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
-
Or we all say, we have made our will clear and voted to make abortion illegal in this country. We do not believe it is feasible to exercise that will in other countries. You can pretend to any motivations you like really, but a national penchant for complicated hypocrisy seems a little over dramatic.
Oh for ****'s sake...
The 8th Amendment was implemented in 1983. Since then, there's NEVER been a referendum to at least liberalise that amendment. We've had TWO referendums to rule out suicidal ideation as a ground for obtaining abortions in this country (i.e. "you're not really suicidal, you lying slut!") which were BOTH REJECTED.0 -
I'm not sure it's uncivilised to prefer imprisoning someone over killing someone, though I suppose there are those who would argue the opposite.Because of the implication that a raped pregnant child be restrained against her will to gestate a foetus for a few months is something that a civilized country would do in 1992.0 -
It might make more sense, and seem less sophistic if you read it in the context of the post I quoted which I was replying to?This is the kind of post that has made me stop bothering to reply to you (apart from this post obviously). You seem to be engaging in sophistry rather than genuine debate. Of course the unborn life is constitutionally protected, obviously many of us think this is wrong and should be changed. Using the fact that the constitution actually has a clause that we may think should be removed as support for your argument is surely something you can see is absurd?
In this case, the assertion that terminating a pregnancy removes the cause of woman feeling she is in an untenable position doesn't acknowledge that fact that terminating the pregnancy moves the woman from what she feels is an untenable position to an illegal one, which she could also feel is untenable.
Maybe it comes across that way simply because it's difficult to be reminded you're arguing for something a majority of people voted against? Nevertheless, I think I've been fairly open to the suggestion that a referendum would be a good way to establish what it is that a majority of people want now rather that what they wanted in the past.In fact it comes across as a rather smug "well tough, the constitution makes abortion illegal so nah nah nah".
There really did not seem to be any more substance to Bannasidhes statement than exactly that?Similarly, nobody is asking for illegal acts to be made legal simply because some people will break the law and carry them out.
Isn't that assuming that making abortion illegal is ignoring it and hoping it will go away? The fact that is made illegal seems to demonstrate we do not ignore it, and it demonstrably has not gone away, so I can't imagine that decades later there are many people hoping it will just go away. Rather, it acknowledges it and takes a deliberate stance on how we deal with it in our country.In this context it was simply stating the fact that ignoring abortion and hoping it will go away is not very useful approach.0 -
I'm not sure it's uncivilised to prefer imprisoning someone over killing someone, though I suppose there are those who would argue the opposite.
"Some" would argue that this falsely rhetorically equates a foetal (or even pre-foetal) pre-personage "someone" with a sentient, sapient, full-rights-of-personage bearing... well, person of a "someone". i.e., anyone with a passing knowledge of developmental biology or the law would argue this.
As I recall you claim not to be a zygotic personhood absolutist. Does that simply in practice mean borrowing much of the language of same, and prefacing it with "not sure"? (<Top Gear>Some say...</Top Gear>) Or are you making some implicit "someone"/"not someone" distinction by gestational age, say? (Or according to whatever mild dose of "moderate" permissivity you're prepared to tolerate.)0 -
-
Advertisement
-
PopePalpatine wrote: »The 8th Amendment was implemented in 1983. Since then, there's NEVER been a referendum to at least liberalise that amendment.
Well, to quibble on an admittedly narrow point, there's been two referenda on "liberalising" it in the direction of guaranteeing the continuation "you can go to England and take care of that." And both of those passed.0 -
Haven't we already established that? I don't think anyone is saying there is a way to avoid remaining pregnant without removing the pregnancy.My point is that unless a pregnant woman is suicidal or her life is otherwise at risk, she has no choice about remaining pregnant, unless she has the ability to travel outside the state
If the only alternative you're offering is the death of her child, then yes, I value the life of her child more than I value her health or her wishes. This, to forestall iwantmydinner telling me I don't value her health or wishes at all, only means that whilst I do place a value on both her health and her wishes, I place a greater value on the life of her child.Do you think a 14 year old who isn't suicidal should have to continue a pregnancy, regardless of the risks to her health? Or her own wishes?
I think almost every reason for abortion is valid. I think that in such individual circumstances, only a threat to the life of a person approaches sufficient justification for taking the life of another person.Do you think any other reasons for abortion are valid apart from a risk to life?0 -
who is this person that would be getting killed ?
My internal Absolam simulator is protesting that:
a) He didn't use the word "person", merely "someone";
b) Even had he done so, he wasn't necessarily using the term in any legal sense. (Despite his repeated insistence that others only use various such terms only in their legal sense, only in terms of the Irish constitution, and only where found to exist by a SCt ruling. That he agrees with.) Or with any particular biological implication you'll ever manage to prove, copper;
c) And so on, to the point of exhaustion.0 -
There's "missing" the point, and then there's "ineffectually attempting to dodge it by playing dumb". My diagnosis here is the latter.Haven't we already established that? I don't think anyone is saying there is a way to avoid remaining pregnant without removing the pregnancy.
The point here is legal availability of the termination of same. *everyone mimes surprise at this fresh intelligence*her child [...] her child [...] her child [...] another person.
My internal Absolam is faulty -- or else the real one is inconsistent. Full-blown foetal personhood it is!0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »There's "missing" the point, and then there's "ineffectually attempting to dodge it by playing dumb". My diagnosis here is the latter.
The point here is legal availability of the termination of same. *everyone mimes surprise at this fresh intelligence*
My internal Absolam is faulty -- or else the real one is inconsistent. Full-blown foetal personhood it is!
that keep repeating dumb seems to be a popular tactic with them lately - must have been announced at the meetingz
that's why the next referendum on legalising abortion needs to be restricted to those its relevant to and a very large safety marginAllowed vote :
women - 22 to 34excluding :
nuns : won't be having none anyway0 -
Advertisement
-
No, I didn't say it was a solution. That's why in the qoute you've provided, you can see I said "I don't recall saying it was a solution". If you need me to remind you of what I actually said, it was here. You did actually quote it yourself in a post, so I'm sure you must have read it; you told me what my 'solution' was in that post as well.Your 'solution' for every woman pregnant who does not wish to be is to remain pregnant unless her life is at risk. Is that correct?
Did we not cover this already?Do you think we need to stop women being able to take unborn children out of the state to kill them in other jurisdictions?
I think we (I'm including you and me both here) have a right to determine what happens in our country. I don't think we have a right to determine what happens in other countries, nor do I think we should infringe peoples freedoms based on speculation about what they might intend to do when they're there. I don't like that women take unborn children out of the state in order to kill them in other jurisdictions. I do accept that I'm not in a position to change that. If I were in a position to change it? If I were the all powerful fascist dictator of Ireland? Maybe I would, but don't worry, it's not likely to happen.0 -
So, when I say I care, but don't give you everything you want, I obviously don't care at all? I do recall trying that argument when I was a teenager. I guess it must have worked out better for you than it did for me.iwantmydinner wrote: »Cool. Zero f*cks given about any other circumstances outside of a woman's imminent death.0 -
-
-
I understand that you're speculating as to why we made the changes, and whether people liked the results of the Amendments. What I was asking was why do you think not believing it is feasible to exercise our will in other countries is an 'excuse' for amending the constitution, when your own speculation is a 'motive'?Zubeneschamali wrote: »The motive for the 13th amendment had nothing to do with theoretical feasibility: the Attorney General showed that the 8th amendment worked: he used it in reality, and prevented an abortion. In other words, we made the change because not only was his injunction feasible, it was real. It really had the effect the 8th amendment intended. And we did not like it.
