Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

jank

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I will assume you are referring to me. I did not at any stage suggest that anyone who is religious should be banned from becoming a doctor. What I have said is that if they have a 'conscientious objection' to any medical treatment, their clients have a right to be made aware of this and refuse their input in medical treatment accordingly if they wish.

No problem with this. Thank you for clarifying.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

In the case of a suicidal woman facing a panel of three consultants who must approve an abortion on the grounds of suicide, I believe she has every right to refuse the input of a consultant who for whatever reason, religious or otherwise, is anti abortion.

If it were my daughter in that position I would not be happy with practising Catholics on the panel, given the stance of the RCC on abortion. Nor any other person with other reasons, religious or otherwise, to be against abortion (if it were my daughter in that position she'd be gone to England), the fact is though in a country that is apparently '90%' Catholic you are statistically likely to get a whole panel full. This is why I initially referred only to Catholics. I would like to see something in place to protect women from religious bias influencing these panels.

Two points. What you are referring to is discrimination on religious grounds. If one is religious then you deem to too much of a risk that their religious morals will override their professional medical opinion. So, therefore you are not allowed to sit on such panels?? Maybe we should ban men from these panels?

Second point. How would you enforce such a concept? Force doctors to take a some state approved test to see how religious they are, if they are over a benchmark then they are not allowed to sit on these panels?

LittleBook

swampgas wrote: »

It's like a flashback to the eighties. I really had hoped for better.

Plus ça change....

Miriam Lord in the Irish Times:

Inevitably, the subject returned to abortion. But Gerry Adams wasn’t looking for a scrap. In fact, not only did he adopt a conciliatory tone, he helpfully fed the Taoiseach a chance to repeat the harmless nature of this Bill for the benefit of his suspicious backbenchers.

Given “the alarmist suggestions” by some that this legislation represents “the thin end of the wedge” and “will open the floodgates”, he wanted reassurances that this is not going to be the case.

Enda was only too happy to oblige. Definitely no floodgates (just the same old airport departure gates.)

I despair, I really do.

Obliq

^^^ "That gave the vocal backbenchers food for thought. If Clare Daly is against the legislation, it can’t be all that bad. And they could get back to addressing that other vital issue: the protection of political life when there is a real or substantial risk to a deputy’s seat . . ."

Nicely put.

Bannasidhe

I am even angrier than I was in the 80s when 8 came in - and I was so angry then I left the country for 10 years.

Back then us who campaigned against 8 warned of the repercussions. We warned women would die, we asked what about rape victims? We said this is unworkable...

Now, women have died. Now women pregnant as a result of rape who are suicidal will be required to jump through hoops and plead her case to a panel of 3 who will decide for her...oh, but she can appeal. :rolleyes:

Fetus incompatible with life? Suck it up and carry it to term Bridie. You'll be grand.

Go to Liverpool and have an abortion - no problemo (you baybee murderer), take an 'abortion pill' in your own bedroom = 14 years in jail for you Murderer!

This time it's worse because the things forecast in '83 came to pass but Ireland Inc has learned nothing.

This time I'm staying put and fighting back. It's my duty as an Irish woman, a mother and a grandmother.

Obliq

You have courage hon. It's failing me at the moment and I want to leave as soon as my kids are grown and gone. Honestly, I've never been so gutted to be both Irish and a woman. There's no "crying" smilie. Take it as read.

robindch

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

You have courage hon. It's failing me at the moment and I want to leave as soon as my kids are grown and gone. Honestly, I've never been so gutted to be both Irish and a woman. There's no "crying" smilie. Take it as read.

If we all leave we may as well post the keys of the country to the Vatican.

This is my country too and I'll be damned (:p) if I give it up without a fight. :mad:

and this shower can f**k right off

THE SOCIETY FOR the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) has described the draft bill on abortion published by the government this year as “worse than Britain’s 1967 Act”.

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-bill-spuc-891971-May2013/

jank

Obliq wrote: »

You have courage hon. It's failing me at the moment and I want to leave as soon as my kids are grown and gone. Honestly, I've never been so gutted to be both Irish and a woman. There's no "crying" smilie. Take it as read.

I know that bill may not be to everyones liking (It was never going please anyone here regardless) but are people being a tad over zealous with their promises to live this 'damned and rotten country'? Remember Ray D'arcy?

swampgas

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd like to think she's right. I just don't see it.

I can only guess that if three doctors do agree that abortion is needed, then they are legally protected from that point onwards? Which must be an improvement on the current situation, as it would give legal clarity in those specific cases. So we get legal protection for doctors, but not much support for pregnant women in general. They don't even get a say in the decision.

There has been very little consideration given to abortions for fatal foetal abnormalities or for rape victims, and the proposed legislation doesn't address either of these at all. Perhaps after this legislation is passed the debate can move away from the narrow issue of legal clarity, and towards the broader issue of when abortions should be legally allowed, as this (IMO) is a much bigger issue.

I also wonder - are all those people who voted FG in the last election really as rabidly anti-abortion as the party itself seems to be? They seem to be pandering to a strident and reactionary FG faction, rather than representing what I suspect to be the far more moderate views of most of the people who voted for them.

kylith

Obliq wrote: »

You have courage hon. It's failing me at the moment and I want to leave as soon as my kids are grown and gone. Honestly, I've never been so gutted to be both Irish and a woman. There's no "crying" smilie. Take it as read.

You and me both, not that I have kids yet. The state of everything, women's health, jobs, the economy, really makes me wish that I had somewhere else to go.

28064212

swampgas wrote: »

Perhaps after this legislation is passed the debate can move away from the narrow issue of legal clarity, and towards the broader issue of when abortions should be legally allowed, as this (IMO) is a much bigger issue.

^ This. The X Case has dominated every abortion discussion in the country for 20 years. And it was vital that it was legislated for because otherwise we had a constitution in an inconsistent state. It should have happened in 1993. Instead, successive governments allowed it to drag on, which meant any meaningful abortion discussion in this country never happened

Obliq

jank wrote: »

I know that bill may not be to everyones liking (It was never going please anyone here regardless) but are people being a tad over zealous with their promises to live this 'damned and rotten country'? Remember Ray D'arcy?

I made no promise - just expressed an ambition to go somewhere more civilised with better morals. Do you make a habit of knocking someone when they're down? Actually, that's a rhetorical question.

Penn

swampgas wrote: »

I can only guess that if three doctors do agree that abortion is needed, then they are legally protected from that point onwards? Which must be an improvement on the current situation, as it would give legal clarity in those specific cases.

"You don't stick a knife in a man's back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you're making progress" - Malcolm X

The proposed legislation is an improvement, but it's still completely wrong, and as usual, Ireland remains decades behind where we should be because of pandering to a minority rather than going with what the majority wants.

This legislation feels like nothing more than "We can't make everyone happy, so let's make as few people angry as possible"

rainbow kirby

swampgas wrote: »

I also wonder - are all those people who voted FG in the last election really as rabidly anti-abortion as the party itself seems to be? They seem to be pandering to a strident and reactionary FG faction, rather than representing what I suspect to be the far more moderate views of most of the people who voted for them.

I think Fine Gael have misinterpreted an "Anyone but Fianna Fáil" vote as an endorsement of right-wing conservative policy, which it really isn't.

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If we all leave we may as well post the keys of the country to the Vatican.

This is my country too and I'll be damned (:p) if I give it up without a fight. :mad:

and this shower can f**k right off

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-bill-spuc-891971-May2013/

I take your point, but weren't we Irish born in a country that already did just that? Sorry - would love to feel I could keep kicking against the pricks, but right now I haven't the heart for it. Of course I'll come round to fight another day - am just moping, sorry. Will snap out of it

thegreengoblin

The Black Oil wrote: »

Ridiculous, but unsurprising hyperbole here.



YD and education? Give me a break.

Youth Defence enrage me more than any other organisation I can think of. Their practice of holding up giant placards with pics of aborted foetuses on them is beyond revolting. I broached the subject with one of their representatives before and was told that they want to get the reality of abortion across to the Irish people. When I pointed out that they should instead hold up pics of a long queue at Dublin Airport, the conversation became much more heated (on her part) so it was time to leave.

My sincere belief is that they use these pics to try and humiliate passing women who may have had an abortion and remind them of the 'terrible' thing they have done.

Loafing Oaf

swampgas wrote: »

I also wonder - are all those people who voted FG in the last election really as rabidly anti-abortion as the party itself seems to be?

Almost certainly not, and same goes for FF, which is why Micheal Martin seems to be trying to wiggle out of the Ard Fheis commitment to oppose the bill.

Corkfeen

The D Case woman was apparently on Pat Kenny this morning. I only caught the pro-life medical advisor discussing foetal abnormalities arguing that there was never grounds for abortion with them. She claimed that it was inconsiderate of the life especially since even with the most extreme conditions, the baby might last a couple of days.

I struggle to understand how it is kind to a life, to bring it into this world when it is guaranteed to live for an extremely short length of time with no understanding of why it is suffering. In fact, this sounds incredibly thoughtless with no consideration of human life and the notion is entirely warped. I suspect in decades to come, these parts of our history will not be viewed in the kindest light.

Bannasidhe

Corkfeen wrote: »

The D Case woman was apparently on Pat Kenny this morning. I only caught the pro-life medical advisor discussing foetal abnormalities arguing that there was never grounds for abortion with them. She claimed that it was inconsiderate of the life especially since even with the most extreme conditions, the baby might last a couple of days.

I struggle to understand how it is a kind to a life, to bring it into this world when it is guaranteed to live for an extremely short length of time with no understanding of why it is suffering. In fact this sounds incredibly warped and the notion is entirely warped. I suspect in decades to come, these parts of our history will not be viewed in the kindest light.

Yeah, that was on in the background so I caught bits and pieces. I found the 'I will carry my baby in my womb so they can feel my love and birth them so I can give them a cuddle even though they will then die' comments to be appalling.

Make no mistake - this is not done for the benefit of 'baby'. This is deciding that a child should come into his world possibly in pain, possibly with no ability to ever attain any kind of self-awareness so it can have a bloody cuddle -

I think that is beyond selfish and cruel.

rainbow kirby

Reilly: Women refused termination could face spending pregnancy in psychiatric unit

WHAT THE FÚCK

Bannasidhe

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Reilly: Women refused termination could face spending pregnancy in psychiatric unit

WHAT THE FÚCK

:eek:

Dave!

Do pro-choice advocates see legislating for X as a first step in liberalising our abortion laws?

I ask because, if it comes up in radio/tv debates, you'll find that the "pro-lifers" are always pointing out that that's the other side's ultimate goal, but pro-choice advocates are generally keen to reject that, and push the "threat to the life of the mother" angle. Isn't this a bit disingenuous? Or just a strategy?

I suspect that there is a strategy memo floating around somewhere (in Ivana Bacik's office probably ), along the lines of:

1. Legislate for X
2. ...
3. Abortions for all!

I don't think most pro-choice campaigners would be satisfied with this minor concession, and retaining the situation where women have to travel abroad to end their pregnancy (or indeed, fake threats of suicide! which nobody will bother doing).

Much as I dislike many of the prominent pro-life campaigners, they're right when they point this out. While X needs to be legislated for, I see this current debate (focusing on the risk to the mother's health, and suicide) as a bit of a phoney one; nobody wants to have the real debate about whether a woman's right to bodily integrity supersedes the rights that should be bestowed upon a fused sperm/egg.

The status quo of exporting the problem isn't sustainable anymore, is it? I know this legislation is still useless for the majority of cases (abortion where there is a risk to the life of the mother is a pretty small % of cases), but is the fact that a concession was made at all a first step towards a real debate?

Rev Hellfire

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Reilly: Women refused termination could face spending pregnancy in psychiatric unit

WHAT THE FÚCK

Seems reasonable, if the woman is assessed and pregnancy is deemed not to be the reason for their suicidal tendencies. Then from a purely medical standpoint they could be committed while pregnant for their own safety.

The comment doesn't imply they are committed because they are pregnant, but rather they just happen to be when diagnosed.

At least that's how I read it.

keane2097

Dave! wrote: »

Do pro-choice advocates see legislating for X as a first step in liberalising our abortion laws?

I ask because, if it comes up in radio/tv debates, you'll find that the "pro-lifers" are always pointing out that that's the other side's ultimate goal, but pro-choice advocates are generally keen to reject that, and push the "threat to the life of the mother" angle. Isn't this a bit disingenuous? Or just a strategy?

I suspect that there is a strategy memo floating around somewhere (in Ivana Bacik's office probably ), along the lines of:

1. Legislate for X
2. ...
3. Abortions for all!

I don't think most pro-choice campaigners would be satisfied with this minor concession, and retaining the situation where women have to travel abroad to end their pregnancy (or indeed, fake threats of suicide! which nobody will bother doing).

Much as I dislike many of the prominent pro-life campaigners, they're right when they point this out. While X needs to be legislated for, I see this current debate (focusing on the risk to the mother's health, and suicide) as a bit of a phoney one; nobody wants to have the real debate about whether a woman's right to bodily integrity supersedes the rights that should be bestowed upon a fused sperm/egg.

The status quo of exporting the problem isn't sustainable anymore, is it? I know this legislation is still useless for the majority of cases (abortion where there is a risk to the life of the mother is a pretty small % of cases), but is the fact that a concession was made at all a first step towards a real debate?

As using a slippery-slope argument is disingenuous in itself, anyone who uses it can hardly complain when they're given a disingenuous response.

jank

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I think Fine Gael have misinterpreted an "Anyone but Fianna Fáil" vote as an endorsement of right-wing conservative policy, which it really isn't.

The Vast majority of people supported legislation of the x case, now we have that. Is there there majority support for a liberal abortion law in Ireland?

Ireland is a little more conservative outside the m50. It is not even sure if FF will support this legislation and they are as pro life as FG. If there is that much support for abortion in Ireland why are Labour scraping by at around 10% in the polls? Democracy, the tyranny of the majority and the constitution is pro life so not much can be done unless a referendum is passed. Haven't heard much about one even being proposed.

Penn

jank wrote: »

If there is that much support for abortion in Ireland why are Labour scraping by at around 10% in the polls?

Correlation does not imply causation. Labour are struggling in the polls for a large variety of reasons, most of which are related to austerity and tax measures implemented by the government (of which many feel Labour aren't doing a good enough job of keeping FG in check) rather than simply abortion.

Corkfeen

The podcast of the Pat Kenny segment is below.
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/today-with-pat-kenny/podcasts/

Also, I would be unlikely to vote Labour in the next election but that has feck all to do with their policy on abortion.

Turtwig

keane2097 wrote: »

As using a slippery-slope argument is disingenuous in itself, anyone who uses it can hardly complain when they're given a disingenuous response.

A slippery slope argument isn't necessarily disingenuous. What determines the fallacious of the slippery slope argument is typically the number of points included in the slope to get from the top to the bottom. Those points also are typically of an inane exaggerated and cherry picked fashion. The more fantastical the interim point the less credibility the slope has.

jank

Penn wrote: »

Correlation does not imply causation. Labour are struggling in the polls for a large variety of reasons, most of which are related to austerity and tax measures implemented by the government (of which many feel Labour aren't doing a good enough job of keeping FG in check) rather than simply abortion.

Exactly! Most people care about other things than abortion. If anger was THAT widespread in Ireland over the lack of legislation on abortion, then why aren't labour using it to their advantage? We all know they are going to be destroyed st the next election anyway.

oldrnwisr

jank wrote: »

The Vast majority of people supported legislation of the x case, now we have that. Is there there majority support for a liberal abortion law in Ireland?

That would depend on what you mean by liberal. Do you mean a completely open US style abortion framework or just more liberal than the one we have now?

The poll figures suggest that a strong majority favour an expansion of abortion law outside its current confines.

A February 2013 Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll and a January 2013 Sunday Times poll both found strong support (74%, 78%) for legalising abortion in circumstances of rape or incest. A Sunday Business Post poll in November 2012 also agreed with 82% in favour.

Regarding foetal abnormalities there is also a strong majority who favour widening the current legislation of about 80%.

However, as far as an elective abortion system is concerned (i.e. abortion-on-demand/request), not so much. The polls indicate approx. 35-40% support for such a measure.

So, like I said, it depends on how liberal you want to be.