Abortion Discussion

Absolam

keane2097 wrote: »

Human rights don't vary from parish to parish, that's what makes them rights.

They do vary from country to country though.

keane2097

Absolam wrote: »

They do vary from country to country though.

They don't. They are universal. The vindication of them is all that varies.

Loafing Oaf

Absolam wrote: »

The ethics and morals of a country are the business of the people of that country; I may not agree with the ethical and moral stance of some countries, but if I don't live there I don't see how I have a right to tell them what to do.

Well if you're a complete relativist in such matters and don't believe in any sort of 'universal human rights', even very basic ones, then I don't see how you can regard the UNHRC hearings as anything other than a complete waste of time.

Cabaal

jank wrote: »

I am going to disappoint you and not engage with you further as you want to argue with Ghosts.

You certainly won't be disappointing me. Enjoy throwing your toys out of the pram
:rolleyes:

Also, I don't believe in ghosts....

Absolam

keane2097 wrote: »

They don't. They are universal. The vindication of them is all that varies.

Can you demonstrate that they are universal?
How does your right to life work, for example, when you're falling from a plane two kilometres above the ground?
A right is a social, legal, or ethical entitlement conferred by an entity with the power to confer (or withhold) it; if there is no one to enforce a right, then there is no right.
Generally the enforcers of rights are States; many States subscribe to the theory of inalienable or universal rights and enforce them, the UN even has a special Committee to report on what they do. But not all States agree with what rights are actually universal, for instance the Irish state does not confer the right not to be pregnant unless you want to be, or the right to decide you don't want to remain pregnant with a foetus conceived by rape.

Absolam

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well if you're a complete relativist in such matters and don't believe in any sort of 'universal human rights', even very basic ones, then I don't see how you can regard the UNHRC hearings as anything other than a complete waste of time.

I never said I don't believe in any sort of 'universal human rights', even very basic ones. Liberal rights are, in my opinion, one of the highest aspirations of any civilized society.
And I do think the UNHRC is useful for pointing out where, in its' opinion, rights could be improved in some countries, even if those countries disagree.

kylith

Calina wrote: »

I wonder if she is a student to be honest.

I have read that the pregnancy was discovered at 8 weeks during a medical exam on her arrival in Ireland, which would lead me to believe that she is an asylum seeker as a medical examination on arrival is standard procedure for people seeking asylum.

jank

Cabaal wrote: »

You certainly won't be disappointing me. Enjoy throwing your toys out of the pram
:rolleyes:

Ninja Edit?

If defending myself against things that I have neither implied or said means that I am throwing my toys out of my pram, in your opinion then so be it. However, the fact is that you concede this point by default as you don't address them. Remember to breath when posting.

Cabaal

jank wrote: »

Ninja Edit?

If defending myself against things that I have neither implied or said means that I am throwing my toys out of my pram, in your opinion then so be it. However, the fact is that you concede this point by default as you don't address them. Remember to breath when posting.

Jank, you've upset me now. You said you wouldn't engage with me further and yet here you are replying to my post

You lied Jank...you lied, lieing makes baby jebus cry (apparently)

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/08/18/some-mens-true-hate/

Nodin

Cabaal wrote: »

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

Bit of bad form to fax through a copy of an ultrasound when they want a picture allright.

Vivisectus

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

Kevin Doran, the newly ordained Bishop of Elphin, last night said the baby was delivered in an "untimely fashion when there was no physical reason for doing so".

He told the Irish Independent: "The removal of a child from the womb in that kind of context is really unethical and there is no other way of putting it. It was far better that the child was removed from the womb to be saved than to be aborted, but it is not natural."

This is what you get when priests pretend they are experts on ethics.

Apparently having your mental health disrupted to the point of suicidal tendencies is no reason for anything so "unnatural" as a c-section. After all, it is not like there is a real physical reason to intervene. If you happen to get raped at 17 only to find out that you are pregnant in a strange country you should just buck up and quit your whining! It is not as if there is anything physically wrong with you.

In one deft quote he managed to create an atmosphere of misogyny and condescension towards mental health issues. Bravo!

Nodin

Vivisectus wrote: »

........

In one deft quote he managed to create an atmosphere of misogyny and condescension towards mental health issues. Bravo!

He didn't get made Bishop for nothing....

Mr. CooL ICE

Who the fcuk cares what the 'bishop of Elphin' thinks anyway?

Brian Shanahan

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.

According to catholic dogma it is always preferrable to carry the baby to term, even when that guarantees the death of the mother, for example if she needs chemotherapy for a metastizing cancer. That's problably where he is getting the conclusion from, his religious views and not any knowledge of the case in question, and most definitely not from any experitse in this area of medicine.

Nodin

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Who the fcuk cares what the 'bishop of Elphin' thinks anyway?

If we knew a precise answer to that question, we'd be a lot better off.

Loafing Oaf

In fairness to the good bishop, he has (probably inadvertently) put his finger on a key question here. If the overriding priority of the panel (as of him) is the welfare of the foetus/baby, and they have chosen to disregard the woman's bodily autonomy anyway, why not force her to bring the pregnancy to term, so as to maximise the child's life chances? From my limited understanding of obstetrics, performing a c-section at 25 weeks would be something doctors would normally be very reluctant to do...

PopePalpatine

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Who the fcuk cares what the 'bishop of Elphin' thinks anyway?

Unfortunately, I'd say his local TDs do.

keane2097

Absolam wrote: »

Can you demonstrate that they are universal?
How does your right to life work, for example, when you're falling from a plane two kilometres above the ground?
A right is a social, legal, or ethical entitlement conferred by an entity with the power to confer (or withhold) it; if there is no one to enforce a right, then there is no right.
Generally the enforcers of rights are States; many States subscribe to the theory of inalienable or universal rights and enforce them, the UN even has a special Committee to report on what they do. But not all States agree with what rights are actually universal, for instance the Irish state does not confer the right not to be pregnant unless you want to be, or the right to decide you don't want to remain pregnant with a foetus conceived by rape.

You can fall out of a plane and die no matter what the views of the state you happen to be in are on your right to life. Clearly, the state deciding you have that particular right or not is irrelevant in your example. I would have thought that was obvious.

Similarly, the fact that I can bludgeon you to death with a lead pipe says as little about your right to life as the fact that the HSE can hold and operate on people against their will says about someone's right to an abortion.

Nodin

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

In fairness to the good bishop, he has (probably inadvertently) put his finger on a key question here. If the overriding priority of the panel (as of him) is the welfare of the foetus/baby, and they have chosen to disregard the woman's bodily autonomy anyway, why not force her to bring the pregnancy to term, so as to maximise the child's life chances? From my limited understanding of obstetrics, performing a c-section at 25 weeks would be something doctors would normally be very reluctant to do...

Because there is a directive to protect the life of the mother where theres a threat of suicide and the two psychiatrists agreed she was indeed suicidal. Given the length of time it would take for the pregnancy to come to term, there'd be a risk of her killing herself. The imperative to also preserve the life of the child means that the compromise position is a C-section. Unless somebody can prove that the C-section is overstepping some other legal principle, it will probably happen again.

Brian Shanahan

Cabaal wrote: »

You certainly won't be disappointing me. Enjoy throwing your toys out of the pram
:rolleyes:

Also, I don't believe in ghosts....

You ain't afraid of no ghosts?

Loafing Oaf

Nodin wrote: »

Because there is a directive to protect the life of the mother where theres a threat of suicide and the two psychiatrists agreed she was indeed suicidal.

But the fact they were prepared to take such a drastic step means the risk must have been pretty high. And yet it seemingly was not deemed as such during the time she was eligible for abortion...

Nodin

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But the fact they were prepared to take such a drastic step means the risk must have been pretty high. And yet it seemingly was not deemed as such during the time she was eligible for abortion...

Yeah, but she wasn't being seen by the panel or the HSE at all during that time.

At eight weeks she says shes pregnant and doesn't want to go through with it. She says this to "the authorities" (no fucking idea who), 16 weeks later she's sent to a GP. Then comes the panel and the rest, over a 3 week period. The Panels actions seem a logical progression from a crappy law. The real question is why a young woman complaining of a problem with her pregnancy (and the nature of the problem is almost besides the point) is not referred to a medical professional post haste.

lazygal

Nodin wrote: »

Yeah, but she wasn't being seen by the panel or the HSE at all during that time.

At eight weeks she says shes pregnant and doesn't want to go through with it. She says this to "the authorities" (no fucking idea who), 16 weeks later she's sent to a GP. Then comes the panel and the rest, over a 3 week period. The Panels actions seem a logical progression from a crappy law. The real question is why a young woman complaining of a problem with her pregnancy (and the nature of the problem is almost besides the point) is not referred to a medical professional post haste.

One could argue that in such a case the life of the unborn was at risk if limited prenatal care was provided.

aloyisious

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

According to catholic dogma it is always preferrable to carry the baby to term, even when that guarantees the death of the mother, for example if she needs chemotherapy for a metastizing cancer. That's problably where he is getting the conclusion from, his religious views and not any knowledge of the case in question, and most definitely not from any experitse in this area of medicine.

I was wondering how his statement would have read if the woman had taken her own life due to the pressure she felt about the feotus after she was told she was not getting the abortion, resulting in the ultimate loss of her life and the termination of the pregnancy, whether he might have said a caesarean operation should have been seen as a way out. We'll never know that now.

Richard Bingham

obplayer wrote: »

Are only Irish people human?

No, all people are human including human's before they are born. They are human too.

My point is that Ireland is not represented on the UN Human Rights Committee and I don't believe that any country (or group of countries should dictate to another). I'm not alone in this.

aloyisious

Right now the way the woman was treated send's a message to pregnant women in depressed states due to a pregnancy and who have asked/are considering asking for a termination of the pregnancy by way of abortion of the feotus full stop is that they will be given a termination of the pregnancy by way of a caesarean, not of a abortion of the feotus which they did want, and will then (in due course) be presented with an unwanted baby.

I believe that a precedent has been set by the obstetrician's choice on how to proceed and that it will be used to ensure that any woman's request for an abortion will be ignored. Humans have an almost inevitable practice of long-fingering a problem in the hope it will go away, and the precedent given by the obstetrician here will put the thought into anti-abortion medics minds here that this is a practical way to avoid doing what the patient requires, string out the pregnancy and present the woman with a fait-accompli of "it's too late for an abortion, but we can do a caesarean". The decision may result in women terminating their own lives without even bothering to ask for an abortion here, as they've seen a practical example of what the medics may do to her on receipt of an abortion request here under the guidelines, or the lesser way out, a boat/plane trip abroad.

Richard Bingham

lazygal wrote: »

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.

So let me get this right, you think that if a person's life is under threat from a third party they should be allowed access to an abortion. I thought you claimed to be pro-choice but it seems you are just plain old pro-abortion.

If you want to confirm for me that you are ok with the "choice" being that of the woman's pimp, rapist, abusive father, hardline religious family who don't believe in babies outside of wedlock etc we can leave this right here because I will be happy that at least one pro-abortion person is being honest.

I posted a few months ago about the use of the word "choice" by the pro abortion side. I referred to reports that many women how have abortions say afterwards that they had no choice, that they were under pressure from their partner, husband, family etc. You could extend that list to include pimp, rapist, abuser, and don't anyone try saying that it has not happened and isn't happening. Does anyone think that a pimp on hearing that one of his girls is pregnant would wish her well with the pregnancy and tell her to check in to advise whether she wants to extend her maternity leave in six months. In fact Lifesite News in the U.S. recently released undercover footage of a guy posing as a pimp in a Planned Parenthood clinic and being given advice on when the girl could resume work - he was told that she could only do stuff that involved "from the waist up" for at least a fortnight.

There's a lot of speculation going on and we don't know much about the facts of this case but if this woman did in fact present seeking an abortion on the grounds that her life was in danger from a third party, then surely you must see that she had to be refused. Do you honestly think that the legislation could possibly be allowed to stand in its current form if it provided for the ending of a human life based on the whim of a third party such as her family (which in other cases could just as easily be a pimp, rapist, abuser etc).

Richard Bingham

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

According to catholic dogma it is always preferrable to carry the baby to term, even when that guarantees the death of the mother, for example if she needs chemotherapy for a metastizing cancer. That's problably where he is getting the conclusion from, his religious views and not any knowledge of the case in question, and most definitely not from any experitse in this area of medicine.

I don't think you're correct their Brian. It is always preferable to carry a baby to term but I believe that the church has no issue with necessary medical treatment being given to a pregnant woman, even if it may result in the death of the baby. In this case this didn't arise as it was possible to end the pregnancy and save the child, which I'm sure all sane people will agree is the optimum result.

swampgas

Richard Bingham wrote: »

If you want to confirm for me that you are ok with the "choice" being that of the woman's pimp, rapist, abusive father, hardline religious family who don't believe in babies outside of wedlock etc we can leave this right here because I will be happy that at least one pro-abortion person is being honest.

I think this is a massive red herring. Should bank loans be illegal because I might be blackmailed into taking out a large loan? Should donating a kidney or bone marrow be made illegal because I might be pressured into doing so by a needy relative?

Coercion is coercion and should be handled as a separate issue.

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, I think she should have the option of having an abortion. If a woman is being coerced into having an abortion I think she should have the option of going to the police.

Basically you seem to be saying that keeping abortion illegal to prevent women being coerced into abortions is a reasonable approach, despite the fact that it prevents women who genuinely want abortions from seeking them. Regardless of the fact that it wouldn't stop abusers taking women to the UK to be forced to have their abortions there.

Would it not be better to have a system where women applying for abortions are interviewed privately to make sure they are not under undue pressure, with the option of immediate protection should they claim they are being pressured?