Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Seriously, do you get some sort of frequent flyer miles for the whataboutery nonsense you post in threats? Between this crap and marrying animals in the Christianity forum its beyond a joke at this stage.
Very clearly the mention of murder references the pro-life side claim that abortion is equal to that of murder, once again only an idiot would believe that I would be lobbying to stop women traveling to have abortions.
Anything else is just more whataboutery crap from you, as per normal.

I see.. you encourage other people to lobby to prevent women travelling to commit murder when it's abortion (though you don't disagree with abortion) but think it's whataboutery to consider lobbying to prevent people travelling for any other murder. Got it.

Oh... and the ones (other than you) who don't lobby... they're the hypocrites. Sure.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

I see.. you encourage other people to lobby to prevent women travelling to commit murder when it's abortion (though you don't disagree with abortion) but think it's whataboutery to consider lobbying to prevent people travelling for any other murder. Got it.

Oh... and the ones (other than you) who don't lobby... they're the hypocrites. Sure.

Still nothing decent to add I see,

Perhaps you could start a discussion about humans marrying animals, that might cheer you up

MrPudding

walshyn93 wrote: »

Yes it is in fact murder by definition in this country. It is not England so there is no grounds to restrict freedom of movement.

Pretty sure it is not murder by definition in Ireland, anymore than it is in England.

MrP

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/06/21/can-kicked/

RTE reports:

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has brought a memo to Cabinet to set up a citizens’ assembly which will look at a number of issues, starting with the Eighth Amendment.

The Dáil will have to pass a resolution to establish the assembly.

It is understood the assembly will sit for a year to address all issues referred to it, such as fixed parliaments but it will issue a report on each issue as they are completed.

The report on the Eighth Amendment will be referred to an all party Oireachtas committee when completed.

It is thought that the assembly will hold its first meeting by November.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Still nothing decent to add I see, Perhaps you could start a discussion about humans marrying animals, that might cheer you up

Feeling the needs to redirect the conversation? I can't imagine why
Since you introduce the subject, is it something you're going to demand people lobby to prevent those who intend to do it from traveling as well?

aloyisious

For info of people interested. RTE Radio 1 7AM news programme included an item on the Govt planned forum on the 8th amendment in it's reporting items and the show had a rep, Cora Sherlock, from the Pro-life group to give it's P.O.V. on those plans. The news programme is from 7AM to 9AM.

The item started 30 minutes into the programme, a 2 minute [approx] time-slot around 7.30 AM. Cora said that there is a pre-arranged outcome to the citizens assembly, a referendum on the 8th and ended with a statement that abortion will end up with babies dying on tables. The broadcasted interview was a good and non-heated talk between Cora and the interviewer.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Feeling the needs to redirect the conversation? I can't imagine why
Since you introduce the subject, is it something you're going to demand people lobby to prevent those who intend to do it from traveling as well?

Still earning those air miles eh?

Do you honestly have nothing better to do then continue to drag this thread off topic again?

If you want to continue your silly discussion about humans marrying animals then perhaps maybe start your own thread on such a insulting, idiotic comparison to marriage equality. It certainly is wayyyy of topic for this thread.

This time perhaps don't start it in the christian forum where mods have already told you to cease such a discussion,
:rolleyes:

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Still earning those air miles eh? Do you honestly have nothing better to do then continue to drag this thread off topic again?

I'm not the one introducing a discussion about humans marrying animals... now who would that be?

Cabaal wrote: »

If you want to continue your silly discussion about humans marrying animals then perhaps maybe start your own thread on such a insulting, idiotic comparison to marriage equality. It certainly is wayyyy of topic for this thread.

Oh... it's you!

Cabaal wrote: »

This time perhaps don't start it in the christian forum where mods have already told you to cease such a discussion,
:rolleyes:

Though it was aloyisious trying to discuss it... you're employing your usual attention to detail I see

Got your placard done yet?

aloyisious

The drone has landed, under the watchful eye of PSNI. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/drone-delivers-abortion-pills-to-northern-ireland-1.2693583

Edit: I should have checked the NI papers as well. From the Belfast Telegraph covering the flight of the drone and an earlier event in Derry. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/abortion-drone-delivers-pills-to-northern-ireland-34819010.html

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Got your placard done yet?

Once again you've nothing useful to add,
I can't be arsed with you and your posts at this stage and its evident you have nothing useful to add other then trying to aim pointless, nonsense questions at me.

You'll be delighted to know that you have the honor of being my first user to be put on ignore, thankfully I won't have to see your off-topic posts anymore.

Anyway, back on topic

aloyisious wrote: »

The drone has landed, under the watchful eye of PSNI. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/drone-delivers-abortion-pills-to-northern-ireland-1.2693583

Interesting to see that when the drone was used yesterday traveling illegal pills then police just stood back and did nothing

Really shows that the laws against the distribution of these pills are only VERY selectively applied in both country's since previously Gardai did nothing when these pills were brought down on the train and used in Dublin.

Cabaal

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ministers-seek-free-vote-on-fatal-foetal-abnormalities-bill-1.2693954?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fministers-seek-free-vote-on-fatal-foetal-abnormalities-bill-1.2693954

A number of Ministers are seeking a free vote on a Bill allowing for abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Once again you've nothing useful to add,
I can't be arsed with you and your posts at this stage and its evident you have nothing useful to add other then trying to aim pointless, nonsense questions at me.
You'll be delighted to know that you have the honor of being my first user to be put on ignore, thankfully I won't have to see your off-topic posts anymore.

Awww... I'm sure it's difficult confronting your own hypocrisy when you're so busy accusing others of it, but there's no need to be huffy

Cabaal wrote: »

Interesting to see that when the drone was used yesterday traveling illegal pills then police just stood back and did nothing
Really shows that the laws against the distribution of these pills are only VERY selectively applied in both country's since previously Gardai did nothing when these pills were brought down on the train and used in Dublin.

It has to be said, according to the Belfast Telegraph "The event was organised by a collaboration of pro-choice groups, Alliance For Choice; Rosa; Labour Alternative and Women On Waves, which staged a similar flight from Germany into Poland. The groups said no laws had been broken, adding in a statement: "The 'abortion drone' will mark the different reality for Irish women to access safe abortion services compared to women in other European countries where abortion is legal." so perhaps, rather than laws being VERY selectively applied, it was simply the case that... no laws were broken?

aloyisious

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ministers-seek-free-vote-on-fatal-foetal-abnormalities-bill-1.2693954?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fministers-seek-free-vote-on-fatal-foetal-abnormalities-bill-1.2693954

Umm, unless there's some catch-22 clause in whatever deal is between the alliance and the Govt invoked, I can't see the FG-side in Govt being able to try apply a whip on the alliance. FG may have to just sit there, accept the demand and suck it up. Enda may not be happy at all, with the chance some FG'ers, including some downsized ministers, want the same. I'll wait to see what John Halligan's final vote is on the issue.

The Black Oil

Cora was quoted on RTE.ie the other day saying her campaign would fight this 'every step of the way'. An Iona rep was on RTE's Cutting Edge last week complaining about balance and being silenced. So yeah, 2 newspaper columnists, other heads doing broadcast appearances and plenty more to come if the Citizen's Assembly thing gets started, they'll be clearly silenced even more.

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ministers-seek-free-vote-on-fatal-foetal-abnormalities-bill-1.2693954?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fministers-seek-free-vote-on-fatal-foetal-abnormalities-bill-1.2693954

Anyone know the proposed wording?
Going by his twitter feed, Mick Wallace seems to have forgotten all about it himself and is over in France celebrating the soccer victory over Italy.

lazygal

recedite wrote: »

Anyone know the proposed wording?
Going by his twitter feed, Mick Wallace seems to have forgotten all about it himself and is over in France celebrating the soccer victory over Italy.

Pretty sure it's the same as one Clare Daly moved some time ago.

recedite

It would be unusual to propose a bill that has already been defeated before.

I suppose the sponsors could have made some superficial change to the bill, and then presented it again on the basis that the current govt. is a minority govt. and therefore has less ability to swat away an opposition bill without even considering its merit (or lack thereof)

aloyisious

Irish Times report: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/proposed-fatal-foetal-abnormality-bill-to-be-ruled-unconstitutional-1.2695377

The AG's advice and Independent TD's stance on free vote (reportedly nothing in deal with FG re legislation on abortion) mid-way in report. Seem's the SC is not going to be asked to decide on constitutional matter, the Govt will do so.

It might be a "political expediency" measure, not at all cynical.

Noted Govt Minister Simon Harris using the "unconstitutional" word in ref to the proposed Mick Wallace bill on RTE Radio during the day when interviewed.

Absolam

Does that not seem unlikely? If the AG says it's unConstitutional, and the Oireachtas passes it despite his opinion (which seems unlikely), before signing the Bill, the President has the power to refer the bill to the Supreme Court when there is doubt as to whether it is constitutional... which the AG has ensured there is. So if passed it's likely to end up before the SC.

recedite

A couple of interesting things about this...

1. Strange that the proposers didn't make some minor change to the bill, seeing as the previously moved identical one was already deemed unconstitutional in the opinion of the AG. The AG has no choice now, otherwise they would be saying the previous advice already given was wrong.

2. The govt. is not obliged to accept the advice of the AG. Advice is just advice.
Nor is it obliged to refuse a free vote. Constitutionally, every vote in the Dail should be a free vote. The party whip is something that has crept in, but it was never officially part of the constitutional set-up. And these guys aren't even in the FG party, which makes applying the party whip even worse.

3. AG could be wrong on this. While the unborn may have equal rights to the born, even the born can have their life terminated prematurely under medical supervision if they are suffering and are dying anyway, with genuinely no chance of a recovery.

4. "FFA" is a somewhat vague or dubious term, as there are people walking around who claim to have recovered from FFA. A bill which clearly defined the circumstances of the really severe forms of FFA might well pass, with the 8th amendment being irrelevant in the sense of 3. above

robindch

Absolam wrote: »

I'm sure it's difficult confronting your own hypocrisy when you're so busy accusing others of it [...]

Not a useful comment. Cut it out.

Loafing Oaf

recedite wrote: »

2. The govt. is not obliged to accept the advice of the AG. Advice is just advice.

Maybe not strictly obliged but it would be a pretty big deal for the govt to reject the AG's advice on the constitutionality of a bill, effectively a vote of no confidence in her. Is anyone aware of a precedent?

recedite

The AG has not come out of the recent Garda whistleblower shenanigans particularly well.

But nothing today would be more bizarre than the GUBU incident.

IMO the office of the AG is often used to silence political and press dissent, as in "I'd love to do x, but the AG I appointed last month says I can't. So that's the end of it".

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

A couple of interesting things about this...
1. Strange that the proposers didn't make some minor change to the bill, seeing as the previously moved identical one was already deemed unconstitutional in the opinion of the AG. The AG has no choice now, otherwise they would be saying the previous advice already given was wrong.
2. The govt. is not obliged to accept the advice of the AG. Advice is just advice.
Nor is it obliged to refuse a free vote. Constitutionally, every vote in the Dail should be a free vote. The party whip is something that has crept in, but it was never officially part of the constitutional set-up. And these guys aren't even in the FG party, which makes applying the party whip even worse.
3. AG could be wrong on this. While the unborn may have equal rights to the born, even the born can have their life terminated prematurely under medical supervision if they are suffering and are dying anyway, with genuinely no chance of a recovery.
4. "FFA" is a somewhat vague or dubious term, as there are people walking around who claim to have recovered from FFA. A bill which clearly defined the circumstances of the really severe forms of FFA might well pass, with the 8th amendment being irrelevant in the sense of 3. above

3. I would say is a bit of a tricky proposition; people may terminate their own lives prematurely, but no one can legally assist them to do so, or do it to them. A Doctor may decide to withdraw care, or not to provide further care, but that is quite different from participating in the deliberate killing of a patient; their life isn't terminated prematurely, it is allowed to end. Which makes 4. a bit tricky too.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

A Doctor may decide to withdraw care, or not to provide further care, but that is quite different from participating in the deliberate killing of a patient; their life isn't terminated prematurely, it is allowed to end.

OK yes you are right, an important distinction. I stand corrected.
My main point was that the 8th amendment is irrelevant if the principles involved in the ending of a life apply equally to born and unborn.

The question then would be "is assisted suicide unconstitutional, or just illegal under current legislation?"
If it came to a referendum to change the constitution, then one which allowed for both might be the best option. (ie allowing for a more active intervention, as opposed to just withdrawing life support, whether born or unborn).

Along those lines, could it be argued that a pregnant woman aborting a FFA foetus by taking a pill is just "withdrawing life support"?
Something a doctor is not allowed to do with a patient unless the patient is already in the process of dying and is suffering unnecessarily.

robdonn

recedite wrote: »

Along those lines, could it be argued that a pregnant woman aborting a FFA foetus by taking a pill is just "withdrawing life support"?
Something a doctor is not allowed to do with a patient unless the patient is already in the process of dying and is suffering unnecessarily.

I think that kind of "withdrawing life support" is akin to smothering them with a pillow.

With a terminally ill patient there is no action taken to end their life, simply withdrawing actions that may prolong it.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

OK yes you are right, an important distinction. I stand corrected. My main point was that the 8th amendment is irrelevant if the principles involved in the ending of a life apply equally to born and unborn.

I would have thought that the 8th amendment is the reason the principles involved in the ending of a life would apply equally to born and unborn.

recedite wrote: »

The question then would be "is assisted suicide unconstitutional, or just illegal under current legislation?" If it came to a referendum to change the constitution, then one which allowed for both might be the best option. (ie allowing for a more active intervention, as opposed to just withdrawing life support, whether born or unborn).

I very much doubt a referendum to place a right to assisted suicide would satisy those who wish to repeal the 8th. But I don't think killing an unborn with FFA would qualify as assisted suicide, which requires the desire of the terminee for death. I think you're really talking about involuntary euthanasia, and I very much doubt we will ever even consider a referendum on that.

recedite wrote: »

Along those lines, could it be argued that a pregnant woman aborting a FFA foetus by taking a pill is just "withdrawing life support"? Something a doctor is not allowed to do with a patient unless the patient is already in the process of dying and is suffering unnecessarily.

Mmm.. I think a doctor turning off artificial life support would be an act of omission; the patient continues in their natural state and no one takes any measure which is the cause of their death. A woman who takes a pill makes an act of commision, and I think it's less like withdrawing artificial life support than removing the natural environment; more like a Doctor removing all the air from a dying patients room. Which would be a bit further than a Doctor would likely be permitted to go in withdrawing 'care'.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

more like a Doctor removing all the air from a dying patients room.

.. or maybe like a decision to replace the glucose solution and antibiotics in an intravenous drip with an electrolyte only solution. Which can happen, and hastens the demise of a terminally ill patient.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

.. or maybe like a decision to replace the glucose solution and antibiotics in an intravenous drip with an electrolyte only solution. Which can happen, and hastens the demise of a terminally ill patient.

No not at all; that's withdrawing an artificial measure (antibiotics) slowing their demise.

volchitsa

robdonn wrote: »

I think that kind of "withdrawing life support" is akin to smothering them with a pillow.

With a terminally ill patient there is no action taken to end their life, simply withdrawing actions that may prolong it.

I know something of this from firsthand experience, unfortunately : when my father, who had a terminal cancer, could no longer eat and drink, the hospital staff made it quite clear to us that our request to have him put on a drip would be refused.

We only wanted a few more days until my brothers could get back from abroad, but they said that it was not that simple, because once someone is on life support, or even just a drip (which was all that was required in our case, since he was breathing fine, then the decision to take him off is a lot more complicated legally than a refusal to put them on it in the first place

So yes, very much like smothering them with a pillow I suppose.