Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Obliq

Nell McCafferty's take on it (facebook):

"I went to look at and listen to the "Prolife" demo at the Dail tonight.I would reckon five thousand people there, mainly middle aged. I was offered a candle in a holder, and a glossy permanent placard, suitable for use, all for free. THere was a four sided big Tv type cardboard box showing non stop stuff about babies etc, but the crowd stood with its back to the box, facing Dail gates. Speakers stood on a raised platform with good sound system. Before they spoke, the crowd half heartedly sang hymns, which was disappointing as i like hymns. Breda O"Brien Irish Times columnist, standing on steps of Buswell's, tried unsuccessfully to get them to sing "We shall overcome". (her mother is from Dungannon and sang that at all such rallies, she told me.) MY sense of many people to whom I spoke was that they were defensive , bordering on aggression, when I asked if they were a demo demanding that the Dail not cut the childrens' allowance.(Mean and teasing , i know.) I last had such a sense when mingling with IRA provos and Sinn Feiners in the late seventies , when the republicans were on the back foot and tide was against them. Large banners at rails of Dail proclaimed "RTE is anti-Catholic" and "Abortion is murder. "

So I rated the speakers on a eurovision score basis for content and delivery - one is lousy, twelve (douze) is very good. NIamh Ui Briain is a screecher, ranter and mob mentality person, une point. DR Sean O domhnaill ( I think, and related to niamh's family), a calm smoothie chops who said he is "pro woman, pro health, and pro life" and nothing much else other than that the media is biassed against his ilk( He gets a lot of freebies to america to speak at prolife rallies there, as do Niamh and co) . The delightful Caroline Simons lost the head a bit, not understanding that the mike and range was excellent, and played to the crowd with shrieked simplicities, asking them to shout to the Dail , after her, "Enda, keep you prolife promise" - deux points , alas. THere was an excellent woman - apologies, i didn't get her name - who spoke courteously and softly about having five children ,of which one was diagnosed in the womb as suffering from encephaly (no brain).During pregnancy she often wished it would be over soon, then realised that the child would die after birth, and this was her one and only chance to bond, and this she did. The child lived for seventeen minutes. I would give her douze points, but that she said all mothers could cope like her - no exceptions, no empathy for those unable to carry the burden. The crowd was robotic in its approach to me:" Are you prolife? No? So you are pro abortion." Finally, their approach to the Dail bore the same dismal hallmarks of many pro choice leftie speeches - politicians are cowards and hypocrites (NIamh) , and no acknowledgment whatever of nuance. I was shocked that Caroline did not even make the distinction between direct abortion and the indirect abortion known as medical intervention. That refusal to use brains and intelligence in this debate convinced me that the "Prolifers" are on a loser. And that we must our intelligence and stamina and keep up the demos, though in an imaginative way - i hope preparations are underway for the televised Gathering on New years' eve, to be broadcast from College Green. Nell"

On numbers - I'd say between 2,000 and Nell's estimate, judging by the picture here

Lingua Franca

Sharrow wrote: »

That campgain was ran by http://www.rachelsvineyard.ie/aboutus.php which was set up by http://www.priestsforlife.org/index.aspx

Isn't that the crowd that sent a woman out to talk to a church full of kids about her abortion and said that she went on to have a special needs child, which was god's punishment for her?

um7y1h83ge06nx

I (29 year old male) would consider myself to be pro-choice but anti-abortion (if that makes any sense!).

What I mean is that I believe abortion should be available in Ireland but that in an ideal world there would never be a need to have an abortion (either for medical reasons or out of choice). Unfortunately this isn't an ideal world, if it was that poor woman Savita in Galway would still be alive, happy and looking forward to her first child with her husband.

Instead she was treated in my opinion worse than a dog and left to die needlessly.

