Abortion Discussion

swampgas

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)?

Do you really think such a couple would actually tell you? Really?
As it happens though, I know of at least one married couple, with children, that decided to have an abortion, and it was nothing to do with FFA. How many there are as a percentage is irrelevant though.

Why should I change my child's nappy?

You think a woman should continue an unwanted pregnancy just so someone can adopt the baby at the end of it? I have great sympathy for people who cannot have children, and it must be galling for them to see other people rejecting a pregnancy that they themselves would welcome, but it is completely unacceptable to demand that a woman goes through a pregnancy just so you can have their baby.

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

I don't know any black Jewish lesbians but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Linda Bellos.

lazygal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Linda Bellos.

I never met her therefore she can't possibly be black or Jewish or lesbian.

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

I never met her therefore she can't possibly be black or Jewish or lesbian.

I have. Used to work with her.

She is all three.

(and a monumental pain in the arse).

You are of course entitled to your 'beliefs'....

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

Are you? Such certainty must be founded on facts I suppose. But why aren't you certain it would get 841,233 votes in favour and 416,136 against, like the last time we voted on whether we should protect the life of the unborn? You never know, all those masochistic hypocrites might have a new neurosis to focus on now...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

We do know that. I never questioned it. What I questioned was your assertion that the AG prevented an abortion.
The fact that she chose not to have one does not necessarily mean he prevented her from doing so. After all, he didn't prevent her from travelling to have the abortion.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

How exactly? I've no doubt that the AG attempted to defend the right to life of the unborn, and that he was quite right in doing so. But he demonstrably did not prevent her from travelling, and you've provided no evidence that the State constrained her from having an abortion when she was beyond the States jurisdiction. At best you could say X (and/or her parents) decided to do some of what the State tried to make her do.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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

I don't think it's muddying the water to point out that you asserted the AG prevented the unborn being taken outside the country to be killed; this was quite obviously false, since X did indeed travel outside the country with the express intent of having an abortion.
So rather than muddy the waters further with the nebulous claim that the State successfully defended the right to life of one unborn, you might clarify your statement by demonstrating how the State prevented an abortion, rather than X chose not to have one?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

I think you missed the points I made.
1) What's the logic in limiting it to residents?
2) 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.

I understand that Britain has sections within its laws which simply say that if a resident of the UK commits something that would be a crime in the UK, then for the purposes of the Act, they are (since 'he is' implies that it only applies to men, an interesting construction) considered as having committed it within the UK. That means the same standard of evidence is required to prosecute the crime as if it had occurred in Britain. Which will, believe it or not, often require international cooperation to obtain, and that makes cooperation very relevant.

Britain may assert its' right to prosecute its citizens who commit fgm in any country (just as Ireland might assert its' right to prosecute its citizens who commit the destruction of unborn human life in any country) , but the inability to obtain enough evidence to secure a conviction might be a factor in the fact than in the eleven years that it has been an offence for British citizens to carry out or procure FGM abroad, even in countries where the practice is legal, no one has been successfully prosecuted for doing so.
You might even be led to wonder if the British law is practicable.

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

I've no doubt that asserting our right is as simple, as you say, as making the statement. Enforcing that assertion is what I believe is not practicable, as would appear to be the situation in the case of the British law. And that's when Britain does have the cooperation of various international bodies.

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

You don't think the feelings of the Irish population ought to be considered before legislation is put in place and prosecutions are attempted? It would seem to be a necessary step in determining if it's practicable..

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

I'd suggest that less (though possibly not substantially less, after all, it's estimated that 20,000 British women are at risk of fgm every year) women would dare go abroad for abortions, and pro abortion advocates would have another argument to make. Whether the majority would be so horrified as to insist the law be changed; maybe, but then, all it would take is excluding ffa from the legislation as it's enacted to remove that potential. Since we're enacting legislation anyway, as I previously said, we could simply legislate to have abortion in the case of ffa available in the jurisdiction.

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

Well, let me see. Article 3 of the Constitution does define the limits of Irish jurisdiction, and they don't extend as far as other countries.
Your example of the 1976 Criminal Jurisdiction Act is a particularly suitable one give your arguments above; the Supreme Court specifically stated in that instance that Ireland is a sovereign State and that its national parliament has full power to legislate with extraterritorial effect in accordance with the accepted principles of international law, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution which state that "the laws enacted by that parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstát Éireann and the like extra-territorial effect."
So, should legislation to prosecute the deliberate destruction of unborn human life outside the area and extent of Ireland (the State) be found to not be in accordance with the principles of international law (and I'd be very interested in your thoughts on whether it would), then it would fall foul of Article 3, unless we had a Constitutional Amendment. Which is why I think it might be necessary.

volchitsa wrote: »

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

Not really... I just checked how we went about asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction despite the Constitutional restriction on previous occasions. Since I was trying to figure out if Lazygals proposition to prevent women from travelling aboard to have abortions, and to determine if women entering the country have ever had an abortion, was practicable, it seemed like the sensible thing to do.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

you might clarify your statement by demonstrating how the State prevented an abortion, rather than X chose not to have one?

On her return, she fought the injunction in the Supreme Court. This proves that she still wanted to have an abortion, and did not (on that occasion*) because of the injunction.

And she never did get an abortion, so the AG successfully did his duty.

*This qualification added in case Absolam challenges me to prove that X never had an abortion ever, ever, ever, thus winning the argument in his own head.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

On her return, she fought the injunction in the Supreme Court. This proves that she still wanted to have an abortion, and did not (on that occasion*) because of the injunction. And she never did get an abortion, so the AG successfully did his duty.

How does that prove that she was prevented from having an abortion? The very fact that she (successfully) challenged the injunction demonstrates she did not feel she should be compelled by it, so she hardly felt that, whilst she was outside the jurisdiction, she could be. Regardless of your or my opinion on her motives, she (or her parents) decided not to have an abortion when she could have; she was not prevented from doing so.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

she (or her parents) decided not to have an abortion when she could have; she was not prevented from doing so

By that logic, nobody is ever prevented from doing anything by an injunction, they either choose to obey it, or if they disobey, they are prevented by some other thing, like being tossed in jail.

This is a rather opaque way to use the English language, not guaranteed to be comprehensible to your fellow human beings.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

By that logic, nobody is ever prevented from doing anything by an injunction, they either choose to obey it, or if they disobey, they are prevented by some other thing, like being tossed in jail. This is a rather opaque way to use the English language, not guaranteed to be comprehensible to your fellow human beings.

That's not really true either though is it?
On foot of the injunction to prevent her travelling, X could have been arrested by the Gardai if she attempted to leave the jurisdiction.
On foot of the injunction preventing her seeking an abortion in the jurisdiction, Gardai could have arrested her for doing so if she attempted it.
On foot of the same injunction preventing her seeking an abortion in another jurisdiction, once she was there, Gardai could do nothing; she was in a jurisdiction where the injunction had no standing.
And of course, having broken any of these injunctions she could indeed have been charged with contempt after the fact. Which we know now would not have resulted in successful prosecutions, since the SC discharged the injunctions.
So whilst the threat of a possible conviction for contempt might have influenced her decision not to have an abortion, you can't claim the AG actually prevented her from having an abortion.

To be honest, it seems to me that in weighing the prospect of a fine or jail term for contempt against carrying the issue of her rapist to term (a thought that evidently was so abhorrent as to make her contemplate suicide) I very much doubt she found the prospect of a contempt conviction all that daunting. However, regardless of our opinions as to her motives, the fact is she elected to return without having an abortion; the AG couldn't compel her.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

So whilst the threat of a possible conviction for contempt might have influenced her decision not to have an abortion, you can't claim the AG actually prevented her from having an abortion.

Yes, I actually can.

It was not a big coincidence that the AG set out to prevent the abortion via injunction, and X coincidentally decided not to have an abortion.

