Is it still 1971 in Ireland? The contraceptive train still runs - Under another name.

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

Show me the relevant information on the court case which refused to grant ms y a termination of pregnancy.

Again, you love answering questions with questions dont you?


Like I said the first time, you answer the question asked to your first, and then you get an answer.

And just so you know, im not accepting "Dhurrr, I donnno no" as an acceptable answer.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

I dont have a clue?

Thats rich coming from you, "She didnt have the termination as the law required"

Here is a copy of the law

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2013/en.act.2013.0035.pdf

Show me where in this law; that you state requires her to have a termination, it even mentions the word termination let alone the term you two were insisting was now changed "Termination of Pregnancy"

Read up on what happened, because you are talking complete rubbish.

This action was in relation to getting an order to allow a termination to be carried out under the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act.

In a statement today, the HSE said when senior management became aware of the matter they directed that no further court proceedings were required, and the termination could be carried out.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0928/648534-hse-miss-y/

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

I certainly did not "state" that she was required to have a termination. You are just making stuff up now.

volchitsa wrote: »

So assuming she did have a termination, as the law required

Your own words.


Also, why dont you read up on what happened because you are talking complete rubbish.

A panel convened determined that she was suicidal, meaning a termination would be lawful, but the obstetrician in the case would not perform the termination because by this point the woman was 25 weeks pregnant.

http://www.thejournal.ie/hse-miss-y-inquiry-1634580-Aug2014/

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

Again, you love answering questions with questions dont you?


Like I said the first time, you answer the question asked to your first, and then you get an answer.

And just so you know, im not accepting "Dhurrr, I donnno no" as an acceptable answer.

So you can't provide any information on the court case in which ms y was denied a termination of pregnancy?

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

So you can't provide any information on the court case in which ms y was denied a termination of pregnancy?

Question answered with Question?

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

Question answered with Question?

Just Like you are doing. Still no information on the court case in which ms y was denied a termination of pregnancy.

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

Just Like you are doing. Still no information on the court case in which ms y was denied a termination of pregnancy.

Yes, that was my point, every time I ask you a question you refuse to answer me and just answer a series on increasingly inane and stupid follow up questions.

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

Yes, that was my point, every time I ask you a question you refuse to answer me and just answer a series on increasingly inane and stupid follow up questions.

I don't think it's inane or pointless to ask you to validate your contention that there was a court case in which ms y was denied a termination of pregnancy.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

Your own words.

Also, why dont you read up on what happened because you are talking complete rubbish.

Out of context quote - the law did not require her to have a termination, the law required her to be allowed to have a termination.

As to what happened, remember I said at the start that I'm also unconvinced by the HSE's attempt at rewriting the English language, so I tend to agree that NHS is using the normal meaning of the word.

The point is though, that in Ireland there is an official attempt to rewrite the meaning so that Miss Y can be considered to have been given the termination of pregnancy that the POLDP Act required that she be allowed to have (for the avoidance of any doubt!)

So it all comes down to whether or not we accept the Irish government's interpretation of the word termination or the NHS one.

But the court did not make the decision.

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

Out of context quote - the law did not require her to have a termination, the law required her to be allowed to have a termination.

As to what happened, remember I said at the start that I'm also unconvinced by the HSE's attempt at rewriting the English language, so I tend to agree that NHS is using the normal meaning of the word.

The point is though, that in Ireland there is an official attempt to rewrite the meaning so that Miss Y can be considered to have been given the termination of pregnancy that the POLDP Act required that she be allowed to have (for the avoidance of any doubt!)

So it all comes down to whether or not we accept the Irish government's interpretation of the word termination or the NHS one.

But the court did not make the decision.

If you bothered to read the link I provided, it clearly stated the obstetrician refused to perform the Termination because the baby was viable and instead the baby was delivered by Caesarian Section. Therefore clearly differentiating between a Termination and a C Section. You have offered not one shred or crumb of evidence to the contrary and yet still blather on incoherently about the most pointless and irrelevant details

So, No rewriting of the meaning of termination has happened, the obstetrician agrees with the NHS that a C section isn't a Termination of Pregnancy, you and lazygal are completely wrong and this whole discussion has been a complete waste of time because the two of you have invented some delusional and provably false scenario that you insist is reality. Have fun with that.

