Conference tallis::celt

    News gets a bit warped by the time it gets to Switzerland too.
    From what I can gather, the parents wanted to take the child to England
    but asked the Gardai if thr foetus should be tested. There the problems
    started and now it has been handed to the A.G. who will make a decision
    today.
    
    If it was my child I would contact the Gardai afterwards!!!
    
    Therese

    
The young girl in question had been repeatedly sexually assualted by
a schoolfriend's father over the last couple of years. In December of last
year the man raped the girl. The pregnancy resulted from this rape. The girl 
told her parents what happened and they informed the gardai (police).

The parents decided that an abortion would be the best option for their 
daughter. They informed the gardai that they intended to go to England for the
abortion and enquired into the possibility of someone accompanying them for the 
purpose of carrying out tests on the foetus so that the father could be 
identified. When this request was denied they decided to go ahead with their
plans anyway. They travelled to England on February 6th and made arrangements 
for the abortion. It was while they were there that they learned of the 
Attorney Generals injunction preventing the abortion. They then decided to 
return home. Yesterday in the High court the injunction was upheld. The parents
may appeal to the Supreme court. 

Abortion is illegal in Ireland under the Offences Against the Person Act 
(1861). This was copperfastended by a clause inserted into the Irish 
constitution in 1983. This clause states that 

"The state aknowledges the right to life of the unborn and with due regard to
the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and,
as far as practicable by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

The Attorney General acted without the knowledge of the government. As the law
stands he had no choice but to prevent the abortion from going ahead. 

    
    This may seem a nieve question, but how does Irish law effect something
    that was going to occur in England?
    
    /Jen
    

    
     I believe, Jen, that emigrating or traveling abroad with the intent 
    of contravening the laws of one's nation is grounds for detention in
    the US as well.
    
     I think this is a terrible precedent insofar as the pregnancy is the 
    result of rape.  It won't stop women from obtaining abortions (they 
    simply don't have to report their condition), yet it's almost like a 
    de jure justification of the crime in that the victim is FORCED to 
    live with its result.
      

    Thanks for the update. By now this story is making front page in all
    the papers and the lead story on some of the TV news shows down here.
    Newscasters and journalists are expressing utter disbelief at what has
    happened. They are asking 'How can a country do this to one of it's
    children?'. It's unbelieveable !!!!
    
    They have also reported riots in the street (at the court). How
    accurate is this ? 
    
    
    re.4
    > I believe, Jen, that emigrating or traveling abroad with the intent 
    >of contravening the laws of one's nation is grounds for detention in
    >the US as well.
    
    That's a good point. How does it fit in with EEC law which says that
    citizens of any EC country must be free to travel to obtain services
    leagally available in other EC countries ?
    
    
    Do you (other noters) think that this current debate will result in
    another referendum on abortion ? Might it also be a good time to have
    another go at the Divorce question ???
    
    
    Tony.
    
    
    P.S. I take it that the attorney-general doesn't have a 14 year old
    daughter...
    

    
    
    Yep its amazing in 1992, especially considering the situ.   Any of the
    legal experts out there know if this could become a case for the EEC
    court on Human Rights to rule on ......... maybe that would shale
    things up.     I assume all the Attorney G can do is state teh law as
    it is, he didn't make it and may not agree.
    
    Its really hitting the news here in Boston also, I heard it/read it in
    at least 6 different channels/newspapers yesterday.
    
    Sad, sad case for the poor kid - --- thats all she needs.
    
    In hindsight the parents should have gone to the UK, and had the tests
    carried out there under police control, bet that evidence would be
    sufficient - it is in other cases.
    
    saddddddddddddddd
     

    
Once the AG discovered that the abortion was to be carried out, he
was obliged under the constitution, to do what he could to prevent it.
The parents and the child were in England at the time and decided to comply
with the AG's injunction. They could have gone ahead with the abortion.
However, had they done so they faced the possibility of arrest when they 
got home.

    There have been calls for the deletion/alteration of the Article in the
    constitution which has resulted in this sad case. This would require
    another referendum.

    
    I do not accept that the AG had no alternative. There are ample 
    precedents in this country for a "creative" approach to law
    enforcement.
    
    Examples: For years, illegal radio stations broadcasted in this
    country without any interference from the law. Eventually, the
    politicians regularised matters on the statute books.
    There is a law in this country (also a 19th century act) banning
    homosexuality which has been found to contravene EC law.
    No one bothers to enforce the Irish law any more. Thousands of
    Irish people have had marriages annulled under Church law
    (which is unrecognised by the state) but have remarried in
    church, technically making them bigamists.
    Again, a blind eye is turned.
    Recently we have heard how abuses in the beef trade went
    uninvestigated by the police because of "manpower resources",
    possibly also because it might upset some powerful individuals.
    
    Yet the whole majesty and panoply of the law was wheeled out
    to humiliate and torment a 14-year old child. It makes me
    sick and ashamed. If we are going to enforce laws, lets do it
    across the board, or lets stop making laws that are only meant to 
    be pious aspirations. Its the old saying again: The only immorality
    recognised in Ireland is sexual immorality - and then there's 
    always a woman to blame.
    
    I don't think there is a person in the country who can escape
    some responsibility for this, but the politicians who climbed 
    on the referendum bandwagon in 1983, and the pressure group who 
    exploited the greed for power of certain party leaders must
    take ultimate responsibility. To name names, they are all the
    SPUC brigade, Charlie Haughey, the Catholic bishops and Garret
    Fitzgerald. 
    
    For God's sake, let's hope there's some political courage out
    there for people to undo some of the harm they've caused.
    
    Toby

    I wonder if the Attorney Generals injunction was made precisely to
    publicly raise up once again the matter of abortion in Ireland.
    As someone else in this discussion has mentioned they could have
    easily slid this whole affair under the carpet.
    
    If that were the case then the AGs succeeded, in that every
    newspaper and every national television broadcast in the USA
    covered this story.
    
    /George

    Re: Previous note
    
    If the AG wanted a publicity vehicle, do you think it was moral 
    to choose a disturbed and suicidal 14-year old rape victim as his
    instrument?
    
    Toby

    >If the AG wanted a publicity vehicle, do you think it was moral 
    >to choose a disturbed and suicidal 14-year old rape victim as his
    >instrument?
    
    No, personally I believe it was a morally incorrect decision to issue
    the injuction, but I'm offering a possibility as to why it happened.
    
    It is unfortunate when the innocent are treated like criminals.   
    Often laws are only challenged and changed when these types of
    cases occur.
    
    By the way has the father's friend been charged with any crime yet?
    
    /George

    
     I certainly do not, Toby.  
    
     I understand the government is meeting immediately to review the law.
    Do you believe this will have an affect on this particular case?
    
     And what has/will become of the rapist?
    
    Thanks
    
    Frank
    

    
    Right I will try that note again -)
    
    Yesterday's Irish Times had a very poignant cartoon, showing a map
    of Ireland with high fenced barbed wire around the 26 counties. Inside
    there was a child pregnant holding a teddy bear.
    The title above the map read:
    
    		17 Feb 1992 Internment Introduced 
    		         in Ireland
    
        ______________________________________________________
    
    	          To  14 year old girls
    
    
    peter.

    
    Re: .12
    
    I believe the rapist has not been charged yet. Don't ask me why. 
    
    Several articles in the paper yesterday re-inforce my point that
    the AG need not have done what he did. He has a responsibility to
    see that the law is not flouted, but some constitutional experts
    do not see this as a requirement to intervene in individual cases.
    There have been worse flouting of the law than was committed by
    this child.
    
    Similarly the courts have taken a very absolute view of the 
    8th amendment wording:
    
    - It promises to vindicate the rights of the unborn "as far as is
      practicable". One would think that injuncting pregnant women from
      travelling abroad was not very practicable, but the court has
      taken the view that this wording means "as far as POSSIBLE".
    
    - The amendment mentions "having regard to the equal right to life 
      of the mother". The courts have interpreted this as physical life
      only, psychological or mental damage is not considered life-threatening.
      Further, many lawyers are arguing that the Costello
      judgement makes the mother's life subordinate to the life of 
      the unborn child.
    
    The notion that the 8th amendment must be either deleted or amended
    is gathering momentum. No one would go lightly into another referendum 
    - I participated in the 1983 one, and to say it was divisive and bitter 
    is an understatement. Last year an historian published an account of it,
    called "Ireland's Second Civil War". Like our first Civil War, not many
    came out of it with credit, even less after the past few days.
    
    But if that is what needs to be done to prevent another apalling
    incident like this, then it must be done.
    
    Toby

    
    
    RE:  .4   My, I see a lot has gone on here since I left my little
    question!
    
    **I believe, Jen, that emigrating or traveling abroad with the intent
    **of contravening the laws of one's nation is grounds for detention
    **in the US as well.  
    
    Well, maybe in SOME WAYS, but not in others.  For example, if State A
    says that a teenager needs parental consent for an abortion and State B
    doesn't have such restriction the teen could just travel to State B and
    have the abortion with no legal ramifications in their home state (at 
    least that I know of).
    
    Of course that is State laws in conflict not National laws....but
    anyway, a difference just the same.
    
    /Jen
    
    
    

Yesterday in a surprise move the Supreme Court lifted the injunction 
barring the 14-year old girl travelling to the U.K. for an abortion. The
grounds for the injunction are not known yet and will not be announced
until later (perhaps next week?).

We do know that EC law was NOT the reason as the state lawyer had not
even got to the point of arguing this part of the case.

The pro-amendment "big guns", Professor William Binchy of Trinity 
College, was on T.V. last night assuring us that the grounds were 
probably based on a person's right to travel under Irish constitutional 
law, and that the court was not taking any view of her right to abort 
the foetus. This is a fudged solution, and will probably lead to 
further bitter controversy.

However, in the morning "Irish Times", the report stated that the grounds
were probably that the mother's right to life was not sufficiently
taken into account by the lower court. This may mean a modification of
the "equal right to life of the mother" in line with other articles
of the constitution, and may lead to the legalisation of abortion
in certain cases!
 
If this is the case, it will of necessity force re-consideration of
the banning of abortion counselling and referral services in this
country. Suddenly we have been exposed to the dreadful problem that 
we have all-too-willing to export.

This case has proved the error in putting an all-inclusive amendment 
such as the 8th into the constitution. It is precluding even cases 
which most right-thinking people see as legitimate circumstances where 
abortion should be considered.

We (most of us unknowing) have been telling pregnant rape and incest 
victims "Have the child, but if you want to terminate the pregnancy,
we don't want to know you. Go to England where you will be taken care
of" because under the 8th amendment we have closed the professional 
services that could have directed them to where they could secure an 
abortion.
 
That is why the amendment must be deleted, unless the Supreme Court
has affirmed the right to terminate pregnancy in certain clearly
defined cases. Thus if you affirm this right, you must automatically
put into place the services to assist those in that tragic position.

A report out yesterday from the ISPCC reports 30,000 child abuse
cases reported to Childline in 5 years. A doctor at Dublin's Rotunda
Hospital reported 50 pregnant rape victims over the past year.

Toby


    

    	
    	from the american perspective, as reported in the globe today,
    	it was said that the decision was based on the fact the mother's
    	life was indeed in danger as she threatened suicide if she was
    	forced to go through term and give birth.
    
    	this didn't appear to be as fuzzy a decision as was given in .17.
    
    	how accurate, though is anyone's guess.

    
    Re: -1
    
    The Globe got it wrong. The reasons for quashing the injunction have
    not been announced, which is why we must wait before the full 
    implications can be considered.
    
    Toby

    
    	NO NO NO .............please don't let it be so!

    
    Re: -1
    
    Alas, it must be thus (.... if you have quoted the Globe correctly.)
    
    Toby

    
    	i was being sarcastic about the truth in the globe.
    	as much as i rely on it for news i'm not THAT naive to
    	realize its completely unbiased.
    
    	denise

    
    The "bottom line" of the Supreme Court's grounds for quashing
    the injunction on the 14-year old girl is that abortion is legal
    in Ireland when there is a clear and substantial danger to the 
    mother's life. The judgement was a majority 4-1 decision.
    The finding (ironically) was under the 8 Amendment's wording
    "with regard to the right to life of the mother", which 
    (the justices said) had not been given sufficient weight by
    the lower court.
    
    There has been a storm of protest from anti-abortion groups
    who say that the Supreme Court has "opened the floodgates"
    to abortion. Ironically, these are the people who pushed
    the amendment in the first place and defended the wording to
    the extreme. The Catholic Church has yet to pronounce, the
    government has to consider the verdict and do what it feels
    necessary (which may be nothing!). Anti-amendment groups
    have given a cautious welcome.
    
    However, it must be said that the judgement leaves a lot 
    undecided:
    
    - The right to travel for an abortion is unclear. Thus an
      irate husband or lover could still have recourse to an
      injunction to prevent a woman leaving the country for
      an abortion (their being no threat to her life). A victim
      of rape or incest could still conceivably be forced to 
      bear the abuser's child, if her life was not threatened.
    
    - The Maastricht treaty, if passed with the protocol referring
      to the Eighth Amendment, will copper-fasten the rights 
      referred to above (i.e. injucting a woman from leaving the
      country) and prevent her appeal to European law. This has 
      dramatic consequences for the Maastricht treaty referendum.
    
      Personally, though I support the Mastricht treaty, I will
      not vote for it with the special protocol, if these are
      the consequences.
    
    - If abortion is legal in this country, albeit in special 
      circumstances, what are the implications for the counselling 
      and referral services which were closed down under the Eighth 
      Amendment? 
    
    - Again, if abortion is legal (with the "special circumstances"
      proviso) who is going to carry out the abortions? We live
      in a country where female sterilization is permitted in very
      few hospitals, particulary those with strong Catholic Church
      influence. What chance of those permitting abortions?
    
    I guess everyone wished that the Supreme Court would give a 
    multiplex jusgement that would answer all the above concerns.
    Obviously, this was beyond the power of the court. It is 
    just another round of the struggle that has been going on
    since the sixties - to build a more liberal and humane 
    society in this country, particularly where women are
    concerned.
    
    Mary Harney, of the PDs, gave an interesting statistic
    last night on TV, and I know this statistic is true. The 
    abortion rate per 1000 Dutch women is LOWER
    than among Irish women, it runs at 3.6 to 4.8. And the Irish
    figure is probably an underestimate! The Netherlands has
    one of the most open and permissive societies in the 
    world. How's that for the Republic of Ireland's "Shining
    Beacon"?
    
    Toby

    Quick calculations show that if 5,000 women have an abortion each year
    that is one in 730 of the total population or one in 365 of the female
    half of the population so that Toby's figure of 3 per 1,000 is not far
    off the mark.
    
    This assumes the population of the republic is 3,650,000.
    
    

    You're assuming all the women are of child-bearing age, John.  Ruling
    out the below 10s and the above 45s, I reckon you're probably looking
    at a number nearer 5 per thousand per year or, if no woman has more
    than one abortion, around 175 per thousand will undergo an abortion at
    some period during the lifetime of her fertility.
    
    Joe

    There are always two sides to an argument. And there have been several
    notes from people who do not agree with the 1983 Amendment and who do
    support the Supreme Court's ruling. Here is one other side to it.  
    
    I supported the Amendment to the Irish Constitution in 1983 which sought 
    to guarantee the right to life of the unborn (with due regard to the equal 
    right to life of the mother.) 
    
    And I am unhappy with the Supreme Court's judgement, allowing the mother 
    to travel to U.K. for an abortion.  I believe they should not have allowed 
    the mother to go the U.K. for that abortion.
    
    
    I believe the unborn have the same right to life as the born. And I
    don't see that the Supreme Count's ruling acknowledged that right.
    
    A baby, once born, has a definite right to life. It will not be killed
    because someone threatens to take their own life unless the baby is
    killed. BUT AN UNBORN BABY CAN BE KILLED IF THE MOTHER IS THREATENS TO
    TAKE HER LIFE UNLESS THE UNBORN BABY IS KILLED.             
    
    A baby, once born, cannot be taken to another country (where killing
    babies is considered lawfull) if someone states their intention to kill 
    the baby in that other country. BUT AN UNBORN BABY CAN BE TAKEN TO ANOTHER
    COUNTRY WHERE KILLING UNBORN BABIES IS CONSIDERED LAWFULL.
    
    
    As I expect/hope my note will generate some replies, I will wait a week
    before responding. 
    
    Peter.
     
    
    

    
     The pregnancy was the result of RAPE, Peter...violence, hatred,
    not consentual love.
    
     You would force your wife/lover/daughter to carry this pregnancy to
    term?  
    
     That, to me, is an ideological contortion that flies in the face
    of decency and justice.
    
    Frank
    

	Good points Frankie...but what if this baby was the ONE...
	the Saviour, the Messiah, that the Lord had decided to
	send back to us ?  What if this was a test from the
	Big Guy upstairs? 

	Okay okay..so it sounds far fetched......but Jesus being
	born to a virgin was far fetched too.


	k

	

    
    	why can't the choice be left up to the individual?
    	or is that too simple a solution to accept.

    
    re .28
    
     Yup, pretty far-fetched, kits.  Do you really think the Messiah 
    would return to earth the product of a rape, a violent and unholy 
    act??  I believe not.
      

    
    Frank,Kits....
    
         I'm already here.....
    
    Watch it         ////
                   ///
                  //
                 /
              
                  ^
                  |
                  |      Lightning Bolt
    
    Now that was close
    
    paddy

	

	Frank,

	And why wouldn't the Messiah return to earth the product
	of a rape, a violent and unholy act??  Maybe to show that
	life is sacred ?  Maybe to show that goodness can overcome
	evil ? Maybe to save the world from more violence and
	unholy acts ?  

	Far-fetched??  well they used to say the heart transplants
	were far-fetched, and liver transplants and lung transplants,
	etc, etc,, etc,......


	kits

    
    Nope.  He comes as King next time, eh?  
    
     Anyway...would *YOU* carry the product of rape to term?  Would you
    force your daughter to do so?
    
     Abortion in the case of consentual love is moot...not so in the case
    of rape.  You think God would condemn a girl who has an abortion in
    such circumstances?
    
    Frank
    

    
    	you can't ask someone a moral question when she has none.
    
    	nuff said.
    
    	:-)

	
	I would not kill a baby that I was carrying...no matter if
	the pregnancy was a result of rape or love.  
	

    
>>> My comments are in >>>

>>> My own position is that while I welcome the Supreme Court's decision
>>> we are still very far from resolution of this issue. Key questions
>>> still remain on the right to travel, right to have an abortion in
>>> this jurisdiction, and the right to counselling and referral.
     
    I believe the unborn have the same right to life as the born. And I
    don't see that the Supreme Count's ruling acknowledged that right.

>>> The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution. They
>>> went out of their way to state the LIMITED opportunity of abortion
>>> here. For example, they particularly stressed that life meant
>>> physical life, not health. In the judgements, they DID acknowledge
>>> the right to life of the unborn. What they are saying (for the first
>>> time) is that psychological stress can also be a threat to the mother's
>>> life, as much as a physical threat from ovarian cancer, or an ectopic
>>> pregnancy.
    
    A baby, once born, has a definite right to life. It will not be killed
    because someone threatens to take their own life unless the baby is
    killed. BUT AN UNBORN BABY CAN BE KILLED IF THE MOTHER IS THREATENS TO
    TAKE HER LIFE UNLESS THE UNBORN BABY IS KILLED.             
    
>>> This is not what the court said. It said that when a pchycologist
>>> testifies of a real and sunstantive risk to the mother's life then
>>> an abortion is justified. I'm sure they said "substantive" which
>>> mean "can be substantiated" rather than "substantial" which is what
>>> I hear some people quoting. If a woman threatens suicide to blackmail
>>> her way to an abortion, a trained psychologist would certainly
>>> be able to distinguish a woman in real distress. It is true that
>>> someone could conceivably get away with this, but are you arguing that
>>> pregnant women cannot in general be trusted? 
>>> You seem to want to deprive certain people of their right to travel. 
>>> The pro-amendment people were fond of saying
>>> when we talked of rape and incest in 1983 "Hard cases make bad laws".
>>> Are you going to use the hard case of an abortion blackmail to deprive
>>> pregnant women (including the victims of rape and incest) of the basic
>>> right to leave the country.

>>> I must complement you, Peter, because at least you have the courage
>>> of your convictions and are saying "If abortion is wrong, then women
>>> should not be allowed to travel for one". In this the Supreme Court
>>> seems to agree with you, as a 3-2 majority of the court supported
>>> the idea of injuncting pregnant women suspected of going for an abortion.
>>> I note the majority of your compatriots seem to take a different
>>> view: they want to put Humpty Dumpty back together again and go back
>>> to the way it was before this court case i.e. export Ireland's 
>>> abortion problem to England, let rape and incest victims take their
>>> chances as long as abortion is officially prohibited in God's
>>> Own Country. Note that God's Own Country only consists of 26
>>> counties as apparently the floodgates of abortion have been open
>>> in Northern Ireland for some time now, though the inundation has
>>> yet to happen.
   
    A baby, once born, cannot be taken to another country (where killing
    babies is considered lawfull) if someone states their intention to kill 
    the baby in that other country. BUT AN UNBORN BABY CAN BE TAKEN TO ANOTHER
    COUNTRY WHERE KILLING UNBORN BABIES IS CONSIDERED LAWFULL.
    
>>> This is a common argument. The nub is in the definition of an "unborn
>>> baby". Is a fertilised ovum an unborn baby? Or is it only an unborn
>>> baby when it attaches to the womb? Or when the sex is differentiated?
>>> I have no doubt that coming closer to the end of gestation, you may
>>> define the foetus as an "unborn baby", but at the very early stages, I 
>>> personally believe you cannot use that definition. And I would appeal
>>> to common medical and religious practice to back me up. If a woman
>>> miscarries in the early stages of pregnancy, the foetus is not
>>> treated the same as a stillbirth. The foetus is not buried in consecrated
>>> ground, is not christened or baptised. 

>>> I believe the foetus in early pregnancy is not an "unborn baby"
>>> Many scientists and theologians have studied this and they have
>>> no consistent answer.
>>> When does the foetus become an "unborn baby"? I do not know, but
>>> I would sooner look to science than theology for an answer.

>>> I deplore the emotiveness in the use of terms like " ... KILLING
>>> UNBORN BABIES IS CONSIDERED LAWFUL [IN BRITAIN]". Statements like
>>> this really drag down the debate. Other countries have faced issues
>>> like the one I have described above, and come to different conclusions
>>> than you would like. Accept that. There are no mass murderers operating
>>> abortion there or here. There are powerful taboos in our society against
>>> child murder - it is sad to hear them being exploited by anti-abortion
>>> activists. If you cannot convince by a rational argument, then leave
>>> off debating. We differ on a matter of faith, not fact.
     
Toby
    
    
    

    Toby,
    
    Surely the nub of the issue is whether an unborn child is a person or not.
    
    I believe a pre-mature baby, a foetus or a fertilised ovum is a person.
    That belief is based on what Science has learned about how a baby
    develops when in the womb. Theology had nothing to do with it. 
    
    The core question is whether a woman has the "right" not to be put at 
    risk of suicide because of the trauma of bearing the unwanted child 
    of a rapist. All I can say that even is there is a high risk that the
    mother will die by suicide if she is made to bear the child, there is 
    an absolute certainty that the other person, the unborn child, will die 
    if the mother is allowed to have the abortion. 
    
    The most basic right in life is the right to life and I don't believe any 
    person should be allowed to take that right from any another person.
     
    Peter.
                                                
    
    

    I do not believe that a woman can be made to be responsible for
    a consequence which is not the result of a voluntary act of will on her
    part.
    
    A pregnancy resulting from involuntary intercourse cannot be said to 
    result from an act of will on the part of the woman.  Therefore the woman 
    cannot be held to be responsible and therefore owes no obligation to the
    resulting foetus.  
    
    On the other hand, a pregnancy resulting from voluntary intercourse is
    the result of an act of will on the part of the woman. Therefore the woman,
    together with the father, can be held to be responsible and therefore does
    owe an obligation to the resulting foetus.
    
    Joe

re: .37

>    The core question is whether a woman has the "right" not to be put at 
>    risk of suicide because of the trauma of bearing the unwanted child 
>    of a rapist. 

The victim in this case is not even a woman - she is a 14 year old child.
If the laws insist that this child bear this child violently forced upon
her, does the law also make provision to assist the victims (both the child
parent and the resulting child) in achieving adult hood with dignity?  Why
must they continue to be victims?

And for all this noise about abortion, many notes ago someone asked if
the adult responsible for the crime had been even arrested.  Only one
reply implied he had not, and no other info has been forth coming??  Why not
raise the same emotional fervor in discussion how rapists should be dealt with
and what can be done to prevent this from happening.  The existance of rape
seems to be accepted, while some of the consequences are not....

an unfair scale if you ask me...

Alice

    One does, I believe, need to be cautious.  Just because the child
    accuses and the man denies, it does not prove the case one way or the 
    other.  It is not entirely unknown for the victim in such cases to 
    lie in order to protect what may, in fact, be her lover.
    
    My understanding is that the alleged rapist denies the charge utterly,
    and is insisting that tests be carried out to clear his name.  He has
    not, as far as I am aware, yet been arrested.
    
    Joe

I agree for the need to be cautious.  However, my problem with the situation
is the vehament focus on abortion...  As intelligent human beings, most
have knowledge of how pregnancy results.  Why not focus more energy on
preventing the unwanted pregnacies in the first place - preventing rape and
incest, providing dignified means to allow people to remain human and still
prevent unwanted pregnancies.  There also needs to be a major change in attitude
even here in the United States  towards unmarried or "quickly" married women.
The male bears little or no stigma or responsibility, while the female faces
most of the social, physical, and economic burdens.

All I want to point out was distortion of engergy focus....  had the pregnancy
been prevented in the first place, abortion would not have been an issue.  And
there is not a comparable energy focus in prevention or removing the stigma to
the victim.  Several notes have stated statitics for the number of cases
rape,incest, and sexual abuse.  Those notes did not create the same emotional
response the notes on abortion itself.  To me, abortion is attacking  the wrong
end of the problem and all to many times being used as a "cure".  The real issue
is to prevent the need for the abortion in the first place.

My 2cents worth...

Alice 

    Well said Alice.
    
    -Dermot

    Alice,
    
    I could not have said it better myself.
    
    
    
    Bernie

re: .42,.43

Thanks. I sometimes get so fustrated with this issue and the high emotions
it generates.  Nice to know I can reach some folks sometimes.

Thanks

Alice

    
    An update on this issue:
    
    The man at the centre of the controversy has at last been arrested
    and charged with unlawful intercourse and sexual assault (11 counts
    in all, I think). He is pleading not guilty to all charges and 
    is out on bail at the moment.
    
    I am not clear when the case comes to trial, but if there is still
    an interest, I will post the details.
    
    Toby

    
    Coming back to this topic again.
    
    From the results of the latest referendum I see that the Irish people
    have said to women :
    
    1. You cannot have an abortion here even if your life is in danger.
    
    2. You can go abroad and have an abortion, here's the address.
    
    
    Talk about not sh*tting in your own back yard. What does this say about
    Irish people ?
    
    Tony.

    Tony,
    
    You have it wrong regarding your first point.   The referendum was for
    limited abortion in the case where a woman's life was in danger, not
    her health.    The people were asked by both pro-choice and pro-life
    to vote no to this issue.   Obviousely with pro-life looking for a 
    no vote on all three issues, which did not happen.   Now that it has
    been defeated, the government has got to legislate on this issue once 
    and for all, so it will not keep coming up every so many years.
    
    
    Bernie  

    
    Just to support what Bernie says.  The pro-lifers are claiming this as
    a victory, but the legal situation is that women now have a wider right
    to abortion (as a result of the Supreme Court decision in the `x' case)
    than if this referendum had passed.
    
    Liam