Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Sarky

That's more or less it, yeah. Depressing, isn't it?

Morag

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

The Herald has learned that censors are set to investigate whether Laura: A Story You Will Never Forget is too “obscene” for Irish readers.

The book, which the minister wrote 24 years ago, contains steamy sex scenes and centres around the troubled private life of an Oireachtas member who is having an affair with his secretary.

The revelation comes after the Data Protection Commissioner confirmed that he will be asking Mr Shatter to justify revealing details about Mick Wallace's dealings with gardai on live television.

At one point in the book, the fictional TD attempts to force the woman to have an abortion in order to save his political career.

The Herald understands that a complaint about the book’s sex scenes was lodged with the Censorship of Publications Board just weeks ago.

Another allegation is the novel advocates the procurement of an abortion or miscarriage, contrary to Irish censorship laws.

Laura, which was published by Poolbeg Press, originally retailed for IR£4.99 but is now available on Amazon for as little as 1 cent.

A spokesperson for the Board confirmed that concerns have been raised with its secretary by a member of the public and added: “The complaint will be considered by the new Censorship of Publications Board when it is appointed.”

Ironically, it is Mr Shatter who is due to announce the members of the board in the coming weeks.

You couldn't make this up!

kylith

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?

What's really hacking me off is that some people keep asking 'Are we really obliged to legislate?'

Yes, yes, you are obliged to legislate. You've been obliged to legislate for the last 20 years. You're a fecking TD, how do you not know you're obliged to legislate? I know bugger all about politics, was 10 when the X case was going, and even I know that you have to legislate. It's like they're expecting that if they ask enough someone'll turn round and say 'Would you look at that! It seems that the Supreme Court made a suggestion rather than a ruling. You don't have to legislate after all, and we can all go back to sticking our heads in the sand'.

JRant

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Wasn't there a second referendum passed in 2002 that further enshrined this matter?

redfacedbear

And rather interestingly Dermot Ahern used the issue of there being a lacuna between the constitution and the statute book as his justification for introducing his blasphemy legislation a number of years ago. Would be interesting to see how those questioning the need for legislation now felt about that anomoly being fixed.

JRant

kylith wrote: »

What's really hacking me off is that some people keep asking 'Are we really obliged to legislate?'

Yes, yes, you are obliged to legislate. You've been obliged to legislate for the last 20 years. You're a fecking TD, how do you not know you're obliged to legislate? I know bugger all about politics, was 10 when the X case was going, and even I know that you have to legislate. It's like they're expecting that if they ask enough someone'll turn round and say 'Would you look at that! It seems that the Supreme Court made a suggestion rather than a ruling. You don't have to legislate after all, and we can all go back to sticking our heads in the sand'.

They're obviously worried about all that lovely eucharist they'll miss out on if the vote in favour of the bill.

Another point that keeps being raised is how, if this bill is passed, we'll start seeing abortions being carried out in the third trimester. Is this a possibilty or does the constitution prevent it?

Turtwig

JRant wrote: »

They're obviously worried about all that lovely eucharist they'll miss out on if the vote in favour of the bill.

Another point that keeps being raised is how, if this bill is passed, we'll start seeing abortions being carried out in the third trimester. Is this a possibilty or does the constitution prevent it?

The constitution will prevent for anything other than medical needs. Such circumstances won't arise unless there is a serious risk of death to the mother. Typically speaking after about 30 weeks it's safer to induce a delivery than it is to procure an abortion. So while there may be some circumstances where the abortion would be necessary in the third trimester these would be exceptionally rare on the scale of already exceptionally rare occurrences.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

The constitution will prevent for anything other than medical needs. Such circumstances won't arise unless there is a serious risk of death to the mother. Typically speaking after about 30 weeks it's safer to induce a delivery than it is to procure an abortion. So while there may be some circumstances where the abortion would be necessary in the third trimester these would be exceptionally rare on the scale of already exceptionally rare occurrences.

It is on a par with us having excellent weather for a whole summer - temp averages in the mid to high 20s, some rain at night to water the plants and an occasional light breeze...it could happen.

JRant

Jernal wrote: »

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.

:

There may be some merit in his analysis. I would however suggest that if the bill is passed, as is, we will see valuable resources taken away from where they are really needed.

Ireland has a shockingly high suicide rate amoungst young men accounting for some 40% of suicides. I think the overall ratio is 4:1 in terms of male:female.

JRant

Jernal wrote: »

The constitution will prevent for anything other than medical needs. Such circumstances won't arise unless there is a serious risk of death to the mother. Typically speaking after about 30 weeks it's safer to induce a delivery than it is to procure an abortion. So while there may be some circumstances where the abortion would be necessary in the third trimester these would be exceptionally rare on the scale of already exceptionally rare occurrences.

Cheers, so it's safe to say that it's yet more scaremongering.

Judging by the current waiting times for consultants in this country I just can't see how this panel of 3 will be a workable solution. But I'd imagine that's the whole point if it.

PopePalpatine

Sarky wrote: »

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

Rules 38-40:

38. A cat is fine too.

39. One cat leads to another.

40. Another cat leads to Zippo Cat.

Obliq

Jernal wrote: »

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 haven't commented yet on this view, and my opinion sure as hell won't be popular. The pro-choice jump to say this is definitely biased without discussing the problem is disturbing me, big time.

I remember (not too many months ago) getting mighty aggrieved at this legislation for precisely the reason it is NEVER ok to indicate that feeling suicidal is a normal state of being during pregnancy.

IMO The point that is being missed here is that women who cannot access an abortion when they are experiencing an unwanted pregnancy are more than likely many times more desperate than those who can access abortion or those who want their pregnancies to continue. We are currently legislating to cater for the psychological trauma (suicidal intent) that is inflicted on multitudes of Irish women who feel trapped into having an unwanted child due to their limited access to abortion (plus those who are already suffering from suicidal thoughts and then become pregnant - a minority, I imagine).

Since when did it become ok to say it is preferable to feel suicidal as a result of not being able to access an abortion, than to have one? Since we started into this legislative obligation, and in our support for it.

As for men - yes. If we are saying to women that this is an acceptable way to be in Ireland today, then we are saying it to men too. I think however, this doctor has blurred the issue sufficiently to warrant the charge of making it about men, when this real issue is still being ignored.

Turtwig

I agree, the problem this type of argument faces is that the majority of data on "abortion as treatment" is obtained from countries where abortion is actually available on request.

If the UK and other countries abortion wasn't so accessible what would Ireland's maternal suicide rate be like?

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

I agree, the problem this type of argument faces is that the majority of data on "abortion as treatment" is obtained from countries where abortion is actually available on request.

If the UK and other countries abortion wasn't so accessible what would Ireland's maternal suicide rate be like?

Or 'death by misadventure' verdicts due to attempts at DIY abortion.

HurtLocker

Jernal wrote: »

If the UK and other countries abortion wasn't so accessible what would Ireland's maternal suicide rate be like?

It would be unknown, not talked about and never mentioned. Politicians would act like abortion doesn't exist.

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or 'death by misadventure' verdicts due to attempts at DIY abortion.

Lol! Ban, many suicides are probably recorded as death by misadventure anyway.:P

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

Lol! Ban, many suicides are probably recorded as death by misadventure anyway.:P

This is true.

Obliq

"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"

When the Anti-Choice Choose, By Joyce Arthur

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

No surprises in here, but a very clear account of the kind of double-think that our anti-choice movement wouldn't admit to if you paid them.

lazygal

^^Yes, read that before. Which is why I find the Rachels' Vineyard/Women Hurt travelling show of regret reprehensible. Maybe the women wouldn't regret and condemn abortion if they weren't associating with groups that conflict with their own choices in life. There's plenty of things we all have regrets about, like a choice of partner, home, course of study, line of credit or career path, but that doesn't mean you think no one else should be allowed to make those choices. One woman's story is only her story, and its presumptuous to assume everyone else will feel the same way.

aloyisious

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or 'death by misadventure' verdicts due to attempts at DIY abortion.

Plus the odd chance that the woman who had the abortion, and any person complicit, would face a murder charge, with the evidential grounds of motive, means and opportunity for the abortion, also any person who survived a personal suicide attempt might have been charged for trying to commit the offence of suicide just a few years ago.

Suicide Law in Ireland

Since 1993 the act of suicide (the taking of one’s own life with criminal intent) by itself is no longer a crime.

At common law suicide was a felony. Though the person who took his life was personally beyond the reach of the law, there were consequences. The property of a suicide was forfeit and this would have affected his family. The confiscation of the property of suicides was put to an end with the general abolition of forfeiture for felony by the Forfeiture Act, 1870.

RDM_83 again

Ok a point that is being ignored in this thread is this

"This is because of the nature of the disorder. In a true psychiatric emergency, the patient's judgement is frequently impaired. Our role at that time is to administer the most appropriate psychiatric treatment and support. It would be highly inappropriate to impose an irrevocable intervention at that time, when the patient may not have sufficient mental capacity to give a valid consent to that intervention."

Dr Montwill said it was her view that if a termination was prescribed and given at that time, the patient would be in a strong position to accuse their treating team of failure in their duty of care

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=22130

This point hasn;t really been discussed on thread

If somebody is genuinely suffering from suicidal ideation they need to be placed into treatment possibly non-voluntary as they are at severe risk to themselves.

Its likely this point will not be well received but I feel the same way about non-pregnancy related mental health issues too, I just don;t see how a psychiatrist could fulfill their duty of care by providing an abortion as a cure to suicidal ideation without some serious after care (including potential for coercive confinement)

GCU Flexible Demeanour

RDM_83 again wrote: »

This point hasn;t really been discussed on thread

If somebody is genuinely suffering from suicidal ideation they need to be placed into treatment possibly non-voluntary as they are at severe risk to themselves.

In fairness, it has. The essentially gonzo nature of this aspect of the proposal has been gone over, as has the plain fact that the electorate did not vote to remove it.

What hasn't been discussed is whether anyone used the word "ideation" before this.

Turtwig

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What hasn't been discussed is whether anyone used the word "ideation" before this.

I think I may have used the acronym SI.

Galvasean

Jernal wrote: »

Lol! Ban

Funny thing for a Mod to say.

Obliq

Nearly teared up reading this blog.


http://paddyanglican.blogspot.ie/2013/05/the-abortion-debate-reluctantly-leaving.html

"And so if you haven’t already realised I have vacated the Middle Ground and must now declare myself Pro-Choice. I do so because I feel that I must trust women with the integrity of their own bodies. The alternative is to be party to a culture of coercion and enforcement which takes from women that most fundamental right of determining their own role in Creation. That is for me fundamental to their humanity and to mine."

Stephen Neil - Irish Anglican priest.

loveisdivine

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What hasn't been discussed is whether anyone used the word "ideation" before this.

I still prefer that to 'Suicidality' a completely made up word.

Maybe I am just thinking about it too simply but my view is that if a woman is suicidal because she is pregnant than an abortion would be the right "treatment".
The pro life side think this is nonsense because how can anyone not have positive feelings about creating "sacred life" and all that. Sure, she must be completely mental if shes not happy about being pregnant so what she really needs is psychiatric treatment and if she is completely mental then she obviously doesn't know what she really wants so don't listen to her if she asks for an abortion.

PAnglican

Thanks for your comment - I felt I had to say what was on my mind as the airwaves are dominated by those who think everything in life is black and white

Obliq wrote: »

Nearly teared up reading this blog.


http://paddyanglican.blogspot.ie/2013/05/the-abortion-debate-reluctantly-leaving.html

"And so if you haven’t already realised I have vacated the Middle Ground and must now declare myself Pro-Choice. I do so because I feel that I must trust women with the integrity of their own bodies. The alternative is to be party to a culture of coercion and enforcement which takes from women that most fundamental right of determining their own role in Creation. That is for me fundamental to their humanity and to mine."

Stephen Neil - Irish Anglican priest.

Delirium

Amnesty 'very concerned' about Ireland's abortion laws

[...]Executive director of Amnesty International Colm O'Gorman, said Ireland has a lot of work to do in terms of women's rights particularly in relation to Ireland's proposed abortion legislation.

He said: "We are also very concerned at a proposed 14-year sentence for a woman who obtains an abortion or for a doctor who provides one in certain circumstances, that really does need to be revoked.

"Above all, the report notes that until Ireland's laws allow for abortion in cases of rape and incest, risk to a woman's health or cases of fatal foetal abnormality, they will be out of line with international human rights standards."

Obliq

PAnglican wrote: »

Thanks for your comment - I felt I had to say what was on my mind as the airwaves are dominated by those who think everything in life is black and white

I really can't tell you how much it means to me that you have shown this kind of understanding. Thank you again for the trust you have gained in/from women.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Jernal wrote: »

I think I may have used the acronym SI.

Now, that would give a wonderfully Gangham feel to the discussion.

loveisdivine wrote: »

<...> if a woman is suicidal because she is pregnant than an abortion would be the right "treatment".

If the situation was "solely because" rather than "because", you might be right. I suppose what folk are saying is that it's rarely, if ever, possible to say "solely because".

loveisdivine wrote: »

The pro life side think this is nonsense because how can anyone not have positive feelings about creating "sacred life" and all that. Sure, she must be completely mental if shes not happy about being pregnant so what she really needs is psychiatric treatment and if she is completely mental then she obviously doesn't know what she really wants so don't listen to her if she asks for an abortion.

I'm sure pro-life folk might construct the argument in those terms. However, the points being made aren't necessarily pro-life - its just that clearly pro-life campaigners will welcome anything that suggest a need for limiting access to abortion.

The psychiatric perspective, as I understand it, is simply that someone reacting to a crisis, any crisis, with substantial thoughts of ending their life has a deeper problem. Nobody is particularly expecting anyone to react with delight to an unwanted pregnancy. They're just suggesting (and you'll see some stuff around this already on the thread) that suicide isn't a normal response to a stressful situation - or, at least, we shouldn't be ideating on that basis. (Can you say "ideating"? If not, I don't like the word any more.)