8th Amendment

No Voter And Proud

Kev W wrote: »

Because that's not how cause and effect works.

Indulge me and expand upon that?

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Indulge me and expand upon that?

You presume that the heartbeat is the beginning of life because the heart stops when we die. Our hair stops growing when we die also so should we take the beginning of measurable hair growth to be the beginning of life?

Perhaps "cause and effect" was the wrong term to use. It would be more accurate to say you had confused correlation and causation.

galljga1

volchitsa wrote: »

So you would force your wife, physically if necessary, to carry a rapist's fetus to term and pretend that it was yours? And then to bring it up, seeing as everyone else thought it was yours.

Personally I think that could lead her to a nervous breakdown, leaving you to bring up this unwanted child and your other children, but perhaps that would be ok for you.

Can you really not imagine that this might be too much of a psychological burden to expect a woman to bear against her will? That's the part I can't get over - that you don't see that choosing to do this is one thing, but a law (and/or a partner) who forces the raped woman to do it is quite another.

But you've been perfectly clear, so I suggest we agree to differ, and leave it at that.

Wise choice as you are not going to change your mind or this other persons.
My personal view is that in the case of rape I would not think twice about procuring an abortion for family or friend. It is a simple no brainer and should be legislated for. The 8th must go.

pmasterson95

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Decaying? It was on life support, hardly decaying.

Keeping your head stuck in the sand then.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/high-court-told-keeping-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-on-life-support-would-be-grotesque-1.2048040
Professionals said the body was discoloured and brain rotting among a lot of infections setting in, But you now deny decomposition was happening?

cormacjones

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

No, I'm saying it should cost infinite amounts. It should not be allowed happen.



There would be no forcing involved. Luckily my wife and I share the same belief system. Indeed we met at a church organised dance, and it's kind of fitting because our whole belief system and life structure has grown together with our combined faith.

I would not have spent my life married to a woman who would even countenance the idea of ending the life (or potential life) of anything, let alone our unborn child (regardless of who the biological "father" was, as I said earlier it would still be our child, since she was the mother)

So it doesn't matter who the biological father was, it would still be your child as she was the mother. I presume then you'd have no issue with gay couples having children and that you'd consider them both parents?

No Voter And Proud

galljga1 wrote: »

Wise choice as you are not going to change your mind or this other persons.
My personal view is that in the case of rape I would not think twice about procuring an abortion for family or friend. It is a simple no brainer and should be legislated for. The 8th must go.

Why don't we have a referendum so.

cormacjones wrote: »

So it doesn't matter who the biological father was, it would still be your child as she was the mother. I presume then you'd have no issue with gay couples having children and that you'd consider them both parents?

That's not really related to the issue.
Also, it's not the same as the child I was speaking of would be raised in a traditonal family unit.

A child with two fathers is better than being in a care home, but less optimal than a family unit. It happens and I'm not strictly opposed to it but I'm most certainly not in favor of it. Despite my no vote I'm not a homophobe

frag420

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Indeed , I did not see that part of the post.
I have answered above this, and, while I accept it would be difficult. I belive that my wife and I would get through the scenario through our strong faith and our belief that no human should be allowed to end a life regardless of the circumstances.

We would tell everyone that the child was mine by the way, to address your other point.

Not meaning to derail form the politics side of the debate but.....

Out of curiosity......you have strong faith so surely your God should prevent his believers from being raped.......he is a nice god after all isnt he? Why would you believe in a God that allows this to happen?

Secondly you mentioned that you would pretend that the child was yours so what if the rapist was of a different race to yours? Would you allow your wife to carry a child of a different race to you? I am not suggesting you are racist in any way, I am just curious as to how you would tell people that the child was yours?

And lastly it seems that the anti choice brigade here are happy to allow pregnant women procure abortions so long as they are not happening in Ireland so as another poster asked previously, why are you not picketing airports and ferry ports, stopping women going away for abortions? You mentioned time limitations earlier as your excuse but you have a lot of free time as you seem to be on here spouting your beliefs every day, would it not be better spent actually doing something about it?

And to clarify my position I am pro choice. If my partner was in a similar position my duty as a human is to offer her as much support and love as I possibly can and to support her decision.

over to you..........

pmasterson95

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Why don't we have a referendum so.



That's not really related to the issue.
Also, it's not the same as the child I was speaking of would be raised in a traditonal family unit.

A child with two fathers is better than being in a care home, but less optimal than a family unit. It happens and I'm not strictly opposed to it but I'm most certainly not in favor of it. Despite my no vote I'm not a homophobe

Did you miss my post? Care to show your pride for the law in that case? Or do you suddenly not feel proud anymore?

