Fine Gael's Coveney Vs Varadkar on Repeal the 8th

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
32,422
I would suggest to you that anybody who is half human and not driven by ideology - and ideology comes in many shades - will always agonise over the issue of abortion. The consequences are far too serious to be either treated lightly or based on one fixed set of views.
I agree entirely. I don't think it is a decision anyone takes lightly. You often appear to think they do, though.

Legislation is a different issue in any case, because it has to be clear and effective - and it's hard to avoid a number of objective conclusions:

- the current situation does not prevent access to abortion for all but a tiny handful of particularly vulnerable women
- it has however resulted in poorer health care for pregnant and labouring women, up to and including avoidable deaths,
- it has led to a number of serious human rights abuses, for which thegovernment has already begun to pay compensation.

So whatever someone may think about abortion per se, only those driven by ideology can seriously defend the present status quo.
 


petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
32,422
No it's not a result of the 8th, it is a result of some windy fukker in the HSE not acting as he was permitted to act by the 8th.
If you are referring to Ms PP, let's hear the evidence for thwt, because it's not what the judge found.

I'm not disputing any of that - what I am pointing to is fact that there is a view that a woman should never be kept on life support so as to enable her child to reach visibility. And there also seems to be a view that the mother's right to terminate should pass to her family on her death, when any reasonable balance of rights would suggest that the child should in that event assume the totality of the right to life that was previously shared with the mother.
I dont believe anyone ever said that.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
No it's not a result of the 8th, it is a result of some windy fukker in the HSE not acting as he was permitted to act by the 8th.
Alas, that is not what the Court said. They awarded costs to both the family and the HSE, which they would not have done had they disregarded Counsel for the HSE's submission that doctors felt “constrained by a lack of clarity in the legal position”.

You cannot spin this, no matter how hard you try.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

I agree entirely. I don't think it is a decision anyone takes lightly. You often appear to think they do, though.

Legislation is a different issue in any case, because it has to be clear and effective - and it's hard to avoid a number of objective conclusions:

- the current situation does not prevent access to abortion for all but a tiny handful of particularly vulnerable women
- it has however resulted in poorer health care for pregnant and labouring women, up to and including avoidable deaths,
- it has led to a number of serious human rights abuses, for which thegovernment has already begun to pay compensation.

So whatever someone may think about abortion per se, only those driven by ideology can seriously defend the present status quo.
I think many people base their views entirely on abortion being purely an issue of women's rights, without due concern for the unborn child. Many go further and seem able to pretend that no child exists. There are, on the other hand, those who fail to reflect compassion for the woman in formulating their views.
Needless to say I don't agree with what you say about the consequences of the 8th, but more robust evidence might convince me that the 8th needs to be replaced.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

Alas, that is not what the Court said. They awarded costs to both the family and the HSE, which they would not have done had they disregarded Counsel for the HSE's submission that doctors felt “constrained by a lack of clarity in the legal position”.

You cannot spin this, no matter how hard you try.
But, at the end of the day, the court decision was that there was nothing to prevent removal of life support. And the HSE should have known this.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
But, at the end of the day, the court decision was that there was nothing to prevent removal of life support. And the HSE should have known this.
The HSE did not know this, because the legal position was unclear. That was accepted by the Court. However the legal position is still not clear, because the Court ruled only on the particular facts of this case.

Therefore, doctors still do not know whether they can rely on this Court ruling in a similar case, where the facts are not identical in every respect.
 

WTTR

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
5,274
Website
www.johnfhiggins.eu
How on earth can you compare the two cases. Also you do realise most people are very happy that the doctors in the UK managed to deliver those twins successfully. But they were not dealing with literally a corpse in the Irish case. An impossible situation of trying to use modern medicine to fight a rotting body, pumping it with multiple drugs, powerful drugs that would be toxic to her pregnancy.
You realize that case happened in the UK, right? So it's anything but an argument for keeping the 8th amendment.

The 8th prevents doctors from giving women the best health care. It didnt save Ms PP's baby, either.
But the Taoiseach appeared to use the case as a reason to change the Eight Amendment.

If that case was unusual because of the rapid decomposition of the dead woman's body, then

did not the existing regime not make a decision with the Supreme Court verdict?

So, to change his mind on abortion because of this, just does not make any sense.

The RTE podcast can be found here.
It is the first one at the moment.

The other case i.e twins, happened in Brazil not in England.
 
Last edited:

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
32,422
I think many people base their views entirely on abortion being purely an issue of women's rights, without due concern for the unborn child. Many go further and seem able to pretend that no child exists. There are, on the other hand, those who fail to reflect compassion for the woman in formulating their views.
More straw manning. You make up what you think people think, and then disagree with that.

:rolleyes:

Needless to say I don't agree with what you say about the consequences of the 8th, but more robust evidence might convince me that the 8th needs to be replaced.
So you don't agree but can't say where theu are wrong. That's because they are factually correct.

Mind you, you used to support a right to abortion up to birth but can't explain what you now think is wrong with the arguments you used to put forward yourself so it's unsurprising you can't deal with anyone else's.

Until you do that though, why would anyone bother putting forward other arguments that you would also completely fail to engage with?
 
D

Deleted member 17573

More straw manning. You make up what you think people think, and then disagree with that.

:rolleyes:


So you don't agree but can't say where theu are wrong. That's because they are factually correct.

Mind you, you used to support a right to abortion up to birth but can't explain what you now think is wrong with the arguments you used to put forward yourself so it's unsurprising you can't deal with anyone else's.

Until you do that though, why would anyone bother putting forward other arguments that you would also completely fail to engage with?
I'm not asking you to engage with me. As far as I can see you've nothing left to say, all your arguments have been refuted and all you have left are personal attacks. You can't even come up with a case for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, a limit that falls far short of what you really want to see introduced.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
32,422
I'm not asking you to engage with me. As far as I can see you've nothing left to say, all your arguments have been refuted and all you have left are personal attacks. You can't even come up with a case for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, a limit that falls far short of what you really want to see introduced.
And as far as I can see you can make no argument against any of the points made but instead make up other arguments based on what you claim to believe people "really" mean or want. As your post above demonstrates yet again.

I'm sure you do feel you have thoroughly debunked those arguments. Unfortunately they were all your own in the first place. :lol:
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top