Abortion Discussion

iwantmydinner

Absolam wrote: »

It achieves the life of the unborn who would otherwise be killed? Zubeneschamali obviously thinks otherwise:

But I don't think there's any data that shows that every person who would have had an abortion in Ireland had the facility been available has gone abroad and had one instead. Simple economics, per Zubeneschamalis point would indicate at very least there are some people who can't afford to go abroad for abortions, so at a minimum, those unborn lives have been preserved.

So, forcing economically disadvantaged, possibly suicidal women and girls, some of whom have been raped, to carry unwanted crisis pregancies to term (or to viability) and become mothers against their will goes into the 'achievements' column. Right.

By the same logic, the Morning After Pill should be €6,500, have to be requested from a Doctor As Gaeilge, and require you to take an exam.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, I noted earlier that poor raped immigrants can't travel to England. There are certainly other women who are too poor, too young, are in prison or a psychiatric institution, have some level of intellectual disability or are victims of domestic abuse who also can't travel. These are, of course, the women least able to handle having a child, but they are forced to have them by the State, while middle class women get abortion on demand for €1000. It's a great little system.

So just to be clear, that would be in contradiction to

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

it doesn't even preserve any unborn lives.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

If you're sure of it, what is it you're sure can be done?

Preventing them from travelling may be difficult, but I would expect that prosecuting them for something on their return, assuming one found out what they did, would be possible.

So, would you be supportive of a change in the law whereby woman that procured an abortion elsewhere were prosecuted in Ireland for the killing of a person? This would be possible, for example, where the woman had complications due to the abortion and had to seek medical attention at home.

Evidentially it should be trivial to prove guilt. Happy with that?

MrP

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

So just to be clear, that would be in contradiction to

Points to the prolife side! Well done, well done!

If only Hederman had convinced the others on the court to apply a similar regime to middle class women, handcuffing them to their beds for 9 months, we'd have saved maybe 100,000 unborns by now!

eviltwin

There is a lot we could do. Revoke the right to travel, stop counselling services from mentioning abortion or providing aftercare, we could ask clinics to provide details of women who gave Irish addresses, make post abortion services illegal. We could seize the passport of any woman who has disclosed an intention to travel for an abortion.

But we won't because the state knows women who want an abortion will find a way to do it. Throughout history there have been ways and means of ending a pregnancy. But then we'd have to deal with the implications of that and why should we take on that burden when the UK can deal with it for us.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We already know: the Attorney General already did it once. It worked. Stop pretending this has not already been pointed out.

Are you suggesting that replicating what the Attorney General did in 1983 is a practicable way to prevent women from travelling aboard to have abortions, and a practicable way to determine if women entering the country have ever had an abortion?
Did it, in fact, prevent women (or even a woman) from travelling abroad to have an abortion, or determine if women (or even a woman) who entered the country had ever had an abortion?

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

Are you suggesting that replicating what the Attorney General did in 1983 is a practicable way to prevent women from travelling aboard to have abortions

If it were not feasible or practicable, the Attorney General would not have been able to do it.

He did it. It worked. An abortion was prevented, the State defended the right to life of that particular unborn.

These are the facts. They are not open to debate. Endless repetitive questions from yourself will not obscure them.

lazygal

One group that should be easy to deal with are couples who travel to terminate for fatal foetal abnormalities. These couples would generally be participating in state antenatal care, would be known to health authorities and may have applied for maternity benefit and other such things one does when one is expecting a baby. So if such couples, after receiving a diagnosis of FFA, then book flights to a major UK city, spend some time there, and then return home with no baby and do not engage with the health services for what should be the remainder of the pregnancy, something could be done.
Perhaps an employer, who may have filled out maternity leave forms might be obliged to report the fact that the woman no longer wishes to avail of that leave given that there is no baby and the woman concerned hasn't availed of normal leave for pregnancy two weeks before her due date. Perhaps hospitals could be obliged to report why women disengage with maternity services after a diagnosis of FFA following a 20 week anomaly scan and don't present for labour and delivery in the normal manner.

Akrasia

Seeing as the vast majority of the objectors to Abortion do so on a religious basis,
Why doesn't the RC church enforce their position at home. Excommunicate all women and those who support them, who have travelled abroad to terminate a pregnancy.

(hint, the reason is that they know that most people would just tell the RC church to go f*ck themselves)

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

Preventing them from travelling may be difficult, but I would expect that prosecuting them for something on their return, assuming one found out what they did, would be possible.

I suspect the 'assuming one found out what they did' would be the impracticable bit. Followed by proving it beyond a reasonable doubt, I suspect.

MrPudding wrote: »

So, would you be supportive of a change in the law whereby woman that procured an abortion elsewhere were prosecuted in Ireland for the killing of a person?

I don't know. Why would you propose changing from the existing offence of destruction of unborn life? Are you contemplating killing of a person being a new offence, or added in some way to the existing homicide offences?

MrPudding wrote: »

This would be possible, for example, where the woman had complications due to the abortion and had to seek medical attention at home.

So you would have an offence which was in practical terms limited to some potential detection in women presenting for medical treatment following an abortion?

MrPudding wrote: »

Evidentially it should be trivial to prove guilt. Happy with that?

That seems unlikely? How would you obtain evidence from another jurisdiction? The only evidence you would (potentially) have would be the aftereffects of the complication. Could it be distinguished from the result of an accident, say, or the side effect of a necessary procedure?

Not2Good

Akrasia wrote: »

Seeing as the vast majority of the objectors to Abortion do so on a religious basis,
Why doesn't the RC church enforce their position at home. Excommunicate all women and those who support them, who have travelled abroad to terminate a pregnancy.

(hint, the reason is that they know that most people would just tell the RC church to go f*ck themselves)

Not true, there are many other objectors for moral and ethical reasons who are agnostic or atheist

Not2Good

Your post could also be seen as offensive to the particular religion mentioned in your post

Morag

Absolam wrote: »

Is it not the case that once the Oireachteas passes a piece of legislation, the only view the Supreme Court can take is whether the legislation is constitutional or not? If the Oireachtas passed legislation defining the 'unborn' as life beginning at x, then unless it is specifically contrary to an expression in the Constitution (and there's obviously some issues with ensuring compliance with the literal/specific translation of the definitive Irish 'na mbeo gan breith' which would have to absolutely be complied with), the Supreme Court is not (I think?) empowered to deem the legislation wrong, as such, or to make a ruling contrary to the legislation.

It would take a pregnant woman being able and willing with the funds to go to court to challenge the law.

lazygal

Has anyone met that pro life atheist? Anyone? Or the gay guy who doesn't think marriage equality is necessary? Apart from yer man wheeled out by Breda O'Brien's son.

lazygal

Not2Good wrote: »

Your post could also be seen as offensive to the particular religion mentioned in your post

How? Catholics oppose all abortion unless there is a risk to the life of the mother. If a Catholic is in favour of abortion the punishment is excommunication. This is fact. Facts can't be offensive.

Not2Good

People are entitled to their opinion though

Not2Good

lazygal wrote: »

Has anyone met that pro life atheist? Anyone? Or the gay guy who doesn't think marriage equality is necessary? Apart from yer man wheeled out by Breda O'Brien's son.

Just because they may not post here doesn't mean they don't exist.

Not2Good

lazygal wrote: »

How? Catholics oppose all abortion unless there is a risk to the life of the mother. If a Catholic is in favour of abortion the punishment is excommunication. This is fact. Facts can't be offensive.

Not what was said but how it was phrased

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If it were not feasible or practicable, the Attorney General would not have been able to do it.

That was not the question though. The question was, did the Attorney General in fact, prevent women (or even a woman) from travelling abroad to have an abortion, or determine if women (or even a woman) who entered the country had ever had an abortion?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He did it. It worked.

He did 'it'? Can we know if 'it' was an answer to the question?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

An abortion was prevented, the State defended the right to life of that particular unborn.

But I didn't ask if an abortion was prevented, or if the the State defended the right to life of that particular unborn. I asked if the Attorney General did in fact, prevent women (or even a woman) from travelling abroad to have an abortion, or determine if women (or even a woman) who entered the country had ever had an abortion. Did he?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

These are the facts. They are not open to debate. Endless repetitive questions from yourself will not obscure them.

But these are only some facts! Are you saying there can be no other facts? Whilst they bask in the bright light of day, utterly unobscured, can we not determine whether the Attorney General did in fact, prevent women (or even a woman) from travelling abroad to have an abortion, or determine if women (or even a woman) who entered the country had ever had an abortion?
After all, these facts would, unlike the ones you've presented, answer the question I asked.

iwantmydinner

Not2Good wrote: »

Your post could also be seen as offensive to the particular religion mentioned in your post

What's offensive in that post??

Not2Good

lazygal wrote: »

Has anyone met that pro life atheist? Anyone? Or the gay guy who doesn't think marriage equality is necessary? Apart from yer man wheeled out by Breda O'Brien's son.

And yes I have (pro-life atheist), a good few.

Absolam

iwantmydinner wrote: »

So, forcing economically disadvantaged, possibly suicidal women and girls, some of whom have been raped, to carry unwanted crisis pregancies to term (or to viability) and become mothers against their will goes into the 'achievements' column. Right.

Well, if you put it like that.... when you set it against killing people, I suppose it does.

eviltwin

I'm just looking up what qualifies you for automatic excommunication from the church and abortion is in there. Funnily enough murder isn't, neither is physically harming someone, rape, child abuse, the rest are "crimes" against the church itself things like violating the seal of confession, heresy, stuff like that.

And people say the church isn't anti women :rolleyes:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/catholicism-excommunication-and-other-penalties.html

iwantmydinner

Absolam wrote: »

Well, if you put it like that.... when you set it against killing people, I suppose it does.

Foetus ain't a person, though.

Also, seriously, where is your empathy?

Zubeneschamali

lazygal wrote: »

Catholics oppose all abortion unless there is a risk to the life of the mother.

Actually, they say they oppose all abortion full stop.

They have a tricksy definition which says that anything they support isn't abortion.

Not2Good

lazygal wrote: »

How? Catholics oppose all abortion unless there is a risk to the life of the mother. If a Catholic is in favour of abortion the punishment is excommunication. This is fact. Facts can't be offensive.

But degrading and ridiculing ones religious persuasion and beliefs can be offensive

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

I asked if the Attorney General did in fact, prevent women (or even a woman) from travelling abroad to have an abortion, or determine if women (or even a woman) who entered the country had ever had an abortion. Did he?

That is very craftily worded, Absolam, kudos, and the answer is no.

He got the injunction after she had already travelled for the abortion. She did not have the abortion, she obeyed the injunction and came back.

So while the answer to your carefully constructed question is no, the AG did in fact prevent an abortion, defending the right to life of the unborn.

So, once again, there is no question that it is feasible and practicable, since it already happened and already worked.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

One group that should be easy to deal with are couples who travel to terminate for fatal foetal abnormalities. These couples would generally be participating in state antenatal care, would be known to health authorities and may have applied for maternity benefit and other such things one does when one is expecting a baby. So if such couples, after receiving a diagnosis of FFA, then book flights to a major UK city, spend some time there, and then return home with no baby and do not engage with the health services for what should be the remainder of the pregnancy, something could be done.

So what could be done? Bearing in mind this is likely to be a not very proportion of those travelling abroad to seek abortion, so we've quite a way to go yet. Also worth bearing in mind the fact that since we're going to be changing the constitution for this, there's a reasonable chance a good proportion of the population will support abortion in the case of ffa, so it might be more practicable to attempt to make it legal.

lazygal wrote: »

Perhaps an employer, who may have filled out maternity leave forms might be obliged to report the fact that the woman no longer wishes to avail of that leave given that there is no baby and the woman concerned hasn't availed of normal leave for pregnancy two weeks before her due date.

You're relying on a woman whose plan to bring a pregnancy to term being sufficiently advanced as to inform her employer then changing her mind at some point, which I'd suggest is likely to be quite a small proportion of women travelling abroad to seek abortion. Additionally, placing a burden on employers to track and report employees who may potentially intent to have or have already had an illegal abortion is not going to be popular with employers (if they even agree it is practical, which many large companies may not); as it will open them up to sanctions for failing to report employees on the one hand, and litigation for wrongly reporting employees on the other, which will drive up their operating costs and insurance costs.

lazygal wrote: »

Perhaps hospitals could be obliged to report why women disengage with maternity services after a diagnosis of FFA following a 20 week anomaly scan and don't present for labour and delivery in the normal manner.

You could be running into issues with doctor patient confidentiality there, but since we've covered FFA above it may be moot, except in non FFA cases obviously where again, you're really relying again on women whose plan to bring a pregnancy to term being sufficiently advanced as to be using maternity services before changing their minds.

rainbow kirby

Not2Good wrote: »

But degrading and ridiculing ones religious persuasion and beliefs can be offensive

Plenty of people out there who find the beliefs of the church in question on many issues quite offensive.