Abortion Discussion

Absolam

Akrasia wrote: »

Seeing as the vast majority of the objectors to Abortion do so on a religious basis, Why doesn't the RC church enforce their position at home. Excommunicate all women and those who support them, who have travelled abroad to terminate a pregnancy. (hint, the reason is that they know that most people would just tell the RC church to go f*ck themselves)

Alternate hint: They already do. Canon 1398 provides that, "a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication."
They mustn't be too bothered by most people telling them to go f*ck themselves I guess.

Not2Good

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Plenty of people out there who find the beliefs of the church in question on many issues quite offensive.

Maybe so but that does not give the right to anyone to be offensive on boards.ie

Not2Good

Not2Good wrote: »

Maybe so but that does not give the right to anyone to be offensive on boards.ie

Nobody has the right to not be offended.

Offence is as subjective as taste.

Absolam

Morag wrote: »

It would take a pregnant woman being able and willing with the funds to go to court to challenge the law.

Could you explain a little better? For the Supreme Court to rule on the law it would take someone to appeal a ruling of the High Court based on it to the Supreme Court (I think), or for the President to refer it to the Supreme Court for a ruling on its' Constitutionality, but I can't think why the person would have to be a pregnant woman?
Regardless, I think the point I was trying to make was that they could only rule on whether or not the law was Constitutional, not whether or not the law was 'right', or should be changed to something different.

Not2Good

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody has the right to not be offended.

Offence is as subjective as taste.

The rules on boards.ie say that posts should not be offensive etc etc… you have been around long enough to know that

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Has anyone met that pro life atheist? Anyone? Or the gay guy who doesn't think marriage equality is necessary? Apart from yer man wheeled out by Breda O'Brien's son.

If that's a sneaky way of asking me for a date, I'm afraid I'm married.

Not2Good

Not2Good wrote: »

The rules on boards.ie say that posts should not be offensive etc etc… you have been around long enough to know that

I find posts without citation offensive.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

If a Catholic is in favour of abortion the punishment is excommunication.

I don't think the RCC will excommunicate members for being in favour of abortion; just for procuring one.

lazygal wrote: »

IThis is fact. Facts can't be offensive.

Some people are offended by them though....

iwantmydinner

Not2Good wrote: »

The rules on boards.ie say that posts should not be offensive etc etc… you have been around long enough to know that

But, like, what was offensive about the post?

Zubeneschamali

Not2Good wrote: »

And yes I have (pro-life atheist), a good few.

I've never met one.

Tim Robbins is the nearest we've got here, and he's pro-choice in cases of rape, incest FFA.

Absolam

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Foetus ain't a person, though.
Also, seriously, where is your empathy?

Weren't we there already?
Seriously, as I said before, I have huge sympathy and empathy (despite the fact that I can never potentially experience the same thing) for someone who endures pregnancy, never mind an unwanted one, never mind the horrendous complications that can occur. I also have empathy for the foetus. Having empathy for one does not preclude empathy for the other.

PopePalpatine

lazygal wrote: »

Has anyone met that pro life atheist? Anyone? Or the gay guy who doesn't think marriage equality is necessary? Apart from yer man wheeled out by Breda O'Brien's son.

I think the only pro-life atheist that's ever participated in the abortion threads here was sin_city. Surprisingly for an anarchist, he wanted a total ban on abortion.

iwantmydinner

Absolam wrote: »

Weren't we there already?
Seriously, as I said before, I have huge sympathy and empathy (despite the fact that I can never potentially experience the same thing) for someone who endures pregnancy, never mind an unwanted one, never mind the horrendous complications that can occur. I also have empathy for the foetus. Having empathy for one does not preclude empathy for the other.

I'm going to fall foul of the repetition police here but again, I just don't get how this works. How you have more empathy for a non-sentient foetus who will feel no pain and not know what's happening than a living, breathing, traumatised woman or girl. It's not logical.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is very craftily worded, Absolam, kudos, and the answer is no.

Not so craftily worded; it's the question I asked of Lazygal that you answered by saying the Attorney General had already done it. It's not like I trapped you into answering it.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So while the answer to your carefully constructed question is no, the AG did in fact prevent an abortion, defending the right to life of the unborn.

Which is all well and good, but not the point of what would be a practicable way to repeal the right to travel and change the law to stop pregnant women bringing unborn children to be killed in other countries.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, once again, there is no question that it is feasible and practicable, since it already happened and already worked.

But it doesn't answer Lazygals question. Demonstrably, the injunctions the AG obtained were not sufficient to prevent one person travelling; how much less sufficient if there are thousands amongst hundreds of thousands? One of the injunctions he obtained related to an offense that doesn't exist anymore, so that doesn't help at all. And ultimately, since the Supreme Court overturned the High Courts decision to grant the injunctions, the High Court won't grant injunctions on those bases again, knowing them to be wrong in law.

Absolam

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I'm going to fall foul of the repetition police here but again, I just don't get how this works. How you have more empathy for a non-sentient foetus who will feel no pain and not know what's happening than a living, breathing, traumatised woman or girl. It's not logical.

How is empathy logical?
Anyway I didn't say I have more empathy for the foetus. If the mothers life is threatened by the life of foetus, despite my empathy for it, I think the foetus should die. If both lives are endangered, and only one can be saved, despite my empathy for both, the one with the least chance should die. But if one will be traumatised or the other dead, I'd rather one was traumatised (either the woman or the foetus).

