Abortion Discussion

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

The quote (partial) below from Absolom takes the biscuit, if not the award, for pure gall. I'm wondering, reading through it, if it's not a complete contradiction in terms. Absolom believes he has the right to participate in the decision (a personal decision) of the O/P because the rights of reproduction are granted by society, but he's also saying that he is not saying that he can or should dictate the O/P's rights.

Why not just ask me? Or are we playing to the gallery?

Firstly, I don't believe I have the right to participate in the O/Ps personal decision. I know I have a right to vote on constitutional amendments; and significant changes to abortion legislation require constitutional amendments. This is not the O/Ps personal decision , because the state in which we reside has not granted that decision to the O/P. I can't dictate the O/Ps rights because I can only participate in the decision, like the op, I cannot take that decision on my own.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm left wondering if this mean's that Absolom might take his opinion of society's (and it's members) rights and decide to take an alternate view, something on the lines of Chinese Society with regard to the ratio of male V female babies, in the manner of "the greater good" or "participate in determining OUR rights".

I think (I can't really tell) your final question is if I might change my mind and want to do something different. I might. It's a relatively free country, we're all allowed to change our opinions from time to time. If I want to enshrine my choice in the constitution though, I'm going to need a majority of the (voting) country to agree with my choice.

If my answer remains too galling for you, perhaps your biscuit will quiet your digestion.

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And also further evidence that the anti-abortion crowd don't give two ****s about the life they are crowing so loudly about "protecting". Any truly pro-life organisation wouldn't be so quick to exploit details they came across like the women's suicide to try and paint their opposition as killers, though to be honest a true pro-life group would be far more amenable to abortions where the life or health of the mother were at risk, rather than the "we don't care about the mother, she's only an empty vessel for the carrying of de preecccioooooos bayyyyyyyybeeeee!" misogynist message the anti-abortion movement spreads.

That's more than a little bit silly. If nobody in the pro-life movement cares about the lives they want to protect, what exactly do you think they're doing? It's not like they're secret agents of childrens clothing businesses trying to drum up trade. Do you really really think the pro-life organisations have a different agenda from being pro-life? They do see those who engage in abortion as killers; it's a simple stark fact for them, despite opinions to the contrary. They do want the best outcome for mothers-to-be, even though it's not the outcome the definitely not-mothers-to-be want. I think there are a lot of kind considerate people who are genuinely acting out of love in those campaigns; they're not actually trying to make anyones life worse, they genuinely want to make it better.

However misguided, or downright wrong, you may think they are, or even know beyond any doubt they are, the childish vilification and condescending statements like "de preecccioooooos bayyyyyyyybeeeee!" add nothing whatsoever to the pro abortion argument. If anything it utterly demeans an argument that in the absence of gods should be free to be based on reason, empathy, and science.

eviltwin

Absolam wrote: »

That's more than a little bit silly. If nobody in the pro-life movement cares about the lives they want to protect, what exactly do you think they're doing? It's not like they're secret agents of childrens clothing businesses trying to drum up trade. Do you really really think the pro-life organisations have a different agenda from being pro-life? They do see those who engage in abortion as killers; it's a simple stark fact for them, despite opinions to the contrary. They do want the best outcome for mothers-to-be, even though it's not the outcome the definitely not-mothers-to-be want. I think there are a lot of kind considerate people who are genuinely acting out of love in those campaigns; they're not actually trying to make anyones life worse, they genuinely want to make it better.

However misguided, or downright wrong, you may think they are, or even know beyond any doubt they are, the childish vilification and condescending statements like "de preecccioooooos bayyyyyyyybeeeee!" add nothing whatsoever to the pro abortion argument. If anything it utterly demeans an argument that in the absence of gods should be free to be based on reason, empathy, and science.

So why do they not protest outside IVF clinics? Irish couples can take home unwanted embryos to what they wish and yet pro life groups are remarkably silent on the issue. You can see why people feel its an issue of control. And who are they do decide on what is the best outcome for women. Shouldn't it be the woman herself who decides that?

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

So why do they not protest outside IVF clinics? Irish couples can take home unwanted embryos to what they wish and yet pro life groups are remarkably silent on the issue. You can see why people feel its an issue of control.

I don't know why they don't protest outside IVF clinics. Maybe they do in some places? Maybe their thinking on the subject hasn't progressed as far as yours, and once they catch on they'll be picketing like billy-o. Maybe they're being paid by IVF clinics to be anti-abortion in order to further some nefarious IVF plot (this seems least likely)? What reason do you think they might have for deliberately not protesting outside IVF clinics? Given the medium, I think I should assure you I'm interested in your opinion, I'm not taking a swipe at you.

eviltwin wrote: »

And who are they do decide on what is the best outcome for women. Shouldn't it be the woman herself who decides that?

They don't decide on what is the best outcome for women; they have an opinion, and they're voicing it. Some voice it in just an ugly a fashion as above, and it's just as wrong. We all get an opinion, we all get a vote. We can all lobby our TDs, we can all sing songs on O'Connell St with banners, we can all vote. And when we've voted, the tyranny of the majority, as Recedite says, prevails. Until the next vote.

Obliq

Absolam wrote: »

I don't know why they don't protest outside IVF clinics. Maybe they do in some places? Maybe their thinking on the subject hasn't progressed as far as yours, and once they catch on they'll be picketing like billy-o. Maybe they're being paid by IVF clinics to be anti-abortion in order to further some nefarious IVF plot (this seems least likely)? What reason do you think they might have for deliberately not protesting outside IVF clinics? Given the medium, I think I should assure you I'm interested in your opinion, I'm not taking a swipe at you.

Have you really thought so little about it yourself? I'm surprised at you. What is your take on IVF then? Since you're so keen on human embryos being special enough little individuals to all live, if live they can? How is the decision taken to do away with the unwanted (but viable for implantation) embryos any better than the decision a woman takes to abort?

Tell us, please. I can't wait for the "because society says so" fall back position.

Richard Bingham

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Just from the last few days of internet browsing:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/mar/20/nathan-born-premature-life-death?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/01/pregnancy-20-week-abortion-ban-mississippi

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-true-picture-of-the-women-who-face-late-term-abortion/2012/07/27/gJQAxSCjEX_story.html

Then of course there is me who has three but wishes I had fewer, and had them when I was in the right mind to accept and be able to care for them all and also do what was best for me at the time.

So, the timing wasn't ideal. Hardly a justification for abortion is it? If you believe that abortion should be available to people in place of contraception (or cop on), then I think you're in the minority and not even the statisticians in the Irish Times would be able to design a poll to push that argument.

It's peculiar that Pro-lifers are painted as the extremists and Pro-choicers as the moderates.

Who here is more representative of society, me or you? The majority of people in Ireland do not believe in abortion for lifestyle reasons.

Richard Bingham

lazygal wrote: »

I doubt every single woman sees every single pregnancy as welcome. I have two children. I would not see every pregnancy as something to treasure. And I don't need to be told what's character building and that I need to struggle. I don't subscribe to the Mother Teresa school of suffering.

Struggle is a part of life. Changing you religion, having no religion or not subscribing to the Mother Teresa school of suffering (whatever that is) won't save you from that.

Richard Bingham

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Every women who has thrown the rope up because she found out she was pregnant to her abuser, her rapist, her married lover, some guy who didn't want her, wanted to finish out her education or just wanted to get on with a family when she was ready and able to have one should have just continued with the pregnancy cos no woman ever regrets having children.

Sure it's bred into them, everyone knows nothing validates you like having more kids.

I won't use your terminology as I think its disgusting but can I ask you do you campaign as much for all the men who have ended their lives. There are far more of them, no matter what angle you look at it from. In fact, the methods used by men and women differ in that men invariably use far more violent (and effective) methods (such as the method you refer to) to end their lives and the failure rate among women is huge when compared to the failure rate among me.

Why no action on this problem but so much action on female suicide which is comparably rare (but admittedly not non existent) among pregnant women. In the relatively small number of instances where it has occurred, we don't even know if it was due to the pregnancy or some other event.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Every teenaged mother who has been rejected by her family as a whore and forced to fend for herself from her teenage years has something that she will treasure for always, so to say that she regrets the choices she ever made in life is rubbish talk.

I'm glad you brought this up. I know women that it has happened to. If they had succumbed to the will of their families they would not be the ones making a choice to have an abortion. Of course you don't believe in choice. You believe in abortion because it's easier, not always for the women involved, but it's easier for the hypocrite family who don't want the neighbours talking about their daughter being a single mother, easier for the abusive husband who doesn't want the hassle and expense of more kids, easier for the pimp who is facing losing an income stream. The trouble is that in all of these cases the woman isn't making a choice, she is being railroaded into doing something which is totally unnatural, but it ties a nice neat little bow on it for society, and those who don't want to take responsibility for their actions, and fnck the woman involved, she can just live with it. How many women would have an abortion if they weren't under duress to do so?

The Right to Choice. Excellent.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No woman has ever thrown the rope up because she was so horrified at the thoughts of having a baby. Women have never bled to death from puncturing their own wombs trying to get rid of a pregnancy. Nothing like this has ever happened in the whole history of ever because aww da babbies.

I'm sure that women have committed suicide because of the ramifications of being pregnant but I don't think that is was horror at the thoughts of actually having a baby. Let's be honest about it, it's not horror at the thought of having a baby, its horror at the effect it might have, like being disowned by her family etc as referred to in your post above.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Every mother who has watched her baby die an agonising death due to prenatally diagnosed birth defects like anacephaly, or simply being born too soon and not being viable - sure they lived a few days or hours in agony and/or gasping for life, and aww you can treasure that for always. How adorbale was their every gasp and bleat. No one would ever possibly regret letting a child live for a short painful existence because... erm, why, exactly? I forget. Oh yeah, da babbies.

Every woman ever loves all da babbies and loves them so much they even wants them to suffer to every second of possibly painful, or unwanted or unloved existence because ... erm, why exactly?

Nobody wants anyone to die in agony but it is unfortunately part of life. Do you want to kill cancer patients, the elderly, car crash victims, burn victims? Where does it end? Given that the medical profession has such a chequered record of actually predicting who is as they put it, "incompatible with life", is it not a dangerous road to go down?

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Oh yeah, because YOU'RE the guy who never responds to requests for clarification because you are WAY TOO BUSY to follow the discussion you have involved yourself in, apart from popping in to laugh at other people for discussing the issue at hand. You have plenty of time and energy to scoff at and mock other people but absolutley none to review your own posts, let alone read anyone elses.

Too busy to go matching alaimacerc's mis-quotes to what I actually said. There's a quote button - if he doesn't want to use it there is a reason for that.

Show me where I laughed at anyone?

I read all posts but admittedly if someone doesn't know how to use punctuation or form a sentence I don't spend time trying to decipher it.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

All of your recent posts are just scoffing at other posters trying to engage you in serious debate whilst contributing nothing. I'm sure the likes of YD are high fiving you but you are coming across as having nothing to say.

Show me where I scoff at anyone?

Linking me to Youth Defence is just a strategy. I have absolutely no links to them apart from the possibility that they may have been involved (peripherally) in some rally's I have attended. It would be just as valid for me to link you to Marie Stopes.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Are you actually just trying to score internet points? Because you're coming across as a sanctimonius misogynist and believe me, that is not going to get you any support.

sanctimonius - pretending to be morally better than other people
misogynist - one who hates women

That's a bit rich isn't it. What about all the women who are aborted. What about female pro-lifers - are they all misogynists?

Pro-choicers aren't really pro choice, they are pro 'suit yourself and fnck everyone else'.

Obliq

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Struggle is a part of life. Changing you religion, having no religion or not subscribing to the Mother Teresa school of suffering (whatever that is) won't save you from that.

Jesus......Literally.

Do you think you have such a good grasp on the meaning of life that you can dictate the level of struggle people other than you should have to endure? If you could save yourself from struggle, don't try telling me you wouldn't, unless the solution goes against your personal beliefs - your's, not mine.

If struggle is such a worthy part of life, we should all stop seeking/receiving health care immediately, eh? What a load of b****x.

Richard Bingham

swampgas wrote: »

I don't disagree that struggles can be character forming, but such struggles should be willingly entered, not forced upon us by others. Perhaps struggling to to get safe, legal abortion in Ireland is more character forming than struggling to keep Ireland's treatment of women in the dark ages?

We have a different idea of the kind of struggles which build character. I wasn't referring to the struggle to get a degree, or the struggle to run the fastest mile; I was referring to more serious struggles such as relationship breakdown, alcohol or drug dependence, bereavement, caring for a sick person, facing a crisis pregnancy etc.

I don't believe that anyone would enter freely into one of these struggles, in fact given their nature I'm pretty sure its not even possible to enter freely into any of them, but they happen and there is no quick fix.

Obliq

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I don't believe that anyone would enter freely into one of these struggles, in fact given their nature I'm pretty sure its not even possible to enter freely into any of them, but they happen and there is no quick fix.

My point exactly. Abortion is a fix for an unwanted pregnancy. Dental care is a fix for bad teeth.

Tell me now why you think an acceptable level of struggle is one where pregnant women are so utterly desperate to terminate a pregnancy that they would try to operate on themselves, or have it done in appallingly unsafe circumstances?

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

That's more than a little bit silly. If nobody in the pro-life movement cares about the lives they want to protect, what exactly do you think they're doing?

Why aren't they trying to stop Irish women going abroad for abortions then? As Fintan O'Toole pointed out recently, if you genuinely believed that thousands of Irish babies were being abducted to another country to be murdered every year, that would be far and away the most important issue confronting the country.

eviltwin

Richard Bingham wrote: »

We have a different idea of the kind of struggles which build character. I wasn't referring to the struggle to get a degree, or the struggle to run the fastest mile; I was referring to more serious struggles such as relationship breakdown, alcohol or drug dependence, bereavement, caring for a sick person, facing a crisis pregnancy etc.

I don't believe that anyone would enter freely into one of these struggles, in fact given their nature I'm pretty sure its not even possible to enter freely into any of them, but they happen and there is no quick fix.

Adversity doesn't always build character, in fact it can be hugely damaging to the person involved and I speak from personal experience on that. Life is not a movie where what doesn't kill you makes you stronger and its incredibly patronising to women in complete despair over an unwanted pregnancy when you know nothing of the lives and won't be forced to live with the consequences.

swampgas

Richard Bingham wrote: »

We have a different idea of the kind of struggles which build character. I wasn't referring to the struggle to get a degree, or the struggle to run the fastest mile; I was referring to more serious struggles such as relationship breakdown, alcohol or drug dependence, bereavement, caring for a sick person, facing a crisis pregnancy etc.

I don't believe that anyone would enter freely into one of these struggles, in fact given their nature I'm pretty sure its not even possible to enter freely into any of them, but they happen and there is no quick fix.

There is a "quick fix" for an unwanted pregnancy though, and it is abortion.

It is true that many struggles are not chosen. For example an illness such as cancer is not something someone chooses to struggle with, although we do give adults the choice of whether they wish to have treatment or not. Some will (for example) choose to avoid chemotherapy and will trade shortness of life for quality of life.

However in the case of abortion, we are talking about a well established medical procedure which is normal in many parts of the world, which the Irish state has decided to deny it's citizens. That's imposing unnecessary suffering on women who wish to have abortions.

How about this: how about we let adult women decide for themselves which medical treatments they should or shouldn't have, seeing as they are the ones with the medical condition?

Lingua Franca

Richard Bingham wrote: »

So, the timing wasn't ideal. Hardly a justification for abortion is it? If you believe that abortion should be available to people in place of contraception (or cop on), then I think you're in the minority and not even the statisticians in the Irish Times would be able to design a poll to push that argument.

In place of contraception? So you were proved wrong and you need to invent and project opinions to try to make a point. Interesting. Had you not been too terrifically busy to pay attention you'd have noticed the women here, including myself, were involved in a conversation a few pages back extolling the virtues of contraception.

No one has ever suggested abortion should be used in place of contraception. That's a ridiculous accusation that we only ever hear from the pro life movement.

It's peculiar that Pro-lifers are painted as the extremists and Pro-choicers as the moderates.

I wonder why? (hint: see above)

Who here is more representative of society, me or you?

I'd say both of us are representative of society. I'm not arrogant enough to claim otherwise.

The majority of people in Ireland do not believe in abortion for lifestyle reasons.

That's a very definite statement. Source?

swampgas

Just to pick out one particular point:

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Nobody wants anyone to die in agony but it is unfortunately part of life.

Are you really saying that people should be allowed to die in agony? Have you never heard of pain killers??? Personally I think inflicting unnecesary pain on a sentient creature is the closest definition I can give for the word "evil". I would much rather an overdose of morphine to being allowed to suffer extreme pain for a few extra hours. I don't care what you might prefer, in this case I seriously think the wishes of the person suffering should take precedence.

Do you want to kill cancer patients, the elderly, car crash victims, burn victims? Where does it end? Given that the medical profession has such a chequered record of actually predicting who is as they put it, "incompatible with life", is it not a dangerous road to go down?

No it's not - it's part of looking reality square in the face and making difficult decisions to the best of our ability when there are difficult decisions to be made.

I don't want to kill anyone, nor do you, but if a cancer patient wants to choose a peaceful exit for themselves, why should we refuse?

Seriously, your attitude sounds like the old "offer it up for your sins" nonsense that used to be thrown at people by the religious. I would much rather humane treatment thanks very much.

* Edit * While this is probably dragging the thread off-topic towards euthenasia, I suspect that the willingness to force pain/suffering/misery onto other people for so-called "moral" reasons is part of the anti-abortion mindset.

Lingua Franca

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I won't use your terminology as I think its disgusting but can I ask you do you campaign as much for all the men who have ended their lives.

Yes. More, in fact.

Why no action on this problem but so much action on female suicide which is comparably rare (but admittedly not non existent) among pregnant women. In the relatively small number of instances where it has occurred, we don't even know if it was due to the pregnancy or some other event.

Well we've now established that I do indeed try to take action. Relatively small number of instances? Can you show us your figures, please?

Of course you don't believe in choice. You believe in abortion because it's easier,

Evidence or retract.

How many women would have an abortion if they weren't under duress to do so?

About 12 per thousand.

Nobody wants anyone to die in agony but it is unfortunately part of life. Do you want to kill cancer patients, the elderly, car crash victims, burn victims? Where does it end? Given that the medical profession has such a chequered record of actually predicting who is as they put it, "incompatible with life", is it not a dangerous road to go down?

I'd like voluntary euthanasia to be safe, legal and rare.

Show me where I scoff at anyone?

I'd love to but I'm just far, far too incredibly busy to go pointing out your own posts to you.

sanctimonius - pretending to be morally better than other people
misogynist - one who hates women

That's a bit rich isn't it. What about all the women who are aborted. What about female pro-lifers - are they all misogynists?

Some of them are. Una Bean Mhic Mathuna was a notorious misogynist, as I detailed here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82811029&postcount=80 That nasty piece of work who lived in a post office, campaigned for a family of sexually abused and neglected children to stay with their alcoholic abusive parents, and died recently (her name escapes me) is another one.

Pro-choicers aren't really pro choice, they are pro 'suit yourself and fnck everyone else'.

Execllent standard of debate you're displaying here. If we all followed your example this forum would look like a youtube comments section.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Why not just ask me? Or are we playing to the gallery?

Firstly, I don't believe I have the right to participate in the O/Ps personal decision. I know I have a right to vote on constitutional amendments; and significant changes to abortion legislation require constitutional amendments. This is not the O/Ps personal decision , because the state in which we reside has not granted that decision to the O/P. I can't dictate the O/Ps rights because I can only participate in the decision, like the op, I cannot take that decision on my own.

I think (I can't really tell) your final question is if I might change my mind and want to do something different. I might. It's a relatively free country, we're all allowed to change our opinions from time to time. If I want to enshrine my choice in the constitution though, I'm going to need a majority of the (voting) country to agree with my choice.

If my answer remains too galling for you, perhaps your biscuit will quiet your digestion.

My point really was that the state (via the constitution) is denying citizens the right to make a personal decision and choice on a private matter that does NOT affect the vast majority of the other citizens. It is using the constitution, and referendum decisions (results of personal decision of the citizens) to say abortions cannot be performed here freely as a legal right. Sure the majority of the citizens said "NO" but I'm not sure that they meant what's good enough for me is good enough for you. That's an anomaly, and quoted by the Govt as the dictat of the people.

It's taken our courts to force change on our State, our Govt, and our politicians about citizens rights. You probably don't need reminding that our State, our Govt and our politicians colluded in forcing a pregnant child back from abroad for the purpose of stopping her having an abortion there, all on the basis of the constitution and it;s contents. They even went to court to get an order to deny citizens the right to travel abroad, all on the constitution. It took our Courts to step in and say "whist, enough of this, you don't have the right to deny citizens the right to travel".

My second point was that referendums allow us to change the constitution, by way of our changed minds on some topics, and that perversely, it could come about that at some time, the citizenry could decide that it was necessary to limit the numbers of the citizenry by way of abortion (all for the good of the citizens) and that some pregnant citizens could be denied the right to a full-term birth, all due to a referendum decision change to the constitution, strange and Orwellian as it might seem.

Absolam

Obliq wrote: »

Have you really thought so little about it yourself? I'm surprised at you.

What's so surprising? Why would I keep track of where pro-life organistions campaign, or why they do it? I'm not a member of one, and I don't picket anyone, so it's not that surprising.

Obliq wrote: »

What is your take on IVF then? Since you're so keen on human embryos being special enough little individuals to all live, if live they can?

Ah now, that's a bit cheeky. You know I never said any such thing.

Obliq wrote: »

How is the decision taken to do away with the unwanted (but viable for implantation) embryos any better than the decision a woman takes to abort?

I don't know; I have no knowledge whatsover of the regulation around ivf. From what eviltwin said, I get the impression that couples can walk into an ivf clinic and walk out with a box of unwanted foetuses. I do have a second hand familiarity with the regulation surrounding stem cell and embryonic research which is sufficiently strict to make me think that's unlikely, so I suspect the process is a little more controlled. Is an unimplanted embryo the same as an implanted one? I'd suggest that's a line to be considered. An unimplanted embryro (blastocyst/cell clump/baby, whatever) may never implant, so is less viable than an implanted one. It's no less human, but surely it has less 'life' value. I'd be inclined to lean towards the idea that a womans decision to abort at that point in the development process would not be as troublesome as say, twelve weeks along, but as I've said before, I have yet to find a satisfactory point for myself where beforehand abortion is fine, and afterwards abortion is not.

Obliq wrote: »

Tell us, please. I can't wait for the "because society says so" fall back position.

Because society says what so?

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Why aren't they trying to stop Irish women going abroad for abortions then? As Fintan O'Toole pointed out recently, if you genuinely believed that thousands of Irish babies were being abducted to another country to be murdered every year, that would be far and away the most important issue confronting the country.

I think you'll find that people did try to stop other people going abroad to have abortions is a topic that's discussed on this thread?
And whilst holding rallys, printing pamphlets and lobbying TDs are all perfectly legal ways of expressing your opinion, detaining people against their will is actually illegal, so my guess is abducting all women of child bearing age from airports and ferries is probably not considered a viable strategy by most pro-life organisations. That's a guess, not a personal insight into how these organisations work.

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

I think you'll find that people did try to stop other people going abroad to have abortions is a topic that's discussed on this thread?
And whilst holding rallys, printing pamphlets and lobbying TDs are all perfectly legal ways of expressing your opinion, detaining people against their will is actually illegal, so my guess is abducting all women of child bearing age from airports and ferries is probably not considered a viable strategy by most pro-life organisations. That's a guess, not a personal insight into how these organisations work.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, the 'abducting' is what the pregant woman is doing to her own 'unborn child', according to the pro-life worldview. If people really wanted to disrupt the 'abortion trail' to the UK, they would be lobbying to change the law to prosecute women who have abortions abroad, in the way some countries prosecute child sex tourists.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

My point really was that the state (via the constitution) is denying citizens the right to make a personal decision and choice on a private matter that does NOT affect the vast majority of the other citizens.

And my point was the State (via the constitution) never offered citizens that right in the first place. It (we) could; it would take a referendum to do it.

aloyisious wrote: »

It is using the constitution, and referendum decisions (results of personal decision of the citizens) to say abortions cannot be performed here freely as a legal right. Sure the majority of the citizens said "NO" but I'm not sure that they meant what's good enough for me is good enough for you. That's an anomaly, and quoted by the Govt as the dictat of the people.

You may not be sure that people meant what they said when the amendments were framed, but we can be certain that what was said was what was passed by the people. I have no objection to a referendum tomorrow on making abortion available at will, I just don't think it would pass. I think a more considered debate might result in better legislation being put to the people and passing; the polar posturing we see on this thread and others I don't believe will lead to that happening.

aloyisious wrote: »

It's taken our courts to force change on our State, our Govt, and our politicians about citizens rights. You probably don't need reminding that our State, our Govt and our politicians colluded in forcing a pregnant child back from abroad for the purpose of stopping her having an abortion there, all on the basis of the constitution and it;s contents. They even went to court to get an order to deny citizens the right to travel abroad, all on the constitution. It took our Courts to step in and say "whist, enough of this, you don't have the right to deny citizens the right to travel".

And that's exactly why we have courts; so that when it comes to interpreting how our laws should be upheld it can be done impartially and appropriately. In the case you point out the government wasn't attempting to undermine the constitution or anyones rights; it acted in a manner which it thought was consistent with its obligations under law, and was subsequently corrected by the courts.

aloyisious wrote: »

My second point was that referendums allow us to change the constitution, by way of our changed minds on some topics, and that perversely, it could come about that at some time, the citizenry could decide that it was necessary to limit the numbers of the citizenry by way of abortion (all for the good of the citizens) and that some pregnant citizens could be denied the right to a full-term birth, all due to a referendum decision change to the constitution, strange and Orwellian as it might seem.

Yes, the nature of democracy is that the majority get their way. If the majority ever decide to limit the population by way of abortion, that could happen. I suspect there might be some objection from the ECHR, but off the top of my head I don't know if they could force a change in the law. And it's entirely another debate whether they should be able to. Regardless, what's so strange and Orwellian about people deciding how their country should be run?

lazygal

IVF services are not state regulated in Ireland. There's self regulation of clinics and medical services but the embryos/unborn in the clinics are in a legal vaccum. Of course the state has received recommendations that it regulates this field of medicine but hasn't.


http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/women_s_health/fertility_treatment.html

eviltwin

Absolam wrote: »

I don't know; I have no knowledge whatsover of the regulation around ivf. From what eviltwin said, I get the impression that couples can walk into an ivf clinic and walk out with a box of unwanted foetuses. I do have a second hand familiarity with the regulation surrounding stem cell and embryonic research which is sufficiently strict to make me think that's unlikely, so I suspect the process is a little more controlled. Is an unimplanted embryo the same as an implanted one? I'd suggest that's a line to be considered. An unimplanted embryro (blastocyst/cell clump/baby, whatever) may never implant, so is less viable than an implanted one. It's no less human, but surely it has less 'life' value. I'd be inclined to lean towards the idea that a womans decision to abort at that point in the development process would not be as troublesome as say, twelve weeks along, but as I've said before, I have yet to find a satisfactory point for myself where beforehand abortion is fine, and afterwards abortion is not.

AFAIK clinics can't dispose of embryos but will give them to the couple to do what they will with them and that is legal and does happen. There is the option to store the embryos long term but its expensive and it doesn't make sense for a couple to hang onto them if they have completed their family.

I can see your point about the lesser value of life but isn't the entire pro life ethos that no life is of greater or lesser value than any other? There may not be any hope of those embryos resulting in a pregnancy but there is a chance, more of a chance of life than those babies with fatal abnormalities but they don't have the same protection.

It makes no sense that people march and protest about something that isn't even legal here and yet stay very quiet about something that is.

Bellatori

lazygal wrote: »

IVF services are not state regulated in Ireland. There's self regulation of clinics and medical services but the embryos/unborn in the clinics are in a legal vaccum. Of course the state has received recommendations that it regulates this field of medicine but hasn't....

I suspect for very good reasons. If they were to legislate they would have to define the status of the IVF cells. For reasons that were posted earlier they would be facing a very difficult situation. How to distinguish between those implanted and those in the freezer.? The overlap with abortion then becomes difficult to avoid.

Obliq

Bellatori wrote: »

I suspect for very good reasons. If they were to legislate they would have to define the status of the IVF cells. For reasons that were posted earlier they would be facing a very difficult situation. How to distinguish between those implanted and those in the freezer.? The overlap with abortion then becomes difficult to avoid.

Totally. The RCC would also be at a loss to explain to people how it is now targeting families who want to get pregnant! Can't see it being a runner, but I'd love to see the regulations being tackled, just for this reason - can you imagine the backlash?!

aloyisious

@Absolom: do you mean by this, your quote; And my point was the State (via the constitution) never offered citizens that right in the first place. It (we) could; it would take a referendum to do it. unquote: it is your opinion that, by dint of it not been stated in the constitution, citizens DO NOT have any right to make a personal decision and choice on a matter that does NOT affect the vast majority of the other citizens..... or were you making reference to a citizen's personal decision to have a particular medical procedure?

Originally Posted by aloyisious..... My point really was that the state (via the constitution) is denying citizens the right to make a personal decision and choice on a private matter that does NOT affect the vast majority of the other citizens.

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

I can see your point about the lesser value of life but isn't the entire pro life ethos that no life is of greater or lesser value than any other? There may not be any hope of those embryos resulting in a pregnancy but there is a chance, more of a chance of life than those babies with fatal abnormalities but they don't have the same protection.

I suspect that depends on which pro life person you ask? I assume there is as much variation of opinion in the pro life camp as there is in the pro choice camp as to what value ought to be placed on a life.

eviltwin wrote: »

It makes no sense that people march and protest about something that isn't even legal here and yet stay very quiet about something that is.

Why? The abortion thread on A&A is over 300 pages, yet the IVF thread Kiwi in IE started died after 2 pages. It would seem that abortion is just a subject that engages more people, on both sides...

Obliq

Absolam wrote: »

Why? The abortion thread on A&A is over 300 pages, yet the IVF thread Kiwi in IE started died after 2 pages. It would seem that abortion is just a subject that engages more people, on both sides...

It's been brought up in this thread any number of times, and I remember bringing it up myself in t'other forum. I doubt it's that the subject is less engaging, more that pro-lifers are unwilling to engage with it. I suspect it's for the reasons I and Bellatori outlined above.

Absolam

But it seems there's not a lot of pro-choicers engaging with it either?
I've no doubt it's a difficult area to legislate, particularly if you're not sure how voters might swing on it.
I don't think any pro choice person sees a victory for their cause in the fact that ivf embryos can be destroyed without any punitive action, but on the other hand perhaps it's difficult for pro choice advocates to empathise with an embryo created in a tube.
So perhaps:
a) it's a tough field to legislate.
b) there's potentially not much political upside to proposing legislation, but huge potential downside.
c) there's no one in the pro choice area who believes driving an anti ivf agenda is likely to garner much support from the general public.