Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Overheal

La Fenetre wrote: »

I didn't think the question was that complex.
I'm interested if anyone committing an offense abroad has ever been convicted in Ireland for committing an offense against Irish law, in another jurisdiction, where that act is not actually an offense in the foreign jurisdiction ? It doesn't have to be having sex with children abroad or "sex tourism" as you call it. It can be anything that infringes on another human life, including the termination of that life.

Can it be safely assumed that if someone does something abroad that is legal in a foreign country, that it should be morally acceptable and legal here ? I'm not sure that follows to be true.

You'd have to look at your passport. iirc, (don't have it right on hand) the US passport stipulates an adherence to host state laws and american laws when traveling abroad.

La Fenetre

Overheal wrote: »

You'd have to look at your passport. iirc, (don't have it right on hand) the US passport stipulates an adherence to host state laws and american laws when traveling abroad.

I don't recall seeing it on the Irish passport. Does anyone know, is there any law in Ireland that states Irish citizens must obey Irish laws in foreign jurisdictions ? I didn't realise that US citizens are obliged to comply with US laws in foreign jurisdictions. That's an interesting one.

Overheal

La Fenetre wrote: »

I don't recall seeing it on the Irish passport. Is there any law in Ireland that states Irish citizens must obey Irish laws in foreign jurisdictions ? I didn't realise that US citizens are obliged to comply with US laws in foreign jurisdictions. That's an interesting one.

It's total conjecture until I or someone else verifies it, it's been a long time since I read my passport

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Or women's... Oh, and for those interested, Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Act, 1996. Can't find any records of people being prosecuted under it, but it may be that it just never made it into the media or I just simply can't find it. Most mentions of it are about the Mission to Prey program on RTE.

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes I agree. However that isn't the only point in this argument, because the question was originally whether Ireland could or should punish such crimes, even when they are not illegal in the country where they occur. And the answer is that Ireland can, because we have such a law for assisted suicide abroad. And because other western countries have prosecuted their citizens for child sex abuse committed abroad, regardless of whether or not it was legal in that country. So La Fenetre's argument that these things just can't be done is basically rubbish. It can be done, so insisting that it can't or shouldn't begins to look like an attempt at condoning it. It can, and it should be done.

I'm sure Volchitsa recalls that she thoroughly failed to make the case for extra-territorial jurisdiction the last time she got into a debate on it, but to avoid rehashing the whole thing, it might be worth just looking over a few pages of the thread in the 'other' forum, here.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

I'm sure Volchitsa recalls that she thoroughly failed to make the case for extra-territorial jurisdiction the last time she got into a debate on it, but to avoid rehashing the whole thing, it might be worth just looking over a few pages of the thread in the 'other' forum, here.

I'm glad for your sake that you think you won, I'm sure you need some satisfaction in your life, but all that really happened was you bored me to the extent that I decided that I at least had another life off this site and away from your silly nitpicking and goalpost moving.

Hence I almost never engage with you now. Not because you won the discussion, but because life is too short to engage at your level of non discussion. I would lose the will to live.

I'm sure if La Fenetre really thinks you had any substantive point to make over there he/she will reformulate it here. I don't doubt it will be just as clear here that you didn't actually have one as it was there.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm glad for your sake that you think you won, I'm sure you need some satisfaction in your life, but all that really happened was you bored me to the extent that I decided that I at least had another life off this site and away from your silly nitpicking and goalpost moving.

Well, I never said that I did win, regardless of whether I thought I did (kind of you to tell me what I think, again); I said that you failed to make the case for your idea. In fact, on all the occasions you put it forward on behalf of people who've never said they want it, regardless of who you discuss it with, you never manage to make a substantive case for it. Do you?
And whilst it's really thoughtful of you to consider the satisfaction in my life, I note you didn't really decide to leave the discussion at the time, did you? You just decided to argue with J C instead, and didn't address my posts until you thought you could argue something else instead. The stunning arrogance of the opinion you offered on my behalf, as I recall.

volchitsa wrote: »

Hence I almost never engage with you now. Not because you won the discussion, but because life is too short to engage at your level of non discussion. I would lose the will to live.

Not that I've ever claimed to win the discussion (I rather think no one 'wins' the discussion), but still, if you do ever decide to try and substantiate your argument, I'll be happy to discuss it with you all the same.

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm sure if La Fenetre really thinks you had any substantive point to make over there he/she will reformulate it here. I don't doubt it will be just as clear here that you didn't actually have one as it was there.

Oh I hope not. The points were made and (unlike your own) never really rebutted ('all of your post is just waffle then' isn't really much of a rebuttal); I linked the thread in the hope of avoiding repeating the discussion, rather than watching it happen it again.

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

Don't get too shocked... the difference between what you think seems to be and what actually is is fairly substantial.
My point was that if no one is ever convicted of committing the crime (or, as in the case of abetting suicide, only one prosecution is ever even brought in over twenty years of the legislation existing) , what point is there in it being a crime? If there's no reasonable chance of legislation being practicable, there is no point in having it.

So once a law is passed should someone, just anyone at all be convicted immediately? Don't they have to actually break the law first?

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

So once a law is passed should someone, just anyone at all be convicted immediately? Don't they have to actually break the law first?

Are you particularly invested in finding some way to misconstrue what I say? I can't see that it adds anything to the discussion, can you?
No, I never said, implied, or even gave the impression that once a law is passed someone must needs be convicted immediately. Yes, someone should break a law before being convicted of breaking that law, that absolutely makes sense to just about everyone.

Perhaps, in the last twenty-odd years no one has ever ever broken that particular law.
Perhaps no one has ever ever made it known that they broke that law.
Perhaps no DPP has ever felt that those people they knew of that had broken the law ought to be prosecuted.
All possibilities; but we know that only one prosecution has ever been brought for breaking that law, and it was unsuccessful. So as a model for how to prosecute people who have abortions in other jurisdictions, it may not be a great example of a workable system, unless you think the very existence of the law has been an effective deterrent? In which case, so long as people are no more dedicated to ending the lives of their prospective children than they are to ending the lives of their acquaintances, you may have something.

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

In which case, so long as people are no more dedicated to ending the lives of their prospective children than they are to ending the lives of their acquaintances, you may have something.

By definition you can't end something that's prospective. So we're finally agreed that a fetus is not a child, good to know.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

My point was that if no one is ever convicted of committing the crime (or, as in the case of abetting suicide, only one prosecution is ever even brought in over twenty years of the legislation existing) , what point is there in it being a crime? If there's no reasonable chance of legislation being practicable, there is no point in having it.

When I was going through the Legal Discussion forum looking for examples of Irish laws that can be prosecuted for even when committed in another country, and one example was detonating a nuclear weapon (I haven't actually looked this up since it's not the topic we're discussing, so I'm putting some faith in the posters on that forum).

To the best of my knowledge, an Irish citizen has never detonated a nuclear weapon, at least outside of a local government sanctioned test, so should that not be a law?

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

By definition you can't end something that's prospective. So we're finally agreed that a fetus is not a child, good to know.

We are? Did I actually say that, or are you deliberately misconstruing something again? Do you feel you achieved something by doing it?

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

We are? Did I actually say that, or are you deliberately misconstruing something again? Do you feel you achieved something by doing it?

You actually said it in the quote I posted, here it is again:

Absolam wrote: »

In which case, so long as people are no more dedicated to ending the lives of their prospective children than they are to ending the lives of their acquaintances, you may have something.

You describe abortion as ending the life of a prospective child.

Nick Park

robdonn wrote: »

When I was going through the Legal Discussion forum looking for examples of Irish laws that can be prosecuted for even when committed in another country, and one example was detonating a nuclear weapon (I haven't actually looked this up since it's not the topic we're discussing, so I'm putting some faith in the posters on that forum).

To the best of my knowledge, an Irish citizen has never detonated a nuclear weapon, at least outside of a local government sanctioned test, so should that not be a law?

There certainly seems to be little point in having such a law. The deterrent value would appear to be minimal.

Just imagine it. An terrorist is just about to detonate a nuclear bomb, primed to kill millions of people in a city somewhere in the Middle East. Suddenly he stops and says, "Oh crap! I can't go through with this. I've just realised I might end up in court in Athlone if I ever go back to Ireland!"



Remember also, given the discussion so far in this particular thread, that we were discussing activities that were legal in another jurisdiction but illegal in Ireland.

So, bearing that in mind, should we have a law that makes it a criminal offence for an Irish citizen to detonate a nuclear device overseas in some imaginary country where setting off nuclear bombs is considered perfectly normal and legal behaviour? Probably not.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

When I was going through the Legal Discussion forum looking for examples of Irish laws that can be prosecuted for even when committed in another country, and one example was detonating a nuclear weapon (I haven't actually looked this up since it's not the topic we're discussing, so I'm putting some faith in the posters on that forum).
To the best of my knowledge, an Irish citizen has never detonated a nuclear weapon, at least outside of a local government sanctioned test, so should that not be a law?

It's a fairly relevant example; is our assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction in this particular case presented in a particular context? For instance, say, that of being a signatory to a particular convention?
Absent membership of that convention, would Ireland assert such jurisdiction?

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

You actually said it in the quote I posted, here it is again:

Yep. Can't see where I said that a fetus is not a child in there, sorry. Try again?

Kev W wrote: »

You describe abortion as ending the life of a prospective child.

I did indeed. I didn't say a fetus is not a child though did I? I'll happily say a fetus is someones prospective child, and is an unborn child too I am my mothers child, yet I'm not a child, I'm an adult. How can this be? Perhaps language is sufficiently elastic to allow us to use a word in a number of different ways. Shocking.

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

Yep. Can't see where I said that a fetus is not a child in there, sorry. Try again?

I did indeed. I didn't say a fetus is not a child though did I? I'll happily say a fetus is someones prospective child, and is an unborn child too I am my mothers child, yet I'm not a child, I'm an adult. How can this be? Perhaps language is sufficiently elastic to allow us to use a word in a number of different ways. Shocking.

A fetus cannot be both a child and a prospective child. I can't quit a prospective job or divorce a prospective wife.

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

A fetus cannot be both a child and a prospective child. I can't quit a prospective job or divorce a prospective wife.

So, just to be clear... When you said "we're finally agreed that a fetus is not a child", you knew that wasn't true? You just though you could justify it by pretending to a limited use of English?
I can't imagine how you think that does your position any favours to be honest.

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

So, just to be clear... When you said "we're finally agreed that a fetus is not a child", you knew that wasn't true?

I don't know where you're getting that from at all.

Absolam wrote: »

You just though you could justify it by pretending to a limited use of English?
I can't imagine how you think that does your position any favours to be honest.

What does "pretending to a limited use of English" mean?

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

I don't know where you're getting that from at all.

From the fact that you've demonstrated an inability to quote me agreeing that a fetus is not a child. Sorry, I thought that was pretty clear.

Kev W wrote: »

What does "pretending to a limited use of English" mean?

Hmm. Is that a real question?

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

From the fact that you've demonstrated an inability to quote me agreeing that a fetus is not a child. Sorry, I thought that was pretty clear.

I quoted you describing abortion as ending the life of a prospective child. A prospective child by definition cannot be a child. Though I would accept that perhaps you were just misusing the word "prospective".

If I were engaged, my fiancée would be my prospective wife. Does that mean I can divorce her?

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm. Is that a real question?

Yes, you can tell by the question mark at the end.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

It's a fairly relevant example; is our assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction in this particular case presented in a particular context? For instance, say, that of being a signatory to a particular convention?
Absent membership of that convention, would Ireland assert such jurisdiction?

Hmmm, I'm not sure. I'd be surprised if it wasn't related to a convention.

Maybe the Passport Act would be more appropriate as a comparison?

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

I quoted you describing abortion as ending the life of a prospective child. A prospective child by definition cannot be a child. Though I would accept that perhaps you were just misusing the word "prospective".

Actually you didn't, I never mentioned abortion. But that wasn't the fact I pointed out; the fact I pointed out was that you've demonstrated an inability to quote me agreeing that a fetus is not a child.

Kev W wrote: »

If I were engaged, my fiancée would be my prospective wife. Does that mean I can divorce her?

If you weren't engaged to her, it wouldn't stop her being a wife, regardless of whether you could divorce here, certainly. Just as regardless of whether you accept or turn down a prospective job, it will still be a job. And yet, I am still my mothers child, even though I am not a child.

Kev W wrote: »

Yes, you can tell by the question mark at the end.

Ok, so which part of the sentence is difficult to comprehend?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Hmmm, I'm not sure. I'd be surprised if it wasn't related to a convention.
Maybe the Passport Act would be more appropriate as a comparison?

Maybe. Would you like to explain how it works so we can see?

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

Actually you didn't, I never mentioned abortion.

So then this:

Absolam wrote: »

so long as people are no more dedicated to ending the lives of their prospective children than they are to ending the lives of their acquaintances, you may have something.

was not a reference to abortion? what did you mean then?

Absolam wrote: »

But that wasn't the fact I pointed out; the fact I pointed out was that you've demonstrated an inability to quote me agreeing that a fetus is not a child.

I never said that you did, word for word. I only inferred it from your description of the subject of an abortion (or whatever it is you meant by "ending the lives of their prospective children") as a "prospective child".

Absolam wrote: »

If you weren't engaged to her, it wouldn't stop her being a wife, regardless of whether you could divorce here,certainly.

Of course it would!
You can't divorce someone without marrying them first. And since I am by definition not married to my fiancée then I by definition cannot possibly divorce her.

Absolam wrote: »

Just as regardless of whether you accept or turn down a prospective job, it will still be a job. And yet, I am still my mothers child, even though I am not a child.

Who said anything about turning down or accepting a job? I asked about quitting the job. Why can't you answer the questions as asked?

Absolam wrote: »

Ok, so which part of the sentence is difficult to comprehend?

The order in which you have put the words "pretending to a limited use of English" has no meaning.

"pretending to a limited use of English"

Overheal

Absolam wrote: »

If you weren't engaged to her, it wouldn't stop her being a wife, regardless of whether you could divorce here, certainly. Just as regardless of whether you accept or turn down a prospective job, it will still be a job. And yet, I am still my mothers child, even though I am not a child.

If you aren't engaged to her, she's not your fiancé

If she is your fiancé, you can marry her, or call it off. She doesn't become a divorcee or a widow..

Your job analogy makes no friggin sense in any context for this debate. Sorry. Was that serious? Can you relate that back to the topic in a comprehensible manner?

You are still a child to your parent. Parent-child relationships are a well established thing (in computing, previously termed as Master and Slave - the terms inexplicably fell out of popularity)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_(disambiguation)

Absolam wrote: »

Yep. Can't see where I said that a fetus is not a child in there, sorry. Try again?



I did indeed. I didn't say a fetus is not a child though did I? I'll happily say a fetus is someones prospective child, and is an unborn child too I am my mothers child, yet I'm not a child, I'm an adult. How can this be? Perhaps language is sufficiently elastic to allow us to use a word in a number of different ways. Shocking.

So you're applying two opposing forms of logic here:


a) A fetus is both a fetus and a prospective child "and unborn child"


b) I am not both an adult and my mother's child


Funny how the elasticity only works when you want it to work. You can both be an adult and your mother's child. A zygote can be both a zygote, and a prospective human life.

Overheal

Now that I think about it for the sake of semantics, "child" is a poor choice of words for this argument. My poop is literally a child/dependent function output of me. I'd advise pro-life users say human life instead when making their case

Absolam

Overheal wrote: »

If you aren't engaged to her, she's not your fiancé.
If she is your fiancé, you can marry her, or call it off. She doesn't become a divorcee or a widow..
Your job analogy makes no friggin sense in any context for this debate. Sorry. Was that serious? Can you relate that back to the topic in a comprehensible manner?

Neither analogy is mine I'm afraid; both are Kevs so you'll have to take them up with him.

Overheal wrote: »

You are still a child to your parent. Parent-child relationships are a well established thing (in computing, previously termed as Master and Slave - the terms inexplicably fell out of popularity)

Indeed! I agree entirely

Overheal wrote: »

So you're applying two opposing forms of logic here:
a) A fetus is both a fetus and a prospective child "and unborn child"
b) I am not both an adult and my mother's child

Well, no, I'm not. I agree that I am both an adult and my mothers child, and that a fetus is both a fetus and a prospective child "and unborn child" . That was in fact my point.

Overheal wrote: »

Funny how the elasticity only works when you want it to work. You can both be an adult and your mother's child. A zygote can be both a zygote, and a prospective human life.

Those all seem to work fairly fine to me. I'm not sure why it wouldn't work when I want it to work but I guess we'll see how it goes...

Overheal

And now for this amusing recess for this debate...

http://www.mediaite.com/online/twitter-enjoys-another-round-of-baby-hitler-snark-thanks-to-jeb-bush/

Absolam

Overheal wrote: »

Now that I think about it for the sake of semantics, "child" is a poor choice of words for this argument. My poop is literally a child/dependent function output of me. I'd advise pro-life users say human life instead when making their case

I think it is generally the case that pro-choice proponents prefer to avoid the word 'child' as it carries somewhat negative connotations for the pro-choice argument. Hence Kev Ws' original post beginning this exchange; " there is no child involved in an abortion".
For some reason Kev appears to think that if he can wriggle around my statements sufficiently to give the impression that I agree there is no child involved in an abortion, it will somehow negate my own observation of the fact that Irish jurisprudence does refer to the 'unborn child'.

Personally I'm not convinced it makes a difference to anything really.

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

So then this:
was not a reference to abortion? what did you mean then?

It didn't say it wasn't; I said I never mentioned abortion, just as I never agreed that a fetus is not a child. Are you sure we're having the same conversation? You seem to think I'm saying a lot of stuff when in fact I'm not.

Kev W wrote: »

I never said that you did, word for word. I only inferred it from your description of the subject of an abortion (or whatever it is you meant by "ending the lives of their prospective children") as a "prospective child".

But you did actually say that I did, remember? You said "So we're finally agreed that a fetus is not a child, good to know." Hardly a qualified statement. There's no "Actually, you didn't say that, but if I extrapolate from a statement you did make I can infer from my extrapolation that you could be construed as agreeing such a thing, despite not actually doing so".

Kev W wrote: »

Of course it would! You can't divorce someone without marrying them first. And since I am by definition not married to my fiancée then I by definition cannot possibly divorce her.

Which is not to say that she cannot currently be a wife, is it? Or that she will never be a wife, even if you don't marry her?

Kev W wrote: »

Who said anything about turning down or accepting a job? I asked about quitting the job. Why can't you answer the questions as asked?

Sure. Whether or not you can quit a prospective a job, it's still a job. It was a job before you decided you might want it, it will be a job even if you don't.
So, since we're indulging our allegories so exhaustively, do you understand how it is that I can be my mothers child, and yet not be a child?

Kev W wrote: »

The order in which you have put the words "pretending to a limited use of English" has no meaning.
"pretending to a limited use of English"

Well.. it does. Someone who pretends to something is someone who aspires to it or lays claim to it, particularly when their aspiration or claim is arguably not genuine. A limited use of English is a less than complete, or restricted, use of English. So you'll readily see that the order in which I put the words does have a meaning, it just may not be a meaning you understood?

That said, since you've demonstrated that you can look a statement, extrapolate a conclusion from it, infer something from that conclusion and render it in an entirely new statement, it seems to me you don't actually have any lack of ability with the language, eh?