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
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »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.
So she's pretty much like most pro choice people here.0 -
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.
Still wrong. It was done, therefore it is feasible and practicable. If we remove the 13th amendment, it could be done today.
Obviously the offense has changed, but abortion is still illegal, in fact more so, with a possible 14 year jail term for the mother.
And the (theoretical) right to an abortion in the case the mothers life is threatened here in Ireland means that is no longer an excuse to travel to England for an abortion.0 -
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.
Please don't think that silliness can be unlearned.0 -
Not necessarily. There are a couple of easy wins that spring to mind... A woman who finds out form her doctor that she is pregnant and then the next time the doctor sees her she is not pregnant, but there is no record of a miscarriage. Another would be a woman that has to seek medical attention after complications following an abortion. Can't see any problem with reasonable doubt there... Do you?I suspect the 'assuming one found out what they did' would be the impracticable bit. Followed by proving it beyond a reasonable doubt, I suspect.
Well there would have to be a change or addition as the current homicide offences require that a person is killed, and whilst you believe abortion kills a person the law does not. So I am assuming, based on what you believe you would want a new homicide offence relating to the unlawful killing of unborn persons. No?I don't know. Why would you propose changing from the existing offence of destruction of unborn life? Are you contemplating killing of a person being a new offence, or added in some way to the existing homicide offences?
I would not have such an offence, I think it is ridiculous, I am working on the assumption that, given your beliefs, you think their should be. I legal terms, I don't think there is a limitation on unlawful killing.So you would have an offence which was in practical terms limited to some potential detection in women presenting for medical treatment following an abortion?
My point there was, if a woman is pregnant and then she is suddenly not pregnant and she has not had a misscarriage, it should be fairly obvious what happened. Regardless, states obtain evidence for crimes from other states on a daily basis. What makes you think it would actually be difficult?That seems unlikely? How would you obtain evidence from another jurisdiction? The only evidence you would (potentially) have would be the aftereffects of the complication. Could it be distinguished from the result of an accident, say, or the side effect of a necessary procedure?
MrP0 -
Did we establish that? Maybe you can point out where?Zubeneschamali wrote: »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.
Regardless, I didn't say that the High Court couldn't recreate the injunctions because of why the Supreme Court discharged them, I said it couldn't recreate them because the Supreme Court discharged them.
The Supreme Court judgement applied to the appeal of the specific judgement of the High Court. But future High Court judgements must take account of previous Supreme Court judgements; if they believed an injunction would be treated in the same way by the Supreme Court they wouldn't grant it. However, since it was deemed necessary to copper fasten the prohibition of such an injunction in the Constitution, I'll agree that it was envisioned that it might be attempted.Zubeneschamali wrote: »That judgement would not apply to any woman whose life was not in danger.
Didn't we see that the authorities acted quickly once they were aware of the situation? I'm sure the timeline that was posted had it down to a few days?Zubeneschamali wrote: »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.
No, I mean in what way does that particular clause particularly invoke a surgeon?aloyisious wrote: »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.
The clause doesn't enjoin any citizen to defend and vindicate the rights of the unborn, only the State itself.
So, like those of us on this thread who self identify as pro life, the pro-choice element can tell her she's not actually pro life because she doesn't conform to the right definition? Is there something bizarrely ironic about someone pro choice not allowing someone else to choose what they're called?Zubeneschamali wrote: »For those uninclined to click through, Kathryn Reed describes herself as atheist, feminist and prolife.
But she is in favour of legal abortion clinics:She is in favour of making abortion unnecessary, not illegal. So she labels herself pro-life, but is not like an Irish pro-lifer.
I knew you'd try and wriggle out of the bet anyway.... it's almost like you had no-choice.
A law must be practicable or it may as well not be a law, just a statement of aspiration. If it's impossible to enforce it, what's the point in having it?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?0 -
Advertisement
-
So, like those of us on this thread who self identify as pro life, the pro-choice element can tell her she's not actually pro life because she doesn't conform to the right definition? Is there something bizarrely ironic about someone pro choice not allowing someone else to choose what they're called?
