Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

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

aka The Hotel California Clause

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

aka The Hotel California Clause

Just when I had finally managed to get that song out of my head . . .:mad:

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

Just when I had finally managed to get that song out of my head . . .:mad:

It's more tenacious than religion.

Obliq

Would like to draw your attention to a new post in "a pro-life thread - for christians" by an individual calling themselves "Young Ireland". Have a look at the link.

"Firstly, I'd like to say that my sincerest sympathies are with Savita's family at this very difficult time. In my opinion, I believe that the in-fighting among pro-lifers has contributed to the position that we are in today. How can we reason with the pro-choice lobby if we can't get our own house in order. With that in mind, I have a couple of proposals as to how we can fix this. Feedback is more than welcome and you can submit your own proposals if you want."

http://tellingitasitisirl.blogspot.ie/2012/11/reshaping-irish-pro-life-movement.html

In case ye all want to jump in. The water is freezing btw.

ShooterSF

magicherbs wrote: »

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

Yes they can when people claim the reason something should be illegal is because it's a sin. It's only a sin in your religion bub don't impose it on us.

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.

The arrogance to claim that voters didn't know enough about what they were voting on just because they don't agree with you.

magicherbs

ShooterSF wrote: »

Yes they can when people claim the reason something should be illegal is because it's a sin. It's only a sin in your religion bub don't impose it on us.

You didn't read my posts properly and thus completely misunderstood.

How can 'pro-choice' reject that 'pro-life' consider elective abortion amoral, sinful, wrong, etc.?

My argument is that certain people are entitled to consider any activity is sinful if they so wish (fornication, alcoholism, abortion) and you can't undermine that, only disagree. So when people use religion to claim things are wrong, you have no entitlement to belittle them for that. I specifically made the point that is concerning morals not law. So it's real straw man of you to paint it as the above.

The arrogance to claim that voters didn't know enough about what they were voting on just because they don't agree with you.

No, it's evident from the fact people are using suicide as a mechanism to increase elective abortions. There is no medical or legal evidence to support claims of suicidal ideation during crisis pregnancy is lessened by abortion. Anyone that says "what about those that are suicidal" obviously don't know anything about mental health and law shouldn't be legislated based on common ignorance.

Hotblack Desiato

robp wrote: »

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

The irony of saying that you believe in the right of adults to make choices is striking. Are pregnant women not (usually) adults?

Hotblack Desiato

Sharrow wrote: »

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

There are atheists in the Dail, surely they're in an even better position to speak up for human rights over dogma?

Not a peep out of Ruairi Quinn. He's letting us all down over schools, and now this.

Sarky

27/100.

Interesting how most of the TDs only showed up for the vote. They clearly weren't interested in debate. I guess more women really will have to die before enough of them grow enough backbone to do the right thing.

Galvasean

Obliq wrote: »

http://tellingitasitisirl.blogspot.ie/2012/11/reshaping-irish-pro-life-movement.html

In case ye all want to jump in. The water is freezing btw.

What's this? Pro-life Plus? :pac:

Sarky

Propositioning fetuses in the confines of a womb, no doubt.

recedite

pauldla wrote: »

From Irish Times

Abortion amendment has been disaster and must go

:pac: Just noticed the quote of the week buried in that article;

The Catholic bishop Joseph Cassidy said in the full confidence of his moral authority that the most dangerous place for a child to be in the world was in a woman’s womb

Damned women, poking and molesting the little critters while still in the womb...

Hogata

recedite wrote: »

:pac: Just noticed the quote of the week buried in that article;

Damned women, poking and molesting the little critters while still in the womb...

So , what about the mens womb ?

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Damned women, poking and molesting the little critters while still in the womb...

No time for that now meboyo - I'm trying to take over the world. Just like I do every night. It's the Pinky and the Brain radical feminista vow.

rainbow kirby

Wonderful selective reporting from RTE... (protest this evening at the Dail)

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

:pac: Just noticed the quote of the week buried in that article;

Damned women, poking and molesting the little critters while still in the womb...

...I've been saying it all along.

Remember these lads?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Elk


Well, when they were small and looked like this
the wimminz used club them down, to satisfy their urge to kill. Thats why they're extinct. Then the protestants introduced sex to ireland, and they started targeting babies.....

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Damned women, poking and molesting the little critters while still in the womb...

At least the priests usually wait a few years.

recedite

Well, it gives them a sporting chance. They are mostly able to run by the time the priests target them.

ShooterSF

magicherbs wrote: »

You didn't read my posts properly and thus completely misunderstood.

Fair enough. You seem to have inside knowledge on when people misunderstand things...

My argument is that certain people are entitled to consider any activity is sinful if they so wish (fornication, alcoholism, abortion) and you can't undermine that, only disagree. So when people use religion to claim things are wrong, you have no entitlement to belittle them for that. I specifically made the point that is concerning morals not law. So it's real straw man of you to paint it as the above.

Indeed they can. Like Jews and pork. But they can't impose their religions morality on society.

No, it's evident from the fact people are using suicide as a mechanism to increase elective abortions. There is no medical or legal evidence to support claims of suicidal ideation during crisis pregnancy is lessened by abortion. Anyone that says "what about those that are suicidal" obviously don't know anything about mental health and law shouldn't be legislated based on common ignorance.

So if a woman is raped you see no risk to her mental health to have to carry the foetus to birth? No reason why she could become suicidal? Maybe you could always explain how she misunderstood loving sex for rape, after all you've already pointed out my misunderstandings and more than half of the electorate's that voted in a referendum.

Also,

law shouldn't be legislated based on common ignorance.

Ha. Tell that to Catholic Church.

Hotblack Desiato

Does anyone else find it slightly disturbing the distinction the usual suspects are attempting to draw between a physical risk to life and a mental risk to life?

It's like telling someone who is suicidal to get over it and pull themselves together - from the same school of no-thought that says sure depression isn't a real illness.

Completely and utterly fails to comprehend the issue. :mad:

Of course the X case Supreme Court decision did not make this distinction, which is probably why they tried to reverse it by referendum twice (and failed twice) and are trying to roll back on it with or without a referendum now.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

ninja900 wrote: »

It's like telling someone who is suicidal to get over it and pull themselves together - from the same school of no-thought that says sure depression isn't a real illness.

No, they do have a point on this one. It only features in the X case as the Court were searching for any old pretext to enable the girl to have an abortion.

If you take a step back, someone displaying mental instability by professing an interest in suicide is not in a position to give rational consent to anything. It's actually a contradictory argument.

And, incidently, I'm not arguing that abortion shouldn't be available in cases of rape. I'm just pointing out that it's silly to think that suicide is a factor in that - it's only there because the Court had to invent a reason for an immanent threat to life where none existed. It's actually quite a spurious argument.

What it points to is a need to amend the Constitution again, unfortunately. And it also points to a need to, in some way, introduce the concept of the woman's health as well as life being a factor - assuming that any politically feasible amendment would still be limiting abortion to bona fide medical reasons.

Nodin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, they do have a point on this one. It only features in the X case as the Court were searching for any old pretext to enable the girl to have an abortion.
.......

...that's the supreme court allright. Any oul excuse to get to some conclusion and hit the golf course.

Peregrinus

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If you take a step back, someone displaying mental instability by professing an interest in suicide is not in a position to give rational consent to anything. It's actually a contradictory argument.

And, incidently, I'm not arguing that abortion shouldn't be available in cases of rape. I'm just pointing out that it's silly to think that suicide is a factor in that - it's only there because the Court had to invent a reason for an immanent threat to life where none existed. It's actually quite a spurious argument.

I’m not sure that this is fair. I think you’re assuming that a risk of self-harm can only arise out of mental instability. Are you saying that every person who ends their own life is, by definition, mentally unstable? That ending your life can never be a rational (if appalling) choice as a way of escaping from a situation that you find intolerable?

There was no suggestion in the X case that the girl involved was mentally unstable, or suffered from any mental illness. In fact, the evidence of the clinical psychologist was that she did not seem depressed; she simply saw suicide as the best way of resolving matters, and his assessment was that “she was capable of such an act, not so much because she is depressed but because she could calculatingly reach the conclusion that death is the best solution”. Her assessment would, of course, be affected by her (physical and emotional) immaturity, which is a large part of what made it impossible for her to contemplate pregnancy, but immaturity in a 14-year old is in no sense a mental illness or disease.

In other words, there’s nothing in the X case - or in the plain words of the Constitution - which says that a threat to the mother’s life can only be a factor in an abortion decision if it arises from a (physical or mental) health problem. The Supreme Court didn’t have to find, and didn’t in fact find, that X was either mentally or physically ill; just that there was a real and substantial risk to her life which could not be avoided unless the pregnancy were terminated.

It’s unfair - and untrue - to say that the court “invented” the risk. There was evidence before them as to the risk, both from what the girl was reported as having said on a number of occasions by a number of witnessed, and from the clinical psychologist who examined her. The risk was not simply one of suicide - though that was the one most often mentioned - but also of self-harm through attempts to end the pregnancy, e.g. by throwing herself down the stairs.

Doc_Savage

this may be of interest.... http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rate-of-maternal-deaths-here-is-double-official-figure-3305353.html

Obliq

This blog by Sarah Fisher, Abortion Support Network is well worth a full read.

"The other thing that the women who contact us have in common is that they are poor. In addition to having to pay for a procedure that women living in England, Scotland, and Wales can access for free on the national health service, women traveling from Ireland and Northern Ireland have to pay for their abortions as well as travel costs and in some cases accommodation. Costs for this range from $600 to $3,100, plus any loss of income from missing work or childcare required. It’s common for women to skip rent payments to pay for an abortion, to have to lie to friends and family to get the money they need, to go to loan sharks, to return Christmas presents, and of course for the ones that hear about Abortion Support Network, to make a phone call to a complete stranger in another country to ask for money. At its most extreme this means that women with money can have an abortion and women without money are forced to bear and give birth to children they otherwise decided they could not afford or were not ready to have at that time in their lives.

On top of the financial hardship and stress there’s the emotional toll. Many women have to keep their pregnancy a secret back home. These women are extremely isolated and make the journey alone. The turmoil often includes feelings of shame and guilt. Perhaps because their own doctor has told them that they are being selfish considering an abortion, perhaps because they’ve grown up being told that having an abortion means you’ll go straight to hell.

For some women anger and frustration is the dominant emotion; at being treated like a second class citizen in their own country, or like a criminal for trying to make a decision that they feel is not only right for them, but also for their family. For others it’s confusion, particularly if they’ve visited an anti-choice ‘crisis pregnancy agency’ and been fed the usual lies about being left infertile or getting breast cancer. There’s also sheer panic and despair, for example when they can’t book a plane ticket because they haven’t got a bank card, or if they need to get a passport but it may not arrive in time. Lastly, there’s loss: we have heard from several couples who have learned that their wanted babies are affected by fetal anomalies that are incompatible with life. Still they are denied an abortion.

When you’re on the other end of the phone you listen to their heart-breaking stories and you’re all too aware that there’s only so much you can do to help."

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/11/28/abortion-in-ireland-savita-halappanavar%E2%80%99s-death-and-day-to-day-terror-women

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Peregrinus wrote: »

Are you saying that every person who ends their own life is, by definition, mentally unstable? That ending your life can never be a rational (if appalling) choice as a way of escaping from a situation that you find intolerable?

No, I'm saying the coincidence of a rational decision to suicide and a demand for an abortion is likely to be so rare that it shouldn't demand so much attention. Plus, I'm insinuating that the Supreme Court were just looking for some basis on which to enable something else to happen - because the Constitution, unfortunately, doesn't say that a person too young to give consent for sex probability shouldn't be expected to give birth to a child.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Supreme Court didn’t have to find, and didn’t in fact find, that X was either mentally or physically ill; just that there was a real and substantial risk to her life which could not be avoided unless the pregnancy were terminated.

Indeed, and their assessment doesn't stack.

Obliq wrote: »

This blog by Sarah Fisher, Abortion Support Network is well worth a full read.

I dunno, I think it's a catchall "let's throw everything into the pot that could possibly be said, and hope some of it sticks". The only positive thing that can be said is it correctly puts the focus on the 4,000 actual real abortions that Irish women seek in the UK every year, rather than profitless debate of the legitimacy of suicide as a medical ground for a termination. I'd suspect that within that group of 4,000, you'll find all kinds of women making the journey for all kinds of reasons. For instance, I'd expect that a number of the 250 women aged over 40 who make the journey every year are doing so because they either know or fear that they will give birth to a child with a handicap.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I dunno, I think it's a catchall "let's throw everything into the pot that could possibly be said, and hope some of it sticks". The only positive thing that can be said is it correctly puts the focus on the 4,000 actual real abortions that Irish women seek in the UK every year, rather than profitless debate of the legitimacy of suicide as a medical ground for a termination. I'd suspect that within that group of 4,000, you'll find all kinds of women making the journey for all kinds of reasons. For instance, I'd expect that a number of the 250 women aged over 40 who make the journey every year are doing so because they either know or fear that they will give birth to a child with a handicap.

Agree with you here apart from line in bold. What do you mean here? After all, now is the time to face people with the truth about what pregnant women living in Ireland experience in the event that they want/need an abortion.

goodie2shoes

Obliq wrote: »

Agree with you here apart from line in bold. What do you mean here? After all, now is the time to face people with the truth about what pregnant women living in Ireland experience in the event that they want/need an abortion.

for far too long this (as with many other issues in our society) has been swept under the carpet. that said i dunno if we are ready for abortion on demand. hopefully not.

as i said right from the outset when the Salvita tragedy occurred, we do not need another divisive, polarizing, embarrassing referendum.

about time our useless cowardly politicians did what we pay them to do, and LEGISLATE instead of running for cover at the slightest whiff of controversy.

Obliq

goodie2shoes wrote: »

that said i dunno if we are ready for abortion on demand. hopefully not.

Why is that then? Why "hopefully not"? Just as a matter of interest.....

goodie2shoes

Obliq wrote: »

Why is that then? Why "hopefully not"? Just as a matter of interest.....

my opinion.