Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

As above, I disagree

What legal document -- I assume a Treaty -- says that the Irish Constitution is trumped by the EU?

You have this:

Under Article 29.4.6° EU law takes precedence over the Constitution if there is a conflict between the two, but only to the extent that such EU law is "necessitated" by Ireland's membership. (Shamelessly stolen from wiki, as I am on my phone.)

MrP

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

Under Article 29.4.6° EU law takes precedence over the Constitution if there is a conflict between the two, but only to the extent that such EU law is "necessitated" by Ireland's membership. . . .

Close. It’s Art. 29.4.10°, and there’s actually two relevant provisions.

First, the Constitution does not invalidate Irish laws which are “necessitated by the obligations of membership of the European Union”. Secondly, the Constitution does not prevent EU laws from having the force of law in the state. There’s no “necessitated” test in the second provision, but the relevant EU law would have to be grounded in some provision of the EU treaties. (The EU cannot legislate on any subject it cares to; it can only legislate in areas where the EU treaties give it competence.)

That’s the reason we have a new constitutional amendment every time we ratify an EU treaty which extends, or may extend, the competence of the EU. Every such treaty increases the area within which EU law or EU requirements may “trump” the Constitution.

So, if Ireland ratifies (or has already ratified) an EU treaty which give the EU competence to legalise abortion (or, for that matter, to criminalise it) or to require the member states to do so, then abortion could be completely legalized (or completely criminalized) in Ireland and the specific constitutional provisions dealing with abortion would not prevent this.

28064212

To those who believe a doctor can legally carry out an abortion when there is a risk to the life of the mother (despite it being against the 1861 act) on the basis of the Supreme Court ruling: Do you believe that a doctor in this country can legally provide an abortion where the risk is suicide?

Peregrinus

28064212 wrote: »

To those who believe a doctor can legally carry out an abortion when there is a risk to the life of the mother (despite it being against the 1861 act) on the basis of the Supreme Court ruling: Do you believe that a doctor in this country can legally provide an abortion where the risk is suicide?

Well, the X case held that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion where there is a "real and substantial" risk to her life, and the risk in that case was a risk of suicide.

A proposal to amend the Constitution to rule out abortion where the risk to life was one of suicide was subsequently defeated in a referendum, so the constituional position is unchanged.

The uncertainty, I think, is not whether a woman who faces a "real and substantial" risk of suicide has a constitutional right to an abortion; she certainly does.

The issue is how a doctor can know that she faces a real and substantial risk of suicide. This is important because the Offences Against the Person Act still applies in cases where there is no constitutional right, so if a woman doesn't have a constitutional right, then to administer an abortion is a crime, and a serious one.

Without legislation laying down a procedure for determining whether there is a real and substantial threat to life, doctors are in an invidious position. If they administer an abortion, they can be prosecuted and if the court finds that there was not a real and substantial threat to life, they will be convicted. Doctors, understandably, see no reason why they should run this risk. They want a mechanism by which they can know before an abortion is administered, rather than afterwards, whether the Constitutional criteria are satisfied.

28064212

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue is how a doctor can know that she faces a real and substantial risk of suicide. This is important because the Offences Against the Person Act still applies in cases where there is no constitutional right, so if a woman doesn't have a constitutional right, then to administer an abortion is a crime, and a serious one.

I know that The question was aimed at the people who say we don't need any legislation for the X case, doctors are already entitled to act where there is a risk to the life of the mother.

Dades

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

No he won't. They won't be baptised so will be sent to purgatory.

Not quite, they used to be sent to limbo, but that wasn't child-friendly enough of an idea for the 21st century, so the RCC "studied" the concept and decided babies probably didn't go there. Purgatory, I think is only for actual sinners to purge their sins (as opposed to babies who have no sin other than *original*.)

Makes perfect sense.

Peregrinus

28064212 wrote: »

I know that The question was aimed at the people who say we don't need any legislation for the X case, doctors are already entitled to act where there is a risk to the life of the mother.

Well, they are entitled to act where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. They want a mechanism by which they can know that there is such a risk.

28064212

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, they are entitled to act where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. They want a mechanism by which they can know that there is such a risk.

Again, I know that and fully support legislation. My question is aimed at people saying we don't need legislation. If we don't need legislation, that means doctors are fully entitled to decide that suicide constitutes a risk to the life of the mother, therefore they can provide an abortion

Bannasidhe

Dades wrote: »

Not quite, they used to be sent to limbo, but that wasn't child-friendly enough of an idea for the 21st century, so the RCC "studied" the concept and decided babies probably didn't go there. Purgatory, I think is only for actual sinners to purge their sins (as opposed to babies who have no sin other than *original*.)

Makes perfect sense.

So where do the unborn/stillborn babies go?



Do they get a 'go to heaven free pass'?

That can't be as it would mean that it could be argued abortion , from a Catholic perspective, is of real benefit to the child as they would avoid all of the Vale of Tears stuff and go straight to the place 'everybody' is trying to get to and spent eternity in bliss...

Still leaves the issue of original sin...

Do they have to try and get born again (literally) in the hope that they get it 'right' next time?

Surely not as isn't it one soul = one life?

Purgatory?

Bit harsh. Forcing them to be on remand until Judgement Day when they will be judged as to how they conducted themselves while alive according to rules they never got to hear due to not having been born alive...

Nor did they get the chance to deal with the whole original sin issue...

Are the left in limbo without a Limbo to go to?

Sarky

Read your bible and ask a priest, it'll make perfect sense then. :pac:

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Read your bible and ask a priest, it'll make perfect sense then. :pac:

Thing is - the concept of Original Sin was only developed in the 2nd century based on Romans 5:12-21 (which I suspect was written by John Waters) and 1 Corinthians 15:22 so the Bible is not very clear. So unclear is it that it took them 200 years to work it out...

Sarky

Maybe they thought it was a poem and thus only to be taken metaphorically for 2 centuries, because of the symmetry or some such bullsh*t?

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Maybe they thought it was a poem and thus only to be taken metaphorically for 2 centuries, because of the symmetry or some such bullsh*t?

or it really was written by John Walters in his previous incarnation as Paul and it took them 200 years to try work out what the hell he was talking about not realising that it is nonsensical waffle.

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, the X case held that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion where there is a "real and substantial" risk to her life, and the risk in that case was a risk of suicide.

A proposal to amend the Constitution to rule out abortion where the risk to life was one of suicide was subsequently defeated in a referendum, so the constituional position is unchanged.

The uncertainty, I think, is not whether a woman who faces a "real and substantial" risk of suicide has a constitutional right to an abortion; she certainly does.

The issue is how a doctor can know that she faces a real and substantial risk of suicide. This is important because the Offences Against the Person Act still applies in cases where there is no constitutional right, so if a woman doesn't have a constitutional right, then to administer an abortion is a crime, and a serious one.

It will be impossible for Doctors to know if a woman is genuinely suicidal. This stands to reason.
As we know, the only reason this piddling little piece of legislation will be so difficult to achieve in practice, is because it isn't the full picture. When the proposal (in bold) was put to the people, the fuller picture couldn't be considered or asked, because of the constitutional ban on abortion. The question of whether abortion should be legal (on a more demand fuelled basis) has not been put to us since 1983, on the 8th amendment (albeit in a very indirect way). The people, in 1992, were only asked a specific question - whether or not suicidality was an acceptable reason to obtain an abortion in Ireland, and we said "Yes, of course it is". The bigger, and fairer question would be "and in what other circumstances?". The answers to that one could be put into practice, but in my opinion, just suicidality cannot.

eyescreamcone

There seems to be a train of thought in the media that "nobody wants another referendum".
I believe it is necessary to clear up the mess that has been created.
Also, what we wanted 20 years ago is not what is wanted now (in my opinion).

If The UK and The Netherlands etc. decided in the morning that they would no longer provide abortions for Irish residents, what legislation would we put in place to cater for the 5000+ women who seek abortions for whatever reason, every year???
That is 100,000 cases since the 1992 referendum.

This is how we should be thinking.

Peregrinus

Obliq wrote: »

It will be impossible for Doctors to know if a woman is genuinely suicidal. This stands to reason.

I dunno that it does.

A similar question – is this person a risk to themselves or others? – has to be asked and answered in involuntary committal proceedings under the mental health legislation. I suspect practitioners hate having to answer that question, but they have to answer it just the same and, one way or another, they do answer it, and on the basis of that answer people either are or are not committed. It may be unsatisfactory and imperfect but it’s the best we’ve got and, in the mental health context, we make do with it. We make it work.

I don’t think it’s a thousand miles from that to asking “is this person a threat to themselves?” in the context of an abortion decision. I’m not saying that anybody would relish answering the question, and I’m not even saying that making that the test for abortion is a good policy. But I’m not convinced that it’s completely unworkable.

But I’d certainly go this far; it won’t work well. In one very important respect the context is very different from the mental health legislation. Under the mental health legislation, if someone is found to be threat to themselves, they can be involuntarily detained, which is almost certainly not an outcome they want. The subject therefore always has an interest in not presenting as a suicide risk. But in this context, the question will arise when a woman wants an abortion, and if she found to be a suicide risk she can have one. She therefore has an interest in presenting as being at risk. I am certainly not suggesting that women would be systematically dishonest here; just that a doctor would have great difficulty in knowing whether a particular woman was, and this isn’t a problem faced in assessments under the mental health legislation.

Add to this the fact that quite a number of practitioners in this field – i.e. practitioners associated with clinics providing abortions – would likely have an ideological position favourable to a woman’s right to abortion (if you had an ideological position against it why would you practice in this area?) and I think you’d be putting them in a very difficult position. Again, I ‘m not saying that doctors would be systematically dishonest here.

All-in-all, I don’t see suicide risk assessment working well here. If we did set up a system based on this, I could see it falling into disrepute fairly quickly, with the widespread perception being that women who were not really suicidal were getting abortions, and opinion divided over whether this was a good thing or a bad thing.

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

Add to this the fact that quite a number of practitioners in this field – i.e. practitioners associated with clinics providing abortions – would likely have an ideological position favourable to a woman’s right to abortion (if you had an ideological position against it why would you practice in this area?) and I think you’d be putting them in a very difficult position. Again, I ‘m not saying that doctors would be systematically dishonest here.

All-in-all, I don’t see suicide risk assessment working well here. If we did set up a system based on this, I could see it falling into disrepute fairly quickly, with the widespread perception being that women who were not really suicidal were getting abortions, and opinion divided over whether this was a good thing or a bad thing.

Well, here you've just reasoned it in the very same way as I did (in my head!), and come to the same conclusion. That's exactly what I mean by unworkable, and clearly not fair on the medical practitioners or the women involved.

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Well, here you've just reasoned it in the very same way as I did (in my head!), and come to the same conclusion. That's exactly what I mean by unworkable, and clearly not fair on the medical practitioners or the women involved.

Reminds me of when the dissection of human cadavers was forbidden by the church - who lets not forget controlled the universities - so ('proto' to distinguish them from modern) surgeons did their anatomy research on pigs - pigs don't have an appendix...

Countless people died due an unworkable medical compromise forced on medics by a religious ethos.

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Reminds me of when the dissection of human cadavers was forbidden by the church - who lets not forget controlled the universities - so ('proto' to distinguish them from modern) surgeons did their anatomy research on pigs - pigs don't have an appendix...

Countless people died due an unworkable medical compromise forced on medics by a religious ethos.

Bloody hell! I never knew that.....a good one to remember for future discussions, ta!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Reminds me of when the dissection of human cadavers was forbidden by the church - who lets not forget controlled the universities - so ('proto' to distinguish them from modern) surgeons did their anatomy research on pigs - pigs don't have an appendix...

Countless people died due an unworkable medical compromise forced on medics by a religious ethos.

Have you a source for this story? I've no idea one way or the other, it just sounds a little distorted compared to some items Wikipedia

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

In 1541, while in Bologna, Vesalius uncovered the fact that all of Galen's research had been based upon animal anatomy rather than the human; since dissection had been banned in ancient Rome, Galen had dissected Barbary Apes instead, and argued that they would be anatomically similar to humans. As a result, he published a correction of Galen's Opera omnia and began writing his own anatomical text. Until Vesalius pointed this out, it had gone unnoticed and had long been the basis of studying human anatomy. However, some people still chose to follow Galen and resented Vesalius for calling attention to such glaring mistakes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen#cite_ref-36
Galen’s principal interest was in human anatomy, but Roman law had prohibited the dissection of human cadavers since about 150 BC

I'm not saying Wikipedia is right, just that a reliable source is needed.

recedite

drkpower wrote: »

Whether she was screaming in agony or not does not tell a doctor if there is a 'substanital threat to life'.

I accept that point. However there is a vast difference between this and the x case, where a girl presented in a physically healthy state.
In that situation the DPP felt obliged to step in and represent the interests of the perfectly healthy unborn child.
The Savita tragedy was a miscarriage. The "unborn child" had no potential for life.
Secondly, when delivery goes badly wrong at that critical time, the mothers life is prima fascia endangered. If the DPP wanted to prosecute the Galway doctors for performing an illegal abortion, she would have to produce medical evidence from a third party doctor to prove that the mothers life was not in danger. The chances of some pro-life doctor being able to produce any such evidence is negligible.
Even then, the pro-life doctor's testimony would somehow have to be more convincing than the doctors on the scene, which seems impossible, unless the hospital doctor was implicated in some dishonesty or malpractice.

drkpower wrote: »

I would need many many lines. Just as in thousands of other areas of medical practice where guidelines, some extending to hundreds of lines, further elaborate on medical practice, and in some cases how that practice is affected by the law.

These are not straightforward issues; if you believe they are, that just demonstrates that you dont understand them.

They are not straightforward issues. However my point is that in the current circumstances it is incumbent on the hospital to issue those guidelines.
We could have legislation which contained hundreds of lines of medical guidelines on what constitutes a risk to life as opposed to just health, but in practice there would be no real change to the existing law.
In the meantime, any hospital can consult legal opinion and issue those same type of guidelines, and they would be considered valid.

28064212 wrote: »

To those who believe a doctor can legally carry out an abortion when there is a risk to the life of the mother (despite it being against the 1861 act) on the basis of the Supreme Court ruling: Do you believe that a doctor in this country can legally provide an abortion where the risk is suicide?

Yes. But the doctor would be well advised to cover himself by having some expert professional opinion onside, presumably testimony from a psychiatrist.

There is an idea expressed in this thread that constitutional law is not real law, just some expression of rights instead, and real law is only found in what is written in the statute books, in legislation. That is just plain wrong.

If the Dail is to make legislation on an important matter, it should really establish the will of the people by referendum first, but it may choose not to, as the TD's are already elected "representatives".
Any legislation would now have to include the threat of suicide as a threat to life, unless the constitution is amended to exclude that.

There is some debate on whether this is really the will of the people; to allow abortion whenever someone successfully demonstrates or feigns a suicidal tendency. Hence the delay in bringing in the legislation.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Have you a source for this story? I've no idea one way or the other, it just sounds a little distorted compared to some items WikipediaI'm not saying Wikipedia is right, just that a reliable source is needed.

http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/#med-9

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source by historians.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Peregrinus wrote: »

Under the mental health legislation, if someone is found to be threat to themselves, they can be involuntarily detained, which is almost certainly not an outcome they want. The subject therefore always has an interest in not presenting as a suicide risk. But in this context, the question will arise when a woman wants an abortion, and if she found to be a suicide risk she can have one.

Just when you said that, I recalled reading that inclusion of a mental health ground was what effectively enabled wide access to abortion in the UK. It's worth considering the wording of the UK legislation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom#Section_1.281.29_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 or serious disability

On the one hand, there's no individual statement in that which someone could object to. It seems like a comprehensive statement that abortion is only available where continuing with a pregnancy is in some way bad for the mother's health. Yet, effectively, that section enables access to abortion as a matter of right.

And I'm not saying that's right or wrong. I'm really only underlining the point already made about the implications of a mental health ground.

Beyond that, there's a reasonably strong disability sector here who, I'd guess, would be likely to campaign strongly against the inclusion of disability as a ground for abortion.

However long it takes to get there, I think this is where the discussion needs to end up. We need a discussion around (effectively) how much of the UK legislation we want to embed in our laws. We can only do that by referendum, to widen the possible scope for legislation.

There's on hell of a debate ahead; the problem being that, in our political discourse, folk rarely seem to realise that these debates are about how we manage our affairs, and not about how fragrant an aspiration will seem as it nestles in the Constitution.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/#med-9

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source by historians.

No, and I didn't say it was. But the source you linked seems to confirm it, on this point

http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/medicine/opposition.html

Yet a more serious stumbling-block, hindering the beginnings of modern medicine and surgery, was a theory regarding the unlawfulness of meddling with the bodies of the dead. This theory, like so many others which the Church cherished as peculiarly its own, had really been inherited from the old pagan civilizations. So strong was it in Egypt that the embalmer was regarded as accursed; traces of it appear in Greco-Roman life, and hence it came into the early Church, where it was greatly strengthened by the addition of perhaps the most noble of mystic ideas - the recognition of the human body as the temple of the Holy Spirit. Hence Tertullian denounced the anatomist Herophilus as a butcher, and St. Augustine spoke of anatomists generally in similar terms.

