Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

GCU Flexible Demeanour

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/reilly-extremely-difficult-to-accommodate-abortions-in-cases-of-fatal-foetal-abnormalities-595731.html

<...> a group of Fine Gael backbenchers has asked the minister to consider allowing abortions in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities.

However, Reilly has spoken to the Chief Medical Officer Tony Holohan today and he has advised that it's not possible: “I’ve been advised by my department that under the current constitution, it would be extremely difficult to accommodate a need for that under the current legislation

“We’ve discussed this at some length in the past.”

Around 1,500 such cases are diagnosed in Ireland every year – 80% of the women involved travel abroad for a termination.<...>

If those figures stack up (the problem being that frequently they don't), then this issue has a deep significance. If 1,200 women leave the State each year to obtain a termination because of a fatal abnormality, it means this single category accounts for maybe a quarter or a third of all terminations.

But the problem is that the basis of that figure really needs to be validated. I suspect it's an over-estimate, and I suspect they are including all abnormalities - not just the "woman with a dead fetus" scenario that's the central case. But I don't know that, as I can't find any basis for the estimate.

If the debate is broadened to include abortion where birth of a child with disability can be predicted, the debate will become more challenging.

But still necessary.

lazygal

I don't think all have a fatal diagnosis. I'm guessing there are parents who've been told the foetus has severe but not fatal abnormalities and decide they don't want to bring a baby into the world that would require round the clock care and have a very limited and painful life. Anecdotally, I also know couples who have one child with Down's Syndrome travel for termination when a nuchal fold test shows a strong probability of the same with a foetus. It just demonstrates the billion shades of grey in terms of why pregnancies are terminated, and the 'eejits who didn't use contraception' cohort isn't the only category.

I think the anti choicers don't want to have such a debate, because to them even a chink in the 'no abortion in Ireland' argument means they have it wrong, and that the arguments in favour of allowing medical practitioners and women to make decisions on reproduction, including abortion without a tragic backstory, is too uncomfortable to countenance. Easier to say no to all cases than yes to even one difficult case.

Loafing Oaf

Well I listened to Colm Keaveney explaining his objection to the legislation on PK this morning, have to say it sounded like a piece of nit-picking: surely there are already severely premature and disabled babies who are taken into the care of the state because their mothers are unable to care for them? He didn't offer any suggestion as to how the legislation might be amended to prevent this scenario from arising: once the pregnancy reaches viability forcing the woman to wait x number of weeks till delivery perhaps?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

<...>it sounded like a piece of nit-picking: surely there are already severely premature and disabled babies who are taken into the care of the state because their mothers are unable to care for them? <..>

Keavney's argument is his own to defend, but I do want to observe the deficiency in this individual point. I'm sure there are some few severely disabled children who are rejected by their parents. Clearly, the fewer people who end up in that situation, the better.

There's some implicit suggestion in your observation that, just because this is unavoidable in a few cases, we shouldn't have any concerns if the numbers of such cases increased. We clearly should be concerned at such a prospect.

Loafing Oaf

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Keavney's argument is his own to defend, but I do want to observe the deficiency in this individual point. I'm sure there are some few severely disabled children who are rejected by their parents. Clearly, the fewer people who end up in that situation, the better.

There's some implicit suggestion in your observation that, just because this is unavoidable in a few cases, we shouldn't have any concerns if the numbers of such cases increased. We clearly should be concerned at such a prospect.

Ok fine, but Keaveney was giving the impression this was some inconceivable, unmanageable scenario. Anyway, the more fundamental point is that someone in his position should be suggesting some way to amend the legislation to address the point he raises. Otherwise IMO he has a responsibility to tell his voters and party that he could not support any form of legislation for abortion on grounds of suicide ideation...

Galvasean

The old Facebook pro-life campaign has dropped a bit of a doozie. There's an ad asking you to click like to show your support for them. When someone clicks it pops up on the timeline as, "Alan likes Enda's Barbaric Abortion Regime".
Nice.

SebBerkovich

Galvasean wrote: »

The old Facebook pro-life campaign has dropped a bit of a doozie. There's an ad asking you to click like to show your support for them. When someone clicks it pops up on the timeline as, "Alan likes Enda's Barbaric Abortion Regime".
Nice.

"Barbaric Abortion Regime" - really wish i was at the meeting with who ever pulled that out of there arse.

Turtwig

SebBerkovich wrote: »

"Barbaric Abortion Regime" - really wish i was at the meeting with who ever pulled that out of there arse.

They're just being honest. An abortion regime that requires women to be portable coffins is barbaric.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

The old Facebook pro-life campaign has dropped a bit of a doozie. There's an ad asking you to click like to show your support for them. When someone clicks it pops up on the timeline as, "Alan likes Enda's Barbaric Abortion Regime".

Showed up on my fb feed last Friday. I didn't like it.

Delirium

"the welfare of the unborn and the welfare of women"?

Are these not contrary ideas for Family & Life? What if an abortion is best for the welfare of the woman?

Bannasidhe

koth wrote: »

"the welfare of the unborn and the welfare of women"?

Are these not contrary ideas for Family & Life? What if an abortion is best for the welfare of the woman?

Oh that one is easy:
How could murdering her teeeny baybeee be best for the welfare of the woman? No, no, no - locking her up would be best. Women must be protected from themselves donchaknow.

robindch

El Salvador court denies seriously ill woman abortion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22712756

BBC wrote:

The Supreme Court of El Salvador has refused to allow a seriously ill pregnant woman to have an abortion, even though her foetus has almost no chance of survival.

Lawyers for the young woman - who suffers from lupus and kidney failure - had argued that continuing the pregnancy would place her life at risk. The foetus itself is missing part or all of its brain.

All abortions are prohibited in El Salvador under any circumstances. The constitution in the majority Roman Catholic country protects the right to life "from the moment of conception". The 22-year-old woman - referred to as "Beatriz", not her real name - is said to be in fragile health, suffering from the chronic immune disorder lupus as well as kidney failure.

Tests suggest her 26-week-old foetus is developing without a complete brain, a condition called anencephaly. Almost all babies born with this condition die before or shortly after birth. A medical committee at her maternity hospital, the Ministry of Health and rights groups had all supported Beatriz's request to terminate her pregnancy, but judges at the Supreme Court voted four-to-one to reject the woman's appeal.

In their ruling, the judges said: "This court determines that the rights of the mother cannot take precedence over those of the unborn child or vice versa, and that there is an absolute bar to authorising an abortion as contrary to the constitutional protection accorded to human persons 'from the moment of conception'." They ordered doctors to continue to monitor the woman's health and provide all necessary treatment.

There was no immediate response from Beatriz's lawyers to the ruling, which came late on Wednesday. But doctors who support a termination have previously argued that the risk to Beatriz's health will grow as her pregnancy advances, and that if she suffers a health crisis it will be more difficult to treat the further into her pregnancy she is.

Sierra 117

robindch wrote: »

El Salvador court denies seriously ill woman abortion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22712756

They've effectively consigned her to death to protect a foetus that actually won't survive. Savages.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

El Salvador court denies seriously ill woman abortion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22712756

Hopefully they'll be able to get her out of the country.

PopePalpatine

Judges' statement wrote:

This court determines that the rights of the mother cannot take precedence over those of the unborn child or vice versa...

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

El Salvador court denies seriously ill woman abortion:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22712756

How many people die from not being allowed an abortion in similar cases every year? Is there any data available on such things? The 'pro-life' folk seem eerily unconcerned about such tragic loss of life.

PopePalpatine

Try posting it over "there", it might distract them from gynaecology's Dr. Harold Shipman.

The Black Oil

Godwin, how are ye?

Elsewhere, a senior Vatican official has said Catholic legislators should resign their party whip rather than support the legislation.
Speaking to the Irish Catholic newspaper, Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau said that if the Taoiseach does not want to impose his Catholic belief on people, and the time has come for a more moderate line on abortion, then he too should resign.

The Monsignor, who is Scientific Director of the Pontifical Academy for Life, also warned that legislators cannot hide behind the Nuremberg Defence - a claim that they are just doing their duty.

He said that if an act is evil and you receive an order to do it, then you cannot do it. http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0530/453672-abortion-legislation/

Galvasean

Because the Catholic's didn't ally themselves with the Nazi Party or anything...

Mardy Bum

The irony in his comments is astounding.

Pherekydes

Is this the most pointless job in existence:

Scientific Director of the Pontifical Academy for Life

?

HurtLocker

In a way I'm annoyed at all the coverage the church is getting but I'm finding it funny how they seem to be issuing these demands and no-one but die-hard catholic pensioners care.

Im not to up to date on leaving the church. In too lazy to give them any of my time but from what I remember its next to impossible to get out of it fully for the average person.

Now politicians seem to get the privilege of excommunicating themselves. I want to excommunicate myself. Bloody parish pump politics, politicians getting all the perks!!!! :mad: :pac:

swampgas

Sierra 117 wrote: »

They've effectively consigned her to death to protect a foetus that actually won't survive. Savages.

Ireland isn't really that much better. Savita Halappanavar was in a somewhat similar situation.

Delirium

Kenny hits back at Vatican call to resign

A monsignor in Rome called for TDs and senators to quit as he drew parallels between the contentious reform and Nazism.

But the Taoiseach hit back, warning Catholic hierarchy that it should not interfere in Irish Government business.

“I’m a Catholic and I don’t interfere in the messages of the Church.

“I have no comment to make on what the cardinal from the Vatican says.

“I set out very clearly what it is we have to do in terms of our constitution and the law, and that’s to provide clarity and decisiveness.

“This is about saving lives, not ending them,” Mr Kenny said.

Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin described the Vatican intervention as “unacceptable”: “I’m surprised by this. It’s not acceptable. Making references to Nuremburg is totally unacceptable.”

Stark

koth wrote:

Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin described the Vatican intervention as “unacceptable”: “I’m surprised by this. It’s not acceptable. Making references to Nuremburg is totally unacceptable.”

Wow, he managed to get off the fence for once.

swampgas

The Black Oil wrote: »

Godwin, how are ye?

Elsewhere, a senior Vatican official has said Catholic legislators should resign their party whip rather than support the legislation.
Speaking to the Irish Catholic newspaper, Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau said that if the Taoiseach does not want to impose his Catholic belief on people, and the time has come for a more moderate line on abortion, then he too should resign.

The Monsignor, who is Scientific Director of the Pontifical Academy for Life, also warned that legislators cannot hide behind the Nuremberg Defence - a claim that they are just doing their duty.

He said that if an act is evil and you receive an order to do it, then you cannot do it. http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0530/453...n-legislation/

The hypocrisy is staggering, even if entirely to be expected.

Surely the same Nuremberg Defence argument would apply when senior church officials order priests and bishops not to report the evil of child abuse to the police?

Penn

swampgas wrote: »

The hypocrisy is staggering, even if entirely to be expected.

Surely the same Nuremberg Defence argument would apply when senior church officials order priests and bishops not to report the evil of child abuse to the police?

It's almost like they want us to hate them.

Nodin

What appears to be good news....

A seriously ill woman who was denied an abortion by the Supreme Court of El Salvador says she will undergo a
premature Caesarean section next week.

Lawyers for the 22-year-old asked for an abortion on the grounds that her
life was at risk, as she suffers from lupus and kidney failure. Her child is
likely to die soon after birth.

Abortions are prohibited in El Salvador under any circumstances.But the health minister said the C-section was an acceptable
intervention."It is very clear at this time that the pregnancy intervention is not an
abortion, it is an induced birth, which is something else," Maria Rodriguez
told a news conference.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22725546

Turtwig

Nodin wrote: »

What appears to be good news....


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22725546

This is what gets me about the hard line pro life. How in these circumstances is an induced birth any different from an abortion? Only difference I can see is that foetal heartbeat won't be stopped first so the foetus will likely suffer an extremely painful death. It's an abortion with maximum suffering.

MrPudding

Jernal wrote: »

This is what gets me about the hard line pro life. How in these circumstances is an induced birth any different from an abortion? Only difference I can see is that foetal heartbeat won't be stopped first so the foetus will likely suffer an extremely painful death. It's an abortion with maximum suffering.

It's all about the suffering. Suffering glorifies god, or some sh1t.

MrP