Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

Like your Irish Times poll which says "A substantial majority of people would like to see the repeal of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution to allow abortion in certain circumstances". Sounds like they want to repeal the Eight, but really what they want is abortion in certain circumstances. When it comes to a referendum, no one will be left in any doubt that repealing the Eight will only allow abortion in certain circumstances; it will be clear that repealing the Eight could allow abortion in any circumstances.

'Could' is the operative word here. If the article guaranteeing freedom to travel were removed from the Constitution, the government could theoretically impose all sorts of restrictions on freedom of movement, but everyone knows that would not happen in practice.

If a referendum on straight repeal of the 8th was held, the government would have to set out the legislation that would replace it in advance and give a cast iron guarantee that there would be no further liberalisation of the law in its lifetime. 'Aha,' the Pro-Lifers will say, 'but what would stop the next government introducing abortion on demand?' Enda, if he is well advised, will treat the voters like adults and reply: "All parties will have to set out their stall on abortion before the next election, and it will be up to you to vote for the one that best represents your views, as you do on every other issue in a representative democracy."

aloyisious

It seem's to me that the destruction of unborn human life is the same as abortion, as allowed for (in certain circumstances) under POLDPA. Given that, then it seem's to me that Pro-life people have to recognize that what they sometimes term as the killing of a person [see the definitions of the word "person" below] is the same as the destruction of unborn human life or an abortion allowed for under POLDPA and carried out under the strictures of POLDPA, killings allowed for under Irish Law. That is the difference between killing and murder.

It seem's to me some people use the word murder in an emotional way when discussing abortion because they don't like the thought that such killing is legal, or choose NOT to acknowledge the difference they know is there between the legality of abortion and the illegality of murder, which is defined as the unlawful killing of a person.

We use the word person when referring to others. In that connection, in conversation/dialogue, the word person can mean what the user want's it to mean, not what the others (hearing/seeing the word in use) understand it to be meant.

Therein lies the rub, the way the word "person" cover's several definitions, all of which can/are used as we see fit:

person
ˈpəːs(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
a human being regarded as an individual.
"the porter was the last person to see her prior to her disappearance"
synonyms: human being, individual, man/woman, human, being, living soul, soul, mortal, creature, fellow; More


POLDPA was enacted into law after the charge of murder was, so I assume that in it's legal drafting, allowance was made for defining abortion as NOT being an act or deed of murder of a person. Bit confusing at times.....

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwivmvHy96zNAhUpBsAKHRgVDlgQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawreform.ie%2F_fileupload%2Freports%2Frmurderandinvoluntaryms.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEuLDYOhQrEbbXSY7KAvjVkG5u3pA

Scroll down to Page 25 OR Chapter 2 of the above from the law reform commission

B Murder in Ireland
2.02 In Ireland the mental element for murder is laid down by section 4
of the Criminal Justice Act 1964, which provides:
“4(1) Where a person kills another unlawfully the killing shall not
be murder unless the accused person intended to kill, or cause
serious injury to, some person, whether the person actually killed or
not.

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

'Could' is the operative word here. If the article guaranteeing freedom to travel were removed from the Constitution, the government could theoretically impose all sorts of restrictions on freedom of movement, but everyone knows that would not happen in practice.

Indeed it is, but I very much doubt in a referendum everyone will know that whilst repealing the Eight could allow abortion in any circumstances, it will not happen in practice. I have absolutely no doubt that a feature of any no campaign will be the promotion of the fact that a 'no' means it can't happen, and a 'yes' means it can... whether or not anyone thinks it will.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

If a referendum on straight repeal of the 8th was held, the government would have to set out the legislation that would replace it in advance and give a cast iron guarantee that there would be no further liberalisation of the law in its lifetime. 'Aha,' the Pro-Lifers will say, 'but what would stop the next government introducing abortion on demand?'

Well, the government certainly should... whether it would have to, or would, is a different matter. But the immediate answer is; what is a cast iron guarantee from a government worth? Will you trust that guarantee from someone who told you you should never have to pay for water, then charged you for it? Exactly how many guarantees have any government held to? But keeping the Constitutional provision, that is a cast iron guarantee. No government has ever been allowed to flout the Constitution.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Enda, if he is well advised, will treat the voters like adults and reply: "All parties will have to set out their stall on abortion before the next election, and it will be up to you to vote for the one that best represents your views, as you do on every other issue in a representative democracy."

Enda, if he is well advised, will say what it takes to get himself and his party re-elected... regardless if he means it, intends to follow through on it, or even knows what it is he's saying.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's to me that the destruction of unborn human life is the same as abortion, as allowed for (in certain circumstances) under POLDPA. Given that, then it seem's to me that Pro-life people have to recognize that what they sometimes term as the killing of a person [see the definitions of the word "person" below] is the same as the destruction of unborn human life or an abortion allowed for under POLDPA and carried out under the strictures of POLDPA, killings allowed for under Irish Law. That is the difference between killing and murder.

It seem to me that we're not talking about the difference between killing and murder; we're talking about distinctions of killings, of which murder is one and abortion is another.

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's to me some people use the word murder in an emotional way when discussing abortion because they don't like the thought that such killing is legal, or choose NOT to acknowledge the difference they know is there between the legality of abortion and the illegality of murder, which is defined as the unlawful killing of a person.

Actually, I think they use the word murder because they want to as closely associate the killing of an unborn person with the known 'badness' of killing a born person in the most societally unacceptable way, which is murder, in order to create an emotional association and make people feel less favourable towards abortion. In a similar way to the way others want to deny the use of the word 'person' when talking about the foetus being killed; because they know we are more emotionally averse to killing a person than a thing and don't want that emotional connection to detract from their position.

aloyisious wrote: »

We use the word person when referring to others. In that connection, in conversation/dialogue, the word person can mean what the user want's it to mean, not what the others (hearing/seeing the word in use) understand it to be meant. Therein lies the rub, the way the word "person" cover's several definitions, all of which can/are used as we see fit:

Sure, sort of, but one of the functions of language is shared meaning; a language where words don't mean the same thing to everyone ceases to be a language. Whilst we may prefer to limit the meaning of a particular word to suit our own viewpoint, we can't deny the usual (and particularly the legal) usage of that word, which may not accord with what we want it to be, but nevertheless pertains.

aloyisious wrote: »

POLDPA was enacted into law after the charge of murder was, so I assume that in it's legal drafting, allowance was made for defining abortion as NOT being an act or deed of murder of a person. Bit confusing at times....

I don't know about that, but we can certainly see that the destruction of unborn human life is a distinct offense from any other, including murder.

aloyisious

Quote:the destruction of unborn human life is a distinct offense from any other, including murder - would that distinct offense be criminal in nature or just against one's sensibility and point of view of what's right and wrong?

Examined my question above for wording content and editing, find's neither the word "intentional" nor any editing to delete any mention or use of that word in it. Open the question to the floor again.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, it's based on the fact that most of the polls that we've seen don't tend to straight out ask whether respondants favour removing the right to life from the unborn. They tend to rely on multiple options of abortion availability and then show these as favouring repeal of the eight. Like your Irish Times poll which says "A substantial majority of people would like to see the repeal of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution to allow abortion in certain circumstances". Sounds like they want to repeal the Eight, but really what they want is abortion in certain circumstances. When it comes to a referendum, no one will be left in any doubt that repealing the Eight will only allow abortion in certain circumstances; it will be clear that repealing the Eight could allow abortion in any circumstances. And I think that's what will sway voters; there's support for a slightly more liberal abortion regime, but not a substantially more liberal one.

But the question put forward in the Irish Times poll was "The 8th amendment to the Constitution gives equal rights to the mother and to the unborn child. Are you in favour of repealing this amendment so that terminations in, for example, the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality could be made legal, or are you in favour of keeping the amendment?"

This is not a multiple choice question, it is a yes or no question. And it doesn't need to ask if they want to remove the right to life from the unborn as a personal right does not need to be in the Constitution. Legislation can be written to give rights to the unborn that better conform to the nuanced views of the people. Rights are granted by the people, they are not god-given, and the people can change those rights over time.

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, there are lots of people who couldn't vote last time that can this time; there's no guarantee they'll vote for repeal though.

Of course there is no guarantee, I never said there was. But numerous opinion polls indicate a change in attitude that contradicts your viewpoint.

Absolam wrote: »

And the question was "Are you in favour of repealing this amendment so that terminations in, for example, the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality could be made legal, or are you in favour of keeping the amendment?”
Like I say... slightly more liberal. Faced with "Are you in favour of repealing this amendment so that terminations in any circumstances whatsoever could be made legal, or are you in favour of keeping the amendment?” my feeling is we'd see a swing towards keeping it.

