Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

jill_valentine

Jesus Christ the Carder case is monstrous.

Banbh

Sunday Times survey, as reported on RTE website:

87% of voters said they would favour the introduction of abortion where the mother's life was in danger for reasons other than suicide, while 10% were opposed.
In the case of suicide, the majority was smaller. 59% favoured abortion where the mother displayed suicidal feelings, compared to 34% who were opposed.

Clearly the people want the Government to get on with it and legislate for the X case. The TDs who are playing politics with the issue are in for a shock.

fitz0

I saw both sides out with petitions at the GPO yesterday. The Pro-lifers had kids handing out leaflets. I personally find that disgusting considering the 6/7 year old probably knew no more than 'the babies are being killed' if even that.

Kiwi in IE

Do 'pro lifers' have any ability to imagine themselves in another persons shoes? If any of the scenarios that have been discussed applied to your wife, partner, daughter, mother or sister, can you truthfully assert that you would maintain your current convictions? If your wife, for example were three months pregnant, would the foetus really be more important to you if it came to a choice between their survival?

OldNotWIse

Flier wrote: »

Whooah there - did you find my post insulting?
If so I really am sorry to cause offense (I am usually very careful about who I choose to insult), but I don't see where I've been insulting.

I specifically said in my post that there are non religious (atheist) prolifers, so I'm unsure what you have fixed for me!!

um did you not see my edit? I think I went back and said that the last part didnt apply to you. if not, apologies!!

OldNotWIse

Flier wrote: »

Not sure where you're going with this one. The judgement went into a lot of detail about alot of things. Care to elaborate??

I'm not "going" anywhere I was simply trying to ascertain how many people had heard of the 3 criteria that were put forward. They are btw real, substantial and probable. I was curious to know how many people had heard and given consideration to the "probable" ingredient thats all. i dont have an agenda and im not interested in leading people up the garden path to point score - I simply wanted to know if I was the only one who hadnt heard about that side of it.. One wonders, what would happen if there was a "possible" riisk but not "probable" - what would a Dr do? Clearly, it needs a tighter frame of reference for a start. And thats not a pro life or pro abortion argument its just consideration for the dr's that will be faced with weighing up the situations.

OldNotWIse

Obliq wrote: »

All that. Choice is good and terrible. Being told one way is moral/one way is immoral ....well, that's a dreadful imposition.

How can that choice be less than a personal choice? Why does the church/government need to rule over that? How can people take that choice away when those decisions are all based on the MOST painful of personal circumstances?

They did it in the Flemming case.
I dont agree with the church sticking their dirty big oar into any of our business, but as for saying the government shouldnt rule us? er...who should rule us then?? Confused...

efb

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=2742#.UQaA7LbiVGA.twitter
Iona institute think Mammy O'Rouke not judgemental enough...

Sarky

They probably reckon the pope isn't catholic enough.

nagirrac

The Calder case being quoted dates from 1987, an omission by the article's author that somewhat undermines the article as the case is quite famous as a landmark case in US case law. The hospital and lower court clearly erred in this case but in a country of >300M people there will be rare cases such as this. Before launching attacks on how the US legal system has historically handled the abortion question, reflect on what the Irish people voted into law in the 1980s and the spineless actions of legislators since then.

There are and always will be attempts to restrict women's reproductive rights. The key point however is that attempts to roll back Roe v. Wade in the USA FAIL. To the best of my knowledge there are more restrictive laws regarding abortion rights in most European countries compared to the US. I am pretty sure the laws in the UK are more restrictive.

If Ireland is looking for a good model to target for reproductive rights, Roe vs. Wade would be a good one.

Flier

OldNotWIse wrote: »

um did you not see my edit? I think I went back and said that the last part didnt apply to you. if not, apologies!!

I did - and acknowledged it in the post after the one you quoted - so we won't fall out over it

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm not "going" anywhere I was simply trying to ascertain how many people had heard of the 3 criteria that were put forward. They are btw real, substantial and probable. I was curious to know how many people had heard and given consideration to the "probable" ingredient thats all. i dont have an agenda and im not interested in leading people up the garden path to point score - I simply wanted to know if I was the only one who hadnt heard about that side of it.. One wonders, what would happen if there was a "possible" riisk but not "probable" - what would a Dr do? Clearly, it needs a tighter frame of reference for a start. And thats not a pro life or pro abortion argument its just consideration for the dr's that will be faced with weighing up the situations.

There's a lot of uncertainty around what the words 'real' substantial' and 'probable' mean in real life. It's all very well for people to sit on the sidelines and pontificate about what they would have/could have done in a particular situation, but when the doctors on the ground are uncertain about their legal protection when they take action in such cases, clearly legislation which clarifies the situation is needed. I can't understand how some people eg. YD, Iona and the like continue to spout nonsense that legislation isn't needed. They should show the courage of their convictions and call for a constitutional amendment if they are against legislation.

Flier

efb wrote: »

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=2742#.UQaA7LbiVGA.twitter
Iona institute think Mammy O'Rouke not judgemental enough...

It'd be interesting to see Iona's 'reply' to that woman.
Maybe she feels guilty for her decision because she is constantly being bombarded by Iona / Life Institute /YD propaganda everywhere she goes.
And who is she supposed to 'seek forgiveness' from?

I think Mary's advice to talk it out with a therapist was very sensible. Good job Mary!!

lazygal

The Iona Institute, and any of its patrons, would be the last people in the world I'd turn to with any problem. I'd hate to be taught by Breda or 'councelled' by Patricia, imagine how their judgment and holier than thou attitude affects vulnerable people.

krudler

robbed from YLYL

ERPR

I've cleared it up for everybody lads- you can all thank me later

http://coloradoindependent.com/126808/in-malpractice-case-catholic-hospital-argues-fetuses-arent-people

So basically it is OK with churchy types if a few bob is involved but not OK otherwise.

Turtwig

krudler wrote: »

robbed from YLYL

http://i.imgur.com/6Uy4QtS.jpg?1

Sorry for going off topic here.
(i) Jesus Christ never read the books.
(ii) If Merope Gaunt had an abortion, Voldemort would never have existed.
(iii) The above is all irrelevant though because we know that in fact Severus Snape would.

OldNotWIse

Flier wrote: »

I did - and acknowledged it in the post after the one you quoted - so we won't fall out over it



There's a lot of uncertainty around what the words 'real' substantial' and 'probable' mean in real life. It's all very well for people to sit on the sidelines and pontificate about what they would have/could have done in a particular situation, but when the doctors on the ground are uncertain about their legal protection when they take action in such cases, clearly legislation which clarifies the situation is needed. I can't understand how some people eg. YD, Iona and the like continue to spout nonsense that legislation isn't needed. They should show the courage of their convictions and call for a constitutional amendment if they are against legislation.

I think that that was my point? That the framework needs to be tightened (to protect doctors, to protect women whose lives are in danger and to prevent the system from being abused). At least with strict legislation we all know where we stand. tbh I have met very few (if any now that I think of it) people who would seek to deny an abortion to a woman whose life was endangered by the pregnancy, or indeed who would have an issue with a spontaneous abortion as a result of medical procedure. Most of the people I know simply dont want it introduced on demand, and fear that the systemw will be open to abuse. Though for some reason it has become a mortal sin to suggest that this might happen. As if no system of anything has ever been abused in Ireland at any time by anybody shock horror how could we even make such obscene utterances.

Bannasidhe

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think that that was my point? That the framework needs to be tightened (to protect doctors, to protect women whose lives are in danger and to prevent the system from being abused). At least with strict legislation we all know where we stand. tbh I have met very few (if any now that I think of it) people who would seek to deny an abortion to a woman whose life was endangered by the pregnancy, or indeed who would have an issue with a spontaneous abortion as a result of medical procedure. Most of the people I know simply dont want it introduced on demand, and fear that the systemw will be open to abuse. Though for some reason it has become a mortal sin to suggest that this might happen. As if no system of anything has ever been abused in Ireland at any time by anybody shock horror how could we even make such obscene utterances.

To be honest - 'we can't introduce xxx it as it might be open to abuse' must be the worst reasoning I've heard yet...

Let xxx = Social Welfare
Let xxx = Driver testing
Let xxx = Education.

Let xxx = any piece of legislation any government any where introduces.

krankykitty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

To be honest - 'we can't introduce xxx it as it might be open to abuse' must be the worst reasoning I've heard yet...

And it shows such a lack of trust in women also. They're going to be making up all sorts of stuff to get their abortions! :mad:

lazygal

krankykitty wrote: »

And it shows such a lack of trust in women also. They're going to be making up all sorts of stuff to get their abortions! :mad:

The whole debate showed in glorious Technicolor what some churches, medics and commentators really think about women in Ireland.

Flier

Absolutely agree. The fact that legislation might be abused is no reason not to enact legislation. In this case of legislating within the very narrow confines of the constitution and the X ruling, and given that the UK remains a short hop over the Irish Sea, I honestly cannot see 'abuse' of the legislation becoming a problem. It will still be easier for a woman to make the trip to the UK rather than having to convince her doctors that her life is at risk. Even if the legislation was open to widespread abuse, it is still not a reason not to legislate. And if it was found to be wide open to abuse, there's nothing to stop the legislators tweaking the law at a later time. It's just a law after all - not an amendment to the constitution (like the last time someone had a bright idea).

Kiwi in IE

If the UK, or another equivelant secular country, were not a short hop across the Irish Sea, we would not be having this discussion. Abortion would have been legalised around 40 years ago in line with other Western Countries. Pro lifers must be delighted the UK is so close so they have been able to continue to have their pious, holier than thou attitudes legislated for!

Unfortunately the ones who suffer from this arrangement are the most vulnerable. The very young, incest and abuse victims, women who are too ill to travel and those who don't have the financial means to travel to the UK. The rest of us would do just fine if we felt we needed an abortion at any stage.

Obliq

OldNotWIse wrote: »

.... but as for saying the government shouldnt rule us? er...who should rule us then?? Confused...

The government does not have to make a law to rule over every element of our decision making. Although someone is effectively killing themselves by smoking, for example, it is still a personal choice if over 16.

I was questioning the need for government to dictate (by NOT providing the choice here) what happens in the cases of fatal foetal abnormalities, where whether a parent decides to terminate the pregnancy or carry through with the birth is one of the most personal choices I can imagine, and IMO the government has no right to take that decision for those parents. That was all. No need for confusion - I'm not advocating anarchy here

Obliq

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

If the UK, or another equivelant secular country, were not a short hop across the Irish Sea, we would not be having this discussion. Abortion would have been legalised around 40 years ago in line with other Western Countries. Pro lifers must be delighted the UK is so close so they have been able to continue to have their pious, holier than thou attitudes legislated for!

Unfortunately the ones who suffer from this arrangement are the most vulnerable. The very young, incest and abuse victims, women who are too ill to travel and those who don't have the financial means to travel to the UK. The rest of us would do just fine if we felt we needed an abortion at any stage.

Absolutely. I think many people fail to realise that without the "English Abortions" there would be no chance of Ireland taking this Catholic stance on abortion, unless we had locked the gates and stayed a 3rd world country. And that includes the stance of even debating this legislation, as if it's in any way adequate. Debating this pissy little upcoming law gives it credibility. It's the next law we should be looking for/at - the one that replaces the 8th amendment.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

They probably reckon the pope isn't catholic enough.

One of the few funny moments during christmas was the time when Popette mentioned that she'd complained to Jesus that he was being far too free and easy with these dreadful liberal types.

HHobo

krankykitty wrote: »

And it shows such a lack of trust in women also. They're going to be making up all sorts of stuff to get their abortions! :mad:

I've seen this objection several times now, and I just don't understand it at all. Is it special pleading that women are more honest and trustworthy than men so we should take a different approch to legislation that only affects them than we do any other legislation we pass?

How easily any given piece of legislation can be circumvented or abused is always a consideration and must be a primary one. The law is and should be utterly untrusting. If you start writing laws that work of the honour system you are asking for trouble.
Women are just as capable of lying and decieving to get what they want as men are. The track record for people exploiting every crack and loophole in the law speaks for itself. It would be utter lunacy for the government to "trust" anyone when proposing legislation.

This is not a "it might be abused therefore we shouldn't have it arguement". That argument is nonsense and was previously pointed out.
If a law is trivially easy to abuse or circumvent then that really is a problem.

Obliq

While it's true that abuse of law is of course going to be done by women just as much as men, the difference with this upcoming law is that it is a very personal issue for women. It is entirely gender specific and many, many women (including me) take it extremely badly that any law whatsoever is attempting to have more say over my body than I do. Which is why many, many of us are demanding a change in law, but not this one.

That is one reason why any discussion of the merits of this legislation attracts such "Are you trying to tell me what women will do?" responses. I should add that we are well aware that this legislation is all we can get under the constitution. That does not make us happy - I don't see that the argument you refer to is somehow looking for a "special dispensation" due to it's gender bias - I see it more as pointing out that nothing will change by this law - it will be virtually worthless to women here - just a small moral victory due to us over the 20yr legislative failure.

Kiwi in IE

If I were in a position where I were pregnant and needed an abortion because of my health, if it were denied and I were too sick to travel, as a dual UK/NZ citizen, I would contact both embassies to help me get the hell out of this country. And I would then cause a level of International embarrassment that would render 'pro life' squawking instantly irrelevant to the Irish government.

Flier

HHobo wrote: »

I've seen this objection several times now, and I just don't understand it at all. Is it special pleading that women are more honest and trustworthy than men so we should take a different approch to legislation that only affects them than we do any other legislation we pass?

How easily any given piece of legislation can be circumvented or abused is always a consideration and must be a primary one. The law is and should be utterly untrusting. If you start writing laws that work of the honour system you are asking for trouble.
Women are just as capable of lying and decieving to get what they want as men are. The track record for people exploiting every crack and loophole in the law speaks for itself. It would be utter lunacy for the government to "trust" anyone when proposing legislation.

This is not a "it might be abused therefore we shouldn't have it arguement". That argument is nonsense and was previously pointed out.
If a law is trivially easy to abuse or circumvent then that really is a problem.

I don't hear anyone on the pro choice side calling for a law that will be wishy washy and full of loop holes that can be exploited.
I do hear plenty of people on the prolife side calling for no legislation because it will be abused and 'open the floodgates to abortion on demand'.
Of course the law - in all - cases should be robust. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.

Kiwi in IE

HHobo wrote: »

I've seen this objection several times now, and I just don't understand it at all. Is it special pleading that women are more honest and trustworthy than men so we should take a different approch to legislation that only affects them than we do any other legislation we pass?

How easily any given piece of legislation can be circumvented or abused is always a consideration and must be a primary one. The law is and should be utterly untrusting. If you start writing laws that work of the honour system you are asking for trouble.
Women are just as capable of lying and decieving to get what they want as men are. The track record for people exploiting every crack and loophole in the law speaks for itself. It would be utter lunacy for the government to "trust" anyone when proposing legislation.

This is not a "it might be abused therefore we shouldn't have it arguement". That argument is nonsense and was previously pointed out.
If a law is trivially easy to abuse or circumvent then that really is a problem.

How exactly do people think this law will be 'abused'? Would you rather an overnight stay in the UK or several sessions with different doctors trying to convince them you are suicidal when you're not? Risking being prescribed medication, possibly being put under the mental health act and being admitted to a psychiatric hospital? I know what I'd choose.