The thing which prevented the abortion was the injunction.

The question of what the sanction for breaking the injunction would have been is irrelevant.

However, regardless of our opinions as to her motives, the fact is she elected to return without having an abortion; the AG couldn't compel her.

I never said the AG compelled her to return without having an abortion.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The thing which prevented the abortion was the injunction.

How?

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

How?

You already said how yourself:

having broken any of these injunctions she could indeed have been charged with contempt after the fact.

The injunction was a court instruction preventing the abortion with the usual threat of sanctions for non-compliance. X decided to comply, but fighting it in the Supreme Court shows that she still wanted the abortion, she did not agree with the injunction, merely complied with it.

This proves that she returned without the abortion against her will.

The AG took legal action to prevent the abortion, and as a result, the abortion did not happen. In plain English, the AG prevented the abortion.

And your endless nitpicking about what the meaning of the word "is" is suggests that you are uncomfortable with these established historical facts, perhaps because they show that a majority in the following referendums voted to make abortion on demand legal for women in Ireland, as long as they can hop a plane to London in the process.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

That's not really true either though is it?
On foot of the injunction to prevent her travelling, X could have been arrested by the Gardai if she attempted to leave the jurisdiction.
On foot of the injunction preventing her seeking an abortion in the jurisdiction, Gardai could have arrested her for doing so if she attempted it.
On foot of the same injunction preventing her seeking an abortion in another jurisdiction, once she was there, Gardai could do nothing; she was in a jurisdiction where the injunction had no standing.
And of course, having broken any of these injunctions she could indeed have been charged with contempt after the fact. Which we know now would not have resulted in successful prosecutions, since the SC discharged the injunctions.
So whilst the threat of a possible conviction for contempt might have influenced her decision not to have an abortion, you can't claim the AG actually prevented her from having an abortion.

To be honest, it seems to me that in weighing the prospect of a fine or jail term for contempt against carrying the issue of her rapist to term (a thought that evidently was so abhorrent as to make her contemplate suicide) I very much doubt she found the prospect of a contempt conviction all that daunting. However, regardless of our opinions as to her motives, the fact is she elected to return without having an abortion; the AG couldn't compel her.

I'm not sure if you are (or are not) aware that the girl and her parents were outside the jurisdiction when the injunction to prevent her leaving the jurisdiction was granted to the AG, therefore they were not at risk of being arrested by the Gardai for an attempted breach of the injunction. So the effectiveness of the injunction stopping her leaving the jurisdiction is a moot point.

This sentence of your's (On foot of the same injunction preventing her seeking an abortion in another jurisdiction, once she was there, Gardai could do nothing; she was in a jurisdiction where the injunction had no standing) seem's to show you are aware of that fact.

I don't know if the girl and her parents sought or got legal advice before returning to the republic (after being informed of the injunction) prior to any abortion procedure being carried out in the UK. I think that the legal effect of the injunction must have had some bearing on their decision to return, so the AG (in effect) did prevent the planned abortion by way of the injunction. Do you agree with that summation or think that the AG's injunction had no effect whatsoever on her when she was made aware of it? If not, what reason do you ascribe to her return to the republic without having the abortion procedure?

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAttorney_General_v._X&ei=TbYaVL7JDu7A7AbChoHgBg&usg=AFQjCNGXundoRJ9lVNtZwcyI9b7gYJyOow

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You already said how yourself:
having broken any of these injunctions she could indeed have been charged with contempt after the fact.

So... faced with a choice between:
a) having an abortion which was so important to her that she was prepared to commit suicide if she didn't get it and being charged with contempt of court
or
b) not being charged with contempt of court and being forced to kill herself

she decided she couldn't face the contempt charge and had to return? I'm afraid your argument isn't even slightly convincing.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The AG took legal action to prevent the abortion, and as a result, the abortion did not happen. In plain English, the AG prevented the abortion.