And at no point has anyone said that the majority want abortion in any circumstance. You're completely right, if that was the question asked then there would definitely be a swing towards keeping it, but that is not what is being asked by the polls because it is not what would happen if the 8th was repealed.

Absolam wrote: »

Yet we don't even know the specifics of the question asked, but we do know that the respondents all own smartphones... which would certainly reduce the inclusion of 'predecessors'. You'll pardon me if I don't leap on board with the findings with such a paucity of information.

I've contacted the author of that piece to find out what the question was, I'll get back to you about it.

As for the smartphone comment:

Recruitment:

The Claire Byrne Live / Amarách Research Panel consists of over 1,000 Irish adults, all aged 18+. Recruitment guidelines were set in place to ensure the sample meets the following criteria:

• Matched to national population figures from the CSO
• Quotas are set on gender, age, region, and social class
• Participants were recruited face-to-face across the country
• Individuals could not put themselves forth for inclusion in the panel
• Panel members all own a smartphone
• Individuals who play a role in government were not accepted onto the panel
• Potential panel members were informed that they would be asked to respond to a weekly survey including 2-3 questions via their smartphone

To presume that older people wouldn't have a smartphone is a bit closed-minded of you, my gran loves her iPad. In that particular poll 29% of respondents were aged 55+.

Absolam wrote: »

Well, my opinion is informed by those results, I'm just more inclined to think about what was asked and how it was asked, as well as who was asked, before declaring victory as a result of some careful addition...

And nobody is declaring victory. The opinion polls are simply an indication as to the leanings of society and they indicate that they lean further towards repealing the 8th than keeping it. You are simply more inclined to find any reason to maintain your personal opinion as being the correct opinion.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Quote:the destruction of unborn human life is a distinct offense from any other, including murder - would that distinct offense be criminal in nature or just against one's sensibility and point of view of what's right and wrong?

You weren't aware that the intentional destruction of unborn human life is a criminal offense?

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

But it isn't; it is considered the destruction of unborn human life under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. I thought we all knew that? Still, if there's anything I've proven that you think is incorrect, I'm happy to discuss it.
It's not though; you know it's not. You know it's considered the destruction of unborn human life, and you've deduced that it ought to be considered murder, but it isn't. The fault is in your own deduction I'm afraid; your theory doesn't fit the facts.

No, it allows women to travel abroad without being impeded by the right to life of the unborn which is a person. They can no more be prevented from traveling abroad because they intend to destroy an unborn human life than they could if they intended to murder someone.

So why is abortion not considered murder? Since the unborn is apparently considered a person by law and, apart from instances where the mother's life is at risk, abortion fits the definition of murder as it is an intentional, unlawful killing.

aloyisious

If there was to be a referendum on keeping or deleting the 8th amendment form our constitution, I wonder whether the No side would ask for careful checks on the voting list to ensure that Irish Citizens abroad coming home for the vote were eligible to vote? The No To Marriage Equality side cast doubt on the eligibility of voters in that referendum. Some people are on the NO committee side on both issues. I've got in mind the image of David Quinn standing at his local polling station with a voters list asking the Returning Officer to check people he had doubts about for eligibility to vote.

aloyisious

Quote:the destruction of unborn human life is a distinct offense from any other, including murder - would that distinct offense be criminal in nature or just against one's sensibility and point of view of what's right and wrong?

Examined my question above for wording content and editing, find's neither the word "intentional" nor any editing to delete any mention or use of that word in it. Open the question to the floor again.

aloyisious

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/alison-oconnor/when-it-comes-to-abortion-maturity-gets-checked-in-at-dail-cloakroom-405406.html. All contrary arguments can be directed to Alison O'Connor at The Irish Examiner.

Cabaal

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/d%C3%A1il-to-vote-on-bill-allowing-abortion-in-cases-of-fatal-foetal-abnormality-1.2688924?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fd%25C3%25A1il-to-vote-on-bill-allowing-abortion-in-cases-of-fatal-foetal-abnormality-1.2688924

Dáil to vote on Bill allowing abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality
TDs will vote on the legislation proposed by Mick Wallace on June 30th

aloyisious

There are situations listed in Part 2 of POLDPA, Medical Procedures lawful under act (chapter 1) Risk of loss of life of pregnant woman, in which medical procedures can be carried out on Pregnant Women. I quote from the chapter in respect of one; It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended.

Is the ending of unborn human life listed above included in the definition of intentional destruction of unborn human life offered in this question: You weren't aware that the intentional destruction of unborn human life is a criminal offense ; Or does the POLDPA, when including that mention of an unborn human life is ended, mean a medical doctor is permitted to cause the end of life of an unborn human life in order to save the pregnant woman's life within the meaning of the act?

I am referencing the part where it say's [in the course of which} because it's separate from [or as a result of which}. It seem's to me that the wording "in the course of which" is open to speculation that it could mean a decision could be made to end an unborn human life, purely of course to save a pregnant woman's life within the meaning of the act. The other wording "or as a result of which" could be read differently as specific to an unborn human life being ended by medical misadventure.

If a doctor is legally permitted, under POLDPA, to cause the end of life of an unborn human life purely to save a pregnant woman's life, then doesn't that mean that the intentional destruction of an unborn human life is not always a CRIMINAL offense?

Or is it that the meaning of [in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended] in POLDPA totally refer's to the chance of a medical misadventure during the said medical procedure?

robdonn

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/d%C3%A1il-to-vote-on-bill-allowing-abortion-in-cases-of-fatal-foetal-abnormality-1.2688924?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fd%25C3%25A1il-to-vote-on-bill-allowing-abortion-in-cases-of-fatal-foetal-abnormality-1.2688924

Non-paywall version.

The Dáil will later this month vote on a Bill that would allow for the termination of pregnancies in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities.

The newly formed business committee has agreed to debate a Private Members’ Bill tabled by Independents TD Mick Wallace on June 30th.

The legislation will mirror that presented by his colleague Clare Daly last year. The very specific piece of legislation allows for an abortion to take place in cases of fatal foetal abnormality.

Under the measure, two suitably qualified medical professionals – a perinatologist and an obstetrician – would be asked to in good faith certify if the foetus is incompatible with life.

Mr Wallace and Ms Daly are in favour of repealing the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the equal right to life of the mother and the unborn, but are eager to allow the Dáil its say on these specific cases.

The Wexford TD is understood to have consulted a number of legal advisers, including a former attorney general, before presenting the legislation.

His Bill has the support of deputies Thomas Pringle, Ms Daly, Catherine Connolly, Joan Collins, Maureen O’Sullivan and Tommy Broughan.

It is also likely to attract support from Sinn Féin, Labour, the Social Democrats, the Green Party and the Anti-Austerity Alliance-People Before Profit.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said Fine Gael TDs would have a free vote if and when the Government brings forward its proposal on a referendum but a senior Government source indicated there was unlikely to be a free vote on Mr Wallace’s Bill – or any other – when it reaches the floor of the House.

Fianna Fáil members will be allowed a free vote but there are varying views within the parliamentary party on the issue.

There is a little evidence of support among many Fianna Fail TDs for a broader liberalisation of the law on abortion but there is a significant amount of support for abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality.

The Taoiseach has pledged to establish a citizens’ assembly to consider a number of proposed constitutional reforms and other issues.

He has said the question of the strict ban on abortion in the Constitution would be the first matter put before the assembly.

Depending on the recommendations of the assembly, the issue will then be referred to a special all-party committee before the question of any constitutional amendment is considered by the Government and the Dáil.

Mr Kenny is to bring a memo to Cabinet next week on the establishment of the convention, which Government sources say will be set up by September.

Ireland’s position on abortion has been condemned by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

It found that an Irish woman carrying a foetus with a fatal abnormality was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment due to the ban on abortion.

It is understood the UN is considering a second case.

The committee said Amanda Mellet was forced in 2011 to choose between carrying her baby to term, knowing it would not survive, or travelling abroad for a termination.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

But the question put forward in the Irish Times poll was "The 8th amendment to the Constitution gives equal rights to the mother and to the unborn child. Are you in favour of repealing this amendment so that terminations in, for example, the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality could be made legal, or are you in favour of keeping the amendment?" This is not a multiple choice question, it is a yes or no question. And it doesn't need to ask if they want to remove the right to life from the unborn as a personal right does not need to be in the Constitution. Legislation can be written to give rights to the unborn that better conform to the nuanced views of the people. Rights are granted by the people, they are not god-given, and the people can change those rights over time.

Indeed, and it is founded on the premise that the repeal is to allow terminations in the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality; instances that we know are the ones with the most support, unlike abortion at will. So basing the notion that majority of people would like to see the repeal of the Eighth Amendment on that poll would be erroneous; in fact the poll indicates that a majority would like to see abortion made available in the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality (and they may all favour it in only one of those cases, since they weren't asked); repeal of the 8th was simply the only option offered to them for doing so. Had they been asked "Are you in favour of amending this amendment so that terminations in, for example, the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality could be made legal, or are you in favour of keeping the amendment and finding a way to legislate for these cases instead?" you might have had different answers, neither of which would have allowed the claim that the majority would favour repeal, yet both of which would have allowed respondents to express the same sentiment.

robdonn wrote: »

Of course there is no guarantee, I never said there was. But numerous opinion polls indicate a change in attitude that contradicts your viewpoint.

They certainly indicate a broad spectrum of opinion, but I don't think they contradict my viewpoint. My viewpoint is there are lots of shades of opinion on the subject, and as the polls you've posted here have shown, many of those viewpoints are very badly informed.

robdonn wrote: »

And at no point has anyone said that the majority want abortion in any circumstance. You're completely right, if that was the question asked then there would definitely be a swing towards keeping it, but that is not what is being asked by the polls because it is not what would happen if the 8th was repealed.

Actually, it is one of the questions asked by some of the polls you've posted, and there are apparently very few who want it. Which is why if it came to a referndum, those who favour a no vote will push very hard on the fact that the only people who can guarantee it is not what would happen are the people by voting no. A yes vote makes it possible, regardless of any assurances from anyone.

robdonn wrote: »

As for the smartphone comment:To presume that older people wouldn't have a smartphone is a bit closed-minded of you, my gran loves her iPad. In that particular poll 29% of respondents were aged 55+.

I was more thinking that smartphones tend to be the preserve of relatively affluent individuals who are comfortable with technology; a description I'm dubious applies to many old school hardcore Catholics (or CoI, in my experience).

robdonn wrote: »

And nobody is declaring victory. The opinion polls are simply an indication as to the leanings of society and they indicate that they lean further towards repealing the 8th than keeping it. You are simply more inclined to find any reason to maintain your personal opinion as being the correct opinion.

I don't really need a reason to maintain my personal opinion as being the correct opinion; certainly how many people agree with me has never been my measure of whether I'm right

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

So why is abortion not considered murder? Since the unborn is apparently considered a person by law and, apart from instances where the mother's life is at risk, abortion fits the definition of murder as it is an intentional, unlawful killing.

Why would it be? Procuring a miscarriage was a criminal offense under the Offences against the Person Act, which also set out the offense of murder. Each offense has been amended in law since, with procuring a miscarriage now being replaced by the intentional destruction of unborn human life. It's readily apparent that the law has always allowed that there are different offenses involving the unlawful killing of a person. That's not likely to change simply because someone doesn't like that the law admits of of a foetus being a person.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

If there was to be a referendum on keeping or deleting the 8th amendment form our constitution, I wonder whether the No side would ask for careful checks on the voting list to ensure that Irish Citizens abroad coming home for the vote were eligible to vote? The No To Marriage Equality side cast doubt on the eligibility of voters in that referendum. Some people are on the NO committee side on both issues. I've got in mind the image of David Quinn standing at his local polling station with a voters list asking the Returning Officer to check people he had doubts about for eligibility to vote.

I'd imagine either side is likely to take whatever legal action it can to ensure that most voters who cast a ballot are on their side.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Quote:the destruction of unborn human life is a distinct offense from any other, including murder - would that distinct offense be criminal in nature or just against one's sensibility and point of view of what's right and wrong?
Examined my question above for wording content and editing, find's neither the word "intentional" nor any editing to delete any mention or use of that word in it. Open the question to the floor again.

You'll find the word 'intentional' in my reply to your question, here. It's a part of the wording of the Act "It shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life."
So... were you aware of it?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/alison-oconnor/when-it-comes-to-abortion-maturity-gets-checked-in-at-dail-cloakroom-405406.html. All contrary arguments can be directed to Alison O'Connor at The Irish Examiner.

Since she's not presenting any argument here I doubt anyone needs to be told to direct contrary ones to her where she is

Absolam

I have this feeling that you're setting yourself up to deliberately confuse yourself with this as much as you can... but still, let's give it a go.

aloyisious wrote: »

There are situations listed in Part 2 of POLDPA, Medical Procedures lawful under act (chapter 1) Risk of loss of life of pregnant woman, in which medical procedures can be carried out on Pregnant Women. I quote from the chapter in respect of one; It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended. Is the ending of unborn human life listed above included in the definition of intentional destruction of unborn human life offered in this question: You weren't aware that the intentional destruction of unborn human life is a criminal offense ; Or does the POLDPA, when including that mention of an unborn human life is ended, mean a medical doctor is permitted to cause the end of life of an unborn human life in order to save the pregnant woman's life within the meaning of the act?

The POLPDA specifies when it is lawful to end an unborn human life; in circumstances outside those specified, the intentional destruction of unborn human life is unlawful because the Act states
22. (1) It shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life.
If it is specified in law that it is lawful to carry out an act (such as a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with the Act in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended), then that act cannot be a criminal offense, because a criminal offense is an act contrary to the law. Since the Act specifies what is lawful (as you've put forward above) what is specified cannot be construed as the intentional destruction of unborn human life, because it is lawful, and the intentional destruction of unborn human life is not.

aloyisious wrote: »

I am referencing the part where it say's [in the course of which} because it's separate from [or as a result of which}. It seem's to me that the wording "in the course of which" is open to speculation that it could mean a decision could be made to end an unborn human life, purely of course to save a pregnant woman's life within the meaning of the act. The other wording "or as a result of which" could be read differently as specific to an unborn human life being ended by medical misadventure.

"In the course of which" isn't open to interpretation; it simply means during the specified activity and period, the activity being the medical procedure carried out, and the period being the time it takes to do it. "As a result of which" is equally straightforward; if the result of a medical procedure undertaken as specified in the Act is that an unborn human life is ended, such a result shall be lawful. The medical procedure can only be as specified in the Act, and the Act makes no reference to medical misadventure.

aloyisious wrote: »

If a doctor is legally permitted, under POLDPA, to cause the end of life of an unborn human life purely to save a pregnant woman's life, then doesn't that mean that the intentional destruction of an unborn human life is not always a CRIMINAL offense?

The intentional destruction of human life is a criminal offense; the lawful ending of an unborn human life in accordance with the Act is not the intentional destruction of unborn human life, because the former is lawful and the latter is a criminal offense.

aloyisious wrote: »

Or is it that the meaning of [in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended] in POLDPA totally refer's to the chance of a medical misadventure during the said medical procedure?

No, it is not.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/d%C3%A1il-to-vote-on-bill-allowing-abortion-in-cases-of-fatal-foetal-abnormality-1.2688924?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fd%25C3%25A1il-to-vote-on-bill-allowing-abortion-in-cases-of-fatal-foetal-abnormality-1.2688924

robdonn wrote: »

Non-paywall version.

If Mr Wallace's Bill were to pass, and an Act to be found Constitutional (and unfortunately I doubt it will pass), it would certainly damage any possibility of a referendum on the 8th, and hurt the yes vote should such a referendum come to pass. From Robdonns polls,it's pretty apparent that a large proportion of the support for a repeal campaign is based on FFA.

aloyisious

The point I was making was that not all intentional endings of unborn human life are an offense under POLDPA. My point is in line with this from POLPDA: The POLDPA specifies when it is lawful to end an unborn human life. That wording is, IMO, fairly specific, making a clear reference to when it is lawful to end an unborn human life. That seem's, IMO, to refer to a specific lawful act or deed.

I included this question - Or is it that the meaning of [in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended] in POLDPA totally refer's to the chance of a medical misadventure during the said medical procedure? - to ascertain if that POLDPA section meant an ending of unborn human life by medical misadventure whereby the ending could be caused by a unforseen or accidental medical error to rule out any other way the ending of unborn human life could have happened during the lawful medical procedure. The reply to my question was: No, it is not.

This; the intentional destruction of human life is a criminal offense; the lawful ending of an unborn human life in accordance with the Act is not the intentional destruction of unborn human life, because the former is lawful and the latter is a criminal offense, are mere words. IMO, the end result of "the lawful ending of an unborn human life" AND "the destruction of an unborn human life" are exactly the same, ending in a dead feotus, or whatever other word you choose to use in lieu of feotus. What else are both if not the physical destruction of unborn human life?

I am surprised, given the mention that POLDPA specifies when it is LAWFUL to end an unborn human life and following the ruling out of unforseen or accidental medical errors, that it is still argued that the lawful ending of an unborn human life is NOT an intentional ending of an unborn human life.

Perhaps the specific way the ending of unborn human life could occur could be listed, if not by way of accidental or unforseen medical error, or by lawful ending.

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

Well, the government certainly should... whether it would have to, or would, is a different matter. But the immediate answer is; what is a cast iron guarantee from a government worth? Will you trust that guarantee from someone who told you you should never have to pay for water, then charged you for it? Exactly how many guarantees have any government held to? But keeping the Constitutional provision, that is a cast iron guarantee. No government has ever been allowed to flout the Constitution..

By the time a repeal referendum is passed and replacement legislation is introduced this government will be well into is term. Given the massive effort getting all that done will require, I find it hard to see the circumstance in which they would want to pursue further liberalisation of abortion law soon afterwards, in defiance of such a guarantee. If you're paranoid enough to think that they would, well you're quite likely to be voting against any referendum proposed by the government.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

The point I was making was that not all intentional endings of unborn human life are an offense under POLDPA. My point is in line with this from POLPDA: The POLDPA specifies when it is lawful to end an unborn human life. That wording is, IMO, fairly specific, making a clear reference to when it is lawful to end an unborn human life. That seem's, IMO, to refer to a specific lawful act or deed..

I thought you were asking questions, not making a point, never mind the ones above which seem not to match your questions. Still, you appear to be agreeing with my answers.

aloyisious wrote: »

I included this question - Or is it that the meaning of [in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended] in POLDPA totally refer's to the chance of a medical misadventure during the said medical procedure? - to ascertain if that POLDPA section meant an ending of unborn human life by medical misadventure whereby the ending could be caused by a unforseen or accidental medical error to rule out any other way the ending of unborn human life could have happened during the lawful medical procedure. The reply to my question was: No, it is not.

I recall the question, and the answer I gave. They're just above, on this page.

aloyisious wrote: »

This; the intentional destruction of human life is a criminal offense; the lawful ending of an unborn human life in accordance with the Act is not the intentional destruction of unborn human life, because the former is lawful and the latter is a criminal offense, are mere words.

Yes, everything written here is mere words. These words, however, do convey a specific meaning.

aloyisious wrote: »

IMO, the end result of "the lawful ending of an unborn human life" AND "the destruction of an unborn human life" are exactly the same, ending in a dead feotus, or whatever other word you choose to use in lieu of feotus. What else are both if not the physical destruction of unborn human life?

In addition to that particular result though, one is a crime which can result in a person going to jail, and the other isn't. Those two results are not exactly the same, are they?

aloyisious wrote: »

I am surprised, given the mention that POLDPA specifies when it is LAWFUL to end an unborn human life and following the ruling out of unforseen or accidental medical errors, that it is still argued that the lawful ending of an unborn human life is NOT an intentional ending of an unborn human life.

Not argued as such, but certainly pointed out that the lawful ending of an unborn human life is NOT the intentional destruction of unborn human life. All of this being within the context of the POLDPA obviously... since that is what we are discussing, yes?

aloyisious wrote: »

Perhaps the specific way the ending of unborn human life could occur could be listed, if not by way of accidental or unforseen medical error, or by lawful ending.

Perhaps... in fact I imagine there are people who could list a number, and change that list every time a new medical means of doing so was found. Would there be any reason to do so though, other than just as a matter of interest to some people?

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

By the time a repeal referendum is passed and replacement legislation is introduced this government will be well into is term. Given the massive effort getting all that done will require, I find it hard to see the circumstance in which they would want to pursue further liberalisation of abortion law soon afterwards, in defiance of such a guarantee. If you're paranoid enough to think that they would, well you're quite likely to be voting against any referendum proposed by the government.

There's no reason to think that any legislation at all introduced after a referendum wouldn't be other than what was promised prior to the referendum though, is there? There's nothing paranoid about realising how often political promises are kept, or that no political party feels obliged to even consider another party's promises.

aloyisious

Repeating the legal wording of POLDPA as a mantra won't do away with the fact that both the lawful ending of an unborn human life AND the destruction of an unborn human life end up with the physical destruction of an unborn human life.

It does not answer my question: if POLDPA allows for the actual lawful destruction of an unborn human life, how does the deed declared legal there differ to the intentional destruction of an unborn human life? Except for mere words declaring one is good, and one is bad, it doesn't.

Things of interest to people, like here, are part and parcel of a debate, wouldn't you accept?

If it's merely because of what's written in POLDPA, it seem's likely to me that a Govt Minister, with the agreement of a majority of his/her fellow ministers and a majority in both houses, could alter the wording with an amendment. The wording of any such amendment could be aimed for greater or lesser use of the act for abortions.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Repeating the legal wording of POLDPA as a mantra won't do away with the fact that both the lawful ending of an unborn human life AND the destruction of an unborn human life end up with the physical destruction of an unborn human life.

Well, I don't think anyone has repeated the words as a mantra, but I'm certain no one has argued that a life isn't ended in both cases, have they?

aloyisious wrote: »

It does not answer my question: if POLDPA allows for the actual lawful destruction of an unborn human life, how does the deed declared legal there differ to the intentional destruction of an unborn human life? Except for mere words declaring one is good, and one is bad, it doesn't.

Well, that's not a question you asked, but since you're asking it now the difference is that one is legal, and the other is not. There is obviously reasoning behind that, but that's the difference; one is legal the other is not.

aloyisious wrote: »

Things of interest to people, like here, are part and parcel of a debate, wouldn't you accept?

That's probably just a bit too nebulous for me to venture an opinion on I'm afraid.

aloyisious wrote: »

If it's merely because of what's written in POLDPA, it seem's likely to me that a Govt Minister, with the agreement of a majority of his/her fellow ministers and a majority in both houses, could alter the wording with an amendment. The wording of any such amendment could be aimed for greater or lesser use of the act for abortions.

They (amongst others) could indeed, and they only thing that would limit their changes would be Article 40.3.3.

aloyisious

Ah right, Instead of you agreeing that there is NO actual difference between the lawful ending of an unborn life and the destruction of an unborn life for any feotus, the best you can come up with [but I'm certain no one has argued that a life isn't ended in both cases, have they?]

:-) at your response to my question: Aloyisious: Things of interest to people, like here, are part and parcel of a debate, wouldn't you accept? Absolom: That's probably just a bit too nebulous for me to venture an opinion on I'm afraid.........

EDIT.....

Originally Posted by aloyisious View Post
If it's merely because of what's written in POLDPA, it seem's likely to me that a Govt Minister, with the agreement of a majority of his/her fellow ministers and a majority in both houses, could alter the wording with an amendment. The wording of any such amendment could be aimed for greater or lesser use of the act for abortions.

absolom: They (amongst others) could indeed, and they only thing that would limit their changes would be Article 40.3.3.

I like your above response to my thoughts on what a Govt minister could do, if he/she had the agreement of a majority of his/her fellow ministers and a majority in both houses. Do you think the reason there is so much opposition to the possible deletion of 40.3.3 is that those opponents to it's deletion fear politicians would change the wording of the relevant existing legislation POLDPA?

I know you wanted me - and probably anyone else reading this part (amongst others) of your's above - to ask you whom the others you are referring to are but I think I'll leaving it hanging there, ta very much. It's too nebulous for me to venture a question on, I'm afraid.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Ah right, Instead of you agreeing that there is NO actual difference between the lawful ending of an unborn life and the destruction of an unborn life for any feotus, the best you can come up with [but I'm certain no one has argued that a life isn't ended in both cases, have they?]

Actually, what I came up with was "the difference is that one is legal, and the other is not".

aloyisious wrote: »

:-) at your response to my question: Aloyisious: Things of interest to people, like here, are part and parcel of a debate, wouldn't you accept? Absolom: That's probably just a bit too nebulous for me to venture an opinion on I'm afraid.........

Very gnomic

aloyisious

How would this [the difference is that one is legal, and the other is not"] make a difference to the feotus in the final analysis of what happened to it in either case? Surely it would be dead?

It seem's to me that the "one is legal, and the other is not" would only have an effect in respect of the medical staff present and involved in the medical procedure.

PS. I reread what you wrote in your 2nd last post, and edited my response to it to include several extra paragraphs and questions. Perhaps you could scroll back, read those new para's and reply with your thoughts on them?