Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Obliq

HHobo wrote: »

I am saying that this law, like every other law, must not trust women. It is how law works.
If you think that the sucicidal exploitation argument is a bad one, then by all means call it out. I don't think it holds much water and should not be considered a serious concern. Objecting on the basis that it doesn't trust women is just noise. So what if it doesn't. Since when do we require laws to trust people not to abuse them? The idea is antithetical to the purpose of laws. If we could trust people, we would only need rough guidelines that people would follow.

I see what you're saying, for sure. But it's noise in response to all the discussion about the proposed legislation that appears to be taking this legislation seriously, as if it is anything meaningful. That discussion is just noise also, and I didn't see anyone up here arguing that except a handful of women, me included. I remain feeling pretty let-down by the lack of understanding that this "suicidal exploitation" fantasy is based on the equally pointless fantasy that legislating for suicide is appropriate ( brought to us by PLAC and the 8th amendment - thank you muchly ).

I would hope so.

We all hope so, but nobody is arguing this while they are currently arguing for this crappy legislation. It's a complete waste of time and money, even if it's constitutionally obliged for the last 20 yrs. since we voted on it twice. We can only vote on what we're given to vote on - we'll have to shout very loudly for any better choices to vote for.

HHobo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

HHobo - I don't think you 'get' what we, as women, as finding so objectionable about this narrative in the debate.

I understand what you are objecting to.
My argument might be summerised like this:

All laws presume as a matter of course that anyone to whom it applies might attempt to circumvent it if the means are provided in the legislation

A new law is proposed and people object that the people to whom it would apply might try to circumvent it by the means provided in the legislation.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is the implication that as a gender women are not to be trusted.

It happens to be the case in this instance that the objection only applies to women. There is no way to raise this objection and somehow incorporate gender parity in it.

That the objection only applies to women is not evidence that it is being raised because it is women involved.

Consider a drink driving law that allowed drivers to drink while under the influence if condition X is satisfied. Some people object saying that condition X might be claimed by some people who wanted to drink and drive.

Would you assume that because the law necessarily only applies to drivers that these people are suggesting that people who drive are inherently untrustworthy as a group or that they are suggesting that people are untrustworthy, and there is no reason to assume that drivers are especuially trustworthy and so should be exempt from any suspicious that some of them might abuse the legislation?

Are you representing the position that it is inconcievable that any woman would abuse this provision? If you are not, then the objection is at least plausible in principle. The way to defeat this objection in my opion is to enquire of these objectors of they think this would be a significant enough factor to oppose the provison. If they think so, ask them just how many women they think would do this? If they really are mysoginist, then give them the rope to hang themselves. By claiming that the objection itself is out of bounds you are suggesting the opposite, that women are paragons of trust and virtue and we shouldn't even suggest that some of them might not be.

I am quite familiar enought he RCC to know that many of the blustering throwbacks who represent it are mysoginistic asshats. This in no way indicates that the objection itself must be without merit or that anyone who raised it must be a mysoginist. Mysoginist is a pretty nasty term to be throwing around and I submit that there are many pro-lifers (many of whom are themselves women) who will make this objection and not think badly of women in general when doing so.

Many pro-lifers are so because of deep religious conviction. As an atheist this causes me no end of teeth-grinding but I don't think they are inherently bad people. Misguided no-doubt but not all women-hating either. We need to oppose their postions as forcefully as we can but I would be reluctant to impute anti-woman malice to them too quickly either.

Bannasidhe

HHobo wrote: »

I understand what you are objecting to.
My argument might be summerised like this:

All laws presume as a matter of course that anyone to whom it applies might attempt to circumvent it if the means are provided in the legislation

A new law is proposed and people object that the people to whom it would apply might try to circumvent it by the means provided in the legislation.



It happens to be the case in this instance that the objection only applies to women. There is no way to raise this objection and somehow incorporate gender parity in it.

That the objection only applies to women is not evidence that it is being raised because it is women involved.

Consider a drink driving law that allowed drivers to drink while under the influence if condition X is satisfied. Some people object saying that condition X might be claimed by some people who wanted to drink and drive.

Would you assume that because the law necessarily only applies to drivers that these people are suggesting that people who drive are inherently untrustworthy as a group or that they are suggesting that people are untrustworthy, and there is no reason to assume that drivers are especuially trustworthy and so should be exempt from any suspicious that some of them might abuse the legislation?

Are you representing the position that it is inconcievable that any woman would abuse this provision? If you are not, then the objection is at least plausible in principle. The way to defeat this objection in my opion is to enquire of these objectors of they think this would be a significant enough factor to oppose the provison. If they think so, ask them just how many women they think would do this? If they really are mysoginist, then give them the rope to hang themselves. By claiming that the objection itself is out of bounds you are suggesting the opposite, that women are paragons of trust and virtue and we shouldn't even suggest that some of them might not be.

I am quite familiar enought he RCC to know that many of the blustering throwbacks who represent it are mysoginistic asshats. This in no way indicates that the objection itself must be without merit or that anyone who raised it must be a mysoginist. Mysoginist is a pretty nasty term to be throwing around and I submit that there are many pro-lifers (many of whom are themselves women) who will make this objection and not think badly of women in general when doing so.

Many pro-lifers are so because of deep religious conviction. As an atheist this causes me no end of teeth-grinding but I don't think they are inherently bad people. Misguided no-doubt but not all women-hating either. We need to oppose their postions as forcefully as we can but I would be reluctant to impute anti-woman malice to them too quickly either.

Possibly due to having grown up in 'holy Catlick' Ireland of the late 60s/70s. Coming of age and Coming Out (I was the only out lesbian in an Art College - seriously!) in the 80s (my first voting experience was that referendum :eek:) before escaping to liberal London I have acquired a somewhat jaundiced view of how women are perceived and treated in Ireland.

In many ways things have improved for women- but I am seeing echos of that campaign just framed in a more PR friendly way. They have learned a certain amount of subtly since 1982/3 - but as far as I can see, the message is the same.

Obliq

Well how about the premise that no woman who is not suicidal would choose the Irish suicidality legislation as a route to obtaining an abortion because choosing to travel to the UK is the far less risky and less stigmatising option?

This is clearly the case, to my mind - and yet SO much wasted time and effort on the prospect of the abuse of the law, without this being shouted from the rooftops? Hmmm, must have something to do with the prevalent "women are flighty yokes, not to be trusted". You can see how we might have that impression of people thinking that way, surely?

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have acquired a somewhat jaundiced view of how women are perceived and treated in Ireland.

In many ways things have improved for women- but I am seeing echos of that campaign just framed in a more PR friendly way. They have learned a certain amount of subtly since 1982/3 - but as far as I can see, the message is the same.

I have the same view Bann, and am slightly younger/not lesbian. Maybe jaundiced though

Obliq

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/public-health-study-abortions-done-nu

Interesting, in the context of midwives being the logical solution here to the nature of the childbirth experience being out of women's control - shows how far behind we are, considering that there are some in the US thinking of midwives (etc.) being the natural progression for abortion practice. They're FAR from it there though, and it's also interesting that this "6 year study" isn't cited.

"The public health solution? The six-year study says that abortions performed by midwives, nurses and nurse practitioners are just as safe as those performed by doctors. We now know for a fact that there's no medical basis for requiring higher-paid doctors to provide first-term abortions, and that means eventually the policy will shift:"

Posted by Doctors For Choice Ireland https://www.facebook.com/pages/Doctors-For-Choice-Ireland/522714117761585

Obliq

Nicely written and relevant. http://www.abortionreview.org/index.php/site/article/1319/

"For too long, abortion has been divorced from discussion about other areas of women’s reproductive healthcare. But while abortion may be specialised, it may not be as special as it sometimes appears.
Without a doubt it is the choice with the most profound consequences when it is denied - and the one which presents the greatest ethical complexities as we weigh up the respective moral values of woman and fetus. But the only ethical solution to reconciling these complexities is to conclude that it is for the woman herself to decide how she approaches these."

fitz0

I received the first response from an email I sent my TD's about legislation for X a few weeks ago.

Here's my email.

Dear TDs,

As a constituent of Cavan-Monaghan I would like to pose a question to your good selves in relation to the current debates on the abortion issue. I have contacted some of you before on this issue, expressing my concerns on the lack of legislative action on the X case but only received two identical emails in response. Following this, I was disappointed to learn that the vote on Clare Daly's bill was a resounding No.

I must infer from these that, having voted No, you are against abortion in all instances. In this case, I would like to ask you; Will you be putting forward a motion to prevent travel to England for the purposes of abortion? If not, why not?

Kind Regards,
fitz0

Response from Heather Humphreys TD

Dear fitz0

Thank you for your email of 15/01/2013.

The Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children held three days of hearings on 8, 9 and 10 January 2013 following the decision by Government to proceed to address the issues raised in the ABC judgement with legislation and regulations, within the parameters of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

The purpose of theses meetings was to gather information which will be of assistance to Government in the drafting of the Heads of Bill following its decision.

The Committee heard contributions from experienced medical practitioners, legal experts, representatives of churches and religious groups and from advocacy groups. It is intended that the hearings will help to determine what issues need to be addressed in the Heads of Bill and draft regulations.
You have also mentioned Deputy Clare Daly’s bill and while I accept the spirit in which this bill was brought before the Dail, the problem was that in its current format it was, as Minister Alan Shatter described it, ‘constitutionally defective’. Therefore, I was unable to support it.

I trust this clarifies what the current position is in relation to this matter. However should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely

Heather Humphreys

This is pretty much the response I expected, I emailed them more to register a concern than to get any sort of concrete answer.

lazygal

I also emailed to show that the pro choice side is also concerned about the legislation, and so my representatives can't say they don't see any support for legislation on x in their constituency.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Now, factor in that Dr Rhona Mahony (who in 2012 became the first female master of a Dublin maternity hospital ever) had her submission to the Oireachtas Committee dismissed as 'hysterical' by pro-birthers and a pattern emerges that is distinctly misogynist.

Tbh, her "as a woman I'm insulted" comment raised eyebrows of folk who aren't on the pro-life side. This appeal to insult is a blatant attempt to stifle discussion.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Tbh, her "as a woman I'm insulted" comment raised eyebrows of folk who aren't on the pro-life side. This appeal to insult is a blatant attempt to stifle discussion.

Really. The women I know nodded their heads in agreement with her.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Really. The women I know nodded their heads in agreement with her.

Grand. Maybe you need to widen your circle of acquaintances. Because her comment was pure BS. Her only redeeming factor in making it was at least she explicitly set aside any appeal to her professional standing while making it.

As I said in an earlier post, in a context where access to abortion in the UK involves women and doctors routinely engaging in fabrication, her "offence" is clearly BS of the high order. It's at the same level as the police chief's mock outrage in Casablanca as he closes down Rick's cafe because he's "shocked, shocked to discover that gambling has been going on", as a waiter passes him his roulette winnings.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Grand. Maybe you need to widen your circle of acquaintances. Because her comment was pure BS. Her only redeeming factor in making it was at least she explicitly set aside any appeal to her professional standing while making it.

As I said in an earlier post, in a context where access to abortion in the UK involves women and doctors routinely engaging in fabrication, her "offence" is clearly BS of the high order. It's at the same level as the police chief's mock outrage in Casablanca as he closes down Rick's cafe because he's "shocked, shocked to discover that gambling has been going on", as a waiter passes him his roulette winnings.

In your opinion.

I disagree. But then 'as a woman' I would.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In your opinion.

I disagree. But then 'as a woman' I would.

These statements are valid, if you limit the word "woman" to mean you and your nodding mates.

Obliq

Didn't we do this before? Got a wicked feeling of deja vu here


(no accents, sorry - linux keyboard problems)

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

These statements are valid, if you limit the word "woman" to mean you and your nodding mates.

I have a lot of nodding mates. Some of them are men.

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Didn't we do this before? Got a wicked feeling of deja vu here


(no accents, sorry - linux keyboard problems)

Deja Moo more like.

swampgas

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Tbh, her "as a woman I'm insulted" comment raised eyebrows of folk who aren't on the pro-life side. This appeal to insult is a blatant attempt to stifle discussion.

As I remember it, she didn't bring it up herself - she was asked directly if she felt "insulted as a woman". You might argue it's not relevant, but she was answering a direct question.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have a lot of nodding mates. Some of them are men.

Can I assure you that they are not humouring you.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

swampgas wrote: »

As I remember it, she didn't bring it up herself - she was asked directly if she felt "insulted as a woman". You might argue it's not relevant, but she was answering a direct question.

I just read the transcript in the Broadsheet, so I'll defer if you are factually correct. However, in the Broadsheet it is stated as follows

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/01/09/what-rhona-said/

Now, I’m not a psychiatrist and I absolutely appreciate that you will be addressed later by a specialist in the area of psychiatry and, of course, I defer to them. But could I just say, as a woman, that I’m offended by some of the perjorative and judgemental views that women will manipulate doctors in order to obtain termination of pregnancy, on the basis of fabricated ideas of suicide ideation or intent. There also seems to be an assumption that psychiatrists are unable to assess the issue of suicide ideation, something they do every day in their clinical practice.

If that quotation is correct, then I suggest my point is valid. Quite clearly, the position in the UK involves systematic fabrication by doctors and patients. I'd suggest Rhona Mahoney shagging knows that too. Some people might be happy to nod vigourously in support of lies that tell them what they want to hear. I'm not.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Can I assure you that they are not humouring you.

Do you have anything relevant to say or are you just going to go on one of your thinly veiled digs at women monologues?

I have this docu on the Churchill family recorded and if this is going to turn into another 'being a woman has no baring on this debate' soliloquy from you I'd just as soon get on with watching it.
.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

... one of your thinly veiled digs at women monologues? ..

You've missed the point. It's a thinly veiled dig at Cork.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You've missed the point. It's a thinly veiled dig at Cork.

Fascinating family - The Churchills.

28064212

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Quite clearly, the position in the UK involves systematic fabrication by doctors and patients

What exactly are you basing that on? 95% of abortions in the UK are on the grounds that

the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman

You realise that essentially covers almost any pregnancy right? An abortion, even a surgical one carries far less risk of injury to the physical health of a pregnant woman. The wording of the UK act is incredibly liberal

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Fascinating family - The Churchills.

Then you'll love this.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

28064212 wrote: »

What exactly are you basing that on? 95% of abortions in the UK are on the grounds that

You realise that essentially covers almost any pregnancy right? An abortion, even a surgical one carries far less risk of injury to the physical health of a pregnant woman. The wording of the UK act is incredibly liberal

Sorry, can I confirm that my point is, absolutely, that abortion in the UK involves systematic misrepresentation of the motivation being based on some substantial health ground, achieved by a box ticking exercise by two doctors. Because we all appreciate that the wording is obviously so incredibly liberal that you'd need the involvement of two doctors to confirm the facts of the case. Apologies if that wasn't immediately clear from my earlier post.

Kiwi in IE

The UK legislation equates to abortion on demand. If a woman is suffering from stress it is affecting her mental health. Mental health is included as criteria for an abortion. There is no fabricating needed. I've not been in such a situation personally, but I imagine an unwanted pregnancy is highly stressful!

28064212

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Sorry, can I confirm that my point is, absolutely, that abortion in the UK involves systematic misrepresentation of the motivation being based on some substantial health ground, achieved by a box ticking exercise by two doctors. Because we all appreciate that the wording is obviously so incredibly liberal that you'd need the involvement of two doctors to confirm the facts of the case. Apologies if that wasn't immediately clear from my earlier post.

There is no mention of substantial in the UK legislation. It's a box-ticking exercise because the wording is so liberal. In the UK, being pregnant is essentially legal grounds for obtaining an abortion.

The framers of the law may not have intended it to be so liberal, but that's what the law actually says

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

There is no fabricating needed.

28064212 wrote: »

In the UK, being pregnant is essentially legal grounds for obtaining an abortion.

If it was as pat as that, you wouldn't need two doctors to tick boxes. Can I say, it's implicitly clear from your posts that you understand exactly the point at issue. Why the need to waste each other's time?

Oh, and if there's any value in establishing fact, is anyone in a position to contradict the transcript of Rhona Mahony's statement as recorded by the Broadsheet? Is the contention that she was responding to a question valid or wrong?

28064212

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If it was as pat as that, you wouldn't need two doctors to tick boxes. Can I say, it's implicitly clear from your posts that you understand exactly the point at issue. Why the need to waste each other's time?

I really don't get your point. You claimed systematic fabrication in the UK system. Why would there need to be any fabrication? The lax legislation combined with the need for two doctors just shows a lack of understanding of the issues involved by the legislation writers.