I really hate the people that make the abortion debate seem simple, it's not black and white, it's incredibly, incredibly complex. So complex that I can't advise anyone to have or not have an abortion, all I can do is try and give them the options, the choice to make their own informed decision.

robindch

Obliq wrote: »

On numbers - I'd say between 2,000 and Nell's estimate, judging by the picture

Popette travelled up from down the country to be there and returned back to stay chez moi triumphant in the knowledge that there were between "eight and ten thousand people there even though that disgusting Irish Times person said there was only one or two thousand".

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Popette travelled up from down the country to be there and returned back to stay chez moi triumphant in the knowledge that there were between "eight and ten thousand people there even though that disgusting Irish Times person said there was only one or two thousand".

Like many religious fundies Popette may have trouble with numbers - this is a vital defense mechanism as if the words 'this does not add up' were to enter their conscious mind they would implode.

Sarky

Alvin Tangy Witchcraft wrote: »

I (29 year old male) would consider myself to be pro-choice but anti-abortion (if that makes any sense!).

What I mean is that I believe abortion should be available in Ireland but that in an ideal world there would never be a need to have an abortion (either for medical reasons or out of choice). Unfortunately this isn't an ideal world, if it was that poor woman Savita in Galway would still be alive, happy and looking forward to her first child with her husband.

Instead she was treated in my opinion worse than a dog and left to die needlessly.

I really hate the people that make the abortion debate seem simple, it's not black and white, it's incredibly, incredibly complex. So complex that I can't advise anyone to have or not have an abortion, all I can do is try and give them the options, the choice to make their own informed decision.

Nailed it. Abortion is not a decision anyone would make lightly, but the option needs to be there.

Obliq

robindch wrote: »

Popette travelled up from down the country to be there and returned back to stay chez moi triumphant in the knowledge that there were between "eight and ten thousand people there even though that disgusting Irish Times person said there was only one or two thousand".

Oh joy. You must have had a fun evening! I tell you, pro-life or pro-choice - the numbers bandied about afterwards are ridiculous. A clever fella said to me recently that people at rallies should have to go up and get number tags, like they do with marathons. Then there'd be none of this time wasting afterwards, and we could officially nail RTE to the mast for biased coverage.

robp

Galvasean wrote: »

Point of pedantry, but a fetus is not a child much in the same way that a child is not an adult. Constantly refering to a fetus as a child stikes me as trying to attach extra emotional value to the discussion at hand.

The term child has no universal definition beyond it being someone younger than an adult. To call an adult a child is irrational but to call a fetus a child is speak in common English rather than scientific terminology. People who support abortion are very attached to the term fetus. I wonder do they refer to their own children with the same scientific terminology (neonate or juvenile later on). To claim that one side has culpability on selective use of language is clearly false.

Delirium

robp wrote: »

The term child has no universal definition beyond it being someone younger than an adult. To call an adult a child is irrational but to call a fetus a child is speak in common English rather than scientific terminology. People who support abortion are very attached to the term fetus. I wonder do they refer to their own children with the same scientific terminology (neonate or juvenile later on). To claim that one side has culpability on selective use of language is clearly false.

That's not a universal defintion. Are you saying a 40 year old person is not their father/mother's child? I always thought child to be a gender neutral term for referring to a son/daughter.

Atomicjuicer

robp wrote: »

The term child has no universal definition beyond it being someone younger than an adult. To call an adult a child is irrational but to call a fetus a child is speak in common English rather than scientific terminology. People who support abortion are very attached to the term fetus. I wonder do they refer to their own children with the same scientific terminology (neonate or juvenile later on). To claim that one side has culpability on selective use of language is clearly false.

And even though there is no better scientific definition than conception as the starting point of human life this too is being politicized into meaninglessness. All to devalue humanity.

Bannasidhe

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

And even though there is no better scientific definition than conception as the starting point of human life this too is being politicized into meaninglessness. All to devalue humanity.

And forcing women to carry and bare unwanted children isn't devaluing humanity?

Tell me - do you care so much for the children who are here now? You certainly seem to have scant regard for preserving the humanity of female children once they become capable of become pregnant.

Flier

And I thought when I voted on the 'Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012' recently, it was regarding born children only! If only I'd known we were giving all those extra rights and protections to unborn children too! The word 'child' refers to born persons. Let's get real!

robp

koth wrote: »

That's not a universal defintion. Are you saying a 40 year old person is not their father/mother's child? I always thought child to be a gender neutral term for referring to a son/daughter.

Yeah it can be but that is a second seperate meaning of the word.

1
a : an unborn or recently born person
b dialect : a female infant
2
a : a young person especially between infancy and youth
b : a childlike or childish person
c : a person not yet of age
3
usually childe archaic : a youth of noble birth
4
a : a son or daughter of human parents

www.merriam-webster.com

ninja900 wrote: »

Yes I already know all this. I simply don't care. It's irrelevant to the Irish situation apart from the fact that Irish women benefit from it.

It is said that 'politics is the art of the possible' and it's pretty unlikely that an explicit statement of allowing abortion on demand would have been passed at the time.

It would be more honest if they now amended the law to explicitly state that abortion on demand is permitted. But what's the point really.

The UK people have an abortion law that, generally, they are happy with. There is no major political party looking to roll it back. The only controversial aspect for most people (that is, most people who ever think about the subject at all) is where the foetal age limit should be.

MPs can easily amend the UK law if they choose, if a majority of them are unhappy with it. This is not the case and there is no evidence that they are out of step with their electorate in this regard.

Our situation here is totally different because of our constitution and the damned Article 40.3.3. Even if the X case is legislated for, it will still be extremely restrictive. Even a serious risk to the health, as opposed to the life, of the mother will not permit an abortion.

If you simply don't care how can anyone even achieve even a rational discussion? Abortion in the UK is a serious issues for thousands of women, its nothing to be flippant about. The UK is the nearest legal analogy for the Irish context. It is very relevant. It is even more relevant as the legal approach which created the UK scenario has reoccurred many times around the globe.

Hypothetically speaking, if a fraction of the 4,000 odd women who procure abortion in the UK attempted to avail of them in Ireland under a mental health clause would we even have the infrastructure to give each one a consultation with the 2 psychiatrists and 1 obstetrician as suggested by the expert group. I wonder.

doctoremma

robp wrote: »

It is even more relevant as the legal approach which created the UK scenario has reoccurred many times around the globe.

What is "the UK scenario"?

Atomicjuicer

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And forcing women to carry and bare unwanted children isn't devaluing humanity?

Tell me - do you care so much for the children who are here now? You certainly seem to have scant regard for preserving the humanity of female children once they become capable of become pregnant.

Killing devalues more than inconveniencing. And I do care about the female children who grow up - I don't want them suffering from abortions either.

Obliq

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Killing devalues more than inconveniencing. And I do care about the female children who grow up - I don't want them suffering from abortions either.

Using the word "inconveniencing" in relation to the situation women may find themselves in during an unwanted/unviable pregnancy is so deliberately ignorant that it devalues you as a human.

Bannasidhe

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Killing devalues more than inconveniencing. And I do care about the female children who grow up - I don't want them suffering from abortions either.

A cold is an inconvenience.
A puncture is an inconvenience.
An unwanted pregnancy is a life sentence forced upon a woman against her will. It goes waaaayyy beyond being an 'inconvenience' as you so blithely dismiss it.

robp

doctoremma wrote: »

What is "the UK scenario"?

Please refer to post #2838.

Bannasidhe

robp wrote: »

Please refer to post #2838.

The UK scenario is that it allows Ireland to pretend to be 'protecting the unborn' when it reality it is the same old exporting our problems for foreign solutions.

Morag

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

And even though there is no better scientific definition than conception as the starting point of human life this too is being politicized into meaninglessness. All to devalue humanity.

Yes at conception the blue print for a brand new genetically distinct person is created, trying to give rights to a bunch of cells which may end up passing from a woman's body is silly and impractical.

Just as well that thing is pregnancy is defined medically, scientifically and legally is not from conception but from implantation.

old hippy

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

And even though there is no better scientific definition than conception as the starting point of human life this too is being politicized into meaninglessness. All to devalue humanity.

I see none of this "humanity" your side speak of. I see fundamentalism and an archaic dwindling group of people who will absolutely not herald us into another dark age.

Nodin

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Killing devalues more than inconveniencing. And I do care about the female children who grow up - I don't want them suffering from abortions either.

...you might revert to me re this...?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82077819&postcount=2901
Thanks.

robp

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The UK scenario is that it allows Ireland to pretend to be 'protecting the unborn' when it reality it is the same old exporting our problems for foreign solutions.

The UK attracts women from all over the world for its no questions asked regime. Only 2/3 thirds of UK abortions done to non-residents are from this state. Secondly, Ireland's abortion rate is demonstrably far lower rate the UK. 1 in 15 compared to 1 in 5 so yes Ireland does succeed in protecting the unborn. With a better health service and less educational inequality this country could be in a really good place.

old hippy

robp wrote: »

The UK attracts women from all over the world for its no questions asked regime. Only 2/3 thirds of UK abortions done to non-residents are from this state. Secondly, Ireland's abortion rate is demonstrably far lower rate the UK. 1 in 15 compared to 1 in 5 so yes Ireland does succeed in protecting the unborn. With a better health service and less educational inequality this country could be in a really good place.

"Only" two thirds, you say?

Nodin

robp wrote: »

The UK attracts women from all over the world for its no questions asked regime. Only 2/3 thirds of UK abortions done to non-residents are from this state. Secondly, Ireland's abortion rate is demonstrably far lower rate the UK. 1 in 15 compared to 1 in 5 so yes Ireland does succeed in protecting the unborn. With a better health service and less educational inequality this country could be in a really good place.

....you realise that Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, France and feck knows how many others have "abortion on demand"....?

Obliq

robp wrote: »

The UK attracts women from all over the world for its no questions asked regime. Only 2/3 thirds of UK abortions done to non-residents are from this state. Secondly, Ireland's abortion rate is demonstrably far lower rate the UK. 1 in 15 compared to 1 in 5 so yes Ireland does succeed in protecting the unborn. With a better health service and less educational inequality this country could be in a really good place.

Interesting how 85% of Irish people do not appear to agree with you. Ever heard the phrase "Everyone's out of step except our Charlie" ?

robp

Obliq wrote: »

Interesting how 85% of Irish people do not appear to agree with you. Ever heard the phrase "Everyone's out of step except our Charlie" ?

Well in the same poll 63% supported a Constitutional amendment limiting the X ruling

Nodin wrote: »

....you realise that Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, France and feck knows how many others have "abortion on demand"....?

the UK time limit is unusual. For instance in France has a 12 week limit.,

Nodin

robp wrote: »

Well in the same poll 63% supported a Constitutional amendment limiting the X ruling




the UK time limit is unusual. For instance in France has a 12 week limit.,

For "on-demand" it varies between the countries varied, however they are quite literally "no questions asked" regimes.

Bannasidhe

robp wrote: »

The UK attracts women from all over the world for its no questions asked regime. Only 2/3 thirds of UK abortions done to non-residents are from this state. Secondly, Ireland's abortion rate is demonstrably far lower rate the UK. 1 in 15 compared to 1 in 5 so yes Ireland does succeed in protecting the unborn. With a better health service and less educational inequality this country could be in a really good place.

What abortion rate in Ireland would that be exactly?

Delirium

robp wrote: »

The UK attracts women from all over the world for its no questions asked regime. Only 2/3 thirds of UK abortions done to non-residents are from this state. Secondly, Ireland's abortion rate is demonstrably far lower rate the UK. 1 in 15 compared to 1 in 5 so yes Ireland does succeed in protecting the unborn. With a better health service and less educational inequality this country could be in a really good place.

How exactly do you compare numbers of abortions between a country where it's legal and one where it's not?