Abortion Discussion

Bannasidhe

Absolam wrote: »

I don't recall saying pregnant women were mentally ill; counselling can be of use to people who aren't mentally ill, but are, for instance, feeling overwhelmed by their problems.

I think that would be a good idea. It would be great if it could pay off their debts and remove the cause of the problem, but I have a feeling that paying for that might not be a popular decision. Still, MABS do a great job in helping people come to terms with their problems and showing them how to cope with them, and counselling couldn't hurt with that.
No doubt about that. It also removes life from the unborn that we constitutionally protected, so as solutions go, it's a bit tricky. Luckily, we have a process for determining when that should happen.
I never even mentioned it?
This being the fourth time; I understand and can face the reality that some people will commit illegal acts despite the fact that they are illegal. This is not a good reason to make those acts legal.

Gosh I have ilk now? How cosy. I should point out though, that someone killing themselves because they are not allowed to kill someone else really doesn't diminish the value placed on life by those that prevent them.
Well, whilst I appreciate you making an effort to tell me my values, and their degrees, I think I'll decide for myself thanks.

Oh.. are we doing the sexist thing now? Just pretend I said I was all woman right at the start of this, it'll save you the effort.

Lovely.

Care to expand as much energy on showing where I said women died due to suicide?

Or do you wish to keep ignoring that unsafe abortion methods elephant?

As for sexist - no mate. That's simply biology.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

At the risk of only ever repeating myself, I'm saying that if a woman has suicidal feelings about a pregnancy (or during a pregnancy) qualified counselling may be of more help to her than me telling her that being alive is better than being dead as Bannasidhe suggested I do.
I would definitely suggest that qualified counselling would have been of more help to her than me telling her that being alive is better than being dead.

You seem obsessed with when and whether you should express your feelings directly to the woman concerned. I would suggest that :
1) your opinion doesn't matter one whit to her, but that this doesn't mean that counseling does or should,
2) that counselling alone is bound to be useless to the person who is suicidal for a clear and treatable reason, when what they want is treatment of the problem that is causing the distress on the first place,
3) that forced counselling can only make the suicidal person worse when it is used as a way if prolonging the crisis situation, something which is particularly problematic in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, as we saw all too disastrously this summer.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

What is your solution for a woman who is pregnant and does not wish to remain pregnant?

I would suggest the ideal solution is to stop being pregnant without killing anyone in the process.
However, that's really just a silly answer to a silly question, which is what you should expect when you couch your question is such a fashion.

It is a bad thing for a woman to be pregnant when she does not wish to be.
It is a bad thing to kill someone.
I will choose the lesser of two evils, and where I have a say in a societal choice, I will say society should choose the lesser of two evils.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, that won't do as an excuse. The Attorney General got an injunction, and the pregnant rape victim did not go through with her abortion, she returned from England. The 8th Amendment did exactly what it said on the tin (except where the woman was suicidal, after the Supreme Court judgement). We didn't pass the 13th amendment because the 8th wasn't feasible, we passed it because it was horribly, horribly effective.

What makes it an excuse? Do you think it's feasible to determine which of all the women leaving the State are pregnant and to prosecute them on their return if they are no longer pregnant?
If you really want to give yourself the willies, read the part of the judgement written by Hederman:[/QUOTE]
Why would it give you the willies?

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

I would suggest the ideal solution is to stop being pregnant without killing anyone in the process.
However, that's really just a silly answer to a silly question, which is what you should expect when you couch your question is such a fashion.

It is a bad thing for a woman to be pregnant when she does not wish to be.
It is a bad thing to kill someone.
I will choose the lesser of two evils, and where I have a say in a societal choice, I will say society should choose the lesser of two evils.

So your solution for every woman who is pregnant and does not wish to be is to remain pregnant. No matter how she feels about being pregnant or how the pregnancy affects her.
Should I be compelled to prevent my born children from dying my giving my body over in some fashion to sustain their right to life?

