Abortion Discussion

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

I don't support the deliberate killing of human life.

So you think women should be banned from leaving Ireland in order to seek abortions in other countrys?

If you don't then you are supporting their right to travel, which by extension supports their use of abortion services which you claim not to support.

hinault

Cabaal wrote: »

So you think women should be banned from leaving Ireland in order to seek abortions in other countrys?

You want my opinion? Or the States opinion?

This time around.

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

You want my opinion? Or the States opinion?

This time around.

Frankly we'd like you to stop dancing around questions and give straight answers,

Do you support a ban on women traveling to avail of abortion services?
Simple yes or no really will do it,

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

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?

This simply isn't true - the doctor has a constitutional requirement to consider the life of the foetus as equal to the life of the patient (the woman).

Unless you are arguing that when a woman has been judged to be suicidal and a panel has decided that she can have an abortion that at this point they can disregard the rights of the foetus, in which case I would agree that this should be the case, but that it is not clear that it actually is the case.

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.

That's rather an unfair comparison. If you are unwilling to admit that a foetus with a fatal anomaly (such as being missing a brain) should be accorded less rights (when weighed against the life or health of the mother) compared to say a healthy foetus, then debate on the point is probably best avoided.

The health and quality of life of both foetus and woman are relevant, not just whether they are technically alive or not. Right now the constitution forces doctors to give a brain dead foetus with a pulse the same rights as a fully grown woman.

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?

You implied that a suicidal woman is to be assumed to be irrational and that all medical decisions should be made on her behalf by a medical professional. The catch is that the only way a woman can get control of her pregnancy and terminate it is to become suicidal and (if I'm interpreting you correctly) no longer have any say in how that termination should be carried out. So to get control of her own body she has to put herself in a situation where you suggest she is no longer to be trusted to make decisions for herself, and thus she loses all control over her body again.

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.

Or, rather some people will come to live who would not otherwise have done so. Your argument could equally be used to ban contraception - after all, it would mean that some people would live who would otherwise not.

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.

Nearby? They are not just "nearby", they are deeply embedded in the woman's body. Although you do seem rather uncomfortable acknowledging that fact.

hinault

Cabaal wrote: »

Frankly we'd like you to stop dancing around questions and give straight answers,

Do you support a ban on women traveling to avail of abortion services?
Simple yes or no really will do it,

I answered the last time and you proceeded to reply with a strawman stating that my opinion differs to the Irish State's opinion.

I think it's healthy to have differing opinions

I don't support the deliberate killing of human life either here or abroad.

aloyisious

lazygal wrote: »

If an unborn child isn't being murdered by abortion, what exactly happens to the unborn child when its aborted?

If it's what happen's physically, it's probable that the end action will be that mentioned by an anti-abortion poster here, destruction within a furnace. Possibly along with blood-contaminated items and "sharps" etc sent for safe destruction by hospitals and other establishments.

PopePalpatine

hinault wrote: »

I answered the last time and you proceeded to reply with a strawman stating that my opinion differs to the Irish State's opinion.

I think it's healthy to have differing opinions

I don't support the deliberate killing of human life either here or abroad.

If your daughter was suicidal DUE TO HER PREGNANCY, would you lock her up?

hinault

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If your daughter was suicidal DUE TO HER PREGNANCY, would you lock her up?

I would dispute her claim to be suicidal in that instance.
In fact I would dispute her claim to be suicidal in any instance.

lazygal

hinault wrote: »

I would dispute her claim to be suicidal in that instance.
In fact I would dispute her claim to be suicidal in any instance.

How would know she wasn't suicidal? Do you think pregnant women have some sort of immunity to feeling suicidal?

Once again you might comment on whether the right to travel to kill the unborn should be repealed.

swampgas

hinault wrote: »

I would dispute her claim to be suicidal in that instance.
In fact I would dispute her claim to be suicidal in any instance.

I would suggest that you read up on teenage suicide then. Disregarding the small but very real risk that anyone, never mind your daughter, could be suicidal could cost someone their life.

I would hope at least that if your daughter did claim to be suicidal that you would get professional help, and not just trust your own judgement.

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

I would dispute her claim to be suicidal in that instance.
In fact I would dispute her claim to be suicidal in any instance.

Thats pretty concerning that you'd disregard such an thing so easily, its seriously silly to be so dismissive to a person who is suicidal.

and if your sister/daughter/wife etc was raped and became pregnant from said rape you wouldn't support them if they wanted to abort the pregnancy?

hinault

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats pretty concerning that you'd disregard such an thing so easily, its seriously silly to be so dismissive to a person who is suicidal.

and if your sister/daughter/wife etc was raped and became pregnant from said rape you wouldn't support them if they wanted to abort the pregnancy?

You're trying to tell me what I did not say. Again. Why do you resort to doing this?

I did not say that I would disregard her suicidal feelings. I did say that I would dispute her suicidal feelings.
It would be very irresponsible to disregard another persons suicidal feelings.

aloyisious

lazygal wrote: »

Why do we allow unborn children to be taken from the state, which affords them constitutional protection, and be killed in another state? What exactly is the difference between me taking my two children to another country to be killed and me traveling to Liverpool to terminate a pregnancy? Should I be prosecuted for both offences on my return?

I'm answering for myself here.

1. Because of the "clear conscience" syndrome, what is NOT known about is NOT known about. The state does not allow it's citizens from being stopped foreign travel on mere supposition or suspicion, in line with the X case decision and the constitution.

2. Their status in law.

3. Knowledge infers complicity. The state, if it know's/becomes aware that you planned an act here that is an offence under law here, and there is evidence that you travelled abroad and did it, while having the method, the means and opportunity to do it, then you will likely face prosecution here. As for private citizens opinions, each person would have their own opinions on whether they would agree with state action against you. I probably could end up agreeing with both acts you mention, depending on the reasons you gave for the actions.

alaimacerc

hinault wrote: »

You're trying to tell me what I did not say. Again. Why do you resort to doing this?

You appear, to the naked eye, to repeatedly want to conflate claiming "straw men" with "the logical implication of what you just said".

I did not say that I would disregard her suicidal feelings. I did say that I would dispute her suicidal feelings.
It would be very irresponsible to disregard another persons suicidal feelings.

One would think. But if you're saying that you would "dispute" someone's claim to feel suicidal regardless of specifics, evidence and context, then "disregarding" is precisely what you'd be doing. (Not precisely "ignoring", if you want to split that hair, instead.)

Zubeneschamali

aloyisious wrote: »

IThe state does not allow it's citizens from being stopped foreign travel on mere supposition, in line with the X case decision and the constitution.

The vast majority of the 3500 Irish abortions last year would not be covered under the X ruling.

The only reason the state does not stop women from travelling for abortions is that we amended the constitution in 1992 expressly to allow women to travel for abortions in spite of the constitutional rights of the unborn.

alaimacerc

hinault wrote: »

I don't support the deliberate killing of human life either here or abroad.

I don't think you're being asked to "support" overseas terminations of pregnancy. (This implies to me giving money to charities that facilitate this, standing on demos with placards demanding that it be a right for the sake of social justice, and fuzzier such "supportive" gestures.)

The question that actually arises is, do you want the legal force and public resources of this state to be brought to bear on stopping them?

hinault

alaimacerc wrote: »

One would think.

Yep, one would.

alaimacerc

MrPudding wrote: »

So, I would again suggest that there is nothing in law, constitutional or otherwise prevent the government enacting legislation to prosecute those women that travel abroad to procure an abortion, the caveat being, she.

I think this would be possible were it not for the constitutional provision. (Either on the basis of criminalising "intent" formed in the State, or of universalising its jurisdiction for this purpose.) But in the light of the hoopla involved in past referenda, especially, the SC is almost certainly going to say that such measures would be against "the intent of the people", and accordingly strike them down, unless the 13th amendment were, eh, umamended!

Or not, depending on how they felt that day, I suppose, given some past decisions.

Richard Bingham

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

But Richard's original point was that in China women were forced to have abortions, especially in order to select the gender of any babies resulting from pregnancy, which has been repeatedly refuted.

You need to cut out this sh1t of misquoting people. I never said any such thing.

swampgas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The vast majority of the 3500 Irish abortions last year would not be covered under the X ruling.

The only reason the state does not stop women from travelling for abortions is that we amended the constitution in 1992 expressly to allow women to travel for abortions in spite of the constitutional rights of the unborn.

What should have happened in 1992 (in any sane world) was a referendum to repeal the 8th. Instead we got a referendum which made a mockery of the principle on which article 40.3.3 was based, without actually challenging it directly.

Another stupid politically motivated Irish solution to an Irish problem.

alaimacerc

hinault wrote: »

Or maybe Canada and it's politicians support the censorship of politicians who are pro life.

Another semantic difficulty I may be able to assist you with: the concept you're looking for is "freedom of association".

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

No, pretty sure those 'other words' weren't there.

Your one-person campaign against the paraphrase is one thing, but "in other words" is a phrase specifically marking the introduction of one. It's not a very helpful line of argument to say "your paraphrase was a paraphrase". If you feel it wasn't logically equivalent or rhetorically justified, try arguing that, instead.

(For my money, btw, in this instance it was clearly both.)

Obliq

I can't deny that there has been a much firmer view taken on the very good reasons to repeal the 8th amendment this time. It'll take a few years and more debacle for the TD's to catch up, but I welcome hearing some more forthright opinions on the need and potential for repeal, from people in the public sphere.

Here's a particularly straightfoward assessment of the reality of what level of desperation is required before you get a "helping hand" from the State (forced birth). All the rest of you lazy (desperate? sure it's only your lifestyle you're desperate to hang onto) heifers can go swing before Ireland will stop seeing abortion as shameful and start recognising that a crisis pregnancy is a massive life crisis and can have terminal consequences for both the foetus and the pregnant woman. I know which one I'd rather see die.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/most-women-suicidal-in-pregnancy-and-seeking-termination-will-travel-to-uk-1.1901264

Most women suicidal in pregnancy and seeking termination will travel to UK
Perinatal psychiatrist “ regularly” sees reports of women who have killed themselves while pregnant


Dr Anthony McCarthy
National Maternity Hospital

Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 06:30
Most women in Ireland who are suicidal in pregnancy and seeking a termination will continue to travel to the UK, Dr Anthony McCarthy, perinatal psychiatrist at the National Maternity Hospital has said.

Speaking in the wake of the case of a woman who sought a termination here, but was given a Caesarean section at 25 weeks, Dr McCarthy said his first question to anyone who believed a termination was the only solution to prevent their suicide would be “why would you go through this in Ireland?”
He said the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was designed for only a very tiny number of women who are actively suicidal in pregnancy, and who believe that a termination of pregnancy is the only solution and want or have to go through that in Ireland.

“This is only for a tiny group of women. It doesn’t address women who are distressed because of rape, who maybe even have suicidal ideas because of rape,” he said. “I have seen women with suicidal ideas who have no intention of killing themselves: it is just an indication of their level of distress; it’s not an intention.”

Dr McCarthy said he had heard suggestions from the “pro-life” side that “there is no physical illness therefore this woman should not have a termination of pregnancy”, almost as though “they do not believe that a woman would kill herself in pregnancy”.

“They are trying to save the unborn and not realising that actually what we are dealing with here is the death of the unborn and the mother, sometimes more than one unborn and the mother and sometimes the mother taking one or other children with her as well,” he said.

Dr McCarthy, who is on the Confidential Inquiry into Maternal Deaths in Ireland and the UK. said he regularly studied reports of women who killed themselves in pregnancy.

Separately, the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has said it will gather feedback on how the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act works in practice and will share this with the Minister for Health Leo Varadkar to inform his report on the issue next year.

Kiwi in IE

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.

They have given a woman who would choose to die rather than continue with a pregnancy an abortion.

Removal of cause more than treatment. This silly argument that 'psychiatrists say abortion is not a treatment for suicide' makes little sense. Not generally no, not all suicidal people are pregnant and not all pregnant suicidal people are suicidal because they are pregnant, so of course it is not a 'treatment'.

A person may have lost their job, their house, have unmanageable debt, collectors coming after them and be about to commit suicide when they win the lotto. Their problems are gone and they re evaluate their perceived need to commit suicide and decide they now want to live.

How many psychiatrists would then say that winning the lotto is a treatment for suicidal ideation? That's how ridiculous the argument is.

Siutational depression and organic or chemical depression are different causes of the same sypmtoms. Sometimes if a person is predisposed to chemical depression, episodes are set off by negative circumstance and sometimes they happen at times when there is no apparent trigger.

Situational depression and resulting suicidal ideation occur when the person perceives their life circumstances to be so unbearable that they do not want to live. In these cases the removal of the situation/s can cause the depression and suicidal ideation to resolve. However psychiatrists are not going to consider that every individual patient's particular resolved circumstance is now considered to be a 'treatment' for depression.

alaimacerc

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Removal of cause more than treatment. This silly argument that 'psychiatrists say abortion is not a treatment for suicide' makes little sense. Not generally no, not all suicidal people are pregnant and not all pregnant suicidal people are suicidal because they are pregnant, so of course it is not a 'treatment'.

Makes perfect sense, really. If they don't like the question they're being asked, respond to the question to which they feel they they have the answer more to their liking.

Political business as usual, really. One has to assess the semantic distance between the two propositions according to one's best judgement.

Kiwi in IE

hinault wrote: »

Of course, it is censorship.
Canada's Liberal Party will not allow candidates with prolife views to run for election.

Are you having a laugh? That is up there with one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read on Boards.

The Canadian Liberal Party will not accept candidates who wish to run for their party and push a non liberal agenda? Shock!

alaimacerc

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The Canadian Liberal Party will not accept candidates who wish to run for their party and push a non liberal agenda? Shock!

I'm sure hinault applies this standard fairly across the board, and is equally scandalised by the "censorship" that prevents Trotskyites from getting past Fine Gael candidate selection panels.

Kiwi in IE

hinault wrote: »

I would dispute her claim to be suicidal in that instance.
In fact I would dispute her claim to be suicidal in any instance.

Well for your sake I would hope she didn't prove you wrong and leave you with a lifetime a guilt and despair, due to you having dismissed her and lost the oppurtunity to save her life, which in turn could be enough to cause you to become suicidal!

aloyisious

Umm, yes, Obliq and Kiwi in IE. Those are good points. I hope the woman is continuing to get psychiatric help from the HSE to overcome the latest addition to her woes, the effects of a rape, the effect of finding out she's pregnant with a rapist's baby growing inside her, the probable psychological trauma of the abortion-arguing she went through, the discovery that her request was to be denied, her enforced stay under HSE medical care (pre and post natal), the court-ordered rehydration, the natural post-natal depression that recently birthed mothers get, the lack of family comfort, the permanent reminder of the caesarean-op scar, plus that because she has become an instant media celebrity, it poses a threat that those whom she didn't want made aware of her plight possibly becoming aware of it, the street protests. I hope she never becomes aware of this thread.

Kiwi in IE

Asking a psychiatrist 'is abortion a treatment for suicide' is a ridiculously loaded question with a blatent 'pro life' bias. Any psychiatrist, no matter how pro choice has give a negative answer. And in the case of 'pro life' bias, the 'no' is all that will be heard. No further explanation is likely to be paid any heed and further exploration of the subject is unlikely to be persued, as they have the black and white answer they require.

Of course it is not a 'treatment' for suicidality!