Europe to force abortion on Ireland

  • Thread starter Thread starter lizardley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My bad. Not pan-European. Just encompassing almost all European countries:D.
Except for most of the Balkans, a decent chunk of Eastern Europe, Switzerland, the Vatican, Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, Norway, Iceland.

Yeah…almost all of them. 😃
 
Except for most of the Balkans, a decent chunk of Eastern Europe, Switzerland, the Vatican, Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, Norway, Iceland.

Yeah…almost all of them. 😃
27 EU members out of 50 sovereign states, to be precise.
 
Actually, the number of Irish women travelling to the UK has been in decline for a number of years now, though the reason why is not clear…

cinews.ie/article.php?artid=3648

One suspects that, with the country currently in deep recession, those numbers may begin to rise again.
That is the reason. (Money) The brief tech boom in Ireland broadened the wealth base considerably, allowing women to travel more.
 
The European Court of Human Rights has announced a controversial ruling that will force abortion on Ireland. The court has binding powers over the Irish Government, which will now have to legislate to allow abortion under certain circumstances.
To read more visit: sconews.co.uk/news/europe-to-force-abortion-on-ireland/
The bolded part is not true, and the European Court of Human Rights has not proposed any changes to the law.
 
What was the point of trying to turn this thread into one about allowing an American to carry a handgun in Ireland?

Is there NO topic that American conservatives don’t try to make into a 2nd Amendment issue? 😦
 
What was the point of trying to turn this thread into one about allowing an American to carry a handgun in Ireland?

Is there NO topic that American conservatives don’t try to make into a 2nd Amendment issue? 😦
In fairness, Rich, the poster who began the hand gun interlude is from the UK not the US…🙂
 
I really wish that most if not all international and regional courts and unions would just go away! We were better without them. The only global organization that truly deserves to exist is the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Well, it is good to see the ECHR tackle such pressing subjects. I mean, if Irish women don’t have any access to abortion, is any European free?
 
Well, it is good to see the ECHR tackle such pressing subjects. I mean, if Irish women don’t have any access to abortion, is any European free?
No disrespect intended, but how does murdering an unborn child have anything to do with freedom? Liberty involves responsibility. That is what distinguishes it from chaos.
 
Well, it is good to see the ECHR tackle such pressing subjects. I mean, if Irish women don’t have any access to abortion, is any European free?
As I said earlier, the ECHR has, in the past, decided that abortion is a matter for the individual States (unlike the position in the US). This decision is fairly typical of the process where citizens go to the ECHR as the final Court of Appeal in cases where a Government has failed, or may have failed, to apply their own laws.

Freedom under the law implies the ‘Rule of Law’, that Governments observe their own laws. If their legislation is faulty, or they change their minds, then they should seek to change the law not choose to ignore it when it suits them or appears inconvenient.
 
As I said earlier, the ECHR has, in the past, decided that abortion is a matter for the individual States (unlike the position in the US). This decision is fairly typical of the process where citizens go to the ECHR as the final Court of Appeal in cases where a Government has failed, or may have failed, to apply their own laws.

Freedom under the law implies the ‘Rule of Law’, that Governments observe their own laws. If their legislation is faulty, or they change their minds, then they should seek to change the law not choose to ignore it when it suits them or appears inconvenient.
Kaninchen, I think you’ll have to put this on a mental ‘macro’ as well…😃
 
As I said earlier, the ECHR has, in the past, decided that abortion is a matter for the individual States (unlike the position in the US). This decision is fairly typical of the process where citizens go to the ECHR as the final Court of Appeal in cases where a Government has failed, or may have failed, to apply their own laws.

Freedom under the law implies the ‘Rule of Law’, that Governments observe their own laws. If their legislation is faulty, or they change their minds, then they should seek to change the law not choose to ignore it when it suits them or appears inconvenient.
However, might a cynic speculate that the ECHR was selective in picking which laws to adjudicate? Maybe it’s just an American thing, but doesn’t every country have a whole host of laws that rarely or never go enforced for a variety of reasons? I think I once heard a someone (not necessarily a reliable source) say that it was technically legal to shoot a Welshman with a crossbow after midnight in some county in Britain. I’m sure, if one wanted to, one could find many inconsistencies in the Irish (or any) law code; why bother with this one?

Perhaps I’m just overly cynical or paranoid. It’s a habit of mine, however, to be skeptical toward international bodies intervening in domestic affairs for any reason, excepting extreme cases like policies of genocide or enslavement.
 
However, might a cynic speculate that the ECHR was selective in picking which laws to adjudicate? Maybe it’s just an American thing, but doesn’t every country have a whole host of laws that rarely or never go enforced for a variety of reasons? I think I once heard a someone (not necessarily a reliable source) say that it was technically legal to shoot a Welshman with a crossbow after midnight in some county in Britain. I’m sure, if one wanted to, one could find many inconsistencies in the Irish (or any) law code; why bother with this one?

Perhaps I’m just overly cynical or paranoid. It’s a habit of mine, however, to be skeptical toward international bodies intervening in domestic affairs for any reason, excepting extreme cases like policies of genocide or enslavement.
No country has been forced to sign the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court decides on cases that are brought before it, it doesn’t trawl through the mass of laws in Europe looking for things to decide on.

While one is always pleased to hear the thoughts of Americans on the threat to freedom that not being an American brings, one has to remember, as a European, that the idea of a Convention on Human Rights is considerable progress as far as a lot of Europe is concerned and that the idea of commonality in a democratic Europe is preferable to the fratricidal/genocidal warfare that eventually led to catastrophe.
 
However, might a cynic speculate that the ECHR was selective in picking which laws to adjudicate? Maybe it’s just an American thing, but doesn’t every country have a whole host of laws that rarely or never go enforced for a variety of reasons? I think I once heard a someone (not necessarily a reliable source) say that it was technically legal to shoot a Welshman with a crossbow after midnight in some county in Britain. I’m sure, if one wanted to, one could find many inconsistencies in the Irish (or any) law code; why bother with this one?

Perhaps I’m just overly cynical or paranoid. It’s a habit of mine, however, to be skeptical toward international bodies intervening in domestic affairs for any reason, excepting extreme cases like policies of genocide or enslavement.
The ECHR didn’t just suddenly decide to adjudicate on this: it had three cases in connection with that law before it. And, surprisingly enough, it is actually the function of the ECHR to adjudicate on cases before it. 🤷
 
Actually, the number of Irish women travelling to the UK has been in decline for a number of years now, though the reason why is not clear…

cinews.ie/article.php?artid=3648

One suspects that, with the country currently in deep recession, those numbers may begin to rise again.
That is the reason. (Money) The brief tech boom in Ireland broadened the wealth base considerably, allowing women to travel more.
Sorry, that makes no sense…:confused:
I guess I read you incorrectly. Some sources have acknowledged that a spike in the country’s wealth (until recently) allowed Irish women much more freedom to travel than previously. It seems that you are saying that you believe that recession will encourage abortions (which in most cases still require travel, right?)? Apparently I misunderstood and thought that you were in agreement with other opinions Sorry about that. 🤷
 
It “doesn’t make sense” that the drop in wealth, which you yourself acknowledged, would restrict freedom (funds) to travel? You’re the one that brought it up! 🤷
(As have other sources, by the way.)
No, it doesn’t, because that was never my point.

My point was that during the boom years, when people had money, the numbers of women travelling to the UK for an abortion declined, by about 23%, which is not inconsiderable. The reason for this isn’t clear but it could be that increased affluence meant fewer financial pressures associated with pregnancy and raising children so women tended to go through with unexpected pregnancies.

It is considerably less expensive to travel to the UK and procure an abortion than it is to stay in Ireland, have the baby and raise him/her. Therefore, I am speculating that with the country now in recession, there will be an increase in the numbers travelling to the UK for an abortion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top