Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Our laws clearly prevent abortion ... otherwise, why do the pro-abortion lobby want the 8th repealed?

Because it affects women's healthcare in many other ways, such as women suffering miscarriages and women giving birth, whose rights are reduced by the 8th amendment.

This has all been discussed at length here, so I can't really believe you don't already know this.

As for freedom to travel for pregnant women, this is a basic human right that every pregnant woman should enjoy ... just like everyone else. If somebody chooses to use their freedom of travel to go and get an abortion (or any other service that is illegal in Ireland and legal elsewhere in Europe) ... then so be it ... that's how the European Common Market works.

Assisted suicide? Gail O'Rorke was prevented from traveling, in fact she was hauled up in court for trying to travel in that case.

It depends on what it is targeting them for.
If it's something negative, it doesn't sound like a good thing to me either.

We had a child put in a mental hospital against her and her mother's will recently, for asking for an abortion under the relevant section of POLDP.

J C

VonZan wrote: »

What gives you the moral authority to make decisions for others? Whatever your personal beliefs it takes a real sense of entitlement to think you can remove the choice from other people.

Society has every right to make laws that prevent wrong ... and killing an unborn child (when there are viable alternatives) is objectively wrong.

VonZan wrote: »

What difference to you does it make if someone goes to Liverpool or Dublin for an abortion?

The same difference that somebody injuring or killing somebody else in Ireland makes to me.

VonZan wrote: »

Why try and create real barriers for people for some artificial moral entitlement for everyone to abide by your beliefs despite the fact that it has no impact on you.

People aren't allowed to do as they please with their born children ... so why should they be allowed to kill their unborn children on demand?

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

Because it affects women's healthcare in many other ways, such as women suffering miscarriages and women giving birth, whose rights are reduced by the 8th amendment.

Miscarriage has nothing to do with procured abortion ... and the 8th has no effect on how it is treated.
Women who give birth aren't aborting ... so the 8th has no effect on them either.

volchitsa wrote: »

Assisted suicide? Gail O'Rorke was prevented from traveling, in fact she was hauled up in court for trying to travel in that case.

... links please.

volchitsa wrote: »

We had a child put in a mental hospital against her and her mother's will recently, for asking for an abortion under the relevant section of POLDP.

Sectioning is used to manage mental illness ... 99% of the time the person sectioned isn't pregnant.
Do you believe that sectioning shouldn't occur where it's determined by medical professionals that the person is a danger to themselves or others (whether they are pregnant or not)?

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Society has every right to make laws that prevent wrong ... and killing an unborn child (when there are viable alternatives) is objectively wrong.

The same difference that somebody injuring or killing somebody else makes to me.

Killing a person is objectively wrong - that's why we have trials when someone is kills somebody else. It is not enough just to tick a set of boxes on a list.

So if you are correct that killing an unborn child is wrong for the same reasons, why shouldn't there be a trial as there would be for a person?

Or are you using a variable set of measures here : a person when it suits your argument, and not a person when it doesn't?

People aren't allowed to do as they please with their born children ... so why should they be allowed to kill their unborn children on demand?

If a person showed signs of wanting to harm or kill their child, you agree that the child would not be returned without question a few weeks or months later?

So should a person who considers an abortion but is prevented from doing do by the law, then expect have the child removed from their care when it is born?

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

Killing a person is objectively wrong - that's why we have trials when someone is kills somebody else. It is not enough just to tick a set of boxes on a list.

So if you are correct that killing an unborn child is wrong for the same reasons, why shouldn't there be a trial as there would be for a person?

Or are you using a variable set of measures here : a person when it suits your argument, and not a person when it doesn't?

Procuring an abortion in Ireland is a criminal offense ... so there would be a trial to determine guilt, if an abortion was performed in Ireland (outside the POLDPA) ... and in other countries outside their abortion laws.
Why do you under line the word 'person' ?
The current maximum sentence for procured abortion in Ireland are on a par with manslaughter ... and abortion is proscribed by the Offenses Against the Person Act.

volchitsa wrote: »

If a person showed signs of wanting to harm or kill their child, you agree that the child would not be returned without question a few weeks or months later?

So should a person who considers an abortion but is prevented from doing do by the law, then expect have the child removed from their care when it is born?

It would all depend on whether they are showing signs of wanting to harm or kill their child, after its born - probably very few, if any.
I'd go as far as saying that people who abort are probably no greater risk to their born children, than people who don't abort. Do you have evidence one way or the other on this?

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Miscarriage has nothing to do with procured abortion ... and the 8th has no effect on how it is treated.
Women who give birth aren't aborting ... so the 8th has no effect on them either.

... links please.

It's been done here before, and is all available on here, but for example there's this : AIMS Ireland National Maternity Strategy/

Or this

While it is common knowledge about the restrictions on abortion which are as a result of the 8th’s stranglehold on the Irish medical system, the Maternity Strategy document is quite informative as to the more hidden effects of the 8th. Of particular interest is the section on consent, which can leave the reader under no illusions as to the impact of the 8th on consent in maternity care in Ireland.

“it is also more legally complex, as Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution recognises the right to life of the unborn, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother” (National Maternity Strategy, p77/78).

One such example in the public domain is the case of Mother A. In 2013 an application was made to the High Court by Waterford Regional Hospital to carry out a caesarean section on a mother against her consent, where there was no evidence of risk to the foetus. How many more women are being bullied to give their consent that don’t actually reach the courts? A 2014 survey commissioned by AIMS Ireland reported that less than half of all women questioned said they were given the opportunity to refuse consent to tests, procedures and treatments.

This is the culture of “consent” in our maternity services. Women want what is best for their babies, and for their own bodies. Women do their research and know what is acceptable to them in their care. Routinely, procedures and processes such as active management of labour, artificial rupture of membranes, episiotomy among others are carried out in Irish hospitals, often without giving the full risks and benefits to the mother before carrying them out, if consent is sought at all.

Women know these procedures are not international best practice, yet the consent policy states that should the hospital insist, women can be bullied using the threat of legal action into consenting to these procedures. That is not consent, it is coercion. It gives a very distressing message to the pregnant woman, that they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions about their bodies and their babies, once pregnant in Ireland with Article 40.3.3 on the books. Women are effectively in chains, handing over the keys to the State as soon as the blue lines appear on the pregnancy test.

Or look up Ciara Hamilton vs the HSE (she lost her case for malpractice even though the midwife nearly killed her and her baby by practicing a procedure called ARM during labour, precisely because her consent was not "really" necessary. Thanks to 40.3.3, as the NMS mentioned above sets out.)

J C wrote: »

Sectioning is used to manage mental illness ... 99% of the time the person sectioned isn't pregnant.
Do you believe that sectioning shouldn't occur where it's determined by medical professionals that the person is a danger to themselves or others?

Except that the Mental Health Act is the only procedure for legally sectioning someone, and it wasn't used in this case, either because the doctor is a dangerous incompetent or because it didn't apply.

So instead, POLDP was used to put someone in a psychiatric ward, completely outside of the legal framework for doing so.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Procuring an abortion in Ireland is a criminal offense ... so there would be a trial to determine guilt, if an abortion was performed in Ireland (outside the POLDPA) ... and in other countries outside their abortion laws.
Why do you under line the word 'person' ?
The current maximum sentence for procured abortion in Ireland are on a par with manslaughter ... and abortion is proscribed by the Offenses Against the Person Act.

It would all depend on whether they are showing signs of wanting to harm or kill their child, after its born - probably very few, if any.
I'd go as far as saying that people who abort are probably no greater risk to their born children, than people who don't abort. Do you have evidence one way or the other on this?

So you are indeed considering the unborn as a person when it suits you (when you assert that it is objectively wrong to kill it for example) but you pretend not to notice the logical consequences of that claim whenever it doesn't suit you.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

It's been done here before, and is all available on here, but for example there's this : AIMS Ireland National Maternity Strategy/

If the document is about what it says on the cover ... 'Making a better Future Together' i.e. for both the mother and her child then the 8th will have no effect on it ... and I would welcome any initiatives that make a better future together for mothers (and fathers) and their children in Ireland.

volchitsa wrote: »

Except that the Mental Health Act is the only procedure for legally sectioning someone, and it wasn't used in this case, either because the doctor is a dangerous incompetent or because it didn't apply.

So instead, POLDP was used to put someone in a psychiatric ward, completely outside of the legal framework for doing so.

The question remains whether you believe that somebody who is determined by mental health professionals to be a substantive danger to themselves or others (whether pregnant of not) should be sectioned?
... and I note that you haven't answered this question.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

So you are indeed considering the unborn as a person when it suits you (when you assert that it is objectively wrong to kill it for example) but you pretend not to notice the logical consequences of that claim whenever it doesn't suit you.

I believe in the personhood of unborn human beings ... we don't magically become persons when we are born ... and are 'non-persons' before birth.

The fact that jurisdictions that allow legal abortion create a legal fiction that the unborn are non-persons, in order to legally facilitate abortions, doesn't mean that they aren't actually persons.

The Offenses Against the Person Act proscribes procured abortion in Ireland ... and the 'person' protected from being aborted in the Act is the unborn child.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

So you are indeed considering the unborn as a person when it suits you (when you assert that it is objectively wrong to kill it for example) but you pretend not to notice the logical consequences of that claim whenever it doesn't suit you.

Where do I not notice the logical consequences of the person-hood of the unborn, whenever it doesn't suit me?

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

If the document is really about what it says on the cover ... 'Making a better Future Together' i.e. for both mother and child then the 8th will have no effect on it ... and I would welcome any initiatives to make a better future together for mothers (and fathers) and their children.

You're just making stuff up here, the National Maternity Strategy itself actually says that 40.3.3 reduces birthing women's rights for their consent to be necessary.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

The question remains whether you believe that somebody who is determined by mental health professionals to be a substantive danger to themselves or others (whether pregnant of not) should be sectioned?
... and I note that you haven't answered this question.

The fact that you seem to think I haven't answered probably showshow little you understand of the process : a MH professional can't just section someone on a whim - there is a legal procedure to follow, outside which the person can be deemed to have been illegally detained, no matter who was behind the "sectioning". That procedure is in the MHA not POLDPA. The latter has no clause for sectioning a woman instead of granting her an abortion.

If she was deemed to require sectioning, then the MHA needed to be applied, and it wasn't. One has to assume this is because she didnt fulfill the criteria. The second opinion called in by her Guardian also confirms that.

So your question about sectioning someone who is a danger to themselves or others is moot. An absolute priority must be to ensure that "mental health" can't be used as an alibi for locking up difficult cases, the way the Soviet Union used to, or as the Irish health service now seems to.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Where do I not notice the logical consequences of the person-hood of the unborn, whenever it doesn't suit me?

Ok, start at the beginning.

You said it was an objective wrong to kill the unborn.

Could you explain why? It isn't obvious to me.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

I believe in the personhood of unborn human beings ... we don't magically become persons when we are born ... and are 'non-persons' before birth.

The fact that jurisdictions that allow legal abortion create a legal fiction that the unborn are non-persons, in order to legally facilitate abortions, doesn't mean that they aren't actually persons.

The Offenses Against the Person Act proscribes procured abortion in Ireland ... and the 'person' protected from being aborted in the Act is the unborn child.

But the unborn child is not legally a person.
it doesnt have a pssport, a PPE number, or an identity at all.
The recent SC case cleared thwt up I would have thought.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

You're just making stuff up here, the National Maternity Strategy itself actually says that 40.3.3 reduces birthing women's rights for their consent to be necessary.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

I'm looking at photo of a young mother clearly loving and caring for her child ... and the title of the document is 'Creating a Better Future Together'.
If it is proposed that abortion on demand is part of the 'future together' ... this is a logical contradiction ... because abortion makes any future together or otherwise impossible ... and it's objectively not 'better' for the unborn children killed by these abortions ... and its also not 'better', for the mothers who subsequently deeply regret their abortions.

volchitsa wrote: »

The fact that you seem to think I haven't answered probably showshow little you understand of the process : a MH professional can't just section someone on a whim - there is a legal procedure to follow, outside which the person can be deemed to have been illegally detained, no matter who was behind the "sectioning". That procedure is in the MHA not POLDPA. The latter has no clause for sectioning a woman instead of granting her an abortion.

If she was deemed to require sectioning, then the MHA needed to be applied, and it wasn't. One has to assume this is because she didnt fulfill the criteria. The second opinion called in by her Guardian also confirms that.

So your question about sectioning someone who is a danger to themselves or others is moot. An absolute priority must be to ensure that "mental health" can't be used as an alibi for locking up difficult cases, the way the Soviet Union used to, or as the Irish health service now seems to.

If a woman is undergoing a mental health crisis where she is a threat to herself ... she should be sectioned until the crisis is treated or otherwise passes ... or are you saying that if she is pregnant, she should be aborted anyway ... whether or not the pregnancy is the reason for her mental health issues?

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

I'm looking at photo of a young mother clearly loving and caring for her child ... and the title of the document is 'Creating a Better Future Together'.
If it is proposed that abortion on demand is part of the 'future together' ... this is a logical contradiction ... because abortion makes any future together or otherwise impossible ... and it's objectively not 'better' for the unborn children killed by these abortions ... and its also not 'better', for the mothers who subsequently deeply regret their abortions.

The claim that access to termination of pregnancy is not a necessary part of health services for women is a lie.

It is prolife propaganda which tries to sneak Catholic "double intention" theology into secular law without acknowledging it.

Savitta Hallappanavar needed an abortion, and so do women who have ectopic pregnancies or other crises.

As for women who may regret their abortions, people may regret all sorts of things, but that doesnt mean they should be banned for everyone else.

... we cannot have it both ways ... if a woman is undergoing a mental health crisis where she is a threat to herself ... she should be sectioned until the crisis is treated or otherwise passes ... or are you saying that if she is pregnant, she should be aborted ... whether the pregnancy is the reason or not for her mental health issues?

No. None of that.

People should not be sectioned if they don't meet the carefully thought out requirements in the MHA. It's really not that hard to understand.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

Ok, start at the beginning.

You said it was an objective wrong to kill the unborn.

Could you explain why? It isn't obvious to me.

Unborn children are tiny vulnerable human beings entitled to continue living ... like all human beings. That is why it is objectively wrong to kill them, except for very serious reasons and where there is no viable alternative.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Unborn children are tiny vulnerable human beings entitled to continue living and growing ... like all human beings.

Except when you think they're not, right?

Or should the Morning After Pill and the IUD be outlawed too?

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

The claim that access to termination of pregnancy is not a necessary part of health services for women is a lie.

It is prolife propaganda which tries to sneak Catholic "double intention" theology into secular law without acknowledging it.

Nobody is saying that abortion isn't necessary to save a woman's life ... just that abortion on demand isn't justifiable.

volchitsa wrote: »

Savitta Hallappanavar needed an abortion, and so do women who have ectopic pregnancies or other crises.

... and the POLDPA allows such healthcare ... which is perfectly within the spirit and the letter of the 8th.

volchitsa wrote: »

As for women who may regret their abortions, people may regret all sorts of things, but that doesnt mean they should be banned for everyone else.

You are correct ... but the primary reason for limiting abortion is the effect it has on the unborn child (death) ... women who regret their abortions is another reason for limiting abortion.

volchitsa wrote: »

No. None of that.

People should not be sectioned if they don't meet the carefully thought out requirements in the MHA. It's really not that hard to understand.

So, where a mother is suicidal the MHA should be used to section her ... and then consideration under the POLDPA can be given to aborting her 9if the pregnancy is the reason for her mental health issues) ... or inducing her, if the baby is viable?
I see on issue with that ... do you?

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Nobody is saying that abortion isn't necessary to save a woman's life ... just that abortion on demand isn't justifiable.

Actually the Dublin Declaration said exactly that. None of the signatories seem prepared to stand over it now though, which rather discredits their current claims to know when abortion is necessary.

... and the POLDPA allows such healthcare ... which is perfectly within the spirit and the letter of the 8th.

In theory. As Savitta found to her cost.
And then there is the question of why a miscarrying woman should have to end up infertile or in constant pain - is her health not also worth preserving, as much as her life?

You are correct ... but the primary reason for limiting abortion is the effect it has on the unborn child (death) ... women who regret their abortions is another reason for limiting abortion.

But you still havent explained why you think killing the embryo or foetus is wrong in some cases but not others (MAP or IUD for instance)

So, where a mother is suicidal the MHA should be used to section her ... and then consideration under the POLDPA can be given to aborting her ... or inducing her, if the baby is viable?
I see on issue with that ... do you?

I've no idea what you are suggesting here, nor how it would be legal.
Are you saying that any woman who asks for an abortion under section 9 of POLDPA should potentially be sectioned first just for saying she was suicidal?

Pretty sure that little wheeze won't get past the various Human Rights agreements we've signed.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

But the unborn child is not legally a person.
it doesnt have a pssport, a PPE number, or an identity at all.
The recent SC case cleared thwt up I would have thought.

The unborn are 'persons' under the Offenses Against the Person Act.

What the Supreme Court has confirmed is that the unborn have no constitutional rights, other than the right to life in the 8th. So in relation to their lives, they are 'persons' ... but not for any other constitutional rights.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

In theory. As Savitta found to her cost.
And then there is the question of why a miscarrying woman should have to end up infertile or in constant pain - is her health not also worth preserving, as much as her life?

Abortions can also cause problems with carrying any future pregnancy to term, if for example, it compromises the cervix. If a woman is miscarrying because her child is dead, the 8th has no effect. A mothers health is obviously worth preserving ... and where the health issue is so serious as to threaten her life the POLDPA is available ... and where the health issue is more minor, it will likely resolve once the pregnacy comes to term and can be treated in-between. Where it is a health issue, that is not related to her pregnancy, it can be treated even if the unborn child dies as a result.

volchitsa wrote: »

But you still havent explained why you think killing the embryo or foetus is wrong in some cases but not others (MAP or IUD for instance).

MAP and IUDs are potentially abortifascient ... and are used where a pregnancy hasn't been determined to be present. They are on the borderline between contraception and abortion ... and as such, don't fall foul of the 8th.

Going beyond the MAP is aborting a pregnacy that is known to exist and falls into the definition of procured abortion ... which is proscribed by Statute Law and the 8th.
It is precisely the 'slippery slope' (they tolerated this, so why will they not now tolerate that) which worried people, when the MAP was allowed ... and now you are proving these fears to be well founded ... by attempting to use a pill taken the morning after sex, to now justify abortion on demand up to 12 weeks ... and up to 24 weeks for defined cases and up to term in other cases.

volchitsa wrote: »

I've no idea what you are suggesting here, nor how it would be legal.
Are you saying that any woman who asks for an abortion under section 9 of POLDPA should potentially be sectioned first just for saying she was suicidal?

Pretty sure that little wheeze won't get past the various Human Rights agreements we've signed.

If somebody is assessed by mental health professionals to be a risk to themselves or others, they can (and should) be sectioned under the MHA until the acute risk passes ... this logically applies to everyone, whether they are pregnant or not.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Abortions can also cause problems with carrying any future pregnancy to term, if for example, it compromises the cervix. If a woman is miscarrying because her child is dead, the 8th has no effect. A mothers health is obviously worth preserving ... and where the health issue is so serious as to threaten her life the POLDPA is available ... and where the health issue is more minor, it will likely resolve once the pregnacy comes to term and can be treated in-between. Where it is a health issue, that is not related to her pregnancy, it can be treated even if the unborn child dies as a result.

You're making most of this up, as far as I can tell. The law excludes women's health as a reason for intervening, and the reality of women's testimonies some of which were posted here, is that even when the fetus is dead, doctors are afraid to intervene surgically because occasionally a very weak, slow heart beat may be detected after the birth.

If you have evidence that treatment unrelated to the pregnancy can be given you should post it up : the distinction you make is a religious one of double intent, which doesn't exist in the law.

MAP and IUDs are potentially abortifascient ... and are used where a pregnancy hasn't been determined to be present. They are on the borderline between contraception and abortion ... and as such, don't fall foul of the 8th.

No, they don't fall foul of it because it was carefully redefined to allow the destruction of the embryo in such cases, ie before implantation.

But for anyone whose objection is based on the claim that life begins at fertilization, destroying such an embryo is morally the same as destroying an implanted one.

I don't think not knowing if someone is in a house you set fire to is a legal defence if someone dies. Not knowing if you are pregnant (assuming you are aware you had sex) is morally the same - if as you seem to believe, the fertilized egg is a person. If it is not, then when does it become a person?

Going beyond the MAP is aborting a pregnacy that is known to exist and falls into the definition of procured abortion ... which is proscribed by Statute Law and the 8th.
It is precisely the 'slippery slope' (they tolerated this, so why will they not now tolerate that) which worried people, when the MAP was allowed ... and now you are proving these fears to be well founded ... by attempting to use a pill taken the morning after, to now justify abortion on demand up to 12 weeks ... and up to 24 weeks for defined cases.

Well that's your fault for choosing a point of personhood and then thinking you can justify ignoring it whenever it suits you.

Not so much a slippery slope as pointing out the failures of prolife logic.

If somebody is determined to be a risk to themselves or others, they can (and should) be sectioned under the MHA until the acute risk passes ... this logically applies to everyone, whether they are pregnant or not.

Of course. But that is not the case under POLDPA.

The girl who was put in a locked psychiatric ward was not deemed to come under the MHA, so this explanation cannot be accepted in her case. So Ireland is still guilty of locking up "undesirables" and of abusing psychiatric hospitals to do so.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

You're making most of this up, as far as I can tell. The law excludes women's health as a reason for intervening, and the reality of women's testimonies some of which were posted here, is that even when the fetus is dead, doctors are afraid to intervene surgically because occasionally a very weak, slow heart beat may be detected after the birth.

... so you are expecting the people to vote for unrestricted abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and later for specified cases ... because doctors are standing by afraid to intervene when an unborn child is dead and there a slight heartbeat. I think that a law (or a medical protocol) could easily be drafted to remove any doubts about medical issues around dead unborn children ... and it wouldn't be affected by the 8th.

volchitsa wrote: »

If you have evidence that treatment unrelated to the pregnancy can be given you should post it up : the distinction you make is a religious one of double intent, which doesn't exist in the law.

Once again, a law (or a medical protocol) could easily be drafted to remove any doubts about medical issues around treatment for non-pregnancy related treatments for pregnant women ... and it wouldn't be affected by the 8th.

volchitsa wrote: »

No, they don't fall foul of it because it was carefully redefined to allow the destruction of the embryo in such cases, ie before implantation.

When did this happen?
I don't think that you are correct about this.

volchitsa wrote: »

But for anyone whose objection is based on the claim that life begins at fertilization, destroying such an embryo is morally the same as destroying an implanted one.

It is a Scientific fact that all new life starts at the moment of fertilization ... and this applies to everything from frogs to birds to human beings ... and all sexually reproducing organisms.

The next question is when does the law offer protection to a living being.
In the case of frogs, birds and other wildlife, the law protects their lives at all stages from fertilization to natural or accidental death.

In the case of human beings, Irish Law currently offers protection from fertilization until natural or accidental death. The only exception is where the human being must be killed to prevent the death of another ... this is enshrined in the 8th in relation to unborn human beings ... and in Common and Statute Law in relation to born human beings.

In other countries protection is legally removed from unborn human beings for various stated reasons and at various stages between fertilization and birth ... to facilitate procured abortion.

If the 8th is repealed and abortion as proposed is introduced, we will be in the bizarre situation that frogspawn will have absolute legal protection and unborn human beings will have no rights and no legal protection, up to 12 weeks and beyond.

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think not knowing if someone is in a house you set fire to is a legal defence if someone dies. Not knowing if you are pregnant (assuming you are aware you had sex) is morally the same - if as you seem to believe, the fertilized egg is a person. If it is not, then when does it become a person?

... not knowing somebody was in a house, wouldn't be a defense, if somebody died as a result of arson ... but you would need to prove that somebody did die ... and that is the legal loophole that keeps the MAP and IUDs legal. Nobody can prove, one way or the other whether there is a pregnancy present.
Like I have said, they are on the borderline between contraception and abortion - and are legal, as a result.

volchitsa wrote: »

Well that's your fault for choosing a point of personhood and then thinking you can justify ignoring it whenever it suits you.

Not so much a slippery slope as pointing out the failures of prolife logic.

There is definitely a slippery slope ... for example, you are now asking people to approve procured abortion on the basis that abortificient contraception is already available in Ireland.

volchitsa wrote: »

Of course. But that is not the case under POLDPA.

The girl who was put in a locked psychiatric ward was not deemed to come under the MHA, so this explanation cannot be accepted in her case. So Ireland is still guilty of locking up "undesirables" and of abusing psychiatric hospitals to do so.

I think you are drawing unwarranted conclusions. The facts seem to be that this young woman was suicidal and pregnant and it was decided by mental health professionals to detain her in a psychiatric hospital. How she was detained is unclear ... but as you have said, yourself, she could/should have been sectioned under the MHA if she was so acutely ill as to be a threat to herself or others, whether she was pregnant or not.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

... so you are expecting the people to vote for unrestricted abortion on demand up to 12 weeks and later for specified cases ... because doctors are standing by afraid to intervene when an unborn child is dead and there a slight heartbeat. I think that a law (or a medical protocol) could easily be drafted to remove any doubts about medical issues around the death of unborn children ... and it wouldn't be affected by the 8th.

Once again, a law (or a medical protocol) could easily be drafted to remove any doubts about medical issues around treatment for non-pregnancy related issues ... and it wouldn't be affected by the 8th.

Oddly in the 3 decades since it was predicted by the AG that this couldn't be done, well, umm, it hasnt been done.

I think that alone shows that your sudden attack of optimism is nonsense.

When did this happen?
I don't think that you are correct about this.

It was the Roche judgment, over whether IVF embryos were included in the right to life afforded by the 8th. https://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1215/125382-embryo/

And yes I am correct.

It is a Scientific fact that all new life starts at the moment of fertilization ... and this applies to everything from Frogs to Birds to Human Beings ... and all sexually reproducing organisms.

The next question is when does the law offer protection to a living being.
In the case of Frogs, Birds and other wildlife, the law protects their lives at all stages from fertilization to natural or accidental death.

In the case of Human Beings, Irish Law currently offers protection from fertilization until natural or accidental death. The only exception is where the Human Being must be killed to prevent the death of another ... this is enshrined in the 8th in relation to unborn Human Beings ... and in Common and Statute Law in relation to born Human Beings.

Except it doesn't. As I showed above.

In other countries protection is legally removed from unborn Human Beings for various stated reasons and at various stages between fertilization and birth ... to facilitate procured abortion.

... it wouldn't be a defense, if somebody died as a result of arson ... but you would need to prove that somebody did die ... and that is the legal loophole that keeps the MAP and IUDs legal. Nobody can prove, one way or the other whether there is a pregnancy present.
Like I have said, they are on the borderline between contraception and abortion.

Seems very careless of human life - surely if one really thought these were people, the precautionary principle should apply and these products should just be banned in case there is a person there?

I'm not suggesting a woman should be put on trial for taking one, but they could be banned from import, like the abortion pill. Just in case. If we can do without abortion, we can do without the MAP too?

You wouldn't allow someone to continue year after year being reckless with people's lives after they know there might be someone there?

There is definitely a slippery slope ... and you are now asking people to approve procured abortion on the basis that abortificient contraception is already available in Ireland.

Not asking anything, just pointing out the contradictions in prolife arguments.
That is what debate is about, after all.

I think you are drawing unwarranted conclusions. The facts seem to be that this young woman was suicidal and pregnant and it was decided by mental health professionals to detain her in a psychiatric hospital. How she was detained is unclear ... but as you have said, she could have been sectioned under the MHA if she was so acutely ill as to be a threat to herself or others.

But she wasn't. You do know that someone can't be sectioned against their will merely for being suicidal, right?

Someone with a clear, non-imagined reason for being suicidal (diagnosis of a very serious illness for example, or major distress over an unwanted pregnancy) is not liable to come under MHA criteria for being sectioned. They need to be seen not to be able to think logically about their problems.

Being suicidal over a sprained ankle probably seems unreasonabke, but if the person is a dancer, with a major competition or show coming up, something essential for their career, it may be. In that case one has to reason with them, and if necessary try to get them to accept hospitalization with their consent.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

Oddly in the 3 decades since it was predicted by the AG that this couldn't be done, well, umm, it hasnt been done.

I think that alone shows that your sudden attack of optimism is nonsense.

Where there is a will there is a way ... and it is totally unreasonable to demand that abortion on demand by allowed because nobody is apparently able to draft a medical protocol to define what is to be done when an unborn child is dead in utero ... or where a woman needs necessary medical treatment and is pregnant.
Of course the fact that D & Cs or medical inductions are routinely used where unborn children are found to be dead, indicates that the issue is addressed under the 8th de facto if not de jure.

volchitsa wrote: »

It was the Roche judgment, over whether IVF embryos were included in the right to life afforded by the 8th. https://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1215/125382-embryo/

And yes I am correct.

... there was an attempt to pass an amendment to the 8th do this ... and when this failed to pass ... this judgement was then made.
... so, as far as the courts are concerned, the 8th does exactly what it says on the tin ... protects unborn human life ... but only in so far as practicable and with due regard to the life of the mother.
It strikes a perfect balance IMO ... and we repeal it at great peril, because the courts have interpreted the rights of the unborn as tightly as possible ... and politicians may have their efforts at legislation, liberal and all as their proposals are ... further liberalized by the Supreme Court, if the 8th is removed.

volchitsa wrote: »

Except it doesn't. As I showed above.

Fair point, that it doesn't protect human beings when they are artificially produced and the whole area of the production of human embryos for scientific experimentation also need to be addressed in legislation if not in the constitution.
Something separate from the abortion issue ... and something that may need to be revisited and legislated on.

volchitsa wrote: »

Seems very careless of human life - surely if one really thought these were people, the precautionary principle should apply and these products should just be banned in case there is a person there?

Morally speaking you are correct ... legally speaking the 8th was deemed to not provide protection.
The same would be true if somebody burned down a house with no regard to whether somebody was killed in the arson. They would only be legally charged with arson, if it couldn't be proven that anybody was killed ... but they would be morally guilty of recklessness as to whether somebody could have been killed by their actions.

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm not suggesting a woman should be put on trial for taking one, but they could be banned from import, like the abortion pill. Just in case. If we can do without abortion, we can do without the MAP too?

Quite true ... but we are where we are on the 'slippery slope' towards abortion on demand ... and we are now being asked to metaphorically 'jump over an abortion cliff' ... to approve abortion on demand up to 12 weeks ... and with a few medical formalities, beyond 12 weeks.

volchitsa wrote: »

You wouldn't allow someone to continue year after year being reckless with people's lives after they know there might be someone there?

Quite true ... and you are now starting to make pro-life points against the liberalization of abortion ... the point that recklessness in regard to sexual conduct (for example, engaging in unprotected sex) shouldn't be rewarded by society with abortion on demand ... or abortion as 'contraception'.
People sometimes need to be held responsible for their actions ... especially where other human lives are involved.

volchitsa wrote: »

Not asking anything, just pointing out the contradictions in prolife arguments.
That is what debate is about, after all.

The point you are making is that the Irish people should now approve procured abortion on the basis that abortificient contraception is already available in Ireland. This is the classic 'slippery slope' in action.

volchitsa wrote: »

But she wasn't. You do know that someone can't be sectioned against their will merely for being suicidal, right?

If they are suicidal to the point where it can be determined that they are a threat to themselves ... they can be sectioned ... or ideally, voluntarily admitted for treatment.

volchitsa wrote: »

Someone with a clear, non-imagined reason for being suicidal (diagnosis of a very serious illness for example, or major distress over an unwanted pregnancy) is not liable to come under MHA criteria for being sectioned. They need to be seen not to be able to think logically about their problems.

If they were thinking rationally about their problems, they wouldn't be suicidal, doubly so, if the issue causing their stress is transient or temporary.

volchitsa wrote: »

Being suicidal over a sprained ankle probably seems unreasonabke, but if the person is a dancer, with a major competition or show coming up, something essential for their career, it may be. In that case one has to reason with them, and if necessary try to get them to accept hospitalization with their consent.

... I think that if somebody is actually suicidal ... and this can be determined beyond doubt ... they may have to be sectioned, to give them a 'breathing space' to allow the issue stressing them to be addressed or medically treated.

volchitsa

Look you clearly don't know the law on mental health and sectioning people, yet you areconvinced that it says what you want it to say.

On the grounds that you can only bring a horse to water, there's no point in me continuing this discussion.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

Look you clearly don't know the law on mental health and sectioning people, yet you areconvinced that it says what you want it to say.

On the grounds that you can only bring a horse to water, there's no point in me continuing this discussion.

Its a free country ... and you don't have to engage in any discussion ... but please don't try and use the argument that your opponent doesn't understand something, to withdraw yourself.

The obvious thing to do, is to point out where I'm wrong ... if I am.

Moonmumbler

J C wrote: »

It boils down to whether you think that killing an unborn child is the right answer for an unwanted pregnancy. The overwhelming majority of abortions are carried out because of an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy where both the mother and her child are perfectly healthy.

... I am not directly impacted by many wrongs being done elsewhere ... but this doesn't make the wrongs right ... and it certainly doesn't mean that we should change the laws and incentives helping to prevent the wrongs.

Unfortunately it is not ethical to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy either.

It's not about the rights and wrongs of a law but about practicalities. The only reason Ireland can have this debate is because it is outsourcing abortion provision abroad.

Backstreet botched abortions are something many people of an older generation can remember. For younger generations there are still issues of women returning with complications from abroad. I met young medical students who have become pro-choice from having seen so many young women in A+E after returning from abroad. This is hardly ethical either. If there are complications with abortion they should be at home and not have to travel. This is a medical issue.

No one who is pro-choice thinks this is a matter to be celebrated. We don't gleefully will the "killing" of the unborn. It's just some of us have the courage to realise what the situation entails and what needs to be done to do right by our women in a difficult circumstance.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Look you clearly don't know the law on mental health and sectioning people, yet you areconvinced that it says what you want it to say.

On the grounds that you can only bring a horse to water, there's no point in me continuing this discussion.

Its a free country ... and you don't have to engage in any discussion ... but please don't try and use the argument that your opponent doesn't understand something, to withdraw yourself.

The obvious thing to do, is to point out where I'm wrong ... if I am.

I did, several times. You keep insisting that the law allows something it doesn't.

Moonmumbler

J C wrote: »

Quite true ... and you are now starting to make pro-life points against the liberalization of abortion ... the point that recklessness in regard to sexual conduct (for example, engaging in unprotected sex) shouldn't be rewarded by society with abortion on demand ... or abortion as 'contraception'.
People sometimes need to be held responsible for their actions ... especially where other human lives are involved.

Abortion "on demand" is the only practical way to legislate for abortion. A woman can't wait weeks for a jury to decide her fate if impregnated via rape, for example. And from a moral perspective there is no difference between a foetus conceived through rape or by accident from the unborn's point of view. But there is no morality in forcing women to be "held responsible for their actions" and to have to carry a pregnancy to term. And what a bizarre point of view!

Who are you to judge? Who is anyone? Who is to say that one's actions do not negatively impact on others, maybe even resulting in deaths? It isn't worth the pain caused to so many women in this country to feel morally superior about abortion. As far as I can see, the world isn't perfect yet.

J C

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Unfortunately it is not ethical to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy either.

It is ethical to legally 'force' people to not kill. Most people don't do so, of their own accord.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

It's not about the rights and wrongs of a law but about practicalities. The only reason Ireland can have this debate is because it is outsourcing abortion provision abroad.

Not at all ... some women travel to England for abortions alright ... but Ireland historically had anti-abortion legislation at the same time as England had similar legislation.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Backstreet botched abortions are something many people of an older generation can remember. For younger generations there are still issues of women returning with complications from abroad. I met young medical students who have become pro-choice from having seen so many young women in A+E after returning from abroad. This is hardly ethical either. If there are complications with abortion they should be at home and not have to travel. This is a medical issue.

It sounds like there is a significant risk of complications from abortion, whether it is 'backstreet' or medically induced. The answer is obviously 'don't do it'. It will save the baby's life as well as ensuring that the mother doesn't suffer both mental and physical 'complications'.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

No one who is pro-choice thinks this is a matter to be celebrated. We don't gleefully will the "killing" of the unborn. It's just some of us have the courage to realise what the situation entails and what needs to be done to do right by our women in a difficult circumstance.

It isn't 'right' for either the women or unborn children involved.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

It is ethical to legally 'force' people to not kill. Most people don't do so, of their own accord.

But somehow not ethical to stop them from travelling to kill, so how does that work?

J C

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Abortion "on demand" is the only practical way to legislate for abortion. A woman can't wait weeks for a jury to decide her fate if impregnated via rape, for example. And from a moral perspective there is no difference between a foetus conceived through rape or by accident from the unborn's point of view. But there is no morality in forcing women to be "held responsible for their actions" and to have to carry a pregnancy to term. And what a bizarre point of view!

The MAP is a routine part of medical treatment for cases of rape or sexual assault ... so abortion shouldn't be necessary.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Who are you to judge? Who is anyone? Who is to say that one's actions do not negatively impact on others, maybe even resulting in deaths? It isn't worth the pain caused to so many women in this country to feel morally superior about abortion. As far as I can see, the world isn't perfect yet.

The world will never be perfect ... nor will any of us be perfect.
However, respecting human life is a very basic thing to do.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

But somehow not ethical to stop them from travelling to kill, so how does that work?

it is not ethical to stop people travelling ... what they get up to in another European country is their own business ... once the don't break the laws of the country they are visiting.

Pretty basic stuff as well.

FrancieBrady

J C wrote: »

The world will never be perfect ... nor will any of us be perfect.
However, respecting human life is a very basic thing to do.

Respecting the fact that others believe different things than you do, is a very basic thing to do as well.

That has been very hard to accept for many in Ireland. But thankfully that is changing.

Moonmumbler

J C wrote: »

The world will never be perfect ... nor will any of us be perfect.
However, respecting human life is a very basic thing to do.

I agree but do you know if you are doing that on a daily basis? Do you shop ethically, for example? And how about respecting a woman's decision to do what she wants with her own body?

And you shouldn't talk about "killing" the unborn when it is not the same as killing someone who is born already otherwise you are on the "slippery slope" of imprisoning women who have had miscarriages as they do in El Salvador.

It's so easy for people who are "pro-life" to think this is such a simple issue, that it is only about the life/death of the unborn, to keep abortion illegal and yet not enact any laws against "offenders". To graciously allow women to travel abroad for abortion but, sure, Ireland is abortion free! It's cloud cuckoo land.

Frito

Volchitsa is correct, suicidality alone is not grounds for detention. The 2001 Act is clear that it's a nature and degree argument.
Firstly, you must be suffering from a mental illness that would materially benefit from treatment in an approved centre (nature).
Secondly, because of the mental illness, there is a risk of harm to the person/others, or, the person's judgment is so impaired that they cannot act in their best interests (degree).

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/25/enacted/en/html

Whilst suicidality can be viewed as a degree of mental illness, it can't be viewed as a nature of mental illness. A person needs to be mentally ill AND suicidal.
As detention in an approved centre must materially benefit the person, a woman who is suicidal because she does not want to continue her pregnancy will not be materially benefitted by involuntary detention, simply because approved centres cannot terminate pregnancies.

sean635

Hi guys. New to this thread.

So basically I’m against abortion in all cases except where the woman’s life is at risk. I just think it’s morally wrong. However I’m open to having my mind changed if I was to hear a convincing arguement.

end of the road

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Unfortunately it is not ethical to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy either.

it's even more unethical to allow an unborn child to be killed just because a woman doesn't want to be pregnant though.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

It's not about the rights and wrongs of a law but about practicalities.

it will ultimately be about what is the right or wrong thing to allow to happen in the majority of cases though. but allowing for the practicalities where genuinely necessary as well. that is how many will see this issue.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

The only reason Ireland can have this debate is because it is outsourcing abortion provision abroad.

i disagree. it's not outsourcing anything, women are simply availing of a service that isn't availible. i would think that for it to constitute genuine outsourcing, the government would have contracts with the various agencies in the uk who cary out abortions.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Backstreet botched abortions are something many people of an older generation can remember. For younger generations there are still issues of women returning with complications from abroad. I met young medical students who have become pro-choice from having seen so many young women in A+E after returning from abroad. This is hardly ethical either. If there are complications with abortion they should be at home and not have to travel. This is a medical issue.

no different to many of us becoming pro-life after realising the realities of abortion. people form their views based on various things.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

No one who is pro-choice thinks this is a matter to be celebrated. We don't gleefully will the "killing" of the unborn. It's just some of us have the courage to realise what the situation entails and what needs to be done to do right by our women in a difficult circumstance.

so exactly the same as pro-life. however, pro-life are of the same viewpoint for both, rather then just the woman.

end of the road

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Abortion "on demand" is the only practical way to legislate for abortion. A woman can't wait weeks for a jury to decide her fate if impregnated via rape, for example. And from a moral perspective there is no difference between a foetus conceived through rape or by accident from the unborn's point of view. But there is no morality in forcing women to be "held responsible for their actions" and to have to carry a pregnancy to term. And what a bizarre point of view!

Who are you to judge? Who is anyone? Who is to say that one's actions do not negatively impact on others, maybe even resulting in deaths? It isn't worth the pain caused to so many women in this country to feel morally superior about abortion. As far as I can see, the world isn't perfect yet.

many of us would disagree and believe that outside genuine medical circumstances there is morality in forcing the woman not to kill her unborn child given that we do the exact same with the same woman and the same child once born.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Respecting the fact that others believe different things than you do, is a very basic thing to do as well.

That has been very hard to accept for many in Ireland. But thankfully that is changing.

there is respecting that someone believes something different to me, and then there is me agreeing to allow what they believe, to be allowed to happen. i respect people's right to believe whatever they like, but there will be certain beliefs that i would never vote to allow to happen if given an opportunity to do so.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

I agree but do you know if you are doing that on a daily basis? Do you shop ethically, for example? And how about respecting a woman's decision to do what she wants with her own body?

And you shouldn't talk about "killing" the unborn when it is not the same as killing someone who is born already otherwise you are on the "slippery slope" of imprisoning women who have had miscarriages as they do in El Salvador.

It's so easy for people who are "pro-life" to think this is such a simple issue, that it is only about the life/death of the unborn, to keep abortion illegal and yet not enact any laws against "offenders". To graciously allow women to travel abroad for abortion but, sure, Ireland is abortion free! It's cloud cuckoo land.

i'd imagine most people on the pro-life side do respect a woman's decision to do what she wants with her own body. however, in the situation where an abortion is to happen, there are 2 bodies involved, the mother and the unborn. one will talk about the killing of the unborn, because whether you like it or not, that is what an abortion does. stating that doesn't mean we are on any slippery slope of imprisoning women who have had miscarriages. i should think most on the pro-life side don't believe it is a simple issue, however we do believe that a free for all abortion on demand without good reason even if it has a time limit is not good for society or humanity. we except however that abortions in cases of a medical nature where not providing it would have severe consiquences are a reality and must be provided for and facilitated.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

it is not ethical to stop people travelling ... what they get up to in another European country is their own business ... once the don't break the laws of the country they are visiting.

Pretty basic stuff as well.

And here we have the crux of the matter, NIMBY at its finest. If you really did care about the unborn you would be fighting to stop any Irish woman from having an abortion anywhere, the reality is that you don't care about the women or the fetus they carry you just don't want abortions happening in Ireland.

Wildlife Actor

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And here we have the crux of the matter, NIMBY at its finest. If you really did care about the unborn you would be fighting to stop any Irish woman from having an abortion anywhere, the reality is that you don't care about the women or the fetus they carry you just don't want abortions happening in Ireland.

The right to travel was a battle lost by pro life. But its not hypocrisy to concede that it's lost. Pro choice argued it as a separate right to abortion rights in 1992. It's hypocrisy to piggyback that victory for pro choice and characterise the concession by some pro lifers as hypocrisy.

Timberrrrrrrr

Love nor Money wrote: »

The right to travel was a battle lost by pro life. But its not hypocrisy to concede that it's lost. Pro choice argued it as a separate right to abortion rights in 1992. It's hypocrisy to piggyback that victory for pro choice and characterise the concession by some pro lifers as hypocrisy.

what they get up to in another European country is their own business 

Read that sentence again, the poster (and many others) are clearly stating that they dont care if a woman goes to another country for an abortion they just don't want it happening in thier own country! That's not pro life that's NIMBYism at its finest.

Zubeneschamali

sean635 wrote: »

Hi guys. New to this thread.

This thread is like a roll-call of people banned from the After Hours thread on the 8th.

Zubeneschamali

Love nor Money wrote: »

Pro choice argued it as a separate right to abortion rights in 1992.

What is that supposed to mean?

If you mean that "pro-choice" argued for a general right to travel which is not related to abortion, you are 100% wrong.

The right to travel is included as an exception in 40.3.3 - it is a specific right to travel for an abortion.

ArmaniJeanss

sean635 wrote: »

Hi guys. New to this thread.

So basically I’m against abortion in all cases except where the woman’s life is at risk. I just think it’s morally wrong. However I’m open to having my mind changed if I was to hear a convincing arguement.

Not sure anyone is going to waste their breath making such an argument, going by your posting history in the AH thread.
Maybe re-reg and try again starting from a more subtle 'oooh, I'm really not sure' position and see if you can trap anyone into a time-wasting back and forth debate?
That seems to be the preferred way at the moment.

Wildlife Actor

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What is that supposed to mean?

If you mean that "pro-choice" argued for a general right to travel which is not related to abortion, you are 100% wrong.

The right to travel is included as an exception in 40.3.3 - it is a specific right to travel for an abortion.

Incorrect. It's confirmation that the 8th amendment does not prevent the already existing freedom to travel. Not the same. Do you honestly think that pro life position is that it's fine as long as its abroad?? No. The travel issue is a defeat that will never be reversed that's all.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Timberrrrrrrr

Love nor Money wrote: »

Incorrect. It's confirmation that the 8th amendment does not prevent the already existing freedom to travel. Not the same. Do you honestly think that pro life position is that it's fine as long as its abroad?? No. The travel issue is a defeat that will never be reversed that's all.

That's exactly what some of the most prolific pro-life posters on these forums have stated!

Zubeneschamali

Love nor Money wrote: »

Incorrect. It's confirmation that the 8th amendment does not prevent the already existing freedom to travel.

It is not "confirmation" of anything.

The 8th absolutely did prevent freedom to travel - we know that because of the judgement in the X case. The right to travel was added to change the 8th so that it did not prevent travel. it is a narrow exception to the text of the 8th, not a general right to travel.

Here, read it yourself:

3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.