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
-
Because your children aren't the same as a zygote?
Well, exactly. Which is why it's OK for a woman to decide to have an abortion instead of going to term: it's just a zygote, not a child.
As long as she does it in England, of course, not Holy Catholic Ireland, because baby Jesus would cry. Or something.0 -
Really?Zubeneschamali wrote: »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.
Egan agreed that the right existed:
Egan J.
The right to travel can only effectively arise in reference to an intention to procure an unlawful abortion and must surely rank lower than the right to life of the unborn. It may well be that proof of an intention to commit an unlawful act cannot amount to an offence but I am dealing with the question of an unborn within the jurisdiction being removed from the jurisdiction with the stated intention of depriving it of its right to life. In the face of a positive obligation to defend and vindicate such a right it cannot reasonably be argued that a right to travel simpliciter can take precedence over such a right, (I again emphasize that the question of European Community law is not being considered).
Hederman also opined that the right to travel existed when he said:
Hederman J.
A restraint upon leaving the territory of the jurisdiction of the courts would in the ordinary way be a restraint upon the exercise of the constitutional right to travel but the competing right is the preservation of life and of the two the preservation of life must be deemed to be paramount and to be sufficient to suspend for at least the period of gestation of the unborn life the right to travel.
O"Flaherty was restrained, he stuck with
O'Flaherty J
In particular, I do not believe that the Court should grant an injunction to interfere to this extraordinary degree with the individual's freedom of movement.
Which at least indicated he considered the individual is entitled to freedom of movement. But I'll take four out of five, being a majority and therefore the Supreme Court.
Costello was the High Court Judge by the way.0 -
Why does that make it ok? The fact that it's not a child doesn't make it nothing, it makes it something different. Something which, in Ireland, has a constitutional right to life. Which pretty much makes it not ok for a woman to have an abortion instead of going to term? Unless she does it in England of course, where the Constitution doesn't hold sway.Zubeneschamali wrote: »Well, exactly. Which is why it's OK for a woman to decide to have an abortion instead of going to term: it's just a zygote, not a child. As long as she does it in England, of course, not Holy Catholic Ireland, because baby Jesus would cry. Or something.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?
No because most pro-life people don't just 'disagree' with abortion, they claim to regard it as murder, or something tantamount to it. It is incomprehensible to me that someone would genuinely believe this and yet shrug their shoulders at the abduction of thousands of Irish 'babies' to be killed/murdered/aborted/whatever each year.
On the other hand, if you disapproved (in general terms) of abortion as a means of evading the consequences of 'illicit' sex, it makes (a twisted, uniquely Irish) sense that it should continue to be stigmatised and shunted off to the UK, yet remain accessible at a pinch if you or your loved ones really needed it.0 -
Do you have anything at all that demonstrates what proportion of pro-life people claim to regard abortion as murder? If it's not actually definitively 100%, then surely it's still not the only way to explain the mindset of a 'pro-life' person who supports the right to travel for abortion, since there are other potential explanations?Loafing Oaf wrote: »No because most pro-life people don't just 'disagree' with abortion, they claim to regard it as murder, or something tantamount to it.
So you've offered an alternative explanation yourself! It's definately looking like it's not the only way to explain the mindset of a 'pro-life' person who supports the right to travel for abortion, isn't it?Loafing Oaf wrote: »On the other hand, if you disapproved (in general terms) of abortion as a means of evading the consequences of 'illicit' sex, it makes (a twisted, uniquely Irish) sense that it should continue to be stigmatised and shunted off to the UK, yet remain accessible at a pinch if you or your loved ones really needed it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Really?
Are you really now just trying to establish that the courts have referred to to a right to travel? If so, you are quite right. But this is still obviously and egregiously wrong:
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.
We had a prioritization from the High Court, and the Supreme Court did not overturn it. We didn't like it, so we switched the prioritization with the 13th amendment, and we have it to this day.0 -
Do you have anything at all that demonstrates what proportion of pro-life people claim to regard abortion as murder? If it's not actually definitively 100%, then surely it's still not the only way to explain the mindset of a 'pro-life' person who supports the right to travel for abortion, since there are other potential explanations?
So you've offered an alternative explanation yourself! It's definately looking like it's not the only way to explain the mindset of a 'pro-life' person who supports the right to travel for abortion, isn't it?
