Abortion Discussion

Turtwig

Jesus Christ!:eek:

if that's true.

alaimacerc

RB's earlier comment to the effect of "sure, it'll be no trouble at all to be preggers for a couple more weeks" immediately made me think of such circumstances (though I've no ideas as to the circumstances of the first case). The state denies any access to early abortion, even in cases of unlawful and nonconsensual impregnation, contrary to what the UN says are the state's treaty obligations. (I imagine the European courts are likely to have not entirely dissimilar thoughts, and with more direct consequences than a couple of embarrassing press conferences for the new MoJ.) Thus any thought of treatment is deferred until the pregnant woman is borderline suicidal, and the anti-abortion crowd are scandalised at any mooted possibility of "late-term" abortion of "fully formed" "children".

Some catch, that Catch-22.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

that's sexism right there

You poor thing. No-one to defend you from rampant disregarding of the long-trampled opinions of men. But wait!

Right now, the fact that a majority of elected representatives aren't looking to bring a referendum to the people would indicate they have no confidence their electorate want it, and might vote them out if they do it.

It's pretty clear that the median point of public opinion is well to the "liberal" side of where the Dáil (and the constitution) is. It's pretty clear there's a very loud, absolutist fringe of conservatives that have a disproportionately chilling effect on public debate. Until the median point moves further still, or until this "skew" in the political distribution changes (i.e., the "pro-abortion extremists" becoming half -- nay, quarter -- as monomaniac in their electoral priorities and fringe in their views as the theocrats), I'm not holding my breath for the law to change (further) appreciably.

aloyisious

@Absolam.... The parties decide who goes forward for election, not the voters. Sure, people can go forward for election as independents, but those who do succeed in getting elected are in a minority. The end result is a male dominated Oireachtas. I suspect that abortion is an election-issue amongst voters and it, along with other matters, is on their minds. Your comment "Right now, the fact that a majority of elected representatives aren't looking to bring a referendum to the people would indicate they have no confidence their electorate want it, and might vote them out if they do it" seem's to recognize that as a fact. The piece of legislation, the "Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013" bill, passed by the Oireachtas merely gave effect to a judgement of the Supreme Court made in 1992. It was NOT a stand-alone bill thought through by politicians off their own bat and voted-on by them so they were NOT at risk from electorate rage.

By D2'rs, I'm referring specifically to those elected persons warming the seats in Leinster House, and also the three medical profession bodies located in the D2 area, Surgeons, Physicians and Doctors. They all have a specific role to play in abortion. The notion that the three medical professions had no input into, nor were asked for their thoughts on the abortion guidelines or the "Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013" is not credible.

TD's and Senators were not simply just voted into office for the benefit of their local voters, they were also seen as prospective legislators before being elected.

The definition of necessary (IMO) was not made wide enough as it would have been of benefit to pregnant women giving them freedom of choice. It was made narrow to deliberately do what it has done, prevent women having the freedom of choice.

I've had a look back at my posts and can't see where I used the sentence "If you're not a woman you can't understand". We both know that men can't get pregnant and I give you enough credibility to know that is not what I meant when I wrote "Re male pregnancy, I was pointing out that men have the comfort of not having to consider the position of pregnant women from a practical point of view, and that that actuality allows them to adapt a blinkered view of pregnancy and abortion". Please do me the courtesy of not implying I made a "sexist statement" and drop that red-herring.

I can freely without doubt point to each and every one of the TD's and Senators who voted on the "Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013" bill whilst it made it's way through both houses and can say credibly that each of those representatives did not fulfil the wishes of ALL of their own constituents when they voted. You and I know that to be a fact as we are, apparently, on opposing sides of this debate and know each constituency in the country has both pro and anti abortion constituents.

But enough of me writing about TD's and Senators and members of the Medical professions and what I see as an inherent bias-failure on the part pf the males there-in to have a look at the other side of the coin, specifically that of Mná na hÉireann. I won't be replying to any posts you post about this post of mine.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

You poor thing. No-one to defend you from rampant disregarding of the long-trampled opinions of men. But wait!

I think you may have missed the rest of the sentence. But well done for cherry picking a couple of words you thought you had a retort for.

