Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

robindch

lazygal wrote: »

The pregnancy is aborted/terminated, not the child.

Yes. I'm just pointing out that -- allowing for the disjunctive, inaccurate terminology used by the pro-life side -- what they're saying about the legislation not mentioning (to the best of my knowledge) any time limits is uncharacteristically true.

What the pro-life side is trying to do with this is to dredge up the politically powerful idea of late-term abortions. It's been used successfully in the US to polarize and radicalize the debate there, despite it being rare. And now, the US-funded pro-life side is attempting to adopt the same ugly tactic here.

aloyisious

lazygal wrote: »

The pregnancy is aborted/terminated, not the child. I had a termination of pregnancy at 39 weeks, and my child is hale and hearty. If a woman's life was threatened, of course a pregnancy would be terminated, resulting in a live birth (of course is the foetus is alive and not suffering from a fatal abnormality). The stupid is strong in this group.

I'd like to nominate the last sentence as funniest quote of the year, good on yer, lazygal

Morag

eviltwin wrote: »

Seeing so many YD posters up at the moment, the Navan Road is flooded with them.

One in particular has the slogan "Horrific: legislation will allow abortion until birth" or something similar.

Termination of pregnancy is not always abortion!!! The misinformation these people are allowed to peddle is ridiculous.

Do groups that do mass poster campaigns like this not need permission?

the posters were put up due to them being supposed to advertise an event,
inline with the guidelines of Dublin city council.

http://www.dublincity.ie/WaterWasteEnvironment/Waste/Pages/ProtocolforAdvertisingPosters.aspx

But the time date and venue on the posters was so small most people cant' read them and it turns out there was not a booking with the hotel which was on the posters as the Venue.

Sarky

Jaysus, they can't even tell the truth to the folks that listen to them.

Sierra 117

UDP wrote: »

Whats the point they are trying to make with this?

They're trying to pretend that abortions don't take place in Ireland and that abortion is "never needed to save a woman's life". But since abortions are carried in cases like ectopic pregnancy, they have to try and paint those abortions as not being abortions.

Turtwig

Bobby42 wrote: »

Facts can't be trusted anyway. They have an inherent liberal bias.

Reality has a inherent liberal bias. :pac:

Richard Bingham

lazygal wrote: »

But sure Ireland's one of the safest places in the world to have a precious tiny baby, there's no overcrowding or pressure on the system or women being actively managed in labour to fit the hospital's schedule, what are you worried about?

Ahh, Ireland is one of the safest places in the world to have a baby. Look it up.

Admissions and release even from Intensive Care Units are managed to ensure beds are available - so what?

Richard Bingham

eviltwin wrote: »

Termination of pregnancy is not always abortion!!! The misinformation these people are allowed to peddle is ridiculous.

If a woman has a c section, her pregnancy is terminated is it not?

Delirium

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Ahh, Ireland is one of the safest places in the world to have a baby. Look it up.

Admissions and release even from Intensive Care Units are managed to ensure beds are available - so what?

It's easy to be the "one of the safest" when you don't record all the data.

Richard Bingham

_rebelkid wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0623/458345-abortion-referendum/

That's more quality reporting. He doesn't have the authority to rule out anything. He may be correct that it won't happen but he cannot rule it out.

Richard Bingham

aloyisious wrote: »

I've been tempted for some time now to ask the Pro-lifers posting here what would be the specific act/s and actions they would take to ensure a pregnant woman stayed alive to the time of delivery, in the event that the woman threatened suicide if she was not allowed an abortion, and she was then refused it after making the threat. So I'll pop the question now, seeing as how so many Pro-lifers seem sure that any woman threatening to commit suicide is bluffing.

I think I'll also put that question to those Pro-life politicians who oppose the safety of pregnant womens lives.

Obviously the woman should get the care she needs. The possibility that she may not get it in this banana republic does not make abortion ok.

Hundreds of people die from suicide each year because they don't get the care they need. What do you propose to do about that?

Richard Bingham

eviltwin wrote: »

The irony being that once the baby is born you are on your own.

The child has a disability? Well, we'll cut your resource hours, respite care and have massive waiting lists.

You're a single parent? Well you'll have to survive on welfare because we won't be able to give you money towards childcare if you want to work or go to college.

Your absolutely right - no one should be on their own. The cuts perpetrated by this excuse for a government are wrong, again not a justification for abortion. There are loads of wrongs in society.

Gumbi

You're trying to confuse me with your liberal Biblicisms!

Bonus points for those of you who recognise this quote!!!

Richard Bingham

robindch wrote: »

Technically, I think that's true as the legislation -- and the referendums it's based upon -- don't mention any time limits.

In a more reasonable debating climate, perhaps this issue could be addressed, but with the pro-life side behaving as they are, that's unlikely to happen.

You have some neck to even refer to the pro life side "behaving as they are" given the gibberish being spouted here by pro choicers.

Turtwig

Who's shouting?

The Black Oil

Think I read something in an online article last YD talking about putting up around 6,000 posters in the coming weeks. Here's a lovely one.

Richard Bingham

Bertser wrote: »

Don't have it myself, but the Life Issues Institute put a half page ad in the Wicklow People on Page 17 (maybe other newspapers too?), basically about how in Britain they introduced a similar bill and now there is 'abortion on demand'. Should never be allowed to put these things in newspapers.

What part of that do you disagree with?

David Steel who introduced the 1967 act which applies to England and Wales is quoted as saying "I never envisaged there would be some many abortions." Abortions have to be certified in England and Wales so it is clear that they didn't intend for them to be available on demand yet in 2011 there were over 189,000.

Richard Bingham

_rebelkid wrote: »

Does anyone have the links to the news articles about the 2 women (can't remember their names) who were refused abortions and died in the 80's? I remember them being posted here in the Silvio times, but I can't for the life of me find them.

Thanks in advance

Unbelievable. There are 500+ suicides in this little speck of a country every year and you have to go back to the 80's to find two examples of pregnant women committing suicide in order to make a point. Thats actually a good point for the pro choice side.

Governments don't usually write laws for something which happens once in every 300,000 instances.

Nodin

Richard Bingham wrote: »

What part of that do you disagree with?

David Steel who introduced the 1967 act which applies to England and Wales is quoted as saying "I never envisaged there would be some many abortions." ......

A complete distortion of what the man was getting at. He's referring to the danger of defining a risk (to mental health) so narrowly

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/uk-peer-warns-on-suicide-clause-28950172.html

Lest ye be in doubt as to his stance.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/david-steel-there-is-no-case-for-changing-the-abortion-act-818002.html

Richard Bingham

Galvasean wrote: »

A threat to a democracy where 74% of people are in favour of the legislation and have already voted in favour of abortion via referendum twice.

74% of people voted yes in a sensationalist Irish Times poll designed to produce a banner headline.

People did not vote yes to abortion twice. I'm not even going to bother pointing out the error in this statement as its just ridiculous that you would even state this.

Nodin

Richard Bingham wrote: »

74% of people voted yes in a sensationalist Irish Times poll designed to produce a banner headline.

People did not vote yes to abortion twice. I'm not even going to bother pointing out the error in this statement as its just ridiculous that you would even state this.

They voted to allow risk or threat of suicide be grounds for an abortion twice, very specifically, in 1992 and 2002.

Delirium

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Unbelievable. There are 500+ suicides in this little speck of a country every year and you have to go back to the 80's to find two examples of pregnant women committing suicide in order to make a point. Thats actually a good point for the pro choice side.

Governments don't usually write laws for something which happens once in every 300,000 instances.

Murder is illegal. AFAIK the number of murders compared to total population of Rep. of Ireland is approximately the rate you mentioned. i.e. 1 in 300,000.

Flier

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Unbelievable. There are 500+ suicides in this little speck of a country every year and you have to go back to the 80's to find two examples of pregnant women committing suicide in order to make a point. Thats actually a good point for the pro choice side.

Governments don't usually write laws for something which happens once in every 300,000 instances.

Neither of the women referred to committed suicide. Take a moment out from your rant to read the link.

Flier

Richard Bingham wrote: »

What part of that do you disagree with?

David Steel who introduced the 1967 act which applies to England and Wales is quoted as saying "I never envisaged there would be some many abortions." Abortions have to be certified in England and Wales so it is clear that they didn't intend for them to be available on demand yet in 2011 there were over 189,000.

Nodin wrote: »

A complete distortion of what the man was getting at. He's referring to the danger of defining a risk (to mental health) so narrowly

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/uk-peer-warns-on-suicide-clause-28950172.html

Lest ye be in doubt as to his stance.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/david-steel-there-is-no-case-for-changing-the-abortion-act-818002.html

And I'd have to agree with Steel. I don't think the risk of suicide should be taken out and treated differently to any other risk to life that may occur in pregnancy. It should, like in all other medical situations, be left to the woman's doctors to decide weather there is a risk to life or not. I don't see panels of microbiologists and infectious diseases consultants being convened each time there is a perceived risk of sepsis.

Richard Bingham

Nodin wrote: »

A complete distortion of what the man was getting at. He's referring to the danger of defining a risk (to mental health) so narrowly

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/uk-peer-warns-on-suicide-clause-28950172.html

Lest ye be in doubt as to his stance.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/david-steel-there-is-no-case-for-changing-the-abortion-act-818002.html

I don't see how my quote distorts anything. One of the articles which you linked to stated;

"I never envisaged there would so many abortions," he said. "All we knew was that hospitals up and down the land had patients admitted for septic, self-induced abortions and we had up to 50 women a year dying from them."

I believe that he thought he was simply going to move the 50 or so backstreet abortions into a hospital (safer) setting.

It didn't exactly turn out as planned did it?

28064212

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Comments welcome and I promise not to attack anyone even if they don't agree with my view (whatever that is).

20-odd posts later...

Richard Bingham wrote: »

You have some neck to even refer to the pro life side "behaving as they are" given the gibberish being spouted here by pro choicers.

That didn't take long

Flier

He refers to '50 women dying' from botched abortions. Do you think it was plain sailing for those that actually survived? Or do they not count.

_rebelkid

Anyone else think Richard "killed Adriana?" *nudge ndge wink wink obvious link and not suggestion of murder*

_rebelkid

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Unbelievable. There are 500+ suicides in this little speck of a country every year and you have to go back to the 80's to find two examples of pregnant women committing suicide in order to make a point. Thats actually a good point for the pro choice side.

Governments don't usually write laws for something which happens once in every 300,000 instances.

Michelle Harte's case was in 2010.

Nodin

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I don't see how my quote distorts anything. One of the articles which you linked to stated;

"I never envisaged there would so many abortions," he said. "All we knew was that hospitals up and down the land had patients admitted for septic, self-induced abortions and we had up to 50 women a year dying from them."

I believe that he thought he was simply going to move the 50 or so backstreet abortions into a hospital (safer) setting.

It didn't exactly turn out as planned did it?

He has absolutely no regrets about passing the act, which is what you were trying to imply.

With reference to "50 or so".....

The figures spoke for themselves. The number of deaths of women from criminal abortion showed up in the Home Office statistics each year as somewhere between 30 and 50, and that was only the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/david-steel-there-is-no-case-for-changing-the-abortion-act-818002.html

Abortion is a subject that never goes away. You would think that passing the legislation would be it, but not at all. The problem is we are now looking at a generation of politicians and clergy who have no idea what the situation was before 1968. They just look at abortion and say, "Oh dear, you know, why do we have so many abortions, we must tighten up the law," without thinking what would be the effect of repealing or restricting the 1967 Act. We would be back to where we were before. That is not something to be desired.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/david-steel-there-is-no-case-for-changing-the-abortion-act-818002.html

You went quote mining for a 'warning' and misrepresented the mans position.