Abortion Discussion

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

What if saving both has become incompatible? If the mother's health requires an urgent termination but the baby is just around viability, so that a week or two's delay would likely save the child, but would greatly increase the risks to the mother.

... and therein would lie a terrible dilemma for the mother and the medical professionals that would test the wisdom of Solomon.
Luckily, such situations are exceedingly rare and I don't envy anybody trying to make the best decision for everybody involved. In most of these cases the mother wishes to save her baby and this can be a terrible situation for the medical professionals involved, if she decides to save the baby at the clear expense of her own life.
Usually, however, the situation isn't as dire or time sensitive as your example and sufficient time 'can be bought' to deliver a healthy child using modified treatments for the mother, until she is delivered of her pregnancy.

I have known women in the situation you describe and it all ended happily for both the women and their children ... modern medicine really can work miracles, thanks to the dedicated medical professionals and treatments, that we are all so lucky to have available to us.

In many cases this was the only chance of having a child that these women had and this made it even more poignant.

lazygal

JC do you think women should be prevented from travelling outside Ireland to kill unborn children?

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

... and therein would lie a terrible dilemma for the mother and the medical professionals that would test the wisdom of Solomon.
Luckily, such situations are exceedingly rare and I don't envy anybody trying to make the best decision for everybody involved. In most of these cases the mother wishes to save her baby and this can be a terrible situation for the medical professionals involved, if she decides to save the baby at the clear expense of her own life.
Usually, however, the situation isn't as dire or time sensitive as your example and sufficient time 'can be bought' to deliver a healthy child using modified treatments for the mother, until she is delivered of her pregnancy.

I have known women in the situation you describe and it all ended happily for both the women and their children ... modern medicine really can work miracles, thanks to the dedicated medical professionals and treatments, that we are all so lucky to have available to us.

In many cases this was the only chance of having a child that these women had and this made it even more poignant.

The vast majority of pregnancies go off perfectly well, happily - but you will be aware, I'm sure, that being able to assume that both mother and child will be safe is a relatively recent phenomenon. Pregnancy and childbirth is a dangerous time for a woman and for her unborn child.

So my question really was not about what decision the woman should take, but whether she should have that choice at all. Because it wasn't clear from your original post and indeed still isn't, whether you think that woman should be allowed to make the final decision whether it should be a doctor, or maybe someone else. For that matter I'm not sure that it's all that clear from current legislation either, particularly when the woman's life is not yet in imminent danger.

So what do you think - if there is a conflict between the woman's health and the baby's, in the end, should the woman have the right to make that choice?

Yes or no will do.

J C

lazygal wrote: »

JC do you think women should be prevented from travelling outside Ireland to kill unborn children?

I don't think that anybody should be killing anybody else except in situations of absolute in extremis, where no other viable option is available and one must die to save the other.
In relation to your specific question, I respect the law of Ireland and the right of people to travel freely.

lazygal

J C wrote: »

I don't think that anybody should be killing anybody else.
In relation to your specific question, I respect the law of Ireland and the right of people to travel freely.

So you wouldn't like the law changed so women would be prevented from travelling to kill the unborn?

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

I don't think that anybody should be killing anybody else.
In relation to your specific question, I respect the law of Ireland and the right of people to travel freely.

Really? For any purpose at all? What about taking children out of the country to carry out genital mutilation on them, would you be fine with that too? Or should there be a sanction if they are later found to have done that?

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

The vast majority of pregnancies go off perfectly well, happily - but you will be aware, I'm sure, that being able to assume that both mother and child will be safe is a relatively recent phenomenon. Pregnancy and childbirth is a dangerous time for a woman and for her unborn child.

So my question really was not about what decision the woman should take, but whether she should have that choice at all. Because it wasn't clear from your original post and indeed still isn't, whether you think that woman should be allowed to make the final decision whether it should be a doctor, or maybe someone else. For that matter I'm not sure that it's all that clear from current legislation either, particularly when the woman's life is not yet in imminent danger.

So what do you think - if there is a conflict between the woman's health and the baby's, in the end, should the woman have the right to make that choice?

Yes or no will do.

Unfortunately it's not as 'black and white' as you appear to be suggesting.
Medical professionals have ethical responsibilities to both the woman and her unborn child and always will.
Although people have the right to make medical decisions via informed consent, this is conditional on their making reasonable and ethical medical choices, after being informed of their medical options.
There have been cases, for example, where informed refusal of medical treatment during pregnancy have been overturned by the courts, when medical professionals have argued that such refusal was disproportionately dangerous to the woman's welfare or the welfare of her child. Equally, doctors are within their rights to refuse to perform medical procedures that they consider to be too risky, even when requested to do so by their patients.
This implies that a woman's right to choose medical treatment that kills her unborn child certainly isn't absolute ... and is to be weighed against the seriousness of her own health condition.
There are alternative options for practically all crisis pregnancies that don't involve killing the child. Our common Humanity demands that these options be explored and availed of in so far as practicable - so that a 'win-win' situation results for both mother and child.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Unfortunately it's not as 'black and white' as you appear to be suggesting.
Medical professionals have ethical responsibilities to both the woman and her unborn child and always will.
Although people have the right to make medical decisions via informed consent, this is conditional on their making reasonable and ethical medical choices, after being informed of their medical options.
There have been cases, for example, where informed refusal of medical treatment during pregnancy have been overturned by the courts, when medical professionals have argued that such refusal was disproportionately dangerous to the woman's welfare or the welfare of her child. Equally, doctors are within their rights to refuse to perform medical procedures that they consider to be too risky, even when requested to do so by their patients.
This implies that a woman's right to choose medical treatment that kills her unborn child certainly isn't absolute ... and is to be weighed against the seriousness of her own health condition.
There are alternative options for practically all crisis pregnancies that don't involve killing the child. Our common Humanity demands that these options be explored and availed of in so far as practicable - so that a 'win-win' situation results for both mother and child.

I certainly didnt say it was black and white, but the situation for people who are in full possession of their mental faculties is that they have the final say on whether or not to have a treatment they need, even if not having it will damage their health.

So my question, and I notice you desperately squirming to avoid answering it, is should that assumption of mental capacity apply to a pregnant woman when her health is at risk, and a decision must be taken?

To take a difference situation from the first example, since you appear unable to respond to that, take Savita Halappanavar : we know that if she had had the choice, she would have had a termination when she learned that she was miscarrying and that nothing could be done to save the baby, and she would likely have survived.

Should she not have had that choice, even before her life was deemed to be at risk?

(And please, no wasting my time or your saying that she should have had better care etc etc, let's skip all that - what better care would have done is that she would have been deemed at risk earlier than she was, and this might have had a termination in time to save her life. Possibly, according to Dr Boylan.)

While what she actually requested was a termination as soon as she had accepted that she was losing that pregnancy - and that would have been earlier than any "testing" would have allowed. So that would certainly have given her a much better chance of surviving.

Why should she not have had that choice?

J C

wrote:

lazygal
So you wouldn't like the law changed so women would be prevented from travelling to kill the unborn?

volchitsa
Really? For any purpose at all? What about taking children out of the country to carry out genital mutilation on them, would you be fine with that too? Or should there be a sanction if they are later found to have done that?

Genital mutilation certainly isn't fine with me ... but I don't think you can do 'preventative detention' and stop people travelling, simply because they may do something illegal (or that you disagree with) when abroad.

In general, each country confines itself to prosecuting offenses against its own laws committed while in that particular country and not in other countries - it leaves the prosecution of offenses committed in other countries to law enforcement in those countries - and where there is a difference in law between different countries, they generally each respect these differences.

Moving significantly away from this principle is problematic on many levels. It could, for example, criminalize doctors who visit Ireland on holidays, having performed abortions in countries where abortion is legal, just because similar abortions happen to be illegal in Ireland.
I think such a principle would be excessive and a failure to recognize the sovereignty of other countries laws as operated in other countries, apart from the obvious practical difficulties in obtaining evidence in another jurisdiction to secure a criminal conviction in another country.

Of course, if another country asks for assistance in prosecuting an offense common to both countries, committed in the other country, as I assume genital mutilation could be, then every assistance would and should be provided.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

I certainly didnt say it was black and white, but the situation for people who are in full possession of their mental faculties is that they have the final say on whether or not to have a treatment they need, even if not having it will damage their health.

So my question, and I notice you desperately squirming to avoid answering it, is should that assumption of mental capacity apply to a pregnant woman when her health is at risk, and a decision must be taken?