No Voter And Proud

frag420 wrote: »

Not meaning to derail form the politics side of the debate but.....

Out of curiosity......you have strong faith so surely your God should prevent his believers from being raped.......he is a nice god after all isnt he? Why would you believe in a God that allows this to happen?

Secondly you mentioned that you would pretend that the child was yours so what if the rapist was of a different race to yours? Would you allow your wife to carry a child of a different race to you? I am not suggesting you are racist in any way, I am just curious as to how you would tell people that the child was yours?

And lastly it seems that the anti choice brigade here are happy to allow pregnant women procure abortions so long as they are not happening in Ireland so as another poster asked previously, why are you not picketing airports and ferry ports, stopping women going away for abortions? You mentioned time limitations earlier as your excuse but you have a lot of free time as you seem to be on here spouting your beliefs every day, would it not be better spent actually doing something about it?

And to clarify my position I am pro choice. If my partner was in a similar position my duty as a human is to offer her as much support and love as I possibly can and to support her decision.

over to you..........

I've really tried to avoid religious debate here because I understand it annoys those who are not religious but since you have asked the question here goes:

It's God's will, seems to offer no comfort to those who it happens to. But God will test us at different times to test our beliefs. And it is those who stay strong through adverse times that have the truest faith.

I'm not "spouting" anything.

The race of the child wouldnt come into it.
Why should I picket airports, I have two jobs to do. It so happens that one is in a passive capacity which means I need to be in a specific location but not necessarily do anything but oversee.

No Voter And Proud

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Did you miss my post? Care to show your pride for the law in that case? Or do you suddenly not feel proud anymore?

What are you on about now?

traprunner

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

I've really tried to avoid religious debate here because I understand it annoys those who are not religious but since you have asked the question here goes:

It's God's will, seems to offer no comfort to those who it happens to. But God will test us at different times to test our beliefs. And it is those who stay strong through adverse times that have the truest faith.

Surely it can be argued that it is gods will that abortions happen.

pmasterson95

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

What are you on about now?

Your complete lack of knowledge. Care to update the excuse for this being good?

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Decaying? It was on life support, hardly decaying.

Keeping your head stuck in the sand then.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/high-court-told-keeping-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-on-life-support-would-be-grotesque-1.2048040
Professionals said the body was discoloured and brain rotting among a lot of infections setting in, But you now deny decomposition was happening?

Care to try and explain?

krankykitty

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Decaying? It was on life support, hardly decaying.

Have you read the medical details of that case? The woman's body was actually decaying.

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Heartbeat begins after a few weeks. If life ends when the heart stops why does it not begin when it starts?

Are you saying abortion is OK then before there's a heartbeat? Actually, life can continue when the heart stops if there is medical intervention, it's usually brain death that spells the end of life.

No Voter And Proud

traprunner wrote: »

Surely it can be argued that it is gods will that abortions happen.

It could be argued, but that's only a loose connection.
It is at best one step removed.

God grants us free will -> Some people use that free will in an incorrect way, is that God's will.

It's similar to the Adam and Eve analogy. It was not God's will to eat from the tree, but free will was given. This should be a lesson to us all not to abuse free will, which is, in itself, a gift from God.

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

The race of the child wouldnt come into it.

You said that you would tell everyone that the child was yours.

"This is my son"

"This child is clearly asian"

"The race of the child doesn't come into it"

Delirium

Seemingly seeing 3 different pyschiatrists before having an abortion isn't good enough for some of the anti-abortion campaigners

The Sunday Business Post reported that nurses, obstetricians, anaesthetists and psychiatrists were concerned and that the patient “had no prior history of contact with mental health services, had not self-harmed and may not have been offered alternative therapies to the abortion”.

Niamh Uí Bhriain from The Life Institute said that it was extraordinary that staff concerns would be ignored or covered up, and said that the Health Minister should order the review immediately in order to avoid charges that he had ignored whistle-blowers who had raised concerns which may indicate the misuse of the abortion act.

Responding to the comments, the Health Minister said:

Terminations of pregnancy are permitted in Ireland only where there is a threat to the life of the mother. In these circumstances, it is a matter between the woman and her doctors and is nobody else’s business.

Uí Bhriain added, “It is believed that the patient presented at the hospital as suicidal and pregnant and was seen by two psychiatrists, who certified her as suitable for an abortion.


“However, when it emerged that the second psychiatrist was ineligible to complete the necessary form, the patient declined to see two other local psychiatrists, and instead travelled to Dublin where she was seen by a ‘prominent pro-choice psychiatrist’ in order to be certified for an abortion.”


The report clearly pointed out that there was no suggestion the psychiatrist in Dublin acted improperly.

pmasterson95

SW wrote: »

Seemingly seeing 3 different pyschiatrists before having an abortion isn't good enough for some of the anti-abortion campaigners

They dont even believe medical evidence that a body was actually decaying. Clear solid evidence is not allowed or trustworthy.

No Voter And Proud

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Your complete lack of knowledge. Care to update the excuse for this being good?


Keeping your head stuck in the sand then.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/high-court-told-keeping-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-on-life-support-would-be-grotesque-1.2048040
Professionals said the body was discoloured and brain rotting among a lot of infections setting in, But you now deny decomposition was happening?

Care to try and explain?

Have you read the medical details of that case? The woman's body was actually decaying.
[/QUOTE]

You learn something new every day. I didn't know that a body would decay when on life support. I assumed that "life support" was not a misnomer, and the body would be kept alive. Not decaying. Perhaps that would alter my perception a little bit. I mean that's one step away from implanting fertilized eggs into recently deceased people kept alive on machines.

(in case I appear sarcastic above, I am not, just pondering based on new information)

krankykitty wrote: »

Are you saying abortion is OK then before there's a heartbeat? Actually, life can continue when the heart stops if there is medical intervention, it's usually brain death that spells the end of life.

No, I was using it as an example.
Obviously as a pro life person, abortion to me is abhorrent regardless of stage. I've already stated my belief that life begins at implantation. A view which seems to be shared by our legal system.

Atlantis50

SW wrote: »

Seemingly seeing 3 different pyschiatrists before having an abortion isn't good enough for some of the anti-abortion campaigners

On the contrary, clinicians are expressing concerns that the 2013 PLDP Act is being abused.

No Voter And Proud

Kev W wrote: »

You said that you would tell everyone that the child was yours.

"This is my son"

"This child is clearly asian"

"The race of the child doesn't come into it"

Then, I would say we adopted the child or something.
Whatever, the child would still be ours.

Atlantis50

Kev W wrote: »

You said that you would tell everyone that the child was yours.

"This is my son"

"This child is clearly asian"

"The race of the child doesn't come into it"

'No Voter and Proud', you should stop engaging with this silly nonsense.

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

It could be argued, but that's only a loose connection.
It is at best one step removed.

God grants us free will -> Some people use that free will in an incorrect way, is that God's will.

It's similar to the Adam and Eve analogy. It was not God's will to eat from the tree, but free will was given. This should be a lesson to us all not to abuse free will, which is, in itself, a gift from God.

It's a flawed analogy though. Adam and Eve were created without knowledge of Good and Evil, so how could they know that it was bad to disobey?

Anyway, if there's an incorrect way to use free will and the punishment for doing so is eternal torture, is it really free will?

If someone holds a gun to your head and threatens to pull the trigger if you don't comply with their wishes, which you then do, can you be said to have done so of your own free will? You had the option to disobey, after all.

Kev W

pmasterson95 wrote: »

They dont even believe medical evidence that a body was actually decaying. Clear solid evidence is not allowed or trustworthy.

Did a priest say it?

Well there you go then.

volchitsa

I said I'd leave it, but I've just seen this which seems to be a slightly different aspect.

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

It's God's will, seems to offer no comfort to those who it happens to. But God will test us at different times to test our beliefs. And it is those who stay strong through adverse times that have the truest faith.

Isn't that an argument for allowing the woman herself to make that choice? How can she get a chance to prove her faith if you are going to physically make her do what you think is right?

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

The race of the child wouldnt come into it.

I asked whether you'd tell people your wife had been raped - your reply was that you'd tell people it was yours. Not if it was going to be mixed race, you wouldn't. But I'm just pointing out what the poster was saying - not asking you about it. I get that you refuse to conceive of a scenario in which you'd allow your wife to make that decision herself.

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Why should I picket airports, I have two jobs to do. It so happens that one is in a passive capacity which means I need to be in a specific location but not necessarily do anything but oversee.

Because if I believed abortion was murder, and that people were committing wholesale murder of Irish children by taking them abroad, I'd like to think I'd find some spare time to try to bring an end to it. However busy my timetable. :eek:

It just makes me rather sceptical about people who claim to think abortion is child-killing when we see how easily such "child-killing" sits with them as soon as it's something they might have to get up off their backsides and do something about, that's all. Spoofing on a discussion forum is grand, but god forbid a pro-lifer might actually risk any actual unpleasantness coming his way!

pmasterson95

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Have you read the medical details of that case? The woman's body was actually decaying.

