NationStates Jolt Archive

According to the mother, as quoted in post 249 -
"As I was lying on the bed for the scan and the nurse was showing me various parts of the baby on the monitor, it became clear that the baby had no head and a consultant was called," she said. He explained that the baby would probably be stillborn. "

Yet now this insanity...

The Attorney General has instructed a Senior Counsel to represent the interests of the unborn in the court case being taken by a 17-year-old girl who wishes to travel to the UK for an abortion.

James Connolly SC told the High Court this morning that he had been instructed by the Attorney General to represent the interests of the unborn.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0502/abortion.html

According to the mother, as quoted in post 249 -
Yet now this insanity...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0502/abortion.html

I hope, for the sake of accurate representation, the attorney representing the interests of the unborn allows his brain to be removed.

In my personal experience, the people who lobby most loudly to take away the reproductive freedoms of others are the very people who would be the most likely to choose to have an abortion if they themselves were pregnant.

I have never, not once, seen any evidence that being "pro-life" makes a person less likely to choose to have an abortion if they are in the position of needing/wanting one. Most "pro-life" people are simply ignorant and naive because they've never actually come into contact with the real-life situations that lead women to choose to terminate their pregnancies. They don't know what they are talking about. And if, heaven forbid, they are forced to learn through personal experience, they're every bit as likely to choose abortion for themselves.

Of course, most of them go right back to talking about how it's wrong for other people to make that choice. Because "the only moral abortion is my abortion."

Here's some examples to chew on:

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

evidence?Evidenced by the 1,061 times it isn't translated miscarriage.

Hey, i actually live in ireland, the girl is 17 and is being prevented from leaving the country to abort the child in the UK, This is because she is in Care, The Health Service Executive(HSE) is her legal guardian. and to those that think that "bloody Catholic countries" it isn't as an awful lot of people disagree completley with the HSE's descision. In fact there is national uproar that the HSE is telling the girl she cannot make a descision for her doomed baby.



And the fact remains that abortion is illegal in this country, So it isn't being done out of "spite" the HSE is simply following the constitution.

Don't get me wrong i think it's absolutly dispicable that this girl should be forced carry to term. by the way i'm a pro-choice. (got me in alot of trouble too cause i went to a catholic school. a teacher even called me a "baby-killer" when i voiced my oppinion in a debate)

There is no brain apart from the basic brain stem in the second one. Terri Shiavo had more of a brain than this and she was considered to be in a persistent vegetative state.

The brain is the central part of the nervous system and it governs our ability to survive. It sends out nerve impulses that tell us when something is sharp or hot, indicating that we needn't touch it because it will hurt. It governs the body's growth and regulates the release of hormones.

Hey, i actually live in ireland, the girl is 17 and is being prevented from leaving the country to abort the child in the UK, This is because she is in Care, The Health Service Executive(HSE) is her legal guardian. and to those that think that "bloody Catholic countries" it isn't as an awful lot of people disagree completley with the HSE's descision. In fact there is national uproar that the HSE is telling the girl she cannot make a descision for her doomed baby.



And the fact remains that abortion is illegal in this country, So it isn't being done out of "spite" the HSE is simply following the constitution.

Don't get me wrong i think it's absolutly dispicable that this girl should be forced carry to term. by the way i'm a pro-choice. (got me in alot of trouble too cause i went to a catholic school. a teacher even called me a "baby-killer" when i voiced my oppinion in a debate)

I understand that abortion is illegal...but there are times, when what is illegal isn't necessarily wrong. There is nothing stopping the HSE from allowing her to travel to a country where abortion is legal. No one needs to say aloud "she is traveling to England for an abortion" Even if everyone knows what is going on. Involving the police to physically bar her from leaving the country is what has me up in arms. I'm not saying, nor am I implying that they should perform an abortion in Ireland...I understand it's against the law.

I just don't understand how someone (government agency or whatever) can put the rights of an unborn, brain dead fetus (baby) over the mental health of this poor mother. She is that baby's mother, whether she carries it to term or not. She is hurting enough. I've been keeping the poor girl in my prayers...she certainly needs it. Losing a baby, no matter how far along you are is devastating.

She may not be suicidal now, but wait until she births a dead child.

But of course, after the "child" is born, it's no longer a problem right?

Ugh, either way that poor girl is in for a world of hurting.

(got me in alot of trouble too cause i went to a catholic school. a teacher even called me a "baby-killer" when i voiced my oppinion in a debate)

Why didn't you retort with "rapist" to the teacher? Those that use this kind of word in the debate should get the same...

http://www.healthofchildren.com/images/gech_0001_0001_0_img0074.jpg


No hotlinking, eh?

I may have missed it, but I don't recall it saying anywhere that the girl intentionally had unprotected sex. Perhaps she was on birth control and it fell through. Maybe the baby daddy was wearing a condom but it broke and it wasn't noticed or any number of other things. Either way, I'd wager she likely intended on carrying the baby to term until she found out she was carrying a dead baby. As a female, I know carrying a dead parasite inside of me then having to go through hours of labor to expel it all the while hoping I won't have to look at the horror that was created and housed inside me for nine months sounds like a blast. ;o)

I may have missed it, but I don't recall it saying anywhere that the girl intentionally had unprotected sex. Perhaps she was on birth control and it fell through. Maybe the baby daddy was wearing a condom but it broke and it wasn't noticed or any number of other things. Either way, I'd wager she likely intended on carrying the baby to term until she found out she was carrying a dead baby. As a female, I know carrying a dead parasite inside of me then having to go through hours of labor to expel it all the while hoping I won't have to look at the horror that was created and housed inside me for nine months sounds like a blast. ;o)

That sounds like the most probable situation.

I knew someone who was in a similar position, except her child was developmentally normal. The condom broke. It happens. Latex is not perfect technology. But in the end, she kept it.

Abortion is not a decision to be taken lightly despite what some pro-lifers may think.

No hotlinking, eh?

I'm a lazy bitch. :P

Ugh, either way that poor girl is in for a world of hurting.

not "in for" she's already there.

Yet now this insanity...
The Attorney General has instructed a Senior Counsel to represent the interests of the unborn in the court case being taken by a 17-year-old girl who wishes to travel to the UK for an abortion.

James Connolly SC told the High Court this morning that he had been instructed by the Attorney General to represent the interests of the unborn.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0502/abortion.html
That is truly, truly insane. That is beyond Kafka's wildest nightmares. I feel like....I want to get off this planet. It's not safe here. The people are crazy.

Ridiculous...

the RIGHTS of the unborn.

OK...that MIGHT fly if the baby had any prospect of a life...seeing where the story is occurring.

People need to print out huge pictures of fetuses with anacephaly and parade around the HSE headquarters, much like the anti-choicers parade around clinics with pictures of intact fetuses. It really seems to me, that the people making the decisions have absolutely no grounding in reality. Are they hoping for a magical ending of this situation, where they "protect" the unborn, and magically, the baby is born whole?

Ridiculous...

the RIGHTS of the unborn.

OK...that MIGHT fly if the baby had any prospect of a life...seeing where the story is occurring.

People need to print out huge pictures of fetuses with anacephaly and parade around the HSE headquarters, much like the anti-choicers parade around clinics with pictures of intact fetuses. It really seems to me, that the people making the decisions have absolutely no grounding in reality. Are they hoping for a magical ending of this situation, where they "protect" the unborn, and magically, the baby is born whole?You mean, you don't believe in magic?? :eek: ?? And that folks can't grow heads if they have none?

Ridiculous...

the RIGHTS of the unborn.

OK...that MIGHT fly if the baby had any prospect of a life...seeing where the story is occurring.

People need to print out huge pictures of fetuses with anacephaly and parade around the HSE headquarters, much like the anti-choicers parade around clinics with pictures of intact fetuses. It really seems to me, that the people making the decisions have absolutely no grounding in reality. Are they hoping for a magical ending of this situation, where they "protect" the unborn, and magically, the baby is born whole?


I agree, but the Parade needs to take place at the four courts, the HSE are a load of twats, dunno if you heard but the nurses are striking in this country right now and the HSE is just ignoring them!


Ah well, General election in a month=new health minister=new HSE!!!!!!

It now transpires that the HSE had written to the passport office saying it had not given permission for the girl to travel.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0504/abortion.html

Seeing as the police say that they can't and won't prevent her travelling, and that the state has made no move to prevent her, there should be an public inquiry into who, precisely, in the HSE decided to do so. They should also explain why the woman was told that there was a court order preventing her from going when none existed.

It now transpires that the HSE had written to the passport office saying it had not given permission for the girl to travel.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0504/abortion.html

Seeing as the police say that they can't and won't prevent her travelling, and that the state has made no move to prevent her, there should be an public inquiry into who, precisely, in the HSE decided to do so. They should also explain why the woman was told that there was a court order preventing her from going when none existed.The text says "Counsel Gerry Durkin for the HSE said everyone in the Executive had acted in good faith and attempted to do their best when faced with a very difficult and acute situation.".

Sure, the situation gets more and more acute, but I really wonder what's so difficult about the situation. That the girl is pregnant in Ireland? That the child has no real head? The situation is in fact pretty clear and obvious. And if there is not enough competence in the Irish medical system to resolve the issue, then let her travel to England. And cast Ireland out of the EU.

http://images.google.com/images?q=anencephaly&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&num=100&newwindow=1&filter=0

I've been actively following this thread and with the new update to the story, I can't help but wonder, would this girl's predicament have been different if there were more women in the government? I'm not saying male politicians are necessarily worse than female; I'm just saying that if there was more of a gender balance, would it have been different?

I've been actively following this thread and with the new update to the story, I can't help but wonder, would this girl's predicament have been different if there were more women in the government? I'm not saying male politicians are necessarily worse than female; I'm just saying that if there was more of a gender balance, would it have been different?

If there had been over the last 50 years, maybe. (The minister for health at the moment is a woman, btw)

As it stands now - no. Its some asshole(s) on a healthboard driving this.

Sure, the situation gets more and more acute, but I really wonder what's so difficult about the situation. That the girl is pregnant in Ireland? That the child has no real head? The situation is in fact pretty clear and obvious. And if there is not enough competence in the Irish medical system to resolve the issue, then let her travel to England. And cast Ireland out of the EU.


I know from our previous encounters that you aren't the brightest, however I really can't see where you get the idea that the competence or otherwise of the medical system has anything to do with this whatsoever.

As it stands now - no. Its some asshole(s) on a healthboard driving this.
Which proves you cannot have a committee deciding on your healthcare. That is something between you and your doctor. It's unfair to the person receiving the care to de denied care for any reason, unless the reason is from the doctor and the diagnosis says otherwise. The doctor is in the best position to administer healthcare and anyone who sits on this type of board doesn't seem to have an iota of common sense; a little voice that says, "listen to the medical professionals."

Turning into the proverbial "legal morass" at this stage...

The Health board has now reversed its position, after a district court refused permission for the woman to travel, and is now challenging that decision in order that she can indeed go. A fucking pantomime.


http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1826457&issue_id=15603

I know from our previous encounters that you aren't the brightest, however I really can't see where you get the idea that the competence or otherwise of the medical system has anything to do with this whatsoever.Then what's the reason for not letting her have the abortion? "Morality" ? Religion? Drooling about the "rights of the unborn" ? If a medical system does not take the necessary steps in such a case, no matter for what reasons, it lacks competence. And this is an exclusively medical issue (including the girl's psyche). Other considerations are irrelevant.

Then what's the reason for not letting her have the abortion? "Morality" ? Religion? Drooling about the "rights of the unborn" ?

That, which led to a law. Again, the competence or otherwise of the medical proffession has nothing to do with it. The fact that a law prohibits abortion does not mean that there is no-one willing or capable of carrying it out.

All this spinning around, the HSE are really making me dizzy.

That, which led to a law. Again, the competence or otherwise of the medical proffession has nothing to do with it. The fact that a law prohibits abortion does not mean that there is no-one willing or capable of carrying it out.In Ireland the law forbids abortion under all circumstances? How retarded. And why does the medical system not rise up against such nonsense? Because of lacking sense of responsibility? Which would also be a lack of competence?
Ireland sucks.

In Ireland the law forbids abortion under all circumstances? How retarded. And why does the medical system not rise up against such nonsense? Because of lacking sense of responsibility? Which would also be a lack of competence?
Ireland sucks.

No, you can get an abortion if you threaten suicide.

In Ireland the law forbids abortion under all circumstances? How retarded. And why does the medical system not rise up against such nonsense? Because of lacking sense of responsibility? Which would also be a lack of competence?
Ireland sucks.

Why would the medical system rise up against that? Doctors demonstrating for the right to perform abortions would be a strange sight, no matter where in the world you are.
The movement would have to come from the population. Unfortunately, it doesn't.
Then again, there is no real urgent need for it, anybody wanting an abortion can just pop over to the UK to have one... except for in this case, aparently.

<snip>

Yay, you're back!

Yay, you're back!

And glad about it :)

Families ought to be a prohibited institution, or maybe some form of judical punishment, they shouldn't be inflicted upon innocent harmless citizens.[/offtopic]

Why would the medical system rise up against that? Doctors demonstrating for the right to perform abortions would be a strange sight, no matter where in the world you are.
The movement would have to come from the population. Unfortunately, it doesn't.
Then again, there is no real urgent need for it, anybody wanting an abortion can just pop over to the UK to have one... except for in this case, aparently.Ireland sucks.

In Ireland the law forbids abortion under all circumstances? How retarded. And why does the medical system not rise up against such nonsense? Because of lacking sense of responsibility? Which would also be a lack of competence?
Ireland sucks.

False logic once more. I've no idea why you're ranting on in such a fashion, however, you take it to an "Ireland Sucks" thread and have fun with it there.

If there had been over the last 50 years, maybe. (The minister for health at the moment is a woman, btw)

As it stands now - no. Its some asshole(s) on a healthboard driving this.

But there's a difference between "more women," and "a few strategically placed women."

In a heavily patriarchal organization that has only recently allowed women into its ranks, the women get where they are by acting like men. It takes a lot of women to make an organization reflect the fact that they are in it.

For example. I work at the IRS. As an organization, it has a very masculine structure. It's compartmentalized, hierarchical, and rigid. It was designed by men in a government almost completely controlled by men.

However, its recruiting policies make the job attractive to a disproportionate number of women (call the IRS helpline sometime, you'll talk to a woman almost every time). They don't pay well enough for the career driven, so they mostly employ housewives looking for supplemental income. This makes individual centers function in a very fluid and cooperative. When rules come down the tube, managers don't simply tell everyone what they're going to be doing. They say what the new rules are, and then invite opinions on how to implement this new policy. Most male managers would consider that sort of behavior hazardous to their authority. But because there are so many women in this organization, even the men make decisions this way.

But (snip)

I won't argue. Certainly the Minister in question isn't known for her nurturing and enabling ways....

Ireland sucks.

Cause you need abortions on a daily basis, right? Available 24/7, and right on you doorstep, correct?

I figure that on the very rare occasions when I might need an abortion, paying 40 Euros for a Ryan Air flight to Manchester isn't going to be much of an issue.

Cause you need abortions on a daily basis, right? Available 24/7, and right on you doorstep, correct?

I figure that on the very rare occasions when I might need an abortion, paying 40 Euros for a Ryan Air flight to Manchester isn't going to be much of an issue.For some it apparently is.

Gosh. This reminds me of the breastfeeding in public yes/no debates way back in the day when I was into GaiaOnline. :headbang:

"A 17-year-old girl who is four months pregnant and whose child cannot survive outside the womb has gone to the High Court to challenge a decision by the Health Service Executive to stop her leaving the State for an abortion."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0430/missd.html

I tend to lose the little reason I have over this kind of thing. Oddly enough it hasnt faded with age....

Of course, if she had practiced safe sex of abstenance none of this would have happened.

Of course, if she had practiced safe sex of abstenance none of this would have happened.

Take your irrelevance elsewhere.

Take your irrelevance elsewhere.

No, it was her fault she got pregnant. It was not the damn baby's fault. This entire discussion is irrelevant. If she never had sex under-age, or atleast let the guy wear a condom, none of this would ever have happened.

Of course, if she had practiced safe sex of abstenance none of this would have happened.

If her parents had practised safe sex none of this would have happened what's your point?

No, it was her fault she got pregnant. It was not the damn baby's fault. This entire discussion is irrelevant. If she never had sex under-age, or atleast let the guy wear a condom, none of this would ever have happened.

She's not trying to get an abortion because she doesn't want the baby, she's trying to get an abortion because her baby has a 0 chance of surviving.

Of course, if she had practiced safe sex of abstenance none of this would have happened.

Your bridge needs you.

Your bridge needs you.

*idea for lolpic*
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/TrollBridge.jpg

Your bridge needs you.

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/4840/cidimage020jpg01c694471ms1.jpg

No, it was her fault she got pregnant. It was not the damn baby's fault. This entire discussion is irrelevant. If she never had sex under-age, or atleast let the guy wear a condom, none of this would ever have happened.


The "damn baby" as you so sensitively put it, has no brain. It will expire in 0-3 days after being born, without doubt. Thats why she wants the termination.

Gosh. This reminds me of the breastfeeding in public yes/no debates way back in the day when I was into GaiaOnline.In what way is that comparable?

No, it was her fault she got pregnant. It was not the damn baby's fault. This entire discussion is irrelevant. If she never had sex under-age, or atleast let the guy wear a condom, none of this would ever have happened.

You are making the assumption that this is an unplanned pregnancy. While this may be the case, the fact that the fetus has no brain renders this point moot.

She can not be held responsible for the medical condition that has deprived the fetus of any chance at life. This is why your point is irrelevant.

No, it was her fault she got pregnant. It was not the damn baby's fault. This entire discussion is irrelevant. If she never had sex under-age, or atleast let the guy wear a condom, none of this would ever have happened.It's a little late for ifs now.

And maybe you should just search the net for anencephaly (http://images.google.com/images?q=anencephaly&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&num=100&newwindow=1&filter=0), before you utter any further words.

And how does her age have anything to do with the issue? Did you not have sex "under-age" ?

*idea for lolpic*
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/TrollBridge.jpg

Heed the call of the bridge!

In what way is that comparable?

1. It has moronic prudes trying to make everyone swallow the morals
2. It has moronic liberals falling for the flamebait hook, sinker and line. Owait. Flamewars are fun :D :gundge:

Of course, if she had practiced safe sex of abstenance none of this would have happened.

Too bad your parents didn't. Then this little conversation would have never happened.

No, it was her fault she got pregnant. It was not the damn baby's fault. This entire discussion is irrelevant. If she never had sex under-age, or atleast let the guy wear a condom, none of this would ever have happened.

Condoms break. Birth control pills can fail (typically when taken in conjunction with anti-bitotics). Nothing is perfect. But they have a high rate of success.

Unwanted pregnancies are not limited to "under-age" sex. It happens to married women too!

If you read the article, you'd realise she wants to abort it because carrying it to term will harm her mentally. It will NOT survive. This is not a foetus suffering from Downs or something; it has no brain! They don't even know if it will survive to birth. It could be a stillborn. You think that she should carry a dead baby for 9 months?

Too bad your parents didn't. Then this little conversation would have never happened.



Condoms break. Birth control pills can fail (typically when taken in conjunction with anti-bitotics). Nothing is perfect. But they have a high rate of success.

Unwanted pregnancies are not limited to "under-age" sex. It happens to married women too!

If you read the article, you'd realise she wants to abort it because carrying it to term will harm her mentally. It will NOT survive. This is not a foetus suffering from Downs or something; it has no brain! They don't even know if it will survive to birth. It could be a stillborn. You think that she should carry a dead baby for 9 months?

As much as I do not like abortion, I have to agree with you here.

Let's see. I'm with the girl in this case.

BUT, if she didn't want to abort, oh well, like I fucking care.

I still cannot understand why people that are against the girl, can't get inside the skulls the fact that it's HER fothermucking life, and just don't care about it.

It's just not our bussiness, I doubt that anyone here has anything to do with this girl.

As I read somewhere, "I don't think in your church, so don't pray at my school!"

No, it was her fault she got pregnant. It was not the damn baby's fault. This entire discussion is irrelevant.
All I can say is :confused:
If she never had sex under-age
... she didn't...
or atleast let the guy wear a condom
Might have been his choice
none of this would ever have happened.
Unless the condom split

Unwanted pregnancies are not limited to "under-age" sex. It happens to married women too!Although some recognize it pretty late, when the kid asks for his/her own car...



oh, and btw: Ireland sucks

As much as I do not like abortion, I have to agree with you here.

Most people are agreeing with each other here because there is no question about the state of the foetus; it has no brain. It doesn't get more obvious than that. It lacks what it needs to live.

oh, and btw: Ireland sucks

Have you ever been there?

All Unless the condom split

I had that happen *shudders*

Have you ever been there?

Please don't encourage him....

God yeah.

As founder of Ireland I would just boot him out! :)

So, it's been a while since I've passed through the thread - is there an update? Did the courts overturn this yet?

No, it was her fault she got pregnant. It was not the damn baby's fault. This entire discussion is irrelevant. If she never had sex under-age, or atleast let the guy wear a condom, none of this would ever have happened.

Yeah. Too much of an enabling culture these days. I blame seat belts. It all started with them. Some entitlement nannies started saying "if people crash their cars, we should have something to keep them from dying."

You know what will keep you from dying in a car accident?
DRIVE SAFER!

Kids today drive around recklessly endangering safer, unbelted, drivers telling themselves "I don't need to drive safe. If I get into an accident I have a seatbelt." Kids need to know that if they get into an accident they will die. We should have a law to remove seatbelts from cars. They send the wrong message to today's youth.

Same thing with sex. If someone has sex, we owe it to the public at large to throw every obstacle in the way of those who accidentally get pregnant. Maybe when she's seventy, has raised a dysfunctional child who grew up with the certain knowledge that he was unwanted and unloved, and she looks back with a heart full of bitterness and regret at the life she might have had had she not become an unwed mother, maybe then she'll learn to keep her knees together.

If we keep letting teenage girls get abortions every time they get pregnant then how the hell are we supposed to talk them into anal sex? It's painful and degrading. Women won't go for that if there's a loving and pleasurable option. Well, a lot of women. And if women won't do anal, then Christian Conservatives will have no choice but to come out of the closet!

That is an intolerable situation. If lifetimes of misery on the part of innocent young women is what it takes to maintain the secret perversions of powerful old men and their brainwashed flunkies, well then that's the price we have to pay. Or rather, they. Powerful old men don't pay prices. George Bush Senior proved that when he couldn't check out at a grocery store.

God yeah.

As founder of Ireland I would just boot him out! :)

God wasn't a founder. He's a Johnny Come Lately. You might try Cernunnos. But he's a bit hard to reach lately. Easier than God mind you, but tough none the less.

Yeah. Too much of an enabling culture these days. I blame seat belts. It all started with them. Some entitlement nannies started saying "if people crash their cars, we should have something to keep them from dying."

You know what will keep you from dying in a car accident?
DRIVE SAFER!

Kids today drive around recklessly endangering safer, unbelted, drivers telling themselves "I don't need to drive safe. If I get into an accident I have a seatbelt." Kids need to know that if they get into an accident they will die. We should have a law to remove seatbelts from cars. They send the wrong message to today's youth.

Same thing with sex. If someone has sex, we owe it to the public at large to throw every obstacle in the way of those who accidentally get pregnant. Maybe when she's seventy, has raised a dysfunctional child who grew up with the certain knowledge that he was unwanted and unloved, and she looks back with a heart full of bitterness and regret at the life she might have had had she not become an unwed mother, maybe then she'll learn to keep her knees together.

If we keep letting teenage girls get abortions every time they get pregnant then how the hell are we supposed to talk them into anal sex? It's painful and degrading. Women won't go for that if there's a loving and pleasurable option. Well, a lot of women. And if women won't do anal, then Christian Conservatives will have no choice but to come out of the closet!

That is an intolerable situation. If lifetimes of misery on the part of innocent young women is what it takes to maintain the secret perversions of powerful old men and their brainwashed flunkies, well then that's the price we have to pay. Or rather, they. Powerful old men don't pay prices. George Bush Senior proved that when he couldn't check out at a grocery store.

Bravo.

And amen.

Most people are agreeing with each other here because there is no question about the state of the foetus; it has no brain. It doesn't get more obvious than that. It lacks what it needs to live.

The very fact that there's a controversy disproves this thesis. You can live a full and varied life without a brain. Some people without brains become powerful heads of state or high-level bureaucrats. Like our president, and this Irish health minister.

Its Plain and simply put. 0% chances of survival of the baby. possible chances of not at all being able to have another kid. Give her the abortion. If not, your just bastards.

The very fact that there's a controversy disproves this thesis. You can live a full and varied life without a brain. Some people without brains become powerful heads of state or high-level bureaucrats. Like our president, and this Irish health minister.

You're on a roll today :p

Yeah. Too much of an enabling culture these days. I blame seat belts. It all started with them. Some entitlement nannies started saying "if people crash their cars, we should have something to keep them from dying."

You know what will keep you from dying in a car accident?
DRIVE SAFER!

Kids today drive around recklessly endangering safer, unbelted, drivers telling themselves "I don't need to drive safe. If I get into an accident I have a seatbelt." Kids need to know that if they get into an accident they will die. We should have a law to remove seatbelts from cars. They send the wrong message to today's youth.

Same thing with sex. If someone has sex, we owe it to the public at large to throw every obstacle in the way of those who accidentally get pregnant. Maybe when she's seventy, has raised a dysfunctional child who grew up with the certain knowledge that he was unwanted and unloved, and she looks back with a heart full of bitterness and regret at the life she might have had had she not become an unwed mother, maybe then she'll learn to keep her knees together.

If we keep letting teenage girls get abortions every time they get pregnant then how the hell are we supposed to talk them into anal sex? It's painful and degrading. Women won't go for that if there's a loving and pleasurable option. Well, a lot of women. And if women won't do anal, then Christian Conservatives will have no choice but to come out of the closet!

That is an intolerable situation. If lifetimes of misery on the part of innocent young women is what it takes to maintain the secret perversions of powerful old men and their brainwashed flunkies, well then that's the price we have to pay. Or rather, they. Powerful old men don't pay prices. George Bush Senior proved that when he couldn't check out at a grocery store.

You win. No, not the thread. You win the fucking forum.

The very fact that there's a controversy disproves this thesis. You can live a full and varied life without a brain. Some people without brains become powerful heads of state or high-level bureaucrats. Like our president, and this Irish health minister.

Now that is funny.

The very fact that there's a controversy disproves this thesis. You can live a full and varied life without a brain. Some people without brains become powerful heads of state or high-level bureaucrats. Like our president, and this Irish health minister.

You win... You win not just this thread, but all of NS:G and probably II too. And Technical, even though you weren't in that category. Hell, you win the whole Jolt server, time warps and all.

The very fact that there's a controversy disproves this thesis. You can live a full and varied life without a brain. Some people without brains become powerful heads of state or high-level bureaucrats. Like our president, and this Irish health minister.

What a Wizard answer, Scarecrow!

...
Same thing with sex. If someone has sex, we owe it to the public at large to throw every obstacle in the way of those who accidentally get pregnant. Maybe when she's seventy, has raised a dysfunctional child who grew up with the certain knowledge that he was unwanted and unloved, and she looks back with a heart full of bitterness and regret at the life she might have had had she not become an unwed mother, maybe then she'll learn to keep her knees together.

If we keep letting teenage girls get abortions every time they get pregnant ....You missed the issue of this thread entirely. This is not about accidental pregnancy or not wanting the child for personal reasons.
This is about a girl having a fetus with anencephaly (http://images.google.com/images?q=anencephaly&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&num=100&newwindow=1&filter=0)

You missed the issue of this thread entirely. This is not about accidental pregnancy or not wanting the child for personal reasons.
This is about a girl having a fetus with anencephaly (http://images.google.com/images?q=anencephaly&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&num=100&newwindow=1&filter=0)

You really are sent to try and suck the little joy there is from life, aren't you....I've full confidence that Domici understands full well the issues raised by this thread. I cannot say the same for thee.

I had that happen *shudders*
Aye, one of the worst feelings EVAR, isn't it?

No, it was her fault she got pregnant. It was not the damn baby's fault. This entire discussion is irrelevant. If she never had sex under-age, or atleast let the guy wear a condom, none of this would ever have happened.
The damn baby won't even have a head, this is one of those abortions for medical reasons you anti-choicers will occasionally allow a woman to have.

Aye, one of the worst feelings EVAR, isn't it?

Yes it is. We were both grateful that nothing happene but now she is taking added precautions.

Yeah. Too much of an enabling culture these days. I blame seat belts. <snip>


The very fact that there's a controversy disproves this thesis. You can live a full and varied life without a brain. Some people without brains become powerful heads of state or high-level bureaucrats. Like our president, and this Irish health minister.

Hands over gold trophy to Domici. Hands over gold medal Domici. Slaps gold crown on Domici's head. Rummages through closet for more gold stuff. :D

If I choose to walk down an alley and get jumped by a mugger, and end up with a knife in my gut, should I just sit there and bleed to death because, after all, I chose to walk down that alley, and these are the consequences?

If I choose to get on a bus, and realise it's the wrong one, should I then remain on it until it reaches the depot, rather than get off at the first stop?

If I walk into a gay bar by mistake, should I resign myself to a night of man-love instead of finding another bar?

We have choices, and there are consequences, but consequences can be mitigated.


Why is it that abortion is always compared to other situations that don't even come close to being on the same page. Abortion is not and should not be advertised as a form of birth control. Why is it that the human race has this idea that getting naked is a requirement for life. When you get on the wrong bus, it is generally an accident as with the bar. You are not having sex by accident. And as with walking down a dark alley... No one is forcing you to sleep with them you are *choosing* to participate. I know that rape is a different story, but it is exactly that. Rape is not what I am addressing.

Firstly I'm in favour of safe and legal abortion. But I'm also a proud Irishman. I read just the first 2 pages of this thread and was shocked at the ignorance of most of the posts.

People couldn't understand why this girl was being denied access to abortion (problem solved now btw). The reason is that the Irish people voted in a referendum in 1982 to amend the constitution to make the state "responsible for protecting the right to life of the unborn" i.e. banning abortion. Now I don't agree with us banning the practice and instead forcing pregnant women to travel to the UK (Northern Ireland by the way has a statutory ban on abortion).

However, I do agree that the will of the majority has got to be respected. Before anyone comes out with "that was 1982, people would be different now" I'll remind them that in 1995 the much less offensive Divorce was finally legalised in Ireland with a majority of just 50.3%-49.7% and I've no doubt that it will be another 15-25 years before a referendum to legalise abortion would pass the people.

It's not something I'm particularly happy about. As a nation we export the problem to the UK and have no problem doing so. But hey, that's democracy. "The worst form of government, except for the all the others we've tried"

However, I do agree that the will of the majority has got to be respected.
Why?

If the majority voted that women should be barred from owning property, or voting, or going outside unaccompanied by a male, would you support laws that impose what the majority has decreed?

Personally, I think some things should never be up for a vote. Slavery is a great example. I don't care how many people think that other human beings should be treated as property. I don't care if the majority votes that the minority should be bought and sold like animals. Fuck the majority. They can stuff it.

My body does not belong to the majority. My body belongs to ME. My personal medical decisions are not up for a vote. My body is not public property.

Firstly I'm in favour of safe and legal abortion. But I'm also a proud Irishman. I read just the first 2 pages of this thread and was shocked at the ignorance of most of the posts.

People couldn't understand why this girl was being denied access to abortion (problem solved now btw). The reason is that the Irish people voted in a referendum in 1982 to amend the constitution to make the state "responsible for protecting the right to life of the unborn" i.e. banning abortion. Now I don't agree with us banning the practice and instead forcing pregnant women to travel to the UK (Northern Ireland by the way has a statutory ban on abortion).

However, I do agree that the will of the majority has got to be respected. Before anyone comes out with "that was 1982, people would be different now" I'll remind them that in 1995 the much less offensive Divorce was finally legalised in Ireland with a majority of just 50.3%-49.7% and I've no doubt that it will be another 15-25 years before a referendum to legalise abortion would pass the people.

It's not something I'm particularly happy about. As a nation we export the problem to the UK and have no problem doing so. But hey, that's democracy. "The worst form of government, except for the all the others we've tried"

Agreed. I'm Irish myself and while I may grumble and gripe about this one has to admit that it was taken to a referendum. The people decided against it.

Times change but Ireland would appear to still be a rather conservative nation. The effects of living so long under the shadow of the Church, I suppose.

My body does not belong to the majority. My body belongs to ME. My personal medical decisions are not up for a vote. My body is not public property.

While I sympathise with your position - and indeed support it - the will of the people must be served. I would prefer such an archaic notion be overturned but then again that would defeat the purpose of a referendum, wouldn't it?

Why?
Personally, I think some things should never be up for a vote.

Who should get to decide what these things are?

Judges?
They're people with their own inherent biases and ideologies and (in Ireland at least) are answerable to nobody and thus unaccountable.

... the Irish people voted in a referendum in 1982 to amend the constitution to make the state "responsible for protecting the right to life of the unborn" i.e. banning abortion....and Nodinia says Ireland doesn't suck. :rolleyes:

Who should get to decide what these things are?

Judges?
They're people with their own inherent biases and ideologies and (in Ireland at least) are answerable to nobody and thus unaccountable.

When it comes to abortion, or anything to do with a woman's body, only one person gets to decide: the woman.

Judges, the majority, and anyone else can go fuck themselves.

When it comes to abortion, or anything to do with a woman's body, only one person gets to decide: the woman.

Judges, the majority, and anyone else can go fuck themselves.qft

Who should get to decide what these things are?

Judges?
They're people with their own inherent biases and ideologies and (in Ireland at least) are answerable to nobody and thus unaccountable.
For over 200 years, this issue has been clear. The right to control one's own body, the right to preserve one's own life, the right not to be sacrificed or forced to sacrifice oneself for another against one's will, is part and parcel of what it means to be human. No one on this earth -- not even people claiming to speak for otherworldly powers -- has any right to take that control away from anyone who is capable, even in the slightest way, of taking care of themselves. Period. Even in cases of incapacity, the degree of incapacity must be proven first.

And it does not matter if one person's right to control their own body inteferes with another person's ability to live. No one can force me to give another person control over my body or any part of it, even temporarily, and still claim not to be enslaving me. I cannot be forced to donate my kidney. I fail to see why I should be forced to loan out my uterus.

When it comes to abortion, or anything to do with a woman's body, only one person gets to decide: the woman.

Judges, the majority, and anyone else can go fuck themselves.

Yeah, fuck the law.

I wonder how far that will get you in court. "But, your honour, I saaaiiiddd "Fuck the law". Didn't you hear me? How can you not agree with my sentiment?"

Like it or not, you can't have an abortion in the Republic of Ireland unless the mother's life is endangered (there's another circumstance that escapes me right now). You are perfectly free to travel 40 mins to a place where you can. Woman gets her abortion, old voting bloc sensibilities satisfied. Everyone's a winner.

Yeah, fuck the law.

I wonder how far that will get you in court. "But, your honour, I saaaiiiddd "Fuck the law". Didn't you hear me? How can you not agree with my sentiment?"

Like it or not, you can't have an abortion in the Republic of Ireland unless the mother's life is endangered (there's another circumstance that escapes me right now). You are perfectly free to travel 40 mins to a place where you can. Woman gets her abortion, old voting bloc sensibilities satisfied. Everyone's a winner.

In the case of Ireland, the law is simply wrong. The judges who disagree with me are wrong. The portion of the population that supports the law is wrong. It may not get me far in court, but then again, the courts would then be in the wrong. And I wouldn't say 'Fuck the law' in court. I would get my lawyer to say it in legalese.

To use Bottle's example above, if Ireland legalised slavery and the majority of the poulation and the judges supported such a law, they would still be wrong.

By the way, the other circumstance that is escaping you would probably be rape, wouldn't it?

In the case of Ireland, the law is simply wrong. The judges who disagree with me are wrong.

Nice argument. "I'm right and you're wrong... because I'm right and I say so".

The portion of the population that supports the law is wrong. It may not get me far in court, but then again, the courts would then be in the wrong.
In your opinion. Because you simply don't agree with a law doesn't automatically make you 'right' and it 'wrong'.

To use Bottle's example above, if Ireland legalised slavery and the majority of the poulation and the judges supported such a law, they would still be wrong.
Slavery would go against a constitutional right so that example falls flat.

By the way, the other circumstance that is escaping you would probably be rape, wouldn't it?
Yes, I believe it was rape and incest. Thank you.

Don't get me wrong here, I voted against the tightening of these laws a few years ago - I also don't agree with the current standing but as it is, I still respect the law. Right or wrong does not apply in this instance as it was nothing to do with abortion, only the right to travel. It was essentially a 'slam dunk' case for Miss D.

and Nodinia says Ireland doesn't suck. :rolleyes:


I never said either way. I just pointed out that you should take yourself and your irrelevant musings to another thread.

im 100% pro choice, but this case is not about her right to chose. its about her right to travel to commit what is a crime in ireland elsewhere while under the care of the state.

lets not get confused on the substantive argument being played out in the fourcourts. can the health board allow a ward of its care travel to commit what is a crime.

nothing to do with whether getting scraped out is morally right or not. its whether you can travel after admitting its for an illegal act.

Nice argument. "I'm right and you're wrong... because I'm right and I say so".And why not?


In your opinion. Because you simply don't agree with a law doesn't automatically make you 'right' and it 'wrong'.No, the matter at issue makes them wrong and g-o-g right.

Nice argument. "I'm right and you're wrong... because I'm right and I say so".


In your opinion. Because you simply don't agree with a law doesn't automatically make you 'right' and it 'wrong'.


Slavery would go against a constitutional right so that example falls flat.


Yes, I believe it was rape and incest. Thank you.

Don't get me wrong here, I voted against the tightening of these laws a few years ago - I also don't agree with the current standing but as it is, I still respect the law. Right or wrong does not apply in this instance as it was nothing to do with abortion, only the right to travel. It was essentially a 'slam dunk' case for Miss D.
The slavery example does not fall flat. Just because Ireland's voters recognized and stamped out one injustice doesn't mean they are right to accept and tolerate another. I maintain that denying access to abortion is wrong for the same reasons that slavery is wrong, so if Ireland's constitution bans one injustice, then they face a question as to why they will not ban the other. "Majority will" is a cheap cop-out on their part, not an answer.

im 100% pro choice, but this case is not about her right to chose. its about her right to travel to commit what is a crime in ireland elsewhere while under the care of the state.

lets not get confused on the substantive argument being played out in the fourcourts. can the health board allow a ward of its care travel to commit what is a crime.

nothing to do with whether getting scraped out is morally right or not. its whether you can travel after admitting its for an illegal act.If she will not be committing the "illegal act" withing the territory the law applies in, it is not an illegal act. Irish sovereignty ends on Ireland's borders.

And why not?
Ok then.

I'm right and you're wrong. Now I win. *sticks fingers in ears* lalalalalalalalalalalalaalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalaalalala.

See?


No, the matter at issue makes them wrong and g-o-g right.
G-o-g means what exactly?

The matter at issue is the right to travel. She won, like she should have done 100 times out of 100, as the right to travel is protected in the constitution.

If she will not be committing the "illegal act" withing the territory the law applies in, it is not an illegal act. Irish sovereignty ends on Ireland's borders.

not necessarily. you can be charged with paedophilia committed in, say, thailand in an irish court.

its actually about the state letting her out of the care facility she is in. its whether they are entitled to let her out to break the irish law overseas. the courts have decided they can.

im 100% pro choice, but this case is not about her right to chose. its about her right to travel to commit what is a crime in ireland elsewhere while under the care of the state.

lets not get confused on the substantive argument being played out in the fourcourts. can the health board allow a ward of its care travel to commit what is a crime.

nothing to do with whether getting scraped out is morally right or not. its whether you can travel after admitting its for an illegal act.
In the US during slavery, it was a crime to help a slave escape, but abolitionists did it anyway because it was the right thing to do. During US segregation, it was a crime for a black person to enter the same businesses as a white person, but civil rights activists did it anyway and took the consequences, because segregation was an unjust law and challenging it was the right thing to do.

In Ireland, the law prohibits abortion, but the law allows women to travel freely in full awareness that they may travel abroad in order to get an abortion. The thinking is probably that the ban is only against abortions in Ireland, not against Irish citizens getting abortions, but that is also a cheap cop-out and a way to avoid addressing the fundamental injustices of their abortion laws.

Ok then.

I'm right and you're wrong. Now I win. *sticks fingers in ears* lalalalalalalalalalalalaalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalaalalala.

See?



G-o-g means what exactly?

The matter at issue is the right to travel. She won, like she should have done 100 times out of 100, as the right to travel is protected in the constitution.
G-o-g = Gift-of-God, the poster you were responding to earlier.

In the US during slavery, it was a crime to help a slave escape, but abolitionists did it anyway because it was the right thing to do. During US segregation, it was a crime for a black person to enter the same businesses as a white person, but civil rights activists did it anyway and took the consequences, because segregation was an unjust law and challenging it was the right thing to do.

In Ireland, the law prohibits abortion, but the law allows women to travel freely in full awareness that they may travel abroad in order to get an abortion. The thinking is probably that the ban is only against abortions in Ireland, not against Irish citizens getting abortions, but that is also a cheap cop-out and a way to avoid addressing the fundamental injustices of their abortion laws.Indeed. There are higher standards than laws. Laws have nothing to do with what's "right" and "wrong".

G-o-g .... got it. Thanks Muravyets.The slavery example does not fall flat.
It does in this case because slavery goes against the constitution and therfore would impinge on the rights of the citizens. The lack of abortion does not impinge on citizens as it is not covered in the consitution. The first case, reverses rights enshrined. The second case, doesn't.

Just because Ireland's voters recognized and stamped out one injustice doesn't mean they are right to accept and tolerate another.
Yeah, I agree.

I maintain that denying access to abortion is wrong for the same reasons that slavery is wrong,
You do, the courts at the moment don't. Too bad you don't sit on the bench in Ireland then.

so if Ireland's constitution bans one injustice, then they face a question as to why they will not ban the other.
Injustice to you, not to the courts nor the people who voted. Sucks to live in a democracy then.

"Majority will" is a cheap cop-out on their part, not an answer.
'Majority will' aka democracy. Shame we all don't live in an authoritarian utopia.

Indeed. There are higher standards than laws. Laws have nothing to do with what's "right" and "wrong".
Just for the record, if abortion is ever banned in the US I will begin operating an "underground railroad" to help women escape to countries where they can receive abortions.

I also buy Plan B for minors in the US. :D

Does anyone know why they refused?

I'm not a medical expert, but I can imagine an abortion in such a late stadium might even be more dangerous than having the baby born. In Belgium, abortion is not allowed over three months far because of the medical risk.


EDIT: if the reason turns out to be other than medical, I just think it's very, very wrong to deny her an abortion. That's just... medieval.

I think he has a really good point. Why did they deny it to her?

It does in this case because slavery goes against the constitution and therfore would impinge on the rights of the citizens. The lack of abortion does not impinge on citizens as it is not covered in the consitution. The first case, reverses rights enshrined. The second case, doesn't.
Women are not citizens in Ireland? Because if that law forces them to leave their country in order to access medical services, then yes, it most certainly does impinge on them.

And you missed my point. My point was, WHY does the Irish Constitution ban slavery? I suggest that its reasons for doing so would also be applicable to allowing women access to abortion as a medical service. If those reasons do apply, then the question is why does the Constitution allow Irish society to treat women this way in regards to reproduction if it will not allow them to treat other people in an arguably similar way in regards to other areas of life? So the issue is not, are you violating your Constitution? The issue is, are you following your Constitution fully, or is your Constitution contradicting itself in terms of justice and does that need to be addressed?

Yeah, I agree.
Good. :)

You do, the courts at the moment don't. Too bad you don't sit on the bench in Ireland then.
That's what challenges to laws are for.

Injustice to you, not to the courts nor the people who voted. Sucks to live in a democracy then.


'Majority will' aka democracy. Shame we all don't live in an authoritarian utopia.
And you are now missing the very point you claimed to agree with above. First of all, "democracy" =/= "majority will" without question. Second, by your argument, the US was wrong to outlaw racial segregation even though it permitted extreme social injustice and inequality and was used as a shield for illegal acts such as murder and terrorism, because at the time the majority of white Americans (the numerical majority at the time) supported segregation. So should we have ignored Dr. King and the civil rights activists and allowed the southern states to continue tolerating the murder of blacks and wholesale terrorization of black communities, in order to follow "majority will"?

No, regardless of what the majority want, if what they want is counter to the philosophies on which a nation and its government is founded, then no law, no matter how popular, can give them what they want without challenge.

The US was founded on the principle that all men are created equal. In such a place, slavery and segregation cannot be tolerated, no matter how many people like it.

What is Ireland founded upon? Why did it ban slavery? That is a place where people who want to challenge Ireland's abortion laws should start to look for tools to use against it.

I think he has a really good point. Why did they deny it to her?They too have no brains.

Just for the record, if abortion is ever banned in the US I will begin operating an "underground railroad" to help women escape to countries where they can receive abortions.

I also buy Plan B for minors in the US. :D
Count me in on that action. :)

I think he has a really good point. Why did they deny it to her?
The fetus had anencephaly, which means it never developed a brain. It was essentially a corpse on artificial life support (i.e. the mother's body). Permission to travel to abort the pregnancy was denied because, apparently, the girl in question was just under the age to make her own decisions and was under the care of some exceedingly moronic bureaucrats. She could have sneaked out of the country to do it, but the bureaucrats in question alerted the police ahead of time that they had denied her permission to leave the country and that she should be stopped at any border check or airport.

The fetus had anencephaly, which means it never developed a brain. It was essentially a corpse on artificial life support (i.e. the mother's body). Permission to travel to abort the pregnancy was denied because, apparently, the girl in question was just under the age to make her own decisions and was under the care of some exceedingly moronic bureaucrats. ...who just followed moronic Irish laws?

...who just followed moronic Irish laws?

...had they followed the law, she would have been allowed travel.

Women are not citizens in Ireland? Because if that law forces them to leave their country in order to access medical services, then yes, it most certainly does impinge on them.

And you missed my point. My point was, WHY does the Irish Constitution ban slavery? I suggest that its reasons for doing so would also be applicable to allowing women access to abortion as a medical service. If those reasons do apply, then the question is why does the Constitution allow Irish society to treat women this way in regards to reproduction if it will not allow them to treat other people in an arguably similar way in regards to other areas of life? So the issue is not, are you violating your Constitution? The issue is, are you following your Constitution fully, or is your Constitution contradicting itself in terms of justice and does that need to be addressed?


Good. :)


That's what challenges to laws are for.


And you are now missing the very point you claimed to agree with above. First of all, "democracy" =/= "majority will" without question. Second, by your argument, the US was wrong to outlaw racial segregation even though it permitted extreme social injustice and inequality and was used as a shield for illegal acts such as murder and terrorism, because at the time the majority of white Americans (the numerical majority at the time) supported segregation. So should we have ignored Dr. King and the civil rights activists and allowed the southern states to continue tolerating the murder of blacks and wholesale terrorization of black communities, in order to follow "majority will"?

No, regardless of what the majority want, if what they want is counter to the philosophies on which a nation and its government is founded, then no law, no matter how popular, can give them what they want without challenge.

The US was founded on the principle that all men are created equal. In such a place, slavery and segregation cannot be tolerated, no matter how many people like it.

What is Ireland founded upon? Why did it ban slavery? That is a place where people who want to challenge Ireland's abortion laws should start to look for tools to use against it.


the irish constitution doenst ban slavery. the only criminal offence proscribed in it is abortion. the right to life for the unborn is enshrined in irish law like it or not. we arent the only european state to have such a law.

...we arent the only european state to have such a law.that's no excuse.

...who just followed moronic Irish laws?

they are obliged to work under the framework of the law, they are care workers. they cant pick and choose what laws to obey when it comes to protecting vunerable children.

moronic law it is, but they are duty bound to operate within it.

they are obliged to work under the framework of the law, they are care workers. they cant pick and choose what laws to obey when it comes to protecting vunerable children.

moronic law it is, but they are duty bound to operate within it.you can always bend the law. and if you are doing the "right" thing, nobody will care.
if they had allowed her to travel in the first place, who would have asked for it?

I find it odd that humanity creates laws, and then even when they make no sense, binds itself to them as if they're special, for some reason. Laws only exist to service humanity. if the situation requires, the law should bend before the person.

that's no excuse.

im not disagreeing with you, but the complexities of the abortion referendum being simplified to slavery is ridicilious.

the law is the law. trying to get or assisiting someone in doing so is a criminal offence in ireland.

she wanted to get an abortion while incarcarated. the social workers went to court to see could they let her. the court said yes.

this has nothing to do with the abortion law per say.

I find it odd that humanity creates laws, and then even when they make no sense, binds itself to them as if they're special, for some reason. Laws only exist to service humanity. if the situation requires, the law should bend before the person.

Yes, I believe Julius Caesar taught us that lesson.

im not disagreeing with you, but the complexities of the abortion referendum being simplified to slavery is ridicilious.

the law is the law. trying to get or assisiting someone in doing so is a criminal offence in ireland.

she wanted to get an abortion while incarcarated. the social workers went to court to see could they let her. the court said yes.

this has nothing to do with the abortion law per say.it has to do with the abortion issue. if it wasn't about the abortion they would have just let her travel.

you can always bend the law. and if you are doing the "right" thing, nobody will care.
if they had allowed her to travel in the first place, who would have asked for it?

i disagree about 'bending' the law in the context of protecting vunerable children. has to be done by the book. which they did. and she will get her abortion and her carers wont have risked incarcaration assisting her.

win win except for the internet cranks.

could it be that Northern Ireland is better than Eire!?
Well it is, but abortion is still illegal in NI.

Yes, I believe Julius Caesar taught us that lesson.

I don't understand your reference, which is quite shameful of me. I don't quite understand where you're coming from though? It's true he bent a lot of laws to further his own end, but he brought incredible stability to the roman peoples, and there's no reason to assume that unlike Sulla before him, when he dies, the senate wouldn't have simply resumed the governance of Rome. it's because he was killed that Octavian was put in power, and from there we get the principate forming.

But then you might not be inferring this at all?

i disagree about 'bending' the law in the context of protecting vunerable children. has to be done by the book. which they did. and she will get her abortion and her carers wont have risked incarcaration assisting her.

win win except for the internet cranks.these folks have been treating the girl like a piece of property, not like a human. and the law banning abortion under all circumstances is the result of a retarded society and medieval moral values. there is no win win situation here. the girl has to go abroad to have the abortion, so Ireland is in fact only dumping its problems to another country.

Just for the record, if abortion is ever banned in the US I will begin operating an "underground railroad" to help women escape to countries where they can receive abortions.

I also buy Plan B for minors in the US. :D

I'll pick them up this side of the border. They can stay with me or any of my feminist friends (actually, now that I think about it, all my friends are feminists) before and after the procedure.

I'm normally pro- life but because it's not for religious reasons (it is possible!) I'd have no problem with an abortion here as long as (OK I'll say it) it is the woman's choice. Which it is.

I don't understand your reference, which is quite shameful of me. I don't quite understand where you're coming from though? It's true he bent a lot of laws to further his own end, but he brought incredible stability to the roman peoples, and there's no reason to assume that unlike Sulla before him, when he dies, the senate wouldn't have simply resumed the governance of Rome. it's because he was killed that Octavian was put in power, and from there we get the principate forming.

But then you might not be inferring this at all?

Your recitation of history is commendable, and as you said, not altogether relevant. But do you understand the implications?

What purpose is there to law if it can be ignored? The law bends to the strong, but then does that not defeat the purpose of having laws?

...had they followed the law, she would have been allowed travel.
Beat me to it, thanks. :)

im not disagreeing with you, but the complexities of the abortion referendum being simplified to slavery is ridicilious.

the law is the law. trying to get or assisiting someone in doing so is a criminal offence in ireland.

she wanted to get an abortion while incarcarated. the social workers went to court to see could they let her. the court said yes.

this has nothing to do with the abortion law per say.

You're the one making a simplistic argument, in my opinion. The law is the law - that means nothing. What the law is, is a set of rules devised by human beings and fully amendable by human beings. They are not magic words. What matters is the principle behind them. And if the principle is not being met, or the principle is contrary to the good of human beings, then it can be challenged, plain and simple.

And as to your remark that Ireland isn't the only country that has such laws, I will give the same answer I give US rightwingers who defend the Bush administration's corruption by pointing out that previous adminstrations were also corrupt:

Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right.

What purpose is there to law if it can be ignored? The law bends to the strong, but then does that not defeat the purpose of having laws?

Ah! I see. It would depend I suppose on how you see laws. I see them more as a stronger form of guidelines. A good thing to look to when making judgements. But when there's a time it makes obviously no sense, then they should be bent out of the way and put back again. Obviously if the law was totally stringent then there would be no need for a judge to arbitrate. The judge should bring common sense to the equation, live up to their job, and judge when the law makes the most sense, and when it should be ignored. Obviously, laws cannot be made for the every situation and there's a time when they're just too generalised to work.

these folks have been treating the girl like a piece of property, not like a human. and the law banning abortion under all circumstances is the result of a retarded society and medieval moral values. there is no win win situation here. the girl has to go abroad to have the abortion, so Ireland is in fact only dumping its problems to another country.

she is a ward of the courts, in a home. so technically she is the property of the health authorities. sounds harsh, but they have the final decision on how she lives her life because she has previously proven herself incapable of doing so.

i dont disagree with you assertation we are dumping our problems, but to expect social workers to potentially break the law is the issue here. they played it by the book and the courts have stated that she can go.

whats your problem with this case? she got what she wanted and her guardians dont have to risk their careers to get it for her.

Ah! I see. It would depend I suppose on how you see laws. I see them more as a stronger form of guidelines. A good thing to look to when making judgements. But when there's a time it makes obviously no sense, then they should be bent out of the way and put back again. Obviously if the law was totally stringent then there would be no need for a judge to arbitrate. The judge should bring common sense to the equation, live up to their job, and judge when the law makes the most sense, and when it should be ignored. Obviously, laws cannot be made for the every situation and there's a time when they're just too generalised to work.

Can it be assumed that laws are temporary placeholders of societal norms, designed to be changed as society changes?

You're the one making a simplistic argument, in my opinion. The law is the law - that means nothing. What the law is, is a set of rules devised by human beings and fully amendable by human beings. They are not magic words. What matters is the principle behind them. And if the principle is not being met, or the principle is contrary to the good of human beings, then it can be challenged, plain and simple.

And as to your remark that Ireland isn't the only country that has such laws, I will give the same answer I give US rightwingers who defend the Bush administration's corruption by pointing out that previous adminstrations were also corrupt:

Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right.

its not a simplistic argument, its the one that happened in court on the case we are discussing. its not my opinion, its what happened here.

the 'principle' that is behind this is that the majority of the irish have population decided on more than one occasion that there was a right to life for the unborn which overruled a womans right to choose.

you and i disagreeing with this law doens't alter the legal framework. you cant get or arrange to get an abortion in ireland which is currently the will of the people decided on and reinforced in a general referendum. decided and amended.

i smoke herbs fully aware i am outside the law. if i do so in front of an agent of the state then i am increasing my risk of consequences, which is essentially the case when someone in care decided to abort.

Ah! I see. It would depend I suppose on how you see laws. I see them more as a stronger form of guidelines. A good thing to look to when making judgements. But when there's a time it makes obviously no sense, then they should be bent out of the way and put back again. Obviously if the law was totally stringent then there would be no need for a judge to arbitrate. The judge should bring common sense to the equation, live up to their job, and judge when the law makes the most sense, and when it should be ignored. Obviously, laws cannot be made for the every situation and there's a time when they're just too generalised to work.
I agree. If the law were absolute, there would be no need for judges or juries. We'd just go by the letter of the law as written in the books and any variation would be considered a violation.

In this case, the system did work because the law did decide for what was best for the girl in question in the end, but the point here is that bureaucrats (unnamed) decided to put one Irish law above another for reasons that were not made clear. They decided that stopping this girl from getting an abortion (despite the circumstances) was so important that it justified them violating her right to travel, which is also guaranteed under the law. Now, from my point of view, this looks like they decided that it was more important to impose a moral viewpoint on her than to honor her rights as a citizen. (Remember, this girl is not really under-age, she is just at the borderline between being under care and being automatically released from care. If this had happened a few months later, no bureaucrats would have been involved at all. So it's not as if she is not competent to make such decisions for herself or to have rights as a citizen.)

So my question would be, what is wrong with Ireland's abortion law that it seems to contradict in practical application with other Irish laws?

Women are not citizens in Ireland? Because if that law forces them to leave their country in order to access medical services, then yes, it most certainly does impinge on them.

Medical services in this instance is subjective. If she is endangered it would be considered a medical service and is allowed.

And you missed my point. My point was, WHY does the Irish Constitution ban slavery? I suggest that its reasons for doing so would also be applicable to allowing women access to abortion as a medical service. If those reasons do apply, then the question is why does the Constitution allow Irish society to treat women this way in regards to reproduction if it will not allow them to treat other people in an arguably similar way in regards to other areas of life? So the issue is not, are you violating your Constitution? The issue is, are you following your Constitution fully, or is your Constitution contradicting itself in terms of justice and does that need to be addressed?
The SR kind of addressed this for me.

You are taking the 'allowance' of abortion services to mean it is a medical service. It is not so in Ireland. Merely because one is different from the other does not make one nor the other 'right' or 'wrong'.


That's what challenges to laws are for.
Which are exactly what referenda are for too - sadly they tend to be highly political in their wording - one would never see a question "Do you wish to see abortion allowed in all cases?". One looks to whomever is in power at the time of a referendum to see how likely it is to be passed.


And you are now missing the very point you claimed to agree with above. First of all, "democracy" =/= "majority will" without question.
Oh come on now. Democracy is essentially mob rule - just polished up around the edges.

Second, by your argument, the US was wrong to outlaw racial segregation even though it permitted extreme social injustice and inequality and was used as a shield for illegal acts such as murder and terrorism, because at the time the majority of white Americans (the numerical majority at the time) supported segregation. So should we have ignored Dr. King and the civil rights activists and allowed the southern states to continue tolerating the murder of blacks and wholesale terrorization of black communities, in order to follow "majority will"?
Comparing the US with Ireland isn't really applicable as the laws evolved from differing legislations and were based on different moral perceptions at the time (Constitution to Constitution).

No, regardless of what the majority want, if what they want is counter to the philosophies on which a nation and its government is founded, then no law, no matter how popular, can give them what they want without challenge.
But if the philosophy of the nation and its government is to enshrine the position of the family then they are in the right. (I completely disagree with that, but that is the view point of the pro-lifers in Ireland - as that is what one of the basis for the Constitution was)

The US was founded on the principle that all men are created equal.
I raise my eyebrow at that given the whole "We're equal, but we're gonna still have slaves" thing.

In such a place, slavery and segregation cannot be tolerated, no matter how many people like it. Yet it took how many generations between 'all men are created equal' to 'emancipation'....

What is Ireland founded upon? Check the constitution - you'll come in for a shock with the references to the Catholic Church.

That is a place where people who want to challenge Ireland's abortion laws should start to look for tools to use against it.
One cannot merely walk up to the President/Prime Minister/Taoiseach and ask for a referendum.

Can it be assumed that laws are temporary placeholders of societal norms, designed to be changed as society changes?

Certainly. it's the function most laws have held, and continue to hold.

... the law did decide for what was best for the girl in question in the end...No. The law requires her to travel abroad, instead of having the abortion close to home. It's become an international news story because of die-hard Irishpeople. I doubt that this is the best for the girl in the end.

It's become an international news story because of die-hard Irishpeople..
... who had no say in this case one way or the other.

I agree. If the law were absolute, there would be no need for judges or juries. We'd just go by the letter of the law as written in the books and any variation would be considered a violation.

In this case, the system did work because the law did decide for what was best for the girl in question in the end, but the point here is that bureaucrats (unnamed) decided to put one Irish law above another for reasons that were not made clear. They decided that stopping this girl from getting an abortion (despite the circumstances) was so important that it justified them violating her right to travel, which is also guaranteed under the law. Now, from my point of view, this looks like they decided that it was more important to impose a moral viewpoint on her than to honor her rights as a citizen. (Remember, this girl is not really under-age, she is just at the borderline between being under care and being automatically released from care. If this had happened a few months later, no bureaucrats would have been involved at all. So it's not as if she is not competent to make such decisions for herself or to have rights as a citizen.)

So my question would be, what is wrong with Ireland's abortion law that it seems to contradict in practical application with other Irish laws?

what other irish laws were contradicted? the criminal ban on abortions is constitutional due to its 'family' centric view, the right to travel isnt legally enshrined. she has no 'right' to an abortion under law which is where your polemic falls.

all the judge did was make a call on whether her care worker would be criminally negligent in assisting her travel. these 'bureacrats' (social workers, councellors and nurses by the way) didnt make any judgement call, just asked for legal guidance.

...Democracy is essentially mob rule...Of course it is. It is the word's original meaning.

its not a simplistic argument, its the one that happened in court on the case we are discussing. its not my opinion, its what happened here.

the 'principle' that is behind this is that the majority of the irish have population decided on more than one occasion that there was a right to life for the unborn which overruled a womans right to choose.
That's not a principle. That's a statement of what happened. WHY did they decide that? What principle guided that decision and how does it guide other decisions they make, or does it conflict with other decisions they make regarding the way their citizens live?

you and i disagreeing with this law doens't alter the legal framework. you cant get or arrange to get an abortion in ireland which is currently the will of the people decided on and reinforced in a general referendum. decided and amended.
So are you suggesting that there is no point in challenging an unjust law in Ireland? Then why do you have referendums at all? Why revisit the question of laws at all?

I am saying is that the law should be challenged and that those who believe it is unjust should not give up challenging it, regardless of what is decided in elections or how many times it is decided. What is right is right, no matter what the "majority" "wills."

i smoke herbs fully aware i am outside the law. if i do so in front of an agent of the state then i am increasing my risk of consequences, which is essentially the case when someone in care decided to abort.
By your reasoning, the court should have ruled in favor of the caregivers, not the young woman. But, in the end, it did not. It ruled that the caregivers were wrong to stop her from leaving the country and granted her permission to go and didn't question what she might do overseas. So where does that leave your black-and-white, no allowances argument?

And if following the law is so all-important, then what justified the caregivers violating the law that allowed her to travel in order to uphold their idea of the other law? What gave them the authority to put one law above another? Apparently, nothing, because that is what the court said they did wrong. It did not decide that she should get an abortion. It decided that they did not have the right to deny her the right to travel.

what other irish laws were contradicted? the criminal ban on abortions is constitutional, the right to travel isnt legally enshrined. she has no right to an abortion which is where your polemic falls.

all the judge did was make a call on whether her care worker would be criminally negligent in assisting her travel. these 'bureacrats' (social workers, councellors and nurses by the way) didnt make any judgement call, just asked for legal guidance.

Article 40.3.3
"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.

... who had no say in this case one way or the other.They banned abortion. The issue was not just her traveling abroad, it was about her traveling abroad for an abortion.

Medical services in this instance is subjective. If she is endangered it would be considered a medical service and is allowed.


The SR kind of addressed this for me.

You are taking the 'allowance' of abortion services to mean it is a medical service. It is not so in Ireland. Merely because one is different from the other does not make one nor the other 'right' or 'wrong'.


Which are exactly what referenda are for too - sadly they tend to be highly political in their wording - one would never see a question "Do you wish to see abortion allowed in all cases?". One looks to whomever is in power at the time of a referendum to see how likely it is to be passed.



Oh come on now. Democracy is essentially mob rule - just polished up around the edges.


Comparing the US with Ireland isn't really applicable as the laws evolved from differing legislations and were based on different moral perceptions at the time (Constitution to Constitution).


But if the philosophy of the nation and its government is to enshrine the position of the family then they are in the right. (I completely disagree with that, but that is the view point of the pro-lifers in Ireland - as that is what one of the basis for the Constitution was)


I raise my eyebrow at that given the whole "We're equal, but we're gonna still have slaves" thing.

Yet it took how many generations between 'all men are created equal' to 'emancipation'....

Check the constitution - you'll come in for a shock with the references to the Catholic Church.


One cannot merely walk up to the President/Prime Minister/Taoiseach and ask for a referendum.
So, in other words, if it doesn't happen immediately, it will never happen and probably shouldn't?

If it took over 100 years for the US to get over its social and economic dependence on slavery, then why should abortion rights activists in Ireland be discouraged because of a few defeats in a few referendums? What is right is right, and you don't stop fighting for it, no matter what.

They banned abortion. The issue was not just her traveling abroad, it was about her traveling abroad for an abortion.

No, they never banned abortion. Abortion was never legal to begin with. To ban abortion, it would have to have been legal to do so at some stage.

They prevented its occurance in the state.

That may seem the same to you, but legally, poltically and constitutionally - they are poles apart.

And I reiterate:

Article 40.3.3.


"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."

Now, I don't agree with this section at all. But I will exercise my democratic duty, if and when, a referendum comes forth and until then, I will obey the law.

Certainly. it's the function most laws have held, and continue to hold.

So how do you determine which laws to obey, and which should be spurned?

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.Is that the text of the law or your addition? If it is the text of the law then Ireland is purposely dumping its problems to other countries. That's really despicable.

That's not a principle. That's a statement of what happened. WHY did they decide that? What principle guided that decision and how does it guide other decisions they make, or does it conflict with other decisions they make regarding the way their citizens live?


So are you suggesting that there is no point in challenging an unjust law in Ireland? Then why do you have referendums at all? Why revisit the question of laws at all?

I am saying is that the law should be challenged and that those who believe it is unjust should not give up challenging it, regardless of what is decided in elections or how many times it is decided. What is right is right, no matter what the "majority" "wills."


By your reasoning, the court should have ruled in favor of the caregivers, not the young woman. But, in the end, it did not. It ruled that the caregivers were wrong to stop her from leaving the country and granted her permission to go and didn't question what she might do overseas. So where does that leave your black-and-white, no allowances argument?

And if following the law is so all-important, then what justified the caregivers violating the law that allowed her to travel in order to uphold their idea of the other law? What gave them the authority to put one law above another? Apparently, nothing, because that is what the court said they did wrong. It did not decide that she should get an abortion. It decided that they did not have the right to deny her the right to travel.


im just explaining what transpired to those who seemed to see this as a case about abortion as opposed to a case about the levels of freedom prescribed to thise in care.

this unjust law on abortion has been challenged, but the will of the people has been clear. we have achieved the compromise (below) not prohibiting women from travelling even if the state are fully aware that an abortion will be had. this doesnt happen to other 'illegal' activities.

Article 40.3.3
"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.

thats different to an absolute right to travel abroad. it is regularly restricted for a number of reasons.

what other irish laws were contradicted? the criminal ban on abortions is constitutional due to its 'family' centric view, the right to travel isnt legally enshrined. she has no 'right' to an abortion under law which is where your polemic falls.

all the judge did was make a call on whether her care worker would be criminally negligent in assisting her travel. these 'bureacrats' (social workers, councellors and nurses by the way) didnt make any judgement call, just asked for legal guidance.
I'm not saying she has a right to an abortion under Irish law, but she does have a right to travel and the specific actions that had initially been taken by the bureaucrats in question interfered with that right of hers. A technicality but there you go, that's what the court decided on.

So, in other words, if it doesn't happen immediately, it will never happen and probably shouldn't?

If it took over 100 years for the US to get over its social and economic dependence on slavery, then why should abortion rights activists in Ireland be discouraged because of a few defeats in a few referendums? What is right is right, and you don't stop fighting for it, no matter what.

I agree and I was never in disagreement with you. I was merely saying "Fuck the law" gets you nowhere - you work within its confines to change it. Yes it takes time and times have changed since the conservative early 1980's. There has to be another referendum and a properly worded one at that.

Is that the text of the law or your addition? If it is the text of the law then Ireland is purposely dumping its problems to other countries. That's really despicable.
Check it up.

How is it despicable saying "You can't do it here, but we're not going to keep you prisoner on the island until you have the kid". It's saying, "We think its a crime legally, but if you want to do it somewhere else then *shrug* that's your choice."


thats different to an absolute right to travel abroad. it is regularly restricted for a number of reasons.
No, it is a right to travel abroad and has been (clearly) read as such by the courts. Can you cite precendents otherwise?

Article 40.3.3
"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.
There you go. The right to travel IS enshrined. It says nothing at all about any requirement that an Irish citizen provide assurances that the purpose of the trip is not to get an abortion. So by asking law enforcement to stop the girl from leaving the country to get an abortion, her caregivers violated her legally guaranteed freedom to travel to other states.

This one provision, if it is an accurate quote, which I assume it is, throws the validity of the Irish anti-abortion law into question, since it renders it essentially unenforceable from the get-go.

I'm not saying she has a right to an abortion under Irish law, but she does have a right to travel and the specific actions that had initially been taken by the bureaucrats in question interfered with that right of hers. A technicality but there you go, that's what the court decided on.

go back a level. she is in care because of her previous inability to look after herslef. she lost lots of rights, and one of those was her right to travel.

these rights can be restricted by the state, in this instance for her own protection.

I'm not saying she has a right to an abortion under Irish law, but she does have a right to travel and the specific actions that had initially been taken by the bureaucrats in question interfered with that right of hers.

That's exactly my point. :) If someone wants to start a thread on Irish abortion laws then fine, but that (the above) is what this thread and the case itself was about.

throws the validity of the Irish anti-abortion law into question, since it renders it essentially unenforceable from the get-go.

Ding ding ding. Someone else gets it.

Its clearly a sop to the older more conservative voter bloc (of which there is a surprisingly large amount), keeping them happy all the while stepping back and freely allowing people to choose what they want to do with their own bodies.

If they were really anti-abortion they wouldn't provide information on methods, clinics, costs and procedures.... which they do.

No, it is a right to travel abroad and has been (clearly) read as such by the courts. Can you cite precendents otherwise?

people in prison.

unnacompanied young children.

certain convicted IRA members.

convicted football hooligans when tournaments are on.

asylum seekers cannot leave the state and return while their cases are ongoing

those who reject their passports.

if you dont have a visa for the state you wish to enter and whatever other conditions proscribed (AIDS and cancer sufferers cannot enter the US from Ireland, convicted criminals to Australia etc) the Irish state will not intervene

those are off the top of my head.

if you dont have a visa for the state you wish to enter and whatever other conditions proscribed (AIDS and cancer sufferers cannot enter the US from Ireland, convicted criminals to Australia etc) the Irish state will not intervene

those are off the top of my head.

Why not cancer sufferers? :confused:

im just explaining what transpired to those who seemed to see this as a case about abortion as opposed to a case about the levels of freedom prescribed to thise in care.
I asked you what the principle behind Ireland's laws and Constitution was, not for a rundown of what has happened so far on this one issue.

this unjust law on abortion has been challenged, but the will of the people has been clear. we have achieved the compromise (below) not prohibiting women from travelling even if the state are fully aware that an abortion will be had. this doesnt happen to other 'illegal' activities.
You agree that the law is unjust but you think that people who are suffering under it should just take it because others decided not to recognize the injustice? I disagree, vehemently. I see no reason not to keep challenging the law, as many times and for as long as it takes.

And your compromise is not a true compromise. It seems like little more to me than a cynical sop being thrown to both parties to keep them mollified. You and others call this "win-win." I call it "lose-lose."

thats different to an absolute right to travel abroad. it is regularly restricted for a number of reasons.
It doesn't read like much of a difference, and based solely on the words you posted, if Ireland regularly restricts this freedom, then it must be in the regular habit of choosing not to enforce its own laws, just as, by including this caveat, it chooses not to enforce its abortion law.

Why not cancer sufferers? :confused:

in case they need medical treatment. bizarre but true.

Why not cancer sufferers? :confused:

Economics. Cancer care is very expensive, and states don't like spending lots of money if the person goes into crisis while in their country.

-snip-

Regarding abortion. :rolleyes:

But I do like they way the majority of the cases you cited were in relation to convicted criminals. Woman seeking abortion =/= convicted criminal.

I agree and I was never in disagreement with you. I was merely saying "Fuck the law" gets you nowhere - you work within its confines to change it. Yes it takes time and times have changed since the conservative early 1980's. There has to be another referendum and a properly worded one at that.
I believe there is good use to be made of civil disobedience, that sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do. Not in every case, but sometimes, definitely.

I asked you what the principle behind Ireland's laws and Constitution was, not for a rundown of what has happened so far on this one issue.


You agree that the law is unjust but you think that people who are suffering under it should just take it because others decided not to recognize the injustice? I disagree, vehemently. I see no reason not to keep challenging the law, as many times and for as long as it takes.

And your compromise is not a true compromise. It seems like little more to me than a cynical sop being thrown to both parties to keep them mollified. You and others call this "win-win." I call it "lose-lose."


It doesn't read like much of a difference, and based solely on the words you posted, if Ireland regularly restricts this freedom, then it must be in the regular habit of choosing not to enforce its own laws, just as, by including this caveat, it chooses not to enforce its abortion law.


I agree with all this. But its the position we find ourselves in.

Not a lot you can do when 80% of the population are opposed to any abortion on demand. We got the right to travel to abort which was a huge victory and not one to be dismissed as lightly as you choose to.

are there no unjust laws where you come from?

Economics. Cancer care is very expensive, and states don't like spending lots of money if the person goes into crisis while in their country.

Interesting. Makes sense I suppose. Does it apply to other non infectious conditions as well?

go back a level. she is in care because of her previous inability to look after herslef. she lost lots of rights, and one of those was her right to travel.

these rights can be restricted by the state, in this instance for her own protection.
Excuse me, but I saw nothing in the media coverage that indicated her inability to care for herself was permanent or even ongoing. And apparently, the Irish courts agree with me on that. Whatever condition she may have been in when she went into care, she is perfectly able to decide to go traveling on her own now.

I believe there is good use to be made of civil disobedience, that sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do. Not in every case, but sometimes, definitely.

Well yes, I agree. But Irish women are not the oppressed masses you think. You may think this 'not being able to have an abortion' means they are treated as second class citizens by the Constitution.... in fact, woman hold a special place in the Constitution.

Article 41 2.1, 2.2
1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

2.2 is saying mothers should not be forced by economic necessity to go out and work! Again it fits in with the foundation of the Constitution as you mentioned earlier on - The Family

Article 41 1.1, 1.2.
1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

Slightly different from most eh?

Regarding abortion. :rolleyes:

But I do like they way the majority of the cases you cited were in relation to convicted criminals. Woman seeking abortion =/= convicted criminal.

technically they are breaking the law..... ergo the trip to the high court.

my point is there is no absolute right to foreign travel.

judges regularly ban people from counties within ireland, see shannon and corrib protestors.

this case could easily have gone the other way with a right wing judge.

Interesting. Makes sense I suppose. Does it apply to other non infectious conditions as well?

Retinitis Pigmentosa is, I know, and ALS (Stephen Hawking had to get a special waiver). A number of degenerative conditions; basically, if you're going to be a drain on resources, the US is unlikely to allow entry.

technically they are breaking the law..... ergo the trip to the high court.
The Court said no. She clearly wasn't breaking the law.

my point is there is no absolute right to foreign travel. Convicts lose their citizens rights. Its the price for being a convict.

judges regularly ban people from counties within ireland, see shannon and corrib protestors.
What about them?

this case could easily have gone the other way with a right wing judge.

No, it really couldn't. Really. It couldn't. "Woman looking to travel.... " doesn't matter what for as the Article clearly says, it cannot impact on the right to travel from the State to another. End of discussion.

I agree with all this. But its the position we find ourselves in.

Not a lot you can do when 80% of the population are opposed to any abortion on demand. We got the right to travel to abort which was a huge victory and not one to be dismissed as lightly as you choose to.

are there no unjust laws where you come from?
Plenty. Since the US is a cobbled-together monster of federalism held together only by the weak glue of temporary compromises hammered out in courts or legislatures, nearly half our laws are under challenge at any given time.

But over the years, we have shown a steady, though maddeningly slow, progress towards an egalitarian society. Our progress is along the "three steps forward, two steps back" line as people fight for either rights or privileges, but on the whole, we are in a better place now than we were 100 years ago. We still have far, far to go, and battles that you might think have already been won are actually still being fought and far from certain. Even as we thought we were ready to transfer the energies of civil rights activism from blacks and women to gays, we find ourselves fighting resurgences of racism and misogyny.

The Revolution is ongoing.

Well yes, I agree. But Irish women are not the oppressed masses you think. You may think this 'not being able to have an abortion' means they are treated as second class citizens by the Constitution.... in fact, woman hold a special place in the Constitution.



2.2 is saying mothers should not be forced by economic necessity to go out and work! Again it fits in with the foundation of the Constitution as you mentioned earlier on - The Family



Slightly different from most eh?
Well, I was only mentioning the usefulness of civil disobedience in a general way, as you said, in a general way, that you think we should abide by laws until we get a chance to bring them up to referendum. In a general way, I disagree.

And frankly, I don't see what the sections you posted have to do with whether the abortion law should be challenged or how it should be challenged.

My gf and I talked about this last night. We both decided that if she did get pregnant and it had no chance of living then it would be ok for an abortion to take place.

This girl should be allowed her abortion in the UK and that her traveling to the UK being blocked was not the correct decision.

The Court said no. She clearly wasn't breaking the law.
Convicts lose their citizens rights. Its the price for being a convict.
this was about whether her care givers could assist her travel, would they be breaking the law.


What about them?

they have been barred from Clare and Mayo. Even travel within Ireland can be restriced by the state.


No, it really couldn't. Really. It couldn't. "Woman looking to travel.... " doesn't matter what for as the Article clearly says, it cannot impact on the right to travel from the State to another. End of discussion.

again, this was about the fact she was is in care and unable to freely travel anyway.



The Revolution is ongoing.


as is ours.

Well, I was only mentioning the usefulness of civil disobedience in a general way, as you said, in a general way, that you think we should abide by laws until we get a chance to bring them up to referendum. In a general way, I disagree.
*shrug* Alright.

And frankly, I don't see what the sections you posted have to do with whether the abortion law should be challenged or how it should be challenged.

It wasn't for you per se. I was pre-empting posters who would use the 'OMG, the women are so oppressed by not being allowed to have abortions' argument by highlighting the special position women have in the Constitution.

The abortion law can only be challenged by referendum. At the moment it is not a pressing concern politically or even socially. The current system suits the vast, vast, vast majority of people - women included.

*shrug* Alright.



It wasn't for you per se. I was pre-empting posters who would use the 'OMG, the women are so oppressed by not being allowed to have abortions' argument by highlighting the special position women have in the Constitution.

The abortion law can only be challenged by referendum. At the moment it is not a pressing concern politically or even socially. The current system suits the vast, vast, vast majority of people - women included.
Oh, well, then, whatever, but I really do have to question what it is that is actually "suiting" the vast majority of people. Is it the law? Or is it the failure to enforce the law? How satisfied would that vast, vast, vast majority be if Ireland's government decided, as those HSE bureaucrats did, that preventing abortion was more important and started stopping women from traveling freely in order to enforce that law?

Basically, all you're saying is that, as things stand now, the majority are willing to let the curmudgeons have their little say in the Constitution as long as they don't actually have to abide by it in any real sense, but that is not a situation I would feel satisfied with, not if those words are actually in my Constitution. And in this case, the inherent problem with it did come to the surface, and the courts and many other citizens came down on a side that implies less than total allegiance to the anti-abortion law.

Oh, well, then, whatever, but I really do have to question what it is that is actually "suiting" the vast majority of people. Is it the law? Or is it the failure to enforce the law? How satisfied would that vast, vast, vast majority be if Ireland's government decided, as those HSE bureaucrats did, that preventing abortion was more important and started stopping women from traveling freely in order to enforce that law?

Basically, all you're saying is that, as things stand now, the majority are willing to let the curmudgeons have their little say in the Constitution as long as they don't actually have to abide by it in any real sense, but that is not a situation I would feel satisfied with, not if those words are actually in my Constitution. And in this case, the inherent problem with it did come to the surface, and the courts and many other citizens came down on a side that implies less than total allegiance to the anti-abortion law.

it was her being put into care that restricted her right to travel. the HSE felt obliged to legally cover their staff in assisting her abort while they were legally responsible for her.

you are making to grand a statement in what was just a kegal interpretation for an agency of state

it was her being put into care that restricted her right to travel. the HSE felt obliged to legally cover their staff in assisting her abort while they were legally responsible for her.

you are making to grand a statement in what was just a kegal interpretation for an agency of state
Except, of course, that a court of competent jurisdiction has declared that they made the wrong decision under the law.

As I said, the reasons she was put into care were not permanent conditions, so the power of the HSE to make such decisions obviously had become limited over time. So, the argument that they were doing the right thing under the law is incorrect. Obviously, because a court said so.

what it is that is actually "suiting" the vast majority of people. Is it the law? Or is it the failure to enforce the law?
The status of the Constitution in that it protects the unborn in Ireland but freely allows you to choose to go abroad and have a termination. I know it sounds hypocritical but it's a compromise that keeps both sides predom. happy - one thing that an outright ban or outright legalisation fails to do. It somehow balances freedom and protection.

Several of my friends have had terminations/abortions by travelling to England. Didn't and still doesn't bother them, that they've had to hop on a short 30-35min flight. Never have I heard them complain about a lack of facilities for it at home.

How satisfied would that vast, vast, vast majority be if Ireland's government decided, as those HSE bureaucrats did, that preventing abortion was more important and started stopping women from traveling freely in order to enforce that law?
The HSE would be brought to court, as it was in this case.
The government could only change that by referendum - either tighening the laws, which was tried several years ago and defeated or loosening them. (It was a complex amendment in which the government wanted the motion to be defeated so it could look progressive, and at the same time prevent a future tightening by saying "Look, we already tried to do that but the public said No. We're not going back over it.")

Basically, all you're saying is that, as things stand now, the majority are willing to let the curmudgeons have their little say in the Constitution as long as they don't actually have to abide by it in any real sense, but that is not a situation I would feel satisfied with, not if those words are actually in my Constitution.
Those 'curmudgeons' can make or break a government come election time. You underestimate their numbers.

And in this case, the inherent problem with it did come to the surface, and the courts and many other citizens came down on a side that implies less than total allegiance to the anti-abortion law.
There were several factors in this case which made it unique - she was a minor legally and in the guardianship of the HSE*, as well as the medical condition of the baby and that there was no danger to her health. IN the end, the Court looked at the case - saw it to be bollocks, and said she's free to go where she wants.

*Ironically, at the moment legislation is trying to be brought in to ensure under-18's are protected by the Constitution.

The status of the Constitution in that it protects the unborn in Ireland but freely allows you to choose to go abroad and have a termination. I know it sounds hypocritical but it's a compromise that keeps both sides predom. happy - one thing that an outright ban or outright legalisation fails to do. It somehow balances freedom and protection.
It's both hypocritical and cynical. And that "somehow balances" is the problem as far as I can see. Any plan or system that includes the word "somehow" has some major flaws in it. Essentially, what Ireland has regarding abortion is a non-law, neither one thing nor the other. Trust me, this situation will eventually come to a head, one way or another. It's inevitable. Either the anti-choice Catholics will get tired of getting nothing but lipservice and insist on an outright ban, or the majority will realize that they don't really care and are tired of pretending otherwise and someday a referendum will end in a vote for some form of legalization, however limited.

Several of my friends have had terminations/abortions by travelling to England. Didn't and still doesn't bother them, that they've had to hop on a short 30-35min flight. Never have I heard them complain about a lack of facilities for it at home.
That's beside the point.

The HSE would be brought to court, as it was in this case.
The government could only change that by referendum - either tighening the laws, which was tried several years ago and defeated or loosening them. (It was a complex amendment in which the government wanted the motion to be defeated so it could look progressive, and at the same time prevent a future tightening by saying "Look, we already tried to do that but the public said No. We're not going back over it.")
Irish political tactics are also beside the point of whether the law is valid or not.

Those 'curmudgeons' can make or break a government come election time. You underestimate their numbers.
Yet here you are telling me they're nothing to worry about, thanks to your handy-dandy "compromise" that actually does not give them what they want -- unless all they want is to feel superior without actually stopping abortions at all.

There were several factors in this case which made it unique - she was a minor legally and in the guardianship of the HSE*, as well as the medical condition of the baby and that there was no danger to her health. IN the end, the Court looked at the case - saw it to be bollocks, and said she's free to go where she wants.

*Ironically, at the moment legislation is trying to be brought in to ensure under-18's are protected by the Constitution.
I'm aware of that. It's been what we've been talking about all along. Why are you telling me this?

It's both hypocritical and cynical. And that "somehow balances" is the problem as far as I can see. Any plan or system that includes the word "somehow" has some major flaws in it.
Despite your thoughts on the matter, the 'major flaws' to which you refer simply don't exist, or enough to make it an issue.

Essentially, what Ireland has regarding abortion is a non-law, neither one thing nor the other.
That's pretty much it. I think in European legalese it's called 'silent law'.

Trust me, this situation will eventually come to a head, one way or another. It's inevitable. Either the anti-choice Catholics will get tired of getting nothing but lipservice and insist on an outright ban, or the majority will realize that they don't really care and are tired of pretending otherwise and someday a referendum will end in a vote for some form of legalization, however limited.
It will come to a 'head' if and when the electorate wants it to. The "anti-choice Catholics" won't insist on an outright ban because there was already one several decades ago and the laws have been liberalised. I fail to see such a catastrophic event that would require the government to re-introduce draconian laws regarding abortion.

The majority don't care at the moment because there are more important issues to deal with - it being election time right now. Hopefully in the future, short term future, we can have an open and intelligently worded referendum.


That's beside the point.
I am merely giving anectodal evidence from women who have gone through it. It's very much the point.


Irish political tactics are also beside the point of whether the law is valid or not.
Then it appears you fail to understand how a political system works, and how a referendum/change to a constitution occurs and the climate in which it is used.

Yet here you are telling me they're nothing to worry about, thanks to your handy-dandy "compromise" that actually does not give them what they want -- unless all they want is to feel superior without actually stopping abortions at all.
It's a compromise - it gives neither side what they want while at the same time it lets them believe they're getting what they want.

You would do well not not dismiss an electoral bloc out of hand because you do not agree with them - something similar could be said about the evangelical Christian community in the United States; one mightn't agree with them at all, but one doesn't dismiss their political clout at the same time.


I'm aware of that. It's been what we've been talking about all along. Why are you telling me this?
Because I'm agreeing with you? I'm also clarifying my position to any johnny come latelys into the argument who think I'm an ardent supporter of pro-life or the bureaucratic morass that created this.

Despite your thoughts on the matter, the 'major flaws' to which you refer simply don't exist, or enough to make it an issue.


That's pretty much it. I think in European legalese it's called 'silent law'.


It will come to a 'head' if and when the electorate wants it to. The "anti-choice Catholics" won't insist on an outright ban because there was already one several decades ago and the laws have been liberalised. I fail to see such a catastrophic event that would require the government to re-introduce draconian laws regarding abortion.

The majority don't care at the moment because there are more important issues to deal with - it being election time right now. Hopefully in the future, short term future, we can have an open and intelligently worded referendum.
My Personal Opinon (tm):

1) European style "silent law" is a bad idea. It is really just fobbing off problems to future generations while allowing those problems to fester and potentially get worse while lying unaddressed.

2) Clarify for me: Do these kinds of laws come up for referendum on a regularly scheduled basis, or do people have to make that happen, by some political method of putting the issue on the ballot? Either way, there is still work for activism, either to persuade the electorate to vote your way when the time comes, or to persuade the electorate to call for the referendum (i.e. make them want to deal with it). So, your statement that it will be dealt with when the electorate wants to deal with it does not in any way refute or even address my arguments in favor of activism. Therefore, I stand by my expressed opinion that this unjust law deserves to be challenged, if only to lay the groundwork for more referenda.

I am merely giving anectodal evidence from women who have gone through it. It's very much the point.
But anecdotal evidence -- or even sound statistical evidence -- that women in Ireland find it easy to work around an unjust law does not change, and is not even related to, the factual argument of whether the law is actually unjust or not.

Then it appears you fail to understand how a political system works, and how a referendum/change to a constitution occurs and the climate in which it is used.
This is needlessly dismissive. I have been very clear about my understanding of the situation, so if I am operating under a mistake of facts, it is up to you to correct that mistake. Nothing you have said so far gives me any information about the Irish political system that in any way contradicts or invalidates what I have been saying about the usefulness of activism in the Irish system. If I am still not understanding your system, then the fault is yours, not mine. Resorting to minor put-downs does not make your argument look more solid.

It's a compromise - it gives neither side what they want while at the same time it lets them believe they're getting what they want.
That's not what a compromise is. A true compromise gives both parties a little of what each wants. A false compromise either gives neither party what they want, or it gives one party all of what it wants while only giving lip service to the other party. The Irish abortion law seems to be the latter.

You would do well not not dismiss an electoral bloc out of hand because you do not agree with them - something similar could be said about the evangelical Christian community in the United States; one mightn't agree with them at all, but one doesn't dismiss their political clout at the same time.
Sounds like good advice for the Irish government to follow. If I were a fundamentalist seeking to stop abortion on religious grounds, I would consider the Irish law a slap in my face, as it merely parrots my beliefs back at me but still allows Irish women to get abortions at the drop of a hat and the small price of a short plane trip. I would not be entirely sure how long I would be willing to tolerate such an insult before taking precisely the kind of political action you see happening in the US now.

Because I'm agreeing with you? I'm also clarifying my position to any johnny come latelys into the argument who think I'm an ardent supporter of pro-life or the bureaucratic morass that created this.
Oh. Just, without any preamble, I didn't know why you were repeating the information, since I didn't need to be reminded of it.

1) European style "silent law" is a bad idea. It is really just fobbing off problems to future generations while allowing those problems to fester and potentially get worse while lying unaddressed.
Maybe in the broader sense yes, but in Ireland they don't seem to fester - which I find odd. More important things have consistently cropped up - struggling economy, the peace process, rising inflation etc etc.

2) Clarify for me: Do these kinds of laws come up for referendum on a regularly scheduled basis, or do people have to make that happen, by some political method of putting the issue on the ballot?
Like I said below previously (and I didn't mean to be dismissive if I came across like that) the government cannot introduce legislation that conflicts with the Constitution - it has to hold a referendum. A proposal to amend the Constitution must be introduced in the Dáil (Lower House) as a Bill. The Bill sets out the proposed amendment to the Constitution. The Bill must be passed by both the Dáil and the Seanad (Senate/Upper House) before going to the general public.

At the last count, there have been 27 amendments to the Constitution (16 of which have occured in the last 15 years alone).

For instance in both in 1992 and in 2002, the people voted against strengthening the constitutional ban on abortion and to prevent risk of suicide being invoked as grounds for an abortion. The shitty thing is that the government can word the Bill in such a way as it may favour their political base - or increase their popularity. So referendums, as I said, are inherently political in nature as they have to come from the Houses.

The activism you speak of does not have to be civil disobediance or even violent - exerting pressure on political parties/politicians is quite easy at local level. I work in local government and I see local people making life hell for local politicians. It flows up the hierarchy until it hits government. It take time but that's the democratic system.


But anecdotal evidence -- or even sound statistical evidence -- that women in Ireland find it easy to work around an unjust law does not change, and is not even related to, the factual argument of whether the law is actually unjust or not.
A lot of laws are unjust if you simply disagree with them. I find it unjust that I can't pee in a quiet alley on my way home from a night out.

We have courts to decide what is and isn't 'just'.


That's not what a compromise is. A true compromise gives both parties a little of what each wants. Yes a little, but by that reasoning they both lose a lot. That was my point. They feel they won - I think that is more important as opposed to having both sides ultimately disatisfied that they lost so much to gain a little.

The Irish abortion law seems to be the latter.
I find it quite ridiculous. At the same time judges have repeatedly said while you may not be able to abort a foetus in Ireland, you will not and cannot be prevented from having it done abroad. Until it becomes an election issue, it will remain so. And looking at the divisive nature it has in the United States - I don't actually blame the polticians for not bringing it up. It would be quite foolish in their parts politically.

Sounds like good advice for the Irish government to follow. If I were a fundamentalist seeking to stop abortion on religious grounds, I would consider the Irish law a slap in my face, as it merely parrots my beliefs back at me but still allows Irish women to get abortions at the drop of a hat and the small price of a short plane trip. I would not be entirely sure how long I would be willing to tolerate such an insult before taking precisely the kind of political action you see happening in the US now.
Its an out of sight, out of mind mentality they have. So long as its "not in my back yard" so to speak - and that's neither the governments or legislations fault, but that of the conservative bloc.

Maybe in the broader sense yes, but in Ireland they don't seem to fester - which I find odd. More important things have consistently cropped up - struggling economy, the peace process, rising inflation etc etc.
Then you've been lucky enough to avoid the bullshit that the US has been dealing with -- lucky so far, that is. No guarantee that it will continue that way.

Like I said below previously (and I didn't mean to be dismissive if I came across like that) the government cannot introduce legislation that conflicts with the Constitution - it has to hold a referendum. A proposal to amend the Constitution must be introduced in the Dáil (Lower House) as a Bill. The Bill sets out the proposed amendment to the Constitution. The Bill must be passed by both the Dáil and the Seanad (Senate/Upper House) before going to the general public.

At the last count, there have been 27 amendments to the Constitution (16 of which have occured in the last 15 years alone).

For instance in both in 1992 and in 2002, the people voted against strengthening the constitutional ban on abortion and to prevent risk of suicide being invoked as grounds for an abortion. The shitty thing is that the government can word the Bill in such a way as it may favour their political base - or increase their popularity. So referendums, as I said, are inherently political in nature as they have to come from the Houses.
Right, I get it, but what prompts the government to start that process at all? Obviously, sometimes it will be their own desire to pass some kind of legislation, but surely other times it is a response to public pressure or lobbying (or Irish equivalent of that). Otherwise, why would there have been multiple referenda on abortion? Clearly, parts of the matter remain open questions, politically.

The activism you speak of does not have to be civil disobediance or even violent -
Who said anything at all about violence??? Where did you get that from? The only thing I said about civil disobedience is that it is sometimes, under certain circumstances, useful but that hardly implies a call to arms. Also, I remind you that I have been advocating activism, not civil disobedience, in this instance. Activism is things such as letter writing campaigns, petitions, lobbying, etc -- you know, being active in one's cause.

exerting pressure on political parties/politicians is quite easy at local level. I work in local government and I see local people making life hell for local politicians. It flows up the hierarchy until it hits government. It take time but that's the democratic system.
In other words, being activists, just like I've been saying all along.

A lot of laws are unjust if you simply disagree with them. I find it unjust that I can't pee in a quiet alley on my way home from a night out.
I disagree with that outlook. Not being allowed to spray your filthy drunken pee all over the public ways is hardly a serious impingement on your rights as a citizen or your life as a human being. You should have thought of that before you left the pub, assuming you were not raised by wolves.

A truly unjust law is one that interferes with the ability of a citizen to live in the same way as other citizens. What other medical procedures to Irish citizens have to go abroad to get? What medical procedures are illegal for men to get within the borders of Ireland?

We have courts to decide what is and isn't 'just'.
Good to know.

Yes a little, but by that reasoning they both lose a lot. That was my point. They feel they won - I think that is more important as opposed to having both sides ultimately disatisfied that they lost so much to gain a little.
You're either missing or denying the point. The Irish law gives maybe 75% of what they want to the abortion rights side, but only maybe 5% of what they want to the anti-abortion rights side. The point of a compromise is that it must be equitable, regardless of whether it is satisfying to either side. Tell me how the Irish system is equitable? And then tell me why you're so confident that the side that is getting lied to will never do anything about it just because they haven't succeeded in doing anything about it so far? (There have been referenda on total bans, haven't there? If so, then obviously someone wants one.)

I maintain that it would have been better to make the anti-abortion side totally unhappy rather than set them up to be simply lied to by their government.

I find it quite ridiculous. At the same time judges have repeatedly said while you may not be able to abort a foetus in Ireland, you will not and cannot be prevented from having it done abroad. Until it becomes an election issue, it will remain so.
Bold = operative words.

And looking at the divisive nature it has in the United States - I don't actually blame the polticians for not bringing it up. It would be quite foolish in their parts politically.
Well, if you prefer to let sleeping dogs lie, but I wonder just how long those dogs will remain asleep. Fundamentalism is creeping up everywhere, not just in the US. The fringe element is getting more and more vocal in the UK, right on Ireland's doorstep. And as with most places that see reactionary backlashes, I hear the Ireland is starting to lose a little of its cultural isolation and homogeneity as people from other places begin to move to its cities.

Its an out of sight, out of mind mentality they have. So long as its "not in my back yard" so to speak - and that's neither the governments or legislations fault, but that of the conservative bloc.
It reminds me a little of the 8 million Italians who live around the slopes of Vesuvius, which is classed as the world's most dangerous volcano today because the pressures within it are building so alarmingly. Yet those Italians are doing almost nothing to plan evacuations that have any better chance of working than the evacuations of Pompeii and Herculaneum. They just shrug and say, "Well, it might not happen."

Frankly, their attitude makes even more sense to me than yours, since really, considering the nature of the terrain and the nature of the danger, each individual's chances of escape are low enough that maybe it really isn't worth bothering about.

But the damage that rising fundamentalism can do to a nation is possibly even greater than a natural disaster over the long run, and to leave a potential political time bomb just sitting in your Constitution unaddressed -- not even preparing to address it in case the issue arises -- seems foolish to me.

I suppose Ireland has its reasons, but I still think it is a mistake. But whatever, it's just my opinion based on a limited observation.

Who said anything at all about violence??? Where did you get that from? The only thing I said about civil disobedience is that it is sometimes, under certain circumstances, useful but that hardly implies a call to arms. Also, I remind you that I have been advocating activism, not civil disobedience, in this instance. Activism is things such as letter writing campaigns, petitions, lobbying, etc -- you know, being active in one's cause.
Sorry, different people have different interpretations of "civil disobediance" - some mean Gandhiesque and MLK like actions, others take it to be more.... extreme. I was covering all bases.


In other words, being activists, just like I've been saying all along.
Well, yes.


I disagree with that outlook. Not being allowed to spray your filthy drunken pee all over the public ways is hardly a serious impingement on your rights as a citizen or your life as a human being. You should have thought of that before you left the pub, assuming you were not raised by wolves.
I was using it as an example. For instance drugs laws - how is smoking cannibis in the privacy and sanctity of my own home, affecting nobody but myself, impacting enough on the general population that warrants it being outlawed? Again, because of this some feel it is an unjust law - the courts do not.

A truly unjust law is one that interferes with the ability of a citizen to live in the same way as other citizens.
Not necessarily. See above.

What other medical procedures to Irish citizens have to go abroad to get? What medical procedures are illegal for men to get within the borders of Ireland?
Abortions aren't illegal in Ireland - stop portraying them as if they are. Certain countries don't allow abortions at all, for any reason. A woman can have one, just not like at a "walk in clinic".



You're either missing or denying the point. The Irish law gives maybe 75% of what they want to the abortion rights side, but only maybe 5% of what they want to the anti-abortion rights side. The point of a compromise is that it must be equitable, regardless of whether it is satisfying to either side.
I find the continued liberalisation of abortion laws to be a good thing. Only 25 years ago did the Catholic Church have extreme sway over people's opinions - that kind of power does not go away easily. In one generation, do not expect miracles. The very fact that any Irish government broke from the doctrinal approach on the Church is a milestone. It still has to keep the older, conservative bloc happy enough - and they are, and their influence has waned significantly in the past 15-20 years.

And then tell me why you're so confident that the side that is getting lied to will never do anything about it just because they haven't succeeded in doing anything about it so far?
Who's getting "lied" to exactly? The older crowd are happy that you can't have clinics for abortions on demand, while the younger population don't see it as an issue because there is no widespread call from groups, organisations or women themselves for such clinics - and again, it's not a major issue here.

(There have been referenda on total bans, haven't there? If so, then obviously someone wants one.)
Remember the politics behind them. The party can say "Look, we're progressive -we don't want to go backwards" while the public ponder "Wait, we never even asked to go backwards or tighten the laws" *shrugs and votes against it*

I maintain that it would have been better to make the anti-abortion side totally unhappy rather than set them up to be simply lied to by their government.
But no one is being lied to. You can't get an abortion on demand - they're happy with that.

Well, if you prefer to let sleeping dogs lie, but I wonder just how long those dogs will remain asleep.They'll be dead soon enough :p

The fringe element is getting more and more vocal in the UK, right on Ireland's doorstep.
On abortion? :confused: I haven't heard anything. And by the by, the UK has seperate laws for it's constituent parts - Northern Ireland has the same laws as the Republic on this issue.

It reminds me a little of the 8 million Italians who live around the slopes of Vesuvius, which is classed as the world's most dangerous volcano today because the pressures within it are building so alarmingly. Yet those Italians are doing almost nothing to plan evacuations that have any better chance of working than the evacuations of Pompeii and Herculaneum. They just shrug and say, "Well, it might not happen."
Yeah, I know.

Frankly, their attitude makes even more sense to me than yours, since really, considering the nature of the terrain and the nature of the danger, each individual's chances of escape are low enough that maybe it really isn't worth bothering about.
My personal attitude or my, as in, state's attitude?

and to leave a potential political time bomb just sitting in your Constitution unaddressed -- not even preparing to address it in case the issue arises -- seems foolish to me.
But it's...not... a ...political... timebomb. That's the point. You are transposing the United States problems onto this. Not everything ends up the same way nor does it evolve to get to that point in the same way.

I suppose Ireland has its reasons, but I still think it is a mistake.
So do I. It will change soon enough.

It wasn't for you per se. I was pre-empting posters who would use the 'OMG, the women are so oppressed by not being allowed to have abortions' argument by highlighting the special position women have in the Constitution.
I really don't see how that works.

So, women are denied equal rights when it comes to making their private medical decisions, but this doesn't constitute oppression because there are also sexist laws that identify "mothers" as deserving of special legal status in the Constitution?

According to you, "2.2 is saying mothers should not be forced by economic necessity to go out and work!" To me, this just sounds like a nice backhanded way of further enforcing the notion that WOMEN should stay at home with the babies while menfolks go out to work. Babies are women's business yet again.

Forgive me, but I don't see how more institutionalized sexism equals "liberation" for Irish women.

Of course, I also don't think that ANYTHING could outweigh the oppression that anti-choice laws create. I don't care what magic special woman perks you give me...if my body isn't my own, it's all worthless anyhow. If I am denied the right to make my own medical choice because I have a uterus, then that's oppression no matter what other bones you throw my way. If my body doesn't belong to me then I'm a slave. You can make me a very well-kept slave, of course, but that's really just about you making yourself feel better so that you can be nice and comfortable with the fact that you've made me a slave.

So, women are denied equal rights when it comes to making their private medical decisions, but this doesn't constitute oppression because there are also sexist laws that identify "mothers" as deserving of special legal status in the Constitution?

According to you, "2.2 is saying mothers should not be forced by economic necessity to go out and work!" To me, this just sounds like a nice backhanded way of further enforcing the notion that WOMEN should stay at home with the babies while menfolks go out to work. Babies are women's business yet again.

Forgive me, but I don't see how more institutionalized sexism equals "liberation" for Irish women.

Funny you should mention that - about 3-5 years ago there was an attempt by the then Minister for Finance (now an EU Commisioner) to remove that very clause. Result? Uproar from the female population at the removal of their special position. They (and I think they're the ones who it affects) felt it to be a safeguard against having to find work during a severe economic downturn and possibly negatively affecting their children/family.

Despite your perception of that clause, it actually infers that they are perfectly able and entitled, like their male counterparts, to find employment and are to be treated equally under the law like men - on top of which, if they don't feel the need to work and instead choose to stay at home to look after their family/children, they cannot be forced to find work and they are protected by the law in doing so.

So excuse me, if I accept their opinions and feelings on the matter.

Of course, I also don't think that ANYTHING could outweigh the oppression that anti-choice laws create. I don't care what magic special woman perks you give me...if my body isn't my own, it's all worthless anyhow. If I am denied the right to make my own medical choice because I have a uterus, then that's oppression no matter what other bones you throw my way. If my body doesn't belong to me then I'm a slave. You can make me a very well-kept slave, of course, but that's really just about you making yourself feel better so that you can be nice and comfortable with the fact that you've made me a slave.

And we've gone into an abortion debate, which I was specifically staying away from because that's not what this case was about. But I love the way it's assumed I'm not pro-choice.

Funny you should mention that - about 3-5 years ago there was an attempt by the then Minister for Finance (now an EU Commisioner) to remove that very clause. Result? Uproar from the female population at the removal of their special position. They (and I think they're the ones who it affects) felt it to be a safeguard against having to find work during a severe economic downturn and possibly negatively affecting their children/family.

That makes perfect sense. Why would women want to GIVE UP one of the few legal perks they enjoy?! And why should they? It sounds like a great idea to have parents more able to spend time caring for their children. Why seek to remove that status from women, instead of expanding it to include all parents?


Despite your perception of that clause, it actually infers that they are perfectly able and entitled, like their male counterparts, to find employment and are to be treated equally under the law like men - on top of which, if they don't feel the need to work and instead choose to stay at home to look after their family/children, they cannot be forced to find work and they are protected by the law in doing so.

Why shouldn't men have the same right?


So excuse me, if I accept their opinions and feelings on the matter.

Their opinions are just that: opinions.

There are women who are of the opinion that I should be legally barred from getting an abortion. So what? I accept that this is their opinion, I simply don't share it. And I don't think they should automatically get their way just because they have an opinion. Everybody's got those.


And we've gone into an abortion debate, which I was specifically staying away from because that's not what this case was about. But I love the way it's assumed I'm not pro-choice.
I haven't assumed that. I realize my post used "you," which is misleading...I was intending it as a more general "you," and did not mean to imply that YOU personally would like to do those things. That was my bad, sorry.

That makes perfect sense. Why would women want to GIVE UP one of the few legal perks they enjoy?! And why should they? Why seek to REMOVE that status from women, instead of expanding it to include ALL parents?


Why shouldn't men have the same right?
I know, and I agree. Under the Constitution (as I previously explained) the position of the family is held in high regard - and women being the mother are held in the highest. Are you seriously telling me you're pissed off that women get revered more then men?!

My overall point is that abortions aren't illegal. Abortions on demand are. And if they're happy with it, who are you or I (a male) to tell them otherwise?

Their opinions are just that: opinions.

There are women who are of the opinion that I should be legally barred from getting an abortion. So what?
Their opinions translate to votes. See above for my explanation on how a referendum works.


-snip-
Ah right. No problem. I'm just clarfiying an extremely sticky Constitutional issue - haven't really had a chance to air my own views.

I know, and I agree. Under the Constitution (as I previously explained) the position of the family is held in high regard - and women being the mother are held in the highest. Are you seriously telling me you're pissed off that women get revered more then men?!

Absolutely. Revering anybody because of their gender or sexual orientation is lousy. I oppose sexism.


My overall point is that abortions aren't illegal. Abortions on demand are. And if they're happy with it, who are you or I (a male) to tell them otherwise?

I'm me. You're you. That's who we are.

Some women are happy with the way things are. Some aren't. The difference is, the woman who are not happy about it ARE LEGALLY BANNED from living according to their values.

I don't support forcing any woman to have an abortion against her wishes. I support allowing all women to make that choice for themselves.

If somebody is of the opinion that abortion is wrong, that's their choice. They don't have to get one. But if somebody wants to be empowered to make that choice FOR OTHERS, that's a different matter.

It's like how if you want to have sex, that's your business and you get to choose to have sex. However, you don't have the right to choose that somebody else will have sex against their wishes. That's called "rape." Abortion issues are no different.


Their opinions translate to votes. See above for my explanation on how a referendum works.

And I've made it very clear, both on this thread and elsewhere, that I believe some things should NEVER be up for a majority vote.

I don't care how many people vote that rape is okay. My reproductive organs are not public property.


Ah right. No problem. I'm just clarfiying an extremely sticky Constitutional issue - haven't really had a chance to air my own views.
Fair enough. Sorry if I came off as attacking your personal views...my coffee has definitely not kicked in enough yet. :D

Absolutely. Revering anybody because of their gender or sexual orientation is lousy. I oppose sexism.
Well me too, I've just never come across a woman who's annoyed she gets treated better than me.... :p


Some women are happy with the way things are. Some aren't. The difference is, the woman who are not happy about it ARE LEGALLY BANNED from living according to their values.

I don't support forcing any woman to have an abortion against her wishes. I support allowing all women to make that choice for themselves.

If somebody is of the opinion that abortion is wrong, that's their choice. They don't have to get one. But if somebody wants to be empowered to make that choice FOR OTHERS, that's a different matter.

It's like how if you want to have sex, that's your business and you get to choose to have sex. However, you don't have the right to choose that somebody else will have sex against their wishes. That's called "rape." Abortion issues are no different.
I agree BUT.... we live in a democracy. That is an issue for the electorate, like it or not.


And I've made it very clear, both on this thread and elsewhere, that I believe some things should NEVER be up for a majority vote.

I don't care how many people vote that rape is okay. My reproductive organs are not public property.
Again I see that. BUT... rape would be contravening a Constitutional right (I hate to sound like a record player and I'm not condoning anything - I'm merely playing the legalese/Constitutional card). Here, there was never a right to an abortion/termination. Legislation would have to contradict previous rights for it to be unlawful (rape, muder, false imprisonment etc).

As such, abortion couldn't be said to be unlawful (as opposed to the other examples) because it doesn't contradict any law..... which is what the courts have been saying.


Fair enough. Sorry if I came off as attacking your personal views...my coffee has definitely not kicked in enough yet. :D
Not a problem. I've had a pretty sh***y day so far. :) I actually agree with you and Murayvets more than is realised.

Well me too, I've just never come across a woman who's annoyed she gets treated better than me.... :p

We've had countless threads around here about the whole holding-the-door-for women thing, and plenty of women have voiced the opinion that they think it's shitty for somebody to just hold doors for females because they're female. That's a relatively trivial example, of course, but there you go.


I agree BUT.... we live in a democracy. That is an issue for the electorate, like it or not.

I don't live in a democracy. I happen to believe that pure democracy is one of the shittiest forms of government ever conceived.


Again I see that. BUT... rape would be contravening a Constitutional right (I hate to sound like a record player and I'm not condoning anything - I'm merely playing the legalese/Constitutional card). Here, there was never a right to an abortion/termination. Legislation would have to contradict previous rights for it to be unlawful (rape, muder, false imprisonment etc).

I guess it's a matter of perspective.

In my opinion, forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes is morally comparable to rape. Violating a person's wishes as to how their body participates in sex and/or reproduction is rape, to me. I consider anti-choice legislation to be fundamentally the same as legally condoning or even imposing rape. I treat people who advocate these laws the same way I would treat a person who advocates legalizing or enforcing rape.


As such, abortion couldn't be said to be unlawful (as opposed to the other examples) because it doesn't contradict any law..... which is what the courts have been saying.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I happen to think a lot of governmental/legal structures in our world are crappy, though, and this is one glowing example of why. :P

cold hearted bastards!

geez forcing a woman to carry a child to term that has zero chances for survival.

i can see why you lost your reason.
Agreed. On top of that, I feel it's wrong to force a decision upon the individual. While it arguably may be killing, there needs to be some sort of population control...

1. To those who view this as simply a matter of abortion rights - I posted in another thread a counterexample concerning Siamese twins, one viable after separation and the other not, and asked if the viable one had the right to force separation. I also asked whether the mother has the right to refuse care (food, shelter...) to the baby after birth (assuming that adoption is impossible), and if not, what makes the situation of the baby then different from the situation of the baby before birth.

You may view the answer to both questions as being "yes," but please understand that many people would disagree, and that, if they seek to impose the consequences of that disagreement upon others, this is not because they are misogynists, but because they view abortion as murder. Murder is something that society should oppose, yes? It's not something that people decide upon individually.

2. Having said that - this is not an example of a woman's choice being opposed to a foetus's right to live, but of a woman who happens to be carrying something that is not only arguably not even potentially human (given the Lockean derivation of human rights from the capacity to reason, which the foetus, even if it could somehow be made to live indefinitely, could not develop in any form because it doesn't have a brain) but which will die anyway. Whatever one's views on abortion rights, opposition to abortion needs to be based on the rights of the foetus, and this is not really a foetus in the sense of something that could potentially develop into a human: it is an empty shell.

-snip-

No its not. You've missed the entire point of the case in the original post. It wasn't a case about abortion, but about travel rights.

Bottle, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. :)

No its not. You've missed the entire point of the case in the original post. It wasn't a case about abortion, but about travel rights.

Bottle, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. :)

I agree that this is not about abortion rights one way or the other. That was the point of my post.

From skimming through it, a lot of this thread was about the abstract issue of whether abortion should be allowed rather than the specific circumstances of the case. It was to these posts that I was responding.