The courts have over-ridden informed refusal of medical treatment where there was no indication of compromised mental capacity on the basis that such refusal was excessively dangerous to the woman and/or her child ... so the assumption of mental capacity doesn't necessarily mean that a pregnant woman (or indeed any other patient) has absolute rights over the medical treatment they may chose to have (or reject).
That's just the way it is ... and there is no 'squirming' on my part.

volchitsa wrote: »

To take a difference situation from the first example, since you appear unable to respond to that, take Savita Halappanavar : we know that if she had had the choice, she would have had a termination when she learned that she was miscarrying and that nothing could be done to save the baby, and she would likely have survived.

Should she not have had that choice, even before her life was deemed to be at risk?

(And please, no wasting my time or your saying that she should have had better care etc etc, let's skip all that - what better care would have done is that she would have been deemed at risk earlier than she was, and this might have had a termination in time to save her life. Possibly, according to Dr Boylan.)

While what she actually requested was a termination as soon as she had accepted that she was losing that pregnancy - and that would have been earlier than any "testing" would have allowed. So that would certainly have given her a much better chance of surviving.

Why should she not have had that choice?

I'm certainly not going to discuss an identifiable medical case (and one that I know little about other than what I have read in the papers) on a public forum.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Genital mutilation certainly isn't fine with me ... but I don't think you can do 'preventative detention' and stop people travelling, simply because they may do something illegal (or that you disagree with) when abroad.

In general, each country confines itself to prosecuting offenses against its own laws committed while in that particular country and not in other countries - it leaves the prosecution of offenses committed in other countries to law enforcement in those countries - and where there is a difference in law between different countries, they generally each respect these differences.

Moving significantly away from this principle is problematic on many levels. It could, for example, criminalize doctors who visit Ireland on holidays, having performed abortions in countries where abortion is legal, just because similar abortions happen to be illegal in Ireland.
I think such a principle would be excessive and a failure to recognize the sovereignty of other countries laws as operated in other countries, apart from the obvious practical difficulties in obtaining evidence in another jurisdiction to secure a criminal conviction in another country.

No, the law on FGM and on child sex abuse in the UK says that where a British national has travelled to commit such an offence, then for the purposes of the Act, the offence is considered as if it had taken place within UK jurisdiction. So no problem - when something is legal abroad, if there is a desire to prevent one's own citizens from carrying out such an act, or to punish them if they have done, it can easily be legislated for.

Not sure what the current legal situation is for Ireland for equivalent crimes abroad (I'm a nordie myself) but if the UK can do it, I can't see how Ireland couldn't. And if they can do it for FGM, they can do it for abortion.

So, should the law be altered so that Irish women who travel abroad for abortions at least risk some punishment when they come back? What if they were taking children abroad to murder them? Would the right to travel really trump the need to protect the child?

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

No, the law on FGM and on child sex abuse in the UK says that where a British national has travelled to commit such an offence, then for the purposes of the Act, the offence is considered as if it had taken place within UK jurisdiction. So no problem - when something is legal abroad, if there is a desire to prevent one's own citizens from carrying out such an act, or to punish them if they have done, it can easily be legislated for.

Not sure what the current legal situation is for Ireland for equivalent crimes abroad (I'm a nordie myself) but if the UK can do it, I can't see how Ireland couldn't. And if they can do it for FGM, they can do it for abortion.

You raise some very interesting legal principles there.
If they are ever taken to their full extent (and there is no legal reason why they shouldn't) somebody who has a drink in Ireland can be convicted and punished for doing so in a country where alcohol consumption is a criminal offense ... or somebody who has a 'puff of weed' in a Coffee Shop in Amsterdam will be convicted for it on their return home.

However, it sounds like being potentially quite excessive to me and only practical to be applied where there is overwhelming public revulsion against the particular crime ... such as the ones cited by you.

volchitsa wrote: »

So, should the law be altered so that Irish women who travel abroad for abortions at least risk some punishment when they come back? What if they were taking children abroad to murder them? Would the right to travel really trump the need to protect the child?

I don't see the law being altered to do as you describe. Indeed the application of law is often particularly lenient where mothers even murder their own children - and Ireland is no exception to this.
Of course, if a mother was an obvious danger to her children the authorities would (correctly) step in rapidly to remove the risk ... so a threat to murder her children wouldn't just result in preventing her travelling with them - it could result in the children being removed from her - and rightly so.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

The courts have over-ridden informed refusal of medical treatment where there was no indication of compromised mental capacity on the basis that such refusal was excessively dangerous to the woman and/or her child ... so the assumption of mental capacity doesn't necessarily mean that a pregnant woman (or indeed any other patient) has absolute rights over the medical treatment they may chose to have (or reject).

I think you'll find they haven't, actually, except in Ireland, and even then it hasn't yet been fully tested by the ECHR. It goes completely against current medical ethics, so it's extremely unlikely the ECHR would be able to stand over it if/when a case does go before them.

Here is quite a likely one: http://aimsireland.ie/not-a-consent-issue/
The judge ruled that the woman had no choice in the matter, even though the actual decision increased the risk to her and to her baby. It's exactly the sort of thing that happens when the patient herself is overruled just because she isn't a doctor, basically.

Hard to see how that could be upheld in the long run. But the real problem is with Ireland's laws on child birth. The amendment is a disaster for women. And it doesn't even prevent abortions, since women just go to the UK.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

You raise some very interesting legal principles there.
If they are ever taken to their full extent (and there is no legal reason why they shouldn't) somebody who has a drink in Ireland can be convicted and punished for doing so in a country where alcohol consumption is a criminal offense ... or somebody who has a 'puff of weed' in a Coffee Shop in Amsterdam will be convicted for it on their return home.

However, it sounds like being potentially quite excessive to me and only practical to be applied where there is overwhelming public revulsion against the particular crime ... such as the ones cited by you.

I don't see the law being altered to do as you describe. Indeed the application of law is often particularly lenient where mothers even murder their own children - and Ireland is no exception to this.

You're being a little ridiculous now.

The law can only punish people who've smoked dope in Amsterdam if a subsection is put into the law in Ireland to allow that, which is unlikely. And then you'd have to prove it, unlike a woman needing medical treatment after an abortion, something which is likely enough to give any woman cause to hesitate before going to the UK for an abortion, if she knew she risked prison if she had a haemorrhage afterwards.

As for the law being lenient, isn't that a different thing from the law actually making provision for something to be done?

And Ididn't ask you if you thought it would be altered, I asked if you thought it should be?
(Now that you know it can.)

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

I think you'll find they haven't, actually, except in Ireland, and even then it hasn't yet been fully tested by the ECHR. It goes completely against current medical ethics, so it's extremely unlikely the ECHR would be able to stand over it if/when a case does go before them.

Here is quite a likely one: http://aimsireland.ie/not-a-consent-issue/
The judge ruled that the woman had no choice in the matter, even though the actual decision increased the risk to her and to her baby. It's exactly the sort of thing that happens when the patient herself is overruled just because she isn't a doctor, basically.

Hard to see how that could be upheld in the long run. But the real problem is with Ireland's laws on child birth. The amendment is a disaster for women. And it doesn't even prevent abortions, since women just go to the UK.

Like I have said already, I'm not prepared to discuss the details of an identifiable medical case.

I will say that in general, there will be a number of situations where the advice and practice of medical professionals will trump individual choice in the matter of medical treatment ... but, in most cases, the choice will be up to the patient, having given / refused their informed consent.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Like I have said already, I'm not prepared to discuss the details of an identifiable medical case.

I will say that in general, there will be a number of situations where the advice and practice of medical professionals will trump individual choice in the matter of medical treatment ... but, in most cases, the choice will be up to the patient, having given / refused their informed consent.

No you are mistaken, it's most definitely not in general, it's only ever in Ireland, because of the conflict caused between normal medical practice internationally and Irish medical practice because of the constitution.

In all other countries, patients have the final say in whether or not to have a particular medical treatment, even when they are pregnant.

In Ireland, that is also the case, with one exception : pregnant women.

But only in Ireland, and with the disastrous results we are starting to see coming to public notice.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

You're being a little ridiculous now.

The law can only punish people who've smoked dope in Amsterdam if a subsection is put into the law in Ireland to allow that, which is unlikely. And then you'd have to prove it, unlike a woman needing medical treatment after an abortion, something which is likely enough to give any woman cause to hesitate before going to the UK for an abortion, if she knew she risked prison if she had a haemorrhage afterwards.

As for the law being lenient, isn't that a different thing from the law actually making provision for something to be done?

And I didn't ask you if you thought it would be altered, I asked if you thought it should be?
(Now that you know it can.)

I said that extra-jurisdictional application of the criminal law is unlikely to be invoked other than for crimes that cause widespread public revulsion ... and neither smoking dope in Amsterdam nor off-shore abortions will cause this.

Equally, women who have had an abortion (and ask for help afterwards) need our loving compassion and support ... and not our condemnation.
... and if they need medical treatment they should be able to access it in the knowledge that it will be provided compassionately and professionally - and my understanding is that this is the situation.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

No you are mistaken, it's most definitely not in general, it's only ever in Ireland, because of the conflict caused between normal medical practice internationally and Irish medical practice because of the constitution.

In all other countries, patients have the final say in whether or not to have a particular medical treatment, even when they are pregnant.

In Ireland, that is also the case, with one exception : pregnant women.

Not so ... there have been orders to force-nutrition on patients refusing food (who weren't pregnant) ... and I'm sure if there was an obvious medical intervention that could save my life and I was refusing it ... then a court order would be obtained to do it ... and rightly so IMO.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

I said that extra-jurisdictional application of the criminal law is unlikely to be invoked other than for crimes that cause widespread public revulsion ... and neither smoking dope in Amsterdam nor off-shore abortions will cause this.

Equally, women who have had an abortion (and ask for help afterwards) need our loving compassion and support ... and not our condemnation.
... and if they need medical treatment they should be able to access it in the knowledge that it will be provided compassionately and professionally - and my understanding is that this is the situation.

Well.
Smoking dope doesn't cause widespread public revulsion anyway, to be frank, which is why there is no desire to punish someone for having done it abroad - but why should offshore abortions be any less serious than ones done in Ireland?

Especially as the law now says they can be done in Ireland in some cases, so why should the ones not considered legal in Ireland be any more acceptable when carried out in England in the same woman?

Is she killing a baby or is she not? What difference does it make where it happens?

As for loving care, do you take the same relaxed attitude to killing five year olds?

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Not so ... there have been orders to force-nutrition on patients refusing food (who weren't pregnant) ... and I'm sure if there was an obvious medical intervention that could save my life and I was refusing it ... then a court order would be obtained to do it ... and rightly so IMO.

No, not when the person is an adult, and is judged mentally fit. It doesn't happen. I promise you.

It can occur with mentally ill people because their mental faculties are deemed to be failing, so that they don't grasp the seriousness of the situation - but just refusing necessary treatment of itself doesn't mean you are mentally ill.

In the same way as being suicidal doesn't necessarily mean you are mentally unfit, legally, to make decisions. It may do, but it depends on the exact situation.

It certainly isn't a given, and to come back to my original question, if a person's health is seriously at risk, but her unborn child's health is at risk form an early birth, no-one could make the case that the woman was mentally ill for wanting to end the pregnancy.

So should she have that choice?

Absolam

J C wrote: »

The father starts off the process ... and the mother may decide to keep or abort the baby ... and the father will have to accept her decision one way or the other. He doesn't have legal responsibility for her decision ... but he doesn't have legal rights over it either.

If the (potential) father has to accept her decision one way or the other, how is it moral hold him legally liable (ie financially) for her decision? He is not legally responsible for her decision, yet he legally has to pay for it?

J C wrote: »

What he thinks he is doing and what she thinks she is doing may be quite different.

So why must what he thinks be subjugated by what she thinks?

J C wrote: »

I guess men should be careful about engaging in unprotected sex ... if they don't want to maintain any children who might result.

Why, when it's not their choice whether children result?

J C wrote: »

Pregnancy is neither a punishment nor a prize ... it is a fact of reproduction ... and the solution is to not engage in unprotected sex, if you don't wish to be pregnant, if you are a woman ... or a father, if you are a man.

That's not actually a solution when protected sex can still result in pregnancy though. It minimises the possibility of the problem occurring, but it doesn't actually solve the problem as you are saying?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

No, the law on FGM and on child sex abuse in the UK <...> it can easily be legislated for. Not sure what the current legal situation is for Ireland for equivalent crimes abroad (I'm a nordie myself) but if the UK can do it, I can't see how Ireland couldn't. And if they can do it for FGM, they can do it for abortion. So, should the law be altered so that Irish women who travel abroad for abortions at least risk some punishment when they come back?

It has come up earlier in the thread; Ireland does/can not assert universal or extra territorial jurisdiction except in limited circumstances. Britain has more of a history of asserting jurisdiction in other territories so the framework is probably quite well established, Ireland somewhat less so. FGM, for instance, may be prosecuted as a criminal offense in Ireland for an Irish citizen if it takes place in a jurisdiction where it is also an offense. In order to change the law with regard to prosecuting an Irish citizen for procuring an abortion in another jurisdiction, procuring an abortion would have to become an offense under international law (unlikely), or an Act of the Oireacteas would be required to include the offense under existing extra territorial scope (also unlikely) or a vote would be required to change the Constitution and extend legal jurisdiction (extremely unlikely).

Whilst I suspect there are some extreme pro life proponents who would like to see Ireland attempt to extend jurisdiction in order to penalise citizens and residents (and everyone else too most likely) who travel to procure abortions, I doubt there are sufficient to bring forward an act of legislation, let alone carry a plebistice. That said, there are probably more liberal pro life proponents who would consider abortion to be a greater wrong than fgm, so maybe there is some potential will there...

volchitsa wrote: »

What if they were taking children abroad to murder them? Would the right to travel really trump the need to protect the child?

It's not illegal to plan to murder someone as far as I know? I don't think it's legally possible to prevent someone from travelling with the intent to commit murder; they would have to have (been arrested for having) conspired to commit murder or attempted to commit murder before they could be detained? So the right to travel would not conflict with the need to protect the child, if they were simply planning to murder them, as far as I can tell.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

It has come up earlier in the thread; Ireland does/can not assert universal or extra territorial jurisdiction except in limited circumstances. Britain has more of a history of asserting jurisdiction in other territories so the framework is probably quite well established, Ireland somewhat less so. FGM, for instance, may be prosecuted as a criminal offense in Ireland for an Irish citizen if it takes place in a jurisdiction where it is also an offense. In order to change the law with regard to prosecuting an Irish citizen for procuring an abortion in another jurisdiction, procuring an abortion would have to become an offense under international law (unlikely), or an Act of the Oireacteas would be required to include the offense under existing extra territorial scope (also unlikely) or a vote would be required to change the Constitution and extend legal jurisdiction (extremely unlikely).

Whilst I suspect there are some extreme pro life proponents who would like to see Ireland attempt to extend jurisdiction in order to penalise citizens and residents (and everyone else too most likely) who travel to procure abortions, I doubt there are sufficient to bring forward an act of legislation, let alone carry a plebistice. That said, there are probably more liberal pro life proponents who would consider abortion to be a greater wrong than fgm, so maybe there is some potential will tell.

Whether it is a tradition or not is hardly relevant, it wasn't a tradition to have homosexual marriage yet the possibility of doing so is going to be put to the people.

It's not exerting Irish legislation abroad, because it doesn't affect foreign nationals living abroad, so that's a red herring.
Internationally , there is nothing to prevent Ireland from having such a clause in its own law, affecting its own residents.

Absolam wrote: »

It's not illegal to plan to murder someone as far as I know? I don't think it's legally possible to prevent someone from travelling with the intent to commit murder; they would have to have (been arrested for having) conspired to commit murder or attempted to commit murder before they could be detained? So the right to travel would not conflict with the need to protect the child, if they were simply planning to murder them, as far as I can tell.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Of course conspiracy to commit murder is a crime. That's planning to commit a murder. And is a crime even for those who don't in the end actually commit the crime themselves, so can't be accused of murder.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Whether it is a tradition or not is hardly relevant, it wasn't a tradition to have homosexual marriage yet the possibility of doing so is going to be put to the people.

No one mentioned anything about traditions?

volchitsa wrote: »

It's not exerting Irish legislation abroad, because it doesn't affect foreign nationals living abroad, so that's a red herring. Internationally , there is nothing to prevent Ireland from having such a clause in its own law, affecting its own residents.

The term for a State asserting a right to prosecute in its' jurisdiction, acts commited outside of its' jurisdiction, is universal jurisdiction, or extra-territorial jurisdiction, depending on the circumstances. It's not a red herring, it's just what it is called. Constitutionally an Irish law can only apply to the area and extent of the original Irish Free State; it has no remit outside that area, and the State does not claim a right to prosecute people for breaking it outside that extent (with the exception of the limited circumstances I mentioned).

