Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

magicherbs

Bobby42 wrote: »

When presented with the fact that countries with legal abortion have actually seen a decline in abortion the "pro lifers" basically covered their ears and went, la la la, I'm not listening.

All developed society with progressively move from High to low abortion rates. Legalisation is not an important issue. Contraception awareness and availability and education are much much more important. With legalisation there is a sudden surge in abortions that tapers off, this is what happened in uk and netherlands and would certainly!!!! happen in ireland.

only an idiot would try to pretend increased availability of abortion would reduce abortion rates.

Hotblack Desiato

Sharrow wrote: »

Alan Shatter kicked the can down the road this evening re apealing the 8th Amendment,

I think his personal views on Article 40.3.3 are quite clear from that statement. Enda will not permit the question of the necessary repeal of 40.3.3 to be raised.

We will legislate for X and ignore 40.3.3 for another twenty years or so. More women whose 'health' as opposed to 'life' is at risk due to their pregnancy will nonetheless die. This is inevitable.

ShooterSF

magicherbs wrote: »

Legislating the x-case - grounds for medical termination on grounds of medical necessity - certainly should be done. Women with ectopics and eclampsia all receive terminations as medically necessary.

Psychological / Psychiatric illness - 'suicidal' is not the name of any disease in the ICD-10 as far as I am aware. There is no proof that suicidal ideation changes with pregnancy status. If there is a case of strong suicidal intent in pregnant woman, why not admit her to full psychiatric care rather than abortion?

My problem with both sides is the projection of moral values and simultaneously rejecting the oppositions moral values.

How can 'pro-choice' reject that 'pro-life' consider elective abortion amoral, sinful, wrong, etc.? In the same vein pro-life can consider capital punishment amoral, sinful, wrong?

Pro-choice seem to consider this opinion archaic, derivative of catholic dogma or pure stupidity.

The suicide issue is a red herring really.

Use of the word sinful doesn't help as large portions of pro-choice people don't believe in sin.

As for suicide what about the mandate the people put on the state by refusing to remove it as a justified reason for abortion when asked by referendum?

Of course I don't believe legislating for the x-case is the solution to our problems but it annoys me that a government that thinks it already goes too far refuse to do their job and legislate for our constitution because they don't like it. A constitution is there in theory to keep check on our government but it obviously doesn't work when they can continually ignore it.

28064212

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I didn't see the discussion, but there is an issue in there. There simply are question marks over how to implement, in practical terms, the X case idea that someone has to establish if the woman's mental health poses a risk to life.

That's a reasonable question to pose. Except I took eviltwin's description of the question as the YD person asking if we should allow depressed mothers to kill living, breathing, born children. Which is not a question that has any relevance whatsoever, and is typical of the YD nutters

Obliq

Sharrow wrote: »

Alan Shatter kicked the can down the road this evening re apealing the 8th Amendment,

http://pastebin.com/9C58kJnA

I think he's genuinely stuck his head over the parapet here. He's saying that whatever notion the govt. have of this piss poor legislation (they might eventually bring in) being equality, it's not.

It seems to me that he's the first ever TD to come out and say the constitution (with the 8th amendment) does not allow for equality - and he went on to point out the conditions for abortion that they can't touch because of it. I reckon that's a good and brave start - also politically suicidal, if we knock him down before any other politician gets brave enough to echo that.

lazygal

Obliq wrote: »

I think he's genuinely stuck his head over the parapet here. He's saying that whatever notion the govt. have of this piss poor legislation (they might eventually bring in) being equality, it's not.

It seems to me that he's the first ever TD to come out and say the constitution (with the 8th amendment) does not allow for equality - and he went on to point out the conditions for abortion that they can't touch because of it. I reckon that's a good and brave start - also politically suicidal, if we knock him down before any other politician gets brave enough to echo that.

I never thought I'd say this but Alan Shatter really impressed me on this. Like you said, he's saying what others won't. I dread to think what would be happening in Ireland if the 'British solution' wasn't so easy to access and allowed later term abortions. I also dread to think what would be happening if access to information and the right to travel weren't allowed. I flew twice during my first trimester of pregnancy, to the UK and France. I cannot imagine how an official would go about denying me the right to freedom of movement. We have a safe abortion system in Ireland-we just outsource it to the private sector in the UK. The anti-abortion lobby can bleat all they like about good maternal health and low mortality rates, but we owe the UK and other countries a massive debt for taking care of pregnancies in crisis/trouble/other problems for us.

Morag

I think he can say it partly due to his religious background.
In that regard he is in a unique position in the Dáil.

Bannasidhe

Don't have any confirmation of this but have been told by someone normally in the know about such things that a Pro-Choice meeting planned for a Cobh hotel has been the subject of threats - including death threats against the organisers and boycott threat against the venue.

Funny (ironic not haha) how some people who claim to be pro-life have no issue threatening to kill people...:rolleyes:

lazygal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Don't have any confirmation of this but have been told by someone normally in the know about such things that a Pro-Choice meeting planned for a Cobh hotel has been the subject of threats - including death threats against the organisers and boycott threat against the venue.

Funny (ironic not haha) how some people who claim to be pro-life have no issue threatening to kill people...:rolleyes:

Giving into those kind of threats is what has us in this mess. Still no word from my anti choice TD.

Morag

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Don't have any confirmation of this but have been told by someone normally in the know about such things that a Pro-Choice meeting planned for a Cobh hotel has been the subject of threats - including death threats against the organisers and boycott threat against the venue.

Funny (ironic not haha) how some people who claim to be pro-life have no issue threatening to kill people...:rolleyes:

Lovely that would be this event

Anyone on Facebook join the event and share to your friends - http://www.facebook.com/events/381983871884638/
==
On Wednesday there is also a public meeting in Cobh. Organised by Cobh supporters of Cork Women’s Right To Choose
After Savita – the fight for abortion rights in Ireland
Speaker: Mary Favier, Doctors for Choice
8pm, Commodore Hotel, Cobh
Facebook event - http://www.facebook.com/events/499212783443897/

Morag

http://www.96fm.ie/News-Local-Info?ItemID=425

COBH MEETING ON ABORTION TO GO AHEAD.

Wednesday 28 November 2012








Organisers of a meeting in Cobh tonight on abortion rights say ,
the hotel where it`s taking place received threatening phone calls as a result.

Cobh Pro-Choice organised the meeting in the Commodore Hotel at 8 p.m ,
in the wake of the tragic death of Savita Hallapanavar in Galway last month ..

The group says the hotel received phone calls from anti-abortion activists ,
threatening to campaign for a boycott of the premises ,
over allowing the meeting to take place.

Management at the hotel said there should be freedom of speech ,
and the meeting goes ahead as planned tonight .

It`ll be addressed by Mary Favier of Doctors for Choice ,
and organisers say they`ll not be intimidated by threats ....

Galvasean

They can boycott all they like. Everyone knows YD etc. make up a small minority of the Irish public. Just look at how laughably small the percentage of Irish people following their Facebook page is (the vast majority are American).

Sarky

lazygal wrote: »

I never thought I'd say this but Alan Shatter really impressed me on this. Like you said, he's saying what others won't. I dread to think what would be happening in Ireland if the 'British solution' wasn't so easy to access and allowed later term abortions. I also dread to think what would be happening if access to information and the right to travel weren't allowed. I flew twice during my first trimester of pregnancy, to the UK and France. I cannot imagine how an official would go about denying me the right to freedom of movement. We have a safe abortion system in Ireland-we just outsource it to the private sector in the UK. The anti-abortion lobby can bleat all they like about good maternal health and low mortality rates, but we owe the UK and other countries a massive debt for taking care of pregnancies in crisis/trouble/other problems for us.

It feels awkward, supporting him for taking that position. It's still not nearly enough, so I should feel angry, but even this little gesture is far more than any other politician is willing to to, so he deserves at least some kudos. I'm not sure how they balance out yet.

Beruthiel

Sarky wrote: »

even this little gesture is far more than any other politician is willing to to

I was so impressed, I dropped him a little e-mail thanking him for having the balls* to say what he did.


*balls may not have been the word I used in the e-mail

Morag

Gumption
Moxy
Spunk
mettle
Pluck?

Sorry ran out of old timer words...:D

Galvasean

Kahonies?
Kajolies?
Danglies?

Loafing Oaf

ninja900 wrote: »

I think his personal views on Article 40.3.3 are quite clear from that statement. Enda will not permit the question of the necessary repeal of 40.3.3 to be raised.

But what if his hand was forced, as it has been regards the X case by the ECHR? Supposing the Savita inquiry (or one of them) pointed the finger at our abortion law, specifically Article 40.3.3. I think in that case our obstetricians would come out openly say, which some of them are already teetering on the verge of doing, that they cannot do their jobs properly within the current constitutional context. In that case, I think the govt would have no option but to hold a referendum to repeal Article 40.3.3, and that it would almost certainly pass.

Obliq

Beruthiel wrote: »

I was so impressed, I dropped him a little e-mail thanking him for having the balls* to say what he did.


*balls may not have been the word I used in the e-mail

About to do the very same thing. Also going to phone my friendly Labour TD again and tell him this puts it up to him in terms of my vote, and offer of support if they come out as pro-choice properly.

Kahonies?
Kajolies?
Danglies?
Gumption
Moxy
Spunk
mettle
Pluck?

Am SO going to use as many of those words as I can squeeze in. ;-)

Lingua Franca

Testicular fortitude.

magicherbs

ShooterSF wrote: »

Use of the word sinful doesn't help as large portions of pro-choice people don't believe in sin.

then they can't complain if it's meaningless.

Ernest

Obliq wrote: »

About to do the very same thing. Also going to phone my friendly Labour TD again and tell him this puts it up to him in terms of my vote, and offer of support if they come out as pro-choice properly.

Kahonies?
Kajolies?
Danglies?
Gumption
Moxy
Spunk
mettle
Pluck?

Am SO going to use as many of those words as I can squeeze in. ;-)

Your point is not enhanced by the inclusion of coarse vulgarities as in above words list.

magicherbs

ShooterSF wrote: »

As for suicide what about the mandate the people put on the state by refusing to remove it as a justified reason for abortion when asked by referendum?

because it's a misunderstood and emotive term. Obviously nobody who voted that way understand suicidal ideation.

has anyone the figures for pregnant female suicides in ireland? no? didn't think so.

Obliq

Ernest wrote: »

Your point is not enhanced by the inclusion of coarse vulgarities as in above words list.

Oh trust me, it will be . It will depend entirely upon the tone of voice.

However, suggestions as to what YOU would say, if you were going to put it up to a politician to be as brave as Alan Shatter might change my mind? One never knows until one tries.

Obliq

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Testicular fortitude.

Love it. That's going in first :cool:

robp

ninja900 wrote: »

Kiwi in IE, I'm sure our society looks quite bizarre to a rational outside observer. To us it's just 'meh' or 'this is a Catholic country' or (the worst) 'we're Irish' whenever it's suggested that Irish <> Roman Catholic. This bugs the f**k out of me and I've lived here all my life. I'm thoroughly ashamed that someone like yourself who believed this was a liberal democracy is having to confront this crap.

Off topic, sorry all. However, if you don't practise you can't be by any definition be catholic. A baptism is a historical event and can't be undone but doesn't mean you are a catholic now.

magicherbs wrote: »

because it's a misunderstood and emotive term. Obviously nobody who voted that way understand suicidal ideation.

has anyone the figures for pregnant female suicides in ireland? no? didn't think so.

I don't have the figures but suicide during pregnancy is statistically less common than outside of pregnancy. Nevertheless in the developed world pregnancy is so safe suicide is a significant cause of death amongst the few women who do die during pregnancy. Though this whole clause has been driven by the legal world and by popular vote but not by psychiatrists. As has already being posted elsewhere some psychiatrists don't view abortion as a risk to mental health but that is not what is being debated. It would be more interesting to see often the psychiatrists who are proponent would consider this clause likely to be necessary.

kylith

robp wrote: »

Off topic, sorry all. However, if you don't practise you can't be by any definition be catholic. A baptism is a historical event and can't be undone but doesn't mean you are a catholic now.

Try telling that to the legions of Census Catholics. As far as a lot of them are concerned Mammy splashing water on their head as a baby means they're Catholic till they die, believing in God is optional.

robp

kylith wrote: »

Try telling that to the legions of Census Catholics. As far as a lot of them are concerned Mammy splashing water on their head as a baby means they're Catholic till they die, believing in God is optional.

Well they make that choice and we have no option but to respect that. They are adults.

magicherbs

robp wrote: »

Off topic, sorry all. However, if you don't practise you can't be by any definition be catholic.

nonsense

robp

magicherbs wrote: »

nonsense

Well you might want to back that up?
Sure, didn't Diamuid Martin urge the lapsed to leave the church. link
The defection procedure was withdrawn but apparently that only related to marriage validity to cannon law.
Sure there is plenty of legalese in cannon law but I don't believe that you can be Christian without having Christian ideas.

robindch

robp wrote: »

However, if you don't practise you can't be by any definition be catholic.

This comes up so often, it should be in the forum FAQ. By the act of baptism, the Vatican asserts the existence of a permanent, irrevocable bond between the person baptized and the church. That ridiculous claim is documented on the Vatican website.

The Vatican wrote:

It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.

The Boards A+A Forum: Helping catholics learn their religion since 2006!