Abortion Discussion

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Let me help you out here. Before you launch your attack, first pick your target.
Civil law has deemed that independent life begins at implantation, and protects the life of the unborn from that point.
RCC Canon Law deems that life begins at conception.
In your scenario, you propose that Gardai would be asked to defend the tray of embryos, ie the Canon Law position. And then you expected to ridicule that. Your target is a strawman, which you have created yourself.

Obviously you have your own laws in mind, so at what point would you start protecting human life? Only after the birth? Would you include premature babies delivered by caesarean, or would you go with a date 9 months after conception?

Absolam wrote: »

Except of course if they disagree with you and believe the group of cells is a living being, like am946745 does, and that the life of a living breathing woman has equal value. In which case they are pro-life, and not at all misogynistic, at least from the information provided.

.

Brian Shanahan

Qs wrote: »

I was watching some youtube videos last night and noticed an anti-abortion ad pop up. No doubt from the same crowd that were flooding YT with anti-marriage equality ads before the referendum. I'm just surprised they are acting so early. I think they'll be a lot better at winning people over if we do get an abortion referendum soon.

I honestly don't think so. If you look at the marriage referendum, you'll see that most people have cottoned on to their lying bullshít and take it for what it is. People in Ireland are growing up and leaving the unquestioning obedience to an immoral religious edifice behind.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Originally Posted by recedite "Civil law has deemed that independent life begins at implantation, and protects the life of the unborn from that point. RCC Canon Law deems that life begins at conception. In your scenario, you propose that Gardai would be asked to defend the tray of embryos, ie the Canon Law position. And then you expected to ridicule that. Your target is a strawman, which you have created yourself."
Originally Posted by Absolam "Except of course if they disagree with you and believe the group of cells is a living being, like am946745 does, and that the life of a living breathing woman has equal value."

You might want to enquire as to which group of cells before jumping to the conclusion that it's a Canon Law rather than a Civil Law position you're taking issue with then, especially if you're questioning the Civil Law consequences of it :-)
If it helps at all, am946745 seems to hold a position in line with Canon Law, my own position is broadly in line with Civil Law, and I think Recedite is inclined to a more liberal position. So your scenario is unlikely to elicit a universal response.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

Civil law has deemed that independent life begins at implantation, and protects the life of the unborn from that point.

Couple of terminology problems, to start with. "Civil law" means a couple of things, and neither of them makes sense here. Clearly you're referring to the PoLDPA, which is statute, criminal law. (Via the constitution, the SC judgement and divers points of common law.) I appreciate you're using it in the sense of the law of the civic authority, as distinct from golf-club rules of the RC (or any other) church. But it's apt to muddle matters yet further.

And the law certainly doesn't use the term "independent", which is precisely the point. It's nothing but directly "dependent" in biological terms, at this stage -- and for some way to come.

Obviously you have your own laws in mind, so at what point would you start protecting human life? Only after the birth? Would you include premature babies delivered by caesarean, or would you go with a date 9 months after conception?

No, obviously we should allow "abortion" up to the point where the pre-person can do basic algebra, per the Philip K. Dick story. That being when the soul enters the body.

What irreducible conflict would exist with the bodily integrity, health, and self-determination of the woman after a premature birth (by any method)?

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

You might want to enquire as to which group of cells [...]

I don't think pre- and post-implantation is the key issue here. But people might indeed like to make themselves clear on such matters -- ideally rather than just playing Twenty Questions, several pages later.

If it helps at all, am946745 seems to hold a position in line with Canon Law, my own position is broadly in line with Civil Law, and I think Recedite is inclined to a more liberal position. So your scenario is unlikely to elicit a universal response.

One can't possibly extract the "equal value" position from the present law (or reconcile it with it), as has been pointed out at some length. Does this mean you're not holding to it at all? And have just been vamping on the subject for several pages entirely on am946745's behalf?

But while you're in that business: in what way is recedite's position more liberal than the present law? (recedite also an eligible receiver for this question.)

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

I don't think pre- and post-implantation is the key issue here. But people might indeed like to make themselves clear on such matters -- ideally rather than just playing Twenty Questions, several pages later.

It might be for Crosby Rhythmic Neckerchief though; since he's considering a position based on post-implantation in the light of a pre-implantiation position. I'm sure he'll tell us if it is an issue himself though.

alaimacerc wrote: »

One can't possibly extract the "equal value" position from the present law (or reconcile it with it), as has been pointed out at some length. Does this mean you're not holding to it at all? And have just been vamping on the subject for several pages entirely on am946745's behalf?