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

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 limitation that applies to all personal rights (including the right to life of the mother).

So, in effect the section/s rely on the hands of a surgeon and his/her skills and circumstance to have actual effect.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

So, in effect the section/s rely on the hands of a surgeon and his/her skills and circumstance to have actual effect.

How?

iwantmydinner

Absolam wrote: »

How is empathy logical?
Anyway I didn't say I have more empathy for the foetus. If the mothers life is threatened by the life of foetus, despite my empathy for it, I think the foetus should die. If both lives are endangered, and only one can be saved, despite my empathy for both, the one with the least chance should die. But if one will be traumatised or the other dead, I'd rather one was traumatised (either the woman or the foetus).

I know you know that life doesn't carve up into black and white situations like that.

the_eman

Look twins born younger than abortion limit. Isn't this wonderful?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2752256/Premature-twin-boys-born-ONE-WEEK-abortion-limit-survive-despite-heart-condition-doctors-warning-parents-fear-worst.html

lazygal

the_eman wrote: »

Look twins born younger than abortion limit. Isn't this wonderful?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2752256/Premature-twin-boys-born-ONE-WEEK-abortion-limit-survive-despite-heart-condition-doctors-warning-parents-fear-worst.html

Yes it is. What does that have to do with abortion?

Absolam

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I know you know that life doesn't carve up into black and white situations like that.

It certainly doesn't carve up into you may only have empathy for the foetus or the woman, but not both; that would be a black and white view.
Nor even that you can only give a **** about the woman or about the foetus, but you can't give a **** about both.

Zubeneschamali

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I think the only pro-life atheist that's ever participated in the abortion threads here was sin_city.

Anyone want to bet that every pro-life atheist we can find is male?

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

Which is all well and good, but not the point of what would be a practicable way to repeal the right to travel and change the law to stop pregnant women bringing unborn children to be killed in other countries.

Delete the 13th amendment, return to the unamended 8th amendment, and we are back where we were for the X case, where the attorney general and the courts protected the right to life of the unborn successfully in the case of a raped girl who went to the UK for an abortion.

Which we know is practical and feasible, because it already happened.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Anyone want to bet that every pro-life atheist we can find is male?

How much, and how do you propose to pay?

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

ultimately, since the Supreme Court overturned the High Courts decision to grant the injunctions, the High Court won't grant injunctions on those bases again, knowing them to be wrong in law.

No, as we established long ago, the Supreme Court did not overturn the injunctions based on a right to travel. It overturned the injunctions based on the girls right to an abortion.

That judgement would not apply to any woman whose life was not in danger.

And as we've seen this summer, a bit of pussyfooting by the authorities can delay an abortion in such cases until it is too late, and the we can order a c section instead.

aloyisious

I've been looking at the 1861 offences against the persons act and have to ask this; can a woman have an abortion without first being pregnant? Does being with child mean being pregnant? Check out the "whether she be" piece in line three.

This is from the act: 58. Every Woman, being with Child, who, with Intent to procure her own Miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, and whosoever, with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman, whether she be or be not with Child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, shall be guilty of [an offence], and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ..., to [imprisonment] for Life ....[21]

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

How?

The lawyers, and us, can debate away to our hearts content about the niceties of abortion law, it's the surgeon who has to make the final practical decision on putting the 2013 act and the constitution sections on vindication of right to life into effect.. cut or walk away and let nature take it's course. Nature does not have empathy, the surgeon does his/her best but is not always capable of defeating nature and death. Things are sometimes black and white.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Delete the 13th amendment, return to the unamended 8th amendment, and we are back where we were for the X case, where the attorney general and the courts protected the right to life of the unborn successfully in the case of a raped girl who went to the UK for an abortion. Which we know is practical and feasible, because it already happened.

But as I said, it can't happen again, because one of the injunctions was based on an offense that no longer exist, and the Supreme Court overturned the injunctions, which means the High Court won't grant them again. Even if they hadn't, the apparatus required to decide which travellers to injunct would be enormous, the volume of injunctions required to attempt to prevent people travelling would require it's own court system; and unless you delayed every womans journey significantly she would still have left before the injunction was granted. I'm sure I mentioned most of this directly after the bit you quoted. It was intended to demonstrate the impracticability of such a system, even if could be legal, which it wouldn't be under the terms you proposed.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

How much, and how do you propose to pay?

For those uninclined to click through, Kathryn Reed describes herself as atheist, feminist and prolife.

But she is in favour of legal abortion clinics:

With our society the way it is, with its worship of materialism and its cult of dehumanization and violence, how can anyone deny the need for the abortion clinic? It is there for a reason and will remain there, legal or not, so long as we create or tolerate those conditions which send women running to them as if they were shelters. I say that to work for the illegalization of abortion is to waste energy that should be spent correcting the situations that give rise to the need for abortions.

She is in favour of making abortion unnecessary, not illegal. So she labels herself pro-life, but is not like an Irish pro-lifer.

lazygal

Which is more important, leaving the right to travel to kill the unborn in place or changing the constitution and existing law to stop the unborn being taken out of the country to be killed? Are merely practical difficulties standing in the way of protecting unborn children?