Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

stanley 2

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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

dont worry they wont be proscecuted they were only aborting girls

lazygal

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

You can love a child without being forced to remain surgically attached, I saw this when a sibling had cancer as a child. I asked you whether you'd violate your bodily integrity to remain attached to a born person to preserve his or her right to life, you brought in an entirely different scenario.

lazygal

stanley 2 wrote: »

dont worry they wont be proscecuted they were only aborting girls

Do you have evidence of a failure to investigate and/or prosecute in those cases?

Bannasidhe

stanley 2 wrote: »

dont worry they wont be proscecuted they were only aborting girls

You keep saying this but have yet to produce one shred of evidence that it happens.

It's rather like if I was to state that all non-nationals in Ireland are thiefs...

stanley 2

marienbad wrote: »

That is not the question you were asked though,

reread the question it was in two parts I answered the second part

lazygal

stanley 2 wrote: »

reread the question it was in two parts I answered the second part

No you didn't. I again ask if you're willing to remain attached to a born person for months to preserve his or her right to life. By extension, you wouldn't be allowed to take many normal medication, will have to restrict your diet and won't be allowed partake of certain activities during that time. To preserve a beautiful life, would you do it?

Tipsygypsy

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

A short life can be beautiful. Or, it can be horrific, it can be a prison sentance for the woman carrying that life. It can be damaging to both the physical and psychological health of the woman. It can be devastating for her family, the children she already has, her partner. To demand a woman to carry to term a non-viable pregnancy that will not result in a living baby is beyond inhumane, it is beyond cruel. Its evil. And anyone who presumes to dictate to a woman in those circumstances what she can and cannot do with HER body, with HER medical condition, needs to have a long hard look at their motives and their attitude towards women.

PopePalpatine

I doubt the Bible mentions encephalopathy.

mohawk

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

Do you know what empathy is? Can you not imagine how it would feel to be a woman in that position. Imagine trying for a baby only to find out that it won't survive. That doesn't sound beautiful to me. It sounds devastating. imagine being 8 months pregnant and strangers in the street asking when the baby is due. Any woman who finds herself in that situation should have the choice without having to go to the UK.

Silvio.Dante

lazygal wrote: »

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

A pathetic attempt to justify killing a beautiful baby. Disgusting...

Silvio.Dante

Dades wrote: »

The wording of that question is misleading.

The word "happy" doesn't come into abortion. The question should be do you think women should be allowed come to their own decision regarding the termination of a foetus known to have DS.

This isn't a question about whether DS babies SHOULD be aborted, but whether one believes a woman should have to choice to do so.

Weak Dades.

Twisting words to accommodate a position whereby you allow DS babies be killed...:(

Silvio.Dante

swampgas wrote: »

. If that makes me a monster in your eyes,.

Monstrous is a good description...

Silvio.Dante

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Abortions are not "happy" ocassions.
I'm the wrong sex to have an abortion, however,
I think I would support my partner's decision to abort a DS foetus.

I would vote for this to be allowed in ROI

And if a couple didn't want a girl? Would you vote for that aswell..?

Silvio.Dante

Hang your heads in shame...:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL-ITHBW87M

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Silvio, the next time you drop a identikit one-liner into the discussion it will be treated as trolling.

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

A pathetic attempt to justify killing a beautiful baby. Disgusting...

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Weak Dades. Twisting words to accommodate a position whereby you allow DS babies be killed...:(

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Monstrous is a good description...

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Hang your heads in shame...:

Silvio is taking another holiday from the forum.

His next holiday will be permanent.

Loafing Oaf

micho wrote: »

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.

What struck me was his apparent belief that abortion should not be legal in cases of suicide ideation because Article 40.3.3 only permits abortion in cases where there is absolute certainty the mother would die otherwise. Now, it may be that is the most logical interpretation of the Amendment, but it is certainly not and never was the practice in Irish hospitals, otherwise our maternal mortality would be up there with Liberia and Sierra Leone.

It set me wondering though what would have happened if the Supreme Court had interpreted the Amendment that way in X or another case. Would we have had a national medical crisis to go with the constitutional one, with seriously ill pregnant women with pre-eclampsia etc. rushed to NI in ambulances for life-saving treatment? I'm pretty sure a referendum to repeal the Amendment would have been moved and passed ASAP though...