I knew you'd try and wriggle out of the bet anyway.... it's almost like you had no-choice.
Are the pairings "Pro Choice" and "Pro Life" black and white opposites?0 -
So, like those of us on this thread who self identify as pro life, the pro-choice element can tell her she's not actually pro life because she doesn't conform to the right definition?
How many Irish pro-lifers are in favour of legal abortion? I'd have thought that was kind of a disqualification from the movement...0 -
Really? How many people do you estimate would be assessed for potential injunction tomorrow? How many injunctions would be processed through the courts? And how many people would be prevented from travelling?Zubeneschamali wrote: »Still wrong. It was done, therefore it is feasible and practicable. If we remove the 13th amendment, it could be done today.
Well, if the offense has changed it is neither feasible nor practicable to to take out the injunction that 'was done'. Even if you remove the 13th amendment, you must recreate the offense in law for it to become feasible and practicable to obtain an injunction against someone from doing it.Zubeneschamali wrote: »Obviously the offense has changed, but abortion is still illegal, in fact more so, with a possible 14 year jail term for the mother.
Since that right has pertained since the 80s, it hasn't been a reason to travel to England for an abortion for decades. As for what having an abortion might be an excuse for doing, I've no idea... sightseeing? shopping? Seems unlikely...Zubeneschamali wrote: »And the (theoretical) right to an abortion in the case the mothers life is threatened here in Ireland means that is no longer an excuse to travel to England for an abortion.Deleted User wrote: »Are the pairings "Pro Choice" and "Pro Life" black and white opposites?
Personally I don't think so, but so far a few posters on the thread who said they are pro life have been told that the views they espouse mean they are actually pro choice really. They just can't have a choice about what they call themselves apparently.
Well, yes. The fact that the doctor hasn't recorded a miscarriage doesn't necessarily mean there wasn't one. Medical complications following an abortion might also be complications for another reason. So there are some reasonable doubts, before you even get to the fact that the doctor will face issues such as the employers in the previous example.Not necessarily. There are a couple of easy wins that spring to mind... A woman who finds out form her doctor that she is pregnant and then the next time the doctor sees her she is not pregnant, but there is no record of a miscarriage. Another would be a woman that has to seek medical attention after complications following an abortion. Can't see any problem with reasonable doubt there... Do you?
Well, the constitutional term 'unborn' acknowledges personhood, and the destruction of the unborn is an offense, so I don't the law needs any change just to address my sensibilities.Well there would have to be a change or addition as the current homicide offences require that a person is killed, and whilst you believe abortion kills a person the law does not.
Nope, personally I'm good.So I am assuming, based on what you believe you would want a new homicide offence relating to the unlawful killing of unborn persons. No?
So we agree that idea is ridiculous.I would not have such an offence, I think it is ridiculous, I am working on the assumption that, given your beliefs, you think their should be. I legal terms, I don't think there is a limitation on unlawful killing.
But 'should be fairly obvious' isn't a very sound basis for a legal procedure. Beyond reasonable doubt works at lot better for criminal acts, and the possibility that someone may have noticed that someone who appeared to be pregnant no longer appears to be pregnant doesn't seem to rise to that level?My point there was, if a woman is pregnant and then she is suddenly not pregnant and she has not had a misscarriage, it should be fairly obvious what happened.
The fact that in those cases they are considered to be crimes on both states and carefully constructed agreements and structures have been put in place to control the sharing of that evidence. What reason does a state which permits abortion have to share information about abortions with a state that prohibits abortion? I can think of a few reasons why it would be more than disinclined to share it; the fact that it opens its' own citizens up to prosecution for acts that are not only legal but taxable in its own view would probably feature quite highly.Regardless, states obtain evidence for crimes from other states on a daily basis. What makes you think it would actually be difficult?
Oh, I don't think the High Court is silly. And if they ever are, we have the Supreme Court to set them straight.aloyisious wrote: »Please don't think that silliness can be unlearned.
Is this going to be like Mormonism where we all get converted without knowing about it, and suddenly we're all pro-choice and everything magically changes? I don't think it's likely to work...Zubeneschamali wrote: »How many Irish pro-lifers are in favour of legal abortion? I'd have thought that was kind of a disqualification from the movement...0 -
How? Catholics oppose all abortion unless there is a risk to the life of the mother. If a Catholic is in favour of abortion the punishment is excommunication. This is fact. Facts can't be offensive.
Not all Catholics!
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/0 -
My point there was, if a woman is pregnant and then she is suddenly not pregnant and she has not had a misscarriage, it should be fairly obvious what happened. Regardless, states obtain evidence for crimes from other states on a daily basis. What makes you think it would actually be difficult?
MrP
If a woman uses the abortion pills there is no way by medical examination or any sort of medical test to tell if she naturally miscarried or if it was an medically induced miscarriage, ie a medical abortion.0 -
Advertisement
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »
She is in favour of making abortion unnecessary, not illegal. So she labels herself pro-life, but is not like an Irish pro-lifer.
I would love for abortion to be unnecessary, that every conception was a wanted one and that there would never be any medical complications or underlying medical conditions which would mean a pregnancy becomes a threat to a woman's life or health, and that fetal fatal abnormalities would never happen.
Alas I don't have a magic wand, so abortion will always be necessary, and so it should be, free, safe, legal and with local access.0 -
aloyisious wrote: »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]
That act no longer applies, it was replaced by the protection of life in pregnancy act.0 -
That act no longer applies, it was replaced by the protection of life in pregnancy act.
Is that correct? It was my understanding that both apply, the 1861 OATP act which bans abortions, and the Protection of Life in pregnancy Act which nevertheless allows it in certain circumstances due to the constitutional amendments since the OATP Act?0 -
The 1861 act is no longer in effect, the Protection of Life during pregnancy replaces it.
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2013/a3513.pdfRepeals
5
.
Sections 58 and 59 of the
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 are hereby repealed
section 22 of which statesDestruction of unborn human life
22
.
(1)
It shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life.
(2)
A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on indictment to
a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, or both.
(3)
A prosecution for an offence under this section may be brought only by or with the
consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Offence by body corporate
23
.
(1)
Where an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate and it is proved
that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance, or was attributable to
any wilful neglect, of a person who was a director, manager, secretary or other officer
of the body corporate, or a person purporting to act in that capacity, that person, as
well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of an offence and may be proceeded against
and punished as if he or she were guilty of the first-mentioned offence.
(2)
Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection
(1)
applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his or her
functions of management as if he or she were a director or manager of the body
corporate
So there was an option to decriminalise and remove the moralising and chilling effect on medical personal, but instead they codified 14 years possible jail sentence, twice that for rape or sexual child abuse.0 -
Not true, there are many other objectors for moral and ethical reasons who are agnostic or atheist
Like whom for example?
People who identify as atheist or agnostic in the main are more likely than strongly religious to have a developed enough morality to realise that no matter your personal beliefs imposing them on others is wrong (now, fortuately in Ireland and most western countries that thinking is in a majority of religious and arreligious).0 -
I too would love that every child that is born is a wanted one and that they would never do anything to drive up their parent's blood pressure or cost them roughly 100 grand until the 'fly the nest'.I would love for abortion to be unnecessary, that every conception was a wanted one and that there would never be any medical complications or underlying medical conditions which would mean a pregnancy becomes a threat to a woman's life or health, and that fetal fatal abnormalities would never happen.
Alas I don't have a magic wand, so abortion will always be necessary, and so it should be, free, safe, legal and with local access.
I too would love if every child had no medical issues and that abnormalities would never occur to them.
I don't have a magic wand either ... but I certainly don't propose that we should start allowing parents to legally kill children ... who have these issues.
I also don't think that you would propose death as the solution to problems with born children ... so why do you think it is ethically acceptable to kill unborn 'problem' children ?0 -
Because to me an embryo even an implanted one is not a child.
Because I do not think it is right to force any person to continue a pregnancy they do not want.
Because it is hard enough to carry a healthy pregnancy to term and endure the birth, and it is unfair to demand that those with pregnancies which have a fetal fatal abnormalities continue the pregnancies.0 -
It is a child both technically and legally. In general, it creates far less problems and stress for it's mother than a born child ... it stays quietly in the mother's uterus ... but when it is born it cries for attention, produces copious dirty nappies and costs a small fortune to clothe, feed and educate for the best part of 30 years.Because to me an embryo even an implanted one is not a child.
Ethics forces all of us to do things that may be inconvenient or costly in time and money. We are all 'forced' (to borrow your phrase) to look after children in our care ... so why shouldn't somebody be 'forced' (if they're not already willing anyway) to look after unborn children in their care?Because I do not think it is right to force any person to continue a pregnancy they do not want.
Born children can be much harder work ... than unborn children. Ask any mother (or father) with two demanding young children hanging out of them and generally doing what children do best ... exercising pester power to infinity and beyond.Because it is hard enough to carry a healthy pregnancy to term and endure the birth, and it is unfair to demand that those with pregnancies which have a fetal fatal abnormalities continue the pregnancies.
When my wife was pregnant with our first-born everything was peace and harmony ... and he 'burst' onto the scene with all of the energy of a tornado and gave us months of sleepless nights and heart stopping moments with the antics he got up to, if you took your eyes off him for a split second. Of course we love him to bits ... but please don't tell me that a (healthy) pregnancy is somehow much more difficult than parenting born children.
Equally, why is killing unborn children with 'foetal abnormalities' any more ethically acceptable than killing born children with such problems?0 -
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
You seem to ignore that even this Daily Mail article mentioned that the doctors warned the parents to "fear the worst" for their twins. They were discharged 17 weeks after birth, which would have been around the time they should have been born.
If born at 23 weeks, a newborn has approximately a 25-30% chance of surviving. And this is before we get to the various afflictions the aforementioned newborn may fall victim to due to their premature birth.0 -
It is a child both technically and legally.
Nope you have to be born to have the rights of being a child legally applied, that is why legally we have the term unborn.In general, it creates far less problems and stress for it's mother than a born child ... it stays quietly in the mother's uterus
Only if the pregnancy is an uncomplicated one and only if it does not cause new or exacerbates existing medical conditions.... so why shouldn't somebody be 'forced' (if they're not already willing anyway) to look after unborn children in their care?
You really think women who do not want to be pregnant should just shut up and suffer the rigours of pregnancy and the impact on their physical and mental health?When my wife was pregnant with our first-born everything was peace and harmony ... and he 'burst' onto the scene with all of the energy of a tornado and gave us months of sleepless nights and heart stopping moments with the antics he got up to, if you took your eyes off him for a split second. Of course we love him to bits ... but please don't tell me that a (healthy) pregnancy is somehow much more difficult than parenting born children.
I also have children, a new born can be taken care of by someone else, you can get some rest, some respite, that is not possible with a pregnancy.Equally, why is killing unborn children with 'foetal abnormalities' any more ethically acceptable than killing born children with such problems?
Because of the suffering of the woman carrying the pregnancy.0 -
Advertisement
-
... so its 25% survival in a C section versus 0% in an abortion performed at 23 weeks ...PopePalpatine wrote: »You seem to ignore that even this Daily Mail article mentioned that the doctors warned the parents to "fear the worst" for their twins. They were discharged 17 weeks after birth, which would have been around the time they should have been born.
If born at 23 weeks, a newborn has approximately a 25-30% chance of surviving. And this is before we get to the various afflictions the aforementioned newborn may fall victim to due to their premature birth.
... if I were such a baby, I'd take my chances on the C section ... or I'd ask (politely) for a few more weeks 'inside' if at all possible ...
... and then she can 'let me out' to share the great wide world with her, if she is willing ... or with somebody else, if she isn't.0 -
If the foetus is a child I'd like to apply for my 9 months backdated child benefit so.0
-
Common sense grants us the right to life from the moment of conception ... and where we have legally procured abortion services, this right is extinguished by positive law (and even then, only in strictly defined circumstances).Nope you have to be born to have the rights of being a child legally applied, that is why legally we have the term unborn.
That's the vast majority of pregnancies anyway.Only if the pregnancy is an uncomplicated one and only if it does not cause new or exacerbates existing medical conditions.
It's true about everything in life that problems can arise ... and when they do, we don't all rush to kill the person causing the problem ... we find reasonable ways around the problem ... and we use reasonable strategies to avoid the problem in the future.
I think it's a matter of degree here ... the 'rigours of pregnancy' and a few stretch marks for the mother, in many cases, versus the very life of the young woman she is carrying in utero.You really think women who do not want to be pregnant should just shut up and suffer the rigours of pregnancy and the impact on their physical and mental health?
Now, please tell me which woman should shut up and suffer in this situation?
Unless you're one of those women who works right up to delivery, it is eminently possible (and indeed advisable) to put your feet up and rest and relax during your pregnancy ... if for no other reason than you will need all of the energy you can muster after the birth.:)I also have children, a new born can be taken care of by someone else, you can get some rest, some respite, that is not possible with a pregnancy.
That's when your 'significant other' really needs to start pulling their weight ... and proving that they're not just great in bed ... but around the house as well !!
Pregnancy can undoubtedly be stressful (and especially if all is not right with the child) ... but we can't just go and kill the child to relieve the stress.Because of the suffering of the woman carrying the pregnancy.0 -
You'll have as much success with that, as applying for child benefit for your 18 year-old child ... who has just started to really cost you money ... in College.:Dkrankykitty wrote: »If the foetus is a child I'd like to apply for my 9 months backdated child benefit so.0 -
Common sense (and therefore common law) grants us the right to life from the moment of conception
A right to life, yes but not the same rights as a child.That's the vast majority of pregnancies anyway.
It's true about everything in life that problems can arise ... and when they do, we don't all rush to kill the person causing the problem ... we find reasonable ways around the problem ... and we use reasonable strategies to avoid the problem in the future.
There is no way to legislate for problems as they arise, which is why it should be a health care issue.
Also no form of contraception is 100% and even the most effective can not be used by all women.
I think the abortion pill is a reasonable strategyI think it's a matter of degree here ... the 'rigours of pregnancy' and a few stretch marks for the mother, in many cases, versus the very life of the young woman she is carrying in utero.
It is much more then stretch marks, it can range from death to issues which will impact on a woman's health and quality of life for the rest of her life.Unless you're one of those women who works right up to delivery, it is eminently possible (and indeed advisable) to put your feet up and rest and relax during your pregnancy ... if for no other reason than you will need all of the energy you can muster after the birth.:)
Hard to do if you have chronic morning sickness, bloody pressure issues, other children, special needs children, are a carer for another adult dependant, have chronic health issues already or ones which are discovered during pregnancy.
Again you are painting a very idyllic picture of pregnancy.Pregnancy can undoubtedly be stressful ... but so are many other things in life ... and we can't just go out and kill somebody to relieve the stress.
Stressful enough that women who are pregnant and do not want to be will resort to illegal measures and in some cases desperate measures putting their health in danger or will commit suicide due to being pregnant against their wishes.
