Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sovereignty is limited. Parliament couldn’t pass a law to strip Jews of their property. Even if it was passed by both the Commons and the Lords and was given Royal Assent it would be a Dead Letter because the Courts wouldn’t uphold it. 

That’s an extreme example but the Supreme Court has nullified primary legislation in the past and will do it again. Just as King John discovered that he isn’t absolute, so Parliament is the same. The Courts function to uphold Human Rights and hold Parliament to account. That is their constitutional role. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 354
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I may end up on their FB page later. Protesting at the hospital today, I didn’t manage to follow my own advice to ignore them and instead took a leaflet, tore it up, binned it, and then stated that ab

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/former-health-minister-voices-concerns-over-abortion-reforms/ What a bloody good job this wretched, undemocratic woman is no longer Health Minister

Pretty disgraceful that Quayle is seeking to bring in amendments to Allinson's Bill today that undermines some key aspects. "Chief Minister Howard Quayle will seek to remove the provision that wo

Posted Images

11 hours ago, Chinahand said:

Sovereignty is limited. Parliament couldn’t pass a law to strip Jews of their property. Even if it was passed by both the Commons and the Lords and was given Royal Assent it would be a Dead Letter because the Courts wouldn’t uphold it. 

That’s an extreme example but the Supreme Court has nullified primary legislation in the past and will do it again. Just as King John discovered that he isn’t absolute, so Parliament is the same. The Courts function to uphold Human Rights and hold Parliament to account. That is their constitutional role. 

Roles can be changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I do find of interest is that there has been so little, if any,  comments or input on this thread from the anti-smoking choice fascists.  It is always possible that the whole lot of them and their supporters are so bigoted, blinkered, and possess such closed minds that they are unaware of this sorta debate or more likely they are scared witless of engaging in any form of open discussion.

I favour the latter.

 

ETA ---

Anti-smoking?  Bloomin' spellcheck auto replace (and lazy-ness on my part!) 

Should have been ANTI-ABORTION CHOICE!

Edited by Rog
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole debate has gone beyond stupid, why cannot women just go to their own doctors and get the required pills go home and quietly take them as they do in Australia.  As long as they made the decision below 12 weeks it would just be like an advanced morning after pill.  No need for clinics, hospitals etc to be involved. This matter has taken up more parliamentary time than anything else and there is more to life than abortion issues.   I would say donor cards are more important and probably affect as many or more people and this bill has had to wait in the wings when the abortion issue goes on and on.    Both sides of the argument have shown themselves for what they are the handmaiden brigade may have been peaceful but their followers certainly are not and the other lot well......dreadful, although to give them their due at least they showed their faces did not hide under hoods.  Enough is enough.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hissingsid said:

This whole debate has gone beyond stupid, why cannot women just go to their own doctors and get the required pills go home and quietly take them as they do in Australia.  As long as they made the decision below 12 weeks it would just be like an advanced morning after pill.  No need for clinics, hospitals etc to be involved. This matter has taken up more parliamentary time than anything else and there is more to life than abortion issues.   I would say donor cards are more important and probably affect as many or more people and this bill has had to wait in the wings when the abortion issue goes on and on.    Both sides of the argument have shown themselves for what they are the handmaiden brigade may have been peaceful but their followers certainly are not and the other lot well......dreadful, although to give them their due at least they showed their faces did not hide under hoods.  Enough is enough.

If you've had an abortion, work at an abortion clinic or just pro-choice, ''hiding under hoods'' probably seems the wisest thing to do given the vitriolic behaviour of the baying mobs of the 'anti's.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Craig King said:

What do anti-abortionists think about the end of the young life Alfie Evans?

For that matter, what do pro-choice people think?

Does it have any bearing whatsoever on the abortion debate?

Only that if this defect had been detected prior to birth he should have been aborted, and after being born there was far too much medical intervention.

In at least three European countries the option of post natal termination exists and should exist in far more countries.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he "should" have been aborted.

I can understand how people can view aborting the unborn as being totally against their core beliefs, and I think our society should accept their right to give birth and care for those suffering from handicaps etc.  I've written about Dao's of Caring before.  To have a society which comes together to support a family with a severely disabled child is a good, and I think society should be praised for having such people. There is quite definitely no simple statement that a mother "should" have aborted a handicapped child.  Different people can and should be able to come to different decisions.

There are questions about the resources that should be used in that care and the balance needing to be struck between individual and societal rights and obligations.  Many thousands of pounds was spent caring for Alfie.  There isn't an unending money supply to do that, and eventually decisions have to be taken as to whether on-going treatment is benefiting the child.

The issue of cruelty and putting the child through too much suffering is also paramount. There is a time when further treatment is futile and can cause needless suffering.  Then it is time to make comfortable and let nature take its cause.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rog said:

Only that if this defect had been detected prior to birth he should have been aborted, and after being born there was far too much medical intervention.

In at least three European countries the option of post natal termination exists and should exist in far more countries.

Except that both before and for the first 6 months after birth he appeared to be normal and developed normally. There was no medical intervention until he was 6 months old, when he was put on life support.

Attempts to diagnose and treat were, unfortunately, unsuccessful, and, eventually, after 9 months, the doctors concluded that treatment should change from active to palliative.

Parents wouldn’t agree, So application to Court was made.

Post natal termination wouldn’t have helped in this case.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...