Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

DickSwiveller

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

What is 'the church'? Generally normal people refer to particular religious sects by name, for example the Church of Ireland, the Roman Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Church of the Latter Day Saints etc, etc, or if they are talking on a more personal level they may say 'my church'. The fact that you refer to a particular one as 'The Church', as if it's the only religion in existence, and the only one allowed to claim to be a church at all, is a pretty clear indication of who is actually obsessed!

Thanks for the armchair pseudo-psychology.

Odhinn

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Wow, the people in this thread are absolutely obsessed with the church. I don't get the second part of your post.

We're "obsessed with the church" because its obsessions are responsible for the law on abortion we have today. The second part refers to the reluctance of the state to tackle- both at the time and now - historical abuse by the "pillars" of the state, be they gardai, priests or politicians.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

It seems that Ronan wants suicide removed from consideration as grounds for allowing abortion

FFS. We have had referendums on this exact issue twice, and declined to roll back the X case each time. The first time was all of 25 years ago. Opinion on the question of abortion has become considerably more liberal since then. This is just grandstanding - to impress 'supporters' overseas perhaps?

Hotblack Desiato

DickSwiveller, a question for you if I may.

Can I have your kidney?

Well, not have, borrow it, I need one for 9 months and then mine will have recovered and you can have it back.

If you don't do it, I'll die.

There'll be an operation and pain and restrictions on your activity for some weeks. You'll probably tire easily etc. and your resistance to infection will be lowered. But you'll get over it - probably - and when you get it back (more pain, scarring etc) you'll be back as you were. Pretty much. All going to plan. Unless something goes drastically wrong, but fingers crossed, eh?

Would you do that for me?

DickSwiveller

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

DickSwiveller, a question for you if I may.

Can I have your kidney?

Well, not have, borrow it, I need one for 9 months and then mine will have recovered and you can have it back.

If you don't do it, I'll die.

There'll be an operation and pain and restrictions on your activity for some weeks. You'll probably tire easily etc. and your resistance to infection will be lowered. But you'll get over it - probably - and when you get it back (more pain, scarring etc) you'll be back as you were. Pretty much. All going to plan. Unless something goes drastically wrong, but fingers crossed, eh?

Would you do that for me?

This is ridiculous. I'm not sure if you're being serious. There's a big difference between intentionally killing someone and not saving someone. You don't have an obligation to save someone's life but you do have an obligation not to take it.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

FFS. We have had referendums on this exact issue twice, and declined to roll back the X case each time. The first time was all of 25 years ago. Opinion on the question of abortion has become considerably more liberal since then. This is just grandstanding - to impress 'supporters' overseas perhaps?

M McGrath brought the motion to have suicide removed as grounds for allowing abortion, voted down 17 - 3. Ronán also said there was no proof that abortion improved the mental health of pregnant women but that it has led to widespread abortion.

Kiwi in IE

DickSwiveller wrote: »

This is ridiculous. I'm not sure if you're being serious. There's a big difference between intentionally killing someone and not saving someone. You don't have an obligation to save someone's life but you do have an obligation not to take it.

Easy concept, not ridiculous!

You won't allow use of your kidney as a life support for someone else, even though they will die without it. You have the right to withhold use of your kidney despite this. Women should have the same right to choose how their uterus is used as you do regarding the use of your kidneys!

Hotblack Desiato

DickSwiveller wrote: »

This is ridiculous. I'm not sure if you're being serious. There's a big difference between intentionally killing someone and not saving someone. You don't have an obligation to save someone's life but you do have an obligation not to take it.

I am being totally serious. Will you accept a temporary (maybe, possibly permanent) degradation in your bodily function to help another human? and if not, why not?

DickSwiveller

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I am being totally serious. Will you accept a temporary (maybe, possibly permanent) degradation in your bodily function to help another human? and if not, why not?

Because I'm under no obligation to. Can I ask you a question: when does human life begin?

frag420

DickSwiveller wrote: »

As your second paragraph, does the father of the child not have a connection to the pregnant woman? Does he not have a say?

frag420 wrote: »

Regarding your second point, what if the woman was raped? Do you think a rapist should have the right to tell his victim what she should do with her body considering he has already imposed his will against her?

Not sure if you are intentionally avoiding this question because you dont have an answer or perhaps you may have missed it but I thought I would remind you about it...

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Because I'm under no obligation to. Can I ask you a question: when does human life begin?

Since you have decided to ignore my last post, I guess I can step in and answer this one.

It really depends what you mean by "life". If you mean it purely in terms of biology then I guess it "begins" at conception. Or if you have a more eastern bent to your philosophy you might even believe life only ever began once, and each individual conception is only part of one ongoing thing called "Life".

However if you mean "life" as in human person hood, beyond mere biology, we do not really know the "moment" it begins. There might not even be one.

We do not have enough knowledge at this time to point to an EXACT time that humans become sentient. In fact from all my reading of the subject I believe there is no one moment it happens.

Rather it is like trying to find the point where red turns into orange on a rainbow. You can point to places you are sure are red, and places you are sure are orange, but you will never find a transition point.

For the purposes of abortion however I do not think we need to know when a fetus BECOMES sentient (Orange), but when it is not (Red). We can not find a transition point, but we CAN point to the rainbow and say "This is red".

And 98%ish of abortions by choice happen WELL within that red zone. A zone where not just most, but everything we know about human consciousness and sentience at this time tells us sentience is simply not there.

Loafing Oaf

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-f%C3%A9in-outmanoeuvred-by-fine-gael-and-fianna-f%C3%A1il-on-abortion-1.3327960

Informative comment on the tight spot in which SF now find themselves on the issue. However, she fails to address the legal situation in the North, which I suspect may be a large part of the reason why they are reluctant to go full pro-choice in the Republic.

Hotblack Desiato

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Because I'm under no obligation to.

Exactly. You are under no obligation to do so.

Imagine if we had a law which did oblige you though - would you think that fair?


As for when life begins, that's a philosophical question. Philosophers are great for asking questions with the appearance of profundity, they're shyte at answering them though. Legally, where life begins is at birth. You can't get a passport for a foetus, there is no legal register of its existence, you cannot get a death certificate if it dies, you cannot be convicted of murder if you kill it. All this despite the ridiculous sanctimony of the 8th.

aloyisious

Members of the committee and Maria Steen of Iona were on the Seán O'Rourke show earlier sparring off. One comment from an Anti-Choice guest was surprising [to me anyway] and that is the 8th amendment protects the life of the child before and after birth. There I was thinking it was brought in to give equality to both the lives of pregnant women and the unborn.... I reckon it was Maria Steen or if not her, an Anti-choice woman on the committee.

Ronán wants a change in law so that manufactors of the morning-after pill can be given lessons on the effect of their product. He continued with his line that abortion is child-killing so that, by logical reasoning, means there are several thousand female child-killers roaming our streets. I suppose, by that reasoning, importers of the morning-after pill are assisting said killers in the act.

According to Ronán, if the referendum goes ahead politicians will use it to ensure that there will be no more referendums on the issue, the people will not be allowed have another on the issue. That does't explain away the fact that public disquiet led to the referendum bringing in the 8th carefully stage-managed though it was.

Mark Hamill

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Because I'm under no obligation to. Can I ask you a question: when does human life begin?

I think it is safe to say that you obviously agree with the 8th Amendment as it is and believe that abortion should remained banned in Ireland.
Completely leaving aside how hard it might be to actually prosecute, do you think that women who want to travel abroad for abortion should be prevented from doing so? Do you think those who do should be prosecuted as if they had the abortion in Ireland?

aloyisious

Simon Coveney being interviewed "The Week In Politics" on RTE `1 on what politcians should say, or not say, on the issue as there might be a referendum. He'a for them being careful. The Ad for the programme earlier showed a variety of Pols with views, incl very defined ones. There's a general mention/review of the committee debate on now - Mattie; it was choreographed. Ronán; it was heartless.

Justine McCarthy [Sunday Times] pointing out that the committee did not follow what the Peoples Assembly recommended but opted for the deletion of the 8th with no replacement for it in the constitution.

I'd like there to be a post-referendum poll of people voting in the upcoming referendum and who voted in the one which brought in the 8th to see if there was [past-pense] much of a change in their voting.

Hotblack Desiato

Should the 8th be deleted and not replaced with any other wording, I wonder how the inevitable Supreme Court challenge from the usual suspects will go.

On the one hand the constitution confers a right to life, the anti choicers will argue this applies from implantation (SC having ruled previously that right to life does not begin at conception.)

On the other hand the SC will surely consider the context in which the public voted to repeal the 8th - in expectation of legislation to permit abortion under at least some circumstances - and that it was the electorate's intention that the Oireachtas would have power to do so.

I'd be a lot happier if the 8th is replaced with text along the lines of 'Termination of pregnancy shall be permitted in accordance with law.' to make it certain that a challenge to the Oireachtas's power to legislate is groundless.

kylith

DickSwiveller wrote: »

As your second paragraph, does the father of the child not have a connection to the pregnant woman? Does he not have a say?

Ideally he would have a say but if he wants to continue with the pregnancy and she doesn't, then what? We can't transport the fetus into his body or grow it in a lab.

The final decision has to rest with someone, and it is only right and fair that that decision rests with the person who actually goes through the pregnancy.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Should the 8th be deleted and not replaced with any other wording, I wonder how the inevitable Supreme Court challenge from the usual suspects will go.

On the one hand the constitution confers a right to life, the anti choicers will argue this applies from implantation (SC having ruled previously that right to life does not begin at conception.)

On the other hand the SC will surely consider the context in which the public voted to repeal the 8th - in expectation of legislation to permit abortion under at least some circumstances - and that it was the electorate's intention that the Oireachtas would have power to do so.

I'd be a lot happier if the 8th is replaced with text along the lines of 'Termination of pregnancy shall be permitted in accordance with law.' to make it certain that a challenge to the Oireachtas's power to legislate is groundless.

Is the law you are thinking of the POLDPA or some future piece of legislation?

aloyisious

In passing, does anyone know if the ruling made by a high court judge here about two years ago on when the 8th amendment rights start for the unborn was overturned or even got to the SC? I think he ruled that it was at conception and it caused some stir back then in legal circles and the Govt under Enda Kenny. I've forgotten the name of the judge so can't find an answer.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

In passing, does anyone know if the ruling made by a high court judge here about two years ago on when the 8th amendment rights start for the unborn was overturned or even got to the SC? I think he ruled that it was at conception and it caused some stir back then in legal circles and the Govt under Enda Kenny. I've forgotten the name of the judge so can't find an answer.

I don't remember it, but it may have been mentioned just as an aside in a case about something else?
I can't see how it would be anything other than "at conception". Otherwise you are trying to distinguish between early stage unborn and late stage unborn, which seems to defeat the purpose of giving specific mention to the unborn at all.

Loafing Oaf

recedite wrote: »

I don't remember it, but it may have been mentioned just as an aside in a case about something else?
I can't see how it would be anything other than "at conception". Otherwise you are trying to distinguish between early stage unborn and late stage unborn, which seems to defeat the purpose of giving specific mention to the unborn at all.

I don't think this is the case aloysius is referring to, but in 2009 the Supreme Court ruled that "state protection of embryos arises only after implantation."
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/unborn-refers-to-child-within-the-womb-rules-court-107948.html

recedite

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I don't think this is the case aloysius is referring to, but in 2009 the Supreme Court ruled that "state protection of embryos arises only after implantation."
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/unborn-refers-to-child-within-the-womb-rules-court-107948.html

Ok that must be it. Makes sense. I thought this was in context of "the 12 weeks" thing, which seems to be emerging as probable govt. policy, though not quite officially yet.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

I don't remember it, but it may have been mentioned just as an aside in a case about something else?
I can't see how it would be anything other than "at conception". Otherwise you are trying to distinguish between early stage unborn and late stage unborn, which seems to defeat the purpose of giving specific mention to the unborn at all.

No. A case was before him which concerned the unborn and he surprised everyone in the court when he said that what was in the 8th concerning protection for the unborn was in effect from the time of conception. That was why it caused a fuss at the time. I recall the papers reporting that people there thought at first that he was speaking about his own personal opinion, wasn't giving an actual ruling and it wasn't till he got up to leave that the penny dropped.

Nick Park

aloyisious wrote: »

No. A case was before him which concerned the unborn and he surprised everyone in the court when he said that what was in the 8th concerning protection for the unborn was in effect from the time of conception. That was why it caused a fuss at the time. I recall the papers reporting that people there thought at first that he was speaking about his own personal opinion, wasn't giving an actual ruling and it wasn't till he got up to leave that the penny dropped.

The case was in July 2016, and the judge was Richard Humphreys. It was in connection with an immigration case, and the judge ruled that an unborn child had Human Rights. Indeed, he went beyond applying the Eighth Amendment, and ruled that the unborn child was entitled to Human Rights on other legal and constitutional grounds - notably Article 42a (inserted after the Children's Referendum).

The state said they intended to appeal the ruling, but I haven't seen any reports of that since.

recedite

Here's a link..

In his judgment delivered last July, Mr Justice Humphreys held “unborn” to mean an “unborn child” with rights extending beyond the right to life under Article 40.3.3 (the 1981 anti-abortion amendment of the Constitution).
He also interpreted Article 42A of the Constitution, inserted as a result of the 2012 Children’s Referendum, as affording protection to all children “both before and after birth”.

It looks like they intended to appeal it one year ago, but may not have got around to it yet.
It appears to concern the (intended) deportation of a foetus. I don't see anything in it regarding whether the rights of the unborn start at conception or at implantation, and anyway it would not have made any difference to this case.
The major significance at the time was that the judge was saying the unborn was entitled to general human rights.

In the context of the proposed 2018 referendum this could have a major ramification in that Article 42 (the child) would also have to be repealed as well as Article 40 (the unborn).

I'd like to throw in Article 44 (God) for repeal as well at this point, because allowing abortion would be a serious disrespect to Him and his Church.

Article 44 wrote:

1. The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.

Hotblack Desiato

An entirely ludicrious High Court ruling, but by no means unique in that regard.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

Is the law you are thinking of the POLDPA or some future piece of legislation?

POLDPA will continue to apply initially but there will be a very strong public expectation that a vote to repeal the 8th will be followed by significant liberalisation of the law - presumably closely aligned with whatever draft was published in advance of the referendum. If they don't, well.. it'll be the biggest sh!tstorm ever seen in this country since the Civil War.

aloyisious

So how far do the Humphrey rulings have legal standing reach when it comes to anything we might put in the costitution in the future when it might conflict with his rulings on how other articles [and their sections] in the constitution HAVE pertinence to the rights of the unborn If his rulings have NOT been appealed to and overturned by our Supreme Court before the upcoming referendum? Are we being walked into a constitutional fight being manipulated by parties opposed to abortion, courtesy of Judge Humphrey's RULING AND DECLARATIONS on how constitutional articles provide human rights coverage for the unborn? Is it a cute hoor way of playing EU and UN declarations of childrens rights?

robindch

So, "Catholic Answers" is a radio program which includes a segment called "Open Forum" where callers can ask questions of the host, Fr Paul Keller.

Last week, a guy who installs fire alarms for a living rang in to ask Keller whether it's right and proper to install a fire alarm at Planned Parenthood. The reply is predictable, though Keller waits until the second sentence before godwinning himself.

https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/8323 (question is at 36:52)

Paul Keller wrote:

It would be not a good thing to be involved in helping somebody who’s taking a life [...] Think about if you were in Nazi Germany, and you were asked by Hitler to install a fire alarm, or a sprinkler system, in one of the guards’ shacks right next to the ovens that were killing Christians and Jews, and so forth. I don’t think you’d want to even set foot in an internment camp such as was had in that part of the world.

Or the Ku Klux Klan. Suppose the Ku Klux Klan asked you to do this similar work in one of their offices, but they are completely devoted to being anti-Catholic and being totally racist and so forth. So no, you wouldn’t want to do that.

And it’s the same thing, only worse, with this company, that is Planned Parenthood, because their business is to kill babies in the womb, and we should have nothing to do with it. We should not aid and abet them in any way whatsoever. So, yes, it would be unethical to work with them, for them, in any way.