Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

28064212

goodie2shoes wrote: »

no it's not. you clearly have not understood it, and you're attempting to appear intellectual and failed miserably in the process.
it's a comment on the inverse relationship between evidence and controversy.

Yes, it's quite obvious what it means. However, it does not address anything to do with your lack of willingness (or inability) to explain the reason for your opinion

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i'm not qualified to answer that.
maybe you should try the astronomy forum?

Just so we're clear: Someone in a discussion with you says "The moon is made of cheese", and your response is "I'm not qualified to answer that"?

goodie2shoes

28064212 wrote: »

Yes, it's quite obvious what it means. However, it does not address anything to do with your lack of willingness (or inability) to explain the reason for your opinion


Just so we're clear: Someone in a discussion with you says "The moon is made of cheese", and your response is "I'm not qualified to answer that"?

is english your first language?

28064212

goodie2shoes wrote: »

is english your first language?

Yes

Just so we're clear: Someone in a discussion with you says "The moon is made of cheese", and your response is "I'm not qualified to answer that"?

goodie2shoes

28064212 wrote: »

Yes

Just so we're clear: Someone in a discussion with you says "The moon is made of cheese", and your response is "I'm not qualified to answer that"?

unlike your good self i am not in the habit of repeating myself.

PLEASE NOTE: I will NOT repeat this!

Nodin

goodie2shoes wrote: »

it's illegal.
do you advocate breaking the law?

Stop being obtuse.

You oppose the introduction of "abortion on demand". Why?

goodie2shoes

Nodin wrote: »

Stop being obtuse.

You oppose the introduction of "abortion on demand". Why?

Stop repeating yourself, and dont shine that light in my eyes!

28064212

goodie2shoes wrote: »

unlike your good self i am not in the habit of repeating myself.

PLEASE NOTE: I will NOT repeat this!

Ok, I'll assume that would be your response. Please correct me if the assumption is wrong. So your opinion is of exactly the same weight as someone whose opinion is "The moon is made of cheese"

Nodin

goodie2shoes wrote: »

Stop repeating yourself, and dont shine that light in my eyes!

Why do you oppose the introduction of "abortion on demand"?

goodie2shoes

Nodin wrote: »

Why do you oppose the introduction of "abortion on demand"?

i have answered that question already.
please refer to my previous answer.

do you advocate breaking the law?

robindch

goodie2shoes wrote: »

Stop repeating yourself, and dont shine that light in my eyes!

goodie2shoes - A+A is a forum for discussion in which posters are expected to discuss a topic. Note that word "discussion". If you can't raise your game to a discussion, well, hop it.

You'll be carded for your next instance of discussion-avoidance, and you'll be banned for any avoiding tactics following that.

Nodin

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i have answered that question already.
please refer to my previous answer.

do you advocate breaking the law?

You oppose the introduction of "abortion on demand" (this obviously refers to the legalisation of same). Why?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Dades wrote: »

Ah, a documentary brought to us by our old friend, Ray Comfort.

The atheists' nightmare, indeed.

Does this mean when you pick a pawpaw/Or a prickly pear/And you prick a raw paw it's the work of Satan?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Nodin wrote: »

....baseless speculation. You seem to think the supreme court is something that can be leant on like a group of county councillors on a quango somewhere.

It's speculation, certainly. But the reasoning is so monumentally flawed that All Right-Thinking Folk will eventually come to acknowledge the obvious; they found a practical path to achieving the necessary objective.

28064212 wrote: »

Just so we're clear: Someone in a discussion with you says "The moon is made of cheese", and your response is "I'm not qualified to answer that"?

Actually, most people aren't qualified to answer that.

Sorry, is this the epistemology thread?

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Does this mean when you pick a pawpaw/Or a prickly pear/And you prick a raw paw it's the work of Satan?

It means when a prick paws a pear it's all down to Satan.

Nodin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's speculation, certainly. But the reasoning is so monumentally flawed that All Right-Thinking Folk will eventually come to acknowledge the obvious; they found a practical path to achieving the necessary objective. Actually, most people aren't qualified to answer that.

Utter bollocks.

No, the reasoning is not flawed. I'd also like to know precisely what makes you more qualified than the rest of us.

You might also explain this "necessary objective" nonsense.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

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”.

Those who accept the RCC position that suicide is a sin, could never accept suicide as "a rational conclusion". Hence part of the difficulty we are seeing with the politicians not wanting to legislate for it.
The other aspect is that if society pre-supposes that a threat to the mother's life is a necessary justification for abortion, then "having suicidal thoughts" is easier to fake than having a physical ailment.

nagirrac

It goes without saying abortion is a truly difficult subject. What would help enormously in the debate in my humble opinion would be if the two extreme sides of the debate could back down a little from their respective positions and try and reach some compromise. The strongly anti-abortion side should accept that theirs is a religious view and should not be imposed on society at large. The vast majority of people in developed countries accept legislation allowing abortion in the first trimester for any reason, abortion in the case of rape, and termination of a pregnancy at any stage where the life of the mother is at risk. In my opinion this is where the debate in Ireland should be centered and not "abortion on demand".

On the other end of the spectrum, I understand the argument for women having full control over their bodies, this is a personal privacy right. However, support for unconditional abortion after the fetus is viable is now declining in many countries. This can be seen in proposed legislation in the UK and will in my opinion become the norm even in countries that have very liberal abortion laws over time. There is a strong argument to be made that unconditional abortion after viability in this day and age is unjustified. A viable fetus has to be afforded some rights and perhaps its fundamental right to life is a greater right than a woman's right to terminate for non medical emergency reasons, just as a woman's right to life is a greater right than that of a fetus in medical emergency situations.

The debate will not be settled anytime soon. Roe v Wade was ruled in 1973 and the debate is still as lively as ever in the US. However over time most people come to a position of reason which is that the right to life of the mother always supercedes that of an embryo/fetus, that the decision in medical emergencies should always be between the woman and her doctor, and that termination is an acceptable decision during the first trimester and perhaps up to viability. Surely this is what is worth fighting for in Ireland, along with comprehensive sex education in all schools.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

Roe v Wade was ruled in 1973 and the debate is still as lively as ever in the US.

To which, one must add that back in 1973, religious fundamentalists weren't using the issue of abortion as the political football it's since turned into.

It's certainly instructive to see the electioneering of the time and the electioneering of today, and notice that precisely nothing has changed, despite the passage of 35 years of legislation, a veritable army of religiously-inspired law-makers elected on religiously-inspired tickets, not to mention 20 years of Republican Presidents, each one apparently equally committed to the "pro-life" cause.

goodie2shoes

the reason i like most other people find this subject difficult is because it is NOT a black & white issue as those on either extreme would have us believe.

this issue is deeply ambiguous, with good sound arguments for both for & against.

personally i oppose abortion on demand for the very same reasons i oppose capital punishment, or public floggings, because i consider it to be immoral and unnecessary. i believe in the sanctity of life, something i believe abortion on demand undermines.

that's not to say that there are not cases where not only is abortion desirable, but imperative. if one's leg is gangrenous then the only sensible option is amputation. likewise if carrying a baby/foetus to term endangers a mum's life, then there is no humane reason to deny that procedure.

the problem arises is when the extremists hi-jack the debate, and attempt to pidgeonhole everybody into either a "for or against" position, when imo most sensible people are highly ambivalent on the subject.

my desire is that the Govt. will steer a middle course, and legislate in a sensible caring manner.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Nodin wrote: »

No, the reasoning is not flawed.

Bit early for the Panto?

It's simply dingbats to suggest that there's no alternative to granting whatever demand a fourteen-year-old makes, on grounds that she's threatening suicide. Now, it's also dingbats to have an article in your Constitution that suggests an underage girl has to proceed with a pregnancy. But that's what 67% of the people voted for in 1983.

You can be quite clear that, if I'm willing to say 67% of voters are dingbats, I'm perfectly willing to say a few internet randomers are dingbats if they think the Supreme Court decision was an example of solemn reasoning and not an act of mild panic.

Nodin wrote: »

I'd also like to know precisely what makes you more qualified than the rest of us.

The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water to indicate precisely that.

Nodin wrote: »

You might also explain this "necessary objective" nonsense.

I already have. Unlike the Hobbit, it's not a tale that will grow in the telling.

robindch

goodie2shoes wrote: »

the reason i like most other people find this subject difficult is because it is NOT a black & white issue as those on either extreme would have us believe.

If you look back through this thread, you'll find that the majority steer a moderate course on this -- balancing, on the one hand, the claimed right of the woman to do with her body as she wishes, and on the other, the claimed right of the foetus to life.

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i believe in the sanctity of life, something i believe abortion on demand undermines.

The current national debate about abortion is not one about abortion-on-demand, but on abortion which is necessary to save the life of a mother when a doomed foetus threatens it.

goodie2shoes wrote: »

my desire is that the Govt. will steer a middle course, and legislate in a sensible caring manner.

It remains to be seen what the government will choose to do, but the ambivalent signals sent out by both parties in power at the moment, not to mention the conflicting messages provided by members of both, suggest they're going to have a hard time agreeing on anything more taxing than their latest expense claims.

Nodin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Bit early for the Panto?

It's simply dingbats to suggest that there's no ............ed for in 1983. .

You're mischaracterising the case. The child was being brought by her parents. The attorney general sought to prevent them travelling.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You can be quite (.........)in the telling.

More overwordy crap.

What makes you more qualified than anyone else to comment on the issue?

Why would the supreme court be prone to "mild panic"?

goodie2shoes

robindch wrote: »

If you look back through this thread, you'll find that the majority steer a moderate course on this -- balancing, on the one hand, the claimed right of the woman to do with her body as she wishes, and on the other, the claimed right of the foetus to life.

i welcome that but that's not the impression i got. again that's just my opinion.

robindch wrote: »

The current national debate about abortion is not one about abortion-on-demand, but on abortion which is necessary to save the life of a mother when a doomed foetus threatens it.

i agree but many pro-lifers will see any attempt to introduce even limited abortion as "the thin end of the wedge".

robindch wrote: »

It remains to be seen what the government will choose to do, but the ambivalent signals sent out by both parties in power at the moment, not to mention the conflicting messages provided by members of both, suggest they're going to have a hard time agreeing on anything more taxing than their latest expense claims.

like i said this issue is not black & white, and politicians like the rest of us will find it deeply challenging. whatever "solution" they implement/legislate for will doubtless deeply disappoint many on the extremes.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Nodin wrote: »

You're mischaracterising the case. The child was being brought by her parents. The attorney general sought to prevent them travelling.

How does that make threatening suicide a ground for abortion? It's self-evident horse-poo.

Nodin wrote: »

What makes you more qualified than anyone else to comment on the issue?

The question doesn't gain sense by repetition.

Nodin wrote: »

Why would the supreme court be prone to "mild panic"?

Because, believe it or not, Judges of the Supreme Court actually expect to be able to show their faces in public occasionally.

Sometimes they take pragmatic decisions. Another example was the "Mr A" case where the Supreme Court ordered the re-arrest and continued imprisonment of a sex offender, despite the law specifying the offence for which he was jailed being found unconstitutional. In strict legal terms, that breaks every possible concept of lawful detention. It only makes sense on the commonsense grounds of "you can't let some guy who raped a twelve year old out of prison".

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/supreme-court-explains-reasons-for-denying-sex-offenders-release-267146.html

.... The Supreme Court ruled on May 23 that the law was unconstitutional in that it did not allow for any such defence.

Mr A, who had served 18 months of a three-year sentence for having sex with the girl after plying her with alcohol, subsequently applied to the High Court to be freed on the basis that the law under which he was convicted did not exist. The High Court granted his application.

The state subsequently appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court, which ruled on June 2 that Mr A was not denied his constitutional rights because he had not argued he was mistaken as to the age of the girl. The court ordered his immediate re-arrest. ....

Nodin

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

How does that make threatening suicide a ground for abortion? It's self-evident horse-poo.
".

Theres nothing "self evident" about it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The question doesn't gain sense by repetition
".

You stated

It's speculation, certainly. But the reasoning is so monumentally flawed that All Right-Thinking Folk will eventually come to acknowledge the obvious; they found a practical path to achieving the necessary objective. Actually, most people aren't qualified to answer that

What makes you qualified to answer?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

.Because, believe it or not, Judges of the Supreme Court actually expect to be able to show their faces in public occasionally.

The Supreme Court rules based on its fear of mob violence? O thats fascinating. I presume you've some credible source for this?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Sometimes they take (...........)of prison".

There really is nothing worse than half arsed internet lawyering. That ruling was based in law, and has precedents in other countries with a similar justice system.

Hotblack Desiato

Can anyone answer me this - why are certain people so convinced that legislating for abortion on the grounds of suicide is effectively 'abortion on demand' ?

They obviously believe that women aren't to be trusted and will lie to get an abortion, and doctors aren't to be trusted either as they will go along with this.

But when these women (at least, the ones with the time, money, and support, to) go to the UK they can obtain what they need in that jurisdiction. Should the X case be legislated for here, the vast majority of Irish women seeking abortions will continue to have to go to the UK.

The hypocrisy and misogyny is utterly sickening. But what else can you expect from the people who equate a woman's life with that of a four-cell embryo.

Knasher

nagirrac wrote: »

On the other end of the spectrum, I understand the argument for women having full control over their bodies, this is a personal privacy right. However, support for unconditional abortion after the fetus is viable is now declining in many countries. This can be seen in proposed legislation in the UK and will in my opinion become the norm even in countries that have very liberal abortion laws over time. There is a strong argument to be made that unconditional abortion after viability in this day and age is unjustified. A viable fetus has to be afforded some rights and perhaps its fundamental right to life is a greater right than a woman's right to terminate for non medical emergency reasons, just as a woman's right to life is a greater right than that of a fetus in medical emergency situations.

