Abortion Discussion

robindch

koth wrote: »

Found the following (bear in mind it's a pro-life site):

The European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution, but the ECtHR certainly has issued rulings on how hospitals should run and the rulings are legally binding on the institutions/people they apply to.

kylith

Unrelated, a bit. There's a Karaoke for Choice fundraiser in August https://www.facebook.com/events/517325848342250/?ref=3

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/08/07/would-he-prefer-for-both-of-them-to-die/?fb_source=pubv1

Here is some of what Dr Boylan had to say to Newstalk’s Breakfast presenter Shane Coleman:

“Well I suspect that Father Doran is speaking in a rather personal capacity and not representing the views of the hospital and I certainly hope that is the case. The whole purpose of a hospital is to save people’s lives and Father Doran is proposing that a woman in an intensive care unit in the Mater Hospital is denied a life saving operation because it goes against his personal ethos or what he would say is the ethos of the hospital, then that is an extremely disturbing thing to say”.

“You can imagine a scenario, say the Mater, for example is associated with the Rotunda Hospital. So supposing a woman who gets seriously ill is transferred to the intensive care unit in the Mater Hospital and needs a termination in order to save her life, and is Father Doran going to stand by her bedside in the intensive care unit and prevent the doctors from giving the care she needs to save her life? I mean it’s really..it’s just not on.”

“Well I can understand Father Doran’s personal view and one has to respect his personal view but he’s not a doctor and there’s too long of a history of the Catholic Church interfering in the care of women, particularly in the area of reproductive health in this state and they really need to back off and leave it to the doctors. It’s absolutely intolerable that a hospital would deny somebody life-saving treatment in the 21st century in a Western country. It just beggars belief to be honest with you.

Would he prefer for both of them to die? For the baby and the mother to die? A lot of people against this Act miss the point that if the mother dies, the baby dies also. So are they happy to stand by and watch a woman die and be denied life-saving treatment because it goes against their personal beliefs which are not shared by the doctors looking after the woman or by the woman herself or by her family? It really, you know we really need to move on from this sort of interference.”

Obliq

That just about sums it up. Well done Peter Boylan.

UDP

robindch wrote: »

I'd thank him for his reply, then ask him to say what EU legislation guarantees it.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0078:en:HTML
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation

Article 4
Occupational requirements
2. Member States may maintain national legislation in force at the date of adoption of this Directive or provide for future legislation incorporating national practices existing at the date of adoption of this Directive pursuant to which, in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, a difference of treatment based on a person's religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out, a person's religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the organisation's ethos. This difference of treatment shall be implemented taking account of Member States' constitutional provisions and principles, as well as the general principles of Community law, and should not justify discrimination on another ground.
Provided that its provisions are otherwise complied with, this Directive shall thus not prejudice the right of churches and other public or private organisations, the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, acting in conformity with national constitutions and laws, to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation's ethos.

robindch

UDP wrote: »

Provided that its provisions are otherwise complied with, this Directive shall thus not prejudice the right of churches and other public or private organisations, the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, acting in conformity with national constitutions and laws, to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation's ethos.

The good priest is losing the run of himself.

That directive says that as far as the EU is concerned (a) national constitution and national law overrides a church's religious rules and (b) the directive cannot be used to stop a church from enforcing their religious rules upon their own employees in their own facilities. It does not, however, require an EU state to enforce a church's religious rules.

Dreadful bloody word "ethos", btw. Really gets up my nose. Has no place in a adult debate except to signal open prejudice.

UDP

robindch wrote: »

The good priest is losing the run of himself.

That directive says that as far as the EU is concerned (a) national constitution and national law overrides a church's religious rules and (b) the directive cannot be used to stop a church from enforcing their religious rules upon their own employees in their own facilities. It does not, however, require an EU state to enforce a church's religious rules.

Dreadful bloody word "ethos", btw. Really gets up my nose. Has no place in a adult debate except to signal open prejudice.

He say there has been case law since then in the courts also that backs him up. Will ask him which cases.

robindch

UDP wrote: »

He say there has been case law since then in the courts also that backs him up. Will ask him which cases.

Would be interesting to know.

The EU directive also points out that the discrimination clause only applies where "a person's religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement".

If the church, or some religiously-controlled trust, takes some conscientious objector to an EU court for the crime of making a medical judgement in line with Irish law -- quite apart from the shitstorm they're going to stir up about whether the church or the state runs Irish hospitals -- they're also going to have to demonstrate why being a catholic is a "justified occupational requirement" for a job in a state-owned Irish hospital.

UDP

robindch wrote: »

Would be interesting to know.

The EU directive also points out that the discrimination clause only applies where "a person's religion or belief constitute a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement".

If the church, or some religiously-controlled trust, takes some conscientious objector to an EU court for the crime of making a medical judgement in line with Irish law -- quite apart from the shitstorm they're going to stir up about whether the church or the state runs Irish hospitals -- they're also going to have to demonstrate why being a catholic is a "justified occupational requirement" for a job in a state-owned Irish hospital.

He would say its not a state-owned hospital. Also the new act says doctors/individuals can make a conscientious objection but just that an hospital as a whole can't.

robindch

^^^ Oops, state-funded, not state-owned.

Risks to health notwithstanding, and allowing for the unlikelihood of it succeeding, it would be interesting to see a case taken all the same.

The church would be seen to believe it had -- and if the case succeeded, in actually having -- more control over Irish hospitals than the Irish government did. And that might be the trigger for a more general political reappraisal of exactly how much control that hideous organization exerts in this country.

shruikan2553

Let them do what they want but have fines each month, no more state funding and if a woman dies and there is even a small possibility that an abortion could have saved her they get done for malpractice. I'm sure they would quickly change if they risked losing money.

That or just remove any religious aspect from hospitals but then we're destroying der freedomz.

UDP

robindch wrote: »

Would be interesting to know.

Employment Equality Bill case of 1996. (Supreme Court)

Child abuse case of 2008 (Supreme Court), in which the Court found that responsibility lay with the owner of the school (the Church body), not the funder (the State)

He also says the constitution still recognises the "equal right to life of the child", and guarantees in so far as practicable, in its laws to defend and vindicate that right. That the judgement in the X case didn’t change that and refusing to perform an abortion is not against the law. He says his concern, expressed in a letter in June, was that the Minister, notwithstanding the text of the act which says nothing to that effect, insisted that a hospital had no right to an ethical position.

Brian Shanahan

UDP wrote: »

Kevin Doran thinks that european law says the hospital is allowed to have its catholic ethos that forbids abortions and the government have no right to legislate against that thus he thinks that european law invalidates the recently passed act.

Even though it was European law that forced the government into passing the recent act?

Does he even know where his arse is?

JimiTime

For those interested, the following site is an insight into the people that abortion usually kills. For those who have aborted their children, I hope it strikes a nerve as to the people you've denied a chance at life.

http://www.theabortionsurvivors.com/public-survivors-their-stories/

lazygal

JimiTime wrote: »

For those interested, the following site is an insight into the people that abortion usually kills. For those who have aborted their children, I hope it strikes a nerve as to the people you've denied a chance at life.

http://www.theabortionsurvivors.com/public-survivors-their-stories/

What about nature depriving people of life? Its the greatest abortionist of all. Are you equally angry about how women who miscarry are treated?

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

For those interested, the following site is an insight into the people that abortion usually kills. For those who have aborted their children, I hope it strikes a nerve as to the people you've denied a chance at life.

http://www.theabortionsurvivors.com/public-survivors-their-stories/

"For those of you that have had abortions, I hope this upsets you."

No empathy for women who have had abortions? Why do that? They may have had the abortion for valid medical reasons. It's just crass emotional manipulation.

lazygal

koth wrote: »

"For those of you that have had abortions, I hope this upsets you."

No empathy for women who have had abortions? Why do that? They may have had the abortion for valid medical reasons. It's just crass emotional manipulation.

In other words, business as usual from those who are anti abortion.

Galvasean

koth wrote: »

"For those of you that have had abortions, I hope this upsets you."

No empathy for women who have had abortions? Why do that? They may have had the abortion for valid medical reasons. It's just crass emotional manipulation.

It's not even like he's saying, "I hope you realise the error of your ways and we can all get along". It's designed to hurt, rather than enlighten.
Once again, the mask slips to reveal the truly ugly face of the 'pro-life' crowd.

Turtwig

JimiTime wrote: »

For those who have aborted their children, I hope it strikes a nerve as to the people you've denied a chance at life.

Really considerate! You know, it is possible that people who have abortions have valid health reasons for doing so. Of course, it's far more convenient and lazier to just all brandish them with the label of callous monsters and be done with it.

Nodin

JimiTime wrote: »

For those interested, the following site is an insight into the people that abortion usually kills. For those who have aborted their children, I hope it strikes a nerve as to the people you've denied a chance at life.

http://www.theabortionsurvivors.com/public-survivors-their-stories/

Yes, maybe they could do reconstructions of their close escapes, like that show "I Shouldn't Be Alive". The rest of us will have to start a show about people who almost weren't conceived.

Nodin

Jernal wrote: »

Really considerate! You know, it is possible that people who have abortions have valid health reasons for doing so. Of course, it's far more convenient and lazier to just all brandish them with the label of callous monsters and be done with it.

And fun. Nothing like a bit of demonisation for the fun.

JimiTime

koth wrote: »

"For those of you that have had abortions, I hope this upsets you."

No empathy for women who have had abortions? Why do that? They may have had the abortion for valid medical reasons. It's just crass emotional manipulation.

I would desire people feel shame once the reality dawns yes. I would hope that such shame would lead to a grieving for the child, and that the attitude to abortion would then be directed towards making sure no-one else does it. Is that a problem?

Also, with regards to medical reasons, miscarriage etc. I have been close to such incidents, and there is absolutely no shame in such circumstances (For it was nothing of their doing), they certainly grieve for the loss of their child though.

Shame for a shameful act that leads to positive change is a very good thing. I'd be more concerned about shamelessness.

As for emotional manipulation. Well, we are dealing with the killing of unborn human babies. Its an emotional topic. Is it any wonder that those who are for abortion being legal want emotion removed from the practice of killing unborn human beings?

Nodin

JimiTime wrote: »

As for emotional manipulation. Well, we are dealing with the killing of unborn human babies. Its an emotional topic. Is it any wonder that those who are for abortion being legal want emotion removed from the practice of killing unborn human beings?

Ye wha?

JimiTime

Jernal wrote: »

Really considerate! You know, it is possible that people who have abortions have valid health reasons for doing so. Of course, it's far more convenient and lazier to just all brandish them with the label of callous monsters and be done with it.

Obviously there are difficult and exceptional circumstances that nobody wants to see anyone have to deal with. Like I said though, shame is not invoked when there isn't a choice in the matter. Such people grieve for their lost children. Those who realise that they have killed their child, when they didn't actually have to though. Yes, I believe shame would be the emotion such a person should feel. Again, whats the issue with a person feeling shame for a shameful act? Thieves should feel shame. however, I can see exceptions in circumstances of stealing a loaf of bread to feed family etc. I was hoping people would be smart enough to make distinctions.

Cabaal

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, we are dealing with the killing of unborn human babies. Its an emotional topic. Is it any wonder that those who are for abortion being legal want emotion removed from the practice of killing unborn human beings?

it's a fetus and even at 7 months the Catholic Church itself sees it as a fetus...

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

I would desire people feel shame once the reality dawns yes. I would hope that such shame would lead to a grieving for the child, and that the attitude to abortion would then be directed towards making sure no-one else does it. Is that a problem?

Yes. It's cruel to those women. Why should they feel shame for something that they felt was necessary? You want to reduce abortions? Then make sure women have easy access to contraceptives and a good education in sexual health.

Also, with regards to medical reasons, miscarriage etc. I have been close to such incidents, and there is absolutely no shame in such circumstances (For it was nothing of their doing), they certainly grieve for the loss of their child though.

Well maybe you should have thought about that a bit more before posting what you did. Because it certainly didn't suggest that you had any consideration to such circumstances.

Shame for a shameful act that leads to positive change is a very good thing. I'd be more concerned about shamelessness.

You think it's a shameful act. Others don't. That doesn't give you the right to attempt to shame those that don't agree with you.

As for emotional manipulation. Well, we are dealing with the killing of unborn human babies. Its an emotional topic. Is it any wonder that those who are for abortion being legal want emotion removed from the practice of killing unborn human beings?

That's just nonsense tbh. Abortion deserves a mature and considered discussion about what should and shouldn't be allowed. Emotional blackmail has no place in such a discussion.

PopePalpatine

koth wrote: »

"For those of you that have had abortions, I hope this upsets you."

No empathy for women who have had abortions? Why do that? They may have had the abortion for valid medical reasons. It's just crass emotional manipulation.

Fetus, Fetus, über alles!

shruikan2553

JimiTime wrote: »

I would desire people feel shame once the reality dawns yes. I would hope that such shame would lead to a grieving for the child, and that the attitude to abortion would then be directed towards making sure no-one else does it. Is that a problem?

Also, with regards to medical reasons, miscarriage etc. I have been close to such incidents, and there is absolutely no shame in such circumstances (For it was nothing of their doing), they certainly grieve for the loss of their child though.

Shame for a shameful act that leads to positive change is a very good thing. I'd be more concerned about shamelessness.

As for emotional manipulation. Well, we are dealing with the killing of unborn human babies. Its an emotional topic. Is it any wonder that those who are for abortion being legal want emotion removed from the practice of killing unborn human beings?

So a raped 14 year old should feel shame for having an abortion? I hope you never have to deal with that happening to someone close to you for their sake.

Morag

JimiTime wrote: »

I would desire people feel shame once the reality dawns yes. I would hope that such shame would lead to a grieving for the child, and that the attitude to abortion would then be directed towards making sure no-one else does it. Is that a problem?

Also, with regards to medical reasons, miscarriage etc. I have been close to such incidents, and there is absolutely no shame in such circumstances (For it was nothing of their doing), they certainly grieve for the loss of their child though.

Shame for a shameful act that leads to positive change is a very good thing. I'd be more concerned about shamelessness.

As for emotional manipulation. Well, we are dealing with the killing of unborn human babies. Its an emotional topic. Is it any wonder that those who are for abortion being legal want emotion removed from the practice of killing unborn human beings?

I didn't have my abortion for medical reason, I had one as I was not ready to be a parent and did not want to continue the pregnancy and had the abortion to preserve the live I had and the life I had planned for me.

I refused to take on any shame to do with it, you can think what you want about me, frankly I don't care. For many years I never spoke about it, I was one of thousands of women who have an an abortion and let a minority of people shame me and try to tell me I was a murder and I should never be allowed to have children.

The sooner we ignore those who are shame mongers the better.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/No-More-Shame/394506053931205

IT-Guy

<SNIP Let's not stir the melting pot.>