Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

If there was not a law in place preventing uterine evacuation, causing her to spend several days with an open uterus miscarrying an unviable feotus, in all probability there would not have been an infection to require antibiotics. How do you not see this?

Anyway we are arguing about this in two different forums now!

True, and you're missing the pertinent point on both. The point is that someone could have entered GUH for any number of reasons and have had pertinent facts about their case uncollated, leading to a similar outcome.

However, the fact that so many have invested so much of their energy into pontificating (ironically) about this being all about the legal position that they just can't allow themselves to digest the actual facts emerging. Hence, any tenous link, no matter how speculative, will be given spurious significance to keep the bandwagon going.

Kiwi in IE

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

True, and you're missing the pertinent point on both. The point is that someone could have entered GUH for any number of reasons and have had pertinent facts about their case uncollated, leading to a similar outcome.

However, the fact that so many have invested so much of their energy into pontificating (ironically) about this being all about the legal position that they just can't allow themselves to digest the actual facts emerging. Hence, any tenous link, no matter how speculative, will be given spurious significance to keep the bandwagon going.

There were two opportunities to save Ms Halappanavar, firstly by dealing with the primary condition miscarriage, which the law prevented, and secondly by appropriately treating the secondary condition sepsis, that was at least worsened, if not caused by failure to end the miscarriage in a humane and timely fashion. No one is denying medical failure in the case.

If you are unable to see that, so be it! My ability to answer in a civil manner to the sanctimonious gibberish above has near expired.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

If you are unable to see that, so be it! My ability to answer in a civil manner to the sanctimonious gibberish above has near expired.

What's long expired is your ability to actually extract the pivotal issue from the evidence presented.

There may well be a case for a referendum to allow wider availability of terminations, but this case isn't substantially about that.

Flier

Head firmly buried in sand.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Flier wrote: »

Head firmly buried in sand.

I'd noticed.

Flier

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd noticed.

Good. Maybe you can extricate yourself now.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Flier wrote: »

Good. Maybe you can extricate yourself now.

Life is theatre. And sometimes it's a pantomime.

marienbad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Life is theatre. And sometimes it's a pantomime.

and sometimes it is like a box of chocolates, your point ?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

marienbad wrote: »

your point ?

Already made, for anyone who wants to form opinion based on the evidence.

marienbad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Already made, for anyone who wants to form opinion based on the evidence.

At this stage I don't think you have a point, certainly not one readily discernible. You just seem to dismiss everyone else in somewhat opaque language.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

marienbad wrote: »

<...>not one readily discernible<...>

Apparently, although it seems perfectly straightforward to me.

marienbad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Apparently, although it seems perfectly straightforward to me.

Well of course it seems straightforward to you , but it might be a case of-to quote Bill Maher on the GOP - ''living in the bubble'' .

Turtwig

Peeps!

No matter how much someone's disagreeing opinion or inability to see your point of view may irk you. Can I ask that you leave your handbags in the luggage compartment outside this thread? Especially when it looked like everyone was having a lovely trip and discussion. Let's try to keep it that way.

Thanks,


(And yes I did just say peeps!)#YOLO

Lingua Franca

YOLOing? Reported!

Galvasean

They'll let anyone Mod these days...

Turtwig

Galvasean wrote: »

They'll let anyone Mod these days...

Of course, it's part of the creed.

achtungbarry wrote: »

. . .[This forum is only four months old]. . . and all those posts supposedly from 2005 were planted there by Mod to test us. This is what actually happened 4 months ago.

In the beginning Mod created boards.ie.

And boards.ie was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the froum. And the Spirit of Mod moved upon the face of the forum.

And Mod said, Let there be categories: and there was categories.

And Mod saw the catagories, that it was good: and Mod divided the believers from the non believers.

And Mod called the non believers' area the atheist forum.

And the forum brought forth reasonable debate, and theists yielding hilarity after his kind, and the hilarity yielding sulking, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and Mod saw that it was hilarious.

And Mod said, Let us make more mods in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the users of the forum.

And Mod said, Let there be smileys in the forum of the boards to divide the serious from the lighthearted;

And Mod saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

By the seventh day Mod had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he got back to his real work before his boss caught him spending ridiculous amounts of time on an internet forum when he should have been doing his actual job.

I especially like the bit about dominion.

bogman22

UDP wrote: »

So the abortion debate about to kick off again.

From what I know it doesn't have to go to a referendum as the supreme court already ruled that it is legal under certain circumstances e.g. when the life of the mother is at risk.

No doctor can perform an abortion here since it would be classified as mal practice and they would be struck off by the Irish Medical Council.

The EU has said (because of a human rights case they heard) that we have to have an accessible procedure that women can avail of to determine if they can have a legal abortion.

This means that there needs to be clear guidelines as to what grounds a legal abortion will be granted.

Cardinal Brady says they are going to have a massive campaign. Pat Rabbit basically says this is not the 1950's where the church tells the government what to do.

Do you think the church will have much sway on people's opinions in this debate?

I don't think they will have much impact on those under 40 and I would imagine the damage they have caused to themselves over the past few years re abuse will hurt their persuading powers greatly.

two wrongs won't make a right.

Morag

Jernal wrote: »

I especially like the bit about dominion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWvOHT0zfXY

aloyisious

bogman22 wrote: »

two wrongs won't make a right.

The human race, in general or in specifics, will never satisfy all of it's kind in what's right or wrong. It can only aim to make the best decisions. When it come's to the living and the future-born, if there a choice between giving medical assistance to ensure a right to a living person and giving medical assistance to ensure a right to a possibly future-born person, then I'd make my choice on the grounds of whomsoever has the greater chance of longevity, not on the ethics espoused by others. Sometimes espoused rights are wrong.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

aloyisious wrote: »

The human race, in general or in specifics, will never satisfy all of it's kind in what's right or wrong. It can only aim to make the best decisions.

I'd quibble on this. If we can't establish what's universally right or wrong (and I agree that we can't), we can only aim to make agreed decisions.

aloyisious wrote: »

When it come's to the living and the future-born, if there a choice between giving medical assistance to ensure a right to a living person and giving medical assistance to ensure a right to a possibly future-born person, then I'd make my choice on the grounds of whomsoever has the greater chance of longevity, not on the ethics espoused by others.

If possible, I'd like to clarify what this means. Does it mean that (for example) if you've a choice between impacting the health of a woman who (in the normal course of events) you'd expect to live for another sixty years, and terminating a pregnancy which (in a few months) would otherwise result in a person being born who (in the normal course of events) you'd expect to live for eighty years, that termination would be prohibited?

Also, why is longevity the essential ethic? I mean, health economists get all enthusiastic about Quality-Adjusted Life Years, where they try to figure out how many years of incontinent dementia would be worth the same as a single year of rude health. But, tbh, I'd feel this is all balderdash; longevity can't be exchanged, so it can't be a common measure of value - or, indeed, a basis for a common ethic. If a complete stranger said that they needed one of your kidneys, and that any risk to your longevity and quality of life would be more than compensated for by the increase in theirs, would you jump in?

aloyisious

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd quibble on this. If we can't establish what's universally right or wrong (and I agree that we can't), we can only aim to make agreed decisions.If possible, I'd like to clarify what this means. Does it mean that (for example) if you've a choice between impacting the health of a woman who (in the normal course of events) you'd expect to live for another sixty years, and terminating a pregnancy which (in a few months) would otherwise result in a person being born who (in the normal course of events) you'd expect to live for eighty years, that termination would be prohibited?

Also, why is longevity the essential ethic? I mean, health economists get all enthusiastic about Quality-Adjusted Life Years, where they try to figure out how many years of incontinent dementia would be worth the same as a single year of rude health. But, tbh, I'd feel this is all balderdash; longevity can't be exchanged, so it can't be a common measure of value - or, indeed, a basis for a common ethic. If a complete stranger said that they needed one of your kidneys, and that any risk to your longevity and quality of life would be more than compensated for by the increase in theirs, would you jump in?

Answer 1. Sometimes decisions made, while NOT the best decisions to make for posterity, are the best decisions that can be made at any given time, having taken all known factors into account. Eg; agreed decisions between two (or more) debaters. That'll sound a bit convoluted, but honest.

Answer 2. My use of the word longevity was the wrong one. I had meant to get across the point of the woman having a greater chance of another pregnancy, and possibly what she might think would be fulfillment of her life, than the chance of an unknown quantity (the foetus within her womb) having an equal or greater chance to the same. I would NOT put the foetus's chance of life above that of the woman, so termination would definitely be on the cards.

I know that the above will sound crude, and even brutal, but it's the best way, at this time, that I can put my thoughts into words. Having said that, the woman's desires would also have to be taken into account.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

aloyisious wrote: »

That'll sound a bit convoluted, but honest.

I'd say not too far from what I'd said, I just wouldn't use the word "best" at all. At any point in time, the agreed position will simply be whatever it's possible to agree. Which is circular, rather than convoluted!

aloyisious wrote: »

I had meant to get across the point of the woman having a greater chance of another pregnancy, and possibly what she might think would be fulfillment of her life, than the chance of an unknown quantity (the foetus within her womb) having an equal or greater chance to the same. I would NOT put the foetus's chance of life above that of the woman, so termination would definitely be on the cards.

I know that the above will sound crude, and even brutal, but it's the best way, at this time, that I can put my thoughts into words. Having said that, the woman's desires would also have to be taken into account.

Ah, indeed, I think the kind of thing you mean is clearer. It is fair to say, this just puts us back in that space where we try (and fail) to find some clear basis for deciding where and when the foetus can just be ignored. We can relate to physical dependence, and then go "erm" when someone asks does this mean we can terminate in situations where someone has lost the capacity to live independently. We can try relating it to brain function, in which case we get asked the equivalent question about people with profound mental handicap.

Which leaves us (just guessing where the conversation would go next), largely on pragmatic grounds, agreeing something to the effect of late term abortion (however defined) being prohibited. Even though that compromises the principles we thought we'd established - like favouring the autonomy, life and health of the woman over the foetus in all situations.

Unless someone can think of some new direction to take the matter.

aloyisious

Utopia,,,,, where the state will take full responsibility for the care of any foetus that it's laws insist any pregnant woman carries full-term to the event of birth, and that the woman has no legal responsibilities to or for any child born as a result. Plus she is afforded the opportunity without responsibility to provide mothering/nurturing of the child if she so chooses, and the state agrees.

Delirium

Abortion Bill to be published by summer

A Bill to legalise abortion in certain circumstances, including the risk of suicide, is included in the programme of legislation the Government intends to publish between now and the summer break.

The legislation, the Protection of Maternal Life Bill, is one of about 30 new pieces of legislation that have been earmarked for publication during the summer term of the Dáil.

The Bill, which is still being drafted, will make abortion legally permissible in certain circumstances and give statutory backing to the Supreme Court decision in the X case in 1991. The legislation will permit abortion when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. That risk will include the threat of suicide or self-destruction.

Full Article

lazygal

koth wrote: »

Abortion Bill to be published by summer

There's still a difference between publishing a Bill and getting it through second, committee and report stages before the Dail rises in July, and anything that isn't passed by the recess gets shunted back for the next session's timetable. I might be cynical but I foresee lots of 'We don't want to rush such important legislation' and 'It's vital to make sure the legislation stands up to scrutiny' while things are debated endlessly but the Bill remains enmeshed in the legislative process.

PopePalpatine

aloyisious wrote: »

Utopia,,,,, where the state will take full responsibility for the care of any foetus that it's laws insist any pregnant woman carries full-term to the event of birth, and that the woman has no legal responsibilities to or for any child born as a result. Plus she is afforded the opportunity without responsibility to provide mothering/nurturing of the child if she so chooses, and the state agrees.

The mother will still need to endure childbirth though.

lazygal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The mother will still need to endure childbirth though.

And pregnancy, which is no walk in the park even with no complications, and can cause lifelong issues.

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

And pregnancy, which is no walk in the park even with no complications, and can cause lifelong issues.

It's more of a short ungainly waddle to a park bench, careful levering to sit down while being internally kicked only to discover you need to pee. now.

lazygal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's more of a short ungainly waddle to a park bench, careful levering to sit down while being internally kicked only to discover you need to pee. now.

For the twentieth time that hour.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

aloyisious wrote: »

Utopia,,,,, where the state will take full responsibility for the care of any foetus that it's laws insist any pregnant woman carries full-term to the event of birth, and that the woman has no legal responsibilities to or for any child born as a result. Plus she is afforded the opportunity without responsibility to provide mothering/nurturing of the child if she so chooses, and the state agrees.

The problem with that vision (which I'd say is impractical, more than Utopian) is it seems to suggest that responsibility for the child rests with everyone except the natural mother. You'll understand, the law is either establishing the correct balance, or it isn't. If it denies access to termination in certain circumstances, that denial is either reasonable, or it isn't. If it's reasonable, there's no immediately compelling argument for saying the "state" (which is just another word for "all of the rest of us") should take on any particular obligation. If it's not reasonable, then termination should be allowed.