Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

MrPudding

StudentDad wrote: »

Well the UK does have a constitution, it doesn't need to be written down. Frankly the written constitution is too restrictive and binds the hands of govt. to the point of ridiculousness. We elect govt. to govern. The Irish Constitution is a relic of an era long past. It's a straightjacket.

It's funny, you have taken the features of a written constitution that are generally considered to be it strengths and advantages, and cast them as negatives.

StudentDad wrote: »

As regards abortion at a European level. All that would take would be for the European Parliament in conjunction with the Commission etc etc and we have abortion. EC law already trumps national laws, including national Constitutions. It would cause alot of wailing and gnashing of teeth here in Ireland, which is why to be honest I find the whole Irish Constitution bit totally redundant.

No quite true. EU law only trumps national laws in areas where it trumps national laws. There are plently of areas where it doesn't. And even in areas where it does, the states are allowed a margin of appreciation. Abortion and same sex marriage fall into these areas of appreciation. The EU courts are very careful about acting outside their remit as to do so could mean a serious loss of support.

StudentDad wrote: »

All that aside I find it totally ridiculous that a woman who is a European Citizen cannot avail of a medical procedure freely available in other member states within the confines of her own member state.

SD

Margin of Appreciation.

MrP

StudentDad

MrPudding wrote: »

It's funny, you have taken the features of a written constitution that are generally considered to be it strengths and advantages, and cast them as negatives.

No quite true. EU law only trumps national laws in areas where it trumps national laws. There are plently of areas where it doesn't. And even in areas where it does, the states are allowed a margin of appreciation. Abortion and same sex marriage fall into these areas of appreciation. The EU courts are very careful about acting outside their remit as to do so could mean a serious loss of support.

Margin of Appreciation.

MrP

The ultimate excuse isn't it - margin of appreciation.

It does not remove the fact that if the European Parliament chose to do so it could very easily legislate for abortion on a pan European level and it would be binding on all member states. Yes the EC hasn't pushed the issue but at the end of the day we are all European Citizens. We gave up the primacy of our national law when we joined the EEC. We all know what direction we are going in and if we don't like it we should pay back all the structural funds etc etc and withdraw from the EU. That said, we won't do that because this little country wouldn't last two minutes on its own. We ceded our national sovereignty when we joined the EEC and joined a much larger union.

Which is why our outdated and utterly redundant constitution needs to be abolished or brought into line with EC law.


SD

Kiwi in IE

MrPudding wrote: »

Most "new" countries have a constitution, particularly when the people have been previously controlled by a not so benevolent government.


MrP

The Irish Constitution needs to be changed to protect us from a no so benevolent church!

Gbear

Another Iona institute nutter on Radio 1 there.

How do these ****ers keep worming their way into debates?
Oh of course, it has to be balanced.
Just like an economics debate has to be balanced by including someone who believes that swinging a trout around your head will solve all our economic woes.

They have no place in a reasoned debate. The only reasonable debate to be had now is how liberal an abortion law we want there to be - the "should there be abortion" debate finished 20 bloody years ago.

Bannasidhe

Gbear wrote: »

Another Iona institute nutter on Radio 1 there.

How do these ****ers keep worming their way into debates?
Oh of course, it has to be balanced.
Just like an economics debate has to be balanced by including someone who believes that swinging a trout around your head will solve all our economic woes.

These ****ers have no place in a reasoned debate. The only reasonable debate to be had now is how liberal an abortion law we want their to be - the "should there be abortion" debate finished 20 bloody years ago.

and they keep referring back to that survey even though it's bias has been demonstrated.

Lingua Franca

To be fair, they keep referring back to plenty of studies that have been utterly demolished. Abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. Ireland is the safest place in the world to have a baby. Abortion ruins her life.

All have been discredited, yet all are still the basic truths for the anti choice propagandists.

swampgas

Lingua Franca wrote: »

To be fair, they keep referring back to plenty of studies that have been utterly demolished. Abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. Ireland is the safest place in the world to have a baby. Abortion ruins her life.

All have been discredited, yet all are still the basic truths for the anti choice propagandists.

What depresses me is how rarely the interviewer takes them to task. Maybe I'm too used to listening to the Today program on BBC Radio 4, where the interviewers actually know something about the topic being discussed, and have the confidence to call out when their guests are being less than honest.

The standard format in Ireland seems to be to let people say anything they like, unchallenged, in order to be "balanced".

fisgon

Gbear wrote: »

They have no place in a reasoned debate. The only reasonable debate to be had now is how liberal an abortion law we want there to be - the "should there be abortion" debate finished 20 bloody years ago.

Sorry, but this is as bad as the anti abortion side. Whether you agree with them or not (and I don´t), there is a sizable enough section of the population who agree with Iona and the bishops for their opinion to be heard.

To be clear, I find Iona creepy and sinister, and the bishops,...well, creepy and sinister. But you can't seriously advocate banning one whole side of the debate just because you don't agree with them. If they are quoting unreliable studies they should be called on it.

Gbear

fisgon wrote: »

Sorry, but this is as bad as the anti abortion side. Whether you agree with them or not (and I don´t), there is a sizable enough section of the population who agree with Iona and the bishops for their opinion to be heard.

To be clear, I find Iona creepy and sinister, and the bishops,...well, creepy and sinister. But you can't seriously advocate banning one whole side of the debate just because you don't agree with them. If they are quoting unreliable studies they should be called on it.

We already had that debate 20 years ago. A referendum was had. Case closed.

They're just flogging a dead horse at this stage.

MrPudding

StudentDad wrote: »

The ultimate excuse isn't it - margin of appreciation.

It does not remove the fact that if the European Parliament chose to do so it could very easily legislate for abortion on a pan European level and it would be binding on all member states. Yes the EC hasn't pushed the issue but at the end of the day we are all European Citizens. We gave up the primacy of our national law when we joined the EEC. We all know what direction we are going in and if we don't like it we should pay back all the structural funds etc etc and withdraw from the EU. That said, we won't do that because this little country wouldn't last two minutes on its own. We ceded our national sovereignty when we joined the EEC and joined a much larger union.

Which is why our outdated and utterly redundant constitution needs to be abolished or brought into line with EC law.


SD

The constitution is not redundant, and to suggest it is show a fairly serious lack of understanding in what it does and how it interacts with EU law.

The law of the EU does not cover everything, and it is unlikely to for quite sometime. In the meantime, the constitution protects us from an over-reaching government and guarantees us certain rights. Is it perfect? No. Far from it. Does it need some work? Yes! Should we ditch it? Absolutely not.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The Irish Constitution needs to be changed to protect us from a no so benevolent church!

Quite possibly!

MrP

Turtwig

Sooo anyone going to the vigil in Knock for mothers and the unborn?:pac:

lazygal

Jernal wrote: »

Sooo anyone going to the vigil in Knock for mothers and the unborn?:pac:

Fück was that today? Here I am, great with unborn child, and I'm missing it. Will the vigil cover non believers and/or non attenders?

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

Sooo anyone going to the vigil in Knock for mothers and the unborn?:pac:

I would but there is this big ol Lezzie event on in Cork otherwise I'd be there. Honest.*



Another blatant lie.

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would but there is this big ol Lezzie event on in Cork otherwise I'd be there. Honest.*



Another blatant lie.

I'm sorry but accusing another poster, even if it's yourself, of being a liar is against the charter*.:pac:


*May or may not be against the charter**.
**Definition of Charter undefined.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

I'm sorry but accusing another poster, even if it's yourself, of being a liar is against the charter*.:pac:


*May or may not be against the charter**.
**Definition of Charter undefined.

Sorry.*






*May or may not be sincere.

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sorry.*






*May or may not be sincere.

Now, we've got Catholic morality to a tee. They opposed the last abortion referendum that would have allowed abortions in the case of a mother's life being at risk except in the case of suicide. Which was basically their ethos. Now they seem ok with abortion, just not the suicide bits. I thought their morality was absolute?

swampgas

I wonder if the Irish chapter of the RCC is desperately hoping they can tap into the abortion debate as a way of making themselves more relevant? They've gone way beyond the normal preachiness and have hinted that they may make a legal challenge to the proposed law. That, I would suggest, is putting them on a collision course with the state, and it's a battle that they cannot possibly be allowed to win - even a little bit. The RCC is now attempting to dictate to the government on how it should legislate, and is pushing for them to ignore the constitution and supreme court. I really hope this blows up in their faces.

Turtwig

swampgas wrote: »

I wonder if the Irish chapter of the RCC is desperately hoping they can tap into the abortion debate as a way of making themselves more relevant? They've gone way beyond the normal preachiness and have hinted that they may make a legal challenge to the proposed law. That, I would suggest, is putting them on a collision course with the state, and it's a battle that they cannot possibly be allowed to win - even a little bit. The RCC is now attempting to dictate to the government on how it should legislate, and is pushing for them to ignore the constitution and supreme court. I really hope this blows up in their faces.

Yeah what scares me about this debate is the amount of people who seem to think we should ignore the referendums and Supreme court. A tiny ideological minority has rule over the masses. . .

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

Yeah what scares me about this debate is the amount of people who seem to think we should ignore the referendums and Supreme court. A tiny ideological minority has rule over the masses. . .

We can but hope that this will make the masses realise the extent that a tiny ideological minority has ruled over us.

StudentDad

swampgas wrote: »

I wonder if the Irish chapter of the RCC is desperately hoping they can tap into the abortion debate as a way of making themselves more relevant? They've gone way beyond the normal preachiness and have hinted that they may make a legal challenge to the proposed law. That, I would suggest, is putting them on a collision course with the state, and it's a battle that they cannot possibly be allowed to win - even a little bit. The RCC is now attempting to dictate to the government on how it should legislate, and is pushing for them to ignore the constitution and supreme court. I really hope this blows up in their faces.

Challenge the law? On what grounds? From what I understand this legislation is within the parameters of the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. What standing would the church have in this matter? There are a few laws on the books that I don't particularly like, that doesn't give me any right to march into court and sue the state.

SD

swampgas

StudentDad wrote: »

Challenge the law? On what grounds? From what I understand this legislation is within the parameters of the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. What standing would the church have in this matter? There are a few laws on the books that I don't particularly like, that doesn't give me any right to march into court and sue the state.

I suspect that Cardinal Brady is bluffing, because, as you say, there doesn't seem to be any grounds by which they could mount a legal challenge. However, that doesn't mean that a legal action (regardless of merit) couldn't be attempted.

Which makes one wonder:

(1) How would the church pay for such a legal action? From which funds?

(2) What would the reaction of the government be to such a blatant challenge to their authority?

Is anyone aware of any precedent in Ireland for a church organisation attempting to influence legislation in this way - threatening a legal challenge in advance of the legislation even being passed?

Obliq

A good read for yez all - but good questions Swampgas - I wonder?

Tom Stokes:

"The cheek of him. The sheer gall of him.The barefaced hypocrisy of him. The unwarranted hubris of him.

Sean Brady has been a Catholic priest for almost 50 years, an archbishop for almost 20 years and a cardinal for six years. He has held a doctorate in canon law for 46 years.
During his time as a priest, canon lawyer, archbishop and cardinal, Brady was part of an outfit that oversaw a protection racket for priests engaged in the sexual abuse of boys and girls, that oversaw Catholic reformatory schools in which young boys were routinely buggered and otherwise sexually, physically and mentally abused and enslaved by the Catholic church's 'Christian' Brothers and other orders, that oversaw the criminal kidnap and enslavement racket known as the Magdalene Homes and Laundries for girls and women, and other homes and laundries of a similar nature, that oversaw mother and child homes for young unmarried mothers-to-be from which were sold into adoption at home and abroad the children of these mothers, that oversaw the casting out into unconsecrated ground of the mortal remains of un-baptised babies and those who took their own lives, and that oversaw much more including the subversion of the state, turning it into a theocracy despite the fact that many who lived in the state were of other religions or none.

