Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Pherekydes

I also wonder why they use the British flag, rather than the English?

recedite

A lot of paddys (and yanks) would think that was the English flag.
There are some intricacies at play here, for example NI is British but more anti-abortion than RoI. (Ok that's a provocative statement, but just accept it :pac:)
I've seen the word EIRE marked out with stones a couple of times on sea cliffs around the coast. Done in the 1939-1945 era to ward off RAF and Luftwaffe planes apparently. The word has good international recognition for distinguishing NI from RoI, even if we don't use it that way ourselves.

So yeah, at some very simplistic level, Eire=RoI and Union Jack=England

Cabaal

Pherekydes wrote: »

I also wonder why they use the British flag, rather than the English?

Likely because they are zealots and don't care about presenting correct or factual info or images. The use of either flag in this manner is disrespectful

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

What.. naked woman or 9 week old foetus, which is it you don't like looking at?

You're not suggesting a half naked woman breast feeding is a common sight at which nobody would bat an eye, are you? if you do have any illusions in that regard, you should have a look at any of the threads about breastfeeding, you'd soon see that unfortunately it's not just the word "Eire" that makes that picture completely unrealistic.

Hotblack Desiato

Isn't the public display of (purported) abortion images illegal under the Public Order Act? I was looking earlier on the statute book and couldn't find it.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

You're not suggesting a half naked woman breast feeding is a common sight at which nobody would bat an eye, are you?

I wasn't suggesting anything, I was asking which part of the photo people objected to. So far we have..
...the word Eire
...the flags
...aborted foetus
...and now the naked female flesh.

A good selection!

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

I've seen the word EIRE marked out with stones a couple of times on sea cliffs around the coast. Done in the 1939-1945 era to ward off RAF and Luftwaffe planes apparently.

IRISH FREE STATE would've needed a lot more stones!

seamus

recedite wrote: »

I've seen the word EIRE marked out with stones a couple of times on sea cliffs around the coast. Done in the 1939-1945 era to ward off RAF and Luftwaffe planes apparently. The word has good international recognition for distinguishing NI from RoI, even if we don't use it that way ourselves.

It's actually simpler than that, just a basic convention of languages.

You generally translate the names of countries to the language in which you are speaking. That's the convention. You don't generally translate the names of town or cities (because a translation usually doesn't exist), and you definitely do not, ever, translate people's names.

So when you talk about Ireland, in French you say "Irlande", as Gaeilge you say "Eire" and in English, you say "Ireland".

Likewise

Allemange, An Ghearmáin, Germany (or Deutschland in German)
Angleterre, An Leithris, England
Le France, An Fhrainc, France

So the reason we don't use "Eire" in an English sentence is because it's just not something anyone does, anywhere. German people speaking English call their country "Germany".

Those who would use "Eire" in an English sentence think that they're making some kind of statement about identity, but really they're being obtuse for the sake of it and they stick out like a sore thumb.

The examples you give of "Eire" on cliff faces and coins are perfectly valid because Irish is the first and official language of the state, so it would make sense that such scenarios would be written in Irish.

Hotblack Desiato

seamus wrote: »

An Leithris

An bhfuil cead agam....

Bloody hell. 14 years of daily Irish instruction and 30 more living here and I've never heard that word in my life.

seamus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

An bhfuil cead agam....

Bloody hell. 14 years of daily Irish instruction and 30 more living here and I've never heard that word in my life.

The correct word is "Sasana", hence the little-used derogatory term "Sasanach" that some Irish & Scottish nationalists use as an insult.

This is way off-topic, but it is useful to note that if you see "Eire" used in anti-choice material that's otherwise written in English, then it's been produced or paid for by American shills and isn't coming from Irish groups.

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

What.. naked woman or 9 week old foetus, which is it you don't like looking at?

Its tasteless because it's grossly inaccurate in its manipulative imagery. Besides the idiot nationalism, it is trying to equate a several month old baby with a 9 week old fetus, something smaller than your thumb. It seems to be implying that there won't be babies if there is abortion.
It's offensively stupid.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

..if you see "Eire" used in anti-choice material that's otherwise written in English, then it's been produced or paid for by American shills and isn't coming from Irish groups.

Quite possibly, although according to what you were saying earlier, it would be quite correct to use the word if the placard was produced in Ireland. Being the first language of the country and all.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

Quite possibly, although according to what you were saying earlier, it would be quite correct to use the word if the placard was produced in Ireland. Being the first language of the country and all.

Only if the whole thing was written in Irish.

aloyisious

I'm left wondering if it might be worth pushing for the inclusion in the apparent wording in the referendum about the Oireachtas having freedom to legislate the words "that the Oireachras members are legally obliged to have a law permitting abortion in the law books, outside those contained in POLDPA, within six (6) months in line with said constitutional amendment" seeing as how some of the politicians need a push or two towards doing so. Call this standing on moral grounds what it is, a big lie to avoid legislating.

lazygal

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm left wondering if it might be worth pushing for the inclusion in the apparent wording in the referendum about the Oireachtas having freedom to legislate the words "that the Oireachras members are legally obliged to have a law permitting abortion in the law books, outside those contained in POLDPA, within six (6) months in line with said constitutional amendment" seeing as how some of the politicians need a push or two towards doing so. Call this standing on moral grounds what it is, a big lie to avoid legislating.

Putting ever more stuff into the constitution, especially references to specific legislation, is a recipe for disaster.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm left wondering if it might be worth pushing for the inclusion in the apparent wording in the referendum about the Oireachtas having freedom to legislate the words "that the Oireachras members are legally obliged to have a law permitting abortion in the law books, outside those contained in POLDPA, within six (6) months in line with said constitutional amendment" seeing as how some of the politicians need a push or two towards doing so. Call this standing on moral grounds what it is, a big lie to avoid legislating.

What lazygal said. Plus, I think the provision would be unenforceable. What happens if the Oireachtas fails to legislate within the time specified? The courts can't do it for them. Only the legislature can legislate, and if they fail to legislate the remedy for that is political, not legal; elect TDs who will do their job. If the people persist in electing TDs who won't do their job, there's no legal remedy for that.

aloyisious

Bishop Kevin Doran [of Elphin] has warned that liberalizing abortion will be the final frontier and that if abortion laws are loosened, similar arguments will be used to "justify ending the lives of frail elderly people and people with significant disability".
Doran warned in a pastoral message: "This is the final frontier. If we cross it, there will be no easy way back."

link: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/liberalising-abortion-will-lead-to-killing-of-elderly-and-those-with-disabilities-senior-bishop-warns-36558197.html

One thing I've noticed is the now regular use by opponents of abortion of the word liberal to describe people who want the 8th deleted and for women to have the right to access abortion, and liberalization as well. I suppose liberalization must be seen as a naughty activity and handy to use for opponents of those rights, somewhat like frowning on liberalization theology from South America.

Looking at the story, Strange times indeed.

aloyisious

RTE Radio 1 News..... The Supreme Court has set the date of 21 Feb for the hearing of the Justice Humphreys ruling. The Pro-Life group has applied to the court to join the action on an "animus curiae" basis. That application will be heard this afternoon. The Chief Justice, before closing this morning's session, stated that the hearing on the 21st will be heard on the basis of immigration rights and nothing else.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

The Chief Justice, before closing this morning's session, stated that the hearing on the 21st will be heard on the basis of immigration rights and nothing else.

Could be tricky to make that work. I seem to remember them saying the x case judgement would apply to that one case, and no other. Didn't happen though.

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

Could be tricky to make that work. I seem to remember them saying the x case judgement would apply to that one case, and no other. Didn't happen though.

Who are "them" and where and when did they say this?

recedite

Judge O'Flaherty and/or The Irish Times, July 6th 2013, Dublin...

One of the Supreme Court judges who decided the landmark X case on abortion has said the judgment is “moot” and may not be binding on Government. Hugh O’Flaherty said he stood over the decision of the five-judge court in 1992 and stressed that the Government was obliged to legislate to give effect to the 1983 amendment to the constitution, which expressly equated the right to life of the mother and the unborn.
But he said the X case itself was moot because the 14-year-old girl at the centre of the drama miscarried and did not have an abortion. The case was “peculiar to its own particular facts”, he said....
They’re all talking about the X case, but in effect the X case is moot because the girl didn’t have an abortion. She had a miscarriage,” he told The Irish Times. “To say the X case is some giant talisman hanging over us is wrong...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/x-case-judge-says-ruling-is-moot-in-current-abortion-debate-1.1454699

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

Could be tricky to make that work. I seem to remember them saying the x case judgement would apply to that one case, and no other. Didn't happen though.

I take it the "them" being referred-to are politicians and the "tricky" bit is making that "them" legislate in the future ref abortion law after the referendum [if/when it is passed]. I certainly can't see the "them" being the judges in the SC, either after their decision on the X case or in their future decision on the 21st Feb, as their ruling on the High Court X case decision stands unchallenged.

Ref Justice Flanagan's statement about people claiming the X case decision was a giant talisman, it was treated as such until the SC overturned it. The fact that the girl had a miscarriage didn't affect the standing in law of the X case judgement. It set precedent. If the High Court decision had been made totally moot and of no standing in law by the miscarriage, the SC would have had no need to overturn it so his quotes on that SC decision could be, IMO, unfortunately misleading.

The wording of the newspaper report itself is peculiar, in that it seems to reference both the High Court X case decision and the subsequent SC hearing decision on the High Court decision as being MOOT.

quote 1.... One of the Supreme Court judges [Justie Flaherty] who decided the landmark X case on abortion has said the judgment is “moot” and may not be binding on Government.....

quote 2..... But he said the X case itself was moot because the 14-year-old girl at the centre of the drama miscarried and did not have an abortion. The case was “peculiar to its own particular facts”, he said.

The report was printed/issued thirty [30] years after the SC decision so, in that case, following on from the referendum and Govt legislation after the court cases, the situation has changed completely and is likely to change utterly again way beyond Justice Flaherty's comprehension since his retirement.

Edit: on the hearing this afternoon about the "Animus Curiae" application, did anyone hear the decision?

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

If the High Court decision had been made totally moot and of no standing in law by the miscarriage, the SC would have had no need to overturn it so his quotes on that SC decision could be, IMO, unfortunately misleading.

I'm not sure of the exact timing in all this, ie was the miscarriage after both cases?
Anyway, we are where we are, and the SC did make a judgement confirming the girl's right to have an abortion, even if she did not need one by then.

I think in the forthcoming case, the judgement will be about whether a particular foetus had a right to stay in Ireland when the parents were due to be deported. Its a bizarre scenario.
I presume at some point they will have to consider whether the foetus was Irish or Nigerian at the time, and considering it was probably conceived here, if not quite born here, is not entirely clear. Due to this and other "circumstances peculiar to the case" I predict they will try to say afterwards that the judgement has no bearing on any other case, or on the future referendum.
However, a precedent once set, will inevitably be used again, even if the original judge would prefer it was forgotten immediately afterwards.

aloyisious

The SC denied the application of the Pro-Life campaign to join the case it will hear on the 21st. It seems the SC felt it did not need the advice apprently being offered to it by the campaign [something along the line mentioned in the course of its application, that the campaign had expertise in the matter coming before the court]. This seems to indicate that the SC will take a narrower approach in deciding what the law is concerning immigrants childrens rights - if the child is born here - than the Pro-Life camapign may think wise.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

This seems to indicate that the SC will take a narrower approach in deciding what the law is concerning immigrants childrens rights - if the child is born here - than the Pro-Life camapign may think wise.

That's just it though, if an unborn immigrant is "a child", then an unborn native must be a child also.
The court will do more than try to confine it to immigrant's rights; they will try to confine the judgement to just this one case. But as I was saying, that may not actually work out in practice.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

That's just it though, if an unborn immigrant is "a child", then an unborn native must be a child also.
The court will do more than try to confine it to immigrant's rights; they will try to confine the judgement to just this one case. But as I was saying, that may not actually work out in practice.

Thing is: it's more about the Daddy's alleged rights to stay in country because his kid was born here. Claims by other, uninvolved, groups to get involved alleging they want to help him but [in reality] only want to further their own aims using the unborn as a weapon of choice.

Nice try with the "reverse angle" argument of: if an unborn immigrant is "a child", then an unborn native must be a child also. Judge Humphrey would probably applaud it, if he is "Pro-Life".

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

That's just it though, if an unborn immigrant is "a child", then an unborn native must be a child also.
The court will do more than try to confine it to immigrant's rights; they will try to confine the judgement to just this one case. But as I was saying, that may not actually work out in practice.

How can you have an unborn native? It's a contradiction in terms.

mrkiscool2

Peregrinus wrote: »

How can you have an unborn native? It's a contradiction in terms.

I think it relates to how the pro-life group wanted to join the case to poison the well. If they got the SC to concede that the fetus of the immigrant had rights as a citizen due to the weird way law defines the unborn in Ireland, they could apply said rights to a fetus of a citizen in Ireland and therefore strike down any referendum as it would be unconstitutional. Super sneaky but tactically brilliant. Glad the SC wanted nothing to do with that.

By the way, I don't condone what the pro-life side tried to do or the fact we define unborn as, essentially, a child in Ireland.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

Nice try with the "reverse angle" argument of: if an unborn immigrant is "a child", then an unborn native must be a child also. Judge Humphrey would probably applaud it, if he is "Pro-Life".

Eh? Its not "my angle", its the whole point of the case.

Peregrinus wrote: »

How can you have an unborn native? It's a contradiction in terms.

Not really. Its more about whether your parents are legal residents, so being born here does not automatically confer citizenship anyway. They changed the law on citizenship in 2005. At least one of the parents would have to be legally resident here for 3 years before the birth.
To simplify it, if both parents were Irish and living here, there would be no doubt that their unborn "child" was also Irish.

In this particular case involving the Nigerians, I have no idea how long they were here, where they are now, or where the child was born. At this stage its not really about them, its about clarifying a point of law; a legal principle.

recedite

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

If they got the SC to concede that the fetus of the immigrant had rights as a citizen due to the weird way law defines the unborn in Ireland, they could apply said rights to a fetus of a citizen in Ireland and therefore strike down any referendum as it would be unconstitutional. Super sneaky but tactically brilliant. Glad the SC wanted nothing to do with that.

You can't strike down a referendum to change the constitution for being unconstitutional. Think about it

SC have no choice but to tackle this point of law because it was previously made in the High Court, after which somebody disputed it.