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

If you bothered to read the link I provided, it clearly stated the obstetrician refused to perform the Termination because the baby was viable and instead the baby was delivered by Caesarian Section. Therefore clearly differentiating between a Termination and a C Section. You have offered not one shred or crumb of evidence to the contrary and yet still blather on incoherently about the most pointless and irrelevant details

So, No rewriting of the meaning of termination has happened, the obstetrician agrees with the NHS that a C section isn't a Termination of Pregnancy, you and lazygal are completely wrong and this whole discussion has been a complete waste of time because the two of you have invented some delusional and provably false scenario that you insist is reality. Have fun with that.

To/Dr you're taking your ball and going home.

What happened to Ms Y in that court case to which you referred?

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

If you bothered to read the link I provided, it clearly stated the obstetrician refused to perform the Termination because the baby was viable and instead the baby was delivered by Caesarian Section. Therefore clearly differentiating between a Termination and a C Section. You have offered not one shred or crumb of evidence to the contrary and yet still blather on incoherently about the most pointless and irrelevant details

So, No rewriting of the meaning of termination has happened, the obstetrician agrees with the NHS that a C section isn't a Termination of Pregnancy, you and lazygal are completely wrong and this whole discussion has been a complete waste of time because the two of you have invented some delusional and provably false scenario that you insist is reality. Have fun with that.

But I did read it, it's an anonymous opinion piece from before the investigation into what happened even began.

I provided you with a quote from a Ministry of Health statement which directly contradicts that version of events, and says she was allowed a termination without going to court.

Which do you think is more reliable?

JupiterKid

Hasn't this thread gone way off topic? Wasn't the title of the thread about the abortion pill train protest?

Coppinger was reckless to neck those pills in the way that she did. They should only be taken under very close medical supervision. The pills should also be available here in Ireland to women wishing to have an early stage abortion (I don't agree with late stage abortion).

We also haven't even addressed the issue where in Ireland a women who discovers she has a non-viable fetus has to carry it to full term. That IMO is barbaric.

I'm very firmly in the pro-choice camp.

Hotblack Desiato

sheesh wrote: »

Yes the gardai were perfectly entitled to arrest them after they were dead. just not before.

They threatened the person accompanying the patient with arrest on their return, which is in my view totally wrong.

I honestly don't know how the guards found out about it either, given that thousands of women go to England for abortions every year leads me to assume that something else was going on here.

Apparently they booked a return ticket for the friend and a one-way ticket for the soon to be deceased, the travel agent tipped the gardai off, how he or they sleep at night after deliberately causing suffering to a dying person I don't know.

Hotblack Desiato

JupiterKid wrote: »

Coppinger was reckless to neck those pills in the way that she did.

If she did. You don't know for sure what she actually took.

(I don't agree with late stage abortion)

I'm very firmly in the pro-choice camp.

This position is very common but totally inconsistent. A woman has a right to choose up to some arbitrary time (in some cases, before some women even know they're pregnant) and after that she can be forced to be pregnant? Either she has bodily autonomy or she does not.

Many developmental issues with the foetus can't be picked up until at least 20 weeks. Late abortions are rare but sometimes necessary.

smurgen

realies wrote: »

It is quite embarrassing in this day and age that women still have to hide and go in secret to a another country in regards to contraception, unbelievable really.

Exporting our morality to another country.it's makes us backwards in my opinion. It's the 21st century , we need to get up to speed on stuff like this.the Church is holding us back.

volchitsa

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If she did. You don't know for sure what she actually took.

This position is very common but totally inconsistent. A woman has a right to choose up to some arbitrary time (in some cases, before some women even know they're pregnant) and after that she can be forced to be pregnant? Either she has bodily autonomy or she does not.

Many developmental issues with the foetus can't be picked up until at least 20 weeks. Late abortions are rare but sometimes necessary.

I agree that late abortions may occasionally be necessary, including simply to save the woman's life, but I'm not sure that the bodily autonomy argument has to be 100% valid right up until birth.

Personally, I see the developing fetus as a being which gains rights that may be in opposition to the woman's, on a sliding scale from zero for the fertilized but unimplanted egg (MAP) to equivalent to you or me for the new born baby.

I realize that is somewhat arbitrary, but the law is arbitrary in that way: an 18 year old is not really completely different from the person he was three days before his birthday for ex. A 65 year old is not incapable of work. A legal boundary isn't a perfect description of a physiological state, but it is essential to have them for a law to exist.

inocybe

JupiterKid wrote: »

Hasn't this thread gone way off topic? Wasn't the title of the thread about the abortion pill train protest?

Coppinger was reckless to neck those pills in the way that she did. They should only be taken under very close medical supervision. The pills should also be available here in Ireland to women wishing to have an early stage abortion (I don't agree with late stage abortion).

We also haven't even addressed the issue where in Ireland a women who discovers she has a non-viable fetus has to carry it to full term. That IMO is barbaric.

I'm very firmly in the pro-choice camp.

But that's the very point isn't it - that Irish women do not have the right to medical supervision, they often have to take them alone and scared at home. The dangers have been exaggerated by those who want to terrify women into continuing unwanted pregnancies, it's a nasty dirty tactic. Taking the pill was a show of solidarity, and I'm very grateful that she did that.
(Bearing in the mind that the abortion pill is actually 2 pills taken some hours apart, and the first pill doesn't cause the bleeding, it interferes with progesterone. I assume no-one took the second pill). Well done to everyone involved.

Hotblack Desiato

volchitsa wrote: »

I agree that late abortions may occasionally be necessary, including simply to save the woman's life, but I'm not sure that the bodily autonomy argument has to be 100% valid right up until birth.

Birth, no. Viability outside the womb though - at that point abortion isn't necessary if the pregnancy needs to be ended.

If you draw the arbitrary cut-off line before the point of viability, then you still believe that in certain circumstances a woman can be forced to remain pregnant.

volchitsa

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Birth, no. Viability outside the womb though - at that point abortion isn't necessary if the pregnancy needs to be ended.

If you draw the arbitrary cut-off line before the point of viability, then you still believe that in certain circumstances a woman can be forced to remain pregnant.

Well, I was describing my general approach to the question, not setting out every last detail - not that it would be possible probably to take every potential scenario into account in a few sentences anyway.

Since the Irish constitution grants some sort of legal status to the fetus (though it's not clear what exactly) that also creates problems for wanted pregnancies, not just over abortion.
So for example before the term of a wanted pregnancy, but after viability, a woman may develop health issues which can only be resolved by ending the pregnancy early.

What happens in that case if the fetus is viable, so its equal right to life must be validated - since it is probably in the fetus' interests not to end the pregnancy before term?

So the reason I said I saw it as a developing line up until birth is because I wasn't just thinking of a time limit when abortion was possible/not possible, but of how any law might need to approach this possible conflict of interests between the pregnant woman and her fetus.

It's the risk of unforeseen consequences, like those caused by the 8th amendment, that worries me.
Obviously if we didn't have such a mad amendment in the constitution in the first place, there would be other solutions, as they do in other countries. But we do.

Hotblack Desiato

Health issues count for nothing under the 8th amendment, the woman must be at real risk of death before the pregnancy can be terminated, but if she is and the legislative hoops can be jumped through in time, then the pregnancy can be ended (delivered if viable or aborted if not.)

volchitsa

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Health issues count for nothing under the 8th amendment, the woman must be at real risk of death before the pregnancy can be terminated, but if she is and the legislative hoops can be jumped through in time, then the pregnancy can be ended (delivered if viable or aborted if not.)

I meant health issues which threatened the woman's life, pre-eclampsia, that sort of thing. But yes, your point is correct, and of course also comes directly from the fact that the constitution specifically excludes "mere" loss of health because of the fetus' "equal" rights.

Basically the conflict between the two cannot be resolved in favour of the woman while she only has legal equality with the fetus. With the best will in the world, there are going to be women who are left permanently damaged, and, hopefully only occasionally, deaths, because doctors cannot treat the pregnant woman as they would any other patient, because she has this other "non-person person" trapped inside her.

To my mind (and I was around at the time, though not a voter) that was not what the majority of those voting for the amendment really intended to happen. They believed they were voting to prevent feckless young women from using abortion as a late contraceptive.

Somewhat related, but not really..

My aunt and her then-husband were one of the first people to open up a family planning clinic out of their home in the West of Ireland. She once told me that people would turn up outside of their house and say the rosary.

One day in the hope of getting condoms, she traveled all the way to Belfast from Galway to get them. There she filled up a bag with hundreds of condoms. On the train journey back, I believe Gardaí boarded and because she would have gotten in so much trouble for doing it, she threw the entire bag out the window, where it landed in the middle of nowhere.

The next day she was going somewhere with her mother; my grandmother, an extremely catholic woman who had such a devious spirit, in the car. She happened to mention to my aunt about how she had been watching the national news and that they had found this bag with hundreds of condoms and couldn't explain where it came from.

My aunt just looked at her mother and went, "Oh.. yeah.. so, that was me". Apparently there was a sudden silence before my granny burst out laughing.

Hotblack Desiato

volchitsa wrote: »

They believed they were voting to prevent feckless young women from using abortion as a late contraceptive.

Ridiculous thing to think though. Why would any woman put herself through a late abortion unless the alternative was unbearable?

volchitsa

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ridiculous thing to think though. Why would any woman put herself through a late abortion unless the alternative was unbearable?

You're right of course about the late abortion thing, but I'm obviously having difficulty being clear today!
I actually meant that the 8th amendment (banning all abortion, early or late) had never been intended, or not by the vast majority of non extremist voters to force "decent" (ie married) women like Savita Halappanavar to risk their lives because the fetus still had a heart beat, they thought it would be a way of preventing what are described as "lifestyle" abortions, which is why I called them "late contraception" - it's a contradiction in terms of course.

But at the time the amendment was presented as a rampart against illicit sex by the feckless, and the unwanted side effects on all pregnant women were dismissed by those in the pro life movement such as William Binchy as pure propaganda from those arguing against the amendment.

Hotblack Desiato

You're right, I've no idea why I read that as late abortion not late contraception

Of course the counter argument from YD etc. is 'abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life, and when it is we'll call it something else and pretend it's not abortion' and 'Ireland is the safest place in the world for a woman to be pregnant' which is of course a lie.

RDM_83 again

volchitsa wrote: »

You're right of course about the late abortion thing, but I'm obviously having difficulty being clear today!
I actually meant that the 8th amendment (banning all abortion, early or late) had never been intended, or not by the vast majority of non extremist voters to force "decent" (ie married) women like Savita Halappanavar to risk their lives because the fetus still had a heart beat, they thought it would be a way of preventing what are described as "lifestyle" abortions, which is why I called them "late contraception" - it's a contradiction in terms of course.

But at the time the amendment was presented as a rampart against illicit sex by the feckless, and the unwanted side effects on all pregnant women were dismissed by those in the pro life movement such as William Binchy as pure propaganda from those arguing against the amendment.

The I've made this point before on another of these endless threads, but I'd argue its because we have the UK right next door, and not simply because it releases the pressure to legislate.

The UK is an example of the "slippery slope" in action, the act is actually pretty damn restrictive in its wording, its application though is a rubber stamping exercise (see the exposes a couple of years ago about sex selective abortions etc) till dates well outside the European norm. Even some of the original authors of the act don't believe its being applied as intended.

I'd be curious if people who're strong in the pro-life camp think of that opinion and if its wrong?

lazygal

I'm curious as to what those in the Prolife camp think would be happening if the UK stopped dealing with women coming from Ireland. Especially for late stage abortions which are being limited to one or two a week because of the significant resources involved. I've also asked this question many times but never got a satisfactory answer: should the right of women to travel for the express purpose of killing an unborn child be repealed.

Hotblack Desiato

(Abolish right to travel) They would if they could, but they know public opinion would never wear it.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The UK is an example of the "slippery slope" in action, the act is actually pretty damn restrictive in its wording

I don't agree. The act states that a woman may abort on the grounds of a risk to health, certainly with an early abortion it is a greater risk to health to proceed with pregnancy than to abort it. Depending on her particular circumstances, the risk to her health of proceeding may be substantial. This is an issue for her and her doctors to decide, not politicians.

Politicians who now wish to wash their hands of their past actions are just going with the electoral flow, at the time it was vote-friendly (UK) to be liberal and today not so much.

RDM_83 again

lazygal wrote: »

I'm curious as to what those in the Prolife camp think would be happening if the UK stopped dealing with women coming from Ireland. Especially for late stage abortions which are being limited to one or two a week because of the significant resources involved. I've also asked this question many times but never got a satisfactory answer: should the right of women to travel for the express purpose of killing an unborn child be repealed.

I'm not really "pro-life", well I am sort of in that I think its a fairly major deal (but then a lot of pro-life people would be of the same view).

Personally I think we'd have a restrictive regime focused on an early time frame for "optional" abortion, followed by an extremely restrictive regime based on physical risks for the later stages. Something like whats present in Luxembourg, Italy or Poland. Also I'd say there would be a lot of practitioners that wouldn't associate with the practice which would serve as a barrier to it.
*Note I think thats what we'd get not expressing a view on the rights and wrongs on those systems*

Your 2nd question is one I probably shouldn't be answering since I'm not "strongly" pro-life (as I pointed out earlier in the thread I would advocate for a regime more flexible than some pro-choicers) but Yes and No, if it was going to result in abortion between 22-24 weeks its extremely distasteful to me but probably not, if it was going to result in the 'termination of pregnancy' between the dates of 24-28 weeks with the extreme likelihood of a child being either born and immediately dying or suffering serious lifelong medical effects, then on return they could potentially be sanctioned with some sort of child neglect/endangerment charge, this may sound like a monstrous opinion to you, before you yell back "my body isn't an incubator for a parasite" this is a 4 week time frame where the fetus can feel pain and as soon as the umbilical cord is severed it becomes a child that likely to either die or have a very poor standard of life.

I'm curious though I didn't pose an attacking question but you just replied with a whataboutery type response? Yeah it will get you a fair few thanks but it doesn't actually make for a discussion or a debate.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I don't agree. The act states that a woman may abort on the grounds of a risk to health, certainly with an early abortion it is a greater risk to health to proceed with pregnancy than to abort it. Depending on her particular circumstances, the risk to her health of proceeding may be substantial. This is an issue for her and her doctors to decide, not politicians.

Politicians who now wish to wash their hands of their past actions are just going with the electoral flow, at the time it was vote-friendly (UK) to be liberal and today not so much.

Have you actually looked at how the act is applied? you don't end up with approx 20% of pregnancies ending in abortion if its actually about risk to health. Its any two practitioners, did you see the various stings a few years ago, and thats with a journalist actually deliberately requesting something against the guidelines.
Also Lord Steel isn't running for any sort of office, and the UK is hardly less socially liberal than it was in 1967, more economically right wing maybe but definitely not less socially liberal apart from the lunatic fringe (and they were a lunatic fringe: see the association of pedophile rights with rights for homosexuals that caused trouble for some labour veterans a while back)

Grayson

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'm not really "pro-life", well I am sort of in that I think its a fairly major deal (but then a lot of pro-life people would be of the same view).

A lot of the average prolifers i know wouldn't actually be opposed to a termination in order to save the life of the mother. they're technically mildly pro choice. The same cam be said in the other direction. I don't know a single prochoicer who advocates very late term abortions.
There's actually a lot of middle ground for the average person.


Someone posted this link in another thread a while back. It's a guy who archives election leaflets.
https://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/index-of-referendums-other-campaigns/

here's two pro life leaflets from 1992 and 2002.

https://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/pro-life-campaign-leaflet-1992-abortion-referendum/

https://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/leaflet-from-ireland-for-life-vote-no-2002-abortion-referendum/

They argue against the right to travel and the right to have a termination when the mothers life is in danger.



BTW, if you want a laugh, you should read the anti divorce ones. My favourite bit was "Should a woman with an abusive husband be allowed to divorce him? No because he'll remarry and beat someone else. All she's doing is passing the problem on"

Hotblack Desiato

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Have you actually looked at how the act is applied? you don't end up with approx 20% of pregnancies ending in abortion if its actually about risk to health.

But pregnancy always presents some risk to health. It's up to the woman concerned whether she accepts that risk or not. You can call this 'abortion on demand' if you like, but the flip side of not allowing that is forcing women who do not wish to be pregnant to remain so.

Personally I think we'd have a restrictive regime focused on an early time frame for "optional" abortion, followed by an extremely restrictive regime based on physical risks for the later stages.

Why only physical risks? Why don't mental health and psychological well-being matter equally as much? Some of the commentary on this last year was sickening, and betrays some very bad attitudes in this country to the issue of mental health.

What if a woman finds out in the middle of the pregnancy that the foetus has serious developmental issues or is not compatible with life? Tough luck as it's almost always after 12 weeks when this is discovered?

RDM_83 again

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But pregnancy always presents some risk to health. It's up to the woman concerned whether she accepts that risk or not. You can call this 'abortion on demand' if you like, but the flip side of not allowing that is forcing women who do not wish to be pregnant to remain so.

That may be true but if 'abortion on demand' is the right thing to do it should be argued for under its own merits.
The UK act from one reading is about risk to health and is pretty restrictive requiring 2 doctors consent, in application its abortion on demand to quite a late limit.
Now one may agree with abortion on demand but it doesn't change the fact that the example of the UK for those opposed to abortion on demand would make them extremely wary of any legislation that includes risk to health. Hence the slippery slope argument.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why only physical risks? Why don't mental health and psychological well-being matter equally as much? Some of the commentary on this last year was sickening, and betrays some very bad attitudes in this country to the issue of mental health.

What if a woman finds out in the middle of the pregnancy that the foetus has serious developmental issues or is not compatible with life? Tough luck as it's almost always after 12 weeks when this is discovered?

I wasn't arguing for the rights or wrongs of this as I stated, just what I think the legislation would probably be if we didn't have the UK next door serving as a safety valve. For the record I think the German system looks fairly decent but I don't have any in depth knowledge of how its applied (and nobody can accuse present day Germany of being socially conservative or under the thumb of religion).

Grayson wrote: »

A lot of the average prolifers i know wouldn't actually be opposed to a termination in order to save the life of the mother. they're technically mildly pro choice. The same cam be said in the other direction. I don't know a single prochoicer who advocates very late term abortions.
There's actually a lot of middle ground for the average person.

Thats actually why I read these threads because I'm not sure of my position e.g the balance between a semi irrational gut feeling about the act itself, the science and ethical/moral issues about what is "human life" and my beliefs on personal choice (and I also enjoy playing devils advocate: sorry ).
I find the amount of whataboutery, lack of desire to investigate how abortion fits within an cohesive ethical framework and sheer lack of understanding about the motivations of "the other side" thats present in a lot posts isn't exactly going to sway someones opinion.
For example if you tell someone they don't care about children and only care about restricting womans rights, your not exactly going to sway anybodies opinion, you'l get thanks but it will be from the people that already hold exactly the same views as you

Grayson

RDM_83 again wrote: »

That may be true but if 'abortion on demand' is the right thing to do it should be argued for under its own merits.
The UK act from one reading is about risk to health and is pretty restrictive requiring 2 doctors consent, in application its abortion on demand to quite a late limit.
Now one may agree with abortion on demand but it doesn't change the fact that the example of the UK for those opposed to abortion on demand would make them extremely wary of any legislation that includes risk to health. Hence the slippery slope argument.




I wasn't arguing for the rights or wrongs of this as I stated, just what I think the legislation would probably be if we didn't have the UK next door serving as a safety valve. For the record I think the German system looks fairly decent but I don't have any in depth knowledge of how its applied (and nobody can accuse present day Germany of being socially conservative or under the thumb of religion).



Thats actually why I read these threads because I'm not sure of my position e.g the balance between a semi irrational gut feeling about the act itself, the science and ethical/moral issues about what is "human life" and my beliefs on personal choice (and I also enjoy playing devils advocate: sorry ).
I find the amount of whataboutery, lack of desire to investigate how abortion fits within an cohesive ethical framework and sheer lack of understanding about the motivations of "the other side" thats present in a lot posts isn't exactly going to sway someones opinion.
For example if you tell someone they don't care about children and only care about restricting womans rights, your not exactly going to sway anybodies opinion, you'l get thanks but it will be from the people that already hold exactly the same views as you

I can agree with the difference between abortion on demand and abortion for health reasons.
It's like the difference between being in favour of legalising marijuana or just allowing it to be prescribed. I think if your sick with cancer or MS and denied a drug which could make you feel better it's criminal.

same with abortion. I believe that a woman should not be forced to carry a pregnancy. I don't believe that a foetus with no brain activity or an embryo is a human being. But I believe that refusing treatment which results in the death of the woman is inexcusable.

I do find that some people though, start with a wish to fit evidence into their belief. You don't see it as much with pro choice but it's there with the more religious prolifers. But they believe that an embryo, before implantation, should have all the rights that a newborn has. They say that they are equivalent. And there's no wiggle room for them.

Hotblack Desiato

The problem is that 'abortion on demand' has become such a loaded and emotive term, it's as if Irish people grow up by default believing it is evil (now where would they get such an idea from?) and might row back on that a bit later, but don't often wholly repudiate that position.

Let's call a spade a spade. Anyone who doesn't believe in abortion on demand, for whatever reason the woman concerned may wish, therefore believes in at least some circumstances that a woman should be forced to remain pregnant against her will. All of a sudden the moral certainty against 'abortion on demand' doesn't sound quite as good, does it? In extremis, does it mean sectioning women and chaining them to the hospital bed? because if their wishes can be disregarded, that's where it ultimately must lead.

volchitsa

Grayson wrote: »

I can agree with the difference between abortion on demand and abortion for health reasons.
It's like the difference between being in favour of legalising marijuana or just allowing it to be prescribed. I think if your sick with cancer or MS and denied a drug which could make you feel better it's criminal.

same with abortion.

It's really not, you know.

People who take marijuana for non medical reasons enjoy taking marijuana. You presumably don't imagine any woman has an abortion for the fun of having an abortion?

lazygal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The problem is that 'abortion on demand' has become such a loaded and emotive term, it's as if Irish people grow up by default believing it is evil (now where would they get such an idea from?) and might row back on that a bit later, but don't often wholly repudiate that position.

Let's call a spade a spade. Anyone who doesn't believe in abortion on demand, for whatever reason the woman concerned may wish, therefore believes in at least some circumstances that a woman should be forced to remain pregnant against her will. All of a sudden the moral certainty against 'abortion on demand' doesn't sound quite as good, does it? In extremis, does it mean sectioning women and chaining them to the hospital bed? because if their wishes can be disregarded, that's where it ultimately must lead.

Ms X was refused the right to abortion by the high court. It ruled that a suicidal14 year old pregnant rape victim had to continue gestation of her rapist's foetus against her wishes.
The supreme court decision in her case wasn't unanimous and the ruling alludes to her being detained to continue the pregnancy.
A pregnant14 year old child still has no right to an abortion in Ireland unless her life is at risk. Of course if she has the means and ability to travel she can kill the unborn elsewhere.