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
-
krankykitty wrote: »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.
My sister was born in 1981 at 26 weeks gestation. My younger brother was 7 months old at the time, I was 22 months old.
My sister had CP diagnosed at 2 years old, probably due to traumatic delivery and early gestation so my mum had three children under 5, the youngest being severely physically disabled.
Mam could've died from haemorrhaging during labour. I remember her being depressed throughout my childhood, she sought help but was referred for ECT and didn't want it so she struggled on. She did struggle. She didn't complain but she struggled and we did too for a good while.0 -
secular
You say that word as if it were an evil thing. It is not. It keeps religious bigots and tyrants from persecuting you for your beliefs (of course it keeps you from persecuting the rest of us hence your hatred for it).My sister was born in 1981 at 26 weeks gestation. My younger brother was 7 months old at the time, I was 22 months old.
My sister had CP diagnosed at 2 years old, probably due to traumatic delivery and early gestation so my mum had three children under 5, the youngest being severely physically disabled.
Mam could've died from haemorrhaging during labour. I remember her being depressed throughout my childhood, she sought help but was referred for ECT and didn't want it so she struggled on. She did struggle. She didn't complain but she struggled and we did too for a good while.
My mother had severe trouble giving birth to me, her heart stopped during labour (she was flatlined, clinically dead, for over a minute) and the doctor had to break all the teeth out of her upper jaw (and probably the bone itself, I don't know on that) in order to insert a breathing tube down her trachea (she wouldn't respond to mouth-to-mouth) and they had to perform an emergency ceaserian in order to deliver me.
As I sit here now, I can say that if she knew the trouble my birth would cause before the fact, and decided to abort me, that she would have made the right decision. My birth was only a tiny slip away from killing my mother.0 -
Not only the right to life ... unborn children also have every other legal right, including the same right to inheritance, as their born siblings under en ventre sa mere.A right to life, yes but not the same rights as a child.
... it can and should be legislated for as a health care issue for both mother and child.There is no way to legislate for problems as they arise, which is why it should be a health care issue.
The abortion pill has serious ethical and medical issues ... and it certainly shouldn't be used as a form of routine contraception.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 strategy
Life or death situations are thankfully extremely rare in pregnancy ... but when they (genuinely) do occur Medical professionals can ethically use all necessary medical treatment to save the mother ... and where her health is seriously compromised all necessary medical treatment can also be ethically used, even if the life of the child is indirectly ended.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.
However, this is at the very opposite end of the ethical spectrum to the position where the pregnant woman can choose to end her pregnancy just because she wants to.
Sounds like she should avail of effective contraception. Life can be very tough ... even when you try and do everything right.Hard to do if you have chronic morning sickness, blood 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.
Like many things in life it is sometimes idyllic, many times pedestrian ... and sometimes quite a difficult experience.Again you are painting a very idyllic picture of pregnancy.
The greatest suicide risk is among (non-pregnant) young men and there is evidence, that pregnancy actually reduces suicide risk among young women. Suicide is currently a very sad and serious issue and it needs to be addressed on many levels to reduce the terrible current rates.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.
Ethically, this is the same as looking for speeding to be legalised in order to prevent people from resorting to illegal speeding.I would rather the abortion pill be legalised then women resorting to measure which can dama ge their health and ability to carry another pregnancy later in life should they wish to do so.
You are quite entitled to your opinion ... but the only difference is one of time rather than degree.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 -
Some pregnant women worry over their stretch marks ... other are 'too posh to push' ... and at the other end of the spectrum, some women have serious health and other issues that need very robust medical intervention, that are no joking matter.krankykitty wrote: »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
-
Not only the right to life ... unborn children also have every other legal right, including the same right to inheritance, as their born siblings under en ventre sa mere.
Nope, there are no stillborn birth/death records recognition from the state unless the following qualifying critea apply.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/miscarriage_and_stillbirth/registering_stillbirth.htmlAll stillbirths occurring in Ireland since 1 January 1995 must be registered, if the baby weighs at least 500 grammes or has a gestational age of at least 24 weeks
Those are the legal critea, the state other then the right to life does not recognise any other rights of the unborn until it reaches 500grams or 24 weeks. All other rights are in potential upon the live birth.... it can and should be legislated for as a health care issue for both mother and child.
Which is not working esp when for the first half of the pregnancy there is no Child.The abortion pill has serious ethical and medical issues ... and it certainly shouldn't be used as a form of routine contraception.
I never said about using the abortion pills instead of contraception.
I don't see any ethical issue with the abortion pills and as for medical issues, it is very safe as been legal in France from 1988, is on the World Health orgs list of essential medicines and is safer then pregnancy or surgical abortion.Life or death situations are thankfully extremely rare in pregnancy ... but when they (genuinely) do occur Medical professionals can ethically use all necessary medical treatment to save the mother ... and where her health is seriously compromised all necessary medical treatment can also be ethically used, even if the life of the child is indirectly ended.
Tell that to Michelle Harte, seriously the situation we have had lead us to appalling treatment of women in our courts and in our hospitals.However, this is at the very opposite end of the ethical spectrum to the position where the pregnant woman can choose to end her pregnancy just because she wants to.
Sounds like she should avail of effective contraception. Life can be very tough ... even when you try and do everything right.
I did use contraception and still ended up pregnant, contraception is not 100% effective and I was lucky enough to have enough information and money to travel to the UK and end that pregnancy. But it shouldn't come down to luck or money or risking 14 year in jail.
The 8th amendment needs to go and the abortion pills made legal and available via our gps.Like many things in life it is sometimes idyllic, many times pedestrian ... and sometimes quite a difficult experience.
The greatest suicide risk is among (non-pregnant) young men and there is evidence, that pregnancy actually reduces suicide risk among young women. Suicide is currently a very sad and serious issue and it needs to be addressed on many levels to reduce the terrible current rates.
Got any stats on that?
IF I had not of been able to travel I would have attempted suicide, that was the thing which drove me, I would rather have died then continue that pregnancy.Ethically, this is the same as looking for speeding to be legalised in order to prevent people from resorting to illegal speeding.
What a trival nonsensical comparison, it's like something Ronan Mullen would say. While the 8th amendment is in place women in Ireland are at risk from abuse form the courts and the maternity 'care' services which will violate a woman's consent to force her to give birth, as they see fit.
This has to change, or legally we are no more then vessels once an embryo implants insides us.0 -
No, I mean in what way does that particular clause particularly invoke a surgeon?
The clause doesn't enjoin any citizen to defend and vindicate the rights of the unborn, only the State itself.
Because there's an implicit recognition in the wording "as far as practicable" in that section that there is a chance of a pregnant woman's life being at risk and the fetus may have to be removed from her womb for her to survive, that saving the fetus may NOT be practicable. Thus my mention of a surgeon.
It seem's to me that the best person to make a practicality diagnosis-decision on "the mother or the fetus" would be a surgeon, and not a judge, lawyer or lay person. I don't see a judge making any decision (were it put to him/her) on whether to operate but instead making a decision that it was outside his/her professional expertise and leaving that to the surgeon. I'm reasonably sure that the people who crafted the section foresaw the chance that a surgeon would be called upon to make decisions in such practicable matters, and that in effect the surgeon would be acting on behalf of the state.0 -
Today's Irish Times, report on Ms Y case and her baby son. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/agency-gets-two-month-care-order-for-baby-in-miss-y-case-1.1927592
Plus this on the new RC Primate of Ireland, Archbishop Eamon Martin. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/new-head-of-catholic-church-in-ireland-an-unknown-in-rome-1.1924139. According to the report, he's seen as a Benedict-era appointment, Jan 2013. He is not inclined towards politicians who approved of abortions, in an interview in May 2013, he said that legislators who support abortion are “excommunicating themselves”.0 -
And yet in all that you couldn't manage to address the question you quoted.Zubeneschamali wrote: »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?
One based on a law that doesn't exist, or one with a precedent of being overturned by the Supreme Court? Or do you mean one based on current law, which would not have been overturned but the Supreme Court, but which, of course, would then definitely not be what the Attorney General already did once . And even still, not 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: »I would imagine that the AG would apply for a new injunction, rather than ask for the same injunction again.
They would, which doesn't mean they would be inclined to try and set aside the precedent. I doubt many High Court judges aspire to having their judgements overturned by the Supreme Court in the manner of previous Supreme Court judgements; it probably reduces their chances of sitting on the Supreme Court themselves.Zubeneschamali wrote: »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.
The law that's no longer a law? Anyway, whether a law is practicable would seem the be utterly relevant to Lazygals actual question; whether merely practical difficulties were standing in the way of protecting unborn children. Perhaps you forgot that was what we were discussing.Zubeneschamali wrote: »Very nice. Utterly irrelevant, since the law was invoked in the x case and proven to be practicable since the ag prevented an abortion.
Is that a rhetorical question? I think I have covered most of the permutations of my position with regards to the basic premise in previous posts.Zubeneschamali wrote: »You are in favour of preventing abortions, right?0 -
I don't think so; that there may be a threat is already implied by the fact that the State in enjoined to protect and vindicate. The implication of 'as far as is practicable' is not that there may be a threat, but rather the degree to which the threat must be met with action.aloyisious wrote: »Because there's an implicit recognition in the wording "as far as practicable" in that section that there is a chance of a pregnant woman's life being at risk and the fetus may have to be removed from her womb for her to survive, that saving the fetus may NOT be practicable. Thus my mention of a surgeon.
But my point was, the "as far as practicable" only refers to the State, not anyone else.
So, that means it is the duty of the State to ensure that in circumstances where there is a threat to the life of the foetus and mother it has created a situation where those rights are defended and vindicated; ie legislation which ensures that the correct person is making the decision. Like for instance, psychiatrists determining the extent of suicidal ideation, or an obgyn determining the best method of termination. Where such legislation would be impracticable, or the circumstances are reasonably unenvisionable, the state is under no obligation because it is beyond practicable.aloyisious wrote: »It seem's to me that the best person to make a practicality diagnosis-decision on "the mother or the fetus" would be a surgeon, and not a judge, lawyer or lay person. I don't see a judge making any decision (were it put to him/her) on whether to operate but instead making a decision that it was outside his/her professional expertise and leaving that to the surgeon.
I'm reasonably sure they did not envision a surgeon acting as an agent of the State; it confers no power on a surgeon, in fact, it doesn't mention surgeons. I'm reasonably sure they envisioned the State creating legislation which would oblige the surgeon (or doctor, or whoever might be required to be involved) to act in a fashion in keeping with the States need to protect & vindicate the right to life of the woman and foetus.aloyisious wrote: »I'm reasonably sure that the people who crafted the section foresaw the chance that a surgeon would be called upon to make decisions in such practicable matters, and that in effect the surgeon would be acting on behalf of the state.
It would not be practicable to create legislation which would specifically cover every possible eventuality a surgeon (or doctor, or builder, or taxi driver) might encounter, but it should be practicable to create legislation which broadly sets out the courses of action a surgeon (or doctor, or whoever) must take in general circumstances, and the logic which must be applied in other particular circumstances. Which is pretty much what the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act attempts to do; set out the circumstances in which an abortion is permissible. By doing so, the Act effects (to whatever degree might be considered) the States obligation to protect and vindicate the right to life of the woman and foetus. Obviously the State undertakes other actions, such as the provision of maternity care etc etc, and together these actions should add up to 'as far as is practicable'.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not only the right to life ... unborn children also have every other legal right, including the same right to inheritance, as their born siblings under en ventre sa mere.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/In+ventre+sa+mere
You forgot to include a link.
Obviously to do so would immediately blow your point right out of the water, since a necessary condition for this right to be invoked is that the child subsequently be born alive.
I wonder did you just not know this, or was it deliberate?
Are you approaching the question from a catholic point of view (since you mention intentional/unintentional destruction of the fetus, I imagine so)?
In other words, is the above an example of mental reservation, or just plain old-fashioned dishonesty?0 -
When people speak of a few week old pregnancy as having the 'right to life', do they think of the 25% (very conservative estimate may be up to 70% including failed implantations) that spontaneously abort. Nature/God is extremely wasteful of life.
Having an early miscarriage is what really confirmed my support for pregnancy choices. Early abortions pose no ethical dilemma for me, and should surely be preferred over later ones caused by the delay in arranging finance and travel.0 -
One based on a law that doesn't exist, or one with a precedent of being overturned by the Supreme Court?
You are completely correct that such an injunction cannot happen today, but not because of the change to the law (which is trumped by the constitution), and not because the injunction was overturned last time.
The state cannot use similar injunctions to defend the right to life of the unborn because we passed a referendum to explicitly prevent it.
If (as you repeatedly assert) such injunctions were impossible because of the x case judgment, we would not have needed the 13 th amendment.Anyway, whether a law is practicable would seem the be utterly relevant to Lazygals actual question
The fact that the AG's actions prevented an abortion proved that such a law is practicable.Is that a rhetorical question?
No. You are going to extraordinary lengths to defend a legal regime which pretends to defend the right to life of the unborn, but actually provides abortion on demand for €1000.
At least J C is consistently pro life.0 -
That sounds familiar....Zubeneschamali wrote: »You are completely correct that such an injunction cannot happen today, but not because of the change to the law (which is trumped by the constitution), and not because the injunction was overturned last time. The state cannot use similar injunctions to defend the right to life of the unborn because we passed a referendum to explicitly prevent it. If (as you repeatedly assert) such injunctions were impossible because of the x case judgment, we would not have needed the 13 th amendment.
Which law now?Zubeneschamali wrote: »The fact that the AG's actions prevented an abortion proved that such a law is practicable.
I'll let you save the story off how the AG prevented an abortion until later, it sounds like it will be fun :-)
In that case, if you review my posts you will see I have covered most of the permutations of my position with regards to the basic premise in previous posts.Zubeneschamali wrote: »No.
I didn't know I was. Can you show us where this legal regime gets €1000 for an abortion on demand?Zubeneschamali wrote: »You are going to extraordinary lengths to defend a legal regime which pretends to defend the right to life of the unborn, but actually provides abortion on demand for €1000.
Uh oh. Have you unholstered the label gun again?Zubeneschamali wrote: »At least J C is consistently pro life.0 -
I don't think so; that there may be a threat is already implied by the fact that the State in enjoined to protect and vindicate. The implication of 'as far as is practicable' is not that there may be a threat, but rather the degree to which the threat must be met with action.
But my point was, the "as far as practicable" only refers to the State, not anyone else.
So, that means it is the duty of the State to ensure that in circumstances where there is a threat to the life of the foetus and mother it has created a situation where those rights are defended and vindicated; ie legislation which ensures that the correct person is making the decision. Like for instance, psychiatrists determining the extent of suicidal ideation, or an obgyn determining the best method of termination. Where such legislation would be impracticable, or the circumstances are reasonably unenvisionable, the state is under no obligation because it is beyond practicable.
I'm reasonably sure they did not envision a surgeon acting as an agent of the State; it confers no power on a surgeon, in fact, it doesn't mention surgeons. I'm reasonably sure they envisioned the State creating legislation which would oblige the surgeon (or doctor, or whoever might be required to be involved) to act in a fashion in keeping with the States need to protect & vindicate the right to life of the woman and foetus.
It would not be practicable to create legislation which would specifically cover every possible eventuality a surgeon (or doctor, or builder, or taxi driver) might encounter, but it should be practicable to create legislation which broadly sets out the courses of action a surgeon (or doctor, or whoever) must take in general circumstances, and the logic which must be applied in other particular circumstances. Which is pretty much what the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act attempts to do; set out the circumstances in which an abortion is permissible. By doing so, the Act effects (to whatever degree might be considered) the States obligation to protect and vindicate the right to life of the woman and foetus. Obviously the State undertakes other actions, such as the provision of maternity care etc etc, and together these actions should add up to 'as far as is practicable'.
Tell me then who do you envisage (if not a surgeon) the state would see effecting a surgical operation saving of the woman's life and aborting the fetus? Do you think the state (a corporate entity) would perform any surgery required, or would it not authorise a person to actually perform the surgery on it's behalf, and on behalf of the citizens? Would the person performing the surgery be operating under Irish Law on behalf of the state and it's citizens, or do you think the person performing the surgery and abortion-operation in the life-saving of the woman would be acting outside the law? Do you think that there would never be surgery required under the act?0 -
Bit of an update on related matters
"The baby of Ms “Y”, the woman at the centre of the latest abortion controversy, is to remain in State care for a further two months at least.
Her solicitor has told the authorities she has no wish to participate in decisions about the baby’s future, The Irish Times has learned.
