Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Morag wrote: »

http://feministire.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/the-logistics-of-arranging-abortions/

Another hyperactive screed, predicated on the assumption that reasoned enquiry can be drowned by a torrent of words.

Almost every paragraph deserves dissection. I'll just stick to one point, that might otherwise be lost in the deluge.

....an expensive medical procedure they should be able to get in their own local clinic for free.

I'm not clear on when a consensus emerged that abortions would be charged on the public purse.

Flier

Well if it's the public purse we're worried about, abortion would certainly be the more cost effective option.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Flier wrote: »

Well if it's the public purse we're worried about, abortion would certainly be the more cost effective option.

So each of us is a financial liability to the collective? Interesting perspective, and possibly illustrative of the unspoken subtext in the Irish self-image. However, I was thinking more of some of the contributions on this thread where people have variously stated that they support abortion rights in principle, but not public funding for abortion services, while others that they support abortion rights, but haven't a position as regards funding of same.

For my own part, I haven't really got a definitive position on funding. I'd take it that a medical card holder who gets the morning after pill from her GP is already funded by the State, but I don't know that to be a fact.

My main point is that support for the contention can't be assumed. Some folk may well be of the opinion that they accept abortion to be a matter of private ethics, but that their own private ethics mean they would object to public money supporting services.

It's just one of the many unwarranted assumptions and overstatements contained in that screed.

robp

Morag wrote: »

http://www.policymic.com/articles/30925/un-report-classifies-lack-of-access-to-abortion-as-torture

UN Report Classifies Lack Of Access to Abortion as "Torture"

Insanity, and the utter reverse of liberalism.

Bannasidhe

robp wrote: »

Insanity, and the utter reverse of liberalism.

As a matter of interest, would you care to expand on your reasons behind that statement?

robp

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As a matter of interest, would you care to expand on your reasons behind that statement?

The vast majority of people would agree with the United Nations Torture Convention of 1984.

Torture involves intentional infliction of pain, by a public official, to obtain information

Or the International Criminal Court Act 2001.

The intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

Regardless of your opinion of abortion, abortion is restricted out of ethical concern, not as to obtain information or too cause intentional suffering. Only an extreme wing of ideologues would back Juan E. Méndez on this one. Your kidding yourself if you think differently.

Nodin

Quiet now, yez shower of messers -

MORAL AUTHORITY CARDINAL BRADY SPEAKS

In his Easter message, Catholic Primate of all Ireland Cardinal Seán Brady has strongly condemned abortion and euthanasia.
Echoing his message of last Christmas, Cardinal Brady called on Catholics and all people of goodwill to celebrate and cherish the gift of human life in all its stages from conception to its natural end.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0329/378998-easter/

http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2013/03/29/easter-2013-message-cardinal-sean-brady-people-goodwill-ireland/

Delirium

Nodin wrote: »

Quiet now, yez shower of messers -

MORAL AUTHORITY CARDINAL BRADY SPEAKS


http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0329/378998-easter/

http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2013/03/29/easter-2013-message-cardinal-sean-brady-people-goodwill-ireland/

bit ironic to tell us to cherish human life while speaking as part of a religious event marking the torture and execution of the saviour. Seems that killing can save humanity given the right circumstances. Bit of a mixed message.

The Black Oil

I hope there are no leaks re the report that's been given to Mr. Halappanavar today, and that he's allowed adequate privacy to review it.

Doctor Strange

The Black Oil wrote: »

I hope there are no leaks re the report that's been given to Mr. Halappanavar today, and that he's allowed adequate privacy to review it.

The results will be the same.

Church: This is a catholic country, you must consult us before even thinking about changing the law.

Dave Quinn and his shower of *****: The report was obviously biased. We're being oppressed again, so we demand 1 hour to babble on about pure sh1t.

Thus, we stay stuck in the same place because the government are spineless pricks :mad:

robp

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

The results will be the same.

Church: This is a catholic country, you must consult us before even thinking about changing the law.

Dave Quinn and his shower of *****: The report was obviously biased. We're being oppressed again, so we demand 1 hour to babble on about pure sh1t.

Thus, we stay stuck in the same place because the government are spineless pricks :mad:

Yeah, and medical incompetence and ignoring blood infections for three days had nothing to do with it, pure coincidental. Funny how after this was known the HSE immediately set about devising new guidelines for treating maternal infections, while the political hot but medically irrelevant issue of abortion legislation dominated the media.

PopePalpatine

robp wrote: »

...while the political hot but medically irrelevant issue of abortion legislation dominated the media.

Not this "abortion is never needed to save a woman's life" bollocks again.

Flier

robp wrote: »

Yeah, and medical incompetence and ignoring blood infections for three days had nothing to do with it, pure coincidental. Funny how after this was known the HSE immediately set about devising new guidelines for treating maternal infections, while the political hot but medically irrelevant issue of abortion legislation dominated the media.

I'd hold fire on the accusations of 'medical incompetence' and 'ignoring blood infections' until we see the full report don't you think. If there are issues of medical incompetence there are avenues to deal with that.
If my memory serves me correctly, there were many nattering on about the 'obvious failings' of the doctors involved, while the same commentators refused to accept that a termination of pregnancy (ie abortion) should have been considered in this case as per international best practice.

Turtwig

Flier wrote: »

a termination of pregnancy (ie abortion) should have been considered in this case as per international best practice.

"THAT'S NOT AN ABORTION! !:mad: "
blah blah Ireland's world leading maternal record. blah blah

GCU Flexible Demeanour

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Not this "abortion is never needed to save a woman's life" bollocks again.

I think its more the "let's form an opinion when we actually have facts to base one on" bollocks. You know, the kind of thing that people who feel we should reason things out on the basis of the evidence say.

Maybe this report will say something different to the reports of the earlier, leaked, copy. Let's just wait and see.

Loafing Oaf

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think its more the "let's form an opinion when we actually have facts to base one on" bollocks. You know, the kind of thing that people who feel we should reason things out on the basis of the evidence say.

And asserting that abortion legislation is 'medically irrelevant' to the Savita case isn't prejudging things?

Obliq

Flier

robp wrote: »

Yeah, and medical incompetence and ignoring blood infections for three days had nothing to do with it, pure coincidental. Funny how after this was known the HSE immediately set about devising new guidelines for treating maternal infections, while the political hot but medically irrelevant issue of abortion legislation dominated the media.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Not this "abortion is never needed to save a woman's life" bollocks again.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think its more the "let's form an opinion when we actually have facts to base one on" bollocks. You know, the kind of thing that people who feel we should reason things out on the basis of the evidence say.

Maybe this report will say something different to the reports of the earlier, leaked, copy. Let's just wait and see.

Given that PopePalpatine's post was in response to robp's, I find it intriguing that you choose his to appeal for patience in forming decisions based on the facts when the report is made public. As far as I can see, robp's post has no basis in fact and is sensationalist at best.

Morag

Flier wrote: »

Well if it's the public purse we're worried about, abortion would certainly be the more cost effective option.

Other maternity related services are paid for by the state.

Flier

Morag wrote: »

Other maternity related services are free.

Nothing in healthcare is free.

Turtwig

Flier wrote: »

Nothing in healthcare is free.

Various STI, Mantoux, tests and vaccines are provided to the public free of charge. They're obviously not free, but the state covers all the cost.

Flier

Jernal wrote: »

Various STI, Mantoux, tests and vaccines are provided to the public free of charge. They're obviously not free, but the state covers all the cost.

I do realise there are lots of things that people can access for free. But they all have a cost to the public purse. I think it's important not to forget that.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

And asserting that abortion legislation is 'medically irrelevant' to the Savita case isn't prejudging things?

Yup, that's also prejudging things, just as much as the claim that the death was a direct result of refusing a request for an abortion.

The situation, absolutely, is that we should be awaiting the formal publication of a report prepared on the basis of some kind of reasonable investigation. So far, we are operating on the basis of leaks that suggest both of those extreme positions are nonsense. But leaks are just leaks, and not a substitute for investigative findings.

All we know, so far, is that a young pregnant woman died while in the care of a major acute hospital. And that requires explanation.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Flier wrote: »

Given that PopePalpatine's post was in response to robp's, I find it intriguing that you choose his to appeal for patience in forming decisions based on the facts when the report is made public. As far as I can see, robp's post has no basis in fact and is sensationalist at best.

It is , but PopePalpatine's is the usual attempt to side-step by answering a point that no-one has made.

Turtwig

Regardless of when the report is out neither side is going to be happy and you can bet your neck it is going to be quote mined to **** like the Oireachtas committee abortion discussions were. Besides, if it somehow does turn out that Savita's death had nothing to do with abortion, the fact that theory seemed initially plausible shows there's still a problem to be dealt with regarding our laws.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Jernal wrote: »

Besides, if it somehow does turn out that Savita's death had nothing to do with abortion, the fact that theory seemed initially plausible shows there's still a problem to be dealt with regarding our laws.

No, it doesn't.

There is an issue, indeed a set of issues, about the failure to legislate on foot of the X Case. But all the initial candlelight pantomime over the Savita case shows is a capacity for over-reaction by a particular section of public opinion.

Turtwig

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, it doesn't.

There is an issue, indeed a set of issues, about the failure to legislate on foot of the X Case. But all the initial candlelight pantomime over the Savita case shows is a capacity for over-reaction by a particular section of public opinion.

So, what, you'd rather have it that every time a woman who's pregnant dies the idea that a plausible factor in her death was the refusal of an abortion because her life wasn't deemed at risk?

Savita's case caused the over reaction because there is a myth which states that a doctor might be reluctant to properly treat a woman who's pregnant because of fear of imprisonment. That myth based on current laws and persistent procrastination of abortion legislation seems plausible, does it not?

c_man

Jernal wrote: »

blah blah Ireland's world leading maternal record. blah blah

This is one I've never gotten, how would introducing abortion affection the maternal health statistics? It's always brought up! Not pointing the finger at you, obviously!

Turtwig

c_man wrote: »

This is one I've never gotten, how would introducing abortion affection the maternal health statistics? It's always brought up! Not pointing the finger at you, obviously!

It wouldn't. But the point is more along the line of "if ain't broke why fix it" style of argument. It's used to try convey that Irish Maternal health care is already of a high enough quality that it doesn't need an unnecessary tweaking such as the addition of abortion.
It's really a terrible argument, but expect to hear a lot more from it. Sadly.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Jernal wrote: »

So, what, you'd rather have it that every time a woman who's pregnant dies the idea that a plausible factor in her death was the refusal of an abortion because her life wasn't deemed at risk?

? Why is the response always so extreme? It's like "I don't want to acknowledge the rationality of your position, so I'll drag in some irrelevance and attack the point that I wish you had made."

A young woman dying while admitted to a significant acute hospital is such a rare event that no individual factor or cause can be eliminated. It should be approached with an open mind; the problem is it's been thrown on an abortion bandwagon. Nothing I've said suggests, in any way, that the outcome of the report can be assumed to be one thing or another, or to exclude any possible explanation. Others have done that, and I've simply pointed out what they've done.

Jernal wrote: »

That myth based on current laws and persistent procrastination of abortion legislation seems plausible, does it not?

Well, no, because the Constitutional position is that abortion is only permitted where there's a substantial risk to the life of the mother. Hence, its not the absence of legislation that's particularly the problem (assuming that, by legislation, we mean legislating for the X Case). If we legislated for the X Case, if you'd a pregnant woman admitted to hospital who complained of profound pain and discomfort, and requested an abortion as a means of relief, the doctor would still be obliged to say no - even if a risk to the mother's health, as distinct from life, was identified.

With or without X Case legislation, a doctor will be legally liable if s/he performs an act that is deemed to be an abortion carried out where there was no substantial risk to the life of the mother.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that's how I'd frame the Constitutional provision. I'm simply pointing out that this is what it is.