You learn something new every day. I didn't know that a body would decay when on life support. I assumed that "life support" was not a misnomer, and the body would be kept alive. Not decaying. Perhaps that would alter my perception a little bit. I mean that's one step away from implanting fertilized eggs into recently deceased people kept alive on machines.

(in case I appear sarcastic above, I am not, just pondering based on new information)



No, I was using it as an example.
Obviously as a pro life person, abortion to me is abhorrent regardless of stage. I've already stated my belief that life begins at implantation. A view which seems to be shared by our legal system.[/quote]


*response* (it showed up weird for some reason)
Life support merely tries to artificially maintain the organs. But without a fully functioning circulatory system and the like the body would still decompose and the organs ultimately fail anyway. Life support can keep you alive but it cannot bring you to life. The woman was dead. Brain dead is dead. The body is shutting down and that cannot be stopped by machine. Yet this 8th Amendment meant that this corpse was perfectly viable to use as a host. Do you condone this?

Delirium

Atlantis50 wrote: »

On the contrary, clinicians are expressing concerns that the 2013 PLDP Act is being abused.

They are concerned the woman 'may not have been offered alternative therapies to the abortion'.

The Act allows for abortion where the woman is deemed to be suicidal, she had an abortion as 3 psychiatrist signed off that it was appropriate to allow her to have an abortion.

Can you point to where in the Act states what alternatives must be offered before the psychiatrists approval is deemed valid?

pmasterson95

Atlantis50 wrote: »

'No Voter and Proud', you should stop engaging with this silly nonsense.

Do you condone corpse incubators? This is what your precious law causes. So step up justify it.

Atlantis50

SW wrote: »

They are concerned the woman 'may not have been offered alternative therapies to the abortion'.

The Act allows for abortion where the woman is deemed to be suicidal, she had an abortion as 3 psychiatrist signed off that it was appropriate to allow her to have an abortion.

Can you point to where in the Act states what alternatives must be offered before the psychiatrists approval is deemed valid?

The act clearly states abortion should be a last resort.

"...that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure."

Atlantis50

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Do you condone corpse incubators? This is what your precious law causes. So step up justify it.

Nonsense.

Judge Kearns (President of the High Court) clearly stated that the case you are referring to was not about abortion at all.

Delirium

Atlantis50 wrote: »

The act clearly states abortion should be a last resort.

"...that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure."

and 3 medical professionals assessed that to be the case. How was the Act abused?

volchitsa

Atlantis50 wrote: »

'No Voter and Proud', you should stop engaging with this silly nonsense.

You're absolutely right, it is silly. It's crazy. No sane person would even consider forcing his wife to carry a rapist's child to term, still less then force her to bring up the child as their own.

Would they?

So why would they advocate having a law that forces other raped women to carry such a pregnancy just because they don't actually live with that woman?

It's senseless and cruel.

No Voter And Proud

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Do you condone corpse incubators? This is what your precious law causes. So step up justify it.

While I am genuinely reading your post about "corpse incubators", the link provided clearly stated that the 8th did not apply in this situation as it was not to do with abortion.

pmasterson95

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Nonsense.

Judge Kearns (President of the High Court) clearly stated that the case you are referring to was not about abortion at all.

There is so much stand to stick your head in. Why was there "prolife" eejits campaining to keep the support on. Pro life anti-abortion were more than happy to campaign for it to not be turned off. But when decency won ye cant get far enough away from it.

volchitsa

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Nonsense.

Judge Kearns (President of the High Court) clearly stated that the case you are referring to was not about abortion at all.

It wasn't about abortion, but it was directly caused by the 8th amendment.

An amendment which was supposed only to prevent women having abortions has now been shown to affect pregnant women in all sorts of negative ways.

The Eighth must go.

Atlantis50

SW wrote: »

and 3 medical professionals assessed that to be the case. How was the Act abused?

You'd have to ask the other medical professionals who expressed concern as they obviously know more about the case than I do.

frag420

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

I've really tried to avoid religious debate here because I understand it annoys those who are not religious but since you have asked the question here goes:

It's God's will, seems to offer no comfort to those who it happens to. But God will test us at different times to test our beliefs. And it is those who stay strong through adverse times that have the truest faith.

I'm not "spouting" anything.

The race of the child wouldnt come into it.
Why should I picket airports, I have two jobs to do. It so happens that one is in a passive capacity which means I need to be in a specific location but not necessarily do anything but oversee.

So why does god feel the need to test us if we have free will unless we are doing it wrong in which case her free will idea is flawed!!

You have ended a lot of your posts with "thank god" so you have already brought the her into it. So whats the difference between god and say a dictator that gives his army free will to do whatever they want?

