Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A PANEL OF three judges have ruled against the Pro Life Campaign’s application to become a legal adviser in a Supreme Court case on defining “the unborn” in the Constitution.
In a decision given this afternoon, Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell, Mr Justice William McKechnie and Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne rejected the application for the Pro Life Campaign to become an amicus curiae or an impartial adviser, saying that this was a “pure issue of law, with no medical or social issue”, and both parties in this case were already legally represented by “experienced teams”.
The panel of judges also questioned the impact the groups involvement would have in the context of the upcoming Eighth Amendment referendum, and asked why they had waited until the last minute to lodge the application to become an amicus, when when the appeal was lodged in the summer of 2016.
The case concerns an appeal by the State to a High Court decision handed down in 2016, where it was ruled that the use of the word “unborn” in Bunreacht na hÉireann meant an “unborn child”, with rights extending beyond the right to life.
Many legal experts say that if the High Court ruling is upheld, that it would pose problems for the possible referendum on the Eighth Amendment. It could lead to a “slightly awkward clash of different rights” where the unborn has both the legal right to remain in Ireland, and also be allowed to be aborted (if the Eighth Amendment is repealed).
Yesterday Benedict Ó Floinn SC, representing the Pro Life Campaign, said that the organisation had spent a “significant amount of time” considering the issue that was to come before the court.
He said that although the Pro Life Campaign were a campaigning group, as many organisations were, “any submissions made will be confined in that way”.
He assured the court that their advice would “remain rooted in the case, will remain rooted in the arguments, and will proceed on that basis”.
Mary O’Toole SC, who was representing the State in opposing the definition of the unborn in the Constitution as an “unborn child”, said that she had a number of concerns about the precedent this would set, and about the timing of the application for the status as amicus, just months before a possible referendum.
“The State’s view is that any status of that nature [should be given with the] utmost caution – a particular status is promoted before the court in this set of circumstances,” she said.
Today’s judgement
Reading out the judgement today, Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell said that although non-government organisations played an important part in society, that this case was an issue of pure law, and both sides were already legally represented.
What is before this court is a pure issue of law. No question of any medical or social issue falls to be determined. The only expertise in issue is legal. Here, however the parties are legally represented.
In particular the respondents to the appeal whose submissions the applicants seek to support and if necessary amplify, are represented by an experienced legal team.
He said that the legal team of the family didn’t consider themselves at a disadvantage, and there was no suggestion that they needed the “support or amplification” offered by the Pro Life Campaign.
“There’s no measurable concern has been established to the satisfaction of this court which would suggest that the full argument will not be made, or not be made skillfully and forcefully, on the issues of law that properly arise on this appeal.
“Accordingly, it seems that the assistance that can be offered at this stage is minimal,” Justice O’Donnell said.
The judge also mentioned the proposed Eighth Amendment referendum, and the impact the applicant’s role as an amicus curiae could have if their application had been approved.
He said that the Pro Life Campaign was “not the only group, entity, or body which is concerned with the issue [of the unborn]“.
He said there were “many of these groups” that will campaign in referendum, and if this application were to be approved, it would be “significantly more difficult to reject any subsequent applications from other groups” which would pose “obvious logistical difficulties”.
He said that this could risk “blurring distinction between legal arguments and broader arguments that might be advanced at the level of policy”.
Mr Justice O’Donnell also said that the Pro Life Campaign’s involvement in the case could lead to publicity which would “significantly blur the important, critical distinction” that is to be made.
“The desire to advance arguments of more general application consistent with a group’s generally expressed views, would exert a gravitational pull away from the particular issue in this case and towards more general matters of public controversy and accordingly away from the court’s central function.”
A seven-judge Supreme Court is to hear the case itself on the 21 and 22 February.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Good
A positive decision. I see they’re sending American evangelists over to “protect the 8th” too. Let the experts make the decisions
@Skinnerbot: It is kind of funny that the same people who are against abortion have no problems what so ever in kicking that child out of the country once its born
@Alfred Pennyworth: Thanks for that broad, sweeping, nonfactual comment.
@Johnny Bellew: Alfred did say “some” so hardly a broad, sweeping statement and his point is correct, if one looks up the profiles of the anti-abortion trolls who target Brid Smith’s and other pro-choice twitter accounts and many of them are fans of that great human rights advocate, Donald Trump who wants to deport all illegal immigrants. They share racist nonsense about how “our way of life” is being threatened by immigration and care little for refugees drowning in the Mediterranean so their concern for life is just limited to foetuses and white ones at that.
@Conor Kennelly: He said the “same” people. A subtle difference.
@Conor Kennelly: do you not support deporting illegal aliens ?
What should countries do with illegal aliens ?
@LindsayD: this article is not related to Youth Defence. In-fact they are not mentioned. Your red herrings are not helpful.
@Roddy Reagan: Maybe you should learn to read, to quote from the Wikipedia page:
The National Library of Ireland described Youth Defence as “a pro-life organisation and lobby group with strong neo-Nazi links”.[13] Far-right Irish nationalist Justin Barrett is a former Public Relations Officer[14][15][16] and leader of the group.[17][18][19][20][21] During the 2002 Second Treaty of Nice referendum it was revealed that Justin Barrett had attended and spoken at neo-nazi party events in Germany and Italy.
@Roddy Reagan: I think it’s very relevant. While Justin Barrett may not be their leader anymore, these people still have a strange obsession with forcing Irish women to give birth. 100,000 ‘lives’ saved by the 8th amendment, so what? Why is that so important?
SS chief Heinrich Himmler wrote to Field-Marshal Willhilm Keitel the following in 1939:
“According to statistics there are 600,000 abortions a year in Germany. The fact that these happen among the best German racial types has been worrying me for years. The way I see it we cannot afford to lose these young people, hundreds and thousands of them. The aim of protecting this German blood is of the highest priority. If we manage to stop these abortions we will be able to have 200 more German regiments every year on the march. Another 500,000 or 600,000 people could produce millions of marks for the economy. The strength of these soldiers and workers will build the greater Germany. This is why I founded Lebensborn in 1936. It fights abortions in a positive way. Every woman can have her child in peace and quiet and devote her life to the betterment of the race.” (Master Race: The Lebensborn Experiment in Nazi Germany, 1995, pp.66-7)
@Larissa Caroline Nikolaus: The article above does NOT mention Youth Defence anywhere which is the point @Roddy Reagan was making. Please stick to the points in the article without going off on a tangent about something else.
@Roddy Reagan: they all share the same roof
@WynnnerZ: Generalised, ill-founded comment.
@Johnny Bellew: It’s relevant and you know it!
Why oh why are these people so obsessed with forcing Irish women to give birth? Where does it come from?
While they may try to distance themselves from Justin Barrett these days, I believe he gave us all a big clue to the ideology behind their strong anti-abortion views.
@LindsayD: The idea of subhuman and extermination came through British academic circles as ‘anthropomorphous’ so the German Aktion 4 was in response to disabilities such as autism and DS using the term untermensch -
” The more severely burdened should not propagate themselves… If we do nothing but make mental and physical cripples capable of propagating themselves, and the healthy stocks have to limit the number of their children because so much has to be done for the maintenance of others, if natural selection is generally suppressed, then unless we will get new measures our race must rapidly deteriorate.” Aktion T4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4
They then extended this notion of untermensch (subhuman) as opposed to ubermensch (Aryan society) to Jews and other ethnic groups as an extermination policy using the same techniques of gassing.
We now face on this island our own unique version of the language surrounding human and subhuman ,turn it what way you will.
@Gerald Kelleher: Spot on as usual Gerald ;)
@Gerald Kelleher: stop talking shite…
@Roddy Reagan: https://web.archive.org/web/20061024115318/http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=172
Try this one.
@Johnny Bellew: Youth Defense, Lie Institute, Love Both, Save the 8th etc are all the same small group of people pretending to be different organisations.
@Roddy Reagan: eh yeah it does roddy quiet clearly but don’t leave facts stand in your way
@Roddy Reagan: yes they r mentioned wtf???
I am somebody who would be against abortion on demand but in the instance of what is stated in article 42A the meaning of a child can not be extended to the unborn. In all rational and objective views a child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty…so I think article 42A can not and should not apply to the unborn…at least that is probably how it should be interpreted in my opinion anyways. The pro-life lobby are just throwing a Hail Mary and clutching at straws with this argument.
@Kevin Tyrrell: “In all rational and objective views”
Rationality is the pro life brigades kryptonite.
@Kevin Tyrrell: This argument was brought up before -
Zygote, embryo, foetus, child, adolescent, adult, corpse.
Zygote ,embryo, foetus ,corpse.
It is illegal to kill any human between child and adult without justification and turn it into a corpse but the language changes to the ‘removal of a foetus’ which denies the foetus the dignity of being human turning into a corpse. It is putting strain on language to breaking point but humane people don’t suffer linguistic sleight of hand and recognize a developing child for what it is with its own DNA and its own characteristics
@Gerald Kelleher: “It is illegal to kill any human between child and adult without justification”
And who allows more children to die in horrific pain, than this God you keep going on about? 5,000,000 starve to death every year while your beloved all powerful God stands idly by.
When you’re praying later, stick on an aul’ “love them both” at the end.
@Kevin Tyrrell: Abortion on demand is such a trite loaded phrase though isn’t it? Do women really avail of abortion services so frivolously, I would imagine not.
@The Risen: This was covered yesterday why does/doesn’t God … allow children to starve…. make me rich….cure me of cancer….give me a heart attack.. cause rain on an outdoor event… and on and on.
People who are positive add to life of their families, communities and the world but what is positive taking the life away of another with its own DNA ?. If you want to be positive then work towards innovations where pregnancies don’t happen without having to kill a developing child.
You haven’t understood that man is in the image of God by their creative and productive capabilities in imitation of the miracle of creation including the development of a human being. Somehow you have detached God from creation as an arbitrary dictator when you are very much on your own with your own talents and faults. I have come across Dawkins clones once too often to care but they think the same mob way.
@Gerald Kelleher: Go and proselytize elsewhere
@Gerald Kelleher: talking shite as usual….
@Gerald Kelleher: Absolute bell end.
@The Risen: As human value is to you.
@Tomas Kuodis: can all just be a little bit nicer when we explain to @Gerard Kelleher how he’s wrong, I don’t think he’s well.
@Karen Wellington: I love an Oirish mob , especially one that now thinks it has escaped its history where we were Britain’s problem . They even got the idea of subhuman from famine times and created the idea of natural selection out of it -
“One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of
Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”–disease,
accidents, war, and famine–which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also….. because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain–that is, the fittest would survive…. The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species.” Wallace/ Darwin
Until a section of society looks at where the notion of subhuman comes from, this issue will always haunt our nation.
@Ian Walsh: Ignore gerald. He loves to quote from the bible in relation to abortion, but never mentions the bit where God mandates abortions for unfaithful women.
Oh, in case you think I’m being inflammatory…..
http://biblehub.com/niv/numbers/5.htm
20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— (21) here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a cursed among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. (22) May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
@The Risen: In your own conviction you were once subhuman so no wonder you have no respect for other human life. It is different who those who know through experience that parents and child are the most positive parts of society and a developing child is a joyous component.
@The Risen: and I’ll light a candle especially for you.
@Gerald Kelleher: I have two children, they are the best part of my day, every day. Difference is, I don’t take issue with a woman choosing to have an abortion while I also worship a God that mandates it.
@Gerald Kelleher: God bless you brother
@League of shadows: you really shouldn’t be playing with matches or lighters.
@The Risen: I think you are on your own mission but intelligent people generally make the distinction between different traditions and especially between the Old testament books and the words of Christ. The old books tell you to stone women in adultery while Jesus uses the occasion to point out hypocrites use scripture for their own ends and does not fault the woman.
It is no different now for the old saying goes -
“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”
― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice
I can always tell people who are rotten at their heart for their ends are towards the ending of a life.
@Gerald Kelleher: ” I think you are on your own mission but intelligent people generally make the distinction between different traditions and especially between the Old testament books and the words of Christ. ”
Actually the ‘words of Christ’ specifically direct people to follow the laws of the old testament.
http://biblehub.com/luke/16-17.htm
“Until John the Baptist, the law of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is eager to get in. But that doesn’t mean that the law has lost its force. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest point of God’s law to be overturned.”
Lets have a round of applause for gerald, the Christian fundamentalist who doesn’t understand the fundamentals of Christianity.
Get back to us when you’ve read the bible properly……including the parts that paint you as a walking contradiction.
@The Risen: Why are you telling me this, some people tell their kids that they have a brother or sister on their way so what do you tell yours . You have a cartoon notion of God but find nothing inspiring about the miracle of a developing life over 9 months – nothing else like it in nature.
It is said that the Rabbi going into the gas chamber believed that God would save him until the last moment when he declared there was no God however it is the evil reasoning of men that created the gas chambers and the courageous efforts of men that closed them down. While some people deny the gas chambers existed, there are many more who will not look at the natural selection (subhuman terminology) that allowed national socialists to exterminate millions for reasons they thought were right.
@The Risen: For you the Bible is some sort of manifesto but it is a library of books from different traditions so you bring up something from the old testament and it is in conflict with the words of Christ . Where Luke says ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ , the Johanine work says ‘whoever loves his life loses it’ but these things are not contradictions within their individual bodies of works. Again, you can force the bible to say and do anything as many evil people have but generally those with heart recognize the poetry and the traditions covering so much of early Christianity.
I like the saying of Jesus ‘whoever loves his life loses it’ as it prevents mediocrity from setting in and stale convictions but also those who strive to be productive and creative are never settled in themselves or their world. Some people at their level understand ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ as they live their lives in a decent way for themselves and their families. Only rednecks would find fault where there is none but then again you have problems with spirit/inspiration that some call religion and others call spirituality.
Go hug your kids and learn what the central theme of life is.
@Gerald Kelleher: “so you bring up something from the old testament and it is in conflict with the words of Christ ”
Nope, the words of Christ is to affirm that Gods laws from the old testament had not changed.
Again….
http://biblehub.com/luke/16-17.htm
“Until John the Baptist, the law of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is eager to get in. But that doesn’t mean that the law has lost its force. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest point of God’s law to be overturned.”
Square that circle gerry…..
@The Risen: In Luke the kingdom of heaven is within a person – “neither will they say, ‘Look, here.’ or, ‘Look, there.’ for the Kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17:21
You are kids looking for loopholes with an external heaven and an external God but I keep in mind that some decent people appreciate spiritual experiences of a greater life this way without having them mocked. All I see from you is complaints and protests but you stand for nothing positive and what a hell that must be, again if heaven is inside a person so is the mediocrity of hell.
The greatest upholder of the Hebrew law was Paul until he was struck by a realization that many here could use -
“I do not set aside the grace of God, for if human justification could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” Paul
You grow into these flesh and blood texts and the real people behind them.
@Gerald Kelleher: “You are kids looking for loopholes ”
LOL!
You claimed that “intelligent people generally make the distinction between different traditions and especially between the Old testament books and the words of Christ. ”
I pointed out that the words of Christ decree that the laws of the old testament had not changed, and backed it up with the relevant passages.
Hate that.
Read your ‘good book’ properly next time gerry.
@The Risen: The law is there to stop bad people from doing worse so Christ showed the Eternal and Infinite part of our nature which was buried under so many Pharasaic laws about what to wear, what to eat, how to conform and behave. It didn’t matter if you were poor or rich, whether in a gang or alone, young or old, everyone has the ability to be inspired and inspiring within the encompassing Life of creation.
Can any of you say that as you go about your ways of killing a developing child by looking for loopholes in language ?. It is why the spiritual don’t look for laws to kill while the dead in themselves do hence the similarities with the time of Jesus and the danger of a secular society.
@The Risen: The Kingdom of God is inside you but you want to bury them in secular laws hence you don’t stand for anything positive. Laws don’t address those who are capable of creative, productive and kindness, they are meant to serve those who act out of malice with appropriate discipline. I don’t steal or kill so the law goes its own way while being inspired and inspiring needs no law and this is the spirituality of Christ.
Obviously you want the law on killing to be changed based on the idea of subhuman but unlike the poetic language of Adam/Eve on self-serving choices, you actually want to create a fictional subhuman to carry out extermination for social excuses.
@The Risen: Yep the hypocrisy is mind blowing.
Of course the word “unborn” refers to an unborn child. What sort of charade is this? The state is trying to reimagine longstanding constitutional language so that they can strip the unborn of rights. This government is sick and twisted.
@Roddy Reagan: this government have nothing to do with the judiciary?
Cmon man, even in your beloved America the two branches are separate
@Roddy Reagan: The constitution is not some object set in stone-the “state” is responding to the changing circumstances of the Irish people who are the ultimate arbiters of change, not “the state”
@Chucky Arlaw: the State are the ones appealing the decision of the High Court in a quest to strip unborn Irish babies of their right to life. You should read the article again.
@Roddy Reagan: “Of course the word “unborn” refers to an unborn child. ”
Nope. Childhood begins at birth. The phrase ‘unborn child’ is an oxymoron.
@Chucky Arlaw: your a fool if you really believe that.
@The Risen: It is an individual human life, no question about that. almost everybody agrees that we are dealing with a separate human entity, an individual.
@Johnny Bellew: Not really. The issue of when personhood is assigned could scarcely be more contested.
@Johnny Bellew: EVEN if you could get everyone to agree with you, you’re conveniently ignoring the fact that for a pregnancy to come to term is requires the use of the woman’s body. There is NO full term baby without a woman’s womb.
And it is HER right to refuse to all her body to be used to carry a pregnancy to term..
No one, you, me or an “unborn baby” (if you insist on using that term) has the right to over-ride anyone’s right to bodily autonomy. EVEN if it means their death.
I can’t force YOU to donate blood to me even if it means I’ll die without it. Even if you’re responsible for me dying cos you ran me over and your blood is the only match.
That’s it, that’s the crux of the debate (IMO).
No one has the right to demand the use of anothers body to save their own life against the objection of the person who’s body you’re demanding.
@The Risen: I have great memories of my childhood, frolicking about the womb, hither and tither between the uterus and the ovaries.
@Tricia Golden: The problem is that ‘pro-choice’ side are claiming autonomy over another human life. Being the custodian to another human life should not grant you the right to kill it. To me, killing any human life is always wrong, whether it be within the womb or without.
@Johnny Bellew: Interesting twist on my words there Johnny.
Is that “custodians” against our wishes? Which is again the exact same thing.
And you’re entitled to your opinion. You’re NOT entitled to FORCE ANOTHER PERSON to follow your opinion in the face of their objections.
Again, I reiterate, no one, (born or unborn) has the right to use another person’s body against their will to prolong their life.
@Johnny Bellew: Again you IGNORE that in order for a fetus, (or unborn baby or whatever term you wish to use) to survive based on your logic it must claim autonomy over another human life, the Mother’s.
How exactly is that difficult for you to grasp?
@Tricia Golden: “No one, you, me or an “unborn baby” (if you insist on using that term) has the right to over-ride anyone’s right to bodily autonomy. EVEN if it means their death.”
You do realize you have given the developing child your DNA while the other half comes from the father so the life belongs to you unless you want to treat it like an infection or parasite. People who do not dither around with language really appreciate the development of a child as a process including the passing of the child’s DNA back to its mother -
@Gerald Kelleher: Completely and utterly irrelevant. Hyperbole trying to pass as a rational thought.
Has absolutely NOTHING to do with my point, and let’s be honest, you haven’t even covered surrogate’s carrying another woman’s fertilised egg in your attempt to derail and deflect my point re: an individual’s autonomy and their right to refuse to allow their body to maintain the life of another’s.
@Tricia Golden: A baby is helpless so the mother has to continue to use her body to feed the child that was once nurtured inside her womb. Do you want to explain that a baby feeding at the breast is a parasite or some other awful term ?.
@Gerald Kelleher: The only person “playing with language” here is you Gerald. Again, deliberately changing and attempting to manipulate and deflect from the main point. But let’s first clarify your irrelevant point for others. A baby feeding at the breast can be cared for by many other people. That baby is NOT dependent on a person’s body to live. It is in no way comparable to allowing your body to be used to prolong the life of a developing fetus.
And I’ve already replied to your deflections and irrelevant points more than I should have.
You either believe a developing fetus has more rights than the woman carrying the pregnancy or you don’t.
I don’t. You do.
The fetus doesn’t get to invoke it’s right to live over the woman’s right to provide her body for it to live. Any more than I can use your blood to further my life against your wishes. Or my father blood, or anyone else’s if they do not agree.
@Gerald Kelleher: An Irish woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy when she makes the decision to do so.She will get information from one of our government agencies,as to where she can get that healthcare…Of course,she will have to travel to the UK,where she will be able to procure a safe,legal abortion, thanks be to goodness.No amount of your pathetic whining will stop her,once her mind is made up..
If it’s unwanted hair, wart, feotus, mole – if it’s growing in or on a woman’s body and she doesn’t want it there, she has the right to get rid of it.. And she doesn’t need anyone’s permission or approval.
Don’t approve of abortion,Gerald ? Don’t have one.Oh wait.
@Tricia Golden: You can’t bring your language up to mother and developing child which is a miracle of creation in itself but want to reduce it to host/parasite. Rights, gender or otherwise, can’t obscure that a human being is on its way as perhaps the most positive event for any society and the planet with all that child’s potential for creativity and productivity.
I have a right to give you blood to save your life or indeed you have a right to deny that blood however I do not have a right to inject poison into your system to take away your life as that is murder by any other name.
@Gerald Kelleher: Yup, more deflective nonsense.
We either have autonomy over our own bodies or we don’t.
Others can’t use our bodies, even to prolong their lives, against our express wishes.
No more, no less.
Unsurprisingly your entire “argument” is emotive nonsense.
We’re done here.
@Tricia Golden: Like the blood analogy my dear but looks like you are mixing up a child with a parasitic leech. Nothing emotive about subhuman as I look at extermination using subhuman terms with the same dispassion as the original academic did while nobody else does -
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” Darwin
Not the Church, not the universities, nobody has the mental strength to deal with extermination and subhuman occupying the same ideology even if I do. Like so many things it is the strength of those who value the mother/child relationship that present the problem rather than noiseboxes trying to dither around that it is a developing child under discussion.
So be it.
@Gerald Kelleher: gerald, you worship a God who mandated abortions for unfaithful women in your holy book.
Again, can’t see the contradiction, can you?
@The Risen- You never mentioned the ‘great flood,’ where she (God) would have pregnant women and their born babies all die from drowning…What a bad bitch!
@Francis Mc Carthy: Well Francis, there are always rednecks trying their level best to turn it into an issue based on the failings of the Catholic Church and if that fails trundle in the ‘God’ argument but it is fairly cheesy. Reaching for the Old Testament is pretty desperate but then again when the books of the Bible were chosen in early Christianity they covered a wide range of traditions.
Bring up the actual empirical comments which allowed for subhuman to enter the education system and nobody has anything to say. Irish society is more aggressive nowadays with rough people mangling traditions in the most awful way but that being said there is still a decency around that I find nowhere else. It all depends how that aggression is dealt with and the selfish, self-serving ends to which it tends.
@Gerald Kelleher: The “Old Testament” is as much a part of the bible as the New bit, otherwise why are OT readings and psalms said at masses? When Jesus was preaching, it was his holy book and he declared it “god’s word”. You can’t pick and choose which bits to believe, so the mass murder when the planet was flooded is true, the murder of the first borns of Israel is true, the bit where 2 “she bears” butcher kids because they made fun of a guy is true.
@Roddy Reagan: “sick and twisted” mmm roddy give it up u r having the opposite effect u desire
@The Risen: Another flat-earther.
@DaisyChainsaw: I am quite impressed that you all know so much about the Bible. Perhaps there is hope for us after all
@Roddy Reagan: well said
@DaisyChainsaw: You are so sweet. The flood story is beautifully bound as a cycle from the creation of Adam to the destruction of Noah’s flood and that people too start fresh as they journey through life. It is structured in such a way that there are 86,400 weeks from Adam to Noah using the genealogical structure of Genesis 5 and the exaggerated ages of the Patriarchs. Keeping in mind there are 86,400 seconds in a 24 hour day it should delight people who love these works and the flow of poetic language containing lovely human insights. Try Joe Campbell’s commentary on these great cycles -
https://books.google.ie/books?id=5VOGAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA10&lpg#v=onepage&q&f=false
They open up to the generous heart but will be meaningless to the closed one.
I am sure even the pro life activists believe in freedom of choice so they should vote accordingly.
I am beginning to believe, as it only effects females,that only female registered voters should be allowed to vote and no males.
@liam lally: Absolutely not
@liam lally: A man will never know what it’s like to be a pregnant woman, but he can become a woman- Liberal logic.
@liam lally: Feel free not to vote if that is your wish.
@liam lally: Should infertile women not be allowed vote as they can’t get pregnant? Should only women who have proof of their fertility be allowed in the polling booths as it only effects fertile women? If you want to exclude people who can’t get pregnant not many people will be able to vote. I bet your smug virtue signalling comment doesn’t feel so smart now does it.
@liam lally: and do fathers have a say in the potential fate of their unborn children?
Poor pets.
Brilliant news!
The establishment, very much including the current composition of the Supreme Court, has stacked the deck against the child in the womb. They are looking for only one outcome ultimately, and that is the complete removal of human rights protection for the unborn child.
@John Reid: If it’s in the womb, by definition it is not a child. This is basic stuff john.
@The Risen: child is simply a term to describe it’s level of development, the unborn is human. It has equal value to that of a baby outside the womb.You would agree that if a baby was born at 7 months gestation that it would be wrong to let the baby die and not intervene to keep it alive. So why is it ok to kill the unborn because of its location? I appreciate that the majority of abortions are carried out before week 12 but never the less the argument remains the same, at what stage of the pregnancy do we attribute value. How do we determine it’s value? Size of the foetus, level of development, level of dependency.
@Alan: pregnancy is measured in weeks not months. When you say 7 months that ranges from 25-28 weeks, the limit of viability (50% chance of survival outside the womb) is considered to be around 24 weeks although the incidence of major disabilities are still quite high at this stage. If a premature (spontaneous) birth occurred at 23 weeks most neo-natologists wouldn’t provide intensive care.
@The Risen: maybe not in the legal ramblings of our discombobulated constitution, but a form of life worth preserving none the less.
But what about the Undead? They should have their day in court too.
@Patrick J. O’Rourke: The unborn are the undead, unless someone willfully decides to end their lives.
@Patrick J. O’Rourke:
They are represented by the Vampire’s Union.
The legal system saw through their bullshit and the public will too.
@Maggie Elizabeth Walsh: this was a blatant publicity stunt. They knew there’s no way they’d win this.
@Maggie Elizabeth Walsh:
Don’t count your chickens.
This pro-life group do more harm than good as they appeal to the judiciary for the wrong reasons. The issue is the use of subhuman in order to enact an extermination policy for social excuses as opposed to protecting human life ,including that of a woman, where miscarriages or pregnancies in medical difficulties are involved.
The whole episode is contingent on reducing the language of mother/developing child into legal and medical language of woman/foetus or woman/pregnancy thereby making it a gender issue where it does not belong. It is an act of national self-deception, judges or no judges. Unfortunately those who value the mother or couple relationship to their developing child are represented by those who do not have the mental strength to grasp the idea of human vs subhuman in empirical and historical context.
@Gerald Kelleher: I really wonder what you’re like in real life
The image I have is of Mr Heckles from Friends
Do you shout these long rants at your neighbours too?
@Chucky Arlaw: This is all very well but dancing around the term ‘subhuman’ is all that is ever going to happen. It entered society at the university level as natural selection, not as a struggle to survive by each individual as taught in schools but as an extermination policy by one dominant society over another.
What was untermensch (subhuman) in the 20th century is now foetus,unborn, pre-born, (subhuman) in the 21st century as an extermination policy.
@Gerald Kelleher: Still didn’t answer me gerald. Why do you have such a problem with women choosing to end their pregnancy, when you see fit to worship an all knowing, all powerful God that chooses not to intervene to prevent millions of miscarriages every single year?
Talk about a double standard.
@The Risen: It takes some special type of ignorance to attach blame to the miscarriage event . So who do you blame ?. No answer is required for although not entirely understood, there is something wrong with the physical development of growing child and natural responses kick in.
@Gerald Kelleher:… and you assume you have this so called mental strength Gerald? They have been shot down because apart from the timing of their latest little antic to get in and add further complications and obstacles to the framing the legal wording and structure of legislation they are no authority or in a position to aid in such clear well structured terminology.
Plus historical context and what ever you mean by bringing ‘empirical’ anything into legal framework is as expected misguided. Allow legal and medical professionals to handle terminologies to ensure there can be no unwanted interpretation where foreign backed money will allow these same few women and cohorts to allow for high court precedents once the legal framework required has been drafted and implemented.
@Gerald Kelleher: It is a gender issue Gerald, it fundamentally is a gender issue. You know it is. That’s why you’re pushing your ‘sub human’ argument and claiming ‘social excuses’. You’re trying to belittle the cause for womens’ rights by doing that, so let’s play YOUR game. You’re not pro life, you’re a woman hating MISOGYNIST. That’s all – you hate women.
@Gary Casserly: Something wrong with your keyboard as it randomly throws out words in capitals.
‘Subhuman’ is a term that is used to promote extermination policies by a group in a position to turn a life into a corpse for some social/political excuse and I have no problem using it in context of unborn, foetus, pre-born or any other word used to diminish or exterminate human life.
Nothing to do with gender issues but celebrating the mother or couple relationship to child as the most positive thing in Irish society. The fact that these articles have a small proportion of views compared to a large proportion of responses demonstrate that people are about to go through an act of self-deception with perhaps the urban vs rural vote being the only divide.
@Gerald Kelleher: So, your all knowing all powerful God allows something to be wrong with the ‘physical development of growing child’? I take it, that it’s within his power to make sure this never happens. Why doesn’t he? And again, why do you worship a God who allows millions of pregnancies to end in this way, but you have such a problem with a mere flawed, imperfect, human being choosing to end a single pregnancy?
Can you not see the double standard?
@The Risen: Who in their right mind looks on a miscarriage as anything other than a natural event where no blame is assigned ?. You are creating a cartoon God in your own mind and not paying attention to the miracle of natural processes that go from an egg/sperm to a child 9 months later with its own character and DNA and you too were once this developing child. Nothing can match the complexity of a human being and it is done so quickly – that is a real miracle and one people should celebrate.
Of course spirituality is the ability to inspired and inspiring so your notion of God and the bible is there as props for your own convictions but then again Christianity allows for your childish way of thinking -
“If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and
manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken;
for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is
beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what
is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be
there.” Augustine
I can only expect the repeat question of miscarriages and blame but clear reason suggest that miscarriages are natural events where the life of the developing child can’t go on. No point in looking for blame when these sad events happen.
@The Risen: There is a difference between a the natural death of an unborn baby in the womb and the deliberate destruction and ending of an unborn baby’s life in abortion. God is the creator of all life and He is the one who calls that life home.
@Sinead Hanley: No offence Sinead but it isn’t an answer he is looking for but the usual deflection from the language of subhuman which is used in various forms for a gender issue rather than that of mother and developing child. Even miscarriages are fair game so at the same time people are grieving the loss of their child through miscarriage, others are terminating a subhuman.
@Sinead Hanley: Did you answer “Gods” calling when you ended your pregnancy ?
@Francis Mc Carthy: Obviously not. I should have turned to God. Instead of the cold hearted souls in the abortion clinic and other services.
@Sinead Hanley: did he call the life of the pregnancy you aborted? Did he contact you directly or the “baby” directly to state it was time to come home? Your hypocrisy is utterly staggering.
@Paul Fahey: No He didnt. Obviously i decided to play god by ending my babys life. Can you explain my hypocrisy. I obviously dont see it and its something i need to look at..
@Sinead Hanley: did they offer you counseling?
@Sinead Hanley:Time to let the past go and move on.Stop trying to blame everybody else for something that you choose to do..
You now have a family that you might never have had because of that choice that you made..”God” is all forgiving…so they say..
@Francis Mc Carthy: Who am i blaming?
@Sinead Hanley: everybody else except yourself..You’ve blamed your pro choice friends & the abortion provider for not providing counselling afterwards…
@Paul Fahey: I have never heard any comment so cruel to someone who deeply regrets what happened. Only a man,but not I add, all men could be so heartless. It is however refreshing to hear someone admit regret because on most posts here abortion is portrayed as something not regretted which just isn’t possible IMO. The worst aspect of this whole debate is the failure to face reality, in particular the reality of human life from the moment of conception.
@Sinead Hanley: I think you are the most honest and courageous poster on this blog.
@Kay Kehoe: Thank you so so much. It means a lot to me. If i was proud of what i’d done i would be told i was brave. But the abortion industry and supporters dont want to hear of regret.
@Sinead Hanley: yes but you may feel better if you let unsuspecting vulnerable people know how you felt after you had it. The biggest tragedy of all is that vulnerable people walk themselves into this thinking and sometimes being told that all will be well after it without realizing just how badly they are going to feel after it. You could do these women a huge service by telling them your experience. Take care of yourself.
@Kay Kehoe: Thats why i post regularly on this page, Kay. In the hope that women in crisis realise realise that abortion is not the solution it is sold as. It doesnt undo the pregnancy but it makes her the mother of a dead child. You have given me food for though though. Take care you too.
@Sinead Hanley: I really admire your courage posting here.I urge you to continue doing so against all the odds. If you can stop one mother like yourself from doing this the distress caused in reading blogs here will be worth it. I think it is really reprehensible how the media will not allow the voice of those who regret abortion be heard they are doing vulnerable people a huge disservice. Thank you for replying I shall remember you
“the application for the Pro Life Campaign to become an amicus curiae or an impartial adviser”
I’m getting some laughs today between this and the Flat Earthers giving out about Elon Musk ruining their beliefs.
No need to debate more on this issue as it just descends into trolls like the Roddy Regan character trying to paint pro choice as bloodlust (trying to annoy ppl) and pro choice labelling all pro life people as misogynists. We’re never gonna change each other’s minds. It’s all been said.
@Gary Casserly: Gary, there is a middle ground of people who are still undecided out there. It’s important to post rational, reasonable, observations and questions relating to the subject.
Unfortunately such posts are few and far between around here.
@The Risen: Did you ever look at your mum and know that she could have killed you without justification right up to the moment you showed up outside the womb ?. She was walking around nurturing a subhuman and that takes some redneck to believe that.
@Gerald Kelleher: Nice of Gerald to demonstrate why they are few and far between.
@Rob Cahill: You are all aware that it comes down to the idea of subhuman and whether an Irish society can adopt diminution of human life for the first time in its history by convincing themselves it is not a human child developing.
@Rob Cahill: Beat me to it Rob. So predictable!
That brightens my day immensely..
Pro abortion lobby groups done their job it would seem. Congratulations to drawing first blood.
@seamus mcdillon: they’ve corrupted the judiciary? Think Jim Corr has a spare tinfoil hat if you ever do lose yours
@Skinnerbot: cheers buddy. You can never have too many.
@seamus mcdillon:
You are all about drawing blood aren’t you?
The pro abortion lobby are in full flight ,dehumanise and exterminate is their mantra ,cold blooded killers who have found the easy st of victims .arguments based on the selfish pursuit of the self ,the preservation of the i am god, i can do as i please ,morally bankrupt , brain dead ,and yet they were given the opportunity of life ,some thing they would denied the unborn child .
@Anthony Gallagher: keep that language up Anthony I know u can’t comprehend it but u do so much good to the pro choice when u talk like that
@Anthony Gallagher: your entitled to your opinion and so am i ,what exactly is your contribution ,if you dont have one or you want to sit on the fence like so many people ,best you say nothing .
‘Child’ is the true social and legal term (not ‘foetus’ which is a medical term) and it acquires its meaning through the biological fact of being the offspring of a father and a mother.
Right from the first drafting of the international human rights instruments, the legal language of human rights included repeatedly and consistently the terms ‘unborn children’ and ‘the child before as well as after birth’.
It is not valid to replace these international human rights legal terms with the medical term ‘the fetus’ or “the embryo” and then claim that the child before birth or the unborn child has “no rights”.
* There is compelling evidence in the preparatory work for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the circumstances of its conclusion that the meaning of ‘child’ is inclusive—it was recognized at the time of negotiation of the Universal Declaration text and affirmed in the historical context that the child before as well as after birth possesses inherent and inalienable rights.
*On November 20th, 1959, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed specifically and definitively that the Universal Declaration “recognized” the child’s need, “by reason of his physical and mental immaturity”, to be provided with “special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth”. (UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child)
@Rita Joseph:
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf
Both of the above link provide the complete text of Convention on the Rights of the Child, Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989, entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with article 49.
If you can find any references to ‘unborn children’ please let us all know.
@Rita Joseph: At last the voice of legal reason but don’t expect anyone from Supreme judges down to pay a blind bit of notice. This case, although not yet heard, has already been decided.
If only there was a way to convert their arrogance, self satisfaction and self delusion into an electrical power source……..
When I was living in Australia the tv news carried a story of a pregnant woman who was beaten up by her partner resulting in loss of baby – she survived but her partner was charged for gbh & murder of unborn child.
@fianna1: no one is advocating for abortions to be performed with a kick to the stomach, so what exactly is your point?
@Karen Wellington: I think the point is that killing the mother’s unborn child was deemed by civilized society to be murder. Killing the child in the womb was deemed by a civilized society to be murder. The assault on the mother which injured but did not kill her was rightly deemed to be grievous bodily harm.
@Kay Kehoe: in Australia it is illegal for children to purchase alcohol, cigarettes or condoms, but they‘re not prohibited from using them. Wearing hot pink pants is illegal after midday on a Sunday. You can’t dress up as Robin or Batman. Touching electric wires that cause death instantly attracts a fine of $200 (not sure who pays the fine). According to Summary Offenses Act of 1966, being heard by someone singing an obscene song can land you in trouble with the law. Legally, only qualified electricians can change a light bulb in Victoria. These are all legitimate laws in Australia, do you think we should adopt them too because a nation on the other side of the world has? @fianna1 never specified how many weeks pregnant this potentially hypothetical woman was, under 12week, near full-term?
@Karen Wellington: errm I did nt advocate that either ? ..ur going off on an angry tangent. I was just sharing fact that a person was charged & sentenced for murder of unborn because it was recognised in court of law.
@fianna1: you told a vague story that may or may not be true which propped-up a particular viewpoint, and I pointed out its irrelevance to this debate.
@Karen Wellington: now ur just getting really absurd & off tangent ..I just simply saying court of law deemed unborn baby not as prevention of poss life but of murder & sentenced so.
@fianna1: but anyone can ‘say’ they heard a story to back-up their point, do you have a source? Why should we adopt Australia’s laws (abortion is legal in most Australian states by the way) over the US or the Uks, or, and this is a radical idea, let our own legislators make our own laws.
@Karen Wellington: well it’s not a vauge story – it’s fact! Unlike u raging on a tangent about other laws .. Relevance is court of law sentenced person not for prevention of life but for murder.
@fianna1: still no source? It is vague; the only details you provided are the continent you were on and that the couple were in a heterosexual sexual relationship. How advanced was the pregnancy? When did this happen? What was he sentenced to? Which Australian State did this purportedly happen in?
@fianna1: Abortion is legal in the U.K., is that relevant?
@Karen Wellington: it doesn’t matter, under 12weeks, over 12weeks.
In the 1947-8 negotiations of the Universal Declaration, one of the first things agreed by the international community was that the “innocent unborn child” was to be legally protected.
In the drafting of Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the only recorded attempt to introduce abortion as an exception to the right to life occurred in the Working Group’s 2nd Session (1947). It was put to a vote in the Commission on Human Rights and was resoundingly defeated. A principle was adopted in which the only exception to the unlawfulness of deprivation of a life was to be in the execution of the sentence of a court following on conviction of a crime for which the penalty is provided by law.
* The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights drafting history records repeatedly and irrevocably that protection of the law is to be “extended to all unborn children” (See 5th Session (1949), 6th Session (1950), 8th Session (1952) and 12th Session (1957) of the UN Commission on Human Rights).
At all these sessions, the travaux préparatoires (drafting history) for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights refer specifically to the intention to save the life of the unborn child in recognition of the human rights principle that legal protection should be extended to all unborn children.
For example, in the 12th Session (1957):
“The principal reason for providing in paragraph 4 [now Article 6(5)] of the original text that the death sentence should not be carried out on pregnant women was ‘to save the life of an innocent unborn child’.”(See for example A/C.3/SR.819 para. 17 & para. 33.)
* The drafters of the Universal Declaration built the whole structure of international human rights law on the agreed premise that human rights are logically antecedent to the rights enumerated in various systems of positive law and are held independent of the State. They established that human rights ‘constitute a law anterior and superior to the positive law of civil society’.
Human rights are by definition inherent and inalienable and thus can never be de-recognized by judicial opinions or by domestic legislatures under the influence of new aberrant ideologies.
The reason I’m pro life is not religious – it’s because a baby’s heartbeat starts at 5 wks in womb & so is alive & more imprtantly has nervous system so feels pain.
@fianna1: Thalamic brain connections, which mediate sensory input, don’t form until the third trimester. Do you agree with abortion up to 5 weeks?
@Karen Wellington: yes but why u asking me 5 wks ? that never happen abortions need 10 – 12 wks
@fianna1: like I said a baby’s heartbeat is detected in womb at 5 wks so therefore alive & it’s nervous system feels pain that develops til earliest 10 wk abortion
@fianna1: Thalamic brain connections mediate sensory input. What do you think abortion pills do if it’s not possible to abort an embryo at 4weeks?
‘Child’ is the true social term (not ‘foetus’ which is a medical term) and it acquires its meaning through the biological fact of being the offspring of a father and a mother.
Right from the first drafting of the international human rights instruments, the legal language of human rights included repeatedly and consistently the terms ‘unborn children’ and ‘the child before as well as after birth’.
It is not valid to replace these international human rights legal terms with the medical term ‘the fetus’ or “the embryo” and then claim that the child before birth or the unborn child has “no rights”.
* There is compelling evidence in the preparatory work for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the circumstances of its conclusion that the meaning of ‘child’ is inclusive—it was recognized at the time of negotiation of the Universal Declaration text and affirmed in the historical context that the child before as well as after birth possesses inherent and inalienable rights.
*On November 20th, 1959, the UN General Assembly (including Ireland and Britain) reaffirmed specifically and definitively that the Universal Declaration “recognized” the child’s need, “by reason of his physical and mental immaturity”, to be provided with “special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth”. (UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child)
@Rita Joseph: ” (UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child)”
Basically an organization of posers Rita as the UN never dealt with the underpinnings for extermination during WWII using the language of subhuman in tandem with natural selection.
People are having the wrong conversation or at a level far below what it should be. I see no organization or authority research how subhuman managed to survive extermination policies from its original emergence through Darwin’s social/political commentaries passed off as ‘evolution’ -
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” Darwin
Bad business and still taught in schools despite its destructive meaning and use in extermination policies.
The ‘unborn’ are going to get shafted.
Great decision!!
Well I was just trying to explain fact that u keep shutting me down & going off on ur tangent by twisting it ..oh well I happy with myself unlike u who angry.
have your say