I think I prefer to stick the 'equal right' position expressed in the present law; it avoids any need to determine value at all which seems like a good idea.

alaimacerc wrote: »

But while you're in that business: in what way is recedite's position more liberal than the present law? (recedite also an eligible receiver for this question.)

I don't believe I am, and I'm sure Recedite can answer on his own behalf if he wants.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

I think I prefer to stick the 'equal right' position expressed in the present law; it avoids any need to determine value at all which seems like a good idea.

In a rare moment of agreement -- belated or not -- I would also see the two as distinct. "Value" is to at least imply something fungible, that one can trade off against something else or equal or greater "value". That's not (necessarily) the case with a "right".

Or at least, when "rights" are to be "balanced" against each other, it very quickly gets very opaque, and the lawyers get very, very well-remunerated.

Delirium

Women rarely regret their abortions. Why don't we believe them?

In my work campaigning for reproductive rights I hear a lot of arguments based on punishment, shame and the censure of women. There is a pervasive belief that we aren’t best placed to make decisions about our reproductive futures –from where to have our babies to whether to terminate a pregnancy. This is all-too-often couched in patronising ideas about protecting us from our inevitable “bad” decisions because of the life-long trauma it will cause us. Google “I regret my abortion” and you’ll find screeds of highly emotive propaganda from those who are keen to control and curtail reproductive freedom.



So, while I’m not surprised by the US study that shows 95% of women don’t regret their abortions, I’m delighted to have something concrete to wave back at those who peddle seductive lies.


This study does much to counteract the mythologising around abortion perpetuated by the anti-abortion lobby. The reality for most appears closer to the experience of Jennifer (who I encountered on Twitter, and who wishes to remain identified just by her first name), now 31, who had her abortion when she was a 19-year-old student. A year after a serious mental health crisis, she discovered she was pregnant. Knowing that she couldn’t cope with a baby, or an adoption, she felt her choice was “between abortion and suicide”.


Since the abortion, she describes feeling sadness that she had to go through the experience. “I was due in December so for the first five years or so I would think ‘what if?’ around the date I would have given birth. However, it was always mingled with absolute relief that I could make what, for me, was unquestionably the right choice. Now, I barely ever think about my abortion.”


As well as validating the experiences of women such as Jennifer, the study raises questions about abortion law in this country. Katherine O’Brien of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) explains that the legal framework “adds an unnecessary level of stigma on to the abortion decision”. Unlike any other medical procedure, women need the permission of two doctors before they are able to end a pregnancy, at any gestation.

volchitsa

SW wrote: »

Women rarely regret their abortions. Why don't we believe them?

Something that also needs to be said is that making one's own choices, which entails the risk of making wrong choices, is an inherent part of being an autonomous adult.

People regret all sorts of choices they've made: marriage, divorce, an affair, taking - or leaving - a job at the wrong time etc etc etc. The fact that one person may have made the wrong choice is in no way a reason to remove that choice from others who may use it wisely. Why should pregnancy be any different?

zeffabelli

volchitsa wrote: »

Something that also needs to be said is that making one's own choices, which entails the risk of making wrong choices, is an inherent part of being an autonomous adult.

People regret all sorts of choices they've made: marriage, divorce, an affair, taking - or leaving - a job at the wrong time etc etc etc. The fact that one person may have made the wrong choice is in no way a reason to remove that choice from others who may use it wisely. Why should pregnancy be any different?

This is a problem that has saturated the history of obstetrics in general.

Women cannot be trusted with their own bodies.

lazygal

volchitsa wrote: »

Something that also needs to be said is that making one's own choices, which entails the risk of making wrong choices, is an inherent part of being an autonomous adult.

And this should apply to how women want to give birth. If you read any pregnancy and parenting forums you'll come across many stories of women told they can't have a c section, that things are presented as something that needs to be done rather than an option to be discussed (having waters broken, episiotomies), that really they are not as important as the foetus inside them when it comes down to brass tacks.

volchitsa

lazygal wrote: »

And this should apply to how women want to give birth. If you read any pregnancy and parenting forums you'll come across many stories of women told they can't have a c section, that things are presented as something that needs to be done rather than an option to be discussed (having waters broken, episiotomies), that really they are not as important as the foetus inside them when it comes down to brass tacks.

