Abortion Discussion

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

It's the point you made, when you said "all's well that ends well". "All" is most definitely not well for the woman, even now. By ignoring that fact, and presuming to say that all was well, you dismiss her entirely.

Seriously, not calling out the specifics of just how well the woman is now is hardly the same as dismissing her.On a scale of dead at her own hand to living a life of sweet contentment she probably falls somewhere in the middle, but must people would generally agree that not dead is better than dead, for both the parties involved.

volchitsa wrote: »

You may find it hard to acknowledge just how anti-woman that position is, but that's your problem, not mine.

Since Recedite didn't mention anything at all about how difficult it is to acknowledge just how anti-woman that position is (or even if (and I suspect it's not) it's anti-woman at all), it kind of seems it is your problem rather than Recedites?

volchitsa wrote: »

I know what the pro-life position is. I didn't know they were as extreme as you, in totally dismissing the woman as a person, to the point of claiming that "all" was fine as long as there was a live baby at the end of it. All is not well. Some recognition of the woman's right to have her mental health at least acknowledged, if not acted upon, would be welcome.

But if Recedite isn't dismissing the woman (and I suspect Recedite isn't) then it's not an extreme position, the baby is not culpable or punishable for the sins of their father, and you can be amicably reconciled? Recognising and acknowledging that the womans mental health has been impaired, of course, and presuming that that is being acted on, if not to the extent of infanticide. I don't think we need to constantly repeat that the woman is receiving care from the HSE; a tacit acknowledgement of the action is probably sufficient, don't you think?

volchitsa wrote: »

You do seem particularly unsympathetic to the woman, that's clear.

I don't think considering the facts rather than succumbing to hyperbole is particularly unsympathetic; no one has said they don't care about what (is alleged to have) happened. An uncritical acceptance of opinions as facts only seems to have value if there's an intention to make a martyr for someone elses cause.... not that anyone here would want to do that, would they?

volchitsa wrote: »

Do you have any reason not to believe her account? She was attested, by experts, to be suicidal because of her pregnancy. That alone is strong evidence in support of her account.

Hardly; it's strong evidence in support of her claim to be suicidal, that's all. Do you have any evidence that would give reason to believe the rest of her account?

volchitsa wrote: »

As for how any other case is going, why do you ask me, how should I know? The tone of your posts come across as sneering at her. I presume that is deliberate. It really says all we need to know about you.

Well, you seem to have some insight into her account, since you support it so wholeheartedly, and you certainly appear invested in keeping the focus on her mental health, rather than the childs life. So maybe you have information the rest of us don't?
For what it's worth, I don't get the impression that Recedite is sneering at the young woman, and I don't know what you think there is in her circumstances to be sneered at. If anything, it's the people who have made her the cause célèbre of an agenda she didn't choose that deserve to be derided.

recedite

FWIW I do empathise with the girl, and I suspect the pregnancy is/was only a part of her problems. I have been to sub-saharan Africa and met some lovely people there, surprisingly friendly and generous considering the poor situation many of them find themselves in. Many are desperate to get to Europe where they believe they can live their dream, but there is no honest way for them to do that. Who knows what any of us would do in their shoes. Would we do the terrible things; risk death, lie, cheat, steal, prostitute ourselves, do whatever is required to get us to the promised land?
Then, for those who do make it, they find themselves being treated as charity cases, not as equals. Instead of being given a job and a good life, they are placed in a situation where their basic needs are taken of, but their freedom to live as others do is restricted. Far away from family and friends, their dreams and aspirations slowly crumble away. Its bad for the psyche.
Meanwhile there is a plethora of people living here who make money directly or indirectly out of asylum seekers; landlords, social workers, doctors, solicitors etc.. And there are those who adopt them temporarily for their own cause célèbre, as in this case, and also those who recruit them into their religious congregations.

Theres not much in the public domain about what the girl is doing now, but this quote was from her solicitor;

"The psychiatric report emphasised the need to provide the young woman, who was granted asylum in August, with accommodation, amongst other urgent issues."As her legal adviser I must defer to what the medical people are telling me about the physical and mental state of my client. Everyone else has to accept that.
"Baby Y has deservedly received the best of medical care and input from state authorities. But my client deserves equal priority and help."
Ms Haughey said she has still not received all the documentation she sought as part of the preparation for a possible legal action which may be taken on behalf of Miss Y.

Satori Rae

I think one or two of your comments recedite just came out a wee bit harsh I mean to put "gang rape" in such a way is going to upset people.

It is true( we don't know one way or another) but a victim should be taken at their word.
Because if they are not serious repercussion could happen. So its not a great subject to speculate on.

After all if it is true can you imagine how horrific that would have been added to the rest of the details of her cases added on top of that.

Absolam

Satori Rae wrote: »

It is true( we don't know one way or another) but a victim should be taken at their word.
Because if they are not serious repercussion could happen. So its not a great subject to speculate on.

So anyone accused of rape should be treated as guilty simply on the word of their accuser? That's certainly something I'd agree the word harsh applies to. Also unjust, or to use your word, barbaric.

Satori Rae

Absolam wrote: »

So anyone accused of rape should be treated as guilty simply on the word of their accuser? That's certainly something I'd agree the word harsh applies to. Also unjust, or to use your word, barbaric.

I never said the people accused should be treated all the same . I said the victims should be treated with care as if they are telling the truth until proved other wise.

I am not sure why you seem set on trying to argue online putting words in peoples mouths they have not said

Also I never used the term barbaric.

recedite

Satori Rae wrote: »

I said the victims should be treated with care as if they are telling the truth until proved other wise./

Thats a nice idea, but if we put it into practice, we would have a billion refugees on their way to our shores. As it is, they learn quickly to say whatever will work best. If they say they left home because they were starving, that's no good. Because then they are classed as an economic migrant, not a "genuine" asylum seeker. If they say they left because they were afraid a Sharia court might punish them for adultery after a rape, or impose FGM on their child, that might get a more sympathetic response.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

So anyone accused of rape should be treated as guilty simply on the word of their accuser?

What has that got to do with this case? The young woman in question was suicidal, that has been attested by independent experts. That is all that was required for the law to allow her an abortion, and yet she didn't get one.

For posters here to query that this fact is a good enough reason to take her word that she was raped (while, I notice, allowing themselves to proceed on the assumption that she is from sub-Saharan Africa, when afaiaa her country of origin is completely unknown to the public) is odd, to say the least.

When we also see an attempt to completely misrepresent the issue as though it were one of trying an alleged rapist in court, shows that the real aim of these posters is simply to find anything that may be used against her. Hence the sneering about "how is that case of hers going?"

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Thats a nice idea, but if we put it into practice, we would have a billion refugees on their way to our shores. As it is, they learn quickly to say whatever will work best. If they say they left home because they were starving, that's no good. Because then they are classed as an economic migrant, not a "genuine" asylum seeker. If they say they left because they were afraid a Sharia court might punish them for adultery after a rape, or impose FGM on their child, that might get a more sympathetic response.

Do you have any idea where this girl is from? Maybe you could share it with us. I'm sure you can't possibly be speculating, given that you seemed so unwilling even to suppose that since she was suicidal, she must have had reason for that.

(Although you seem quite prepared to speculate that she may have had mental health issues due to other causes - or was that your acolyte, Absolam?)

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

What has that got to do with this case? The young woman in question was suicidal, that has been attested by independent experts. That is all that was required for the law to allow her an abortion, and yet she didn't get one.

More precisely, the law stipulates termination of the pregnancy is allowed in that situation, hence the caesarean.
Having said that, there is a whole dispute over the details of timing etc. which we referred to earlier, and which appears to be the subject of an ongoing HSE internal inquiry.

Satori Rae

recedite wrote: »

Thats a nice idea, but if we put it into practice, we would have a billion refugees on their way to our shores. As it is, they learn quickly to say whatever will work best. If they say they left home because they were starving, that's no good. Because then they are classed as an economic migrant, not a "genuine" asylum seeker. If they say they left because they were afraid a Sharia court might punish them for adultery after a rape, or impose FGM on their child, that might get a more sympathetic response.

This actually sounds a bit racist to me in my opinion. What about women over here that have been raped and who might have become pregnant over it?
Or women born and raised here that go to work or live in other parts of the would who are raped and become pregnant? Not everyone has the means or capability after a rape to report it or seek medical treatment. Some people emotionally shut down.

Loads of people can lie everyday about anything to try better there lives it does not matter what country they are from but if your sister or daughter was raped would you question their integrity as willingly?

I thought we were beyond the days where we judged someone based on skin colour or where they were from? That is like saying all the poor are dirty thieves and sure that man over there with his millions he must be lovely and trust worthy cause he has money 0.o

recedite

Satori Rae wrote: »

This actually sounds a bit racist to me..

Not racist, because as I said anyone in their shoes and forced to make the same choices would probably be no different. This planet is not an equal opportunities place for all people, not yet anyway.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Having said that, there is a whole dispute over the details of timing etc.

Is there?
I think the original story as leaked by the HSE to the Indo was pretty much blown out of the water within a very few days. Even the leaked draft, with its own internal contradictions, didn't claim that she hadn't requested an abortion as soon as she knew she was pregnant, just that the doctor she saw thought she was depressed but not suicidal - and yet they also report that that same doctor contacted the centre where she was staying to ask that she not be left alone.

Anyway, none of that is relevant to your positively hateful comments about her. Sneering about how her case was getting on, for example, or suggesting that she may have been lying because she was from Africa and was really an economic refugee. Or that she had "other" problems that the pregnancy.
Just saying you have sympathy for her is meaningless, hypocritical even, when you repeatedly try to undermine her in that way.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Not racist, because as I said anyone in their shoes and forced to make the same choices would probably be no different. This planet is not an equal opportunities place for all people, not yet anyway.

What exactly do you know about her choices? Why don't you share your insider information with the rest of us?

Shrap

recedite wrote: »

As it is, they learn quickly to say whatever will work best. If they say they left home because they were starving, that's no good. Because then they are classed as an economic migrant, not a "genuine" asylum seeker. If they say they left because they were afraid a Sharia court might punish them for adultery after a rape, or impose FGM on their child, that might get a more sympathetic response.

You seem to be assuming that a refugee cannot be both an economic migrant AND raped, having potentially come through appalling circumstances on their path here.

Of course a more sympathetic response would be extended towards people who have been raped and otherwise tortured - why wouldn't it be? Oh wait.....Ireland. We can't respond adequately towards a woman who has been raped, become pregnant from it, who wishes to end the pregnancy....and failing that, her own life.

Please recidite - less of the "them and us" nonsense.

recedite

Shrap wrote: »

You seem to be assuming that a refugee cannot be both an economic migrant AND raped, having potentially come through appalling circumstances on their path here.

Eh no.. I did not assume that. I'm pointing out that if an asylum seeker told immigration authorities that they were pregnant because they had been left with no option but to exchange sex for food and a lift with a lorry driver, it would do no good for their case. On the other hand, if they said they were gang raped by rampaging soldiers in their home country, it would be good for their case. And before you attack me again, this is a hypothetical, I don't have the details of Miss Y's history or circumstances.

And I'm saying if you were born in a first world country like Ireland, you are part of a lucky minority in this world, regardless of what race you are.

And I'm saying that if somebody arrives here from outside the EU without a valid visa ( ie "illegally" on the face of it) then an assumption that "they must be telling the truth because they are a victim" would be very unrealistic, to say the least.

Shrap

Shrap wrote: »

You seem to be assuming ......................


Please recidite - less of the "them and us" nonsense.

recedite wrote: »

And before you attack me again,

Gosh. Is my language above "attacking" you? I'm sorry if it feels that way. To me, it seemed as if I was just disagreeing with you.

And I'm saying if you were born in a first world country like Ireland, you are part of a lucky minority in this world, regardless of what race you are.

Well I have to admit that I'm super glad that you have said this because I thought no less of you until it appeared to me that you thought the first thing economic migrants should do (to be taken seriously) would be to cry rape, unwanted pregnancy and suicidal tendencies. As if those things didn't actually happen.

Are we back to "is this woman suicidal enough to warrant an abortion in Ireland" yet? (not directed solely at you recidite). Perhaps we're only up to "is this woman lying about having been raped in order to avail of the fantastically obliging and undiscriminating Irish Abortion Services"?

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Eh no.. I did not assume that. I'm pointing out that if an asylum seeker told immigration authorities that they were pregnant because they had been left with no option but to exchange sex for food and a lift with a lorry driver, it would do no good for their case. On the other hand, if they said they were gang raped by rampaging soldiers in their home country, it would be good for their case. And before you attack me again, this is a hypothetical, I don't have the details of Miss Y's history or circumstances.

That's still rape, and/or people trafficking.

More importantly, the law concerning abortion says nothing about rape. All that matters there is that she was suicidal. The cause is irrelevant.

There's no reason why that aspect of her request for asylum (assuming it is part of the request) should have been included at all in the request for abortion, since it doesn't affect her case for abortion in any way. So not mentioning it wouldn't say anything about her case for asylum, just that she really wanted as few people as possible to know about the rape. Which is perfectly understandable.

So the only logical reason for her to mention it would be because it was true.

Satori Rae

Some pretty good facts and figures in this article if any of you care to read
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-grimes/abortion-denied-consequences-for-mother-and-child_b_6926988.html

volchitsa

Satori Rae wrote: »

Some pretty good facts and figures in this article if any of you care to read
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-grimes/abortion-denied-consequences-for-mother-and-child_b_6926988.html

Thanks for that, Satori Rae (love the name, btw).
It makes sense that unwanted children should do less well, but those figures show a huge difference, and in all sorts of ways.

It always seems completely crazy to me that anyone can consider that the mere fact of bringing a new person into existence on our crowded planet could be, in itself, a Good Thing. If someone wants to have a baby, that's one thing, of course - but forcing people to become parents against their will, I just can't see how that can possibly be truly respectful of life", except in the most mechanical "go forth and multiply" way. The enforced arrival of yet one more person, unwanted and unloved, isn't necessarily something to be wished on that person or on their mother. Father too, when he's around.

Satori Rae

It is sad no one wants to see children be put in a vulnerable position or not do as well as expected even in the best of homes this can happen.
But the stats do not lie which is what pro choicers should at least consider (and our state to) before forcing women to continue on with pregnancy they are not able to.

Now in this day and age there are so many forms of contraceptive available to us and in most countries (lucky for us) so rates of abortion if bought in should be low at least here.

It would also be great if sexual education was also thought a little earlier to teens. It is all very well to bury your head in the sand until the natural happens

The only reason abortion should be bought in is for things like this or babies who wont make it to term. It is beyond me why women in this country are made to kneel under the heel of old laws.

Absolam

Satori Rae wrote: »

I never said the people accused should be treated all the same . I said the victims should be treated with care as if they are telling the truth until proved other wise.

I never said you did; I asked if anyone accused of rape should be treated as guilty simply on the word of their accuser. You did say that a victim should be taken at their word; if you take this young womans word that she is a victim of rape then you are accepting that the person who impregnated her is a rapist, without any due process, or even proof. That's unjust.

Satori Rae wrote: »

I am not sure why you seem set on trying to argue online putting words in peoples mouths they have not said

As you can see, I went by what you actually said (not your rewrite, but your original post.)

Satori Rae wrote: »

Also I never used the term barbaric.

Oh. What was the fifth from last word in this post then?

Satori Rae

Absolam wrote: »

I never said you did; I asked if anyone accused of rape should be treated as guilty simply on the word of their accuser. You did say that a victim should be taken at their word; if you take this young womans word that she is a victim of rape then you are accepting that the person who impregnated her is a rapist, without any due process, or even proof. That's unjust.

As you can see, I went by what you actually said (not your rewrite, but your original post.)

Oh. What was the fifth from last word in this post then?

Erm pretty sure I said horrific I try to be careful with what I say online but what is a single word the only reason I edit any post is due to being dyslexic so I only correct grammatical errors when I notice them.
Again you are skewing what I am saying. You seem set on trying to cause arguments with every post and it is unnecessary. You just spend time scrutinizing for things that are not really there or implied in my opinion

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

What has that got to do with this case?

It's a reply to Satori Raes assertion in response to Recedites questioning of the gang rape, that the victim should be taken at their word. I'm not sure which 'case' you're wondering what it has to do with, I think it just has to do with the discussion we're having?

volchitsa wrote: »

The young woman in question was suicidal, that has been attested by independent experts. That is all that was required for the law to allow her an abortion, and yet she didn't get one.

As Recedite has said, it was all that was required for a termination of her pregnancy to be sanctioned, which is not the same. A distinction which was popular with the pro choice side on the thread a while back, but it seems to suit the agenda to muddy it all of a sudden....

volchitsa wrote: »

For posters here to query that this fact is a good enough reason to take her word that she was raped (while, I notice, allowing themselves to proceed on the assumption that she is from sub-Saharan Africa, when afaiaa her country of origin is completely unknown to the public) is odd, to say the least.

Which fact now? She has alleged that she was raped; have any facts at all made it into the public domain which would make it more than simply an allegation?

volchitsa wrote: »

When we also see an attempt to completely misrepresent the issue as though it were one of trying an alleged rapist in court, shows that the real aim of these posters is simply to find anything that may be used against her. Hence the sneering about "how is that case of hers going?"

Perhaps if posters didn't leap from her allegation to making statements of fact such as
"A woman being gang-raped" (when did it go from a rape to a gang rape by the way?)
"17 year old raped asylum seeker"
"a victim of rape"
"She wasn't suicidal after the rape"
"the rape caused her pregnancy"
Pointing out that this kind of continuous misrepresentation of the facts is actually misrepresentation (as opposed to asking why an accused rapist should be treated as a rapist), doesn't show that anyone is aiming to find anything that may be used against the young woman, it shows that some people seem bent on reiterating a story that doesn't have any bearing on the subsequent event in Ireland involving the young woman, but helps to make her look like more of a martyr for their cause.

volchitsa wrote: »

(Although you seem quite prepared to speculate that she may have had mental health issues due to other causes - or was that your acolyte, Absolam?)

If anyone did, wouldn't you be able to quote it?

Absolam

Satori Rae wrote: »

Erm pretty sure I said horrific I try to be careful with what I say online but what is a single word the only reason I edit any post is due to being dyslexic so I only correct grammatical errors when I notice them.

Not to worry, you can see yourself you actually said barbaric :-)

Satori Rae wrote: »

Again you are skewing what I am saying. You seem set on trying to cause arguments with every post and it is unnecessary. You just spend time scrutinizing for things that are not really there or implied in my opinion

How exactly? You quite specifically said, "a victim should be taken at their word", I'm not skewing that, I took it verbatim from your post.
You tried to skew it by saying you "said the victims should be treated with care as if they are telling the truth until proved other wise"
You're happy enough to take issue with the fact (in your opinion) that a post sounds a bit racist despite no mention of race, so in fairness you can hardly complain about being called out for what you imply yourself.....

Satori Rae

Absolam wrote: »

Not to worry, you can see yourself you actually said barbaric :-)


How exactly? You quite specifically said, "a victim should be taken at their word", I'm not skewing that, I took it verbatim from your post.
You tried to skew it by saying you "said the victims should be treated with care as if they are telling the truth until proved other wise"
You're happy enough to take issue with the fact (in your opinion) that a post sounds a bit racist despite no mention of race, so in fairness you can hardly complain about being called out for what you imply yourself.....

As I said it is a single word if that is all you can get me for for so be it. I am glad you seem happy to get "catch someone out on a use of word" o.O Gold star to you o.0

Again you seem to relish in trying to start a row so in turn you are trying to turn a friendly discussion into a nit picking analysis of our comments for you to comb through with your fine tooth comb when you are on if you do not agree with them. And talk about them piece by piece is this not a waste of time?

I wont reply any further due to the fact it really isn't worth any of my time to try converse with you as I am not bothered to be honest.

Apologies to seem harsh.

Absolam

Satori Rae wrote: »

As I said it is a single word if that is all you can get me for for so be it. I am glad you seem happy to get "catch someone out on a use of word" o.O Gold star to you o.0

I think you're mistaken; I've no desire to 'get' you for anything. You said you never used the word barbaric, I pointed out you did, that's all.

Satori Rae wrote: »

Again you seem to relish in trying to start a row so in turn you are trying to turn a friendly discussion into a nit picking analysis of our comments for you to comb through with your fine tooth comb when you are on if you do not agree with them. And talk about them piece by piece is this not a waste of time?

Well, we could all throw out generalisms and pithy platitudes and wander away feeling warm and fuzzy that our not very specific point of view is approved of by others... or we could engage in a discussion of the actual subject which involves facts and 'harsh' realities. The latter may not leave us all feeling so good about ourselves, but might lead to people reevaluating their point of view, which to my mind makes it a far more worthwhile exercise.

Satori Rae wrote: »

I wont reply any further due to the fact it really isn't worth any of my time to try converse with you as I am not bothered to be honest. Apologies to seem harsh.

I see where you're coming from, and I think you're probably right; you're not likely to get what you want out of the conversation.

Brian Shanahan

Satori Rae wrote: »

Erm pretty sure I said horrific I try to be careful with what I say online but what is a single word the only reason I edit any post is due to being dyslexic so I only correct grammatical errors when I notice them.
Again you are skewing what I am saying. You seem set on trying to cause arguments with every post and it is unnecessary. You just spend time scrutinizing for things that are not really there or implied in my opinion

One thing you have to remember of Absalom, if it doesn't scan with his far right, medieval and absolutely nutty conception of catholicism, he denounces it as being tantamount to "godless communism". He will forever twist your words, lie back to you, denounce you, or do anything else he thinks necessary in order to publicise his lies and do down reality.

You're better off not arguing with him.

Satori Rae

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

One thing you have to remember of Absalom, if it doesn't scan with his far right, medieval and absolutely nutty conception of catholicism, he denounces it as being tantamount to "godless communism". He will forever twist your words, lie back to you, denounce you, or do anything else he thinks necessary in order to publicise his lies and do down reality.

You're better off not arguing with him.

Totally agree its why I stopped replying total waste of time, I like debates and to talk about views but when it comes across as a lying personal attack I have no respect for the person and switch off

recedite

Satori Rae wrote: »

I like debates and to talk about views but when it comes across as a lying personal attack I have no respect for the person and switch off..

In fairness Absolam is able to back up everything he says about other people by quoting them, so in fact he does not hang you, but you are hoist on your own petard.
Whereas when you call him a liar and you don't back that up with anything, its purely an unfounded personal insult.
So if you want polite debate this forum is the place to come, but if you want your views to go unchallenged you probably won't find what you are looking for on this thread, as he remarked already.

Satori Rae

recedite wrote: »

In fairness Absolam is able to back up everything he says about other people by quoting them, so in fact he does not hang you, but you are hoist on your own petard.
Whereas when you call him a liar and you don't back that up with anything, its purely an unfounded personal insult.
So if you want polite debate this forum is the place to come, but if you want your views to go unchallenged you probably won't find what you are looking for on this thread, as he remarked already.

He or she did try to lie saying I had changed my comment to have advantage over them in some way in doing so, that is a personal attack and a lie.

As I stated I only edit spelling or my grammar in comments.

He or she was trying to make me out to be the liar twisting my edits to be something more then what they are therefore I will call them out on it if it is not true.........also if you check all my comments on boards you will see they are all edited this again is due to being dyslexic.

I also have backed up all my points and some with scientific facts in a link I shared so your comments about me are unfounded and misinformed.

Just because it does not suit you 2 does not mean you should be verbally nasty in your wording about other people or be sarcastic making crass remarks about someones reputation. Or speuclation on their integrity. Or try twist their words to suit you, all for you to have a row.

That is all I have to say about this. AS I do not fancy having a long winded talk in circle about narrow minded racist, anti woman views as with other said person that was also on this thread.