The baby boy was born at just under 26 weeks’ gestation by Caesarean section last month. Ms Y, a young immigrant, had sought a termination of her pregnancy."
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/agency-gets-two-month-care-order-for-baby-in-miss-y-case-1.19275920 -
The Constitution doesn't envisage anyone effecting a surgical operation, no more than it envisages a taxi driver taking a pregnant woman to hospital.aloyisious wrote: »Tell me then who do you envisage (if not a surgeon) the state would see effecting a surgical operation saving of the woman's life and aborting the fetus?
There is nothing in the section of the Constitution you quoted which refers to surgical operations.
I'm not quite sure what you think you mean when you say the State is a corporate entity, but why do you think surgery would be carried out on behalf of the State or the citizens? Surgeries are carried out on behalf of the people receiving them. Authorisation is received from the person having the surgery; that's what they sign a consent form for.aloyisious wrote: »Do you think the state (a corporate entity) would perform any surgery required, or would it not authorise a person to actually perform the surgery on it's behalf, and on behalf of the citizens?
I think you might be getting close to it there. As a result of its obligations under the Constitution the State makes laws which regulate the actions of its' citizens; including surgeons. These laws are the defenses and vindications of rights that the State is required to provide, because they regulate how people (like surgeons) carry out their duties and prevent them from impinging, or cause them to vindicate, those rights. So the person performing the surgery would indeed be operating under Irish Law, even though they would not be operating on behalf of the State and it's citizens. If they were to make a decision or surgical choice explicitly forbidden by the law they were operating under, then they would in that instance be acting outside the law.aloyisious wrote: »Would the person performing the surgery be operating under Irish Law on behalf of the state and it's citizens, or do you think the person performing the surgery and abortion-operation in the life-saving of the woman would be acting outside the law?
I do think that when surgery is required by a person in need of surgery, it is regulated by laws created (at least partially) with the effecting of the Act in mind.aloyisious wrote: »Do you think that there would never be surgery required under the act?
I know you want to prove a point here but I think you've wandered far astray of your point in the effort.
You asked "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? "
The words "as far as practicable" simply qualify the statement "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees by its laws to defend and vindicate that right". All it is saying is that the State will not guarantee by its laws any defense or vindication that cannot be put into practice successfully.
The words "as far as practicable" cannot be taken to have a meaning which has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the sentence they're in; it just has nothing to do with surgeons.0 -
The Constitution doesn't envisage anyone effecting a surgical operation, no more than it envisages a taxi driver taking a pregnant woman to hospital.
There is nothing in the section of the Constitution you quoted which refers to surgical operations.
I'm not quite sure what you think you mean when you say the State is a corporate entity, but why do you think surgery would be carried out on behalf of the State or the citizens? Surgeries are carried out on behalf of the people receiving them. Authorisation is received from the person having the surgery; that's what they sign a consent form for.
I think you might be getting close to it there. As a result of its obligations under the Constitution the State makes laws which regulate the actions of its' citizens; including surgeons. These laws are the defenses and vindications of rights that the State is required to provide, because they regulate how people (like surgeons) carry out their duties and prevent them from impinging, or cause them to vindicate, those rights. So the person performing the surgery would indeed be operating under Irish Law, even though they would not be operating on behalf of the State and it's citizens. If they were to make a decision or surgical choice explicitly forbidden by the law they were operating under, then they would in that instance be acting outside the law.
I do think that when surgery is required by a person in need of surgery, it is regulated by laws created (at least partially) with the effecting of the Act in mind.
I know you want to prove a point here but I think you've wandered far astray of your point in the effort.
You asked "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? "
The words "as far as practicable" simply qualify the statement "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees by its laws to defend and vindicate that right". All it is saying that the State will not guarantee by its laws any defense or vindication that cannot be put into practice successfully.
The words "as far as practicable" cannot be taken to have a meaning which has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the sentence they're in; it just has nothing to do with surgeons.
It sound's like you believe that those who worded the section never thought up ways of actually physically vindicating and guaranteeing the right to life in mind when they thought up the wording in the section, that mere words alone were thought sufficient in themselves to carry out their meaning in law.
Do you actually propose or suggest that those who worded the section never thought through the wording and have seen that actual physical action would be necessary to give actuality to the law, that mere written or spoken words alone would not suffice?
Edit. Re surgeons and the state, because the state, under the 2013 act, gave legal qualification under what circumstances surgical abortion (or to use the word used in the act - termination) operations should be performed and whom should perform them. Would I be right in thinking that the act is a follow-through in law from the Oireachtas to give effect to the Supreme Court desire that it act to sort out the lack of statute law on the issue, outside that of the 1861 act and the section in the constitution?0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »And not the raped immigrant girl.
If you read what I have been saying, I am ok with abortion in cases of rape.0 -
How many foestus's kill themselves because they don't want to live?How do you know that abortions take place because of contraception not being used? I'm sure many couples have had contraception fail to work, or want to terminate because of fatal foetal abnormalities, or myriad other reasons. Why are you obsessed with the intent behind why a woman has an abortion? Why are you obsessed with the abortion as contraception argument? Why is one reason for having an abortion, such as pregnancy because of rape, valid but another isn't?
The foetus does not have a choice because no one is allowed to legally compel another person to maintain their life. I'm not allowed to legally compel my husband to give me blood or a kidney to maintain my 'right to life'. The state does not compel me to give my children my blood or any other body parts to maintain their 'right to life'.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tim Robbins wrote: »How many foestus's kill themselves because they don't want to live?
None because they lack the brain to think for themselves.
How many instances have born children been allowed to compel another person to have his or her bodily integrity violated to vindicate their right to life? Why can a foetus as a result of rape be killed but not one as a result of contraception failing or a foetus suffering from a fatal abnormality?0 -
It is obvious that a child must be born to inherit anything.http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/In+ventre+sa+mere
You forgot to include a link.
Obviously to do so would immediately blow your point right out of the water, since a necessary condition for this right to be invoked is that the child subsequently be born alive.
I wonder did you just not know this, or was it deliberate?
... and just like every other human being, an inheritance is useless to them if they are dead.
The law particularly protects such children due to the possible temptation to cut short their inheritance rights via abortion (see point 12.-11. in your link) ...
Your point is mute, as inheritance ceases with a dead child without issue (which is the case for most born minor children who die and all unborn children who die) .
I'm approaching this from a common sense and common law point of view ... while sticking to secular, i.e. non-religious, argumentsAre you approaching the question from a catholic point of view (since you mention intentional/unintentional destruction of the fetus, I imagine so)?
It's a plain old-fashioned legal point on my part. The point remains that living unborn children have the same rights as living born children when it comes to inheritance. Indeed children in ventre sa mere have more rights than born children as the birth of a posthumous child, in many jurisdictions, leads to the revocation of a will previously executed, in so far as regards such a child ... and if an abortion was procured to frustrate such a right, this could be prosecuted in many jurisdictions.In other words, is the above an example of mental reservation, or just plain old-fashioned dishonesty?0 -
Seems to me you don't have a point then. Living unborn children have no rights as such, they can simply inherit after birth, ie be considered as their father's children, despite being born after their father's death.
What does that have to do with abortion, in which there will never be a child born alive?0 -
Did you not see the point 12-11 in your link where it is a high misdemeanor to kill a child in ventre sa mere ... and their birth can lead to the revocation of a will already made.Seems to me you don't have a point then. Living unborn children have no rights as such, they can simply inherit after birth, ie be considered as their father's children, despite being born after their father's death.
It shows that both born and unborn children have similar legal rights and you guys were arguing that this isn't the case ... because an unborn child isn't a person ... when they actually are.What does that have to do with abortion, in which there will never be a child born alive?0 -
Did you not see the point 12-11 in your link where it is a high misdemeanor to kill a child in ventre sa mere ... and their birth can lead to the revocation of a will already made.
It shows that both born and unborn children have similar legal rights and you guys were arguing that this isn't the case ... because an unborn child isn't a person ... when they actually are.
It's child destruction, not murder, we've been over all this before. It's closer to the concept of the destruction of a possession than to the murder of a person.
One thing it certainly doesn't do is establish the principle of the unborn as a person. Or if it does, no-one in the UK seems to have noticed, you'd better inform them of their oversight! :rolleyes::rolleyes:0 -
I think you're missing the point again; the obligation placed on the State by the section is the basis for the State enacting laws.aloyisious wrote: »It sound's like you believe that those who worded the section never thought up ways of actually physically vindicating and guaranteeing the right to life in mind when they thought up the wording in the section, that mere words alone were thought sufficient in themselves to carry out their meaning in law.
Would you care to consider what you mean by giving actuality to the law?aloyisious wrote: »Do you actually propose or suggest that those who worded the section never thought through the wording and have seen that actual physical action would be necessary to give actuality to the law, that mere written or spoken words alone would not suffice?
The Constitution places an obligation on the State which it must discharge as far as practicable.
The State creates & enforces laws, which discharges, in part, its obligation.
The physical action of creating and enforcing those laws, through the legislature, police and court system gives actuality to them. There is no need for a surgeon to ever do anything for the law to have actuality.
Firstly it doesn't say under what circumstances termination (which includes, but is not limited to, surgical abortion) operations should be performed; it say when they may be performed. Specifically, it make provision for reviews at the instigation of a pregnant woman of certain medical opinions given in respect of pregnancy.aloyisious wrote: »Edit. Re surgeons and the state, because the state, under the 2013 act, gave legal qualification under what circumstances surgical abortion (or to use the word used in the act - termination) operations should be performed and whom should perform them.
It doesn't say who should perform surgical abortions, it says who may perform terminations, and under what conditions it is permissible.
You will probably note whist reading it that it specifies that it is lawful for a 'medical practitioner' to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended, subject to the restrictions of the act.
It doesn't say that the medical practitioner should carry out the procedure, or that the procedure should be carried out under the circumstances. Nor does it specify that the medical practitioner will be acting on behalf of the State or it's citizens. Or that the medical practitioner must be a surgeon.
You would probably be right in thinking that the Act gives effect in statutory law to the terms of the Constitution with due consideration for the interpretation of those terms by the Supreme Court in it's 1992 X Case judgment. Which precludes the presumption that the Oireacteas should give effect in law to the Supreme Court's desires.aloyisious wrote: »Would I be right in thinking that the act is a follow-through in law from the Oireachtas to give effect to the Supreme Court desire that it act to sort out the lack of statute law on the issue, outside that of the 1861 act and the section in the constitution?0 -
The sections of the 1861 act which dealt with abortion are no longer law, they have been repealed and replaced as of the signing into law of the Protection of life in pregnancy act.0
-
The sections of the 1861 act which dealt with abortion are no longer law, they have been repealed and replaced as of the signing into law of the Protection of life in pregnancy act.
It has been pointed out previously, it just seems to be inconvenient to acknowledge (though I can't imagine why).0 -
How do you come to the conclusion that it's closer to the concept of the destruction of a possession than to the murder of a person? The legislation specifies that the offence is "intentional destruction of unborn human life". The fact that it includes the words 'human life' certainly would indicate an intent closer to murder than the destruction of property. There is no mention of ownership for instance, which is a characteristic of property, and there is no mention of compensation, which one would expect in the case of the destruction of property. Finally, the sanction of fourteen years imprisonment seems somewhat disproportionate to the twelve months specified in the case of criminal damage? It seems very close to the average twelve years spend in prison by those serving life sentences for murder though.It's child destruction, not murder, we've been over all this before. It's closer to the concept of the destruction of a possession than to the murder of a person.
But in Ireland the principle of the unborn as a person is established (at least to the satisfaction of some posters) in the Constitution, as we discussed earlier. No one has offered a substantive rebuttal so far.One thing it certainly doesn't do is establish the principle of the unborn as a person. Or if it does, no-one in the UK seems to have noticed, you'd better inform them of their oversight! :rolleyes::rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
It's not murder because for example (the one we discussed earlier on the thread) the unborn twins who died in the Omagh bombs, and who were the object of a Child Destruction charge are never counted in the number of victims of the bombing but are mentioned separately.
Legally the youngest victim is their big sister who was 18 months old.
As for the situation in Ireland, we weren't discussing the anomaly created by the addition of an unworkable amendment to the constitution but your claim that it is the general principle of "en ventre sa mere" which confers personhood rights on the fetus. It doesn't, it merely recognizes filiation pre-birth, conditional on there being a living child post birth.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement