Abortion Discussion

Richard Bingham

Nodin wrote: »

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.

Proof if it was needed that they used Savita to solve their problem of how to put it on the statute books.

Your potty tongue only serves to demonstrate the kind of people who are Pro Abortion. If you were Pro Life you'd be banned by now.

Richard Bingham

swampgas wrote: »

As far as I understand it, this is not about the Lisbon treaty but about the UN Human Rights Committee.

How many Irish people sit on that committee?

obplayer

Richard Bingham wrote: »

How many Irish people sit on that committee?

Are only Irish people human?

Nodin

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Proof if it was needed that they used Savita to solve their problem of how to put it on the statute books. .

They'd been ruled against by the European Court of Human rights, if you recall. The Irish Supreme court had 20 years previously instructed them to draft legislation based on the amendment and subsequent referenda.

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Your potty tongue only .................

I'd say forcing a rape victim to have a child is the real obscenity, meself.

swampgas

Richard Bingham wrote: »

How many Irish people sit on that committee?

That is completely irrelevant. Do the people of County Cork get to ignore a Supreme Court judge if he or she is from a different county?

We have signed up to the UN system of Human Rights (a very good thing in my opinion) are you suggesting that we can ignore it?

Or do you simply reject the concept of human rights as described by the UN?

jill_valentine

Richard Bingham wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure why you'd assume a c section is safer to the mother than an abortion.

It suggests to me that you don't understand what's involved in either one or both of the procedures, or haven't bothered thinking about it.

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

That is completely irrelevant. Do the people of County Cork get to ignore a Supreme Court judge if he or she is from a different county?

No, for the simple reason that the Supreme Court has the power to sanction (imprison) people who ignore it (ok, slightly more complicated than that but you get the drift).

swampgas wrote: »

We have signed up to the UN system of Human Rights (a very good thing in my opinion) are you suggesting that we can ignore it?

Sort of, yes. The UN doesn't have power to enforce it's decisions in Ireland, and a UN ruling can't override the constitution in Ireland. Hence the fact that the UNHRC has 'required' the government to alter the constitution to comply with it's human rights rulings, knowing full well that the government can't change the constitution, it can only ask the people to change the constitution.

swampgas wrote: »

Or do you simply reject the concept of human rights as described by the UN?

You don't need to reject the concept entirely to disagree with the specific application of the concept in certain circumstances i.e. in what circumstances and to what degree should abortion be made available in Ireland.

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

You don't need to reject the concept entirely to disagree with the specific application of the concept in certain circumstances i.e. in what circumstances and to what degree should abortion be made available in Ireland.

what's to stop any country ignoring any UNHRC recommendations they don't like then? And if everyone did this what would be the point of the committee?

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

what's to stop any country ignoring any UNHRC recommendations they don't like then? And if everyone did this what would be the point of the committee?

In short, not much as far as I can tell. It is empowered to hear complaints and make recommendations on compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but I can't see any reference to further powers than that (not even the power to compel testimony).
From the dreaded wikipedia:
"the United States has not accepted a single international obligation required under the Covenant. It has not changed its domestic law to conform with the strictures of the Covenant"
So despite the fact that the US is a signatory to the treaty (and has a seat on the committee), it seems not all bothered about complying with it...
and
"It remains disputed whether the Human Rights Committee's "Views under article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol" qualify as decisions of a quasi-judicial body or simply constitute authoritative interpretations on the merits of the cases brought before them."
Which reads to me as a judgement made by the Committee may not of itself necessarily be of any use in bringing a legal case for compliance within a State that is a signatory to the Treaty, which would be a useless exercise in Ireland anyway since the Constitution outweighs any other legal instrument.
So the Committee appears to be in a position to censure non compliance, but not to compel compliance; there are plenty of examples of their criticising various countries for non compliance (and abortion is only one of a number of issues it has been critical of Ireland on), but I can't see any examples of them asking the UN proper to sanction or invade countries in order to force them to comply.

Nodin

Absolam wrote: »

In short, not much as far as I can tell. It is empowered to hear complaints and make recommendations on compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but I can't see any reference to further powers than that (not even the power to compel testimony).
From the dreaded wikipedia:
"the United States has not accepted a single international obligation required under the Covenant. It has not changed its domestic law to conform with the strictures of the Covenant"
So despite the fact that the US is a signatory to the treaty (and has a seat on the committee), it seems not all bothered about complying with it...
and
"It remains disputed whether the Human Rights Committee's "Views under article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol" qualify as decisions of a quasi-judicial body or simply constitute authoritative interpretations on the merits of the cases brought before them."
Which reads to me as a judgement made by the Committee may not of itself necessarily be of any use in bringing a legal case for compliance within a State that is a signatory to the Treaty, which would be a useless exercise in Ireland anyway since the Constitution outweighs any other legal instrument.
.

Often countries sign things, then don't ratify them (rendering them meaningless eg the US and treaty concerning the ICC). Here though, in a bit of classic smartness, they signed it, ratified it, but added clauses which render it effectively null and void.

"The United States Senate ratified the ICCPR in 1992, with five reservations, five understandings, and four declarations.[67] Some have noted that with so many reservations, its implementation has little domestic effect.[84] Included in the Senate's ratification was the declaration that "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing",[85] and in a Senate Executive Report stated that the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts."[86]
Where a treaty or covenant is not self-executing, and where Congress has not acted to implement the agreement with legislation, no private right of action within the U.S. judicial system is created by ratification.[87]
As a reservation that is "incompatible with the object and purpose" of a treaty is void as a matter of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and international law,[88] there is some issue as to whether the non-self-execution declaration is even legal under domestic law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights#United_States

Nodin

From todays Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/socia...eeks-1.1899851
(my bold, where present)

Right -

"He said the woman had been seeking information about abortion from authorities for up to three months before approaching a GP herself last month. The GP referred her to hospital.

It was reported over the weekend she had been in her second trimester when she found out she was pregnant and asked for an abortion. This is disputed by her friend and a medical source familiar with the case, who said the woman found out she was pregnant four months ago and she requested an abortion then.

She arrived in the State this year. Her friend, who works in a university here, said the woman had been raped in her own country and found out she was pregnant when she underwent a medical assessment “a week or two after she arrived” in the State. “She told them immediately, ‘I do not want this. I am too young to be a mother. I am not ready,’” he said. She also feared for her safety as a result of the pregnancy.

He said she was not given information as to how to obtain an abortion and as the pregnancy continued she became increasingly distressed. He was advised she should go to a GP, which she did in mid-July. The GP gave her a letter for a hospital, he said, and she was admitted. She was told in hospital on July 22nd an abortion was not possible as the pregnancy was too far advanced.

Sources within the HSE confirmed it was not aware of her situation until mid-July by which stage she was at over 20 weeks. "
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/socia...eeks-1.1899851

So the question is, who are the "authorities" she was talking to prior to the GP visit, and what's their reason for failure to send or provide her with sufficient information as to know that she should go to a GP?

Nodin

The Bishop thinks it unethical - Not the treatment of the young woman, of course, but the early delivery by C section.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/babys-delivery-in-abortion-case-unethical-bishop-30515545.html

lazygal

Nodin wrote: »

The Bishop thinks it unethical - Not the treatment of the young woman, of course, but the early delivery by C section.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/babys-delivery-in-abortion-case-unethical-bishop-30515545.html

No "physical" reason for the termination of pregnancy.

And we wonder why Ireland has such issues with mental health. Why are people obsessed with the fact the threat to her life was suicide? Why is a psychological threat to life different to a physical threat? It'd also be nice if celibate men restrained themselves from commenting on individual cases.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Why are people obsessed with the fact the threat to her life was suicide?

Probably because the most recent abortion legislation passed in Ireland relates to providing abortions to women with suicidal ideation resulting from being pregnant? People are obviously going to be wondering how that is actually panning out, as opposed to the dire consequences predicted by the extremes on either side of the abortion debate.

lazygal wrote: »

It'd also be nice if celibate men restrained themselves from commenting on individual cases.

Surely you're not advocating limiting someone's right to freedom of speech just because you don't like what they say?

Chattastrophe!

Richard Bingham wrote: »

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.

You're not comparing like with like.

Is a full-term abortion as safe/dangerous as a full-term C-Section? Probably, yeah, and I'd agree that there would be psychological affects to both in many cases.

Is an abortion at eight weeks as safe/dangerous as a full-term C-Section? Much safer.

There are rarely many side-effects to early abortions, apart from maybe a bit of cramping and nausea (like a bad period.) For anyone I know who has had to get an abortion, the main problem was the hassle, cost, travel and time involved. The woman most likely doesn't even "feel" pregnant at that stage, she certainly hasn't started to get a bump or started to feel the baby move, she's unlikely to feel any real emotional connection to the bunch of cells multiplying inside her.

A C-Section is major surgery. It takes months to recover fully, but you'll be left with permanent scarring and other possible side effects. You will be in a lot of pain afterwards and won't be able to return to a normal life for several weeks. There are implications for future pregnancies (e.g. your ability to have a "natural" birth is greatly reduced, there is the risk of scar rupture etc.)

And of course there's the psychological impact - in this case, where the woman was forced against her will to continue with the pregnancy until it came to a point where she had a visible bump, where she could feel the baby move and kick inside her. And then was forced to undergo this major surgery, and have the baby whipped away. She didn't want the baby (and presumably still doesn't) ... but there's a big difference between voluntarily undergoing a simple, straightforward, uninvasive procedure (i.e. taking a couple of tablets) to resolve the problem before it becomes a big one ... and what happened in this case.

It was just barbaric. Sick. I can't understand the mindset of anyone who thinks that what happened here was in any way moral or understandable.

aloyisious

I'm left wondering how the bishop came to the conclusion that the caesarean section operation was not necessary, like; was he given specific details on the medical condition of both the woman and the feotus which lead him to believe that the operation was not required on medical grounds. If the bishop is correct that there was no medical need for the operation, then why was it done? From the statement he made, one can infer that it was entirely medically safe for the pregnancy to proceed full-term to a natural birth.

That lead's to a world of speculation as to why the medical team took the caesarean-birth route. Was there some other factor the medical team knew of which might have affected a full-term birth of the feotus? Was the feotus at risk from a non-womb or other body factor within the pregnant woman? The information in the media reports state that the two psychiatrists on the abortion-request oversight panel believed the woman was at risk from suicide but that the third member, the obstetrician, allegedly had a different opinion, and the caesarean route was taken. Apparently no medical reason for it, but the two psychiatrists allegedly believed there was a suicidal risk to life of the woman, and consequently no full-term birth of the feotus. So why did the medics do what they did?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm left wondering how the bishop came to the conclusion that the caesarean section operation was not necessary, like; was he given specific details on the medical condition of both the woman and the feotus which lead him to believe that the operation was not required on medical grounds. If the bishop is correct that there was no medical need for the operation, then why was it done? From the statement he made, one can infer that it was entirely medically safe for the pregnancy to proceed full-term to a natural birth.

I get the impression that the implication is the bishop believes it would have been better to force the woman to bring the pregnancy to term and give birth naturally, as there was no physical necessity for a c section. The presumption being that he either doesn't accept that there was a risk of suicide, or that he doesn't believe a risk of suicide is sufficient reason to deliver the child early by c section.

aloyisious wrote: »

That lead's to a world of speculation as to why the medical team took the caesarean-birth route. .

I would have thought that if the womans life was at risk due to the threat of suicide, and the correct solution was to terminate the pregnancy as agreed by the psychiatrists, they were left with two options for terminating the pregnancy; kill the foetus/child (whichever is least offensive to your pov) or deliver it. The obstetrician on the panel appears to have felt (correctly as it turns out) he could save two lives rather than one, and opted to deliver the child.

jank

lazygal wrote: »

No "physical" reason for the termination of pregnancy.

And we wonder why Ireland has such issues with mental health. Why are people obsessed with the fact the threat to her life was suicide? Why is a psychological threat to life different to a physical threat? It'd also be nice if celibate men restrained themselves from commenting on individual cases.

Was there a physical threat here that would have justified the termination of the pregnancy under the new laws?

lazygal

jank wrote: »

Was there a physical threat here that would have justified the termination of the pregnancy under the new laws?

Is there a difference in a threat to life from a physical threat?

aloyisious

From The Examiner..... http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/taoiseach-urged-to-recall-dail-over-abortion-controversy-639447.html

Quote from the Examiner report.... The pregnant suicidal woman , who is reported to have been raped, was assessed by a panel of three experts after she claimed she was suicidal, but the obstetrician said because the baby was at an advanced stage, it should be delivered; unquote....

I thought that that was likely to have been one scenario. The obstetrician took a personal decision to have the best of both world's, no abortion and a live baby. The HSE got a court order to force the mother have a liquid-feed after she went on hunger strike over the refusal of her abortion request. The psychiatrists believed the woman was at risk of suicide. Allegedly the woman had asked for an abortion at eight weeks, but this ran into problems, allegedly language interpretation problems, so her request was NOT met.

It leaves an intervening period of approx seventeen (17) weeks between that alleged request and the caesarean operation, when an abortion, allegedly approved of by the two psychiatrists, could have proceeded. The woman was not out of the country due to her legal status as a refugee here. Her need's were NOT acceded-to by the obstetrician within the guidelines, using the same guidelines to deny her request, Catch-22 for her.

It will now be interesting as to whom will be responsible for the caring of the baby. Will the state, having gone to such lengths to obviate and ignore the rights of the woman, insist that she take care of the baby imposed on her by the state, regardless of whom the father is, or will it take up legal custody of the baby?

Edit: one must presume, from the fact the caesarean-birth took place after the woman went on hunger-strike (itself a life-threatening situation recognized as such due to the court-action) that the obstetrician was aware that the woman had a fixed opinion about the feotus growing within her and that her action indicated that she would end her life rather than allow the feotus grow within her to a full-term birth, that the obstetrician knew the woman was deliberately putting her life in jeopardy due to the abortion-request refusal and that it was an action-statement of suicide. That seem's a clear signal to the obstetrician that the psychiatrists were right in their evaluation on the woman, yet the caesarean-op went ahead at his/her insistence.

It seem's to me that he/she took a gamble on the life of the mother and should therefore be removed from the panel forthwith.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Heard said bishop on the radio on the drive in this morning. I definitely got the impression that his opinion is that the woman should just have put up with it and carried the child to term. He also asks what support the woman was given to combat her suicidal thoughts. It really smacks of ignorance and total lack of understanding of depression on the part of the bishop and the church. Their usual "shut up and do what we tell you even though we haven't a ****ing breeze or a reasonable explanation" attitude.

Cabaal

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Heard said bishop on the radio on the drive in this morning. I definitely got the impression that his opinion is that the woman should just have put up with it and carried the child to term.

am not surprised at all,

Catholic bishops have a very dim view of women, if memory serves me correctly its a a view only shared by the Islamic and Presbyterian Church representatives that were also questioned by the gov two years ago.

That view being women should still give birth to the child in rape and incest cases even if they want an abortion, such a view completely ignores the women's mental and physical health, well being, and rights.

http://www.thejournal.ie/live-stream-liveblog-oireachtas-abortion-hearings-day-3-748102-Jan2013/

MrPudding

I can understand why the bishop is upset. It is probably much more difficult to sell premature babies.

MrP

Cabaal

MrPudding wrote: »

I can understand why the bishop is upset. It is probably much more difficult to sell premature babies.

MrP

They don't fetch as good a price,
People like to see what they are buying after all,

MrPudding

It would be I retesting to know the woman's age. If she is a minor then the HSE's decision to go to court to obtain an order to force feed her is quite reasonable. If she is not a minor then this would be an example of the new law and 40.3.3 changing this woman's status from that of a human being with the relevant rights to that of an incubator with no rights to decide what she does and does not do with her body, not even the right to protest at her treatment by refusing food.

I almost hope the girl is a minor as the alternative is obscene.

MrP

Calina

MrPudding wrote: »

It would be I retesting to know the woman's age. If she is a minor then the HSE's decision to go to court to obtain an order to force feed her is quite reasonable. If she is not a minor then this would be an example of the new law and 40.3.3 changing this woman's status from that of a human being with the relevant rights to that of an incubator with no rights to decide what she does and does not do with her body, not even the right to protest at her treatment by refusing food.

I almost hope the girl is a minor as the alternative is obscene.

MrP

I'm not entirely sure that it makes any difference what age she is. Forcing minors to have children is obscene.

lazygal

Ms X was 14 years old when the state took her to court to prevent her terminating her pregnancy in another jurisdiction. Think about that, a 14 year old who's been raped being taken to court by the state so a foetus can be protected.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

There was no suggestion of her being a minor. She was described as a woman repeatedly on the radio. The Daily Mail et al. would be splashing sensationalist headlines all over the shop if she was a minor so I doubt she was. They couldn't possibly pass up that opportunity.

jank

lazygal wrote: »

Is there a difference in a threat to life from a physical threat?

Self harm as apposed to a physical threat i.e medical complications due to pregnancy. I thought it would be obvious. The former is the one mentioned not the latter in this case.

lazygal

jank wrote: »

Self harm as apposed to a physical threat i.e medical complications due to pregnancy. I thought it would be obvious. The former is the one mentioned not the latter in this case.

Two psychiatrists determined her life was threatened by suicide, and this has been widely reported. It was an obstetrician who decided on the c section. Her life was under threat, the threat itself should not be relevant, unless you think a physical threat is more of a 'real' threat than suicide.