Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think so; I quite specifically called out that the Act allows the use of force not just in self defence but also for the protection of others, property or to effect an arrest. But claiming someone is dishonest (and egregiously so, no less!) whilst at the same time claiming not to have actually read what they said is particularly entertaining!

And... hours? Perish the thought.. 'twas but a moments work to realise which piece of legislation demonstrated how fundamentally ignorant of the law it is to say that there are no situations in which you can legally choose to harm one person because you think a different person deserves help. Even allowing for self defence type situations.

Long consulted meaningless posts. Well, maybe you can knock them out in a moment's work after all. Ok.

As for the content, I read the quote. It was the same pointless nitpicking yet simultaneously contentfree style that led me to put you on ignore in the first place.

Since your latest post was clearly a reply to mine, I ignored my general rule and read it.

The only thing I can see worth picking up on it is that you seem to have moved to the claim that the unborn is actually a person and as such benefits from the same protection as born people.

The reality is that that is not true. The unborn has a very unclear legal status, and cannot reasonably be considered to have anything like the level of protection that a person does.

So your belief that OATP or any other law allowing harm to be done to someone who is threatening a third person is not founded.

Not to mention that even in those cases, the person doing the harm is liable to be considered for prosecution or even prosecuted, even when the situation is clearly self-defence or protection of a third party. Yet the pro life people in Ireland are unanimous that women should not be put on trial for abortions, whether or not the law allows it.

Absolam

That's a lot of well rehearsed sentiment there, but if we set aside your recharacterisations for a bit; you simply can't get away from the fact that the unborn have legal personhood in Ireland. Their legal status has been well documented and proven before the Courts, like it or not. The notion that a person cannot be harmed in order to protect another person, even if that person is unborn, is patently unfounded, as has been proven by legislation and jurisprudence.

Appealing to the notion that things are 'unclear', or that 'the pro life people want' seems like pretty desperate straw clutching I'm afraid... if you even thought you could offer a factual case rather than those kind of vague allusions you'd have put it forward some time ago.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

That's a lot of well rehearsed sentiment there, but if we set aside your recharacterisations for a bit; you simply can't get away from the fact that the unborn have legal personhood in Ireland. Their legal status has been well documented and proven before the Courts, like it or not. The notion that a person cannot be harmed in order to protect another person, even if that person is unborn, is patently unfounded, as has been proven by legislation and jurisprudence.

Appealing to the notion that things are 'unclear', or that 'the pro life people want' seems like pretty desperate straw clutching I'm afraid... if you even thought you could offer a factual case rather than those kind of vague allusions you'd have put it forward some time ago.

No they don't. That's just silly.

If they did, then miscarriages would have to be subject to an autopsy to establish cause of death, and indeed potentially as homicides, which is complete nonsense.

They have some sort of vague legal existence, as "unborn" but they have no actual legal personhood. How could they, when their lives are systematically put second to those of the pregnant woman? There is no second class category of person in the constitution, in fact I believe that very possibility is specifically excluded.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Of course; the OATPA simply demonstrates that there are in fact situations in which you can legally choose to harm one person because you think a different person deserves help. Having established that fact there's no apparent reason for thinking the principles won't apply in other circumstances, so for instance we might find that detaining and nourishing, even restraining, a person in order to prevent them killing another person could be in line with such a principle.
The HSE is hardly going to argue they were empowered by the OATPA provisions to take the actions they did (though as far as I know they didn't force feed her, and arguably her consent (which according to the original Times timeline was actually given) was not required for life saving medication to be administered to her child); most likely they would argue they were empowered by an Order of the Courts to take certain actions and that additionally such actions as they took to preserve the life of Miss Ys child were not only legal but ethically required. A Court Order is going to carry rather more weight with a Judge considering whether their acts were lawful. The fact that such a Court Order and their actions are underpinned by the same principle as the OATPA (that it is permissible to harm one person in order to protect another) shows that the various legislation in play is harmonious.

I think volchitsa's intent (though I can't speak for her) in bringing it up was to deride the state of affairs in Ireland where, contrary to a womans wishes, we wilfully deliver live children rather than terminate their lives, and by extension cast shade on abortion here and the overall allowance within POLDPA for it.

Still, whilst the claim about situations in which you can legally choose to harm someone obviously falls in the face of the facts, it does draw attention to the fact that the POLDPA, and the Constitutional position on the life of the unborn in general, can be viewed harmoniously with other legislation regarding harming and killing people in Ireland.

Your original argument was that, inter alia, the OATP act could empower a 1st person to effect a physical assault on a second person for the purposes of defending a third person on both legal and moral-belief grounds. That was made in ref to and as part of the discussion on the actual treatment of a hospital patient.

IMO, this (Having established that fact there's no apparent reason for thinking the principles won't apply in other circumstances, so for instance we might find that detaining and nourishing, even restraining, a person in order to prevent them killing another person could be in line with such a principle) flies in the face of this (Still, whilst the claim about situations in which you can legally choose to harm someone obviously falls in the face of the facts).

I agree with you that The HSE is hardly going to argue they were empowered by the OATPA provisions in whatever alleged actions it took in respect of the solicitors patient-client, though wherever the notion that it would came from I don't know. IMO, it'd be singularly stupid of them if they did.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

No they don't. That's just silly. If they did, then miscarriages would have to be subject to an autopsy to establish cause of death, and indeed potentially as homicides, which is complete nonsense. They have some sort of vague legal existence, as "unborn" but they have no actual legal personhood. How could they, when their lives are systematically put second to those of the pregnant woman? There is no second class category of person in the constitution, in fact I believe that very possibility is specifically excluded.

Well, if it's really that silly you might be able to rebut it with evidence rather than relying on your personal 'if - then' extrapolations?
On the one hand, there's nothing on the law that says that the end of a life of an entity with legal personhood has to be subject to autopsy, is there? In fact, most deaths aren't. Certainly companies with legal personhood can be wound up with not a Garda in sight. Nor is there a reason to think that being a legal person gives one equal rights in all regards; legal persons under the age of consent cannot marry, vote, or establish contracts yet we don't say they're second class therefore not legal persons.
On the other hand, the unborn explicitly have a right assigned to them in the Constitution under the heading "Personal Rights". They are provided with legal counsel in Court, as in P.P. vs HSE. Those are concrete specifics from law, rather than made up extrapolations...

Just saying 'if this were true then things would work the way I think, and they don't' isn't an argument against the fact that it's true, it's an argument against how you think things should work. It appears to me your ideas that the unborn 'have some sort of vague legal existence' yet are 'a "person" whose legal existence is problematic' owe more to your own wishful thinking than any acquaintance with the facts.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Your original argument was that, inter alia, the OATP act could empower a 1st person to effect a physical assault on a second person for the purposes of defending a third person on both legal and moral-belief grounds. That was made in ref to and as part of the discussion on the actual treatment of a hospital patient.

Actually, my original point was that contrary to volchitsa's assertion that "There are no situations in which you can legally choose to harm one person because you think a different person deserves help (other than self defence type situations." there are in fact situations where you can legally do just that.

aloyisious wrote: »

I agree with you that The HSE is hardly going to argue they were empowered by the OATPA provisions in whatever alleged actions it took in respect of the solicitors patient-client, though wherever the notion that it would came from I don't know. IMO, it'd be singularly stupid of them if they did.

It might have come from your suggestion below?

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd suggest that if one told a judge one thought it was legal to use force (under OATP act provisions) against a patient because one felt quite literally one can, and morally should, legally harm one person (the pregnant woman) in order to help another person (in this specific case, the person to be protected being the feotus inside a pregnant hospital patient) in line with the law, the judge might deliver a different point of view.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Well, if it's really that silly you might be able to rebut it with evidence rather than relying on your personal 'if - then' extrapolations?
On the one hand, there's nothing on the law that says that the end of a life of an entity with legal personhood has to be subject to autopsy, is there? In fact, most deaths aren't. Certainly companies with legal personhood can be wound up with not a Garda in sight. Nor is there a reason to think that being a legal person gives one equal rights in all regards; legal persons under the age of consent cannot marry, vote, or establish contracts yet we don't say they're second class therefore not legal persons.
On the other hand, the unborn explicitly have a right assigned to them in the Constitution under the heading "Personal Rights". They are provided with legal counsel in Court, as in P.P. vs HSE. Those are concrete specifics from law, rather than made up extrapolations...

Just saying 'if this were true then things would work the way I think, and they don't' isn't an argument against the fact that it's true, it's an argument against how you think things should work. It appears to me your ideas that the unborn 'have some sort of vague legal existence' yet are 'a "person" whose legal existence is problematic' owe more to your own wishful thinking than any acquaintance with the facts.

I literally don't understand what point you're making here.

There is no law saying that a fetus is a person, so we can only proceed by precedent and extrapolation, that's how the law works.

When a person dies, if the cause of death is unclear, there is an autopsy, and if there's any indication that someone is responsible there will be a effort to bring them to trial.

This isn't even possible for a fetus. Therefore it's logical, in fact inevitable, to conclude that in Irish law the fetus is not a person, because the laws that apply to people don't apply to fetuses.

I've no idea what you think your post says that disproves that, although you appear to believe it does.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

I literally don't understand what point you're making here. There is no law saying that a fetus is a person, so we can only proceed by precedent and extrapolation, that's how the law works.

There is however the Constitution, which says the unborn have a personal right; that's neither precedent or extrapolation, it's the law. And we have the precedent of the unborn being assigned counsel as a party to a Court case, which requires no extrapolation, since it actually happened.

volchitsa wrote: »

When a person dies, if the cause of death is unclear, there is an autopsy, and if there's any indication that someone is responsible there will be a effort to bring them to trial. This isn't even possible for a fetus. Therefore it's logical, in fact inevitable, to conclude that in Irish law the fetus is not a person, because the laws that apply to people don't apply to fetuses.I've no idea what you think your post says that disproves that, although you appear to believe it does.

And if an unborn person were to die in utero and there was an indication that someone was responsible, do you think there would be no effort to bring them to trial? As far as I'm aware the intentional destruction of unborn human life is a crime for which someone can be prosecuted. Therefore (at least by your own logic) it's logical, in fact inevitable, to conclude that in Irish law the fetus is a person, because there are laws against their unlawful killing just as there are laws against the unlawful killing of people in other circumstances.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, my original point was that contrary to volchitsa's assertion that "There are no situations in which you can legally choose to harm one person because you think a different person deserves help (other than self defence type situations." there are in fact situations where you can legally do just that.

It might have come from your suggestion below?

Re your 1st: the presumption that the OATP act could be used to justify the actions taken against the patient (use of force to protect a third person) came from you, a misreading on what scenarios the act's provisions could be applied to, and presumably an off-the-cuff response to Volchistas on what was allegedly done to the patient.

Re your 2nd. Your notion that I introduced the HSE into the equation doesn't wash. Mine made no mention of it, just responded to your's on actions by a PERSON against a 2nd person in defence of a 3rd, in respect of OATP act.

You can continue this particular debate on what actions you envisaged could have be legally taken against the pregnant woman under the OATP act with yourself. I'll drop out of it at this stage, having seen the below written by yourself in relation to your original ideas on usage of the OATP (Still, whilst the claim about situations in which you can legally choose to harm someone obviously falls in the face of the facts).

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

There is however the Constitution, which says the unborn have a personal right; that's neither precedent or extrapolation, it's the law. And we have the precedent of the unborn being assigned counsel as a party to a Court case, which requires no extrapolation, since it actually happened.

And if an unborn person were to die in utero and there was an indication that someone was responsible, do you think there would be no effort to bring them to trial? As far as I'm aware the intentional destruction of unborn human life is a crime for which someone can be prosecuted. Therefore (at least by your own logic) it's logical, in fact inevitable, to conclude that in Irish law the fetus is a person, because there are laws against their unlawful killing just as there are laws against the unlawful killing of people in other circumstances.

None of that is evidence that the fetus is legally a person in Irish law.

Because it's not said explicitly anywhere and because none of the automatic consequences of killing a person apply to killing a fetus. So neither explicitly nor by extrapolation.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your 1st: the presumption that the OATP act could be used to justify the actions taken against the patient (use of force to protect a third person) came from you, a misreading on what scenarios the act's provisions could be applied to, and presumably an off-the-cuff response to Volchistas on what was allegedly done to the patient. Re your 2nd. Your notion that I introduced the HSE into the equation doesn't wash. Mine made no mention of it, just responded to your's on actions by a PERSON against a 2nd person in defence of a 3rd, in respect of OATP act. You can continue this particular debate on what actions you envisaged could have be legally taken against the pregnant woman under the OATP act with yourself. I'll drop out of it at this stage, having seen the below written by yourself in relation to your original ideas on usage of the OATP (Still, whilst the claim about situations in which you can legally choose to harm someone obviously falls in the face of the facts).

This seems to be a 'you said I said, I'm presuming you misread and envisaged etc etc'. I'm happy to let what I said stand as it was written on the thread. If there's an actual statement you want to discuss, as opposed to your impression of one, I'm perfectly willing to address any quotes you want to put forward.

aloyisious

Simon Coveney does not favour the Assembly's vote on abortion -Citizens Assembly abortion proposals fail to move Coveney - Irish Times, and he is against abortion on demand - Irish Examiner. I'm hoping that the issue doesn't become a leadership "political issue" football in F/G.

This follows on from one report in yesterday's papers that Simon does not see any future in the other Simon as health minister, something about him being the third health minister in three years.

The Times also has a report that the Pro and Anti sides are marshalling their forces on an 8th amendment referendum. Plenty of reading for later on at breakfast in McDonalds.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

None of that is evidence that the fetus is legally a person in Irish law.
Because it's not said explicitly anywhere and because none of the automatic consequences of killing a person apply to killing a fetus. So neither explicitly nor by extrapolation.

Weeelll.... the Constitutional provision gives the unborn the right of a person. That's legal evidence, isn't it? You can't get much more legal.

As for explicit mentions... the Criminal Justice Act of 1990 explicitly mentions the murder of a Garda, and the murder of a prison officer, but not once in 80 mentions of murder does it ever refer to the murder of a person. I don't think you can argue murder is not the killing of a person though, despite the fact that it's not said explicitly.

There are obviously a number of consequences (whatever about them being automatic...) of killing a person, depending on the crime. A person who intentionally destroys unburm human life may be sentenced to a prison sentence of up to fourteen years. A person who engages in dangerous driving causing death may be sentenced to a prison sentence of up to five years. A person who commits infanticide may serve twelve years, a capital murderer forty. Consequences for killing a person evidently vary, yet you can't really extrapolate from this that someone who isn't imprisoned for capital murder didn't actually kill a person when they took their life whilst driving a car, can you?

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Weeelll.... the Constitutional provision gives the unborn the right of a person. That's legal evidence, isn't it? You can't get much more legal.

The right? Because there's only one?
Where is the right of a person defined in the constitution then?
It gives a right to life, which by the way is not the right of a person, who don't have that right at all. That's why the life support machine of a non pregnant woman could be switched off on the advice of her doctors, but the right to life of the fetus made them afraid to do so. If the baby had been born it would no longer have that right either.

As for explicit mentions... the Criminal Justice Act of 1990 explicitly mentions the murder of a Garda, and the murder of a prison officer, but not once in 80 mentions of murder does it ever refer to the murder of a person. I don't think you can argue murder is not the killing of a person though, despite the fact that it's not said explicitly.

There are obviously a number of consequences (whatever about them being automatic...) of killing a person, depending on the crime. A person who intentionally destroys unburm human life may be sentenced to a prison sentence of up to fourteen years. A person who engages in dangerous driving causing death may be sentenced to a prison sentence of up to five years. A person who commits infanticide may serve twelve years, a capital murderer forty. Consequences for killing a person evidently vary, yet you can't really extrapolate from this that someone who isn't imprisoned for capital murder didn't actually kill a person when they took their life whilst driving a car, can you?

This is just silly and irrelevant. You may have nothing else to do with your life. I do.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

The right? Because there's only one?
Where is the right of a person defined in the constitution then?
It gives a right to life, which by the way is not the right of a person, who don't have that right at all. That's why the life support machine of a non pregnant woman could be switched off on the advice of her doctors, but the right to life of the fetus made them afraid to do so. If the baby had been born it would no longer have that right either.

It's defined in Article 40 of the Irish Constitution -

PERSONAL RIGHTS


ARTICLE 40

1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.


This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.


2 1° Titles of nobility shall not be conferred by the State.


2° No title of nobility or of honour may be accepted by any citizen except with the prior approval of the Government.


3 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.


2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.


3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.


This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.


This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.


4 1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.


2° Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose custody such person is detained to produce the body of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law.


3° Where the body of a person alleged to be unlawfully detained is produced before the High Court in pursuance of an order in that behalf made under this section and that Court is satisfied that such person is being detained in accordance with a law but that such law is invalid having regard to the provisions of this Constitution, the High Court shall refer the question of the validity of such law to the Court of Appeal by way of case stated and may, at the time of such reference or at any time thereafter, allow the said person to be at liberty on such bail and subject to such conditions as the High Court shall fix until the Court of Appeal has determined the question so referred to it.


4° The High Court before which the body of a person alleged to be unlawfully detained is to be produced in pursuance of an order in that behalf made under this section shall, if the President of the High Court or, if he is not available, the senior judge of that Court who is available so directs in respect of any particular case, consist of three judges and shall, in every other case, consist of one judge only.


5° Nothing in this section, however, shall be invoked to prohibit, control, or interfere with any act of the Defence Forces during the existence of a state of war or armed rebellion.


6° Provision may be made by law for the refusal of bail by a court to a person charged with a serious offence where it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offence by that person.


5 The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law.


6 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –


i The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.


The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.


The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.


ii The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.


Provision may be made by law to prevent or control meetings which are determined in accordance with law to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public and to prevent or control meetings in the vicinity of either House of the Oireachtas.


iii The right of the citizens to form associations and unions.


Laws, however, may be enacted for the regulation and control in the public interest of the exercise of the foregoing right.


2° Laws regulating the manner in which the right of forming associations and unions and the right of free assembly may be exercised shall contain no political, religious or class discrimination.

Everyone has the right to life, and nobody loses that right when they're born... if that's how I'm given to interpreting what you're saying?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's defined in Article 40 of the Irish Constitution -

Everyone has the right to life, and nobody loses that right when they're born... if that's how I'm given to interpreting what you're saying?

Where is the line granting the "right to life" of the born please?

Only the unborn has that right, and yes, we do lose it at birth, which is why it's legally possible to turn off a life support machine without facing trial for murder.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Where is the line granting the "right to life" of the born please?

Only the unborn has that right, and yes, we do lose it at birth, which is why it's legally possible to turn off a life support machine without facing trial for murder.

It's right there in the 8th amendment - the equal right to life of the mother? The right to life is a bit more all-encompassing than... again if I'm interpreting your post correctly, you seem to be arguing about a perceived right to be born? That right doesn't exist though.

It's possible to turn off a life support machine and still be charged with murder btw. There is no right to death though, which is why for example you can't phone a friend and ask them to end your life by unplugging your life support machine. They could still end up facing a charge of murder if the DPP determined that it was in the public interest to do so.

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's right there in the 8th amendment - the equal right to life of the mother? The right to life is a bit more all-encompassing than... again if I'm interpreting your post correctly, you seem to be arguing about a perceived right to be born? That right doesn't exist though.

The argument is about a fetus being a "person" in the eyes of the law, which is not shown in that article.

An article giving something the right to life does not automatically equate to that being a person.

One eyed Jack

King Mob wrote: »

The argument is about a fetus being a "person" in the eyes of the law, which is not shown in that article.

An article giving something the right to life does not automatically equate to that being a person.

The very first line recognises the unborn as a legal person?

1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

The unborn is a citizen of Ireland, and has legal recognition bestowed upon them on that basis in the context of Article 40. That right is as far as practicable defended and vindicated by our laws.

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The unborn is a citizen of Ireland, .

Where does it say this?
Or is it an interpretation of the article?

Also you are moving the goalposts. It's not about being a citizen, which is also different from being a person.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The very first line recognises the unborn as a legal person?

1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

The unborn is a citizen of Ireland, and has legal recognition bestowed upon them on that basis in the context of Article 40. That right is as far as practicable defended and vindicated by our laws.

Umm, I don't think so. Where exactly in the constitution does the unborn get citizenship??
Can the unborn be put on a passport? Is the unborn counted as a person in the census?
Why doesn't the death of the unborn require an autopsy to establish cause of death?

Etc etc etc.

It's true there have been attempts to push this idea through the courts, alright, but they've been very controversial and have mostly been given very short shrift. For all sorts of very good reasons, even most prolife activists are very wary about going down that particular legal path.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Umm, I don't think so. Where does the unborn get citizenship?? Can it be put on a passport? Is the unborn counted as a person in the census? Why doesn't the death of the unborn require an autopsy to establish cause of death?

There have been attempts to push this idea through the courts, true enough, but they've been very controversial and have mostly been given very short shrift. For all sorts of very good reasons, even most prolife activists are very wary about going down that particular legal path.

It would depend upon context and interpretation of the law. As you say, you don't think the unborn is regarded as a citizen of Ireland, but it could be argued that it is, as I have done above, right there in the context of Article 40.

This is why an autopsy is often performed in cases where the cause of death of the unborn is ambiguous, and we were in a discussion was it about two weeks ago where the coroner determined that the unborn would be issued with a death certificate -


Inquest hears death certificate will be issued for unborn baby

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It would depend upon context and interpretation of the law. As you say, you don't think the unborn is regarded as a citizen of Ireland, but it could be argued that it is, as I have done above, right there in the context of Article 40.

Leaving aside the fact that this argument doesn't fly and is a non-sequiter, you run into a problem.

If the provision in article 40 didn't exist, what would show that a fetus is a person?

If a fetus is considered a person, then what purpose does the section of the article serve and why is it needed?

One eyed Jack

King Mob wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that this argument doesn't fly and is a non-sequiter, you run into a problem.

If the provision in article 40 didn't exist, what would show that a fetus is a person?

If a fetus is considered a person, then what purpose does the section of the article serve and why is it needed?

Wait a minute, you're arguing that my argument doesn't fly and is a non-sequitur, and then you're expecting I should have to entertain hypothetical questions predicated on the assumption that a provision which exists in Irish law, doesn't?

What the...??

looksee

I think King Mob is saying that the very fact that the constitution gives right to life to 'the unborn' shows that it does not consider them citizens, otherwise it would not be necessary to give them that specific mention.

aloyisious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Wait a minute, you're arguing that my argument doesn't fly and is a non-sequitur, and then you're expecting I should have to entertain hypothetical questions predicated on the assumption that a provision which exists in Irish law, doesn't?

What the...??

It seems irish Law grants citizenship only to people BORN HERE or through the citizen-naturalization process, so it seems to be an after-the-birth given right, making it literally a BIRTHRIGHT not applicable to the UNBORN.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjws56K_9rTAhVKFMAKHalNCrsQFgglMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citizensinformation.ie%2Fen%2Fmoving_country%2Firish_citizenship%2Firish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent.html&usg=AFQjCNHBH1-7x4g0j00-BXow10tvdblbGg


https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjws56K_9rTAhVKFMAKHalNCrsQFggtMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citizensinformation.ie%2Fen%2Fmoving_country%2Firish_citizenship%2Fbecoming_an_irish_citizen_through_naturalisation.html&usg=AFQjCNFmSCjPWfAiUi6KtgbEgn0KYv0YVw

Though it is not directly relevant to the abortion debate (excepting to the girl and her child mentioned on the past few pages) it's worth recalling that we had a referendum (the 27th amendment in 2004) on the issue of Irish citizenship here a few years ago, which we voted into law, restricting and refusing access of Irish citizenship to CHILDREN BORN HERE, if their parents were not Irish citizens.

A termination might not have been allowable under POLDPA for the girl as she had requested it initially on the grounds of RAPE in her OWN COUNTRY,
so coincidentally for opponents of abortion, the original reason apparently given in the abortion request would have caused a denial under Irish law.
Her unborn was not an Irish citizen in Irish law and could well have be refused citizenship after birth on the grounds of it being of FOREIGN, NON-IRISH, PARENTSHIP.

Please note the words I've capitalizsd

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It would depend upon context and interpretation of the law. As you say, you don't think the unborn is regarded as a citizen of Ireland, but it could be argued that it is, as I have done above, right there in the context of Article 40.

This is why an autopsy is often performed in cases where the cause of death of the unborn is ambiguous, and we were in a discussion was it about two weeks ago where the coroner determined that the unborn would be issued with a death certificate -


Inquest hears death certificate will be issued for unborn baby

Posting something that doesn't prove what you say it does can be an honest mistake.

Reposting it after your mistake has been pointed out to you is usually dishonest.

To repeat what was said to you the first time, and which you didn't refute:
The death certificate was being considered on the basis that the baby had been "born" during the autopsy, i.e. birth is required. And in any case, no certificate was issued in the end - because being removed from the womb, dead, is not legally a birth.

So your article does not illustrate the conclusion you claim it does at all.

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Wait a minute, you're arguing that my argument doesn't fly and is a non-sequitur, and then you're expecting I should have to entertain hypothetical questions predicated on the assumption that a provision which exists in Irish law, doesn't?

What the...??

They are additional issues with your position.

Firstly: The right to life does not imply either citizenship or personhood. There is nothing that specifically does grant a fetus either citizenship or personhood. Similarly, personhood and citizenship are not interchangeable or imply each other.

Secondly: There is nothing else beyond your interpretation of this article that indicates that a fetus has citizenship, or (the actual point remember) personhood. If this part of the article did not exist, you would not even have this tenuous foundation.

Thirdly, as looksee said: Your argument is self contradictory. If fetuses were citizens/persons then there'd be no need for a specific mention, they would be included in the rights already extended to citizens and persons.
The specific mention is an admission that fetuses are an exceptional case.

I asked you to explain your position based on these issues.
So:
If the provision in article 40 didn't exist, what would show that a fetus is a person/citizen?

If a fetus is considered a person/citizen, then what purpose does the section of the article serve and why is it needed?

King Mob

aloyisious wrote: »

It seems irish Law grants citizenship only to people born here or through the citizen-naturalization process, so it seems to be an after-the-birth given right, making it literally a birthright not yet applicable to the unborn.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjws56K_9rTAhVKFMAKHalNCrsQFgglMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citizensinformation.ie%2Fen%2Fmoving_country%2Firish_citizenship%2Firish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent.html&usg=AFQjCNHBH1-7x4g0j00-BXow10tvdblbGg

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjws56K_9rTAhVKFMAKHalNCrsQFggtMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citizensinformation.ie%2Fen%2Fmoving_country%2Firish_citizenship%2Fbecoming_an_irish_citizen_through_naturalisation.html&usg=AFQjCNFmSCjPWfAiUi6KtgbEgn0KYv0YVw

It also begs the question of when the fetus supposedly becomes a citizen.

Is it at conception? The moment the mother steps onto Irish soil? Or is it any fetus in an Irish womb?

aloyisious

King Mob wrote: »

It also begs the question of when the fetus supposedly becomes a citizen.

Is it at conception? The moment the mother steps onto Irish soil? Or is it any fetus in an Irish womb?

Apparently NONE OF THE ABOVE. I've done some more research into the matter and added it to my last above. It seems citizenship comes through birth here, so it seems it doesn't apply to the unborn. Scroll back for more info.