Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Morag

It's pretty much a social norm in this country for people to say
'you shouldn't talk about that' when what they mean is 'I don't feel comfortable hearing that'.
It puts the focus on the person talking and makes out that they are doing something wrong and it is a way of shutting down discussions.

Some times we have to have uncomfortable conversations and discussions which push us out of our comfort zones, other wise change would never happen.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

I entirely agree, but the discussion above appears/appeared to be veering off into the kind of uncivil i-said/you-said territory that's best avoided.

If everybody instead sticks to criticizing the views of others in a civil fashion, while respecting their right to hold them and to express them, also in a civil fashion, then discussing why women don't feel safe discussing any abortions they might have had, is fine with your friendly moderators.

The problem is that it is hard to challenge the use of certain terms such as 'parping on about' without a certain amount of 'you said'.

Using phrases such as this is not only uncivil, it is also contains an element of dismissal of the validity of what has been said and deserves to be challenged. People 'parp on' about golf, or the X Factor or celebrity whatzits - but abortion??? I can't accept that.

Similarly to state that people shouldn't talk about 'medical procedures' in public should be questioned - does this include keyhole surgery on a knee as a result of a sports injury? Would it be acceptable for someone to 'run a mile' if a person in the pub said 'I just had a hernia operation as I went and lifted a 50kg bag of sand'?

I don't think the poster meant 'medical procedures' unless she seriously expects us to believe that she would 'run a mile' if she was sitting around a table in the pub and someone said ' I had a large mole removed from my back and it's really itchy now'.
To my way of thinking what she really meant was if someone said they had an abortion and implied that statement alone was akin to going into details of the actual procedure no-one wants to hear over a pint. So once again the use of language needs to be challenged to get to the nitty gritty - which is, technically, also in the 'you said' place...

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sorry Rob, usually I agree with you 100% but I think a discussion on why women don't talk about the fact they have had an abortion is incredibly important.

Breaking the Silence and all that...


We have here an opportunity to discuss this with someone who, it appears, doesn't want women to talk in public about having an abortion but that requires we discuss the discussion...




Apologies if this is deemed discussing mod instructions in the thread and will take an infraction if this is the case. I just think the issue of peer/societal enforced silence is very important so didn't want to say this in a private message.

Twist words much??

I said that I am not comfortable talking to someone else about their abortion. I am entitled to feel that way. I never said, "women should be silenced" or "women are not allowed talk about this in public" - I dont know why all these melodramatic accusations are being levelled. I also note that the section of my original post that advocated increased post abortion counselling has been politley ignored and I wonder why? Surely this is someting that needs to be addressed? Or are people just more interested in having a go at others who are not as "comfortable" with the issue of abortion?

eviltwin

Women who want to be open about their abortions don't usually want to go into the nitty gritty of the medical side of things. I don't think I've ever spoken about that because its an aside really, the most important thing for me, at least is the mental and emotional side of dealing with the ban on abortion here.

If someone asked me a question about the procedure I would answer them but I would have more cop on than to talk about something medical at the dinner table or in the pub. But I'm not going to bite my tounge if the subject comes up some night in company because I'm worried about how it might affect people. If someone talks about abortion that to me is an invitation to tell them I have had one. If they can't handle that then I think that says more about them.

Bannasidhe

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I will just put my hand up and say that before I left Ireland I was an activist for many issues including abortion. I have stood with the megaphone and addressed the crowd, I have addressed meetings, I have written articles and letters and I've stood up to my own friends and family on issues I care about (I come from a long line of homophobes, for example). I have no reservation about speaking publically the way I do here. In fact, I'm not bound by a charter irl so I can speak even more freely.

I know that a few of the other posters here are also activists so your assumption that we're all only saying what we do because we're on the internet is factually incorrect.

I was chased down Pana in Cork by H-Bloc demonstrators in 1982. I was giving out pro-choice leaflets in Daunt's Sq where they had their support the Hunger Strikers stand. One of them called me a 'baby murderer' to which I responded 'Really? You lot prefer to wait until they are born then plant a bomb!'

During the censorship of information on abortion I was a member of the 'underground railway' in the UK that not only supplied this info to women in Ireland, we met them off the boat/plane, accompanied them to the clinic, and returned them to the boat/plane.

Bannasidhe

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Rabid? I've never seen anyone act this way in front of a woman who has said she had an abortion. I think you are just assuming that will happen. In my group of friends some people are pro choice, some are pro life, even more are on the fence or only supportive in certain circusmstance and some just wont get engaged in it at all. There is also someone who has had an abortion. We dont all alienate her. But she also doesn't sit around parping on and on about it to make a point or to try to force people to be ok with it or whatever. We all just get on with it. Why would you want to go out of your way to make someone feel uncomfortable just because you have the right to talk about it? I have the right to talk about being gay but I dont sit my 88year old conservative catholic granny down and force her to listen to me because "I have a right to be heard". I think there should certainly be better post abortion counselling services for women (especially subsidised given that many abortions are carried out for economic reasons) so that women have a safe space to talk, but down the pub or whatever is not really the place to be discussing medical procedures anyway. I'd run a mile from someone who insisted on telling me about theirs!

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Twist words much??

No twisting required.

Do you deny you don't want women to discuss the fact that they have had an abortion in a public/social setting?

I never said you personally want to silence women - although you also don't want to hear about it - I said Irish society has always put pressure on people who do not conform to stay silent. There is no need to take a comment on Irish society so personally unless that comment touches a nerve.

Quite often a part of the counselling process is encouraging people to be open and honest about their life experiences so fear of having people 'run a mile' should they do so is not exactly supportive is it?

Would you 'run a mile' if someone in the pub told you they had been abused or would you listen respectfully despite the fact that the conversation may make you uncomfortable?

Would you offer support to a friend who was telling you her experience of having been raped but leave if she then said she had gotten pregnant and had an abortion?

OldNotWIse

eviltwin wrote: »

Women who want to be open about their abortions don't usually want to go into the nitty gritty of the medical side of things. I don't think I've ever spoken about that because its an aside really, the most important thing for me, at least is the mental and emotional side of dealing with the ban on abortion here.

If someone asked me a question about the procedure I would answer them but I would have more cop on than to talk about something medical at the dinner table or in the pub. But I'm not going to bite my tounge if the subject comes up some night in company because I'm worried about how it might affect people. If someone talks about abortion that to me is an invitation to tell them I have had one. If they can't handle that then I think that says more about them.

Of course. But I dont think many people would be bringing the subject up in the first place if they did not want it discussed. Another reason I steer clear of it is also because a lot of people tend to be strictly one "side" or the other and there's always that recipe for disaster and disagreement when everyone is so convinced of their own ideas and unwilling to listen to the other person. I know thats probably not ideal, we should all be mature enough to discuss things openly and still respect other views. But abortion remains one of those dividing issues in our society.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The problem is that it is hard to challenge the use of certain terms such as 'parping on about' without a certain amount of 'you said'.

Not sure whether you saw that OldNotWIse has already apologized for using that term, so best accept that OldNotWIse is now happy that the term is inappropriate and move to a different part of the discussion.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Twist words much?

As before, posters on both sides should respect each other's right to hold and express a view in a civil fashion, and have that view criticized in a civil fashion, without personalizing it, without misrepresenting it and with the assumption that the other poster is describing his/her views honestly and accurately.

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No twisting required.

Do you deny you don't want women to discuss the fact that they have had an abortion in a public/social setting?

Do I deny? Am I on trial now or something? I am not comfortable with someone discussing their abortion with me. I really hope that is ok with you??

robindch

Folks -

This is the final warning for today.

If posters can't be civil and can't avoid pointing fingers, waving fists and the rest of it, then the thread will be shut down either for a few days or permanently if civility proves impossible.

Thanking you.

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No twisting required.

Do you deny you don't want women to discuss the fact that they have had an abortion in a public/social setting?

I never said you personally want to silence women - although you also don't want to hear about it - I said Irish society has always put pressure on people who do not conform to stay silent. There is no need to take a comment on Irish society so personally unless that comment touches a nerve.

Quite often a part of the counselling process is encouraging people to be open and honest about their life experiences so fear of having people 'run a mile' should they do so is not exactly supportive is it?

Would you 'run a mile' if someone in the pub told you they had been abused or would you listen respectfully despite the fact that the conversation may make you uncomfortable?

Would you offer support to a friend who was telling you her experience of having been raped but leave if she then said she had gotten pregnant and had an abortion?

You referred to me as " someone who, it appears, doesn't want women to talk in public about having an abortion " - what else could that possibly mean??

I'm not getting into a discussion with you if you insist on mis representing everything I say because I do not have the time to constantly correct you.

Sorry but I will defend myself from being misrepresented.

Morag

"01 6794700 every woman's right to know"

You might remember this then Bannasidhe


I recently discovered I have the other one as well.


As I as part of that rail road over here, pre internet when it was hard to get information, post 1992 referendum on information and pre the 1995 legislation which said info was only to be given out by gps or counselors, and even after then, cos often women could not get to a pro choice gp or counselor.


Abortion support network still does that work today helping women to access abortion in the UK.
http://www.abortionsupport.org.uk/

Bannasidhe

Morag wrote: »

"01 6794700 every woman's right to know"

You might remember this then Bannasidhe


I recently discovered I have the other one as well.


As I as part of that rail road over here, pre internet when it was hard to get information, post 1992 referendum on information and pre the 1995 legislation which said info was only to be given out by gps or counselors, and even after then, cos often women could not get to a pro choice gp or counselor.


Abortion support network still does that work today helping women to access abortion in the UK.
http://www.abortionsupport.org.uk/

I was part of the North London Group - luckily Hackney, Haringay, Islington and Camden councils turned a blind eye to their employees using their phones, photocopiers, fax machines etc for this purpose although we did have to get creative at audit time to explain all the phone calls to Irish numbers...;)

Where I worked we had a Free Legal Advice service and a large Irish community so we wrangled it that way.

Morag

IWASG?

Bannasidhe

Morag wrote: »

IWASG?

Allied to it - worked in an estate based community centre in Hackney where the two community workers were both Irish and both pro-choice with our management committee supporting us all the way.
They paid for me to do a legal course and my co-worker was a solicitor from Clonakilty so we were able to become a FLAC advice centre.

Bannasidhe

All of this reminiscing about our activist credentials reminded me of an incident my co-worker in London told me about that happened him back in 1982. He was far more outspoken than I was on abortion rights and was so tireless in his support of women coming to England for abortions that I asked him why was he so driven on this particular issue.

He told me that while on a visit back to Clon from College he volunteered to give out some pro-choice leaflets, he wasn't really aware of all the issues but was broadly pro-choice and fancied one of the women who would also be campaigning...

To his horror he was continually verbally abused and spat at on the street. Now, this particular person was named for a grand uncle who is a hero of Irish independence and things came to a head when a member of the public slapped him across the face and told him he was a disgrace to his illustrious 'ancestor'. Co-worker responded by saying 'You mean the guy who signed death warrants for his friends because he believed he was doing the right thing?? No. I don't believe he would think I am a disgrace. I think he would be proud.'

Co-worker was, as they say, 'immediately set upon' and spent two days in hospital recovering. He said what really hurt was the naked hatred he encountered on the streets of his home town and how long it took for anyone to come to his aid as he lay on the ground being kicked by people he knew all his life. Just because he was giving out leaflets....

He never returned to Ireland to live once he finished college as he didn't want to live anywhere but Clon and the sight of his attackers walking the streets of his home town being regarded as upstanding citizens made him physically sick.

For those of us who have been fighting this battle since the 8th Amendment was first mooted this is not the distant past. This is part of the same fight we have been engaged in all along - it's not over yet by any means and the conspiracy of silence and the pressure on women who have had abortions to hide their 'shameful' secrets - disregarding the effect this has on their mental health- is part and parcel of that same decades old battle.

The mantras of 'Don't tell anyone'/'Never talk about it (pretend it didn't happen)/ Oh the Shame - what will people say/ Hide behind a wall of silence so people don't get uncomfortable has been used against homosexuals, victims of clerical abuse, the Magdalenes, victims of rape, victims of domestic violence...

I for one am sick of being silent about the truths that make Irish society uncomfortable and I applaud all of those who expose this hypocrisy and stand up and speak.

They are our true Irish heroes.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I for one am sick of being silent about the truths that make Irish society uncomfortable and I applaud all of those who expose this hypocrisy and stand up and speak.

And that's grand, so far as it goes. But for political change, you need a coherent social base that mobilises. That's what happens when 70 or 80,000 mortgage holders strategically allow their loans to go into arrears.

We don't know - because no-one can neatly summarise the views of the 150,000 women who've had abortions - but it may simply be that they, mostly, aren't that unhappy with the overall structure of how we do things. Perhaps, for many, simply slipping off quietly for an abortion allows them to return without disturbing anything else; if you've a stake in Irish society being much what it is, who'd want to rock the boat? Who'd want openess and transparency and confrontation over this little thing, if it means other little things have to get the same treatment?

Sometimes one person's discomfort is anothers comfort. It's hard to account for the retention of the position of the Irish language in the Constitution, and in the educational system, even its extension in recent years as langugage for EU purposes, until you contemplate that there's a significant group who benefit from the invisible wall of exclusion that it creates within the education sector.

And that's just to pick one example. I'm sure you would see some venom in publically campaigning for abortion. You'd also see it if you tried pursuing property tax defaulters, or advocated environmental protection of bogs or a fistload of other subjects where you might make some make some coherent group within Irish society uncomfortable.

This is how we do business. I'd suspect there's a reason why, and I suspect the reason is many expect that they can only lose from a more explicit way of managing our affairs. We usually don't care about principles, just about pragmatic solutions.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And that's grand, so far as it goes. But for political change, you need a coherent social base that mobilises. That's what happens when 70 or 80,000 mortgage holders strategically allow their loans to go into arrears.

We don't know - because no-one can neatly summarise the views of the 150,000 women who've had abortions - but it may simply be that they, mostly, aren't that unhappy with the overall structure of how we do things. Perhaps, for many, simply slipping off quietly for an abortion allows them to return without disturbing anything else; if you've a stake in Irish society being much what it is, who'd want to rock the boat? Who'd want openess and transparency and confrontation over this little thing, if it means other little things have to get the same treatment?

Sometimes one person's discomfort is anothers comfort. It's hard to account for the retention of the position of the Irish language in the Constitution, and in the educational system, even its extension in recent years as langugage for EU purposes, until you contemplate that there's a significant group who benefit from the invisible wall of exclusion that it creates within the education sector.

And that's just to pick one example. I'm sure you would see some venom in publically campaigning for abortion. You'd also see it if you tried pursuing property tax defaulters, or advocated environmental protection of bogs or a fistload of other subjects where you might make some make some coherent group within Irish society uncomfortable.

This is how we do business. I'd suspect there's a reason why, and I suspect the reason is many expect that they can only lose from a more explicit way of managing our affairs. We usually don't care about principles, just about pragmatic solutions.

That reads to me as an 'that's just the way we are here in Ireland' non-argument tbh.

They way we are is wrong - do you think it cannot be changed?

Morag

Perhaps, for many, simply slipping off quietly for an abortion allows them to return without disturbing anything else;

Which means we have two tier access to abortion for those who can pay to 'go away' for a few days. Not good enough, and if the abortion pill is legalised then traveling won't be needed to ensure privacy.

eviltwin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

We don't know - because no-one can neatly summarise the views of the 150,000 women who've had abortions - but it may simply be that they, mostly, aren't that unhappy with the overall structure of how we do things. Perhaps, for many, simply slipping off quietly for an abortion allows them to return without disturbing anything else;

Probably there is some truth in that. For some, its probably easier to go somewhere they never have to visit again, no constant reminders etc.

But I'm sure those women wouldn't want the choice to be taken away from others who can't travel.

Sarky

So some girl's secondary school brought a guest in to talk to them about abortion. They got David Quinn. Oh dear.

Warning: Link leads to Iona Institute. May cause high blood pressure or loss of IQ.

Stark

Sarky wrote:

This would place young women in a win-win situation. First they would change their behaviour so as to minimise their chances of facing a crisis pregnancy.

No more walking home alone in short skirts, win-win for everyone!

Delirium

From the article:

In what I thought was a key moment I asked them to consider what effect it would have on people’s sexual behaviour if abortion didn’t exist at all. Obviously this was only a thought experiment.

This seems to frame the discussion with abortion as a contraceptive, i.e. "what if you couldn't have an abortion, would you have a different attitude to your sexual behaviour"?

It's a strange angle for Quinn to go for as it would at least put the idea in a girls head of being left holding the baby is a negative consequence of their sex life. I would think he would want to avoid the idea of a baby being a punishment/negative thing.

I also only makes a difference to a girl who might consider abortion an option. Any girls that wouldn't have an abortion surely wouldn't have a different opinion if abortion is or isn't available.

And as for this nonsense regarding abortion not being an option:

One girl said they would have to be more careful and become more ‘choosy ‘about the men they sleep with.

What would this do to men? They would have to be worth choosing. They would have to lift their game.

Abortion isn't freely available here and there are still plenty of men getting women pregnant that don't meet the standard of some idealised version of the perfect man.

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That reads to me as an 'that's just the way we are here in Ireland' non-argument tbh.

They way we are is wrong - do you think it cannot be changed?

Do you mean "wrong" legally or morally?

Morally, the idea is entirely subjective - whats wrong for you might be right for another.

Legally, the situation is not wrong, as work is currently underway to legislate in accordance with obligations arising from the X case judgment.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That reads to me as an 'that's just the way we are here in Ireland' non-argument tbh.

They way we are is wrong - do you think it cannot be changed?

I'm more commenting on how change occurs, and suggesting that it's useful to consider why things are as they are. I've certainly thoughts about why things are as they are, and what would be required for them to be different. But they are just thoughts, without any basis or substantial evidence.

In the immediate matter, I'd be asking if you could envisage a situation where 150,000 Irish people would default on their mortgage, without this provoking changes in the law on matters like repossessions or personal insolvency. I'm contrasting that with the fact that abortion legislation hasn't been a political necessity, despite it being the experience of 150,000 Irish women. I'd suggest this is simply a fact, that could usefully be reflected on.

Which, I find, reminds me of a comment of Marx.

<...> Society is not founded upon the law; this is a legal fiction. On the contrary, the law must be founded upon society, it must express the common interests and needs of society — as distinct from the caprice of the individuals — which arise from the material mode of production prevailing at the given time. This Code Napoleon, which I am holding in my hand, has not created modern bourgeois society. On the contrary, bourgeois society, which emerged in the eighteenth century and developed further in the nineteenth, merely finds its legal expression in this Code. As soon as it ceases to fit the social conditions, it becomes simply a bundle of paper. <...>

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/02/25.htm

I'm looking for the urgent, coherent mobilisation of political significance, and not seeing it. It's hard to change one little thing, and not impact on other stuff. I'd guess a lot of folk don't really want to change much, hence the delay and indecision.

eviltwin wrote: »

But I'm sure those women wouldn't want the choice to be taken away from others who can't travel.

I'm not sure that's reflected in our experience. Possibly, a lot of women are happy enough to slip away and come back to find the country exactly as they left it.

eviltwin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

.I'm not sure that's reflected in our experience. Possibly, a lot of women are happy enough to slip away and come back to find the country exactly as they left it.

I'd be very surprised if many woman who have travelled for an abortion would be okay denying that to someone who can't travel just because it makes her feel better.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if many woman who have travelled for an abortion would be okay denying that to someone who can't travel just because it makes her feel better.

How, then, do you account for present reality? How do you account for the apparent reality that 150,000 women travel for that purpose, without any substantial political imperative for even limited legislation in respect of exceptional cases - never mind an actual demand for wider availability?

Bannasidhe

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Do you mean "wrong" legally or morally?

Morally, the idea is entirely subjective - whats wrong for you might be right for another.

Legally, the situation is not wrong, as work is currently underway to legislate in accordance with obligations arising from the X case judgment.

I am saying it is wrong for Irish society to expect people to deny or keep silent about their life experiences so we can pretend all is ok.

Do you think it is right that homosexuals were expected to keep quiet?

Do you think it is right that victims of clerical abuse were expected to keep quiet?

Do you think it is right that the Magdelenes were expected to keep quiet?

Until David Norris spoke out male homosexuality was illegal in Ireland - his actions broke the closet open. Every lesbian and gay man in Ireland owes David Norris a huge debt of gratitude for speaking out and forcing Ireland to recognise our existence and entitlement to equal rights.

Until Mary Raferty spoke out the Magdelenes still bore the stigma of 'fallen' women - her actions and those of the brave women who came forward exposed decades of illegal incarceration and slave labour. The State has officially apologised but it took over 16 years after the last of these vile institutions closed down- do you think it would have if the wall of silence and shame was still in place?

In 1934 The Cussen Report raised concerns about Ireland's Industrial Schools but recommended that the religious orders be allowed to remain in control of them. In 1989 Paddy Doyle wrote The God Squad, in 1991 Fear of the Collar by Patrick Touher was published but it took Christina Buckley's testament in Dear Daughter broadcast in 1997 to spark a public debate. But even then it was ignored by officialdom until Mary Raferty and Eoin O’Sullivan's States of Fear was broadcast in 1999. Do you think they should have stayed quiet?


To coerce victims of crime - and they were crimes - to remain silent is both legally and morally wrong - do you disagree?

To put this in a global context - do you think Mandela should have stayed quiet - after all, Apartheid was legal...

Do you think Martin Luther King should have stayed quiet - after all, segregation was legal...

Do you think Praveen Halappanavar should have stayed quiet?

eviltwin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

How, then, do you account for present reality? How do you account for the apparent reality that 150,000 women travel for that purpose, without any substantial political imperative for even limited legislation in respect of exceptional cases - never mind an actual demand for wider availability?

I'm not sure I get you. Are you asking why those 150,00 aren't demanding legal abortion?

marienbad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

How, then, do you account for present reality? How do you account for the apparent reality that 150,000 women travel for that purpose, without any substantial political imperative for even limited legislation in respect of exceptional cases - never mind an actual demand for wider availability?

Surely you should compare apples with apples and morgages and abortions are'nt even close ,. Just using numbers is'nt enough.