Abortion Discussion

Peregrinus

Is her partner's consent needed? If the area is unregulated?

lazygal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is her partner's consent needed? If the area is unregulated?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1215/125382-embryo/


Case in which a woman wasn't allowed to use frozen embryos once her husband's consent was withdrawn.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are saying we changed the constitution because something which happened was not feasible. Something which actually happened is, by definition, feasible.

Ah; I see. You've mistaken both what I said we could say when the Attorney General gets an injunction, (unless you actually were claiming we all, in actual real fact, really said "no, no - that isn't what we meant, of course it's OK for you to kill the little baby - here's all the info you need on where to go, with a constitutional guarantee! Just don't be poor or have a bad visa, makes us look bad, OK? Off to London with you!", which would demonstrate a serious lack of grip on reality)as well as what I said was not feasible, which I'm afraid was nothing to do with why we changed the constitution, only why we might limit wanting to make abortion illegal in other countries.
Can I upgrade from 'excuse' to 'motive' now? Or do motives have to include the entire nation chanting "no, no"?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, your statement that you think we changed the constitution to remove something which was not feasible is wrong. Untrue. False. Incorrect.

It would certainly be wrong, untrue, false, and incorrect to say I made a statement that I think we we changed the constitution to remove something which was not feasible.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

Do you think that maybe you should have double checked your premise before you started making up your story?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I didn't do my homework because I do not give two sh!ts about Padraig Pearse I was feeling sick.

You obviously didn't put a lot of effort into it...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

But even so it seems a bit of a waste...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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 a bit of a stretch, but at least you know he'll take a dim view of someone wanting to kill someone else, right?

Absolam

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.

Personal Rights
Article 40
3. 3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Since it's included under personal rights, it would seem the 'unborn' refers to a person.

Peregrinus beat me to it. Oh well

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Case in which a woman wasn't allowed to use frozen embryos once her husband's consent was withdrawn.

That pretty much settles that then; an unemplanted zygote is not legally an unborn person with rights.

lazygal wrote: »

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.

So these guys can save themselves some effort (as long as they accept the Supreme Court definition of 'unborn').

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

Can I upgrade from 'excuse' to 'motive' now?

No. When I offered a speculative motivation for the 13th amendment after the X case, you responded with:

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.

Clearly, you were thinking that this is somehow supposed to resemble a motivation for the 13th amendment. The first part of your post is historical (we voted...) and not a motivation for amending what we already voted for. So, if any part of your post is to be a motivation for the change, it is the second part: We do not believe it is feasible...

But the X case showed it was not only feasible to exercise that will in other countries - it was practical. It happened. An unborn's right to life was defended by the state, and no abortion took place.

When Z happens, and we change the constitution so that Z cannot happen again, it is not possible for our motivation to be that we want to change things because Z is not feasible.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No. When I offered a speculative motivation for the 13th amendment after the X case, you responded with:
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.
Clearly, you were thinking that this is somehow supposed to resemble a motivation for the 13th amendment.

Clearly, it's at least as much of a motive as "We all say, no, no - that isn't what we meant, of course it's OK for you to kill the little baby - here's all the info you need on where to go, with a constitutional guarantee! Just don't be poor or have a bad visa, makes us look bad, OK? Off to London with you!"
Actually, I think it's clearly a better motive. I think you're just saying it's an excuse not a motive because you don't like it.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The first part of your post is historical (we voted...) and not a motivation for amending what we already voted for.

I have to admit, I was wondering about that. Do we all say "no, no - that isn't etc etc" every time the Attorney General gets an injunction to actually prevent a "crime", or did you just mix up the tenses?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, if any part of your post is to be a motivation for the change, it is the second part: We do not believe it is feasible...

Why was any part a motivation for the change? Couldn't we have been motivated by the Attorney General getting an injunction to prevent the crime to 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."?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But the X case showed it was not only feasible to exercise that will in other countries - it was practical. It happened. An unborn's right to life was defended by the state, and no abortion took place.

But we didn't exercise any will in another country? The girl and her family returned voluntarily. She wasn't prosecuted for procuring an abortion in another state because she didn't do it, and Hederman (your pal) specifically said (I am paraphrasing, but I'll produce the text if you like) that she couldn't be prosecuted for unlawful termination of pregnancy outside the jurisdiction of the state, and that if the State wanted the law to hold sway in other countries, it would have to legislate for it.
And, on that note, I do not believe it is feasible to determine which of all the women leaving the State are pregnant and to prosecute them on their return if they are no longer pregnant. Do you?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

When Z happens, and we change the constitution so that Z cannot happen again, it is not possible for our motivation to be that we want to change things because Z is not feasible.

Is it possible for our motivation to be that we want to change things because we thought Z was not feasible?

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

That pretty much settles that then; an unemplanted zygote is not legally an unborn person with rights.

It certainly eliminates unimplanted embryos as people, which is a good start, and was enough to dismiss the case in the High Court.

The Supreme Court judgement reads to me as less definite on the subject of implanted embryos. In particular, it says:

It was not for a court of law, faced with divergent views from many disciplines, to pronounce on the truth of when human life began. There was uncertainty or an absence of consensus across the disciplines as to when human life began and the courts did not have at its disposal objective criteria to decide the issue.
2. That the choice as to how life before birth could be best protected and therefore the point which in law that protection should be deemed to commence was a policy choice for the Oireachtas.

The way I read that, if the Oireachteas passed a law stating that an unborn person is one with brain activity, the Supreme Court would accept that as the point at which it gets its right to life.

Peregrinus

No, not necessarily. In the context of the case before them, all they were saying was that it was within the power of the Oireachtas to decide not to take the unimplanted embryo as a human person. It doesn't follow that if the Oireachtas took some other stage of human development as not being a human person that the SC would take the same view. They didn't say anything in the case about the commencement of brain activity being the appropriate (or an appropriate) boundary.

Tim Robbins

swampgas wrote: »

Basically you disapprove of people who have what might be called "on demand" abortions. That doesn't give you the right to demand that they be made illegal. I disapprove of most religions, that doesn't mean I think my opinion should forced onto other people, and that religions should be made illegal. Other adults can make their own minds up about it.

One of the consequences of living in a tolerant society is accepting that other adults may decide to act in a way that they believe to be correct but you do not. Wanting to force people to live by your own morals is not acceptable. You can try to persuade, within reason - for example, we try to persuade people to drink less, for health reasons, but we don't just ban booze.

One of principles of a tolerant society is you stand up for the weak and the underdog. In this instance, that means the fetus, unborn child.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, not necessarily. In the context of the case before them, all they were saying was that it was within the power of the Oireachtas to decide not to take the unimplanted embryo as a human person. It doesn't follow that if the Oireachtas took some other stage of human development as not being a human person that the SC would take the same view. They didn't say anything in the case about the commencement of brain activity being the appropriate (or an appropriate) boundary.

No, that makes no sense. They ruled that an unimplanted embryo was definitely not protected by the 40.3.3:

That the purpose of Article 40.3.3° was to protect the legal position created in Ireland by s. 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which described abortion as the procuring of a miscarriage. As there could be no miscarriage without carriage, “the unborn” referred to a child in the womb not yet born and the State protection of an embryo only arose after implantation.

If the Oireachtas is able to declare that human life begins at fertilization and that zygotes are protected as persons under article 40.3.1 and 40.3.2 then 40.3.3 is meaningless.

So the policy question for the Oireachtas of when human life begins must clearly be after implantation.

Zubeneschamali

Tim Robbins wrote: »

One of principles of a tolerant society is you stand up for the weak and the underdog. In this instance, that means the fetus, unborn child.

And not the raped immigrant girl.

Morag

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.

Unborn as mentioned in the 1983 amendment was only legally defined last year in the Protection of life in Pregnancy Act, as an implanted embryo.

So an implanted embryo's right to life trumps all the rights of the person it has implanted in bar their right to life and right to travel.

aloyisious

How many people here accept that the words "as far as practicable" state (in effect) that there is a clear difference in law between the status of "the unborn" and that of the woman, and that the unborn does not therefore have the same full guarantee the woman has?

Article 40 (section 3) of the Constitution: 3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Morag

aloyisious wrote: »

How many people here accept that the words "as far as practicable" state (in effect) that there is a clear difference in law between the status of "the unborn" and that of the woman, and that the unborn does not therefore have the same full guarantee the woman has?

Article 40 (section 3) of the Constitution: 3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

right to life, not to health physical or mental health, never mind choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Once an embryo implants the high court can negate all the rights of the person it is implanted in bar right to life and to travel.

This get used to remove the right to consent to medical treatment in maternity serives.

Mairead Enright from lawyers from choice spoke about the the need to remove the 8th last saturday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5VGKUbqVP8

iwantmydinner

After all these words (So. Many. Words.), I really still don't understand the mindset that thinks it's preferable for society to force women and girls who are unwilling or unable to be pregnant or become mothers to just go ahead and remain pregnant and become mothers, regardless of any and all considerations outside of imminent death. It makes no sense. What does it actually achieve?

lazygal

iwantmydinner wrote: »

After all these words (So. Many. Words.), I really still don't understand the mindset that thinks it's preferable for society to force women and girls who are unwilling or unable to be pregnant or become mothers to just go ahead and remain pregnant and become mothers, regardless of any and all considerations outside of imminent death. It makes no sense. What does it actually achieve?

Its better than a foetus not getting the right to life, it seems. I mean, I don't see why I should stay pregnant unless I want to, but others think they know better.

I still find it laughable that despite all the concern for the unborn not one person posting on here wants the right to travel repealed or the law changed to stop pregnant women bringing unborn children, who are supposed to have constitutional protection and the right to life of whom the state is supposed to vindicate, to be killed in other countries. Surely the right to life is more important than some legal difficulties which can be surmounted as in other cases when offences committed in another country can be dealt with here?

Zubeneschamali

iwantmydinner wrote: »

It makes no sense. What does it actually achieve?

Ryanair sell a few thousand extra tickets, so it doesn't even preserve any unborn lives.

But some folks get to pretend Ireland is still Holy and Catholic, which apparently matters to them.

aloyisious

iwantmydinner wrote: »

After all these words (So. Many. Words.), I really still don't understand the mindset that thinks it's preferable for society to force women and girls who are unwilling or unable to be pregnant or become mothers to just go ahead and remain pregnant and become mothers, regardless of any and all considerations outside of imminent death. It makes no sense. What does it actually achieve?

Nothing, except (possibly) a good nights sleep for those who believe their choice to deny the right of choice to a pregnant woman seeking an abortion is good, regardless of the risk and dangers their actions create for the woman.

aloyisious

Morag wrote: »

right to life, not to health physical or mental health, never mind choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Once an embryo implants the high court can negate all the rights of the person it is implanted in bar right to life and to travel.

This get used to remove the right to consent to medical treatment in maternity serives.

Mairead Enright from lawyers from choice spoke about the the need to remove the 8th last saturday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5VGKUbqVP8

I was going to ask, in my post, who's rights were being vindicated in the section where it referred to "by its laws to defend and vindicate that right" but thought the question would be laughed at as being facile. The section refers to both the right of the mother and the unborn.

The way the video play's show's that words can mean two different things in a court, that when it come's to a fetus in a woman's womb, as against a woman, the emotional thought-patterns in the judges minds are played upon to get a decision against the best and desired interests of the pregnant woman.

The wording of the 2013 act is designed to act against the best interests of the pregnant woman and in favour of the fetus in her womb, while sounding so fair and weighted in favour of the woman, allowing the medical profession to interpret the act in whatever way they choose. The medics have now even got the impramatur of the courts on their right to interpret the act as they see fit (the drip-feed decision) even if the courts would not like to see it in that light. I reckon that it may well take the loss of another woman's life before the courts are forced to damn and deny the medics the right to procrastinate over a woman's body.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

How many people here accept that the words "as far as practicable" state (in effect) that there is a clear difference in law between the status of "the unborn" and that of the woman, and that the unborn does not therefore have the same full guarantee the woman has?

No, I don't think that's correct.

Art. 40.3.3 explicitly refers to the right to life of the unborn and "the equal right to life of the mother". When the constitution specifically says that the rights are equal, it's hard to argue that it accords the a different status as regards protection and vindication.

Yes, the duty to defend and vindicate the right to live of the unborn is qualifed in Art. 40.3.3. by the words "so far as practicable". But in Art. 40.3.1 the state's duty to defend and vindicate all the personal rights is similarly qualified. Art. 40.3.3. doesn't create a special limitation for the right to life of the unborn; it replicates the explicit limiation that applies to all personal rights (including the right to life of the mother).

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Supreme Court judgement reads to me as less definite on the subject of implanted embryos. In particular, it says:

It was not for a court of law, faced with divergent views from many disciplines, to pronounce on the truth of when human life began. There was uncertainty or an absence of consensus across the disciplines as to when human life began and the courts did not have at its disposal objective criteria to decide the issue.
2. That the choice as to how life before birth could be best protected and therefore the point which in law that protection should be deemed to commence was a policy choice for the Oireachtas.

The way I read that, if the Oireachteas passed a law stating that an unborn person is one with brain activity, the Supreme Court would accept that as the point at which it gets its right to life.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, not necessarily. In the context of the case before them, all they were saying was that it was within the power of the Oireachtas to decide not to take the unimplanted embryo as a human person. It doesn't follow that if the Oireachtas took some other stage of human development as not being a human person that the SC would take the same view. They didn't say anything in the case about the commencement of brain activity being the appropriate (or an appropriate) boundary.

Is it not the case that once the Oireachteas passes a piece of legislation, the only view the Supreme Court can take is whether the legislation is constitutional or not? If the Oireachtas passed legislation defining the 'unborn' as life beginning at x, then unless it is specifically contrary to an expression in the Constitution (and there's obviously some issues with ensuring compliance with the literal/specific translation of the definitive Irish 'na mbeo gan breith' which would have to absolutely be complied with), the Supreme Court is not (I think?) empowered to deem the legislation wrong, as such, or to make a ruling contrary to the legislation.

aloyisious wrote: »

How many people here accept that the words "as far as practicable" state (in effect) that there is a clear difference in law between the status of "the unborn" and that of the woman, and that the unborn does not therefore have the same full guarantee the woman has?
Article 40 (section 3) of the Constitution: 3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

I think it states that if act(s) that could be deemed necessary in order to defend and vindicate the unborns right to life can not be effected successfully, then the State is not required to undertake them.
For instance the example that has come up a few times so far; examining every woman of child bearing age that attempts to leave the State to determine if she is pregnant and then ascertaining if the pregnant ones are in fact actually going to have an abortion would not be practicable, so, even in the absence of a protection of the right to travel, the State could not be obliged to undertake such an action.

iwantmydinner wrote: »

After all these words (So. Many. Words.), I really still don't understand the mindset that thinks it's preferable for society to force women and girls who are unwilling or unable to be pregnant or become mothers to just go ahead and remain pregnant and become mothers, regardless of any and all considerations outside of imminent death. It makes no sense. What does it actually achieve?

It achieves the life of the unborn who would otherwise be killed? Zubeneschamali obviously thinks otherwise:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ryanair sell a few thousand extra tickets, so it doesn't even preserve any unborn lives. But some folks get to pretend Ireland is still Holy and Catholic, which apparently matters to them.

But I don't think there's any data that shows that every person who would have had an abortion in Ireland had the facility been available has gone abroad and had one instead. Simple economics, per Zubeneschamalis point would indicate at very least there are some people who can't afford to go abroad for abortions, so at a minimum, those unborn lives have been preserved.

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

Is it not the case that once the Oireachteas passes a piece of legislation, the only view the Supreme Court can take is whether the legislation is constitutional or not? If the Oireachtas passed legislation defining the 'unborn' as life beginning at x, then unless it is specifically contrary to an expression in the Constitution (and there's obviously some issues with ensuring compliance with the literal/specific translation of the definitive Irish 'na mbeo gan breith' which would have to absolutely be complied with), the Supreme Court is not (I think?) empowered to deem the legislation wrong, as such, or to make a ruling contrary to the legislation.

No, it's not as mechanical as that.

If, for instance, the Oireachtas passed a law saying that the foetus was classed as "unborn" from week 24, and prior to that date abortion could be had on demand, or on broad or relaxed grounds, I have no doubt that the Supreme Court would strike that down as a transparent attempt to evade the requirements of Art 40.3.3.

There are limits on what the Oireachtas can do in this regard; all we can say with confidence is that the Oireachtas does not transgress those limits by not classing a pre-implantation zygote among "the unborn".

And, to be honest, I'm not convinced that the Oireachtas could push this much further along than they already had. It's clear that, in determining who the "unborn" are, the Supreme Court was ready to look and the legal and statutory situation when Art 40.3.3 was enacted by the people. And, at that time, implantation was the dividing line between measures forbidden by teh Offences against the Person Act and measures not so forbidden. I think an attempt to push it out to twelve or 24 weeks would be very dodgy, to be honest. The Supreme Court would probably take the view that, if that's what you want, you should be going to the people and promoting a referendum to accommodate it.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

I still find it laughable that despite all the concern for the unborn not one person posting on here wants the right to travel repealed or the law changed to stop pregnant women bringing unborn children, who are supposed to have constitutional protection and the right to life of whom the state is supposed to vindicate, to be killed in other countries. Surely the right to life is more important than some legal difficulties which can be surmounted as in other cases when offences committed in another country can be dealt with here?

Given the number of times you've posted this, I'm guessing you have given it a great deal of thought. Have you thought of a practicable way to prevent women from travelling aboard to have abortions, or a practicable way to determine if women entering the country have ever had an abortion?

Absolam

Peregrinus wrote: »

If, for instance, the Oireachtas passed a law saying that the foetus was classed as "unborn" from week 24, and prior to that date abortion could be had on demand, or on broad or relaxed grounds, I have no doubt that the Supreme Court would strike that down as a transparent attempt to evade the requirements of Art 40.3.3.

In which case they would be saying that the law was unconstitutional.
If, however, the definition offered in the law could not be considered to exclude any realistic interpretation of na mbeo gan breith, then that (aspect of the) law could not be considered unconstitutional. Without the option of unconstitutionality, I think the SC cannot dispute or overrule a law made by the Oireachteas, is the point I'm trying to make.

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

Given the number of times you've posted this, I'm guessing you have given it a great deal of thought. Have you thought of a practicable way to prevent women from travelling aboard to have abortions, or a practicable way to determine if women entering the country have ever had an abortion?

I haven't but maybe those concerned about the unborn would have some ideas about how to prevent the unborn being taken outside the country to be killed. I'm sure given unborn lives are at stake which trump pregnant women's feelings and health, there's something that could be done.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

I haven't but maybe those concerned about the unborn would have some ideas about how to prevent the unborn being taken outside the country to be killed. I'm sure given unborn lives are at stake which trump pregnant women's feelings and health, there's something that could be done.

If you're sure of it, what is it you're sure can be done?

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

But I don't think there's any data that shows that every person who would have had an abortion in Ireland had the facility been available has gone abroad and had one instead.

Yes, I noted earlier that poor raped immigrants can't travel to England. There are certainly other women who are too poor, too young, are in prison or a psychiatric institution, have some level of intellectual disability or are victims of domestic abuse who also can't travel.

These are, of course, the women least able to handle having a child, but they are forced to have them by the State, while middle class women get abortion on demand for €1000. It's a great little system.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Supreme Court would probably take the view that, if that's what you want, you should be going to the people and promoting a referendum to accommodate it.

Having followed the thread to this point, I would now agree. Article 40.3.3 has to go.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

If you're sure of it, what is it you're sure can be done?

We already know: the Attorney General already did it once. It worked.

Stop pretending this has not already been pointed out.