Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Kiwi in IE

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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.

The state currently denies access in all circumstances unless there is an immediate risk to the mother's life (and even then we are not sure, depends on assessment of what constitutes immediate risk by individual doctors). That is a long, long way off reasonable.

Kiwi in IE

On demand to 12 weeks with extensions in exceptional circumstances is reasonable. And in the case of rape, if the woman does not have the means to go to England and this state then forces her to give birth, she certainly shouldn't be forced to raise the child as well, unless of course she wants to. In that scenario it should certainly be the states problem and responsibility.

Kiwi in IE

Actually it is absurd to think that I sit typing these posts in a First World country discussing how the law of this land demands that a raped woman gives birth to the rapists child if she becomes pregnant! The type of law most would attribute to a strict Muslim country which observes Sharia law, not a Western country.

rainbow kirby

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The type of law most would attribute to a strict Muslim country which observes Sharia law, not a Western country.

Not even that, Sharia law generally allows first trimester abortion...

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The state currently denies access in all circumstances unless there is an immediate risk to the mother's life (and even then we are not sure, depends on assessment of what constitutes immediate risk by individual doctors). That is a long, long way off reasonable.

Indeed, you'll appreciate we were exploring how that might be changed.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Actually it is absurd to think that I sit typing these posts in a First World country discussing how the law of this land demands that a raped woman gives birth to the rapists child if she becomes pregnant! The type of law most would attribute to a strict Muslim country which observes Sharia law, not a Western country.

Leaving aside the likelihood that a Muslim country would have wider access to abortion, I appreciate what you mean. Now, agreeing how awful we are is something of a national past-time, so I'd suggest we leave the whole "we're no better than a shower of towel-heads" shamefest to one side.

I've a vague memory of trying to raise your precise point before, in a somewhat different way. You're absolutely right - how bizarre is it to have such a restrictive law in a country where women obtain abortions very commonly? Yet, as you'll see, there's no political consensus on moving from the present position.

I generally contend that people organise their collective affairs in the way that they want, and the way they want will frequently differ from the way that they'll tell you they want. I think folk should read and reflect on your deliciously non-PC first sentence. "Our abortion law is like something a bunch of Balubas would come up with". Why? Why is that the case? "Because the Church said so" isn't a full explanation. Irish people, as much as anyone, will tell religious authority to feck off if it's not what they want.

Why the blatant hypocracy of it all? There's some reason why Lucinda Creighton (just to pick a politician reluctant to support change) sees no percentage in pushing a pro choice agenda.

StudentDad

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Not even that, Sharia law generally allows first trimester abortion...

This may be considered an aside to the subject. However, when the church is rumoured to have been complicit in the murder of women in Argentina in the 70's and the handing over of their babies to 'acceptable' parents and the possible collusion of the current Pope in those actions. Why the hell should anyone care what the church thinks?

SD

Sulla Felix

StudentDad wrote: »

This may be considered an aside to the subject. However, when the church is rumoured to have been complicit in the murder of women in Argentina in the 70's and the handing over of their babies to 'acceptable' parents and the possible collusion of the current Pope in those actions. Why the hell should anyone care what the church thinks?

SD

Because they unfortunately, in the minds of at least a large minority of the population, are still the source of all moral thinking. Most people don't want to think about difficult topics like abortion, so they outsource to the church, or their favorite newspaper etc.

robindch

StudentDad wrote: »

[...] when the church is rumoured to have been complicit in [...] the handing over of their babies to 'acceptable' parents

That happened in Ireland too. One of my relatives in my extended family got pregnant down the country in the mid-sixties where these kind of things didn't happen in "proper" families. So she disappeared to the USA with her US boyfriend for duration of her pregnancy.

Somebody who'd been involved tangentially in this mentioned to me last year that my relative planned it meticulously from the outset, taking a series of photos of herself with her bf in a range of clothes and settings suitable for summer, autumn and winter, so that she could drip-feed them home to friends and family over the course of the pregnancy, making them think that all was good and proper.

Once the baby was born, just after christmas in a major city on the East coast, it was immediately taken away from her (with her "consent"), and the church kindly stepped in and "found" a home for the child where the parents were catholic.

Nobody knows what happened to the kid concerned, and some of her siblings who helped arrange and facilitate this obscenity have, entirely justifiably, eaten themselves alive with guilt for the last forty-five years or so.

LittleBook

StudentDad wrote: »

the church is rumoured to have been complicit in ... the handing over of their babies to 'acceptable' parents

robindch wrote: »

That happened in Ireland too.

Isn't it common knowledge that this was pretty rife?

Edit: On re-reading your post SD, I think the "rumour" part refers to the murder of the women, not the taking of the babies.

The Catholic church sold my child

Philomena was one of thousands of Irish women sent to convents in the 1950s and 60s, taken away from their homes and families because the Catholic church said single mothers were moral degenerates who could not be allowed to keep their children.

Such was the power of the church, and of Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, that the state bowed before its demands, ceding responsibility for the mothers and babies to the nuns. For them it was not only a matter of sin and morality, but one of pounds, shillings and pence. At the time young Anthony Lee was born, I discovered that the Irish government was paying the Catholic church a pound a week for every woman in its care, and two shillings and sixpence for every baby. And that was not all.

After giving birth, the girls were allowed to leave the convent only if they or their family could pay the nuns £100. It was a substantial sum, and those who couldn't afford it – the vast majority – were kept in the convent for three years, working in kitchens, greenhouses and laundries or making rosary beads and religious artefacts, while the church kept the profits from their labour.

Spain's Stolen Babies

Lawyers believe that up to 300,000 babies were taken.

The practice of removing children from parents deemed "undesirable" and placing them with "approved" families, began in the 1930s under the dictator General Francisco Franco.

At that time, the motivation may have been ideological. But years later, it seemed to change - babies began to be taken from parents considered morally - or economically - deficient. It became a money-spinner, too.

The scandal is closely linked to the Catholic Church, which under Franco assumed a prominent role in Spain's social services including hospitals, schools and children's homes.

Nuns and priests compiled waiting lists of would-be adoptive parents, while doctors were said to have lied to mothers about the fate of their children.

StudentDad wrote: »

Why the hell should anyone care what the church thinks?

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Because they unfortunately, in the minds of at least a large minority of the population, are still the source of all moral thinking. Most people don't want to think about difficult topics like abortion, so they outsource to the church, or their favorite newspaper etc.

Stomach churningly true

Bobby42

From Newstalk:

"Dr Boylan says if termination allowed on Oct 22 or 23, on balance of probability, Savita would be alive today".

From RTE:

"Dr Boylan: If a termination had been performed on Mon or Tuesday #Savita would probably not have died. But it not legal then".

Nodin

Bobby42 wrote: »

From Newstalk:

"Dr Boylan says if termination allowed on Oct 22 or 23, on balance of probability, Savita would be alive today".

Dr Peter Boylan tells inquest that #Savita would be alive if she had received a
termination on Mon but this was not possible due to law

(my bold)
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/04/17/failing-savita/

Bobby42

I see youth defence are only retweeting the posts about the tests and vital signs and ignoring the law preventing a possibly life saving abortion.

PopePalpatine

Scheisse, I was hoping they'd feck off.

Galvasean

Bobby42 wrote: »

I see youth defence are only retweeting the posts about the tests and vital signs and ignoring the law preventing a possibly life saving abortion.

I give it a week before they start repeating, "Abortion is never required to save a mother's life."

That reminds me, where is that pro-life cheerleader that was in here bleating, "We shouldn't blame anyone until we know the facts" now?

Stark

Or "It's not an abortion if it's medically necessary. The law always allows a doctor to intervene if necessary".

robindch

Stark wrote: »

"It's not an abortion if it's medically necessary."

Popette produced that line some weeks ago -- I did a double-take, thought about mentioning that this is just redefining terms to suit yourself, then thought the better of it.

If Popette can reconcile herself with abortion by a really obvious verbal sleight of hand, then frankly, anybody can.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Popette produced that line some weeks ago -- did a double-take, thought about mentioning that this is just redefining terms to suit yourself, then thought the better of it.

If Popette can reconcile herself with abortion by a minor verbal sleight of hand, then frankly, anybody can.

Amazing how the religious folks can accept something as long as there is a minor verbal sleight of hand.

Abortion as long as it is not called 'abortion', same-sex 'marriage' as long as it is not called 'marriage'.

They are going to need their own special dictionaries soon. Mind, the authors will have to work hard to avoid such no-nos as 'Termination' see 'Abortion' and 'Partnership' see 'Marriage' (or 'Creationism' see 'Nonsense'. :P)

Lingua Franca

Here's some of that sophistry from Youth Defence themselves on their facebook page:


Youth Defence
Hi Ali, The medical treatments to save a mothers life are not considered abortions, because everything is done to save the mother while also doing the best possible to save the baby. Abortion is when the baby is directly targeted to be killed and the sole intention is to have a dead baby at the end. The Media is trying to confuse people by saying that these treatments are abortions. This was pointed out by one of our top obstetricians Dr Sam Coulter- Smyth recently and he said that calling these interruptions of pregnancies, abortions is cruel and hurtful to the women who have gone through these and whose babies have died.He also dealt with 3 cases of sepsis in pregnancy last year and saved the mothers life every time. Please read all about these on this document under the video to see why according to our experts in Maternal Health care why abortion is NOT needed to save a woman's life. http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/current-projects/abortion-never-saves-a-life/
1 · 22 hours ago

Pherekydes

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Here's some of that sophistry from Youth Defence themselves on their facebook page:


Youth Defence [...]

Fine. We'll give these women abortions, but we won't call them abortions.

Everyone happy now? Even YD and the Iona? Waters? The RCC?

kylith

I can understand that, to someone who has lost a wanted child, to call medical interventions like this 'abortions' could be hurtful, but it doesn't change the fact that it is an abortion. Just like 'downsized' is a euphemism for getting fired or 'well-built' is for overweight. Changing the name does not change what the thing is.

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

I can understand that, to someone who has lost a wanted child, to call medical interventions like this 'abortions' could be hurtful, but it doesn't change the fact that it is an abortion. Just like 'downsized' is a euphemism for getting fired or 'well-built' is for overweight. Changing the name does not change what the thing is.

Unless it's 'bijou' - that instantly changes everything.

robindch

kylith wrote: »

Just like 'downsized' is a euphemism for getting fired or 'well-built' is for overweight. Changing the name does not change what the thing is.

In the minds of some, changing the name of something certainly does change the reality it describes. Weird, but true.

BTW, I thought the term was "big-boned" or suffering from "water-retention" (though I do hold to Billy Connolly's view that it's more likely to be "chocolate-biscuit retention").

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

In the minds of some, changing the name of something certainly does change the reality it describes. Weird, but true.

BTW, I thought the term was "big-boned" or suffering from "water-retention" (though I do hold to Billy Connolly's view that it's more likely to be "chocolate-biscuit retention").

With respect to big boned, I think Denis Leary said it best "You are not big boned, dinosaurs were big boned, you are fat."

MrP

PopePalpatine

Being big-boned won't stop Michael O'Leary from finding a way to charge you extra, too. :rolleyes:

Gbear

MrPudding wrote: »

With respect to big boned, I think Denis Leary said it probably jotted it down at a Bill Hicks show and regurgitated it best "You are not big boned, dinosaurs were big boned, you are fat."

MrP

:pac:

Flier

Well sure that's great - all sorted now. Presumably someone's brought the courts up to speed about the new airy fairy it's not an abortion definition.
Is that what's called an Irish solution to an Irish problem?

Galvasean

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Youth Defence
Hi Ali, The medical treatments to save a mothers life are not considered abortions, because everything is done to save the mother while also doing the best possible to save the baby. Abortion is when the baby is directly targeted to be killed and the sole intention is to have a dead baby at the end. The Media is trying to confuse people by saying that these treatments are abortions. This was pointed out by one of our top obstetricians Dr Sam Coulter- Smyth recently and he said that calling these interruptions of pregnancies, abortions is cruel and hurtful to the women who have gone through these and whose babies have died.He also dealt with 3 cases of sepsis in pregnancy last year and saved the mothers life every time. Please read all about these on this document under the video to see why according to our experts in Maternal Health care why abortion is NOT needed to save a woman's life. http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/current-projects/abortion-never-saves-a-life/
1 · 22 hours ago

Tell that to the inquiry...

kylith

robindch wrote: »

In the minds of some, changing the name of something certainly does change the reality it describes. Weird, but true.

BTW, I thought the term was "big-boned" or suffering from "water-retention" (though I do hold to Billy Connolly's view that it's more likely to be "chocolate-biscuit retention").

Nah, "big boned" and "water retention" are excuses.

Bobby42

everything is done to save the mother while also doing the best possible to save the baby.

This isn't what happens though. Sometimes the pregnancy has to be terminated and this is an abortion, i.e deliberately ending the pregnancy.

It can't be described as doing the best possible to save the baby. At a certain point the reality of the situation means only the mother can be saved.

I can understand people not liking the word abortion, but its the grim reality of the situation.

Absolam

To be a little more even-handed, whilst the term 'abortion' is obviously broad, for some the word is synonomous with at will termination, which carries a different connotation (again, to some) to medically neccasary termination. The former being less palatable than the latter to many people, even those without a fundamentalist religious perspective.