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
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
No of course not, though some pro-life groups were suggesting that at the time of the referendum on the right to travel, so they would have been quite happy to see that done at that time!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 as it can, it can't effectively vindicate it by feasible restrictions on the right to travel.
But in fact the way to do it, if one believed there was wholesale murder of Irish babies in England, would be to have a few prosecutions after the fact. That should then have a preventive effect for all women in the future.
But no-one seems to care about all these abortions of Irish "babies" happening in England, yet they were prepared to issue a court order to physically restrain a woman in Ireland over this. It just makes no sense, unless one accepts that the pro-life groups don't really believe that abortion is killing, they just want to control women.
Only that way does their stance actually make sense.0 -
No one mentioned precedents either?There is no precedent, if you prefer, rather than no tradition.
The problem is, as I said, the Constitution.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, it's the Constitution. That's why I said "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).". I don't think there is sufficient appetite in Ireland for such an action to be successful.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!
I'm not; I'm pointing out that there's no claim that the right to travel is more important than the right to life; the right to life doesn't come into play unless you change the law.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.
That would be when the crime under consideration is murder; it doesn't make planning a murder a crime.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.
They could well be accused of involvement in a conspiracy, but what of it? Conspiracy itself is not a crime.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.
If an Irish citizen committs a murder outside the Irish jurisdiction, Ireland does assert universal jurisdiction for the crime (unlike abortion). But more to your point, are you suggesting we have any legal entitlement to prevent someone travelling outside the jurisdiction if they are planning to commit murder?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?0 -
No one mentioned precedents either?
The problem is, as I said, the Constitution.
Specifically, it's the Constitution. That's why I said "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).". I don't think there is sufficient appetite in Ireland for such an action to be successful.
I'm not; I'm pointing out that there's no claim that the right to travel is more important than the right to life; the right to life doesn't come into play unless you change the law.
That would be when the crime under consideration is murder; it doesn't make planning a murder a crime.
They could well be accused of involvement in a conspiracy, but what of it? Conspiracy itself is not a crime.
If an Irish citizen committs a murder outside the Irish jurisdiction, Ireland does assert universal jurisdiction for the crime (unlike abortion). But more to your point, are you suggesting we have any legal entitlement to prevent someone travelling outside the jurisdiction if they are planning to commit murder?
So all of your post is just waffle then :
The constitution was changed to ban abortion. If that was because the people believed that abortion was killing children, then it makes no sense not to try to close the gigantic loophole which the right to travel creates by modifying the constitution as needed. It can be done, it's just the will to do it which is absent.
Obviously from a practical point of view, in most cases it would be impractical to prevent someone from travelling in advance (though in fact it could usually be done in the case of fatal fetal abnormality, since those couples are already in the care of Irish maternity services - but of course no-one really wants to stop them, just to make it all more difficult and traumatic for them than it need be.) But any number of cases become evident once the woman has come back - so then you are on the same situation as someone who has already committed murder. You try them after the fact, not in advance of it!
Far from voting to close this loophole, the will of the people was to allow the right to travel for an abortion. And the pro-life groups are now quite happy with that. So it's obvious that no-one really thinks that abortion is actually killing children.
Unless you think that if I announced that I was taking my child to sell her into slavery in the Yemen, the population of Ireland would vote to allow me to do so?0 -
No. By the same argument, if you don't advocate laws and policies to prevent unmarried Irish women leaving the country in cases where they might be exposed to forced marriage, you don't really believe that a woman has a right not to be forcibly married off. Or if you don't favour laws preventing gay people from travelling to countries where there are no anti-discrimination laws in place which cover them, you don't really believe that gay people have a right to equality under the law.No of course not, though some pro-life groups were suggesting that at the time of the referendum on the right to travel, so they would have been quite happy to see that done at that time!
But in fact the way to do it, if one believed there was wholesale murder of Irish babies in England, would be to have a few prosecutions after the fact. That should then have a preventive effect for all women in the future.
But no-one seems to care about all these abortions of Irish "babies" happening in England, yet they were prepared to issue a court order to physically restrain a woman in Ireland over this. It just makes no sense, unless one accepts that the pro-life groups don't really believe that abortion is killing, they just want to control women.
Only that way does their stance actually make sense.
It's possible to advocate a right as a political and moral principle with perfect sincerity, and at the same time to accept that there are limits to what any state can do to defend and protect that right, both practically and as a matter of principle. In particular, there are practical and principles limits to what any state can do to defend individual rights outside its own borders; accepting this doesn't undermine the notion of rights.0 -
No, the idea isn't that they shouldn't leave the country in case these things happen, it's that the law banning forced marriages (say) should include a provision saying that Irish citizens can't get out of obeying Irish law simply by traveling abroad to do something that is banned in Ireland.Peregrinus wrote: »No. By the same argument, if you don't advocate laws and policies to prevent unmarried Irish women leaving the country in cases where they might be exposed to forced marriage, you don't really believe that a woman has a right not to be forcibly married off. Or if you don't favour laws preventing gay people from travelling to countries where there are no anti-discrimination laws in place which cover them, you don't really believe that gay people have a right to equality under the law.
It's possible to advocate a right as a political and moral principle with perfect sincerity, and at the same time to accept that there are limits to what any state can do to defend and protect that right, both practically and as a matter of principle. In particular, there are practical and principles limits to what any state can do to defend individual rights outside its own borders; accepting this doesn't undermine the notion of rights.
It's not rocket science, these laws exist in other countries to prevent children being taken out of the country for FGM - that doesn't stop families travelling with their children but if it is discovered that a child living in Ireland has been mutilated in that way, the fact that it happened abroad is not a get-out clause, if the family was already resident in Ireland.
Simple.0 -
Advertisement
-
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 no general "right to travel" in the Constitution, and certainly not one equal to anyone's right to life.
There is only "freedom to travel" because we put in an exception in the Right to Life clause. Until that referendum, the Attorney General (for the State) absolutely did assert that it was his duty to prevent women travelling abroad for abortions. In simple terms, you are completely wrong here.0 -
I never said it wasn't? Though in fact it was changed to give the existing ban on abortion constitutional protection.So all of your post is just waffle then : The constitution was changed to ban abortion.
So, if people think the way you think they think, they would have done something different to what they did? That probably means they think differently to the way you think they do then....If that was because the people believed that abortion was killing children, then it makes no sense not to try to close the gigantic loophole which the right to travel creates by modifying the constitution as needed. It can be done, it's just the will to do it which is absent.
Yes, it is impractical and illegal to prevent someone from travelling because you believe they intend to have an abortion, just as it is impractical and illegal to prevent someone from travelling because you believe they intend to commit murder. Entirely aside from whether you imagine people really want to stop them or just make it more difficult and traumatic than it needs to be (which suggests you have a disappointingly low opinion of people).Obviously from a practical point of view, in most cases it would be impractical to prevent someone from travelling in advance (though in fact it could usually be done in the case of fatal fetal abnormality, since those couples are already in the care of Irish maternity services - but of course no-one really wants to stop them, just to make it all more difficult and traumatic for them than it need be.)
Well, no. As I said earlier, Ireland asserts universal jurisdiction for murder, but not for abortion.But any number of cases become evident once the woman has come back - so then you are on the same situation as someone who has already committed murder. You try them after the fact, not in advance of it!
Are you sure about that? Are you certain that given the opportunity, no pro life group would advocate extending universal jurisdiction? I think some might.Far from voting to close this loophole, the will of the people was to allow the right to travel for an abortion. And the pro-life groups are now quite happy with that.
I can't say I follow your logic there? There seem to be quite a few people who think that abortion is killing children? I don't think your logic is likely to change their minds, even if they read your post?So it's obvious that no-one really thinks that abortion is actually killing children.
I'm not sure how that follows from what you said? If the population did vote to allow you to do so, would that mean people really think abortion is killing children? Or the opposite?Unless you think that if I announced that I was taking my child to sell her into slavery in the Yemen, the population of Ireland would vote to allow me to do so?0 -
I never said it wasn't? Though in fact it was changed to give the existing ban on abortion constitutional protection.
So, if people think the way you think they think, they would have done something different to what they did? That probably means they think differently to the way you think they do then....
Yes, it is impractical and illegal to prevent someone from travelling because you believe they intend to have an abortion, just as it is impractical and illegal to prevent someone from travelling because you believe they intend to commit murder. Entirely aside from whether you imagine people really want to stop them or just make it more difficult and traumatic than it needs to be (which suggests you have a disappointingly low opinion of people).
Well, no. As I said earlier, Ireland asserts universal jurisdiction for murder, but not for abortion.
