Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

seamus

Irish Times letters page today:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2013/0219/1224330207298.html

The correct course of action for the doctor or psychiatrist to a woman seeing an abortion in such circumstance would be to place her in care.

Kind of appropriate and utterly sickening that this letter appears on the same day that the Taoiseach is rumoured to make an apology for the Magdalene laundries. "Suicidal pregnant women should be locked up for their own good".

Some people never learn...

lazygal

seamus wrote: »

Irish Times letters page today:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2013/0219/1224330207298.html



Kind of appropriate and utterly sickening that this letter appears on the same day that the Taoiseach is rumoured to make an apology for the Magdalene laundries. "Suicidal pregnant women should be locked up for their own good".

Some people never learn...

Was that letter from Silvio?
That attitude shows the real feelings of some towards mental health, lock the person up until they've pulled themselves together basically.

kylith

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think you are over simplifying the pro life stance tbh. Yes there are nut jobs (but you get those on both sides of every argument in all walks of life) and tempting as it may be to pretend that these are the only people in opposition to you, it is simply not true. Most reasonable people do not wish to see any woman forced to continue with a pregnancy if her life is endangered or if the foetus is not compatible with life - indeed I have already posted a story about that here illustrating just how much such restrictions can affect and hurt a woman (and her partner).

Unfortunately you need only read back over this and similar threads to see that there are people who do not believe that abortion should be available under any circumstances, and there are those who would have suicidal pregnant women incarcerated until the baby is born.

No, most people are not like that but, as with most things, the wack-jobs are the most vocal.

OldNotWIse

kylith wrote: »

Unfortunately you need only read back over this and similar threads to see that there are people who do not believe that abortion should be available under any circumstances, and there are those who would have suicidal pregnant women incarcerated until the baby is born.

No, most people are not like that but, as with most things, the wack-jobs are the most vocal.

I have as little time for them as you, but simply do not want to be lumped in with them.

OldNotWIse

seamus wrote: »

Irish Times letters page today:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2013/0219/1224330207298.html



Kind of appropriate and utterly sickening that this letter appears on the same day that the Taoiseach is rumoured to make an apology for the Magdalene laundries. "Suicidal pregnant women should be locked up for their own good".

Some people never learn...

Eh?

She is pregnant...and suicidal...so let's incarcerate her until she gives birth?...imagine what that would do to someone??

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

Was that letter from Silvio?
That attitude shows the real feelings of some towards mental health, lock the person up until they've pulled themselves together basically.

Reminds me of something my nanny would say. My Mam has had depression for years and my nanny basically doesnt believe in mental illness (or is so uncomfortable with it she needs to pretend it doesnt exist) and constantly says things like "ah you're suffering from a good dose of yourself" or "if you had more to think about you wouldnt have time to sit around feeling sorry for yourself" :rolleyes:

lazygal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Reminds me of something my nanny would say. My Mam has had depression for years and my nanny basically doesnt believe in mental illness (or is so uncomfortable with it she needs to pretend it doesnt exist) and constantly says things like "ah you're suffering from a good dose of yourself" or "if you had more to think about you wouldnt have time to sit around feeling sorry for yourself" :rolleyes:

That was my granddad but he was a nice old sod otherwise. His attitude was that you needed to pray and be more grateful. We only found out after he died that a brother of his committed suicide in the 1920s, I don't know if that affected how he reacted to mental health but it might explain a few things.

I wonder how many people want the right to travel rescinded? How would that work if a pregnant suicidal woman was detained, but wanted to travel for an abortion in the UK? Would she be able to sign herself out or would it be involuntary detention?

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

That was my granddad but he was a nice old sod otherwise. His attitude was that you needed to pray and be more grateful. We only found out after he died that a brother of his committed suicide in the 1920s, I don't know if that affected how he reacted to mental health but it might explain a few things.

I wonder how many people want the right to travel rescinded? How would that work if a pregnant suicidal woman was detained, but wanted to travel for an abortion in the UK? Would she be able to sign herself out or would it be involuntary detention?

I'm not sure. As far as I know they can only detain people if its justified for common good (eg that woman who has TB and is currently incarcerated, somewhere up north I think) but I dont think they could detain someone in those circumstances, and I dont think it would be right to. If I want to travel to Holland to smoke weed in a cafe (though I heard we can no longer do this??) because its legal there and illegal here, I wouldnt be too happy if someone tried to stop me. I dont have a problem living by the law in my own country but if someone wants to travel to avail of something legal somewhere else thats not really anyones business. Dont know, maybe some would call me a hypocrite for that, or say "we are exporting our problem".

lazygal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm not sure. As far as I know they can only detain people if its justified for common good (eg that woman who has TB and is currently incarcerated, somewhere up north I think) but I dont think they could detain someone in those circumstances, and I dont think it would be right to. If I want to travel to Holland to smoke weed in a cafe (though I heard we can no longer do this??) because its legal there and illegal here, I wouldnt be too happy if someone tried to stop me. I dont have a problem living by the law in my own country but if someone wants to travel to avail of something legal somewhere else thats not really anyones business. Dont know, maybe some would call me a hypocrite for that, or say "we are exporting our problem".

Well I've flown a few times during my last pregnancy and will fly again this time around. How would my right to travel be protected in that case, would all pregnant women be denied the right to travel, or only those who've been in care, or all women who might be pregnant? Would they be doing tests at the airport?

I think its breathtaking that someone was able to reason out to themselves, and then write a letter to a national newspaper, proposing that a woman who's suicidal and pregnant should be detained. Have they even thought through how that could happen?

PopePalpatine

lazygal wrote: »

Was that letter from Silvio?
That attitude shows the real feelings of some towards mental health, lock the person up until they've pulled themselves together basically.

No, it has no smilies and more than 1 line.

BTW, I can't believe some are still under the "Indirect Abortion Delusion". When I had an appendiscectomy, it wasn't "a procedure to save my life with the unfortunate consequence of the loss of my appendix".

aloyisious

Kerry County Council voted unanimously to oppose any measures that would not uphold the right to life of the unborn and the equal right to life of the mother.

Doctor Strange

aloyisious wrote: »

Kerry County Council voted unanimously to oppose any measures that would not uphold the right to life of the unborn and the equal right to life of the mother.

This, a day after they backed gay marriage. 1 step forward, 1 step back.

seamus

This is the same county council who voted in favour of allowing people to drink-drive. I wouldn't exactly be holding Kerry CC up as the yardstick of typical Irish sentiment.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

1 step forward, 1 step back.

There's a gay marriage joke in there somewhere, but I'm not making it.

seamus wrote: »

This is the same county council who voted in favour of allowing people to drink-drive. I wouldn't exactly be holding Kerry CC up as the yardstick of typical Irish sentiment.

I'd say it's fairly representative of how we approach issues. One minute, we're all about young, vibrant and cosmopolitan Galway City, welcoming people from every corner of the globe to join in a rich cultural banquet in a climate of mutual respect for the humanity and beliefs of all. Next minute, we're in Galway University Hospital, telling Asians they can't have an abortion (pronounced "abartion"). It’s a nation of Zeligs.

Brian Shanahan

OldNotWIse wrote: »

No, I do not have to accept that all pro life people are nut jobs.

I do, because trying to impose your personal views on others is the nut-job argument.

The only sensible position if you are against something is to not do that thing, excepting situations where that action or idea is harmful either personally or to society generally (I'm not going to advocate legalising murder any time soon), not try to ensure that nobody else can't do the thing you don't want to do.

And in the abortion debate today the side which is imposing its views as law onto the other are the anti-abortionists.

And the coat-hanger argument is particularly appropriate because that is the exact situation when you outlaw abortions. Outlawing abortion is like any of the various forms of prohibition, you don't get rid of the underlying issue, you just make sure that it is dearer, more dangerous and more shameful for the people who are caught up in the middle. While there are no actual statistics (very hard to count the number of something that's regarded as criminal) estimates are very high (example).

marienbad

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What ridiculous situation are you talking about exactly?
The X case is being legislated for (albeit too late but I dont think anyone is challenging that).

That very riduculous situation that has pertained for 20 years ! Why would you even need to ask ! And the ''solution'' will be on such narrow grounds that we will continue to export our problem for possibly another 20 years.

Meantime all will be ok as we will have panels ( mainly of men I presume) deciding yet again what is best for women.

doctoremma

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The only sensible position if you are against something is to not do that thing, excepting situations where that action or idea is harmful either personally or to society generally (I'm not going to advocate legalising murder any time soon), not try to ensure that nobody else can't do the thing you don't want to do.

I disagree with this point, in that it underestimates the valid opinion (whether you agree with it or not) of the average pro-lifer. One has to assume that such a person DOES genuinely see great harm for society if it is to allow abortion, and I can't knock their desire (even though their tactics can be shocking) to try and change the law to reflect the damage they think it is causing. I suspect for many of them, advice to sit back and simply opt out is unacceptable.

An(other) analogy: if the UK were to re-enact the death penalty, I would fight on the streets to change that law. It wouldn't be enough for me to simply "not do that thing". I am wholly against the death penalty, to the point where no argument could sway me. Too right I'd try to enforce that opinion - even if a minority one - into law, because I think that's the right thing to do. Perhaps that means I am willing to undermine democracy too? I don't know...

Brian Shanahan

doctoremma wrote: »

An(other) analogy: if the UK were to re-enact the death penalty, I would fight on the streets to change that law. It wouldn't be enough for me to simply "not do that thing". I am wholly against the death penalty, to the point where no argument could sway me. Too right I'd try to enforce that opinion - even if a minority one - into law, because I think that's the right thing to do. Perhaps that means I am willing to undermine democracy too? I don't know...

Having the death penalty is actively harmful to society (in today's world societies with an active death penalty* are universally more violent and brutal than those without it), having abortion is not (in fact I'll go so far to say having abortion as an active good in society). That is where the difference is.

Now if abortion was being used, say, in the way the Nazis intended to use it in Germany (i.e. as a means of state population control), I would be against it. But as a completely voluntary procedure, outlawing it is wrong.

*For example the death penalty is still legally on the UK books for three cases, 1) arson on a Royal Navy installment, 2) high treason against the monarch, 3) possession and public use of the "auld alliance" Scottish flag. I discount the UK because the penalty is never used, despite half of Scotland breaking 3 above.

doctoremma

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Having the death penalty is actively harmful to society (in today's world societies with an active death penalty* are universally more violent and brutal than those without it).

Agree.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

having abortion is not (in fact I'll go so far to say having abortion as an active good in society). That is where the difference is.

Some would disagree (not me, BTW). And their disagreement - what the principle of abortion represents in terms of humanity's downfall, preying on the vulnerable, etc etc - is a strongly held conviction for most.

It's not an obvious tactic (to me anyway) to require that people simply ignore their convictions, especially when it would allow what they view as out and out murder (whereas my conviction that all reality TV is nonsense is routinely ignored by the programmers).

Don't get me wrong - the phrase "Don't want abortion, don't get one" is no stranger to my tongue. But I wonder if it looks far too dismissive to be taken seriously?

Having said all of that, I have never had anyone change their mind about abortion after a pint-fuelled chat with me about it (although I rarely meet pro-lifers). So not sure what tactics WOULD work. Maybe it does come down to majority rules?

Lingua Franca

OldNotWIse wrote: »

If I want to travel to Holland to smoke weed in a cafe (though I heard we can no longer do this??) because its legal there and illegal here,

Completely off topic, but if this is about coffeeshops no longer selling to tourists then that only applies to border towns wanting to end the influx of Belgians/Germans into tiny wee villages just to buy weed. They were crudding up the infrastructure and investing nothing into the local economy. It's left up to individual districts to choose if they wanted to ban tourists or not, and most don't. Please pass that on, there seems to be a lot of confusion about it.

OldNotWIse

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I do, because trying to impose your personal views on others is the nut-job argument.

The only sensible position if you are against something is to not do that thing, excepting situations where that action or idea is harmful either personally or to society generally (I'm not going to advocate legalising murder any time soon), not try to ensure that nobody else can't do the thing you don't want to do.

And in the abortion debate today the side which is imposing its views as law onto the other are the anti-abortionists.

And the coat-hanger argument is particularly appropriate because that is the exact situation when you outlaw abortions. Outlawing abortion is like any of the various forms of prohibition, you don't get rid of the underlying issue, you just make sure that it is dearer, more dangerous and more shameful for the people who are caught up in the middle. While there are no actual statistics (very hard to count the number of something that's regarded as criminal) estimates are very high (example).

Oh ok then. So in the future we dont need any legal system or legislature - just a "if you think its wrong dont do it" natural law kind of approach. Glad we did this.

OldNotWIse

marienbad wrote: »

That very riduculous situation that has pertained for 20 years ! Why would you even need to ask ! And the ''solution'' will be on such narrow grounds that we will continue to export our problem for possibly another 20 years.

Meantime all will be ok as we will have panels ( mainly of men I presume) deciding yet again what is best for women.

The reason I need to ask is because you have not limited your posts to the X case only - so how would I know what "situation" you are talking about? I'm not a mind reader.

Yes I know the X case should have been legislated for before now, and I have said this more than once. It is now being legislated for.

Is that the ridiculous situation you refer to? If so, what do you propose we do?

Also, why do you propose it will only be men on the panels?

OldNotWIse

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Completely off topic, but if this is about coffeeshops no longer selling to tourists then that only applies to border towns wanting to end the influx of Belgians/Germans into tiny wee villages just to buy weed. They were crudding up the infrastructure and investing nothing into the local economy. It's left up to individual districts to choose if they wanted to ban tourists or not, and most don't. Please pass that on, there seems to be a lot of confusion about it.

:P:P:P:P:P:Pthanks! hahaha

OldNotWIse

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Having the death penalty is actively harmful to society (in today's world societies with an active death penalty* are universally more violent and brutal than those without it), having abortion is not (in fact I'll go so far to say having abortion as an active good in society). That is where the difference is.

Now if abortion was being used, say, in the way the Nazis intended to use it in Germany (i.e. as a means of state population control), I would be against it. But as a completely voluntary procedure, outlawing it is wrong.

*For example the death penalty is still legally on the UK books for three cases, 1) arson on a Royal Navy installment, 2) high treason against the monarch, 3) possession and public use of the "auld alliance" Scottish flag. I discount the UK because the penalty is never used, despite half of Scotland breaking 3 above.

I am not sure if this is the best example of subjectivity or the worst case of "I think therefore it's right" I have ever seen

marienbad

OldNotWIse wrote: »

The reason I need to ask is because you have not limited your posts to the X case only - so how would I know what "situation" you are talking about? I'm not a mind reader.

Yes I know the X case should have been legislated for before now, and I have said this more than once. It is now being legislated for.

Is that the ridiculous situation you refer to? If so, what do you propose we do?

Also, why do you propose it will only be men on the panels?

The whole debate has been a debacle from start to finish, from the day the campaign started to have a ban in the constitution for something that was already illegal , IMHO it actually made abortion inevitable. The whole 30 year saga has been ridiculous from start to finish and women in their thousands journey every year to another jurisdiction just so we can feel good about ourselves.

The lack of legislation on x is just the most obvious example of that ridiculousness.

Of course it won't be only men on the panels , but they will constitute the substantial majority, how do I know this ? Because it was ever thus and I see no indication that that will change. Do you ?

And by the way we are where we are because ''reasonable people'' on the prolife side did not detach themselves from the extremes. A bit like the GOP in the USA.

OldNotWIse

marienbad wrote: »

The whole debate has been a debacle from start to finish, from the day the campaign started to have a ban in the constitution for something that was already illegal , IMHO it actually made abortion inevitable. The whole 30 year saga has been ridiculous from start to finish and women in their thousands journey every year to another jurisdiction just so we can feel good about ourselves.

The lack of legislation on x is just the most obvious example of that ridiculousness.

Of course it won't be only men on the panels , but they will constitute the substantial majority, how do I know this ? Because it was ever thus and I see no indication that that will change. Do you ?

And by the way we are where we are because ''reasonable people'' on the prolife side did not detach themselves from the extremes. A bit like the GOP in the USA.

But X is about legislating for abortion where there is a danger to the womans life. Why are you trying to lump that in with socio economic terminations? If you want legislation for X fine. If you want legislation for abortion on demand, fine. But please do not deliberately blur the lines between the two in an attempt to make out that the government is somehow obliged to legislate for abortion in all situations - that is simply, factually and legally not true.

Again I must seek clarification from you - what do you refer to with "ever thus"? We've never had a panel assessing a womans need for an abortion before so how can a future panel be the same as some imaginary previous one? Or are you referring to the fact that there are more male politicians? Doctors? I'm not really what you're getting at. That things are incapable of change? Surely not, given that you and your like minded peers devote so much time to advocating change.

marienbad

OldNotWIse wrote: »

But X is about legislating for abortion where there is a danger to the womans life. Why are you trying to lump that in with socio economic terminations? If you want legislation for X fine. If you want legislation for abortion on demand, fine. But please do not deliberately blur the lines between the two in an attempt to make out that the government is somehow obliged to legislate for abortion in all situations - that is simply, factually and legally not true.

Again I must seek clarification from you - what do you refer to with "ever thus"? We've never had a panel assessing a womans need for an abortion before so how can a future panel be the same as some imaginary previous one? Or are you referring to the fact that there are more male politicians? Doctors? I'm not really what you're getting at. That things are incapable of change? Surely not, given that you and your like minded peers devote so much time to advocating change.

I am not blurring any lines- I have made my position quite clear -( I personally have a problem with abortion, but I believe it is a matter of individual choice ) . As for you point on government obligations - that applies to any and all legislation- so I don't know what you are getting at.

When is the last time any government appointed panel/body/ organisation contained a fair representation of women ? That is what ''ever thus'' refers to. Do you really think this will change in the foreseeable future.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe just one Maternity hospital in the country is headed by a women and this a recent enough apointment and the first of its kind, and this despite the fact that the majority of practitoners in this field are women . But as I say I am open to correction on this.

ShooterSF

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Completely off topic, but if this is about coffeeshops no longer selling to tourists then that only applies to border towns wanting to end the influx of Belgians/Germans into tiny wee villages just to buy weed. They were crudding up the infrastructure and investing nothing into the local economy. It's left up to individual districts to choose if they wanted to ban tourists or not, and most don't. Please pass that on, there seems to be a lot of confusion about it.

Sorry Mods in advance!

I wonder how European courts would feel if a complaint was made by an EU citizen that they were refused service in a store in another EU country due to their nationality.

OldNotWIse

marienbad wrote: »

I am not blurring any lines- I have made my position quite clear -( I personally have a problem with abortion, but I believe it is a matter of individual choice ) . As for you point on government obligations - that applies to any and all legislation- so I don't know what you are getting at.

When is the last time any government appointed panel/body/ organisation contained a fair representation of women ? That is what ''ever thus'' refers to. Do you really think this will change in the foreseeable future.

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe just one Maternity hospital in the country is headed by a women and this a recent enough apointment and the first of its kind, and this despite the fact that the majority of practitoners in this field are women . But as I say I am open to correction on this.

But when you constantly refer to women being treating as (if my memory serves me) an irrelevance, or being brushed aside and the entire abortion issue being a debacle - are you referring to the fact that the government failed for 20 years to legislate for X or are you referring to the fact that we do not have abortion on demand?

It's relevant because the first scenario is regrettable but being rectified as we speak, and I am not really sure what else can be done on this issue now - we cant change the past.

If its the second scenario you have a problem with, that's your choice but the situation is unlikely to change to suit your opinions any time soon.

So, no point arguing really.

As for women being promoted in their field (or not) I think that is not really an issue here. We have the same opportunities as males in this day and age and if the pattern shows that less women are being appointed to such roles perhaps that is indicative of other issues more so than a government conspiracy to keep women out of these roles so that they can be controlled.

MrPudding

ShooterSF wrote: »

Sorry Mods in advance!

I wonder how European courts would feel if a complaint was made by an EU citizen that they were refused service in a store in another EU country due to their nationality.

Hard to say. The EU does not like restrictions on the free movement of good or people. A restriction on the selling of weed might be hard to frame as either.

MrP