The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

B0jangles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It does, because you refuse to acknowledge that other people may speak in whatever context they choose, and they are still just as correct as you are. If you insist upon using the term 'foetus', then one has to assume you're speaking in a medical context, which is entirely irrelevant in terms of the 8th amendment, because the 8th amendment and rights, and perceived rights, are all formed in a legal context, where the term used to refer to human life in a legal context is "the unborn", and that applies not just in Irish law, but also in international law.

I'm also hesitant when I meet people who say "we're pregnant". But I'm not going to insist they stop using terms that suit them. I can still work with that, bizarre and all as it may be.

That's a bizarre inversion of what I said. Infogiver is free to call her blastocyte/zygote/foetus/baby whatever she likes, it does not change the fact that there are fundamental differences between the stages of development that each term describes. Insisting that a foetus in the 9th week of development is effectively the same as viable, capable of suviving outside the womb baby is just... incorrect.

eviltwin

Absolam wrote: »

None of that supports your assertion that they don't legally exist does it? In fact, it all pretty much amounts to the fact that you are patently aware of their legal existence but elected to deny it nonetheless....

Do they legally exist though? Not talking morally or philosophically. I'm curious from a legal point of view why a miscarriage isn't treated as a death but an abortion is. And I appreciate this probably makes no sense beyond my own musings but as someone who has experience of both its an interesting distinction.

pjohnson

B0jangles wrote: »

That's a bizarre inversion of what I said. Infogiver is free to call her blastocyte/zygote/foetus/baby whatever she likes, it does not change the fact that there are fundamental differences between the stages of development that each term describes. Insisting that a foetus in the 9th week of development is effectively the same as viable, capable of suviving outside the womb baby is just... incorrect.

Hallelujah!

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It does, because you refuse to acknowledge that other people may speak in whatever context they choose, and they are still just as correct as you are. If you insist upon using the term 'foetus', then one has to assume you're speaking in a medical context, which is entirely irrelevant in terms of the 8th amendment, because the 8th amendment and rights, and perceived rights, are all formed in a legal context, where the term used to refer to human life in a legal context is "the unborn", and that applies not just in Irish law, but also in international law.

I'm also hesitant when I meet people who say "we're pregnant". But I'm not going to insist they stop using terms that suit them. I can still work with that, bizarre and all as it may be.

I think you're making the poster's point for them. Unlike different names for their baby/fetus/bean or whatever, which are all fine by me, I really dislike when people say "we're pregnant" - no they're not, she's pregnant.

However I don't bother telling them, because it only concerns them.
Where I would tell someone to get off sharpest though would be if they started to want special treatment for "pregnant men", i.e. the father-to-be. FFS.

Just as the only issue I would have with people referring to "a baby" "a child" etc for a fetus would be if they want to insist that this means that everyone must treat every pregnancy as "a child" or indeed a person.

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

That's a bizarre inversion of what I said. Infogiver is free to call her blastocyte/zygote/foetus/baby whatever she likes, it does not change the fact that there are fundamental differences between the stages of development that each term describes. Insisting that a foetus in the 9th week of development is effectively the same as viable, capable of suviving outside the womb baby is just... incorrect.

I don't think infogiver insisted that you restrict yourself to her definition though.

That's not to mention the fact that in law, the term 'the unborn' does exactly what you're suggesting we shouldn't - it doesn't acknowledge the various stages of human development between implantation and birth.

In the context of the 8th amendment, you're wrong.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Do they legally exist though? Not talking morally or philosophically. I'm curious from a legal point of view why a miscarriage isn't treated as a death but an abortion is. And I appreciate this probably makes no sense beyond my own musings but as someone who has experience of both its an interesting distinction.

It's within a coroners jurisdiction to make that determination, depending upon the circumstances of the case -


Inquest hears death certificate will be issued for unborn baby

Before witnesses started giving their evidence, the coroner told the inquest he had read a lot of material relating to the registration of the term "birth" saying the issues focus on the ability to prove that someone must have been born before a death certificate can be issued. 

He added that issues also arise as to how "the unborn child" is defined in an autopsy without being separated from the mother. 

In his understanding in this case, he said the unborn child was "born" and that it would be within his jurisdiction to assign the status on her that she had therefore died.

He said the State has had a number of opportunities in the past to rule or clarify points of law relating to many queries raised by coroners and he said that if they had ruled, then all of the the anguish that families had to go through to address this particular point would have been saved.

njs030

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think infogiver insisted that you restrict yourself to her definition though.

Sure about that??

infogiver wrote: »

Medical terms are used by medical personnel..

infogiver wrote: »

Because when I was pregnant I never carried a fetus in my womb I carried a baby.
.

One eyed Jack

notjustsweet wrote: »

Sure about that??

I'm very sure.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's within a coroners jurisdiction to make that determination, depending upon the circumstances of the case -


Inquest hears death certificate will be issued for unborn baby

Just a tad dishonest of you there, perhaps Jack?

That wasn't the final outcome of the case, just a well-meaning attempt by the coroner to see of he could satisfy the grieving family's request.

Here's a later article :

Father drops case over unborn girl's crash death

Legally it was too much of a hot potato, I suspect. And not just because of abortion. Giving the fetus legal personhood is a very slippery slope in trend of healthcare for pregnant women.

In fact even Catholic hospitals aren't too happy with the idea - when it doesn't suit them.
Lawyers for Catholic hospital argue fetus is not a person

Skylinehead

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I were in your position, I'd be keeping shtum about other people's ability to read, let alone be crowing about your level of education.

Play nice

njs030

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm very sure.

Wow. So when proof of her forcing her opinion on others is put in front of you then you still disagree.

You must know each other then... Maria????

pjohnson

notjustsweet wrote: »

Wow. So when proof of her forcing her opinion on others is put in front of you then you still disagree.

You must know each other then... Maria????

I'm torn between selective reading or selective comprehensiom.

Samsgirl

eviltwin wrote: »

Do they legally exist though? Not talking morally or philosophically. I'm curious from a legal point of view why a miscarriage isn't treated as a death but an abortion is. And I appreciate this probably makes no sense beyond my own musings but as someone who has experience of both its an interesting distinction.

Either is an ectopic pregnancy where the pregnancy is terminated as it is not viable. Surely the pro life brigade should be objecting to these procedures if they are that adamant that the life of the unborn trumps the life of the pregnant lady?
I am not saying that to be anyway disrespectful to anyone who has suffered an ectopic pregnancy. I myself have gone through this.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Just a tad dishonest of you there, perhaps Jack?

I wasn't being dishonest. It's the only case I could think would even come close to answering eviltwin's question.

That wasn't the final outcome of the case, just a well-meaning attempt by the coroner to see of he could satisfy the grieving family's request.

Here's a later article :

Father drops case over unborn girl's crash death

Legally it was too much of a hot potato, I suspect. And not just because of abortion. Giving the fetus legal personhood is a very slippery slope in trend of healthcare for pregnant women.

In fact even Catholic hospitals aren't too happy with the idea - when it doesn't suit them.
Lawyers for Catholic hospital argue fetus is not a person

I don't think you're being dishonest at all, but that's not why the case didn't proceed either, at least not according to the article you linked to yourself -

Mr Enright said he was dropping the constitutional challenge as he had now done everything in his power to have Mollie's existence acknowledged.

He had initiated the proceedings in September 2014 seeking that Mollie be recognised as a person and also seeking clarification on how her existence should be recorded.

Mr. Enright dropped the case as he was satisfied that their unborn daughters existence was acknowledged. I agree that it was a hot potato of a case, and it would have made interesting case law, but the State got lucky IMO that Mr. Enright decided to drop the case.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wasn't being dishonest. It's the only case I could think would even come close to answering eviltwin's question.


I don't think you're being dishonest at all, but that's not why the case didn't proceed either, at least not according to the article you linked to yourself -


Mr. Enright dropped the case as he was satisfied that their unborn daughters existence was acknowledged. I agree that it was a hot potato of a case, and it would have made interesting case law, but the State got lucky IMO that Mr. Enright decided to drop the case.

Just trying to reflect stuff straight back at other posters like that is dishonest though - I didn't say the article said that, I speculated that this may have been the case.

In fact (NB further personal speculation, anyone is free to disagree) I wonder if the father may not have been "encouraged" to see that he wasn't going to be allowed to win, because the legal repercussions in obstetric care and human rights for pregnant women would be enormous. Obviously it may not have been put to him in that way.

IOW I'm not sure the state just "got lucky".

But on the actual point, it's untrue that the state has done or will do what you were implying, i.e., grant a legal existence to the unborn. Because the coroner's suggestion that he could do so was based on the claim that the baby was "born" when removed during the autopsy, so not actually because of the 8th anyway.

I do agree that it would have been fascinating to see the prolifers tying themselves in knots over it, though, if it had gone to court. I would just worry that some poor woman or women would yet again have paid the price before sense reigned. Only for that I'd be all for testing that sort of "the unborn is a person" claim in court.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

But on the actual point, it's untrue that the state has done or will do what you were implying, i.e., grant a legal existence to the unborn. Because the coroner's suggestion that he could do so was based on the claim that the baby was "born" when removed during the autopsy, so not actually because of the 8th anyway.

That's not what I was implying. I don't know whether the Court would have decided either way on the issue, and it would have been interesting IMO to see what way the Court would have decided, were it not for as you suggested, the well-meaning interpretation provided by the coroner.

I do agree that it would have been fascinating to see the prolifers tying themselves in knots over it, though, if it had gone to court. I would just worry that some poor woman or women would yet again have paid the price before sense reigned. Only for that I'd be all for testing that sort of "the unborn is a person" claim in court.

So it wouldn't just be pro-lifers would have been getting their knickers in a twist then? I don't know how it could ever be fascinating to witness other people upset, for any reason tbh. I wouldn't want people being fascinated if I were upset, so I'd try and show people that same understanding, regardless of my own opinions on the issue.

PopePalpatine

Samsgirl wrote: »

Either is an ectopic pregnancy where the pregnancy is terminated as it is not viable. Surely the pro life brigade should be objecting to these procedures if they are that adamant that the life of the unborn trumps the life of the pregnant lady?
I am not saying that to be anyway disrespectful to anyone who has suffered an ectopic pregnancy. I myself have gone through this.

They have a way of weaselling out of it.

sean8carthy

Fact #8: Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8

PopePalpatine

Oh boy, alternative facts.

Samaris

sean8carthy wrote: »

Fact #8: Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8

I wrote a very long post detailing why that site has absolutely no credibility, but suffice to say, it doesn't. Can you find a legitimate source for that claim?

Samsgirl

sean8carthy wrote: »

Fact #8: Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8

Does it matter if it's 1% or 100%, the choice should be there.

Samsgirl

PopePalpatine wrote: »

They have a way of weaselling out of it.

Why am I not surprised.

222233

sean8carthy wrote: »

Fact #8: Less than 1% of all abortions are performed to save the life of the mother.http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8

Medical proof?

What percentage of the 26 (that figure may be less/more, not entirely sure but it's close to that number) abortions carried out in Ireland in 2015 were to save the life of the mother? Is Ireland included in those statistics and other countries who have restricted abortion? Otherwise the statement is untrue.

January

infogiver, you seriously need to take a step back. As someone who has had an abortion (and given birth to 4 children before that) I have no problem with anyone referring to the fetus growing inside their body as a baby. In fact I've done it myself, I still do it now with other people (I don't say 'how are you and the fetus doing?' to my clients, friends, family etc). So stop shrieking 'all women who have abortions are triggered by the word baby in reference to a growing fetus'.

I don't talk out loud about the abortion I had to many people but when I think about it, I do think of the baby I aborted. In other circumstances, I'd have loved to have been pregnant again.

Outlaw Pete

January wrote: »

I have no problem with anyone referring to the fetus growing inside their body as a baby. In fact I've done it myself, I still do it now with other people (I don't say 'how are you and the fetus doing?' to my clients, friends, family etc). So stop shrieking 'all women who have abortions are triggered by the word baby in reference to a growing fetus'.

So what if YOU have no problem with it?! Nice to hear but some clearly do and it is THEIR comments to which the user's post are in response to and as OEJ has pointed out, they haven't insisted on anything themselves. I've been involved in enough of these debates also and I can assure you it is usually the other side of the debate which first take issue with the terminology being used. 'There is no baby!' a prime example of the kind of remark that gets flung at me in response to a point I'll have made so the user has a legitimate point... as does anyone, by the way, that gets told they shouldn't be using the word fetus. Both criticisms are equally as annoying.

njs030

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So what if YOU have no problem with it?! Nice to hear but some clearly do and it is THEIR comments to which the user's post are in response to and as OEJ has pointed out, they haven't insisted on anything themselves. I've been involved in enough of these debates also and I can assure you it is usually the other side of the debate which first take issue with the terminology being used. 'There is no baby!' a prime example of the kind of remark that gets flung at me in response to a point I'll have made so the user has a legitimate point... as does anyone, by the way, that gets told they shouldn't be using the word fetus. Both criticisms are equally as annoying.

A few pages back I commented about how infogiver drops into the thread every few days and makes a nasty comment, starts a row about wording and disappears again.
See what I mean??

The discussion is now mainly about words because of her little games.
Can we maybe drop the fetus/baby issue and all agree both are equally acceptable?

One eyed Jack

notjustsweet wrote: »

A few pages back I commented about how infogiver drops into the thread every few days and makes a nasty comment, starts a row about wording and disappears again.
See what I mean??

The discussion is now mainly about words because of her little games.

I'd suggest you were just seeing what you wanted to see there. I bailed out of the thread because the intent of my posts were being wilfully misconstrued instead of posters making any attempt to foster discussion or make any genuine attempt to understand where other posters were coming from. There were posts since that quite honestly I couldn't be arsed entertaining because addressing them wouldn't have added anything to the discussion. Posters are perfectly entitled to come and go from a thread as they please, and one of the other reasons I didn't get back to the thread to address some of the points raised is because I was busy all week, and addressing a post from a couple of pages back, when the thread has moved on, would have been pointless IMO.

Can we maybe drop the fetus/baby issue and all agree both are equally acceptable?

Would you have an issue with the correct use of the term 'the unborn', specifically with reference to the 8th amendment in the Irish Constition? I'm willing to accept that even in International law, the term 'unborn child' is contentious, but it's an entirely acceptable term in that context.

njs030

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd suggest you were just seeing what you wanted to see there. I bailed out of the thread because the intent of my posts were being wilfully misconstrued instead of posters making any attempt to foster discussion or make any genuine attempt to understand where other posters were coming from. There were posts since that quite honestly I couldn't be arsed entertaining because addressing them wouldn't have added anything to the discussion. Posters are perfectly entitled to come and go from a thread as they please, and one of the other reasons I didn't get back to the thread to address some of the points raised is because I was busy all week, and addressing a post from a couple of pages back, when the thread has moved on, would have been pointless IMO.





Would you have an issue with the correct use of the term 'the unborn', specifically with reference to the 8th amendment in the Irish Constition? I'm willing to accept that even in International law, the term 'unborn child' is contentious, but it's an entirely acceptable term in that context.

We aren't going to agree in relation to that poster, I really think someone who had nothing else to say apart from smart comments about wording choices is deliberately trying to direct the thread away from any discussion about the topic at hand.
We are entitled to different views though


I do see your point re 'the unborn' and if that's the term you prefer to use then use it, in general use, people will tend to say either fetus or baby because it's more natural to them.
I personally don't think it matters what word we use when we are all aware what we are referring to. Rational adults should be able to discuss important matters without getting overly emotional about words...well we'd hope so

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

Do they legally exist though? Not talking morally or philosophically. I'm curious from a legal point of view why a miscarriage isn't treated as a death but an abortion is. And I appreciate this probably makes no sense beyond my own musings but as someone who has experience of both its an interesting distinction.

Yes, they legally exist. They are assigned a right in the Constitution, they are protected by legislation, and have been provided counsel in Court actions. Not talking morally or philosophically. I'm not sure what distinctions you think are or ought to be made between an abortion or a miscarriage, but the very fact that you're using two different terms show you see a distinction.

pilly

notjustsweet wrote:

I do see your point re 'the unborn' and if that's the term you prefer to use then use it, in general use, people will tend to say either fetus or baby because it's more natural to them. I personally don't think it matters what word we use when we are all aware what we are referring to. Rational adults should be able to discuss important matters without getting overly emotional about words...well we'd hope so

You see that's the whole point. A lot of people are not rational when it comes to this subject and it causes such crap to be argued over again and again and again.

It's no wonder that rational people withdraw from the debate because it's so full of emotional over reaction on both sides.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

In fact (NB further personal speculation, anyone is free to disagree) I wonder if the father may not have been "encouraged" to see that he wasn't going to be allowed to win, because the legal repercussions in obstetric care and human rights for pregnant women would be enormous. Obviously it may not have been put to him in that way. IOW I'm not sure the state just "got lucky"..

. Indeed, I've wondered myself if Miss Y was 'encouraged' to abscond to another jurisdiction with the promise of a potential abortion only to find herself without the means to obtain what she wanted when she got there, just to serve someone's agenda. Still, it has to be said that if Mr Enright was advised that his unborn daughter only had such rights as are expressed in the Constitution, he was well advised.

volchitsa wrote: »

But on the actual point, it's untrue that the state has done or will do what you were implying, i.e., grant a legal existence to the unborn.

. That's a little disingenuous all the same though; that the unborn has a legal existence is beyond doubt. Given that they are not yet born though, the State has no reason to furnish them with a death certificate, which in no way obviates their legal existence.

eviltwin

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, they legally exist. They are assigned a right in the Constitution, they are protected by legislation, and have been provided counsel in Court actions. Not talking morally or philosophically. I'm not sure what distinctions you think are or ought to be made between an abortion or a miscarriage, but the very fact that you're using two different terms show you see a distinction.

They are two different things, of course there is a distinction

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

They are two different things, of course there is a distinction

It was your question in fairness;

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm curious from a legal point of view why a miscarriage isn't treated as a death but an abortion is. And I appreciate this probably makes no sense beyond my own musings but as someone who has experience of both its an interesting distinction.

If you can see a distinction, why wouldn't the law?

freshpopcorn

Often here and online I see people often talking about repealing the 8th amendment. Generally tough on social media it seems to be the same people discussing it it either wanting to keep it or remove it.
However the vibe I get from talking to people is different. I find a lot of people simply don't really care about it. I know a few people and they'd seem very liberal but they want to keep it. I also know people who want it gone.
If it was to go to a referendum I think it might be rather close.
However my question is if Ireland was to have a referendum about it and the keep side won. What would happen?
Edit: My question is would the repeal side accept the peoples decision?

Maximus Alexander

freshpopcorn wrote: »

However my question is if Ireland was to have a referendum about it and the keep side won. What would happen?

Nothing.

Discodog

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Nothing.

Until & if the EU Court of Human rights intervenes

Calhoun

Discodog wrote: »

Until & if the EU Court of Human rights intervenes

Question is would they really want to be seen to be messing with a counties constitution.

Europe is getting a scare the past while, the right hasn't had any big win really other than in the UK but they are getting close enough that change will have to be on the cards.

At a time when they need to assure the citizens of Europe that they are not an unelected group dictating how things happen it would be very unwise of them.

I am not saying that's how it should be but the macro environment may change the status quo under which they operate atm.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Jack the Stripper

Wouldn't a hard Brexit be grand.

Ken.

Threads merged.

AtomicHorror

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Edit: My question is would the repeal side accept the peoples decision?

Accept in what sense? Accept that the constitution and the law remain unchanged? Of course, but to do otherwise would be delusional. Accept in the sense of obeying the law? It is already circumvented by thousands every year, that won't change.

If you mean, would they call it a day on the repeal cause... no, why would they? When the repeal movement started, it was unpopular. By many measures, it still is. A failure to carry the referendum would just mean they're not done.

freshpopcorn

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Accept in what sense? Accept that the constitution and the law remain unchanged? Of course, but to do otherwise would be delusional. Accept in the sense of obeying the law? It is already circumvented by thousands every year, that won't change.

If you mean, would they call it a day on the repeal cause... no, why would they? When the repeal movement started, it was unpopular. By many measures, it still is. A failure to carry the referendum would just mean they're not done.

Thanks, for the reply. The reason I asked was because after the marriage referendum the NO campaign basically gave up apart from the odd appeal which you'll always get.
The repeal campaign often say Ireland is crying out for a referendum to change this law and it's what the Irish people want bur if the Irish people decided that they wanted to keep it.Would they have to admit they're in the minority.(I hope that makes sense)

Consonata

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Thanks, for the reply. The reason I asked was because after the marriage referendum the NO campaign basically gave up apart from the odd appeal which you'll always get.
The repeal campaign often say Ireland is crying out for a referendum to change this law and it's what the Irish people want bur if the Irish people decided that they wanted to keep it.Would they have to admit they're in the minority.(I hope that makes sense)

If you mean "accept the result of the referendum", then probably yes for a time, until the next one, as Ireland is wont to do.

It is only a matter of time until the laws on the matter change, I would just like to think that we have matured enough as a people to move past our fraught past.

Annasopra

Calhoun wrote: »

Question is would they really want to be seen to be messing with a counties constitution.

Europe is getting a scare the past while, the right hasn't had any big win really other than in the UK but they are getting close enough that change will have to be on the cards.

At a time when they need to assure the citizens of Europe that they are not an unelected group dictating how things happen it would be very unwise of them.

I am not saying that's how it should be but the macro environment may change the status quo under which they operate atm.

The European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU. It is entirely separate. There are 47 countries under it's jurisdiction as opposed to the EU with 27.

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Thanks, for the reply. The reason I asked was because after the marriage referendum the NO campaign basically gave up apart from the odd appeal which you'll always get.
The repeal campaign often say Ireland is crying out for a referendum to change this law and it's what the Irish people want bur if the Irish people decided that they wanted to keep it.Would they have to admit they're in the minority.(I hope that makes sense)

No. The Divorce action campaign didnt just give up after our first referendum.

Calhoun

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU. It is entirely separate. There are 47 countries under it's jurisdiction as opposed to the EU with 27.

Why hasnt it challenged Ireland on this before or has it?

B_Wayne

Calhoun wrote: »

Why hasnt it challenged Ireland on this before or has it?

They've been going after us for years on it.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/world/council-of-europe-closes-case-against-ireland-on-abortion-1.2025834%3Fmode%3Damp

1hnr79jr65

Hail Savita, who needed an abortion.
Died in state care, due to Catholic Church extortion.

Zubeneschamali

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The reason I asked was because after the marriage referendum the NO campaign basically gave up

Well, yes, but the NO campaign in that one was a bit of a joke, not anything principled or organized, and they were literally no worse off after they "lost" - what was there to fight for?

I think it will be the same with the 8th - when it is finally repealed, most people who voted to keep it will give up, because nothing much will change except in a few corner cases. All the talk of holocausts and baby-murder will evaporate (apart from a few street-corner preacher types with signs).

NuMarvel

Calhoun wrote: »

Why hasnt it challenged Ireland on this before or has it?

The European Court of Human Rights is like any other court and can only act on the basis of cases it hears. It can't proactively evaluate a country's laws to determine if they are in compliance with the Convention.

That said, Ireland's abortion laws have been the subject of at least three ECHR cases: Well Woman & Open Door in 1992, D v Ireland in 2006, and A,B, & C v Ireland in 2010.

Well Woman/Open Door related to the provision of information, and Ireland lost that case, with our laws as they were then being found to be a breach of the human rights granted by the Convention. That's at least part of the reason we held a referendum on access to information in 1992.

D v Ireland was about accessing abortion in the case of FFA, but the case was dismissed as Ms D hadn't gone through the courts in Ireland first, which is a requirement of bringing a case to the ECHR.

A, B, & C v Ireland was an amalgamation of cases brought by 3 separate women (referred to as Ms's A, B, and C) around accessing abortion in differing circumstances. A and B lost their cases, but C's rights were found to be breached as our laws didn't set out how the a woman could access a legal abortion in Ireland. In other words, there was no legislation for the X Case. The outcome of that was the introduction of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act in 2013.

In addition, the courts in Northern Ireland have found that their laws, which would be similar to ours, are also a breach of the Convention by not allowing access to abortion in cases of rape, incest, and FFA. That finding is being appealed, so it may change, and it doesn't directly apply to us. But at the same time, legislators would be remiss not to consider the finding when drafting post-repeal/change laws on abortion.