It is a bad thing to present the same solution to every woman who is pregnant and does not wish to be pregnant. A very bad thing. Especially when no one is being killed-a woman is simply withdrawing consent from using her body to sustain a foetus. I am under no obligation to give over my body to sustain my newborn's right to life once he or she exits the uterus.

Absolam

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Enough of a **** to want them and their doctors be able to decide if and when an abortion is the best course of action?

Enough to want their doctors to be able to decide if an abortion is necessary to save their lives.

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

Why would it give you the willies?

Because of the implication that a raped pregnant child be restrained against her will to gestate a foetus for a few months is something that a civilized country would do in 1992.

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

No doubt about that. It also removes life from the unborn that we constitutionally protected, so as solutions go, it's a bit tricky.
... and ...
This being the fourth time; I understand and can face the reality that some people will commit illegal acts despite the fact that they are illegal. This is not a good reason to make those acts legal.

This is the kind of post that has made me stop bothering to reply to you (apart from this post obviously). You seem to be engaging in sophistry rather than genuine debate.

Of course the unborn life is constitutionally protected, obviously many of us think this is wrong and should be changed. Using the fact that the constitution actually has a clause that we may think should be removed as support for your argument is surely something you can see is absurd? In fact it comes across as a rather smug "well tough, the constitution makes abortion illegal so nah nah nah".

Similarly, nobody is asking for illegal acts to be made legal simply because some people will break the law and carry them out. In this context it was simply stating the fact that ignoring abortion and hoping it will go away is not very useful approach.

Anyhow, I'm done with your "arguments".

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Women are vessels in Ireland. So are 14 year old children pregnant as a result of rape. Our law states this - the life of a zygote is the same as the life of a born raped child who talks about throwing herself in front of a train because she is pregnant with a rapist's child.

That's not quite true though is it (again)? Because there is a provision for abortion where an expectant mother is suicidal.

lazygal wrote: »

If my child was 14, pregnant as a result of rape, and living in Ireland she would have no right to terminate the pregnancy in Ireland and in 1992 the state, via the attorney general, might have sought to prevent my raped, suicidal, pregnant child from traveling to terminate her pregnancy. Ms X is still only in her 30s - I'm in a similar age bracket. I hope she's living a happy life now.

Sooo... given that it's not actually 1992, and your 14 year old daughter if suicidal has access to abortion, what are you saying?

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

And suppose the 'qualified counseling' sessions reveal that the woman still wants to terminate a pregnancy and does not consent to continuing the pregnancy, what should happen then?

I don't recall saying it was a solution, only that it might help more than my opinion?
Anyway, I think I've already answered your 'what if' above.

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

That's not quite true though is it (again)? Because there is a provision for abortion where an expectant mother is suicidal.
Sooo... given that it's not actually 1992, and your 14 year old daughter if suicidal has access to abortion, what are you saying?

My point is that unless a pregnant woman is suicidal or her life is otherwise at risk, she has no choice about remaining pregnant, unless she has the ability to travel outside the state
Do you think a 14 year old who isn't suicidal should have to continue a pregnancy, regardless of the risks to her health? Or her own wishes? Do you think any other reasons for abortion are valid apart from a risk to life?

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

I don't recall saying it was a solution, only that it might help more than my opinion?
Anyway, I think I've already answered your 'what if' above.

Your 'solution' for every woman pregnant who does not wish to be is to remain pregnant unless her life is at risk. Is that correct? Do you think we need to stop women being able to take unborn children out of the state to kill them in other jurisdictions?

iwantmydinner

Absolam wrote: »

Enough to want their doctors to be able to decide if an abortion is necessary to save their lives.

Cool. Zero f*cks given about any other circumstances outside of a woman's imminent death.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Absolam has been quite clear that he supports her right to travel to avail of services legally available in England.

Thanks for the help! I should also make it quite clear that I think availing of such services in those circumstances is wrong regardless of where they're available. If I were in a position to vote against their availability in England I would do so.

lazygal

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Cool. Zero f*cks given about any other circumstances outside of a woman's imminent death.

Yep, all the health effects of pregnancy aren't worthy of consideration, like the wishes of the actual women gestating pregnancies they don't want. Gestate and birth at any cost.

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

Thanks for the help! I should also make it quite clear that I think availing of such services in those circumstances is wrong regardless of where they're available. If I were in a position to vote against their availability in England I would do so.

What do you think would happen if women were not able to avail of safe and legal abortion services in the UK?

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

What makes it an excuse?

The motive for the 13th amendment had nothing to do with theoretical feasibility: the Attorney General showed that the 8th amendment worked: he used it in reality, and prevented an abortion.

In other words, we made the change because not only was his injunction feasible, it was real. It really had the effect the 8th amendment intended.

And we did not like it.

Absolam wrote: »

Why would it give you the willies?

Hederman outright states that we should force women to go to term, even if it leaves them a physical and mental wreck, and forcibly restrain suicidal women until the child is born. If that doesn't give you the willies, well, I'm not a bit surprised.

Absolam

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Remind Bannaside where she did this please.
Just about here: Tell that to the women and girls who would rather die than remain pregnant.
My recollection is I said women die. I did not say by suicide. In fact in the context of my posts it is very clear I was referring to unsafe abortion methods.

Preferring to die rather than remain pregnant does seem rather different to preferring to take the risk of dying rather than remain pregnant? However, if I misinterpreted, my apologies.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes - that elephant in the room is still being ignored.

I think we've addressed it four times now?

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

The most baffling thing about the pro life position of Remain Pregnant Despite Any Other Options is that the actual process of pregnancy is never seen as an issue.

Is that true? Has anyone from the Pro Life movement ever said it?
It's just, I think there are a few Pro Life women who have had children, so you'd imagine they wouldn't say something like that.

lazygal wrote: »

It's almost as if they think pregnancy has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the women going though it, like the foetus in their uteruses just makes no difference to them one way or the other, and birth is nothing to worry about.

Wow. What exactly is it that makes you think the pro life position thinks this? Is it in the literature? Have they been chanting it?

lazygal wrote: »

I don't understand this lack of empathy at all - I can't understand how those who oppose abortion and waffle about adoptions - Adoption, what's that? Said no woman with a crisis pregnancy ever - as a solution to every single unwanted pregnancy, as though its no trouble at all to gestate a birth a foetus so someone else can have a baby.

So, are you saying the pro life movement lacks empathy, or the people who currently give up babies for adoption lack empathy?

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

Is that true? Has anyone from the Pro Life movement ever said it?
It's just, I think there are a few Pro Life women who have had children, so you'd imagine they wouldn't say something like that.

Wow. What exactly is it that makes you think the pro life position thinks this? Is it in the literature? Have they been chanting it?

So, are you saying the pro life movement lacks empathy, or the people who currently give up babies for adoption lack empathy?

I have yet to hear why a woman should have to endure a pregnant and birth process when she doesn't want to. And I have never heard a pro life person have any empathy for what women go through during pregnancy and birth - its all about the foetus. Empathy doesn't seem to be a strong factor in the pro life arguments I've heard. The solution is to remain pregnant, regardless of your wishes or the effect on your physical or mental health. How does that show any empathy for women? What do you think women who don't want to go through pregnancy and birth because of the effects on them should do?

Bannasidhe

Absolam wrote: »

Preferring to die rather than remain pregnant does seem rather different to preferring to take the risk of dying rather than remain pregnant? However, if I misinterpreted, my apologies.
I think we've addressed it four times now?

No. You haven't addressed it at all.

You have quibbled, you have gone off on tangents, you have judged.

You have taken an absolutest stand where women who are pregnant simply have to suffer the consequences and if they die due to undergoing an unsafe abortion so be it...

All this while claiming to value life.

It is apparent that you do not value the life of a woman who does not wish to be pregnant.

lazygal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is apparent that you do not value the life of a woman who does not wish to be pregnant.

Nothing about the woman who doesn't want to be pregnant seems to be of value. She must remain pregnant, and the poster concerned would like abortion services for those who's life is not at risk be removed.

Absolam

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Lovely.Care to expand as much energy on showing where I said women died due to suicide?

Sheesh, give me a chance! I can only reply to one post at a time!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or do you wish to keep ignoring that unsafe abortion methods elephant?

Well I didn't ignore it here, or here, or here, or here. Are you just looking for a different answer?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for sexist - no mate. That's simply biology.

"how selfish of women to not want to carry a foetus inside them for 9 months. No man would ever be so selfish. We must punish this selfish women" is simple biology? I really don't think so, but I'd love you to explain a bit more.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

You seem obsessed with when and whether you should express your feelings directly to the woman concerned.

I do? I wasn't the one who suggested I should, nor am I the one who keeps bringing it up.

volchitsa wrote: »

I would suggest that :
1) your opinion doesn't matter one whit to her, but that this doesn't mean that counseling does or should,

That could be true. Or could be not true. Surely if something might be helpful, it's best not to dismiss it out of hand.

volchitsa wrote: »

2) that counselling alone is bound to be useless to the person who is suicidal for a clear and treatable reason, when what they want is treatment of the problem that is causing the distress on the first place,

Well, whether it is bound to be useful or not is something I'd probably leave to someone professionally qualified to decide. You wouldn't want to kill someone by accident.

volchitsa wrote: »

3) that forced counselling can only make the suicidal person worse when it is used as a way if prolonging the crisis situation, something which is particularly problematic in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, as we saw all too disastrously this summer.

Gosh, I don't recall suggesting forced counseling. But again, probably best left to a professional to decide.
By the way, what forced counselling caused a disaster in the summer?

Bannasidhe

Absolam wrote: »

Sheesh, give me a chance! I can only reply to one post at a time!
Well I didn't ignore it here, or here, or here, or here. Are you just looking for a different answer?

"how selfish of women to not want to carry a foetus inside them for 9 months. No man would ever be so selfish. We must punish this selfish women" is simple biology? I really don't think so, but I'd love you to explain a bit more.

Nope.

Try again. Much wordy but no actual answer.

I will simplify it for you.

Do you think we should accept the unpleasant fact that women/girls will seek to terminate unwanted pregnancies regardless of the illegality of doing so and will therefore risk dying due to resorting to unsafe methods so we need to safeguard them by providing safe abortions OR do you feel their death due to easily preventable complications is simply collateral damage?

Do we allow both woman and foetus to die when we can easily save one of them?

Saving one of them was why David Steel introduced Abortion Legislation in the UK in 1967. In Ireland, we condemn both to die unless the money is available to travel.

An absolutest stance is quite easy when you will never, ever, EVER be placed in a particular situation. That is not sexist. That is biology. No man will ever experience a crises pregnancy in the same way as a woman.
That is another fact.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

So your solution for every woman who is pregnant and does not wish to be is to remain pregnant. No matter how she feels about being pregnant or how the pregnancy affects her.

I did say it was a silly question...

lazygal wrote: »

Should I be compelled to prevent my born children from dying my giving my body over in some fashion to sustain their right to life?

Well, certainly if you fail to prevent their deaths by an act of omission or commission you could be held responsible, but I'm sure you're well aware that your born are not as particularly physically dependent on you as an individual to sustain their lives as your unborn.

lazygal wrote: »

It is a bad thing to present the same solution to every woman who is pregnant and does not wish to be pregnant. A very bad thing.

I totally agree.

lazygal wrote: »

Especially when no one is being killed-a woman is simply withdrawing consent from using her body to sustain a foetus.

And that's sort of where I disagree; a woman is not entitled except in certain circomstances to withdraw her consent to using her body to sustain a foetus because (and this is my opinion of why) it is considered to be to at least some degree, someone.

lazygal wrote: »

I am under no obligation to give over my body to sustain my newborn's right to life once he or she exits the uterus.

But you are under an obligation to give over your body to sustain your unborn's right to life until he or she exits the uterus. And when they get older, you'll be under no obligation to feed or clothe or shelter them. Your obligations obviously diminish with time.

lazygal

What do you think would happen if safe and legal abortion services didn't exist?

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

I do? I wasn't the one who suggested I should, nor am I the one who keeps bringing it up.

That could be true. Or could be not true. Surely if something might be helpful, it's best not to dismiss it out of hand.
Well, whether it is bound to be useful or not is something I'd probably leave to someone professionally qualified to decide. You wouldn't want to kill someone by accident.

Gosh, I don't recall suggesting forced counseling. But again, probably best left to a professional to decide.
By the way, what forced counselling caused a disaster in the summer?

I can see why the poster said you were too dishonest to bother replying to, just now.

You're the one who is saying counselling would be useful. No-one else. The fact that you are obsessed with suggesting this because someone said rhetorically (look it up) "try telling her that" only proves either your stupidity or your dishonesty.

As for forced counselling, it can be through subterfuge as well as by physical force. The woman this summer appears to have believed she was being allowed an abortion if she cooperated, when in fact there was no plan in place to do so at all. She was "counseled" or at least interviewed by several medical teams at several times, including psychiatrists. Obviously the details are not to be made public.
I was assuming some sort of counselling being involved. But you could be right, perhaps she was just interrogated instead.

Nodin

Absolam wrote: »

I did say it was a (..........) diminish with time.

Bannasidhe asked you two questions -

"Do you think we should accept the unpleasant fact that women/girls will seek to terminate unwanted pregnancies regardless of the illegality of doing so and will therefore risk dying due to resorting to unsafe methods so we need to safeguard them by providing safe abortions OR do you feel their death due to easily preventable complications is simply collateral damage?

Do we allow both woman and foetus to die when we can easily save one of them? "

If you'd be as good....

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Or we all say, we have made our will clear and voted to make abortion illegal in this country. We do not believe it is feasible to exercise that will in other countries.
You can pretend to any motivations you like really, but a national penchant for complicated hypocrisy seems a little over dramatic.

Actually we did not vote to make abortion illegal in this country. Abortion was made illegal here in the 1860's by a British Law. The only changes to the abortion law have been to relax it in certain medical-emergency cases to save the life of the pregnant woman.

Originally Posted by Bannasidhe View Post
Her body. HER choice.
MY Body = MY Choice.
Woman's body = Woman's Choice.

I totally agree; within the constraints of the societies we live in everyone should have the maximum affordable choice over what is done with their bodies (which in fairness doesn't quite amount to 'my body = my choice', but I'm approximately there in spirit). Those constraints generally restrict how you can use your body to affect someone else, and in Irish society, the unborn are recognised as being, at least to some degree, someone else. Which means that just as you cannot use your body to kill a neighbour, you cannot use it to kill an unborn child.
Someone else's body (nascent as that body may be) = someone else's choice.

---

conversely the state itself recognizes that there are limitations beyond which it cannot go in pursuit of protection of the unborn, as that would put the pregnant girl/woman's life at risk. The Church which is seen here as been most front and centre in opposition to abortion here recognizes that, at times, saving the woman's life must be given priority over that of saving the fetus.

Originally Posted by Bannasidhe View Post
Secondly - like it or not. Some women/girls get pregnant and they do not want to be. This has always been the case and always will be. Abortions are recorded throughout history (why, St Bridget performed a few in her day...). How or why they got pregnant is immaterial. What is material is how we as a society treat these women and if we are mature enough to accept an unpleasant reality. That reality is some women/girls will seek to terminate an unwanted pregnancy no matter how we feel about it and no matter what laws to protect the unborn are in place. The fact is that desperate women/girls will take desperate measures often with fatal consequences to themselves. Both die.

Accepting the unpleasant reality that some women/girls will seek to terminate an unwanted pregnancy no matter how we feel about it does not require that we endorse their potential attempts to kill the foetus/child though; only that we consider the facts when we determine as a society what stance we wish to take on the issue.

---

As through the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013