Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,497 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26417
....at the fourth time of asking?
Funny you seem to be demanding answers from other users when you've ignored a question that has been put to you atleast 8 times so far
Myself and Lazygal have put it to you numerous times and you've ignored it,Can you clarify whether women should be allowed to travel to kill the unborn?
Also, you seem mighty obsessed with what was said in America, in case you're confused this is Ireland and American abortion laws have no affect here. So your demands for this and that during hearings in America are pointless.0 -
I'm asking you if you can supply a link to sworn public testimony which states that conception is not the start of human life. Can you supply even one link, at the fourth time of asking?
Can you supply sworn public testimony to a public enquiry which contradicts the medical oral evidence presented?
I think Orly Tates might have a job for you later Hinault
But you have to help me - I have some sworn public testimony to a public inquiry that tells me global warming is not real.
But I ALSO have some sworn public testimony of the same kind which tells me that it is!
I am so confused! They must both be true? Surely someone whose evidence is accepted by a senatorial commission must be completely correct and cannot be wrong?0 -
I'm asking you if you can supply a link to sworn public testimony which states that conception is not the start of human life. Can you supply even one link, at the fourth time of asking?
Can you supply sworn public testimony to a public enquiry which contradicts the medical oral evidence presented?
The hearings you refer to had testimony from both sides. Testimony was provided there both against the proposition in the bill, and the idea that science can define when life begins. That testimony being from Yale's head of Human Genetics, Dr Leon E. Rosenberg.
That is, as you laud, sworn public testimony. He was the 1 "witness" that was not chosen by the senator leading the hearings.0 -
In other, more on topic but still as ridiculous news, YD are holding a vigil for the baby they named themselves because that isn't creepy at all. No word on whether they think the woman matters, and I doubt it will occur either...0
-
Pro choice groups should join them in that vigil. Showing they also care about the baby.0
-
Advertisement
-
Well, somebody's holding something tomorrow because I gather from the newsvine that Popette's back in town for it.In other, more on topic but still as ridiculous news, YD are holding a vigil for the baby they named themselves [...]
And so it all starts over -- //sigh0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »I'd be very interested in reading how you resolve the contradiction between the sworn testimony, which states that each single human life begins at conception, with the fact that a single fertilized egg can give rise to identical twins.
You remember, the fact that was pointed out to you before you posted this mistaken testimony?
A divided house?0 -
This particular exchange is getting into wall of text territory, so I'll summarize:Absolam wrote:Well no, it gives the foetus the same right to life as a woman whose life is not at risk. And the reason is that whilst it's easy to say it should not be the case with a foetus with no brain, that makes it easier to say it should not be the case with a foetus with a low life expectancy, like one with Downs, or a heart condition. Or one with a stunted limb, that's poor quality of life right there, isn't it? Then maybe one with brown eyes, cos both both parents have blue... But that sort of response is heading into Godwin territory, which is unacceptable argumentation.
That's pretty much how both sides of that argument have always gone.
Isn't this just a classic slippery slope argument, though?
This argument is really saying that potential parents will abort for trivial reasons - I don't think this holds up. Saying that potential parents cannot be trusted only to abort for "safe" reasons, is a common anti-abortion argument and one that I think is (from my perspective) very arrogant. "How dare anyone else make the difficult decision of whether to abort using different criteria to me?"Absolam wrote:That's because you're thinking in terms of gaming the system; a method that is designed to ensure a womans life is preserved if the life of her unborn child threatens it isn't designed to be a way for someone to get an abortion if they really really want one, so sometimes it will present difficulties in doing so. The method only does what it's supposed to.
You are surprised that desperate women trapped in a system that could have been invented by Kafka don't try to escape it (or "game" it, as you would put it)? Is it so difficult to understand that many pregnant women simply are desperate not to be pregnant? I'm not arguing that the system isn't doing what it's designed to do, I'm arguing that the system is wrong and needs to be changed.
My apologies, I got slightly carried away there.Absolam wrote:So it's ok for you to be poetic about making women invisible by looking through them to focus on the foetus, but I can't even say they're nearby? Nor do I recall saying I was uncomfortable about them being embedded in womens bodies; it's more the unwarranted expulsion of them that I'm 'uncomfortable' with.0 -
In other, more on topic but still as ridiculous news, YD are holding a vigil for the baby they named themselves because that isn't creepy at all. No word on whether they think the woman matters, and I doubt it will occur either...
No, the Pro Life Campaign held a vigil this evening, not Youth Defence. The link you supplied is to a story about this evening vigil held by the Pro Life Campaign. And just so you know there was plenty of thoughts and words for the woman at the centre of this. How are you qualified to even comment on what words were spoken when you weren't there. If you have any questions go ahead. I don't want you to be spreading (more) misinformation.0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »No, the Pro Life Campaign held a vigil this evening, not Youth Defence. The link you supplied is to a story about this evening vigil held by the Pro Life Campaign. And just so you know there was plenty of thoughts and words for the woman at the centre of this. How are you qualified to even comment on what words were spoken when you weren't there. If you have any questions go ahead. I don't want you to be spreading (more) misinformation.
Did the PLC say that the Protection of Life Act was enacted? If so, did they then acknowledge that saying the legislation was enacted contradicts everything they have said about how they *knew*the legislation would work prior to this happening?
Did they agree with Ms Y being indirectly forced to continue with her pregnancy?
Do they believe that what has occurred is what should occur in similar cases should they arise?0 -
Advertisement
-
I 100% agree; but I think the spuriousness is in how you've framed the argument; you can't treat suicide
And here I 100% agree with you. You certainly cannot treat suicide because once suicide has occurred the person is dead! You can however try to prevent it from occurring if the person has requested help.
Sometimes suicidality can be resolved with treatment (psychotherapy, medication), sometimes it cannot. Often when a person is suicidal because of circumstance, the suicidality will resolve if the circumstance is removed or alleviated.I would be interested in whether most psychiatrists agree that termination of a pregnancy is an appropriate treatment (or whether removal of the pregnancy as the cause is an appropriate treatment) of suicidal ideation as a result of pregnancy.
It is removing that which is causing the suicidality. I will use the case of Marie Fleming to illustrate situational suicidality and removal of cause. She was clearly suicidal (but sadly incapable of carrying it out). She was suicidal due to circumstance. In her case the circumstance was the fact she had Multiple Sclerosis. If there had been a cure for MS and she could have been relieved of it, would she have continued to be suicidal? I didn't know her so cannot say for certain, but it is highly likely she would not have, and that is what I will assume for the purposes of this argument. Now in this case would you also be interested in whether most psychiatrists would agree that the MS cure is an appropriate treatment of suicidal ideation as a result of suffering from MS?
It is removing the circumstance which, according to the person affected, is making, or will make their life so unbearable they do not want to live.I think psychiatrists these days are inclined to shy away from the physical interventionist methods of earlier psychiatric treatments, and focus on psychiatric or chemical solutions to problems.
You are comparing a pregnant woman wanting to have an abortion because she would prefer to die than continue with the pregnancy, to a lobotomy being preformed on a person without their consent?I would think most psychiatrists would say that winning the lotto ameliorated the underlying cause of their suicidal ideation. And that whilst that symptom was no longer evident, winning the lotto did not remove the underlying cause for them feeling suicidal where others would not, and that that cause was still in need of being addressed. Which might well be analogous with the pregnancy situation.
This is an incredibly simplistic view. Do you think that it is reasonable to expect all human beings to respond identically to stimuli? All humans have a different set of experiences and personality traits that create different responses to the same situation. Because a person's response to a particular circumstance is something different to how you imagine you would respond, or different to how the majority would respond does not make it invalid.So in short; there may be more to the suicidal ideation than the existence of the pregnancy, and a termination may not actually solve the problem.
Psychiatric assessment is very comprehensive and I am confident that a competent, non biased psychiatrist would be able to tease this out accurately.0 -
Isn't a sliding scale argument always going to be a slippery slope? I'm not saying having a sliding scale 'opens the floodgates' and other such nonsense, or even that if you begin with the best intentions you end up with the worst results. Potential parents can be trusted to abort for reasons in their own best interests, and arguably in some cases in the bast interests of the foetus. It's that 'arguably' that's the problem; one persons criteria will invariably be at odds with another persons criteria, which makes it substantively difficult to establish a sliding scale acceptable to the majority of society, which will also have to be able to change as societys views change.Isn't this just a classic slippery slope argument, though? This argument is really saying that potential parents will abort for trivial reasons - I don't think this holds up. Saying that potential parents cannot be trusted only to abort for "safe" reasons, is a common anti-abortion argument and one that I think is (from my perspective) very arrogant. "How dare anyone else make the difficult decision of whether to abort using different criteria to me?"
Most of us will agree that placing the right to life of a foetus with no brain on a par with that of an expectant mother makes no sense, few of us will agree that a paraplegic has less right to life than an able bodied person, and there's a fair bit of debate about whether an (unborn) child with Downs syndrome should have a right to life currently, before we even get to that small number of people who believe that aggressive eugenics is a damn good idea. None of this amounts to a slippery slope (or even a full sliding scale) argument; just a spectrum of opinion.
My personal opinion is that if you are mentally competent to do so you should have a right to balance your own quality of life against your right to life and make decisions accordingly. I do not think anyone else should have a right to do so on your behalf unless you assign them that right whilst you are mentally competent. An unborn foetus is not in a position to do either, and having a right to life should not have that right withdrawn as a result of someone elses opinion of their potential quality of life.
What you're talking about is not an attempt to escape the system, it's an attempt to use the system for a purpose it's not intended to be used for, specifically as you said "to get control of her pregnancy and terminate it". That's not what the system was intended to be used for, it was intended to be used to ensure a womans life is preserved if the life of her unborn child threatens it.You are surprised that desperate women trapped in a system that could have been invented by Kafka don't try to escape it (or "game" it, as you would put it)?
Of course it's perfectly easy to understand. But there's nothing (or little) wrong with the system such as we've seen so far; it does what it's supposed to. The fact that you want a different system, with a different purpose, is a different matter.Is it so difficult to understand that many pregnant women simply are desperate not to be pregnant? I'm not arguing that the system isn't doing what it's designed to do, I'm arguing that the system is wrong and needs to be changed.0 -
That would appear to be true, however, what i would question is why was that person suicidal in those circumstances when the majority of other people wouldn't have been. The fact that they are suicidal in this instance has been addressed by removing the cause, but is there a predisposition there which is what really needs to be addressed in order to prevent suicidality reoccurring in another circumstance?Kiwi in IE wrote: »Sometimes suicidality can be resolved with treatment (psychotherapy, medication), sometimes it cannot. Often when a person is suicidal because of circumstance, the suicidality will resolve if the circumstance is removed or alleviated.
I would. I would also be interested in knowing if they thought there was a particular reason she was more likely to take her life than others in the same circumstances, and if that was something that should (or even could) be treated.Kiwi in IE wrote: »It is removing that which is causing the suicidality. I will use the case of Marie Fleming to illustrate situational suicidality and removal of cause. She was clearly suicidal (but sadly incapable of carrying it out). She was suicidal due to circumstance. In her case the circumstance was the fact she had Multiple Sclerosis. If there had been a cure for MS and she could have been relieved of it, would she have continued to be suicidal? I didn't know her so cannot say for certain, but it is highly likely she would not have, and that is what I will assume for the purposes of this argument. Now in this case would you also be interested in whether most psychiatrists would agree that the MS cure is an appropriate treatment of suicidal ideation as a result of suffering from MS? It is removing the circumstance which, according to the person affected, is making, or will make their life so unbearable they do not want to live.
No, I'm comparing killing someone because someone else would rather die than see them live, and lobotomising someone because someone else thinks they are excessively emotional. In either case someone is being subjected to an extreme physical trauma to address a psychological issue.Kiwi in IE wrote: »You are comparing a pregnant woman wanting to have an abortion because she would prefer to die than continue with the pregnancy, to a lobotomy being preformed on a person without their consent?
This may not be the best forum to present papers on the development and causation of human response to psychological stimulii, hence the somewhat simplistic statement (if not view). I'm not saying that a different response to an average one is invalid; only that it may indicate a cause which requires treatment, rather that assuming all is now well and hoping for the next lotto win to occur before the person becomes suicidal again.Kiwi in IE wrote: »This is an incredibly simplistic view. Do you think that it is reasonable to expect all human beings to respond identically to stimuli? All humans have a different set of experiences and personality traits that create different responses to the same situation. Because a person's response to a particular circumstance is something different to how you imagine you would respond, or different to how the majority would respond does not make it invalid.
I would be hopeful, but I wouldn't be too confident; whilst this thread was busy bashing the medics involved for imprisoning and torturing a woman for 26 weeks, the timelines indicate the psychiatrists made their assessment and decision in a matter of a few days. How aware might they have been that the length of time their assessment took would be publicly scrutinised, and that people could be calling for their removal for gambling on the life of the mother? I certainly hope they made a comprehensive, competent, non biased assessment. I hope the woman is still under their care so they can ensure she gets all the psychiatric help she needs, even if it's the case that they determine she needs none now that she's no longer pregnant. I'm dubious one can comprehensively assess someones psychiatric problems in just a few days, but then I'm not a psychiatrist. Maybe one can.Kiwi in IE wrote: »Psychiatric assessment is very comprehensive and I am confident that a competent, non biased psychiatrist would be able to tease this out accurately.0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »No, the Pro Life Campaign held a vigil this evening, not Youth Defence. The link you supplied is to a story about this evening vigil held by the Pro Life Campaign. And just so you know there was plenty of thoughts and words for the woman at the centre of this. How are you qualified to even comment on what words were spoken when you weren't there. If you have any questions go ahead. I don't want you to be spreading (more) misinformation.
Does the prolife campaign want the right to travel for the express purpose of killing the unborn repealed? Does it want frozen embryos implanted to fulfill their right to life? Does it want suicidal pregnant women to be forced to remain pregnant until foetal viability?
Looking forward to the answers.0 -
That would appear to be true, however, what i would question is why was that person suicidal in those circumstances when the majority of other people wouldn't have been.
You appear to be saying that it is unreasonable for someone to become suicidal upon learning that they must carry their rapist's child and give birth to it. Can that be right?
In my opinion it's a perfectly reasonable response, far more than wanting to keep the child. But I still wouldn't apply your excessively normative logic and try to section a woman who loved her rapist's child and wanted to keep it.
People are different and react differently, that is a fact of being human, and indeed is behind the very concept of free will.0 -
Not unreasonable, but to be prepared to go as far as suicide generally warrants some psychological consideration regardless of the cause does it not?You appear to be saying that it is unreasonable for someone to become suicidal upon learning that they must carry their rapist's child and give birth to it. Can that be right? In my opinion it's a perfectly reasonable response, far more than wanting to keep the child. But I still wouldn't apply your excessively normative logic and try to section a woman who loved her rapist's child and wanted to keep it. People are different and react differently, that is a fact of being human, and indeed is behind the very concept of free will.0 -
Not unreasonable, but to be prepared to go as far as suicide generally warrants some psychological consideration regardless of the cause does it not?
I'm not sure that suicide is the "reasonable" solution to many problems. But is it reasonable to expect only reasonable responses to unreasonable circumstances? Bear in mind what they're saying as a general disclaimer these days at the end of all the media items on suicide: any such is likely to result from a complex of circumstances, not one single cause.
I also hate to appear playing off one class of victimisation against another, but I think it's also worth bearing in mind this cases appears not to be so much "ordinary" criminal rape (if such I thing is to be contemplated) as the general implication is that it's a rape in the context of some unspecific interethnic conflict. In circumstances like that, being forced to carry to term really must feel like the Irish authorities are "siding" with the whole class of her original persecutors.0 -
Kiwi in IE wrote: »Psychiatric assessment is very comprehensive and I am confident that a competent, non biased psychiatrist would be able to tease this out accurately.
I'm not at all sure that I share your confidence. Especially when one lot of psychiatrists and psychologists are busy lobbying on the basis of their utter professional certainty that abortion should never be allowed on grounds of suicidality... just in case other psychiatrists and psychologists certify their certainty that in a particular instance, it is. As to which of those is "biased" and which "non-biased", I'm sure we each have our own suspicions.
The question is surely not "can we be certain?" as "given that it's necessarily uncertain, how do we deal with that?"0 -
Never mind that that user has declined to answer other questions, they've pointedly ignored the original actual question from which stems this slew of "cherrypicked Congressional testimony = teh scientific truth" spam.Funny you seem to be demanding answers from other users when you've ignored a question that has been put to you atleast 8 times so far
To wit: precisely how can it be that an individual human life "begins at conception", in cases where that human was one intermingled and undistinguished half of a small ball of cells for several days thereafter?
To which also add, btw, genetic chimeras, wherein one individual results from the merger of two originally distinct embryos.
Incidentally, while somewhat moot for the topical case at hand (where the woman found out she was pregnant at a much later stage), it's not entirely without relevance to Irish abortion law. (More generally it's in any case relevant to advocacy for zygotic personhood, or for the law elsewhere in the world.) Even though "the unborn" are now unambiguous(ish)ly only held to gain their singular right after implantation, this can be in some cases before the twinning cleavage event.
In other words, a single entity in Irish law can literally be cloned into two different legal entities. Most curious.0 -
But that evidence is 30 years old and comes from a prolife group. Are fertilized frozen embryos life?
Also maybe you could clarify whether women should be allowed to travel to kill the unborn child in another country.
The X case and the referendum which followed it are 22 years old and come from a time when people didn't know what the word pedophile meant or that child abuse was going on under their own noses in every parish in the country but you (the pro abortion side) don't mind relying on that. As far as your concerned anything which helps your argument is fine even if it comes from a time when Jimmy Savile was regarded as a saint. Why don't we throw all the ignorant history to this out and make decisions on what we know today.
If having a referenda around the time of the X case was valid (i.e. it wasn't because people's views were skewed by the background story) then I want to stage a live late term abortion in Stephen's Green next Saturday afternoon, invite all major news channels to cover it and have a referenda on Abortion Yes or No that evening.
What do you think the result would be?0 -
Advertisement
-
This post seems to largely consist of incoherent topic drift, whataboutery, and bad-faith emotive provocation, but trying as best I can to boil it down to some actual point that one might respond to... Essentially, you're saying that we can't ask for the law to be amended in circumstances that point out its inadequacies, because that would be "skewing" the argument by "exploiting" those cases. And presumably, we can't ask for the law to amended at any other time, as if we (ever-so-conveniently) ignore these cases it's most egregiously failed on, you'll argue there's "no need" for it to be changed?Richard Bingham wrote: »If having a referenda around the time of the X case was valid (i.e. it wasn't because people's views were skewed by the background story)
How many multiples of Catch-22 is that we're up to by now?0 -
Did the PLC say that the Protection of Life Act was enacted?
There's hardly a need to state that the Protection of Life During Pregancy Act 2013 was enacted - it would be like stating that the sun rose yesterday morning.If so, did they then acknowledge that saying the legislation was enacted contradicts everything they have said about how they *knew*the legislation would work prior to this happening?
The above is not English. You'll have to re-phrase or at least add punctuation in order for there to be any chance of it making sense.Did they agree with Ms Y being indirectly forced to continue with her pregnancy?
The Pro Life campaign is against abortion so by definition it favours continuation of pregnancies.Do they believe that what has occurred is what should occur in similar cases should they arise?
No, nobody in the Pro Life movement agrees with a baby being ripped from its mothers womb at such an early stage.
Go nuts with the high minded criticism of our disregard for women's lives (and ignore that fact that approx half of the people killed by abortion are female).0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »This post seems to largely consist of incoherent topic drift, whataboutery, and bad-faith emotive provocation, but trying as best I can to boil it down to some actual point that one might respond to... Essentially, you're saying that we can't ask for the law to be amended in circumstances that point out its inadequacies, because that would be "skewing" the argument by "exploiting" those cases. And presumably, we can't ask for the law to amended at any other time, as if we (ever-so-conveniently) ignore these cases it's most egregiously failed on, you'll argue there's "no need" for it to be changed?
How many multiples of Catch-22 is that we're up to by now?
emotive provocation
You are joking aren't you. How come your lot only want to have a referendom every time there is a backdrop of a highly emotive case so that you can get a result which otherwise would never be achievable.
20 odd years went by since the X case and then when Savita Halappanavar died from bad care not the lack of an abortion, the abortion machine swings into action. Just a coincidence or a deliberate attempt to push through bad law against the will of the people??
My point is valid. If you had a vote on whether car rallying should be allowed the day after 7 people were killed in a car rally, you would be likely to get a skewed result.
You know this as well as I do. Why don't you stop being so disingenuous.0 -
Does anyone happen to know how many abortions have been carried out to day in Ireland since the new legislation came in. The dept. are supposed to publish the info every 31st July, but I can find any link.0
-
That might be why most of us think a psychiatrists opinion would be worthwhile. However, I think volchitsas' point is a fair one; it's not unreasonable to think that someone might feel suicidal when faced with the prospect of carrying their rapists child to term.alaimacerc wrote: »I'm not sure that suicide is the "reasonable" solution to many problems.
Which further underlines the idea that termination is not necessarily a treatment for suicidal ideation.alaimacerc wrote: »But is it reasonable to expect only reasonable responses to unreasonable circumstances? Bear in mind what they're saying as a general disclaimer these days at the end of all the media items on suicide: any such is likely to result from a complex of circumstances, not one single cause.
It may feel like that, but the possibility of it actually being the case seem remarkably low?alaimacerc wrote: »also hate to appear playing off one class of victimisation against another, but I think it's also worth bearing in mind this cases appears not to be so much "ordinary" criminal rape (if such I thing is to be contemplated) as the general implication is that it's a rape in the context of some unspecific interethnic conflict. In circumstances like that, being forced to carry to term really must feel like the Irish authorities are "siding" with the whole class of her original persecutors.0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »emotive provocation
You falsely accuse others of doing the same, when that is all you do. That is really low for someone who alleges themselves to be morally superior to their opponents.
And before I finally finish with you, have you any argument at all (given that everything you've put forward so far was refuted before you put it forward) for banning abortions in all circumstances as you so clearly wish would happen?0 -
You appear to be saying that it is unreasonable for someone to become suicidal upon learning that they must carry their rapist's child and give birth to it. Can that be right?
In my opinion it's a perfectly reasonable response, far more than wanting to keep the child. But I still wouldn't apply your excessively normative logic and try to section a woman who loved her rapist's child and wanted to keep it.
People are different and react differently, that is a fact of being human, and indeed is behind the very concept of free will.
Correct, and you position was upheld by the ISC, back in 1992, with their "X" Judgement and Ruling.
The fundamentalists cannot bear this fact......
that their own actions, in foisting a Constitutional Amendment, which was intended to ensure there never would be Abortion in Ireland, upon an unwitting and confused electorate, bombarded with the PLAC constant propaganda......
that this cherished treasure of theirs, was the method by which Abortion in Ireland became available, in the very restricted circumstances you outlined in your excellent post.
And the people, in their wisdom, rejected repeated efforts to roll back the SC interpretation.
Which is where we are now.0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »There's hardly a need to state that the Protection of Life During Pregancy Act 2013 was enacted - it would be like stating that the sun rose yesterday morning.
The above is not English. You'll have to re-phrase or at least add punctuation in order for there to be any chance of it making sense.
At the time the legislation was being debated, the PLC consistently stated that his legislation would only be used to provide abortions. They stated that the legislation could only allow for abortions, and had no consideration for the "unborn child". This clearly didn't happen. So either the legislation wasn't properly envoked, or PLC lied... a lot.The Pro Life campaign is against abortion so by definition it favours continuation of pregnancies.
No, nobody in the Pro Life movement agrees with a baby being ripped from its mothers womb at such an early stage.
So the PLC would prefer that women be restrained and forced to continue pregnancy? How the hell can they then claim they are supporting both the mother and the "unborn child"? Again, PLC peddling another lie.Go nuts with the high minded criticism of our disregard for women's lives (and ignore that fact that approx half of the people killed by abortion are female).
Link?0 -
Not unreasonable, but to be prepared to go as far as suicide generally warrants some psychological consideration regardless of the cause does it not?
A psychologists opinion was accepted by the Irish Supreme Court, in 1983, as satisfying the criteria in which it was lawful for the raped, suicidal, child, Ms "X", to be entitled to have an abortion, in Ireland, to terminate her pregnancy due to her suicide ideation.
This is still the law in Ireland, and has been regulated and legislated for, belatedly, grudgingly and unsatisfactorily by the recent Legislation, The Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act.0 -
Advertisement
-
Richard Bingham wrote: »The X case and the referendum which followed it are 22 years old and come from a time when people didn't know what the word pedophile meant or that child abuse was going on under their own noses in every parish in the country but you (the pro abortion side) don't mind relying on that. As far as your concerned anything which helps your argument is fine even if it comes from a time when Jimmy Savile was regarded as a saint. Why don't we throw all the ignorant history to this out and make decisions on what we know today.
If having a referenda around the time of the X case was valid (i.e. it wasn't because people's views were skewed by the background story) then I want to stage a live late term abortion in Stephen's Green next Saturday afternoon, invite all major news channels to cover it and have a referenda on Abortion Yes or No that evening.
What do you think the result would be?
Re your abortion-in-the-green thought, probably prompt arrest and detention of any individual silly enough to pull such a stunt for the purposes of playing to the gallery and media. The grounds could be for the physical safety of the person concerned, or for psychiatric evaluation, or for simple law-breaking (your choice). I'd imagine that any self-respecting opponent of abortion might have his/her stomach (and maybe mind) turned by such a stunt by a fellow abortion-opponent.
The skewing was not solely by the background story but also by those who have been found to have had a hand or two in the paedophilia and child abuse in the country that you mention. Am I right in seeing your use of the word parish, instead of village or town, as indicative of finger-pointing?
I'm left wondering if, by the way you worded that bit above, you no longer trust what comes from the mouths of persons within the calling to which the paedophiles and child abusers belonged; so, do you distrust them?
Do you also believe that the voter should ignore what comes from the mouths of those who oppose abortion (who were duped by those paedophiles and abusers) because they continue to speak out against abortion for the same reasons used 22 years ago (protection of the baby aka youth defence) as we are wiser now?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement