Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Unless you leave the country while pregnant, then Ireland just pretends nothing is going on. Some country that allows people to travel to kill their "children".

Though it's fair to say, Ireland can't really aspire to look after women and children in other jurisdictions, can it? Especially jurisdictions which permit their killing.

Cabaal wrote: »

Funny that isn't it, But clearly the Irish state doesn't see a fetus as equal to a child, if they did they'd ban travel for abortions,

Leaving aside the fact that the Courts frequently characterise a foetus as an unborn child (since it's obviously uncomfortable reality for you), how exactly would the Irish State go about banning travel for abortions in your opinion?

Cabaal wrote: »

Meanwhile the Irish state does stop Irish citizens from traveling to other country's to kill themselves,

It does? Doesn't seem to have stopped these ones.
To be honest, I don't think the Irish State does stop Irish citizens from travelling to another country to kill themselves. It penalises people who aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide or attempted suicide of another person, which might dissuade people from travelling to assist someone doing so (as in the case of Marie Fleming's husband), but even in that particular case, which being in the Supreme Court you'd imagine would attract the interest of any State agency with a mandate to prevent Ms Fleming from travelling, no action was taken to stop her traveling to another country to kill herself. Was there? Given that committing suicide isn't illegal in Ireland, I don't know why travelling to do so would be, but perhaps you could link the legislation that stops Irish citizens from travelling to another country to kill themselves for us?

The Randy Riverbeast

Absolam wrote: »

Though it's fair to say, Ireland can't really aspire to look after women and children in other jurisdictions, can it? Especially jurisdictions which permit their killing.

Ah sure as long as it is outside of Ireland it's grand. Mary came back from somewhere foreign last Monday. Said she had a great time, sunny, 30+ degrees, got the youngest dismembered. I was a bit shocked at first and thought that really shouldn't be allowed but then she reminded me she didn't do it here so it's grand. Sarah is getting the husband done next month.

Absolam

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Ah sure as long as it is outside of Ireland it's grand. Mary came back from somewhere foreign last Monday. Said she had a great time, sunny, 30+ degrees, got the youngest dismembered. I was a bit shocked at first and thought that really shouldn't be allowed but then she reminded me she didn't do it here so it's grand. Sarah is getting the husband done next month.

I don't think that actually addresses the question whether Ireland can really aspire to look after women and children in other jurisdictions that do permit their killing, which you quoted. Should we presume you think it can't, but wanted to stay part of the conversation so threw in some (admittedly rather poor) prose to entertain us?

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that the Courts frequently characterise a foetus as an unborn child (since it's obviously uncomfortable reality for you), how exactly would the Irish State go about banning travel for abortions in your opinion?

What on Earth are you talking about? I mean the Irish State did stop a woman from travelling to have an abortion. We had a referendum on the issue you know?

Are you suggesting that just because something is impractical then it shouldn't be done? In which case lets remove the 8th amendment because it's impractical to say that the unborn has an equal right to life to that of the mother. Why is it impractical? The right of the mother to travel to a another country and have an abortion trumps the right of the unborn. The 8th only works when the mother can't afford or is to ill for travel.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

how exactly would the Irish State go about banning travel for abortions in your opinion?

Utter nonsense,
The state can put checks into place if it wanted to stop the "child murdering" :rolleyes: , until then you can claim you care about "children" but its evidence you don't give a monkeys as you see no problem with exporting abortions.

At least have the decency to stand up for the lives you claim to care so much about and demand that Ireland stops exporting abortions,

Instead you're just going to be like pretty much all "pro-lifers", claim to care about a fetus but you have no interest once the women gets on a plane or boat.

I don't like children being sexually abused and married off at a young age,
I hate this happening regardless of what country they may live in or what laws may make it legal in these country's for a 9 year old to be married off.. I think all that can be done should be done to stop a child being abused in this manner.

I think the Irish state should for example block any 9 year old from traveling to such a country if the intention is to marry them off in such a backwards and disgusting manner.

I can stand by this, but you can't even stand by the idea of stopping women traveling to have an abortion. Yet you still claim to care about fetuses....its evident you don't.

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

What on Earth are you talking about? I mean the Irish State did stop a woman from travelling to have an abortion. We had a referendum on the issue you know?

Hmm. Are you talking about a referendum that prevented the State from using the right to life of the unborn to prevent people from traveling? That would certainly make Cabaals proposition a tad tricky, but lets not discount his solution before he even outlines it, eh?

Daith wrote: »

Are you suggesting that just because something is impractical then it shouldn't be done? In which case lets remove the 8th amendment because it's impractical to say that the unborn has an equal right to life to that of the mother. Why is it impractical? The right of the mother to travel to a another country and have an abortion trumps the right of the unborn. The 8th only works when the mother can't afford or is to ill for travel.

I'm not, though I am saying that no law that is impracticable ought to be enacted.

lazygal

Daith wrote: »

What on Earth are you talking about? I mean the Irish State did stop a woman from travelling to have an abortion. We had a referendum on the issue you know?

Are you suggesting that just because something is impractical then it shouldn't be done? In which case lets remove the 8th amendment because it's impractical to say that the unborn has an equal right to life to that of the mother. Why is it impractical? The right of the mother to travel to a another country and have an abortion trumps the right of the unborn. The 8th only works when the mother can't afford or is to ill for travel.

The state actually ordered a 14 year old child to return to Ireland to protect the foetus inside her. The high court determined suicide wasn't a good enough reason for her to have an abortion in Ireland and the supreme court overturned this.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Utter nonsense,
The state can put checks into place if it wanted to stop the "child murdering" :rolleyes: , until then you can claim you care about "children" but its evidence you don't give a monkeys as you see no problem with exporting abortions.

Good for you! Don't let the Constitution get in your way, eh? Feel free to explain how so... at very least I imagine Youth Defence would be fascinated to hear how it could be done. But if you don't mind, stick to your proposal rather than trying to tell me what I give a monkeys about, eh? I'm quite capable of deciding for myself thanks.

Cabaal wrote: »

At least have the decency to stand up for the lives you claim to care so much about and demand that Ireland stops exporting abortions,

Dear me! You're telling me what I should stand up for too? Quite the little martinet, eh?

Cabaal wrote: »

Instead you're just going to be like pretty much all "pro-lifers", claim to care about a fetus but you have no interest once the women gets on a plane or boat.

I can see there's no point in me having any opinions of my own at all, you're just going to tell me what they are for me, aren't you? And you call yourself pro-choice! Tut tut......

Cabaal wrote: »

I don't like children being sexually abused and married off at a young age, I hate this happening regardless of what country they may live in or what laws may make it legal in these country's for a 9 year old to be married off.. I think all that can be done should be done to stop a child being abused in this manner.

Well, I for one think that's jolly good. A bit irrelevant, but well done on those opinions nonetheless. I imagine you'll be standing up for them and demanding things so? Good stuff.

Cabaal wrote: »

I think the Irish state should for example block any 9 year old from traveling to such a country if the intention is to marry them off in such a backwards and disgusting manner.

Well, like I said, it's a bit irrelevant but good for you. I can't say you're proposing a comprehensively just system for dealing with thoughtcrime, but it certainly appears your heart is in the right place.

Cabaal wrote: »

I can stand by this, but you can't even stand by the idea of stopping women traveling to have an abortion. Yet you still claim to care about fetuses....its evident you don't.

Amazing isn't it? I haven't even said I won't stand by the principles you've decided I must have, yet I'm being pilloried for it. Shocking stuff.

robdonn

OK, so this argument is pretty much:

A - "We want to change the law to ..."
B - "But the current law is ..."
A - "But we want to change the law to ..."
B - "But the current law is ..."

lazygal

robdonn wrote: »

OK, so this argument is pretty much:

A - "We want to change the law to ..."
B - "But the current law is ..."
A - "But we want to change the law to ..."
B - "But the current law is ..."

Too few paragraphs there I think. Maybe trying splitting and multi quoting more.

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm. Are you talking about a referendum that prevented the State from using the right to life of the unborn to prevent people from traveling? That would certainly make Cabaals proposition a tad tricky, but lets not discount his solution before he even outlines it, eh?

Eh no YOU asked for an example of the State stopping someone from travelling to have an abortion. One was given to you. You ignored it and waffled on about something else.

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not, though I am saying that no law that is impracticable ought to be enacted.

4000 Irish women a year have abortions. How is the 8th amendment protecting the unborns equal right to life? Doesn't seem practical does it?

Making abortion illegal. Sure that's practical. Saying that the unborn has an "equal" right to life which can be dismissed by a woman using her constitutional right to travel for an abortion? Not practical.

Cabaal

Daith wrote: »

Eh no YOU asked for an example of the State stopping someone from travelling to have an abortion. One was given to you. You ignored it and waffled on about something else.
.

That'll be the norm for Absolam, now I remember why I used to have em on ignore. They'd rather dance around everything then actually commit to anything worthwhile.

I guess I hoped for too much when I took them off ignore, back to the old days again I suppose...ignored again
:rolleyes:

Delirium

Seems those involved in the video-campaign against Planned Parenthood have been indicted on criminal charges.

A Harris County grand jury probe into Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast ended Monday with the indictments of two anti-abortion activists.


David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt were both indicted for tampering with a governmental record. An additional indictment for prohibition of the purchase and sale of human organs was issued for Daleiden, according to a release from the Harris County District Attorneys Office.



"We were called upon to investigate allegations of criminal conduct by Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast," said Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson. "As I stated at the outset of this investigation, we must go where the evidence leads us. All the evidence uncovered in the course of this investigation was presented to the grand jury. I respect their decision on this difficult case."

Source

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

Eh no YOU asked for an example of the State stopping someone from travelling to have an abortion. One was given to you. You ignored it and waffled on about something else.

Eh no. I asked "how exactly would the Irish State go about banning travel for abortions in Cabaals opinion" You quoted my question in your reply. It certainly wouldn't go about banning travel for abortions in the manner the Attorney General attempted to use to stop Miss X, because the Supreme Court ruled he couldn't, and the electorate amended the Constitution to prevent any similar attempts.

Daith wrote: »

4000 Irish women a year have abortions. How is the 8th amendment protecting the unborns equal right to life? Doesn't seem practical does it?

It undoubtedly practically limits any women having abortions wherever the 8th Amendment has legal standing, doesn't it?

Daith wrote: »

Making abortion illegal. Sure that's practical. Saying that the unborn has an "equal" right to life which can be dismissed by a woman using her constitutional right to travel for an abortion? Not practical.

I don't think the Constitution (or anyone) does actually say that the unborn has an "equal" right to life which can be dismissed by a woman using her constitutional right to travel for an abortion (nor does the Constititution say a woman has a constitutional right to travel for an abortion), so as to the practicalities of combining two untrue statements to arrive at some sort of conclusion... I'm afraid I can't really say.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

OK, so this argument is pretty much:
A - "We want to change the law to ..."
B - "But the current law is ..."
A - "But we want to change the law to ..."
B - "But the current law is ..."

I don't think Cabaal was saying "we want to change the law to"... I read his statement as "A person who is pregnant in Ireland does has an opportunity to choose to terminate their pregnancy by destroying the life of their unborn child in Ireland by both legal and illegal means." and "the Irish state doesn't see a fetus as equal to a child, if they did they'd ban travel for abortions", and "the Irish state does stop Irish citizens from traveling to other country's to kill themselves". In fairness, he hasn't put forward any arguments to support the points, but he was kind enough to put some points of view forward on my behalf instead.

I'm sure if he wants to put forward an argument for changing the law he will, and going on current form he'll put forward what he feels the opposing argument is allowed to be as well.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

That'll be the norm for Absolam, now I remember why I used to have em on ignore. They'd rather dance around everything then actually commit to anything worthwhile.

If by 'commit to anything worthwhile' you mean stick with the opinions you've decided I should have, then no thanks, but I appreciate your effort.

As for dancing around everything, it seems whenever I ask you to be specific, like providing a method for how the Irish State could ban travel for abortions, or what legislation Ireland uses to stop Irish citizens from traveling to other countries to kill themselves, or even why your opinion that foetuses are not children flies in the face of jurisprudence, you drop the topic and start telling me what my opinions are instead. I'm not sure why you think that's me dancing around everything...

Cabaal wrote: »

I guess I hoped for too much when I took them off ignore, back to the old days again I suppose...ignored again
:rolleyes:

I'm going to have to come up with my own statements instead of having them provided for me from now on? Oh no... :rolleyes:

Cabaal

Anyone want to be in a fi;m...at the very least its worth applying, just so they know people are interested when the read the emails

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/01/25/we-need-pregnant-women/



First comment on the story sums things up

I’m guessing married lesbians who are expecting need not apply?

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

Eh no. I asked "

No. You asked this "how would the Irish State go about banning travel for abortions in your opinion?"

and I replied. They have already.

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think the Constitution (or anyone) does actually say that the unborn has an "equal" right to life which can be dismissed by a woman using her constitutional right to travel for an abortion (nor does the Constititution say a woman has a constitutional right to travel for an abortion), so as to the practicalities of combining two untrue statements to arrive at some sort of conclusion... I'm afraid I can't really say.

More nonsensical word play from you. We only had a referendum on travel when a woman was (and get this) stopped from travelling to have an abortion (by the State no less!). Are you rewriting the past to suggest Irish people voted for travel in general? They knew exactly what they were voting for. The "Pro-Life" side pointed out how hypocritical it was.

Indeed it is now to a point where we have the Master of the Rotunda saying that they have a good working relationship with clinics in the UK if the mother makes a choice to have an abortion. Where is the 8th amendment coming in to play?

In any case, it's clear that a woman's right to travel trumps the unborn apparent right to life. The 8th amendment does nothing to protect the unborn if the mother can travel.

MrPudding

I wonder would this tosser be quite as keen to appeal if it was his own money he was spending?

MrP

Shrap

Cabaal wrote: »

Anyone want to be in a fi;m...at the very least its worth applying, just so they know people are interested when the read the emails

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/01/25/we-need-pregnant-women/



First comment on the story sums things up

The rest of the comments are great too. I especially like these:

"It’s mind blowingly ironic that their logo is so similar to Ryanair’s."

"Ah now. Secretly masterminding a Pro-Life campaign for the sake of 10 extra plane tickets a day?! Only an immoral crook of the highest calibre would resort to such a thing."

MrPudding

Shrap wrote: »

The rest of the comments are great too. I especially like these:

"It’s mind blowingly ironic that their logo is so similar to Ryanair’s."

"Ah now. Secretly masterminding a Pro-Life campaign for the sake of 10 extra plane tickets a day?! Only an immoral crook of the highest calibre would resort to such a thing."

Even more funny when you consider that Ryanair is, technically, and indirectly, most probably complicit in a large number of the abortions that Irish woman and girls have in the UK. In fact, if anyone from Ryanair in reading this how about this for your next advertising campaign:

"Ryanair, an Irish solution to an Irish problem: making abortions for Irish women and girls more affordable."

You can have that, I won't charge.

MrP

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

No. You asked this "how would the Irish State go about banning travel for abortions in your opinion?" and I replied. They have already.

You seem to have left what I said out of your quote. Twice. How odd. May I fill it in for you?

Absolam wrote: »

Eh no. I asked "how exactly would the Irish State go about banning travel for abortions in Cabaals opinion" You quoted my question in your reply

Isn’t it odd that you’d deny I said what I said and then repeat what I said? Had you left the actual quote in you’d have known you were repeating it too….
Anyhow. That’s what I asked. Now, if I had been asking Cabaal about what the Irish State would have done in the past, I probably would have said “how would the Irish State have gone about banning travel for abortions in your opinion?”. Though that would have been a bit silly; it’s a matter of record so we don’t really need his opinion on what they would have done, we can see what they did, can’t we? But if I had wanted to ask him about it, I probably would have asked “how did the Irish State go about attempting to ban a person from travelling for an abortion?” (because of course, the State didn't actually ban travelling for abortions, and even had they, simply saying they did wouldn't explain how they went about it). To be honest, neither of those were of much interest to me. Cabaal ventured the opinion that

Cabaal wrote: »

the Irish state doesn’t see a fetus as equal to a child, if they did they’d ban travel for abortions

, and I was interested in how exactly would the Irish State go about banning travel for abortions in his opinion (which is why I quoted his statement as a preface when I asked).
I hope that clears up your confusion.

Daith wrote: »

In that case the 8th amendment only decides the location. It in fact does not protect the unborn and give the unborn an "equal right to life".

Well, it doesn’t mention location at all, so no. But you are correct in that the limit of its effect, as with the rest of the Constitution, is the jurisdiction of Ireland. So, it no more gives the unborn an equal right to life than it gives you a right to vote, or a right to an inviolable dwelling.

Daith wrote: »

More nonsensical word play from you. We only had a referendum on travel when a woman was (and get this) stopped from travelling to have an abortion (by the State no less!). Are you rewriting the past to suggest Irish people voted for travel in general? They knew exactly what they were voting for. The "Pro-Life" side pointed out how hypocritical it was.

Well, I would point out that the woman in question wasn't stopped from traveling. So it's not me rewriting the past. Still, how exactly is it nonsensical word play to say I don't think the Constitution does actually say that the unborn has an "equal" right to life which can be dismissed by a woman using her Constitutional right to travel for an abortion? If you do think the Constitution says it, you can find the Constitutional provision that states the unborn has an "equal" right to life which can be dismissed by a woman using her Constitutional right to travel for an abortion, and link it for us. Otherwise, I'll continue to think it says no such thing.

Daith wrote: »

In any case, it's clear that a woman's right to travel trumps the unborn apparent right to life. The 8th amendment does nothing to protect the unborn if the mother can travel.

Well you certainly give the impression that it's clear to you. Given the other things that appear clear to you though I'd suggest that what you think is clear isn't necessarily founded on fact.

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

So it's not me rewriting the past. Still, how exactly is it nonsensical word play to say I don't think the Constitution does actually say that the unborn has an "equal" right to life which can be dismissed by a woman using her Constitutional right to travel for an abortion? If you do think the Constitution says it, you can find the Constitutional provision that states the unborn has an "equal" right to life which can be dismissed by a woman using her Constitutional right to travel for an abortion, and link it for us.

I think if you're taking the Constitution at it's literal you really are on the wrong side.
The Constitution never said that marriage was between a man and a woman either. Did that mean anyone could marry? No.

Absolam wrote: »

Well you certainly give the impression that it's clear to you. Given the other things that appear clear to you though I'd suggest that what you think is clear isn't necessarily founded on fact.

Avoiding answering the question again.

What protection does the 8th amendment give to the unborn if the mother travels?

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

I think if you're taking the Constitution at it's literal you really are on the wrong side.
The Constitution never said that marriage was between a man and a woman either. Did that mean anyone could marry? No.

I think I understand what you mean by 'taking the Constitution at it's literal' but I'm not sure why you think doing so places me on 'the wrong side'. The Constitution didn't limit marriage to marriages between men and women, so recognition of same sex marriage was optional; any government could legislate to allow it, or not. As the government of 2004 did legislate to prohibit persons of the same sex marrying.
Adding this Amendment to the Constitution in 2015; "4 Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex." prevents governments from legislating one way or the other as they may choose. That's taking the Constitution literally... which as far as I know is the way it's meant to be taken, like other legal documents, or it wouldn't be written as it is.

Daith wrote: »

Avoiding answering the question again.

Would you mind pointing out the question in the quote I answered? I'll quote it again to save you missing some of it out:

Daith wrote: »

In any case, it's clear that a woman's right to travel trumps the unborn apparent right to life. The 8th amendment does nothing to protect the unborn if the mother can travel.

I can't see a question in there I'm afraid, sorry.

Daith wrote: »

What protection does the 8th amendment give to the unborn if the mother travels?

If she travels within the jurisdiction of Ireland, it has the full protection of the law. If she travels outside the jurisdiction of Ireland, it has as much protection as an Irish citizen has the right to vote outside the jurisdiction, or has a right to expect the State to protect the inviolability of her dwelling. Did I not make that clear when I said

Absolam wrote: »

you are correct in that the limit of its effect, as with the rest of the Constitution, is the jurisdiction of Ireland. So, it no more gives the unborn an equal right to life than it gives you a right to vote, or a right to an inviolable dwelling.

? Sorry, I thought that was clear. My bad.

The Black Oil

Professor Casey brought defamation proceedings over remarks in the comments section by individuals in July 2013 in relation to articles written by columnist Breda O’Brien and by psychiatrist Prof Brendan Kelly.

As part of the settlement, an apology was read to the court by Cian Ferriter SC on behalf of the newspaper.

It stated: “In the summer of 2013, the Irish Times published on its website a series of articles relating to the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill which, at that stage, was progressing though the Houses of the Oireachtas.

"In the comment section beneath the articles that were published on the Irish Times website, two anonymous members of the public made comments stating that Professor Patricia Casey was an unprofessional psychiatrist who was unfit to treat suicidal pregnant women.

"The comments also asserted that Professor Casey misrepresented psychiatric research in order to promote a Catholic agenda."

"The Irish Times accepts that the comments made about Professor Casey were untrue."

It also recognised she was "a psychiatrist of the highest integrity and professionalism and apologised for the distress caused to her by the comments on the website.

In a statement afterwards, Prof Casey said she was very pleased with the outcome.

"What was said could not be allowed to stand," she said.

She also said it was a great pity it has taken so long to get to this point.

"I believe this is an important case because it will hopefully lead online editions of newspapers and other similar websites to think again about the sort of online comments they allow about people."

"Defamatory comments would not be permitted to appear in the letters pages of newspapers so why should they be allowed to appear in the comments sections of the online editions of those same newspapers?", she said.

Source

All the juicy bits, nasty comments and a Catholic agenda.

robdonn

The Black Oil wrote: »

All the juicy bits, nasty comments and a Catholic agenda.

What a ridiculous suit and an even more ridiculous outcome...

The appropriate edits have been made to her Wiki...

Shrap

The Black Oil wrote: »

All the juicy bits, nasty comments and a Catholic agenda.

Oh dear. Can I call her a wagon with opinions of the most decrepit and banjaxed kind, who's professional "expertise" I would pay good money NOT to ever hear again, on a public forum and not get sued?

If you don't mind Patricia, ta much.

Ps. You can call me a wife-swapping sodomite if you like. I won't sue.

The Randy Riverbeast

Remember guys, its the liberal media that is censoring the like of Iona and friends. It is ok to call the commenters liars though.

Please dont sue me.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

I don't know why you think not being allowed to make one choice necessitates that there ought to be an alternative? A person who is pregnant in Ireland does not have an opportunity to choose to terminate their pregnancy by destroying the life of their unborn child in Ireland. Whether they decide they want to make that choice or not, the circumstances of their pregnancy do not change; the pregnancy remains just as it was before they decided they wanted to make that choice. At no point does the potential for alternatives arise.[/QUOTE.

Sorry for the delay in replying. Re your first line, I'd have though the notion of choice implies there is an alternative, eg; path A or path B. Re line two, I'd say the recognition in law and/or guidelines here of the threat of suicidality by pregnant women in respect of unwanted pregnancies goes to prove the opposite, that there is an official recognition that women will decide for themselves what their own future will be. There is also the fact that a suicide would probably terminate the pregnancy, the ultimate result of taking path B after being denied access to path A, an approved medical abortion, not a termination via birth after a full-term pregnancy. Irish women have read our newspapers and are aware of that last (irish) way of solving a problem.

Absolam

I can't say I have a problem with them suing people who make defamatory comments. This thing of suing the medium for the comments (be it the Irish Times or Boards.ie, etc etc) is however more than a little concerning. I understand the logic, but it seems fundamentally wrong to me.