Clare Daly TD Socialist Party - Private Members Motion to Legislate for X Case

[bob3367]

I suggest that you read back on my post on the previous page - and the opinions expressed on it are entirely my own, not official policy of anybody.

I don't approach the issue of abortion from the standpoint of when it should be allowed - I approach it from the standpoint of recognising and acknowledging that it happens, it is a reality of life - and I believe the focus should be on emphasising changing society's attitudes on how the issue is dealt with - i.e. not through legislation, but through counselling, support, advice and medical care when needed, and providing proper help and support to the woman or parents following the birth. Abortion should not be allowed in private - for profit - facilities as that comodifies abortion and the treatment of the woman - but should be provided free in state controlled hospitals. In my opinion that is the only way of reducing the level of abortion - while again recognising that it cannot be eliminated.


You do realise that 80% of teenagers who have sex have unprotected sex at least once - telling people to use contraception and it actually happening are two different things.

So despite you starting this thread you are at odds, with what Claire daly is promoting?

If you think for one moment think that you or the SP, are going to introduce a bill that will effectively allow abortions on tap you will be crushed in that crusade.

There is nothing wrong with the present system, nothing so why does the SP seek media whoreism from it?

I have given our experience on an issue that I think is,important, and now find that there is a seperate agenda in play.

[ManUnited]

Whether the foetus has rights is irrelevent to the issue of abortion - abortion is a reality - it happens - and has happened since the emergence of human society. No matter what rights are assigned to the foetus and no matter what laws are enacted, abortion will continue.

The only way of dealing with abortion is by recognisiing that it is a fact of life, creating a society that does not commodify, objectify and dehumanise human beings, offers full advice counselling and support for women with unwanted pregnancy - and when a woman decides that she needs an abortion - provide full medical treatment and counselling services to ensure that it happens in a safe and non-judgemental fashion. Anything else is simply pontificating about abstract and irrelevent issues that will have zero impact on the reality of life for women with unwanted pregnancies.

You could make the same argument about pedophilia.Its always happened and always will, it is a reality we should just accept.

[Sync]

There is nothing wrong with the present system, nothing so why does the SP seek media whoreism from it?

Because all TDs have an obligation to protect the constitution of the state. That constitution currently has a problem with it as stated by the Supreme court, and as reiterated by the ECHR recently in the A,B,C case. Whether you agree with abortion or not, it is simply sticking your head in the sand to say "there is nothing wrong with the present system". There quite clearly is, hence the judicial statements. The law needs to be clear and multiple govts have failed to engage on this.

[SilverSpurs]

Because all TDs have an obligation to protect the constitution of the state. That constitution currently has a problem with it as stated by the Supreme court, and as reiterated by the ECHR recently in the A,B,C case. Whether you agree with abortion or not, it is simply sticking your head in the sand to say "there is nothing wrong with the present system". There quite clearly is, hence the judicial statements. The law needs to be clear and multiple govts have failed to engage on this.

Once again Sync why hasn't an abortionista taken a case challenging the constitutionality of the offences against the person act. I can think of a very good reason, that being that they have been warned by their advisors that if they can't bring a 14-year old rape victim into the court they would lose the case i.e the court would uphold the OATP act and set their "crusade" back by decades.

[SilverSpurs]

I have consciously kept out of the discussion on this thread and the VB one on abortion - I will outline my views in this post.

Firstly I want to state my own position - I am pro-life and I support the right of a woman to free and legal abortion.

One thing that really bugs me is people who claim to be 'pro-life' automatically imply that someone who recognised the necessity for free and legal abortion is anti-life. It is a disgraceful argument and one that I fundementally reject.

The reality of abortion is that it has existed since the emergence of ‘civilised’ society and quite probably earlier. In other words, abortion exists - it is a reality. The key issue for society is to ensure that when a woman wants to abort a foetus that she can do so in a safe environment, that she is offered support and counselling and that the abortion does not occur under duress.

In capitalist society human beings, including the foetus, are treated as a commodity. Abortion clinics in many cases are private, for profit facilities, and in many countries even the general hospital system has a significant profit element in it. Coupled with this is the nature of capitalist society that views human life at any stage of development as expendable. Societal pressures can also force women to have abortions for a variety of reasons.

The so-called 'pro-life' element within capitalist society are doing nothing more that attempting to force society to accept reactionary norms. 'Pro-life' campaigners do not stop at attempting to ban abortion but regard it as a single battle in a war against progress. As such they should be met head on and defeated on this issue as part of a general campaign to create a more progressive society that will remove all the oppressive pressures on human beings to conform to the norms of a class based society.

Some people argue that abortion is abused. Some women for example have abortions because they want to be able to sunbathe on their summer holidays and do not want to have their figure distorted. But again it is necessary to acknowledge the reality of a society that create a social necessity to conform to certain standards, norms, images and conformity and that by conforming to these standards etc some people have abortions that would not be the case in a society that would not force these conventions on women.

Should a man have any say in whether a woman has an abortion. I would argue that the man shouldn’t have a say - but not because a man should not have any rights in such situations. Again there is a danger of people ignoring the different physiological make-up of men and women. Men do not carry a foetus, they do not go through the process of pregnancy and they should not have any say in determining the outcome. For a man to either prevent a woman from having an abortion or to force a woman to have an abortion is to reinforce a patriarchal norm that should be oppose. If a man wants to bring a child into the world then he should do so with a woman who also wants to be a parent. If a man does not want to be a parent then he should simply remove himself from the life of the child. For a man to play any other role then he is engaged in an effort to control a woman and impact on her subsequent life whether she wants it or not.

As I said above, the key issue is to recognise the reality that abortions do take place and society should strive to create an environment that reduces the societal pressures on women to have an abortion and to ensure a safe and supportive environment when a woman chooses to have an abortion

Much of the discussion on this thread contains superfluous arguments about whether a foetus is a human being or not - that is not the issue. The issue to be addressed is what has brought a woman to a situation where she feels the necessity to abort a foetus and how can society assist that women in making the right choices for her.

Most of those committed on both sides of this debate can be dogmatic about the issue of abortion, condemning all and sundry who don't agree with their position. The issue of abortion is not something that people can be dogmatic about, it is an issue that requires recognising the reality for women who seek an abortion and adopting a positive and supportive attitude as a consequence.

You could justify the gas chambers with that line of argument. You literally could, but then again when we consider the atrocities committed by revolutionary socialists down the years which your party never condemns....it kinda makes a certain amount of sense.

[SilverSpurs]

Whether the foetus has rights is irrelevent to the issue of abortion - abortion is a reality - it happens - and has happened since the emergence of human society. No matter what rights are assigned to the foetus and no matter what laws are enacted, abortion will continue.

The only way of dealing with abortion is by recognisiing that it is a fact of life, creating a society that does not commodify, objectify and dehumanise human beings, offers full advice counselling and support for women with unwanted pregnancy - and when a woman decides that she needs an abortion - provide full medical treatment and counselling services to ensure that it happens in a safe and non-judgemental fashion. Anything else is simply pontificating about abstract and irrelevent issues that will have zero impact on the reality of life for women with unwanted pregnancies.

Whether the blacks have rights is irrelevent to the issue of apartheid - apartheid is a reality - it happens - and has happened since the emergence of human society. No matter what rights are assigned to the blacks and no matter what international sanctions are enacted, apartheid will continue.

The only way of dealing with apartheid is by recognisiing that it is a fact of life, creating a society that does not commodify, objectify and dehumanise human beings, offers full advice counselling and support for whites dealing with unwanted blacks - and when a white decides that she needs aparthied - provide full support services to ensure that it happens in a safe and non-judgemental fashion. Anything else is simply pontificating about abstract and irrelevent issues that will have zero impact on the reality of life for whites dealing with unwanted blacks.

Spoken like a true afrikaaner making waves. Then again considering what your party has failed to condemn you would have supported the afrikaaners if they had leftist ideals and the ANC wanted a free market meritocratic society.

[Sync]

Once again Sync why hasn't an abortionista taken a case challenging the constitutionality of the offences against the person act. I can think of a very good reason, that being that they have been warned by their advisors that if they can't bring a 14-year old rape victim into the court they would lose the case i.e the court would uphold the OATP act and set their "crusade" back by decades.

Why bother? They've brought one case. They won. They have the Supreme Court on their side saying clarifying legislation is required. They don't need to win again on this issue. The wider issue of abortion on demand and the wider constitutional issue is irrelevant to this discussion. Focus on this issue. There is a gap here between legislation and constitution. One way or the other, the govt should fix that gap.

[SilverSpurs]

Why bother? They've brought one case. They won. They have the Supreme Court on their side saying clarifying legislation is required. They don't need to win again on this issue. The wider issue of abortion on demand and the wider constitutional issue is irrelevant to this discussion. Focus on this issue. There is a gap here between legislation and constitution. One way or the other, the govt should fix that gap.

Correct me if I am wrong but the court never said the OATP act is unconstitutional it merely criticised the current hotch-potch arrangement. The court is not competent to demand legislation it can only bemoan the lack of it. It is however competent to anull legislation but it hasn't anulled the OATP act.
If the OATP act is denying people their constitutional rights then why didn't the court anull it or why hasn't an abortionista sought to have it anulled. I suggest the reason is that they fear they would lose such a case if they can't bring a 14-year old rape victim into court with them.

[Panopticon]

A severly handicapped child, totally dependent on an often-unwilling woman for support, doesn't care about defending itself one way or another. You see, it doesn't have the personality or personhood required for self-preservation,

This is a pathetic attempt at a smart-ass answer, which fails to keep in parallel at the cut-off point I chose to illustrate here. Many "severely handicapped" children have quite clearly demonstrable personalities, desires, etc - even though they may not have the ability to act on it. As such, it is wise to assume it for others of their sort. However, no such evidence of those personalities, desires, etc exists for parasitic cell bundles in the womb, particularly those without brain activity. As such, it is unwise to assume personhood (the same way, for instance, it's unwise to assume dogs are persons).

[Panopticon]

A tried and trusted tactic in every war is to dehumanise your enemy. The baby/foetus argument was yet another skirmish in the war against the unborn.

A blood cell is also human. It's not a person with human rights, though.