Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Flier

Richard Bingham wrote: »

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

'Beds are available' - really?? So the overcrowding in A&E because there's nowhere to admit patients to is not real and the beds in corridors doesn't happen.
And ICU's are often full. Sometimes it means patients need to be transferred to other hospitals with an ICU bed, or transfers not accepted, or surgery where it is likely an ICU bed will be needed is cancelled. But I digress. What's that to do with anything?

robindch

Richard Bingham wrote: »

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

In a Caesarean Section, a woman's pregnancy generally comes to an end, either by the live birth of a child, or the removal of a dead foetus.

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.

I'll refer to them as I wish.

The activities of the "pro-life" side have been documented at length in this thread -- go have a read back yourself. And regardless of whether one is on the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" side of this debate, and there are both here, the actions of the "pro-life" side during this campaign have been uniformly discreditable or disgraceful, where they have not been openly obscene and threatening.

shruikan2553

Had a look at the Youth Defence facebook page. You would think that everyone is going to be forced to have one at 39 weeks with how they act. I cant tell if they actually believe the crap that they come out with

Hotblack Desiato

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?

So you think David Steel really meant to legislate only for those backstreet abortions that would end up resulting in a woman's death and move only those ones into a medical setting - out of tens of thousands of illegal abortions which were happening each year - with the actual number being, obviously, unknowable.

It should be obvious that, neither David Steel nor doctors nor the women concerned being equipped with a crystal ball, the only way to prevent the 50 or so deaths would be to move ALL illegal abortions into a legal setting.

TheChizler

Front page of today's Irish Examiner. Surely there's press standards that prevent such blatant lies being published in such a prominent position in a national newspaper.

Penn

Good blog post proving that the Pro Life Campaign is a business (or as they term it, "political organisation") and not a charity as they have previously implied

http://www.conorfarrell.com/wordpress/abortion-2/the-problems-with-the-pro-life-campaign-charity

Sarky

I'm just surprised that there's an anti-choice group in Ireland that AREN'T based in 60a Capel St.

aloyisious

Sarky wrote: »

I'm just surprised that there's an anti-choice group in Ireland that AREN'T based in 60a Capel St.

Wha..... You haven't heard of Leinster House?

_rebelkid

Cora Sherlock, co-director of Pro Life Campaign Ireland and anti choice loud mouth, today said that abortion is not murder. She said abortion has different legal connotations.

In other words, she has basically gone against her own sides argument.

Take a look

MrPudding

_rebelkid wrote: »

Cora Sherlock, co-director of Pro Life Campaign Ireland and anti choice loud mouth, today said that abortion is not murder. She said abortion has different legal connotations.

In other words, she has basically gone against her own sides argument.

Take a look

How very odd, a rational and correct comment.

MrP

Delirium

Received a flyer from RallyForLife.net.

The have 3 anonymous women quoted on the leaflet. One says that abortion was more traumatic than being raped. Another says she became suicidal post-abortion, and the third claims that her botched abortion gave her cancer.

And of course they're calling for a "vote of conscience" when the proposed legislation is in front of the Dail.

Turtwig

koth wrote: »

Received a flyer from RallyForLife.net.

The have 3 anonymous women quoted on the leaflet. One says that abortion was more traumatic than being raped. Another says she became suicidal post-abortion, and the third claims that her botched abortion gave her cancer.

And of course they're calling for a "vote of conscience" when the proposed legislation is in front of the Dail.

Wow! I don't think even the Daily Mail has abortion down as a cause for cancer.

That said it's possible that some poor woman after an abortion developed cancer. Is there a causal link between the two? In her individual case who knows? And our heart must go out to her. But in general, abortion doesn't cause cancer.

Richard Bingham

ninja900 wrote: »

So you think David Steel really meant to legislate only for those backstreet abortions that would end up resulting in a woman's death and move only those ones into a medical setting - out of tens of thousands of illegal abortions which were happening each year - with the actual number being, obviously, unknowable.

It should be obvious that, neither David Steel nor doctors nor the women concerned being equipped with a crystal ball, the only way to prevent the 50 or so deaths would be to move ALL illegal abortions into a legal setting.

I take your point. But I don't believe that he or the people who passed the Act ever anticipated there would be 189,000. Its become a form of contraception for some.

Richard Bingham

robindch wrote: »

In a Caesarean Section, a woman's pregnancy generally comes to an end, either by the live birth of a child, or the removal of a dead foetus.I'll refer to them as I wish.

That's agreed.

robindch wrote: »

The activities of the "pro-life" side have been documented at length in this thread -- go have a read back yourself. And regardless of whether one is on the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" side of this debate, and there are both here, the actions of the "pro-life" side during this campaign have been uniformly discreditable or disgraceful, where they have not been openly obscene and threatening.

Members of the pro life side have been threatened and obscene and disgraceful banners have been displayed by pro choicers.

What about;

"Its my c*nt and I'll do what I want with it" at the pro life rally a few months ago?

Is that not obscene where there are children walking around?

How do you mean "uniformly discreditable". Do you mean uniform as in the same in all cases?

IT-Guy

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I take your point. But I don't believe that he or the people who passed the Act ever anticipated there would be 189,000. Its become a form of contraception for some.

There's a lesson there somewhere I'm sure. I wonder which version of it you'll see? Some women using abortion as a form of contraception is no reason to deny it to all women, I'm sure you can see that?

lazygal

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I take your point. But I don't believe that he or the people who passed the Act ever anticipated there would be 189,000. Its become a form of contraception for some.

What's your point, exactly? That there be a limit on the number of abortions a woman can have? Or that woman should be forced to remain pregnant due to the circumstances of conception? Do some women not 'deserve' abortion but do deserve forced pregnancy?

Turtwig

Richard Bingham wrote: »

That's agreed.



Members of the pro life side have been threatened and obscene and disgraceful banners have been displayed by pro choicers.

What about;

"Its my c*nt and I'll do what I want with it" at the pro life rally a few months ago?

Is that not obscene where there are children walking around?

How do you mean "uniformly discreditable". Do you mean uniform as in the same in all cases?

There's an awful difference between a c u next tuesday poster as a counter protest to protest rally and people hounding the family home of a politician.

lazygal

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?

Managed labour is not the same as intensive care management, in fact its no longer best practice in a lot of countries. Maybe you should read up on how women in Ireland deal with the chaos of the maternity system.

Corkfeen

Richard Bingham wrote: »

That's agreed.



Members of the pro life side have been threatened and obscene and disgraceful banners have been displayed by pro choicers.

What about;

"Its my c*nt and I'll do what I want with it" at the pro life rally a few months ago?

Is that not obscene where there are children walking around?

How do you mean "uniformly discreditable". Do you mean uniform as in the same in all cases?

Claiming ownership of one's body through obscene language does not fall into the category of a threat. When people attempt to dictate the rights which I have(as a male) over my body, I would be swearing too to be perfectly honest.

Richard Bingham

Nodin wrote: »

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

Are we crossing wires. In response to Bertser saying

"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."

I said;

"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.

How does this indicate I was implying he regrets it. I don't care how he feels about it. I do think that he didn't intend it to be used as it is being used.

Nodin wrote: »

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

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

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.

No I didn't. How can you accuse me of going "quote mining" when I took the quote from the first of the two links which you posted up.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-28950172.html

I didn't go too far did I?

Richard Bingham

Corkfeen wrote: »

Claiming ownership of one's body through obscene language does not fall into the category of a threat. When people attempt to dictate the rights which I have(as a male) over my body, I would be swearing too to be perfectly honest.

Here is more of the twisting of words. Please read it again Corkfeen. I said;

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Members of the pro life side have been threatened and obscene and disgraceful banners have been displayed by pro choicers.

What about;

"Its my c*nt and I'll do what I want with it" at the pro life rally a few months ago?

I did not say that the banner was a threat.

Corkfeen

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Here is more of the twisting of words. Please read it again Corkfeen. I said;



I did not say that the banner was a threat.

I missed that part so apologies, would you not say that pro-life groups have tarred women who have had abortions in the past? Labelling it as a murder and covered cities in posters such as the one I have below.

The implication being that they made the wrong choice even though these groups have no knowledge of any woman's circumstance. They have pushed to shut down any real debate on abortion. Politicians have been threatened with excommunication and funding from the US is going to these groups to influence domestic policy.

I don't approve of threats(not too pushed on obcenities unless it attacks an individual) from any side. But a poster that says **** is the least of the issues when there's a campaign to prevent legislating on a subject that should legitimately have been legislated on twenty years ago,the country voted on it so why not respect the choice that the public made. It shows no respect for the democratic process whatsoever.

Flier

Richard Bingham wrote: »

That's agreed.



Members of the pro life side have been threatened and obscene and disgraceful banners have been displayed by pro choicers.

What about;

"Its my c*nt and I'll do what I want with it" at the pro life rally a few months ago?

Is that not obscene where there are children walking around?

How do you mean "uniformly discreditable". Do you mean uniform as in the same in all cases?

At least it's a statement of fact, unlike a lot of what the pro-life side is peddling. (I'll give you mildly distastful, for the use of foul language)

Morag

Jernal wrote: »

Wow! I don't think even the Daily Mail has abortion down as a cause for cancer.

That said it's possible that some poor woman after an abortion developed cancer. Is there a causal link between the two? In her individual case who knows? And our heart must go out to her. But in general, abortion doesn't cause cancer.

Breast feeding can reduce the over all risk of a woman getting breast cancer.
If you have an abortion then it's concluded that you won't ever breastfeed there for you have murdered a baby and increased your risk of cancer.


Screwed up reasoning but that is what they use.

Morag

IT-Guy wrote: »

There's a lesson there somewhere I'm sure. I wonder which version of it you'll see? Some women using abortion as a form of contraception is no reason to deny it to all women, I'm sure you can see that?

Which makes as much sense as some people speed and kill others, so no one should drive ever.

Nodin

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Are we (..................)it. I do think that he didn't intend it to be used as it is being used.

Ye do, do ye?

The effects of the Act have been wholly beneficial.

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

Richard Bingham wrote:

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

...and they aren't.

Nodin

Richard Bingham wrote: »

No I didn't. How can you accuse me of going "quote mining" when I took the quote from the first of the two links which you posted up.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-28950172.html

I didn't go too far did I?

Lets say you're a victim of the Indo then.

Delirium

Strong religious convictions are no excuse for misrepresenting research

There have been few debates on social issues in Ireland in which religion did not loom large; whether the topic has been contraception, homosexuality or divorce, theologically derived opinions have often been centre stage. Even now, in debates about abortion and same-sex marriage, these views are still heard. The threatening behaviour of the past may be gone, but it has been replaced by the more insidious ploy of misrepresenting research to lend credibility to discriminatory views.

The abortion debate provides numerous examples of such contrivances. In this paper recently, Breda O’Brien brandished a study by Ferguson et al (2013) and claimed abortion damages women. However, her championing of this study is textbook cherry-picking that fails to withstand even a cursory examination.

Corkfeen

Meanwhile in Texas, Republicans attempt to make abortions highly inaccessible.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/texas-senator-speaks-for-11-hours-in-abortion-law-filibuster-1.1443099

I suspect we'd struggle to find a TD that could speak for 1 hour.....

Delirium

Corkfeen wrote: »

Meanwhile in Texas, Republicans attempt to make abortions highly inaccessible.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/texas-senator-speaks-for-11-hours-in-abortion-law-filibuster-1.1443099

I suspect we'd struggle to find a TD that could speak for 1 hour.....

Bill has been defeated.

Another stunning reversal: Abortion bill defeated after Texas Republicans concede vote came too late

AUSTIN — In a stunning turn of events early Wednesday, Republican leaders in the Texas Senate conceded that hotly contested abortion legislation was not approved as they had earlier claimed.


The bill, expected to be debated all over again in another special legislative session, would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and require that all procedures take place in a surgical center. The bill that was a top priority for Republican legislative leaders, and experts estimate it could lead to the closing of 37 of the state’s 42 abortion clinics.


In a chaotic scene that captivated national attention, a filibuster by Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, designed to derail the abortion bill was itself thwarted a couple hours short of her midnight goal late Tuesday. But she was able to claim victory early Wednesday after Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst's after-hours acknowledgement that the bill was dead. Asked if the filibuster had succeeded, she responded: "Well, I guess the proof is in the pudding and the pudding tastes awfully good right now."


She told reporters that she was "tired but really happy."