Are you sure about that? Are you certain that given the opportunity, no pro life group would advocate extending universal jurisdiction? I think some might.
I can't say I follow your logic there? There seem to be quite a few people who think that abortion is killing children? I don't think your logic is likely to change their minds, even if they read your post?
I'm not sure how that follows from what you said? If the population did vote to allow you to do so, would that mean people really think abortion is killing children? Or the opposite?
You seem to have tied yourself up in knots here trying not to get the point!
No-one would vote to allow parents to take their children out of the country to sell them into slavery, or to kill them - yet the population did vote to put an exemption into the constitutional ban on abortion to allow travel for the purposes of abortion.
Ergo, the population of Ireland does not believe abortion is anything like killing children. They don't even think it is abusing children, in the way selling them into slavery would be. It's clearly something much less, in the view of the majority of Ireland. Which can only mean that they don't think a fetus is a child.
And all the recent polls show that the majority view has moved towards a more accepting view on abortion than at the time of the referendum, whatever about the extremists.
That being the case, and given recent events, including Ireland being criticized by the ECHR for not respecting the convention on human rights which it signed voluntarily, there is reason to consider removing the constitutional amendment on abortion, because it is only a fiction anyway, and it is not good law to have a constitution which everyone knows is meaningless and in fact designed to be so.0 -
I didn't say there was a general right to travel in the Constitution, only that the right to travel exists. The thirteenth amendment specifiedZubeneschamali wrote: »There is no general "right to travel" in the Constitution, and certainly not one equal to anyone's right to life.
"This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state". It specifically prohibited the limiting of the freedom to travel, which correctly pre-supposes an existing freedom to travel. The Supreme Court has held that the right to travel both within and without the State is an unenumerated right.
In fact, the AG did not contest that the woman had a right to travel, the argument offered in the High Court was that "The right to travel simpliciter could not take precedence over the right to life", whilst the defence argued "Injunctions should not be granted to restrain activity in another jurisdiction since the right to travel should not be curtailed because of a particular intention". So even at the High Court stage both sides had recognised that a right to travel existed.Zubeneschamali wrote: »There is only "freedom to travel" because we put in an exception in the Right to Life clause. Until that referendum, the Attorney General (for the State) absolutely did assert that it was his duty to prevent women travelling abroad for abortions.
Actually, in simple terms, I think i was pretty spot on.Zubeneschamali wrote: »In simple terms, you are completely wrong here.0 -
What point do you think I'm trying not to get to?You seem to have tied yourself up in knots here trying not to get the point!
If the amendment were phrased exactly as the abortion was amended, how do you know no one would vote for it? Has there been a poll, or are you assuming based on your own feelings?No-one would vote to allow parents to take their children out of the country to sell them into slavery, or to kill them - yet the population did vote to put an exemption into the constitutional ban on abortion to allow travel for the purposes of abortion.
Sorry, but you just based your conclusion on an assumption, then followed it by telling us what people think because of your conclusion, then what this clearly indicates, and what that can only mean. You could have saved yourself some effort by saying "God told me". It's about as valid....Ergo, the population of Ireland does not believe abortion is anything like killing children. They don't even think it is abusing children, in the way selling them into slavery would be. It's clearly something much less, in the view of the majority of Ireland. Which can only mean that they don't think a fetus is a child.
See, now that's a fact. Albeit one that doesn't engender sufficient confidence in politicians to arrange a referendum, but still, it's a fact.And all the recent polls show that the majority view has moved towards a more accepting view on abortion than at the time of the referendum, whatever about the extremists.
That's true, and I'm sure lots of people are considering it.That being the case, and given recent events, including Ireland being criticized by the ECHR for not respecting the convention on human rights which it signed voluntarily, there is reason to consider removing the constitutional amendment on abortion,
No, it is a real amendment. And what 'everyone knows' isn't a great basis for anything really.... especially when it's readily apparent that everyone doesn't know it, just that some people wish it were so.because it is only a fiction anyway, and it is not good law to have a constitution which everyone knows is meaningless and in fact designed to be so.0 -
Advertisement
-
What point do you think I'm trying not to get to?
If the amendment were phrased exactly as the abortion was amended, how do you know no one would vote for it? Has there been a poll, or are you assuming based on your own feelings?
Sorry, but you just based your conclusion on an assumption, then followed it by telling us what people think because of your conclusion, then what this clearly indicates, and what that can only mean. You could have saved yourself some effort by saying "God told me". It's about as valid....
See, now that's a fact. Albeit one that doesn't engender sufficient confidence in politicians to arrange a referendum, but still, it's a fact.
That's true, and I'm sure lots of people are considering it.
No, it is a real amendment. And what 'everyone knows' isn't a great basis for anything really.... especially when it's readily apparent that everyone doesn't know it, just that some people wish it were so.
It's a fiction not because the amendment doesn't exist, of course it does.
It's a fiction because it doesn't prevent abortion on demand for Irish women, because it specifically allows them both to get information about abortion abroad and to travel for that purpose.
That's why it's a fiction, and that is what everyone knows. If you really think otherwise you must be living under a rock!0 -
the argument offered in the High Court was that "The right to travel simpliciter could not take precedence over the right to life"
So when you said: 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.
you were wrong. The Attorney General and the Court held that the right to life of the unborn took precedence over the woman's right to travel.The legal priority was perfectly clear, and 2 seconds consideration would show that that is as it should be: a court would absolutely rule the same way today about a 1-year-old's right to life vs. its parents freedom to travel.
We had to change the constitution to get the current fudge which says that the state will protect the right to life of the unborn except it won't, and we did that on purpose so that we could have abortion on demand in Ireland, as long as it happens in England.0 -
So, is any law where the State doesn't assert its' legislation beyond its' boundaries a fiction, or just this one?It's a fiction because it doesn't prevent abortion on demand for Irish women, because it specifically allows them both to get information about abortion abroad and to travel for that purpose. That's why it's a fiction, and that is what everyone knows. If you really think otherwise you must be living under a rock!0 -
What exactly do you envisage, then? If a woman leaves Ireland to have an abortion and then returns, she will be subject to the same sanction as if she had had the abortion in Ireland?No, the idea isn't that they shouldn't leave the country in case these things happen, it's that the law banning forced marriages (say) should include a provision saying that Irish citizens can't get out of obeying Irish law simply by traveling abroad to do something that is banned in Ireland.
That doesn't make a lot of sense, because the sanction for having an abortion in Ireland is nil. The law is directed against administering an abortion, not undergoing one. In theory the patient could be prosecuted as an accessory, but in practice this has never happened.
So are you suggesting that we should make it a crime for a foreign medical practitioner to administer an abortion, so that if an Irish woman returns from having had an abortion abroad we can admonish her by telling her that she could be prosecuted as an accessory but she won't be? And that people who don't agree with this policy thereby demonstrate that they don't really believe in the right to life?0 -
So, in concurring with them that there is a right to travel, I was right?Zubeneschamali wrote: »So when you said: 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. you were wrong. The Attorney General and the Court held that the right to life of the unborn took precedence over the woman's right to travel.
It was so perfectly clear that the High Court ruled the AG could deny the right to travel in order to protect the right to life, or it was so perfectly clear that the Supreme Court reversed the decision and said the opposite? Hindsight may be 20 20 but it is perfectly clear that the legal priorities weren't entirely clear to everyone at the time...Zubeneschamali wrote: »The legal priority was perfectly clear, and 2 seconds consideration would show that that is as it should be: a court would absolutely rule the same way today about a 1-year-old's right to life vs. its parents freedom to travel.
I wonder, how many people who voted for the amendments would agree that's why they voted as they did? I suspect not too many. Surely if that many people wanted abortion on demand, they didn't want the (substantial) added expense of going to another country for it. And yet that's what they chose? Seems hypocrisy was a very expensive option!Zubeneschamali wrote: »We had to change the constitution to get the current fudge which says that the state will protect the right to life of the unborn except it won't, and we did that on purpose so that we could have abortion on demand in Ireland, as long as it happens in England.0 -
[QUOTE=volchitsa;92104020)
But no-one seems to care about all these abortions of Irish "babies" happening in England, yet they were prepared to issue a court order to physically restrain a woman in Ireland over this. It just makes no sense, unless one accepts that the pro-life groups don't really believe that abortion is killing, they just want to control women.
[/QUOTE]
What was galling in that case (if it's the X-case you mean) is that the girl was already abroad with her parents, outside the jurisdiction, and the state was unable at that stage, to prevent her travelling abroad, whatever else the injunction was able to compel the girl and her parents NOT to do. Me wonder's if the AG, being aware of that fact, was being po-faced (in an "I've acted" manner) or trying to get a precedent set in case-law so's to use it against other girls and women in the future at that time, publicize what'll happen to them should they try to exit the country via it's land, air or seaport routes.
Re the abortions abroad and the Pro-life'ers, I reckon they know they are faced with an unstoppable fait-accompli there, with the state giving the abortion route "a nod's as good as a wink" attention at ground level, while the upper-echelon wring their hands and tell the Pro-life'ers they've done their best/duty.0 -
Surely if that many people wanted abortion on demand, they didn't want the (substantial) added expense of going to another country for it. And yet that's what they chose? Seems hypocrisy was a very expensive option!
They wanted to maintain the stigma surrounding abortion, keep it surreptitious and shameful, on the basis that 'social abortions' are mainly sought by promiscuous young women. But they also wanted to ensure that safe abortion services were available for themselves or their wives, daughters etc. if they really needed them...0 -
It was so perfectly clear that the High Court ruled the AG could deny the right to travel in order to protect the right to life, or it was so perfectly clear that the Supreme Court reversed the decision and said the opposite?
The Supreme Court did not rule that her right to travel could not be denied: it's decision had nothing to do with any right to travel. The Supreme Court said she had a constitutional right to have an abortion right here in Ireland: that our blanket ban on abortion was unconstitutional.
So: the state still had the duty to uphold the right to life where the mothers life is not threatened, and the attorney general still had the court-sanctioned power to prevent pregnant women from travelling, unless their life was threatened.
So then we had a referendum to stop the attorney general doing it again.
Throughout, it is quite clear that the right to life had priority over the right to travel. The X case did not establish that a right to travel sometimes wins, it said the woman's equal right to life makes abortion itself a right when her life is threatened.0 -
I don't think it's that great either.Yet you don't object to the thousands of women travelling abroad to kill the unborn every year and aren't calling for the right to travel to kill an unborn child to be repealed.
You don't think it's great to kill a baby once it has left the mother's womb, what about 5 seconds before? 50 seconds? 500 seconds? 5000 seconds? If it is all so easy tell me the precise second please.0 -
Because the human inside the woman deserves some protection. I don't believe something magically becomes a human when it leaves the womb. Evolutionary humans are born early because woman's hips aren't wide enough.The point I'm trying to make here is that if a woman doesn't want to continue a pregnancy (especially in the first few weeks after she discovers that she is pregnant) why should anyone else get to have a say into whether an abortion should be allowed or not? Is it because you think that what the pregnant woman wants to happen to her own body is less important than what a bunch of people she doesn't know from Adam want to happen to it? Because that's the situation right now.
They are born quite early need a lot of attention compared to other species. If you were killing babies under 12 months on the basis that they only reason why they were outside the woman was because the woman's hips are narrow so she can walk - people would think you are nuts. But, if your argument is that it's not really a human, well then you need to define exactly what a human is?
That needs to be objectified. And it can't be. People bring their own biases / believes to the table.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ah well, I never said that they said her right to travel could not be denied, what I said was that they agreed she had a right to travel. But its' decision did have a bit to do with the right to travel.Zubeneschamali wrote: »The Supreme Court did not rule that her right to travel could not be denied: it's decision had nothing to do with any right to travel.
From the ruling:
Finlay C J
The right to travel was identified by me in a judgment delivered when I was President of the High Court in The State (M.) v. The Attorney General [1979] I.R. 73, as an unenumerated constitutional right. That it exists as an important and, in a sense, fundamental light closely identified with the characteristics of any free society, cannot be challenged.
and
McCarty J
(4) The right to travel
Such a right has been identified in The State (M.) v. The Attorney General [1979] I.R. 73 as one of the unenumerated rights, all of which enjoy the same guarantee as contained for those expressed in Article 40. If the purpose of exercising the right to travel is to avail of a service, lawful in its own location, but unlawful in Ireland, is the right curtailed or abolished because of that local illegality and/or because of the guarantee in the Amendment? If it were a matter of a balancing exercise, the scales could only tilt in one direction, the right to life of the unborn, assuming no threat to the life of the mother. In my view, it is not a question of balancing the light to travel against the right to life; it is a question as to whether or not an individual has a right to travel — which she has. It cannot, in my view, be curtailed because of a particular intent. If one travels from the jurisdiction of this State to another, one, temporarily, becomes subject to the laws of the other state.
That would be a pretty explicit endorsement of the right to travel there?0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Say this married woman was raped, and had a baby 9ish months later. When the baby is 5, a DNA test establishes that the father is the man convicted and jailed for raping her. Is it OK if she smothers the child?
Of course not - yet you think it would be OK if she had an abortion immediately after discovering the pregnancy.
So, you do not believe a fetus is a baby with all the same rights. Stop pretending you do.
Yes a fetus has less rights but it still has some rights.
Do you think a Dog has rights? I do. It is mean that people buy a die and don't give a sh*t about it. It is also mean that people put a dog down but sometimes it is necessary. It is not as bad when a dog dies when a human dies. But they still have rights.
So does the fetus.
Do you believe a fetus magically becomes a baby once it leaves the womb? What happens when science can make that happen earlier than 26 weeks?0 -
Which 'they'? Is there a list, or a poll, or something that identifies them as real people?Loafing Oaf wrote: »They wanted to maintain the stigma surrounding abortion, keep it surreptitious and shameful, on the basis that 'social abortions' are mainly sought by promiscuous young women. But they also wanted to ensure that safe abortion services were available for themselves or their wives, daughters etc. if they really needed them...0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »I don't think it's that great either.
You don't think it's great to kill a baby once it has left the mother's womb, what about 5 seconds before? 50 seconds? 500 seconds? 5000 seconds? If it is all so easy tell me the precise second please.
Why is there a different penalty for procuring an abortion outside the protection of life during pregnancy law and killing a baby one second old? Why doesn't the state issue death certs for unborn children born before 24 weeks? Why don't we pay child benefit from conception if my children are the same as a zygote? And why don't those opposed to abortion want the right to travel to kill the unborn repealed immediately?0 -
-
You probably mean destruction of unborn human life rather than procuring an abortion, so the answer is one is the destruction of unborn human life, and the other is a manslaughter (maybe negligent manslaughter, maybe murder, all four have different penalties). There are different penalties for different offenses.Why is there a different penalty for procuring an abortion outside the protection of life during pregnancy law and killing a baby one second old?
Because prior to 24 weeks it's considered a miscarriage?Why doesn't the state issue death certs for unborn children born before 24 weeks?
Because your children aren't the same as a zygote? For a start you get child benefit for them since they were born.Why don't we pay child benefit from conception if my children are the same as a zygote?
Some of them probably do? And others might think that Ireland has no right to dictate what happens outside Ireland? Or that it is just an unworkable proposition? There's probably a few reasons that some of those opposed to abortion might not want the right to travel to kill the unborn repealed immediately.And why don't those opposed to abortion want the right to travel to kill the unborn repealed immediately?0 -
Why do you go to jail for not paying your TV license but not go to jail for bankrupting a country?Why is there a different penalty for procuring an abortion outside the protection of life during pregnancy law and killing a baby one second old?
See above + why is smoking a joint illegal? When getting absolutely hammered is legal.Why doesn't the state issue death certs for unborn children born before 24 weeks?
Ok so we should kill things that don't cost us any money then. Fair enough.Why don't we pay child benefit from conception if my children are the same as a zygote?
Then you would have to remove the right to travel for any other law. Impossible to enforce.And why don't those opposed to abortion want the right to travel to kill the unborn repealed immediately?0 -
Oh. What about, they disagree with abortion. They disagree with countries dictating what can happen in other countries. Wouldn't that explain it as well?Loafing Oaf wrote: »It's the only way to explain the mindset of a 'pro-life' person who supports the right to travel for abortion.
What about, they disagree with abortion, but understand how impractically difficult it would be to attempt to enforce legislation criminalising abortions that take place in other countries, so take the pragmatic view that doing the best you can with what you've got has to be good enough? That would explain it as well.
If there are competing explanations, how come you only offer one as a fact?0 -
That would be a pretty explicit endorsement of the right to travel there?
Again, no.
Judges Finlay and McCarthy did write that in their opinions, but Egan, Hederman and Costello (the other judges) said otherwise.
If the Supreme Court had explicitly endorsed the right to travel per the McCarthy and Finlay quotes, the 13th Amendment would have been unnecessary.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tim Robbins wrote: »Yes a fetus has less rights but it still has some rights.
Why do you keep calling it a baby, so?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement