Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Morag

Why thank you

I try

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB-xCM2WZ-o

Obliq

Great choice! Goes to dig out various "don't give a flying f*ck what you think I should be" female singers for evening......

Morag

http://geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2013/07/the-river-of-bile-on-steroids.html

some interesting reading.

aloyisious

It seem's Enda and FG want a silent nod from Labour to allow him put what's already stated as a main aim of the bill (the need for doctors to form a reasonable opinion that an abortion is necessary due to medical emergencies, suicide or physical illness) into the specific sections of the bill referring separately to each of those reasons, in order to mollify Lucinda Creighton and Co. From an article in today's Irish Times; While the need to preserve unborn human life is not at present mentioned directly in the sections of the Bill on illness, emergencies and suicide, the amendment would introduce a direct reference in each section.

I'm looking forward to her and the Pro-life groups making further demands specifying sections be added to the bill stating that the opinions, acts and deeds of any medics who certify or co-operate with any abortion/s as medically necessary to be gone over forensically by legal experts (Star Chamber) to try and ensure the medics face criminal court action and imprisonment.

IMO, it's no longer about abortions and the saving of either a woman' life or the unborn, it's now about Lucinda Creighton's political life. She's thrown the dice and won't be satisfied with anything except full surrender by the Govt and FG party to her position. Putting myself in Enda's shoes, I'd instruct Lucinda to have her office cleared and bags packed before she votes against, or abstains on, any motion on the bill.

Edit: meantime there's this piece from the Indo, re the Psychiatrists likely to be evaluating the suicide risk issue. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/psychiatrists-defend-decision-to-push-back-abortion-meeting-29396670.html

lazygal

I'm actually pretty happy with Enda so far. Okay, I'd like far wider legislation but there's not the sense of mollycoddling to keep people on side we came to expect during the Bertie era. No better time to pass this Bill than with a large majority and no need to keep everyone on side. I think Lucinda won't win this one, she's not that valuable to the party, regardless of what some may think.

magicbastarder

lazygal wrote: »

I'm actually pretty happy with Enda so far.

there was the attempt to have TFMR clauses introduced into the bill; but in a sense, i can understand why that did not go ahead. it would have badly delayed the bill, as there is no supreme court decision or referendum to point to to back up the insertion, so it would have been wrapped up in appeals.

eireannBEAR

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/psychiatrists-defend-decision-to-push-back-abortion-meeting-29396670.html

national heroes.

Bannasidhe

magicbastarder wrote: »

there was the attempt to have TFMR clauses introduced into the bill; but in a sense, i can understand why that did not go ahead. it would have badly delayed the bill, as there is no supreme court decision or referendum to point to to back up the insertion, so it would have been wrapped up in appeals.

I reckon nothing will be done until there is some mejia 'scandal' where some poor woman's tragic circumstances are splashed across the newspapers and people will say 'aw jayzuz, that's not right like. Sure that's just awful' and we will all hop back on this particular merry-go-round..

Bannasidhe

eireannBEAR wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/psychiatrists-defend-decision-to-push-back-abortion-meeting-29396670.html

national heroes.

of which nation?

Delirium

eireannBEAR wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/psychiatrists-defend-decision-to-push-back-abortion-meeting-29396670.html

national heroes.

Which group? The body representing psychiatrists that is postponing making a decision about the legislation until it knows all the details. Or the group of psychiatrists pressing them to make a statement before all details are known?

maguic24

eireannBEAR wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/psychiatrists-defend-decision-to-push-back-abortion-meeting-29396670.html

national heroes.

You know we have to legislate on abortion, right? We held two referendums in Ireland to try and reverse the 'X' case decision and guess what? The people of Ireland voted against reversing that decision!

I don't understand peoples aversion to legislating for abortion when the woman's life is in danger. I mean if the woman dies, then the unborn dies as well. Sense - it makes none! So in actual fact, Pro-lifers are not only murdering (as you pro-lifers like to put it) the unborn but the woman as well.

I also don't understand why youth defence/pro-lifers aren't out protesting against the morning after pill, that's abortion right? Ending the life of a child and all that jazz, yet I never ever say one demonstration against the 'after morning pill', which is readily available in Ireland.

aloyisious

maguic24 wrote: »

You know we have to legislate on abortion, right? We held two referendums in Ireland to try and reverse the 'X' case decision and guess what? The people of Ireland voted against reversing that decision!

I don't understand peoples aversion to legislating for abortion when the woman's life is in danger. I mean if the woman dies, then the unborn dies as well. Sense - it makes none! So in actual fact, Pro-lifers are not only murdering (as you pro-lifers like to put it) the unborn but the woman as well.

I also don't understand why youth defence/pro-lifers aren't out protesting against the morning after pill, that's abortion right? Ending the life of a child and all that jazz, yet I never ever say one demonstration against the 'after morning pill', which is readily available in Ireland.

Maybe it's because it's easier to attack a corporate instead of singling out a woman as a target because she took a morning-after pill, or going after chemists chains/shops. I'm just a bit puzzled about the sale of the pill as I see from google that Boots (Ireland) began selling it from 10 jan 2011 without prescription, but the Irish Pharmacy Union issued a call on 28 April 2013 for the pill to be sold over the counter without prescription. So what's the position?

aloyisious

eireannBEAR wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/psychiatrists-defend-decision-to-push-back-abortion-meeting-29396670.html

national heroes.

I'm kind'a curious to know who the spokeswoman for the Psychiatrists College is, for it sure ain't Professor Casey.

maguic24

aloyisious wrote: »

Maybe it's because it's easier to attack a corporate instead of singling out a woman as a target because she took a morning-after pill, or going after chemists chains/shops. I'm just a bit puzzled about the sale of the pill as I see from google that Boots (Ireland) began selling it from 10 jan 2011 without prescription, but the Irish Pharmacy Union issued a call on 28 April 2013 for the pill to be sold over the counter without prescription. So what's the position?

I'm not too sure, as far as I know, there was some loophole in the legislation surrounding the morning after pill and that is why they are able to sell it over the counter without a prescription. Boots were one of the first pharmacies to start selling it over the counter without prescription, correct me if I'm wrong! The boots store in The Square in Tallaght have it advertised all over the shop. I'm sure the government could bring in legislation to get rid of this loophole but there is no demand to have the sale of the after morning pill stopped. :rolleyes:

Nodin

eireannBEAR wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/psychiatrists-defend-decision-to-push-back-abortion-meeting-29396670.html

national heroes.

Are you going to answer the questions put to you now?

Lingua Franca

eireannBEAR wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/psychiatrists-defend-decision-to-push-back-abortion-meeting-29396670.html

national heroes.

You still haven't answered my question.

Are you aware that this is a discussion board? Firing out soundbites and links does not a discussion make.

From the charter:

3. While posting of controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable, soap boxing, i.e constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations.

You have already announced that you are ignoring Bannasidhe and now you appear to be ignoring me. If you are not prepared to contribute to a discussion or back up your claims and you are going to ignore all of the regular posters in this forum as each of them instigates discussion with you, why should anyone pay you any attention? You are showing that you cannot back up your assertions and should not be taken seriously.

Turtwig

There's a charter for Atheists? :eek: I don't know that sounds a lot like a religion to me.

eireannBEAR

yes franca every poster here would be banned if that were the case. [including yourself]

Nodin

eireannBEAR wrote: »

yes franca every poster here would be banned if that were the case. [including yourself]

Are you going to answer the outstanding questions now?

Turtwig

eireannBEAR wrote: »

yes franca every poster here would be banned if that were the case. [including yourself]

No they wouldn't!. Less discussion of banning folk. Unless you want the mods to start parsing it "please pleaseee I'm begging you! Bannn me!". Which we will duly oblige.

eireannBEAR

Nodin wrote: »

Are you going to answer the outstanding questions now?

as i have said yesterday i already answered these questions posting links numerous times to back them up,im not posting anymore for your amusement.

Corkfeen

eireannBEAR wrote: »

yes franca every poster here would be banned if that were the case. [including yourself]

I don't think you've provided any evidence. I've provided reliable links in the past that back up my assertions but you provide links and then make wild assertions that aren't in any way verifiable. Such as claiming a professor tried to prevent his study from being published or your absolute certainty that the foetus died outside of the womb.

It would genuinely help your case if you considered what you're references actually provide proof of.

Nodin

eireannBEAR wrote: »

as i have said yesterday i already answered these questions posting links numerous times to back them up,im not posting anymore for your amusement.

No, you did not, which is why we're still asking.

Lingua Franca

eireannBEAR wrote: »

lol,you must understand that this baby obviously died outside of the womb

Lingua Franca wrote: »

...how come you're so certain that the knitting needle didn't kill the foetus?.

eireannBEAR wrote: »

how are you so certain that it did??

eireannBEAR wrote: »

as i have said yesterday i already answered these questions posting links numerous times to back them up,im not posting anymore for your amusement.

You did not answer my question, you responded with another question with a false premise in it, namely that I had a belief either way. This leads me to believe that you cannot answer my question because to do so would be to admit that you were wrong.

Since I've only read the link that you have provided and it says nothing about when the foetus died, I can freely admit that I do not know if the foetus died inside or outside the womb. You say that it is obvious that it died outside the womb.

Why is that?

eireannBEAR

Lingua Franca wrote: »

You did not answer my question, you responded with another question with a false premise in it, namely that I had a belief either way. This leads me to believe that you cannot answer my question because to do so would be to admit that you were wrong.

Since I've only read the link that you have provided and it says nothing about when the foetus died, I can freely admit that I do not know if the foetus died inside or outside the womb. You say that it is obvious that it died outside the womb.

Why is that?

because as proven in a pre-posted link,you cant get charged for the death of a baby unless it dies outside the womb.i also posted a link where a drunk driver injured a mother and killed her baby yet only got charged for injuring the mother..do keep up franca or at least read the posts before commenting.

i only posted these links two days ago you have no excuse for it.

Turtwig

It would be far more constructive if you provided a quotation showing exactly where what you claim in the links is said.


Strive to be at the top of the pyramid.

Nodin

eireannBEAR wrote: »

because as proven in a pre-posted link,you cant get charged for the death of a baby unless it dies outside the womb.i also posted a link where a drunk driver injured a mother and killed her baby yet only got charged for injuring the mother..do keep up franca or at least read the posts before commenting.

i only posted these links two days ago you have no excuse for it.

You still haven't explained why - in a case later than the link you provided re "outside the womb" - somebody was charged with causing a miscarriage.

eireannBEAR

Nodin wrote: »

You still haven't explained why - in a case later than the link you provided re "outside the womb" - somebody was charged with causing a miscarriage.

i thought you said they were charged with preforming an illegal abortion?
thats an entirely different thing all together.

eireannBEAR

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ucd.ie%2Fphilosophy%2Fstaff%2Fgerardcasey%2Fcasey%2FBornAlive.pdf&ei=-CrXUaWMB8rY7Aa76IC4Bw&usg=AFQjCNGx9zm40OIQFfuY0piDgFelCTW0fw&sig2=fdttZFJqJhStKQ5x7WQJtA

here.

now thank my post please. i proved you wrong. this law is against women and favours men.

oldrnwisr

eireannBEAR wrote: »

because as proven in a pre-posted link,you cant get charged for the death of a baby unless it dies outside the womb.i also posted a link where a drunk driver injured a mother and killed her baby yet only got charged for injuring the mother..do keep up franca or at least read the posts before commenting.

i only posted these links two days ago you have no excuse for it.

This is going round and round in some really ridiculous circles. Look, eireannBEAR, you're wrong.

And here's why.

The offence you describe in bold above is called child destruction and is punishable under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929:

(1) Subject as hereinafter in this subsection provided, any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life: Provided that no person shall be found guilty of an offence under this section unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of twenty-eight weeks or more shall be primâ facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive.

So, what was your point again?