Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

lazygal

Suicide is at the very heart of the X case. To say the government should legislate for X but exclude suicide as a reason for being able to have a legal abortion is totally illogical, even leaving aside the fact we voted in 2002 for a second time not to exclude suicide as a reason for abortion provision.

Morag

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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".

How trite a response to a person sharing their experiences, thanks.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

lazygal wrote: »

Suicide is at the very heart of the X case. To say the government should legislate for X but exclude suicide as a reason for being able to have a legal abortion is totally illogical, even leaving aside the fact we voted in 2002 for a second time not to exclude suicide as a reason for abortion provision.

That statement only works as rhetoric, for the reasons already stated in several cycles on this thread.

For your statement to make sense, the X case judgement would need to be a coherent statement. Instead, it was a quick fix. Legislating for the X case is digging while we're in the hole.

Now, I'd suspect that an amount of the support for legislating for the X case is that pro-choice folk assume that the process will be abused, so that a liberal abortion regime will be achieved without the necessity of winning a referendum. And the pro-life side aren't so dumb that they don't see that.

Hence, just to take one instance, six thousand plus posts going nowhere.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Morag wrote: »

How trite a response to a person sharing their experiences, thanks.

Is there a drama forum on the site?

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Is there a drama forum on the site?

Yes. It's right next to the Lack of Empathy forum.

swampgas

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That statement only works as rhetoric, for the reasons already stated in several cycles on this thread.

For your statement to make sense, the X case judgement would need to be a coherent statement. Instead, it was a quick fix. Legislating for the X case is digging while we're in the hole.

Now, I'd suspect that an amount of the support for legislating for the X case is that pro-choice folk assume that the process will be abused, so that a liberal abortion regime will be achieved without the necessity of winning a referendum. And the pro-life side aren't so dumb that they don't see that.

Hence, just to take one instance, six thousand plus posts going nowhere.

That's not how I see it myself. The X case legislation has been delayed for 20 years because successive governments have refused to re-open the debate on abortion in general. You cannot really discuss the X case without also discussing the wider issue of abortion for other reasons.

The reason people like YD and others are pushing hard for the Supreme Court to be ignored and for no legislation to be introduced for X is not because they think suicide is a minor issue - it's because they want to shut down the whole abortion debate in general.

The X case is important. For two reasons, IMO.
(1) There may be real cases, although rare, where a woman is genuinely suicidal because she is pregnant.
(2) Allowing the government to fudge the X case now, and preserve the status quo, would be massively regressive, and send the message that the abortion issue can continue to be ignored ad infinitum.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

swampgas wrote: »

The reason people like YD and others are pushing hard for the Supreme Court to be ignored and for no legislation to be introduced for X is not because they think suicide is a minor issue - it's because they want to shut down the whole abortion debate in general.

What I'd suggest is that the pro-life side have nothing to gain from either legislation or a referendum. They can only lose. What I'd also suggest is that suicide is a minor issue in this context, but legislating to provide a procedure through which suicide would be accepted as a ground would be significant. And the reason for that significance is that the process can be expected to be abused.

So, while I don't necessarily disagree with your overarching point, I'd still feel the signficance of the suicide issue to both camps is much as I've said.

swampgas wrote: »

There may be real cases, although rare, where a woman is genuinely suicidal because she is pregnant.

There may be; but you've to point to an even smaller subset of cases, where the response to that rare risk of suicide is to perform an abortion instead of addressing whatever underlying issue is provoking the suicidal impulse. (At this point, the usual grandstanders can be expected to repeat the usual stuff).

The issue isn't about suicide, but probably is around cases where there are compelling social reasons for allowing abortion, such as where the mother is underage, or where the pregancy is a result of rape or where there's a foetal abnormality. That's where a substantial debate could be had, but also where both pro-life and pro-choice want to avoid debate. Pro-choice don't want to discuss those cases, as it still falls short of a free choice - it's still a debate about establishing where a pregnancy just has to proceed, regardless of the choice of the mother. Pro-life don't want the debate because it shreds and discards the idea that there has to be a compelling and immediate risk to the life of the mother. For the sake of argument, in the case of foetal abnormality, the argument has nothing in particular to do with medical risks to the mother. It just has to do with society not being arsed to look after the disabled, if we can avoid it.

The more you consider it, the more you see why politicians just don't want to get into a debate on abortion. There's just too much reality to confront.

swampgas wrote: »

Allowing the government to fudge the X case now, and preserve the status quo, would be massively regressive, and send the message that the abortion issue can continue to be ignored ad infinitum.

But isn't it fair to say that it was international intervention - this European case saying that abortion law needed to be clear - that has put this thing on the domestic agenda. It's not really because domestic political forces felt this was the time to progress the issue, and there's nothing particularly to suggest that there is some new political consensus forming.

There was some political momentum building around the Savita Halappanavar case, with a nice little undercurrent of "third world country decries backward Irish abortion laws". But the New Delhi rape case killed that spin, and (if the leaks are accurate) now it looks like the report will find the case was (as many suspected) mostly about the failure to monitor risks of infection, with legal uncertainty only a contributory factor. Absolutely nothing there that would give political cover to introduce an unrelated procedure for establishing a substantial risk of suicide.

marienbad

GCU- you are constantly ignoring a broader issue, i.e the contempt successive governments have shown ( no matter what their reasons) in not giving effect to a Supreme Court decision based on a the will of the people.

On the specific issue itself ,whether it is good law or bad law is irrelevant and only time will tell if that is so. You are just rehashing the arguments that were made before those votes took place. Also what was in the minds of those judges you have no way of knowing. The only ''facts '' at this stage is that a judgement was given and we have run out of wriggle room and so must implement it.

All of this or a variation of this was predicted before that original amendment was ever included in the constitution and that is not going to change.

I have long suspected that as a nation we prefer vagueness over clarity and this is just another example of it.

aloyisious

Unless our Gov't put's together and enacts a bill that will satisfy our own country's Supreme Court's judgement on a case put to it on our behalf, then I'd have to agree with marienbad on what we historically opt for, long-fingering an urgent item while metaphorically extending the same finger towards fellow girls and women citizens of our's. The message:your existence and life do not matter to us. The end result:a trip to foreign shores or a short local walk for a secret birth or death.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

marienbad wrote: »

GCU- you are constantly ignoring a broader issue, i.e the contempt successive governments have shown ( no matter what their reasons) in not giving effect to a Supreme Court decision based on a the will of the people.

Oh, I can and do concede that the absence of legislation is glaring and may be incomprehensible to outsiders. Yet, you've a Dáil of politicians who (at some level) appreciate that if they don't vote in favour of paying Irish banking debts, the world as they know it would cease. On the other hand, no-one is going to lose a seat over a failure to advance abortion legislation, while a seat could well be lost over miscalculating how to promote such legislation.

marienbad wrote: »

I have long suspected that as a nation we prefer vagueness over clarity and this is just another example of it.

Very much so. The lack of clarity is just our way of resolving conflicts. It means we don't need to be explicit about who is a winner and who is a loser. Usually, a way is left for everyone to get what they want at the individual level. In the case of abortion, the way that's left for women is the journey to the UK. Doing it this way means there's no need to confront a slate of issues such as the control of the publically funded 'voluntary' hospital sector, which involves a lot more than abortion.

Everyone who matters gets what they want here.

Sulla Felix

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Everyone who matters gets what they want here.

I don't think the thousands of women who have to leave the country to get an abortion are getting what they want. The politics of compromise, far from leaving everyone happy, invariably leaves everyone unsatisfied and with a vague sense of unease about the matter. Especially on this issue where asked outright, most people would say it's not a matter which can be compromised upon.

aloyisious

GCU Flexible Demeanour quote:

Oh, I can and do concede that the absence of legislation is glaring and may be incomprehensible to outsiders. Yet, you've a Dáil of politicians who (at some level) appreciate that if they don't vote in favour of paying Irish banking debts, the world as they know it would cease. On the other hand, no-one is going to lose a seat over a failure to advance abortion legislation, while a seat could well be lost over miscalculating how to promote such legislation.

Very much so. The lack of clarity is just our way of resolving conflicts. It means we don't need to be explicit about who is a winner and who is a loser. Usually, a way is left for everyone to get what they want at the individual level. In the case of abortion, the way that's left for women is the journey to the UK. Doing it this way means there's no need to confront a slate of issues such as the control of the publically funded 'voluntary' hospital sector, which involves a lot more than abortion.

Everyone who matters gets what they want here.

......................................................................................

Ezcellently put description of the situation and the national way of handling (or not, as the case is) an unwanted problem.

Brian Shanahan

stanley 2 wrote: »

a life sentence versus a death sentence for the babby

A) a foetus is not a baby. A foetus exists inside the womb totally dependant on its mother for its immediate life, a baby exists outside the womb, and is capable of living independantly for a few days.

A foetus is not alive, you cannot kill what is not alive, therefore abortion is not murder. If you look at abortion law in the UK, the cut off of 24 weeks is actually earlier than when a foetus can reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb, even with the assistance of modern medicine.

Brian Shanahan

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Hang your heads in shame...:

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

If abortion were legal in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1889, Klara Plozl may have aborted her son.

Hang your heads in shame anti-abortionist. If abortion were legal, we may never have witnessed the Holocaust.

Turtwig

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A) a foetus is not a baby.
...
A foetus is not alive, you cannot kill what is not alive,

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

If abortion were legal in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1889, Klara Plozl may have aborted her son.

How could she have aborted her son if her son was never alive?

Brian Shanahan

Jernal wrote: »

How could she have aborted her son if her son was never alive?

Because abortion is not murder. Nice to advertise your inability to think for me.

Turtwig

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Because abortion is not murder. Nice to advertise your inability to think for me.

Sorry but you just said a foetus is not alive. So either the "aborted" Hitler was alive or he wasn't. If the foetus wasn't alive then Hitler wasn't alive, so a "son" couldn't possibly have been aborted.

Also, even I'm not understanding your point, using ad homs isn't going to help. If anything they're going to make me less likely to understand it and possibly bias me towards thinking I'm right.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

you cannot kill what is not alive

You mean bullets won't stop them? :eek:

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Sulla Felix wrote: »

I don't think the thousands of women who have to leave the country to get an abortion are getting what they want.

Who's to know? Contrast with how people in mortgage arrears are effectively immune to repossession, despite the lack of any Constitutional imperative. Is abortion ever going to available in Mount Carmel on the VHI B Options plan? If so, will they have a discrete side entrance? If you've access to the money to make the journey, it sort of suits our culture to quietly slip away out of public view and arrive back, with not a word said to anyone.

Now, just to be clear, I freely admit that what I've just said is complete supposition. But (like everyone) I can't help noticing that the political system isn't exactly rushing to fill the legislative gap. Again, contrast the situation to the IBRC legislation. They'll stay up all night, if they see the potential for Armageddon. They don't see it here, and I'd suggest we'd do well to explore why that might be.

Well, that's if we're interested in something changing.

Stark

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A foetus is not alive, you cannot kill what is not alive, therefore abortion is not murder. If you look at abortion law in the UK, the cut off of 24 weeks is actually earlier than when a foetus can reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb, even with the assistance of modern medicine.

I'm pro-choice but I disagree with that. A foetus is alive, at least in the biological sense. The ethical issues surround what is personhood (do we define it at fertilization, implantation, cell differentiation, brain formation, viability etc.) and whether or not it is morally justifiable for a state to forcibly assume control over one person's body for the purpose of giving life support to another person's.

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

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.

With respect my post was quite a clear statement on the legal situation as it stands at present.

I have much more respect for someone who comes out and says, "I dont like the law" than constantly trying to convince us that legal wrongs are being done (in the circumstances of rape and foetal abnormalities) when they are clearly not.

Brian Shanahan

Jernal wrote: »

Also, even I'm not understanding your point, using ad homs isn't going to help. If anything they're going to make me less likely to understand it and possibly bias me towards thinking I'm right.

I was attacking the post I quoted by showing how stupidly far the argument goes. "Look what happens when you don't abort down syndrome babies" is as stupid as "look what happens when you don't abort Adolf Hitler", and to be honest I've no moral qualms of throwing the stupidity of posts right back in the faces of the posters in cases like this.

With regards to your post to my post it kind of annoyed me, as it was focusing on a shared characteristic of two posts where my points were meant to be completely different. Sorry if I caused offence.

Brian Shanahan

Stark wrote: »

I'm pro-choice but I disagree with that. A foetus is alive, at least in the biological sense.

Unless the foetus is viable outside the womb, I cannot see this. The life of an actual existing woman is far more important to me than the potential life of a foetus implanted inside her womb.

lazygal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

With respect my post was quite a clear statement on the legal situation as it stands at present.

I have much more respect for someone who comes out and says, "I dont like the law" than constantly trying to convince us that legal wrongs are being done (in the circumstances of rape and foetal abnormalities) when they are clearly not.

As I said, I'm fully aware of the law. I'm not saying legal wrong is being done, I stated that termination in the case of fatal abnormalities should form part of the debate. I never mentioned rape or termination for other reasons.
As someone currently pregnant and awaiting an anomoly scan in seven weeks time, I don't like the fact that should we be told the foetus is incompatible with life we have to continue the pregnancy or seek expensive medical treatment in another country, with the stress of travel and worrying about who'll mind our other child. I don't like that the law in Ireland means if you don't have the money or backup for the second option, forced continuation of a pregnancy is all you have. I see no reason why that shouldn't form part of the debate.

OldNotWIse

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Unless the foetus is viable outside the womb, I cannot see this. The life of an actual existing woman is far more important to me than the potential life of a foetus implanted inside her womb.

Put it this way, if a foetus is not alive then it is dead. If every foetus was dead nobody would ever be born. I agree with you regaridn "potential" and "viability" of course but to say a foetus is dead is just, well a bit silly really.

Brian Shanahan

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Put it this way, if a foetus is not alive then it is dead. If every foetus was dead nobody would ever be born. I agree with you regaridn "potential" and "viability" of course but to say a foetus is dead is just, well a bit silly really.

I'm not saying it is dead. I am saying it is not yet alive.

lazygal

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'm not saying it is dead. I am saying it is not yet alive.

In strictly legal terms until a baby has drawn breath its not deemed to have had a separate existence. That's been a crucial point in some cases of infanticide.

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

As I said, I'm fully aware of the law. I'm not saying legal wrong is being done, I stated that termination in the case of fatal abnormalities should form part of the debate. I never mentioned rape or termination for other reasons.
As someone currently pregnant and awaiting an anomoly scan in seven weeks time, I don't like the fact that should we be told the foetus is incompatible with life we have to continue the pregnancy or seek expensive medical treatment in another country, with the stress of travel and worrying about who'll mind our other child. I don't like that the law in Ireland means if you don't have the money or backup for the second option, forced continuation of a pregnancy is all you have. I see no reason why that shouldn't form part of the debate.

If you are fully aware of the law then why are you constantly asking people if they would be willing to adopt disabled babies? Carry other people's foetuses for them? These are ridiculous questions, and completely emotive and subjecitive. The X case did not mention anything about a certain percentage of the population being obliged to do any of the above. I mean, do you ambush every Trocaire person collecting on the street and demand that they donate their dinner to hungry people in developing countries?

By all means be subjective, but dont try to convince us of your knowledge of the law and then pepper your posts with emotive and ridiculous suggestions (such as scientific impossibilities).

Fair enough you know the law and dont like it and think it should be changed...but you wont convince anyone to hold a referendum bt suggesting that other people have unwanted foetuses implanted in them.

OldNotWIse

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I'm not saying it is dead. I am saying it is not yet alive.

What is it if its not yet alive and not dead?

lazygal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

If you are fully aware of the law then why are you constantly asking people if they would be willing to adopt disabled babies? Carry other people's foetuses for them? These are ridiculous questions, and completely emotive and subjecitive. The X case did not mention anything about a certain percentage of the population being obliged to do any of the above. I mean, do you ambush every Trocaire person collecting on the street and demand that they donate their dinner to hungry people in developing countries?

By all means be subjective, but dont try to convince us of your knowledge of the law and then pepper your posts with emotive and ridiculous suggestions (such as scientific impossibilities).

Fair enough you know the law and dont like it and think it should be changed...but you wont convince anyone to hold a referendum bt suggesting that other people have unwanted foetuses implanted in them.

I'm not going to engage with this. I don't think I'm being ridiculous. I never suggested unwanted foetuses be implanted in others. I don't know why you're reading things that into my posts that aren't there.