Yes, and not only "not as important as" the fetus, but by default they are seen as potential enemies of the fetus - and yet that same (ex) fetus in the form of a baby is presumably going to be handed to them to bring up and make into a functioning member of society in just a few short months or weeks. Crazy.

zeffabelli

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, and not only "not as important as" the fetus, but by default they are seen as potential enemies of the fetus - and yet that same (ex) fetus in the form of a baby is presumably going to be handed to them to bring up and make into a functioning member of society in just a few short months or weeks. Crazy.

And it doesn't stop there.

Don't know about your experience, but after an emergency c section, I had the breast feeding cartel all over me.

Would you ever **** off. I need a nap.

I never felt more reduced as a human to breeding cattle as I did during pregnancy and child delivery.

lazygal

I had a male consultant talk to my husband instead of me about what would happen when I told him I wasn't happy to continue to wait and wanted a c section delivery as soon as possible. He said something like 'well hubby has spoken' and scrawled a note in my file. It wasn't until a little while later I realised he had noted that I was to fast in preparation for a c section later that day. If I have another I'll be requesting in writing at the first appointment that he is never to be allowed near me.

volchitsa

zeffabelli wrote: »

And it doesn't stop there.

Don't know about your experience, but after an emergency c section, I had the breast feeding cartel all over me.

Would you ever **** off. I need a nap.

I never felt more reduced as a human to breeding cattle as I did during pregnancy and child delivery.

Personally I loved breast feeding, but you're completely right that there's a large element of making women do whatever official wisdom at the time decrees they should. My own mother was regarded as a complete oddball for wanting to breastfeed her children in the 60s, and given no help at all, so that she didn't manage to feed the first two at all. By the time she had her fourth it was the 70s, and breastfeeding was becoming acceptable, because of women like her I suppose, who persisted in spite of official disapproval.

But now it's become practically mandatory - it's as though in the face of opposition from women to being made to breastfeed, "officialdom" has changed its mind and gone to the other extreme, when in fact all women like my mother wanted was to be allowed to choose - not to dictate their choice to all women.

The most important thing seems to be to tell women what they must do, even when that completely contradicts what we were being told a few years before that.

Another example of that is drinking while pregnant : obviously it's bad - but one of my sisters remarked that during just one of her pregnancies, the official advice changed three times!!

lazygal

I don't even listen when the latest study comes out that tells pregnant women what they 'should' be doing. It's like we are being told we're screwing up our children before they're born if we're let make our own decisions about anything.

From a woman who's had two sections, is still breastfeeding a nearly two year old and had alcohol during both pregnancies. My kids are doomed.

zeffabelli

volchitsa wrote: »

Personally I loved breast feeding, but you're completely right that there's a large element of making women do whatever official wisdom at the time decrees they should. My own mother was regarded as a complete oddball for wanting to breastfeed her children in the 60s, and given no help at all, so that she didn't manage to feed the first two at all. By the time she had her fourth it was the 70s, and breastfeeding was becoming acceptable, because of women like her I suppose, who persisted in spite of official disapproval.

But now it's become practically mandatory - it's as though in the face of opposition from women to being made to breastfeed, "officialdom" has changed its mind and gone to the other extreme, when in fact all women like my mother wanted was to be allowed to choose - not to dictate their choice to all women.

The most important thing seems to be to tell women what they must do, even when that completely contradicts what we were being told a few years before that.

Another example of that is drinking while pregnant : obviously it's bad - but one of my sisters remarked that during just one of her pregnancies, the official advice changed three times!!

It wasnt even that I didnt want to...I couldn't and what made these harpies think that after surgery and high on morphine pestering me like a hen pecking coven would make the milk come....

They are my boobs, my baby...now step off.

It's just incredible how much you become public property suddenly.

robdonn

lazygal wrote: »

From a woman who's had two sections, is still breastfeeding a nearly two year old and had alcohol during both pregnancies. My kids are doomed.

Drinking while pregnant does increase the chance of foetal abnormalities, this is a fact. The problem with the research, and therefore how it is expressed by midwives/nurses/doctors, is that we don't know yet at what point during pregnancy that the foetus is most vulnerable to it. So when you hear the old wisdom of "oh, just one glass of wine is fine" or "it's OK to drink until week X", it shouldn't be trusted because it's not possible to perform these tests on a foetus in the womb so we honestly don't know yet.

Alcohol can pass through the placenta at any stage during the pregnancy and the foetus is less capable of processing the alcohol as the mother because the liver is one of the last organs to develop and mature. Drinking in early pregnancy (first 3 months) has been linked to increased chances of miscarriage while drinking during the entire pregnancy can lead to premature labour and, in extreme cases, Foetal Alcohol Syndrome. Even drinking while breastfeeding can be harmful, but that's another kettle of fish.

The problem is really with how medical staff give this information, they know that alcohol can harm the foetus, and they know (or at least they should) that it has yet to be determined when it is most harmful, so the default position from a safety standpoint is to request that the mother abstains throughout the pregnancy.

This is the limit to what medical staff can and should be able to do though, they cannot stop you from drinking during pregnancy, nor can they stop you from smoking or skydiving (although others may have policies that prevent this), but it is a caution that should be at least considered properly.

The choice is yours, you still retain your autonomy, but is important for medical staff to ensure that your choices are made with the best available information.

robdonn

zeffabelli wrote: »

It wasnt even that I didnt want to...I couldn't and what made these harpies think that after surgery and high on morphine pestering me like a hen pecking coven would make the milk come....

They are my boobs, my baby...now step off.

It's just incredible how much you become public property suddenly.

There is a fine line between giving sound medical advice and mouthing off your own opinion to someone, and these "harpies" crossed it.

The NHS has a great maternity program, completely "woman-centred" approach to everything, but even there you will occasionally get the big-mouthed midwife or doctor that insists on trying to convince a woman to do things after she has already made her choice.

I have never been a violent person, but some people just deserve a slap sometimes. :P

zeffabelli

robdonn wrote: »

There is a fine line between giving sound medical advice and mouthing off your own opinion to someone, and these "harpies" crossed it.

The NHS has a great maternity program, completely "woman-centred" approach to everything, but even there you will occasionally get the big-mouthed midwife or doctor that insists on trying to convince a woman to do things after she has already made her choice.

I have never been a violent person, but some people just deserve a slap sometimes. :P

I know in the U.S. The breastfeeding cartel have managed to take welfare benefits away from women who don't breastfeed. They used to give free formula to welfare mothers, but now to encourage breastfeeding that has been stopped.

inocybe

sounds like things have swung too far the other way, but my experience 12 years ago was the complete opposite. There was no time or interest for help with anything in hospital, when I was discharged I hadn't actually managed to get my baby to feed at all, not a drop, and he was very jaundiced so should have been given water at least. It took some determination to get things going by myself.

robdonn

zeffabelli wrote: »

I know in the U.S. The breastfeeding cartel have managed to take welfare benefits away from women who don't breastfeed. They used to give free formula to welfare mothers, but now to encourage breastfeeding that has been stopped.

I would love to see a source for that. The WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) has started to allocate funds towards trying to promote breastfeeding with mothers who are capable as it is better for the baby's health, but they have not taken away access to formula. What they do recognise is that breastfeeding rates are lower with women on welfare and they believe that it is partly attributed to the formula being freely available, but instead of taking it away they are simply allocating some funds to promoting breastfeeding.

volchitsa

inocybe wrote: »

sounds like things have swung too far the other way, but my experience 12 years ago was the complete opposite. There was no time or interest for help with anything in hospital, when I was discharged I hadn't actually managed to get my baby to feed at all, not a drop, and he was very jaundiced so should have been given water at least. It took some determination to get things going by myself.

Yes that was my mother's experience (a lot more than 12 years ago though).

I really think that it's absolutely not about the pendulum swinging too far, it's actually that where pregnant women and new mothers are concerned, it doesn't matter much to those giving advice what exactly that advice is, all that matters is being in a position of having some orders to give. Like I said, one of my sisters remarked that the details of the official advice pregnant women were meant to follow as regards alcohol during pregnancy changed three times during a single one of her pregnancies! (Her first - before she stopped caring what the official advice was!)

volchitsa

robdonn wrote: »

I would love to see a source for that. The WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) has started to allocate funds towards trying to promote breastfeeding with mothers who are capable as it is better for the baby's health, but they have not taken away access to formula. What they do recognise is that breastfeeding rates are lower with women on welfare and they believe that it is partly attributed to the formula being freely available, but instead of taking it away they are simply allocating some funds to promoting breastfeeding.

TBH I find it hard to believe too. For one thing, it shows complete lack of understanding of the statistics around who breastfeeds. There's really no evidence (afaiaa) that when class and social deprivation are removed from the results, there is a significant improvement in outcomes due to breastfeeding.

(That's not to say there's no reason to breastfeed all the same. Apart from the fundamental issue for children in third world countries where access to clean water is not reliable, even in developed countries there are all sorts of reasons for breastfeeding, including the simple one of cost. But the idea of removing access to formula milk for one group of women for social, not economic, reasons is hard to imagine.)

robdonn

volchitsa wrote: »

TBH I find it hard to believe too. For one thing, it shows complete lack of understanding of the statistics around who breastfeeds. There's really no evidence (afaiaa) that when class and social deprivation are removed from the results, there is a significant improvement in outcomes due to breastfeeding.

(That's not to say there's no reason to breastfeed all the same. Apart from the fundamental issue for children in third world countries where access to clean water is not reliable, even in developed countries there are all sorts of reasons for breastfeeding, including the simple one of cost. But the idea of removing access to formula milk for one group of women for social, not economic, reasons is hard to imagine.)

Exactly, breastfeeding is not perfect and it can be dangerous in certain situations. On the worst end of the scale you have women who suffered from hyperemesis gravidarum during pregnancy, a lot of times their body is already very weak and breastfeeding can burn up to 500 calories a day. For the government to turn around and refuse to give formula in these situations would be damning.

And although I fully support the promotion of breastfeeding, it is and always should be a choice, and as breastmilk and formula are the only two foods that newborns can have then removing formula would be as good as making breastfeeding the law, which is wrong on so many levels.

zeffabelli

robdonn wrote: »

Exactly, breastfeeding is not perfect and it can be dangerous in certain situations. On the worst end of the scale you have women who suffered from hyperemesis gravidarum during pregnancy, a lot of times their body is already very weak and breastfeeding can burn up to 500 calories a day. For the government to turn around and refuse to give formula in these situations would be damning.

And although I fully support the promotion of breastfeeding, it is and always should be a choice, and as breastmilk and formula are the only two foods that newborns can have then removing formula would be as good as making breastfeeding the law, which is wrong on so many levels.

Sorry, yeah I think there was a lot of talk of doing it at the time, but I don't know if they actually implemented it.

There were definitely some breastfeeding lobbyists trying for it, I remember a lot of petitions and literature around the hospital at the time.

robdonn

zeffabelli wrote: »

Sorry, yeah I think there was a lot of talk of doing it at the time, but I don't know if they actually implemented it.

There were definitely some breastfeeding lobbyists trying for it, I remember a lot of petitions and literature around the hospital at the time.

I can definitely understand where the breastfeeding lobbyists would get the idea from, the AAP (American Academy of Paediatrics) recommend exclusively breastfeeding for the first six months of a pregnancy, but what people seem too headstrong to accept is that it is simply a recommendation. The lobbyists see this statement and ignore the facts that some mothers cannot breastfeed or are allowed to choose not to.

The whole thing is part of the "Mother's Guilt" system, where no matter what you do with your child, you'll be going against the recommendations of someone and therefore a bad mother. The truth is that as long as you are not harming your child or actively preventing good development then you are doing just fine!

volchitsa

zeffabelli wrote: »

Sorry, yeah I think there was a lot of talk of doing it at the time, but I don't know if they actually implemented it.

There were definitely some breastfeeding lobbyists trying for it, I remember a lot of petitions and literature around the hospital at the time.

It's all part of the "don't you worry your little head about these things, we know what's best for you" syndrome, isn't it? Whether they're promoting breastfeeding or are dead against it doesn't really matter much, afaict, it's all about power really!

Cabaal

Lets look at the facts of abortion as presented by Discovery News.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swoWhrERRNk

Interesting to find out that the christian church once allowed abortions until women could feel the fetus moving,

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

Interesting to find out that the christian church once allowed abortions until women could feel the fetus moving,

It would be more interesting if it were actually true. But it's not; Christian opposition to abortion (along with opposition to infanticide and to the exposure of unwanted infants) is one of the earlier characteristically Christian stances that we know. We know this from the contemporary writings of both Christians and non-Christians. Indeed, one of the factors that historians sometimes cite for the rapid growth of Christianity in the early period is a higher Christian birthrate, the outcome of their refusal to practice the, um, family planning methods considered acceptable in the classical Roman world.