Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

lazygal

Morag wrote: »

I tried to question those who leafleted my house and found they were the local legion of mary and they said they were delivering them to all the house in the parish. They could not comprehend that I was not a part of their parish.

I had the same last week when the parish dues envelopes came through the letterbox. I handed the envelopes back to the women and told her I wasn't catholic, and you'd swear I'd taken a dump on her knitting with the look she gave me.

MagicMarker

Just use the leaflet to wipe your arse and send it back to them with love.

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

I had the same last week when the parish dues envelopes came through the letterbox. I handed the envelopes back to the women and told her I wasn't catholic, and you'd swear I'd taken a dump on her knitting with the look she gave me.

That image has me laughing for the last ten minutes.


The dogs are starting to look concerned.

goodie2shoes

I told the lady distributing the church envelopes, that i am not a church goer and besides i often contribute to other charitable causes.
she smiled said fine, and we wished each other good bye.

i must be a freak.

goodie2shoes

lazygal wrote: »

I got the Yoof Defence leaflet in the door today.

Can anyone sort out this puzzler? I wasn't in when it was put through the letterbox. We have a sign saying 'addressed mail only' on the letterbox. Is there any litter law or other violation? The local takeaways and charity clothes collectors don't put anything through the letterbox, but Yoof Defence seem to think they've a free pass on this.

i know of people who have similar signs on their doors, but continue to get all sorts of mass mailing.
you should take this up with the marketing/distribution company.

Obliq

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i know of people who have similar signs on their doors, but continue to get all sorts of mass mailing.
you should take this up with the marketing/distribution company.

Good idea. In this case it'll be the Legion of Mary or some crowd like that. Perhaps a parish volunteer. I suggest making a polite visit to your parish priest and explaining EXACTLY what the sign on your door means. Maybe point out the .....um.....factual errors in the leaflet while you're there? Always nice to be helpful.....::rolleyes:

iguana

swampgas wrote: »

William Binchey has a bizarre idea of what "world class" health-care means - Savita Halappanavar certainly didn't get it, nor do all those women forced to leave the country to get the treatment they need.

Have you seen the anti-abortion advert that claims the Irish medical system is the envy of the world? As someone who spent the first two thirds of her pregnancy under the care of the HSE and the last third under the care of the NHS in Wales, I have to wonder which world it is that envies us. It certainly isn't this one.

ETA, the ad and great review of it here. http://redlemonade.blogspot.ie/2012/12/meet-irelands-womb-patrol.html

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I see what you are saying, and again I don't deny that the proposed process could be open to abuse. But this can apply to any legislated process. You will always find people who will want something that they strictly shouldn't have, according to legislation (be it abortions or drugs or alcoholetc.) and there will always be someone, a doctor or nurse maybe, who might agree with them (or be conned by them).
But we don't ban all drugs under the basis that someone might try (and succeed) in conning the system for getting a prescription. You argument is merely a point to make sure the process is stringent, not an argument against the process itself (you may not be making the argument for the latter purpose, but other people are twisting it that way).

All legislative processes are open to abuse, of course, but some are more open than others. I think if you were to design legislation to encourage women facing crisis pregnancies to dramatise and magnify the crisis, this is pretty much the legislation you’d come up with. I realise, of course, that’s not the motive of those designing the legislation; they’re simply attempting to fit within the constraints of the Eighth Amendment. But their motive is irrelevant in terms of determinining how the legislation will work in practice.

Couple of thoughts:

1. This legislation is bad because it is, in fact, set up to encourage abuse and evasion.

2. If someone who is opposed to legal abortion on any terms at all objects that this legislation is open to abuse, and will facilitate abortions that are not truly necessary to protect the mother’s life, that’s not really a point that can be refuted with any confidence. From the perspective of those who want legal abortion, this is not actually the abortion legislation you want to be defending.

3. A more serious reason why this is bad is that it’s bad for women. A crisis pregnancy is bad enough without having to ramp up the crisis, or pretend to. Either women will convince themselves that they are desperate enough to kill themselves, or they will knowingly lie about this and absorb the lesson that their real reasons for their decision are shameful, unacceptable and must be hidden, or there will be some combination of the two behaviours at work. Either way, this is damaging and destructive.

4. I admit I take a certain savage satisfaction from the fact that this openness to abuse comes straight from the wording of the Eighth Amendment, which was pretty well dictated by the pro-life camp. If we are to have this legislation, then, it’s because they demanded the constitutional provision about abortion, which is a little ironic. But at the same time I despise myself for feeling that satisfaction. This shouldn ‘t really be about scoring over people we disagree with.

5. On the plus side - if we scrabble desperately around for something that can be considered a plus - the hypocrisy required to get an abortion in Britain will still be less than that required to get an abortion in Ireland. So most women will still go to Britain, and much of the damage that this legislation would do if it were the only way to get an abortion will be avoided.

6. And, under this legislation, at least if there is another Savita Halappanavar, her treatment decisions will not be distorted by uncertainty as to what is legally possible.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well, I was under the impression that threatening self harm would be considered a mental health issue, is it not?

Not necessarily. At this very moment, Marie Fleming is fighting a High Court case to establish her right to end her own life, and to be assisted in doing so. There are diverse and strongly-felt views on the ethical issues at stake, but I don’t think anyone suggests that she is mentally ill.

Perhaps more to the point, in the X case the (so far as I recall, uncontradicted) expert medical evidence was that the victim was not depressed, or suffering from any other mental illness. She saw self-harm as a rational response to the predicament she was in (and the self-harm could have take the form either of a suicide attempt or of an attempt to induce her own abortion). There was a “real and substantial threat” to her life arising out of that, despite the fact that she was not mentally ill in any way.

Now, of course, in her case a big factor in her attitude to her own pregnancy was her own immaturity. Immaturity is not a mental illness at any age, and in the case of a 14-year old it’s entirely appropriate and expected. If a grown woman expressed similar feelings about her pregnancy, I think you would look for some factor which would account for them. But that factor need not be mental illness, or indeed any treatable condition*. And the legislation will have to respect that (unless there is to be a referendum to override the X case)

* [Indeed, if it was a treatable condition, then treating the condition would be the first recourse, and terminating the pregnancy is something a doctor wouldn’t do unless he was satisfied that treating the condition alone was not going to be enough to avoid the risk to life.]

Bannasidhe

iguana wrote: »

Have you seen the anti-abortion advert that claims the Irish medical system is the envy of the world? As someone who spent the first two thirds of her pregnancy under the care of the HSE and the last third under the care of the NHS in Wales, I have to wonder which world it is that envies us. It certainly isn't this one.

ETA, the ad and great review of it here. http://redlemonade.blogspot.ie/2012/12/meet-irelands-womb-patrol.html

All my friends across Europe are riddled with envy that I only had to wait over two years for an appointment for a diabetic clinic.

Obliq

Can I ask do any of you fellas get how f**king insulting it is to my intelligence (as a woman) that everyone is seeing it as necessary to discuss the quality of female decision making, their potential mental health problems, and speculating on their capacity for lies?

This is also a result of this legislation, the 8th amendment, the f**king Catholic Church of controlling f**ks.

Every now and then, the anger generated from being treated so unequally to men in my home country since birth boils over, and I need to know how many of you fellas would feel just as angry if it was you?

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Can I ask do any of you fellas get how f**king insulting it is to my intelligence (as a woman) that everyone is seeing it as necessary to discuss the quality of female decision making, their potential mental health problems, and speculating on their capacity for lies?

This is also a result of this legislation, the 8th amendment, the f**king Catholic Church of controlling f**ks.

Every now and then, the anger generated from being treated so unequally to men in my home country since birth boils over, and I need to know how many of you fellas would feel just as angry if it was you?

But it will never be them.

An unwanted pregnancy - or a wanted pregnancy for that matter - is a physical impossibility for men - fact of life (I suspect some of womb envy) -but how dare women point that out and thereby exclude them from the debate - they are parent's too (once it's actually born!).
But it's ok for men (not all I hasten to add!) to make sweeping statements about women. To question our ability to make informed decisions, to deny we are capable of determining the best course of actions for ourselves, to infer that we will lie to get our own way...

The implication being that grown women are like children who need guidance, or on the cusp of mental health problems and the slightest thing ( like an unwanted pregnancy) will tip us over into the abyss so we need a strict parental type overseeing us (the Daddy State) to ensure we make the 'right' decision. We are designed to have babies and to not want to make babies makes us less female.

Being female itself makes us less adult.

I'm amazed I can be trusted to drive, I may get an attack of wimmenz hormones and who knows what insane thing I'd do then. :mad:

Awaits charges of radical, militant, femi-nazi misanthropy...

loveisdivine

I think its that when they think of pregnant women the following is all they see.

Barefoot, fresh baked pie in one hand, a wash cloth in the other. Belly swollen with the seed of Mighty Man.

Oh and she doesnt talk either, she just smiles inanely and follows orders. For she is not capable of intellectual thought.

Obliq

Well they'll meet me today then. I know the men will never actually know how this feels - how infantalised we are made to feel by this endless discussion of whether we are trusted to take decisions, whether we should even be ALLOWED for f**k sake.....

What I want to know from the fellas is, although they will never actually know how it feels, do they have the IMAGINATION to see how justified my anger is and the IMAGINATION to wonder how they would feel if they were similarly insulted BY LAW, BY TD'S, BY MEDIA, BY F**KING EVERYONE.

Note the APPROPRIATE use of caps. Nobody better disagree with me here. This is justified and it's not goin away without a fight.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

Can I ask do any of you fellas get how f**king insulting it is to my intelligence (as a woman) that everyone is seeing it as necessary to discuss the quality of female decision making, their potential mental health problems, and speculating on their capacity for lies?

No,. I see no crossover between female intelligence, the reality that the 'health risks' provision in UK legislation is just a routine box-ticking operation, or the possibility that any loophole in any mental health ground recognised in Irish legislation will be exploited to the maximum. You're not making sense. For what it's worth, if you wanted to post something parodying a stereotypical drama queen "don't disagree with me when I'm factually wrong" kind of attitude, you couldn't have done better.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No,. I see no crossover between female intelligence, the reality that the 'health risks' provision in UK legislation is just a routine box-ticking operation, or the possibility that any loophole in any mental health ground recognised in Irish legislation will be exploited to the maximum. You're not making sense. For what it's worth, if you wanted to post something parodying a stereotypical drama queen "don't disagree with me when I'm factually wrong" kind of attitude, you couldn't have done better.

Well that took all of 2 mins for the stereotypical man with the refusal to understand syndrome. That is a masterpiece of sh*t stirring

I was venting some of MY anger, and so I am not FACTUALLY WRONG about my anger, which was clearly stated in a dramatic way, because I am a dramatic and interesting person.

I have made perfect sense to the men who have the imagination to understand how insulting is the endless speculation about women's mental health and decision making. You are clearly not one of those men, so you didn't really need to answer my question.

Banbh

I think its that when they think of pregnant women the following is all they see.

Barefoot, fresh baked pie in one hand, a wash cloth in the other. Belly swollen with the seed of Mighty Man.

Oh and she doesnt talk either, she just smiles inanely and follows orders. For she is not capable of intellectual thought.

Objectivising men and claiming 'they' have a single gender-thought is giving away your own argument.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No,. I see no crossover between female intelligence, the reality that the 'health risks' provision in UK legislation is just a routine box-ticking operation, or the possibility that any loophole in any mental health ground recognised in Irish legislation will be exploited to the maximum. You're not making sense. For what it's worth, if you wanted to post something parodying a stereotypical drama queen "don't disagree with me when I'm factually wrong" kind of attitude, you couldn't have done better.

Translation : 'Now, now. Settle. You are getting all emotional, but that is to be expected as you are unable to engage in a rational discussion and default to tantrums and emotive language. You simply don't understand the issues here - not that I doubt your intelligence - but you don't know what women are capable of like I do.'

GCU - If you wanted to parody the kind of patriarchal, patronising, condescending, sneeringly dismissive post that encapsulates exactly why women here are becoming more and more infuriated by the pontificating of certain male posters - well done.

I suspect that wasn't a parody and wonder if you really cannot see just how offensive statements like that are to women. Or care very much either way.

Bannasidhe

Banbh wrote: »

Objectivising men and claiming 'they' have a single gender-thought is giving away your own argument.

Translation - You have no right to be angry at the tone adopted by some male posters and I resent you lumping us all in together while not addressing the fact that what you are angry about is the fact that some men are doing exactly the same to women.

Obliq

I think he's just sh*t stirring. No reason for it except that he's that kind of person, clearly.

And just to correct you a little there Bann - I'm not insulted by the men up here discussing this at length - the issues I've raised here can't effect men, and discussing women's mental health and decision making is what we are all doing because of the massive inequality that the law treats us too. I am blaming the structures and attitudes that puts us all in the position of pulling women into shapes that don't fit them.

My anger is directed at this, not at male commentators. I'm merely seeking understanding for my anger from the fellas.

Morag

ugh please no mansplaining before I have had my coffee.

Obliq

Banbh wrote: »

Objectivising men and claiming 'they' have a single gender-thought is giving away your own argument.

Y'kno, honestly Banbh - the comment you have a problem with here is not really objectifying men - more a satirical observation that reflects exactly how this whole situation makes women feel.

In other words, as a man, you could be just as insulted that this abortion question as applied through a bollox piece of legislating reflects on men in a stereotypical way also.

Banbh

Your assumption that I am a man is amusing.

In the current debate there is no gender imbalance on either side of the argument. Trying to insert one on the pro-choice side, only serves the opposition.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

I have made perfect sense to the men who have the imagination to understand how insulting is the endless speculation about women's mental health and decision making. You are clearly not one of those men, so you didn't really need to answer my question.

True, because we only make progress by discussing things with people who agree with us already. Oh, and by interpreting all comments that we don't immediately agree with as insulting. Very interesting, I'm sure.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Translation : 'Now, now. Settle. You are getting all emotional, but that is to be expected as you are unable to engage in a rational discussion and default to tantrums and emotive language. You simply don't understand the issues here - not that I doubt your intelligence - but you don't know what women are capable of like I do.'

More like Translation: "Stop clogging up the thread with your need for personal validation of your anger, or whatever, as if we should give a toss."

Obliq wrote: »

My anger is directed at this, not at male commentators. I'm merely seeking understanding for my anger from the fellas.

Because, like, it's all about you. To be clear, I object precisely to your seeking of understanding for your anger, as if this has some pivotal role in the process.

Obliq

Banbh wrote: »

Your assumption that I am a man is amusing.

In the current debate there is no gender imbalance on either side of the argument. Trying to insert one on the pro-choice side, only serves the opposition.

Well, male or female - my original question is for men, and I ask do they understand my anger that this endless discussion as to whether women will exploit/will not this legislation makes me feel infantalised?

So male or female, I'll ask you that too.

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

I think he's just sh*t stirring. No reason for it except that he's that kind of person, clearly.

And just to correct you a little there Bann - I'm not insulted by the men up here discussing this at length - the issues I've raised here can't effect men, and discussing women's mental health and decision making is what we are all doing because of the massive inequality that the law treats us too. I am blaming the structures and attitudes that puts us all in the position of pulling women into shapes that don't fit them.

My anger is directed at this, not at male commentators. I'm merely seeking understanding for my anger from the fellas.

I am insulted by the attitudes expressed by some of the men here.

Deeply insulted and slightly shocked that such paternalistic undertones that underpin some posts here still exist in the 21st century in a so-called developed country. I expect that kind of ****e from my 79 year old , I'm a catlick, father (and challenge him on them)- but to hear it from men who, one assumes, grew up at a time when women had attained a measure of legal equality is disheartening and frankly disgusting.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Because, like, it's all about you. To be clear, I object precisely to your seeking of understanding for your anger, as if this has some pivotal role in the process.

Yeah, it IS all about me. And every other woman.

You can object all you like - I am still seeking understanding for my anger. My anger, and that of the multitudes of other women who are equally angry is EXACTLY what has this process in motion, so what's your point? Oh right. There isn't one.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

More like Translation: "Stop clogging up the thread with your need for personal validation of your anger, or whatever, as if we should give a toss."

You were free not to comment. And since it's clear you don't give a toss, why don't ya go do something else? I can comment about my anger anytime I like, and I'm looking for understanding, not validation. My anger is already valid, just not necessarily understood. That's why I'm asking fellas do they understand.

One clearly doesn't. Any other men on board this morning?

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

More like Translation: "Stop clogging up the thread with your need for personal validation of your anger, or whatever, as if we should give a toss."

Or to put it another way

'What the hell are you bitches complaining about now! Your anger is irrelevant to this discussion - it is personal to you and you are clogging up this thread which is about us rational folk clinically pronouncing on what women may or may not do to get what they want. You do not speak for other women (even though they seem to be agreeing with you- but they obviously don't understand either). I don't care about how you 'feel' - it's not about you or your body. It's about me and my pseudo-intellectual pontificating on what motivates women. Now where is my sammich?

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am
Deeply insulted and slightly shocked that such paternalistic undertones that underpin some posts here still exist in the 21st century in a so-called developed country.

I tend to put the paternalistic undertones of particular posters down to them not having encountered enough of the anger felt by women about this. That's why I'm asking for their imagination to be put in gear to understand where we're coming from. I always think that if most men could try and take a walk in these shoes, they'd be just as angry on our behalf. Most of the lovely fellas up on here are already, I reckon.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or to put it another way

You got some of it. Your anger is irrelevant to this discussion and You do not speak for other women.

Obliq wrote: »

I tend to put the paternalistic undertones of particular posters down to them not having encountered enough of the anger felt by women about this.

I tend to put the labeling of views as paternalist down to people wanting to suppress discussion, because they doubt their capacity to address the points being made. And advocating a whole load of “I'll thcream and thcream 'till I'm thick and I can" isn’t going to influence anyone to come round to your point of view. I mean, yes, I think you are a joke. No, I don’t think women in general are incapable of making useful contributions to this discussion. Just you, and folk who rant on like you.