Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Cabaal

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Absolutely, whether those treaties are right or wrong is immaterial, they should not be put above our own laws,.

Nonsense,
If we sign up to a something then either we implement standards and change laws or we shouldn't sign up to begin with,

Clearly we do listen to international agreements when it suits us....we've made numerous changes to our own laws over the decades due to the UN and EU.

The issue with the 8th and abortions is because of parish pump politics TD's refuse to deal with the issue and instead kick it down the road and pretend its not an issue. They would have done the same with marriage equality only it got too big to ignore.

JPNelsforearm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So say if FGM was legal and widely practiced in a country and the Human Rights Committee called on that country's government to outlaw the practice and try to stamp it out, that government should feel free to ignore the instruction? I don't see much point in such international covenants so...

FGM is legal, and practised in many countries, I dont care, thats their problem to solve.. If it was practiced legally/culturally in Ireland it would be up to us to stop it, and I would care, irrespective of some UN declaration. So no, I dont see any point in UN declarations, courts, treaties etc. Its a giant charade. The focus should be on our democracy, our constitution, our legal system, our elected representative, what some international organisation says is irrelevant to us.

FYI, FGM currently has been imported from the UK after they cracked down upon it, so among certain communities it goes on, with impunity.

http://www.thejournal.ie/fgm-clinic-irelanad-1450363-May2014/

"Almost 4,000 women in Ireland are believed to have undergone FGM. FGM is illegal in this country."

With FGM the solution is simple, its an imported problem, stop importing it.

With abortion its our problem, we should solve it, we should never allow international organisations to impinge or undermine our sovereignty(or whats left of it after we voted to hand it over to Europe).

JPNelsforearm

Cabaal wrote: »

Nonsense,
If we sign up to a something then either we implement standards and change laws or we shouldn't sign up to begin with,

Clearly we do listen to international agreements when it suits us....we've made numerous changes to our own laws over the decades due to the UN and EU.

The issue with the 8th and abortions is because of parish pump politics TD's refuse to deal with the issue and instead kick it down the road and pretend its not an issue. They would have done the same with marriage equality only it got too big to ignore.

And I think that is awful, irrespective of whether its progressive or regressive law, we are an independent nation, we fought for that independence, its up to us to make it work, to evolve, not exchange masters.

Cabaal

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

And I think that is awful, irrespective of whether its progressive or regressive law, we are an independent nation, we fought for that independence, its up to us to make it work, to evolve, not exchange masters.

Nobody's exchanging masters, but sometimes it takes a third party to point out where you fail. In this case Ireland fails providing support for women in cases were abortion access and support should be provided.

We've our head in the sand for the issue and the basis for which are strongly in a religious setting.

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

FGM is legal, and practised in many countries, I dont care...

I'd be shocked if you did.

ABC101

Cabaal wrote: »

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

And I think that is awful, irrespective of whether its progressive or regressive law, we are an independent nation, we fought for that independence, its up to us to make it work, to evolve, not exchange masters.

Nobody's exchanging masters, but sometimes it takes a third party to point out where you fail. In this case Ireland fails providing support for women in cases were abortion access and support should be provided.



We've our head in the sand for the issue and the basis for which are strongly in a religious setting.

Are you stating that only religious / spiritual people are against abortion?

That's certainly not my experience, I know a number of atheists who are against abortion. Objecting to the Termination of innocent unborn baby humans is not solely the preserve of religious.

Anyway no matter how many times Irish people vote against abortion, those who support it will never stop trying to get the 8th admendment repealed, and of course blame the RCC in the process.

The idea that some non binding bunch of snake oil salesmen have a greater say in formation of the Irish Constitution than the voting public is juvenile.

Cabaal

ABC101 wrote: »

Are you stating that only religious / spiritual people are against abortion?

Not at all,
But the majority are against it for religious reasons and the pro-life groups in Ireland are all have religious foundlings and/or are heavily linked and funded by religious groups.

The simple solution is we put the matter to a vote.
If as the pro-life groups maintain a majority don't want the 8th removed then they have nothing to fear from a democratic process.....of course they are ignoring the polls which suggest otherwise.

JPNelsforearm

ABC101 wrote: »

Anyway no matter how many times Irish people vote against abortion, those who support it will never stop trying to get the 8th admendment repealed, and of course blame the RCC in the process.

The idea that some non binding bunch of snake oil salesmen have a greater say in formation of the Irish Constitution than the voting public is juvenile.

When was the last vote on abortion? The state can have as many referenda as they like on the issue. If it fails every time so be it, but you cannot suddenly get the result you want on a particular issue and declare its set in stone forevermore.

Would you dispute that until recently, they did have a greater say in both the writing and formation of the constitution right up until the 8th was inserted.. Combine that with said snake oil salesmen controlling the flow of information and education in the state.... Their influence looms large over this issue.

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd be shocked if you did.

Humans are not an endangered species, I really dont care.

Kiwi in IE

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

And I think that is awful, irrespective of whether its progressive or regressive law, we are an independent nation, we fought for that independence, its up to us to make it work, to evolve, not exchange masters.

You already did exchange masters! The minute independence from Britain was achieved, you replaced them with the RCC.

Kiwi in IE

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

FGM is legal, and practised in many countries

It is yes, in countries that think Human Rights and UN declarations should not apply to them. Something similar to what you seem to be advocating for this country.

frostyjacks

The UN can go and whistle. The people of Ireland will decide (have already decided) on our abortion laws. Crazy to think of genuine human rights abuses getting overlooked by the UN because of this crazy feminist crusade.

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

The UN can go and whistle. The people of Ireland will decide (have already decided) on our abortion laws. Crazy to think of genuine human rights abuses getting overlooked by the UN because of this crazy feminist crusade.

No fear of you getting a belt of the crozier, maybe the rolling-pin though.

JPNelsforearm

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

You already did exchange masters! The minute independence from Britain was achieved, you replaced them with the RCC.

And most people on this thread would agree that was a disaster, just now those morals have been replaced with another set of "secular" overlords telling us what to do. Home rule, not Rome rule, not Brussels rule, and I guess, in the case of the UN, New York rule, fairly simple, we should aspire to be an independent nation, not hang on the coattails of our betters..

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It is yes, in countries that think Human Rights and UN declarations should not apply to them. Something similar to what you seem to be advocating for this country.

Yes, that about sums it up, Irish Dail, Irish laws, Irish courts, Irish Judges, Irish constitution, for Irish people.

aloyisious

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

And most people on this thread would agree that was a disaster, just now those morals have been replaced with another set of "secular" overlords telling us what to do. Home rule, not Rome rule, not Brussels rule, and I guess, in the case of the UN, New York rule, fairly simple, we should aspire to be an independent nation, not hang on the coattails of our betters..



Yes, that about sums it up, Irish Dail, Irish laws, Irish courts, Irish Judges, Irish constitution, for Irish people.

North and South?

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

The UN can go and whistle. The people of Ireland will decide (have already decided) on our abortion laws. Crazy to think of genuine human rights abuses getting overlooked by the UN because of this crazy feminist crusade.

Maintaining the status quo isn't really a great rebuttal to what the UN said.

Why must women be required to carry a foetus to term only to watch it die? As in the scenario that lead to the UN issuing their statement this week.

What, in your opinion, is gained by denying the woman an abortion should she wish to abort in such scenario?

ABC101

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

When was the last vote on abortion? The state can have as many referenda as they like on the issue. If it fails every time so be it, but you cannot suddenly get the result you want on a particular issue and declare its set in stone forevermore.

Would you dispute that until recently, they did have a greater say in both the writing and formation of the constitution right up until the 8th was inserted.. Combine that with said snake oil salesmen controlling the flow of information and education in the state.... Their influence looms large over this issue.

So just how often then should everything in the Irish Constitution be voted on, not just abortion? Every 5 years, 10 years, 30 years?

I don't recall Articles two and Three been reviewed every 10 years. They were only voted on once as part of the Good Friday agreement in the late 1990's.

That is a lot of referenda! It's not as if other nations review their entire constitution on a periodic basis via referendum.

eviltwin

ABC101 wrote: »

So just how often then should everything in the Irish Constitution be voted on, not just abortion? Every 5 years, 10 years, 30 years?

I don't recall Articles two and Three been reviewed every 10 years. They were only voted on once as part of the Good Friday agreement in the late 1990's.

That is a lot of referenda! It's not as if other nations review their entire constitution on a periodic basis via referendum.

There is a growing call for a change in the law. When the constitution appears to be at odds with public opinion it needs to be revisited.

ABC101

eviltwin wrote: »

There is a growing call for a change in the law. When the constitution appears to be at odds with public opinion it needs to be revisited.

Yes a growing call from the UN committee who don't even live here.

eviltwin

ABC101 wrote: »

Yes a growing call from the UN committee who don't even live here.

There is clearly growing public support for legal abortion in some form from Irish people and if you can't see that you're blind.

ABC101

eviltwin wrote: »

There is clearly growing public support for legal abortion in some form from Irish people and if you can't see that you're blind.

I am also aware that certain people working in the media are using their positions to influence a pro abortion agenda.

This was highlighted recently by the pro life movement which conclusively showed Irish media's biased coverage of pro abortion arguments, 33:1 was the ratio.

That is 33 articles proposing abortion and 1 article against.

Yes, I am aware that there are some people who are pro abortion, there always will be. But to what extent, full term, partial birth, 21 weeks?

eviltwin

ABC101 wrote: »

I am also aware that certain people working in the media are using their positions to influence a pro abortion agenda.

This was highlighted recently by the pro life movement which conclusively showed Irish media's biased coverage of pro abortion arguments, 33:1 was the ratio.

That is 33 articles proposing abortion and 1 article against.

Yes, I am aware that there are some people who are pro abortion, there always will be. But to what extent, full term, partial birth, 21 weeks?

Let's put it to the people and see

lazygal

ABC101 wrote: »

I am also aware that certain people working in the media are using their positions to influence a pro abortion agenda.

This was highlighted recently by the pro life movement which conclusively showed Irish media's biased coverage of pro abortion arguments, 33:1 was the ratio.

That is 33 articles proposing abortion and 1 article against.

Yes, I am aware that there are some people who are pro abortion, there always will be. But to what extent, full term, partial birth, 21 weeks?

Exactly how far should the state go to protect unborn babies? If I'm pregnant and don't want to be, what should happen?

How many partial birth abortions take place every year? What's a full term abortion?

And one more question, has the pro life movement published its data on the 33:1 claims it made and repeated the study? Or did that claim relate to a period when a clinically dead woman was kept alive while decomposing because she was pregnant?

ABC101

lazygal wrote: »

Exactly how far should the state go to protect unborn babies? If I'm pregnant and don't want to be, what should happen?

How many partial birth abortions take place every year? What's a full term abortion?

And one more question, has the pro life movement published its data on the 33:1 claims it made and repeated the study? Or did that claim relate to a period when a clinically dead woman was kept alive while decomposing because she was pregnant?

Well if my memory serves me correctly the state should go further than what you yourself have admitted in protecting baby humans.

WRT the 33:1 media articles, I was merely making the point that a lot of pro Z articles promoted by various by Pro Z persons does not mean there are a huge number of Pro Z voters in the country. Substitute Z with what ever example you wish.

Fundamentally, it is about respecting the right to life of a human being in its most vulnerable stages of development.

I believe that that is something which is worth protecting.

lazygal

ABC101 wrote: »

Well if my memory serves me correctly the state should go further than what you yourself have admitted in protecting baby humans.

WRT the 33:1 media articles, I was merely making the point that a lot of pro Z articles promoted by various by Pro Z persons does not mean there are a huge number of Pro Z voters in the country. Substitute Z with what ever example you wish.

Fundamentally, it is about respecting the right to life of a human being in its most vulnerable stages of development.

I believe that that is something which is worth protecting.

So why do we let unborn lives be terminated abroad? How far should the state go to protect those at vulnerable stages of development?
And you've ignored my point on the timing of the 33:1 claims. It was a time when a decomposing woman was kept alive because she was pregnant, wasn't it?

frostyjacks

lazygal wrote: »

So why do we let unborn lives be terminated abroad? How far should the state go to protect those at vulnerable stages of development?
And you've ignored my point on the timing of the 33:1 claims. It was a time when a decomposing woman was kept alive because she was pregnant, wasn't it?

A brain-dead woman recently gave birth to a healthy baby. If you had your way, that child would never have seen the light of day. Who made you God?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/08/baby-born-to-brain-dead-mother-in-portugal

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

A brain-dead woman recently gave birth to a healthy baby. If you had your way, that child would never have seen the light of day. Who made you God?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/08/baby-born-to-brain-dead-mother-in-portugal

Did you read the medical evidence in the NP case? The woman's brain was rotting and the foetus was subjected to increasingly unsustainable levels of medical intervention. It wasn't a sleeping beauty who'd give birth to a healthy baby. It was a grotesque medical experiment.
And any chance of you telling us how your List of Shame would work for women and children who have abortions?

ABC101

lazygal wrote: »

So why do we let unborn lives be terminated abroad? How far should the state go to protect those at vulnerable stages of development?
And you've ignored my point on the timing of the 33:1 claims. It was a time when a decomposing woman was kept alive because she was pregnant, wasn't it?

As far as reasonably practicable, which would prohibit abortion here because the right to life for a human being valued here. It's the principle which counts.

Obviously it would not be practible to monitor every pregnant woman's travel movements, nor would it be possible.

WRT the article, it may have been, but the point still stands, which was media bias.

lazygal

ABC101 wrote: »

As far as reasonably practicable, which would prohibit abortion here because the right to life for a human being valued here. It's the principle which counts.

Obviously it would not be practible to monitor every pregnant woman's travel movements, nor would it be possible.

WRT the article, it may have been, but the point still stands, which was media bias.

What principles count? That women and children who can't afford abortions must stay pregnant?
Is there any bias in selecting a period in which a decomposing woman is being used as an incubator to promote the idea of media bias?

volchitsa

frostyjacks wrote: »

A brain-dead woman recently gave birth to a healthy baby. If you had your way, that child would never have seen the light of day. Who made you God?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/08/baby-born-to-brain-dead-mother-in-portugal

You think it was God who kept the baby alive for weeks? Or science?
Seems to me if God had had his way the baby would have died along with its mother.

We know who killed her though. God has a lot to answer for.