Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Printing bare faced lies in national media must be illegal in some way shape or form.

edit: the Press Ombudsman perhaps?

Remind me to get onto the Press Ombudsman next time Mr Waters has a go at Educate Together.

eyescreamcone

Jan Hus wrote: »

Abortion is wrong. Killing an innocent child for another person's comfort is barbaric - like something out of the Roman Amphitheatre. It's like saying I want a lion skin rug and am going to kill one to get it.

I don't agree with your opinion.
I am pro choice.
Abortions should be available, for whatever reason - up to 20 weeks.

Obliq

Galvasean wrote: »

I'd imagine there must be some form of governing body that can step in and take a look. Printing bare faced lies in national media must be illegal in some way shape or form.

edit: the Press Ombudsman perhaps? That's how the Kevin Myers case came to task:
http://www.krank.ie/category/society/marriage-equality-and-belong-to-youth-services-complaint-upheld-against-irish-independent/

Cheers Will have a good look at that when I get a proper chance - have to put my taxi-mum hat on for the whole weekend, but then I'll try and rip them a new one (with help from ye clever types!)

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1018/1224325412766.html

North's politicians revert to type on abortion

The one thing that unites across the divide in NI is oppressing women. Thought the SDLP were better than that, I was mistaken, some civil rights movement that was. SF want to be the chum of every cultural catholic/nationalist so won't say anything that would frighten the horses. Unionists as expected. Fair play to Anna Lo of the Alliance party who is the only person unafraid to speak out. I don't believe for a second that no-one in the other parties agrees with her. They're just afraid to say so.

Hotblack Desiato

AFAIK Northern Ireland is still governed by the 1861 Act, as are we? Is there any statute preventing a similar Marie Stopes clinic opening in Dublin?

(Legislation, not the constitution - the constitution says my kids don't have to endure religious indoctrination, but they do. The constitiution says DCU graduates should have a Seanad vote, but they don't.)

28064212

ninja900 wrote: »

AFAIK Northern Ireland is still governed by the 1861 Act, as are we? Is there any statute preventing a similar Marie Stopes clinic opening in Dublin?

Not correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom#Northern_Ireland: "The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 allows abortion when necessary to protect the mother's physical and mental health"

ninja900 wrote: »

the constitution says my kids don't have to endure religious indoctrination, but they do.

It doesn't say that

ninja900 wrote: »

The constitiution says DCU graduates should have a Seanad vote, but they don't.)

It doesn't say that either. It permits the government to enact legislation that would allow DCU to vote, but it does not mandate that DCU must be allowed to vote

Obliq

Galvasean wrote: »

I'd imagine there must be some form of governing body that can step in and take a look. Printing bare faced lies in national media must be illegal in some way shape or form.

edit: the Press Ombudsman perhaps? That's how the Kevin Myers case came to task:
http://www.krank.ie/category/society/marriage-equality-and-belong-to-youth-services-complaint-upheld-against-irish-independent/

Finally getting round to looking at this, and as far as I can see.....no. Press Ombudsman won't work - it's only for journalist's behaviour/articles - not for adverts (that would be the ASAI, who already say that if an advert is not selling anything, they have no regulations for it).

http://www.pressombudsman.ie/making-a-complaint.24.html

"It is also essential that the complaint:

refers to an article published by a member publication of the Press Council of Ireland, published within the last three months, if the complaint relates to an article;
refers to the behaviour of a journalist that took place within the last three months if the complaint relates to journalistic behaviour;
is signed by the complainant or by someone nominated to act on their behalf;
is, in the opinion of the Press Ombudsman, supported by sufficient evidence of a possible breach of the Code of Practice and is neither vexatious nor insignificant;
clearly indicates which Principle or Principles of the Code of Practice the complainant feels may have been breached, and why;
is accompanied by a dated cutting of any article concerned, or a scanned version which clearly shows the date of publication; and
is accompanied by copies of any correspondence between the complainant and the editor of the publication;"
Blahdeblah,etc. Not a word about advertising anywhere on the site.

'course, when you think about it, these are the same publications that allow ads with bare-faced lies about instant tummy tightening and penis enlargement. It'd be a financial disaster for them if some regulatory body could actually stop them from printing all that sh*te ;-)

Galvasean

Speaking of the Indo I noticed they gave the protesters of the new clinic close to a full page in their paper today. So much for balance. The coverage was a bithypocritical though to be honest. It mentioned how this wave of anti-abortion protesters are less religiously motivated, but made frequent references to them carrying rosary beads and praying
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/protesters-say-rosary-in-rain-as-first-private-abortion-clinic-opens-3264750.html

One thing that jumped out at me mind you:

Mother-of-four Aoife de Clar from Mullingar, Co Westmeath, had come with her children and husband after leaving home at 6.30am.

"We couldn't let this opening go unnoticed," she said, adding that she had tried to explain to her children what was happening.

"I told them there were bad doctors who kill people but that we have good doctors working in hospitals," she said.

Generally, I'm not a fan of bringing kids to protests of any sorts (as I feel it is forcing one's own ideology on a developing mind) but that quote (my bolding) really jumped out me as being a particularly bad case of brainwashing a kid.

Obliq

Galvasean wrote: »

One thing that jumped out at me mind you:


Generally, I'm not a fan of bringing kids to protests of any sorts (as I feel it is forcing one's own ideology on a developing mind) but that quote (my bolding) really jumped out me as being a particularly bad case of brainwashing a kid.

Oh good grief. Didn't see any of the reports, tv or newspaper (life got in the way) - thanks for the links. That's nasty. Really nasty. I rather behind the scenes "get 'em on a technicality" stuff than letters to the papers, but that makes me want to spew words of pure vitriol.:mad:

Hotblack Desiato

28064212 wrote: »

the constitution says my kids don't have to endure religious indoctrination, but they do.

It doesn't say that

"Article 44

4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school."

Good luck trying to vindicate that right. Religion permeates the entire primary school curriculum, and schools discriminate in admission policy on the basis of religion. Legally, but in my view the legislation is unconstitutional - it remains in force until someone with very deep pockets challenges it though.

Don't want to drag this thread off-topic, but the point is relevant - that a constitutional right is little bloody use if the government never legislates to vindicate that right, e.g. the C case. Ordinary people cannot afford to go to the Supreme Court to have their rights vindicated.

It doesn't say that either. It permits the government to enact legislation that would allow DCU to vote, but it does not mandate that DCU must be allowed to vote

Exactly, the people were asked to vote in a referendum to permit something, they did, 30-odd years later they still don't have the right they voted to grant themselves.

28064212

ninja900 wrote: »

"Article 44

4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school."

Good luck trying to vindicate that right. Religion permeates the entire primary school curriculum, and schools discriminate in admission policy on the basis of religion. Legally, but in my view the legislation is unconstitutional - it remains in force until someone with very deep pockets challenges it though.

"Legislation providing State aid" - the article specifically refers to legislation under that heading. I don't like it, but it's still constitutional

ninja900 wrote: »

Don't want to drag this thread off-topic, but the point is relevant - that a constitutional right is little bloody use if the government never legislates to vindicate that right, e.g. the C case. Ordinary people cannot afford to go to the Supreme Court to have their rights vindicated.

The constitution was changed after the C case. The situation with regard to the X case is a disgrace, and by far the most damning indictment of every government for the last 20 years

ninja900 wrote: »

Exactly, the people were asked to vote in a referendum to permit something, they did, 30-odd years later they still don't have the right they voted to grant themselves.

That's not what it says at all. It's still not a constitutional right. The people were asked if they wanted to allow the Oireachtas to decide which institutes were allowed vote for the Seanad. And that's all. They weren't asked which institutes should be allowed vote

Hotblack Desiato

28064212 wrote: »

"Legislation providing State aid" - the article specifically refers to legislation under that heading. I don't like it, but it's still constitutional

I don't get the point you're making. Can you explain?

The constitution was changed after the C case. The situation with regard to the X case is a disgrace, and by far the most damning indictment of every government for the last 20 years

The constitution has not been changed after the C case. I agree about the disgusting disregard of the X case.

That's not what it says at all. It's still not a constitutional right. The people were asked if they wanted to allow the Oireachtas to decide which institutes were allowed vote for the Seanad. And that's all. They weren't asked which institutes should be allowed vote

Oh come on FFS. The people were misled into thinking that they were voting to allow X, they voted to make X legal, it was a reasonable expectation on their part that X would be legislated for. You are arguing in favour of dishonesty in the Oireachtas.

robp

28064212 wrote: »

Both of these are absolute lies

A 2002 review of literature review of abortion stats found that 91–93% of pregnancies in the United Kingdom and Europe with a known diagnosis of Down syndrome were aborted.

Absolute lies yeah right:rolleyes: Stronger opinions than facts.

MagicMarker

robp wrote: »

A 2002 review of literature review of abortion stats found that 91–93% of pregnancies in the United Kingdom and Europe with a known diagnosis of Down syndrome were aborted.

Absolute lies yeah right:rolleyes: Stronger opinions than facts.

Did you read the claim that was made, which 28064212 was responding to? Here it is...

In china if you were female you were aborted
In scandinavia babies with down syndrome are automatically aborted

So, exactly what has your post got to do with anything?

Lingua Franca

Hey, it's Robp back after a week of not answering awkward questions again! What were the chances?

pauldla wrote: »

Now, Robp, please enlighten me: what is a pro-choice absolutist? I don't understand the term.

robp

Galvasean wrote: »

Generally, I'm not a fan of bringing kids to protests of any sorts (as I feel it is forcing one's own ideology on a developing mind)

People are judgmental on this issue very selectively. I don't call criticism at children being brought to the anti-austerity protests or the turf cutters marches. As the topics are both controversial there is hardly any difference.

Hey Lingua Franca,

A pro-choice absolutist is someone who argues that choice over rides all other factors. At one end of this point of view you have the abortions for curable conditions such as cleft palates in the UK. This is rare but still is frankly appalling. Not surprising though as the UK's laws are amongst the most extreme in Europe. At the other end of the spectrum you have pro-choice ethicists proposing after-birth abortions. Most pro-choicers will disagree with after-birth abortion but their reasons for this are utterly arbitrary. So often we hear the idea that the lack of personhood in a fetus justifies abortion but personshood develops slowly in increments till over a decade after birth. The rate which we develop after birth is one of the rare aspects that makes us different from other species. Thus it should be protected.

Lingua Franca

Ah, like pro lifers and their "never any need for abortion". Gotcha.

robp wrote: »

Most pro-choicers will disagree with after-birth abortion but their reasons for this are utterly arbitrary.

Tell me more, what are these arbitrary reasons?

robp

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Ah, like pro lifers and their "never any need for abortion". Gotcha.



Tell me more, what are these arbitrary reasons?

Well I think you would know more about that than I. Birth is itself one. Its a milestone and a time of great emotional significance but not a beginning.

MrPudding

robp wrote: »

At the other end of the spectrum you have pro-choice ethicists proposing after-birth abortions.

IIRC the researchers responsible for that paper were not proposing after birth abortion, but, as part of fan intellectual exercise, were pointing out that it was theoretically possible that some of the justifications currently used for abortion could, logically, be extended to after birth abortions.

This is very, very different from suggesting that they should be allowed, which is not what they did. In additional, simply because after birth abortions, assuming they were correction their paper, could be "justified" on the same grounds does not mean it would happen. Governments are not bound by logic.

MrP

MrPudding

MrPudding wrote: »

IIRC the researchers responsible for that paper were not proposing after birth abortion, but, as part of fan intellectual exercise, were pointing out that it was theoretically possible that some of the justifications currently used for abortion could, logically, be extended to after birth abortions.

This is very, very different from suggesting that they should be allowed, which is not what they did. In additional, simply because after birth abortions, assuming they were correction their paper, could be "justified" on the same grounds does not mean it would happen. Governments are not bound by logic.

MrP

Just doing a bit more digging on this to confirm what I thought. Here is a letter from he researchers:

http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/03/02/an-open-letter-from-giubilini-and-minerva/

They actually received death threats over this. Ridiculous.

MrP

Turtwig

MrPudding wrote: »

Just doing a bit more digging on this to confirm what I thought. Here is a letter from he researchers:

http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/03/02/an-open-letter-from-giubilini-and-minerva/

They actually received death threats over this. Ridiculous.

MrP

And as I suspected at the time as with most academic papers quoted in the popular press, most people read the quotes and think they've understood the whole paper. Pathetic, but yeah I felt really sorry for those researchers as I rather liked the paper.

Bioethics papers are actually awesome to read if you've got time. Really make you think about things differently.

muppeteer

MrPudding wrote: »

IIRC the researchers responsible for that paper were not proposing after birth abortion, but, as part of fan intellectual exercise, were pointing out that it was theoretically possible that some of the justifications currently used for abortion could, logically, be extended to after birth abortions.

This is very, very different from suggesting that they should be allowed, which is not what they did. In additional, simply because after birth abortions, assuming they were correction their paper, could be "justified" on the same grounds does not mean it would happen. Governments are not bound by logic.

MrP

They did make a sound logical case using some of the justifications used for abortion, but they did depart from one of the main reasons for allowing abortion (the right to bodily integrity) by applying the logic to after birth. After birth this principle doesn't apply to even near the same extent.
As such it would probably be more accurate if they had called it something closer to euthanasia or infanticide rather than after birth abortion. What they proposed was sufficiently different from abortion that it can stand or fall on it's own merits, without the need to drag abortion into the discussion, even if some similar justifications can be used for both.

Most of the press reports at the time seemed to miss this distinction, which led to a lot of...well backlash.

pauldla

robp wrote: »

A pro-choice absolutist is someone who argues that choice over rides all other factors. At one end of this point of view you have the abortions for curable conditions such as cleft palates in the UK. This is rare but still is frankly appalling. Not surprising though as the UK's laws are amongst the most extreme in Europe. At the other end of the spectrum you have pro-choice ethicists proposing after-birth abortions. Most pro-choicers will disagree with after-birth abortion but their reasons for this are utterly arbitrary. So often we hear the idea that the lack of personhood in a fetus justifies abortion but personshood develops slowly in increments till over a decade after birth. The rate which we develop after birth is one of the rare aspects that makes us different from other species. Thus it should be protected.

Still not understanding this 'pro-choice absolutist' term, Robp. Sorry. What's the difference between someone who is pro-choice and a 'pro-choice absolutist'?

Galvasean

pauldla wrote: »

Still not understanding this 'pro-choice absolutist' term, Robp. Sorry. What's the difference between someone who is pro-choice and a 'pro-choice absolutist'?

A 'pro-choice absolutist' is to pro-choice what 'new atheism' is to atheism in terms of online discussion - an attempt to undermine a position by making it sound more extreme.

pauldla

Galvasean wrote: »

A 'pro-choice absolutist' is to pro-choice what 'new atheism' is to atheism in terms of online discussion - an attempt to undermine a position by making it sound more extreme.

Indeed. I suspect as much, but I'd like to hear the man himself explain. To me the term suggests being in thrall to the tyranny of choice, or something along those lines, and that doesn't make much sense. Hopefully he'll clarify the term.

Mario852

Sarky wrote: »

The choice needs to be available. It's really that simple.

Too bad the embryo doesn't have that choice until its able to speak for itself.
The choice it would make would be quite obvious...

Bannasidhe

Mario852 wrote: »

Too bad the embryo doesn't have that choice until its able to speak for itself.
The choice it would make would be quite obvious...

That would be what, about aged 18 months/2 years? But does a 2 year old have the cognitive abilities to make an informed choice? Maybe 5 would be better... or 35?

Mario852

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That would be what, about aged 18 months/2 years? But does a 2 year old have the cognitive abilities to make an informed choice? Maybe 5 would be better... or 35?

I don't think I at any age wanted to commit a suicide or regretted that I wasn't aborted. My point is, you guys are taking the advantage of a being (as in life) not (yet) being able to speak for itself.
If you are so pro-choice, wait and see what's the child's opinion, and let it commit the suicide then.

Turtwig

Mario852 wrote: »

I don't think I at any age wanted to commit a suicide or regretted that I wasn't aborted. My point is, you guys are taking the advantage of a being (as in life) not (yet) being able to speak for itself.

I'm curious do you feel the same sense of remorse for skin cells that tear off yourself?

Mario852

Jernal wrote: »

I'm curious do you feel the same sense of remorse for skin cells that tear off yourself?

What are skin cells to do with a developing human life?
An embryo is new life, it is not a bunch of not needed skin cells of an organism that can be fully functional without them.