Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

Options
1…1819212324

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Creighton is playing some sort of weird game on this or is in complete denial.

    Yesterday she contended that there must be legal representation for the unborn, despite the fact that the european Court have said the a court determination as a means to establishing a woman's right to an abortion does not meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. Lucinda Creighton is a barrister, she is well aware of this. If she's not in denial, she's engaged in a misleading PR game.


  • Options
    #603
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    No. It is not true. No more than it is true that all those who are pro-choice support limitless availability of abortion with no time limits and are only using the issue to foist a 'liberal' agenda on society. Yet, those accusations are also made.

    er...not by me.

    In any case, I dont think two wrongs make a right.


  • Options
    #604
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    er...not by me.

    In any case, I dont think two wrongs make a right.

    Sorry. I didn't mean you made these accusations. Apologies if it came across like that.

    I was just pointing out that both sides are guilty of lumping the other side into pigeon holes.


  • Options
    #605
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,935 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    I'm glad I'm not in Ireland right now to be faced with YD posters every day.


  • Options
    #606
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Sorry. I didn't mean you made these accusations. Apologies if it came across like that.

    I was just pointing out that both sides are guilty of lumping the other side into pigeon holes.

    True. I dont think many people want a raped woman or a suicidal woman or a woman carrying an unviable foetus to be forced to gestate for nine months, any more than others want abortion on demand up until third trimester. Most rational, reasonable people are somewhere in between, I think. Well, I hope :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭conorhal


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    True. I dont think many people want a raped woman or a suicidal woman or a woman carrying an unviable foetus to be forced to gestate for nine months, any more than others want abortion on demand up until third trimester. Most rational, reasonable people are somewhere in between, I think. Well, I hope :)

    I don't wholly disagree, but this legislation provides for both (only in this Idiot country I swear!) and yet we'll allow such patently awful legislation to pass.

    I've always maintained that hard cases make bad law, which creates hard cases.


  • Options
    #608
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Creighton is playing some sort of weird game on this or is in complete denial.

    Yesterday she contended that there must be legal representation for the unborn, despite the fact that the european Court have said the a court determination as a means to establishing a woman's right to an abortion does not meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. Lucinda Creighton is a barrister, she is well aware of this. If she's not in denial, she's engaged in a misleading PR game.

    How does she expect them to confer with their solicitor?


  • Options
    #609
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    kylith wrote: »
    How does she expect them to confer with their solicitor?

    Hold a pendulum over a womb and agree that clockwise means 'yes' and anti-clockwise means 'no' perhaps?


  • Options
    #610
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I try to steer away from abortion threads as they tend to be filled with childish extremists from both sidse, all squabbling for the last word however every time I see the "all pro-lifers are religios" line trotted out, I feel like I should correct it.

    So can I, for what must be the 20th time simply say, I am pro-life. I am not religious. Please stop with generalisations. I realise that it suits your agenda to tar everyone else with the same brush but it is simply not true.

    So you would not allow a woman an abortion if she there was a chance however slight she may die? I was talking about people like this. Casey said she wouldnt encourage a woman to have an abortion if she presented suicidal.


  • Options
    #611
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 24,074 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Regardless of the issue, Creighton is a fool. Never burn your bridges in politics, and certainly never condescend to the members of your own parliamentary party about an issue over which you yourself are agonising, especially ones with experience dating back to before you were born

    With all the wandering bu11sh1t she came out with yesterday, she will end up with no credibility either way. She can't not go now. Worst advised bit of grandstanding I ever saw.........


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    Larbre34
    Registered Users Posts: 24,074 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    I'm glad I'm not in Ireland right now to be faced with YD posters every day.

    I havent seen one yet, and Ive been in 10 different counties in the last month and all over Dublin every day


  • Options
    #613
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    I'm glad I'm not in Ireland right now to be faced with YD posters every day.

    saw them putting them up near my place, if theres any in my estate will be taking a wire cutters to them


  • Options
    #614
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    I havent seen one yet, and Ive been in 10 different counties in the last month and all over Dublin every day

    Then you should have gone to specsavers!:D
    The filty things are everywhere!


  • Options
    #615
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    kylith wrote: »
    How does she expect them to confer with their solicitor?

    I'm sure she's some rational method in mind


  • Options
    #616
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    So you would not allow a woman an abortion if she there was a chance however slight she may die? I was talking about people like this. Casey said she wouldnt encourage a woman to have an abortion if she presented suicidal.

    er...no? I simply dont like when people say things like "all pro lifers are religious" because its ...not true, and all that.

    Regarding your "however slight" point, and whereas I am not interested in squabbling over some arbitrary point, the X case judgment (which is what is being legislated for) does refer to a real, substantial and probable risk to the mothers life. I'm not arguing that a slight risk be ignored, but you should at least familiarise yourself with this kind of stuff before you start arguing about it.


  • Options
    #617
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    kylith wrote: »
    How does she expect them to confer with their solicitor?
    Well the unborn can have legal representation in theory, that's not a problem and that mechanism can be provided for by the State.

    But the European Court in A, B, and C have said that a routine process whereby there is a judicial determination does not meet their requirements.

    Here is the excerpt of the European Court remarking on what it feels about that idea
    The Court does not consider that the constitutional courts are the appropriate fora for the primary determination as to whether a woman qualifies for an abortion which is lawfully available in a State. In particular, this process would amount to requiring the constitutional courts to set down on a case by case basis the legal criteria by which the relevant risk to a woman’s life would be measured and, further, to resolve through evidence, largely of a medical nature, whether a woman had established that qualifying risk.

    The Supreme Court has said the same thing, and the High Court has also said the same thing, i.e. it doesn't want to become a "licencing authority" in the words of the trial judge in the C case. So Creighton is completely off the wall on this one. She is asking that we do something which will inevitably be unwinnable in any legal challenge.


  • Options
    #618
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Nodin wrote: »
    I'm sure she's some rational method in mind

    Ah jaysus, if one insists that they have legal representation one should make sure that the translator is not massively incompetent.


  • Options
    #619
    Laneyh
    Registered Users Posts: 757 ✭✭✭Laneyh


    Larbre34 wrote: »
    I havent seen one yet, and Ive been in 10 different counties in the last month and all over Dublin every day

    Were you visiting churches or monasteries in the 10 different counties?

    They are all along the Quays in Dublin and a fair amount of them on lamp posts in Dublin 2 anyway. They have replaced them with a slightly pleasanter image to advertise their upcoming rally.

    Cork city had so many it looked like bunting


  • Options
    #620
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    er...no? I simply dont like when people say things like "all pro lifers are religious" because its ...not true, and all that.

    Regarding your "however slight" point, and whereas I am not interested in squabbling over some arbitrary point, the X case judgment (which is what is being legislated for) does refer to a real, substantial and probable risk to the mothers life. I'm not arguing that a slight risk be ignored, but you should at least familiarise yourself with this kind of stuff before you start arguing about it.

    I wasn't referring to x case specifically and My post was about pro liters who refuse to concede ground and how this has its roots in religion, that is if you read the posts before it. You admit you are open to conceding ground.


  • Options
    #621
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Laneyh wrote: »

    Cork city had so many it looked like bunting

    There are still enough to constitute a bunt.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    Rezident wrote: »
    Did you know that many people who are anti-abortion are not catholic or remotely religious? We just think that human life is still important even if it hasn't been born yet.

    Many people like you seem to think that abortion is a human right and while human rights are clearly very important I think human life is more important. That is all. No secret catholic conspiracy concocted by dr. evil to take away your human rights - whatever they may be.

    The problem here, as usual, is the extremists on both sides.
    There in lies the rub. You have the right not to have an abortion if you become pregnant but you feel that because you disagree with it that women should be forced to go through with a pregnancy that that they don't want. I honestly don't see how you can remotely say that you believe that human life is important if you are prepared to force your beliefs on someone else.


  • Options
    #623
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    Sorry lads, but if you assert that something happens at conception that immediately produces a human life, it will sound an AWFUL lot like you are arguing for a soul. And yeah, that is religious...


  • Options
    #624
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    Sorry lads, but if you assert that something happens at conception that immediately produces a human life, it will sound an AWFUL lot like you are arguing for a soul. And yeah, that is religious...

    When does life begin?


  • Options
    #625
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,305 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    psinno wrote: »
    When does life begin?

    Forty.


  • Options
    #626
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    There in lies the rub. You have the right not to have an abortion if you become pregnant but you feel that because you disagree with it that women should be forced to go through with a pregnancy that that they don't want. I honestly don't see how you can remotely say that you believe that human life is important if you are prepared to force your beliefs on someone else.

    Could substitute mortgage for pregnancy in that statement and you'd get fleeced in AH.

    But sure, only a feteous?


  • Options
    #627
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    I wasn't referring to x case specifically and My post was about pro liters who refuse to concede ground and how this has its roots in religion, that is if you read the posts before it. You admit you are open to conceding ground.

    That ol' chestnut. Change the track.


    Seems to be the new rule: someone challenges your sweeping statement? Quick bring in the hyperbole card. Doesn't work? Accuse them of not reading posts.

    What exactly do you mean by "you are open to conceding ground"?


  • Options
    #628
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    Sorry lads, but if you assert that something happens at conception that immediately produces a human life, it will sound an AWFUL lot like you are arguing for a soul. And yeah, that is religious...

    Care to explain that giant leap?


  • Options
    #629
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Care to explain that giant leap?


    really? a small ball of cells that otherwise bears no resemblance to a human being, which is instantly a human life equal to that of an adult woman? Becomes a human the second of conception?


  • Options
    #630
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    really? ...
    Read the post. Notice the text in bold.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #631
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    Zulu wrote: »
    Read the post. Notice the text in bold.


    I did read the post. tell me, what happens right at conception that turns the cells from "feel free to fire this into a tissue and into the bin" to "Human Life"? Seconds earlier, unsightly stain, and after its a human life on a par with the mother?

    Still looks like an argument for a soul.


Advertisement