Abortion Discussion

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

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?

The obvious answer being that delaying an abortion can change the viability of the foetus. Also, the threat to the life of the woman may not be imminent, for example if a suicidal woman is physically restrained and force fed, then delay is possible.

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?

Except again that medically it is not often obvious just how great the risk is. With an ectopic pregnancy it is pretty obvious, what about early-stage cancer? Should chemo be delayed a few weeks to reach viability?

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.

Which again brings us back to the law demanding that the health of the woman be ignored, and only explicit risk to life being considered. Also, only the life of the unborn is considered, not the quality of life. So we end up with the terrible situation where the life of a foetus with no brain is considered more important than the health and welfare of a woman.

So if it is practicable to preserve the life of the unborn child they must do so regardless of the woman's potential wish to kill it.
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 qualified to make a medical decision, so in cases like this an obstetrician would seem to be the person best fitted to doing so.

What a bizarre Catch-22 the woman is in, so. If she is not at death's door and wants an abortion, then no way, however if she is suicidal it is permitted, however if she is suicidal then she is mentally incompetent and cannot be allowed to make any decisions for herself.

All because you insist that an unborn entity is a person with equal rights to the mother.

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.

Where are these "unborn children" though? What I see are pregnant women. Only if the woman is invisible to you can you see right through her to focus exclusively on the contents of her uterus.

.

Loafing Oaf

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

An exit poll on the 'substantive issue' indicated that 50% of those who voted no did so because they thought the proposal was too liberal. I fully agree with you that wanting to criminalise abortion (as defined by the RCC) in Ireland in all circumstances while supporting the right to travel for abortion is a hypocritical position, I'm just pointing out that that was the majority position of the Irish people until very recently.

rainbow kirby

^ Hypocrisy is absolutely nothing new in Irish society

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

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 ruling of the court safeguarding of a constitutional freedom, that of travel.

Well, if we're considering abolishing the right to life in the constitution, is it not as easy to consider abolishing the right to travel?

aloyisious wrote: »

..... 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.

Actually the point I was making is that it's a handy fiction for those who may not like to think that there are a substantial number of people who may not be pro abortion.

aloyisious wrote: »

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?

No, I just think that the number of them may be less than pro abortion supporters might think.

aloyisious wrote: »

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?

I'm afraid I can't, as what I meant was that different people may disagree with different degrees of abortion availability; some might disagree with all abortion in all circumstance, some might disagree with at will abortion in the last two weeks of pregnancy, and most will disagree with some abortions in between these. All of these might be considered anti abortion, and might be motivated to vote down any change that would impinge on their particular preference.

aloyisious wrote: »

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?

No, like most people, in general I tend to use the word abortion in the sense of the abortion of a life, rather than the abortion of a pregnancy.

aloyisious wrote: »

@ 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.

Who's we, and in what situation have you specifically not ignored the baby born to the rape victim (are you specifically talking about the recent case, which involves an alleged rape victim? You hadn't mentioned you were involved, so it will be interesting to hear an insiders point of view).

aloyisious wrote: »

Don't try to play the "think of the baby" sympathy-card here as an item in the anti-abortion armoury

Are you actually trying to tell people what they can or can't say in this discussion?

aloyisious wrote: »

Any such act show's a cold-hearted lack of care about the baby.

How, exactly?

aloyisious wrote: »

In this case, the baby is clearly not been ignored in the wash, and hasn't been thrown out with the bath-water.

Should I take it then that you agree with the decision to save the childs life despite the mothers desire to throw it out with, well, not bath water, but something else it might have been thrown out with?

aloyisious

kylith wrote: »

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.

I expect that you will be challenged on this and asked to provide proof, not that I am or will. The unspoken is audible to those with eyes to see it's absence (pardon my mixed-metaphors).

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

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.

There is I'm afraid a constitutional impediment to redacting a persons right to travel, which is related to the constitutional impediment to redacting a persons right to life.

MrPudding wrote: »

Are you trying to make a funny or is that a serious suggestion? <...> they would have to deal with it here.

I think we're unlikely to ever assemble either the will or the cash necessary to start imposing our national will on other nations.

MrPudding wrote: »

Abortion is a necessity and if women are prevented from travelling then it will have to be provided here.

Well, it could be said that such abortion as is necessary is already provided here.

Absolam

kylith wrote: »

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 requested an abortion she had no right to under Irish law. The Irish State did not pass her from pillar to post; the IFPA, the GP and the panel she was referred to all appear to have attempted to assist her to the best of their ability within the limits of the law. Since we don't know at this point what part or interest the HSE had in her care we don't actually know where (or if) they may have failed. Is there another part of the Irish state that you believe failed in its' responsibility here, during the 26 weeks you're alleging she was denied any say about what happened to her body as she chose to walk about freely, eat, drink, converse and do so many of the things that she might want to have happen to her body?

kylith wrote: »

She was denied the right to decide what happened to her body by the Irish state.

Can you show that the State prevented her from doing anything that she was legally entitled to do with her body?

Brian Shanahan

PrettyRad wrote: »

I understand why pro-lifers

I will make but one point to your good post, relating to this bit. They are not pro-life, if they were they would be in favour of at least abortions where the life or health of the mother (the only living person in the equation, remember) was at risk. And frankly they'd probably be on the same wavelength as yourself, "I can't see myself ever getting an abortion, but I'm not going to force anyone else to take my preferred line on this".

In many ways the anti-abortionists are as anti-life as the mythical (well ever since the defeat of Nazism) compulsory abortion campaigners. They do not care for the life of the one living person who is dealing with the issue, that of the pregnant mother to be.

Richard Bingham

Nodin wrote: »

Sex selective abortion is illegal in China.

Have you any more nonsense you want discounted?

From Wikipedia

When sex ratio began being studied in China in 1960, it was still within the normal range. However, it climbed to 111.9 by 1990[13] and to 118 by 2010 per its official census.[52][53] Researchers believe that the causes of this sex ratio imbalance are increased female infant mortality, underreporting of female births and sex-selective abortion.

Have you any more nonsense you want discounted?

Delirium

Richard Bingham wrote: »

From Wikipedia

When sex ratio began being studied in China in 1960, it was still within the normal range. However, it climbed to 111.9 by 1990[13] and to 118 by 2010 per its official census.[52][53] Researchers believe that the causes of this sex ratio imbalance are increased female infant mortality, underreporting of female births and sex-selective abortion.

Have you any more nonsense you want discounted?

From wikipedia:

The exception to the otherwise general permissibility of abortion in China is that the practice of pre-natal sex determination and sex-selective abortions for non-medical reasons are illegal.[8][9] It is argued that sex-selective abortion continues to be one of the key factors in the notably imbalanced sex-ratio in China, as the imbalance cannot be explained solely by the underreporting of female births or by excess female infant mortality.[10] In 2001, 117 boys were born to every 100 girls.[10] These trends are explained by the persistence of a preference for sons in Chinese families.[11]
In 2005, the government began an Action Plan consisting of ten policies with the aim of normalising the sex ratio of newborns by 2010.[12] Under this plan, sex-selective abortion was outlawed, as was prenatal sex diagnosis, and harsher punishments were implemented for violating both. Other policies include controlling the marketing of ultrasonic B machines and improving the systems used by medical and Family Planning organisations to report on births, abortions and pregnancies.[12]
Despite this, sex-selective abortion continues to be practiced, as it is not easily regulated by governments and because son-preference persists.[10][13] Moreover, in many cases the couple can pay, or will try to pay, to be told the sex of their child while having an ultrasound.[14]

Cabaal

Richard Bingham,



Maybe in future you shouldn't very selectively quote something in order to suit your agenda,
:rolleyes:

wikipedia

To be fair, it does say quite clearly in the next couple of sentences

wikipedia wrote:

Despite this, sex-selective abortion continues to be practiced, as it is not easily regulated by governments and because son-preference persists.

Yes it is illegal, but the practice does exist.

Richard Bingham

Leftist wrote: »

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.

I'll thank you not to put words into my mouth. I never said;

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

I said;

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.

There's a 'quote' button there on your screen. When you want to quote someone please use it rather than typing something you would like them to say.

Cabaal

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes it is illegal, but the practice does exist.

Abortion is illegal in Ireland but it still exists in the form of people ordering tablets etc over the internet, Still doesn't make it legal in Ireland.

As such its factually correct to say the practice is illegal in China, even if the practice is still illegally carried out.

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

Abortion is illegal in Ireland but it still exists in the form of people ordering tablets etc over the internet, Still doesn't make it legal in Ireland.

As such its factually correct to say the practice is illegal in China, even if the practice is still illegally carried out.

absolutely not denying that, just pointing out that it's also probably 'fair' to remark as Richard did and was called up on.

Richard Bingham wrote: »

......
= sex selective abortion........
You lot are trying to turn this place into China.....

called up -

Nodin wrote: »

Sex selective abortion is illegal in China.

Have you any more nonsense you want discounted?

The insinuation was that because sex selective abortion was illegal that it wasn't an issue. But Wiki says the opposite, that though it is illegal that it does remain an issue.

Richard Bingham

Cabaal wrote: »

Abortion is illegal in Ireland but it still exists in the form of people ordering tablets etc over the internet, Still doesn't make it legal in Ireland.

As such its factually correct to say the practice is illegal in China, even if the practice is still illegally carried out.

I never said it wasn't illegal. The fact is that it is rampant. We're not discussing the law in China.

If sex selective abortion becomes commonplace here, it will make Ireland a little bit more like China.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Well, if we're considering abolishing the right to life in the constitution, is it not as easy to consider abolishing the right to travel? - Response: pro-freedom-of-choice people are not considering abolishing the right to life in the constitution as a totality, merely that part so recently written into the constitution referring to the unborn. Yes. it is in theory as easy to consider abolishing the right to travel. I just don't imagine that would succeed; do you?


No, I just think that the number of them may be less than pro abortion supporters might think. - Response: I reckon that that might be on the wish-list of pro-freedom-of-choice people. It's on mine.

I'm afraid I can't, as what I meant was that different people may disagree with different degrees of abortion availability; some might disagree with all abortion in all circumstance, some might disagree with at will abortion in the last two weeks of pregnancy, and most will disagree with some abortions in between these. All of these might be considered anti abortion, and might be motivated to vote down any change that would impinge on their particular preference. - Response: OK, I get that you were referring to the actual act of abortion and the various stages of the feotus growth (in terms of time). I wondered if you were referring to actual methods of abortion.

No, like most people, in general I tend to use the word abortion in the sense of the abortion of a life, rather than the abortion of a pregnancy. - Response: EDIT... after 2nd look at your post, ta withdrawn, inserted instead- I wonder if most people make the definition of abortion that you do, life rather than pregnancy.

Who's we, and in what situation have you specifically not ignored the baby born to the rape victim (are you specifically talking about the recent case, which involves an alleged rape victim? - Response: the baby's existence is post the caesarean operation and in cold reality not relevant to the discussion on the woman's pre-op status and her request for an abortion of the feotus which had been growing inside her womb. To that discussion extent, I have disregarded the baby's existence and accept it as a fait-accompli. By we I mean anyone who think's about the baby's welfare ante the caesarean operation, whence it was born and it's status thus changed from feotus to a baby. Ref your different references to the rape-victim status of the woman, do you have reason to doubt the veracity of her rape claims?

You hadn't mentioned you were involved, so it will be interesting to hear an insiders point of view). - Response: Sarcasm doesn't work

Are you actually trying to tell people what they can or can't say in this discussion? - Response: I meant what I said about using the baby as a weapon in the discussion here. That, IMO, would be hypocrisy.

How, exactly? - Response: using a baby as a weapon in the discussion is surely cold-hearted, or do you disagree?

Should I take it then that you agree with the decision to save the childs life despite the mothers desire to throw it out with, well, not bath water, but something else it might have been thrown out with?

- Response: No, not in the way I suspect the obstetrician and/or other medical people may have used the wording of the guidelines to subvert the pregnant woman's requests for an abortion, whatever about stringing-out the length of time of the feotus's existence in her womb so they could tell her "sorry, we can't give you an abortion as the feotus is past the time we could do so", thereby getting them off whatever personal/ethical hooks they had about providing her with an abortion.

I'd have agreed with the presentation in your question if they had gone to her at the start of their interaction with her and asked her to agree to a caesarean operation, along with removing her of any responsibility whatsoever of providing and caring of the baby born as a result, and it had been of her choice.

I believe the baby's existence is a desired medical fait-accompli, and not something willingly agreed-to by it's mother.

Edit. The para's above (starting with the word "response") outside the box should be inside it and positioned (as my response) after your last question.

2nd edit. Please don't bother asking me for proof of my suspicions and beliefs about the practice of the medics I posted in my last three response-para's as it'd be like asking for proof that God exists or all we know as life coming from a bit of dust eons ago.

3rd edit. I've changed my response to your's in Para 4, having re-read your definition of abortion, deleted my "ta".

Brian Shanahan

Richard Bingham wrote: »

This discussion gets more ridiculous every day.

Yes your increasingly more frantic and hysterical defending of the indefensible is getting more and more divorced from reality with each passing day you are on this thread to "debate"* the issue.

*Unlike what you believe, debated doesn't actually mean forcing your opinions and choices on others. It means stating your position and showing how it should be adopted using logic, rational discourse and evidence, not one single shred of which you have managed to display in this thread.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

Em, we didn't legislate to limit peoples right to travel; the AG obtained an injunction which is not passing legislation, it's using existing legislation.
Whereas we did legislate when we amended the constitution to ensure peoples right to travel could not be infringed.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

Actually, as one of the clear majority who voted, I didn't vote to allow folks to travel to the UK for abortion on demand. It wasn't on the ballot paper and I didn't vote for or against it, I voted to prevent the government limiting freedom to travel between Ireland and another state. I suspect I may not have been the only one.

Brian Shanahan

hinault wrote: »

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/

Maybe that because Canadian politicians are intelligent enough to know that being against women's right to choose is, rightfully, political suicide in their country.

There is no appetite to restrict the current choice in Canada vis a vis abortions, because most Canadians are intelligent and compassionate enough to allow the decision to be made between the pregnant woman and her doctor.

Ralphdejones

hinault wrote: »

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.

How very 'liberal' of them , more like something similar to china

lazygal

Ralphdejones wrote: »

How very 'liberal' of them , more like something similar to china

Do you think the right to travel for the express purpose of killing an unborn child should be repealed?

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, as one of the clear majority who voted, I didn't vote to allow folks to travel to the UK for abortion on demand. It wasn't on the ballot paper and I didn't vote for or against it, I voted to prevent the government limiting freedom to travel between Ireland and another state.

As another of those voters, I should point out (In case you weren't paying attention at the time) that the thirteenth amendment is not a general ban on limiting travel. It is a specific exception inserted into Article 40.3.3 to guarantee the right to travel against attempts to use the constitutional right to life of the unborn to prevent travel.

In other words, the state recognizes the equal right to life of the unborn, but will not stop you going to England to kill it.

If you missed that fact at the time, and would have voted against it if you had understood, well, I'm glad.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

the AG obtained an injunction which is not passing legislation, it's using existing legislation.

Yes, he was trying to enforce the mad 1983 supposedly anti-abortion amendment, which we passed in 1983.

lazygal

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, he was trying to enforce the mad 1983 supposedly anti-abortion amendment, which we passed in 1983.

Ah yes, the anti abortion amendment that turned out to allow abortion. But only if your life is at risk or you slink off to somewhere else to kill the unborn.

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

The obvious answer being that delaying an abortion can change the viability of the foetus. Also, the threat to the life of the woman may not be imminent, for example if a suicidal woman is physically restrained and force fed, then delay is possible.

That assumes that the doctors involved have a reason to want to change the viability of the foetus. Their duty of care is to the patient, not to the foetus, which they only have a duty to as far as is practicable. Restraining and forcefeeding their patient would not be in her interest, so I don't see how a doctor would justify it?

swampgas wrote: »

Except again that medically it is not often obvious just how great the risk is. With an ectopic pregnancy it is pretty obvious, what about early-stage cancer? Should chemo be delayed a few weeks to reach viability?

As above, the doctors duty of care is to the patient, not the foetus.

swampgas wrote: »

Which again brings us back to the law demanding that the health of the woman be ignored, and only explicit risk to life being considered.

I haven't read where it demands the health of the woman be ignored, can you point that part out please?

swampgas wrote: »

Also, only the life of the unborn is considered, not the quality of life. So we end up with the terrible situation where the life of a foetus with no brain is considered more important than the health and welfare of a woman.

It is a little tricky perhaps to develop a sliding scale of right to life against quality of life; I don't think I'd be enthusiastic about telling a paraplegic they have less right to life than an able bodied person. But I suppose it's something we should consider.

swampgas wrote: »

What a bizarre Catch-22 the woman is in, so. If she is not at death's door and wants an abortion, then no way, however if she is suicidal it is permitted, however if she is suicidal then she is mentally incompetent and cannot be allowed to make any decisions for herself.

How exactly is that a Catch 22? A woman is not entitled to choose to have an abortion, however if one is necessary to save her life she will be given one. I don't see a paradox?

swampgas wrote: »

All because you insist that an unborn entity is a person with equal rights to the mother.

Well, personally I insist almost equal, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who insist equal. And because of that some people will live who otherwise wouldn't.

swampgas wrote: »

Where are these "unborn children" though? What I see are pregnant women. Only if the woman is invisible to you can you see right through her to focus exclusively on the contents of her uterus.

That's very poetic. But if you can see pregnant women, I assure you the unborn children are nearby. It's not poetic, but it has the distinction of being true.

Zubeneschamali

lazygal wrote: »

But only if your life is at risk or you slink off to somewhere else to kill the unborn.

No, the X case established that slinking off was not an option. That's why we needed the thirteenth amendment to allow slinking.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

To be fair, it does say quite clearly in the next couple of sentences



Yes it is illegal, but the practice does exist.

It does. And unfortunately it's illegality has led to baby girls being abandoned to die. In that case the solution lies in changing the attitudes of the people themselves regarding female children.

Leftist

lazygal wrote: »

Ah yes, the anti abortion amendment that turned out to allow abortion. But only if your life is at risk or you slink off to somewhere else to kill the unborn.

Do you believe your opinion on this should be imposed on other women?