Abortion Discussion

Frito

mbiking123 wrote: »

The report...further stated however, that protocol for late-term abortion counselling was sorely lacking, and that the government and interested agencies must develop said protocol with all possible speed.

Could be wrong, but I suspect the anti-abortion lobby scored an own goal there. Carry on.

Sulla Felix

Can't find an explicit mention of that particular group, but there is a bit about the clinic in Barcelona that offered late term abortions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6933294/Senior-GP-flew-pregnant-teenage-daughter-to-Spain-for-late-term-abortion.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7113640.stm

Several years old though.

mbiking123

Frito wrote: »

Could be wrong, but I suspect the anti-abortion lobby scored an own goal there. Carry on.

It is a charity, that is part of their job to offer counselling before and after an abortion. Must be tough, to have on a person's conscious that they ended a life ! certainly would need counselling !

Frito

mbiking123 wrote: »

It is a charity, that is part of their job to offer counselling before and after an abortion. Must be tough, to have on a person's conscious that they ended a life ! certainly would need counselling !

I understand they must offer counselling, but my point is this exposé highlighted the need for BPAS to:-
a) continue what they were doing anyway, and
b) formalise the procedure in documentation,
hence validating the subject of the article thereby scoring an own goal.

But still, carry on. Every little helps.

Turtwig

mbiking123 wrote: »

Ah come on

I only said they were involved in people going to Spain for a late abortion, I was asked for a link, so I gave one

I gave a link, it backed up what I said ! I never said it was illegal that was the headline- not my headline !!!!!!

first of all you rubbish the daily mail

take it up with the publisher please - Jernal

Yeah I know I wasn't taking you to task at all. The article was poor was simply my point.

swampgas

mbiking123 wrote: »

It is a charity, that is part of their job to offer counselling before and after an abortion. Must be tough, to have on a person's conscious that they ended a life ! certainly would need counselling !

That's why women should have a choice - so they only go ahead with an abortion if they want to. Or do you think everyone else should just follow your lead?

Is the word "choice" really so hard to understand?

mbiking123

swampgas wrote: »

That's why women should have a choice - so they only go ahead with an abortion if they want to. Or do you think everyone else should just follow your lead?

Is the word "choice" really so hard to understand?

Ya like this was her choice http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9593457/Girl-loses-stomach-after-drinking-cocktail-containing-liquid-nitrogen.html - granted off topic but I hope you get my point about choice

Just cause you choose to do something does not mean its the right thing to do

Frito

mbiking123 wrote: »

Just cause you choose to do something does not mean its the right thing to do

The same could be applied to protestors chanting outside abortion clinics. The issue is of relativism.

swampgas

mbiking123 wrote: »

Ya like this was her choice http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9593457/Girl-loses-stomach-after-drinking-cocktail-containing-liquid-nitrogen.html - granted off topic but I hope you get my point about choice

I'm afraid I don't get your point there at all.

Just cause you choose to do something does not mean its the right thing to do

If it's legal, and it's your choice, what someone else thinks about it is irrelevant.

There are plenty of people who think contraception and divorce are wrong, and they can choose not to avail of either; at the same time other people don't see anything wrong with contraception or divorce and do choose to avail of them. I think abortion should be the same - it's up to people to decide for themselves if they wish to have one or not.

eviltwin

mbiking123 wrote: »

Ya like this was her choice http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9593457/Girl-loses-stomach-after-drinking-cocktail-containing-liquid-nitrogen.html - granted off topic but I hope you get my point about choice

Just cause you choose to do something does not mean its the right thing to do

what is right or wrong, in this issue at least, is subjective. you think abortion is wrong as is your right but why the need to make others abide by your moral code?

mbiking123

swampgas wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't get your point there at all.



If it's legal, and it's your choice, what someone else thinks about it is irrelevant.

Exactly - abortion is illegal in this country

Does that mean what someone else thinks on abortion is irrelevant

swampgas

mbiking123 wrote: »

Exactly - abortion is illegal in this country

Does that mean what someone else thinks on abortion is irrelevant

Sorry, I made my point badly there.

What I mean is that there are areas of personal morality which should not be enforced by law. Just because one person thinks (say) working on a Sunday is completely wrong doesn't mean the law of the land should reinforce that view.

I would argue that abortion is an issue where (based on polls, anyway) many people have very different positions. I think the current legal position is enforcing the most restrictive moral view point, not the majority viewpoint, and as a result is not representative of the will of the people.

There is also the rather strange situation in Ireland where you are effectively legally guaranteed the right to travel abroad for an abortion. What's that about? We have this farcical set-up where the right to travel abroad for an abortion is protected, but providing safe legal abortions where we actually live is somehow wrong?

eviltwin

swampgas wrote: »

There is also the rather strange situation in Ireland where you are effectively legally guaranteed the right to travel abroad for an abortion. What's that about? We have this farcical set-up where the right to travel abroad for an abortion is protected, but providing safe legal abortions where we actually live is somehow wrong?

Not only legally guaranteed but that right has been included in our constitution. Says it all really.

mbiking123

eviltwin wrote: »

Not only legally guaranteed but that right has been included in our constitution. Says it all really.

I believe that the big issue at the time was that potentially all pregnant women be stopped attempting to travel abroad in the event that they may seek an abortion. Hence the right to travel

If a woman had an abortion, if it was illegal on her return she possibly maybe convicted maybe also be denied medical help if there was complications

It goes back before the widespread use of the Internet, so little information available(or at least that I can find). Given the time the above is my recollection of some of the issues raised at that time. So for 20 years I reckon I'm doing well !

'In 1992, a controversy arose over the issue of whether a suicidal minor who was pregnant from statutory rape could leave Ireland for an abortion that is lawful in another country (Attorney General v. X, known as the 'X Case'). Another referendum was held in 1992, in which two amendments were passed that established the 'right to travel' and the 'right to information'. A third proposal, the proposed Twelfth Amendment, would have further restricted abortion laws in Ireland, but was defeated'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland


and this I could find http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/1992-referendum-leaflet-from-youth-defence-pro-life-movement-urging-a-no-vote-against-travel-information-and-abortion/ from youth defence. someone else actually thought I was in the organisation. Well no and no for 1992 either and any other time.

kylith

mbiking123 wrote: »

Ya like this was her choice http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9593457/Girl-loses-stomach-after-drinking-cocktail-containing-liquid-nitrogen.html - granted off topic but I hope you get my point about choice

Just cause you choose to do something does not mean its the right thing to do

Maybe not, but what then? Should every choice have to be vetted for 'rightness'? By whom? And what makes what they think any more right than what I might think?

mbiking123

kylith wrote: »

Maybe not, but what then? Should every choice have to be vetted for 'rightness'? By whom? And what makes what they think any more right than what I might think?

Could say the same over health issues, smoking, drinking, or even fat tax http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/government-warned-over-fat-tax-fallout-1.1536533

swampgas

mbiking123 wrote: »

Could say the same over health issues, smoking, drinking, or even fat tax http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/government-warned-over-fat-tax-fallout-1.1536533

Except we haven't banned smoking, drinking and obesity. It's still very much a matter of choice for the individual.

mbiking123

swampgas wrote: »

Except we haven't banned smoking, drinking and obesity. It's still very much a matter of choice for the individual.

Increases in Tax, changes to advertising etc etc to deter people

A persons choice to smoke, drink alcohol costs more a lot more than in other countries. Soon a tax on sugar drinks

If you don't have the spare cash then it affects your choice hence the black market alternative

head shops have been banned, that removed people's choice

GCU Flexible Demeanour

mbiking123 wrote: »

'In late 2004, the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph presented a video to the British government (Health Secretary Dr John Reid and Chief Medical Officer Professor Sir Liam Donaldson) showing BPAS counsellors referring women whose pregnancies were too advanced for legal abortions in Britain (past 24 weeks) to a clinic in Barcelona, Spain.[4] A report filed by the Chief Medical Officer for England, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, in September, 2005 was critical of some aspects of BPAS counselling, but concluded that, in the matter of BPAS staff referring (in the broad sense, not the strict medical definition) women with late-term pregnancies to the Ginemedex clinic, BPAS had not broken any laws. The report stated unequivocally that BPAS's ability to provide abortion and reproductive counselling and services (within its mandate) had not in any way been compromised, and that no changes in funding should result. It further stated however, that protocol for late-term abortion counselling was sorely lacking, and that the government and interested agencies must develop said protocol with all possible speed. [5]'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pregnancy_Advisory_Service

Am I missing something, or is this basically the same issue dealt with by our own laws on abortion information?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/women_s_health/abortion_information_the_law.html

Making appointments

It is lawful to give the names and addresses of abortion services. It is not lawful to make an appointment with an abortion service on behalf of the pregnant woman. This does not prevent doctors or others from giving medical records to the woman.

Just to be clear, I'm not commenting one way or the other on whether our laws strike the right balance. I'm simply pointing out that it would be lawful for health professional in Ireland to provide contact details for a clinic in Spain to a pregnant woman, so long as the professional didn't actually make the contact.

Put another way, our laws do give the kind of clear guidance that the above extract talks about. It sets out how professionals should deal with the reality that certain services prohibited in one EU Member State may be lawful in another.

mbiking123

and according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France

'
Abortion in France is legal on demand up to 12-weeks after conception (14 weeks after the last menstrual period),[1][2] since the Veil Law in 1975. Abortions at later stages of pregnancy are allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable.
In the Middle Ages abortion was considered a cardinal sin.,.[3] Abortion had been criminalized in France with the imposition of the Napoleonic Code. During the German occupation during World War II, the Vichy régime made abortion a capital crime. The last execution took place in 1942. Following the war, the death penalty for abortion was abolished, and special courts were set up to deal with abortion cases.

Births, legal abortions, and clandestine abortions in France between 1968 and 2005.



Illegal abortion rates remained fairly high during the post-war period, and increasing numbers of women began to travel to the United Kingdom to procure abortions after the UK legalized abortion in 1967. France legalized abortion in 1975,[4] which was available on demand initially until the tenth week, which was extended to the twelfth week of pregnancy in 2001.[5] Since 1982, the cost of abortions are taken in charge by the French social security system.[6]

It is customary to schedule abortions one week after the patient demands it as a "cool-off" period, but this delay can be shortened if the patient is getting close to 12 weeks. After then, two physicians must certify that the patient's health is endangered or there is a high likelihood that the fetus is handicapped by a non-curable serious illness; otherwise, abortion is illegal.
Since 1994, French law has required that multidisciplinary diagnostic centers decide which birth defects are severe enough to make abortion after 12 week limits.[7]

France was the first country to legalize the use of RU-486 as an abortifacient in 1988, allowing its use up to seven weeks of pregnancy. By one estimate, a quarter of all French abortions now use RU-486.
A pregnant girl under the age of 18 may ask for an abortion without consulting her parents first if she accompanied to the clinic by an adult of her choice, who must not tell her parents or any third party about the abortion'

Now nobody can say Vichy regime would have been influenced by the Catholic church more like the Nazi party.

France also had women travelling to the UK

Not saying I agree just pointing out the facts as presented

Nodin

mbiking123 wrote: »

Increases in Tax, changes to advertising etc etc to deter people

A persons choice to smoke, drink alcohol costs more a lot more than in other countries. Soon a tax on sugar drinks

If you don't have the spare cash then it affects your choice hence the black market alternative

head shops have been banned, that removed people's choice

.....what has that to do with abortion?

mbiking123

Nodin wrote: »

.....what has that to do with abortion?

choice as per post with Kylith & swampgas with thanks from eviltwin, koth, Sierra 117

MrPudding

mbiking123 wrote: »

choice as per post with Kylith & swampgas with thanks from eviltwin, koth, Sierra 117

So we have, on the one hand, not available except in extremely restricted circumstances and on the other hand we have, stuff is made more expensive, and you think they are the same?

No, you can't have this.

Or,

You can have this as much and as often as you like, you will just pay a little more for it.

You think that is the same?

MrP

Nodin

mbiking123 wrote: »

choice as per post with Kylith & swampgas with thanks from eviltwin, koth, Sierra 117

(a) - Not all of us approve loading taxation on items

(b) - Not all of us approve of the current drugs law or the headshop hysteria

(c) - Taxing things and banning them are two very different things.

mbiking123

MrPudding wrote: »

So we have, on the one hand, not available except in extremely restricted circumstances and on the other hand we have, stuff is made more expensive, and you think they are the same?

No, you can't have this.

Or,

You can have this as much and as often as you like, you will just pay a little more for it.

You think that is the same?

MrP

The pro choice smoking lobby would not agree with you

http://pro-choicesmokingdoctor.blogspot.ie/

Removing head shops removed peoples choice

What about the unborn choice, I have no concern for pro choice for smoking or head shops but would be pro life, before or after birth

gaynorvader

mbiking123 wrote: »

{...}

Removing head shops removed peoples choice

What about the unborn choice, I have no concern for pro choice for smoking or head shops but would be pro life, before or after birth

Removing head shops was wrong.

Unborn things don't have a choice as they don't have free will and are therefore incapable of choice.

mbiking123

gaynorvader wrote: »

Removing head shops was wrong.

Unborn things don't have a choice as they don't have free will and are therefore incapable of choice.

lets say that I would like to own an AK-47, in some places this is legal in Ireland it is not. I don't have the choice, that choice has been removed from me

If I am pointing a loaded AK-47 at you, you don't have much free will. You'll be standing there with your hands in the air

And do any of us really have free will ? http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will

If you take your view of needing free will and accept that we don't have free will. Then wars, famine etc and all that loss of life is ok, in fact none of us have the right to life

Unborn things !, I don't know how you could compare an unborn animal to an unborn human. An unborn human is not a 'thing'. Take John Waters the Journalist he is a pro choice supporter, he sees nothing wrong with ending the life of an unborn human and yet has stated a number of years back on the late late show that blood sports are wrong, on the night hare coursing was being discussed. I cant understand how someone who can put the life of a hare or any other animal over an unborn human (I don't agree with coursing myself)

lazygal

mbiking123 wrote: »

lets say that I would like to own an AK-47, in some places this is legal in Ireland it is not. I don't have the choice, that choice has been removed from me

If I am pointing a loaded AK-47 at you, you don't have much free will. You'll be standing there with your hands in the air

And do any of us really have free will ? http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will

If you take your view of needing free will and accept that we don't have free will. Then wars, famine etc and all that loss of life is ok, in fact none of us have the right to life

Unborn things !, I don't know how you could compare an unborn animal to an unborn human. An unborn human is not a 'thing'. Take John Waters the Journalist he is a pro choice supporter, he sees nothing wrong with ending the life of an unborn human and yet has stated a number of years back on the late late show that blood sports are wrong, on the night hare coursing was being discussed. I cant understand how someone who can put the life of a hare or any other animal over an unborn human (I don't agree with coursing myself)

I think you may be mistaken about Waters. He's anti choice.

Nodin

mbiking123 wrote: »

lets say that I would like to own an AK-47, in some places this is legal in Ireland it is not. I don't have the choice, that choice has been removed from me

If I am pointing a loaded AK-47 at you, you don't have much free will. You'll be standing there with your hands in the air

And do any of us really have free will ? http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will

If you take your view of needing free will and accept that we don't have free will. Then wars, famine etc and all that loss of life is ok, in fact none of us have the right to life

Unborn things !, I don't know how you could compare an unborn animal to an unborn human. An unborn human is not a 'thing'. Take John Waters the Journalist he is a pro choice supporter, he sees nothing wrong with ending the life of an unborn human and yet has stated a number of years back on the late late show that blood sports are wrong, on the night hare coursing was being discussed. I cant understand how someone who can put the life of a hare or any other animal over an unborn human (I don't agree with coursing myself)

......the removal of choice in other matters is something that has to be considered on their individual merits and have no relation to abortion. (And again, don't presume that people here are for these examples you give).

pauldla

Nodin wrote: »

......the removal of choice in other matters is something that has to be considered on their individual merits and have no relation to abortion. (And again, don't presume that people here are for these examples you give).

I was wondering about that. What bearing does possession of an AK-47 have on abortion?