Abortion Discussion

hinault

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I'd be quite happy to see it be like Canada - a decision made between a woman and her medical team.

Canada has one of the most liberal abortion regimes in the world.

Even Canada's political parties refuse to allow pro-life candidates to run for election.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/05/07/justin-trudeau-says-anti-abortion-candidates-cant-run-as-liberals/

Absolam

secondrowgal wrote: »

We've all been over this a 1,000 times. It isn't a "child", it's a foetus.

We have; both sides of the discussion tend to use the term most sympathetic to their position.
However, since in this instance we're discussing a particular set of individuals, the child I referred to is in fact currently a child, not a foetus, so I think it is factually incorrect to say 'it's a foetus'.

secondrowgal wrote: »

You may not "think" that anyone actually tortured her, and that's your opinion, but if it were me, a woman, in that position I would most certainly deem it torture.

Yes, that's what I think, and as Obliq has pointed out, that seems to supported by the convention against torture she quoted.

Absolam

kylith wrote: »

Tell you what, we'll deny you the right to any say about what happens your body for 26 weeks then make you undergo a major surgery and we'll see if you reckon it's a torturous experience.

As I said,I don't see any support for the allegation that she was denied any say about what happened to her body for 26 weeks.
She was denied the facility to kill herself by engaging in a hunger and thirst strike for up to but not more than 12 days; that's not quite the same thing.

I think I can draw a distinction between a torturous experience and actual torture. Can't you?

Absolam

Vivisectus wrote: »

With you so far, but then I seem to remember you said that this is the reason you feel we should not allow any abortion? It seems perfectly compatible with first trimester terminations to me.

I don't remember saying 'we should not allow any abortion' at all? I would have thought based on the/my/a concept of personhood that first trimester terminations are pretty much in the ballpark of what could be permitted? Regardless of the concept of personhood I think it is morally and ethically appropriate to terminate the life of a foetus where it threatens the life of a woman, or where the abortion is a necessary side effect of treatment required in order to save the life of a woman, when terminating the pregnancy without terminating the life of the foetus is not a viable option (though I have strong misgivings about termination being used as a treatment for suicidal ideation).

Vivisectus wrote: »

But then we can reasonably assume that personhood is physically impossible until around week 12?

I would certainly agree that it seems to be reasonably unlikely that personhood exists in the early weeks/months of development. I would not care to offer an opinion on when exactly that circumstance changes though.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

So you can travel, if you can organise and fund it yourself, and you can kill your unborn baby which supposedly has constitutional protection as long as you don't do it on these shores. We're a great little country.

Are you suggesting that we should legislate to limit peoples right to travel based on the suspicion that they may commit an act abroad which is legal there but not legal here, or that we should invest in upscaling our military so that we can attempt to enforce our laws on other jurisdictions?

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

though I have strong misgivings about termination being used as a treatment for suicidal ideation

It's not. Experiencing suicidal ideation and being in a suicidal state are not the same thing.

jill_valentine

Absolam wrote: »

Are you suggesting that we should legislate to limit peoples right to travel based on the suspicion that they may commit an act abroad which is legal there but not legal here, or that we should invest in upscaling our military so that we can attempt to enforce our laws on other jurisdictions?

If I might be so bold, her point is far more likely that our lawmaking on the subject is consciously designed to exploit that possibility as an overflow mechanism. It is a conscious hypocrisy which uses a neighbouring country as a kind of plausibly deniable fixer to do our ideological dirty work.

If transport to England stopped tomorrow, it would not take very long for the law here to be re-examined out of necessity. It's not a question of increasing our jurisdiction, it's that what we have is law Macguyver'ed together to satisfy just about every agenda except a) That of the people it who will have to bear the brunt of it, and b) That of actually preventing abortions, resulting in profoundly short sighted lawmaking and a nightmarish shambles when it comes into contact with reality.

The goal of our political attitude to abortion is not to actually materially prevent abortions happening, it's to make sure they happen elsewhere.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

It's not. Experiencing suicidal ideation and being in a suicidal state are not the same thing.

Well, I didn't say they were.
The legislation says that where there is a risk of loss of the womans life by way of suicide where the risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure, the procedure should be carried out.
It would seem to me that suicidal ideation would be considered such a risk?
Given that suicidal ideation was a substantial part of the reason there was a debate leading up the enactment, it seems unlikely that I'm alone in thinking that, nor do I think that anyone intended that the woman would have to be in a suicidal state (which reads to me as someone who has attempted or is in the process of attempting suicide) before any action could be taken to save her life.

So, if suicidal ideation creates risk of loss to a womans life by way of suicide and that risk is averted by carrying out a medical termination of the pregnancy, then termination has been used to treat the suicidal ideation, has it not?

Absolam

jill_valentine wrote: »

If I might be so bold, her point is far more likely that our lawmaking on the subject is consciously designed to exploit that possibility as an overflow mechanism. It is a conscious hypocrisy which uses a neighbouring country as a kind of plausibly deniable fixer to do our ideological dirty work.

I think that's a plausible fiction that is thrown out occasionally by pro-choice advocates who simply don't like to think that there may actually be a substantial number of people who don't agree with varying degrees of abortion availability.

jill_valentine wrote: »

If transport to England stopped tomorrow, it would not take very long for the law here to be re-examined out of necessity.

I'm sure it wouldn't take long for that to be called for by those who want it. I'm not so sure that it would pass though.

jill_valentine wrote: »

The goal of our political attitude to abortion is not to actually materially prevent abortions happening, it's to make sure they happen elsewhere.

There's no actual substantial basis for that statement though; how many people (or politicians, or Supreme Court judges) do you think would actually say they want abortion somewhere handy, just not right here? I think it's another similar line trotted out because it's hard to imagine that there may be a majority of people in Ireland who actually don't believe abortion should be practiced (in varying degrees).

Cabaal

inocybe wrote: »

legally there is a 14 year prison sentence possible

I'm aware of that, now please point out where I can be given the option of a fine or prison for murdering somebody.

No such option exists, as such the Irish state does not see a fetus as equal to that of a 1 month old baby or anything older

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I didn't say they were.
The legislation says that where there is a risk of loss of the womans life by way of suicide where the risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure, the procedure should be carried out.
It would seem to me that suicidal ideation would be considered such a risk?
Given that suicidal ideation was a substantial part of the reason there was a debate leading up the enactment, it seems unlikely that I'm alone in thinking that, nor do I think that anyone intended that the woman would have to be in a suicidal state (which reads to me as someone who has attempted or is in the process of attempting suicide) before any action could be taken to save her life.

So, if suicidal ideation creates risk of loss to a womans life by way of suicide and that risk is averted by carrying out a medical termination of the pregnancy, then termination has been used to treat the suicidal ideation, has it not?

Suicidal ideation means thinking about suicide. Most people do it even if very briefly, at some point in their lives. They may have no intention to act on it, but they imagine how it would be and how it would end the circumstances causing their suffering. It can be fleeting. They are not necessarily a suicide risk.

A person with ongoing suicidal ideation, a plan, intent and the means to carry out the plan are a high risk. A person merely having the thoughts is not.

No one in this country will get an abortion because they present to the panel of three consultants and say 'Hi I've been thinking of suicide and the only way I will stop thinking about it is if I have an abortion'. There is a lot more than merely suicidal ideation to being deemed a high suicide risk.

Everything they say and do during consultations will be assessed microscopically and any inconsistencies in they way they present and what they say will add up toward the final verdict on risk.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Suicidal ideation means thinking about suicide. Most people do it even if very briefly, at some point in their lives. They may have no intention to act on it, but they imagine how it would be and how it would end the circumstances causing their suffering. It can be fleeting. They are not necessarily a suicide risk.

Id' agree that the words suicidal ideation mean thinking about suicide, and I'm happy to agree that not everyone who has suicidal ideation is a suicide risk. But I would point out that not necessarily being a suicide risk is not the same as not being a suicide risk.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

No one in this country will get an abortion because they present to the panel of three consultants and say 'Hi I've been thinking of suicide and the only way I will stop thinking about it is if I have an abortion'.

I should hope not; the consultants are supposed to form their own opinion that the risk of suicide can only be averted by performing the medical procedure.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Everything they say and do during consultations will be assessed microscopically and any inconsistencies in they way they present and what they say will add up toward the final verdict on risk.

And if the verdict is that the patients suicidal ideation is a risk that is likely to be a threat to her life, which can only be averted by terminating her pregnancy, do you think the panel would order the termination?

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

And if the verdict is that the patients suicidal ideation is a risk that is likely to be a threat to her life, which can only be averted by terminating her pregnancy, do you think the panel would order the termination?

They are legally obliged to, so I would certainly hope so!

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

They are legally obliged to, so I would certainly hope so!

So having determined that suicidal ideation was the risk, and ordering a termination to avert the risk, they have treated suicidal ideation with termination.

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

So having determined that suicidal ideation was the risk, and ordering a termination to avert the risk, they have treated suicidal ideation with termination.

I think a nuance that has emerged though is this: if a termination is deemed permissible because of suicide risk, how long can the procedure be delayed?

If someone was 8 weeks pregnant you would expect an abortion to happen. If someone was already 28 weeks pregnant you would expect an induced early delivery. What about at 20 weeks? Can the woman be forced to continue the pregnancy until sufficient viability is deemed to have occurred, and can a C section be forced on a woman who doesn't want it as the "termination"?

Once again what we see happening is the woman having zero input into the decision making process, and medical professionals imposing quite barbaric treatment despite the obvious distress of the woman.

If I might be so bold as to question your tone, you give the impression that this type of treatment meets your approval, as a foetus is not being destroyed. Personally I don't think hiding behind the legalities of the situation helps here - we need to figure out first what we think the ethical treatment of pregnant women should be and base the law on that, rather than the other way round.

Vivisectus

I don't remember saying 'we should not allow any abortion' at all? I would have thought based on the/my/a concept of personhood that first trimester terminations are pretty much in the ballpark of what could be permitted?

Yeah I was getting the feeling I had jumped to a conclusion. As it turns out that feeling was being caused by me, jumping to a conclusion.

Regardless of the concept of personhood I think it is morally and ethically appropriate to terminate the life of a foetus where it threatens the life of a woman, or where the abortion is a necessary side effect of treatment required in order to save the life of a woman, when terminating the pregnancy without terminating the life of the foetus is not a viable option (though I have strong misgivings about termination being used as a treatment for suicidal ideation).

I agree that it becomes ethically quite complex at that point, especially if it is becoming a relatively late termination.

I would certainly agree that it seems to be reasonably unlikely that personhood exists in the early weeks/months of development. I would not care to offer an opinion on when exactly that circumstance changes though.

Darn. And I was having such a good time arguing with you too.

Zubeneschamali

swampgas wrote: »

if a termination is deemed permissible because of suicide risk, how long can the procedure be delayed?

Fog at Heathrow can be a problem sometimes.

swampgas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Fog at Heathrow can be a problem sometimes.

If delays travelling to the UK were the only issue facing this young rape victim that might even be funny.

Leftist

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Do you not think that it is possible to hope for a good (or the better of a number of possible) outcome at which ever juncture a person becomes aware of the situation? Ralphdejones wasn't present when the rape occurred and it had already happened by the time he heard of the situation. The scenario is therefore where he finds himself, it is a given so to speak and his gladness or otherwise about it are irrelevant. Taking it from this point it is perfectly possible for him or anyone to be glad the child survived without being glad the rape happened. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous. What your saying is that no good can come from something bad. If you lost your job and three months later managed to secure another job and someone told you they were glad you got a new job, would you reply "oh so your happy I lost my job"!

This discussion gets more ridiculous every day.

the arrogance of this line of thinking is staggering.

So you were raped? how do you know you won't be happy with the kid? abortion denied.

utterly sickening how these religious types think they have any moral right to dictate the choices of others.

Zubeneschamali

swampgas wrote: »

If delays travelling to the UK were the only issue facing this young rape victim that might even be funny.

No, not funny, but that is the real reason we are having this stupid debate again. Average voters, or young girls who are the daughters of politicians, journalists, lawyers (or bishops!) don't have to deal with this mad law.

We already have abortion on demand in Ireland, you just need a thousand euros, a few days free and a solid visa. And Irish voters like it that way - they have repeatedly voted for abortion on demand for Irish women in England.

aloyisious

@Absolam. Your quote; Are you suggesting that we should legislate to limit peoples right to travel based on the suspicion that they may commit an act abroad which is legal there but not legal here?:unquote....
ha ha. We all know, or can become aware, that that is a non-starter given our Supreme Court's slap-down of an A.G's attempt to use the courts to do precisely that. Good of you to remind (I'm sure it wouldn't take long for that to be called for by those who want it. I'm not so sure that it would pass though) us of that X-case ruling of the court safeguarding of a constitutional freedom, that of travel. The Military bit was a bit OTT, the Gardai and the A.G have the confidence of the Govt (I think).


Your response; (I think that's a plausible fiction that is thrown out occasionally by pro-choice advocates who simply don't like to think that there may actually be a substantial number of people who don't agree with varying degrees of abortion availability... to jill valentine's quote; If I might be so bold, her point is far more likely that our lawmaking on the subject is consciously designed to exploit that possibility as an overflow mechanism. It is a conscious hypocrisy which uses a neighbouring country as a kind of plausibly deniable fixer to do our ideological dirty work. unquote)..... seem's to ignore the reality that pro-choice advocates are aware that there is a substantial number of people who don't agree with abortion. The pro-choice advocates you mentioned are aware that there are politicians amongst the number of people against abortion. Those people are one of the reasons why the pro-choice side has such a hard fight to get abortion legalized here on grounds set by women who see the need for it for women here.

Do you think that there are no politicians or other people here who don't use the back door abortion-route to Britain as a handy escape to avoid having to voluntarily legislate for laws similar to Britain here?

I'm also interested in what you mean exactly by "with varying degrees of abortion availability", can you list those varying degrees and are they available here?

Are you including the just-used caesarian section termination as one of a varying degree of abortions, given that it was a termination, not an abortion?


@ anyone who comes up with, or posts. anything about babies born to mothers who had sought to have it aborted while it was a feotus not been recognized or ignored after it was born by whatever route, we have not ignored the baby born to the rape victim. Don't try to play the "think of the baby" sympathy-card here as an item in the anti-abortion armoury. Any such act show's a cold-hearted lack of care about the baby. In this case, the baby is clearly not been ignored in the wash, and hasn't been thrown out with the bath-water.

swampgas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, not funny, but that is the real reason we are having this stupid debate again. Average voters, or young girls who are the daughters of politicians, journalists, lawyers (or bishops!) don't have to deal with this mad law.

We already have abortion on demand in Ireland, you just need a thousand euros, a few days free and a solid visa. And Irish voters like it that way - they have repeatedly voted for abortion on demand for Irish women in England.

Very true. But I think (hope?) Irish voters would also be prepared to have abortion in Ireland as well, but no government has ever dared ask the question in a referndum.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Are you suggesting that we should legislate to limit peoples right to travel based on the suspicion that they may commit an act abroad which is legal there but not legal here,

Not sure in the Irish context but the UK have passed such legislation, and given that the Irish legal system is derived from the British system I doubt there is any jurisprudential reason why such laws could not be passed.

Absolam wrote: »

or that we should invest in upscaling our military so that we can attempt to enforce our laws on other jurisdictions?

Are you trying to make a funny or is that a serious suggestion? Here are three examples from the UK:

1) Paying a bribe in a foreign country, even where such payments are considered legal,
2) Having sex with a minor. That is a child considered a minor in UK law, not where the sexual act was committed, where such an act may be lawful.
3) Accompanying some to a facility to end their life.

Here are three offenses, in UK law, where the act can be carried out in a country where no such offense exists. It is perfectly plausible, in legal terms, that a woman that procured an abortion in a county where such acts were legal, could be prosecuted on her return to Ireland, subject, of course, to the relevant legislation being passed. I also suspect the EU might have some difficulty with such legislation, but that is another story.

Whilst it would be possible legally for this to happen I think you will find, quite rightly, that politically and socially, there is no appetite for this kind of legislation. Personally I think there are a number of reasons for this. First, most reasonable people, including those in politics they may not be able to say it publicly, understand that abortion is, unfortunately, some that is needed by some women in some circumstances. Whilst they might not be willing to say this publicly, I suspect they might have an objection to criminalising a woman a availing of such a service in a jurisdiction where it is someone else's problem. This leads to; Secondly, it is somebody else's problem. By allowing the problem to be exported they don't have to deal with it in any meaningful way. Dragging women through the courts after returning from having an abortion would be extremely bad for their image, both domestically and internationally. In addition, by effectively stopping the exportation of the problem they would have to deal with it here. Abortion is a necessity and if women are prevented from travelling then it will have to be provided here.

MrP

Loafing Oaf

swampgas wrote: »

Very true. But I think (hope?) Irish voters would also be prepared to have abortion in Ireland as well, but no government has ever dared ask the question in a referndum.

In fairness, it is only the day before yesterday (in political terms) that repeal of the 8th amendment became a live possibility. I don't remember much discussion of abortion in the noughties but certainly right up until the end of the last century opinion polls were consistently showing two-thirds opposed to any liberalisation of abortion laws. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a conservative party like FG to move much faster than they are already doing on the issue: I was kind of surprised they ultimately steeled themselves to get X case legislation over the line actually...

inocybe

aloyisious wrote: »

I think that sentence refers to an act carried out outside the law.

I also recall media reports of some members of the Irish medical profession being reportedly unsure that if they operated within the guidelines and provided an abortion that one of their medical profession ethical committees would decide they had acted unethically and/or unprofessionally and take a court case against them on those grounds to have the licence to practice medicine cancelled with a prosecution and conviction for unlawful acts. Personally I thought at the time, when reading those stories, that they were scare stories being spread by those opposed to abortions full stop.

An act carried out outside the law would include taking the abortion pill, the only option available to women without the money to travel. 14 years! You'd have to be insane as well as suicidal to try to access abortion through the current law in Ireland.

aloyisious

One point mentioned in today's Irish Times article on the terms of reference for the HSE inquiry into it's pre-op care of the woman, is that it was a HSE Nurse who brought the woman to the attention of the IFPA. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/terms-of-hse-s-abortion-case-inquiry-to-be-made-public-today-1.1903180

Para's 5 and 6 of the article:

Among other affected parties is the HSE nurse who was the first to tell the woman she was pregnant and who referred her to the Irish Family Planning Association.

Psychological welfare
The IFPA contacted the HSE when the woman was about 16 weeks pregnant to express extreme concern for her psychological welfare. She has told how she attempted to take her own life around this time.

kylith

Absolam wrote: »

As I said,I don't see any support for the allegation that she was denied any say about what happened to her body for 26 weeks.
She was denied the facility to kill herself by engaging in a hunger and thirst strike for up to but not more than 12 days; that's not quite the same thing.

She requested an abortion as soon as she found out she was pregnant and was then passed from pillar to post until the foetus was on the cusp of viability. She was denied the right to decide what happened to her body by the Irish state.

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

I think a nuance that has emerged though is this: if a termination is deemed permissible because of suicide risk, how long can the procedure be delayed?

If the doctors have already determined that the procedure should be carried out, why would they then choose to delay by any longer than it takes to arrange it?

swampgas wrote: »

If someone was 8 weeks pregnant you would expect an abortion to happen. If someone was already 28 weeks pregnant you would expect an induced early delivery. What about at 20 weeks? Can the woman be forced to continue the pregnancy until sufficient viability is deemed to have occurred, and can a C section be forced on a woman who doesn't want it as the "termination"?

It would seem to be to be unreasonable to deny care that had already been deemed necessary to save a life, since denying that care could result in the death the care was supposed to prevent?
However, I think it is the remit of the doctors to decide what is the best method of removing the threat to the womans life, and they are required by the legislation to do so with regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable. So if it is practicable to preserve the life of the unborn child they must do so regardless of the womans potential wish to kill it.

swampgas wrote: »

Once again what we see happening is the woman having zero input into the decision making process, and medical professionals imposing quite barbaric treatment despite the obvious distress of the woman.

Is it appropriate to allow a person who is sufficiently mentally distressed as to be assessed as suicidal to make life and death decisions about another person? I think a medical decision should really be made by someone qualifed to make a medical decision, so in cases like this an obstetrician would seem to be the person best fitted to doing so.

swampgas wrote: »

If I might be so bold as to question your tone, you give the impression that this type of treatment meets your approval, as a foetus is not being destroyed. Personally I don't think hiding behind the legalities of the situation helps here - we need to figure out first what we think the ethical treatment of pregnant women should be and base the law on that, rather than the other way round.

I do not agree that delaying a life saving procedure is warranted in order to save another life; better to definitely save the one in hand than potentially save another. I do agree that saving another life is to the good, so if it is possible to save both then both should be saved. I think if you're considering basing new laws around ethical treatment, it's not just that of pregnant women that should be considered, but also that of unborn children.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

Are you suggesting that we should legislate to limit peoples right to travel based on the suspicion that they may commit an act abroad which is legal there but not legal here

Just in case you aren't joking: we already did, in 1983.

Look up the X case. The attorney general got an injunction to prevent a 14 year old rape victim from traveling to the UK to get an abortion because our constitution guarantees the equal right to life of the unborn, and it is our highest law.

We had to pass a special "Of course abortion on demand should be available in Ireland, it just has to happen in England!" amendment to fix this in 1992.

Zubeneschamali

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I don't remember much discussion of abortion in the noughties but certainly right up until the end of the last century opinion polls were consistently showing two-thirds opposed to any liberalisation of abortion laws.

We voted 65.4% to 34.6% against excluding suicidality as grounds for an abortion in 1992, 22 years ago. We were not asked about rape or incest as grounds.

We voted 62.4% to 37.6% to allow folks to travel to the UK for abortion on demand.

We voted 59.9% to 40.1% to allow people and organizations to make information about abortion services in the UK available here.

A clear majority back then did not believe this bull about foetuses being babies and abortion being murder, and it's 22 years ago. It's only 28 years since we reject divorce 63.5% to 36.5%. We've come a long way quite quickly.