It 's not an alternative explanation, it's an elaboration of the initial one, which anyone who had actually read both could see.
Re the broader point, okay fine I have to accept that some 'pro-life' people who support the right to travel are motivated by genuine concern about "the right to life of the unborn". But such people are, overwhelmingly, morons who can't get their heads round the idea that an abortion carried out on an Irish woman in the UK has the same end result for the foetus/unborn as if the procedure had been carried out in Ireland.0 -
Something which, in Ireland, has a constitutional right to life. Which pretty much makes it not ok for a woman to have an abortion instead of going to term? Unless she does it in England of course, where the Constitution doesn't hold sway.
Something which looks as if it has a constitutional right to life, except we put a clause in the there to prevent the State from actually doing anything about the thousands which are terminated annually. We even put in a clause in the constitution saying it's OK to advertise abortion services, as long as they are abroad!
Which shows that it is quite OK.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »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?
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.
I thought the punishment in the new legislation was 14 years, and I remember some of the pro-life people were claiming to be horrified at such potentially cruel treatment of women by those supporting that bill. Were they lying?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?
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?
There may be competing explanations, but there are a number of incontrovertible facts, and one of them is that society preventing a woman from having medical treatment that she requires is a most unusual intervention into the right to freedom and privacy in a society based on the right to individual freedom.
So unusual in fact, that it can only be justified by some major ethical objection. So, if enough people believe that killing a fetus is pretty much the same as killing a baby then in the absence of proof to the contrary, that is a valid basis for a ban on abortion.
But you seem to be saying the ban could also be based on objections to abortion similar to my objection to the Late Late Show. I hate it. But it isn't a good enough reason to do anything other than not watch it myself, and possibly complain to others about it.
So no, "they disagree with abortion" isn't a good enough reason unless they have a strong basis for their disagreement. Such as believing it to be murder.
And then they have to explain why they think it's fine to murder the same "people" an hour's flight away. You can't have it both ways any more.0 -
Advertisement
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Why do you keep calling it a baby, so?
Baby / fetus. Not much difference. Dark brown and dark dark brown. Late spring / early summer etc.0 -
Yes indeed, Tim ... and child is another valid name.Originally Posted by Zubeneschamali
Why do you keep calling it a baby, so?
Tim Robbins
Baby / fetus. Not much difference. Dark brown and dark dark brown. Late spring / early summer etc.
What exactly is the point that you are making, Zubeneschamali?0 -
What exactly is the point that you are making, Zubeneschamali?
A zygote and a fetus are different from each other, and from the mother. Zygotes and fetuses do not have the same rights as babies. Tim himself doesn't think they are the same, or have the same rights.
Yet even though Tim does not think a zygote or a fetus is a baby, he keeps saying things like: I think it is more intrusive and patronising to kill the baby personally just as if he does believe a fetus is a baby.
Now you, JC, I wouldn't be surprised if you are an ensoulment dude, who thinks a fertilized egg has a magical, microscopic little soul that goes to limbo when the docs throw it away after in-vitro fertilization. But Tim is not one of your crowd, so I was asking why he argues that way when he thinks it suits him, and then retreats to a relatively reasonable rape/incest/ffa pro-choice guy when challenged.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »Baby / fetus. Not much difference. Dark brown and dark dark brown. Late spring / early summer etc.
Right.
So if I cook you a just-fertilized egg, is that the same as a nice roast chicken for dinner? :rolleyes:0 -
Sticking to purely secular arguments, a zygote, an embryo, a foetus, an infant, a teenager and an adult are all stages in the Human life-cycle.Zubeneschamali wrote: »A zygote and a fetus are different from each other, and from the mother. Zygotes and fetuses do not have the same rights as babies. Tim himself doesn't think they are the same, or have the same rights.
Yet even though Tim does not think a zygote or a fetus is a baby, he keeps saying things like: I think it is more intrusive and patronising to kill the baby personally just as if he does believe a fetus is a baby.
Now you, JC, I wouldn't be surprised if you are an ensoulment dude, who thinks a fertilized egg has a magical, microscopic little soul that goes to limbo when the docs throw it away after in-vitro fertilization. But Tim is not one of your crowd, so I was asking why he argues that way when he thinks it suits him, and then retreats to a relatively reasonable rape/incest/ffa pro-choice guy when challenged.
I could be wrong, but I think the point that Tim is making is that there is no ethical basis for taking the life of a Human Being at any stage in their life-cycle, unless the Human Being is imminently threatening the life of another Human Being and there is no practical way of eliminating the threat other than by killing them.
Such a point of view is independent of whether somebody is a Theist ... or an Atheist.0 -
I'd prefer the roast chicken!!!:rolleyes:Right.
So if I cook you a just-fertilized egg, is that the same as a nice roast chicken for dinner? :rolleyes:
In any event, ethically, and in law it would be the exact same, if you cooked the egg or the adult bird and they were on the Red List of endangered species, for example ... and I think that all Human Beings deserve at least the same protection under law as any species on the Red List.0 -
Taking any part of a golden eagle, or even its nest, is legally the same too. I don't think you'd try to argue that a house is the same as the people living in it!I'd prefer the roast chicken!!!:rolleyes:
In any event, ethically, and in law it would be the exactly same, if you cooked the egg or the adult bird and they were on the Red List of endangered species, for example ... and I think that all Human Beings deserve at least the same protection under law as any species on the Red List.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_and_Golden_Eagle_Protection_Act
You went wrong because you are confusing the fact of someone else taking a protected species' young from it, which would be akin to a forced abortion, with a woman's right not to be pregnant if she doesn't want to be. Not the same thing at all.
It's the old "invisible woman" thing again - Ireland seems to have great difficulty getting rid of that bad habit. Women are not golden eagles, they don't have to reproduce just because it's the season! And humankind is in no danger of disappearing from the planet, for that matter.0 -
-
It might also be no bad thing, if the rights of people to a decent home was as copper-fastened in law as the absolute ban on 're-possession' granted to Bald Eagle's !!!:):eek:Taking any part of a golden eagle, or even its nest, is legally the same too. I don't think you'd try to argue that a house is the same as the people living in it!
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_and_Golden_Eagle_Protection_Act
A woman has every right to not be pregnant, if she doesn't want to be ... but this right is significantly constrained IMO (by the rights of the child she is carrying) once she becomes pregnant.You went wrong because you are confusing the fact of someone else taking a protected species' young from it, which would be akin to a forced abortion, with a woman's right not to be pregnant if she doesn't want to be. Not the same thing at all.
I think it is more like both women and men behaving as the adults they would claim to be - and not engaging in irresponsible activities likely to lead to unwanted pregnancy ... and if pregnancy should result, facing up to their responsibilities to their child, like most people do anyway.It's the old "invisible woman" thing again - Ireland seems to have great difficulty getting rid of that bad habit. Women are not golden eagles, they don't have to reproduce just because it's the season! And humankind is in no danger of disappearing from the planet, for that matter.
... and please stop this 'guilt-tripping' stuff about Ireland ... where women are overwhelmingly treated with equality and respect - and rightly so.0 -
It might also be no bad thing, if the right of people to a decent home was as copper-fastened in law as the absolute ban on 're-possession' granted to Bald Eagle's !!!:):eek:
A woman has every right to not be pregnant, if she doesn't want to be ... but this right is significantly constrained IMO (by the rights of the child she is carrying) once she becomes pregnant.
I think it is more like both women and men behaving as the adults they would claim to be - and not engaging in irresponsible activities likely to lead to pregnancy, if they don't want to have a child.
Is that dependent on the woman having had consensual sex, or is that just tough cheese for her?0 -
Advertisement
-
My initial reaction is 'of course not' ... but possibly this is because it is my head you are talking about chopping off ... and there wouldn't be any noticeable blood about with a Morning After Pill.Loafing Oaf wrote: »Do you regard the effective use of the morning-after pill as morally equivalent to me going round to your house and chopping your head off?
The point I'm making is that as a Human Being, my selfish nature and the 'optics' of the situation can blind me to unethical behaviour.
It would be ethically and legally repugnant to break a Bald Eagle's eggs (the equivalent of the Morning After Pill for Humans) ... so are you saying that a lower standard of ethics should be applied to Humans than Birds?0 -
It certainly shouldn't be tough cheese for her.Is that dependent on the woman having had consensual sex, or is that just tough cheese for her?
Rape certainly pushes the ethics of administering the Morning After Pill towards it's administration.
However, for both medical and ethical reasons, it certainly shouldn't become the primary contraception method for women who are (voluntarily) sexually active - and therefore have the opportunity of using better methods of routine contraception.0 -
My initial reaction is 'of course not' ... but possibly thus is because it is my head you are talking about chopping off ... and there wouldn't be any noticeable blood about with a Morning After Pill.
The point I'm making is that as a Human Being, my selfish nature and the 'optics' of the situation can blind me to unethical behaviour.
It would be ethically and legally repugnant to break a Bald Eagle's eggs (the equivalent of the Morning After Pill for Humans) ... so are you saying that a lower standard of ethics should be applied to Humans than Birds?
Wanting to outlaw the MAP (and presumably the IUD, embryo destruction in IVF and embryonic stem cell research) is a very extreme position by contemporary Irish standards. But a logical and consistent one if you truly believe the embryo is a full-fledged human being from fertilisation...0 -
It certainly shouldn't be tough cheese for her.
Rape certainly pushes the ethics of administering the Morning After Pill towards it's administration.
However, for both medical and ethical reasons, it certainly shouldn't become the primary contraception method for women who are sexually active.
That doesn't answer my question. Once the woman is actually pregnant through rape, and assuming there are no doubts over whether or not there was a rape, should she be entitled to an abortion if she chooses?
I ask because it is the logical consequence of your comment about being responsible for one's actions, but as you know the law doesn't actually allow termination for that reason. Do you think it should?0 -
It is a fact that a Human embryo has the exact same potential to live to a hundred as I have.Loafing Oaf wrote: »Wanting to outlaw the MAP (and presumably the IUD, embryo destruction in IVF and embryonic stem cell research) is a very extreme position by contemporary Irish standards. But a logical and consistent one if you truly believe the embryo is a full-fledged human being from fertilisation...
... just like a fertilised Bald Eagle's egg has the exact same potential to grow up and fly like it parents.
We correctly protect embryonic Eagles on the basis that they have the potential to become Eagles ... so why should the same logic not apply (in general) to embryonic Humans?
MAP, IVF and embryonic stem cell research do have ethical issues in relation to their use.
I'm also not convinced that such concerns are in any way 'extreme' or held by a minority of people.
The last 'abortion' referendum asked the people to approve the definition of 'unborn' (with its associated constitutional protection) as being an implanted embryo in the womb (which would have clearly removed legal protection for non-implanted embryos) ... such as those potentially affected by MAP, IVF and ESCR ... and it was rejected in the vote.0 -
You are now moving into 'hard case', possibly even 'very hard case' territory. On the one hand there is a woman deeply hurt by a savage assault and on the other there is an embryonic Human Being totally innocent of anything to do with the crime perpetrated on the woman.That doesn't answer my question. Once the woman is actually pregnant through rape, and assuming there are no doubts over whether or not there was a rape, should she be entitled to an abortion if she chooses?
I ask because it is the logical consequence of your comment about being responsible for one's actions, but as you know the law doesn't actually allow termination for that reason. Do you think it should?
I think it is actually a 'cop out' to say that the decision should be left to the woman alone ... as if this unfortunate woman hasn't enough problems already ... this principle will make her responsible for possibly deciding to kill her child.
We all should collectively 'go off to the proverbial pub' ... and leave her do whatever she wants ... and live with the consequences, would seem to be the net effect of such an attitude.
Its almost as callus as somebody who says that she cannot have an abortion even where her life clearly depends on having it.0 -
Are you really trying to pretend you've been discussing something else? As an attempt to retrench your argument (again) that's pretty poor. I am only pointing out that the Supreme Court agreed that a right to travel existed , prior to the Constitutional Amendment, contrary to your claim that this assertion was completely wrong.Zubeneschamali wrote: »Are you really now just trying to establish that the courts have referred to to a right to travel?
Well, let's see.Zubeneschamali wrote: »But this is still obviously and egregiously wrong: 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. We had a prioritization from the High Court, and the Supreme Court did not overturn it. We didn't like it, so we switched the prioritization with the 13th amendment, and we have it to this day.
The right to travel is a right; I think we've established that despite your protestations.
The need to protect children is not a right; are you offering any argument, or can we allow that this is neither obviously nor egregiously wrong?
As to the prioritisation of rights; Hederman in his judgement said:
"I also agree that though the Oireachtas had not enacted any law purporting to regulate the manner in which the right to life of the unborn and the right to life of the mother referred to in the Eighth Amendment should be reconciled, the Court has jurisdiction to make such orders as it thinks proper to give effect to the Amendment. In the absence of legislation not in conflict with the Constitution it must fall to the Court pursuant to Article 40, s. 3, sub-s. 3 to reconcile the conflict between the right to life of the unborn and the right to life of the mother."
So, in the absence of legislation not in conflict with the Constitution, it was up to the Supreme Court to reconcile a conflict of rights.
Hederman also stated:
it should be borne in mind that the Oireachtas enjoys power to make laws of extra-territorial jurisdiction also as is set out in Article 3 of the Constitution and as has been upheld by this Court in the reference of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act, 1976.If the State was of opinion that further penal provisions should be enacted it is quite within the competence of the Oireachtas to make the Irish criminal law applicable to acts committed outside the jurisdiction regardless of the law of the place of commission.
A clear statement that if Ireland wishes to assert the right to life of the unborn extraterritorially, there is a route to do so.
Since the judgement, we have had a number of Constitutional Amendments, as well as specific legislation introduced dealing with the prioritisation of rights in pregnancy, so as there is now legislation which is not (to our knowledge at this point) in conflict with the Constitution, per Hedermans statement, it no longer falls to the Supreme Court to reconcile a conflict of rights.
Additionally, since in the course of the introduction of the Amendments and the legislation the Oireachtas has not acted on Hedermans point and brought forward legislation to extend extra territorial jurisdiction to the right to life of the unborn, there can be no (current) claim to assert that right outside the State.
That leaves us free to argue from Supreme Court opinion, that in the light of existing legislation, no prioritisation of rights can reasonably take place since the priority of the relevant rights within the State are established in legislation,, and since no claim can be made that the right to life of the unborn is being infringed within the jurisdiction of the State, and the State asserts no jurisdiction of the right outside the State, only the rights that the State asserts jurisdiction over can be considered. So whilst the argument might not win a Supreme Court case without some additional effort, I would submit that it is sufficiently well founded to be neither obviously nor egregiously wrong.0 -
How exactly is that a fact? Let's start with 'a society based in the right to individual freedom' and work up from there shall we?There may be competing explanations, but there are a number of incontrovertible facts, and one of them is that society preventing a woman from having medical treatment that she requires is a most unusual intervention into the right to freedom and privacy in a society based on the right to individual freedom.
Isn't the basis for the 'ban' on abortion that it contravenes the Constitutional right to life of the unborn, and gives rise to the offense 'Destruction of unborn human life'? Where does it say the basis of the ban is that "enough people believe that killing a fetus is pretty much the same as killing a baby"?So unusual in fact, that it can only be justified by some major ethical objection. So, if enough people believe that killing a fetus is pretty much the same as killing a baby then in the absence of proof to the contrary, that is a valid basis for a ban on abortion.
I don't think so, I never mentioned the Late Late Show. But to use your example, if enough people disagreed with the Late Late Show sufficiently to muster a majority vote to insert a clause in the Constitution preventing the Late Late Show being made, that would seem to be democracy in action? Pretty ridiculous action, but the will of the people nonetheless....But you seem to be saying the ban could also be based on objections to abortion similar to my objection to the Late Late Show. I hate it. But it isn't a good enough reason to do anything other than not watch it myself, and possibly complain to others about it.
Unfortunately, the fact that it's not a good enough reason for you, doesn't mean that it's not a good enough reason for them (or me, or Zubeneschamali, you just don't get to tell people what reasons are good enough to base their opinions on, sorry).So no, "they disagree with abortion" isn't a good enough reason unless they have a strong basis for their disagreement. Such as believing it to be murder.
Unless of course, you can't tell people they must believe abortion is murder because anything else isn't good enough for you. In which case, they don't have to explain why they think it's fine to murder the same "people" an hour's flight away (because they don't think so), and they're not having anything both ways.And then they have to explain why they think it's fine to murder the same "people" an hour's flight away. You can't have it both ways any more.
See, it's all easier if you're not telling people what their reasoning has to be.0 -
I could be wrong, but I think the point that Tim is making is that there is no ethical basis for taking the life of a Human Being at any stage in their life-cycle, unless the Human Being is imminently threatening the life of another Human Being and there is no practical way of eliminating the threat other than by killing them.
No, Tim thinks abortion is allowable in cases of rape.0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement