Abortion Discussion

Bannasidhe

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.

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.

In the 80s all information on abortion services was heavily censored in this benighted republic of ours.
Did it stop women travelling - NO.
It just added another layer of mental torture.

What actually happened was a network was set up across the UK where women were contacted and supplied with all the necessary information, if they wished they would also be met off the boat/coach (pre-Ryanair days), accompanied to the clinic, and escorted back to boat/coach.

I know this for a fact as I was part of that network.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

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?

Not sure what that rant was all about, but I suspect the point being made by the previous poster isn't that someone intending to travel abroad to commit an honour killing against their born child couldn't be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder, it's that they could be.

Which completely smashes the argument that it would be impossible to claim similar extraterritorial jurisdiction over abortions planned within Ireland but carried out abroad on Irish residents. All that's missing is the will to do so. Which can only be because no-one really believes that abortion is anything like killing a baby, not even those who are prepared to see a woman forcibly held down and force fed to prevent her having one.

Which begs the question of why they think it is acceptable to do so, since in their view it would only be the equivalent of smoking a joint. Would it be acceptable for someone to forcibly restrain their adult child and force feed him just because he had a cannabis habit?

Tim Robbins

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

I don't defend a law where a woman's life can be damaged. Perhaps, you should read what people are posting and it is up for the people are claiming that we are contradicting ourselves not being against the right to travel, if they are against the right to travel to Holland or France and make use of their different laws.

Tim Robbins

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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

Well there you go speaking for everyone. A really good way to progress a debate.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

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?

Give me one reason why I should accept that women as a class will knowingly break the law, while medical practitioners as a class will not.

Whilst those that do intend to do something illegal here will find it quite difficult to do without detection.

See, the thing is, that most women that intend to have an abortion, which is illegal here, do not find it necessary to do it without detection because they can hop a plane. This does not mean it is easy to detect illegal abortions here and "practicable" to enforce our laws: it means our laws are a joke, our constitution a laughing stock.

If we actually meant to defend the lives of the unborn per the start of 40.3.3, we would have to change this. You note that this is hard to do for foreign abortions, but it would be equally hard for abortions in this jurisdiction if anyone actually tried to defend the right to life of the unborn, and women wanting abortions had to break the law.

More to the point, do you think that makes current legislation not practicable, so we should do away with it?

You are the one arguing that defending the right to life of the unborn per 40.3.3 is impracticable, not me. I say either defend it, or don't pretend to.

Is that the whole of the system? I don't think I need you to prove how it's going to work so.

Look up the X case: abortion prevented by the agents of the state using the authority of article 40.3.3 as it then existed.

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?

Again with the carefully misleading wording: the child in the X case did not have an abortion. The injunction was successful. The right to life of the unborn was defended by the state.

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?

Not at all - this works because the state asserts universal jurisdiction in cases of murder, because the Constitution really does protect the right to life of the citizen (and by extension, all other "born" people). Similarly the X case - the family let the State know they were travelling for an abortion - and the State stopped it.

We had to change the constitution expressly to stop the state doing it again. Want the state to really protect unborn life? Change it back!

volchitsa

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't defend a law where a woman's life can be damaged. Perhaps, you should read what people are posting

I thought you were against legalizing abortion where a woman's health but not life was threatened. If I've got that wrong, then of course you have my apologies. But in that case I'm not sure what your views are exactly - perhaps you could sum them up briefly for me?

Also,, I was originally replying to Absolam's posts, not just to you. So unless Absolam's view is identical in all points to yours, my criticism stands.

aloyisious

volchitsa wrote: »

Not sure what that rant was all about, but I suspect the point being made by the previous poster isn't that someone intending to travel abroad to commit an honour killing against their born child couldn't be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder, it's that they could be.

Which completely smashes the argument that it would be impossible to claim similar extraterritorial jurisdiction over abortions planned within Ireland but carried out abroad on Irish residents. All that's missing is the will to do so. Which can only be because no-one really believes that abortion is anything like killing a baby, not even those who are prepared to see a woman forcibly held down and force fed to prevent her having one.

I agree with the point made. It'd be quite within the right (and the bounds of possibility) that the AG and/or the DPP might try to make a case for a jury-trial here. It's more whether the AG and/or the DPP think it would succeed or be laughed out of court by a jury as nonsensical.

Zubeneschamali

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well there you go speaking for everyone. A really good way to progress a debate.

You already admitted that you agree.

All the prolifers who defend the right to information and travel agree.

There are some (maybe even some here) who do not, but those folks are beyond the reach of rational debate.

Zubeneschamali

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't defend a law where a woman's life can be damaged.

I'm not honestly sure what you are defending here, given that you're stated prefernce would require the removal of 40.3.3 and new legislation to allow abortion in more cases.

aloyisious

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well there you go speaking for everyone. A really good way to progress a debate.

Ref whether a fetus is a child, can you provide the debaters here proof that a fetus is a child, or whether that is just the position taken by those opposed to abortion. Are there medical textbooks used by Obstetricians and Gynecologists which define a fetus as a child and can be used to back up that stated belief?

Tim Robbins

aloyisious wrote: »

Ref whether a fetus is a child, can you provide the debaters here proof that a fetus is a child, or whether that is just the position taken by those opposed to abortion. Are there medical textbooks used by Obstetricians and Gynecologists which define a fetus as a child and can be used to back up that stated belief?

It is subjective. And there are those that would say when it is born it is not child, it is a baby.

I would say that the fetus has many of the characteristics of life and therefore should be treated as such.

I would like to see abortion legal for rape, any threat to the health of the mother, fetal abnormalities, suicide. I don't see what the issue with adoption. Many couples can't have kids and would be great parents.

Why are 5,000 women going to the UK every year and very few considering adoption?

Tim Robbins

volchitsa wrote: »

I thought you were against legalizing abortion where a woman's health but not life was threatened. If I've got that wrong, then of course you have my apologies. But in that case I'm not sure what your views are exactly - perhaps you could sum them up briefly for me?

Also,, I was originally replying to Absolam's posts, not just to you. So unless Absolam's view is identical in all points to yours, my criticism stands.

Any health issues that threaten the life of the Mother that abortion can address than abortion must be considerd.

volchitsa

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Any health issues that threaten the life of the Mother that abortion can address than abortion must be considerd.

You're doing it again though - my question was about health issues that may be serious but don't threaten the mother's life. An example would be the Polish woman who won in the ECHR against her own country for refusing her an abortion where the pregnancy was making her go blind.

Her life was not at risk. But her health clearly was. Should such a health issue also lead to the right to choose an abortion, in your view?

lazygal

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't see what the issue with adoption. Many couples can't have kids and would be great parents.

Why are 5,000 women going to the UK every year and very few considering adoption?

Married couples in Ireland are not allowed to surrender children for adoption.


Anyway, regardless of that adoption is for women who have unwanted children, not unwanted pregnancies. Why should I remain pregnant because someone else wants to have a baby?

swampgas

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I would like to see abortion legal for rape, any threat to the health of the mother, fetal abnormalities, suicide. I don't see what the issue with adoption. Many couples can't have kids and would be great parents.

Why are 5,000 women going to the UK every year and very few considering adoption?

It's pretty obvious, if you think about it - adoption is only an option if the woman completes the pregnancy and has the baby. Most women who want an abortion simply do not want to be pregnant.

If a woman is 8 weeks pregnant and doesn't want to be so, surely a simple abortion is going to be preferable to going through an additional 7 months of pregnancy and then a birth, with everything that entails? Do you really not see what a crazy thing it is to assume that a woman would willingly go through all of that unless she actually wanted the baby in the first place?

Loafing Oaf

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't see what the issue with adoption. Many couples can't have kids and would be great parents.

Why are 5,000 women going to the UK every year and very few considering adoption?

Can you suggest any practical means by which those women might be 'persuaded' to consider adoption. If not your assertion has little bearing on the discussion...

Zubeneschamali

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Why are 5,000 women going to the UK every year and very few considering adoption?

I am not one of them, but my own reaction to the question would be "None of your business." The whole debate is diving into matters which should be between a woman and her doctor.

aloyisious

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It is subjective. ....... Absolutely true.

Why are 5,000 women going to the UK every year and very few considering adoption?

................. I can only presume (not being a girl or woman, and going on what's being posted here by women who've been through pregnancy and abortion) that it's down to several factors.

1. the pregnancy can be/is a health hazard and the legal hoops that our country put's a pregnant girl or woman through to get an abortion on those grounds are quite imposing. 2. The birthing and adoption route imposes approx 9 months of pain and stress on the pregnant person. 3. the woman or girl is simply not going to allow herself, and her body, be subject to the imposition of an O/P's life-beliefs. 4. That quite simply the pregnancy is unfactored-for/unwanted. There may well be other reasons which I don't have knowledge of.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Which completely smashes the argument that it would be impossible to claim similar extraterritorial jurisdiction over abortions planned within Ireland but carried out abroad on Irish residents. All that's missing is the will to do so.

Well, it took long enough, but someone finally got there. No one is saying it would be impossible to to claim similar extraterritorial jurisdiction over abortions planned within Ireland but carried out abroad on Irish residents (Although limiting it to Irish residents seems fairly half hearted. What's the logic there?). It would be the only way to do it.

What's missing is not the will to do so; I'm sure there are plenty (if perhaps not a majority) of people who might wish to do so given the opportunity. What is missing is the kind of international agreements we have with other countries that make extraterritorial jurisdiction possible in the case of crimes like murder. Agreements that permit the sharing of evidence, the maintenance of custody chains, the extradition of prisoners. Put that in place, and we have a practicable system.

Yet somehow I can't see Britain (or whoever) giving us information about activities that are not criminal in their jurisdiction, especially when it could be their citizens we're planning to prosecute. They might possibly choose not to arrest people who are engaged in activities they consider illegal. Of course, reciprocal agreements with other countries where abortion is illegal shouldn't be a problem. But then, who's going to go there to have an abortion?

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Well, it took long enough, but someone finally got there. No one is saying it would be impossible to to claim similar extraterritorial jurisdiction over abortions planned within Ireland but carried out abroad on Irish residents (Although limiting it to Irish residents seems fairly half hearted. What's the logic there?). It would be the only way to do it.

What's missing is not the will to do so; I'm sure there are plenty (if perhaps not a majority) of people who might wish to do so given the opportunity. What is missing is the kind of international agreements we have with other countries that make extraterritorial jurisdiction possible in the case of crimes like murder. Agreements that permit the sharing of evidence, the maintenance of custody chains, the extradition of prisoners. Put that in place, and we have a practicable system.

Yet somehow I can't see Britain (or whoever) giving us information about activities that are not criminal in their jurisdiction, especially when it could be their citizens we're planning to prosecute. They might possibly choose not to arrest people who are engaged in activities they consider illegal. Of course, reciprocal agreements with other countries where abortion is illegal shouldn't be a problem. But then, who's going to go there to have an abortion?

Complete and utter rubbish.

The UK has legislation that forbids its citizens from travelling to commit child sex abuse or FGM, by including in the relevant Act a section saying that any who do so abroad will be considered to have committed the same offence within the jurisdiction. Ireland also has similar laws for treason and some other offences.

The same logic could apply. No reason why not. And they manage without requiring information from the countries where this occurs.

And no there is absolutely not a majority for preventing women from accessing abortions abroad, since that was put to the people after the AG tried to prevent Miss X from travelling. Or have you forgotten?

volchitsa

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I would like to see abortion legal for rape, any threat to the health of the mother, fetal abnormalities, suicide.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Any health issues that threaten the life of the Mother that abortion can address than abortion must be considerd.

These two posts are contradictory. Any threat to the health of the mother is not the same as health issues threatening her life.
Which do you mean?

I gave a RL example of a woman left blind due to pregnancy. Should that be a valid reason for a legal abortion, in your view?

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Give me one reason why I should accept that women as a class will knowingly break the law, while medical practitioners as a class will not.

Oh, I don't think I ever offered that argument, so why would I give you a reason for it?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

See, the thing is, that most women that intend to have an abortion, which is illegal here, do not find it necessary to do it without detection because they can hop a plane. This does not mean it is easy to detect illegal abortions here and "practicable" to enforce our laws: it means our laws are a joke, our constitution a laughing stock.

So let me get this straight; you're saying our laws cannot be practicably enforced, and our constitution is a joke. So women are going abroad to have abortions.
Are they demonstrating that it's so easy to break the law in Ireland it's not even worth doing, so they're taunting the legislature by going abroad instead?
Or is this some bizarre manifestation of the collective hypocrisy you say we all suffer from?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If we actually meant to defend the lives of the unborn per the start of 40.3.3, we would have to change this. You note that this is hard to do for foreign abortions, but it would be equally hard for abortions in this jurisdiction if anyone actually tried to defend the right to life of the unborn, and women wanting abortions had to break the law.

We would have to change what exactly? The fact that women go abroad for abortion? Or the fact that the law is currently being flagrantly flouted by people not even being bothered to break it?
If you're suggesting that finding a practicable way of preventing women from having abortions abroad would occasion a rise in illegal abortions in Ireland you're probably right. It would require more effort to police.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are the one arguing that defending the right to life of the unborn per 40.3.3 is impracticable, not me. I say either defend it, or don't pretend to.

I'm not. Personally I think we made a start, and have managed to start refining our position in a humane and thoughtful way. I think attempting to extend our reach beyond our jurisdiction is not practicable, which is a different thing.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Look up the X case: abortion prevented by the agents of the state using the authority of article 40.3.3 as it then existed.

You do keep saying that, and whilst you've yet to demonstrate how they prevented an abortion, you have already acknowledged they failed to prevent anyone from travelling for the purpose of having an abortion.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Again with the carefully misleading wording: the child in the X case did not have an abortion. The injunction was successful. The right to life of the unborn was defended by the state.

What exactly is misleading?
Lazygal was very clear: Should they be prevented from leaving the country to kill unborn children? She's repeated it more than a couple of time, it's hardly misleading.
Did the injunction prevent her from travelling? I'm pretty sure it didn't.... in fact, you agreed yourself.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not at all - this works because the state asserts universal jurisdiction in cases of murder, because the Constitution really does protect the right to life of the citizen (and by extension, all other "born" people).

Not really. It works because other States agree to the assertion, in return for us agreeing to theirs. Without the cooperation of other States, our universal jurisdiction runs no further than our borders.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Similarly the X case - the family let the State know they were travelling for an abortion - and the State stopped it.

No it didn't; they did travel for an abortion. Remember? And had they decided to have the abortion, could the State have intervened? No, not without the co-operation of Britain. Could it have arrested them when they got back? Sure. Would they have been successfully prosecuted? Not according to the Supreme Court.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We had to change the constitution expressly to stop the state doing it again. Want the state to really protect unborn life? Change it back!

Hmm. Are you suggesting we will have less abortions than we do now if we change the Constitution back? That seems fishy....

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Complete and utter rubbish. The UK has legislation that forbids its citizens from travelling to commit child sex abuse or FGM, by including in the relevant Act a section saying that any who do so abroad will be considered to have committed the same offence within the jurisdiction. Ireland also has similar laws for treason and some other offences. The same logic could apply. No reason why not.

Absolutely. All we would need is the legislation and (possibly) a constitutional amendment.

volchitsa wrote: »

And they manage without requiring information from the countries where this occurs.

Ah. Sorry. Have to disagree with you there. How do you imagine Britain obtains evidence of crimes committed abroad to be prosecuted in the jurisdiction? The same standard of proof pertains in those cases as those of crimes committed within the jurisdiction. Which means quite a lot of information is shared between countries to prevent child sex abuse, trafficking etc through agencies such as Interpol for instance, whose sole purpose is to enable police around the world to work together. And who would not be inclined to share information about activities that are legal in countries such as, say, Britain.

volchitsa wrote: »

And no there is absolutely not a majority for preventing women from accessing abortions abroad, since that was put to the people after the AG tried to prevent Miss X from travelling. Or have you forgotten?

Do you think that may be why I said "there are plenty (if perhaps not a majority)"? Though I admit I wouldn't be inclined to use the word 'absolutely' without some sort of current evidence to back me up.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty (if perhaps not a majority) of people who might wish to do so given the opportunity.

I am absolutely certain such a scheme would get a maximum of 572,177 votes in favour, and at least a million votes against.

Like last time.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

You do keep saying that, and whilst you've yet to demonstrate how they prevented an abortion, you have already acknowledged they failed to prevent anyone from travelling for the purpose of having an abortion.

Everyone here, including you, knows that the pregnant girl in the X case travelled to England to have an abortion, an injunction was issued, and she returned without having the abortion. She never did have that abortion.

The state successfully defended the right to life of that particular unborn, as was its duty until we passed the twelfth amendment to stop it.

Your continued attempts to muddy the water by pretending not to understand these facts is tiresome.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Absolutely. All we would need is the legislation and (possibly) a constitutional amendment.
Ah. Sorry. Have to disagree with you there. How do you imagine Britain obtains evidence of crimes committed abroad to be prosecuted in the jurisdiction? The same standard of proof pertains in those cases as those of crimes committed within the jurisdiction. Which means quite a lot of information is shared between countries to prevent child sex abuse, trafficking etc through agencies such as Interpol for instance, whose sole purpose is to enable police around the world to work together. And who would not be inclined to share information about activities that are legal in countries such as, say, Britain.
Do you think that may be why I said "there are plenty (if perhaps not a majority)"? Though I admit I wouldn't be inclined to use the word 'absolutely' without some sort of current evidence to back me up.

I realize they cooperate when something is a crime in both jurisdictions. That isn't relevant, since we are talking about whether the same cooperation is needed for a law to exist concerning residents of one country carrying out something that is not a crime in another country, and there the answer is different : Britain has a section within its law on child sex abuse, and another about FGM on minors, which simply says that if a resident of the UK commits something that would be a crime in the UK, then for the purposes of the Act, he is considered as having committed it within the UK.

So it can certainly be done. And it would be a lot easier to identify women who have had abortions abroad, if only because some will certainly need further medical attention afterwards, than to identify child abusers of foreign children abroad.

All it would take would be a couple of high profile prosecutions (let's say of a couple expecting a child with a fatal abnormality, as that is another easy group to identify) for the feelings of the Irish population about this whole issue to be made clear one way or the other.

Either no more women would ever dare go abroad for abortions, or the majority of people would be so horrified at such inhumanity that they would insist on the law being changed.

Which of those two results would be likelier, in your opinion?

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Absolutely. All we would need is the legislation and (possibly) a constitutional amendment.

Why do you say it might take a constitutional amendment, when there is nothing in the constitution that forbids it? In point of fact it has been ruled on by the SC, when the 1976 criminal jurisdiction act was deemed to be constitutional, allowing crimes committed in the north to be tried in the south and vice versa.

You're only chancing your arm there, aren't you?

Tim Robbins

lazygal wrote: »

Married couples in Ireland are not allowed to surrender children for adoption.

I have yet to meet a married couple that wanted to have an abortion (except in cases of fetal abnormality). How many of the 5,000 Irish abortions per year
do you think are married couples (where there is no fetal abnormality)?

Anyway, regardless of that adoption is for women who have unwanted children, not unwanted pregnancies. Why should I remain pregnant because someone else wants to have a baby?

Why should I change my child's nappy?

Tim Robbins

volchitsa wrote: »

You're doing it again though - my question was about health issues that may be serious but don't threaten the mother's life. An example would be the Polish woman who won in the ECHR against her own country for refusing her an abortion where the pregnancy was making her go blind.

Her life was not at risk. But her health clearly was. Should such a health issue also lead to the right to choose an abortion, in your view?

Yes, abortion ok in that circumstance.

You see, I think we could get that in this government. I think you'd get a lot of consensus there. Abortion on demand is still a step too far too many people and maybe if the middle ground spoke up on this matter instead of it just being the extremes on both sides we could get some progress.

lazygal

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I have yet to meet a married couple that wanted to have an abortion (except in cases of fetal abnormality). How many of the 5,000 Irish abortions per year
do you think are married couples (where there is no fetal abnormality)?


Why should I change my child's nappy?

We don't keep stats on who travels for abortions and why but it's not beyond the bounds of possibilities that some of the 150,000 women it's estimated have travelled for abortion since 1983 are married. I don't know any black Jewish lesbians but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Are you ok with abortion for FFA? Why is that different to other reasons for abortion?
Why are you comparing changing a nappy to abortion? It's a ridiculous comparison. Changing and washing my children's nappies is not comparable to gestation and birth.