I would rather the abortion pill be legalised then women resorting to measure which can damage their health and ability to carry another pregnancy later in life should they wish to do so.
Also the notion that having an abortion esp one done with the abortion pill before 9 weeks which is the majority of abortions world wide is the same as killing an infant, a child or an adult human is frankly preposterous and an argument I reject utterly.0 -
PopePalpatine wrote: »You seem to ignore that even this Daily Mail article mentioned that the doctors warned the parents to "fear the worst" for their twins. They were discharged 17 weeks after birth, which would have been around the time they should have been born.
If born at 23 weeks, a newborn has approximately a 25-30% chance of surviving. And this is before we get to the various afflictions the aforementioned newborn may fall victim to due to their premature birth.
These babies when born at 23 weeks were alive and were children, thus killing a fetus at 23 weeks is murder. Maybe many of these figures are wrong driven by a pro-choice and no doubt secular lobby.0 -
These babies when born at 23 weeks were alive and were children, thus killing a fetus at 23 weeks is murder. Maybe many of these figures are wrong driven by a pro-choice and no doubt secular lobby.
No those are the figures released by medical professionals.
I do have qualms about those sort of cases, again they are very rare, less then 1% of all abortions carried out by BPAS, it makes me very concerned as to why the woman was so far along by the time she had the procedure,
Was it money?
Was it not being able to travel?
Was it not being able to access healthcare sooner?
Was it not being able to get childcare?
Was it not being able to get time off work?
Was it being in an abusive relationship?
Was it a case of fatal fetal abnormalities?
Was it a case that there are mental health issues?
Was it a case that there are addiction issues?
All of these are factors as to why women present later for abortions, and all the more reasons that women have access to abortion services as soon as possible.0 -
These babies when born at 23 weeks were alive and were children, thus killing a fetus at 23 weeks is murder. Maybe many of these figures are wrong driven by a pro-choice and no doubt secular lobby.
The figure is derived from three sources, two of which are in medical journals and the other from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I've already pointed out that even if a baby survives after being born at 23 weeks, it still faces the risk of serious disabilities. According to the NHS's latest statistics, only 2% of all abortions are performed after 20 weeks, almost exclusively due to the risk to the health and/or life of the mother or because the baby will suffer a serious handicap - which can even be fatal, e.g. in the case of anencephaly, where the brain is pretty much non-existent.0 -
I think it's a matter of degree here ... the 'rigours of pregnancy' and a few stretch marks for the mother, in many cases, versus the very life of the young woman she is carrying in utero.
I think you are being a bit naive or flippant about the effect pregnancy can have on a woman's health and wellbeing. my very much wanted pregnancy was very often hell on earth due to very severe pain and partial disability that was caused 100% by pregnancy. I cannot imagine what it would have been like going through that pregnancy if I had not wanted to have a baby. Its frankly insulting to women to throw that stretch marks comment out there.0 -
Advertisement
-
Did we establish that? Maybe you can point out where?
This tactic of phrasing everything as a question? As though you are a valley girl? So that later you can say you never said that? You were just asking questions? You know it makes you seem really juvenile? Like a school debate team plonker? See how I didn't insult you? I just asked a question? Irritating, isn't it?Regardless, I didn't say that the High Court couldn't recreate the injunctions because of why the Supreme Court discharged them, I said it couldn't recreate them because the Supreme Court discharged them.
I would imagine that the AG would apply for a new injunction, rather than ask for the same injunction again.If they believed an injunction would be treated in the same way by the Supreme Court they wouldn't grant it.
On the other hand, if they read the judgement, they'd know why the supreme court treated it that way. Just as you do, even though you pretend not to.A law must be practicable or it may as well not be a law, just a statement of aspiration. If it's impossible to enforce it, what's the point in having it?
Very nice. Utterly irrelevant, since the law was invoked in the x case and proven to be practicable since the ag prevented an abortion.
You are in favour of preventing abortions, right?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement