Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Is there a separate thread on the "8th Amendment" issue. The reason I'm asking is because of this court case: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/husband-sues-state-as-his-unborn-child-dies-in-crash-34425642.html

The case doesn't seem to be particularly about the 8th? "Mr Enright wants declarations that the definition of "stillborn child" and "stillbirth" in the 2004 act is repugnant to six separate provisions of the Constitution, including the Eighth Amendment."

I understand he wants recognition that his unborn child died in a road traffic accident rather than was stillborn, but I'm not sure the 8th is necessarily a means to that end.

volchitsa

aloyisious wrote: »

Is there a separate thread on the "8th Amendment" issue. The reason I'm asking is because of this court case: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/husband-sues-state-as-his-unborn-child-dies-in-crash-34425642.html

I don't know if there is one, but I agree that it might be worth having one (and anyway don't long threads tend to have problems loading?)

In the meantime, on this particular case, while I have huge sympathy for the family concerned, I must say I can't really see how the coroner (or the High Court) can redefine international medical definitions of when the child's legal existence begins without throwing maternity care into worse disarray than it already is.

Surely coroners' courts would be overwhelmed if all miscarriages had to be investigated to identify the cause of death? Is it even possible to do so? How many suspected murder cases would all those "unexplained cause of death" cases resulting from medical ignorance to lead to?

Or would Ireland end up at the cutting edge of fetal medicine due to having to post mortem thousands of fetuses? Could the health service cope?

I can't help thinking that the additional trauma to women suffering miscarriage would be huge.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't know if there is one, but I agree that it might be worth having one (and anyway don't long threads tend to have problems loading?)

In the meantime, on this particular case, while I have huge sympathy for the family concerned, I must say I can't really see how the coroner (or the High Court) can redefine international medical definitions of when the child's legal existence begins without throwing maternity care into worse disarray than it already is. Surely coroners' courts would be overwhelmed if all miscarriages had to be investigated to identify the cause of death? Is it even possible to do so? How many suspected murder cases would all those "unexplained cause of death" cases resulting from medical ignorance to lead to? Or would Ireland end up at the cutting edge of fetal medicine due to having to post mortem thousands of fetuses? Could the health service cope? I can't help thinking that the additional trauma to women suffering miscarriage would be huge.

I don't think he's arguing that every miscarriage should require a coroners report; certainly not every death does, he's arguing that the destruction of unborn life should be treated as a death, at least in this particular circumstance. An unborn child already has a legal existence, and he hasn't said he's looking to change that; more the way it is delimited if anything. We would probably have a better idea of exactly what he is attempting to do if we knew the other five Constitutional provisions his argument is based on.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

I've found the "legal discussion" page listed in the "society and culture" section, and moved my question there. I've named the new thread as "8th amendment to the constitution".

@Absolom and Volchitsa: if you're interested in the thread, can you transfer your posts below to it please. I don't want to derail this thread any further than I did by posting the Q here. To access Society and Culture, see in TOPICS at the head of this page.

link to thread

Cabaal

The latest on how parties and candidates are responding to RepealEight’s ‘repeal the 8th’ pledge campaign ahead of the forthcoming general election.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/02/08/18-days-to-go/

aloyisious

It'd be interesting to see how the graph on party support changes as the polling day get's nearer.

Cabaal

aloyisious wrote: »

It'd be interesting to see how the graph on party support changes as the polling day get's nearer.

I can't see it changing all that much, certainly not with FF or FG, I'm actually surprised its as high as it is for FF. SF is also surprisingly low as well,

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Cabaal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5T_zmBLwncFUDhmUjZGbXl1OVE/view?pref=2&pli=1

Sean Haughey (FF), Ronan McMahon (Renue) and Mary Hanafin (FF)

Not surprised with the partys involved there for one second,

Just checked my local area and not one FF rep or FG rep has supported it, to be honest I'm not surprised given McGuinness (FF) openly voted no for marriage equality in May.

Nick Park

Cabaal wrote: »

The latest on how parties and candidates are responding to RepealEight’s ‘repeal the 8th’ pledge campaign ahead of the forthcoming general election.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/02/08/18-days-to-go/

Thank you, very informative and useful links. It's good for voters to be informed as to where candidates stand on this issue.

Cabaal

Nick Park wrote: »

Thank you, very informative and useful links. It's good for voters to be informed as to where candidates stand on this issue.

Its certainly go research by the crowd involved,
Just curious Nick whats your take on this. Would you like to see a referendum?

Nick Park

Cabaal wrote: »

Its certainly go research by the crowd involved,
Just curious Nick whats your take on this. Would you like to see a referendum?

I'd be fine with a Referendum that proposes to change the wording of the 8th Amendment, or that replaces it with something else, so as to remove legal uncertainty & ambiguity yet still provides Constitutional protection for the unborn in all but the most extreme circumstances.

I would not favour a Referendum that seeks to repeal the 8th amendment and thereby leave no Constitutional barrier to abortion on demand or that would permit children to be aborted because they have conditions such as Down Syndrome.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

I'd be fine with a Referendum that proposes to change the wording of the 8th Amendment, or that replaces it with something else, so as to remove legal uncertainty & ambiguity yet still provides Constitutional protection for the unborn in all but the most extreme circumstances.

I would not favour a Referendum that seeks to repeal the 8th amendment and thereby leave no Constitutional barrier to abortion on demand or that would permit children to be aborted because they have conditions such as Down Syndrome.

What about the right to travel to abort for reasons such as Down syndrome? What exactly are extreme circumstances?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

What about the right to travel to abort for reasons such as Down syndrome? What exactly are extreme circumstances?

I don't think any politicians are proposing a Referendum to stop people travelling.

lazygal

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't think any politicians are proposing a Referendum to stop people travelling.

Do you think protection for the unborn should depend on the ability to travel to kill the unborn?
Also, what extreme circumstances?

Nick Park

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think protection for the unborn should depend on the ability to travel to kill the unborn?
Also, what extreme circumstances?

Sorry, not interested in having a quarrel with you about abortion.

I simply thanked a poster for alerting us as to which candidates favour a Referendum. That helps all of us to know who to vote for, and to pass that information on to others who share our views. Whatever side of the debate you are on, that helps democracy.

PlainP

Nick Park wrote: »

Sorry, not interested in having a quarrel with you about abortion.

I simply thanked a poster for alerting us as to which candidates favour a Referendum. That helps all of us to know who to vote for, and to pass that information on to others who share our views. Whatever side of the debate you are on, that helps democracy.

Yes our great democratic nation which has refused to call a referendum on abortion. I am 37 years of age I have never been allowed to voice my opinion on the 8th amendment. Very democratic indeed.

Hotblack Desiato

No-one who is under 50 got a vote on this, PlainP ironically that's pretty much everyone affected by it

Back to the chart - I had to look up who IDP were. A one man and his dog type operation apparently, not sure if they are running any candidates?

I thought Fis Nua disappeared up their own fundament a good while ago now - they have been last or second-last in every election they've contested. According to their website they have one candidate.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think protection for the unborn should depend on the ability to travel to kill the unborn?
Also, what extreme circumstances?

How about it depends on the facility of the State to enforce it? That way you wouldn't need the protection for the unborn to depend on the ability to travel to kill the unborn; the further the State can exert it's power the further it can enforce the protection for the unborn. And all the other rights it offers, which keeps everything wrapped up quite neatly too.

aloyisious

Nick Park wrote: »

I'd be fine with a Referendum that proposes to change the wording of the 8th Amendment, or that replaces it with something else, so as to remove legal uncertainty & ambiguity yet still provides Constitutional protection for the unborn in all but the most extreme circumstances.

I would not favour a Referendum that seeks to repeal the 8th amendment and thereby leave no Constitutional barrier to abortion on demand or that would permit children to be aborted because they have conditions such as Down Syndrome.

Re your first, I reckon there'll never be a wording found that would fit the bill. Re your second, no children are currently aborted here or elsewhere.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

How about it depends on the facility of the State to enforce it? That way you wouldn't need the protection for the unborn to depend on the ability to travel to kill the unborn; the further the State can exert it's power the further it can enforce the protection for the unborn. And all the other rights it offers, which keeps everything wrapped up quite neatly too.

I don't understand your 1st sentence. Re part two of your 2nd sentence, that exertion was tried by the state some years ago to force a girl and her parents to return from the UK to the republic in an attempt to prevent her from having an abortion (come back now or face arrest and prosecution on your return after any abortion performed) and we know what our courts thought of the legality of those actions. The AG's attempt at what was coercion had the Gov't of the day running for cover. As for your 3rd sentence, I can't see what you're referring to, it's an utterly strange sentence.

Absolam

PlainP wrote: »

Yes our great democratic nation which has refused to call a referendum on abortion. I am 37 years of age I have never been allowed to voice my opinion on the 8th amendment. Very democratic indeed.

There are fifty articles in the Constitution, with about three hundred and sixty sub clauses (of which the right to life is one). It has been amended twenty nine times in the last seventy six years; fourteen of those you had the opportunity to participate in. I hardly think not getting to vote on the remaining three hundred and ninety odd means Ireland is particularly undemocratic; we're a long way from being able to rewrite every Constitutional provision for every generation.

Absolam

So, turns out it's not just pro-life advocates in the States who leap to take offence at anything that doesn't accord with their world view.... according to the New York Post NARAL have just ripped into the Doritos Superbowl ad for 'humanising foetuses'. Some of the replies to the tweet are quite entertaining too...

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I don't understand your 1st sentence.

It's a suggestion that rather than proposing that protection for the unborn should depend on the ability to travel to kill the unborn, we might better propose that protection for the unborn should depend on the facility of the State to enforce it, like the other protections the State offers.

aloyisious wrote: »

Re part two of your 2nd sentence, that exertion was tried by the state some years ago to force a girl and her parents to return from the UK to the republic in an attempt to prevent her from having an abortion (come back now or face arrest and prosecution on your return after any abortion performed) and we know what our courts thought of the legality of those actions. The AG's attempt at what was coercion had the Gov't of the day running for cover.

Hmm. I rather thought the AG attempted to prevent her from travelling by obtaining an injunction, did he not? I don't recall the AG saying 'come back now or face arrest and prosecution on your return after any abortion performed'. But the point is well made; the State's power to compel extended no further than it's own jurisdiction, as with pretty much the rest of it's powers, which is exactly what I was saying.

aloyisious wrote: »

As for your 3rd sentence, I can't see what you're referring to, it's an utterly strange sentence.

I didn't think it was that odd; the State asserts very little authority beyond it's own jurisdiction, and where it does it is by virtue of international agreements. Since Ireland is party to no agreements extending jurisdiction on abortion beyond it's borders, the right to life of a foetus is confined to the same extent as other rights conferred in the Constitution. Which has the merit of a neat distinction; what Ireland can do outside it's borders, and what it can't.

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm. I rather thought the AG attempted to prevent her from travelling by obtaining an injunction, did he not? I don't recall the AG saying 'come back now or face arrest and prosecution on your return after any abortion performed'. But the point is well made; the State's power to compel extended no further than it's own jurisdiction, as with pretty much the rest of it's powers, which is exactly what I was saying.

Ms X had travelled to the UK with her parents to kill her unborn child. She was ordered by the State to return to Ireland when a garda was asked if the remains of the foetus could be used to prosecute her rapist.

volchitsa

lazygal wrote: »

Ms X had travelled to the UK with her parents to kill her unborn child. She was ordered by the State to return to Ireland when a garda was asked if the remains of the foetus could be used to prosecute her rapist.

The state also forbade a woman from travelling to Switzerland to kill herself, and actually prosecuted her friend for trying to organize the journey. It seems the state cares more about preventing dying people from killing themselves than about saving healthy fetuses.

lazygal

volchitsa wrote: »

The state also forbade a woman from travelling to Switzerland to kill herself, and actually prosecuted her friend for trying to organize the journey. It seems the state cares more about preventing dying people from killing themselves than about saving healthy fetuses.

Yep, ask anyone who turns up looking for treatment for their unborn child at 6-12 weeks gestation. They'll be told nothing will be done and to come back if and when anything develops. I'd say there isn't a woman in Ireland doesn't know another woman who had a nightmare during a miscarriage where they were left alone. It's also telling that every addition to the eighth amendment has been to further erode the unborn's right to life rather than strengthen it. We pretty much wrote the right to travel to the UK to kill the unborn into our constitution after the X case.

Cabaal

Apparently, if we could get rid of abortion out of Ireland everything will turn around, the economy, everything will get better!
:rolleyes:

See RTE Voxpop

“For me a big issue would be abortion. If we could get rid of abortion out of Ireland, I think everything would turn around.”

https://twitter.com/mitchellnicola/status/696818372173021184

I'm not sure what RTE expect hanging outside a church, church goes no longer represent the majority view of Irish society that they once did back in for example 1970.

Hotblack Desiato

I never watch RTE any more, I can't imagine the younger generations ever will.

Cabaal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I never watch RTE any more, I can't imagine the younger generations ever will.

I don't watch it either, hell I don't even have the channels tuned in on my TV.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Ms X had travelled to the UK with her parents to kill her unborn child. She was ordered by the State to return to Ireland when a garda was asked if the remains of the foetus could be used to prosecute her rapist.

Right... so the AG attempted to prevent her from travelling by obtaining an injunction, but failed to stop her. I think that's what i said. How exactly was she ordered to return? I understood that once they were informed of the injunction the family returned to Ireland voluntarily; and I can't see how the State can order someone in another jurisdiction to do anything. Perhaps you could explain that? Also, didn't her family inform the Gardaí they were taking her to England for an abortion, and they asked (before she travelled) whether the foetus could be tested after it was aborted to provide proof of the paternity of the accused in the rape case?

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

Right... so the AG attempted to prevent her from travelling by obtaining an injunction, but failed to stop her. I think that's what i said. How exactly was she ordered to return? I understood that once they were informed of the injunction the family returned to Ireland voluntarily; and I can't see how the State can order someone in another jurisdiction to do anything. Perhaps you could explain that? Also, didn't her family inform the Gardaí they were taking her to England for an abortion, and they asked (before she travelled) whether the foetus could be tested after it was aborted to provide proof of the paternity of the accused in the rape case?

No, the injuction was issued when she was in the UK. How can you prevent someone from travelling to somewhere they have already travelled to and arrived at? The injunction ordered her not to have an abortion, not that she wasn't to travel to somewhere she already was. The injuction was about the vindication of the right to life of the unborn, not the right to travel.
As for why her parents brought her home, I have no idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X
I know its WIKI but its pretty clear what the injunction was about.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

The state also forbade a woman from travelling to Switzerland to kill herself, and actually prosecuted her friend for trying to organize the journey. It seems the state cares more about preventing dying people from killing themselves than about saving healthy fetuses.

Is that true? How exactly did the State forbid her from travelling?
And, was her friend not actually accused of assisting her suicide, which is, of course, illegal?
I'm not sure why prosecuting people for doing something illegal makes you imagine the State cares more about preventing dying people from killing themselves than about saving healthy fetuses.... if you discover the State did nothing to prevent her killing herself, will you then say the State cares more about saving healthy foetuses (not sure why it's supposed to care about saving healthy foetuses but anyway) than preventing dying people from killing themselves? I mean, is it an either/or thing for some reason? What tips the balance, and who is supposed to know the criteria?

volchitsa

lazygal wrote: »

No, the injuction was issued when she was in the UK. How can you prevent someone from travelling to somewhere they have already travelled to and arrived at? The injunction ordered her not to have an abortion, not that she wasn't to travel to somewhere she already was. The injuction was about the vindication of the right to life of the unborn, not the right to travel.
As for why her parents brought her home, I have no idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X
I know its WIKI but its pretty clear what the injunction was about.

Presumably they brought her home because if she was injuncted by the Irish government to stop her having an abortion in the UK, they felt their only choices were to bring her home or to remain in exile in the UK. What else could they do?

If it were now of course, they would probably just defy the law, have the abortion and call the authorities' bluff, but back then it wasn't at all clear that this ban on abortion as really just a NIMBY measure - lots of people still took it seriously.

lazygal

volchitsa wrote: »

Presumably they brought her home because if she was injuncted by the Irish government to stop her having an abortion in the UK, they felt their only choices were to bring her home or to remain in exile in the UK. What else could they do?

If it were now of course, they would probably just defy the law, have the abortion and call the authorities' bluff, but back then it wasn't at all clear that this ban on abortion as really just a NIMBY measure - lots of people still took it seriously.

The right to travel and information was voted on after this and thereafter inserted into the constitution. So after X there was no issue about travelling to kill the unborn, no matter what the reason. At the time however the AG felt he had to vindicate the right to life of the unborn and the High Court agreed. It was only the Supreme Court that changed that.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

No, the injuction was issued when she was in the UK. How can you prevent someone from travelling to somewhere they have already travelled to and arrived at? The injunction ordered her not to have an abortion, not that she wasn't to travel to somewhere she already was.
The injuction was about the vindication of the right to life of the unborn, not the right to travel.
As for why her parents brought her home, I have no idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X
I know its WIKI but its pretty clear what the injunction was about.

You've dropped then notion that she was ordered by the State to return to Ireland when a garda was asked if the remains of the foetus could be used to prosecute her rapist then? Yes it is Wiki, but rather than guessing what the injunction said, why not find out before leaping to yet another conclusion?
"The following day after an ex parte application to the High Court (Costello J), the Attorney General obtained an interim injunction preventing the defendants from leaving the country for a period of nine months or from procuring or arranging a termination of the pregnancy of the first defendant. In the meantime the defendants had left the jurisdiction and were in England arranging the abortion."
Of course, the other thing is that an injunction from an Irish Court preventing an abortion has no standing in the UK; once Miss X was there, she could not be prevented from having an abortion, or compelled to return to Ireland.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Presumably they brought her home because if she was injuncted by the Irish government to stop her having an abortion in the UK, they felt their only choices were to bring her home or to remain in exile in the UK. What else could they do? If it were now of course, they would probably just defy the law, have the abortion and call the authorities' bluff, but back then it wasn't at all clear that this ban on abortion as really just a NIMBY measure - lots of people still took it seriously.

Heck of a lot of presuming there The same kind of presumption as leads to a claim that the State prevents people from traveling to commit suicide?

PlainP

Absolam wrote: »

There are fifty articles in the Constitution, with about three hundred and sixty sub clauses (of which the right to life is one). It has been amended twenty nine times in the last seventy six years; fourteen of those you had the opportunity to participate in. I hardly think not getting to vote on the remaining three hundred and ninety odd means Ireland is particularly undemocratic; we're a long way from being able to rewrite every Constitutional provision for every generation.

There has been two failed referendum since this was put into the constitution. One in 1992 (which I was too young to vote) and one in 2002 which I voted on.

So I don't know where you are getting your numbers from.

No government since 1983 has wanted to have an abortion referendum. The last shower of eejits in the Dial also didn't want it.

aloyisious

@Absolom: Re your :I understood that once they were informed of the injunction the family returned to Ireland voluntarily; and I can't see how the State can order someone in another jurisdiction to do anything. Perhaps you could explain that? - It would be explained by the fear of themselves (the parents) being liable for prosecution in relation to their daughter having an abortion after the AG got his injunction (aiding and abetting another person in pursuit of ignoring the injunction they knew existed). As you posted, the AG's injunction was worded to cover a nine (9) month period, not so coincidentally the approx period a pregnant woman would carry a feotus in her womb. I'd hazard a guess the chance of prosecution was on the mind of the parents, and also on the girl's mind: that she naturally didn't want them prosecuted because they stood by her in what she decided to do with the feotus in her womb, instead of showing her the door. The state ordering some-one in another jurisdiction to do anything would be in line with what you wrote about the state extending its influence abroad.

Hotblack Desiato

volchitsa wrote: »

The state also forbade a woman from travelling to Switzerland to kill herself, and actually prosecuted her friend for trying to organize the journey. It seems the state cares more about preventing dying people from killing themselves than about saving healthy fetuses.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/women-prevented-from-travelling-to-switzerland-for-assisted-suicide-503786.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/dpp-to-get-file-on-woman-who-died-of-overdose-after-travel-plans-halted-1.486186

Right to travel me arse.

Absolam

PlainP wrote: »

There has been two failed referendum since this was put into the constitution. One in 1992 (which I was too young to vote) and one in 2002 which I voted on. So I don't know where you are getting your numbers from. No government since 1983 has wanted to have an abortion referendum. The last shower of eejits in the Dial also didn't want it.

Well, you say you're 37, so you've been eligible to participate in referenda since around 1997, right? if we take a cue from Lazygal and trust our old pal wikipedia, we can see that there have been twenty Constitutional Amendments put to the people in that timeframe, of which fourteen passed, so you might have had a say in all fourteen, and of course the other six that didn't pass. Hardly a lack of democratic participation in fairness, unless you decided not to participate, in which case it was your own fault.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

@Absolom: Re your :I understood that once they were informed of the injunction the family returned to Ireland voluntarily; and I can't see how the State can order someone in another jurisdiction to do anything. Perhaps you could explain that? - It would be explained by the fear of themselves (the parents) being liable for prosecution in relation to their daughter having an abortion after the AG got his injunction (aiding and abetting another person in pursuit of ignoring the injunction they knew existed).

But I didn't ask why they returned? I asked Lazygal to explain her allegation that "She was ordered by the State to return to Ireland when a garda was asked if the remains of the foetus could be used to prosecute her rapist.". I'm sure her parents were concerned that they and their daughter might be found to be in contempt of court certainly. I'm not so convinced that their concern outweighed their daughters concern about being pregnant, which according to her was so grave as to make her certain that she would take her own life rather than remain pregnant, but I suppose I can't really speak for their motivations, perhaps they were astonishingly law abiding people.

aloyisious wrote: »

As you posted, the AG's injunction was worded to cover a nine (9) month period, not so coincidentally the approx period a pregnant woman would carry a feotus in her womb. I'd hazard a guess the chance of prosecution was on the mind of the parents, and also on the girl's mind: that she naturally didn't want them prosecuted because they stood by her in what she decided to do with the feotus in her womb, instead of showing her the door.

It's certainly possible they were concerned about prosecution and decided to come home, which is quite a bit different from being ordered by the State to return, I think you'll agree. As I said though, on the one hand, prepared to take her own life rather than continue her pregnancy, on the other, when about to terminate the pregnancy prepared to give up that chance and remain pregnant in order to avoid a potential contempt of court charge? It's a tricky one to reconcile....

aloyisious wrote: »

The state ordering some-one in another jurisdiction to do anything would be in line with what you wrote about the state extending its influence abroad.

Which is to say, had the State (or more accurately Court) ordered someone in another jurisdiction to do anything it would have had no effect because it would be outside the Court's jurisdiction? I certainly agree.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/women-prevented-from-travelling-to-switzerland-for-assisted-suicide-503786.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/dpp-to-get-file-on-woman-who-died-of-overdose-after-travel-plans-halted-1.486186
Right to travel me arse.

I don't see anything about the State forbidding her from travelling though? And you have to admit the Breaking News headline is more than a tad misleading, eh? "Women prevented from travelling to Switzerland for assisted suicide" followed by ""She was told that if she travelled with her friend to Switzerland and her friend did avail of assisted suicide, on her return she was in danger of prosecution." So... not so much prevented from travelling as warned of the consequences?
I guess there's lies, damn lies, and really poor journalism.... I blame clickbait culture myself.

volchitsa

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/women-prevented-from-travelling-to-switzerland-for-assisted-suicide-503786.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/dpp-to-get-file-on-woman-who-died-of-overdose-after-travel-plans-halted-1.486186

Right to travel me arse.

Possibly a risk of people going off topic here, but if we can keep to just the comparison, I do think the contrast between the two situations is indicative of what is really going on with the "right to travel" for abortion : there's a programme this evening on the BBC called "Simon's choice" following a man who is faced with the decision on whether or not to go to Switzerland for assisted suicide, and of course his family.

If he were Irish, wife and family would presumably be tried for even attempting to book the journey, never mind accompanying him as they did. Right to travel? I think not.

Proof if proof were needed that the "right to travel for abortion" is no more than a deliberate decision to allow abortion without saying so.

The Black Oil

Er...did anyone see this last night? I'll try to find it so as not just to rely on a tweet.

https://twitter.com/colettebrowne/status/697206894683885568

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Possibly a risk of people going off topic here, but if we can keep to just the comparison, I do think the contrast between the two situations is indicative of what is really going on with the "right to travel" for abortion : there's a programme this evening on the BBC called "Simon's choice" following a man who is faced with the decision on whether or not to go to Switzerland for assisted suicide, and of course his family. If he were Irish, wife and family would presumably be tried for even attempting to book the journey, never mind accompanying him as they did. Right to travel? I think not. Proof if proof were needed that the "right to travel for abortion" is no more than a deliberate decision to allow abortion without saying so.

Is the situation in Britain not much the same as in Ireland? Suicide is not an offense, travelling to commit suicide is not an offense, and assisting a suicide is an offense. The same in both jurisdictions, isn't it?
I imagine if his wife and family had participated in assisting his suicide, they would have been as liable for prosecution in the UK as in Ireland, despite having a right to travel nonetheless. I recall there was an issue in the UK a few years ago where the House of Lords felt it was 'unclear' whether simply travelling with someone constituted assisting their suicide and was therefore prosecute-able, so it seems the British position might have been even more restrictive than Irelands. Anyways, I think this (post above) is proof, if proof were needed, that some people will try to present just about any tragic situation to serve their agenda, even if it means 'presuming' facts to do so....

MrPudding

Sigh...

MrP

recedite

MrPudding wrote: »

Sigh...

MrP

I don't think this is over yet. If you remember, last year Judge Horner ruled that the assembly were required to legislate for (at least) some limited form of abortion, in line with established EU human rights. If they don't comply, they are in breach of the Good Friday Agreement.
However, the MLA's were given some hope that this advice was wrong when John Larkin QC "Northern Irelands First Catholic AG" butted in and lodged an appeal against Horner's ruling. This appeal has not yet concluded AFAIK.

Larkin has stirred things up before...

A devout Catholic with a well-known pro-life attitude on the abortion issue, he courted controversy again in 2012 when he volunteered his services to Stormont’s justice committee to assist in an inquiry - up to and including questioning witnesses on the committee’s behalf - into a newly opened Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast.
In another furore, the UK Government moved to distance itself from Mr Larkin’s intervention in a gay adoption case brought by two Austrian lesbians in the European Court of Human Rights.
Mr Larkin made a submission to the court arguing that countries like Austria and Northern Ireland should have the right to opt out of same sex adoption legislation.
On the latter two issues, Mr Larkin’s critics questioned whether he was over-reaching the remit of his office and allowing his personal views to influence his work.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I don't think this is over yet. If you remember, last year Judge Horner ruled that the assembly were required to legislate for (at least) some limited form of abortion, in line with established EU human rights. If they don't comply, they are in breach of the Good Friday Agreement. However, the MLA's were given some hope that this advice was wrong when John Larkin QC "Northern Irelands First Catholic AG" butted in and lodged an appeal against Horner's ruling. This appeal has not yet concluded AFAIK Larkin has stirred things up before...

I'd be skeptical that Judge Horners ruling will be upheld (insofar as it's being inferred that it would expand the degree to which abortion is available in NI). He relied on Article 8 as his foundation for the notion that the assembly were required to legislate for abortion, but the ECtHR has already found that Article 8 doesn't confer a right to abortion. At best I think they'll be required to legislate for abortion in much the same way as the Irish Government were when the ECtHR made their judgement. They'll have to ensure that access to, and information about, legal abortion is clearly available under the circumstances that NI law permits abortion; where there is a direct threat to the life or lasting health of the prospective mother.

aloyisious

This a link to an article in today's Irish Examiner by Margaret Hickey; http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/eight-amendment-lets-debate-the-meaning-of-humanity-381407.html.

It seem's to be an anti-abortion argument article. Margaret refers to a few of the reasons given by Pro-choice activists for women to have the right of choice for an abortion, asking how proper medical scans can be done on a feotus in the first trimester AND how a rape can be proved to be a fact within the first trimester, the time period posited as the best in which an abortion should be provided. That last is aimed at Ivana Bacik, a barrister and criminal law expert.

IMO. it'd be safe to assume that the two arguments, medical scans proving a feotus is anencephalic and a rape claim is genuine within the first trimester, will be put forward by those opposing abortion and a vote to scrap the 8th amendment argument.