Abortion Discussion

Peregrinus

Animals are the property of their owners, but of course there are lots of animals that have no owners. The specific crime of cruelty to an animal does requires sentience, but I think that's because sentience is inherent in the concept of "cruelty". Other animal-related crimes - e.g. taking the eggs of a protected species of bird, hunting a protected species - don't require any sentience to be established, but I'm not sure that we would consider animals to be the "victims" of those crimes.

aloyisious

re the Ms Y case, her lawyer sought, and got, ex-parte orders in the High Court today preventing the HSE from proceeding with an inquiry into the handling of her abortion-request by various agencies and to quash a HSE (leaked) draft report into her case, as to both inquiries she was unable (due to ill-health) to give evidence. The case has been put back to January.

PopePalpatine

I was expecting a bit more of a reaction here to Varadkar claiming that the 8th Amendment is too restrictive. IIRC, didn't he once say he was opposed to abortion in ALL circumstances?

Delirium

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I was expecting a bit more of a reaction here to Varadkar claiming that the 8th Amendment is too restrictive. IIRC, didn't he once say he was opposed to abortion in ALL circumstances?

Back in 2010:

The conservative TD and medical doctor said he would “not be in favour of abortion” and, although he is not religious, he would “accept a lot of Catholic social thinking”.



In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in the X case that a woman had a right to an abortion if there was “a real and substantial risk” to her life. Mr Varadkar said: “The only thing that would be a grey area is if there’s a genuine threat or risk to the life of the mother.”

Loafing Oaf

SW wrote: »

Back in 2010:

Dev onl had to look into his heart to find out what the Irish people want. Leo only has to look into what the Irish people want (as expressed through opinion polls) to find out what's in his heart...

Pherekydes

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Dev onl had to look into his heart to find out what the Irish people want. Leo only has to look into what the Irish people want (as expressed through opinion polls) to find out what's in his heart...

Therein lies the way to leadership. Populism.

Loafing Oaf

Pherekydes wrote: »

Therein lies the way to leadership. Populism.

You have to admire his political skills though, he's running rings round Coveney and any other potential leadership rivals.

It's like when he was enthusing about an FF/FG coalition the other week: he wasn't actively defying Enda, who has left the door open to such an arrangement, but at the same time he was projecting himself as a guy with a mind of his own, unlike Coveney and the other nodding dogs in Cabinet...

MrPudding

Good result here, https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0124_PressSummary.pdf

Glad the health board made the effort to appeal. I remember the appeal striking me as a bad judgement at the time.

MrP

drkpower

Pherekydes wrote: »

Therein lies the way to leadership. Populism.

You have to feel for politicians sometimes. If they dont change their views, they are critcised for being closed-minded and dogmatic. If their views change with time, experience or following debate, its populism.

The debate in the last year is likely to have changed a lot of peoples' minds, especially the evidence given by the obstetricians at the senate hearings. This might be pure politics with Leo, but i doubt it. And i think he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Shrap

drkpower wrote: »

This might be pure politics with Leo, but i doubt it. And i think he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I'm giving him exactly as much kudos as a politician who comes out in favour of repealing the 8th deserves, when they're totally safe in the knowledge they're going down with this ship and haven't a rat's chance in hell of being in government next time round. Fair play for saying it out loud, but he'll be slapped down by the rest of FG before it ever reaches the table. However, I found his little speechification about being pro-life/embryos being human too mealy-mouthed for words, never mind his thinking on what Irish people actually want to see happen (how dare he speculate, considering we haven't been asked about it in a meaningful way since 1983?). A fantastic lesson in fence-sitting, and I hope he gets a splinter in his arse from it.

More kudos to Clare Daly, tbf.

Ps. I think it's pure politics, and at its most cynical actually. Think he'd have said that if he didn't want to separate himself from the ultra-conservative FG herd? And why would he want to do that now? Oh wait.....Enda's going down. I forgot.

Absolam

He didn't say he was in favour of repealing the 8th amendment though. I suspect that what he said is what he has been told a lot of people think; he's against abortion on demand but supports abortion in popularly emotive circumstances. Not a surprise from a politician in a major party with an eye on being Taoiseach some day.

Shrap

Absolam wrote: »

He didn't say he was in favour of repealing the 8th amendment though. I suspect that what he said is what he has been told a lot of people think; he's against abortion on demand but supports abortion in popularly emotive circumstances. Not a surprise from a politician in a major party with an eye on being Taoiseach some day.

Probably the first time I've agreed with you on this subject. Yes, he (quite cynically, in my view) avoided outright stating that the 8th should be repealed, and instead said "“The eighth amendment continues to exert a chilling effect on doctors. .........That isn’t how it should be.” and “it is my considered view that the eighth amendment is too restrictive”

No three cheers from me Varadkar.

The Black Oil

Oops on the twitter machine. Someone at the helm of @OireachtasNews retweeted a message by Cora Sherlock. Finger must have slipped on the mouse...

A message from prominent anti-abortion campaigner Cora Sherlock referring to Minister for Health Leo Varadkar’s intervention in Tuesday’s abortion debate was re-tweeted by @OireachtasNews on Tuesday night.

Her tweet, which was re-tweeted by @OireachtasNews, stated: “As a woman with epilepsy, I am deeply offended & shocked by @campaignforleo where he supports abortion on demand @epilepsyireland”;.

At 9.30 on Wednesday morning, this tweet was posted on @OireachtasNews: “We have removed a re-tweet from our account.I t wasn’t a sanctioned re-tweet and so wasn’t an official statement/endorsement”.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas-twitter-account-removes-abortion-re-tweet-1.2041002

At least it was picked up. Bad form for an official account - either side of the debate.

Loafing Oaf

Shrap wrote: »

Probably the first time I've agreed with you on this subject. Yes, he (quite cynically, in my view) avoided outright stating that the 8th should be repealed, and instead said "“The eighth amendment continues to exert a chilling effect on doctors. .........That isn’t how it should be.” and “it is my considered view that the eighth amendment is too restrictive”

No three cheers from me Varadkar.

But he said he favours a more liberal abortion and accepted that this can only happen through a referendum. If not full repeal, is the suggestion he may favour some 'tweaking' of the constitutional position as was attempted in 1192 and 2002?

Shrap

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But he said he favours a more liberal abortion and accepted that this can only happen through a referendum. If not full repeal, is the suggestion he may favour some 'tweaking' of the constitutional position as was attempted in 1192 and 2002?

Oh, spare me :mad: How well it's always worked before when the Irish have so morally and compassionately attempted to define the relative importance of the Irish woman's life compared to that of the Irish foetus.

Honestly, as soon as I see the utter joke of a question that will be put forward for referendum, I'm leaving this fcuking country. I imagine my kids will have left the country by the time it comes round. Think I'll head abroad to someplace that knows the value of my life.

Loafing Oaf

Shrap wrote: »

Honestly, as soon as I see the utter joke of a question that will be put forward for referendum, I'm leaving this fcuking country.

IMO the question can only be: Do you favour the repeal of Article 40.3.3.

As soon as someone who favours any liberalization of our abortion regime starts thinking about the messy and complex business of regulating abortion on the grounds of FFA (or whatever) via the Constitution, I believe they must conclude the only way forward is straight repeal followed by legislation.

Shrap

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

IMO the question can only be: Do you favour the repeal of Article 40.3.3.

As soon as someone who favours any liberalization of our abortion regime starts thinking about the messy and complex business of regulating abortion on the grounds of FFA (or whatever) via the Constitution, I believe they must conclude the only way forward is straight repeal followed by legislation.

No, no, no. How many times have you done this?! I'm not having a go here, but they don't ask open-ended questions. They will supply the answers for us, and they will go more like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill,_1992_(Ireland)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill,_2002_(Ireland)

Where we are asked specifically what wording can be added to the amendment that covers abortion being allowed in the most emotive circumstances possible.There is NO WAY IN HELL they will ask us to repeal the 8th. They'll just fudge more wordiness into it and ask us to say "yay" or "nay" about that. Nothing more.

We get to pick between the least worst and the worst answer. There will be no progressive answer to pick. This much, I guarantee you.

swampgas

Shrap wrote: »

No, no, no. How many times have you done this?! I'm not having a go here, but they don't ask open-ended questions. They will supply the answers for us, and they will go more like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill,_1992_(Ireland)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill,_2002_(Ireland)

Where we are asked specifically what wording can be added to the amendment that covers abortion being allowed in the most emotive circumstances possible.There is NO WAY IN HELL they will ask us to repeal the 8th. They'll just fudge more wordiness into it and ask us to say "yay" or "nay" about that. Nothing more.

We get to pick between the least worst and the worst answer. There will be no progressive answer to pick. This much, I guarantee you.

I wonder, though. The events of the last few years have (I hope) made many people much more aware of the complexity of the abortion issue. Whether it's enough that politicians feel brave enough to be somewhat pro-choice is a difficult question to answer though. If TDs start to feel that they might lose votes by maintaining a hard line against abortion, then we might see more of them rehashing Varadkar's position.

Unfortunately though, Irish politics being what it is, it will probably take another ten years and a few more Miss Ys and Savitas before we finally catch up with the civilized world.

.

volchitsa

swampgas wrote: »

I wonder, though. The events of the last few years have (I hope) made many people much more aware of the complexity of the abortion issue. Whether it's enough that politicians feel brave enough to be somewhat pro-choice is a difficult question to answer though. If TDs start to feel that they might lose votes my maintaining a hard line against abortion, then we might see more of them rehashing Varadkar's position.

Unfortunately though, Irish politics being what it is, it will probably take another ten years and a few more Miss Ys and Savitas before we finally catch up with the civilized world.

Prophetic words or what?
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/clinically-dead-pregnant-woman-being-kept-alive-by-hospital-30845660.html
:mad:

Shrap

swampgas wrote: »

I wonder, though. The events of the last few years have (I hope) made many people much more aware of the complexity of the abortion issue. Whether it's enough that politicians feel brave enough to be somewhat pro-choice is a difficult question to answer though.

This bit doesn't matter a damn if we aren't given the power to question the status quo (which apparently still sees women as incubators - in death as in life, as per link given above :mad: ). Excuse me while I have no faith. Oh wait....I'm in the right forum for having no faith. Phew.

Wrong country though.

inocybe

You can hardly call it liberalisation of abortion, Varadkar was referring to fatal foetal abnormalities. He's against 'abortion on demand'. Though why his personal opinion should come into it I don't know - isn't he there to implement the will of the majority of the population?

Lingua Franca

Bernie Smyth didn't get jail time. She did, however, get 100 hours community service, 2000 pounds to be paid to Dawn Purvis as compensation and a 5 year restraining order from the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast because she has a very high risk of reoffending.

Her response? Precious Life will be holding an "Empty Manger" candle light carol service outside the Marie Stopes "Abortion Centre" this Saturday. The eye rolling emoticon isn't enough, I need an opthamologist to swivel my eyeballs back to normal position.

volchitsa

LOL.

It's called the Martyr Syndrome I believe. She'll be happy only when she's on that stake and the heathens are burning her alive. Though prison would do her, at a push.

Loafing Oaf

Shrap wrote: »

This bit doesn't matter a damn if we aren't given the power to question the status quo (which apparently still sees women as incubators - in death as in life, as per link given above :mad: ). Excuse me while I have no faith. Oh wait....I'm in the right forum for having no faith. Phew.

Wrong country though.

But the point is not that our politicians are necessarily much more liberal on abortion than they were, it's they (or many of them) have come to recognise the nigh-unworkability of trying to regulate such a complex area via a blunt instrument like the Constitution. The parties have yet to clarify their positions but I certainly expect Labour at least to call for a straight repeal of Article 40.3.3. As you and others pointed out Varadkar didn't fully declare his hand in the speech but the bit about the chilling effect of the amendment suggests to me that he is at the very least dubious about the use of the Constitution to legislate in this area...

Brian Shanahan

inocybe wrote: »

isn't he there to implement the will of the majority of the population?

Not precisely, he's there to represent the best interests of the people of the country as his employers. Now this is often synonymous with "will of the majority", and even more often is a value call based on personal views, but there are enough times where representing the best interests of a nation is the opposite of the majority view within that nation.

Shrap

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But the point is not that our politicians are necessarily much more liberal on abortion than they were, it's they (or many of them) have come to recognise the nigh-unworkability of trying to regulate such a complex area via a blunt instrument like the Constitution. The parties have yet to clarify their positions but I certainly expect Labour at least to call for a straight repeal of Article 40.3.3. As you and others pointed out Varadkar didn't fully declare his hand in the speech but the bit about the chilling effect of the amendment suggests to me that he is at the very least dubious about the use of the Constitution to legislate in this area...

I hope you're right.

Cynical me (and I've no reason to be otherwise in this country) thinks that Leo has just used the opportunity (:mad:) of the clinically dead pregnant woman to make Enda look like a heartless b*stard.

Or the timing of the speech is an interesting coincidence - one or the other.

aloyisious

Wasn't able to make the Pro-choice protest at Leinster House yesterday at 7PM, anyone know how it went?

PopePalpatine

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Bernie Smyth didn't get jail time. She did, however, get 100 hours community service, 2000 pounds to be paid to Dawn Purvis as compensation and a 5 year restraining order from the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast because she has a very high risk of reoffending.

Her response? Precious Life will be holding an "Empty Manger" candle light carol service outside the Marie Stopes "Abortion Centre" this Saturday. The eye rolling emoticon isn't enough, I need an opthamologist to swivel my eyeballs back to normal position.

It looks like the judge needs to hand out a few dozen more restraining orders.

Shrap

The delightful Dr. Patricia Casey was just on the Pat Kenny Show discussing the case of the clinically dead pregnant woman and is claiming that this is merely an ethical issue that could happen anywhere and has nothing to do with the 8th amendment. While yes, it could happen anywhere, and would clearly cause ethical dilemmas wherever it happened, this is one of the few countries where a doctor couldn't necessarily concede to the wishes of the next of kin for fear of the legislature around the right to life of the foetus.

The only way she could be right (and not being typically disingenuous) is if the father of the 16 week foetus is objecting to the next of kin's wishes. We may never know.

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

How well it's always worked before when the Irish have so morally and compassionately attempted to define the relative importance of the Irish woman's life compared to that of the Irish foetus.

i suspect that most who voted felt they did so in accordance with their own morals and with compassion in mind; that they arrived at a different conclusion from your own doesn't devalue their good intentions.

Shrap wrote: »

Think I'll head abroad to someplace that knows the value of my life.

Or simply agrees wih the primacy you place on it's value?

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

IMO the question can only be: Do you favour the repeal of Article 40.3.3.
As soon as someone who favours any liberalization of our abortion regime starts thinking about the messy and complex business of regulating abortion on the grounds of FFA (or whatever) via the Constitution, I believe they must conclude the only way forward is straight repeal followed by legislation.

Does anyone really think there's an intention to place all legislation with regard to abortion in the Constitution? What's wrong with treating the Constitution as the primary source from which legislation is derived.... That way legislation can be altered and updated without referenda as long as it is compliant with the overarching requirements of the Constitution.
In my opinion, there's no political appetite for repealing the Amendment outright because politicians know a majority won't vote to remove all protection from the unborn, and amending it sufficiently to permit legislation that allows just the right amount of liberalisation is such a political minefield that expressing 'mealy mouthed' (not that I think it really was) sentiment is a much safer route to public approbation.