Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Loafing Oaf

lazygal wrote: »

Just heard Caroline Simons on Morning Ireland spouting the same old nonsense, abortion is never a treatment for suicide, other studies show that the anti choicers are right, deliberate targeting of the unborn.....I'm going to enjoy the footstamping from her, Breda, David, Ronan and the rest of the gang when this Bill is passed.

But pointedly refusing to address the question of what the Pro-Life would do when the bill is passed. Which suggests to me that this issue will go the same way as other social issues over the years: the Catholic Right jumps up and down and screams and shouts but once it's passed it's dropped and forgotten about.

Delirium

lazygal wrote: »

Enda says he's not a Catholic taoiseach. Fair enough. But he must have some governing philosophy. What is it?

Just saw this^tweet from Quinn.


It's obvious he thinks those without a religious basis for their 'governing philosophy' need to explain themselves. How would he react if asked to explain how he arrived at his philosophy?

That's delightful. Our Taoiseach essentially says that he doesn't wish to impose his religious beliefs on the citizens of the nation. That he essentially must take a secular view to his tasks in government. And that gets Mr.Quinns nose out of joint.

The alternative is that Enda be cowed by the threats issued by the RCC and ignore the democratic process.

Don't forget to send a postcard when dig through to China, David :P

robindch

The Lord looks upon Enda and counts herself impressed:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/country-before-crozier-for-catholic-kenny-1.1426504

Miriam Lord wrote:

They don’t make croziers like they used to. Never mind the belt of one – just the cold draught from an upward swing was once enough to cow entire governments. Not any more. In recent months, Enda Kenny has been at the business end of a severe bludgeoning, but he hasn’t flinched. If anything, pressure from the bishops – which they are entitled to exert – has merely served to strengthen his resolve.

People talk about the Taoiseach’s capacity to surprise, yesterday’s remarks from him in the Dáil being an apparent example of this. Yet Enda has been nothing if not consistent in his approach to dealing with the highly contentious Protection of Human Life during Pregnancy Bill. There are times when he delegates, times when he infuriates and times when he steps up to the mark and leads. His determination to uphold the separation between church and State had already become a feature of his tenure before the abortion question came centre stage.

There was no change in Enda’s attitude when Mattie McGrath tried to convince him to rethink his commitment to stewarding through this long overdue piece of legislation. We shouldn’t have been surprised. In a little over two years as Taoiseach, Enda Kenny has notched up an impressive number of “defining” moments and “finest hours”, the latest one coming out of the blue during Leaders’ Questions yesterday morning. The political nerds went scurrying for their history books when the Taoiseach uttered a phrase destined for the history books of the future.

“I am proud to stand here as a public representative, as a Taoiseach who happens to be a Catholic, but not a Catholic Taoiseach,” he told the Dáil, invoking the shades of devout leaders past who pledged allegiance to faith first and country second. On an otherwise uneventful Wednesday morning in Leinster House, Kenny, without any fuss, laid down a milestone in Irish political history. Furthermore, a Taoiseach stood in the Dáil chamber and called out the despicable behaviour of a small section of Irish society that deems it acceptable to threaten and intimidate elected representatives who do not cleave to their world view.

The House listened in silence as Enda put on the record the sort of treatment he and many of his Coalition colleagues have been subjected to ever since his Government resolved to legislate for the X case. “I am now being branded by personnel around the country as being a murderer; that I’m going to have on my soul the death of 20 million babies. I am getting medals, scapulars, plastic foetuses, letters written in blood, telephone calls all over the system, and it’s not confined to me . . . ” Many of the deputies behind him nodded in agreement. Enda was speaking for them too. “We’re all getting those too,” said Independent TD Finian McGrath, who had very pointedly left his seat beside Mattie McGrath and moved to another place before Mattie began to read his script.
A number of Fine Gael deputies who have expressed their reservations about the Bill looked on in dismay. But what was most noticeable was the reaction of most of Enda’s backbenchers, the majority of whom have maintained an uncomfortable public silence in the face of a vocal cohort of colleagues shouting long and loudly against the Bill. “I am a Taoiseach for all of the people – that is my job, while I have it. I am proud to lead the Government in governing for all our people – all our people – irrespective of the sector of society that they come from,” declared their leader.

“Hear, hear!” they shouted. “Well said.” This was quite a departure for the Dáil. And was it the first time – we think it was – when certain women’s voices were raised in the House on the issue, as deputy McGrath pressed his charge that the Taoiseach is legislating for the introduction of abortion. “The right of the unborn is a basic human right. It is the most fundamental right of all,” said McGrath. “What about the woman?” shouted Mary Mitchell O’Connor – a question repeated by Marcella Corcoran Kennedy and Heather Humphries, among others.

Mattie urged him to put the question to the people in a referendum. Enda replied that the Government had to legislate for the X case and that is what they would do. The nation had already voted twice on the issue and “confirmed and re-endorsed the constitutional rights of women in this country to have a termination of a pregnancy in specific circumstances.” Do it again, urged Mattie, drawing snorts of derision with his speculative “third time lucky”. It was as if the Taoiseach’s sense of duty to his office had emboldened those TDs who previously appeared reluctant to publicly express their views.

“Who wrote your script?” they asked McGrath. “Circulate it!” bellowed Bernard Durkan, resplendent in his seasonal cream summer suit. And like the sound of the first cuckoo of spring, the Opposition gave forth that familiar cry that heralds the onset of a Dáil summer: “It’s the man from Del Monte!” This briefly lifted the mood. But not for a despondent Mattie McGrath, who was getting no comfort from Enda. The conservative Catholic schoolteacher from Mayo stood by his sense of duty and doing his duty on behalf of all the people.

There was spontaneous applause from many on the Fine Gael side, most of the Labour deputies and a large majority in Sinn Féin and Independent ranks.
Another departure for a cautious Dáil. Yet no real surprise from consistent Kenny. From what we’ve come to know of the man, yesterday’s performance was par for the course.

Could it be that after all these years, the novelty value of a Taoiseach taking a stand and sticking to it is still a wonder to behold?

equivariant

So it seems that this bill would legalise late term abortions if the mother is judged to be suicidal. Am I mistaken in this?

If so, I couldn't support it. Despite considering myself pro choice (eg I would support the introduction of abortion on demand in the first few weeks of pregnancy).

Any thoughts on this? Maybe I misinterpret the text of the bill?

Can anyone offer any arguments as to why we should legalise abortion in the third trimester, in cases where the foetus is viable and could potentially grow into a healthy child?

Bannasidhe

equivariant wrote: »

So it seems that this bill would legalise late term abortions if the mother is judged to be suicidal. Am I mistaken in this?

If so, I couldn't support it. Despite considering myself pro choice (eg I would support the introduction of abortion on demand in the first few weeks of pregnancy).

Any thoughts on this? Maybe I misinterpret the text of the bill?

Can anyone offer any arguments as to why we should legalise abortion in the third trimester, in cases where the foetus is viable and could potentially grow into a healthy child?

My understanding, and I am open to correction on this, is that birth would be induced in these cases. That would still 'abort' i.e. end the pregnancy.

lazygal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My understanding, and I am open to correction on this, is that birth would be induced in these cases. That would still 'abort' i.e. end the pregnancy.

Exactly. Its a termination of pregnancy, not of the life of the foetus. No hospital would not treat a baby born at 23/24 weeks gestation and so on, every effort would be made to make sure the baby was kept alive. My pregnancy was terminated by elective c-section, and my one year old is running around right now.

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

Exactly. Its a termination of pregnancy, not of the life of the foetus. No hospital would not treat a baby born at 23/24 weeks gestation and so on, every effort would be made to make sure the baby was kept alive. My pregnancy was terminated by elective c-section, and my one year old is running around right now.

Thought so. My pregnancy was 'aborted' i.e. birth was induced as the little b*llox didn't want to get out...he is now within nodding distance of 30 with 2 children of his own.

equivariant

lazygal wrote: »

Exactly. Its a termination of pregnancy, not of the life of the foetus. No hospital would not treat a baby born at 23/24 weeks gestation and so on, every effort would be made to make sure the baby was kept alive. My pregnancy was terminated by elective c-section, and my one year old is running around right now.

I guess then that the key issue is whether or not the foetus has attained personhood, to the point of having some rights that may conflict with the mother's rights, before or after it becomes viable for it to survive outside the mother's body. If, and I agree that it is a big if, one grants a 24 week old foetus some right to life, then we would be obliged to weigh the risk to the life of the mother (from suicide, for example) against the risk to the life of the foetus if the pregnancy is terminated at 24 weeks (which I am sure is very substantial). I think that the suicidal ideation is especially problematic in a situation like that, as assessing the risk to a person's life due to mental health problems is intrinsically more uncertain than risk due to physical problems. I don't see that this type of situation is addressed by the current bill. Unfortunately, until we grasp the nettle and reassess the constitutional 'right to life of the unborn' we will always have this problem.
Of course that is unlikely to happen any time soon.

Another point in response to your post is that assumptions such as "every effort would be made to to make sure that the baby was kept alive" are, I think, a little bit foolhardy. There is no doubt that legal late terminations take place in other jurisdictions where not every effort is made to keep the baby alive in those circumstances. If that is the case, why would we assume that in Ireland every effort would be made? Something that we have learned to our cost over the past thirty years is that in this country nothing should be taken for granted when it comes to abortion (or pretty much anything else). I would be happier if this was explicitly legislated for (perhaps it is and I have misread?)

coffee_cake

equivariant wrote: »

There is no doubt that legal late term abortions take place in other jurisdictions where not every effort is made to keep the baby alive in those circumstances.

What jurisdictions

aloyisious

lazygal wrote: »

Enda says he's not a Catholic taoiseach. Fair enough. But he must have some governing philosophy. What is it?

Just saw this^tweet from Quinn.


It's obvious he thinks those without a religious basis for their 'governing philosophy' need to explain themselves. How would he react if asked to explain how he arrived at his philosophy?

Re Enda, Christian? -)

joseph brand

Regina Doherty is on Newstalk (Moncrieff) right now.

She said that she has had threats from pro-lifers. They are sending her photos of late term aborted foetuses, and posting other graphic material through her letter box.

Fair play to her, she was wondering how someone's marriage can be so insecure, that the idea of gay marriage frightens them. This is what happens when the ignorant and the unhinged have a voice.

I don't know anything about her, but I think she said that she used to be pro-life, due to her faith.

lazygal

equivariant wrote: »

I guess then that the key issue is whether or not the foetus has attained personhood, to the point of having some rights that may conflict with the mother's rights, before or after it becomes viable for it to survive outside the mother's body. If, and I agree that it is a big if, one grants a 24 week old foetus some right to life, then we would be obliged to weigh the risk to the life of the mother (from suicide, for example) against the risk to the life of the foetus if the pregnancy is terminated at 24 weeks (which I am sure is very substantial). I think that the suicidal ideation is especially problematic in a situation like that, as assessing the risk to a person's life due to mental health problems is intrinsically more uncertain than risk due to physical problems. I don't see that this type of situation is addressed by the current bill. Unfortunately, until we grasp the nettle and reassess the constitutional 'right to life of the unborn' we will always have this problem.
Of course that is unlikely to happen any time soon.

Another point in response to your post is that assumptions such as "every effort would be made to to make sure that the baby was kept alive" are, I think, a little bit foolhardy. There is no doubt that legal late terminations take place in other jurisdictions where not every effort is made to keep the baby alive in those circumstances. If that is the case, why would we assume that in Ireland every effort would be made? Something that we have learned to our cost over the past thirty years is that in this country nothing should be taken for granted when it comes to abortion (or pretty much anything else). I would be happier if this was explicitly legislated for (perhaps it is and I have misread?)

Have you had any experience of neonatal care in Ireland? I'm the first to say maternity services can be as bad as the rest of the health service, but neonatal care is second to none. Even at delivery of my perfectly health baby by c section there were three paediatricians present as there's a family history of a particular illness. I know a mum who delivered naturally at 26 weeks and no expense was spared in the care of her child until he was able to go home.
I also think women won't wait until such a late stage in pregnancy to seek abortion, the easier option remains going to the UK. Do you also oppose later stage abortions in the case of foetal abnormalties, or where the risk to the life of a woman is physical, rather than mental?

I think a lot of the debate on suicide and suggestions that it will lead to women using it as a method of abusing the system says more about how people really feel about mental health (ie its not a 'real' illness, and can be faked as necessary) and is extremely insulting for pregnant women like me and my female counterparts. I really wish we weren't painted as devious liars.

equivariant

bluewolf wrote: »

What jurisdictions

There is information on countries that permit late terminations here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_termination_of_pregnancy

Nodin

I'll just put this here to raise the tone....
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/06/13/precious-tiny-feet/#comments

ShooterSF

The thing is there is no easy answer to the situation where a woman becomes suicidal late in a pregnancy because of the pregnancy. I doubt it would be any more than an extremely rare occasion but I suppose one has to consider it. Certainly it is preferable to terminate a pregnancy earlier but what are the options in such a situation? Suicide will end the life of both and the other option I can see is to try and restrict the woman's freedom possibly for weeks before she can give birth which could traumatise her to the point where she still commits suicide.

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

I'll just put this here to raise the tone....
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/06/13/precious-tiny-feet/#comments

Ha. I had forgotten about those.

equivariant

lazygal wrote: »

Have you had any experience of neonatal care in Ireland?

Yes, I have two children, both born in UH Galway, one by c-section. As you say, the professionalism and care shown by the staff was exemplary (imo).

Do you also oppose later stage abortions in the case of foetal
abnormalties,

If the foetus is known to be not viable the I certainly do not oppose termination. "Foetal abnormalities" can cover a lot of situations. I don't pretend to have thought through every one of them. Since you want to know my position on these issues, I will ask you - do you believe that a woman should be entitled to choose a late termination if her foetus is diagnosed with a non life threatening abnormality?

or where the risk to the life of a woman is physical, rather than mental?

I don't oppose it in the case of mental health either. That is not at all what I said.

I think a lot of the debate on suicide and suggestions that it will lead to women using it as a method of abusing the system says more about how people really feel about mental health (ie its not a 'real' illness, and can be faked as necessary) and is extremely insulting for pregnant women like me and my female counterparts. I really wish we weren't painted as devious liars.

I have personal experience with mental health issues, so I assure you I don't believe that mental health issues are not 'real illnesses'. Nevertheless, it is unfortunately a fact that it is more difficult to assess the threat to a person's life from mental health issues that it is from many (but not all) non mental health related issues. That has nothing to do with the reality or non reality of the illness - it is simply due to the fact that mental health problems are harder to quantify.

Morag

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I'm pretty gobsmacked at these and other recent poll findings on the issue. Right up to the end of the last century, long past Irish people had become 'liberal' converts on other issues, opinion polls were showing two-thirds majorities opposed to any liberalisation of abortion. I'm wondering when exactly this sea change happened and what brought it about?

I am not gobsmacked at all if you look back you can see it has been gradual.

http://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/Public-Opinion

mohawk

Nodin wrote: »

I'll just put this here to raise the tone....
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/06/13/precious-tiny-feet/#comments

I had never heard of those before. I guess they went with the feet as its the most human looking part of them at 10weeks.

Another interesting point I learnt the other day. An egg can become twins up until 14 days. From a religious point of view, if conception is the start of life, what happens to the soul if it splits into two foetuses? Do they get half a soul or does one get it all? Then where does it stand before God? Huh huh??

This is my favorite comment as I have maintained for years that there is always an evil twin.

robindch

The HSE has printed their report into Savita's death. At 108 pages long, it's likely to be at least fifteen minutes before Quinn et al comment, and much longer before more sober individuals do:

http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/savitareport.html (HSE intro + recommendations)
http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/nimtreport50278.pdf (report)

PopePalpatine

I'm listening to The Last Word right now.

Brace yourselves, Fidelma Healy-Eames is coming. *glues pillow to a wall*

Bannasidhe

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm listening to The Last Word right now.

Brace yourselves, Fidelma Healy-Eames is coming. *glues pillow to a wall*

You'll need more than one...in fact just nail the whole bed to the wall.

rainbow kirby

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Brace yourselves, Fidelma Healy-Eames is coming

Aw man, that's really not a mental image I wanted :pac:

Sierra 117

I can still hear the phrase "raped on facebook" ringing in my ears. What a clueless woman.

AndyMc

She was being super super cereal when she tackled rape on facebook...

Turtwig

Guys I'm going to step in here just in case. Please refrain from making any rape jokes.
Ta,

ShooterSF

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm listening to The Last Word right now.

Brace yourselves, Fidelma Healy-Eames is coming. *glues pillow to a wall*

All the yes side of the abolish the seanad referendum need to do to win is put up posters of her with "This is what your money pays for in the seanad"

AndyMc

I wasnt sure about the Seanad until I remember that thats where she is.

Sarky

Jernal wrote: »

Guys I'm going to step in here just in case. Please refrain from making any rape jokes.
Ta,

What about sexting? :pac:

In fairness, she's provided so much ammunition to us over the years, going for the frape bit would be too easy.

Delirium

via Facebook (which was supposedly via RTE). Try not to have a conniption, Jernal, but I don't have a link :P

"A TD has told the Dáil that there has been widespread intimidation of deputies in recent weeks over the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill.

Independent TD John Halligan also condemned the Catholic Church over its efforts to influence TDs to vote against the legislation.

He said that he along with many other TDs have been subjected to abuse in recent weeks by a number of those who oppose the bill.

Politicians have been spat at and people have been calling to their homes after midnight.

There have also been threats to burn TDs' houses, he said.

Mr Halligan said one TD received a threat that her throat would be cut.

The TD also rounded on the Catholic Church, accusing it of being non-democratic and historically anti-woman.

The church had no right to be the State's moral compass, he said.

It was in no position to lecture anyone on human rights, given what he said was its dreadful record on child protection."