So Hederman believes that incarcerating a person is a lesser evil than killing a person. It shouldn't really be that scary that some people have different ideas from yours? Maybe scary if they're in a majority and a position to enforce their ideas, but otherwise they're just ideas...Zubeneschamali wrote: »Hederman outright states that we should force women to go to term, even if it leaves them a physical and mental wreck, and forcibly restrain suicidal women until the child is born. If that doesn't give you the willies, well, I'm not a bit surprised.0 -
"Classic" Absolam. OK, so we have "problem pregnancies", and apparently not all of these are "solved" by remaining pregnant. Thus we infer that a) there is no solution (not all problems are, after all, soluble), or b) the solution is something else. Stay tuned...No, I didn't say it was a solution. That's why in the qoute you've provided, you can see I said "I don't recall saying it was a solution". If you need me to remind you of what I actually said, it was here. You did actually quote it yourself in a post, so I'm sure you must have read it; you told me what my 'solution' was in that post as well.
Evidently we need to cover it a few more times. Ireland has the right to make intent to commit what would be a crime in Ireland illegal as regards material preparations for same, and so on. Except obviously in the case of abortion, where I assume (and I think everyone else does too, if they bother to examine this beyond the obvious "... why would we try to make this illegal, when we've gone to all this trouble to keep it legal?" objection) this would be ruled to be incompatible with the text and/or the intent of the "travel" amendment. Logically this would be based on evidence of this intent, not mere "suspicion", if following norms of criminal liability.Did we not cover this already?
I think we (I'm including you and me both here) have a right to determine what happens in our country. I don't think we have a right to determine what happens in other countries, nor do I think we should infringe peoples freedoms based on speculation about what they might intend to do when they're there.
Ditto for prosecutions after-the-fact on return to Ireland, by universalised jurisdiction for such offences, on all points. Which (again) does not require invading other countries and so on to "determine" what happens there.
Very much not to be worried about, since it has all appearances of being a key part of the actual "solution".I don't like that women take unborn children out of the state in order to kill them in other jurisdictions. I do accept that I'm not in a position to change that. If I were in a position to change it? If I were the all powerful fascist dictator of Ireland? Maybe I would, but don't worry, it's not likely to happen.0 -
How exactly does that make the statement "the actual process of pregnancy is never seen as an issue by the the pro life position of Remain Pregnant Despite Any Other Options" true though? Did they say it? Or did you make it up?I have yet to hear why a woman should have to endure a pregnant and birth process when she doesn't want to.
In that case allow me. I have great sympathy and admiration for women who go through pregnancy and childbirth. Even when everything goes perfectly well from start to finish it can be an exhausting, nerve wracking, terrifying and painful process. Any complication magnifies every aspect, and the mental and physical strains are simply enormous.And I have never heard a pro life person have any empathy for what women go through during pregnancy and birth - its all about the foetus.
Perhaps that is because the empathy for the woman is simply less than the empathy for the child? Having less empathy doesn't mean having no empathy.Empathy doesn't seem to be a strong factor in the pro life arguments I've heard. The solution is to remain pregnant, regardless of your wishes or the effect on your physical or mental health. How does that show any empathy for women?0 -
-
I have a feeling that disagreeing counts as quibbling, and drawing parallels counts as going off on tangents, but you can't really say quibbling with the point and going off on tangents to the point is ignoring the point?Bannasidhe wrote: »No. You haven't addressed it at all. You have quibbled, you have gone off on tangents, you have judged.
However, once more for the sake of discussion...
The fact that a woman desires an abortion so ardently that she is prepared to risk her life in order to obtain one does not compel us to provide abortion for her. We choose not to provide abortion because it destroys an unborn human life. That is not changed by a woman choosing to risk her own life in order to destroy an unborn life.
We could choose not to uphold an unborn humans right to life. The fact that someone desperately wants us to doesn't mean we have to. Or should.
If any of that seems quibbling, or tangential, feel free to pick it up and we can discuss it; it would probably advance the discussion better than claiming I ignored your point again.
