Does the earlier news still start at 6:01PM? Now, that's controversial...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Printable View
Does the earlier news still start at 6:01PM? Now, that's controversial...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Ensuring legislation is up-to-date with constitutional "developments" is certainly prudent, but is legislation rubber stamping the 'X' case actually required in a substantive sense? What exactly will it change with regard to when a termination is and isn't permissible in the state? The test will remain as, "if it [is] established as a matter of probability that there [is] a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother" or will that phrase be dissected by greater clarity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Well to be fair, the government have said legislation and regulations to be introduced. Until we see what that entails, its only going to be speculation
Two things that are perplexing me slightly - or irritating me, even - are the media headlines/announcements (both national and international) and the cries of moral outrage from the pro-life camp that Ireland is set to - shamefully, in the latter's case - sanction abortion all of a sudden. See this, for example, or the statement by the four archbishops:
Quote:
Such legislation would “introduce an abortion regime into this country in which the life of the baby could be directly and intentionally targeted for destruction,” she said.
Spokeswoman for the religious advocacy group the Iona Institute Maria Steen said it would be “wrong and unnecessary” to allow abortion in cases where there is deemed to be suicidal intent.
“Irish law already allows the ending of a pregnancy when there is no other choice and there is a clear threat to the life of the mother,” she said.
“A decision to include a threat of suicide as a ground for abortion would also be wrong in principle because it would authorise for the first time ever the deliberate and direct destruction of unborn human life in Ireland.”
Why the scaremongering and dishonesty? Abortion has been legally permissible since the 'X' Case given the fact that constitutional law takes precedence over every other body of law in the country. I don't understand the big hoo-ha over this, especially as the test is still narrow and restrictive in its prohibition of abortion on demand. The action of the government on this is simply standard legal practice, albeit long overdue.Quote:
If what is being proposed were to become law, the careful balance between the equal right to life of a mother and her unborn child in current law and medical practice in Ireland would be fundamentally changed. It would pave the way for the direct and intentional killing of unborn children. This can never be morally justified in any circumstances.
Also, the risk of the possibility of suicide (as adjudged by a competent medical practitioner and not based solely upon the petition or submission of the pregnant woman, importantly, so as to curb the threat of bad faith) satisfies the 'X' Case test, so it's not as if the legislation is set to go beyond the constraints of the Supreme Court's ruling. It simply won't because it can't.
Mind you, I did admire the audacity of this section of the archbishops' statement:
Quote:
Moreover, on a decision of such fundamental moral importance every public representative is entitled to complete respect for the freedom of conscience. No one has the right to force or coerce someone to act against their conscience. Respect for this right is the very foundation of a free, civilised and democratic society.
I presume thats rhetorical given the people we're talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
What's the vested interest, other than polarising and entrenching opinion? For there's no halting the inevitable; it's already been a reality for two decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
C'mon lads, peados and their supporters are people too.
Listening to Highland Radio this morning, heard an interesting point raised. One of the guests on the Sean Doherty show said he was completely against abortion, didn;t agree with it at all, but equally he feels it isn't his right to legislate for another individual, especially in such an instance of rape or similar. Kinda similar to my own views.
That said, I think a better sex education class taught in schools, especially with regard to contraception, and emphasis on responsibility for your actions, would be as equally as beneficial. Society doesn't have to go all puritanical and victorian, but a bit of a more adult approach would reduce, I feel, the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in abortion.
That reflects my views in many ways. I think it's a very difficult issue and people must make up their own minds. Hence I am pro-choice* because I would not dare to tell other people what to do. To some extent because I'm on unsure ground.
* Although probably only up to the point where the baby would survive without the mother. After that I guess I'm pro life. And I fully acknowledge there's a grey area in between. I don't know where exactly the line should be drawn but think there probably should be one. At what stage is it a person involved? I don't know. But I don't think a few cells is a person.
Like I said, it's an immensely difficult subject. I'd love to see an open and wide ranging debate on it. But I know the debate would be taken over by loonies- in a way, I don't blame the political class for not wanting to touch this. On the other hand, it's their job so they need to get their cards on the table- and saying they're unsure (if properly explained) to me at least, would be ok.
Mixed up post I know- I hope it makes some sense to people.
Out of interest, people who are strongly discomfited by abortion but wouldn't tell women what to do - do you feel you lack the courage of your convictions?
I don't think thats fair. Even the the most vehement pro-choice supporters acknowledge its never an easy choice to make. In fact I hate the line taken by anti-choice campaigners that some how this will lead to an 'easy way out' for some women. Abortion is never easy, and thats what some are discomfitted by itQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Personally, I'm strongly pro-choice. Choice in pretty much all social/family issues. The only people this effects are the individuals involved, and they're the only people who should have any say
As for the guy who swore children to keep quiet about being raped trying to tell families how to deal with pregnancy... that moral highground is long gone
Pretty much with MR A in this one. And I suppose I would term us as the middle ground. It's a debate and discussion I never like having simply because of the polarising views that it generates.
Both extremes of either lobbies are reprehensible.
I'm delighted though that FG and Labour are finally dealing with this.
And Charlie, as Dodge said that isn't a fair statement to make. It's really difficult to come down strongly on either side of this because the pros and cons are so profound on both sides that you could argue with yourself all day and never be happy with your decision.
Genuine question here (as I know you've felt I called you out on certain things before unfairly)Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
What do you find reprehensible about the pro choice lobby?
I'm talking about the extreme end of the pro-choice lobby, the middle ground reasoned people, ie you I have no issues with, obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
You know that end of the lobby that feel that male input into this debate is moot. That putting any timeframe in place is an affront to their human rights, eg. I have had someone jump down my neck for merely suggesting that 24 weeks is a reasonable amount of time for a decision to be made.
I was told to "f*** off, what would I know and how dare I as a white, hetero man get involved in this debate as I have such a privileged position in society".
They wouldn't be happy with anything less than what happens in the USA!
Now, I accept that these people are few and far between but they do exist, and they are reprehensible. It is these that tend to lead debate on these issues (Just like Youth Defence on the other side).
I hope that makes sense.
It does. I haven't come accross many though
Which conviction though? I believe that the majority of abortion is wrong, for a variety of reasons. Like everything, there are exceptions. However, I believe as strongly (if not more so) that an individual is responsible for their own choices and actions, and whatever they decide, they have to stand over it; it's not my place to tell someone else what to do with their life, what choices to make and what path to follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I'm somewhat puzzled by this. How can you make such a definitive moral judgment when you will not only not be privy to the particular circumstances of those concerned but further admit that the personal affairs of other people are none of your business? What are those reasons?Quote:
Originally Posted by shantykelly
I'm being a bit mischievous but I also think it's a serious point - a lot of people say they feel strongly against abortion but then qualify it by saying they can't tell a woman what to do. That always jarred with me, despite the fact I sort of share that position. I wonder if some men have a fear of sounding paternalistic by being strongly anti-choice when that's how they actually feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Well if you think abortion is wrong that's a fairly strong opinion. If you think a person is responsible for their own actions, does that mean abortion is the responsible thing to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by shantykelly
Do or would you fear being perceived as paternalistic? Is the instance of an unconnected man (or even a related man, I suppose) moralising on the decision a woman wishes to take with regard to her own body not inherently paternalistic? I'll be honest; the termination of a pregnancy is unfortunate in terms of the loss of the unborn - I think most people would agree on that, which is why it's such a difficult decision for many to make - but I'd fear being perceived as paternalistic if I told a woman she was making the morally wrong decision, irrespective of her motivation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
This forum surprises me, by the way. I read through Politics.ie now and again and, amongst the sense, it's packed with all sorts of narrow-minded, crackpot opinions - naturally, the abortion debate is a big polariser - but the vast majority of posters here on this, a football forum, seem very open, enlightened and level-headed when it comes to discussing social and political issues. We're supposed to be boorish football fans, you absolute shower of fu-... :)
Or maybe they're against abortion but pro-choice. I mean they might never want to (for want of a better phrase) 'avail' of an abortion, but they understand that its up to parents to decide for themselves. I don't think many are pro-abortion, as in an ideal world they wouldn't be neccessaryQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
But I feel like most understand now that they are neccesary. Saying its 'not for me to decide' isn't a cop out at all. its just common decency IMO