Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

I've stayed away for a day. What are the obsolete laws from the 80's you are referring to?

I was referring to the fact that the 8th amendment of 1983 had a different meaning to the 8th amendment of 2018.

Changes in 1991 and 1992 brought about a reinterpretation of the original words, as well as some new words. NuMarvel likes to rail against the old interpretations, as if they still had some effect on women today.

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

I was referring to the fact that the 8th amendment of 1983 had a different meaning to the 8th amendment of 2018.

Changes in 1991 and 1992 brought about a reinterpretation of the original words, as well as some new words. NuMarvel likes to rail against the old interpretations, as if they still had some effect on women today.

What changes in 1991?

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

I was referring to the fact that the 8th amendment of 1983 had a different meaning to the 8th amendment of 2018.

Changes in 1991 and 1992 brought about a reinterpretation of the original words, as well as some new words. NuMarvel likes to rail against the old interpretations, as if they still had some effect on women today.

So you think the public's understanding now of the 8th amendment's wording and effect is different from that that the public was told it was intended to do in 1983. Do you accept that the public's present re-interpretation of that amendment mean's that they see it as actually flawed, and must have been so at the time it became law, or is it that you think there are differing reasons for the public to re-interpret the 8th from what it meant in 1983? The actual wording of the 8th has NOT changed, though other later amendments were made to article 40.

As you seem to have a different opinion to NuMarvel on the effect the 8th has on women today, are you saying that the 8th has no legal effect on women today?

I'm keeping in mind two things here: 1.. that the wording of the 8th still has legal effect here, otherwise the Vote No campaigners would have no actual reason to seek the retention of it, if it was as ineffectual as you seem to argue in opposition to NuMarvels's argument that it does have an effect on women.

AND 2..It seem's to me that by your actual desire to retain the 8th amendment in Article 40 you do actually see it as still having a legal effect.....

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

I could equally ask, why doesn't the Yes side campaign for abortion on demand right up till birth?

Well firstly because I do not know ANYONE campaigning for "abortion on demand" but "choice based abortion". The differences between these two have been explained often enough that it is nothing but conterted efforts to demonstrate a lack of openness to listening to others that people still go around using the phrase.

Secondly however the reason I personally do not campaign for abortion up until birth are pretty easy to explain, and again HAVE been explained on numerous occasions.

The first is that it simply is not required in all but the most extreme of cases. Why? Because at late stages we do not terminate the fetus, we terminate the pregnancy. Which is entirely different.

The second however is that I know the arguments for protecting a late term fetus. I know the arguments for why we should have moral and ethical concern for such an entity. I know the arguments for why it should have rights.

I also know that NONE of those arguments, and no other arguments I have heard presented to date, apply to a 12/16 week old fetus.

Rather what anti abortion speakers do is merely should words like "Life" and "Human" and then simply run away. Especially the user banned from pretty much every thread except this one and one other on the subject who basically made a campaign of doing exactly that, and ignoring and dodging posts (and later lying that he actually replied to them when he demonstrably did not) he could not answer or rebut.

For many people the ENTIRE abortion debate comes down to one simply question. Is there any good reason a 12 week old fetus should have rights. So far the answer coming from people like yourself is no, no one can think of any.

recedite wrote: »

So now a question for you, if the life of an unborn is worthless, why not campaign for late term abortions on demand?

Because for many people, as I said, the transition point from "worthless" (your word, not generally ours) to "Valuable" does not happen at birth. It happens at a point before birth but significantly after 16 weeks where 98%+ of choice based abortion actually occurs.

So the question REALLY is why campaign AGAINST choice based abortion up to a point like 16 weeks when screeching words like "Life" and "Human" without any substance behind their use is the only move people seem to be able to make to get past the "worthless" (your word, not generally ours) valuation at that point?

Hotblack Desiato

We terminate pregnancies at a very late stage all the time - it's called induction or caesarean section.

lazygal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We terminate pregnancies at a very late stage all the time - it's called induction or caesarean section.

Had my two pregnancies terminated at 39 and 41 weeks. This foetus will be coming out at 39 weeks.

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

Well that's not actually the case. They may or may not be able to apply for Irish citizenship, depending on various factors.

And the reverse is also true; if somebody arrives into Ireland just to have a baby, that baby does not get Irish citizenship (unless it subsequently stays here and grows up here)

If someone comes here to have a baby and that baby isn't Irish then what citizenship are they? None :rolleyes:?
Anyway, you are entirely wrong, from the department of foreign affairs:

DFA wrote:

You are automatically an Irish citizen if one of your parents was an Irish citizen and was born in Ireland. You don’t need to apply to become an Irish citizen in this case./

Good to see though that you will continue to argue and even make stuff up while completely ignorant of the actual laws and rules in order to pretend Irish babies aborted abroad don't matter. Your NIMBYism is truly something to behold.

recedite wrote: »

As I pointed out, the FGM law is a deterrent, because it makes the parent liable on their return blah-blah-blah, yackity schmackity

What has any of this got to do with the point I'm making? Regardless of the method of efficacy of the FGM law, it at least tries to stop FGM abroad, why doesn't the no side campaign for the same in relation to abortion?

recedite wrote: »

I could equally..
*Ask deflecting questions*
*point to perceived difficulties*
*moot point about what currently is in constitution in discussion is about changing it*
*moot point about current rights when discussion is about extending rights*
*nonsense*

You campaign for something because it doesn't have support, if it had support, then what is the use of campaigning for it?
Difficulty in prosecutions is irrelevant, abortion pills still get to Irish women and that is made illegal regardless. As you said, the FGM law is a deterrent, why can't abortion legislation be a deterrent to travelling for abortions?
The pro-life campaign a) wants to to keep abortion illegal, so is all about punishment for it and b) offers no detailed alternatives.

recedite wrote: »

So now a question for you, if the life of an unborn is worthless, why not campaign for late term abortions on demand?

Because we already have them, it's called birth.

Mark Hamill

SusieBlue wrote: »

You're talking to the wall. Save yourself the stress and stop replying. This is how this poster conducts himself to everyone, on every single abortion thread.
Its his style of posting, and despite it being very frustrating, and impossible to debate with, it doesn't change.
Its exhausting.

I don't even find it stressful or frustrating (not yet anyway). I've posted largely the same thing to multiple posters in this and other threads and mostly I'm just disappointed that they all respond in basically the same way.

recedite

NuMarvel wrote: »

What changes in 1991?

aloyisious wrote: »

So you think the public's understanding now of the 8th amendment's wording and effect is different from that that the public was told it was intended to do in 1983. Do you accept that the public's present re-interpretation of that amendment mean's that they see it as actually flawed, and must have been so at the time it became law, or is it that you think there are differing reasons for the public to re-interpret the 8th from what it meant in 1983? The actual wording of the 8th has NOT changed, though other later amendments were made to article 40.

As you seem to have a different opinion to NuMarvel on the effect the 8th has on women today, are you saying that the 8th has no legal effect on women today?

I'm keeping in mind two things here: 1.. that the wording of the 8th still has legal effect here, otherwise the Vote No campaigners would have no actual reason to seek the retention of it, if it was as ineffectual as you seem to argue in opposition to NuMarvels's argument that it does have an effect on women.

AND 2..It seem's to me that by your actual desire to retain the 8th amendment in Article 40 you do actually see it as still having a legal effect.....

The X-case first came to public attention in 1991 and was followed by various legal battles and referendums. When the dust settled in 1992 the 8th amendment had a different meaning. Basically, it could never be used to protect the unborn if the mother's life was at risk, and it could never be invoked to prevent abortion travel or abortion info. In effect, that makes the unborn's life less equal than the mother's life. The rationale for this apparent contradiction is based on the fact that the life of the unborn is in practical terms dependent on the life of the mother. So if anything happens to her, that is two lives gone, which is worse than one life gone.
That has been the position since then. It has full legal effect. The constitution is a constantly evolving document, and I'm fine with that.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well firstly because I do not know ANYONE campaigning for "abortion on demand" but "choice based abortion". The differences between these two have been explained often enough...

Go on, indulge me, explain it. I can't see any difference.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So the question REALLY is why campaign AGAINST choice based abortion up to a point like 16 weeks when screeching words like "Life" and "Human" without any substance behind their use...

What happens at 16 weeks? Is that when the foetus gets its mojo?

pleas advice

lazygal wrote: »

Had my two pregnancies terminated at 39 and 41 weeks. This foetus will be coming out at 39 weeks.

In Ireland? under the current laws??

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If someone comes here to have a baby and that baby isn't Irish then what citizenship are they? None :rolleyes:?

It all depends...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Anyway, you are entirely wrong, from the department of foreign affairs:

I'm aware of the rules from the Irish point of view, but its not that simple. Some countries don't allow dual citizenship. If you are born in one of those countries, and grow up there, you might not want to renounce that citizenship just so you can claim to be Irish on account of your parent's nationality.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because we already have them, it's called birth.

There's a big difference between late term abortions and live birth.

They are usually illegal, even in England.

A married woman who aborted her own baby in the final week of pregnancy was jailed for eight years today after a judge said she had robbed the child of the life he was about to begin.

recedite

pleas advice wrote: »

In Ireland? under the current laws??

See how they switched seamlessly from my use of the word "abortion" in the question, to their use of the term "termination" in the smart ar$e replies.
You have to watch out for the sneaky stuff around here

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

The X-case first came to public attention in 1991

So no changes in 1991. Thought so. And the X Case only came to public attention in February 1992, because that's when the original injunction was sought and granted.

recedite wrote: »

When the dust settled in 1992 the 8th amendment had a different meaning. Basically, it could never be used to protect the unborn if the mother's life was at risk, and it could never be invoked to prevent abortion travel or abortion info. In effect, that makes the unborn's life less equal than the mother's life. The rationale for this apparent contradiction is based on the fact that the life of the unborn is in practical terms dependent on the life of the mother. So if anything happens to her, that is two lives gone, which is worse than one life gone.
That has been the position since then. It has full legal effect. The constitution is a constantly evolving document, and I'm fine with that.

I'm getting embarrassed for you at this stage.

Firstly, we're being told by No groups that the 8th was always meant to protect the life of the mother, over and above that of the unborn. So the X Case can't have been a "re-interpretation", if the people defending it tell us that was its original meaning. Maybe you had a different interpretation, but that doesn't mean the X Case judgement actually re-interpreted anything. It is clear that the 8th always meant to be balanced against the woman's right to life, hence the inclusion of the "with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother" provision. Certainly there were, and are, questions about how the state fulfils that obligation, but it wasn't a reinterpretation or contradiction of the 8th to say that the woman's life could take precedence.

Secondly, the X Case never made the findings you claim about travel or information. I've already explained to you, in detail what it said about travel, and I won't be doing so again. After all, if you're not capable of understanding it the first time, chances are the second time won't fare any better. And the X Case didn't didn't touch on information at all.

You really, honestly, seem to struggle with properly interpreting the law in general and the X Case in particular. It's as if you've come to a conclusion first and have to twist the facts beyond all recognition to make them fit. And it doesn't help that you haven't even read the full X Case judgement in the first place. I suggest that you sit down and read the 8th and the X Case judgement without any preconceptions. It might help you in future.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

See how they switched seamlessly from my use of the word "abortion" in the question, to their use of the term "termination" in the smart ar$e replies.
You have to watch out for the sneaky stuff around here

It's not sneaky at all, just factual.

The proposed amendment says "terminations", not "abortions".

In fact, strictly speaking there's no such thing as a "late term abortion". Anything after viability is called a "late termination".

recedite

seamus wrote: »

It's not sneaky at all, just factual.

The proposed amendment says "terminations", not "abortions".

In fact, strictly speaking there's no such thing as a "late term abortion". Anything after viability is called a "late termination".

Nice wordplay.
So what word would you use for killing the foetus, as per the link I posted a few posts back? How would you distinguish it from an induced live delivery?

seamus

recedite wrote: »

Nice wordplay.
So what word would you use for killing the foetus, as per the link I posted a few posts back? How would you distinguish it from an induced live delivery?

I went back 3 pages and couldn't find any link.

Nevertheless, where it's pre-viability it's an abortion. Where it's post-viability it's a termination.

In Ireland a termination after viability involves an induced live delivery followed by either routine, emergency or palliative care of the born child, depending on their circumstances. "Killing" the feotus is not an option.

recedite

NuMarvel wrote: »

So no changes in 1991. Thought so. And the X Case only came to public attention in February 1992, because that's when the original injunction was sought and granted.

OK, I'll accept that correction Mr. Nitpicker. It came to my attention in 1991 because I was living in Rathfarnham area at the time, and the pervert involved was known as a "flasher" who liked to jump out in front of schoolkids even before then, but 1991 is when some people became aware that a girl had been raped. 1992 for "the general public".

NuMarvel wrote: »

Firstly, we're being told by No groups that the 8th was always meant to protect the life of the mother, over and above that of the unborn. So the X Case can't have been a "re-interpretation", if the people defending it tell us that was its original meaning. Maybe you had a different interpretation, but that doesn't mean the X Case judgement actually re-interpreted anything. It is clear that the 8th always meant to be balanced against the woman's right to life, hence the inclusion of the "with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother" provision. Certainly there were, and are, questions about how the state fulfils that obligation, but it wasn't a reinterpretation or contradiction of the 8th to say that the woman's life could take precedence.

Prior to that case, the mother threatening suicide would not have been seen as a valid reason for an abortion.

Secondly, the X Case never made the findings you claim about travel or information. I've already explained to you, in detail what it said about travel, and I won't be doing so again. After all, if you're not capable of understanding it the first time, chances are the second time won't fare any better. And the X Case didn't didn't touch on information at all.

You seem to have trouble comprehending my posts. That's not what I said. I mentioned the referendums in 1992 in the aftermath of the X case. For nitpicking purposes, "aftermath" means related to, subsequent, but not directly a part of.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

I went back 3 pages and couldn't find any link.

Nevertheless, where it's pre-viability it's an abortion. Where it's post-viability it's a termination.

In Ireland a termination after viability involves an induced live delivery followed by either routine, emergency or palliative care of the born child, depending on their circumstances. "Killing" the feotus is not an option.

Everything is an option, but maybe not a legal one.
And the law is of course a movable set of goalposts, hence the upcoming referendum.
Try post #6403, or here's the link again.

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

OK, I'll accept that correction Mr. Nitpicker. It came to my attention in 1991 because I was living in Rathfarnham area at the time, and the pervert involved was known as a "flasher" who liked to jump out in front of schoolkids even before then, but 1991 is when some people became aware that a girl had been raped. 1992 for "the general public".

So when you said there were changes in 1991, there weren't actually any changes, and what you really meant is that you allegedly became aware of the girl's situation in 1991.

Again, you're redefining nitpicking... :rolleyes:

recedite wrote: »

Prior to that case, the mother threatening suicide would not have been seen as a valid reason for an abortion.

Firstly, "threatening" suicide isn't a reason now or then. On the other hand, qualified doctors believing someone's life is at risk from suicide and that an abortion is the only way to save their life, is. You might think that's more "nitpicking", but there's enough stigma around suicide and mental health already without you adding to it.

Secondly, leaving your poor choice of words aside, what evidence do you have that suicide wouldn't have been grounds for an abortion prior to the X Case? This was the first case that ruled on this matter so there's no legal precedent to support you. What then are you basing this on?

recedite wrote: »

You seem to have trouble comprehending my posts. That's not what I said. I mentioned the referendums in 1992 in the aftermath of the X case. For nitpicking purposes, "aftermath" means related to, subsequent, but not directly a part of.

Now, this is nitpicking. :rolleyes: Your post was poorly phrased, but at least you've clarified your point now. Thank you.

seamus

Interesting case, never heard of that one before.

That's still a termination. A little odd that she could be charged with a crime for bringing about labour at 39 weeks, that seems like an aberration in British law.

A child at 39 weeks will usually be born alive, so the fact that she didn't just go to a hospital and demand an induction and refused to reveal the location of the child would lead me to believe that she gave birth and then murdered the baby.

But without a body or witnesses, UK police were left with no option but to charge her under a statute that was never really intended for induction of labour at 39 weeks. You're implying that she took a substance which killed the feotus, but there's no mention of that nor any charge for that. There is a specific offence of destroying a foetus that is capable of being born alive. So it seems pretty clear that they don't think or couldn't prove she killed the feotus in utero.

It rather sounds to me like she shouldn't have been charged at all, but given that the CPS believed that she killed the child either before or after birth but couldn't prove that, they just found something to charge her with.

Tell me, when a hospital induces labour at 39 weeks, what do you call it? And how does that differ from what Sarah Catt did?

recedite

seamus wrote: »

Tell me, when a hospital induces labour at 39 weeks, what do you call it? And how does that differ from what Sarah Catt did?

Its pretty obvious that Catt wanted her unborn child to be dead. Which is very different to what happens in a maternity hospital when inducing labour.
I'll leave the exact wordplay to you, but in common parlance, one is "abortion" and one is not.

recedite

NuMarvel wrote: »

Secondly, leaving your poor choice of words aside, what evidence do you have that suicide wouldn't have been grounds for an abortion prior to the X Case? This was the first case that ruled on this matter so there's no legal precedent to support you. What then are you basing this on?

I'm basing it on the legal principle of "precedent". The first time something is established in a legal judgement. That is when it becomes part of "common law".

Similarly, your nitpicking in relation to the x-case and the right to travel is also noted. The AG and the High Court felt confident at the time that the 8th amendment prevented the girl from travelling for an abortion. As it turned out, the SC ruled that she could travel. This was confirmed by the people soon afterwards in a referendum, as was the suicide clause, and the info/advertising thing.


We can say that these things were considered illegal before "the x-case and its associated referendums" but were legal afterwards. Therefore we can say that the 8th amendment was re-interpreted at time, and the law was changed.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

I'm basing it on the legal principle of "precedent". The first time something is established in a legal judgement. That is when it becomes part of "common law".

Similarly, your nitpicking in relation to the x-case and the right to travel is also noted. The AG and the High Court felt confident at the time that the 8th amendment prevented the girl from travelling for an abortion. As it turned out, the SC ruled that she could travel. This was confirmed by the people soon afterwards in a referendum, as was the suicide clause, and the info/advertising thing.


We can say that these things were considered illegal before "the x-case and its associated referendums" but were legal afterwards. Therefore we can say that the 8th amendment was re-interpreted at time, and the law was changed.

the 8th wasnt re-interpreted. That was the first attempt by the SC to interpret what the dogs dinner of the amendment actually meant in practice.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

Its pretty obvious that Catt wanted her unborn child to be dead. Which is very different to what happens in a maternity hospital when inducing labour.

Now you're dodging the question. What's "pretty obvious" is irrelevant. She did not kill the foetus or the born child (or at least that accusation was never levelled at her).

She induced labour. Hospitals induce labour. What's the difference? Why do you call what she did, "Abortion", but you don't call what midwives do, "Abortion".

The point is that ending the pregnancy and killing the foetus are in fact two separate acts.

Where it's basically a fact that the foetus will die without the pregnancy, we bundle them into a single term - "abortion". Abortion doesn't kill the foetus. It ends a pregnancy. It just so happens that the foetus is not yet capable of surviving independently, so it dies.

Where the foetus is viable, only a termination occurs. Because the foetus is not likely to die, it's therefore not an abortion.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Everything is an option, but maybe not a legal one.
And the law is of course a movable set of goalposts, hence the upcoming referendum.
Try post #6403, or here's the link again.

You seem to be using something which is illegal under UK law, as a stick to beat the UK law with.

That's like the posters I see who shout "Gosnell! Gosnell!" to attack the law in his US state, when what he did was wholly illegal there.

It's dumb as a bag of hammers tbh.

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

I'm basing it on the legal principle of "precedent". The first time something is established in a legal judgement. That is when it becomes part of "common law".

Similarly, your nitpicking in relation to the x-case and the right to travel is also noted. The AG and the High Court felt confident at the time that the 8th amendment prevented the girl from travelling for an abortion. As it turned out, the SC ruled that she could travel. This was confirmed by the people soon afterwards in a referendum, as was the suicide clause, and the info/advertising thing.


We can say that these things were considered illegal before "the x-case and its associated referendums" but were legal afterwards. Therefore we can say that the 8th amendment was re-interpreted at time, and the law was changed.

And now you're moving the goalposts. Your original claim was that the X Case, not the 1992 referendums, "reinterpreted" the law:

recedite wrote: »

On the 8th restricting freedom of travel... Yes, originally it could in theory have restricted travel, and it would have prevented abortion in Ireland in cases where the mother was suicidal. But that changed after the x case when it was re-interpreted, and the changes were subsequently vindicated when put to the people by referendum.

The simple fact of the matter is that the X Case reinterpreted nothing. It was the first time the law was interpreted in terms of freedom to travel and right to life. By definition that means these can't be a re-interpretation, as there were no prior interpretations by the courts. The same applies to access to information, which was decided in previous cases.

As an aside, it's also worth pointing out that all of these rulings were predicted by opponents of the 8th back in 1983. It was predicted that the 8th would be used to prevent travel and the distribution of information. It was predicted that the 8th would allow, not prevent, abortions in cases of life-threatening situations. Supporters of the 8th dismissed these claims, which I think says all we need to know about their competence in matters of law.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

Now you're dodging the question. What's "pretty obvious" is irrelevant. She did not kill the foetus or the born child (or at least that accusation was never levelled at her).

She induced labour. Hospitals induce labour. What's the difference? Why do you call what she did, "Abortion", but you don't call what midwives do, "Abortion".

The point is that ending the pregnancy and killing the foetus are in fact two separate acts.

Where it's basically a fact that the foetus will die without the pregnancy, we bundle them into a single term - "abortion". Abortion doesn't kill the foetus. It ends a pregnancy. It just so happens that the foetus is not yet capable of surviving independently, so it dies.

Where the foetus is viable, only a termination occurs. Because the foetus is not likely to die, it's therefore not an abortion.

You seem to be very naive around the whole subject.
In your world, if a pregnancy ends "pre-viability" the clump of cells die, and its nobody's fault.
If it ends post-viability, a little bundle of joy enters the world.


No wonder you can't get your head around the Sarah Catt case. I'm afraid the truth is a bit more ugly.
Here's some more education for you.

Late abortion is technically difficult to perform, therefore it happens that viable babies who were supposed to be aborted are born alive. Early in the pregnancy, the foetus will die within a few minutes, but after 21 weeks, some can breathe unaided for a 2 long while. In 2007, a study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology concluded that about 1 in 30 abortions after 16 weeks’ gestation result in a born-alive infant. At 23 weeks’ gestation, the number reached 9.7%. Most of the time, these babies are left to die without any care, not even a blanket , left alone in a room or a closet. Sometimes they are killed, either by lethal injection, asphyxiation or even by breaking their spine. In the CEMACH 2007 Perinatal Mortality report, which gathered data from hospitals in England and Wales during 2005, it was revealed that: “Sixty-six of the 2235 neonatal deaths notified in England and Wales followed legal termination (predominantly on account of congenital anomalies) of the pregnancy i.e. born showing signs of life and dying during the neonatal period. Sixteen were born at 22 weeks’ gestation or later and death occurred between 1 and 270 minutes after birth (median: 66 minutes). The remaining 50 fetuses were born before 22 weeks’ gestation and death occurred between 0 and 615 minutes after birth (median: 55 minutes)” p. 28 . In other words, one of these newborns breathed unaided for more than ten hours. Once a child slated for death by abortion is born alive, no medical help is offered to him. On the contrary, “Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommends babies over 22 weeks which survive abortion 5 should have their hearts stopped by lethal injection” . In other words, doctors are recommended to kill newborns, while they are trying to save premature babies of the same gestational age. In 2004, delegates to the British Medical Association’s annual conference in Llandudno voted 65 per cent in favour of a motion that said children born alive after an attempted abortion should be given the same care and treatment as other infants . CEMACH chief executive Richard Congdon said lethal injection had not been given in the 16 abortions over 22 weeks' 7 gestation because death was "inevitable".

So one brave little lad there actually struggled on for more than 10 hours, breathing away, on a cold slab.

The RCOG recommend lethal injection to get it over with more quickly. Its considered a mercy to the child, but more importantly, also spares the staff some discomfort.
https://eclj.org/abortion/hrc/the-human-rights-of-babies-surviving-late-abortion

recedite

NuMarvel wrote: »

The simple fact of the matter is that the X Case reinterpreted nothing. It was the first time the law was interpreted in terms of freedom to travel and right to life. By definition that means these can't be a re-interpretation, as there were no prior interpretations by the courts.

Lets just say that I disagree with you, and I'm tired of your nitpicking. When a judgement changes the way the law is interpreted, that's called a legal precedent, and it applies unless and until it also gets overruled.

NuMarvel wrote: »

This was the first case that ruled on this matter so there's no legal precedent to support you.

It was the precedent. It set the precedent. It supports me.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Lets just say that I disagree with you, and I'm tired of your nitpicking. When a judgement changes the way the law is interpreted, that's called a legal precedent, and it applies unless and until it also gets overruled.
It was the precedent. It set the precedent. It supports me.

if it was the precedent how can it also be a re-interpretation?