The AG took the action he could, which manifestly failed to prevent anything at all. Attempting to confuse correlation with causation isn't going to change that I'm afraid. Either that, or when I took action to make the sun come this morning, and the sun came up, it meant in plain English I am a God. Cool.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And your endless nitpicking about what the meaning of the word "is" is suggests that you are uncomfortable with these established historical facts, perhaps because they show that a majority in the following referendums voted to make abortion on demand legal for women in Ireland, as long as they can hop a plane to London in the process.

Well, as non sequiturs go, that's certainly a doozy.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

The AG took the action he could, which manifestly failed to prevent anything at all.

Gosh, she had the abortion?

No.

She changed her mind and decided not to have an abortion of her own free will?

Nope.

She complied with an injunction from the High Court against her will?

Yes, proven by the fact that she went to the Supreme Court to fight it.

Who got the injunction?

The AG.

So the AG caused her to return from England without having an abortion, against her will.

The AG prevented the abortion.

Attempting to confuse correlation with causation isn't going to change that I'm afraid.

You are reduced to openly denying the plain facts, and exposed as ridiculous.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm not sure if you are (or are not) aware that the girl and her parents were outside the jurisdiction when the injunction to prevent her leaving the jurisdiction was granted to the AG, therefore they were not at risk of being arrested by the Gardai for an attempted breach of the injunction. So the effectiveness of the injunction stopping her leaving the jurisdiction is a moot point.

What's moot about it? The injunction was issued; it did not have an effect. Demonstrating that the issuing of an injunction, in itself, has no effect on its subject. Hardly a moot point if someone were to contend, for instance, that the issuing of an injunction to prevent someone having an abortion did, in itself, have an effect on it's subject.

aloyisious wrote: »

I think that the legal effect of the injunction must have had some bearing on their decision to return, so the AG (in effect) did prevent the planned abortion by way of the injunction. Do you agree with that summation or think that the AG's injunction had no effect whatsoever on her when she was made aware of it? If not, what reason do you ascribe to her return to the republic without having the abortion procedure?

Oh, I've no doubt that the injunction may have influenced their decision. To a greater degree than the need to get rid of something so great that not meeting that need forced her to contemplate ending her own life? I do doubt that.
Still, that does not amount to a factual statement that what prevented the abortion was the injunction. By quite a distance. What prevented the abortion is known only to X and her parents; we can, as I said, speculate on their motives, but they decided to return without having an abortion. They could have not done so; there was nothing to stop them going through with the abortion.
So, the State did not prevent the abortion. X and her parents did.

Tim Robbins

lazygal wrote: »

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.

That 150,000 is derived from 5,000 a year for 30 years. It doesn't include woman who have gone more than once.

Your argument is that you think you have more rights because your body is being used and you should have extra say. The nappy argument shows how ridiculous that kind of logic is. Glad to see you have observed that.

Tim Robbins

swampgas wrote: »

You think a woman should continue an unwanted pregnancy just so someone can adopt the baby at the end of it? I have great sympathy for people who cannot have children, and it must be galling for them to see other people rejecting a pregnancy that they themselves would welcome, but it is completely unacceptable to demand that a woman goes through a pregnancy just so you can have their baby.

Ok just kill the baby then.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Gosh, she had the abortion? No.

And as I said, correlation is not causation. Or am I God?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

She changed her mind and decided not to have an abortion of her own free will? Nope.

You can demonstrate how you know she didn't do this of her own free will? Or are you simply assuming you know her mind, because you don't have an argument without that assumption?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

She complied with an injunction from the High Court against her will?Yes, proven by the fact that she went to the Supreme Court to fight it.

Wow, bit of a leap there! How exactly does challenging an injunction in the Supreme Court prove she complied with it against her will? She could challenge it without complying with it. She could challenge it whilst complying with it voluntarily.

Had she not wished to return, what forced her to? Without being in the Republic, the injunctions had no effect on her whatsoever; she wasn't bound by them whilst she was there.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Who got the injunction? The AG. So the AG caused her to return from England without having an abortion, against her will. The AG prevented the abortion. You are reduced to openly denying the plain facts, and exposed as ridiculous.

That's a grand house of cards, but the foundations are non-existent I'm afraid.

swampgas

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ok just kill the baby then.

Suppose it's at 8 weeks, is it still a "baby" ?

lazygal

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That 150,000 is derived from 5,000 a year for 30 years. It doesn't include woman who have gone more than once.

Your argument is that you think you have more rights because your body is being used and you should have extra say. The nappy argument shows how ridiculous that kind of logic is. Glad to see you have observed that.

But you think its ok to kill the unborn conceived through rape, or if the health of a woman is at risk, or if the baby has fatal abnormalities? I'm not asking for extra rights - I am asking that a woman not have to have her body used for the purposes of gestation against her will. The same way I can't be asked to use my body to maintain my born children's right to life.

You introduced the nappy changing argument. I'm glad you see how ridiculous that line of argument is.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

What's moot about it? The injunction was issued; it did not have an effect. Demonstrating that the issuing of an injunction, in itself, has no effect on its subject. Hardly a moot point if someone were to contend, for instance, that the issuing of an injunction to prevent someone having an abortion did, in itself, have an effect on it's subject.

Oh, I've no doubt that the injunction may have influenced their decision

One. The moot point about the issuing of an injunction to prevent some-one leaving the country after the person named in the injunction had left the country, should be plain for anyone wanting to see it. It's best described as closing the stable-door after horse has bolted.

Two. Do you not see the conflict between your (The injunction was issued; it did not have an effect. Demonstrating that the issuing of an injunction, in itself, has no effect on its subject) AND your (Oh, I've no doubt that the injunction may have influenced their decision)?

It seem's to me that by using the word "MAY" in your second sentence you are quibbling and attempting to cast doubts on why the girl and her parents returned without having the abortion procedure performed. I don't know if you are genuinely trying to argue what you see as a valid point or merely using it as a way of extending the space, time and effort being used by others in this thread. I note, wryly, your other sentence above (Hardly a moot point if someone were to contend, for instance, that the issuing of an injunction to prevent someone having an abortion did, in itself, have an effect on it's subject) when you know that others here feel that the injunction did have precisely that effect.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

One. The moot point about the issuing of an injunction to prevent some-one leaving the country after the person named in the injunction had left the country, should be plain for anyone wanting to see it. It's best described as closing the stable-door after horse has bolted.

So, are you saying that the effectiveness of the injunction is moot, or the issuing of the injunction is moot? Or both? Either way, the fact that it demonstrates that an injunction may be moot, is relevant to the point that an injunction is not necessarily effective simply because it exists.

aloyisious wrote: »

Two. Do you not see the conflict between your (The injunction was issued; it did not have an effect. Demonstrating that the issuing of an injunction, in itself, has no effect on its subject) AND your (Oh, I've no doubt that the injunction may have influenced their decision)?

No. Because the fact that it may have affected their decision, does not mean that it was effective in it's purpose.
And, since you appear to be in danger of conflating the two;
The injunction we were discussing when I said "The injunction was issued; it did not have an effect" was the injunction to prevent X from travelling.
The injunction we were discussing when I said "the injunction may have influenced their decision" was the injunction to prevent X from obtaining an abortion in another jurisdiction.

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's to me that by using the word "MAY" in your second sentence you are quibbling and attempting to cast doubts on why the girl and her parents returned without having the abortion procedure performed.

Oh, not at all. I hardly think it's a trivial matter I'm objecting about, since Zubeneschamalis argument depends on their motivation for returning. I certainly can't cast doubts on that motivation since no one but they know what that motivation was. I can however speculate (and be honest enough to say 'may') about what was influencing them, just like Zubeneschamali is. Apart from the fact that I'm not claiming my speculation is a factual account.

aloyisious wrote: »

I don't know if you are genuinely trying to argue what you see as a valid point or merely using it as a way of extending the space, time and effort being used by others in this thread.