I've never heard of yer man before, nor do I regard Wikipedia's view of him to be authoritative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Dickson_White#Conflict_thesis

The final result was the two-volume History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896), whose primary contention was the conflict thesis. Initially less popular than John William Draper's History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), White's book became an extremely influential text on the relationship between religion and science. In this book, White argued that "the great majority of the early fathers of the Church, and especially Lactantius, had sought to crush it beneath the utterances attributed to Isaiah, David, and St. Paul"[33] White's conflict thesis has, however, been discredited by contemporary historians of science.[34][35][36] The warfare depiction nevertheless remains a popular view among the general public.[37]

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source by historians.

Controversial topic

http://www.americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/JMH1812.PDF

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/#med-9

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source by historians.

Your last comment is especially ironic, because it implies that you think White is regarded as a reliable source.

OK, he’s not quite the equivalent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but you do realise, don’t you, that Andrew Dickson White is not only an outdated source, but a pretty comprehensively discredited one? On anything to do with the conflict between religion and science he worked out of a hopelessly rigid ideological fixation, committed to a thesis which is now universally rejected. He was, for example, a major proponent of the flat earth myth. No contemporary historian of repute would regard him as a reliable source for a claim such as the one you mention.

Can you do any better?

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your last comment is especially ironic, because it implies that you think White is regarded as a reliable source.

OK, he’s not quite the equivalent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but you do realise, don’t you, that Andrew Dickson White is not only an outdated source, but a pretty comprehensively discredited one? On anything to do with the conflict between religion and science he worked out of a hopelessly rigid ideological fixation, committed to a thesis which is now universally rejected. He was, for example, a major proponent of the flat earth myth. No contemporary historian of repute would regard him as a reliable source for a claim such as the one you mention.

Can you do any better?

Yes. But I am working.

Does anyone dispute that the RCC officially disapproved of dissecting human cadavers for at least 1000 years on the grounds that they believed the body needs to be intact in order to be resurrected during which time it also controlled European universities?

The fact that Classical Greece and Rome had similar views on dissection is irrelevant.

Would someone like to explain why it is not a necessary, indeed vital, part of surgical training for medics to be able to get inside a human body and see how it works therefore such a stricture had no impact on medical knowledge?

If so - please provide proof.

You might also tell me if you would be willing to have surgery performed on you by a doctor who had anatomized pigs, barbary apes etc but never a human. I certainly wouldn't...

Otherwise, please stop trying to waste my time by quoting wikipedia at me. I have history students waiting to have marks deducted from their assignments for doing precisely the same thing.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Does anyone dispute that the RCC officially disapproved of dissecting human cadavers for at least 1000 years on the grounds that they believed the body needs to be intact in order to be resurrected during which time it also controlled European universities?
The fact that Classical Greece and Rome had similar views on dissection is irrelevant.

Erm, did I pick this up wrong. You're a history teacher, but you see the historical origins of the idea as irrelevant?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Otherwise, please stop trying to waste my time by quoting wikipedia at me. I have history students waiting to have marks deducted from their assignments for doing precisely the same thing.

Yeah, the value in wikipedia is just to pose a quick "WTF?" What we're noticing is the extent to which you can't respond to the "WTF?" Historical research suggests that, if you're in hole, you should stop digging.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Erm, did I pick this up wrong. You're a history teacher, but you see the historical origins of the idea as irrelevant? Yeah, the value in wikipedia is just to pose a quick "WTF?" What we're noticing is the extent to which you can't respond to the "WTF?" Historical research suggests that, if you're in hole, you should stop digging.

I am a history lecturer and I said the Classical view of Dissection is irrelevant to Church doctrine which stated bodies should be intact on Judgement Day.

If I am in a hole - why have you been failed to respond to my questions?

May I suggest attack as a form of defense is at play here.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am a history lecturer and I said the Classical view of Dissection is irrelevant to Church doctrine which stated bodies should be intact on Judgement Day.

Yeah. Problem is you asserted it, referencing a source that says this contention was a pagan holdover.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If I am in a hole - why have you been failed to respond to my questions?

I have.