Turtwig

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I'm pretty sure a referendum to repeal the Amendment would have been moved and passed ASAP though...

Perhaps if it included the term 'liquidation' in it somewhere.

*Get's coat and runs*

Cosmicfox

Looking at YD facebook page isn't good for my blood pressure. They are were all pretty much saying in the comments that the woman in the US deserved to die for having that late-term abortion. So much for 'loving them both'.

I wonder if the pro-life movement would cease if you forced them to personally adopt and raise each and every baby they 'save' for the rest of their lives, instead of adding kids to care homes to wait for one of these loving couples they never stop talking about,'desperate to adopt', to appear out of the blue and provide a fairytale ending for every baby.

Also force them to pay back the woman who is forced to bear the child they don't want any money she spends on the pregnancy as well as any wages she loses through time missed at work while on leave.

And have them strapped to one of those labour pain simulating devices while the woman goes through child-birth.

Hotblack Desiato

Cosmicfox wrote: »

I wonder if the pro-life movement would cease if you forced them to personally adopt and raise each and every baby they 'save' for the rest of their lives, instead of adding kids to care homes to wait for one of these loving couples they never stop talking about,'desperate to adopt', to appear out of the blue and provide a fairytale ending for every baby.

It was much easier in the 1950s when baby trafficking to the US was unregulated and highly profitable.

Bannasidhe

To say John Bruton's comments have riled up my mate Fiona (until recently a law lecturer at UCD and an expert on Human Rights) is to put it mildly...:D

Sir, – Although John Bruton brings the useful perspective of a former legislator in his contribution to the debate on abortion legislation, he appears not to appreciate that politicians are empowered to legislate within the terms of the Constitution; not to override the Supreme Court’s interpretation of those terms. This has two serious implications undermining his argument.

First, unless the Supreme Court reverses its X case position and decides that suicidal ideation does not, somehow, constitute a risk to life it is patently not unconstitutional to include suicide in the abortion legislation.

Second, to do otherwise would leave us in an entirely unsatisfactory position where women with a constitutional right to access abortion (ie women for whom suicidal ideation constitutes a real and substantial risk to life that in probability can only averted by termination) must still wade in legally unclear waters.

He must understand – as must all – that simply leaving suicide out of the legislation does not erase its inclusion in the X case or change the constitutional position. Only a referendum could do that.

I assume that as a woman I cannot claim inclusion in what Mr Bruton calls “a priesthood of constitutional lawyers”, but these rudimentary points of constitutional law and organisation require no such “elevated” a perspective to understand. – Yours, etc,

Prof FIONA de LONDRAS,
Durham Law School,
Durham,
England.

http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224330113161


They really don't get it do they - legislators do not get to decide which bits of referendum results they can accept and which they can ignore.

They get to ask the question (often in a deliberately skewed manner) but are bound to accept the decision...unless there is another referendum.
In this instance there were two - and both upheld the suicide clause.

No wonder our country is f**ked when high ranking politicos can't comprehend such a basic fact.

aloyisious

There is just one thing that I don't think has been resolved fully by those whom I'll describe as Pro-lifers here without the use of theology and/or biblical texts. I'd like them to use day to day text-speak to deal what is a day to day event in peoples (women's) lives.

My question is: if one is to deny a woman a requested termination or abortion to stop her threatened suicide, should one then not have to take personal human responsibility (instead of saying it was God's will/word by use of biblical or philosophical text) for the loss of the feotus if the woman then follows through with her threat and kill's herself, given that the feotus can't survive without the woman.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

aloyisious wrote: »

My question is: if one is to deny a woman a requested termination or abortion to stop her threatened suicide, should one then not have to take personal human responsibility (instead of saying it was God's will/word by use of biblical or philosophical text) for the loss of the feotus if the woman then follows through with her threat and kill's herself, given that the feotus can't survive without the woman.

I'm not pro-life, but given the apparent shortage of pro-life advocates with the capacity to actually set out their case coherently, I'll attempt to point out why your statement is less relevant than you might think. Partly, because I thought this suicide argument had been pretty much gone through about five thousand posts ago.

The issue is whether a sensible response to any threat to suicide is to humour whatever demand is made. Suicide isn't necessarily a sign of mental incapacity But the idea that a threat of suicide is, in some way, a ground in a context where abortion is generally unavailable just doesn't make a lot of sense. It makes about as much sense as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjPBp6DOwgU

This leads to quite contorted and incoherent arguments from the pro-choice side. All because of a rather contorted and incoherent ruling by our Courts; what they likely wanted was simply to allow abortion for a young pregnant girl, but couldn't do so within the Constitution.

Very likely, it may not be possible to frame coherent law around the current wording, as interpreted by the Courts. Maybe we want a more liberal regime, or a more restricted regime. But what the Constitution currently has is a libricted regime. Hence, considerable amounts of energy expended by both sides, doing their best to leverage the situation to their political advantage.

Which, of course, is far better than actually trying to have some kind of engagement on the topic.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not pro-life, but given the apparent shortage of pro-life advocates with the capacity to actually set out their case coherently, I'll attempt to point out why your statement is less relevant than you might think. Partly, because I thought this suicide argument had been pretty much gone through about five thousand posts ago.

The issue is whether a sensible response to any threat to suicide is to humour whatever demand is made. Suicide isn't necessarily a sign of mental incapacity But the idea that a threat of suicide is, in some way, a ground in a context where abortion is generally unavailable just doesn't make a lot of sense. It makes about as much sense as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjPBp6DOwgU

This leads to quite contorted and incoherent arguments from the pro-choice side. All because of a rather contorted and incoherent ruling by our Courts; what they likely wanted was simply to allow abortion for a young pregnant girl, but couldn't do so within the Constitution.

Very likely, it may not be possible to frame coherent law around the current wording, as interpreted by the Courts. Maybe we want a more liberal regime, or a more restricted regime. But what the Constitution currently has is a libricted regime. Hence, considerable amounts of energy expended by both sides, doing their best to leverage the situation to their political advantage.

Which, of course, is far better than actually trying to have some kind of engagement on the topic.

Or to summorise the historical time-line:

1982/3:
- oh think of the little baybees - here look at these pictures - that might be killed (we have more pictures) unless we make something that is currently illegal extra special illegal by putting it in the Constitution that a little baybee in de whomb is of equal legal status as it's mammy even before it is born and the gubbermint must protect those little baybee sure they can't protect themselves whereas that durty hussy of a (probably) single mother deserves all she gets and after all this is a Catlick country what cherishes the little baybees.

1983-1992:
Don't even mention that word, print that word, think that word...and if you are going to Engerland to do that word you must never, ever, tell anyone!

1992:
What do you mean that poor child can't have an *abortion* but she was raped??? It's not like she wants to be getting an *abortion* here now is it??...Ah, jazus now lads - that wasn't what we meant at all like...what if she kills herself????...sure she's only a child herself like...oh we'd never live with the guilt if she did kill herself. We must do something...anything...

And thus was was conceived the still unlegislated for Suicide Clause (aka 'The Floodgates') .

MrPudding

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The issue is whether a sensible response to any threat to suicide is to humour whatever demand is made.

I think it is belittling, and possibly offensive to some, to suggest that any steps taken to treat, or to otherwise reduce a risk of suicide is humouring the suicidal person.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Suicide isn't necessarily a sign of mental incapacity

I am not an expert in mental health, but I would consider that the threat of self destruction, if genuine, is most certainly a sign that, mentally, something is amiss. I would further suggest that even where the threat is not actually genuine it might still be indicative of an issue as “normal” people don’t, generally, threaten suicide in order to get what they want. To me it is an indication of an inability to interact in society in a manner consistent with social norms.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But the idea that a threat of suicide is, in some way, a ground in a context where abortion is generally unavailable just doesn't make a lot of sense.

The threat of suicide is not the ground by which an abortion is available where it otherwise would not be. I have not read the X case in full, but my understanding is, and I am happy to be put straight on this, that the reason for granting permission to have the abortion was a threat to the life of the girl. Obviously the controversial part is that the source of the threat to the girls life was herself, but in legal terms that the threat of suicide was present was not relevant to the permission being granted for the abortion, the only thing that was relevant for that permission to be granted was that there was a threat to the girls life.

You might think that this is an overly semantic argument, but then most legal arguments are, and if they weren’t we would not nead lawyers.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

This leads to quite contorted and incoherent arguments from the pro-choice side. All because of a rather contorted and incoherent ruling by our Courts; what they likely wanted was simply to allow abortion for a young pregnant girl, but couldn't do so within the Constitution.

I don’t think it does lead to contorted or incoherent arguments, nor do I think the court’s ruling was either. I will allow that in some cases the court might decide the outcome it would prefer and then look for a way to justify that, but I think it is not necessary to look at X like this.

The question was not “is threat of suicide grounds for abortion” it was “is threat of suicide a valid threat against the life of the woman.” It was already constitutionally establish that threat to life was valid reason fro an abortion to be allowed.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Very likely, it may not be possible to frame coherent law around the current wording, as interpreted by the Courts. Maybe we want a more liberal regime, or a more restricted regime. But what the Constitution currently has is a libricted regime. Hence, considerable amounts of energy expended by both sides, doing their best to leverage the situation to their political advantage.

Which, of course, is far better than actually trying to have some kind of engagement on the topic.

I am not sure why it might not be possible to frame coherent law around the currently constitutional wording, with or without the interpretation currently in place.

I really don’t see the difficulty. Where there is a threat to the life of the pregnant woman (or girl) an abortion, should she, or in the case of a minor, someone with authority to act on her behalf, choose to have one, should be available.

MrP

swampgas

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Very likely, it may not be possible to frame coherent law around the current wording, as interpreted by the Courts. Maybe we want a more liberal regime, or a more restricted regime. But what the Constitution currently has is a libricted regime. Hence, considerable amounts of energy expended by both sides, doing their best to leverage the situation to their political advantage.

Which, of course, is far better than actually trying to have some kind of engagement on the topic.

This is the elephant in the room, politically speaking - that the current constitution is unworkable. Article 40.3.3 needs to be removed or significantly amended before any coherent legislation can be created. However the current government with its large FG component is not going to touch it.

This was really obvious during the Oireachtas hearings, where everyone knew that the core problem was the constitution, but the hearings were specifically framed in such a way that this could not really be discussed.

keane2097

Hotblack Desiato

What's that? Requires a login to view.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MrPudding wrote: »

I think it is belittling, and possibly offensive to some, to suggest that any steps taken to treat, or to otherwise reduce a risk of suicide is humouring the suicidal person.

Fine. I think ostentatious offense-taking is a tool used by both sides to avoid meaningful engagement.

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not an expert in mental health, but I would consider that the threat of self destruction, if genuine, is most certainly a sign that, mentally, something is amiss.

I'd guess its a sign that something is amiss, just not necessarily a mental health issue. I'm not aware of anyone arguing that Marie Fleming is incapable of making a decision for herself.

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not sure why it might not be possible to frame coherent law around the currently constitutional wording, with or without the interpretation currently in place.

Grand. I'll accept that contention when I actually see a coherent Bill. In the meantime, I'll simply point out that the reason for political paralysis is precisely because they can see a need for a referendum, while really not wanting to go there.

swampgas wrote: »

This is the elephant in the room, politically speaking - that the current constitution is unworkable. Article 40.3.3 needs to be removed or significantly amended before any coherent legislation can be created. However the current government with its large FG component is not going to touch it.


This was really obvious during the Oireachtas hearings, where everyone knew that the core problem was the constitution, but the hearings were specifically framed in such a way that this could not really be discussed.

Absolutely. Meanwhile, discussion rotates meaninglessly around suicide, as if this was a theme that was central to the issue. As far as the political class are concerned, there's no possibility of brokering a consensus position on abortion, so they won't even try.

Morag

I can completely understand how a woman facing a crises pregnancy which may utterly change her life and have repercussions on many people would feel like her life is ending and that if the pregnancy continues that she does not want the life the pregnancy would lead to and due to the resulting despair would consider killing herself.

Being in a crises pregnancy situation is to experience a lack of control over your own life and own body and while it may not seem rational thinking about ending your life is also thinking about what little control over you life and your body you do have.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

I can completely understand why people will keep rehearsing the same old stuff about suicide, as it requires absolutely no real engagement with the issue. Or, maybe, what people are seeking is that comforting "Prayers of the Faithful" feel that comes from repeating superficially attractive propositions. One side can repeat "I can completely understand why someone would feel suicidal", while the other side respond "Abortion is not a solution".