Image 01 Image 03

Ireland Gets What Hillary Doesn’t — Unborn Children Have Rights

Ireland Gets What Hillary Doesn’t — Unborn Children Have Rights

Ireland’s Eighth Amendment Gets Some Love

A high court judge in Ireland recently ruled that unborn children have the same rights as born kiddos.

Using an immigration case, Justice Richard Humphries expanded the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment.

LifeSite News reported:

Justice Richard Humphries made the ruling during a tangled deportation case made more complex by the unborn child fathered by the Nigerian man whom the Irish government is seeking to expel.

“The ruling is vitally important at a time when the status of unborn babies in Ireland is once again under grave threat from pro-abortion organizations and the media,” Patrick Buckley of the Dublin office of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said.

The state secured a deportation order in 2008, but the Nigerian, who was claiming refugee status, delayed implementation with various appeals and then sought a judicial review of the original order on the basis of having fathered the child, unborn at the time of his application, by an Irish woman with whom he is still partnered.

The Nigerian wanted the child to be factored into the request for a judicial hearing because the baby’s rights would strengthen his case to stay in the country. But the government resisted on the grounds the child was unborn and had only one right — to be born.

Humphries ruled differently, stating that the controversial Eighth Amendment to the constitution protecting “the unborn” meant that an “unborn child” was a child whose full rights under the constitution once born “must be taken seriously.” These rights under both statutory and common law were “significant” and went “well beyond the right to life alone.”

The Irish government, the judge found, had a duty to consider the best interests of the Nigerian’s unborn child while deliberating on his deportation. The judge, therefore, ordered the government to give the case a judicial review.

The ruling comes at a crucial time. A foreign-funded drive to repeal the Eighth Amendment has led the government to create a Citizens Conference on loosening Ireland’s abortion restrictions, which, under the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013, is permitted only to save the life of the mother but includes the risk of suicide as a threat to her life.

Back on this side of the pond, Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton doesn’t believe unborn babies are entitled to Constitutional rights.

““My view has always been, this is a choice, it is not a mandate. The unborn person doesn’t have Constitutional rights. So in the third trimester of pregnancy there is room for looking at the life and the health of the mother,” said Hillary.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


legacyrepublican | August 6, 2016 at 7:23 am

Here it comes. Listen for it. The sound of the MSM and Left’s lound response to the unborn having constitutional rights in Ireland…. #Crickets or #MSMCrickets or #DNCCrickets

While I agree with the conclusion, I’d have to see the ruling to know if I thought this was a sound legal construct.

Remember, Roe is an abomination for reasons outside its conclusion, as well as its conclusion.

Thank God that the country of my parents still believes in life.

OnlyRightDissentAllowed | August 6, 2016 at 12:04 pm

Yes, we want a government dominated by the Catholic Church. We certainly want a government that makes abortion absolutely prohibited. They may have an exception for the life of the mother, but the mother needs to die to prove she needed the abortion

They let her suffer for 3 days. It was god’s will. He killed the baby even though she wanted it. Seems kind of cruel.

I am sure someone will claim that her life could have been saved without an abortion. Go ahead. Undoubtedly, there was other malpractice and discrepancies in the timeline. But there appears to be no doubt that if she had received an abortion when she first exhibited symptoms, she would be alive and able to have babies.

I guess it is a shame that god didn’t resurrect her. He could have done that; assuming he/she exists and that the catholics got the story right. But that service is only available to catholics sufficiently strong faith. The same priests who perform exorcism should be consulted.

BTW, why do we care about this in the US? Is Catholic law better than Sharia Law? I thought we refuse to sign treaties that support worldwide human rights because we won’t be ruled by fereners.

    What a waste of time.

      OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Ragspierre. | August 6, 2016 at 12:37 pm

      Actually, it was a waste of a life. But I already know than your concerns end when the baby is born.

      What is the difference between rule by Catholics or rule by Muslims? Do you dispute that the Catholic Church had almost complete control over Ireland from the that Ireland gained its freedom?

      Do you know about the Magdalene Sisters? The film was fiction and advocacy, but it was based on the victims accounts. The Irish government admitted as much, although the church is more defensive.

        “What is the difference between rule by Catholics or rule by Muslims?”

        Both recognize eternal changes to the soul. Once a person has been properly baptized with a baptism recognized by the Church, their soul has a mark on it, placed by the Holy Spirit, which lasts for all eternity. Muslims believe joining the ranks of Mohammedans is irrefutable. However, while Muslims will honor kill a family member who leaves Islam, Catholics will not kill a family member who leaves the faith. Catholics pray for them, lights candles for them, has Masses said for the salvation of their soul.

    “Is Catholic law better than Sharia Law?”

    We all know about Sharia law, can you tell me what Catholic law is? By the way I am Catholic and I do know the answer.

      OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to gmac124. | August 6, 2016 at 2:31 pm

      Why don’t you answer the question instead of dodging it?

        Obviously you can’t answer my question so let me help you out.

        30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these.”

        That is the only Catholic law. You are confusing Catholic TEACHINGS with Catholic law.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to gmac124. | August 6, 2016 at 3:43 pm

          The only difference is that the Catholic Church doesn’t have the power anymore. But they influenced the 2004 election with their ‘teachings’. They instructed Catholics not to vote for Kerry at peril of their soul and excommunication. At an earlier time, they commanded Galileo to shut his mouth. I could go on, but it would be a waste.

          My point is that the Catholic Church will seize power where they can. In El Salvador there are women who had miscarriages, but are serving long prison sentences for abortion. Catholic teaching that was implemented into penal law.

          Thank you for the clarification of the difference between teachings and law. But it seems to me that the only question is whether the church has the ability to convert its teachings in secular penal law. Ever heard of the Inquisition – actually there was more than one.

          Luckily neither Islam, not Catholicism can do that here. That was my point.

          BTW, at the turn of the 20th Century in Italy, it was considered bad form for a Jewish family to employee Catholic domestic help. When a maid left the employ of a Jewish family, she announced that she had secretly baptized their youngest child. Eventually, the child was removed from the Jewish family because Jews could not raise a Catholic. That sounds more like law than teaching to me; although you might prefer to give me a discourse on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The story is told here: Just search on ‘catholic maid secretly baptizes Jewish child’ and you can find other versions. They all end the same way.

          gmac124 in reply to gmac124. | August 6, 2016 at 4:33 pm

          “The only difference is that the Catholic Church doesn’t have the power anymore.”

          The Catholic Church has never had “power”. All they have ever had is influence. Granted some very powerful countries and organizations have given their allegiance and might to the church and done the bidding of the Pope but that is entirely different than what you are trying to portray. The power of the Catholic Church has always been the people. As far as grabbing power goes the church is that same as almost every other organization on Earth. They all try to grab as much power and influence as they can. Call it a fallacy of man.

          Speaking of fallacies of man that would bring us to Islam. With the contradictions of text he might have been divinely guided at one point but fell away from that course and went for power instead. This would explain the contradictions and change in teachings from early to late. Because of those issues I will never condone Sharia law.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to gmac124. | August 6, 2016 at 5:11 pm

          1st, I would like to commend you for not turning this into name calling.

          I think the question of power vs influence is semantics. The Pope did actually have an army during the period of the Borgias. But whether they made alliances or had direct command is not that material. Somehow California Indians were forced onto missions. Somehow the Church landed up with enormous riches.

          Somehow Galileo was shut up under penalty of death. That sounds like power to me. The church was absolutely and unequivocally wrong about Galileo; although it literally took 400 years to admit it. If they could be so wrong about Galileo, had can you be so sure about any other teaching which is based on revelation? Galileo observed and rightly concluded that the Earth was not the center of the universe. The pope merely believed.

          I don’t want to keep flogging old Galileo and science is not always right. But science tries to be self-correcting. 75 Years ago we didn’t know about DNA. I don’t know what we will learn about the origin of life or beginning of a life.

          During the period of the Black Death, Jews were blamed because they didn’t know about the germ theory of disease. What they believed was wrong, but it had consequences.

          You believe things, but you cannot know. You want to use compulsion based on what you believe. I am not the Chinese Government. I am not compelling anyone.

          Milwaukee in reply to gmac124. | August 6, 2016 at 8:25 pm

          ” At an earlier time, they commanded Galileo to shut his mouth. I could go on, but it would be a waste.”

          No, if Galileo is the best you can bring, you can’t go on. The position of the Church is that if science and theological understanding come into conflict, and the science really is irrefutable, then the theological understanding needs to be revisited. The Catholic Church has, over time, revised their understandings on some matters. Galileo pushed the heliocentric model. Are you, then, a supporter of our Sun as the center of the universe?

          Milwaukee in reply to gmac124. | August 6, 2016 at 8:40 pm

          ” ‘catholic maid secretly baptizes Jewish child’ “
          Fascinating. I need to look this up. Thank you for your educating role.

          You do know, don’t you, that Satanist believe in the real presence of Christ in the consecrated host? Satanist don’t steal communion supplies from Methodists, or Episcopalians, or evangelical fundamentalists, they steal from Catholics.

          The Nicene Creed has “I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. ” The Jewish family must believe that too. If they didn’t believe it, they would just say something like, “That’s just what you think. We don’t agree. Our child isn’t Catholic.”

          I would agree that the Catholic housekeeper was way out of line, and Jewish families would be justified in not hiring Catholics for that very reason.

    Why do you hate democracy, you moron?

    The Eighth Amendment was enacted by referendum, with 67% in support.

    The left always frames the anti abortion argument as only having a religious basis. Then they argue that Catholics, etc are trying to inflict their beliefs on everyone else. Of course, they ignore that atheism has its own beliefs which they are trying to inflict on everyone else.

    The secular argument against abortion as practiced today is based on centuries old settled law which we all agree to. In fact, this is the highest law of the land. You cannot kill another human being just because it is convenient to you or makes you richer or enhances your life, etc. Applying that law to abortion we get: an abortion is allowed until the fetus becomes human. Once it is human, it is protected.

    If, 45 years after Roe, you don’t know when that happens and you favor abortion, it should tell you something about your own willingness to kill the innocent.

      OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to VaGentleman. | August 6, 2016 at 4:18 pm

      1st I am not left. I am libertarian.

      2nd, I am agnostic. But for the sake of your argument I will be atheist. Atheism is not just another religion because it is not based on faith, revelation and authority. Claiming it is a religion is sophistry. Sophistry is something religions have to be good at because the observable truth keeps getting in the way of revealed truth.

      3rd, There are many laws that were practiced for centuries, but are not settled or have been discarded. For centuries kings ruled by ‘divine right’. Do you believe that was correct? We celebrate the fact that we broke that belief on every 4th of July.

      4th, you make a statement about murder of a human being and then you extended it to a fetus. There were never any rites for a miscarriage. The fetus didn’t get a name. I don’t think that the period for abortion shout be 9 months; although it could approach that IN THE EVENT THAT THE FETUS IS NOT VIABLE AND THE MOTHER WILL DIE. I think life begins when brain waves are detectable. Until then it is in a sense alive the way any tissue culture is, but it is not a human being. I believe that. It is not subject to argument simply because you believe something else.

      5th, you don’t know anymore about when a fetus becomes a human being than I do. You just believe you know. ‘God told you’ is hardly definitive even among the religious. God seems to say very different things to different people. But I guess you are the one hearing the truth (sarcasm).

        Let me address your points.

        1- who cares?

        2- I never claimed atheism was a religion. That’s your sophistry. I did claim that atheism has its set of beliefs and that imposing them on others is the same as if Catholics tried to impose their beliefs. And that the left argues against the imposition of religious beliefs while advocating the imposition of their atheistic beliefs. I took no position on the validity of the beliefs, I just pointed out the hypocrisy. I then gave a secular argument against abortion.

        3- There are laws that have been practiced for centuries that are still deemed valid. Are you in favor of allowing people to kill one another because it makes the killers life better? That’s the issue we are discussing, not your strawman.

        4- The DNA of the fetus is human DNA from the beginning. Even you agree that it is human at some point. I never said that I know when the fetus becomes human. I merely asked you when that point was. Do you know? If you don’t know, please give your justification for killing it, since it may be human at the time you kill it.

        5- I never mentioned God in my arguments. Again, you are creating the argument you want where none exists.

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to VaGentleman. | August 6, 2016 at 5:58 pm

          I think we have beaten this to death. So I will limit myself to:

          3- 1st of all your argument assumes facts not in evidence. Abortion is not murder. You also refer to murder rather than killing; as if there was a hard and fast distinction. Given those assumptions, I will address your argument.

          We kill each other ‘lawfully’ all the time. What do you think happens in a drone strike? What do you think happened to the indigenous people of the world when people with more deadly technology wanted their land? How can there be rules of war if killing is wrong. Even assuming you are fighting belligerents, don’t innocents land up dead.

          If I have possessions, there is ultimately deadly force that allows me to keep and enjoy them. What do they say about the golden rule? Those with the gold, make the rules,

          So it seems to me that what you define as murder is verboten and what you define as justified killing is OK. Who get to make those definitions? Maybe I think that capital punishment is murder.

          OK, 4. I said, more than once, that I think the fetus is a human being when there are brain waves. You asked and I answered. The cessation of brain waves is our definition of death. The heart may still be beating, but we consider the person dead. That is symmetrical, rational and practical. Voila!

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | August 6, 2016 at 7:06 pm

          Your “I think the fetus is a human being when there are brain waves” implies that abortion on demand ends at that point.
          Do you agree that once the fetus becomes human it can no longer be aborted for convenience sake?

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to VaGentleman. | August 6, 2016 at 10:08 pm

          Yes, unequivocally. Do you care to meet me there?

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to VaGentleman. | August 6, 2016 at 10:19 pm

          By brain waves I mean it is the time when fetal brain activity begins to exhibit regular wave patterns; which occurs fairly consistently around week 25.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | August 7, 2016 at 5:12 am

          If by ‘there’ you mean the fetus is protected once human, I’ve been there all along.

          Does Roe allow us to meet there?

          OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to VaGentleman. | August 7, 2016 at 9:44 am

          I gave you answer explicitly just above your reply. If you are interested in a compromise, fine. But I am not interested in splitting hairs or in anything that is the thin edge of the wedge. In other words, if I agree that there needs to be some limit, I don’t want that limit cut back and cut back again.

          Hypothetically, if we could all agree on brain waves, then I don’t want some ‘study’ that claims there is some ‘electrical’ activity shortly after fertilization. Of course there is electricity in ever cell, but that is not brain activity as defined in my statement.

          I can understand that the anti-choice side has similar concerns. In any good compromise, neither side is completely happy.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | August 7, 2016 at 12:22 pm

          You say you are willing to meet me ‘there’ and then define there as 25 weeks which is just a restatement of Roe’s 3rd trimester. After that, you remind me that we both have to give up something in a compromise. Remind me, what are you giving up?
          More to the point (and my question), don’t the restrictions in Roe keep us (the nation) from having a meaningful discourse on the issue? Can we have a meaningful discussion outside the limits of Roe? By tying Roe to a newly discovered right which, conveniently, does everything they need it to do, the court effectively short circuited the legislative process. They and they alone determine, without appeal, if a law violates that right – end of discussion. A fine example of representative government in action. Would that they were equally vigorous re our 1st, 2nd, 4th etc amendment rights.

          At least we both agree that human life should not be subject to the whim of another person, and at some point before birth the fetus becomes a protected human. Sadly, in today’s world that’s progress.

    ” They may have an exception for the life of the mother, but the mother needs to die to prove she needed the abortion

    They let her suffer for 3 days. It was god’s will. He killed the baby even though she wanted it. Seems kind of cruel.”

    My distinct recollection of this case is that the pro-abortion doctors and administrators in this case deliberately mishandled the case so they could use it to push against the laws prevent abortion. They are the ones who flubbed, not the laws against abortion. Since you remember this, what was her name, and please present some evidence supporting your claim. Considering how much you hate anything Catholic, I’m sure you won’t.

      OnlyRightDissentAllowed in reply to Milwaukee. | August 7, 2016 at 9:01 pm

      ” pro-abortion doctors and administrators in this case deliberately mishandled the case so they could use it to push against the laws prevent abortion”

      They medical personnel would have had to be extremely evil and cynical to have allowed her to die as a political act. No one faced criminal charges. There was malpractice in the case, but I understood that the misadventure was in delaying the removal of the fetus once it was not viable. I would hope we could do better in this day and age regardless of our disputes over abortion.

      As to the specifics of the case, the internet has any number of versions. I see no need to regurgitate them here. Just search on ‘Irish abortion death’. Obviously, the authorities and her husband tell somewhat different stories. But it is hard to get around the fact that a timely abortion would have saved her.

First, congratulations to the child for being conceived in a State with a religious/moral philosophy that recognizes human rights and a secular culture that does not conflate logical domains and indulge in scientific mysticism (e.g. spontaneous conception). It will not be aborted under the Pro-Choice “final solution”, or cannibalized for spare parts by Planned Parenthood et al.

Second, like Obama, the child is not native born (i.e. “We the People and our Posterity”); although, Ireland may have different rules of citizenship. However, like Obama, the child’s mother is a citizen, and she should initiate the naturalization process.

Third, the father is an alien, either illegal or pending. However, in the best interests of the child, he should be reviewed for legal status; but, in the interest of mitigating progressive corruption, he should be denied naturalization rights for an extended period. Also, in the interests of the child and social cohesion, once the father’s legal status is approved, the mother and father should marry and confirm their relationship.