Abortion Discussion

MrPudding

Lingua Franca wrote: »

It's been mentioned before but it's illegal to travel abroad for the purposes of procuring sex from a minor and people are prevented from travelling under that law.

I am not sure if they are prevented from travelling, actually. Even if they aren't, it is still a valid example of people being criminalised, quite rightly, in a country where they have not committed an actual criminal act. The 2010 Bribery Act in the UK is another example. You commit the act in another country, typically where that act is not illegal, or it is at least ignored, but then you are prosecuted when you return home.

A better example might be soccer hooligans, they are actually banned from travelling, though the acts that they are peremptorily from traveling for are also illegal in the country they were attempting to travel to.

Either way, aside from the small matter of the constitution, if ireland was as against abortion as some people wold like us to think it was, travelling for abortion could be prevented. The fact that the people have voted how they have would tend to indicate there is no appetite for this.

Richard Bingham wrote:

I don't agree with abortion in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities. I don't get to value the life of a baby who may only last 6 hours or 6 days, as being worth any less than my life. If their whole life is only 3 hours long, it was still theirs to live.

You quite nicely avoid the fact that those6 hour, 6 days or 3 hour might be filled with unimaginable pain and suffering. Any person not following the Mother Teresa, evil hag, school of glorying god, so decent people, would suggest that this si cruel.

Richard Bingham wrote:

Many people are now choosing to continue these pregnancies and I think that without exception they are saying that they would do it all over again (rather than abort) if faced with a second fatal foetal abnormality in a subsequent pregnancy.

I have seen programmes about these people. They are monsters. Typically they go through with the pregnacy so they can get 'closure', or so they can grieve properly. Personally, I would get my closure by another method, and I would find another way to grieve, because, to be perfectly frank, bringing a foetus that has no chance of survival, and whatever life it has will be filled with pain, to make my life a bit easier is disgusting.

Richard Bingham wrote:

There are several example of babies who were deemed incompatible with life, surviving for months or even years. It's a sh1t situation and my heart bleeds for them parents but the thing is that not everything is fixable and abortion certainly doesn't fix it.

You will have to provide soem evidence of this. I really dislike the 'life at any cost' arguments against abortion.

MrP

Bellatori

lazygal wrote: »

Not only does the law force women to go abroad our constitution explicitly carries a proviso protecting the right of women to go abroad. We're a great little country, where you can have your illegal abortion in a country that takes care of women travelling from Ireland without asking too many questions. What'd be happening if other countries refused to treat women travelling from Ireland or had more restrictive abortion regimes? Would women simply continue being pregnant when they don't want to be? Or would we finally have to deal with the reality of the situation?

Well that seems to be coming to a head in the Liverpool hospital as I saw mentioned elsewhere. These operations are now to be rationed. I am very concerned about this because I can see some fairly difficult situations arising because of it.

Specific cases are invidious but, nonetheless I wonder what happens if a woman arrives from Ireland and the 'quota' has been used up. Do they then refuse on grounds of quota? Suppose the woman has a very good medical reason for needing an abortion, does the refusal stand?

I have serious misgivings about this BUT I have to repeat that I feel that this requires resolution in Ireland. Simply making it someone else's problem is not IMO a moral solution.

swampgas

Bellatori wrote: »

I have serious misgivings about this BUT I have to repeat that I feel that this requires resolution in Ireland. Simply making it someone else's problem is not IMO a moral solution.

One of the problems is that the political classes seem to be far more conservative than the electorate at large. Most of the referendums offered to the people on abortion down through the years have been about making abortion illegal or on tightening the restrictions on abortion. (The 8th, 12th, and 25th were to make things more restrictive, the 13th and 14th were the two that guaranteed the right to information and travel.) So apart from offering the people the opportunity to make things more restrictive, the two options for a more liberal approach were only guaranteeing us the possibility of exporting the problem abroad.

It's about time that we were offered a few referendums on abortion that offer some options for making abortion more available here in Ireland. That's what the polls suggest people want. Unfortunately our politicians still seem to be trapped in the 80's.

Lingua Franca

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not sure if they are prevented from travelling, actually. Even if they aren't, it is still a valid example of people being criminalised, quite rightly, in a country where they have not committed an actual criminal act. The 2010 Bribery Act in the UK is another example. You commit the act in another country, typically where that act is not illegal, or it is at least ignored, but then you are prosecuted when you return home.

From what I can find, sex offenders aren't prevented from travelling from Ireland but must inform the police if the trip is more than 7 days. Whereas in the UK they can and are prevented from travelling (Gary Glitter being just one example of the many who have been prevented from travelling.)

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR07000339

The point being

Each country is entitled to set its own laws and I don't believe that a particular country can limit travel if the authorities suspect it will result in an act which is unlawful in the home country

... was incorrect. The UK uses their Foreign Travel Order policy a lot. We've established that they can prevent people for travelling if they suspect the person will commit acts of child sex procurement or football hooliganism, and from the amount of news stories I see about British guys running away to fight in Syria, Afghanistan and Sudan it's only a matter of time before they step in to block those guys from travelling too. So theoretically if the government wanted to then they could make a law preventing women from travelling for abortions.

MrPudding

Lingua Franca wrote: »

The point being
... was incorrect. The UK uses their Foreign Travel Order policy a lot. We've established that they can prevent people for travelling if they suspect the person will commit acts of child sex procurement or football hooliganism, and from the amount of news stories I see about British guys running away to fight in Syria, Afghanistan and Sudan it's only a matter of time before they step in to block those guys from travelling too. So theoretically if the government wanted to then they could make a law preventing women from travelling for abortions.

I see what you are saying, my point was simply that, even if they could not prevent them from travelling, they could still prosecute them when they returned.

Either way, the fact remains that there seem to be no appetite in this country, despite what the anti-choice side say, to limit a womans right to have an abortion outside the state.

MrP

alaimacerc

swampgas wrote: »

One of the problems is that the political classes seem to be far more conservative than the electorate at large.

Unfortunately, not moreso than the lobbyist class, though. A lobbyist class that's bizarrely cross-funded by the state itself, and reportedly hugely directly funded by lots of US fundie money.

Ultimately, I don't think it'll prevent change. It will, however, slow it down a heckuva lot.

alaimacerc

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Of course if you is acceptable and you want to make the other acceptable I could see the logic of you wanting to use the same term for them both.

Take it up with the Catholic church, then, which insists on calling both "direct abortion" and "immoral", then, as I already pointed out.

Most of the people on the liberal side of the argument are generally more comfortable with the medical terminology (which the forcedbirther lot will then say is being "cold and clinical", despite their claim to have "science" on their side).

It's well known that you can't win, but you really can't win, can you?

Richard Bingham

alaimacerc wrote: »

Furthermore, a state may also simply universalify its jurisdiction, and declare acts illegal regardless of where they take place. (For example, Belgium does this for some purposes.)

Aren't you grasping at straws now. How often does this happen even in Belgium? 0.00001% of all convictions obtained in this manner perhaps. We're dicussing Irish law.

alaimacerc

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Aren't you grasping at straws now.

No, it's called "driving a coach and four".

How often does this happen even in Belgium? 0.00001% of all convictions obtained in this manner perhaps.

No revelence. The principle is entirely clear.

We're dicussing Irish law.

We're discussing the Irish "please have your terminations of pregnancies elsewhere" law, yes, and that it's very clear that the "elsewhere" part is deliberate, and not some unfortunately necessitated element.

Richard Bingham

Lingua Franca wrote: »

From what I can find, sex offenders aren't prevented from travelling from Ireland but must inform the police if the trip is more than 7 days. Whereas in the UK they can and are prevented from travelling (Gary Glitter being just one example of the many who have been prevented from travelling.)

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR07000339

The point being
... was incorrect. The UK uses their Foreign Travel Order policy a lot. We've established that they can prevent people for travelling if they suspect the person will commit acts of child sex procurement or football hooliganism, and from the amount of news stories I see about British guys running away to fight in Syria, Afghanistan and Sudan it's only a matter of time before they step in to block those guys from travelling too. So theoretically if the government wanted to then they could make a law preventing women from travelling for abortions.

You're talking about individuals who have been convicted of a crime being prevented from traveling, in the context of pregnant women potentially being prevented from traveling.

Ordinary decent folk can not be prevented from travelling for the reasons you suggest. Football hooligans or even a person who gets involved in a fight in a pub whilst watching a match if convicted can be issued with a football banning order (fbo) - this is how they are prevented from traveling.

Convicted pedophiles can most probably be prevented from travelling also on the basis that they have a conviction for said crime. I'm very happy that they can.

Quite amazing that I am admonished (a number of times) for mentioning ectopic pregnancy and you can talk about pedophiles and football hooligans.

Richard Bingham

alaimacerc wrote: »

Take it up with the Catholic church, then, which insists on calling both "direct abortion" and "immoral", then, as I already pointed out.

You take it up with them if you have a problem with it. I care little what the church does or thinks.

Lingua Franca

Richard Bingham wrote: »

You're talking about individuals who have been convicted of a crime being prevented from traveling, in the context of pregnant women potentially being prevented from traveling.

I was talking about your fallacious assertion that " I don't believe that a particular country can limit travel if the authorities suspect it will result in an act which is unlawful in the home country"

Quite amazing that I am admonished (a number of times) for mentioning ectopic pregnancy

You were admonished for playing the semantics game regarding an abortive procedure.

and you can talk about pedophiles and football hooligans.

...and even Belgium, regarding your fallacious assertion that laws cannot be used to prevent people from travelling abroad, yes.

I'm getting terrible deja vu here.

alaimacerc

Richard Bingham wrote: »

You take it up with them if you have a problem with it. I care little what the church does or thinks.

Grand. If we're not wedded to their Magisterial Teaching and Carefully Controlled Terminology, we can accept medical terms as being the closest to neutral as we're likely to get, and dispense with this "it's not abortion if i approve of it, it is if I don't" featherbedding, right?

Bellatori

Richard Bingham wrote: »

You're talking about individuals who have been convicted of a crime being prevented from traveling, in the context of pregnant women potentially being prevented from traveling.

Ordinary decent folk can not be prevented from travelling for the reasons you suggest. ...

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/9679840/Pregnant-woman-dies-in-Ireland-after-being-denied-an-abortion.html

mariestopes.org.uk/Womens_services/Abortion/Abortion_for_women_from_Ireland_and_other_countries/Travelling_from_Ireland.aspx

ifpa.ie/Pregnancy-Counselling/Abortion-Irish-Law

ifpa.ie/sites/default/files/documents/briefings/abortion-and-ireland-factfile.pdf

These links (I cannot post the www. or they get deleted) basically sum up the situation in Ireland for abortion. It makes clearly the point that the politicians have repeatedly tried through referenda to tighten up the law and the courts and people of Ireland have repeatedly rejected this. Who is bullying the politicians I wonder?

What is particularly interesting is the last link which shows that though freedom to travel is a legal right (1992 after a notorious case of a pregnant child and the European Court over ruling Ireland) as late as 2007 there were attempts to force someone to remain in Ireland.

Right at the end I found this particularly thought provoking

2008 Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1607 “Access to Safe and Legal Abortion”
“A ban on abortions does not result in fewer abortions but mainly leads to clandestine abortions, which are more traumatic and increase maternal mortality and/or lead to abortion “tourism” which is costly, and delays the timing of an abortion and results in social inequities. The lawfulness of abortion does not have an effect on a woman’s need for an abortion, but only on her access to a safe abortion.”

eviltwin

Bellatori wrote: »

“A ban on abortions does not result in fewer abortions but mainly leads to clandestine abortions, which are more traumatic and increase maternal mortality and/or lead to abortion “tourism” which is costly, and delays the timing of an abortion and results in social inequities. The lawfulness of abortion does not have an effect on a woman’s need for an abortion, but only on her access to a safe abortion.”

That is so true. Abortion has always been around, it will always be around. As long as people have sex there will be a need for abortion. Is anyone calling for legal abortion happy about that? Probably not, abortion is not something anyone wants to see a woman have to go through however we appreciate that forcing her to continue with an unwanted pregnancy isn't the answer.

It's better all round if a woman can have an abortion as soon as possible, better for her physically and mentally. Irish women travelling to the UK have to have a surgical abortion though - unless they can stay over for a few days - as no clinic can take responsibility for the health of the woman if she takes the RU486 pill and then travels back. So our laws not only force women to travel but also force them to undergo a surgical abortion which is more invasive and carries more risks. And then when they come home there is no support, there is no encouragement to talk about it to break the stigma. And all this time we claim to be a country that cares about women :rolleyes:

lazygal

And we also force couples with fatal foetal abnormalities to go abroad and incur costs of up to two grand if they don't want to continue a pregnancy, and take away fallopian tubes, and compromise fertility, in case someone thinks termination of ectopic pregnancy is abortion.

Brian Shanahan

alaimacerc wrote: »

You believe wrongly. Furthermore, a state may also simply universalify its jurisdiction, and declare acts illegal regardless of where they take place. (For example, Belgium does this for some purposes.)

Quite a lot of countries do it for crimes against humanity, and other war crimes as originally set out by the Nuremburg trials and later expanded. More sinister is the fact that most muslim countries claim universality with respect to their varied laws against "insulting" islam.

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

And we also force couples with fatal foetal abnormalities to go abroad and incur costs of up to two grand if they don't want to continue a pregnancy, and take away fallopian tubes, and compromise fertility, in case someone thinks termination of ectopic pregnancy is abortion.

every person that says abortion of any sort is wrong should hang their heads in shame every time a women in such a situation has to go her own and travel to another country,

You may think you are on some sort of moral high horse by saying any sort of abortion is wrong but in reality all you want is a women to be put into an awful situation and to suffer against her wishes, if this makes you happy then you are a very very sick person

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

every person that says abortion of any sort is wrong should hang their heads in shame every time a women in such a situation has to go her own and travel to another country,

You may think you are on some sort of moral high horse by saying any sort of abortion is wrong but in reality all you want is a women to be put into an awful situation and to suffer against her wishes, if this makes you happy then you are a very very sick person

Not to mention the men who from what I've read and heard are also deeply hurt. No one wins, except for the anti abortion unless we can say it's not an abortion but an unavoidable side effect of other treatment and there's a pro-life majority keep your pro-life promise Enda brigade.

Morag

http://www.mariestopes.org/media/research-reveals-more-half-young-women-who-have-abortions-were-using-contraception-when-they

Further debunking the myths that women who have abortions weren't using contraception.

Mr. CooL ICE

In before "women who get abortions aren't truthful" and "don't have sex unless you want a child". Any other nonsense I forgot about?

lazygal

LordChessington wrote: »

In before "women who get abortions aren't truthful" and "don't have sex unless you want a child". Any other nonsense I forgot about?

Never necessary to save the life of a woman!! Luv de preshus baaaaybeees! Chus Life!!1!!1

alaimacerc

lazygal wrote: »

Never necessary to save the life of a woman!! Luv de preshus baaaaybeees! Chus Life!!1!!1

Because if they were necessary, we'd simply call them something other than "abortions"!

Who needs facts when they can just declare themselves in charge of language.

Richard Bingham

Bellatori wrote: »

2008 Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1607 “Access to Safe and Legal Abortion”
“A ban on abortions does not result in fewer abortions but mainly leads to clandestine abortions, which are more traumatic and increase maternal mortality and/or lead to abortion “tourism” which is costly, and delays the timing of an abortion and results in social inequities. The lawfulness of abortion does not have an effect on a woman’s need for an abortion, but only on her access to a safe abortion.”

There would be close to 200,000 illegal or exported abortions among the poplulations of England and Wales each year if abortion was legalised? Seriously?

A ban on murder would only drive it underground....

Richard Bingham

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Quite a lot of countries do it for crimes against humanity, and other war crimes as originally set out by the Nuremburg trials and later expanded. More sinister is the fact that most muslim countries claim universality with respect to their varied laws against "insulting" islam.

Ok, ok you've convinced me. Let's start prosecuting people who travel for anything which isn't legal here.

Richard Bingham

Cabaal wrote: »

...all you want is a women to be put into an awful situation and to suffer against her wishes, if this makes you happy then you are a very very sick person

Yes. That's what pro-life people want. Why didn't someone else spot it before now.

Your entitled to your view Cabaal. A bit dramatic perhaps.

I happen to think that you are a very misguided person.

Richard Bingham

Morag wrote: »

http://www.mariestopes.org/media/research-reveals-more-half-young-women-who-have-abortions-were-using-contraception-when-they

Further debunking the myths that women who have abortions weren't using contraception.

That's not independent research.

Also, "Researchers analysed five years of the charity’s patient data"

Nobody ever lies when they are going for an abortion. Why would they?

alaimacerc

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I happen to think that you are a very misguided person.

Perhaps you might attempt to provide an actual counterargument, rather than lame sardonicism.

I'm sure you consider yourself to have all sorts of very worthy harm/immorality-reduction aspirations. But your chosen means seems to be "ban it, throw people in jail". That hardly seems to be wildly inconsistent with "suffering against the patient's wishes".

Richard Bingham

Congrats to Chelsea Clinton who recently announced that she is going to have a baby. She must intend keeping the child, seeing as she is referring to it as a baby.

Lucky kid. Might be a future leader of the free (if your born) world.

PopePalpatine

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Nobody ever lies when they are going for an abortion. Why would they?

If I was your daughter I'd definitely lie to you about it.