Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

loveisdivine

goodie2shoes wrote: »

is termination a cure for depression?
i doubt it.

If the cause of the depression is pregnancy and impending, unwanted, motherhood. Then yes, I'd say its the perfect cure.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who said anything about eugenics?

Marie Stopes. Like yourself, she wasn't shy about suggesting who might not be qualified to have children.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think you need to explain what you mean, instead of assuming people will just osmose your points from your vague posts.

Sorry, you misunderstand. I'm just expecting that people will actually follow the discussion on the thread. I'm really just pointing out that you haven't really comprehended the significance of what Peregrinus has posted:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82294841#post82294841

Flier

Obviously I can't comment on what happened in one particular case, except to say, I would be very surprised if there wasn't two doctors signatures on the form. The woman may well have spoken to another doctor, but thought she was a councilor or nurse for example.
And i absolutely agree, what we will get based on the X case legisltation is abortion based on risk to life, and it would be naieve in the extreme to say that some people will not present with suicidal ideation where there is none.
However, it is not correct to say that those who are truly suicidal do not have the capacity to make her own decisions. In fact, people who commit suicide or attempt suicide are often very rational, and are fully aware of the consequences of their actions. They are absolutely able to give consent.
But i take your point. Personally I think we will end up with bad law based on a bad article in our constitution. Theoretically, abortions could, with impunity, be performed right up to term, and I think there are very few out there who think that's a good thing. Looks like we need another referendum!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Flier wrote: »

Obviously I can't comment on what happened in one particular case, except to say, I would be very surprised if there wasn't two doctors signatures on the form. The woman may well have spoken to another doctor, but thought she was a councilor or nurse for example.

In fairness, other posters have stated in reply that two doctors is the norm. I'm just noting, for what it's worth, that this statement was made:

eviltwin wrote: »

I saw one doctor and that was just to check I was not being pressured into it. I was seen and treated in a matter of hours.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Marie Stopes. Like yourself, she wasn't shy about suggesting who might not be qualified to have children.

And why would I care about someone who wants to stop others having children, when I am saying that people who don't want to have children should be allowed to make that choice?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Sorry, you misunderstand. I'm just expecting that people will actually follow the discussion on the thread. I'm really just pointing out that you haven't really comprehended the significance of what Peregrinus has posted:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82294841#post82294841

Eh, again, you need to explain what you mean rather than expect someone else to do it for you. I know what Peregrinus posted, I responded to it. It was that response of mine that you made your vague response to. Did you really respond to a post of mine, just to tell me to read the post I was responding to?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And why would I care about someone who wants to stop others having children, when I am saying that people who don't want to have children should be allowed to make that choice?

What you said was maybe the type of person who pretends to be suicidal to get what they want is not the type of person who should be having kids? In other words, you are saying that a person who does whatever is necessary to obtain an abortion in a particular case may not be suitable as a parent in any situation. For myself, I'm comfortable with the idea that someone who has an abortion in particular circumstances may actually be a perfectly fine parent. Indeed, they may be parents already.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I know what Peregrinus posted, I responded to it.

Indeed. Your response displayed the fact that you hadn't comprehended his post. No additional explanation is necessary. His post is perfectly clear. You simply haven't read it with enough attention.

No need for further elaboration, at all.

Mark Hamill

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Indeed. Your response displayed the fact that you hadn't comprehended his post. No additional explanation is necessary. His post is perfectly clear. You simply haven't read it with enough attention.

No need for further elaboration, at all.

Seeing as I asked twice, yes there is. As usual, your trolling is just vague empty nonsense. Silly me for expecting any different, I suppose.

goodie2shoes

loveisdivine wrote: »

If the cause of the depression is pregnancy and impending, unwanted, motherhood. Then yes, I'd say its the perfect cure.

have you any proof of that?
or is that just your hunch?

Lingua Franca

What are you on about? This is becoming absurd.

You said this

goodie2shoes wrote: »

is termination a cure for depression?
i doubt it.

...got this response

loveisdivine wrote: »

If the cause of the depression is pregnancy and impending, unwanted, motherhood. Then yes, I'd say its the perfect cure.

...and now you want PROOF? Proof of what? Her opinion? It's right there in the post you quoted. Can you prove your opinion?

You ask for proof when people claim facts, not opinions.

goodie2shoes

Lingua Franca wrote: »

What are you on about? This is becoming absurd.

You said this


...got this response



...and now you want PROOF? Proof of what? Her opinion? It's right there in the post you quoted. Can you prove your opinion?

You ask for proof when people claim facts, not opinions.

it's a perfectly fair question to ask.
you have NO proof i suspect.

in fact evidence suggests abortion for suicidal women has terrible consequences, and can in fact worsen her psychological distress.

The Mad Hatter

Proof that loveisdivine would say it's the perfect cure? Here:

Loveisdivine said that she would say it's the perfect cure.

Turtwig

goodie2shoes wrote: »

is termination a cure for depression?
i doubt it.

Oh how I love science!

The drug is already used for severe psychotic depression, and is licensed for use to treat several conditions, including Cushing's disease, and to induce abortion because it also acts on progesterone receptors. Pro-life activists have long campaigned for its withdrawal, and its use for routine depression treatment would undoubtedly be controversial.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Seeing as I asked twice, yes there is.

No, your questions don't indicate a need for elaboration. They simply indicate your need to read back over the thread, slowly.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

. . . I'm not saying its impossible that some women somewhere could claim to be suicidal to try to get an abortion, I'm questioning the assumption that these women could merely need to walk up to a clinic, say "I'm suicidal, give me an abortion", get it without evaluation, and then disappear into the wind. Even if someone is genuinely suicidal because they are pregnant, giving them an abortion is not going to make the picture of mental health. There is going to be evaluations before and after.

I take your point. But I still see a problem.

The whole idea of permitted categories and forbidden categories of abortion is, basically, unacceptable to someone who believes in a woman’s right to choose. And they are many women, and many doctors, who do believe in that. (And many men, but they’re not so relevant to my argument.)

Right. Those people, or a fair proportion of them, are likely to think that evading the legal restrictions on abortion is justified, because the restrictions are themselves immoral. Abortion decisions then become a matter, not of a good faith attempt to give effect to the principles and values reflected in the legislation, but a question of what you can get away with, both practically and in terms of your own ethics, in terms of circumventing the legislation in order to give effect to the right to choose.

I think we’ve seen this in the UK. Back in post #3560, I linked to this newspaper report: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9164142/Doctors-signing-off-abortions-for-women-they-have-never-met.html.

It described practices of doctors signing certificates for patients they have never met, doctors pre-signing stocks of blank certificates for patients whose names will be filled in later by someone else, doctors with irrelevant specialisms like anaesthesiology signing certificates for patients whose abortions have already been performed, etc. And the doctors concerned are slightly outraged that these practices are being investigated; why investigate them now, when we’ve been doing this for years and years?

OK, it’s the Daily Telegraph, so I read what it says with a measure of skepticism. Still, taken at face value it points not just to incidents of evading the legislation, but to an entrenched culture, in at least some quarters, of systematically evading the legislation, and assuming this to be justified. And that’s not completely out of line with what I would expect, given the tension between “categories-based” abortion legislation and “right-to-choose” beliefs. It seems to me if you go down that route you’ve pretty much designed a combination of incentives which will encourage evasion, and you shouldn’t be surprised if that’s what you get.

Now, obviously, the British statutory test (“risk of continuing exceeds risk of termination”) is a particularly easy one to meet, and many doctors would justify signing blank certificates, or certificates for patients they have not examined, by saying that they cannot conceive of circumstances in which this test would not be met, so why bother with an actual examination? The proposed Irish test (“real and substantial threat to life”) is a bit meatier, and I think doctors would hesitate to be quite so cavalier. Still, in many ways the test is a very nebulous one, and I think that a fear that it could be open to manipulation is not entirely groundless. The incentives to manipulate it would certainly be there.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The thing about your example of health risks being used to get abortions in the uk, is that health risks are just that - risks. They are things that could happen, so a single doctor could declare a healthy pregnant woman in risk of something in the one time s/he sees her. Suicidal tendencies are symptoms of an ongoing mental issue, that will require synchronous and ongoing treatment, so fraudsters will be easier to catch.

Your point about ongoing mental issues is, I think, misplaced. Nothing in the proposed Irish legislation (so far as we know) will require that the woman seeking an abortion must be depressed, or mentally ill in any way, in order to get it. Indeed, as far as I can see the legislation can’t require this; the evidence in the X case was the the girl concerned was suffering neither from depression nor from any other mental illness. She was threatening self-harm, which she saw as a rational response to her predicament, and the threat was seen as a credible one, and she had a constitutional right to an abortion. There’ll be no obligation to provide follow-up psychiatric support or treatment to a woman who has an abortion under the Irish legislation, because there’ll be no presumption that she has a psychiatric condition in the first place.

I think the fear a lot of people have is that a woman seeking an abortion merely has to threaten self-harm as a response to her pregnancy - and that could be a threat of suicide, or a threat to induce her own abortion through dangerous home-made means - and a doctor [who is sympathetic to her right to choose] will then feel able to sign the necessary certificate (and indeed may feel there is a risk that if he does not sign it and if the woman subsequently self-harms he will be exposed to risk). And, speaking honestly, I can’t say that that’s a groundless fear. I think the legislation we are contemplating is pretty much a combination of incentives designed to encourage women and their doctors to do precisely that.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All that aside, I fail to see why some women possible faking suicidal tendencies for abortion means no women should get abortions if they are genuinely suicidal. People try to defraud doctors and hospitals out of drugs all the time, this doesn't mean we don't let anyone have drugs, ever.

Oh, sure, I agree. I’m not suggesting that women threatening self-harm should be barred from having abortions. I’m questioning the whole notion of categories-based abortion legislation; I don’t think it works very well. And, if we have to have categories-based legislation, then I think we should give careful thought to utilizing categories which will not be easily evaded; tests which are objectively measurable and verifiable.

I accept, though, that in practice we’re stuck with the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution and the outcome of the X case. If we’re not to have a referendum - and we’re not - then the legislative test pretty well has to be “real and substantial threat to the life of the mother, including the threat of self-harm”. But I think the fears that that category expand to cover a surprising number and variety of cases are probably well-grounded.

Lingua Franca

goodie2shoes wrote: »

it's a perfectly fair question to ask.
you have NO proof i suspect.

Sorry, me? Now you want proof of something from ME? What would you like me to prove? What assertion did I make that you dispute?

Do you even know what you're talking about?

It's not a fair question to ask if by fair question you mean "demanding proof everytime someone posts no matter what they post".

loveisdivine

goodie2shoes wrote: »

have you any proof of that?
or is that just your hunch?

Well its fairly common sense isnt it? If I have a needle stuck in my finger and it hurts, I can be fairly sure that removing the needle will result in less pain and I will be happier.

If a woman is mentally ill and suicidal PRIOR to becoming pregnant, then I would agree that an abortion may not be the answer to curing her mental illness. It would probably still be a good idea though as someone in that state really shouldnt be having a child.

However, like I already stated, if the sole reason for someone becoming depressed and possible suicidal is because they are pregnant then it makes perfect sense for them to end the pregnancy.

Disclaimer - Above comments are opinion based on my idea of common sense. I in no way claim them to be fact.

That better?

LittleBook

Nodin wrote: »

'but we had no idea back then...' etc and so on.

Bock The Robber sums up my feelings on the church's hypocrisy nicely:

Bock The Robber wrote:

Incidentally, in the same interview, Cathal [Daly] explained that the bishops were slow in dealing with child-abuse because they had no experience of it. Right. I see. And yet, despite their vow of celibacy, they seemed to have no difficulty ranting about contraception, another thing they had no experience of, or so you might reasonably think.

loveisdivine wrote: »

It makes my blood boil when people like the archbishops start mouthing off about what should or shouldnt happen. Individuals are entitled to their opinion but the church's view as a whole should hold no more weight than mine or yours.

I'd like to think that this will have the exact opposite effect to what was intended by the bishops in that the goverment has clearly stated that they will introduce legislation/regulations on abortion and to go back on that in any way could be seen as a reaction to this statement.

Anyone listening to Newstalk this morning? Fr Iggy O'Donovan was interviewed on the subject and said that the government was obliged to legislate for all the people of the country and not just Catholics and that even if abortion becomes available, Catholics can still adhere to their own moral standards and simply not have one. He pointed out that plenty of catholic countries had legislated for abortion and the Catholics in those countries seemed to manage just fine. Shocking stuff

aloyisious

LittleBook wrote: »

Bock The Robber sums up my feelings on the church's hypocrisy nicely:






I'd like to think that this will have the exact opposite effect to what was intended by the bishops in that the goverment has clearly stated that they will introduce legislation/regulations on abortion and to go back on that in any way could be seen as a reaction to this statement.

Anyone listening to Newstalk this morning? Fr Iggy O'Donovan was interviewed on the subject and said that the government was obliged to legislate for all the people of the country and not just Catholics and that even if abortion becomes available, Catholics can still adhere to their own moral standards and simply not have one. He pointed out that plenty of catholic countries had legislated for abortion and the Catholics in those countries seemed to manage just fine. Shocking stuff

:eek: He's a priest, a pleb, and not a Bishop so maybe more directly in touch with Ireland and it's people

Bannasidhe

aloyisious wrote: »

:eek: He's a priest, a pleb, and not a Bishop so maybe more directly in touch with Ireland and it's people

Fr Iggy?

Iggy Priest....does that make the bishops the Stooges :pac:



If the bishop's give out to him for talking sense and make him retract will he end up with iggy on his face?







I should just keep me coat on in future.

Obliq

He's the Fr. Iggy who was on that late-late show series of clips that Robindch put up last month or so. He's actually sane and clearly has a grip on reality. I like him.

Obliq

Btw, letters page in Irish times today - 15 letters on abortion, 1 is from a woman. What's wrong with us women? Why the feck aren't we writing?

Done me letter, but it's very wordy (against all advice - can't seem to keep them short enough). Anyone else giving it a lash?

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224328043109

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

He's the Fr. Iggy who was on that late-late show series of clips that Robindch put up last month or so. He's actually sane and clearly has a grip on reality. I like him.

So we can expect him to be sent off on a retreat to contemplate his naval the error of opening his mouth and talking sense questioning the decrees as laid down by he who must be obeyed the Supreme Pontiff any day now.

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So we can expect him to be sent off on a retreat to contemplate his naval the error of opening his mouth and talking sense questioning the decrees as laid down by he who must be obeyed the Supreme Pontiff any day now.

That'll be the case, yup. Pity he hasn't written to the Times page yet. Might be an antidote to the THREE clergymen with their anti-choice spewing from today's. Maybe I'll write and ask him to.

Obliq

Haa! Oh wow Off topic, but I was looking up Fr. Iggy to see can I write to him and found this letter he wrote to the Indo 15 yrs ago. This should nearly go in the funny side of religion.......

Sir,

I read with Interest your account of the Tridentine Bishop, Michael Cox who is apparently offering confessions by telephone at the rate of one pound per minute. I admire the good bishop’s initiative but would like to offer a couple of suggestions which might be of benefit.

I believe a flat rate of one pound per minute is not fully fair. Surely a sinner who confesses in the off-peak times is entitled to a reduced rate. Between 9pm and 8am, I feel seventy pence per minute would be enough and some special consideration should be given to very heavy and persistant sinners.

After all, if they had to pay a pound a minute, the financial burden could be oppressive. Perish the thought but to save money they might be tempted to take shortcuts thus placing themselves in grave danger of eternal damnation.

Also, some consideration should be given to the gravity of the sins being confessed. After all a simple “bad thought” I believe, only warrants a charge of 30 pence per minute where as, a petting session, depending on the intensity could command anything up to five pounds.

Another important consideration, which is most unfair to ignore, is how to deal with people like myself who have little or no sins. Surely we are entitled to some kind of “no claims bonus”. Last but not least I would like to know if it is possible to pay in advance for sins which I intend to commit in the future.

If for instance, one intends to spend a naughty weekend in Amsterdam, surely, it could be worth up to a pound per minute to have the old slate cleaned in advance over the phone from the comfort of one’s bedroom.

Fr. Iggy O’Donovan OSA

He's a gem! :cool::cool:

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Haa! Oh wow Off topic, but I was looking up Fr. Iggy to see can I write to him and found this letter he wrote to the Indo back in January. This should nearly go in the funny side of religion.......

Sir,

I read with Interest your account of the Tridentine Bishop, Michael Cox who is apparently offering confessions by telephone at the rate of one pound per minute. I admire the good bishop’s initiative but would like to offer a couple of suggestions which might be of benefit.

I believe a flat rate of one pound per minute is not fully fair. Surely a sinner who confesses in the off-peak times is entitled to a reduced rate. Between 9pm and 8am, I feel seventy pence per minute would be enough and some special consideration should be given to very heavy and persistant sinners.

After all, if they had to pay a pound a minute, the financial burden could be oppressive. Perish the thought but to save money they might be tempted to take shortcuts thus placing themselves in grave danger of eternal damnation.

Also, some consideration should be given to the gravity of the sins being confessed. After all a simple “bad thought” I believe, only warrants a charge of 30 pence per minute where as, a petting session, depending on the intensity could command anything up to five pounds.

Another important consideration, which is most unfair to ignore, is how to deal with people like myself who have little or no sins. Surely we are entitled to some kind of “no claims bonus”. Last but not least I would like to know if it is possible to pay in advance for sins which I intend to commit in the future.

If for instance, one intends to spend a naughty weekend in Amsterdam, surely, it could be worth up to a pound per minute to have the old slate cleaned in advance over the phone from the comfort of one’s bedroom.

Fr. Iggy O’Donovan OSA

He's a gem! :cool::cool:

There is precedence for the highlighted bit.

On November 27, 1095 Pope Urban II announced:

If those who go thither lose their lives on land or sea during the journey, or in battle against the pagans, their sins will at once be forgiven; I grant this through the power of God conferred on me...

So the Crusader's had a guaranteed absolution for sins they may commit in the future while on Crusade - on on the way there, or on the way back...

LittleBook

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Iggy Priest....does that make the bishops the Stooges :pac:

I was googling him a bit earlier (ooh er, sounds a bit rude) and faster than I could type the Google automatic search was bringing up Iggy Pop :pac:

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So we can expect him to be sent off on a retreat to contemplate his naval the error of opening his mouth and talking sense questioning the decrees as laid down by he who must be obeyed the Supreme Pontiff any day now.

He's been censured. I think it was for daring to concelebrate an ecumenical Easter Sunday mass with an Anglican priest in the spirit of "inclusiveness" to mark the anniversary of the 1916 Rising.

Obliq wrote: »

Haa! Oh wow Off topic, but I was looking up Fr. Iggy to see can I write to him and found this letter he wrote to the Indo 15 yrs ago. This should nearly go in the funny side of religion.......

Sir,

I read with Interest your account of the Tridentine Bishop, Michael Cox who is apparently offering confessions by telephone at the rate of one pound per minute. I admire the good bishop’s initiative but would like to offer a couple of suggestions which might be of benefit.

I believe a flat rate of one pound per minute is not fully fair. Surely a sinner who confesses in the off-peak times is entitled to a reduced rate. Between 9pm and 8am, I feel seventy pence per minute would be enough and some special consideration should be given to very heavy and persistant sinners.

After all, if they had to pay a pound a minute, the financial burden could be oppressive. Perish the thought but to save money they might be tempted to take shortcuts thus placing themselves in grave danger of eternal damnation.

Also, some consideration should be given to the gravity of the sins being confessed. After all a simple “bad thought” I believe, only warrants a charge of 30 pence per minute where as, a petting session, depending on the intensity could command anything up to five pounds.

Another important consideration, which is most unfair to ignore, is how to deal with people like myself who have little or no sins. Surely we are entitled to some kind of “no claims bonus”. Last but not least I would like to know if it is possible to pay in advance for sins which I intend to commit in the future.

If for instance, one intends to spend a naughty weekend in Amsterdam, surely, it could be worth up to a pound per minute to have the old slate cleaned in advance over the phone from the comfort of one’s bedroom.

Fr. Iggy O’Donovan OSA

Yeah, read that earlier, bloody brilliant! :pac:

Obliq

Handy for the crusaders - Onward! Let us massacre many thousands in the name of God - Yay!

but women aborting fetuses? NOOOOO, NO ABSOLUTION.

The Mad Hatter

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There is precedence for the highlighted bit.

On November 27, 1095 Pope Urban II announced:



So the Crusader's had a guaranteed absolution for sins they may commit in the future while on Crusade - on on the way there, or on the way back...

Hm, pre-emptive absolution. I always wondered if Philip Pullman was making that up, but figured it'd have some sort of historical basis.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So the Crusader's had a guaranteed absolution for sins they may commit in the future while on Crusade - on on the way there, or on the way back...

Been a while since I last read up/listened to a few lectures on the crusades, but I seem to remember more than one historian suggesting a linkage between the pope's pre-emptive confessions, and the behavior of the christians during the crusades.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Been a while since I last read up/listened to a few lectures on the crusades, but I seem to remember more than one historian suggesting a linkage between the pope's pre-emptive confessions, and the behavior of the christians during the crusades.

You mean some of my colleagues may suggest that statements such as this by Pope Urban II

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion!] Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honor. Behold! on this side will be the sorrowful and poor, on that, the rich; on this side, the enemies of the Lord, on that, his friends. Let those who go not put off the journey, but rent their lands and collect money for their expenses; and as soon as winter is over and spring comes, let hem eagerly set out on the way with God as their guide."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-fulcher.html

may have had some influence on events such as this as described by Fulcher of Chartes?

Count Raymond and his men, who were attacking the wall on the other side, did not yet know of all this, until they saw the Saracens leap from the wall in front of them. Forthwith, they joyfully rushed into the city to pursue and kill the nefarious enemies, as their comrades were already doing. Some Saracens, Arabs, and Ethiopians took refuge in the tower of David, others fled to the temples of the Lord and of Solomon. A great fight took place in the court and porch of the temples, where they were unable to escape from our gladiators. Many fled to the roof of the temple of Solomon, and were shot with arrows, so that they fell to the ground dead. In this temple almost ten thousand were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet colored to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/fulcher-cde.asp#capture

Well...only if one takes what the Pope said out of context....

:pac: