Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

loveisdivine

I'm starting to get really fed up with these nonsensical arguments being plastered all over the front pages. Its turning the whole thing into a farce. This is a serious topic with life changing ramifications for the people involved and its becoming a joke. Its going to end up with the average 'joe on the street' not caring anymore which means the issue will get forgotten about again.

Delirium

Looks like the pro-life folk are still using the graphic image placards.



MODS feel free to unembed pic if it's not appropriate.

robindch

Bobby42 wrote: »

This the most nonsense argument I've heard during the abortion debate. I still can't get my head around it. Normalising suicide?

It's a fallacy which, in my experience, is most often seen in authoritarian people.

It's the mistaken belief that if the state legislates on some topic, then that constitutes tacit "acceptance" of the topic. And that "acceptance" neutralizes the taboo which previously existed and which presumably kept whatever it was down to manageable levels. It's a state of mind that presumes that people do things only on account of peer pressure, and not because, say, they want to do it.

It's fairly similar to the kind of thinking that causes people to campaign to outlaw things like prostitution, in the mistaken belief that prohibition leads to abolition (rather than criminalization).

lazygal

Do prolifers give birth to crosses?

Why are they worried about the preshus tiiineee babies then?

rainbow kirby

So tempted to cycle over at lunchtime and wind them up...

Constitutional law speakers on at the moment. That means William Binchy. *head explodes*

GCU Flexible Demeanour

koth wrote: »

300 according to Journal.ie article

Not exactly a groundswell, then. Some day we might have an opinion poll that actually asks some apt questions, and maybe even elicits some apt answers. For instance "Would you be essentially satisfied by laws which have the effect of ensuring that no record of any abortion you might have exists within Ireland, unless you decide to disclose it?" or "Do you essentially agree that the Irish Constitution is really just a vision statement, expressing our deep desire to make the lifestyle depicted in "The Quiet Man" a reality?" When we see 78% support for those statements, we might be at least starting to get to a real debate.

robindch wrote: »

<...>It's fairly similar to the kind of thinking that causes people to campaign to outlaw things like prostitution, in the mistaken belief that prohibition leads to abolition (rather than criminalization).

I'm not particular defending or attacking the specific statement made. But, just to point to what the guy is probably talking about, there is an issue around experience of suicide prevention programmes.

http://theguide.fmhi.usf.edu/pdf/2012PDFs/IB-5.pdf

<...>

Research has shown, and the authors of these previously mentioned studies also acknowledge, that curriculum which presents suicide as a reaction to the common stressors of adolescence is not only ineffective, but may be harmful because it normalizes the behavior and reduces protective taboos, thereby making suicide more acceptable (7, 20, 23, 55, 56).<...>

Now, most of us will appreciate that no research is definitive, and that the relevance of any finding depends on context. But what I'd suspect the relevant doctor means is that the approach taken in the legislation conflicts with the approach he'd take in designing a suicide prevention programme. Again, in our culture, we're sort of used to the law embodying concepts that make absolutely no practical sense.

Bannasidhe

aloyisious wrote: »

One of the expert Psychiatric witnesses ( Professor Kevin Malone) before the committee has told it that allowing in law for the possibility that a pregnant woman may commit suicide to end a forced birth on her may - in Professor Kelly's words - end in suicide being legitimized in young mens minds if they see the law's acceptance of the chance that a female might commit suicide to end a unwanted birth legitimizing her suicide threat.

This, according to Professor Malone, might well result in an increase of young men committing suicide in the belief that the law see's it as a legitimate act. I wait for statistics to be rolled out to prove his point. Hopefully some-one will call his bluff and demand that he produce studies, statistics and reports to prove his leap in the dark.

Edit.. I got the name wrong, it's Kevin Malone, he's a professor in Medicine at UCD and has been quoted in various reports on young male suicide ratios vis a vie other groups.

Let's spin this argument a bit

I put it to you good folk of A&A that this legislation will help safe guard men who are at risk of suicide by bringing discussion of it into the public sphere and demonstrating that options are available. That the State will act to safe guard the lives of those who feel their life in no longer tenable. It can only benefit all of society to see that the mechanisms of State takes the possibility that a person may take their own life seriously.'



still think it's all a load of bolex

Sarky

rainbow kirby wrote: »

So tempted to cycle over at lunchtime and wind them up...

Smack your lips hungrily and ask if they do take-away.

Bannasidhe

Just happened across this nugget of information

In Ireland there are two main categories under which books can be banned. The first is they are “indecent or obscene” while the second is “they advocate the procurement of abortion or miscarriage”.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fifty-shades-of-alan-shatter-steamy-novel-by-justice-minister-referred-to-censor-29284409.html

Bannasidhe

Having done some more digging this is the list of books banned as of Dec 2010. No books banned for being 'obscene' - quite a few 'Books prohibited on the grounds that they were indecent or obscene and/or that they advocate the procurement of abortion or miscarriage or the use of any method, treatment or appliance for the purpose of such procurement.'

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Register%20of%20Prohibited%20Publications%202010.pdf/Files/Register%20of%20Prohibited%20Publications%202010.pdf

JRant

rainbow kirby wrote: »

So tempted to cycle over at lunchtime and wind them up...

Constitutional law speakers on at the moment. That means William Binchy. *head explodes*

Watching the committee now myself. I may have picked him up wrong but Binchy just seemed to claim that 2 referendums and a supreme court judgement are not reason enough to legislated on this issue!!

Nodin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Having done some more digging this is the list of books banned as of Dec 2010. No books banned for being 'obscene' - quite a few 'Books prohibited on the grounds that they were indecent or obscene and/or that they advocate the procurement of abortion or miscarriage or the use of any method, treatment or appliance for the purpose of such procurement.'

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Register%20of%20Prohibited%20Publications%202010.pdf/Files/Register%20of%20Prohibited%20Publications%202010.pdf

Depressing that even today some wankstain thinks they have sufficient moral superiority to judge whats obscene and whats 'acceptable'.

swampgas

JRant wrote: »

Watching the committee now myself. I may have picked him up wrong but Binchy just seemed to claim that 2 referendums and a supreme court judgement are not reason enough to legislated on this issue!!

At least he's being consistent with everything he has said previously. He appears to act on the premise that by repeating something enough times it magically becomes true. Mind you a lot of politicians and religious leaders work the same way.

Sarky

Following the committee on Twitter myself. So far I have seen Fidelma Healy Eames decide that no actually, we don't have to legislate for X, TD Billy Timmins has announced "I didn't get elected to reflect the will of the people", and Ronan Mullen has asked the panel to declare if they were a member of any special interest groups, without a shred of irony.

This is absolutely breathtaking stuff.

Zombrex

koth wrote: »

Looks like the pro-life folk are still using the graphic image placards.

Lol. Oh no, not blood!! I though abortions were carried about by kittens on a bed of white roses :rolleyes:

Sarky

Everyone knows childbirth doesn't contain any icky fluids whatsoever. At worst it's that clear blue water you see on sanitary towel ads. At worst.

Stark

Zombrex wrote: »

Lol. Oh no, not blood!! I though abortions were carried about by kittens on a bed of white roses :rolleyes:

Actually the more I think about it, the more the thought of kittens clawing their way into someone's womb to feast on a fetus sounds kind of gruesome.

Sarky

JRant

swampgas wrote: »

At least he's being consistent with everything he has said previously. He appears to act on the premise that by repeating something enough times it magically becomes true. Mind you a lot of politicians and religious leaders work the same way.

He really has to be commended for his unwavering dogmatic approach. He's always struck me as someone who thinks that if he doesn't agree with something then it has no place in a discussion.

Zombrex

Sarky wrote: »

If rule 34 is that if it exists there is porn of it on the internet, rule 35 must be if it exists there is a cat version of it on the internet.

Sarky

I think 35 is "If porn does not exist, it must be created". but yeah, Cats are definitely in there somewhere.

JRant

Sarky wrote: »

Following the committee on Twitter myself. So far I have seen Fidelma Healy Eames decide that no actually, we don't have to legislate for X, TD Billy Timmins has announced "I didn't get elected to reflect the will of the people", and Ronan Mullen has asked the panel to declare if they were a member of any special interest groups, without a shred of irony.

This is absolutely breathtaking stuff.

We've also had Binchy taking a bit of a cheap shot at Bacik and the labour party.

The former supreme court justice has spoken very i must say.

Cahill has been clear and concise.

While the other expert, whos name escapes me, was rightly called up on offering opinions on something they had no authority to speak on.

Lingua Franca

Is there any one twitter feed to follow for all of this gobsmacking oratory?

Corkfeen

Jesus, Shatter's book is steamy.... Here's a quote, do not read if you're under 18 as it will blow your mind.

* The bottle emptied and the champagne finished he carried her the stairs into the bedroom, realising that they were both slightly drunk. She lay beneath him on the bed, its soft mattress rising and falling as their bodies joined together in passionate celebration of the decision they had made.

Stairway fetishes and everything.

Bannasidhe

Corkfeen wrote: »

Jesus, Shatter's book is steamy.... Here's a quote, do not read if you're under 18 as it will blow your mind.


Stairway fetishes and everything.

Oh Myyyyyy..

Public morality has not been threatened in such a manner since that disgusting depiction of sapphic shagginess that is the Well of Lonliness was banned in 19nodickittydo for the line 'and that night they were not divided'. Yes, two women shared a bed and there was no pillow down the middle to prevent them from spooning...or dunking a digestive in the others morning cup of tea... :eek:

UDP

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Is there any one twitter feed to follow for all of this gobsmacking oratory?

Don't know about twitter but you could look at thejournal.ie 's live blog each day. e.g. today.

Corkfeen

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh Myyyyyy..

Public morality has not been threatened in such a manner since that disguising depiction of sapphic shagginess that is the Well of Lonliness was banned in 19nodickittydo for the line 'and that night they were not divided'. Yes, two women shared a bed and there was no pillow down the middle to prevent them from spooning...or dunking a digestive in the others morning cup of tea... :eek:

This reminds me of a book I was studying in English. It was written by an Irish writer and inevitably faced the banhammer in the fifties. There was apparently an implied lesbian relationship throughout the book but i'm still struggling to find it. :pac: I'd suspect that the censors office must have been secretly raunchy behind closed doors. I'm surprised Alfred Hitchcock films ever managed to get released here.....

Turtwig

I've noticed that an awful lot of people seem to dismissing Mr Malone's potentiality towards normalisation of suicide as a form of sexism.

I think, that's a naive viewpoint.

Prof Kevin Malone wrote:

if one increases inadvertently male suicide - we have done a study of female suicides - there is a two-year lagged effect. When male suicide rates increase in Ireland, two years later one will get an increase in the female suicide rates.

These female suicide rates that will supposedly rise won't just be pregnant women. In effect, if what he is saying is true then the suicide part of the bill will likely kill more women than it saves. A good example of pragmatism and ethics clashing. As for how valid his fears are I don't know. He's in that rare position of possibly being a leading authority on this research so at best, if it's quackery, all that's going to happen in the short therm is his work will be disputed.

Is it possible that he's ideological biased against women or abortion? Yes of course, but until anyone produces evidences that suggest that bias exists and that it may have impaired his research then we have to take it on good faith that his study, is like all science, wrong but less wrong than previous iterations of suicide research.

One thing that is worth pointing out, in so far as I can ascertain, is that, his study which he keeps using to reference this 'normalisation' point wasn't actually peer reviewed. But now that his point has been made so openly and publicly the Pro-Choice campaign would be best to avoid attempting to discredit at it will reflect worse on them than anyone else.

I'll be interested to see though in twenty years time how this study and his 'normalisation' concerns will hold up. My personal opinion is that it will be further validated.

I also found this quote of his quite interesting :

Mr Malone again wrote:

I think introducing something that makes suicidality okay for some people for certain social needs really creates a challenge for Irish society.

HurtLocker

Can some clear this up for me...
We had some referendum yeah years ago. We voted yes to abortion. The x case has bound the government to legislate for abortion for suicidal women. Yet we have this debate where a few dollar funded people just shout slogans even though by law the government have to legislate whether they like to or not?

Bannasidhe

HurtLocker wrote: »

Can some clear this up for me...
We had some referendum yeah years ago. We voted yes to abortion. The x case has bound the government to legislate for abortion for suicidal women. Yet we have this debate where a few dollar funded people just shout slogans even though by law the government have to legislate whether they like to or not?

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.