This is actually the status quo in most countries that allow abortion afaik. There is obviously a question about exactly where the line of viability is, at the moment the UK and US both set it at 24 weeks, and the legislation in the UK you mentioned was to move that limit down to 22-20 weeks. The UK absolutely doesn't have unconditional abortion after viability is reached. I don't know of any efforts ever to get abortion legalized after viability has been reached, standard procedure if for example continuing the pregnancy posed a serious threat to the woman's life, would be to induce not abort.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

Can anyone answer me this - why are certain people so convinced that legislating for abortion on the grounds of suicide is effectively 'abortion on demand' ?

I think because of the British experience.

In Britain, there are four statutory grounds for abortion. But virtually all their abortions (in a country where 20% of pregnancies end in abortion) are carried out on just one of those grounds; that two doctors have certified that continuing with the pregnancy poses a greater risk to the woman’s health than terminating it.

If you take that seriously, the British abortion rate points to a massive crisis in maternal health in Britain; a major, major scandal. One in five British pregnancies is terminated because it’s unsafe to continue it.

But of course nobody takes it seriously. There are no protests, no enquiries. We all know that the great bulk of abortions in Britain are not undertaken because of a health risk involved in continuing the pregnancy, but for a variety of other reasons. Which, don’t get me wrong, may be very weighty and compelling reasons. But they’re not the reason they are pretending to be.

And what this suggest is that, if you have a woman who wants an abortion, plus people who are committed to the view that a woman who wants an abortion ought to have one, then tightly-worded legislation can turn out to be amazingly flexible in practice. The reality is that Britain is an abortion-on-demand jurisdiction. Everyone knows this. But you’d never guess that from reading the Abortion Act 1967.

And the fear, obviously, is that if Ireland introduced X-case legislation under which a woman whose life was at risk if her pregnancy was not terminated, an extraordinarily high proportion of pregnant women would turn out to have their lives at risk. If in Britain, why not in Ireland?

ninja900 wrote: »

But when these women (at least, the ones with the time, money, and support, to) go to the UK they can obtain what they need in that jurisdiction. Should the X case be legislated for here, the vast majority of Irish women seeking abortions will continue to have to go to the UK.

You’re right, of course. The hypocrisy required by the British legislation is slightly easier to carry off than the hypocrisy that would be required under X case legislation, so most women would still opt to go through the British charade than the Irish charade. So, in fact, we wouldn’t suddenly find a huge number of suicidal Irish women. But I don't think that ought to be a reason for self-congratulation.

ninja900 wrote: »

The hypocrisy and misogyny is utterly sickening. But what else can you expect from the people who equate a woman's life with that of a four-cell embryo.

Well, I think we can see from the British experience that people who don’t make that equation are just as capable of hypocrisy and misogyny.

Bannasidhe

ninja900 wrote: »

Can anyone answer me this - why are certain people so convinced that legislating for abortion on the grounds of suicide is effectively 'abortion on demand' ?

.

One imagines because they don't believe a woman- or a girl - can be genuinely suicidal due to being pregnant.

Feelings that are,ironically, increased in a country that doesn't allow abortion.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Nodin wrote: »

What makes you qualified to answer?

You may wish to check the origin of the comment you are, apparently, making the cornerstone of your case. Because you've missed the context.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

28064212 wrote: »

Just so we're clear: Someone in a discussion with you says "The moon is made of cheese", and your response is "I'm not qualified to answer that"?

Actually, most people aren't qualified to answer that.
Sorry, is this the epistemology thread?

Can I confirm, for the record, I have no expertise that would assist me in determining the molecular composition of the Moon.

Nodin wrote: »

There really is nothing worse than half arsed internet lawyering. That ruling was based in law, and has precedents in other countries with a similar justice system.

Not really. The High Court ruling was pretty clear - once a law is found unconstitutional, it has no effect. The Supreme Court, in overruling the High Court, came up with the strange and novel idea that you could be bound by a law that doesn't exist. That concept would normally only be found in the strange, arbitrary edicts of some Latin American dictatorship.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In Britain, there are four statutory grounds for abortion. But virtually all their abortions (in a country where 20% of pregnancies end in abortion) are carried out on just one of those grounds; that two doctors have certified that continuing with the pregnancy poses a greater risk to the woman’s health than terminating it.

If you take that seriously, the British abortion rate points to a massive crisis in maternal health in Britain; a major, major scandal. One in five British pregnancies is terminated because it’s unsafe to continue it.

This is precisely the level of realism required in this discussion; there's too much credulity and naivity being displayed. People seem to be suspending their critical faculties, which is not a good way to form opinions on these issues.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

One imagines because they don't believe a woman- or a girl - can be genuinely suicidal due to being pregnant.

I should let this pass, as I think far too much attention is being given to a red herring, but it has to be pointed out that there's a gap between saying a woman is suicidal due to being pregnant, and saying the solution in every such case is for the pregnancy to be terminated. It's just the wrong place to be in this discussion.