Abortion Discussion

alaimacerc

Shrap wrote: »

No, nothing like as cuddly I'm afraid. Imelda Staunton is a wonderful actor but hasn't delivered even half the necessary conviction, emphatic pausing or determination to make her as scary as our Prof Casey.

http://www.newstalk.ie/player/shows/The_Pat_Kenny_Show/13240/15064/18th_December_2014_-_The_Pat_Kenny_Show_Part_1

She starts at 3:37

For my sins, I listened to both the PT segment, which is here, and the above. A lot more heat than light, I have to say. Binchy claims to know everything, including what the courts will decide about this case, based on what he considers "practicable". Casey doesn't admit to knowing anything, but feels that "reasonableness" will somehow win out at the end. Neither troubles to in any way join the dots from their preciously nuance-free 8th amendment to the outcome they find "impractically unreasonable". (In the case of the NewStalk interview, Kenny's wilfully obtuse "questioning" certainly compounds matters.)

In both cases, their protestations that it's "not about abortion" seems to have no basis whatsoever beyond Catholic-flavoured semantics, and this not being a fight they'd care to pick (perhaps out of "decency", though I suspect "because it's an obvious loser for them" is a more explanatory principle). Binchy did initially acknowledge the connection to the 8th amendment (before later switching to "not about abortion" bluster), though, so he's not in complete denial of the legal facts. Both seemed rather keen to minimise the 8th aspect, though, essentially by way of a "not uniquely stupid, as (somewhat) similar cases have arisen elsewhere", which is point-missing on a epic scale.

recedite

The key to understanding abortion referendums, their peculiar wordings, and their historical results, is to know that it is never pro-life on one side and pro-choice on the other. It is always about allowing people to back the majority viewpoint, which is to ban abortion unless the mother's life is at some substantial risk.

Against this view is an unlikely and unspoken coalition between those who want no abortion at all, and those who want much freer abortion. Over time, the first group in the minority coalition gets weaker, and the second group gets stronger, but overall their total share of the vote hardly ever changes.
That is the dilemma for them.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

The key to understanding abortion referendums, their peculiar wordings, and their historical results, is to know that it is never pro-life on one side and pro-choice on the other. It is always about allowing people to back the majority viewpoint, which is to ban abortion unless the mother's life is at some substantial risk.

That'll be why no referendum has ever used the "substantial risk" wording, and why opinion polling completely contradicts your characterisation of the current "majority" view. Perhaps by "always" you meant to say "in certain carefully selected past instances, viewing the results purely through the prism of the highly limited options then on offer".

Against this view is an unlikely and unspoken coalition between those who want no abortion at all, and those who want much freer abortion. Over time, the first group in the minority coalition gets weaker, and the second group gets stronger, but overall their total share of the vote hardly ever changes.
That is the dilemma for them.

I'm not sure how there's any "dilemma" here. This "coalition" exists purely as a rhetorical device to infuriate both of its supposed "wings" by juxtaposing them with the other. Were there a referendum tomorrow to abolish the 8th, or to replace it with some yet more micromanagerial wording to allow any and all of abortion in the case of rape, incest, severe health risk to the woman, fatal foetal abnormality, or indeed for the avoidance of Brave New World/Matrix scenarios like the one that's recently arisen, your imagined "coalition" would not be campaigning on a united ticket.

The real coalition, as I've pointed out before, is between the hardcore theocrats who really want as absolutist a regime as their campaigns to ban abortion, ban information, ban travel, etc, would suggest; and those that are content with the current regime as an "Irish solution" to a question that's awkward and embarrassing to deal with, but isn't too intolerable for "their class" of people in practice. (This is much more of a continuum than recedite's chimera, for obvious reasons, and allows highly variegated combinations of the two sets of sentiments.)

recedite

alaimacerc wrote: »

your imagined "coalition" would not be campaigning on a united ticket...

Its never a united ticket, that's why I say an unspoken coalition. But when the votes are counted, that is the make-up of the voting bloc that normally loses.
The dilemma is that if one part of the voting bloc gets stronger, the other part inevitably gets weaker. So however successful either of them is in their campaign, they cannot achieve their goals.

Brian Shanahan

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Putting the lives of women at risk is not enough to see it repealed? How can this be?

She wants to be seen to be brave on this issue, so she'll admit that the 8th is wrong, but she doesn't want to be actually brave on an issue which'll potentially rupture the government (with consequent loss of Mercedes and helicopter privileges) so she's not going to make repealing it an issue on which Labour will do anything about.

Loafing Oaf

recedite wrote: »

The key to understanding abortion referendums, their peculiar wordings, and their historical results, is to know that it is never pro-life on one side and pro-choice on the other. It is always about allowing people to back the majority viewpoint, which is to ban abortion unless the mother's life is at some substantial risk.

No that was the majority viewpoint. Opinion polls are now consistently showing 75-80% majorities in favour of a right to abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality or rape/incest. As I have said before the next development on the issue is very likely a straight 'repeal the 8th' referendum on the understanding that legislation for abortion in those cases and possibly also others would then be passed. The question is whether a majority would support such a referendum even if there was a perceived possibility that such legislation would in practice lead to 'abortion on demand'.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

Its never a united ticket, that's why I say an unspoken coalition. But when the votes are counted, that is the make-up of the voting bloc that normally loses.

I already dealt with the idea of it being a "voting bloc". It isn't. Your criteria for an "unspoken" coalition seems to be "thing that has none of the actual characteristics of a coalition, but who it'll be great fun to describe as such, because hopefully it'll annoy at least one of them, and ideally both". See also the Golden Mean Fallacy. "I have opponents on either 'extreme' criticising me, 'therefore' I must represent some enlightened compromise."

The dilemma is that if one part of the voting bloc gets stronger, the other part inevitably gets weaker. So however successful either of them is in their campaign, they cannot achieve their goals.

There's no actual "dilemma" here whatsoever. They have no collective goal at all. This is an illusory construct, that I think my earlier post was most than sufficient to dispel. One would think you'd feel it necessary to perhaps add to your notional argument, rather than just hit reply, snip almost all of what I said, and then add more of the same incongruous juxtaposition. But whatever you can manage, I guess.

As has also been pointed out, "people who think abortion provision and legislation should be more liberal" are already in a considerable majority. Between them, the real coalition, between "people who want papal maximalism" in their abortion ban, and people who want the present "outsourced solution with a nice little access hurdle", are merely a blocking minority. And that's only going to become more thus over time, until they're merely the normal type of minority: to wit the one that's outvoted on the issue, when it's actually put to the question, and obstructionism and scaremongering are eventually played out.

MrPudding

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.

And she has been cautioned... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-30550741

MrP

alaimacerc

MrPudding wrote: »

And she has been cautioned... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-30550741

MrP

Is there any basis to the claim the court order "has no affect[sic] in the meantime"? Wouldn't she have to seek a stay of the order, rather than merely file notice to appeal, so as to scoff at the law over the busy festive period?

MrPudding

alaimacerc wrote: »

Is there any basis to the claim the court order "has no affect[sic] in the meantime"? Wouldn't she have to seek a stay of the order, rather than merely file notice to appeal, so as to scoff at the law over the busy festive period?

I found that odd myself. I saw no indication that a stay was in place, but the fact that she was only cautioned might lend credence to it having no effect. I don't know a lot about civil procedure rules though...

I will see if I can find the judgement, it might mention something there.

MrP

Brian Shanahan

MrPudding wrote: »

I found that odd myself. I saw no indication that a stay was in place, but the fact that she was only cautioned might lend credence to it having no effect. I don't know a lot about civil procedure rules though...

I will see if I can find the judgement, it might mention something there.

MrP

The barring order was as part of a criminal proceeding. I'm not privy to the specific case (having only seen the BBC reports), but when you see such an order been given out it is usually a case of "we'll lessen your sentence in this case, but on the other hand you will have to refrain from doing x for so many years, or we will reimpose the sentence in full".

MrPudding

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The barring order was as part of a criminal proceeding. I'm not privy to the specific case (having only seen the BBC reports), but when you see such an order been given out it is usually a case of "we'll lessen your sentence in this case, but on the other hand you will have to refrain from doing x for so many years, or we will reimpose the sentence in full".

Yes, I get that. But bit we are wondering about is her solicitor saying, after she was protesting (on Friday past) as if nothing had happened in court, that the barring order did not actually count as it was subject to an appeal. Normally a barring order from apply immediately. On occasion it might be stayed, pending an appeal, but there is no information to suggest that it has been in this case. As the case was in the magistrates court I can't find the judgement or order.

MrP

Brian Shanahan

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes, I get that. But bit we are wondering about is her solicitor saying, after she was protesting (on Friday past) as if nothing had happened in court, that the barring order did not actually count as it was subject to an appeal.

I wouldn't put any credence to what her solicitor is saying, he/she is not in the business of applying or upholding the law, they are in the business of defending their client. And if defending their client means lying about whether a barring order is currently in effect, that's what you'll find 99.9% of solicitors doing if they think it helps their client.

Lingua Franca

alaimacerc wrote: »

Is there any basis to the claim the court order "has no affect[sic] in the meantime"? Wouldn't she have to seek a stay of the order, rather than merely file notice to appeal, so as to scoff at the law over the busy festive period?

I can't imagine the relevant part of her conviction that earned her the caution, that being the restraining order, wouldn't apply in the meantime.

Imagine that being the case in a domestic abuse case "Well, I'm appealing the sentence, fine and community service so the restraining order also doesn't apply". Why would that a simple restraining order deferred for appeal?

I'm hearing the same from an NI barrister friend. She can apply to have the restraining order repealed but it applies in the meantime.

MrPudding

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I can't imagine the relevant part of her conviction that earned her the caution, that being the restraining order, wouldn't apply in the meantime.

Imagine that being the case in a domestic abuse case "Well, I'm appealing the sentence, fine and community service so the restraining order also doesn't apply". Why would that a simple restraining order deferred for appeal?

I'm hearing the same from an NI barrister friend. She can apply to have the restraining order repealed but it applies in the meantime.

This is kind of what I thought, but then that begs the question, why was she only cautioned on Friday rather than arrested?

MrP

Brian Shanahan

MrPudding wrote: »

This is kind of what I thought, but then that begs the question, why was she only cautioned on Friday rather than arrested?

MrP

Just like down here police tend to take a softly softly approach to religious nut jobs, especially if they're of the "right" religion.

Shrap

Well her new caution will show up in court when she goes to appeal her sentence. That's something anyway. Maybe she'll pick up another few infractions along the way and actually come away with a longer sentence!

Shrap

Some great letters right here: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/the-right-to-life-1.2042803

and here: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/eighth-amendment-1.2044275

aloyisious

Hopefully this report is correct. According to the Indo' the HSE won't raise objections to the family request for the woman's support system to be switched off. I'm left hoping that the legal team batting for the unborn will pay their own costs and won't claim costs from the state.

drkpower

aloyisious wrote: »

Hopefully this report is correct. According to the Indo' the HSE won't raise objections to the family request for the woman's support system to be switched off. I'm left hoping that the legal team batting for the unborn will pay their own costs and won't claim costs from the state.

The unborn's team were effectively appointed by the HSE, so either the HSE (or the State in one shape or another) will pay their costs. It is also almost certain that if the ruling goes against them, the unborn's team will appeal the case to the Supreme.

aloyisious

drkpower wrote: »

The unborn's team were effectively appointed by the HSE, so either the HSE (or the State in one shape or another) will pay their costs. It is also almost certain that if the ruling goes against them, the unborn's team will appeal the case to the Supreme.

Yes, I just saw that about the HSE in The Examiner. It reported that the HSE also appointed a team to represent the interests of the woman as well.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/unborn-baby-gets-barrister-for-court-battle-303900.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/abortion-buck-has-been-passed-yet-again-303824.html

recedite

So now we have a situation in which the unborn and the undead both have their own opposing legal teams. Very strange.

I wonder what the rights of the unborn's father would be in this situation?
Normally they would be eclipsed by the rights of the unborn's mother, but not in this case.
The unborn's grandfather seems to be the figurehead in favour of switching off.
Perhaps the unborn's father is unknown, in which case giving him a legal team would be an "un" too far.

Lingua Franca

No, the father of the foetus is in support of turning off the machines. Everyone from the medical team to the family are in support of turning off the machines. The only concern is the legality of it.

recedite

At 17 weeks I would not give the foetus the same human rights as a foetus almost ready to be born. But that's just opinion.
Unfortunately the Constitution makes no such distinction, nor does it take into account anyone's opinion, either the opinion of the medical team or that of the family.

The legal difficulty is that there is no single really strong legal claim that can eclipse all others. They are all weakened or indirect claims for one reason or another.

Delirium

Dr. Marsh speaking at the court case.

Brain dead woman kept on life support for 20 days to protect unborn child - court

Dr Brian Marsh, a consultant in intensive care at the Mater Hospital, gave expert evidence.

He said there was no evidence that the unborn could be sustained indefinitely.

“I don’t believe that the unborn can survive,” he said.

Dr Marsh, who was asked to review the case by the hospital caring for the mother, said medically speaking the woman was already considered dead.

“The brain is dead. It is not viable. At this point in time it is undergoing a process of liquefaction.”

Dr Marsh said he did not believe the unborn, currently at 18 weeks gestation, could develop safely to the point where it could be delivered at 32 weeks.

“I would be quite concerned that the situation would become quite unsustainable,” said Dr Marsh.

He said there were a number of infections afflicting the woman’s body.

These included a chest infection, a urinary tract infection and a wound and deeper infection in the head.

Dr Marsh said the woman currently requires ventilator support, hormonal support and nutritional support, which sees her being fed through a tube to her stomach.

He said it would be his best judgment that “sustaining the patient will not be feasible for a long period of time”.

He said 32 weeks would be the appropriate timeframe for delivering the unborn, but he thought it unlikely the woman could be sustained for that period of time.

The woman was currently stable, but the background infections being suffered her were likely to change that circumstance over an unknown period of time, he said.

He said the appearance one gets when walking into her hospital room was “very much a sense of being in a room with a dead person”.

Dr Marsh said there had been two previous similar cases in Ireland, one where the unborn was at 14 weeks and another where it was at 16 weeks.

He said the outcome of these was in line “with expectations” that the unborn would not survive.

recedite

"At this point in time it (the brain) is undergoing a process of liquefaction.”
It's quite scary that they have managed to keep a corpse functioning while the brain is liquifying. There must be massive amounts of antibiotics being pumped in.
To say that the environment for the foetus is "abnormal" and "unsustainable" must be the understatement of the year.

Even apart from the abortion issue, we are going to need new laws in the future on the general issue of medical intervention going on for too long in an effort to prolong "life", and who has the right and the responsibility to call a stop to it, not least the person themselves in cases of euthanasia.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Even apart from the abortion issue, we are going to need new laws in the future on the general issue of medical intervention going on for too long in an effort to prolong "life", and who has the right and the responsibility to call a stop to it, not least the person themselves in cases of euthanasia.

Actually the law on this is fairly well established. Life support is regularly withdrawn in cases like this; nobody heads off to the High Court either to find out whether this is permissible or to challenge it because they disagree with the decision. There's only an issue in this case because the patient is pregnant. And the issue only arises because we legislated on the subject.

It's obviously a very difficult situation for the family and the medical professionals, and there are heart-rending decisions to be taken and facts to be confronted, but I don't think there's any great legal uncertainty on the general issue of allowing those who are brain-dead to complete the dying process. And if the Eighth Amendment and all that has followed from it has taught us nothing else, it has taught us the folly of legislating for the sake of it where, just perhaps, we don't need to.

drkpower

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually the law on this is fairly well established. Life support is regularly withdrawn in cases like this; nobody heads off to the High Court either to find out whether this is permissible or to challenge it because they disagree with the decision. There's only an issue in this case because the patient is pregnant. And the issue only arises because we legislated on the subject

Out of interest, when you say legislated, do you mean a 40.3.3 (rather than recent protection of life in pregnancy act)?

MrPudding

Not in Ireland, though I could see this type of thing being proposed, but a small victory here.

MrP

aloyisious

The counsel for the unborn has told the court that the 8th amendment does not apply to the woman (as she is dead) only to the unborn. He also told the court that the amendment was worded before the present situation was envisaged. It seems to me in doing so, he is choosing to believe the wording of the amendment is whatever he want's it to mean and is asking the judges to extend the premise of the amendment and it's wording beyond that voted in by the public.

On RTE TV 1 news, it was mentioned that some-one had argued in court that despite it being seen as grotesque, the womn's corpse must be kept on the machines as there were medical science advances made regularly. I didn't hear the quote fully as I was caught on the hop by it. I assume it was made in reference to the unborn.