I would very much prefer if they did not die undergoing an unsafe abortion. I would very much prefer if they did not undergo any kind of abortion.Bannasidhe wrote: »You have taken an absolutest stand where women who are pregnant simply have to suffer the consequences and if they die due to undergoing an unsafe abortion so be it...
It should be apparent from my posts that I value the life of a woman (regardless of whether she is, or wishes not to be, pregnant) somewhat more than I value the life of an unborn child. It may also be apparent that I consider someone choosing to kill themselves to be a different proposition to someone choosing to kill someone else.Bannasidhe wrote: »All this while claiming to value life. It is apparent that you do not value the life of a woman who does not wish to be pregnant.
Has anyone other than you offered that opinion?Nothing about the woman who doesn't want to be pregnant seems to be of value.
The poster concerned has demonstrated his ability to make statements on his own behalf without you making them for him thanks :-)She must remain pregnant, and the poster concerned would like abortion services for those who's life is not at risk be removed.
Maybe the fifth attempt was good enough?Bannasidhe wrote: »Nope. Try again. Much wordy but no actual answer.
That's simplifying?Bannasidhe wrote: »I will simplify it for you. Do you think we should accept the unpleasant fact that women/girls will seek to terminate unwanted pregnancies regardless of the illegality of doing so and will therefore risk dying due to resorting to unsafe methods so we need to safeguard them by providing safe abortions OR do you feel their death due to easily preventable complications is simply collateral damage?
I think we should accept the unpleasant fact that women/girls will seek to terminate unwanted pregnancies regardless of the illegality of doing so and will therefore risk dying due to resorting to unsafe methods.
I do not think we should safeguard them from their own actions by providing safe abortions because such a safeguard would result in preferring the choice of the woman over the life of the unborn child.
I do not feel that death due to easily preventable complications is simply collateral damage, though it would appear that the life of the unborn is being presented as collateral damage in the cause of providing safe abortions.
I believe we should attempt to preserve the life of both, and if we can only save one of them we should save the one with the greatest potential to survive, which will almost always be the expectant mother.Bannasidhe wrote: »Do we allow both woman and foetus to die when we can easily save one of them?
We do not; no more than we condemn anyone to death who chooses to do something that is dangerous because it is prohibited.Bannasidhe wrote: »Saving one of them was why David Steel introduced Abortion Legislation in the UK in 1967. In Ireland, we condemn both to die unless the money is available to travel.
I'm not taking an absolutist stance, however, if a woman takes the same stance as I do (and there are pro life women who take a far more absolutist stance than I do) how do you imagine that's biology? I can't see how it is.Bannasidhe wrote: »An absolutest stance is quite easy when you will never, ever, EVER be placed in a particular situation. That is not sexist. That is biology. No man will ever experience a crises pregnancy in the same way as a woman. That is another fact.
Is this a follow on to this question?What do you think would happen if safe and legal abortion services didn't exist?
Are we going to gradually expand to 'what would happen if there were no medical services anywhere ever?'?What do you think would happen if women were not able to avail of safe and legal abortion services in the UK?
If safe and legal abortion services didn't exist no one would be able to have safe and legal abortions. That seems fairly straightforward, do you think?
Really? I can't see where he said that at all. Perhaps you can quote him?I can see why the poster said you were too dishonest to bother replying to, just now.
I only said it would be more useful than my offering my opinion to them.You're the one who is saying counselling would be useful. No-one else.
Oooh, burn! I mustn't understand the word rhetorically, right? That put me in my place. I do understand the word obsessed, and I have to point out, of the two of us you are the one who keeps returning to the point, not me.....The fact that you are obsessed with suggesting this because someone said rhetorically (look it up) "try telling her that" only proves either your stupidity or your dishonesty.
Fair enough, but it would still have to occur, yes? So what forced counselling caused a disaster in the summer?As for forced counselling, it can be through subterfuge as well as by physical force.
I must say, I got the impression that she thought she was being given an abortion, and was surprised to discover that the plan the IFPA helped her create could not be paid for by them. They didn't seem to give her forced counselling?The woman this summer appears to have believed she was being allowed an abortion if she cooperated, when in fact there was no plan in place to do so at all.
So, are you saying that her interviews were forced counselling? Do you think not being interviewed would have been more helpful to her?She was "counseled" or at least interviewed by several medical teams at several times, including psychiatrists. Obviously the details are not to be made public.
So was I, though I was particularly hoping it was provided after the birth.I was assuming some sort of counselling being involved.
Did I say that? I can't remember saying that. Wait, are you telling my my opinion again?But you could be right, perhaps she was just interrogated instead.
Of course you're right; we voted to place the protection of unborn life in the Constitution, which prevented the Supreme Court from liberally legalising abortion.aloyisious wrote: »Actually we did not vote to make abortion illegal in this country. Abortion was made illegal here in the 1860's by a British Law.
Well, in fact the law which prohibited abortion (sections 58 & 59 of the Offenses Against the Person Act) have been entirely repealed, and replaced with the provisions of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, so it has been rather substantively changed.....aloyisious wrote: »The only changes to the abortion law have been to relax it in certain medical-emergency cases to save the life of the pregnant woman.
I don't think that's converse at all; that's quite the point of saying "within the constraints of the societies we live in". The idea of an unlimited right to life is not one I would consider arguing for.aloyisious wrote: »conversely the state itself recognizes that there are limitations beyond which it cannot go in pursuit of protection of the unborn, as that would put the pregnant girl/woman's life at risk.
I think most pro life posters here have also agreed with that?aloyisious wrote: »The Church which is seen here as been most front and centre in opposition to abortion here recognizes that, at times, saving the woman's life must be given priority over that of saving the fetus.
Soo.. that is the amendment (and the subsequent ones) we were discussing, and the motivation behind them. We can't really discuss how we voted in any referenda until we've voted in them?PopePalpatine wrote: »Oh for ****'s sake...
The 8th Amendment was implemented in 1983. Since then, there's NEVER been a referendum to at least liberalise that amendment. We've had TWO referendums to rule out suicidal ideation as a ground for obtaining abortions in this country (i.e. "you're not really suicidal, you lying slut!") which were BOTH REJECTED.
I wouldn't say it's falsely rhetorical, though it is somewhat rhetorical.alaimacerc wrote: »"Some" would argue that this falsely rhetorically equates a foetal (or even pre-foetal) pre-personage "someone" with a sentient, sapient, full-rights-of-personage bearing... well, person of a "someone". i.e., anyone with a passing knowledge of developmental biology or the law would argue this.
The constitution says that the unborn have a right to life, and having rights infers personhood (even if not in this case a full-rights-of personage bearing sense). Hence I'm confrotable with saying killing a person. I'm entirely confortable with someone saying killing a foetus if that suits them better.
I'd certainly accept that at some stage there has to be a transition from not someone to someone, and I'd accept that the absolutist position of the constitution being simply unborn is unsatisfactory.alaimacerc wrote: »As I recall you claim not to be a zygotic personhood absolutist. Does that simply in practice mean borrowing much of the language of same, and prefacing it with "not sure"? (<Top Gear>Some say...</Top Gear>) Or are you making some implicit "someone"/"not someone" distinction by gestational age, say? (Or according to whatever mild dose of "moderate" permissivity you're prepared to tolerate.)
The person specified in the constitution as being 'unborn' whose right to life is acknowledged and protected.who is this person that would be getting killed ?
That's disappointing. You could do better, you wouldn't even need to misrepresent me so outrageously to do so.alaimacerc wrote: »My internal Absolam simulator is protesting that:
a) He didn't use the word "person", merely "someone";
b) Even had he done so, he wasn't necessarily using the term in any legal sense. (Despite his repeated insistence that others only use various such terms only in their legal sense, only in terms of the Irish constitution, and only where found to exist by a SCt ruling. That he agrees with.) Or with any particular biological implication you'll ever manage to prove, copper;
c) And so on, to the point of exhaustion.
Do you seriously think so?alaimacerc wrote: »There's "missing" the point, and then there's "ineffectually attempting to dodge it by playing dumb". My diagnosis here is the latter. The point here is legal availability of the termination of same. *everyone mimes surprise at this fresh intelligence*
I very much got the impression Lazygal was asking me what I thought about whether a 14 year old who isn't suicidal should have to continue a pregnancy rather than whether it is legal; I think she has a reasonable idea of what the legal availability of abortion is (though she did seem to think that it wasn't available in the case of suicide, so maybe not).
That's a tricky one; are you saying that her child cannot be another person? Maybe it would make more sense to you if you left the sentences and paragraphs intact?alaimacerc wrote: »My internal Absolam is faulty -- or else the real one is inconsistent. Full-blown foetal personhood it is!
I admit, Lazygal does tend to repeat questions, but I'd put it down to enthusiasm.that keep repeating dumb seems to be a popular tactic with them lately - must have been announced at the meetingz
I doubt it's planned.
Why not just ask everyone how they're going to vote on their way in? That way you can exclude everyone who doesn't agree with you, not just the nuns.that's why the next referendum on legalising abortion needs to be restricted to those its relevant to and a very large safety margin
Thanks for the contribution. As a recap it may have been a little opaque, so for Lazygals benefit (and to save the same question being repeated):alaimacerc wrote: »"Classic" Absolam. OK, so we have "problem pregnancies", and apparently not all of these are "solved" by remaining pregnant. Thus we infer that a) there is no solution (not all problems are, after all, soluble), or b) the solution is something else. Stay tuned...
Should a qualified counseling session reveal that a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy and does not consent to continuing the pregnancy
Continuing the pregnancy is not a solution acceptable to (some) pro choice advocates.
Aborting the pregnancy is not a solution acceptable to (some) pro life advocates.
Anyone tabling other options, I'm interested, but the question is Lazygals, not mine.
So, mechanically, we would need a referendum? With you so far.alaimacerc wrote: »Evidently we need to cover it a few more times. Ireland has the right to make intent to commit what would be a crime in Ireland illegal as regards material preparations for same, and so on. Except obviously in the case of abortion, where I assume (and I think everyone else does too, if they bother to examine this beyond the obvious "... why would we try to make this illegal, when we've gone to all this trouble to keep it legal?" objection) this would be ruled to be incompatible with the text and/or the intent of the "travel" amendment.
How practicable do you think it would be to gather this evidence?alaimacerc wrote: »Logically this would be based on evidence of this intent, not mere "suspicion", if following norms of criminal liability.
Again, yes I think we've been there, but again I have to question how practicable it is?alaimacerc wrote: »Ditto for prosecutions after-the-fact on return to Ireland, by universalised jurisdiction for such offences, on all points. Which (again) does not require invading other countries and so on to "determine" what happens there.
Do you think it would be an actual "solution"? I have my doubts. I suspect there may not be an actual solution which Lazygal will accept that doesn't involve providing abortion somewhere. But I'm sure she can tell us herself if that's the case.alaimacerc wrote: »Very much not to be worried about, since it has all appearances of being a key part of the actual "solution".
Actually, I'm on record as saying "Nor have I claimed to be 'Pro-Life', I said fairly moderate leaning towards pro-life. The absence of capitals indicates that I'm in favour of life, rather than an adherent of a misguided pressure group (no more so than Pro-Choice in fairness, but nonetheless)." but since Lazygal said 'a pro life person' I probably make it in under the wire. I think the evil twin might just be your faulty internal Absolam simulator?alaimacerc wrote: »Aren't you on record as saying you're not "pro life" but some vaguely-defined moderate/conservative/silent majority position? Or is that your evil twin again? (I know, I'm obsessed with twins...)0 -
You are saying we changed the constitution because something which happened was not feasible. Something which actually happened is, by definition, feasible.What I was asking was why do you think not believing it is feasible to exercise our will in other countries is an 'excuse' for amending the constitution, when your own speculation is a 'motive'?
So, your statement that you think we changed the constitution to remove something which was not feasible is wrong. Untrue. False. Incorrect.
Now, why would you offer something which is incorrect as a speculative motivation for changing the constitution? When people do something or are part of something for which they don't like the motives and don't want to admit it, they sometimes offer up a false story giving a different motivation or circumstance. This is what is called an excuse.
I didn't do my homework because I do not give two sh!ts about Padraig Pearse I was feeling sick.
We amended the constitution to allow women to travel to England for abortions because we were shocked that the AG actually tried to enforce the mad law we only put on the books to keep the hypocritical status quo in place to defend the right to life of the unborn is sadly not feasible.
Scary when a person who thinks that way is sitting on the Supreme Court, the body ultimately responsible for determining what the Constitution says our human rights actually are.Maybe scary if they're in a majority and a position to enforce their ideas, but otherwise they're just ideas...0 -
Advertisement
-
The person specified in the constitution as being 'unborn' whose right to life is acknowledged and protected.
Can you quote where in the Constitution this is specified? The only reference I see is article 40.3.3, and it does not define "the unborn" as a person. Nor does it define when an egg, a sperm, a zygote, blastula, embryo, fetus or a baby is to be considered "unborn" and get its equal right to life.0 -
It's true; Article 40.3.3 just talks about "the unborn" and not, e.g., "unborn persons". (Vets beware!)Zubeneschamali wrote: »Can you quote where in the Constitution this is specified? The only reference I see is article 40.3.3, and it does not define "the unborn" as a person. Nor does it define when an egg, a sperm, a zygote, blastula, embryo, fetus or a baby is to be considered "unborn" and get its equal right to life.
On the other hand, Article 40 is headed "personal rights". It does begin "all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law". And the introductory language of article 40.3 says the state guarantees to defend and vindicate "the personal rights of the citizen". The Supreme Court has already used this language to hold that right inhere in us because we are persons (and therefore non-citizens coming before the Irish courts get the same constitutional rights as everyone else, which is not always the case in, e.g., the US).
So I don't think there's much doubt that if the issue is raised "the unborn" language will be held (a) to refer to unborn persons (vets can breathe again) and (b) to carry the implication that the unborn are, indeed, persons, at least within the context of the Irish constitution.
("The unborn" language was chosen, I think, because unborn persons are not citizens, and most of the rest of the language in Art 40 refers to "citizens". It would make no sense to talk of the rights of unborn citizens.)0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »So I don't think there's much doubt that if the issue is raised "the unborn" language will be held (a) to refer to unborn persons (vets can breathe again) and (b) to carry the implication that the unborn are, indeed, persons, at least within the context of the Irish constitution.
I'm also confident that it's not talking about kittens. But my second point stands: if a zygote is "unborn" in the terms of the Constitution, IVF as usually practiced is horribly illegal. And nobody believes that. Morning after contraception is illegal. Embryonic research is out.
I don't believe the Court would rule that a fertilized egg in a test tube is "unborn". I'm confident that a fetus at 36 weeks would get its equal right to life.
Anyone want to take bets on anything in between?0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »I'm also confident that it's not talking about kittens. But my second point stands: if a zygote is "unborn" in the terms of the Constitution, IVF as usually practiced is horribly illegal. And nobody believes that. Morning after contraception is illegal. Embryonic research is out.
I don't believe the Court would rule that a fertilized egg in a test tube is "unborn". I'm confident that a fetus at 36 weeks would get its equal right to life.
Anyone want to take bets on anything in between?
All assisted reproduction in Ireland is entirely unregulated. The supreme court has called for legislation but like most things around reproduction in Ireland the legislature is studiously avoiding the issue.
If we did try to regulate ivf and other reproductive services I suspect another referendum on amendment eight would be needed. I've often wondered why those seeking to vindicate the right to life of the unborn aren't calling for all assisted reproduction clinics operating in Ireland to be closed immediately.0 -
Well, no. Art. 40.3.3. doesn't itself make anything illegal. It just says that the state "guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate [the right to life of the unborn]". That was put in to prevent any constitutional challenge to the (long-standing) criminal law prohibiting abortion, and to ensure that any amendment or replacement of that law would have to fit within the four corners of Art 40.3.3.Zubeneschamali wrote: »I'm also confident that it's not talking about kittens. But my second point stands: if a zygote is "unborn" in the terms of the Constitution, IVF as usually practiced is horribly illegal. And nobody believes that. Morning after contraception is illegal. Embryonic research is out.
But of course you can't have an abortion until someone is pregnant, and you can't have a preganancy until there has been an implantation. So the criminal law dealing with abortion never purported to forbid IVF, pre-implantation contraception, etc.
It's a separate question as to whether the state has an obligation to introduce a law forbidding these things. Arguably not; where the constitution requires a specific law, it says so explicitly, e.g. in Art. 40.6.1.i. Art 40.3.3 conspicously has no such language.
And, even if you could argue that it carries an implicity obligation to legislate, it only has to legislate "so far as practicable". I think you could make a pretty strong case that legislation which would be practically effectifve to protect the life of the unimplanted zygote is impractical.
But, we'll never know unless someone sues the state for its failure to legislation in this area.0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,497 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26417
http://www.thejournal.ie/disciplinary-proceedings-savita-halappanavar-1665791-Sep2014/A NUMBER OF staff at University Hospital Galway have been disciplined over their role in the Savita Halappanavar case.
The 31-year-old died at the hospital in 2012 after suffering a miscarriage.0 -
Ideally, I'd like to just delete that stupid amendment, it doesn't do what anyone intended. But if someone were to challenge the Court to rule on exactly what an "unborn" is, we might get a sensible ruling.
To me, in context it clearly means a living person who has not been born yet.
There is the question about when an egg and sperm becomes a living person. Well, when does a living person become non-living, legally speaking?
For comparison, consider a child injured in a car accident. Are they dead or alive? Sometimes a doctor says they're dead, using measures like brain activity, pulse.
How about when they make it to hospital and are on life support? When is it legal to turn off life-support? When doctors and legal guardians say so?
So we could end up with a definition of unborn being something like when a doctor says there is independent, meaningful brain activity, and abortion is legal up to then in the same way as withdrawal of life support - with the permission of the guardian/mother.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Well, no. Art. 40.3.3. doesn't itself make anything illegal.
No, I think this was settled in the X case judgement. One of the grounds for the appeal against the injunction was that there was no law in place banning travel for abortions, but the court ruled that even in the absence of a law, the State and the courts have a duty to defend the right to life of the unborn.
Looking at the ruling yesterday made me ill, so I'm not going quote mining again, but that is what I think it says.0 -
I don't think there's any doubt that the zygote is alive; it's unquestionably alive, if only because it can die. The room for argument is over whether it has the moral and constitutional status of a person.
On reflection, I agree with you that you could at least mount an argument that, if Art 40.3.3 protects the unimplanted zygote, then it affords a basis for a court order to protect the zygote. I suspect, though, a litigant would have a different problem running such a case. Who, apart from the Attorney-General, would have standing to bring the case, that might actually want to bring it?0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »I don't think there's any doubt that the zygote is alive; it's unquestionably alive, if only because it can die. The room for argument is over whether it has the moral and constitutional status of a person.
On reflection, I agree with you that you could at least mount an argument that, if Art 40.3.3 protects the unimplanted zygote, then it affords a basis for a court order to protect the zygote. I suspect, though, a litigant would have a different problem running such a case. Who, apart from the Attorney-General, would have standing to bring the case, that might actually want to bring it?
A woman who wishes to implant a frozen zygote or embryo conceived via artificial means but who's partner has withdrawn consent for the procedure?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement