Abortion Discussion

Absolam · 18-12-2014 11:55am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It looks like the judge needs to hand out a few dozen more restraining orders.

Without, of course, interfering with any of those women's rights to do what they want with their bodies :-)

Loafing Oaf · 18-12-2014 3:28pm

Shrap wrote: »

I hope you're right.

The problem for those of the pro-choice persuasion is that even if the next government goes down the repeal referendum followed by legislation route, that legislation is likely to be restrictive as the 'leading' referendum question you fear. If, as still seems likely, the next govt is FF/FG, they could well decide to hold such a referendum on the basis that they would legislate for abortion purely on the grounds of FFA. Of course that would still leave the door open to more extensive liberalisation by a future govt...

Shrap · 18-12-2014 7:49pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

The problem for those of the pro-choice persuasion is that even if the next government goes down the repeal referendum followed by legislation route, that legislation is likely to be restrictive as the 'leading' referendum question you fear. If, as still seems likely, the next govt is FF/FG, they could well decide to hold such a referendum on the basis that they would legislate for abortion purely on the grounds of FFA. Of course that would still leave the door open to more extensive liberalisation by a future govt...

Correct. I wouldn't be expecting any questions to be put to us that will actually give the Irish public the opportunity to say how broadly they would like/not like to see abortion services made available here. We'll just be given a choice between the narrowest of parameters or no change.

Legislating for FFA would at least be the start of diminishing our nation's hypocrisy (seeing as we haven't started yet), and this time it would not be put to a people ignorant of the RCC's many hypocrisies either. Plus, SPUC are dead in the water (although Patricia Casey is still hanging in there) now that their entire history of bullying (sorry absolam, I meant lobbying....in an insidious and threatening way) is available to all and sundry on-line, and the Iona crowd are pantomime bigots dressed up in piety. I'll not be holding my breath though.

aloyisious · 18-12-2014 11:01pm

interesting discussion on Prime Time about this latest topic. Prof W Binchy has pointed out that this is not about abortion, but is about a family facing into having to decide to switch off the machine that is keeping the body of their brain-dead daughter breathing. The other guest was going on about how it was shocking that the matter was before the courts, and was intruding on the family privacy.

Shrap · 18-12-2014 11:16pm

aloyisious wrote: »

interesting discussion on Prime Time about this latest topic. Prof W Binchy has pointed out that this is not about abortion, but is about a family facing into having to decide to switch off the machine that is keeping the body of their brain-dead daughter breathing. The other guest was going on about how it was shocking that the matter was before the courts, and was intruding on the family privacy.

Holy fcuk, will he never go away? SPUC/PLAC clearly haven't gone away after all. In fact, they must have had a meeting yesterday to decide on the spin to put on this. Both he and Dr. Patricia Casey have said the very same thing, and denied it's about the 8th amendment at all. The lying toads are back :mad:

The Black Oil · 18-12-2014 11:18pm

He said the most recent legislation was not based on evidence. Miriam wondered whether doctors were nervous - he suggested they were not. More mind reading.

lazygal · 18-12-2014 11:21pm

Shrap wrote: »

Holy fcuk, will he never go away? SPUC/PLAC clearly haven't gone away after all. In fact, they must have had a meeting yesterday to decide on the spin to put on this. Both he and Dr. Patricia Casey have said the very same thing, and denied it's about the 8th amendment at all. The lying toads are back :mad:

He will never admit his amendment has been anything other than a complete disaster and needs to be repealed asap.

recedite · 18-12-2014 11:40pm

aloyisious wrote: »

The other guest was going on about how it was shocking that the matter was before the courts, and was intruding on the family privacy.

Its not all about what the family want. Even if there was no pregnancy involved, the decision to switch off is a medical one, although the wishes of the family would be "listened to".
If I was in a long term coma there are certain members of my family that I would not like to have making any such decisions for me; they might be a bit too trigger happy with the red button.

With the pregnancy, there is a whole different situation. In Ireland the Constitution requires the State to protect and vindicate the right to life of the unborn. If "the unborn" is still viable, that means the State is obliged to step in and act effectively as the guardian of the unborn, even if the extended family do not want to save it.

Even if you consider the foetus to be no more human than any other piece of human tissue, why not let it live and grow, and eventually be adopted by someone else? Consider it like an organ donation; why must it die with its original host when it could be "re-used" elsewhere?

volchitsa · 19-12-2014 12:23am

recedite wrote: »

Even if you consider the foetus to be no more human than any other piece of human tissue, why not let it live and grow, and eventually be adopted by someone else? Consider it like an organ donation; why must it die with its original host when it could be "re-used" elsewhere?

No-one is saying this must not happen, the question is whether the woman must legally be kept on artificial life support when her family do not want that.

To stay with the organ donation simile, would you think the family's wishes should be similarly ignored because her organs are to be kept alive in preparation for a suitable recipient?

How long would it be acceptable to refuse to release the body to them, because the hospital needs it to keep various organs in? A week? Three months?

alaimacerc · 19-12-2014 1:31am

aloyisious wrote: »

interesting discussion on Prime Time about this latest topic. Prof W Binchy has pointed out that this is not about abortion [...]

Shrap wrote: »

Both he and Dr. Patricia Casey have said the very same thing, and denied it's about the 8th amendment at all.

Is Binchy actually saying it's not about the 8th amendment? Or is he merely standing on the semantics excise of "it's not 'abortion' qua abortion if the Pope and/or Prof. John Bonnar says it's not"?

The former seems like something it's logically impossible to argue. The latter is merely the sort of thing you shouldn't be allowed to say on TV without someone saying "evasive nonsense".

Shrap · 19-12-2014 8:17am

Well I only listened to Casey, and she was quite firmly steering away from the notion that the 8th amendment had got to do with why the doctors were looking for legal advice and stated that ethical dilemmas in a case similar to this anywhere in the world would lead to doctors having to take advice.

Quite firmly mentioned a few times that this has nothing to do with abortion and therefore nothing to do with the 8th. She did make the point that we don't know if there is another element to the next of kin's wishes, and to be fair to her she spoke about that very compassionately and in her very best HSE voice. I'm sure you all know what that sounds like.....

lazygal · 19-12-2014 8:44am

It's the same voice she used when telling a women who travelled because of FFA that a perinatal hospice would've been the ideal solution for her, even when the women told her it wasn't.

Shrap · 19-12-2014 9:19am

lazygal wrote: »

It's the same voice she used when telling a women who travelled because of FFA that a perinatal hospice would've been the ideal solution for her, even when the women told her it wasn't.

That's the very one, yes. It's a confusing tone at the best of times - A smooth kindly country granny with undertone of condescension and top-notes of self righteous conviction. Under pressure, definite hints of mania.

PopePalpatine · 19-12-2014 10:03am

Shrap wrote: »

That's the very one, yes. It's a confusing tone at the best of times - A smooth kindly country granny with undertone of condescension and top-notes of self righteous conviction. Under pressure, definite hints of mania.

So...Professor Umbridge from Harry Potter?

Shrap · 19-12-2014 10:18am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

So...Professor Umbridge from Harry Potter?

No, nothing like as cuddly I'm afraid. Imelda Staunton is a wonderful actor but hasn't delivered even half the necessary conviction, emphatic pausing or determination to make her as scary as our Prof Casey.

http://www.newstalk.ie/player/shows/The_Pat_Kenny_Show/13240/15064/18th_December_2014_-_The_Pat_Kenny_Show_Part_1

She starts at 3:37

lazygal · 19-12-2014 11:40am

Shrap wrote: »

That's the very one, yes. It's a confusing tone at the best of times - A smooth kindly country granny with undertone of condescension and top-notes of self righteous conviction. Under pressure, definite hints of mania.

A fierce judgmental and mammyish 'I know best' aftertaste too.

recedite · 19-12-2014 12:59pm

volchitsa wrote: »

To stay with the organ donation simile, would you think the family's wishes should be similarly ignored because her organs are to be kept alive in preparation for a suitable recipient?

How long would it be acceptable to refuse to release the body to them, because the hospital needs it to keep various organs in? A week? Three months?

Yes, the families wishes should be ignored if there is an organ donation card (and in this scenario the Constitiutional requirement to protect and preserve takes the place of an organ donation card)
After all, a dead person does not get priority over the needs of the living.
How long to preserve a living organ in a dead person? That depends on how valuable and unique the organ is, and how many are in the queue to receive it, and how long they have waited.

volchitsa · 19-12-2014 1:13pm

recedite wrote: »

Yes, the families wishes should be ignored if there is an organ donation card (and in this scenario the Constitiutional requirement to protect and preserve takes the place of an organ donation card)
After all, a dead person does not get priority over the needs of the living.
How long to preserve a living organ in a dead person? That depends on how valuable and unique the organ is, and how many are in the queue to receive it, and how long they have waited.

Well, whether the family's wishes should be ignored or not, they actually very often aren't, even when there is reason to think the person would be willing to donate their organs. Not too sure what the exact reasoning is, probably just not wanting to increase the trauma for those left behind.

But in this case, the issue isn't about perfectly good organs being destroyed, but about whether it is legal to turn her life support off until the baby has died. That's a very different thing, and I suspect we will find that the very doctors refusing to pull the plug, against the wishes of the family, will also have told the family that there is almost no chance the baby will be born healthy.

As someone pointed out, the fact that the family have gone to the court, and not the HSE (remember all the stuff about the HSE going back to court for each separate step of the Miss Y affair to find out what to do?) shows that in reality the family are reflecting medical advice, and the doctors are just covering their asses, legally.

It's not their daughter, why would they risk getting a court case slapped on them by Iona just so a young woman can die in dignity? Why should they care?

Loafing Oaf · 19-12-2014 3:16pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

The parties have yet to clarify their positions but I certainly expect Labour at least to call for a straight repeal of Article 40.3.3.

And Joan has now done so, if she hadn't already:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/joan-burton-says-abortion-laws-do-not-serve-women-well-1.2043950

Ms Burton also said she would like to see the eighth amendment to the constitution, which gives equal rights to life to the mother and the unborn, repealed.

Brian Shanahan · 19-12-2014 4:57pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

And Joan has now done so, if she hadn't already:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/joan-burton-says-abortion-laws-do-not-serve-women-well-1.2043950

What she said to RTE (paraphrase, my memory isn't that good) this morning, was that the eighth amendment wasn't fit for purpose in that it was putting the lives of women at risk, but that this may not be enough to see it repealed. It was not part of the programme for government therefore both parties would have to study the issue before any decision were to be taken.

Irish Labour, so lilly-livered and cravenly obsequious to the religious right that they can't even kick in an open door.

Frito · 19-12-2014 5:57pm

recedite wrote: »

Even if you consider the foetus to be no more human than any other piece of human tissue, why not let it live and grow, and eventually be adopted by someone else? Consider it like an organ donation; why must it die with its original host when it could be "re-used" elsewhere?

I suppose part of my consideration would be (given the current gestational age) is that the organs could potentially be transplanted now to people already awaiting organs. So more people could be helped to live.

Frito · 20-12-2014 12:02am

Found this radio 4 broadcast and transcript of "Inside the Ethics Committee" series; this episode "Unconscious and Pregnant" concerns the medical care and ethical considerations of a critically ill woman admitted at 17 weeks gestation with a cardiac condition. Obviously not the same as the case being discussed, but interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b012fs67

Kiwi in IE · 20-12-2014 12:50am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What she said to RTE (paraphrase, my memory isn't that good) this morning, was that the eighth amendment wasn't fit for purpose in that it was putting the lives of women at risk, but that this may not be enough to see it repealed.

Putting the lives of women at risk is not enough to see it repealed? How can this be?

alaimacerc · 20-12-2014 1:06am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

What she said to RTE (paraphrase, my memory isn't that good) this morning, was that the eighth amendment wasn't fit for purpose in that it was putting the lives of women at risk, but that this may not be enough to see it repealed. It was not part of the programme for government therefore both parties would have to study the issue before any decision were to be taken.

Irish Labour, so lilly-livered and cravenly obsequious to the religious right that they can't even kick in an open door.

So she's saying that they don't have a mandate for primary legislation, hence she's not going to even bother putting the constitutional question, is that the gist? I'm not clear why that would rule out putting it to the constitutional convention, and holding a vote if they say they want one (on whatever basis), which surely finesses the "programme for government" issue.

Admittedly, if repeal were referendum'd on the basis of no clear undertaking for followup legislation, it would satisfy no-one, and be an exercise in massive confusion all 'round. The liberal side would point out that it would make no actual change in women's circumstances, especially as there's now the legislation passed by this Dail, thus reducing the scope for wacky findings by the SC at common law or construal from other rights. The conservative side would give it the full "opens the door to abortion on demand!" nine yards. (Which they'll do in any event, but even moreso in such circumstances.)

recedite · 20-12-2014 1:20am

volchitsa wrote: »

But in this case, the issue isn't about perfectly good organs being destroyed, but about whether it is legal to turn her life support off until the baby has died. That's a very different thing..

I can't see it being a different thing. The only real effect of turning off the life support is to kill the foetus. The mother is considered dead already, otherwise they would illegally be murdering her.

Similarly I could never see any justification for the RCC position that "terminating" a pregnancy (as in an ectopic pregnancy) was not the same as "aborting" the foetus.
Its trying to make a distinction that is not actually there, based only on examining the primary motives of the medical personnel carrying out the same procedure.

volchitsa wrote: »

.. and I suspect we will find that the very doctors refusing to pull the plug, against the wishes of the family, will also have told the family that there is almost no chance the baby will be born healthy.

Suspect all you like. I don't know anything about that; I am only giving my thoughts on a scenario in which the foetus is still healthy.

volchitsa · 20-12-2014 1:40am

recedite wrote: »

I can't see it being a different thing. The only real effect of turning off the life support is to kill the foetus. The mother is considered dead already, otherwise they would illegally be murdering her.

Similarly I could never see any justification for the RCC position that "terminating" a pregnancy (as in an ectopic pregnancy) was not the same as "aborting" the foetus.
Its trying to make a distinction that is not actually there, based only on examining the primary motives of the medical personnel carrying out the same procedure

I think you misunderstand, I wasn't second guessing motivations, I was examining the comparison made between this case and organ donation, and I see a difference there, but it has nothing to do with intent, only with result. The exact opposite of the RCC position you describe.

recedite wrote: »

Suspect all you like. I don't know anything about that; I am only giving my thoughts on a scenario in which the foetus is still healthy.

But if that is to all intents and purposes an impossible scenario, what right do you have to have that scenario examined and not the more likely ones? I'm entitled to assume a scenario that seems more plausible, even if you wish to remain in an imaginary utopian version of this terrible event.

recedite · 20-12-2014 2:08am

If you mean it is not actually illegal to switch off the life support of a brain-dead person who carries an organ donor card, when no organs have been harvested, then yes.
If the person had left a written instruction that their kidney be donated to a specified friend in that event, but the next of kin wanted to override that instruction, then the legality of switching off before harvesting would be in doubt.
But I think we have reached the limits of the organ donor analogy here.

BTW I don't accept that a scenario in which a pregnant woman suffers catastrophic brain injury, while her unborn foetus remains unharmed, is unlikely or fanciful.
I do accept that you are referring more to the individual case and I am only talking in more general terms, hence in reality we might not be in complete disagreement.

alaimacerc · 20-12-2014 3:37am

Shrap wrote: »

Well I only listened to Casey, and she was quite firmly steering away from the notion that the 8th amendment had got to do with why the doctors were looking for legal advice and stated that ethical dilemmas in a case similar to this anywhere in the world would lead to doctors having to take advice.

Quite firmly mentioned a few times that this has nothing to do with abortion and therefore nothing to do with the 8th. She did make the point that we don't know if there is another element to the next of kin's wishes, and to be fair to her she spoke about that very compassionately and in her very best HSE voice. I'm sure you all know what that sounds like.....

By this point I should just risk smashing my laptop against the wall and RTEplayer it...

So she's claiming that this is purely a case of removal of life support as it relates to the woman, and is without reference to the status of the foetus at all? Does this seem plausible to anyone whatsoever?

I don't quite get the point about an unknown "other element". It's sounding to me like the usual case of we must only speculate wildly as to the facts when doing so suits the fundamentalist anti-abortion case; otherwise, we must construe only preposterously narrowly.

alaimacerc · 20-12-2014 4:07am

Absolam wrote: »

i suspect that most who voted felt they did so in accordance with their own morals and with compassion in mind; that they arrived at a different conclusion from your own doesn't devalue their good intentions.

Or conversely:
I strongly believe that many of those who did so from a combination of sentiments that might accurately be variously described as theocratic, judgemental, compartmentalised, and hypocritical. Per the (many, many) past discussions in and around this point. Your speculatively ascribing to them "good intentions", morality, and compassion does not, equally, "revalue" what they did and why they did it.

Does anyone really think there's an intention to place all legislation with regard to abortion in the Constitution?

Well, it's been tried before, and it would seem rash to assume "they've all gone away, you know". (I'm thinking here specifically of 2002, quite aside from whether the original 8th could be accurately described as appropriately "overarching" in constitutional terms.)

In my opinion, there's no political appetite for repealing the Amendment outright because politicians know a majority won't vote to remove all protection from the unborn, and amending it sufficiently to permit legislation that allows just the right amount of liberalisation is such a political minefield that expressing 'mealy mouthed' (not that I think it really was) sentiment is a much safer route to public approbation.

Thus it's vital that there be an "overarching requirement" in the constitution covering abortion; there's no prospect of consensus as to what that would be. While I can see this is a situation that might seem convenient to those with an affection for some version of the status quo, for others of us it lacks much in the way of legitimacy.

Absolam wrote: »

Without, of course, interfering with any of those women's rights to do what they want with their bodies :-)

Maybe you should read that slogan as if it had the preposition "to" in it, instead. I'm not aware of much in the way of feminist theory suggesting that bodily integrity implies exceptions to the usual maxim about where people's right to swing their fists ends.

Absolam · 20-12-2014 12:58pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Or conversely:
I strongly believe that many of those who did so from a combination of sentiments that might accurately be variously described as theocratic, judgemental, compartmentalised, and hypocritical. <....>Your speculatively ascribing to them "good intentions", morality, and compassion does not, equally, "revalue" what they did and why they did it.

My speculation is based on the observation that most people when given a choice will generally prefer to do what they think is 'good'. Yours is based on the observation that the majority did what you thought was wrong; so they must have been unduly influenced by the church, or acting against their own better judgement. I think that's just mental acrobatics to assure yourself that you must be right but most people disagree with you because they're more easily led than you, or plain mendacious. Far more likely they disagree because they've given it as much thought as you, but arrived at a different conclusion.
As for 'revaluing', I haven't suggested it; people made the choice they did. Faced with simply abolishing the 8th or keeping it, I think a majority would vote to keep it. If offered a reasonable amendment, I think a majority would vote to amend.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, it's been tried before, and it would seem rash to assume "they've all gone away, you know". (I'm thinking here specifically of 2002, quite aside from whether the original 8th could be accurately described as appropriately "overarching" in constitutional terms.)

I don't think so; there was no suggestion that the 2002 amendment would encapsulate all relevant legislation in the constitution, only that it would tighten the constitutional restriction and prevent particular liberalising legislation being introduced. I've no idea where you get the idea that anyone is assuming "they've all gone away, you know"; if anything that's a pro liberalisation fantasy that those influenced by 'theocratic sentiment' are dying off, paving the way for the non-'hypocrites' to carry a referendum.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Thus it's vital that there be an "overarching requirement" in the constitution covering abortion; there's no prospect of consensus as to what that would be. While I can see this is a situation that might seem convenient to those with an affection for some version of the status quo, for others of us it lacks much in the way of legitimacy.

Which in short supports the notion that repealing the 8th is unlikely; the existing overarching requirement is likely to be considered better than none. As for legitimacy, well, it's as legitimate as any other amendment adopted by plebistice ever was or will be, regardless of how you may imagine people have been or will be motivated to vote.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Maybe you should read that slogan as if it had the preposition "to" in it, instead. I'm not aware of much in the way of feminist theory suggesting that bodily integrity implies exceptions to the usual maxim about where people's right to swing their fists ends.

iWell, I don't think the candle light Carol service PopePalpatine was proposing be subject to restraining orders is really fist swinging, even if their singing is quite terrible....

Abortion Discussion

Comments