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't understand what you are saying here. Of course conspiracy to commit murder is a crime. That's planning to commit a murder.

No that's conspiring to commit a murder; a conspiracy requires more than one person. Conspiring to commit a murder is a crime (though certain steps have to be taken before it can be a criminal conspiracy). Simply planning to commit a murder all by yourself is not a crime (to the best of my knowledge).

volchitsa wrote: »

And is a crime even for those who don't in the end actually commit the crime themselves, so can't be accused of murder.

That's the difference between the crime of conspiring to commit a murder, and the crime of committing a murder. Neither of which is planning to commit a murder, even though both at some point will probably involve planning to commit a murder.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

It's not illegal to plan to murder someone as far as I know? I don't think it's legally possible to prevent someone from travelling with the intent to commit murder; they would have to have (been arrested for having) conspired to commit murder or attempted to commit murder before they could be detained? So the right to travel would not conflict with the need to protect the child, if they were simply planning to murder them, as far as I can tell.

Just on this point again, my question was whether people think that the right to travel should have priority, not how difficult it would be to prevent women from travelling. Clearly that would be difficult in most cases.

However if the law said that abortion was illegal, and that Irish residents who committed such an act in a foreign jurisdiction would be considered to have committed it in Ireland (the wording of the UK legislation on child sex abuse abroad) then women thinking of going abroad would have to take into account that if they subsequently needed medical care upon return they could face prosecution.

If anyone really thinks that abortion is the same as killing a child, they would be trying to get something like this passed in the Dáil. It doesn't make sense to claim to think abortion is killings and yet claim that the right to travel is more important. A right to travel can't possibly have more weight than the right to life, that makes no sense.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

No one mentioned anything about traditions?

The term for a State asserting a right to prosecute in its' jurisdiction, acts commited outside of its' jurisdiction, is universal jurisdiction, or extra-territorial jurisdiction, depending on the circumstances. It's not a red herring, it's just what it is called. Constitutionally an Irish law can only apply to the area and extent of the original Irish Free State; it has no remit outside that area, and the State does not claim a right to prosecute people for breaking it outside that extent (with the exception of the limited circumstances I mentioned).
No that's conspiring to commit a murder; a conspiracy requires more than one person. Conspiring to commit a murder is a crime (though certain steps have to be taken before it can be a criminal conspiracy). Simply planning to commit a murder all by yourself is not a crime (to the best of my knowledge).
That's the difference between the crime of conspiring to commit a murder, and the crime of committing a murder. Neither of which is planning to commit a murder, even though both at some point will probably involve planning to commit a murder.

There is no precedent, if you prefer, rather than no tradition.

What exactly is the problem you see with the law being worded as I suggested? It isn't extending Irish jurisdiction over other countries, just extending it over Irish citizens abroad, in a few cases. Other countries do it, not just the UK.

Specifically, what prevents Ireland from exerting its law over its citizens abroad in this case, since it can do it in some cases? If the law/constitution needs to be changed to allow it, what is stopping the pro-life groups from trying to achieve that? It's not as if they have been afraid of trying to get constitutional reform in the past!

You are missing my point about travelling for an abortion. It makes no sense to claim that the right to travel is more important than the right to life. And planning to commit a murder when no murder has been committed is of course exceedingly hard to prove, if no-one else is involved, but once the murder has occurred, then all the planning becomes part of the proof of premeditation.

But in any case, most women travelling for an abortion will have been in contact with other people to organize the abortion. Those who are in Ireland may well be accused of involvement in a conspiracy.

So once the woman comes back, then she can be tried. You wouldn't, I presume, suggest that once a murder had been committed it was too late to do anything about it and therefore we should just let the person off?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Just on this point again, my question was whether people think that the right to travel should have priority, not how difficult it would be to prevent women from travelling. Clearly that would be difficult in most cases.

Yes, but priority over what? The right to travel is a right, the need to protect children is not. The right to life is a right, but in the case that Lazygal likes to posit "Do you think women should be prevented from travelling outside Ireland to kill unborn children", there's no prioritisation of rights that can reasonably take place. There is a right to travel, and there is a right to life. It is not illegal to intend to take a life, and such an intent could not be reasonably assessed for every person intending to travel anyway. The right to life cannot be offered as a competing right to the right to travel since the right to life is not being impinged where that right exists (inside the area and effect of Irish law).

volchitsa wrote: »

However if the law said that abortion was illegal, and that Irish residents who committed such an act in a foreign jurisdiction would be considered to have committed it in Ireland (the wording of the UK legislation on child sex abuse abroad) then women thinking of going abroad would have to take into account that if they subsequently needed medical care upon return they could face prosecution.

If Ireland were to extend such a claim of extra-territorial jurisdiction, they would have to take it into account even if they didn't subsequently need medical care upon return, because they would have broken the law regardless of the care they needed.

volchitsa wrote: »

If anyone really thinks that abortion is the same as killing a child, they would be trying to get something like this passed in the Dáil. It doesn't make sense to claim to think abortion is killings and yet claim that the right to travel is more important. A right to travel can't possibly have more weight than the right to life, that makes no sense.

As per my point above, though I don't think many would claim that the right to life is less important than the right to travel, the entirety of the issue is not as simple as whether one right is more or less important than another.

Peregrinus

I think you can possibly reconcile the conflict betweent the two rights on the basis of a "proportionality" argument. Even if we accept for the purposes of the argument (a) that the unborn child has a right to life, and (b) that this right is more fundamental than the right to travel, you can still accept that very gross interferences in the right to travel would be needed to acheive even very minor effective enhancements of the right to life. In the same way that the state is not obliged to post an armed guard outside every bedroom door every night to guard against the possibility of someone being murdered in their beds, so the state is not obliged to pregnancy-test every woman between 15 and 55 at airports, sea porst and land border crossigng points , and prevent the pregnant ones from leaving. Even if there is a right to life and the state has a duty of vindicating it so far as it can, it can't effectively vindicate it by feasible restrictions on the right to travel.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, but priority over what? The right to travel is a right, the need to protect children is not. The right to life is a right, but in the case that Lazygal likes to posit "Do you think women should be prevented from travelling outside Ireland to kill unborn children", there's no prioritisation of rights that can reasonably take place. There is a right to travel, and there is a right to life. It is not illegal to intend to take a life, and such an intent could not be reasonably assessed for every person intending to travel anyway. The right to life cannot be offered as a competing right to the right to travel since the right to life is not being impinged where that right exists (inside the area and effect of Irish law).
If Ireland were to extend such a claim of extra-territorial jurisdiction, they would have to take it into account even if they didn't subsequently need medical care upon return, because they would have broken the law regardless of the care they needed.

As per my point above, though I don't think many would claim that the right to life is less important than the right to travel, the entirety of the issue is not as simple as whether one right is more or less important than another.

Of course some rights take priority over others, when they are in conflict. A lot of law is based on competing rights, and on deciding which right takes priority.

You are confusing the intention to take a life where no such crime can be proven, with my point which is that once there had a been a few prosecutions after the fact, any women thinking of going abroad would be far less likely to do so - unless of course abortion is a deep need, rather than often being just a selfish lifestyle choice, as the pro-life groups claim.

And we know that some women attend doctors here who know of their pregnancy, then go to England and come back not pregnant. If you brought a baby to the doctor and then some months later announced that you had no child, do you really think no-one would do anything about that?

lazygal

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you can possibly reconcile the conflict betweent the two rights on the basis of a "proportionality" argument. Even if we accept for the purposes of the argument (a) that the unborn child has a right to life, and (b) that this right is more fundamental than the right to travel, you can still accept that very gross interferences in the right to travel would be needed to acheive even very minor effective enhancements of the right to life. In the same way that the state is not obliged to post an armed guard outside every bedroom door every night to guard against the possibility of someone being murdered in their beds, so the state is not obliged to pregnancy-test every woman between 15 and 55 at airports, sea porst and land border crossigng points , and prevent the pregnant ones from leaving. Even if there is a right to life and the state has a duty of vindicating it so far aos it can, it can't effectively vindicate it by feasible restrictions on the right to travel.

The reason for the x case was an attempt by the attorney general to vindicate the right to life of the unborn. We then had the Irish solution to the Irish problem whereby we equate the life of a zygote with that of a born child or woman but give a constitutional right to bring the unborn to be aborted in another jurisdiction. There's nothing stopping those opposed to abortion from campaigning to remove the amendments on the right to travel and information.