Supreme Court decides today on clarification of the Constitutional Rights of the Unborn

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25,564
Supreme Court decides today on clarification of the Constitution Rights of the Unborn

This is a difficult case but at least it should bring some clarification as to what are the Rights of the Unborn

If they decide that their only Rights are contained in the 8th Amendment

- then that means if we vote to remove that right from the Constitution

- the Unborn have no Rights whatsoever within the Constitution

If on the other hand they decide that they do indeed have Rights under the Constitution outside of the 8th

- then that means even if the 8th is removed

- the Unborn still have at least some Rights

Obviously the Government is hoping the esteemed members of the Bench decide that the only Rights they have are under the 8th

Lets see how it goes today

- either way it will be profound.

Watch https://www.rte.ie/
 
Last edited:


Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25,564
So there it is fellow Citizens:

Unborn does not have inherent constitutional rights outside right to life

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0307/945560-supreme-court-rights-of-unborn/

Well certainity is better than uncertainty

If you vote Yes to remove the 8th

- you are removing the only Right (& the most fundamental) that the Unborn possess

- the Right to Life.

IMO this will make more people vote NO than otherwise.....
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,179
So there it is fellow Citizens:

Unborn does not have inherent constitutional rights outside right to life

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0307/945560-supreme-court-rights-of-unborn/

Well certainity is better than uncertainty

If you vote Yes to remove the 8th

- you are removing the only Right (& the most fundamental) that the Unborn possess

- the Right to Life.

IMO this will make more people vote NO than otherwise.....
Agreed. It means an 8th month old child has no rights despite being a fully formed human being. It is actually quite a callous ruling.
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25,564
I fail to see how they could have decided otherwise.
They may well be legally correct in their Judgement

- but that does not change the fact that the Removal of the 8th would be incapable of being challenged in the Courts as being in contradiction to any other part of the Constitution.
 

gerhard dengler

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
46,739
Agreed. It means an 8th month old child has no rights despite being a fully formed human being. It is actually quite a callous ruling.
Yes.

The Supreme Court ruling appears to completely contradict what the Constitution contains. But the Supreme Court is designated as the ultimate interpreter of our Constitution.
 

Catalpast

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
25,564
Agreed. It means an 8th month old child has no rights despite being a fully formed human being. It is actually quite a callous ruling.
Yes - but there is no specific ruling in any other part of the Constitution on the Rights of the Unborn

From a strictly legal technical viewpoint they could say that there are no specific rights mentioned.
 

Maranatha

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
776
So there it is fellow Citizens:

Unborn does not have inherent constitutional rights outside right to life

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0307/945560-supreme-court-rights-of-unborn/

Well certainity is better than uncertainty

If you vote Yes to remove the 8th

- you are removing the only Right (& the most fundamental) that the Unborn possess

- the Right to Life.

IMO this will make more people vote NO than otherwise.....
It's like government leadership is bloodthirsty at this point..
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,059
Common sense prevails.
 

Odyessus

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,890
Agreed. It means an 8th month old child has no rights despite being a fully formed human being. It is actually quite a callous ruling.
I don't think it is as callous as you suggest. The unborn child has a constitutional right to life, and immediately acquires all other constitution rights when it is born.
 

fergal1790

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
1,743
Now down to the brass tacks, Does this now open the door for the immediate deportations of the Nigerian who took this case along with all the others who were relying on a different ruling?

The Judge of the Supreme court did say that this ruling overturns the ruling of the High Court as far as immigration and deportation concerns went.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,179
I don't think it is as callous as you suggest. The unborn child has a constitutional right to life, and immediately acquires all other constitution rights when it is born.
If you remove the 8th it has no rights at all. At 24 weeks a child is a viable human being. Now imagine an 8th month old baby in the womb. It is a baby alive and with all it's faculties. According to the SC this human has no rights. We therefore can have late term abortions. Disgusting.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,179
8th month old children have rights.
As do 1 minute old children.
Not if they are in the womb. These rights are according to the SC acquired at birth.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
8,115
Now down to the brass tacks, Does this now open the door for the immediate deportations of the Nigerian who took this case along with all the others who were relying on a different ruling?

The Judge of the Supreme court did say that this ruling overturns the ruling of the High Court as far as immigration and deportation concerns went.
no, as the parent of an Irish citizen he has existing Zambrano rights stemming from the ECJ
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,059
If you remove the 8th it has no rights at all. At 24 weeks a child is a viable human being. Now imagine an 8th month old baby in the womb. It is a baby alive and with all it's faculties. According to the SC this human has no rights. We therefore can have late term abortions. Disgusting.
So, full term babies should celebrate their first birthdays three months after birth?
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,059
no, as the parent of an Irish citizen he has existing Zambrano rights stemming from the ECJ
And so the case achieved its actual goal, which was to prevent deportation before the birth.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,628
Supreme Court decides today on clarification the Constitution Rights of the Unborn

This is a difficult case but at least it should bring some clarification as to what the Rights of the Unborn

If they decide that their only Rights are contained in the 8th Amendment

- then that means if we vote to remove that right from the Constitution

- the Unborn have no Rights whatsoever within the Constitution

If on the other hand they decide that they do indeed have Rights under the Constitution outside of the 8th

- then that means even if the 8th is removed

- the Unborn still have at least some Rights

Obviously the Government is hoping the esteemed members of the Bench decide that the only Rights they have are under the 8th

Lets see how it goes today

- either way it will be profound.

Watch https://www.rte.ie/
The irony for the "Pro-Lifers" is that the Eight Amendment was supposed to put Abortion beyond the power of courts or politicians to change.

Now ... here we go again ... another cliffhanger Supreme Court verdict (how many have there been?) and another referendum ....

What else could possibly go wrong?

The moral is that is was a bad day the country let Haughey and Fitzgerald get manipulated into a poorly-worded referendum.
 

fergal1790

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
1,743
no, as the parent of an Irish citizen he has existing Zambrano rights stemming from the ECJ
His deportation was ordered before the birth of the child and is therefore legal, this was his only reason for taking the case to prevent his deportation.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top