Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Truth is beauty.

Do you mean beautiful?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you mean beautiful?

Nope.

oscarBravo

Absolam wrote: »

Nope.

Not a case of Keats being wrong?

:pac:

Absolam

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not a case of Keats being wrong?

:pac:

Sure why would anyone think Keats poetry was wrong? He had a good eye for a bon mot.

robdonn

Cabaal wrote: »

http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/examiner-9.jpg

The Church trying to use people's faith to blackmail them again, its like 2013 all over again.

Social Democrats member dropped as Mass reader over abortion stance

robdonn

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

what is Truth?

(The "please consider this before talking/typing" is just part of the image, not a message from me :P )

frostyjacks

eviltwin wrote: »

You don't agree with abortion in any circumstances, what difference would it make if she told every detail or none at all? Your opinion won't change. Besides this woman doesn't need to justify her actions to anyone.

She probably does need to justify her actions, seeing as she knowingly broke the law. I thought that was the point of the article; that she was attempting to justify what she did to her and her then boyfriend's unborn child?

robdonn

frostyjacks wrote: »

She probably does need to justify her actions, seeing as she knowingly broke the law. I thought that was the point of the article; that she was attempting to justify what she did to her and her then boyfriend's unborn child?

Who says she was trying to justify anything? She didn't write the article, she could have been approached to simply tell her story or volunteered to tell her story without any need to justify her actions.

Delirium

robdonn wrote: »

Who says she was trying to justify anything? She didn't write the article, she could have been approached to simply tell her story or volunteered to tell her story without any need to justify her actions.

I read the article as an attempt to raise awareness of the growing number of women performing illegal abortions in Ireland.

That the abortion issue isn't purely the scenario of 'ship them to England'. That more and more women are having abortions in Ireland with the very real possibility of spending 14 years in prison.

recedite

robdonn wrote: »

Social Democrats member dropped as Mass reader over abortion stance

One of these two characters is a hypocrite. And its not the priest.

robindch

Women hand themselves in for supplying abortion pills in Northern Ireland

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-23/women-turn-themselves-in-to-northern-ireland-police-in-protest-at-abortion-law/

recedite

Looks like these three oul wans want to be martyred by the law.
Whatever penalties might be applied to somebody actually using the pills, the penalty for supplying drugs without a license would be under a completely different set of laws. So whatever happens to them will have no relevance to any person thinking of using the pills. Its just a publicity stunt.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Its just a publicity stunt.

That's sort of the point.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

Looks like these three oul wans want to be martyred by the law.
Whatever penalties might be applied to somebody actually using the pills, the penalty for supplying drugs without a license would be under a completely different set of laws. So whatever happens to them will have no relevance to any person thinking of using the pills. Its just a publicity stunt.

Woooooosh.......
That's the sound of the point going past your head,

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

its the sound of the rest of the post going over some other heads here...

aloyisious

Nice one, ladies, force the issue and make legal history. Refuse to pay any fines levied by any of the NI courts. If imprisonment, do the time and make the case go all the way to the UK Supreme Court (formerly the law lords) or further for a ruling on access to the morning-after pill, seeing as how it's available elsewhere in the UK without the Northern Ireland locally-imposed restrictions. Seeing as how they had a legal rep with them, I'd say more women are waiting for a local govt legal move or a court decision before more women step forward to fill jail-space.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

make the case go all the way to the UK Supreme Court (formerly the law lords) or further for a ruling on access to the morning-after pill..

There will be no ruling on that. Just a sentence for unlicensed dealing in drugs; probably a suspended one under the circumstances. But yeah, the three ladies will become much sought after as lunch companions for a while.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

There will be no ruling on that. Just a sentence for unlicensed dealing in drugs; probably a suspended one under the circumstances. But yeah, the three ladies will become much sought after as lunch companions for a while.

Have you considered that the ladies might say, or instruct their legal rep to say, "NO" and kick up a bit of a legal fuss regardless of whatever sentence is passed, if convicted of any offence? Civil disobedience is a much respected tradition in NI. Personally I'd imagine much "What-ing?" is going on in the state's legal branches right now.

Absolam

They may very well, but the Court is limited to dealing with what is brought before it as a matter of law. As far as I know (and I'm open to correction here) mifepristone and misoprostol are not on the list of drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act, so it's legal to buy the pills in Northern Ireland, even though they're not sold there, and it's legal to possess the pills in Northern Ireland.

If the three women are prosecuted, it's likely to be for the supply part of Section 59 of the Offenses Against the Person Act (Whosoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any poison or other noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude), an indictable-only offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years in England Wales & Northern Ireland (unless authorised by the Abortion Act in England & Wales).

It would not be surprising if they were convicted that they would receive suspended sentences; they're elderly, presumably have no criminal records, will show they're of good standing in their community, surrendered voluntarily, and cooperated in providing evidence against themselves.

Having already stated their guilt, it's hard to see what exactly they'll be in a position to say 'No' to; they're not likely to break into a prison and then refuse to be removed, so what conceivable act of civil disobedience could they take, outside of stating their intention to re-offend? More likely it will be Ulsters politicians saying 'No' to having their laws amended to mirror Westminster as they did; whatever about cultural Catholic opposition to abortion in the Republic, 'religious' views in the North are considerably more... entrenched?

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

There will be no ruling on that. Just a sentence for unlicensed dealing in drugs; probably a suspended one under the circumstances. But yeah, the three ladies will become much sought after as lunch companions for a while.

But it's not an illegal drug so that can't be the basis of any court case against them.

They will be accused under the 1861 (iirc) Offences against the Person Act, which rather oddly is still in force, albeit with an exemption for "legal" abortions in GB - but not NI.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

whatever about cultural Catholic opposition to abortion in the Republic, 'religious' views in the North are considerably more... entrenched?

So history and folklore tell's us. OMG, I don't believe it, we agree on something

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Having already stated their guilt, it's hard to see what exactly they'll be in a position to say 'No' to; they're not likely to break into a prison and then refuse to be removed, so what conceivable act of civil disobedience could they take, outside of stating their intention to re-offend? More likely it will be Ulsters politicians saying 'No' to having their laws amended to mirror Westminster as they did; whatever about cultural Catholic opposition to abortion in the Republic, 'religious' views in the North are considerably more... entrenched?

Yeah. I think it is likely to need a second offence. I think you are right in that they won't have a scope to civilly disobey, so their only option will be to commit the offence (or any other offence) again during the suspension period. Then they would go to jail for the previously suspended term and, presumably, another term for the second offence, though I think they would be concurrent. Then it would get interesting.

The first appeal would be to the court of appeal in Northern Ireland, and I can't see that being very different. They could then appeal to the SC, but again, I am not sure the SC would or could do much. The SC in the UK can't change legislation. Also, there is the small matter of getting leave to appeal. The appeal would need to be on a point of law, in other words, the court was mistaken in its application of the law. The correct application of a law, even if one does not agree with that law, is not necessarily sufficient grounds for appeal. Though perhaps an appeal might be granted on a public policy basis. Either way, I suspect if they did go to jail they would likely serve their term...

MrP

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

As far as I know (and I'm open to correction here) mifepristone and misoprostol are not on the list of drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act, so it's legal to buy the pills in Northern Ireland, even though they're not sold there, and it's legal to possess the pills in Northern Ireland.

Maybe so, but the issue would be around supplying the drug. Compare to a common antibiotic such as Augmentin which is available prescription only here. I know people who stock up on this when they go to Spain on holiday, where it is available cheaply over the counter. That's not illegal, but if they came back here and started selling it to others, the law would have something to say on the matter.
I presume these ladies will say they intended to give their pills away free, which will complicate things, but its still an "unlicensed supplying of drugs" issue.

volchitsa

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah. I think it is likely to need a second offence. I think you are right in that they won't have a scope to civilly disobey, so their only option will be to commit the offence (or any other offence) again during the suspension period. Then they would go to jail for the previously suspended term and, presumably, another term for the second offence, though I think they would be concurrent. Then it would get interesting.

The first appeal would be to the court of appeal in Northern Ireland, and I can't see that being very different. They could then appeal to the SC, but again, I am not sure the SC would or could do much. The SC in the UK can't change legislation. Also, there is the small matter of getting leave to appeal. The appeal would need to be on a point of law, in other words, the court was mistaken in its application of the law. The correct application of a law, even if one does not agree with that law, is not necessarily sufficient grounds for appeal. Though perhaps an appeal might be granted on a public policy basis. Either way, I suspect if they did go to jail they would likely serve their term...

MrP

I don't understand what's being discussed here : the three women who have handed themselves in to the police haven't yet been tried so any talk of appeals seems premature, to say the least. Has there been a suggestion that they wouldn't be satisfied with a suspended sentence, and would "accept" nothing less than serving time in prison?

If so, I don't think that's true : a series of ridiculously lenient (given the severity of possible sentences for the crime, and the lack of mitigating circumstances) guilty sentences being handed down to more and more women would be just as effective in discrediting the law itself, and consequently the judicial system for participating in such a charade.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Maybe so, but the issue would be around supplying the drug. Compare to a common antibiotic such as Augmentin which is available prescription only here. I know people who stock up on this when they go to Spain on holiday, where it is available cheaply over the counter. That's not illegal, but if they came back here and started selling it to others, the law would have something to say on the matter.
I presume these ladies will say they intended to give their pills away free, which will complicate things, but its still an "unlicensed supplying of drugs" issue.

It doesn't matter if that is another possible accusation that could be leveled against them, when there is a far more serious one in the OATP act.

Your suggestion would mean that someone who had admitted poisoning their neighbour was tried for possession of illegal substances instead of being tried for attempted murder.

Such an accusation could be prosecuted as well, but not instead.

MrPudding

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't understand what's being discussed here : the three women who have handed themselves in to the police haven't yet been tried so any talk of appeals seems premature, to say the least. Has there been a suggestion that they wouldn't be satisfied with a suspended sentence, and would "accept" nothing less than serving time in prison?

If so, I don't think that's true : a series of ridiculously lenient (given the severity of possible sentences for the crime, and the lack of mitigating circumstances) guilty sentences being handed down to more and more women would be just as effective in discrediting the law itself, and consequently the judicial system for participating in such a charade.

The discussion was around civil disobedience in response to the (possible future) convictions. aloyisious talked, specifically, about not paying fines and serving time but appealing to the SC. The point Absolam made, which I followed up, was that there likely wouldn't anything to be civilly disobedient about. There isn't likly to be a fine to refuse to pay and appealing a suspended sentence doesn't really have the same impact as appealing a sentence when one's liberty has actually been removed.

I happen to agree with you that seeing these cases being taken should be enough to get people motivated, but the posts you are objecting to were in response to specific suggestions by another poster. Perhaps you should read the earlier posts, then you might understand these posts.

MrP

volchitsa

MrPudding wrote: »

The discussion was around civil disobedience in response to the (possible future) convictions. aloyisious talked, specifically, about not paying fines and serving time but appealing to the SC. The point Absolam made, which I followed up, was that there likely wouldn't anything to be civilly disobedient about. There isn't likly to be a fine to refuse to pay and appealing a suspended sentence doesn't really have the same impact as appealing a sentence when one's liberty has actually been removed.

I happen to agree with you that seeing these cases being taken should be enough to get people motivated, but the posts you are objecting to were in response to specific suggestions by another poster. Perhaps you should read the earlier posts, then you might understand these posts.

MrP

Lol. I probably should but it's too much of a pain to work my way back through previous pages when a significant part of it seems like rather painfully-made deflections rather than engaging with the points being made!

frostyjacks

Good to see Ray D'Arcy put in his place over the Graham Linehan interview.

http://m.independent.ie/entertainment/radio/complaint-upheld-by-bai-over-ray-darcy-interview-with-father-ted-writer-graham-linehan-and-his-wife-helen-about-abortion-34746064.html

It's sad to see the pro-abortion lobby keep exploiting the health of the unborn to score points. If they succeed, what will happen then? Not only will the unborn with poor health be killed, but also healthy babies, if the mother deems them an inconvenience. Progress indeed.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Maybe so, but the issue would be around supplying the drug. Compare to a common antibiotic such as Augmentin which is available prescription only here. I know people who stock up on this when they go to Spain on holiday, where it is available cheaply over the counter. That's not illegal, but if they came back here and started selling it to others, the law would have something to say on the matter.
I presume these ladies will say they intended to give their pills away free, which will complicate things, but its still an "unlicensed supplying of drugs" issue.

Supplying a drug which is not controlled isn't illegal... can you point to a UK law that prohibits supplying a drug not on the list of drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act, and show that it covers the supply of mifepristone and misoprostol? If it helps you at all, in Ireland a person can't (legally) supply Augmentin except under specified circumstances because it contains amoxicillin, a drug subject to prescription control under the Medicinal Products Prescription and Control of Supply Regulations. Obviously Irish laws don't apply in Spain

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah. I think it is likely to need a second offence. I think you are right in that they won't have a scope to civilly disobey, so their only option will be to commit the offence (or any other offence) again during the suspension period. Then they would go to jail for the previously suspended term and, presumably, another term for the second offence, though I think they would be concurrent. Then it would get interesting.

Call me cynical, but I doubt they'll re-offend. It's one thing to make a point and get some publicity for your cause knowing there's practically no chance of suffering for it, quite another to do it again facing the real possibility of up to ten years in jail. I suspect they'll figure they've done their part and it's up to others to keep up the momentum they've created.