Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

doctoremma

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Put it on your wishlist!

Customers who bought this item also bought...

Lingua Franca

...DIY divorce kit, How To Raise Your Sons to Be Fabulous!, Satanism For Beginners

Bannasidhe

Lingua Franca wrote: »

...DIY divorce kit, How To Raise Your Sons to Be Fabulous!, Satanism For Beginners

Power Tool encyclopedia for Baby Dykes.

recedite

goodie2shoes wrote: »

just wondering if you guys think there ought to be a free vote on upcoming legislation?
or should they get a lash of the whip?

I'd ban the whip for every Dail vote. The principle of separation of powers requires that the legislature be independent of the executive (the government).
In Ireland, Dail votes are nearly always controlled by the govt; the Dail is just a rubber stamp.

robindch

28064212 wrote: »

People in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones

Well, it's Friday. Time for the abortion thread's latest visual pun!

Obliq

Oh heck. I'm off!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Who the hell said that?

Oh, no-one, but everyone else seemed to be having so much fun misreprenting the position that I thought I'd try it too.

Nodin wrote: »

And again, this is amateur internet lawyering of the lowest order. The Supreme court determines what the law is, and did so in this case with clear references. You not understanding or liking it makes no difference whatsoever to the fact of the matter.

Look, it's simply a fact that the decision was controversial, as the "logic" in the judgment didn't stack. This didn't go un-noticed at the time; Vincent Browne's article below got to the nub of it:

http://politico.ie/archive/justice/2433-a-bad-day-for-justice-a-bad-day-for-the-supreme-court.html

Now, I've made it plain in my posts here that forming these kinds of opinions do, indeed, require us to speculate, because it's not as if there's a Court of WTF to whom we can appeal for confirmation that the Supreme Court has done something a bit gonzo. Ultimately, I'm just appealing to commonsense. However, commonsense rarely operates where people have nailed their colours to the mast.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Given that only females can find themselves in a situation where death is preferable to being pregnant there is an element of a gender issue.

Not with respect of the point at issue, which has already been clearly set out. The point at issue is not when death is preferable to being pregnant; it's whether the default solution to a threat of suicide, in any situation, is to accede to whatever request is demanded. The Pro-Life crowd are and will make hay with this issue, precisely because the argument doesn't work.

Obliq wrote: »

See, here's the thing - No government should be in the position of having to legislate for "Woolly arguments", but they are. That's a direct result of the "compassion" of the 8th amendment and the subsequent x-case ruling, whether you like it or not.

I'm not disagreeing on that; I'm simply not pretending that the situation makes sense, or contains any rationale beyond that. If we legislate on the basis of what's there in the Constitution, it will mean that any woman will be able to obtain an abortion if she's gets a doctor or two to certify she needs it on mental health grounds due to a risk of suicide. And I suspect the necessary certification will be available in pre-printed format, because there's no point in wasting time on that sort of thing.

This is the nub of it; and the core reason why legislation has not been made. I just don't see the point of pretending the situation to be other than what it is.

Obliq wrote: »

You can look at any amount of situations where women decide they will have an abortion and call our reasoning "woolly" if we support her. After all, who should be deciding whether a woman's situation is desperate enough, only her?

Grand, but you've just leaped from talking about what the Constitution says now to what you'd like the Constitution to be, without drawing breath. This is exactly the "throw every lump of shít at them, and hope enough sticks" approach that I think is deeply, deeply flawed. Deliberation needs to precede advocacy. The jumble of thoughts needs to be turned into a coherent view of the situation.

doctoremma

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.

I'm not sure I agree but I may be misinterpreting you here. The UK abortion law allows for injury to mental health as well as physical health, and a woman doesn't need to be suicidal to argue that her mental health will suffer by continuing with the pregnancy.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

I think use of the word "unsafe" here is misleading. A pregnancy does not have to be "unsafe" to justify a termination request. And perhaps it's not unreasonable to say there's a massive crisis in maternal health, if you count the mental health issues dealing with an unwanted pregnancy?

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

See, I think they are. The law allows for "injury to mental health" and that law in interpreted to allow abortion to be accessed if you can demonstrate it will ruin your education, your career, your finances etc. I'm not arguing that this is how it should be in any way, I just don't see that the practice falls far outside what is legislated for. I don't see the hypocrisy you claim to see.

DB21

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Power Tool encyclopedia for Baby Dykes.

How to cook a baby :pac:

Galvasean

So, after being explained to that the current debate about abortion is not about 'abortion on demand' (as an aside, I do detest how the 'pro-lifers' have managed to wedge that terminology into the public domain when it is not actually relevant to the debate at hand) he comes out with this:

goodie2shoes wrote: »

this country does not want or need abortion on demand.

Now, if that isn't intellectually dishonest, I don't know what is.

Nodin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can I pre-order one just in case?

Best do it tonight, as the christmas post will be cat alltogether.

goodie2shoes

unfortunately the situation in England is a mess, with little or no regulation.
i believe most irish people dont want that situation here.

Morgase

goodie2shoes wrote: »

unfortunately the situation in England is a mess, with little or no regulation.
i believe most irish people dont want that situation here.

My turn! *ahem* Citation needed.

recedite

doctoremma wrote: »

to allow abortion to be accessed if you can demonstrate it will ruin your education, your career, your finances etc. .... I don't see the hypocrisy you claim to see.

As Peregrinus pointed out, these "may be very weighty and compelling reasons. But they’re not the reason they are pretending to be."

Of course you are going to be out of pocket if you have a child, but translating that into "a risk to mental health" is a bit disingenuous.
If you go down that road, anything at all you dislike, including the weather, can be labelled "a risk" to your mental health.
That is why they effectively have abortion on demand in England. There is no real or effective restriction in place up to the point of foetal viability. If you don't like being pregnant, that is enough.
I'm fully aware that a lot of people want that here, but lets call a spade a spade, and stop pretending we don't understand what "abortion on demand" has to do with anything, or what the expression even means.

goodie2shoes

recedite wrote: »

As Peregrinus pointed out, these "may be very weighty and compelling reasons. But they’re not the reason they are pretending to be."

Of course you are going to be out of pocket if you have a child, but translating that into "a risk to mental health" is a bit disingenuous.
If you go down that road, anything at all you dislike, including the weather, can be labelled "a risk" to your mental health.
That is why they effectively have abortion on demand in England. There is no real or effective restriction in place up to the point of foetal viability. If you don't like being pregnant, that is enough.
I'm fully aware that a lot of people want that here, but lets call a spade a spade, and stop pretending we don't understand what "abortion on demand" has to do with anything, or what the expression even means.

gender selection is now an increasingly worrying trend in such "reasons" for terminations.
do the absolutists really want that here?

robindch

goodie2shoes wrote: »

do the absolutists really want that here?

goodie2shoes -- You may have missed yesterday's brief warning about A+A being a discussion forum. Unhelpful terms like "absolutists" have no place here and while, technically, it's not the discussion-avoidance mentioned yesterday, it certainly doesn't constitute honest discussion, so please consider yourself warned for this as well.

Please have a read of the forum charter if you have any questions, or PM any of the forum mods.

Obliq

recedite wrote: »

That is why they effectively have abortion on demand in England. There is no real or effective restriction in place up to the point of foetal viability. If you don't like being pregnant, that is enough.

I think that is enough. Up to the point of foetal viability. Yes. I want that here in Ireland too, and I will not accept being shamed for that viewpoint.

Nodin

Obliq wrote: »

I think that is enough. Up to the point of foetal viability. Yes. I want that here in Ireland too, and I will not accept being shamed for that viewpoint.

Indeed. Liberalisation will always run the risk of abuse, however that's a chance that should be taken.

recedite

Being shamed is a bit like being offended. Don't always blame others for it; there may be an external trigger, but it comes from within.

Obliq

recedite wrote: »

Being shamed is a bit like being offended. Don't always blame others for it; there may be an external trigger, but it comes from within.

That's true, so to put what I said yesterday another way - I don't feel shamed about my beliefs, I stand by them and can qualify them and am content with myself. I will not accept the act of shaming from any person or organisation any more. Screw anybody who thinks I should be ashamed.

Morag

goodie2shoes wrote: »

this country does not want or need abortion on demand.

12 women a day traveling to the UK for abortion would disagree with you.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

goodie2shoes wrote: »

gender selection is now an increasingly worrying trend in such "reasons" for terminations.
do the absolutists really want that here?

I think it's valid to raise this kind of issue; while at the same time I wonder who is gathering statistics on reasons.

But, yes, if there is an entitlement to an abortion before some set threshold, and if features from gender to disability to whatever can be uncovered, it means that such decisions will be both feasible and allowable.

At this stage, I don't think it's necessary to either advocate or condemn such a thing. There's a need to just gather implications of different scenarios. It's necessary to identify everything that belongs on the canvas - for instance, should a prospective father have any standing in the situation? If a woman owes no legal obligation to even see a foetus through to birth, should a man have some obligation to support the resulting child until adulthood? I've no idea, but it does seem incongruous in some way. Typically, power should rest with responsibility. What does that mean here?

Now, if we managed a rational conversation on this topic, it would be a global first. There can be such a gap between what people say, and what they mean (and I mean that generally - its not directed at folk here.) There's even a certain irony in Galway, which presents itself as a cultural, cosmopolitan place being broadcast around the world as a place where someone will be told Catholic ethics apply (taking the story at face value.) But I think it would be good to at least try for the kind of open discussion that needs to take place, simply to scope out what's actually involved in reality, without ideology from either side.

eviltwin

goodie2shoes wrote: »

gender selection is now an increasingly worrying trend in such "reasons" for terminations.
do the absolutists really want that here?

I don't think anyone wants to see that here but why would it happen? A cut off of
12 weeks for abortion on demand would be ample for most people, most women who have abortions have them in the first trimester anyway. Obviously there would be extensions for those who need them but no reason why we would suddenly encounter people having abortions on the grounds of gender.

I know when I was pregnant with my kids the was no way on knowing the sex of the baby until later in the pregnancy anyway.

Lingua Franca

I don't see why there would be much of an issue with gender selection in Ireland, there certainly isn't here in the Netherlands or in other western countries which allow abortion. It's only a problem in places like China where culturally boys are of value and girls are considered a burden.

Are we to compare ourselves to the Netherlands or to China?

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't think anyone wants to see that here but why would it happen? A cut off of
12 weeks for abortion on demand would be ample for most people, most women who have abortions have them in the first trimester anyway. Obviously there would be extensions for those who need them but no reason why we would suddenly encounter people having abortions on the grounds of gender.

This sounds about right to me and is what I would like to see implemented, despite the nonsense about 39 week abortions and partial birth abortions and post natal abortions that get bandied about by the same folk who glibly use the word "absolutist" about anyone with pro choice leanings.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I don't see why there would be much of an issue with gender selection in Ireland, there certainly isn't here in the Netherlands or in other western countries which allow abortion. It's only a problem in places like China where culturally boys are of value and girls are considered a burden.

Are we to compare ourselves to the Netherlands or to China?

The point is surely less about whether the decision to abort on grounds of gender would be frequent; it's whether, in principle, it could occur.

If we establish a right to abort at the independent discretion of the pregnant woman, then the answer is surely an unambiguous "yes, it would be possible for a woman to decide to abort because she did not want to give birth on grounds of the expected gender of the child."

It is feasible to detect gender at an early stage, with reasonable accuracy. e.g.

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1517/14712598.2012.666522

The development of noninvasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) using cell-free fetal DNA in maternal plasma has allowed women to have accurate information about fetal sex early in pregnancy without the risk of miscarriage.


Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1517/14712598.2012.666522

Fetal gender can be a factor in predicting disability. It therefore most certainly would be a feature in any reasonably liberal abortion regime.

Seriously, what's the problem in just saying the goddamn thing?

Lingua Franca

:rolleyes: China it is, then.

goodie2shoes

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't think anyone wants to see that here but why would it happen? A cut off of
12 weeks for abortion on demand would be ample for most people, most women who have abortions have them in the first trimester anyway. Obviously there would be extensions for those who need them but no reason why we would suddenly encounter people having abortions on the grounds of gender.

I know when I was pregnant with my kids the was no way on knowing the sex of the baby until later in the pregnancy anyway.

and do you really think that such a cut off period would be strictly enforced?
considering our recent history of & the pride we seem to take in subverting the law in this country?

be honest now.

Nodin

goodie2shoes wrote: »

and do you really think that such a cut off period would be strictly enforced?
considering our recent history of & the pride we seem to take in subverting the law in this country?

be honest now.

...you realise that these procedures will be taking place only in certain hospitals, under the supervision of Doctors, consultants etc?

Galvasean

goodie2shoes wrote: »

and do you really think that such a cut off period would be strictly enforced?
considering our recent history of & the pride we seem to take in subverting the law in this country?

be honest now.

So, you'd prefer that we kept the blanket ban on all abortions, where women dodge the law by travelling to England to get it done? It seems like we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

goodie2shoes

Galvasean wrote: »

So, you'd prefer that we kept the blanket ban on all abortions, where women dodge the law by travelling to England to get it done? It seems like we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

i never said that.