Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

MrPudding

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Race is a handicap?

Only if you are the wrong race.

MrP

lazygal

MrPudding wrote: »

Only if you are the wrong race.

MrP

We still don't know what the 'wrong' race is!

Brian Shanahan

stanley 2 wrote: »

ok lets say the wrong sex if you go to britain you can get an abortion if your child is the wrong sex

I don't think humans can give birth to self-replicating amoebas, somehow.

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

Would you be happy to care for a disabled child for the rest of your life? Would you adopt a disabled child?

I would.

I am a gay woman in a relationship with another woman and we both want children. It will be difficult for us to have one the conventional way (well, impossible for us to have one the conventional way lol) but you know what I mean I would love to have the gift of any child to be honest.

Although I have trouble figuring out the relevance of your question or indeed my answer. Some women would be less affected by this, some more. I dont think we should judge anyone for their reaction or "comfort level".

As I said before, legislation allowing for abortion because of foetal abnormality is not likely to happen in this jurisdiction for a long time. It is also a "very well known secret" that it does happen viz travelling abroad. Much like the abuse of morphine in terminally ill patients. (note: I use the term "abuse" in its technical sense, I dont condem it but thats a discussion for a different thread)

So, we know it is happening anyway.

We are pretty sure it will not be legislated for in the near future.

ie., there is no "solution" in view.

Why is everyone bickering about it?

Dades

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Why is everyone bickering about it?

Because some posters are throwing straw men into the mix. Stuff like "race" (wtf?) and "sex".

Adult hats on everyone, please.

lazygal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I would.

I am a gay woman in a relationship with another woman and we both want children. It will be difficult for us to have one the conventional way (well, impossible for us to have one the conventional way lol) but you know what I mean I would love to have the gift of any child to be honest.

Although I have trouble figuring out the relevance of your question or indeed my answer. Some women would be less affected by this, some more. I dont think we should judge anyone for their reaction or "comfort level".

As I said before, legislation allowing for abortion because of foetal abnormality is not likely to happen in this jurisdiction for a long time. It is also a "very well known secret" that it does happen viz travelling abroad.

So, we know it is happening anyway.

We are pretty sure it will not be legislated for in the near future.

ie., there is no "solution" in view.

Why is everyone bickering about it?

I think its a relevant question because the pro life 'solution' to unwanted pregnancy is adoption if a woman doesn't want to raise a child. That's not a one size fits all solution for a woman who's got a crisis pregnancy to deal with, knowing that realistically the pool of potential adoptive parents for a severely disabled child will likely be small.
Being pregnant now, I find it perverse that I have to seek a late term surgical abortion in a different country if I don't want to remain pregnant. Its an issue that's affecting women in Ireland every day and I don't see how or why it should be brushed aside as an irrelevance.

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

I think its a relevant question because the pro life 'solution' to unwanted pregnancy is adoption if a woman doesn't want to raise a child. That's not a one size fits all solution for a woman who's got a crisis pregnancy to deal with, knowing that realistically the pool of potential adoptive parents for a severely disabled child will likely be small.
Being pregnant now, I find it perverse that I have to seek a late term surgical abortion in a different country if I don't want to remain pregnant. Its an issue that's affecting women in Ireland every day and I don't see how or why it should be brushed aside as an irrelevance.

What do you mean by being "brushed aside as an irrelevance" though? Our constitution has been ammended to specifically protect the right to life of the unborn, with due regard to the life of the mother. That makes it law that an unborn child cannot be aborted in this jurisdiction unless the mothers life is in danger (and yes we have seen the legislature thusfar fail to vindicate this exception) but whether you are pro choice or anti abortion, you can't really argue that a law is "unfair" or treating you as an irrelevance because you dont like it or it doesnt suit you. I'm honestly not trying to be inflammatory but people seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that just because we dont like a law, it shouldnt exist.

I dont like the fact that the mother of a friend from college who has debilitating MS had to risk prosecution by growing her own cannabis to alleviate her symptoms. I'm sure she didnt like it either. But thats the law.

Marie Flemming doesnt like that she cannot die of her own free will but the constitution protects the sanctity of life and the Supreme Court ruled accordingly.

Disagreeing with something does not necessarily make it bad law, and telling us that you have to travel to a jurisdiction to do something that is legal there because it is illegal here...its just not good legal argument.

eviltwin

lazygal wrote: »

I think its a relevant question because the pro life 'solution' to unwanted pregnancy is adoption if a woman doesn't want to raise a child. That's not a one size fits all solution for a woman who's got a crisis pregnancy to deal with, knowing that realistically the pool of potential adoptive parents for a severely disabled child will likely be small.
Being pregnant now, I find it perverse that I have to seek a late term surgical abortion in a different country if I don't want to remain pregnant. Its an issue that's affecting women in Ireland every day and I don't see how or why it should be brushed aside as an irrelevance.

This.

Its easy to talk about it in abstract terms, quite another when its actually a reality. A child who has a disability is a life sentance, sorry if that sounds crude but you don't ever achieve the independance most parents do when their kids grow up and move into adulthood.

As others have said its not easy to find adoptive parents for special needs children, those who are up for the task have to do a lot of counselling to ensure they can cope and yet bio parents are just expected to suck it up by the pro life side and get on with it.

And lets not forget the supports to parents of such children are being cut year on year.

PS I didn't realise you were pregnant Lazygal, congratulations

lazygal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What do you mean by being "brushed aside as an irrelevance" though? Our constitution has been ammended to specifically protect the right to life of the unborn, with due regard to the life of the mother. That makes it law that an unborn child cannot be aborted in this jurisdiction unless the mothers life is in danger (and yes we have seen the legislature thusfar fail to vindicate this exception) but whether you are pro choice or anti abortion, you can't really argue that a law is "unfair" or treating you as an irrelevance because you dont like it or it doesnt suit you. I'm honestly not trying to be inflammatory but people seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that just because we dont like a law, it shouldnt exist.

I dont like the fact that the mother of a friend from college who has debilitating MS had to risk prosecution by growing her own cannabis to alleviate her symptoms. I'm sure she didnt like it either. But thats the law.

Marie Flemming doesnt like that she cannot die of her own free will but the constitution protects the sanctity of life and the Supreme Court ruled accordingly.

Disagreeing with something does not necessarily make it bad law, and telling us that you have to travel to a jurisdiction to do something that is legal there because it is illegal here...its just not good legal argument.

I'm fully aware of the law. I think it should be changed, and if its not even being discussed as a possibility it does women in Ireland a disservice. Some people seem to think termination for foetal abnormalities shouldn't form part of the current debate, I disagree.
I'm not sure I follow the point you're making TBH.

Peregrinus

oldrnwisr wrote: »

No, you can't. Not legally anyway.

Actually, you can. Under UK law, provided the medical risks of continuing the pregnancy are greater than those of terminating it - and this is nearly always the case - then an abortion can be carried out. The abortion doesn't have to be motivated by concerns about the medical risks, and in fact most are probably not; as long as the medical test is satisfied a woman can have an abortion for any reason at all.

I suspect there may be professional guidance suggesting that doctors should not carry out abortions which they believe to be motivated by a desire for sex selection, but as far as I can see there is no law against it.

(I could be wrong about this and, if I am, I'll be glad to have someone point me to the law which prohibits this.)

micho

John Briton raises a number of issues in the IT article, it would take at least a one thousand word article to rebut his arguments. Bruton writes that the Constitution belongs to the people and as such this should be uppermost in the minds of legislators and the Judiciary. He fails to recognise that when the people enacted the Constitution they conferred powers and functions on the various organs of government one of these functions is the power of the courts namely the High Court and the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and the law in gnereral. he writes about the word equal in Article 40.3.3 and argues that the Supreme Court ruling in X failed to take cognisance of this in regard to the equal right to life of the unborn. Article 40.3.3 as interpreted by the court gives precedence to the unborn with the exception where the life of a pregnant woman is at risk and this in very restricted circumstances, absent this and the life of the unborn is paramount in constitutional terms. The equal right to life of the pregnamt woman is circumscribed by the above.

A reading of Bruton's article would give the impression that he is coming from a particualrly neutral position but when it is closely analysed one can see that he expects the courts to interpret the Constituion useing a literal interpretation method based on originalism, such was abandoned by the Supreme Court in 1965, with the doctrine of unenumerated rights.

Bruton is also on record as saying that legislators must be informed by their religous convictions and frame policy and law accordingly, he is hardly neutral in this debate and thus his article should be read in this light.

stanley 2

eviltwin wrote: »

This.

Its easy to talk about it in abstract terms, quite another when its actually a reality. A child who has a disability is a life sentance, sorry if that sounds crude but you don't ever achieve the independance most parents do when their kids grow up and move into adulthood.

As others have said its not easy to find adoptive parents for special needs children, those who are up for the task have to do a lot of counselling to ensure they can cope and yet bio parents are just expected to suck it up by the pro life side and get on with it.

And lets not forget the supports to parents of such children are being cut year on year.

PS I didn't realise you were pregnant Lazygal, congratulations

a life sentence versus a death sentence for the babby

PopePalpatine

Go home stanley, you're drunk. Probably on communion wine.

aloyisious

Is there a route for reporting WUM's and spammers?

Nodin

aloyisious wrote: »

Is there a route for reporting WUM's and spammers?

On the left hand side of the post - click on the 'traffic sign'.

fatmammycat

stanley 2 wrote: »

a life sentence versus a death sentence for the babby

I see where you're going with this. We clearly need to find ways to instain mothers who want to kill their babbys once babbys are formed, why should we have pary for their lots!?

Tipsygypsy

Just wanted to let those of you who do support abortion in cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormailty, TFMR are organizing a protest March on Monday the 4th of March, in Dublin at 6pm. Please please if you could come and attend and support them. Legislation is imminent and thus far Fatal Foetal abnormailties has not been included. And this week we have had the likes of Michael Martin saying he wouldnt support them. They would really appreciate your support.
They're event page on facebook is here: http://www.facebook.com/events/217532718385691/?ref=22 They have also organised a 'thunderclap' which is where a message supporting them is posted on multiple facebook pages/twitter timelines at a pre-arranged time, it can be signed up to here: https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/1316-protest-march-for-tfmr

Lingua Franca

If I could be there I would. I will sign up for the thunderclap though. Did they do one of these before?

Tipsygypsy

TFMR haven't used it before, but I do remember signing up for one by some of the prochoice groups for Savita with the tag Never Again. Was cool enough, my timelines on both twitter and facebook were just flooded with the message - but then, I would have a lot of pro-choice people in my feeds. Not sure haow well it infiltrated the general publics timelines.

stanley 2

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

Just wanted to let those of you who do support abortion in cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormailty, TFMR are organizing a protest March on Monday the 4th of March, in Dublin at 6pm. Please please if you could come and attend and support them. Legislation is imminent and thus far Fatal Foetal abnormailties has not been included. And this week we have had the likes of Michael Martin saying he wouldnt support them. They would really appreciate your support.
They're event page on facebook is here: http://www.facebook.com/events/217532718385691/?ref=22 They have also organised a 'thunderclap' which is where a message supporting them is posted on multiple facebook pages/twitter timelines at a pre-arranged time, it can be signed up to here: https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/1316-protest-march-for-tfmr

cant have children being born different then

PopePalpatine

There's a reason it's called fatal foetal abnormality. Hint: it's something to do with what happens when the baby is born.

fitz0

stanley 2 wrote: »

cant have children being born different then

Or dead, in the case of FATAL foetal abnormality.

Tipsygypsy

stanley 2 wrote: »

cant have children being born different then

Is English your second language Stanley?

I only ask because you seem to not understand the term FATAL in the sentance. It means doesn't mean the baby will be 'born different', Stanley. It means the baby will be either Stillborn, as in born already dead, or will die almost immediately. That is what it means Stanley. FATAL FOETAL ABNORMALITY = Baby will not survive outside of womb.

stanley 2

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

Is English your second language Stanley?

I only ask because you seem to not understand the term FATAL in the sentance. It means doesn't mean the baby will be 'born different', Stanley. It means the baby will be either Stillborn, as in born already dead, or will die almost immediately. That is what it means Stanley. FATAL FOETAL ABNORMALITY = Baby will not survive outside of womb.

yes english is my second language
and we will all die but life in the womb is still life
a short life can be beutifull who are we to say who or when people should die

lazygal

stanley 2 wrote: »

yes english is my second language
and we will all die but life in the womb is still life
a short life can be beutifull who are we to say who or when people should die

Who are we to tell a woman to carry a dead foetus until she goes into labour? Would you be willing to protect the beautiful life of a born person by being hooked up to him or her for months to help him or her stay alive?

paddy ocon

stanley 2 wrote: »

yes english is my second language
and we will all die but life in the womb is still life
a short life can be beutifull who are we to say who or when people should die

easy for you to say when you are not the person who is a walking coffin trust me it is far from "beautiful" it is a nightmare a horror film and one of the worst things that can happen to a women.

To be forced to carry a dying baby is inhumane and cruel.

lazygal

stanley 2 wrote: »

cant have children being born different then

What do you mean 'different'? I'm still awaiting the 'wrong' race clarification too.

oldrnwisr

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, you can. Under UK law, provided the medical risks of continuing the pregnancy are greater than those of terminating it - and this is nearly always the case - then an abortion can be carried out. The abortion doesn't have to be motivated by concerns about the medical risks, and in fact most are probably not; as long as the medical test is satisfied a woman can have an abortion for any reason at all.

I suspect there may be professional guidance suggesting that doctors should not carry out abortions which they believe to be motivated by a desire for sex selection, but as far as I can see there is no law against it.

(I could be wrong about this and, if I am, I'll be glad to have someone point me to the law which prohibits this.)

OK, what the law actually says is this:

Section 1.1 of the Abortion Act 1967

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith -

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and 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 or any existing children of her family; or

(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or

(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated

(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

Now under your proposal a parent or parents who found out through testing that their foetus was of a gender not to their liking would have to contrive some medical condition to qualify under one of the four conditions above and then find two doctors who they can either dupe or otherwise convince to be complicit in this illegal act.

While there have been media reports of such abortions happening, there haven't been AFAIK any substantiated cases. (If anyone's got evidence I'd appreciate a link).

Furthermore, the GMC has weighed in on the matter:

"Three cases of doctors allegedly offering abortions solely because the foetus was not the sex preferred by the parents have been reported in the media. Abortions provided solely on grounds of the sex of the foetus are not legal in the UK. We have launched investigations into the fitness to practise of the doctors involved. We also want to remind all doctors that they must work within the law."


Sex selection and abortion: keep within the law

stanley 2

lazygal wrote: »

Who are we to tell a woman to carry a dead foetus until she goes into labour? Would you be willing to protect the beautiful life of a born person by being hooked up to him or her for months to help him or her stay alive?

Many parents do just that staying in hospital with there sick children and it dose not always end well but thats where the love comes in

marienbad

stanley 2 wrote: »

Many parents do just that staying in hospital with there sick children and it dose not always end well but thats where the love comes in

That is not the question you were asked though,