Because the space, time and effort could be better used by others on this thread? I'm certainly not denying them the opportunity to do so if they wish.

aloyisious

Absolom quote: So, are you saying that the effectiveness of the injunction is moot, or the issuing of the injunction is moot? Or both? Either way, the fact that it demonstrates that an injunction may be moot, is relevant to the point that an injunction is not necessarily effective simply because it exists.

No. Because the fact that it may have affected their decision, does not mean that it was effective in it's purpose.
And, since you appear to be in danger of conflating the two;
The injunction we were discussing when I said "The injunction was issued; it did not have an effect" was the injunction to prevent X from travelling.
The injunction we were discussing when I said "the injunction may have influenced their decision" was the injunction to prevent X from obtaining an abortion in another jurisdiction.

Oh, not at all. I hardly think it's a trivial matter I'm objecting about, since Zubeneschamalis argument depends on their motivation for returning. I certainly can't cast doubts on that motivation since no one but they know what that motivation was. I can however speculate (and be honest enough to say 'may') about what was influencing them, just like Zubeneschamali is. Apart from the fact that I'm not claiming my speculation is a factual account.

Because the space, time and effort could be better used by others on this thread? I'm certainly not denying them the opportunity to do so if they wish.


Aloyisious reply: Confuscation? Edit: that should have been a ? after the n, not an !

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

How exactly does challenging an injunction in the Supreme Court prove she complied with it against her will?

If she wanted to do what the injunction said - not have the abortion - she had no reason to challenge the injunction.

She did challenge it, so her will was to have the abortion. Instead of doing what she willed, she complied.

So, she complied with the injunction against her will. We know this for a fact, despite all your inane hairsplitting.

Had she not wished to return, what forced her to? Without being in the Republic, the injunctions had no effect on her whatsoever; she wasn't bound by them whilst she was there.

She lived here! Of course she wanted to come home.

If you are asking (clumsily) why she didn't have the abortion and then come back, that is not generally a good way to treat High Court injunctions. As you said yourself earlier:

having broken any of these injunctions she could indeed have been charged with contempt after the fact.

Zubeneschamali

aloyisious wrote: »

Oh, not at all. I hardly think it's a trivial matter I'm objecting about, since Zubeneschamalis argument depends on their motivation for returning.

I don't think it is a trivial matter, either, but it is a matter of fact, and I am right. Supreme Court judge McCarthy agrees with me:

The short answer, in the instant case, is that the order was effective; it may well be that others will be less responsible than the family involved here but that would not, of itself, be a ground for not making the order.

Tim Robbins

lazygal wrote: »

But you think its ok to kill the unborn conceived through rape, or if the health of a woman is at risk, or if the baby has fatal abnormalities?

It is the lesser of two evils.

I'm not asking for extra rights - I am asking that a woman not have to have her body used for the purposes of gestation against her will. The same way I can't be asked to use my body to maintain my born children's right to life.

You introduced the nappy changing argument. I'm glad you see how ridiculous that line of argument is.

I have to use my body to change the nappies. If you think that's ridiculous well then you have agreed with me your own logic is ridiculous.

volchitsa

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It is the lesser of two evils.

I have to use my body to change the nappies. If you think that's ridiculous well then you have agreed with me your own logic is ridiculous.

If pregnancy is at all comparable to changing nappies, how could terminating one, thereby killing the fetus, ever be the lesser of two evils? In a single post you have completely contradicted yourself.

Can you conceive of any circumstances under which a reasonable person would agree to kill a baby rather than change its nappy?

I think it's clear whose logic is ridiculous : yours.

Bannasidhe

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It is the lesser of two evils.


I have to use my body to change the nappies. If you think that's ridiculous well then you have agreed with me your own logic is ridiculous.

'Lesser of two evils' - is the rape foetus so evil it has no 'right to life'?


Unless you use your intestines to change nappies, continually do this for months and then excrete them out in large bundles (some cutting may be required) I fail to see how that is a relevant comparison... or perhaps you think being pregnant for 9 months is really only as onerous as disposing of a packet of poo.