Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Your use of the word 'mob' implies a lawless, out of control, groups of people wrecking the place - which therefore suggests this is how you regard the recent vigils and protests. This is not what has happened.

True, it's been much too effete for that.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for your 'Rosa Parks' comment - do you also wish to call those who marched peacefully for the end of segregation in the U.S. a 'mob'?

No, my contempt is just for the dillettantes pictured above. Rosa Parks actually was being denied her civil rights.

Nodin wrote: »

....the amendment covers more than risk of suicide as a grounds for abortion.

Yes, but recall that those grounds are quite limited - a substantial threat to the life, but not the health, of the mother. That wouldn't have been enough to permit an abortion in the X Case, hence the hasty inclusion of suicide as a ground.

Beyond that, just what I already said above.

Nodin wrote: »

I sort of got the vibe you don't think much of the march from earlier posts, so theres no need to carrying on the sneering for my sake.

Oh, it's not for your sake. The sense of despair is quite genuine.

Nodin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

True, it's been much too effete for that.No, my contempt is just for the dillettantes pictured above. Rosa Parks actually was being denied her civil rights.

You don't see how a group of people likely to become pregnant would be concerned that they might end up in the same situation as the unfortunate woman in Galway?

Creaky Bones

I have sympathy for the family of this woman and regret her passing in this way. But I object to India's or any other countrys' interference in this country's Christian laws! Which is pro-life! (We would'nt be allowed to interefere in theirs). Put it to a referendum to the people of Ireland!

The Mad Hatter

Creaky Bones wrote: »

I have sympathy for the family of this woman and regret her passing in this way. But I object to India's or any other countrys' interference in this country's Christian laws! Which is pro-life! (We would'nt be allowed to interefere in theirs). Put it to a referendum to the people of Ireland!

It's been put to two.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

swampgas wrote: »

A woman has died because our legal system is a mess

We don't know that yet, which is what I'm saying. Maybe legislation, within the confines of the existing Constitution, would make no difference. Maybe an abortion would have made no difference, on any grounds. We've no idea what crossover exists between the case in question, and our need to legislate.

And the need to legislate exists independently of this case.

swampgas wrote: »

Are you claiming that Rosa Parks' actions had no affect at all?

What caused you to believe I was in any way critical of Rosa Parks?

Nodin

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It's been put to two.

Three, believe it or not.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

True, it's been much too effete for that.No, my contempt is just for the dillettantes pictured above. Rosa Parks actually was being denied her civil rights.Yes, but recall that those grounds are quite limited - a substantial threat to the life, but not the health, of the mother. That wouldn't have been enough to permit an abortion in the X Case, hence the hasty inclusion of suicide as a ground.

Beyond that, just what I already said above.Oh, it's not for your sake. The sense of despair is quite genuine.

As a woman I believe being denied inviolate control over my own body is a denial of my civil rights.

Yes, 'effete dilettants' are prepared to exercise their democratic right to protest by leaving their keyboard and showing their faces.

Perhaps you would prefer they just sneered anonymously on an internet site and suggested we need more time then 20 years for legislation to be drafted...

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Nodin wrote: »

You don't see how a group of people likely to become pregnant would be concerned that they might end up in the same situation as the unfortunate woman in Galway?

We don't yet know what that situation was, while the law on the substantial topic of abortion hasn't changed for twenty years. What, people have only suddenly become aware that abortion is only allowed under very limited circumstances?

So, no, what I see is fickle, incoherent protest.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As a woman I believe being denied inviolate control over my own body is a denial of my civil rights.

Well, it's not, because your civil rights are whatever the Constitution gives you.

What you may mean is you want a referendum on the substantial issue of abortion. And that's fine; I suspect we may need one, too. But that may or may not have to do with this case; where, you'll appreciate, some are simply saying that we need legislation.

You're also mildly inconsistent with what you say next. But only mildly.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps you would prefer they just sneered anonymously on an internet site and suggested we need more time then 20 years for legislation to be drafted...

Well, at least that would be consistent with their position up to this.

Nodin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

We don't yet know what that situation was, while the law on the substantial topic of abortion hasn't changed for twenty years. What, people have only suddenly become aware that abortion is only allowed under very limited circumstances?.

No, people may have thought that the legal situation was different than what it is, and that such a medical situation could never have arisen.

lazygal

Did anyone see Breda O'Brian (Irish Times columnist and Iona Institute personality) on the RTE news? She was moaning about pro life commentators 'being left out of the debate' and saying its so unfair they haven't been able to make their case. Poor her, its not like she has a weekly comment piece in the Irish Times, or has spoken on many radio discussions, or has had a platform on TV shows to air her views. Pathetic, self-serving and exactly what I'd expect from a person with such a narrow minded and compassionless view.

swampgas

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

We don't know that yet, which is what I'm saying. Maybe legislation, within the confines of the existing Constitution, would make no difference. Maybe an abortion would have made no difference, on any grounds. We've no idea what crossover exists between the case in question, and our need to legislate.

Actually I accept that in this specific case we cannot be sure - yet.

However it was reported that the termination was delayed until the fetus had died, an action that was inherently risky, yet also an action that could be justified by a rather cautious interpretation of the confused legal position. It seems entirely plausible to me (if not yet proven) that this woman died because of a lack of clear legislation.

And the need to legislate exists independently of this case.

Agreed

What caused you to believe I was in any way critical of Rosa Parks?

Sorry if I picked you up wrongly. It sounded like you were suggesting that people are wasting their time protesting this way.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

swampgas wrote: »

... it was reported that the termination was delayed until the fetus had died, an action that was inherently risky, yet also an action that could be justified by a rather cautious interpretation of the confused legal position. It seems entirely plausible to me (if not yet proven) that this woman died because of a lack of clear legislation.

And that is certainly one of the plausible outcomes of investigation.

I think we can also say that it's a certainty that legislation does not enable either doctors or their patients to clearly know when abortion is a permitted option, which is what the European Court of Human Rights have said.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, it's not, because your civil rights are whatever the Constitution gives you.

What you may mean is you want a referendum on the substantial issue of abortion. And that's fine; I suspect we may need one, too. But that may or may not have to do with this case; where, you'll appreciate, some are simply saying that we need legislation.

You're also mildly inconsistent with what you say next. But only mildly.Well, at least that would be consistent with their position up to this.

So if the constitution stated that any man found guilty of any form of sex crime - including the 17 year old male who has sex with a 16 year old female - should be physically castrated you would be ok with that and not consider it an infringement of men's civil liberties?

I mean what I said - I want the government to legislate according to the results of a referendum held 20 years ago.

Thank you for pointing out that I have allegedly been inconsistent as well as telling me what I mean and then extrapolating the position of thousands of people from that - with a skill like that have you considered a career in politics?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So if the constitution stated that any man found guilty of any form of sex crime - including the 17 year old male who has sex with a 16 year old female - should be physically castrated you would be ok with that and not consider it an infringement of men's civil liberties?

If the Constitution said it, it wouldn't be an infringement of civil rights. It might be an infringement of human rights or "natural rights", if you believe such things exist. A denial of civil rights relates only to stuff that the Constitution says you should be getting - something like Kathy Sinnott's case on behalf of her son, establishing that people with disabilities could not be excluded from the Constitutional right to a primary education.

That was the point of the civil rights movement in America. They were seeking their lawful rights as Americans.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I mean what I said - I want the government to legislate according to the results of a referendum held 20 years ago.

What's in the Constitution is well short of inviolate control over your own body. That's why I suspect that, to really settle this matter, a referendum is needed.

Lon Dubh

lazygal wrote: »

Did anyone see Breda O'Brian (Irish Times columnist and Iona Institute personality) on the RTE news? She was moaning about pro life commentators 'being left out of the debate' and saying its so unfair they haven't been able to make their case. Poor her, its not like she has a weekly comment piece in the Irish Times, or has spoken on many radio discussions, or has had a platform on TV shows to air her views. Pathetic, self-serving and exactly what I'd expect from a person with such a narrow minded and compassionless view.

I was wondering who that idiot was :mad: Trying to make it all about her and her feelings, bless :rolleyes:

ShooterSF

So can people explain to me why, if supreme court rulings are good enough replacements to law, we had to have a blasphemy law brought in or why we have a government beyond referendums?

ShooterSF

So can people explain to me why, if supreme court rulings are good enough replacements to law, we had to have a blasphemy law brought in or why we have a government beyond referendums?

jank

pauldla wrote: »

If said organisation has a stated aim of influencing the legislature and/or judiciary of the nation then yes, abso-bucking-lutely, I want to know who they are, what they are doing, and where their money comes from.

So we should spy on the Teacher Unions, SIPTU, IBEC and the GRU? Should we spy on political parties?
Should we spy on Irelands pro choice movement as they clearly want to 'influence legislature and the judiciary of the nation'.....??

Every lobby group aims to influence government decisions and legislature. The problem is not about banning said organisation with whom you disagree , the problem is empowering over zealous governments in the first place.

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Of course it is - the Status Quo is doing so well that Ireland is the model for how to run a country.

Our Economy is sound.
Our Health care is the envy of the world. No-one dies or is denied medical treatment in Ireland due to lack of resources.
Our Education system is faultless and delivers full equality in it's treatment of all sections of society.
Our Justice system is robust, swift, unstintingly fair and consistent in it's judgement.
Our Political system is accountable, democratic, transparent and responsive to the electorate.

Our....


*deep sigh*....I'm gonna cry......:(

Show me a perfect country. Ireland has it problems for sure, but so do every other nation on earth. This perpetual self hatred is tiring.

chris2008x

If abortion does come here the Department of Social Protection should reject child benefit claims from "career claimants and dole skangers" why didn't you get an abortion if you can't afford the child.


NOT SAYING EVERYONE CLAIMING THESE BENEFITS ARE SPONGING. PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOST THEIR JOBS THE VULNERABLE ETC ARE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS BUT THE LAZY PEOPLE WHO GET PREGNANT FOR WELFARE AND A COUNCIL HOUSE WHO COST US MILLIONS EVERY YEAR.

pauldla

jank wrote: »

So we should spy on the Teacher Unions, SIPTU, IBEC and the GRU? Should we spy on political parties?
Should we spy on Irelands pro choice movement as they clearly want to 'influence legislature and the judiciary of the nation'.....??

Every lobby group aims to influence government decisions and legislature. The problem is not about banning said organisation with whom you disagree , the problem is empowering over zealous governments in the first place.

Away home with your 'spy', Jank. You know full well that nobody is suggesting that. :mad:

robp

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Still at it, eh?

When this story emerges from somewhere other than that cat's arse that Niamh O'Briain calls her mouth with at the very least a screenshot of said e-mail, we'll lend it credence.

I find it hilarious that you take the vaguest of accusations as fact (remember you mumbled something about abortion causing cancer?) but keep on with your emperical demands for evidence that's never good enough for you anyway.

Niamh O'Briain said it so it must be true but how can you believe a word that comes out of Praveen Halappanavar's mouth, sure he's no doctor! :pac:

(Btw, he's a scientist, she was a dentist and both of their families have many members in the medical profession.)

Its time to eat your word Lingua Franca...

Pro-choice activists got tip-off on tragic death

Abortion campaigners, including two left-wing political researchers in Leinster House, were aware of the Savita Halappanavar case at least three days before her death became public knowledge.

Pro-choice activists held an emergency meeting last Monday night in Dublin city centre to plan how they would proceed after the details emerged publicly about the death at University Hospital Galway of 31-year-old Mrs Halappanavar, whose death is now the subject of two separate investigations.

Emails seen by the Sunday Independent, from a Google discussion group used by members of the Irish Choice Network (ICN) – an organisation set up to link pro-choice individuals and groups – show they were aware last Sunday, and probably earlier, that a "denial of abortion" story was about to break.

That was three days before the story broke on Wednesday.

The ICN web discussion was sparked by a member, Andrew B, who wrote: "Hi all, there are rumours that a major news story related to denial of abortion access is going to break in the media early this coming week. I don't want to put anything more in an email as the information I have is both fragmentary and complex but I have talked to a few people, some of whom have heard similar details ...Sunday Independent

BTW her name is Niamh Ui Bhriain actually. Sativa's husband is an engineer, not a scientist. You also failed to read when I wrote 'if this the case'. Spare us your idiotic remarks.

MagicMarker

robp wrote: »

Its time to eat your word Lingua Franca...

Is there any reason why you failed to add a link to your source?

Could it be because of this...?

However, later in an email response to the Sunday Independent, the ICN said: "Members of the Indian community got in touch with pro-choice groups following Savita's death."

There's no conspiracy here robp, why don't you focus on the actual issue at hand?

TwoShedsJackson

Remarkable that this paragraph got left out of robp's cut and paste:

According to the anti- abortion group The Life Institute, the postings on the ICN Google discussion group suggest that abortion campaigners were given prior knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the death of Mrs Halappanavar.

The Mad Hatter

MagicMarker wrote: »

Is there any reason why you failed to add a link to your source?

Um, he did, but only at the bottom if the quote. Easily missed.

chris2008x

Sunday Morning Live they are talking about it.

BBC1

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In any event, while you are right that EU law takes precedence over domestic law (including the Constitution) the EU would only harmonise laws in an area in which it has been given jurisdiction. I don't think that abortion is one of those areas.

The Irish Constitution is the ultimate authority for Irish citizens and trumps EU law by some distance. That's why there have to be referendums on EU treaties from time to time -- the SEA amendment, the Maastricht Treaty, the Treaty of Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon and the Fiscal Compact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_European_Union

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

The Irish Constitution is the ultimate authority for Irish citizens and trumps EU law by some distance. That's why there have to be referendums on EU treaties from time to time -- the SEA amendment, the Maastricht Treaty, the Treaty of Amsterdam, Nice, Lisbon and the Fiscal Compact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_European_Union

This is not strictly true...

When a country signs up to the EU they agree that EU law is superior to their own law, in the area where it has competence. The fact that an individual state has a constitution which means additional step need to be taken for that state to be compliant does not take away form the fact that the EU law is superior. In addition, some of the EU law is directly applicable and is not dependent on local legislation.

MrP

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

When a country signs up to the EU they agree that EU law is superior to their own law, in the area where it has competence.

Agreed, but that's the priority of EU law and national law, not the national constitution which describes and guarantees the rights of the nation's citizens and how these may or may not be amended by the various EU treaties. Judge Hederman put it well in the Crotty judgment of 1987:

Hederman J wrote:

The State's organs cannot contract to exercise in a particular procedure their policy-making roles or in any way to fetter powers bestowed unfettered by the Constitution. They are the guardians of these powers - not the disposers of them.