Abortion Discussion

Zubeneschamali

alaimacerc wrote: »

Is this is some way unclear, or is the only remaining strategy to ignore the explanations and act dumb?

I'm not sure why you're aiming this at Tim Robbins - he's pro-choice. His favoured abortion regime would require that article 40.3.3 is deleted by referendum.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

are you intending to present a practicable plan for it?

Our current legislation relies on it being practicable to decide that a woman had an abortion in order to jail someone for up to 14 years. Now that you have shown that it is not practicable, we should clearly scrap the legislation and amend the constitution to remove this unenforceable provision.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Our current legislation relies on it being practicable to decide that a woman had an abortion in order to jail someone for up to 14 years. Now that you have shown that it is not practicable, we should clearly scrap the legislation and amend the constitution to remove this unenforceable provision.

You're dead right; determining what happens in this jurisdiction and prosecuting potential criminals as a result is absolutely comparable to determining what happens in another jurisdiction and prosecuting potential criminals (as adjudged by this jurisdiction) as a result. Now that you've determined it's not practicable to enforce our own laws in our own jurisdiction, we should clearly scrap all legislation, and do away with the constitution entirely.
Or..... maybe you're not dead right.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

determining what happens in this jurisdiction and prosecuting potential criminals as a result is absolutely comparable to determining what happens in another jurisdiction and prosecuting potential criminals (as adjudged by this jurisdiction) as a result.

Extraterritorial jurisdiction in Irish law:

Ireland has universal jurisdiction for murder and manslaughter committed by its citizens.
:
Some acts of the Oireachtas criminalise actions abroad by citizens and residents of Ireland. These include counterfeiting money, money laundering, and corruption.

But not abortion, it's just not practicable to determine when and why a pregnant woman is no longer pregnant. Unless it happens inside the jurisdiction, then it is suddenly practicable.

Somehow, the authorities know about every pregnant woman, and when she stops being pregnant, and whether or not it lines up with a trip abroad or not. But if it does line up with a trip abroad, it is suddenly not practicable to know.

If she became not pregnant the day before the trip, then it'd be a crime with a 14 year sentence. Or the day after she came back: 14 years. But during the weekend in London - no crime, no punishment.

What a wonderfully practicable system!

lazygal

I have mentioned before that it is practicable to deal with women who travel to kill the unborn because the unborn has been diagnosed with a fatal abnormality. These are women who'll have been in the antenatal system in Ireland and will be known to health professionals and other state bodies. So when such women don't present for labour and delivery in the normal manner, and there is no baby, live or dead, to be found in Ireland following a trip abroad, the law could act. There's no doubt that a women who has an abnormality scan one week, is scheduled for future antenatal appointments, goes outside the state, and then returns without a baby would be obliged to answer questions as to whether she killed her unborn baby by procuring an abortion in another jurisdiction. These are women the antenatal systems knows are pregnant, and then suddenly they aren't pregnant, but haven't presented for labour and delivery as one would expect.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Extraterritorial jurisdiction in Irish law:
Ireland has universal jurisdiction for murder and manslaughter committed by its citizens.
Some acts of the Oireachtas criminalise actions abroad by citizens and residents of Ireland. These include counterfeiting money, money laundering, and corruption.

If you trying to remind me that I pointed out what it would take for Ireland to extend universal jurisdiction, don't worry, my memory is not that short.
But since you bring it up; how would you go about extending universal jurisdiction to cover abortion? Of the four specific conditions above, which would you base the abortion system on, or would you seek to implement a different system?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But not abortion, it's just not practicable to determine when and why a pregnant woman is no longer pregnant. Unless it happens inside the jurisdiction, then it is suddenly practicable.

If you can demonstrate how Ireland would go about obtaining and maintaining information on when and why any woman likely to enter the State has been and has ceased to be pregnant, I would honestly be fascinated.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Somehow, the authorities know about every pregnant woman, and when she stops being pregnant, and whether or not it lines up with a trip abroad or not. But if it does line up with a trip abroad, it is suddenly not practicable to know.

They do? And it isn't? I'd be fascinated to know how you know that too.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If she became not pregnant the day before the trip, then it'd be a crime with a 14 year sentence.

Really? Even if she had a miscarraige? Or gave birth? Or had a legal abortion? I'm becoming suspicious of these assertions....

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or the day after she came back: 14 years. But during the weekend in London - no crime, no punishment.

So... you're saying if a crime is committed where it's not a crime, than it's not a crime? Well... that bit makes sense anyway!

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What a wonderfully practicable system!

The one we have, or the one you're proposing?

Zubeneschamali

If a woman does a home pregnancy test, discovers that she is pregnant, and goes to a back-street abortionist who does a D&C - how is it practicable and feasible to stop this? Given that no-one bar the woman and the illegal abortionist knew about the pregnancy, how can the state find out, bring a case and secure a conviction? It certainly looks unpracticable to me.

Yet this is not only illegal, the state is duty bound to protect the life of this unborn in the Constitution, our highest law.

But if the woman writes to the AG, tells him she's pregnant and plans to kill the unborn in a UK clinic, sends him a copy of her ticket, takes a plane to the UK, video tapes the abortion and then sticks all the evidence in this thread on boards.ie, saying "You can't touch me, coppers!", we have a special clause in the Constitution to make sure the AG can do nothing?

That certainly does not sound to me as if our Constitution actually defends the right to life of the unborn. It sounds to me like we passed an "Only kidding - abortion for all!" referendum after the X case, and folks are supporting it here to this day.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

I have mentioned before that it is practicable to deal with women who travel to kill the unborn because the unborn has been diagnosed with a fatal abnormality. These are women who'll have been in the antenatal system in Ireland and will be known to health professionals and other state bodies. So when such women don't present for labour and delivery in the normal manner, and there is no baby, live or dead, to be found in Ireland following a trip abroad, the law could act. There's no doubt that a women who has an abnormality scan one week, is scheduled for future antenatal appointments, goes outside the state, and then returns without a baby would be obliged to answer questions as to whether she killed her unborn baby by procuring an abortion in another jurisdiction. These are women the antenatal systems knows are pregnant, and then suddenly they aren't pregnant, but haven't presented for labour and delivery as one would expect.

I remember. As I recall, I replied that this is likely to be a not very large proportion of those travelling abroad to seek abortion, so we've quite a way to go yet in creating a practicable system (one that successfully prosecutes women going abroad for abortions, rather than just a small number of them).

Also worth bearing in mind the fact that since we're going to be changing the constitution for this, there's a reasonable chance a good proportion of the population will support abortion in the case of ffa, so it might be more practicable to simply attempt to make abortion within the jurisdiction for ffa legal. Don't you think that's likely to be more practicable?

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

They do?

No, that's my point. If it is not practicable to know when a woman is pregnant and then not pregnant, this practicability issue affects this jurisdiction just as much as if a trip to the UK is involved. There are clearly practical difficulties in bringing a prosecution either way. But we don't just throw our hands up and say "This isn't practicable, let's change the constitution to legalise it".

As to which of the extraterritorial justice models to use, that would be a matter for the Dail, if we hadn't tied their hands and told them not to defend the right to life of the unborn in this case.

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

I remember. As I recall, I replied that this is likely to be a not very large proportion of those travelling abroad to seek abortion, so we've quite a way to go yet in creating a practicable system (one that successfully prosecutes women going abroad for abortions, rather than just a small number of them).

Also worth bearing in mind the fact that since we're going to be changing the constitution for this, there's a reasonable chance a good proportion of the population will support abortion in the case of ffa, so it might be more practicable to simply attempt to make abortion within the jurisdiction for ffa legal. Don't you think that's likely to be more practicable?

So just because its a small number we shouldn't bother doing anything to prevent unborn children being taken abroad to be killed? Come on, you can do better than that. These are unborn lives at stake, and yet we can't change the law to make it practicable to prevent women taken the unborn out of the country to be killed?
What if the population in fact doesn't vote to allow abortion in the case of FFA, should such women then face prosecution on return if the right to travel is removed from the constitution?

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If a woman does a home pregnancy test, discovers that she is pregnant, and goes to a back-street abortionist who does a D&C - how is it practicable and feasible to stop this? Given that no-one bar the woman and the illegal abortionist knew about the pregnancy, how can the state find out, bring a case and secure a conviction? It certainly looks unpracticable to me. Yet this is not only illegal, the state is duty bound to protect the life of this unborn in the Constitution, our highest law

So what you're saying is, where a crime, any crime, can be concealed successfully, no one is actually prosecuted for it?
Is that supposed to surprise us in some way? Should we bring forward legislation to make it illegal to conceal a crime? What if they conceal the concealment? You were right... we should clearly scrap all legislation, and do away with the constitution entirely.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But if the woman writes to the AG, tells him she's pregnant and plans to kill the unborn in a UK clinic, sends him a copy of her ticket, takes a plane to the UK, video tapes the abortion and then sticks all the evidence in this thread on boards.ie, saying "You can't touch me, coppers!", we have a special clause in the Constitution to make sure the AG can do nothing?

It's ok; we're getting rid of the Constitution now so he can do anything he likes to her. Sorted.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That certainly does not sound to me as if our Constitution actually defends the right to life of the unborn. It sounds to me like we passed an "Only kidding - abortion for all!" referendum after the X case, and folks are supporting it here to this day.

Well, of course not! If anyone can commit a crime and potentially get away with it here, right under everyones noses, sure there was obviously no point in passing any laws at all. How could we have been so blind.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

So just because its a small number we shouldn't bother doing anything to prevent unborn children being taken abroad to be killed? Come on, you can do better than that.

Better than providing the small number you think are easy to catch with the facility that might be what most people think they should have?
You're right, I don't know what I was suggesting. We should prevent all women of child bearing age leaving the country, and detain any women of child bearing age entering the country until they prove they've never had an abortion. How's that?

lazygal wrote: »

These are unborn lives at stake, and yet we can't change the law to make it practicable to prevent women taken the unborn out of the country to be killed?

Well, so far you've suggested singling out a small proportion of the potential offenders for special treatment. Given the number of times you proposed the idea, I thought your thinking would have been a bit further advanced...

lazygal wrote: »

What if the population in fact doesn't vote to allow abortion in the case of FFA, should such women then face prosecution on return if the right to travel is removed from the constitution?

Whoa! We're not nearly there yet! Once you remove the right to travel in these particular circumstances, you still have to determine how you'll assert universal jurisdiction. Any ideas there? Another Constitutional Amendment (we could assert worldwide dominion in one go, and save doing this again for anything else you fancy), new legislation, a combination? How will this work exactly?
Once you've done that, you need to figure out how you're going to obtain evidence of what every single woman of child bearing age has done whilst she was outside the jurisdiction. That may be tricky, but possibly trickier still to ensure the evidence is something the Irish court will accept once you get it there. Of course, we'll need quite a lot of people to process that evidence, so I can we can solve unemployment with this, though we might need to ask the Germans for some cash to pay them. But I'm sure enough of them will be able to figure out the people who need to be prosecuted from all the evidence they'll be getting from... somewhere. Totally legally, obviously. Anyway, can't wait to hear your ideas.

So, once we've done all that and we've got a few thousand bona fide lawbreakers per year here with incontrovertible evidence that they have broken the law, which we've Constitutionally enabled by referendum and legislated via the Oireachtas obviously, should they be prosecuted? Yes of course they should. If they had traveled abroad, committed murder (or money laundering) and returned replete with the full measure of necessary evidence, you'd prosecute them without a moments thought.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

You were right

So what you're saying is, I win?

See how puerile that is?

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

Once you've done that, you need to figure out how you're going to obtain evidence of what every single woman of child bearing age has done whilst she was outside the jurisdiction.

Yet somehow we do not need to figure out how to get evidence of what every single woman of child bearing age has done whilst she was inside the jurisdiction in order to have laws against abortion within the jurisdiction.

It's almost as if you are making this up as you go along to justify the status quo.

alaimacerc

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's almost as if you are making this up as you go along to justify the status quo.

Well, if one is going to start playing burden-of-proof games, you'd want to be making up the rules to suit yourself, wouldn't you?

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Also worth bearing in mind the fact that since we're going to be changing the constitution for this, there's a reasonable chance a good proportion of the population will support abortion in the case of ffa, so it might be more practicable to simply attempt to make abortion within the jurisdiction for ffa legal. Don't you think that's likely to be more practicable?

Oo yay. Yet another piece of constitutional micromanagement of statute... to in turn micromanage medical practice. No way that could possibly ever go wrong.

Rather than having a special case extending one right to entities bearing none of the other rights of personhood, then special cases for freedom of travel to end-around that, controversial rulings on what the rights extend to, attempts to reverse those, and more and more deeply nested special cases within each, isn't there a point at which one says get rid of the whole farrago and do it within statute? Or if, for some unfathomable reason, there has to be some ringing declaration in BnhE, is there nothing to be said for keeping to broad principles?

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Better than providing the small number you think are easy to catch with the facility that might be what most people think they should have?
You're right, I don't know what I was suggesting. We should prevent all women of child bearing age leaving the country, and detain any women of child bearing age entering the country until they prove they've never had an abortion. How's that?
Well, so far you've suggested singling out a small proportion of the potential offenders for special treatment. Given the number of times you proposed the idea, I thought your thinking would have been a bit further advanced...

Whoa! We're not nearly there yet! Once you remove the right to travel in these particular circumstances, you still have to determine how you'll assert universal jurisdiction. Any ideas there? Another Constitutional Amendment (we could assert worldwide dominion in one go, and save doing this again for anything else you fancy), new legislation, a combination? How will this work exactly?
Once you've done that, you need to figure out how you're going to obtain evidence of what every single woman of child bearing age has done whilst she was outside the jurisdiction. That may be tricky, but possibly trickier still to ensure the evidence is something the Irish court will accept once you get it there. Of course, we'll need quite a lot of people to process that evidence, so I can we can solve unemployment with this, though we might need to ask the Germans for some cash to pay them. But I'm sure enough of them will be able to figure out the people who need to be prosecuted from all the evidence they'll be getting from... somewhere. Totally legally, obviously. Anyway, can't wait to hear your ideas.

So, once we've done all that and we've got a few thousand bona fide lawbreakers per year here with incontrovertible evidence that they have broken the law, which we've Constitutionally enabled by referendum and legislated via the Oireachtas obviously, should they be prosecuted? Yes of course they should. If they had traveled abroad, committed murder (or money laundering) and returned replete with the full measure of necessary evidence, you'd prosecute them without a moments thought.

The principle that a law that cannot be enforced should not be enacted is a fairly common one and can be found in many jurisdictions. There is also a very large difference between a crime that will be nigh on impossible to prosecute, because of the nature of that crime, and a crime that might be difficult to prosecute simply because the criminal tried to hide it.

The offence we are talking about here is extremely impractal and it is difficult to see how many, if any, prosecutions could be brought. If they is the case, then what is it for?

One final thing. Allowing that all legal hurdles could be overcome, would you like to see women that procured an abortion in another jurisdiction being prosecuted for murder or some similar charge? I don't want a discussion on how difficult it might be, lets assume a government is successful in bring in such legislation. And to be clear, we are not talking about restriction on travel or prosecuting some intent. We are talking about where a woman has, beyond all reasonble doubt, procured an abortion in another state.

MrP

Tim Robbins

alaimacerc wrote: »

If you break a law to prevent a larger crime, there's a broad legal principle of complete exculpation. So if you kill an imminently prospective SB, you have at least a claim of justifiable homicide, rather than any sort of "murder", in legal terms.


I get that, but it's not a very deep point if you don't give us some sense of where the "scale" is smooth or stepped, how steep it is, or indeed, much about what points are on it!


I struggle to see any especially compelling distinction between the last three cases. Certainly between the last two.



What I find ridiculous is that these are prevented as somehow equal-but-opposite! There's been very serious and determined attempts to make the first the basis of the law in several jurisdictions, and it's essentially the position of the world's largest religious denominational body. The second is the stuff of "feminists say the craziest things" quote-mining.

In fact, given the initial preference of the anti-abortion lobby for an "absolute right to life of the unborn", and that the RCC "rates" abortion above almost all other "grave matters of sin", one might well infer that a very popular ridiculous extreme is that the zygote is of greater value than the person.

I actually didn't understand one thing you said there.

Tim Robbins

alaimacerc wrote: »

OK... but is "not OK" a standin for "should be illegal"? Would we get a panel of three priests to determine if yours is an "extreme" case, and you should get a divorce? Extreme being perhaps life-threatening? (As distinct from health!) Or do we throw you in jail for 14 years if "for the craic" is suspected?

We're doing quite the tourist trail of ludicrous analogies, aren't we?

You're being ridiculous. There are sliding scales in other parts of law for example manslaughter / murder.

Speeding - if you are a little over the limit they let you off, if you are 50 they usually don't.

Drink Driving.

etc.

etc.

Abortion / Murder is just more complex.

Bannasidhe

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You're being ridiculous. There are sliding scales in other parts of law for example manslaughter / murder.

Speeding - if you are a little over the limit they let you off, if you are 50 they usually don't.

Drink Driving.

etc.

etc.

Abortion / Murder is just more complex.

Is the Abortion/Murder sliding scale also dependent on who you know in AGS?

volchitsa

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You're being ridiculous. There are sliding scales in other parts of law for example manslaughter / murder.

Abortion / Murder is just more complex.

There's a difference between sliding scales of severity of punishment and making something perfectly legal as long as the person goes somewhere else to do it. That doesn't sound complex at all, it just sounds schizophrenic.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, that's my point. If it is not practicable to know when a woman is pregnant and then not pregnant, this practicability issue affects this jurisdiction just as much as if a trip to the UK is involved.

But it's not necessary to know when a woman within the jurisdiction is or isn't pregnant? It's only neccasary for medical practitioners to know they are only permitted to carry our abortions under specific circumstances.
It's only necessary to know when a woman is or isn't pregnant when, as Lazygal decided, you are determined to prevent women from travelling abroad to murder the unborn.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There are clearly practical difficulties in bringing a prosecution either way. But we don't just throw our hands up and say "This isn't practicable, let's change the constitution to legalise it".

No, we legislate so that where the jurisdiction of our legislation runs, it is practicable.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

As to which of the extraterritorial justice models to use, that would be a matter for the Dail, if we hadn't tied their hands and told them not to defend the right to life of the unborn in this case.

So would the rest of the legislative changes being proposed; the question was which one would you base the abortion system on, or would you seek to implement a different system?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So what you're saying is, I win? See how puerile that is?

I do. So you're giving up the tack of proposing that the existence of crime demonstrates that laws are unpracticable?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yet somehow we do not need to figure out how to get evidence of what every single woman of child bearing age has done whilst she was inside the jurisdiction in order to have laws against abortion within the jurisdiction.

So, since we don't need to figure out how to get evidence of what every single woman of child bearing age has done whilst she was inside the jurisdiction in order to have laws against abortion within the jurisdiction as I demonstrated above, but we still need to know (and have evidence of) what all the women outside the jurisdiction have done so that we can prosecute them once they enter the jurisdiction your solution is?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's almost as if you are making this up as you go along to justify the status quo.

You mean pointing out the problems inherent in a system that I said was not practicable in the first place? I suppose demonstrating how altering the status quo in such a fashion won't work does rather justify the status quo.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, if one is going to start playing burden-of-proof games, you'd want to be making up the rules to suit yourself, wouldn't you?

Now be fair. I'm not going to ask him to come up with proof that his system works until he comes up with a system. And so far we're playing by Lazygals rules; she has described the goal she believes must be our ambition in this.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Oo yay. Yet another piece of constitutional micromanagement of statute... to in turn micromanage medical practice. No way that could possibly ever go wrong.

So you don't think we should allow abortion in the case of ffa either? I wonder, can I borrow Zubeneschamalis label gun....

alaimacerc wrote: »

Rather than having a special case extending one right to entities bearing none of the other rights of personhood, then special cases for freedom of travel to end-around that, controversial rulings on what the rights extend to, attempts to reverse those, and more and more deeply nested special cases within each, isn't there a point at which one says get rid of the whole farrago and do it within statute?

Wasn't the point of voting to place the right to life of the unborn in the Constitution to prevent it being altered by statute? Or at least statute resulting from the opinion of the Supreme Court. I suspect Zubeneschamali would not be a fan of relying on the opinion of the Supreme Court...

alaimacerc wrote: »

Or if, for some unfathomable reason, there has to be some ringing declaration in BnhE, is there nothing to be said for keeping to broad principles?

Well, it can be said that they tend to lead to Supreme Court judgements, Constitutional Amendments, and increasing amounts of statute. Before we even get to prosecuting all the women abroad who have abortions.

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

The principle that a law that cannot be enforced should not be enacted is a fairly common one and can be found in many jurisdictions. There is also a very large difference between a crime that will be nigh on impossible to prosecute, because of the nature of that crime, and a crime that might be difficult to prosecute simply because the criminal tried to hide it.

That is a much more concise way of making my point. Thank you.

MrPudding wrote: »

The offence we are talking about here is extremely impractal and it is difficult to see how many, if any, prosecutions could be brought. If they is the case, then what is it for?

Again, that would be my point. It is my understanding that Lazygal (and Lazygal, please feel free to correct me) is proposing that such a system is a necessary extension of the pro life position in general; if the State is to protect and vindicate the right to life of then unborn it must do so in all cases, not just in the case of threats to that right within its' own jurisdiction (or that that jurisdiction must be extended to wherever that right may be threatened). I'm sure Lazygal can articulate the premise better than I.

MrPudding wrote: »

One final thing. Allowing that all legal hurdles could be overcome, would you like to see women that procured an abortion in another jurisdiction being prosecuted for murder or some similar charge? I don't want a discussion on how difficult it might be, lets assume a government is successful in bring in such legislation. And to be clear, we are not talking about restriction on travel or prosecuting some intent. We are talking about where a woman has, beyond all reasonble doubt, procured an abortion in another state.

To be equally clear, I wouldn't like to see a woman (or man) prosecuted for any charge. Like most people I suspect, I'd rather see people not do things that result in being prosecuted.
That said, if it were possible, as I've already said to Lazygal, yes, people should be prosecuted for breaking the law. Whether it's murder, tax evasion, deliberate destruction of unborn human life, money laundering, or whatever, it's the same principle. If you're asking what the charge ought to be, per your previous question, I'd still say I see no particular flaw in the naming of the current offence.

Tim Robbins

volchitsa wrote: »

There's a difference between sliding scales of severity of punishment and making something perfectly legal as long as the person goes somewhere else to do it. That doesn't sound complex at all, it just sounds schizophrenic.

I can go to Holland and smoke a joint. A 17 year old can go to France and buy a pint. Are you going to deny the right to travel there too?

volchitsa

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I can go to Holland and smoke a joint. A 17 year old can go to France and buy a pint. Are you going to deny the right to travel there too?

So you're saying an abortion is the equivalent of underage drinking or of smoking a joint, and not closer to, say, child killing or child abuse, which are covered by extraterritorial legislation?

Right.

And we also have a law which makes this action legal in specified cases, where a woman's life is at risk. So it can be done legally here.

So why are you defending a legal situation where a woman's health can be permanently damaged when it could be preserved by an action that's only the equivalent of smoking a joint?

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

But it's not necessary to know when a woman within the jurisdiction is or isn't pregnant? It's only neccasary for medical practitioners to know they are only permitted to carry our abortions under specific circumstances.

If this is enough, then it is enough for women travelling abroad to know they are not permitted to have abortions.

Your whole "practicability" argument assumes that women will break the law once abroad, but if they break the law right here in Ireland, it is no more practicable to detect or punish it.

Now you are also assuming that no illegal abortionist can exist in Ireland.

So how will we detect a doctor doing an illegal D&C for a patient in an Irish hospital? Given that we don't know what every woman of childbearing age is up to etc. etc.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not going to ask him to come up with proof that his system works until he comes up with a system.

Delete the text added by the 13th amendment. 14th too, while we're at it: we wouldn't allow people to freely spread information about child assassination services available in other countries.

This will not prevent all cases of women travelling for abortions, but laws against murder do not prevent all murders. The right to life is primary, and the state claims universal jurisdiction in defending it.

Except unborn life, because excuses.

For those arriving late: this is not a course of action I actually support. I favour deleting article 40.3.3 and legislating to make abortion legal, a medical matter between a woman and her doctor.

But if our Constitution was really going to defend the right to life of the unborn, and not shrug its shoulders as thousands of Irish fetuses are aborted every year, while victimizing the occasional immigrant, prisoner or institutionalized girl who gets pregnant, this is what it would take.

The current position is horribly immoral if life begins at conception or implantation, and horribly immoral if it doesn't. It has to change.

Zubeneschamali

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I can go to Holland and smoke a joint. A 17 year old can go to France and buy a pint. Are you going to deny the right to travel there too?

No-one else's rights are threatened in such cases, so no.

If an Irish family announced their son had shamed them because he lay with a man, and they were bringing him to Oldtestamentstan where he would be stoned to death, the State would be obliged to intervene to protect his life.

But in the case of abortion, the state is explicitly barred from stopping folks handing out leaflets on where to go to kill your child?

Because, despite all the empty hypocrisy we put in the Constitution, we all know a fetus is not a child.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If this is enough, then it is enough for women travelling abroad to know they are not permitted to have abortions.

Is it? Do you think that women knowing that they are not permitted to have abortions will prevent them having abortions whilst abroad to the same degree that it currently prevents medical practitioners from carrying out abortions in Ireland?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Your whole "practicability" argument assumes that women will break the law once abroad, but if they break the law right here in Ireland, it is no more practicable to detect or punish it.

Actually, my practicability argument assumes that the vast majority of women who leave the country have no intention whatsoever of doing anything illegal whilst abroad. Whilst those that do intend to do something illegal here will find it quite difficult to do without detection.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Now you are also assuming that no illegal abortionist can exist in Ireland.

I am? I thought I'd pointed out that the fact that crime exists doesn't mean there's no point in having laws.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So how will we detect a doctor doing an illegal D&C for a patient in an Irish hospital? Given that we don't know what every woman of childbearing age is up to etc. etc.

You mean aside from it occurring in a hospital, in the presence of hospital staff, using hospital resources, subject to hospital oversight? Well, I suppose if everyone who was aware of it decided to ignore it no one would ever know. Scale it up a bit, do a few a day, as long as everyone keeps their mouth shout and no one wonders what's going on, and no one mentions the 'service' to the wrong person, you've got a plan. Do you think you could have some sort of abortion civil disobedience movement maybe? More to the point, do you think that makes current legislation not practicable, so we should do away with it? Should we extend the same test and result to the rest of our civil & criminal legislation? We could do away with speeding fines pretty quickly for a start....

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Delete the text added by the 13th amendment. 14th too, while we're at it: we wouldn't allow people to freely spread information about child assassination services available in other countries. This will not prevent all cases of women travelling for abortions, but laws against murder do not prevent all murders. The right to life is primary, and the state claims universal jurisdiction in defending it.Except unborn life, because excuses.

Is that the whole of the system? I don't think I need you to prove how it's going to work so. As you would say, it's a bit too 'wishy washy' to achieve what Lazygal wanted to do.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But if our Constitution was really going to defend the right to life of the unborn, and not shrug its shoulders as thousands of Irish fetuses are aborted every year, while victimizing the occasional immigrant, prisoner or institutionalized girl who gets pregnant, this is what it would take.

Seriously? That's all it would take to prevent women travelling to kill the unborn? But didn't you point out that before the 13th & 14th amendment the AG singularly failed to prevent just one woman traveling to kill the unborn? Do you reckon it would be more manageable if he was dealing with them in bulk then?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If an Irish family announced their son had shamed them because he lay with a man, and they were bringing him to Oldtestamentstan where he would be stoned to death, the State would be obliged to intervene to protect his life.

That is a really interesting assertion. It draws the eye to the parallel with going abroad to have an abortion, but that's just misdirection really, isn't it?
It's rather unlikely the AG is going to be rushing into the High Court on this occasion, waving the Constitution and shouting " I need an injunction to prevent these people travelling and infringing the Constitutional right to life of this child! Yeah, no, don't worry, I've got the Supreme Court covered, this one's already been born".
A bit more likely the DPP is just going to have them arrested for conspiracy to commit murder, which is maybe a bit too mundane for your point?