Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Galvasean

It makes you wonder if certain folk are a bit... simple?

Bannasidhe

Galvasean wrote: »

It makes you wonder if certain folk are a bit... simple?

It makes me wonder how they manage to walk and breathe at the same time.

Bobby42

Nice to see that pro life medical adviser being schooled on the facts by everyone else on the prime time panel.

"Well the people I've talked to tell me doctors are never prevented from caring for pregnant women"

"Eh, you're talking to the wrong people".

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If the English refused to give them to Irish women - it would have to be legal here. We are a disgrace of a country.

I'd certainly feel that the fact of so many women needing to travel to the UK for abortions is the real disgrace. If doctors delay treatment because of the Constitution demanding equal rights for the unborn, that's at least what the people chose by popular vote. If the people had the courage of their convictions, they'd be willing to face down the Times of India on the topic. However, the reality is something else.

http://www.ifpa.ie/node/501

Figures released today (29.05.12) by the UK Department of Health show that in 2011, a total of 4,149 women providing Irish addresses had terminations in England and Wales. This represents a drop of 253 from 2010 and the lowest figure since 1991.

4,000 a year is 80 a week. That's an astonishing figure - and, apparently, it has been higher in the past?

If there was really a consensus in this society that we were deeply committed to the pro-life outlook, that simply wouldn't be happening. The real hypocrisy is thinking you've created a little pro-life oasis, when all you've done is sent your problems abroad. And, absolutely, if you were working in a UK hospital, why wouldn't you feel contempt at an Irish State sending you its problems?

But why doesn't that have us out on the streets? I mean, 150,000 women travelling to the UK for an abortion since 1980. Why isn't that the nucleus of a strong political movement? Why didn't that get people out on the street?

Mervyn Crawford

http://www.independent.ie/video/video-irish-news/gerry-adams-speaks-about-abortion-3300932.html

Adams "Sinn Fein is not in favour of abortion."

I maintain my point.

Mervyn Crawford

Unionist & Nationalist parties united

Letter from the leaders of the four main Political Parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly to MPs in 2008

To All Members of Parliament
House of Commons
LONDON
SW1A OAA
April 2008

Dear Colleague

We are writing as leaders of the four main Political Parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to express our concerns about a proposed amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which could have the effect of extending the provisions of the 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland.

As you may be aware, there would be strong opposition right across the community to any move to impose this legislation legalising abortion on the Province. In a recent debate in the Assembly, each of our Parties expressed a clear view that future legislative provision for the termination of pregnancy in Northern Ireland should be a matter for the devolved, legislature, reflecting on the particular needs of our society.

Indeed, the imposition of legislation on abortion that excluded the Assembly from having a say would undoubtedly undermine the integrity of the devolution process and significantly, would reduce public confidence in the political progress we have made here.

Whilst we respect your own views on such matters, as leaders representing the overwhelming majority of our people, we would urge you to vote against any amendment to this Bill that would extend the provisions of the 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely

RT HON DR IAN PAISLEY MP MLA
GERRY ADAMS MP MLA
SIR REG EMPEY MLA
MARK DURKAN MP MLA

Obliq

‎'This is not an abstraction, this is not a lofty debate over life or morality, this is a woman's right not to die because they are less equal to every other person when they become pregnant (...) When rape in this country can incur a mere €15,000 fine or €5,000 to beat your girlfriend until her face is irrepairably scarred, can we really be surprised that appropriate healthcare is not available to all women in all circumstances' - Dessie Ellis TD SF


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_bUA2SSy-4&feature=share

I like this fella.

Mervyn Crawford

If Ellis was an honest advocate of democratic rights, including womens' rights, then he could not support, never mind be a TD for, Sinn Fein.

The political system is founded on lies.

The dark arts of bourgeois democracy revolve around the so-called champions of the people APPEARING to be for justice and equality.

Thus the political demands now are to 'legislate for the X case'. Especially when the fundamentalists are raving such a call for legislation implies the opposite of these pro-lifers.

However, this is the point - it IMPLIES the opposite. Sinn Fein are a catholic party that is against a woman's right to choose.

And I would take the issue a step further. One of the main planks of the attack on a woman's rights is the control that religion has in the state.

The democratic, or progressive,(Adams claims his party is progressive) demand must be that religion be ejected from all aspects of the state. For the total secularisation of society. And that religious belief be a purely personal matter.

Lets hear Sinn Fein calling for the churches to be thrown out of every state body!

Obliq

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

If Ellis was an honest advocate of democratic rights, including womens' rights, then he could not support, never mind be a TD for, Sinn Fein.

The political system is founded on lies..........................

The democratic, or progressive,(Adams claims his party is progressive) demand must be that religion be ejected from all aspects of the state. For the total secularisation of society. And that religious belief be a purely personal matter.

Lets hear Sinn Fein calling for the churches to be thrown out of every state body!

Quite right. It's a case in point that I said "I like this fella" instead of "I like this political party". Right now, there isn't one party that goes far enough towards my interests in the total secularisation of society, or equality for women in society, but some individual TD's are at least speaking publicly in terms that I can agree with. All I'm saying is that Ellis is one I'll be watching.

drkpower

recedite wrote: »

The Savita tragedy was a miscarriage. The "unborn child" had no potential for life..

This distinction is irrelevant based on the law as it stands. The protection to the unborn is not dependant on its likelihood of survival. I believe that is wrong, but that is the law as it stands*.

* - there is a potential argument to the contrary which effectively states that a 'doomed' foetus should not benefit from that constitutional protection. Im not going to get into it now. suffice to say, that it would not be the mainstream interpretation of the constitution and SC judgments, and therefore for a doctor to act on such an interpretation would be quite dangerous.

recedite wrote: »

Secondly, when delivery goes badly wrong at that critical time, the mothers life is prima fascia endangered. If the DPP wanted to prosecute the Galway doctors for performing an illegal abortion, she would have to produce medical evidence from a third party doctor to prove that the mothers life was not in danger. The chances of some pro-life doctor being able to produce any such evidence is negligible.
Even then, the pro-life doctor's testimony would somehow have to be more convincing than the doctors on the scene, which seems impossible, unless the hospital doctor was implicated in some dishonesty or malpractice. ..

I'm sorry, but it appears that you are not even thinking about the issues before you post.

This, for instance, is simply incorrect; the entire area of medical law is based on third party doctors examining factual evidence (of which they have no first hand knowledge) and coming to a view that the doctors who actually provided treatment did so in a substandard way. It happens every day; and judges often take the word of the third party doctor over the word of the doctor 'on the scene'.

recedite wrote: »

They are not straightforward issues. However my point is that in the current circumstances it is incumbent on the hospital to issue those guidelines.
We could have legislation which contained hundreds of lines of medical guidelines on what constitutes a risk to life as opposed to just health, but in practice there would be no real change to the existing law.
In the meantime, any hospital can consult legal opinion and issue those same type of guidelines, and they would be considered valid. ..

First, even if a medical lawyer were to confidently draft detailed guidelines in this regard, following inaccurate (even honestly inaccurate guidelines) does not per se act as a defence to a criminal charge.

Second, any honestly drafted guidelines would be full of gaps, becasue the meaning of the word 'substantial' (in the context of certain grey areas of clinical practice) is far from certain. As a medical lawyer (and former doctor), if I were consulted to draft those guidelines you speak of, I would leave those grey areas blank and say 'sorry, the legal answer to this is unknown; if such an issue arises, proceed immediately to the High Court for a declaration; if there is no time to do so, here are the risks of either approach; now, you are on your own'.

Third, if this was as simple as asking a medical lawyer to draft guidelines, why do you think that hasnt been done in the last 20 years.....?!

But, I have made these points before and it doesnt seem to sink in for you; so if you cant be convinced by someone who has practised as a doctor and a medical lawyer, dealing with issues of legal interpretation such as this one quite frequently, there is little hope for me convincing you with further argument.

So maybe the word of those who provide actual treatment to actual pregnant women might convince you; the Master and ex-MAster of Holles St (amongst others) have stated that the current law creates grey areas in which they have no adequate legal clarity. So just ponder this take home point:

If those who provide care to pregnant women are not, in some circumstances, clear as to what treatment they can provide under the law, there is a problem. And that problem needs fixing.

Obliq

Hear hear.

LittleBook

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm amazed that someone thought a 'para' military look is a good idea for a poster for an 'pro-life' event in Belfast...:eek:

Galvasean wrote: »

It makes you wonder if certain folk are a bit... simple?

Doesn't surprise me at all. Witnessing the tactics of groups like SPUC and Youth Defence since the 90s, it's clear that there is a militant element to the pro-life campaign that I've never seen on the pro-choice side. And these posters are designed to appeal to that element ... training a small number of people to make the biggest noise possible ... aggressively.

As tactless as they are in a city like Belfast, I doubt they are careless. And one thing these people are not is simple ... unless you're referring to their narrow-minded, prejudiced, simplicity of purpose.

I would love it if a pro-choice person could go there undercover and see their tactics being discussed openly.

lazygal

LittleBook wrote: »

Doesn't surprise me at all. Witnessing the tactics of groups like SPUC and Youth Defence since the 90s, it's clear that there is a militant element to the pro-life campaign that I've never seen on the pro-choice side. And these posters are designed to appeal to that element ... training a small number of people to make the biggest noise possible ... aggressively.

As tactless as they are in a city like Belfast, I doubt they are careless. And one thing these people are not is simple ... unless you're referring to their narrow-minded, prejudiced, simplicity of purpose.

I would love it if a pro-choice person could go there undercover and see their tactics being discussed openly.

I'd go.

Obliq

lazygal wrote: »

I'd go.

Very brave! I wouldn't....the steam coming out of my ears would give me away before I could say "but what about da babyees?"

lazygal

Obliq wrote: »

Very brave! I wouldn't....the steam coming out of my ears would give me away before I could say "but what about da babyees?"

I have a baby,it'd be a good cover and I'd breastfeed at all the meetings, see how they react to the reality of a baaaaybeee. I'll let them change the poops too.

Mahogany

Hotly debated around my social circle right now.

I don't think anyone can be "pro abortion" of course its not the desirable option, however it can sometimes be necessary.

The option should be there for women, to me that is a right, no government should be allowed to say to a woman what she can and can't do with her body.

Wether you agree or not at the end of the day, it should be her choice. If you don't agree with it, don't get one...

Same with Cannibas, might I add, if you don't agree with it, don't smoke it... its not rocket science.

Obliq

Mahogany wrote: »

Wether you agree or not at the end of the day, it should be her choice. If you don't agree with it, don't get one...

Same with Cannibas, might I add, if you don't agree with it, don't smoke it... its not rocket science.

Ah ha! Are you the one altering the digital signs on the Rock Rd.???!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1110/breaking15.html

Mahogany

Obliq wrote: »

Ah ha! Are you the one altering the digital signs on the Rock Rd.???!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1110/breaking15.html[/QUOTE]

Hahahaha, that is brilliant

Need one of those down here in Greystones

Mervyn Crawford

Obliq,

Ellis should be watched; but not for the reasons you imply.
Rather the duplicity of Ellis et al needs to be drawn out so that the people can break free from the manipulation of ALL of the Dail parties and independents.

For ease of access I'll provide the link again, that you gave above, to his Dail speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_bUA2SSy-4&feature=share

What does he say?

He tells us in tub-thumping volumes that he's been on a lot of marches; that the right-wing (implying therefore he's left wing, or 'progressive' as his leader says) is now a rump; that the X case must be legislated on (which for the TDs means we are not having the right to choose); and he slyly and cynically misrepresents Praveen Halappanavar's very courageous and very principled position, while at the same time he, Ellis, boosts the HSE.

Now there's a man of the people for you! Sure isn't he even working class!

Could I ask you Obliq, and anyone who treats seriously the issue of abortion and democratic rights, to please listen to Ellis on the link above. And as the phrase goes - don't leave your critical faculties at the door.

This struggle is too important for vagueness. The issues touch on the struggle for equality and justice. The struggle for socialism.

UDP

In fairness Mervyn Crawford Sinn Fein are not the worst of the parties with regards the issue of legislating for the X case. Their religious affiliation comes really from their republican roots due to the religious conflict in the north. I think this is why they have a more religious stance up the north since i.e. because of their voter demographic being more religious than in the south. It could be argued that is hypocritical but that's another argument.

They voted for Clare Daly's bill earlier in the year, they are putting through the motion today in the dail so I think you are being unduly unfair on them.

I am more concerned about Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil who are clearly religious influenced and who have and are actively trying to resist legislating for the X case.

loveisdivine

Mahogany wrote: »

I don't think anyone can be "pro abortion" of course its not the desirable option, however it can sometimes be necessary.

I'm pro abortion. I dont think its desirable, as in I'm not hoping to get preggo just so I can have one. But if a woman falls pregnant and she/the couple are not in a position to raise the child, be it for financial/mental/lifestyle reasons then I would advocate abortion as the best/only option. I dont see it as tragic. What would be tragic is a woman/couple giving birth to a child they dont want and the child being raised by parents that deep down regret its existence.

Now if they fell pregnant because they didnt bother to use contraception, then I would still let them have the abortion, but give them a stern talking to about how to use bc.

LittleBook

lazygal wrote: »

I have a baby,it'd be a good cover and I'd breastfeed at all the meetings, see how they react to the reality of a baaaaybeee. I'll let them change the poops too.

Your mission Lazygal, should you choose to accept it, is to infiltrate the so-called boot camp being run by Precious Life and gather intelligence on their operations and tactics. This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds.

Ironically, this group is described on Wikipedia as "opposing abortion, through non-violent means" ... that's really the vibe I got from the poster. :rolleyes:

PopePalpatine

LittleBook wrote: »

Doesn't surprise me at all. Witnessing the tactics of groups like SPUC and Youth Defence since the 90s, it's clear that there is a militant element to the pro-life campaign that I've never seen on the pro-choice side. And these posters are designed to appeal to that element ... training a small number of people to make the biggest noise possible ... aggressively.

It kinda reminds me of some advice I heard on dealing with aggressive wild animals - if you want them to back down, make yourself look bigger and therefore more intimidating. It also reminds me of cartoons were a small character has a big shadow, also giving them a much bigger presence than in reality.

Galvasean

And they call atheists 'militant' :rolleyes:

Tell me this: Does anybody know who those religious guys are who assembled near the Spire on O' Connell St. on the day of the big march for Savita. They wore blue hoodies with crosses on them and were stopping people in the street left right and centre (I stop just short at using words like 'mobbing' and 'harassing'). I'm not sre if they were a pro-lifers, but the fact that they conveniently showed up right in time for the march and the fact that they wore uniforms gives me my suspicion.

old hippy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm amazed that someone thought a 'para' military look is a good idea for a poster for an 'pro-life' event in Belfast...:eek:
Classy.

Are these the "true" Christian soldiers, ready to rise up against abortion, gay marriage and other steps into the 21st century?

Bring it on, so

robindch

Dessie Ellis wrote:

When rape in this country can incur a mere €15,000 fine or €5,000 to beat your girlfriend until her face is irrepairably scarred, can we really be surprised that appropriate healthcare is not available to all women in all circumstances

Whatever else about this debate, I'm happy to hear that Dessie Ellis -- a man convicted, I believe, for possession of explosives, conspiracy to cause explosions and skipping bail, but subsequently imprisoned for ten years -- now disapproves of irreparable scarring.

LittleBook

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It kinda reminds me of some advice I heard on dealing with aggressive wild animals - if you want them to back down, make yourself look bigger and therefore more intimidating. It also reminds me of cartoons were a small character has a big shadow, also giving them a much bigger presence than in reality.

This is what I find so frustrating. I'm firmly convinced that there are more pro-choice people than pro-life (with restrictions) people in Ireland these days.

Unfortunately however, more than both put together are the numbers of people who haven't given the matter any thought so abstain from voting and debate. The statistics of the 25th amendment more or less back up my impression.

No (pro-choice) 629,041 - 50.42%
Yes (pro-life) 618,485 - 49.58%
Voter turnout 42.89%

Ten years later, I think that a referendum along the lines "lawful to terminate the life of an unborn if such termination is necessary to save the life and/or maintain the health of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to a real and substantial risk to her life, including a risk of self-destruction" would pass.

Not that I'm suggesting that one, just summarising.

Galvasean

I have no doubt in my mind that such a bill would pass. It seems the 'pro-life' lobby is on a mission to convince everyone that it wouldn't in a hope that it will never come to pass. It's why governments have been afraid to set a referendum in motion: They know it will pass. They just don't want it to.

robp

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Is it? Have you eaten ANY of your words, in the multitude of times you've been proven wrong in this thread? :pac: Here's the salt. You go first, you have a lot more in front of you.

By the way, my words were "we'll lend it credence". Now it can have some credence. Now, what was it's relevance, again? A great big pro choice conspiracy, was it?

Your problem is you keep putting words in my mouth and jumping to conclusions on what I am referring too. When I did talk about conspiracy? The manner how some respected parts of the media presented how this poor lady died was as bad as a red-top can get. Why the story circulated in the way it did is of great interest. The abortion lobby did and is rallying around this story with little certainty of what happened.
The case of Jessica Maye Barlow is an interesting reference point here as she died just a month prior to Savita in England with a remarkably similar pathology except in her case she died from an abortion yet her death did not become viral at all.

fisgon

LittleBook wrote: »

This is what I find so frustrating. I'm firmly convinced that there are more pro-choice people than pro-life (with restrictions) people in Ireland these days.

A small point, and one that may seem petty, but which is actually relevant.

Please stop using the term "pro-life". This is what the anti-abortion lobby refer to themselves as, in an attempt to portray themselves as morally superior, in an attempt to skew and twist language so that they appear as if they have already won the debate (with the implication that their opponents are "anti-life") They are not "pro" anything, they are almost the definition of "anti".

Language, as always, is important in this debate. They are "anti-abortion", nothing more. Please do not buy in to their own twisted definition of who they are.