Ireland sued by EU for not allowing ABORTION!

[MikeWM]

JimG:

So Ireland no longer has national sovereignty? If the women win this case will Ireland be required to abrogate or change its law?

Well, this is a complicated legal question. Many people would argue for example that Ireland has lost a great deal of it’s soverignity by being a member of the European Union (certainly that’s what Eurosceptics in Britain keep on arguing). Having to conform with the ECHR is theoretically another limit on soverignity. It’s debateable though - academics debate these things all the time, and rarely come up with the same answer twice

Mike

 

[Magster]

This is a very disturbing scenario. It shows how delicate the sovereignty of the nations can be.

Has anyone heard about the World Court of which President Bush refused to allow the United States to become a member? I heard something about it on EWTN’s The World Over. Members nations of the court, as well as the individual citizens of such nations, could be sued for violating the UN’s Human Rights Declaration (not sure of correct title) which certain countries seek to include things like rights to abortion and gender reassignment surgeries. This stuff is very scary and we should pray that our leaders do not let the United States ever become part of such a group.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

MikeWM:

Well, it’s ok to have a gut feeling, but it is going a bit far to call people liars in public unless you have some proof to the contrary, imo.

I don’t see any reason to doubt their figure. Sure they may be using the figure as leverage for their nasty cause, but until someone comes forward with other evidence I don’t see we can say it is a lie just because your gut tells you so.

Mike

Mike:

I’m pretty cautious about calling people “Liars”, but I think it’s fair in this case to demand that the people making the first set of charges, that 1,000’s of women have died as a result of illegal abortions, prove that to be the case.

It’s not up to us to prove the contrary, even if the Irish Government, which is disputing their charges, can do so based on medical records. It is up to the complainants, since they are the ones making the charges, to demonstrate through clear and compelling evidence, that their charges are, in fact, true.

That is generally the requirement in politically debate. The lack of that requirement has often meant that we’ve sacrificed the high moral ground to Abortionists when we shouldn’t have.

Mike, there’s a debate that I’ve been involved with where one side often makes charges of the other that they know is not only not true of that side, but is true of themselves. They keep doing it knowing that most people don’t pay attention to how many times they get caught lying, and knowing that, even if the lies are thoroughly discredited, some people will still believe them. So far, it’s worked.

I have also found that people on the pro-Abortion side often misrepresent what their side says and what our side says, and they’re not above distorting or mistating the facts if it will help their case.

Just to get an idea at how the Pro-Abortion side thinks, look here - If pro-lifers put out a video like this planned parenthood video we would be in JAIL!
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=68010

Blessed are they who act to save God’s Little Ones, Michael

 

[walstan]

Magster:

This is a very disturbing scenario. It shows how delicate the sovereignty of the nations can be.

Has anyone heard about the World Court of which President Bush refused to allow the United States to become a member? I heard something about it on EWTN’s The World Over. Members nations of the court, as well as the individual citizens of such nations, could be sued for violating the UN’s Human Rights Declaration (not sure of correct title) which certain countries seek to include things like rights to abortion and gender reassignment surgeries. This stuff is very scary and we should pray that our leaders do not let the United States ever become part of such a group.

The world court you refer to is the World Court of Justice. Before decrying something you obviously know nothing about I would suggest a little research might help.

The purpose of the World Court of Justice is (1) to provide means of resolution of disputes between individuals and groups of individuals and specifically between individuals and established national governments on the basis of truth, honesty and justice, (2) to protect all people on earth from any form of violence and injustice inflicted on them by others and specifically by established national governments, and (3) to set standards of objectivity, impartiality, and formal judicial reasoning for the presently existing legal systems.

The World Court of Justice provides at present two types of service: (1) resolution of disputes by use of automated adversarial procedure and (2) clarification of issues in international disputes.

Resolution of disputes is performed by the disputing parties by presenting their cases at the Case Registry.

Clarification of issues in international disputes is performed by publication of documents aimed at clarification of issues underlying international disputes with a view to resolution of such disputes on the basis of justice. The Court documents can be viewed at the Documents Registry.

You are right America did refuse to add its voice to allowing justice for all peoples of the world mainly because of fears that American soldiers who commit acts of atrocity may be held to account. It seems that GB is quite happy to see the leaders from Serbia in the World Court but presumably not his own people. If you look at the regsiter of countries that have signed up to the court both as advocates and allowing its own citizens to be subject to it if required the only one missing from the “Developed” world is America. Now why is that I wonder?

 

[MikeWM]

Traditional Ang:

I’m pretty cautious about calling people “Liars”, but I think it’s fair in this case to demand that the people making the first set of charges, that 1,000’s of women have died as a result of illegal abortions, prove that to be the case.

That wasn’t what was said though. The claim was that there are around 6000 Irish women that go to the UK each year to have an abortion that isn’t available in Ireland. As far as I know, that number is pretty much accurate.

(I agree that facts in this debate are often twisted and distorted. Let’s make sure we get the right ones to pick people up on though

Mike

 

[MikeWM]

walstan:

You are right America did refuse to add its voice to allowing justice for all peoples of the world mainly because of fears that American soldiers who commit acts of atrocity may be held to account. It seems that GB is quite happy to see the leaders from Serbia in the World Court but presumably not his own people. If you look at the regsiter of countries that have signed up to the court both as advocates and allowing its own citizens to be subject to it if required the only one missing from the “Developed” world is America. Now why is that I wonder?

In addition, this court only steps in if there are insufficient procedures in domestic law for dealing with war crimes committed by the armed forces. This has already happened in the UK - there have been a few people accused of war crimes. We have a perfectly fine method of trial within our domestic system though, so the court hasn;t needed to do anything.

Mike

 

[m134e5]

From what I understand, Ireland and Poland are one of the few European countries that still have their Catholic identity (though I also hear secularism is growing in these countries). They need our prayers.

 

[Magster]

walstan:

The world court you refer to is the World Court of Justice. Before decrying something you obviously know nothing about I would suggest a little research might help.

I was only recapitulating what was reported on The World Over. If that is incorrect, take it up with Raymond Arroyo.