Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

goodie2shoes

swampgas wrote: »

If the mother's life is not in danger, do you think she should be prevented from travelling to England to have an abortion?

you cant prevent people from travelling.
people travel for all sorts of nefarious reasons.

swampgas

goodie2shoes wrote: »

you cant prevent people from travelling.
people travel for all sorts of nefarious reasons.

Of course you can stop people from travelling, the law allows for this in other circumstances. That's what happened in the X case, in case you have forgotten.

Suppose a woman gets pregnant, not through rape or incest, say through contraceptive failure, and wants an abortion. She wants to travel to England, and declares that the reason for travelling is to have an abortion. Should she be prevented from travelling?

If you don't think so, then you really don't have that strong an objection to Irish women having abortions on demand. You just don't want to have it happen in their home country.

Nodin

goodie2shoes wrote: »

your (.......)immoral.

You might get back to me on the question I put to you earlier
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82031503&postcount=2809

goodie2shoes

swampgas wrote: »

Of course you can stop people from travelling, the law allows for this in other circumstances. That's what happened in the X case, in case you have forgotten.

Suppose a woman gets pregnant, not through rape or incest, say through contraceptive failure, and wants an abortion. She wants to travel to England, and declares that the reason for travelling is to have an abortion. Should she be prevented from travelling?

If you don't think so, then you really don't have that strong an objection to Irish women having abortions on demand. You just don't want to have it happen in their home country.

Yes. i think she should be allowed to travel. if she wants to go to the moon and have an abortion i have no issue with that.
abortion as it stands is illegal here, so she cannot have it here.

each jurisdiction must decide what it accepts or does not. some have very liberal regimes and good luck to them.

why do we constantly feel the need to apologize for this?

ShooterSF

goodie2shoes wrote: »

where the life of the mother is in real danger.

It's interesting to see you objecting then to abortions up to 12 weeks on the grounds that it might be ignored when your real argument is you just don't agree with abortion unless there is "real danger".

goodie2shoes wrote: »

Yes. i think she should be allowed to travel. if she wants to go to the moon and have an abortion i have no issue with that.
abortion as it stands is illegal here, so she cannot have it here.

each jurisdiction must decide what it accepts or does not. some have very liberal regimes and good luck to them.

why do we constantly feel the need to apologize for this?

So if England made the age of consent 13 tomorrow you would not want to see Irish people prosecuted on returning home if they went to England to have sex with teens? And just in case you think that's absurd the Irish state would see one as rape and the other as murder so both severe crimes. You could even argue the later is worse.

goodie2shoes

ShooterSF wrote: »

It's interesting to see you objecting then to abortions up to 12 weeks on the grounds that it might be ignored when your real argument is you just don't agree with abortion unless there is "real danger".

i'm sorry but you are making no sense there. maybe it's cos it's late i dunno.

ShooterSF wrote: »

So if England made the age of consent 13 tomorrow you would not want to see Irish people prosecuted on returning home if they went to England to have sex with teens? And just in case you think that's absurd the Irish state would see one as rape and the other as murder so both severe crimes. You could even argue the later is worse.

again i do not understand your point. people have a right to travel. what they do when they reach the other jurisdiction is a matter for that area. i could give you examples, like should we ban all citizens from travelling Thailand on the basis that they will have sex with under-age persons? that would be absurd. it's up to that country to police its' jurisdiction as it sees fit.

that doesn't mean i approve of that behaviour.

like i said it's late. i'm off to me bed.

Nodin

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i'm sorry (..............)bed.

Could you get back to me on the question I asked you here?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82031503&postcount=2809

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Nodin wrote: »

Could you get back to me on the question I asked you here?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82031503&postcount=2809

By all means, pursue that point. I certainly see no particular reason to believe that doctors will not comply with whatever time limit is set.

However, if you trace back to the point sparked that exchange, you'll recall the issue was to the effect that gender could not be determined reliably within the first trimester; hence, it was contended, if the time limit was set at twelve weeks, choosing to abort on grounds of fetal gender would be a physical impossibility.

This contention is not valid.

http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Fulltext/2010/01000/Reliability_of_Fetal_Sex_Determination_Using.19.aspx

RESULTS: A total of 201 women were tested. The median gestational age was 9 0/7 weeks (interquartile range 8 0/7 to 10 0/7 weeks). In 189 of 201 cases (94%), a test result was issued; in 10 cases, the presence of fetal DNA could not be confirmed; in two cases, an early miscarriage was observed. Pregnancy outcome was obtained in 197 cases, including 105 male-bearing and 81 female-bearing pregnancies and 11 miscarriages. Sensitivity and specificity of the test were 100% (95% confidence intervals 96.6–100% and 95.6–100%, respectively). In all 10 cases in which the presence of fetal DNA could not be confirmed, a female was born.


CONCLUSION: Noninvasive fetal sex determination in maternal plasma is highly reliable and clinically applicable.

ShooterSF

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i'm sorry but you are making no sense there. maybe it's cos it's late i dunno.


again i do not understand your point. people have a right to travel. what they do when they reach the other jurisdiction is a matter for that area. i could give you examples, like should we ban all citizens from travelling Thailand on the basis that they will have sex with under-age persons? that would be absurd. it's up to that country to police its' jurisdiction as it sees fit.

that doesn't mean i approve of that behaviour.

like i said it's late. i'm off to me bed.

No it wouldn't. The U.S. already does this. There are some crimes hideous enough that you should not be able to return to Ireland if you commit them abroad, even if the other jurisdiction considers them legal. Murder and rape are on that list as far as I'm concerned.

eyescreamcone

ShooterSF wrote: »

No it wouldn't. The U.S. already does this. There are some crimes hideous enough that you should not be able to return to Ireland if you commit them abroad, even if the other jurisdiction considers them legal. Murder and rape are on that list as far as I'm concerned.

Where is murder legal???

Lingua Franca

ShooterSF wrote: »

No it wouldn't. The U.S. already does this. There are some crimes hideous enough that you should not be able to return to Ireland if you commit them abroad, even if the other jurisdiction considers them legal.

The UK also prosecutes sex tourists and prevents them from further travel. Look at Gary Glitter, he asked for permission to go on holiday recently and was denied.

aloyisious

swampgas wrote: »

Of course you can stop people from travelling, the law allows for this in other circumstances. That's what happened in the X case, in case you have forgotten.

Suppose a woman gets pregnant, not through rape or incest, say through contraceptive failure, and wants an abortion. She wants to travel to England, and declares that the reason for travelling is to have an abortion. Should she be prevented from travelling?

If you don't think so, then you really don't have that strong an objection to Irish women having abortions on demand. You just don't want to have it happen in their home country.

Re Para 1, that's why the Supreme Court ruled there is a right to travel, and in doing so, slapped down the AG's action of trying to stop the X-case GIRL travelling to the UK for an abortion.

Re Para 2, I'd say NO, she can travel. It's probable that she would not be the only person involved in making that decision: her partner could have agreed with her decision. I'm not going to force any woman, or girl, to go full term with her pregnancy just to satisfy a totally uninvolved with her position personal feeling.

Re Para 3, that seem's to have been the practice here in Ireland for decades now, so it would seem there is a "see no evil" attitude in play during that time, so it's nothing new for the National Conscience to ignore.

goodie2shoes

Nodin wrote: »

...we're talking about Ireland. Again -
As Doctors are currently unwilling to break the law and perform abortions, what makes you think they'd be willing to break the law on time limits?

I THOUGHT I ANSWERED THIS ALREADY.

because if abortion were to be made legal here, then it becomes rather more easy/less difficult to change/alter documentation, give different reasons for the procedure, to ignore certain facts etc.

I know of a friend who was pursuing a case for back injury. Initially his doctor was not cooperative, but he persisted and had no problem in getting a GP to certify what suited his "case". Doctors are human like everyone else, no better no worse.

ShooterSF

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Where is murder legal???

It depends on your definition of person. If you consider a foetus a person then any country that allows abortion.

robp

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!

Your not explaining the full story are you? You are conflating the meaning of the Cannonical text. There are more than one ways to cease being catholic. Joining another religion is one. Another way is through public acts/notoriety. that results in automatic excommunicate which mean you are not catholic. Look it up!

Condescension from a mod is bit much.

ShooterSF

robp wrote: »

Your not explaining the full story are you? You are conflating the meaning of the Cannonical text. There are more than one ways to cease being catholic. Joining another religion is one. Another way is through public acts/notoriety. that results in automatic excommunicate which mean you are not catholic. Look it up!

Condescension from a mod is bit much.

Excommunication does not make you a non-catholic in the church's eyes. Nor does changing religion.


"Even those who have joined another religion, have become atheists or agnostics, or have been excommunicated remain Catholics. Excommunicates lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty."

http://books.google.ie/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=new+commentary+on+the+code+of+canon+law&hl=en&ei=xAOzTcnVMIi6hAeTs5nkDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22excommunicated%20remain%22&f=false

robp

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' ?

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.

Your completely missing how abortion has been introduced in a legal context.

In the UK up to 24 weeks abortion on demand is in practise available. That was never the intention of legisation back in 1967 when reform happened.
Here are the grounds legally.

Section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967

In England and Wales and Scotland, section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 now reads:

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith -

(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities or serious disability

The vast majority (98%, in 2011) of all abortions take place under Ground C: ‘the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman’. That is in 1 in 5 pregnancies ended based on health grounds.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Excommunication does not make you a non-catholic in the church's eyes. Nor does changing religion.


"Even those who have joined another religion, have become atheists or agnostics, or have been excommunicated remain Catholics. Excommunicates lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty."

http://books.google.ie/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=new+commentary+on+the+code+of+canon+law&hl=en&ei=xAOzTcnVMIi6hAeTs5nkDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22excommunicated%20remain%22&f=false

The rules they have try to maintain a link with person in perpetually. They always did. The rule change in 2009 was very poorly understood as it is more to with marriage validity then anything else. So if some one becomes atheist etc they are no longer Christian but they still exist in the eyes of cannon law, even though if your not in communion you are completely on the outside. My earlier posts weren't clear about that.

Nodin

goodie2shoes wrote: »

I THOUGHT I ANSWERED THIS ALREADY.

because if abortion were to be made legal here, then it becomes rather more easy/less difficult to change/alter documentation, give different reasons for the procedure, to ignore certain facts etc.

I know of a friend who was pursuing a case for back injury. Initially his doctor was not cooperative, but he persisted and had no problem in getting a GP to certify what suited his "case". Doctors are human like everyone else, no better no worse.

So you've no evidence whatsover, and refuse to acknowledge the fact that Doctors currently refuse to carry out any abortions, because they are illegal.....

Nodin

Got this off "Yuff defence"....t'would appear that David and the lads are "upset" at the reaction they've garnered....

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=2531&fb_source=message

Sarky

Maybe if they weren't such obnoxious lying scumbags, Quinn and his flying monkeys would get a better reaction?

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Maybe if they weren't such obnoxious lying scumbags, Quinn and his flying monkeys would get a better reaction?

The people who like to call other murderers are complaining at being called t*ats and c*nts?
My vagina is insulted to be catagorised alongside these people.

Lingua Franca

Whilst I'm not denying they're taking torrents of abuse, at least some of those mentioned aren't particularly abusive ‘@MichaelKellyIC @DavQuinn hardly surprising the anger normal people feel towards people like you acting as apologists for evil’

‘Irrespective of his views, is @DavQuinn not the most mendacious and unpleasant commentator/debater out there at present?’

and the last one is actually quite funny. Absolute cabbage f*ck? :pac: I wish my mum was as creative a swearer as that.

And is this all new to them? I don't know any internet user who hasn't taken torrents of abuse from other people. I've had pms telling me that I'm unfit to be a mother and it would be kindest to give my children up for adoption because I'm so evil. I'll not even go into the time I commented (in a complimentary fashion) on a Eurovision video on youtube and someone who hadn't liked the video because they were from a rival country went absolutely mental, to the point of trying to track me down.

donspeekinglesh

An interesting, if unsurprising look at the Twitter account of @prolifeathiests. http://geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2012/12/prolifeatheists-and-damascene-conversion.html?m=1

Stark

I see they have a spin-off: Hip liberal pro-life gays: http://twitter.com/AliveGPN



"We got to adopt this child after some vulnerable woman was forced to carry it to term and that's awesome"

Bannasidhe

Stark wrote: »

I see they have a spin-off: Hip liberal pro-life gays: http://twitter.com/AliveGPN



"We got to adopt this child after some vulnerable woman was forced to carry it to term and that's awesome"

Lets just say I have been having some robust exchanges with gay men on a different forum on the topic of abortion.

I told one rider of a particularly high horse who stated categorically there is no evidence that Savita Halappanavar was in agony or vulnerable to infection to get back to me when his cervix was fully dilated - then tell me it's not agony. :mad:

goodie2shoes

This 'er "discussion" has become so cringe-worthy.
Thank Heaven we will not be subjected to an equally embarrassing referendum.

:o:o

Peregrinus

doctoremma wrote: »

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 . . .

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.

The statutory test is “. . . that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. . .” If two doctor are of that opinion, then the abortion can proceed.

There’s two very important points to note here.

First, pregnancy and childbirth is, thankfully, very much safer in our time than it was in the past. But it’s not completely as safe as not being pregnant at all; the morbidity associated with being pregnant is, to a statistically significant degree, almost always higher than the morbidity associated with not being pregnant, all other things being equal. Which means that this statutory test is always satisfied. An abortion can always proceed. (Subject to the 24-week limit, of course.)

Secondly, nothing in the British legislation says that the woman must want the abortion because of the health risk. She may want it for any reason at all - another child will cause her economic hardship, or the pregnancy is a result of rape, or she is only fifteen, or she is convinced of her own unfitness or inability for parenting, or she feels simply unready for parenthood, or she wants to finish her degree and establish herself in her career before beginning her family, or she wants a boy and she is carrying a girl, or her husband wants a boy and she is carrying a girl, or the child has a cleft palate, or the pregnancy is ill-timed because she has an exotic holiday booked and paid for, or she wants to abort in order to punish her partner, or she has become pregnant for the express purpose of having an abortion because she believes the endocrinological effects will enhance her athletic performance.

The point is, she may want an abortion for any reason at all. Her right under the Act to an abortion does not depend in any way on why she wants it, and it is entirely irrelevant whether you, or I, or the world at large would think her reason was good, bad or utterly indefensible.

Now, you can certainly defend such a policy. It’s basically the “right to choose” writ large. The whole point about a right to choose, surely, is that a woman shouldn’t have to justify her choice to anyone else in order to be allowed to implement it?

But even if you take that view, I still think there are aspects of the British legislation which justify the label of “hypocrisy”.

First, it appears as though a substantive medical test is applied to control access to abortion, when in fact no such test is applied. Whether it’s intentional or not, that seems to me to operate to conceal the true nature of the choice being made. If you wanted a law which affirmed a woman’s right to choose, this is not the law you would write. This is not an honest law, and dishonestly is always ethically troubling.

Secondly, as I’ve pointed out before, I think this is bad for women. The medical test is essentially a figleaf, and the message sent by a figleaf is that what lies beneath is something of which you should be ashamed. Abortion decisions are ostensibly framed in medical terms under this legislation when, in substance, they are not medical decisions. The message sent to a woman is that she must present her decision as medically justified because the true justification, the one that has actually motivated her choice, is not something that can be openly acknowledged, not something that her society will tolerate or approve of, not something decent. That’s not healthy, it’s not an affirmation of the right to choose, and it doesn’t help to create a context in which a woman can make a genuinely free, considered and reflective choice.

recedite

Nodin wrote: »

Not really. If somebody is willing to have an abortion because it interrupts their home decor night course, they're hardly ideal maternal material in the 1st place.

No doubt they'll be back in 10 or 20 years time for numerous rounds of fertility treatments, and then boring their friends with all the ongoing details thereof.

Obliq

Nodin wrote: »

Got this off "Yuff defence"....t'would appear that David and the lads are "upset" at the reaction they've garnered....

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=2531&fb_source=message

Good enough for em. They can't be getting that many terribly upsetting ones though, if the second example is quite polite and reasonable. It must be the truth that hurts.....

“Saw your representative on the news last night. Have to say I love your particular brand of comedy. Crying in your beer because you don't feel you can contribute to the vigils organized for Mrs Halappanavar. Well, sadly you're right. You cannot contribute. Clearly as religious fundamentalists you have contributed more than enough. I know I speak for many people when I say that it is your organization’s ethos combined with the application of your resources to an agenda designed by religious bigots that has you where you are. “ :D

Stark

Now you're making me feel guilty. Didn't consider that vile people have feelings too.