Abortion Discussion

Leftist

very embarrassing state of affairs that the choice of abortion in cases such as this rape victim, are made by the religious third parties.

ireland is light years behind the rest of the western world in terms of secularism.

Cabaal

Twitter responds to Ronan - http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/08/19/say-it-aint-ro/

iwantmydinner

My fear is that he actually relishes this reaction. We can't not react, though. Ugh.

Vivisectus

Absolam wrote:

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.

If you see "this" as the whole affair from beginning to end, then thinking that the outcome was right or displays an appropriate or understandable level of empathy is pretty awful in my book. That is just not the case.

If you see "this" as the decision that was there to be made at the time the woman threatened to commit suicide and went into hunger strike, then it is a different story as a viable child existed at the time at quite an advanced stage of development, adding a new level of horribleness to the whole situation.

But at the beginning of this whole sorry saga - when the woman was asking for an abortion when she first found out she was pregnant - there was not. There was just some cells that could potentially develop into a human being.

You can have empathy with the viable child, but if you empathized with every piece of human genetic material that has the potential to develop into a human being then you would have to be constantly depressed at the vast amount of viable eggs and sperm we waste on a daily basis. As a species we are quite wasteful with the stuff. Loads of those are viable... under the right circumstances.

Thus, it depends on how you define "this"

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

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.

It's obviously a broader discussion than the specifics of the case currently being discussed, but as the law stands at the moment, the blastocyst/zygote/foetus/child that results from a rape has almost as much right to life as the woman carrying it. The woman of course does have a say over what would happen to their body; just not to the extent that they infringe (except in specific circumstances) on the right to life of the entity that they're carrying. I never said I don't see a real problem with the current setup; there are problems with all setups, and I doubt anyone can design a setup for such circumstances which would be roundly acclaimed as good. I absolutely agree that the state should support their it's citizens in a time of need, I simply disagree that the destruction of one (innocent) life is an appropriate response to the damaging of another one.

Cabaal

Vivisectus wrote: »

You can have empathy with the viable child, but if you empathized with every piece of human genetic material that has the potential to develop into a human being then you would have to be constantly depressed at the vast amount of viable eggs and sperm we waste on a daily basis.

Lets not forget that its only viable at week 25 due to massive advances in medical science...and even at that its very far from a 100% survival rate and even less so if its a male compared to a female.

Such advances in the future could lead to a large amount of human genetic material very much so having the potential to turn into another human life, should we treat all this material special in our future?

What a weird world we could live in then,

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Termination (the service actually provided to the young woman) is another thing altogether. That had NOT been made clear until now.

To who, by who, and when?

aloyisious wrote: »

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.

To be clear, you imagine pregnant women are somehow disadvantaged by terminating their pregnancy rather than terminating the life they're carrying? How exactly is it that a woman who is suicidal as a result of being pregnant, is conned by being relieved of her pregnancy if the child remains alive?

aloyisious wrote: »

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.

Termination of a pregnancy has always been clearly definable so, and has been defined so by (pro choice) posters on this thread in the past.
What is it that makes you so determined that a child must die for the pregnancy to be considered 'terminated'?

aloyisious wrote: »

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".

Not really; I noted that the Supreme Court uses the phrases "termination of pregnancy" and "termination of pregnancy or abortion". Had they simply used the word "termination", what exactly they were referring to being terminated might well be ambiguous. But they didn't, they used the term "termination of pregnancy".

aloyisious wrote: »

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.

Let me reply clearly; it's not two words. It's a phrase and a word. They have both distinct and intersecting usages, and in the context it's clear that the Supreme Court intended to use the word 'abortion' in it's common context rather than it's broader linguistic context. The fact that they used both the phrase and the word demonstrates that they were cogniscant that it is not necessary, or even desirable, to answer the requirement of a suicidal ideation in a pregnant woman solely by killing the foetus.

aloyisious wrote: »

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 wasn't being picky or tricky: I still don't understand what you mean.
The only way to do what is outside what part (of what?) where abortions are allowed-for by law?

aloyisious wrote: »

I meant that the medics could have the best of both worlds, so I fail to understand why you cannot see that.

How do the medics (presuming you mean obstetricians here?) have the best of what both worlds?

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[/QUOTE]
This is what you posted:

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.

And that is exactly what I quoted.
I wasn't trying to wind you up, I didn't (and still don't) understand what you were trying to say. That is not an attack on you, or your post, I just don't comprehend that bit.

Absolam

Vivisectus wrote: »

If you see "this" <..>
Thus, it depends on how you define "this"

It does, and if you define it as being all that has been discussed on the subject, not just the earlier part of the story, I think you should be able to spare some empathy for the child that resulted.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

It's obviously a broader discussion than the specifics of the case currently being discussed, but as the law stands at the moment, the blastocyst/zygote/foetus/child that results from a rape has almost as much right to life as the woman carrying it. The woman of course does have a say over what would happen to their body; just not to the extent that they infringe (except in specific circumstances) on the right to life of the entity that they're carrying. I never said I don't see a real problem with the current setup; there are problems with all setups, and I doubt anyone can design a setup for such circumstances which would be roundly acclaimed as good. I absolutely agree that the state should support their it's citizens in a time of need, I simply disagree that the destruction of one (innocent) life is an appropriate response to the damaging of another one.

1. the blastocyst/zygote/foetus/child that results from a rape has almost as much right to life - ALMOST? The state acknowledges both the unborn and the mother as having an equal right to life. (8th amendment to the constitution).

2. Citizens? Do you see the feotus as a citizen? Edit. We, the Irish people decided by referendum that children born here to foreign nationals were no longer to be automatically given the Irish citizenship usually given to people born here......

3. the destruction of one (innocent) life is an appropriate response to the damaging of another one. I assume it's safe to read that you don't mean all the health scenarios mentioned in the Protection Of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, but are referring the specific case we're discussing?

Re the citizenship piece above in 2. the following quote refers; Under the provisions of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004, children born of other foreign national parents in the island of Ireland on or after 1 January 2005 are not automatically entitled to Irish citizenship. These parents must prove that they have a genuine link to Ireland. This will be evidenced by their having 3 out of the previous 4 years reckonable residence in the island of Ireland immediately before the birth of the child. On proof of a genuine link to Ireland their child will be entitled to Irish citizenship and can apply for a certificate of nationality - see 'How to apply' below: end-quote

Article link; https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citizensinformation.ie%2Fen%2Fmoving_country%2Firish_citizenship%2Firish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent.html&ei=41HzU_C7D4yg7Aa1j4CoAg&usg=AFQjCNHBH1-7x4g0j00-BXow10tvdblbGg...
Para 3.2 refers.....

iwantmydinner

Absolam wrote: »

It does, and if you define it as being all that has been discussed on the subject, not just the earlier part of the story, I think you should be able to spare some empathy for the child that resulted.

I'm not sure where you've gotten this idea that there's no empathy for the child.

Stark

Absolam wrote: »

It does, and if you define it as being all that has been discussed on the subject, not just the earlier part of the story, I think you should be able to spare some empathy for the child that resulted.

The most likely severely disabled lifetime care system child that resulted because an 8 year old embryo had to be given life no matter what the cost? Plenty more human genetic material out there with unfulfilled potential, lets see what other violations we can commit with the sperm at our disposal.

Frito

Absolam wrote: »

At eight weeks the woman requested an abortion, which was not a legal option for her in Ireland.

This is an issue that Professor O'Keane has raised before in a previous article, that suicidal intent must be explicitly stated. My reading of the woman's experience in the Irish Times article is that suicidal ideation could have been predicted at eight weeks, she stated very clearly she did not wish to continue with the pregnancy (iirc she made a reference to her life being over) and she thought that an abortion was being organised for her at 8 weeks. When she realised this was not the case she verbalised suicidal ideation.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

1. the blastocyst/zygote/foetus/child that results from a rape has almost as much right to life - ALMOST? The state acknowledges both the unborn and the mother as having an equal right to life. (8th amendment to the constitution).

Almost, because the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act specifies where a pregnant womans life may take precedence over that of a foetus. I quoted it in a reply to you earlier, remember?

aloyisious wrote: »

2. Citizens? Do you see the feotus as a citizen?

No, if you look at the post from Cabaal which I was replying to ( I qouted it in my reply), he specified the state should support its citizens in such a time of need, and I was agreeing.

aloyisious wrote: »

3. the destruction of one (innocent) life is an appropriate response to the damaging of another one. I assume it's safe to read that you don't mean all the health scenarios mentioned in the Protection Of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, but are referring the specific case we're discussing?

I wasn't actually referring to legislation or a specific case; I said "I simply disagree that the destruction of one (innocent) life is an appropriate response to the damaging of another one". It was an expression of my opinion that a threat to a pregnant womans health is not on a par with a threat to a pregnant womans life, and therefore a remedy so extreme as to destroy another (innocent) individuals life is not warranted.

Absolam

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I'm not sure where you've gotten this idea that there's no empathy for the child.

I didn't say there is no empathy for the child? I know for a fact that I have empathy for the child.
In response to this post:

SmilingLurker wrote: »

Anyone who thinks the right thing was lacks empathy.

I said this:

Absolam wrote: »

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

Absolam

Stark wrote: »

The most likely severely disabled lifetime care system child that resulted because an 8 year old embryo had to be given life no matter what the cost?

Either you have access to a substantial amount of information that's not public knowledge, or you're talking about a different case?

Stark wrote: »

Plenty more human genetic material out there with unfulfilled potential, lets see what other violations we can commit with the sperm at our disposal.

Eh, I suppose there is? Have you particular violations to commit with sperm in mind? This is probably not the best place for sharing them I suspect.

Absolam

Frito wrote: »

This is an issue that Professor O'Keane has raised before in a previous article, that suicidal intent must be explicitly stated. My reading of the woman's experience in the Irish Times article is that suicidal ideation could have been predicted at eight weeks, she stated very clearly she did not wish to continue with the pregnancy (iirc she made a reference to her life being over) and she thought that an abortion was being organised for her at 8 weeks. When she realised this was not the case she verbalised suicidal ideation.

I'm not a psychologist so I can't say if suicidal ideation can necessarily be predicted; though I would not be confident that the probability of future suicidal ideation would be sufficient grounds to 'cure' the ideation with a termination before the ideation actually occurred.
According to the article she did say she did not wish to continue with the pregnancy at eight weeks, although I think it seems fairly clear that at that point she wasn't saying she wanted to die, she was saying she wanted an abortion. It was when she was sixteen weeks that she says she expressed a desire to die to a staff member at the IFPA; had that staff member referred her to a GP at that point it seems likely that the process would have started sooner, and there would have been no option of a c section, does it not?

aloyisious

@Absolam, got what you mean about citizenship. ..

Originally Posted by aloyisious View Post
2. Citizens? Do you see the feotus as a citizen?
No, if you look at the post from Cabaal which I was replying to ( I qouted it in my reply), he specified the state should support its citizens in such a time of need, and I was agreeing.

However it's probably a moot point. We, the citizens to change the law on citizenship by referendum (a clause in the overall change voted on). Para 3.2 in the article below refers.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citizensinformation.ie%2Fen%2Fmoving_country%2Firish_citizenship%2Firish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent.html&ei=6VfzU42UN67y7AaG6YDIBw&usg=AFQjCNHBH1-7x4g0j00-BXow10tvdblbGg&bvm=bv.73231344,d.ZGU

Nodin

Cabaal wrote: »

Twitter responds to Ronan - http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/08/19/say-it-aint-ro/

Those are responses to Mullen on the radio here
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/today-with-sean-o-rourke/

Basically he says its a conspiracy to get in abortion. Other choice comments -

'would people rather see a child in a hospital incinerator than an incubator?'

'You can do better than the IFPA who are only interested in promoting abortion anyway'

'15,000 is the number of children who were aborted and used to heat British hospitals last year...'

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

However it's probably a moot point. We, the citizens to change the law on citizenship by referendum (a clause in the overall change voted on). Para 3.2 in the article below refers.

Cabaal was referring to citizens who are pregnant and should be supported by the state in their time of need, and I replied in the same vein. Neither of us were talking about unborn entities being citizens. Or if Cabaal was, perhaps he can clarify; I certainly didn't read it as such.

Stark

Absolam wrote: »

Either you have access to a substantial amount of information that's not public knowledge, or you're talking about a different case?

The majority of children born prematurely at 24 weeks gestation end up with severe disabilities.

Absolaml wrote: »

Eh, I suppose there is? Have you particular violations to commit with sperm in mind? This is probably not the best place for sharing them I suspect.

Well we could rape and force feed a few more women to bring more precious children into the world. The end justifies the means right?

kylith

Frito wrote: »

This is an issue that Professor O'Keane has raised before in a previous article, that suicidal intent must be explicitly stated. My reading of the woman's experience in the Irish Times article is that suicidal ideation could have been predicted at eight weeks, she stated very clearly she did not wish to continue with the pregnancy (iirc she made a reference to her life being over) and she thought that an abortion was being organised for her at 8 weeks. When she realised this was not the case she verbalised suicidal ideation.

I wonder if this may have been a problem because of working through an interpreter. I have worked in a place that used interpreters before and on more than one occasion there were problems with the interpreter telling the staff what they thought the client meant rather than what they had actually said.

Frito

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not a psychologist so I can't say if suicidal ideation can necessarily be predicted; though I would not be confident that the probability of future suicidal ideation would be sufficient grounds to 'cure' the ideation with a termination before the ideation actually occurred.
According to the article she did say she did not wish to continue with the pregnancy at eight weeks, although I think it seems fairly clear that at that point she wasn't saying she wanted to die, she was saying she wanted an abortion. It was when she was sixteen weeks that she says she expressed a desire to die to a staff member at the IFPA; had that staff member referred her to a GP at that point it seems likely that the process would have started sooner, and there would have been no option of a c section, does it not?

My point being it is not the scope of the IFPA to assess whether suicidal ideation is present, that is the responsibility of the panel.

I've had a quick look at section 9 of the act and the guidance documents for health professionals, it seems there needs to be a suspicion of the possibility of suicidal ideation to warrant assessment by the panel.

I believe there were grounds for her to be referred at 8 weeks gestation, if her account is reliable.

@kylith
The language barrier and translation service may be an issue.

Nodin

Frito wrote: »

My point being it is not the scope of the IFPA to assess whether suicidal ideation is present, that is the responsibility of the panel.

I've had a quick look at section 9 of the act and the guidance documents for health professionals, it seems there needs to be a suspicion of the possibility of suicidal ideation to warrant assessment by the panel.

I believe there were grounds for her to be referred at 8 weeks gestation, if her account is reliable.

@kylith
The language barrier and translation service may be an issue.

There's the question also of why she was referred to the IFPA considering she has no means to travel.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Cabaal was referring to citizens who are pregnant and should be supported by the state in their time of need, and I replied in the same vein. Neither of us were talking about unborn entities being citizens. Or if Cabaal was, perhaps he can clarify; I certainly didn't read it as such.

For clarity, I wasn't talking about a fetus being a citizen, I was talking about the women.

If you want to count a fetus as a citizen of Ireland then you must also be in favor of any women who drinks alcohol or smokes during pregnancy being charged with supplying such substances to a minor.
:rolleyes:

In this situation if she was an Irish citizen then the state would have failed her. The fact she wasn't a citizen means they still failed her.

To elaborate further on my previous comment if my wife was raped and became pregnant neither my wife or myself would ever inform the HSE on the basis that they might try to stop her from having an abortion.

Its a ****ed up country where medical services effectively railroad any women/girl into keeping a rapists fetus if the women/girl doesn't want it.

Vivisectus

It does rather seem that the Irish government has managed to create a system where we can see the worst possible outcome of a system that forbids abortion, with women being effectively reduced to living incubators against their will, as well as the worst possible almost-abortion with awful late-term reproductive surgery as we have just seen.

All of this could have been sorted by a quick intervention when there was still nothing but a small clump of cells.

shruikan2553

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/08/19/wwns-guide-to-abortion-in-ireland/

WWN at it again

Cabaal

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/08/19/wwns-guide-to-abortion-in-ireland/

WWN is proud to present a comprehensive guide to the complex and much-muddied issue of abortion in ‘modern’ Ireland. It’s important Ireland’s women as legally registered third class citizens know their lack of human rights.

1. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 euro. Go to jail.

2. Remember, if you have roughly €1,500 at your disposal, you can be thankful that this poorly thought out legislation will never effect you – as you, an Irish resident, only have to travel to England, a different country, to make a decision about your own body.

3. If you have the misfortune of being raped, or you know – just don’t want a child you should mentally prepare yourself for countless drawn out psychiatric evaluations, one initially carried out by a GP that will have little or no training in these matters, that seek to find out if you are willing to take your own life.

4. Additionally if you’re part of a vulnerable minority with little or no surrounding support system I just wouldn’t have read no.2 if I were you. Listen, if on the other you have the money for the trip to England, this is obviously not an issue you should worry about. What does it matter to you, you’re rich, not a minority, sure you’re laughing.

5. In Ireland you never need an abortion until you need an abortion or you’re a man so honestly, there’s no need for you to get involved by writing to your local TD or joining/forming any protests or pro-choice advocacy groups.

6. If you are indeed a man – high five. How ****ing lucky are you that the state isn’t trying to stop you masturbating even though that sperm of yours is the essential giver of life along with a woman’s egg.

7. Go to England.

8. Remember if you as an Irish woman fall pregnant, it is everybody’s business and it is always a very straightforward black and white moral issue.

9. It is important to never care about things like the right to choose, adoption rights, the homeless and so on until it directly affects you – this is what makes Ireland such a great country to be part of.

10. Did you know Irish women have to register her ovaries with the Irish Office of Ovary Records once they have their first period.

11. Women must be careful to appreciate the sensitivities of old white men in suits when it comes to abortion. This is more important than anything.

12. Seriously it is. Read 11 again.

13. Why are you still reading this? Go to England!

aloyisious

Nodin wrote: »

Those are responses to Mullen on the radio here
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/today-with-sean-o-rourke/

Basically he says its a conspiracy to get in abortion. Other choice comments -

'would people rather see a child in a hospital incinerator than an incubator?'

'You can do better than the IFPA who are only interested in promoting abortion anyway'

'15,000 is the number of children who were aborted and used to heat British hospitals last year...'

Hopefully the Senator keep's up making the throw-away comments, on a "Loose Lips Sink Ships" basis.

Ronan ask's Sean does he know if the baby is male or female, Sean gently remind's Ronan of the court injunction and he can't comment (probably to avoid the A.G, the court and the BAI going ape on him) and Ronan's response "with the greatest of respect, that's a poor/pure? excuse". His comments about the media being trumped by a PR agency on the story, and then the media pushing the story made me laugh. Does he think that Iona never uses the media and PR to push it's agenda, that he is not pushing his own anti-abortion agenda right at that moment on air and that we are idiots (better not answer that last one). Maybe there is something libellous in his comment about the IFPA and abortion and it can at least get a retraction (corporate or board-membership) if not more. He seem's to think that women in the situation of having an unwanted pregnancy don't have the brains to think about suicide, that they have to have some-one put the idea into their heads.

iwantmydinner

aloyisious wrote: »

He seem's to think that women in the situation of having an unwanted pregnancy don't have the brains to think about suicide, that they have to have some-one put the idea into their heads.

Well, as brood mares, of course we wouldn't come up with the idea ourselves

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

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

And Irish law isn't entirely compliant with its international treaty obligations either, is it?