And yet, despite all of this, Brady has the temerity to lay down his interpretation of the 'moral law' with regard to the constitutional rights of women and the need to legislate in the people's parliament for those rights, and to describe the necessary legislation as 'morally unacceptable'. Not content with this deliberate move to coerce legislators to come to heel and not do their duty as defined by our Supreme Court, Brady goes on to talk of a denial of 'religious freedoms' - meaning, of course, only Catholic religious freedoms.

When Brady further talks about the proposed legislation having “potentially menacing implications” for all Catholic institutions he is, of course talking about hospitals, specifically Catholic hospitals. There is a simple solution to his concern. It is to nationalise all Catholic hospitals, and while the government is at it, to nationalise all schools, including Catholic secondary schools and state-funded national schools which are almost invariably controlled the the Catholic church. If there is any question of compensation arising from that, it can be offset against the compensation due from the Catholic church to all of the victims of all of its various abuses of them.

Any public representative who bows to the diktats of Brady or any other Catholic priest, bishop or cardinal on issues that properly and exclusively relate to affairs of state should be vigorously pursued and harried out of office. Theocratic rule in Ireland must be buried once and for all, preferably in unconsecrated ground.

Brady has enough questions to answer about his own immoral behaviour in facilitating the suppression of complaints by boys of cleric sexual abuse that they suffered, including complaints against the notorious paedophile priest, Brendan Smyth. Given that, he might do well to hold his counsel on matters of morality.

Whatever our own individual failings, most of us have some sense of morality, of decency, of right and wrong. That includes those of us who believe that women are entitled to full autonomy over themselves and their bodies, to their full civil and human rights, including ownership of their own reproductive systems. We do not need or want the advice of those who have, over many decades, been centrally involved in an institution responsible for the most egregious crimes against women and children, and by extension against men. Let's have an end to social control by celibate clerics, of any denomination."

Bouncing around t'interweb at the mo.

swampgas

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We can but hope that this will make the masses realise the extent that a tiny ideological minority has ruled over us.

You could hope, but it seems to me that far too many Irish people are cultural catholics who are happy enough with the status quo.

I really hope I'm wrong about that though.

swampgas

From the Examiner, newly installed Bishop of Limerick, Brendan Leahy, came out with this gem:

Bishop Leahy added: “Many women will attest that pregnancy involves wonder. But it also involves suffering and sacrifice for the mother.

“In some pregnancies crises arise that involve both the mother and the child in her womb.

“When hard cases occur, they underline the truth that we are dealing with two persons and that what matters is that in the logic of love, all must be done to protect the life both of the mother whose life is at risk and of the innocent unborn child.”

Great - the church doing what it's best at, telling women that suffering and sacrifice are simply to be endured. And when hard cases occur, as they do, we get some waffle about "the logic of love". Spoken like a man who will never have to deal directly with one of those hard cases himself.

lazygal

It sounds like a J Waters soundbite, the logic of love, the mysteriousness of reality and the fact men will never have to undergo the sacrifice and suffering they so adore.

The Black Oil

Why is John Bruton sticking his nose into this again?

aloyisious

I don't have a link for the interview (have googled) in today's Irish Daily Mail with Lucinda Creighton, but it's main point is that she's totally opposed (as a Government Minister) to the agreed abortion legislation. As for John Bruton, it might be that he's following on the line of Liam Cosgrave and NOT voting with the party on grounds of conscience. I'm hoping it's not opportunist sniping at the man who took over the party leadership from him, beating his brother to it.

lazygal

I'm not sure John Bruton is a member of the parliamentary party. AFAIK, it comprises TDs, Senators and possibly MEPs who currently hold seats.

lazygal

aloyisious wrote: »

I don't have a link for the interview (have googled) in today's Irish Daily Mail with Lucinda Creighton, but it's main point is that she's totally opposed (as a Government Minister) to the agreed abortion legislation. As for John Bruton, it might be that he's following on the line of Liam Cosgrave and NOT voting with the party on grounds of conscience. I'm hoping it's not opportunist sniping at the man who took over the party leadership from him, beating his brother to it.

I don't know about anyone else but I wouldn't be opposed to L Creighton's political career encountering a stumbling block or two......

Sarky

I doubt she'll abort her career while there's a real and immediate threat to the life of her pension.