Abortion Discussion

Richard Bingham

keane2097 wrote: »

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.

I believe she agreed to have the section, according to newspaper reports, not that they are authoritive as everyone seems to be joining a lot of dots on this one in the absence of hard information.

Richard Bingham

aloyisious wrote: »

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 don't think that is likely. In this case the baby is going to be taken into care and I'd imagine that will be the case at least initially in all these cases. If you think it through, if a woman claims to be suicidal enough to want to end her pregnancy, I don't think any health service could then hand the baby to her to take home and care for.

Maybe in time she may want to have a part in this childs life and will be able to.

swampgas

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I don't think that is likely. In this case the baby is going to be taken into care and I'd imagine that will be the case at least initially in all these cases. If you think it through, if a woman claims to be suicidal enough to want to end her pregnancy, I don't think any health service could then hand the baby to her to take home and care for.

Maybe in time she may want to have a part in this childs life and will be able to.

Maybe having had the abortion at 8 weeks would have been a far less traumatic and invasive alternative? I really can't help but be amazed at the casual way you seem to think a young woman in this situation should simply have the baby, regardless of the circumstances.

Richard Bingham

swampgas wrote: »

I think this is a massive red herring. Should bank loans be illegal because I might be blackmailed into taking out a large loan?

No need to make them illegal because of this. If you are blackmailed into taking out a loan it comes under duress and the loan contract is invalid.

swampgas wrote: »

Should donating a kidney or bone marrow be made illegal because I might be pressured into doing so by a needy relative?

Not a great analogy - neither of these involve loss of life (the Bank loan doesn't either).

I was referring to the use of the phrase Pro Choice to describe people who favour the legalisation of abortion. It's a misnomer.

swampgas wrote: »

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.

Smoking pot and prostitution are both illegal here but it doesn't stop anyone taking a Ryanair flight to Amsterdam to do either or both. We don't make laws based on what our neighbours legislate for.

swampgas wrote: »

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?

I don't believe that would be practical. I think most victims would say that pimps and abusers exercise so much control over them that the prospect of outing them during a time of crisis would be too much to bear. How would anyone prove that an abuser was coercing the girl to have an abortion without proving the abuse first and that can take years, thus negating any benefit in these circumstances.

The irony of these types of cases is that an abortion (which is going to be even more trauma for the victim) serves to protect the abuser. Think about it - if some guy is abusing his niece, daughter etc isn't her getting pregnant a serious problem for him and isn't an abortion something which will alleviate his problem somewhat.

Nodin

Richard Bingham wrote: »

.........
The irony of these types of cases is that an abortion (which is going to be even more trauma for the victim) serves to protect the abuser. Think about it - if some guy is abusing his niece, daughter etc isn't her getting pregnant a serious problem for him and isn't an abortion something which will alleviate his problem somewhat.

And there was me thinkin you could have the abortion and a criminal prosecution.

iwantmydinner

Richard Bingham wrote: »

The irony of these types of cases is that an abortion (which is going to be even more trauma for the victim) serves to protect the abuser. Think about it - if some guy is abusing his niece, daughter etc isn't her getting pregnant a serious problem for him and isn't an abortion something which will alleviate his problem somewhat.

This post jumped the shark.

aloyisious

Originally Posted by aloyisious View Post
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.

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I don't think that is likely. In this case the baby is going to be taken into care and I'd imagine that will be the case at least initially in all these cases. If you think it through, if a woman claims to be suicidal enough to want to end her pregnancy, I don't think any health service could then hand the baby to her to take home and care for.

Maybe in time she may want to have a part in this childs life and will be able to.

Aloyisious:.. I think it's relevant to point out that I have become very cynical over the past few years of respected professions and followings due to the revealed callous actions of official and other "service providers". I now believe that there are people still within those once-respected professions and followings who would not even blink an eyelid at carrying out actions outside their remit, and I believe that they are capable of the greatest wrongdoing possible, all because the power given to them has corrupted them. They cannot tell the difference between right and wrong any longer and are also capable of the most stupid of actions into the bargain.

lazygal

I'm starting to think Richard Bingham thinks some women get pregnant just so they can have an abortion.

swampgas

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I don't believe that would be practical. I think most victims would say that pimps and abusers exercise so much control over them that the prospect of outing them during a time of crisis would be too much to bear. How would anyone prove that an abuser was coercing the girl to have an abortion without proving the abuse first and that can take years, thus negating any benefit in these circumstances.

The irony of these types of cases is that an abortion (which is going to be even more trauma for the victim) serves to protect the abuser. Think about it - if some guy is abusing his niece, daughter etc isn't her getting pregnant a serious problem for him and isn't an abortion something which will alleviate his problem somewhat.

What is your point exactly? That because abusive people exist, the law should be used as a blunt instrument to restrict what they *might* do? Regardless of the impact on everyone else?

I think the ethics and legality of abortion can be analysed independently of the issue of vulnerable people being coerced being brought into it. I'm not dismissing the issue of coercion, but I am saying that the majority of women seeking abortions are not being coerced and the law should address their rights first, and deal with the issue of coercion separately.

Richard Bingham

swampgas wrote: »

Maybe having had the abortion at 8 weeks would have been a far less traumatic and invasive alternative? I really can't help but be amazed at the casual way you seem to think a young woman in this situation should simply have the baby, regardless of the circumstances.

You say that as if you think I believe that she should just grit her teeth and the result will be fantastic and it will be all happy families - I don't at all. Cases like these are sh1te situations and I don't think any solution is going to result in a happy situation. Society normally strives for the least worst outcome taking all parties rights into account. The fact is that even if we had a more liberal abortion law, there is no way that a woman should be offered one if she presents at a clinic saying I need an abortion as my life has been threatened in the event that I have this baby. Any one who could think that this could ever be acceptable has lost the plot. To borrow an analogy by another poster, does anyone think some should be allowed donate a kidney under threat of death, and if not then how could they be allowed abort under such a threat.

Apart from all of that, I know someone who is a product of rape and he's an exceptional human being so it's hard for me to say that all such people should be snuffed out.

shruikan2553

lazygal wrote: »

I'm starting to think Richard Bingham thinks some women get pregnant just so they can have an abortion.

Don't be silly. They have to be coerced into having one.

swampgas

Richard Bingham wrote: »

You say that as if you think I believe that she should just grit her teeth and the result will be fantastic and it will be all happy families - I don't at all. Cases like these are sh1te situations and I don't think any solution is going to result in a happy situation. Society normally strives for the least worst outcome taking all parties rights into account.

Where we disagree is on what constitutes the least worst outcome.

The fact is that even if we had a more liberal abortion law, there is no way that a woman should be offered one if she presents at a clinic saying I need an abortion as my life has been threatened in the event that I have this baby.

Well I think any woman should be allowed a no-questions-asked abortion on request up to about 12 weeks, and on medical grounds after that.

Any one who could think that this could ever be acceptable has lost the plot. To borrow an analogy by another poster, does anyone think some should be allowed donate a kidney under threat of death, and if not then how could they be allowed abort under such a threat.

Yet we force women to continue pregnancies against their will, with the threat of more than a decade in prison for attempting to abort.

Apart from all of that, I know someone who is a product of rape and he's an exceptional human being so it's hard for me to say that all such people should be snuffed out.

All that is being snuffed out is the potential for a person, not your friend who is an exceptional human being. My parents had five children, I don't lie awake at night wondering about the other five brothers and/or sisters I might have had should they have gone on to have ten. Do you feel bad about contraception? Or people who don't have the maximum number of children possible? Because they are preventing potential human lives as well, just a tiny bit earlier in the process.

lazygal

Richard Bingham wrote: »

You say that as if you think I believe that she should just grit her teeth and the result will be fantastic and it will be all happy families - I don't at all. Cases like these are sh1te situations and I don't think any solution is going to result in a happy situation. Society normally strives for the least worst outcome taking all parties rights into account. The fact is that even if we had a more liberal abortion law, there is no way that a woman should be offered one if she presents at a clinic saying I need an abortion as my life has been threatened in the event that I have this baby. Any one who could think that this could ever be acceptable has lost the plot. To borrow an analogy by another poster, does anyone think some should be allowed donate a kidney under threat of death, and if not then how could they be allowed abort under such a threat.

Apart from all of that, I know someone who is a product of rape and he's an exceptional human being so it's hard for me to say that all such people should be snuffed out.

I know someone who's had two c sections and as a result is limited in terms of how many children she can have. It'd be risky to have more than one more. So if she was raped and got pregnant with a fourth she' d be looking for an abortion asap to avoid risking her health. What about me Richard, and my right to health? What about my right to bodily integrity and to decide what's right for me? Should I be forced to remain pregnant, possibly committed away from my children, one of whom is still breastfed, if I don't consent to treatment plans which mainly involve delays so I can continue to gestate a foetus I never wanted inside me?

Richard Bingham

swampgas wrote: »

What is your point exactly? That because abusive people exist, the law should be used as a blunt instrument to restrict what they *might* do? Regardless of the impact on everyone else?

I think the ethics and legality of abortion can be analysed independently of the issue of vulnerable people being coerced being brought into it. I'm not dismissing the issue of coercion, but I am saying that the majority of women seeking abortions are not being coerced and the law should address their rights first, and deal with the issue of coercion separately.

We just don't know that. There is anecdotal evidence that many women who have had abortions in the past will say they had no choice (which is what my posts have been referring to - choice). Do you think women who became pregnant outside of marriage in Ireland 30, 40, 50 years ago could have kept their baby. I remember the eighties and there were no unmarried mothers. Women who traveled to the UK for abortions, unless they had made a personal decision independent of societal pressures, were in effect coerced into doing so by society. This isn't choice. I would contend that the majority of abortions by Irish women up until at least the late eighties might as well have been mandatory as there was no real choice, unless isolation from society counts as a choice. Even now, many (not all) women who have abortions do so in desperation because they have a set of very bad options to choose from, not real choice. That's why I hate the term.

Brian Shanahan

Richard Bingham wrote: »

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.

Actually the principle of double effect allows some actions to be taken, but not others. For example if a woman were suffering from fallopian cancer and it would kill her not to remove it if she were pregnant, then it is ok, but if she were suffering from lung cancer and she would survive past the delivery date, but chemo were needed now to stop the cancer growing to lethal levels then it is not ok.

The principle of double effect is a pernicious idea invented by catholic theologians to force people (most especially women and the terminally ill) to suffer when there is a better, more moral, and more compassionate outcome.

Oh and most definitely in the case we are currently discussing, which is the context in which I wrote my post you replied to, the catholic church would teach that the mother be forced to carry to term, as it doesn't recognise suicidality as a legitimate risk to the life of the mother.

Richard Bingham

aloyisious wrote: »

I think it's relevant to point out that I have become very cynical over the past few years of respected professions and followings due to the revealed callous actions of official and other "service providers". I now believe that there are people still within those once-respected professions and followings who would not even blink an eyelid at carrying out actions outside their remit, and I believe that they are capable of the greatest wrongdoing possible, all because the power given to them has corrupted them. They cannot tell the difference between right and wrong any longer and are also capable of the most stupid of actions into the bargain.

I agree with you that power corrupts but I don't know what point you are making?

Richard Bingham

iwantmydinner wrote: »

This post jumped the shark.

This must be some kind of 'in' joke. Fine. Whatever.

Turtwig

Richard your argument seems to be 'women don't have always have freedom of choice in society therefore we should legally restrict their options at pregnancy"?

I honestly cannot fathom what you hope to achieve by it.

swampgas

Richard Bingham wrote: »

We just don't know that. There is anecdotal evidence that many women who have had abortions in the past will say they had no choice (which is what my posts have been referring to - choice). Do you think women who became pregnant outside of marriage in Ireland 30, 40, 50 years ago could have kept their baby. I remember the eighties and there were no unmarried mothers. Women who traveled to the UK for abortions, unless they had made a personal decision independent of societal pressures, were in effect coerced into doing so by society. This isn't choice. I would contend that the majority of abortions by Irish women up until at least the late eighties might as well have been mandatory as there was no real choice, unless isolation from society counts as a choice. Even now, many (not all) women who have abortions do so in desperation because they have a set of very bad options to choose from, not real choice. That's why I hate the term.

What you seem to be arguing here is that women cannot be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want an abortion or not because of pressure from society. That's a strange argument - are you saying that because society might make a woman's life hell for having a baby out of wedlock, and she decides that she would prefer (all things considered) not to have the baby, that she should have the baby anyway and put up with the consequences?

What you are doing here is arguing that women should have no autonomy, no self determination, because they might be swayed by the society they live in, into making a decision you disagree with.

lazygal

By Richard's logic women shouldn't get pregnant either, because some women are coerced into pregnancy by societal factors.

PopePalpatine

lazygal wrote: »

By Richard's logic women shouldn't get pregnant either, because some women are coerced into pregnancy by societal factors.

Oh no, pregnancy is "special", especially when the end-product is sold off to fill the pockets of nuns, monks and priests alike.

Richard Bingham

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Actually the principle of double effect allows some actions to be taken, but not others. For example if a woman were suffering from fallopian cancer and it would kill her not to remove it if she were pregnant, then it is ok, but if she were suffering from lung cancer and she would survive past the delivery date, but chemo were needed now to stop the cancer growing to lethal levels then it is not ok.

The principle of double effect is a pernicious idea invented by catholic theologians to force people (most especially women and the terminally ill) to suffer when there is a better, more moral, and more compassionate outcome.

Oh and most definitely in the case we are currently discussing, which is the context in which I wrote my post you replied to, the catholic church would teach that the mother be forced to carry to term, as it doesn't recognise suicidality as a legitimate risk to the life of the mother.

I'm aware of the double effect principal but I had't heard it called that.

This states that the Catholic Church is against abortion to save the life of the mother (sometimes referred to as direct abortion) however the mother's life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly attack the unborn baby's life.

Under the principle of the double effect the physician must do everything in his power to save both the mother and the child. The effect of this is that a doctor can do something which he knows will end the babies life such as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, removing the fallopian tube and with it the baby, and this is ok according to the church.

I don't have an issue with this. It happens to be my view of it too, not because I care about the church's view but because it seeks to do the least harm.

I suppose a difficultly could arise where it wasn't clear cut as perhaps in the case of giving chemotherapy to a pregnant woman however I believe that the church would have to go with the view of the medical team - its not as if any theologian could validly hold a different opinion, unless he was also an obgyn and had access to the entire medical file to assess it.

Richard Bingham

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh no, pregnancy is "special", especially when the end-product is sold off to fill the pockets of nuns, monks and priests alike.

The church bashing is getting a bit old. Not that I care, I bash them a bit myself on a regular basis (but I'm a bit more original in my bashing).

Richard Bingham

lazygal wrote: »

By Richard's logic women shouldn't get pregnant either, because some women are coerced into pregnancy by societal factors.

I'll repeat one last time, that I was taking issue with the term pro-choice.

lazygal

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I'll repeat one last time, that I was taking issue with the term pro-choice.

What about women coerced into pregnancy by societal factors, what should they do?

Richard Bingham

swampgas wrote: »

What you seem to be arguing here is that women cannot be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want an abortion or not because of pressure from society. That's a strange argument - are you saying that because society might make a woman's life hell for having a baby out of wedlock, and she decides that she would prefer (all things considered) not to have the baby, that she should have the baby anyway and put up with the consequences?

What you are doing here is arguing that women should have no autonomy, no self determination, because they might be swayed by the society they live in, into making a decision you disagree with.

Ok, one last time, I was taking issue with the term pro-choice.

<Is there an echo in here>

Richard Bingham

lazygal wrote: »

What about women coerced into pregnancy by societal factors, what should they do?

Grow a pair. <sorry no pun intended>

lazygal

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Grow a pair. <sorry no pun intended>

A pair of what?

aloyisious

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I agree with you that power corrupts but I don't know what point you are making?

In this specific situation, that some of those doctors invested with power by our state government have lost the understanding of the reason they were given the power for in the first place, that they have put their own understanding of it on it due to long-term exposure and use of the power. They now are dangerous to the health and well-being of the patient.

A symptom of this is the "We know best, dear" attitude that eventually cost Savita her life as her trained medical understanding of her own medical condition (when stated by her) was "pooh-pood" by her fellow professionals treating her.

Absolam

keane2097 wrote: »

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.

Except that if you are in a State that confers a right to life it puts in place mechanisms to protect it; it insists aeroplanes have safety features and inspections, it provides police to discourage and capture individuals who attempt to take life from others, and in the event of failing to protect or provide those rights, it provides a mechanism for redress. These would be features in States like Ireland, who confer an individuals right to life. However, you will notice an absence of mechanisms to protect an individuals right to not be pregnant unless you want to be, or to protect a right to not remain pregnant with a foetus conceived by rape. That's because Ireland does not confer those rights, which means, in Ireland, they are not rights.