Abortion Discussion

iwantmydinner

Richard Bingham wrote: »

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

Or it could be a pretty widely known reference, used when someone reaches peak ridiculous, which you did with the passage I quoted.

How anyone view abortion as a useful tool in the sexual abuser's arsenal is light years beyond my comprehension, but I guess when one is clutching at straws, one will come up with anything to justify a ridiculous stance.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

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.

Excellently put. The problem with the wording of the law brought in last year is that it recognizes "the right to life of the mother as being equal (as it put's it) to the right to life of the unborn". It seem's that the only real way to do that is actually outside the part where abortions are allowed-for by law. I'd imagine that the Supreme Court meant an actual abortion in it's ruling (where the feotus would be killed-off, rather than the pregnancy).

That alternative way is to persuade the pregnant woman to proceed with the pregnancy until the time come's that a caesarean section can be safely performed with low risk to the woman and a great chance that the feotus will survive the operation and become a living human. That seem's to have happened in the latest situation we are discussing, by whatever way the woman was "persuaded" to allow the pregnancy proceed up to the caesarean section operation.

Part of any such persuasion of a woman by the state and/or it's medical-proxies, would have to be for it to accept total legal obligatory responsibility (with guarantees in writing to her from the State's Attorney General and Finance Minister that the state will take up guardianship and financial responsibility of any baby born) for the baby it forced (by way of it's laws) a woman to support with her life, health and body until the caesarean operation or whatever other way the baby was birthed. Ignoring the full meaning of the wording of the Supreme Court ruling and that of the guide-lines on the actual meaning of abortion (the ending of the feotus rather than the pregnancy) has it's costs. If the state want's it's cake, it had better be prepared to pay for it. Ditto for those opposed to abortion in it's final essence.

Turtwig

Whoever is writing this stuff deserves a raise.

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/08/18/thousands-of-women-flocking-to-ireland-to-not-have-abortions/

Thousands Of Women Flocking To Ireland To Not Have Abortions

A NEW study has shown a significant increase in the number of pregnant women flocking to Ireland from overseas, in a bid to take advantage of strict anti-abortion laws. Figures show the majority of the women come from the UK but many flock from mainland Europe, where abortion is a perfectly legal option for a pregnant woman.
Women, hysterical and emotional creatures who lack the ability to decide what is best for themselves, find that leaving their home country and going to a place where abortion just isn’t an option is the best course of action when they find themselves in a situation they can’t begin to understand.
The trips, dubbed “pregnant holidays” by some commentators, usually begin during the first trimester, and last either for the duration of the pregnancy or until the fetus becomes capable of not dying outside the womb, in which case labour is induced or an emergency caesarian section is performed.
“Abortion is perfectly legal in my country, but as a woman I obviously can’t be trusted to make my own choices about my body,” said one 29-year-old girl from London, who we’ll just assume to be a total slut who doesn’t even know who the child’s father is

“So when I learned I was pregnant I got the boat to Ireland, where I wouldn’t have to worry myself about being incapable of making tough decisions, because someone will make all of them for me. There’s just too much choice back home, so it’s best to be in a country where if you’re pregnant, you’re treated like the walking incubation vessel that you are”.
...
Source.

Absolam

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 honestly can't see how you think that's the case?
First and foremost, a woman in a depressed state due to a pregnancy is not in a position to obtain a termination of the pregnancy; only a woman who has been assessed as being suicidal, and a determination has been made by qualified doctors that terminating the pregnancy is the appropriate method for treating the suicidal ideation.
In that case, the message appears to be quite clear; a termination of the pregnancy will be provided, which is what happened here. The method of termination will be what is deemed appropriate, again, by the qualified doctors. There is absolutely no reason based on the information from this particular case so far to assume that terminating the life of the foetus in order to terminate the pregnancy would not be an option if the circumstances required it.

aloyisious wrote: »

Excellently put. The problem with the wording of the law brought in last year is that it recognizes "the right to life of the mother as being equal (as it put's it) to the right to life of the unborn".

IS that a problem? Section 8 clearly specifies "the medical procedure is, in his or her reasonable opinion (being an opinion formed in good faith which has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable) immediately necessary in order to save the life of the woman".
That very much specifies where the right to life of the mother will be greater than the right to life of the child (if it is not practicable to also save the childs life in the course of the procedure).

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's that the only real way to do that is actually outside the part where abortions are allowed-for by law.

I can' make out what you're saying here I'm afraid; the only real way to do what is outside the law?

aloyisious wrote: »

That alternative way is to persuade the pregnant woman to proceed with the pregnancy until the time come's that a caesarean section can be safely performed with low risk to the woman and a great chance that the feotus will survive the operation and become a living human.

That does not seem to be a legal alternative where section 8 specifies a procedure is immediately necessary to save the life of the woman?

aloyisious wrote: »

That seem's to have happened in the latest situation we are discussing, by whatever way the woman was "persuaded" to allow the pregnancy proceed up to the caesarean section operation.

Again, can you show any evidence to support that assumption? If, as the Irish Times reported, the panel was convened when the woman showed suicidal ideation, made their assessment and chose to deliver the child, there's not reason to imagine that the woman was 'persuaded' to proceed with the pregnancy for any longer than it took to make the assessment and arrange for the procedure?

aloyisious wrote: »

Part of any such persuasion of a woman by the state and/or it's medical-proxies, would have to be for it to accept total legal obligatory responsibility (with guarantees in writing to her from the State's Attorney General and Finance Minister that the state will take up guardianship and financial responsibility of any baby born) for the baby it forced (by way of it's laws) a woman to support with her life, health and body until the caesarean operation or whatever other way the baby was birthed.

Are you trying to demand a legal framework for an act of persuasion that you believe shouldn't occur? That seems a little nonsensical.

aloyisious wrote: »

Ignoring the full meaning of the wording of the Supreme Court ruling and that of the guide-lines on the actual meaning of abortion (the ending of the feotus rather than the pregnancy) has it's costs.

Hang on a minute, you only opined earlier that you imagined the Supreme Court meant an actual abortion in it's ruling (where the feotus would be killed-off, rather than the pregnancy). You offered no reason to believe that the Supreme Court specified such an abortion should be the only recourse; in fact the judgement also refers to "termination of pregnancy" and "termination of pregnancy or abortion" which demonstrates that termination of the pregnancy without the destruction of the foetus was a viable option.

Nodin

Interview with the woman at the centre of this
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/i-said-you-can-leave-me-now-to-die-i-don-t-want-to-live-in-this-world-anymore-1.1901258?page=1

Vivisectus

Richard Bingham wrote: »

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.

Incorrect. Please see the interview linked in Nodin post above.

Vivisectus

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

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

Catholics from Elphin (wherever the that is. Presumably it is the island next to Craggy island) I suppose.

ANd yet it is newspaper-worthy news when he spews some poorly thought out opinions like these?

SmilingLurker

Nodin wrote: »

Interview with the woman at the centre of this
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/i-said-you-can-leave-me-now-to-die-i-don-t-want-to-live-in-this-world-anymore-1.1901258?page=1

That poor woman. This is how we treat our poor and vulnerable? Inflicting such cruelty is inhuman.

When she presented there would have been no brain activity. Bringing a child into this world with two loving parents is hard enough. Forcing a destitute raped immigrant to be pregnant is abominable.

Anyone who thinks the right thing was lacks empathy.

iwantmydinner

Kitty Holland is breaking my heart on Morning Ireland. Jesus ****ing Christ.

Waiting for one of the usual suspects to pipe up with "well I know a raped, pregnant, non-English speaking, isolated, penniless, suicidal teenage immigrant who had her rapist's baby and lived happily ever after"

Cabaal

SmilingLurker wrote: »

Anyone who thinks the right thing was lacks empathy.

Catholic Bishops think it was the right thing....well sort of.
They would have preferred she had kept the fetus to full term so it could be born without a c-section.

If lacking empathy is forcing a rape victim to have a c-section to remove the rapists off spring, then what the Bishop wants is all kinds of ****ed up :mad::mad::mad:

MrPudding

SmilingLurker wrote: »

That poor woman. This is how we treat our poor and vulnerable? Inflicting such cruelty is inhuman.

When she presented there would have been no brain activity. Bringing a child into this world with two loving parents is hard enough. Forcing a destitute raped immigrant to be pregnant is abominable.

Anyone who thinks the right thing was lacks empathy.

Empathy frequently seems to be one of the first victims of religious belief.

MrP

Delirium

Ronan Mullen has given his thoughts on the story. Sadly he's suggesting the woman shouldn't have been interviewed. No comment on the actual events.

https://twitter.com/RonanMullen/status/501631386831552513

https://twitter.com/RonanMullen/status/501631823706095616

Absolam

SmilingLurker wrote: »

Anyone who thinks the right thing was lacks empathy.

Surely we can spare some empathy for the child that's now alive and has a future, as well?

Vivisectus

SW wrote: »

Ronan Mullen has given his thoughts on the story. Sadly he's suggesting the woman shouldn't have been interviewed. No comment on the actual events.

https://twitter.com/RonanMullen/status/501631386831552513

https://twitter.com/RonanMullen/status/501631823706095616

Right - women in that situation should just get over it!

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Surely we can spare some empathy for the child that's now alive and has a future, as well?

We can of course but a child at any cost?

Sure there's now a child, a child created from rape who is not wanted by the mother or the society she came from (sex before marriage is bad...hmm that sounds awful familiar).

You have to ask exactly what future that child may have, taken into the system at 25 weeks old isn't a great start.

Vivisectus

Absolam wrote: »

Surely we can spare some empathy for the child that's now alive and has a future, as well?

You are confusing two things: one is putting a woman through all this when this horrific suffering could have been prevented by allowing her an early abortion.

The other is not aborting a now viable child with brain function and the ability to survive outside of the womb.

Confusing zygotes with babies is sort of like the modal fallacy, only fine-tuned for pro-life arguments.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

We can of course but a child at any cost?
Sure there's now a child, a child created from rape who is not wanted by the mother or the society she came from (sex before marriage is bad...hmm that sounds awful familiar).
You have to ask exactly what future that child may have, taken into the system at 25 weeks old isn't a great start.

Well, I think it cost nothing to spare it some empathy...
And yes, there is now a child who has had a horrible start in life and is likely not to be afforded any advantages whatsoever as it grows up. Nevertheless, it may be happy someday that the obstetrician decided to give it a chance.

Vivisectus wrote: »

You are confusing two things: one is putting a woman through all this when this horrific suffering could have been prevented by allowing her an early abortion.
The other is not aborting a now viable child with brain function and the ability to survive outside of the womb.

I'm not confusing them at all; I'm not even addressing them. I'm pointing out that saying anyone who thinks 'this' (being all that has been discussed on the subject, not just the earlier part of the story) is the right thing lacks empathy, misses the empathy for the child implicit in believing it is right that the obstetrician chose to save it's life.

Mr. CooL ICE

SW wrote: »

Ronan Mullen has given his thoughts on the story. Sadly he's suggesting the woman shouldn't have been interviewed. No comment on the actual events.

His face has just become even more punchable

robindch

^^^ No need for that kind of comment, please.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Nevertheless, it may be happy someday that the obstetrician decided to give it a chance.

But it wasn't the obstetrician choice to decide she should be kept waiting until 25 weeks so they could force her into having a c-section, no more then it was the rapists right to make her pregnant in the first place. In both instances we had people that ignored the women and what she wanted....or more to the case, did not want.

Its the women's body,
She's entitled to have a say in how its used and what grows or does not grow inside it.

At the end of the day the women's requests were ignored time and time again here and she was railroaded into been forced to wait and to have a c-section, all against her own wishes.

Akrasia

Absolam wrote: »

Surely we can spare some empathy for the child that's now alive and has a future, as well?

Of course we should. I have enormous empathy for this child, I sincerely hope that things will work out and this baby will lead a fulfilling life.

Unfortunately, the chances of this are slim. The child will probably be left with mental and/or physical disabilities. The child is (for now) in the care of the irish state with a very precarious legal status which could complicate the process of adoption if not prevent it entirely

(the baby is not legally Irish despite being born here thanks to the citizenship referendum in 2004 which removed automatic citizenship from children born in Ireland, as an aside, I wonder how many 'pro-life' people voted yes in this referendum, removing the right of citizenship from the unborn that they care so deeply about)

The child is born now, we all have a reponsibility to protect her and care for her and the baby has all of the human rights that each one of us has, but to say that a baby being alive is better than a baby not being alive is a vacuous statement when we look at it closer

Before the girl was raped, which was a better future outcome, being raped or not being raped?

After being raped, which was a better outcome, being pregnant, or not being pregnant?

After becoming pregnant, which was a better outcome, the choice of an early term abortion, or being denied this option?

After being denied an abortion and the woman becoming suicidal, which was a better outcome, forced feeding and constant supervision to prevent suicide, or allowing the woman to have an abortion?....


Almost the entire way through this awful situation, the best (least worst) outcome would have resulted in no baby being alive today. If you deny this, then you are forced to say that the woman being raped was a better outcome than the woman not being raped. Once the baby is born, the best outcome for all is that we support both mother and baby as best as we possibly can, And that we change our backward legal situation to ensure that this horrible series of events never happens again.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

But it wasn't the obstetrician choice to decide she should be kept waiting until 25 weeks so they could force her into having a c-section, no more then it was the rapists right to make her pregnant in the first place. In both instances we had people that ignored the women and what she wanted....or more to the case, did not want.

From her own account she wasn't kept waiting until 25 weeks so they could force her into having a c-section; she was (correctly, under the law) refused a termination, and when she went to see a GP at 23 weeks she was referred to a hospital, was assessed as being suicidal within a day, and within days a termination of the pregnancy was decided on. Claiming that she forced to continue the pregnancy until a c section was possible is just plain wrong, unless you're talking about the few days it took to arrange it.

Cabaal wrote: »

Its the women's body,She's entitled to have a say in how its used and what grows or does not grow inside it.

Well, that's not entirely true under Irish law, is it?

Cabaal wrote: »

At the end of the day the women's requests were ignored time and time again here and she was railroaded into been forced to wait and to have a c-section, all against her own wishes.

Again, that's rather stretching the truth to breaking point. At eight weeks the woman requested an abortion, which was not a legal option for her in Ireland. Nevertheless, her request wasn't ignored; the IFPC tried to help her facilitate her request over an eight week period. She chose to move her residence , and when she attended a GP at 23 weeks her situation seemed to have been reacted to with some alacrity since she was being prepared for a termination at 24 weeks. I don't see her being ignored or railroaded here?

keane2097

Absolam wrote: »

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.

Might is right baby, I love it

iwantmydinner

Absolam wrote: »

Well, that's not entirely true under Irish law, is it?

And isn't that horrific??

Absolam

Akrasia wrote: »

but to say that a baby being alive is better than a baby not being alive is a vacuous statement when we look at it closer

I disagree, but I'll happily cede the deciding vote to the child when it becomes capable of expressing it's opinion.

Akrasia wrote: »

Before the girl was raped, which was a better future outcome, being raped or not being raped?
After being raped, which was a better outcome, being pregnant, or not being pregnant?

Since these are the easy ones I'll take them together; I think we both agree that not being raped and not being pregnant as a result of the rape are better outcomes.

Akrasia wrote: »

After becoming pregnant, which was a better outcome, the choice of an early term abortion, or being denied this option?

This being a little trickier; the woman involved certainly thinks it's better to be permitted to abort. The child might feel not aborting was a better outcome. Regardless, the State does not feel that abortion is a legal remedy for pregnancy following rape.

Akrasia wrote: »

After being denied an abortion and the woman becoming suicidal, which was a better outcome, forced feeding and constant supervision to prevent suicide, or allowing the woman to have an abortion?....

I think the better outcome was the one you didn't mention; terminating the pregnancy by delivering the child.

Akrasia wrote: »

Almost the entire way through this awful situation, the best (least worst) outcome would have resulted in no baby being alive today.

I wholeheartedly agree. Even so, I think we we can spare some empathy for the child that's now alive and has a future, as well.

Absolam

iwantmydinner wrote: »

And isn't that horrific??

Not entirely?

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Well, that's not entirely true under Irish law, is it?

and that makes it ok??
:rolleyes:

As the law stands at the moment if my wife, sister or niece was raped and became pregnant they'd have no say over what would happen to their body's.

A state should support its citizens in such a time of need, not force them to hide from the state and secretly travel to the UK to get the support they need so they don't have to give birth to the rapists off spring.

Absolam, am curious how you don't see a real problem with this current setup.

aloyisious

@Absolam: a slow response to your's at 0320am today. The difference is between an abortion and a termination. Most people understand abortion to mean the killing of the feotus. I certainly do. That is certainly what opponents to abortion here have been stating and portraying it as, with their pamphlets and pictures at their street stands. I'll have to stop and closely examine their literature and posters to see if they mention the difference between abortion and termination, and if they promote termination as an alternative to abortion. Presumably, they will now.

Termination (the service actually provided to the young woman) is another thing altogether. That had NOT been made clear until now. To that end, it can be said kindly that the wording of the guidelines is legally vague and liable to misunderstanding. Another way to describe the wording is duplicitous, with the intent of conning pregnant women and others as to what the medics can do and actually will do under the guidelines.

I posit that if any member of the public had been stopped in the street in a random poll and asked what he/she understood termination of a pregnancy meant, where abortion was concerned, he/she would not have seen there was a divide between the two and would have replied that it meant the end of the feotus, by killing it off. Termination is now clearly definable as the ending of a pregnancy for women by means other than abortion, unless that is questioned before the Supreme Court and it state's differently.

Having read your responses to my post. I see that you too are apparently mislead by the wording of the guidelines as well, when it comes to the meaning of the words "abortion" and "termination". Let me say it clearly now; the actions of the medics speak louder than words. The actions have resulted in a clear distinction between the two words. I hope that you stop using the two words as meaning one and the same thing when you post on the topic, giving the impression that they mean the same thing where Irish Medics are concerned.

As for your "understanding" of what I posted; It seem's that the only real way to do that is actually outside the part where abortions are allowed-for by law: with your response-question "I can' make out what you're saying here I'm afraid; the only real way to do what is outside the law?.... I see that you follow that question up by reposting another quote of mine. quote; That alternative way is to persuade the pregnant woman to proceed with the pregnancy until the time come's that a caesarean section can be safely performed with low risk to the woman and a great chance that the feotus will survive the operation and become a living human: unquote.. I meant that the medics could have the best of both worlds, so I fail to understand why you cannot see that.

I definitely did not use the singular expression; outside the law, that is an abbreviation by you of a quote of mine. Please do not infer that I advocated the breaking of statute law and please stop trying to wind me up (kick myself for falling for your scheming ways of getting a response from me, again) LOL

aloyisious

SW wrote: »

Ronan Mullen has given his thoughts on the story. Sadly he's suggesting the woman shouldn't have been interviewed. No comment on the actual events.

https://twitter.com/RonanMullen/status/501631386831552513

https://twitter.com/RonanMullen/status/501631823706095616

Interpretation... she should not talk, she's only the person directly affected and she's a woman to boot. Listen to me, I'm a man, a senator and against abortion.

iwantmydinner

Absolam wrote: »

Not entirely?

Yes, actually, it is entirely horrific.