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's pretty clear that the median point of public opinion is well to the "liberal" side of where the Dáil (and the constitution) is.

Is it? It's pretty clear that median opinion isn't making it's voice heard when it comes to electing it's representatives then. Why do you think these liberals want something, but aren't voting for it?

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's pretty clear there's a very loud, absolutist fringe of conservatives that have a disproportionately chilling effect on public debate.

It's true that it appears the extremists on both sides of the debate are the ones making their voices heard. That doesn't stop anyone else with an opinion questioning a campaigning politician and voting accordingly.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Until the median point moves further still, or until this "skew" in the political distribution changes (i.e., the "pro-abortion extremists" becoming half -- nay, quarter -- as monomaniac in their electoral priorities and fringe in their views as the theocrats), I'm not holding my breath for the law to change (further) appreciably.

That's simply polemic nonsense. Those nasty anti-abortionists are so much more extreme and vocal than the nasty pro-abortionists? Sorry, if you're holding your breath for the law to change you're behaving like a three year old. Try using your breath to persuade (or be) a politician to change it; at least you'll be doing something, and you'll find out how many people agree with you.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Really? You honestly imagine that if someone was silly enough to pass a law tomorrow saying any man who is pregnant must remain pregnant, even though he doesn't want to be, unless his life is threatened, then someone else would be silly enough to pass a law saying no one has to be a vessel?

Clearly removing the explicit genderedness of the present law would merely result in a "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." sort of situation. When men equally risk being and remaining pregnant against their will under threat of legal sanction, then we can say this is a gender-neutral issue.

(Whether this envisages utopian Star Trek's "foetal transporter" or altogether darker developments in crimino-medical technology is a secondary matter.)

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

But well done for cherry picking a couple of words you thought you had a retort for.

I selected the few parts I felt there was any purpose in responding to. I hardly think I missed any crucial context for the essential point. Going exhaustively point-by-point with you has proved rampantly unpopular with third parties in the past. But despite your own zeal for posts of open-ended length, you've not proved entirely above some fairly critical instances of picking-and-choosing.

Those nasty anti-abortionists are so much more extreme and vocal than the nasty pro-abortionists?

Yes. Quite self-evidently.

Sorry, if you're holding your breath for the law to change you're behaving like a three year old.

I know you're such a stickler for not paraphrasing people, much less misrepresenting their clear intent, so I can only assume that you must have simply, in your haste, completely overlooked the word "not".

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

The parties decide who goes forward for election, not the voters. Sure, people can go forward for election as independents, but those who do succeed in getting elected are in a minority. The end result is a male dominated Oireachtas.

Is it? How many constituencies did not have a female candidate in the last election?

aloyisious wrote: »

I suspect that abortion is an election-issue amongst voters and it, along with other matters, is on their minds. Your comment "Right now, the fact that a majority of elected representatives aren't looking to bring a referendum to the people would indicate they have no confidence their electorate want it, and might vote them out if they do it" seem's to recognize that as a fact.

If so, it indicates that they know that the electorate don't want a referendum because the electorate don't want the current legislation to change, which would be in direct opposition to alaimacercs' idea of where public opinion currently is.

aloyisious wrote: »

The piece of legislation, the "Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013" bill, passed by the Oireachtas merely gave effect to a judgement of the Supreme Court made in 1992. It was NOT a stand-alone bill thought through by politicians off their own bat and voted-on by them so they were NOT at risk from electorate rage.

So what's your point? They wouldn't have done it if it was a a stand-alone bill thought through by politicians off their own bat and voted-on by them so they WERE at risk from electorate rage? If so, that means that the electorate don't even want that minimal level of abortion to be available.

aloyisious wrote: »

By D2'rs, I'm referring specifically to those elected persons warming the seats in Leinster House, and also the three medical profession bodies located in the D2 area, Surgeons, Physicians and Doctors.

So, the downright lying, prevaricative, evasive damanable hypocrites are the people we choose to represent us, and the people who have professional medical qualifications? That's a pretty big tar brush there.

aloyisious wrote: »

They all have a specific role to play in abortion. The notion that the three medical professions had no input into, nor were asked for their thoughts on the abortion guidelines or the "Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013" is not credible.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should introduce medical legislation without considering the opinions of people who are qualified to discuss the, well, medical aspects of it?

aloyisious wrote: »

TD's and Senators were not simply just voted into office for the benefit of their local voters, they were also seen as prospective legislators before being elected.

Indeed they were; by their local voters, not to put too fine a point on it.

aloyisious wrote: »

The definition of necessary (IMO) was not made wide enough as it would have been of benefit to pregnant women giving them freedom of choice. It was made narrow to deliberately do what it has done, prevent women having the freedom of choice.

Just a thought, but I suspect the purpose of the legislation was not to give pregnant women freedom of choice, the purpose was to make it legal to perform an abortion in specific circumstances. The definition of necessary was made narrow enough to cover the purpose and nothing else.
I think some people hoped this would be a 'loophole' piece of legislation that would provide abortion as a choice via a legal nicety, and now that is not proving true are somewhat disgruntled.

aloyisious wrote: »

I've had a look back at my posts and can't see where I used the sentence "If you're not a woman you can't understand". We both know that men can't get pregnant and I give you enough credibility to know that is not what I meant when I wrote "Re male pregnancy, I was pointing out that men have the comfort of not having to consider the position of pregnant women from a practical point of view, and that that actuality allows them to adapt a blinkered view of pregnancy and abortion". Please do me the courtesy of not implying I made a "sexist statement" and drop that red-herring.

It wasn't my red herring, it was Lazygals when she said "Men have no such legal obligation when it comes to pregnancy.". I said it was sexist to suggest "that it is majorly a male decision NOT to go to law to provide the abortion service requested by women for women" when you know it's not majorly males making that decision, it is the entire electorate, and it is not a service requested just by women for women, but by both men and women for women.

aloyisious wrote: »

I can freely without doubt point to each and every one of the TD's and Senators who voted on the "Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013" bill whilst it made it's way through both houses and can say credibly that each of those representatives did not fulfil the wishes of ALL of their own constituents when they voted.

I'm sure that's the case whether they voted yes or no. But the real question is did they represent the wishes of the majority of their constituents. If they did, then they did the right thing. If they didn't, then it's up to their constituents to remove them.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

I selected the few parts I felt there was any purpose in responding to. I hardly think I missed any crucial context for the essential point.

Let me provide the context for you then, it's only the entire sentence that contained the four words:
"If enough women want to request a service for women (and that's sexism right there; there are men as I said who support abortion, and women who don't) they can elect representatives who will promote their point of view."
So the context was it's sexist to assert only women are requesting a service for women when men are also requesting that service. As you may imagine, I did not seek sympathy for my plight as a discriminated against male, since I'm not one of those requesting the service. Hope that helps.

alaimacerc wrote: »

But despite your own zeal for posts of open-ended length, you've not proved entirely above some fairly critical instances of picking-and-choosing.

I'm perfectly happy to answer for any misrepresentation you may feel I've engaged in?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes. Quite self-evidently.

It's a bit of a concern when people claim things are self-evident. Like the right to life, gods will, a womans freedom to choose, etc etc. However, the evidence of this thread alone would suggest the opponents of abortion are more than capable of giving at least as good as they get.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I know you're such a stickler for not paraphrasing people, much less misrepresenting their clear intent, so I can only assume that you must have simply, in your haste, completely overlooked the word "not".

You're dead right, I did. Damn.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Let me provide the context for you then, it's only the entire sentence that contained the four words:
"If enough women want to request a service for women (and that's sexism right there; there are men as I said who support abortion, and women who don't) they can elect representatives who will promote their point of view."
So the context was it's sexist to assert only women are requesting a service for women when men are also requesting that service. As you may imagine, I did not seek sympathy for my plight as a discriminated against male, since I'm not one of those requesting the service. Hope that helps.

And here's the broader context you may be missing: on this topic, of all topics, it's to invite incredulity to be looking for, much less confidently diagnosing on such slim bases as that, instances of female-on-male sexism. Doubly especially as you're essentially using it to try to counter (or "balance") claims of the "traditional" sort of sexism, which few would seriously doubt deeply embed the whole area.

It's a bit of a concern when people claim things are self-evident. Like the right to life, gods will, a womans freedom to choose, etc etc. However, the evidence of this thread alone would suggest the opponents of abortion are more than capable of giving at least as good as they get.

What would be your best estimate of broad public opinion on provision in cases of serious health risk to the woman, fatal foetal abnormality, rape, and incest? What would your best estimate of legislative (expressly including constitutional change, given how that's initiated) intent in each of those areas of the present Dáil? How would you better explain this discrepancy than the account I've given?

I realize you consider yourself a "moderate" in such areas, and thus doubtless in some choice position to diagnose either wing of the debate as "equally shrill". But some basic psephology is a more objective test, I think. Or indeed, the likes of CLN and their ever-so-subtle "don't vote for these nasty pro-abortion people" pronouncements.

You're dead right, I did. Damn.

Oh. Much as I enjoy being right, I was actually suggesting that tongue-in-cheek. Ah well, I suppose they all count!

Nodin

Turtwig wrote: »

Jesus Christ!:eek:

if that's true.

Indeed. The Indo has a rather different narrative, with the original timeline intact.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/i-am-afraid-ill-be-killed-abortion-case-woman-30513878.html

Far more vague than the Times " According to two sources familiar with the case, there is a suggestion that the young woman may have become pregnant as a result of a rape, although this has not been confirmed. "

Hopefully things will become clearer as the day goes on.

Nodin

Full sunday times article here
https://twitter.com/Cwhyte1928/media

Essentially contains the claim that the woman was raped, and presented at 8 weeks. Her legal team argued that her case had not been dealt with in a "timely manner". Again - if true - dire stuff indeed.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Clearly removing the explicit genderedness of the present law would merely result in a "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." sort of situation.

I wasn't arguing that we should change the current law; that was Lazygal.

alaimacerc wrote: »

When men equally risk being and remaining pregnant against their will under threat of legal sanction, then we can say this is a gender-neutral issue.

Why do we need to say it's a gender-neutral issue? Obviously there are two genders involved in creating a pregnancy, obviously only one gender is required to carry that that pregnancy. I don't believe anyone wants to debate the biology; but it's a society that determines the legislation for that society. We don't derogate legislation on any other issue to a single sex, and the only reason I see people arguing for it on this issue is because they think that by restricting the voting panel they may have a better chance of the result they want.

alaimacerc wrote: »

And here's the broader context you may be missing: on this topic, of all topics, it's to invite incredulity to be looking for, much less confidently diagnosing on such slim bases as that, instances of female-on-male sexism.

So, it's not sexist to suggest only women are requesting this service for women? Basing the claim definitively on the sex of the people involved is not sexist (particularly when the claim is manifestly untrue)?

alaimacerc wrote: »

What would be your best estimate of broad public opinion on provision in cases of serious health risk to the woman, fatal foetal abnormality, rape, and incest?

If the entirety of public opinion were estimated to be wholly in favour of the provision of abortion in cases of serious health risk to the woman, fatal foetal abnormality, rape, and incest, how would that make nasty anti-abortionists more or less extreme and vocal than nasty pro-abortionists?

alaimacerc wrote: »

What would your best estimate of legislative (expressly including constitutional change, given how that's initiated) intent in each of those areas of the present Dáil? How would you better explain this discrepancy than the account I've given?

What discrepancy? The Dail has enacted legislation in accordance with it's constitutional obligations as required by the Supreme Court. It quite rightly hasn't tried to enact legislation that would liberalise abortion provision to the extent that it would be contrary to the constitution. I very much doubt they decided not to create legislation that would be struck down because they perceive the extremists on one side to be more vocal than the extremists on the other.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I realize you consider yourself a "moderate" in such areas, and thus doubtless in some choice position to diagnose either wing of the debate as "equally shrill".

Whilst I don't condone the extremes on either side of the debate, neither have I offered any 'diagnosis' of their shrillness; all I'm saying is going by this thread alone those who are pro abortion are quite capable of being just as extreme and vocal (Despite the fact that I actually said "the opponents of abortion are more than capable of giving at least as good as they get" I meant the proponents. Or both really.)

alaimacerc wrote: »

But some basic psephology is a more objective test, I think.

I should think at least a few politicians make good use of it before they decide where they will stand on the issue.

Cabaal

Richard Bingham wrote: »

A c-section can hardly be described as major surgery. There must be thousands of them every year in Ireland alone.

Thousands also have heart surgery, I guess that's not a major operation either.

There is an inherent risk to the patients life with each and every operation, don't be so dismissive as it shows how uneducated you are

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

Thousands also have heart surgery, I guess that's not a major operation either.

There is an inherent risk to the patients life with each and every operation, don't be so dismissive as it shows how uneducated you are

There is also a risk to future pregnancies when you have a section. It might be routine but it's still abdominal surgery.

Richard Bingham

Cabaal wrote: »

Thousands also have heart surgery, I guess that's not a major operation either.

There is an inherent risk to the patients life with each and every operation, don't be so dismissive as it shows how uneducated you are

Now now Cabaal, attack the post not the poster!

Your argument so is that if there is any risk at all to the mother, she should have the right to abort. Are there not risks in pregnancy itself? If someone reviewed this or indeed any pro-abortion thread they would think pregnancy was extremely dangerous and something to be avoided at all costs, what with all these women dying because they can't procure abortions. Sure didn't Savita die because she was denied an abortion - oh no, actually that's a load of Pro Abortion bullsh1t still being perpertuated by Pro Abortion people and rags like the Irish Times - she died due to errors and omissions by the team treating her. Fact.

Richard Bingham

lazygal wrote: »

There is also a risk to future pregnancies when you have a section. It might be routine but it's still abdominal surgery.

And there isn't a risk from aborting?

I don't think doctors would allow the thousands of abortions which are carried out without any medical need (the too posh to push brigade) if they were considered risky.

And before you attack me for trampling on your right of access to a c-section please note, I don't care how many women have c-sections because they're not doing any harm to anyone. This is not like abortion which kills one person, harms another and is barbaric.

lazygal

Richard Bingham wrote: »

And there isn't a risk from aborting?

I don't think doctors would allow the thousands of abortions which are carried out without any medical need (the too posh to push brigade) if they were considered risky.

And before you attack me for trampling on your right of access to a c-section please note, I don't care how many women have c-sections because they're not doing any harm to anyone. This is not like abortion which kills one person, harms another and is barbaric.

Am I too posh to push? That phrase tells me all I need to know about how you view women like me, who've had c sections and agreed to the risks involved. Why do you think women are too posh to push?

Richard Bingham

alaimacerc wrote: »

RB's earlier comment to the effect of "sure, it'll be no trouble at all to be preggers for a couple more weeks" immediately made me think of such circumstances (though I've no ideas as to the circumstances of the first case). The state denies any access to early abortion, even in cases of unlawful and nonconsensual impregnation, contrary to what the UN says are the state's treaty obligations. (I imagine the European courts are likely to have not entirely dissimilar thoughts, and with more direct consequences than a couple of embarrassing press conferences for the new MoJ.) Thus any thought of treatment is deferred until the pregnant woman is borderline suicidal, and the anti-abortion crowd are scandalised at any mooted possibility of "late-term" abortion of "fully formed" "children".

Some catch, that Catch-22.

Treaty obligations. Which treaty? It can't be any European Treaty as those were only ratified by the Irish people based on a cast iron assurance that ratifying them would not open the door to abortion in Ireland.

From the Fianna Fail website;

http://www.fiannafail.ie/news/entry/idea-that-lisbon-treaty-could-open-door-to-abortion-in-ireland-is-complete-/
Idea that Lisbon Treaty could open door to abortion in Ireland is complete fabrication - Crowley

Posted on 17/07/09 by Brian Crowley

"The idea that the Lisbon Treaty could open the door to abortion in Ireland is a complete fabrication. The Treaty would do nothing of the sort. How could it? The European Union does not have the power to legislate for abortion. After all, the treaty carries forward the protocol on the right to life of the unborn agreed at the time of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. That protocol clearly states that no existing or future EU treaty can affect the application in Ireland of our constitutional protection of the unborn. Could anything be clearer than this? In the 17 years since its inception our protocol has never been challenged by anyone within the EU."

"The package secured by Ireland at last month’s European Council includes an additional guarantee on certain sensitive ethical issues. Our new legal guarantee makes it absolutely clear that the Charter of Fundamental Rights does not affect in any way the protection to the right to life provided for in the Irish Constitution. This means that the charter cannot be the basis for a legal challenge to Ireland’s abortion laws. Those who make such claims have no respect for facts and no regard for the truth. The charter only relates to EU institutions and EU laws and does not alter or undermine existing national constitutional protections."

"Respected pro-life commentators recognise that this legal guarantee represents a very positive development and that people who had reservations last year about right to life and other ethical issues can now support Lisbon. The legal guarantees were agreed at last month’s European Council as a decision of the 27 EU heads of state and government. The EU leaders stated that this decision is legally binding and that it will take effect on the date of entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Heads of state and government do not make such commitments lightly. The decision will be registered as an international agreement with the United Nations, in accordance with the provisions of the UN charter. It was also agreed at the European Council that the provisions of the decision will be annexed to the EU treaties as a protocol at the time of the next accession treaty. A protocol has the same legal force as a treaty. It will be for the Irish people to decide on the merits of the Lisbon Treaty and the legal guarantees we have now secured. I believe the treaty is good for Ireland and that we should support it."

"I would appeal to those who oppose ratification of Lisbon to stick to the facts and refrain from spreading falsehoods about such issues as abortion. There is plenty of information available about the treaty. I would recommend the website www.lisbontreaty.ie which contains objective information on the treaty and the guarantees."


So you see the claim that Ireland must do anything in relation to abortion based on any treaty it ratified is simply not true. The citizens of Ireland ratified the Lisbon treaty based on this assurance. If it turns out to be untrue then the ratification is flawed. Your argument at its highest point is that the people of Ireland were tricked into ratifying the treaty but they should have known better than to believe assurances from their government and now they have to live with the consequences.

Richard Bingham

lazygal wrote: »

Am I too posh to push? That phrase tells me all I need to know about how you view women like me, who've had c sections and agreed to the risks involved. Why do you think women are too posh to push?

This is like the way that magician's use misdirection to distract their audience from what they don't want them to see. Stick to the point why don't you, if you are so sure about it.

I don't think anyone is anything. I made it clear that I don't care. How could I think that you are too posh for anything if I've never met you. My point was that the phrase exists and it is used to describe some women who elect to have a c-section without any medical need. That is a fact whether you like it or not.

Fair play to them. If men could have babies I'd say a higher percentage would be delivered by c-section.

Chattastrophe!

Richard Bingham wrote: »

This is like the way that magician's use misdirection to distract their audience from what they don't want them to see. Stick to the point why don't you, if you are so sure about it.

I don't think anyone is anything. I made it clear that I don't care. How could I think that you are too posh for anything if I've never met you. My point was that the phrase exists and it is used to describe some women who elect to have a c-section without any medical need. That is a fact whether you like it or not.

Fair play to them. If men could have babies I'd say a higher percentage would be delivered by c-section.

I have never heard of an Irish woman getting a C-Section where it wasn't medically advised due to either complications or prior C-Sections. I don't know where you're getting your information, but you can't just waltz in and demand a C-Section where the pregnancy is normal and healthy - no matter whether you're public or private. It just isn't available in Ireland.

aloyisious

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Now now Cabaal, attack the post not the poster!

Your argument so is that if there is any risk at all to the mother, she should have the right to abort. Are there not risks in pregnancy itself? If someone reviewed this or indeed any pro-abortion thread they would think pregnancy was extremely dangerous and something to be avoided at all costs, what with all these women dying because they can't procure abortions. Sure didn't Savita die because she was denied an abortion - oh no, actually that's a load of Pro Abortion bullsh1t still being perpertuated by Pro Abortion people and rags like the Irish Times - she died due to errors and omissions by the team treating her. Fact.

Richard, are you trying to be a shock-jockey seeking to elicit personal written attacks on yourself? Do you not see that digging up Savita for the purpose of slamming abortion is as bad as the pro-abortion conduct you are slamming?

Having undergone ASD heart surgery involving the opening of my sternum it's full length, I appreciate how invasive surgery can be and how it can affect others undergoing different surgical operations. Whilst surgery has come on leaps and bounds, it's still invasive and put's the body under severe stress and is risky. Patients still have to sign pre-op permission forms on that basis.

Nodin

It seems that we are still no wiser as to which timeline of events is correct. I've a feeling that the woman in question is under 18, which would (afaik) mean she can't waive the right to anonymity.

Richard Bingham

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you not see that digging up Savita for the purpose of slamming abortion is as bad as the pro-abortion conduct you are slamming?

No I don't think it is. If the pro-abortion side would stop bringing her up I would but they won't. I'm sick to my teeth of all the lies that are being peddled on this subject.

Only three days ago the Irish Times which calls itself Ireland's "newspaper of reference" had a piece from Eamon McCann which stated the following under a headline Abortion guidelines North and South deny women their rights under law

...Potentially, then, a desperate woman might have to discuss her situation with up to seven doctors and try to convince them that she might commit suicide. Despite Ms Halappanavar’s death, far from being enhanced, women’s rights will be diminished.

The words "despite Ms Halappanavar's death" infer that the law had to be changed to introduce abortion because lack of abortion was the reason she died. It wasn't changed because of her death. This is fact. She didn't die for lack of an abortion.

Her death was used by corrupt politicians to change the law because they wanted to change the law anyway but (like every politician for the last 20 years) they were afraid to even discuss it for fear of isolating themselves from half the electorate. As part of a deal done to form the government Enda Kenny promised Eamon Gilmore that abortion legislation would be introduced and the death of Savita presented him with an opportunity to pass the legislation with the least amount of opposition. He used her death. The whole charade was nearly as bad as the way George Bush used 911 to justify going into Iraq. As if what happened to her wasn't bad enough.

This is how our laws are made, by scheming politicians in darkened back rooms, and then its voted in by a house full of inebriated cowards who had been told how to vote and that they weren't going home until they did so.

PopePalpatine

"Half" the electorate? You're being too hopeful and/or deceitful.

Nodin

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Her death was used by corrupt politicians to change the law because they wanted to change the law anyway but (like every politician for the last 20 years) they were afraid to even discuss it for fear of isolating themselves from half the electorate. As part of a deal done to form the government Enda Kenny promised Eamon Gilmore that abortion legislation would be introduced and the death of Savita presented him with an opportunity to pass the legislation with the least amount of opposition. He used her death. The whole charade was nearly as bad as the way George Bush used 911 to justify going into Iraq. As if what happened to her wasn't bad enough.

This is how our laws are made, by scheming politicians in darkened back rooms, and then its voted in by a house full of inebriated cowards who had been told how to vote and that they weren't going home until they did so.

By jaysus, that's some powerful assemblage of pure bollocksology there.

The law was passed to enact legislation that was 20 years overdue, having been put on the long finger.

swampgas

Richard Bingham wrote: »

[...]
So you see the claim that Ireland must do anything in relation to abortion based on any treaty it ratified is simply not true. The citizens of Ireland ratified the Lisbon treaty based on this assurance. If it turns out to be untrue then the ratification is flawed. Your argument at its highest point is that the people of Ireland were tricked into ratifying the treaty but they should have known better than to believe assurances from their government and now they have to live with the consequences.

As far as I understand it, this is not about the Lisbon treaty but about the UN Human Rights Committee. Actually when you dig into it it's really about the 8th amendment.

Regardless of what the Irish people might have wanted in 1983, which is when the 8th Amendment happened, the people must be allowed to change their position as time goes by. It is very clear from polls that most people disagree with the absolutist and traditional position you seem to have on abortion. Bear in mind that anyone born after 1965 was not old enough to vote in the 1983 referendum. Think about that. I'm not far off 50 years of age and I didn't get to vote on a very significant constitutional amendment, nor did anyone my age or younger. Just about every woman in Ireland today who is in the age group capable of getting pregnant has never had an opportunity to change the constitutional amendment which forces them to travel abroad to access the abortions that they feel are necessary.

Given that we as a country seem to be significantly behind and out of step with many of our neighbours in terms of legalising abortion, and given that our prohibition on abortion (in almost all but a tiny set of cases) puts us in breach of our human rights obligations, and given that most people favour some limited form of abortion, I would suggest that a referendum on removing the 8th amendment is a democratic requirement.

I understand that you would be opposed to allowing abortion in Ireland, but this country is made up of many people, you should not expect to impose your own morality on a legal system that should actually reflect the will of the people as well as our commitment to human rights.

.

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

It's not a MALE decision, it's a REPRESENTATIVE decision. If enough women want to request a service for women (and that's sexism right there; there are men as I said who support abortion, and women who don't) they can elect representatives who will promote their point of view. In fact, if enough people want to, they can make it an election issue and get elected on that basis. Right now, the fact that a majority of elected representatives aren't looking to bring a referendum to the people would indicate they have no confidence their electorate want it, and might vote them out if they do it.

This doesn't necessarily follow. Would you say that (AFAIK) no significant party was calling for the decriminalisation of gay sex in the 1980s prove the majority of the population were happy with the legal status quo on that issue?

IMO it's pretty clear from recent Labour Party statements on abortion that they are biting their tongue on the issue for the sake of keeping the coalition together and that (effectively) the day after they leave govt they will call for a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment. SF also seem to be moving towards a referendum although it seems likely they will look to Labour to jump first.

On the broader issue, I think all parties would privately acknowledge that as opinion polls indicate there is a huge majority in favour of at least some liberalisation of the abortion law but that they (the parties) don't feel under severe pressure to act on that desire because the issue is not (yet) a significant priority for most of those voters and, crucially, few of them are likely to vote in a general election on the basis of it. As the years go by though, and more women come forward with harrowing stories of abortions in the case of FFA etc. that pressure will grow until FG and even FF are obliged to bend to the public will.

obplayer

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Now now Cabaal, attack the post not the poster!

Your argument so is that if there is any risk at all to the mother, she should have the right to abort. Are there not risks in pregnancy itself? If someone reviewed this or indeed any pro-abortion thread they would think pregnancy was extremely dangerous and something to be avoided at all costs, what with all these women dying because they can't procure abortions. Sure didn't Savita die because she was denied an abortion - oh no, actually that's a load of Pro Abortion bullsh1t still being perpertuated by Pro Abortion people and rags like the Irish Times - she died due to errors and omissions by the team treating her. Fact.

Dr Peter Boylan, former Master of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin, disagrees.

A leading obstetrician claimed the inability to end Savita Halappanavar's pregnancy until there was a substantial and real risk of her death ultimately cost the 31-year-old her life. Peter Boylan revealed that by the time she was sick enough to justify an abortion on the morning of Wednesday October 24 last year, she was already suffering from sepsis blood infection.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-could-have-saved-savita-29201735.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22185690


Halapannavar’s husband maintains that her death could have been prevented if hospital officials had intervened earlier to terminate her non-viable fetus. Now, after a two-week review of the coroner’s report, that position has been confirmed by an Irish jury

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/22/1900171/jury-savita-death-abortion-care/

SAVITA Halappanavar would most likely have lived had she received a termination within two days of her admission to Galway Hospital.

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/abortion-could-have-saved-savita-doctor-tells-inquest-29205695.html

Richard Bingham

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

I have never heard of an Irish woman getting a C-Section where it wasn't medically advised due to either complications or prior C-Sections. I don't know where you're getting your information, but you can't just waltz in and demand a C-Section where the pregnancy is normal and healthy - no matter whether you're public or private. It just isn't available in Ireland.

I wasn't referring to Irish women. I'll clarify.

I don't think doctors would allow the thousands of abortions which are carried out without any medical need (even if the doctors are in the U.S.) if they were considered risky. I know women who have had multiple c-sections. Unless there are complicating factors such as being obese or having a pre-existing medical condition, they are regarded as safe. I'm quite sure that they are no more risky than an abortion, especially when the psychological affects of an abortion are taken into account.