Abortion Discussion

Brown Bomber

aloyisious wrote: »

I saw this report in today's online Irish Times. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/both-sides-of-abortion-debate-air-views-in-dublin-demonstrations-1.1906377

This is the first I've heard of this story. Do you know if this baby Hope is still alive?

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Really? I didn't see the word remove in there at all?
But if it as you say, then perhaps you can point out the section of the Constitution that at the time asserted the right to an abortion in the case of suicide?

The Amendment would have conferred a Constitutional right to abortion in the event that it was necessary to save the life of an expectant mother, where she was suffering from an illness or disorder, but excluding where her life was threatened by suicide. So we would have gone from no Constitutional right to abortion, to a limited Constitutional right to abortion, which would have been a liberalisation of abortion, as I said.

Why don't you just read your own link, it's perfectly clear.

That isn't how a constitution works. It isn't meant to contain an exhaustive list of every single right a citizen may possibly avail of, never mind the exceptions!

Ralphdejones

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is the first I've heard of this story. Do you know if this baby Hope is still alive?

Very alive, although many would prefer if she was dead

lazygal

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Very alive, although many would prefer if she was dead

Ah you're back. I thought the baby was a boy? And who gave the prolife campaign naming rights?
Also, any thoughts on whether the right to travel to kill an unborn child should be repealed?

Ralphdejones

lazygal wrote: »

Ah you're back. I thought the baby was a boy? And who gave the prolife campaign naming rights?
Also, any thoughts on whether the right to travel to kill an unborn child should be repealed?

lol - Trying to cram the same old, already answered, ad nauseam, ad hominem red herrings and straw men into two lines ? Are you short of space now ? Top tip : Try to at least pad it out with a bit of filler, it wouldn't look as lazy or obvious then.

Macha

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Very alive, although many would prefer if she was dead

I think many would have preferred a raped, suicidal woman was given some modicum of control over her own body.

lazygal

Ralphdejones wrote: »

lol - Trying to cram the same old, already answered, ad nauseam, ad hominem red herrings and straw men into two lines ? Are you short of space now ? Top tip : Try to at least pad it out with a bit of filler, it wouldn't look as lazy or obvious then.

So you've no views whatsoever on the thousands of women who travel every year to kill unborn children? You're perfectly happy that situation pertains?

Ralphdejones

lazygal wrote: »

So you've no views whatsoever on the thousands of women who travel every year to kill unborn children? You're perfectly happy that situation pertains?

I've already post those views, use the search function and don't be so lazygal.

Ralphdejones

Macha wrote: »

I think many would have preferred a raped, suicidal woman was given some modicum of control over her own body.

She has, but it doesn't extend to harming an innocent child's body

Absolam

NuMarvel wrote: »

A referendum isn't required to make a Supreme Court judgement constitutional.

I didn't say it was, but a referendum is required to amend the Constitution, which is not the same thing as delivering a judgement which is constitutional.

NuMarvel wrote: »

For example, in 1973 the Supreme Court found that citizens have a constitutional right to marital privacy, and that right continues to exist there though there's never been a referendum on that since.

More specifically, the majority court ruling was that marital privacy was an unenumerated right; not specified in the constitution but inferred (this being a feature of Irish Constitutional Law, per the 1965 SC ruling, as distinct from the Constitution itself). A distinction being that rights expressed in the Constitution itself are amenable to change soley by plebistice, but unenumerated rights are not constitutionally protected.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Whether the right is explicitly stated in the Consitutuonal or one found to exist by the Courts, the net effect is the same; it is a constitutional right. The 12th amendment wasn't about putting parts of the Supreme Court judgement into the Constitution, it was about limiting the constitutional rights that the Supreme Court determined existed.

As I said; the fact that a right is constitutional (ie lawful under the Constitution, or deriving from the Constitution) does not raise it to the position of having Constitutional protection; for what it is worth unenumerated rights are apparently guaranteed by the Constitution, but they are not protected by it. Which means that whilst an express Constitutional right may only be changed by plebistice, an unenumerated right remains in the province of the Supreme Court.
The 12th Amendment would have taken the unenumerated right determined by the Supreme Court and raised it to the level of an express right with Constitutional protection (with the exception of the provision for suicide).

lazygal

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I've already post those views, use the search function and don't be so lazygal.

You claimed its impossible to stop people doing something that's illegal here but legal in another country. Yet there are laws in place doing just that.
Anyway, if the right to travel was repealed women would not be allowed to travel to kill the unborn. Do you think that would be desirable, preventing the unborn being taken abroad to be killed?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Why don't you just read your own link, it's perfectly clear.

It is, I actually word searched it just to be certain it didn't contain the word remove before I replied

volchitsa wrote: »

That isn't how a constitution works. It isn't meant to contain an exhaustive list of every single right a citizen may possibly avail of, never mind the exceptions!

That depends on the constitution. But in the case of the Irish one, I'd refer you to the above post re express and unenumerated rights.

Brown Bomber

Macha wrote: »

I think many would have preferred a raped, suicidal woman was given some modicum of control over her own body.

I'm confused. Surely this is a happy ending? This newborn baby is now livin instead of having being ripped limb from limb and then discarded. How is this not a good thing overall?

This woman didn't want a baby. Now she doesn't have one. What is the problem here?

Macha

Ralphdejones wrote: »

She has, but it doesn't extend to harming an innocent child's body

At 8 weeks, it wasn't a child and to equate its rights to the rights of an adult woman is sick.

Organ donations save lives. People still have the right to give consent before parts of their bodies are used to help save the lives of others. Corpses have more right to bodily integrity than Irish women.

Macha

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm confused. Surely this is a happy ending? This newborn baby is now livin instead of having being ripped limb from limb and then discarded. How is this not a good thing overall?

This woman didn't want a baby. Now she doesn't have one. What is the problem here?

Read the interview with the woman in the Irish Times and tell me this is a happy ending.

volchitsa

Ralphdejones wrote: »

She has, but it doesn't extend to harming an innocent child's body

As far as I can see, the only control she actually was allowed did exactly that - how was having the child born so prematurely that it has a less than 30% chance of escaping serious disability not harming it?

Ralphdejones

Macha wrote: »

At 8 weeks, it wasn't a child and to equate its rights to the rights of an adult woman is sick.

Organ donations save lives. People still have the right to give consent before parts of their bodies are used to help save the lives of others. Corpses have more right to bodily integrity than Irish women.

The child is alive, and for once, the babies bodily integrity was respected for a change. No word about that of course.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm confused. Surely this is a happy ending? This newborn baby is now livin instead of having being ripped limb from limb and then discarded. How is this not a good thing overall?

This woman didn't want a baby. Now she doesn't have one. What is the problem here?

who suggested 'ripping the newborn limb from limb'?

Brown Bomber

Macha wrote: »

Read the interview with the woman in the Irish Times and tell me this is a happy ending.

I am talking to you on a discussion site not reading the Irish Times. Do you have an answer?

lazygal

Ralphdejones wrote: »

The child is alive, and for once, the babies bodily integrity was respected for a change. No word about that of course.

Does the baby's right to bodily integrity trump the woman's? What about all those unborn children having their bodily integrity violated because of the right to travel to kill the unborn?

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

It is, I actually word searched it just to be certain it didn't contain the word remove before I replied

And? I'm sure there are plenty of other words it doesn't contain either.

Do you agree that you were mistaken to claim that it was an amendment to liberalize the amendment when in fact it was the opposite? And that it was rejected by the people, in favour of retaining the SC's conclusion that there was a right to abortion in case of suicidality?

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

who suggested 'ripping the newborn limb from limb'?

Well for this newborn Hope to be still alive now he (or she?) must have been around 25 weeks at the time of the Caesarian to still be alive. If there is another method to kill this foetus at this stage of development other than ripping it and tearing it limb from limb with a forceps inside the womb and extracting it body piece by body piece then share it because i am not aware of it.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well for this newborn Hope to be still alive now he (or she?) must have been around 25 weeks at the time of the Caesarian to still be alive. If there is another method to kill this foetus at this stage of development other than ripping it and tearing it limb from limb with a forceps inside the womb and extracting it body piece by body piece then share it because i am not aware of it.

abortion was first requested at 8 weeks.

lazygal

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well for this newborn Hope to be still alive now he (or she?) must have been around 25 weeks at the time of the Caesarian to still be alive. If there is another method to kill this foetus at this stage of development other than ripping it and tearing it limb from limb with a forceps inside the womb and extracting it body piece by body piece then share it because i am not aware of it.

That wouldn't have happened if she'd been able to take pills to abortion at eight weeks as she requested. A heavy period would have happened and no one's limbs would've been ripped apart.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

And? I'm sure there are plenty of other words it doesn't contain either.

And I was only replying to your statement "Your own link says that the 12th was a proposition to remove the right to an abortion in the case of suicide" by pointing out that it doesn't.

volchitsa wrote: »

Do you agree that you were mistaken to claim that it was an amendment to liberalize the amendment when in fact it was the opposite? And that it was rejected by the people, in favour of retaining the SC's conclusion that there was a right to abortion in case of suicidality?

I think I'll stand over my statement "the one Amendment of the three that specifically was about liberalising abortion didn't pass" on the basis that raising the right from an unenumerated one to an express one is good enough for me to count as liberalisation :-)

volchitsa

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am talking to you on a discussion site not reading the Irish Times. Do you have an answer?

We can all only give our own answers, but as far as I can see, it's a disaster for all concerned, and that probably (though I sincerely hope not) includes the new baby, whose future risks being very dark in my opinion.

Ralphdejones

volchitsa wrote: »

We can all only give our own answers, but as far as I can see, it's a disaster for all concerned, and that probably (though I sincerely hope not) includes the new baby, whose future looks very dark to me.

Why would the future be brighter if the child was now dead ?

Macha

Ralphdejones wrote: »

The child is alive, and for once, the babies bodily integrity was respected for a change. No word about that of course.

Like I said, corpses and 8-week old foetuses have more right to bodily integrity than Irish women. You seem happy with that status quo. I, as an Irish woman, am strangely not.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am talking to you on a discussion site not reading the Irish Times. Do you have an answer?

No, that's the entire point. It's not up to me to decide what's the 'happy ending' for this woman. I suggest you read her thoughts on what happened to her: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/they-said-they-could-not-do-an-abortion-i-said-you-can-leave-me-now-to-die-i-don-t-want-to-live-in-this-world-anymore-1.1901258

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

abortion was first requested at 8 weeks.

OK. However, what I am describing as "a good thing overall" is the outcome at circa 25 weeks pregnancy. That being this child still being alive and being cared for rather than having it's life brutally taken away from it.

Surely you can't disagree with this?

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

And I was only replying to your statement "Your own link says that the 12th was a proposition to remove the right to an abortion in the case of suicide[/URL]" by pointing out that it doesn't.

I think I'll stand over my statement on the basis that raising the right from an unenumerated one to an express one is good enough for me to count as liberalisation :-)

Yeah, there's a name for what you're doing there. Cognitive dissonance.

Good luck with that. :rolleyes: