Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

tretorn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Unless we change the law again, that's just not going to happen. Any woman seeking to abort a DS pregnancy will have to go to the UK. But this has already been pointed out to you multiple times, so your motivation in repeatedly posting obvious falsehoods has to be called into question.

And, no again she wont.

Downs syndrome can now be safely predicted at eleven weeks and women can have abortions without questions asked up to twelve weeks.



If the pregnancy is thirteen weeks or more in gestation the woman can say her mental health will be affected by the pregnancy, she doesnt have to say because the foetus has Downs, she just has to say if she continues with the pregnancy her life will be danger due to suicide.

This is how the woman in Germany got her failed abortion, abortion is legal in Germany up to thirteen weeks but nine out of ten foetuses with downs syndrome are aborted under the mental health card clause.

You can keep on saying but, but, but but the reality is abortion will be as widespread in this country as it is everywhere else in Europe within five years and practically no babies with Downs will live to tell the tale.

tretorn

You are quoting Law in the UK, its not relevant here because all our rights derive from provisions under Bunreacht Na HEireann and Citizens of Ireland have a constitutional right to peaceful assembly.

If the Gardai drag peaceful protesters off the Street someone will take a constitutional action and seek damages. You cant just make up laws saying people cant protest against abortion and then allow people to come together to protest against something else. You cant stop Joe Soap exercising his right to protest wherever he likes because he might offend someone else.

Be very careful about encouraging drafting of draconian laws.

gctest50

tretorn wrote: »

You are quoting Law in the UK, its not relevant here because

That post is nonsense

That's why i said elsewhere , even in bold n everything :

gctest50 wrote: »

Governments elsewhere fixed it with this sort of thing :

end of the road

gctest50 wrote: »

Governments elsewhere fixed it with this sort of thing :

"The Council has had particular regard to the rights and freedoms set out in Article 10 (right of freedom of expression) and Article 11 (right of freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights and has concluded that the restrictions on such rights and freedoms imposed by this Order are lawful, necessary and proportionate. "



"ORDER

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR, CRIME AND POLICING ACT 2014, SECTION 59

PUBLIC SPACES PROTECTION ORDER

This order is made by the London Borough of Ealing (the ‘Council’) and shall be known as the Public Spaces Protection Order (Address) 2018.

PRELIMINARY

1. The Council, in making this Order is satisfied on reasonable grounds that:
The activities identified below have been carried out in public places within the Council’s area and have had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality, and that: the effect, or likely effect, of the activities:
is, or is likely to be, of a persistent or continuing nature, is, or is likely to be, such as to make the activities unreasonable, and justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice.

2. The Council is satisfied that the prohibitions imposed by this Order are reasonable to impose in order to prevent the detrimental effect of these activities from continuing, occurring or recurring, or to reduce that detrimental effect or to reduce the risk of its continuance, occurrence or recurrence.

3. The Council has had regard to the rights and freedoms set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Council has had particular regard to the rights and freedoms set out in Article 10 (right of freedom of expression) and Article 11 (right of freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights and has concluded that the restrictions on such rights and freedoms imposed by this Order are lawful, necessary and proportionate.

THE ACTIVITIES
4. The Activities prohibited by the Order are:

i Protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval/disapproval or attempted act of approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means.
This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling,

ii Interfering, or attempting to interfere, whether verbally or physically, with a service user or member of staff,

iii Intimidating or harassing, or attempting to intimidate or harass, a service user or a member of staff,

iv Recording or photographing a service user or member of staff of the Clinic whilst they are in the Safe Zone,

v Displaying any text or images relating directly or indirectly to the termination of pregnancy, or

vi Playing or using amplified music, voice or audio recordings."



.

different country so is therefore irrelevant to his point.

gctest50

tretorn wrote: »

..........


You cant just make up laws saying people cant protest against abortion and then allow people to come together to protest against something else.

....

You can just.... in that example it clearly states what activities are prohibited :


i ii iii iv v vi



"
THE ACTIVITIES

4. The Activities prohibited by the Order are:

i Protesting, namely engaging in any act of approval/disapproval or attempted act of approval/disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means.
This includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling,

ii Interfering, or attempting to interfere, whether verbally or physically, with a service user or member of staff,

iii Intimidating or harassing, or attempting to intimidate or harass, a service user or a member of staff,

iv Recording or photographing a service user or member of staff of the Clinic whilst they are in the Safe Zone,

v Displaying any text or images relating directly or indirectly to the termination of pregnancy, or

vi Playing or using amplified music, voice or audio recordings."

.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

different country so is therefore irrelevant to his point.

that law does not breach the European Convention on Human Rights so how does it breach our constitution? Be exact.

Timberrrrrrrr

tretorn wrote: »

You are quoting Law in the UK, its not relevant here because all our rights derive from provisions under Bunreacht Na HEireann and Citizens of Ireland have a constitutional right to peaceful assembly.

If the Gardai drag peaceful protesters off the Street someone will take a constitutional action and seek damages. You cant just make up laws saying people cant protest against abortion and then allow people to come together to protest against something else. You cant stop Joe Soap exercising his right to protest wherever he likes because he might offend someone else.

Be very careful about encouraging drafting of draconian laws.

Yet its ok for you to quote from.other jurisdictions?

Hypocrite much?

tretorn wrote: »

And, no again she wont.

Downs syndrome can now be safely predicted at eleven weeks and women can have abortions without questions asked up to twelve weeks.



If the pregnancy is thirteen weeks or more in gestation the woman can say her mental health will be affected by the pregnancy, she doesnt have to say because the foetus has Downs, she just has to say if she continues with the pregnancy her life will be danger due to suicide.

This is how the woman in Germany got her failed abortion, abortion is legal in Germany up to thirteen weeks but nine out of ten foetuses with downs syndrome are aborted under the mental health card clause.

You can keep on saying but, but, but but the reality is abortion will be as widespread in this country as it is everywhere else in Europe within five years and practically no babies with Downs will live to tell the tale.

Hotblack Desiato

tretorn wrote: »

Where is your right to engage in peaceful assembly constrained by law, case law please.

Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. Try sections 5-7 for starters.

Disorderly conduct in public place.

5.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to engage in offensive conduct—

(a) between the hours of 12 o'clock midnight and 7 o'clock in the morning next following, or

(b) at any other time, after having been requested by a member of the Garda Sh to desist.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.

(3) In this section “offensive conduct” means any unreasonable behaviour which, having regard to all the circumstances, is likely to cause serious offence or serious annoyance to any person who is, or might reasonably be expected to be, aware of such behaviour.

Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in public place.

6.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to use or engage in any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.

(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both.

Distribution or display in public place of material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene.

7.—(1) It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to distribute or display any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.

The Constitution specifically states citizens have the right to peaceful assembly and in order to amend this right another referendum will have to be called. Any new laws introduced cannot conflict with fundamental constitutional rights. The Gardai can do nothing about peaceful assemblies except sit on their bikes looking on.

The government on the advice of the attorney-general say that a referendum is not required to legislate on this. But you reckon you know better. Can you state your qualifications and experience in constitutional law please?

Hotblack Desiato

tretorn wrote: »

Downs syndrome can now be safely predicted at eleven weeks and women can have abortions without questions asked up to twelve weeks.

Very tight, especially with the 3 day wait

As I understand it, the tests are not fully reliable that early

If the pregnancy is thirteen weeks or more in gestation the woman can say her mental health will be affected by the pregnancy, she doesnt have to say because the foetus has Downs, she just has to say if she continues with the pregnancy her life will be danger due to suicide.

That's exactly what they said in 2013 when the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was passed, that "the floodgates would open", that women left right and centre would be pretending to be suicidal to get abortions here. Didn't happen.

and practically no babies with Downs will live to tell the tale.

So what? I mean really, why is that a problem? Or anyone's business except the women/couples involved?

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

I’m glad your satisfied that out of 3000 GPs 200 are on board 8 full months after the referendum was carried. If I were a committed repealer I’d be asking some questions but I voted no, I’m not even Irish and as I think the Irish people are getting exactly what they deserve anyway, I really shouldn’t interfere.

So your not Irish now?

Plenty of posts from you stating you remember x and y when you were growing up here and a load from you giving out about people on social welfare and immigrants destroying the country and apparently you're one too.

I'd say it's more a case of you couldn't tell the truth if your life depended on it, a fact most people on this thread are already aware of and will take into consideration in the future.

Igotadose

Interesting, an article detailing a woman's experience at having an abortion that included a 72 hour 'waiting period,' in an abusive Southern US state. "Boston Market's" a fast food outlet that sells mostly roast chicken, gravy and mashed potatoes, pretty good corn bread as I recall.

https://shoutyourabortion.com/writing/mashed-potatoes/

King Mob

splinter65 wrote: »

I answered your question yesterday. I gave you I think three possible reasons. You just want to keep pretending that you don’t get replies. I have no idea why you think that’s a good arguing strategy

No you did not. You deflected and avoided the question. You did everything except answer it directly and plainly,

If this is not the case, either point out the post where you did give these reasons, or outline them again.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

that point was addressed by me. both in the post you quoted in the post you linked in and in a couple of others.

And no you did not either. You have not addressed any of the points in that post as you have not responded to that post.

This also does not explain why I've had to repeatedly ask you to reply or why you have not so far responded to my posts. It does not explain why you edit out questions and avoid every other point I've made at you.

You've been dodging them like you've been dodging every single point made to you.

So again: Please respond to my point, answer my questions. Stop avoiding points because they are difficult.
It's making you, your buddies and your entire side look bad.

Ignoring points didn't convince people to vote your way.
Why do you think that it's going to help reverse the referendum?

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

No you did not. You deflected and avoided the question. You did everything except answer it directly and plainly,

If this is not the case, either point out the post where you did give these reasons, or outline them again.

Didn't happen and not going to happen. I'd say your a couple of posts away from a reply full of mock outrage and being put on an ignore list or two ��

Bredabe

splinter65 wrote: »

So where is your evidence of these “terrified old people”?

Legal action re harassment arising from these 'expressions of free speech' pending.
So there is that.
In case you don't know that means I can't answer any quesions or discuss any details of it with you.

aloyisious

tretorn wrote: »

Where is your right to engage in peaceful assembly constrained by law, case law please.

The Constitution specifically states citizens have the right to peaceful assembly and in order to amend this right another referendum will have to be called. Any new laws introduced cannot conflict with fundamental constitutional rights. The Gardai can do nothing about peaceful assemblies except sit on their bikes looking on.

It's not your right to engage in peaceful assembly that would be constrained by law, it's assembly with intimidation of persons going about their lawful business that would be constrained. Likening the two forms of assembly is straining credulity. I would imagine that the legality of the other persons business, with the assent of the nation, is at the heart of any upset you have in respect of the other persons presumed actions, and that that upset could cause hasty illegal actions on the part of a protestor.

.......

tretorn wrote: »

You can keep on saying but, but, but but the reality is abortion will be as widespread in this country as it is everywhere else in Europe within five years and practically no babies with Downs will live to tell the tale.

Why is this a bad thing?

Are you saying that we should strive to have more people born with chromosonal abnormalities? Why?

Delirium

Heard this mentioned in lunchtime news....

A pregnant woman who has discovered that her foetus has a fatal abnormality has been denied an abortion, TDs have claimed in the Dáil.

Solidarity TD Ruth Coppinger and People Before Profit TD Bríd Smith raised the case with Tánaiste Simon Coveney on Thursday.

“I want to raise what I believe is the first test case for the new abortion legislation. I have been contacted by a woman who has a fatal foetal abnormality that has been certified by two consultants,” Ms Coppinger said.

“Now it appears the board of the Coombe Hospital is refusing her constitutional right that we all voted for to have an abortion at a time she chooses.

“Instead they have told her that she must wait another four weeks to see if there is a spontaneous miscarriage. At 13 weeks this woman went for her 12 week scan and they could clearly see at that point that the organs of the foetus were outside of the body. They brought her back a week later where that was fully confirmed when they got a better image.

“One doctor, her consultant and another consultant was brought in who said yes, it is a fatal foetal abnormality but a week later, it went to the board, and the board over-ruled that,” Ms Coppinger said.

“This is about the law. A main maternity hospital in the capital city of this country is refusing this woman her constitutional right when two doctors certify what is very clearly a fatal foetal abnormality.”

Source

I fail to see what is gained by making the woman wait until she miscarries instead of performing the abortion??

amcalester

Delirium wrote: »

Heard this mentioned in lunchtime news....



Source

I fail to see what is gained by making the woman wait until she miscarries instead of performing the abortion??

I’m sure EOTR can tell us that.

splinter65

Delirium wrote: »

Heard this mentioned in lunchtime news....



Source

I fail to see what is gained by making the woman wait until she miscarries instead of performing the abortion??

Did Bríd Smith and Ruth Coppinger not try to get some kind of response from the Coombe first?

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

Did Bríd Smith and Ruth Coppinger not try to get some kind of response from the Coombe first?

The coombe cant respond to any questions about a particular patient.

splinter65

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The coombe cant respond to any questions about a particular patient.

I’d hope not. Is it a regular occurrence that TDs bring medical care disagreeements to the Dail as a matter of urgency? What can the Dail do about these things? Neither Bríd Smith or Ruth Coppinger are medically qualified to comment. Medically qualified staff at the Coombe must have recommended that an abortion was not the correct course of action in this case. I doubt if they’ll change their minds because an unqualified person tells them they must.
Or I hope they wouldn’t.

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

I’d hope not. Is it a regular occurrence that TDs bring medical care disagreeements to the Dail as a matter of urgency? What can the Dail do about these things? Neither Bríd Smith or Ruth Coppinger are medically qualified to comment. Medically qualified staff at the Coombe must have recommended that an abortion was not the correct course of action in this case. I doubt if they’ll change their minds because an unqualified person tells them they must.
Or I hope they wouldn’t.

It was brought up in the Dail because the women affected asked that it be brought up.

two doctors in the coombe recommended that an abortion should take place. the board of the hospital, which is not comprised entirely of medical people, decided not to proceed with the abortion for reasons unknown.

.......

splinter65 wrote: »

I’d hope not. Is it a regular occurrence that TDs bring medical care disagreeements to the Dail as a matter of urgency? What can the Dail do about these things? Neither BrSmith or Ruth Coppinger are medically qualified to comment. Medically qualified staff at the Coombe must have recommended that an abortion was not the correct course of action in this case. I doubt if they’ll change their minds because an unqualified person tells them they must.
Or I hope they wouldn’t.

Thats not what is being reported. The Board is not wholly comprised of medical doctors. The medical doctors advised she should have an abortion. The Board said no.

MFPM

splinter65 wrote: »

I’d hope not. Is it a regular occurrence that TDs bring medical care disagreeements to the Dail as a matter of urgency? What can the Dail do about these things? Neither Bríd Smith or Ruth Coppinger are medically qualified to comment. Medically qualified staff at the Coombe must have recommended that an abortion was not the correct course of action in this case. I doubt if they’ll change their minds because an unqualified person tells them they must.
Or I hope they wouldn’t.

I'm no fan of RC and she is primarily interested in publicity but it is entirely appropriate to rasie this in the Dail.

This is about a woman's legal right to access an abortion based on FFA which two consultant doctors signed off on. The Coombe board overruled them and it is appropraite that they be asked to explain that decisison. Why didn't they refer the women to another maternity hospital, are they testing the law for loopholes, was it a case of conscientious objection or obstruction - these issues need answers.

splinter65

....... wrote: »

Thats not what is being reported. The Board is not wholly comprised of medical doctors. The medical doctors advised she should have an abortion. The Board said no.

We’ll never know what the grounds are of that refusal.

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

What can the Dail do about these things?

Ensure the hospitals it funds are fully state owned and controlled with no religious appointees on the boards?

splinter65

MFPM wrote: »

I'm no fan of RC and she is primarily interested in publicity but it is entirely appropriate to rasie this in the Dail.

This is about a woman's legal right to access an abortion based on FFA which two consultant doctors signed off on. The Coombe board overruled them and it is appropraite that they be asked to explain that decisison. Why didn't they refer the women to another maternity hospital, are they testing the law for loopholes, was it a case of conscientious objection or obstruction - these issues need answers.

If the 2 TDs have seen evidence of the 2 consultants signing off on the need for an abortion then it’s intrguing as to why the committee have overturned the request.
Can the consultants not refer her to a colleague in another hospital? Surely if there is a refusal by the committee they have to give some reason to the consultants? Does the Coombe intend to defy some aspects of the law?

.......

splinter65 wrote: »

We’ll never know what the grounds are of that refusal.

Thats why its being asked about in the Dail.

There could be a valid reason, I dont know.

splinter65

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ensure the hospitals it funds are fully state owned and controlled with no religious appointees on the boards?

But surely one or two people can’t over rule the whole committee? Mightn’t be religious objectors at all. Plenty of secular objection to abortion. Sooner or later you’ll have to accept that lots of people not influenced by any religion at all just don’t agree with abortion.
Fact is we have no facts here apart from 2 TDs alleging that a woman has been refused an abortion.