Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

old hippy

Sin City wrote: »

Very good point , but Im sure you can agree that the vast majority of abortions come from consensual sex

Not in countries with conflict, like The Congo.

28064212

Sin City wrote: »

As far as I am aware and I am open to correction on this is that the statethat 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.

Correct. And as the Supreme Court ruled, and two referendums subsequently confirmed, that means a woman has the right to obtain an abortion where there is a substantial risk to her life, including the risk of suicide

Sin City

old hippy wrote: »

Not in countries with conflict, like The Congo.

I mean in this country

Yes a lot of African countries have rape for supposed health/religious reasons so that would up their rape abortions

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

Very good point , but Im sure you can agree that the vast majority of abortions come from consensual sex

Yep, not trying to spin any figures, just cautious about any stats regarding rape or outcomes.

Sin City

28064212 wrote: »

Correct. And as the Supreme Court ruled, and two referendums subsequently confirmed, that means a woman has the right to obtain an abortion where there is a substantial risk to her life, including the risk of suicide

Ok so an action that will kill both is the greater evil than the loss of one, I can understand that

marienbad

Sin City wrote: »

As far as I am aware and I am open to correction on this is that the statethat 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.




So what if its biased? if its biased then not all factors are taken into account for a just law to take place


Because both rights have to be taken into consideration



Yes that is the reality, but just because a lot of women seek these servies doesnt make it morally or right or legal. Its a dilemma alright but not one that can be taken lightly. again both rights have to be taken into account

I think Sin City you are not taking into account the court rulings have on the original position- that is why we are in the current position.

As for the rest your your reply - lets just agree to disagree.

28064212

Sin City wrote: »

Ok so an action that will kill both is the greater evil than the loss of one, I can understand that

So you agree that we need to legislate for abortion in Ireland for these cases?

Bannasidhe

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Straws everywhere, clutching desperately. You are essentially saying the same thing but sugar coating it. Claiming that being a lesbian is in any way like aborting an unborn child is ridiculous and I find it incredibly insulting.

Incidentally, how many abortions carried out are women who have been raped?

I'm not sugar coating anything. I said I find it difficult to understand. I never said that being a lesbian was in any way like having an abortion in the way you are implying. I said a woman's right to control her own body is inviolate whether that is through expression of her sexuality or by deciding she does not want to be pregnant is irrelevant. The principle is the same.
If you wish to get offended by that, that is your concern but I see nothing offensive in that statement.

I notice you ignored the main point of my post which was disputing your statement that getting pregnant is a choice.

So I will ask you again - are women who get pregnant because they were raped given a choice?

The numbers are immaterial - we are discussing whether they were given a choice in the matter as you stated getting pregnant is a choice. I say that is not always the case.

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

Yep, not trying to spin any figures, just cautious about any stats regarding rape or outcomes.

Yeah, I dont like when stats come into play on an emotive and serious topic such as these , as both sides can trot out figures claiming their stat is better than the others

Sin City

28064212 wrote: »

So you agree that we need to legislate for abortion in Ireland for these cases?

I said I can understand the logic behind it, as for legislation I dont know but I have already suggested that maybe it could be introduced on a case by case basis about 10 pages back

Sin City

marienbad wrote: »

I think Sin City you are not taking into account the court rulings have on the original position- that is why we are in the current position.

As for the rest your your reply - lets just agree to disagree.

Feel free to enlighten me on court ruleings

As for the rest of your arguemnt

Giving people who are biased the choice of ruleing is not a moral way of making laes

marienbad

Sin City wrote: »

Feel free to enlighten me on court ruleings

As for the rest of your arguemnt

Giving people who are biased the choice of ruleing is not a moral way of making laes

''The European court ruled last year that Ireland is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights because it has failed to implement the Supreme Court ruling in the X case that a woman can have an abortion when her life is at risk.''

Your point on bias is not valid as we are all biased. So taking your argument there would be no laws .

28064212

Sin City wrote: »

I said I can understand the logic behind it, as for legislation I dont know but I have already suggested that maybe it could be introduced on a case by case basis about 10 pages back

The Supreme Court have ruled, and the people have voted (twice). The next step is legislation, and the fact that it hasn't happened yet it makes a total mockery of our democratic system

Imagine, after the divorce referendum, the government had decided to sit on the legislation, and said "we know the Constitution says you have a right to it, we know that you have voted for it, but no, we're not going to make it legal". Can you see absurd that is?

Sin City

marienbad wrote: »

''The European court ruled last year that Ireland is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights because it has failed to implement the Supreme Court ruling in the X case that a woman can have an abortion when her life is at risk.''

Your point on bias is not valid as we are all biased. So taking your argument there would be no laws .

My belief is pro life

My arguement is dependent on what we consider life to be or personhood

I can keep my own biases seperate. I can admit where I go wrong.


As for the ruleing, it wasnt in oir constitution via referendum , changes have been made since where if the mothers life is at risk then abortion is permissible. I dont think its right but thats the ruleing

Ill also admit that I do not know the ins and outs of that rueling to make any proper cpunter arguement

28064212

Sin City wrote: »

My belief is pro life

My arguement is dependent on what we consider life to be or personhood

I can keep my own biases seperate. I can admit where I go wrong.


As for the ruleing, it wasnt in oir constitution via referendum , changes have been made since where if the mothers life is at risk then abortion is permissible. I dont think its right but thats the ruleing

Ill also admit that I do not know the ins and outs of that rueling to make any proper cpunter arguement

Here's a timeline:

• 1983: 8th amendment to the Constitution is passed by referendum, which "acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother"
• 1992: The X Case. The Supreme Court rules that the 8th amendment means women have a right to an abortion where there is a substantial risk to the life of the mother, including the risk of suicide.
• 1992: After the ruling, the government runs a referendum to remove the right to an abortion. It is defeated. This is when the legislation should have been brought in
• 2002: Still no legislation. The government runs another referendum to remove the right to an abortion. It is defeated again. Legislation should have been brought in.
• 2010: ABC case in the ECHR. The ECHR rules that Ireland has violated C's rights by not provided a legally authoritative determination of whether she was entitled to an abortion

The current situation is this: abortion is illegal in Ireland because of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. However, this act is unconstitutional. It is a patently ridiculous situation that governments have been running scared from for 20 years

Sin City

Just to add t the body that holds medical licences in Ireland considers it malpractice for any doctor to perform an abortion. The Irish Medical Council stated: "The deliberate and intentional destruction of the unborn child is professional misconduct.


This was the ruling

In that case, the Court held there is no right for women to an abortion, although it found that Ireland had violated the Convention by failing to provide an accessible and effective procedure by which a woman can have established whether she qualifies for a legal abortion under current Irish law. The Court's decision is binding on Ireland and all of the contracting states of the European Council.

The law, at the moment, is highly complex, the original amendment modified by referenda and court decisions. However, even in its current state, Article 40.3.3 still makes abortion illegal by offering status to the unborn

Daftendirekt

Sin City wrote: »

My belief is pro life

My arguement is dependent on what we consider life to be or personhood

I can keep my own biases seperate. I can admit where I go wrong.


As for the ruleing, it wasnt in oir constitution via referendum , changes have been made since where if the mothers life is at risk then abortion is permissible. I dont think its right but thats the ruleing

Ill also admit that I do not know the ins and outs of that rueling to make any proper cpunter arguement

You don't think abortion should be permitted even when there's a risk to the mother's life?

Sin City

Daftendirekt wrote: »

You don't think abortion should be permitted even when there's a risk to the mother's life?

Again, Im unsure. Obviously I dont want anyone to die, and I do think both lives should be saved if possible. I agree with the logic behind it but disagree that its automaticly the mothers life who is more important

Sin City

Daftendirekt wrote: »

You don't think abortion should be permitted even when there's a risk to the mother's life?

I do think it should be permitted then and only then, but I think it should be on case by case basis not made law

Improbable

Sin City wrote: »

I do think it should be permitted then and only then, but I think it should be on case by case basis not made law

And why is that?

Sin City

Improbable wrote: »

And why is that?

probably so itll be judged on the seriousness of the risk posed. remember the incident recently where the doctors got the diagnosis wrong and it took a second opinion from a diff hospital to ascertain that faulty equipment lead to wrongful reasons for terminination

a numberof babies were terminated.needlessly


obviously suicidal cases should also be.judged case by case to find genuine cases

doctoremma

Why should the mother's right to live supersede that of the baby's right to live?

Daftendirekt

But aren't all medical issues dealt with on a case-by-case basis?

The issue here is that the law prevents women from receiving appropriate medical care regardless of individual circumstances.

Sin City

Daftendirekt wrote: »

But aren't all medical issues dealt with on a case-by-case basis?

The issue here is that the law prevents women from receiving appropriate medical care regardless of individual circumstances.

define individual circumstances

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

Why should the mother's right to live supersede that of the baby's right to live?

thats the arguement

mothers right vs fetal rights

define fetal rights

when does fetus gain rights

define personhood

Ickle Magoo

What I find odd is that any woman can walk into a pharmacy and get the MAP, they can have a coil or any number of contraceptive devices designed to prevent/make implantation difficult, it is legal to go to the UK and get an abortion, legal to assist a woman who wants to go to the UK to procure an abortion and legal to treat a woman who has returned to Ireland after an abortion...so far from having any kind of consistency regarding "the sanctity of life", rather it's a kind of bizarre moralistic nimbyism...

Sin City

fatmammycat wrote: »

Are you for real? You disagree that it's automatically the mother's life which is more important. You have a question mark over whether a living breathing woman is more important than a fetus?

as I have explained of will not hold one.life as more valuable than another

fatmammycat

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What I find odd is that any woman can walk into a pharmacy and get the MAP, they can have a coil or any number of contraceptive devices designed to prevent/make implantation difficult, it is legal to go to the UK and get an abortion, legal to assist a woman who wants to go to the UK to procure an abortion and legal to treat a woman who has returned to Ireland after an abortion...so far from having any kind of consistency regarding "the sanctity of life", rather it's a kind of bizarre moralistic nimbyism...

It's the Pontius Pilate approach so beloved by our governments.

fatmammycat

Sin City wrote: »

as I have explained of will not hold one.life as more valuable than another

I'm sorry, what does that mean exactly?

Daftendirekt

Sin City wrote: »

define individual circumstances

The situation a single (the quantifier, not the relationship status!) person finds themselves in.

At present the law would have a woman carry her child to term, regardless of the danger to her own health or to her child's health. If we want to deal with abortion on a case-by-case basis, we need to legislate to allow for that.