14 year old pregnant child at the centre of the case hadn't been suicidal, it wouldn't have been a factor in the ruling. How can people like Bruton, Creighton et al think they can just ignore the very factor that stands at the heart of the case.

I also detest the use of the word 'mother' being applied to all pregnant women. Not every pregnant woman wants to be a mother, which is why some seek the UK solution to the Irish problem.

Silvio.Dante

aloyisious wrote: »

John Bruton seem's to have caused a problem for the Gov't with this article.

The Irish Times - Friday, February 15, 2013
John Bruton says Government abortion legislation contrary to Constitution

STEPHEN COLLINS, Political Editor

Former taoiseach and Fine Gael leader John Bruton has created a political headache for his successor, Enda Kenny, by declaring the Government’s planned abortion legislation is contrary to the Constitution.

Mr Bruton claims it is “not consistent with the plain words of the Constitution” to include the threat of suicide in the terms of the legislation that will permit abortion where a woman’s life is at risk.

The Coalition has committed to introducing legislation to give effect to the Supreme Court judgment in the X case which found that a threat of suicide constituted a threat to a mother’s life.

Minister for Health James Reilly is due to bring the draft heads of the Bill on the subject to the Cabinet shortly.

Opposition

Some Fine Gael TDs, including Minister of State for European Affairs Lucinda Creighton, have expressed opposition to the inclusion of the suicide threat in the legislation.

However, Mr Kenny has committed himself to legislating for the X case judgment and has insisted that the party whip will be applied to get the Bill through the Oireachtas.

Since the public hearings at the Oireachtas health committee in early January, tensions in Fine Gael appeared to have eased but Mr Bruton’s intervention is likely to open up fresh divisions in the party.

Writing in today’s Irish Times, Mr Bruton makes the case that article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution gave a right to life to an unborn child. He says that in the X case in 1992, the Supreme Court had decided, to the surprise of many, that this article could be construed as allowing for the life of the unborn to be ended if the mother was believed to be suicidal.

He urges the members of the Oireachtas, in considering forthcoming legislation, to read the words in the Constitution, and the X case judgment, and decide for themselves what they can, or must, do in respecting the Constitution.

He says the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the C case as well as the issues raised in the Savita Halappanavar case could be dealt with in a way consistent with article 40.

............................................................................................

I looked up John on the 'net, re this opinion and find that he's a trained barrister but there's a difference of opinion as to whether he's practicing law now, so his opinion might (or might not) be valueless. I've no doubt his article will be used in the debate. I have no opinion either way on his opinion.

Evi:John Bruton was born in Meath on May 18th 1947. He has been the Prime Minister of The Republic of Ireland. Bruton graduated from University College Dublin. He has worked as a barrister and a politician, and his current occupation is barrister. He now lives in Meath.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Wiki:John Gerard Bruton was born to a wealthy, Catholic[3] farming family in Dunboyne, County Meath and educated at Clongowes Wood College.

Bruton later went on to study at University College Dublin where he received an honours Bachelor of Arts degree and qualified as a barrister from King's Inns, but never went on to practice law.

Thank you for sharing this. Very interesting to read John Bruton's opinion.

aloyisious

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Thank you for sharing this. Very interesting to read John Bruton's opinion.

No problem. The 'net is all about asking questions, conversing and debating on information and opinions. I believe that if you want to be seen as an equal to others, then the opposite must also apply.

ShooterSF

To give you guys some perspective Meath is like the Texas of Ireland when it comes to abortion. People's views here are extremely conservative on the issue as a whole. Sure look at Toibin who refused to vote with his party on Daly's proposed legislation because it would be political suicide for him. I'm actually amazed Butler and English haven't come out against it.

PopePalpatine

Bollocks, I live in Ireland's Texas? I would have assumed that would be Leitrim or Mayo. :eek:

eyescreamcone

Opinions, opinions, opinions!!!
The only opinion that counts is the one decided by the ballot box.

We should have a referendum once and for all on the abortion issue.
And no biased wording this time by the conservatives would be allowed.

Ask the people the relevant questions:
Are you in favour of abortion in the following instances?

- On demand (up to internationally acceptable time limits)
- in cases of rape and or incest
- where the life of the foetus is unviable
- where the foetus will develop into a severely handicapped individual
- as above + DS
- where the health of the pregnant womean is at risk
- where the life of the pregnant woman is at risk
- as above but including the suicide issue
- In no circumstances should abortions be allowed.

Let the people decide once and for all.
We'll only reach a conclusion if we ask the relevant questions.

YD and the anti-choicers are causing a smokescreen by making a big noise regarding X and suicide.
By doing this they are shifting the debate from where it should be.

They know they will lose on this issue, but by making a big noise they hope to keep us happy with our small victory, thus trying to slow the momentum of the pro-choice groups.

YD etc are not representative of the voters.
They know they will get creamed in a referendum.

We should push for our voices to be heard.
X etc is only a small victory (won a long time back).

Dades

The problem with the above is that some of the terms such as "risk, unviable, severely handicapped" are themselves completely open to interpretation.

An attempt to define them would have to be made first and even then there would be never be agreement.

ShooterSF

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Bollocks, I live in Ireland's Texas? I would have assumed that would be Leitrim or Mayo. :eek:

On this issue it seems to be that bad! If there was a referendum tomorrow to legislate for the x case I'd be amazed if Meath supported it and shocked if it wasn't one of the lowest returners of a yes vote sadly (I'd still expect the referendum to pass with ease btw).

I think Toibin's actions upon being asked to vote yes to abortion legislation highlights that. Sinn Fein have plenty of big negative ticks against them but for the most part their social views are pretty liberal and I'd imagine Peadar's are mostly inline with his party's but abortion just seems to be a big taboo here. Maybe the schools were extra effective back in the day on this issue!