You see I have debated this with several anti choice people over the years and free will seems to be the default answer when asked why does god allow rape, murder etc to happen. However when someone like Hitler, Pol Pot etc allows it to happen to their people its outrageous and goes against the thinking of the church and you would be calling on an intervention to stop it. ? If she is all powerful then why can she not just step in and say,you know what this free will thing has not worked out so I am now going to stop you all from raping, murdering etc? If she hated abortion so much she has the power to step in and stop it, but she doesn't. Is it because she aint real or because letting people starve and die of famine is more important?

You should picket airports because its a cause you strongly believe in and it forms part of your faith. I understand you have two jobs but surely god will look after you, not let you starve if you are doing her work? Or will she let stand by and let you starve and go homeless like she has done with millions of others the world over??

over to you...

volchitsa

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

While I am genuinely reading your post about "corpse incubators", the link provided clearly stated that the 8th did not apply in this situation as it was not to do with abortion.

You do realize that the 8th amendment doesnt specify a ban on abortion? It specifies a right to life of the fetus. The 8th was the cause of this scandal.

No Voter And Proud

volchitsa wrote: »

You do realize that the 8th amendment doesnt specify a ban on abortion? It specifies a right to life of the fetus. The 8th was the cause of this scandal.

I'm not 100% in agreement with the wording of the 8th.
However if it's removed now it will bring in abortion on demand eventually so we must make do with what we have.

If you remember, a lot of anti abortion groups were against the 8th before it passed

traprunner

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

I'm not 100% in agreement with the wording of the 8th.
However if it's removed now it will bring in abortion on demand eventually so we must make do with what we have.

If you remember, a lot of anti abortion groups were against the 8th before it passed

But but free will....

No Voter And Proud

frag420 wrote: »

So why does god feel the need to test us if we have free will unless we are doing it wrong in which case her free will idea is flawed!!

You have ended a lot of your posts with "thank god" so you have already brought the her into it. So whats the difference between god and say a dictator that gives his army free will to do whatever they want?

You see I have debated this with several anti choice people over the years and free will seems to be the default answer when asked why does god allow rape, murder etc to happen. However when someone like Hitler, Pol Pot etc allows it to happen to their people its outrageous and goes against the thinking of the church and you would be calling on an intervention to stop it. ? If she is all powerful then why can she not just step in and say,you know what this free will thing has not worked out so I am now going to stop you all from raping, murdering etc? If she hated abortion so much she has the power to step in and stop it, but she doesn't. Is it because she aint real or because letting people starve and die of famine is more important?

You should picket airports because its a cause you strongly believe in and it forms part of your faith. I understand you have two jobs but surely god will look after you, not let you starve if you are doing her work? Or will she let stand by and let you starve and go homeless like she has done with millions of others the world over??

over to you...

I have answered pretty much all of this already, and my own religious beliefs aside from what I have been asked earlier have nothing to do with the threa.d

No Voter And Proud

traprunner wrote: »

But but free will....

Can be abused

traprunner

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Can be abused

That is between the sinner and god.

Atlantis50

volchitsa wrote: »

It wasn't about abortion, but it was directly caused by the 8th amendment.

An amendment which was supposed only to prevent women having abortions has now been shown to affect pregnant women in all sorts of negative ways.

The Eighth must go.

It was caused by a wrong decision by the doctors concerned, because, as Kearns makes clear:

This is not a case where the Court on the evidence is required to consider that possibility. This case turns on its own particular facts which are centred entirely on whether the unborn child can survive at all.
It found that the child will not be born alive, and that is the basis for the ruling.

“The Court is further satisfied on the evidence that, in addition to the ongoing trauma and suffering experienced by the family though the continuance of somatic support, such continuing support will cause distress to the unborn child in circumstances where it has no genuine prospect of being born alive.

Therefore, the 8th Amendment did not apply.

A referendum to get rid of the 8th will be defeated. And rightly so.

pmasterson95

The 8th amendment made it that the right of a baby was so important that it was A-OK to use a corpse as a host. Defend the amendment and you defend that. The baby was so important that it didnt matter the condition or status of its host once it was female it doesnt matter if its alive or dead. Healthy or decomposing. How can you defend that?

Atlantis50

pmasterson95 wrote: »

The 8th amendment made it that the right of a baby was so important that it was A-OK to use a corpse as a host. Defend the amendment and you defend that. The baby was so important that it didnt matter the condition or status of its host once it was female it doesnt matter if its alive or dead. Healthy or decomposing. How can you defend that?

Per the High Court decision, the 8th Amendment did not apply.

Now build a bridge and get over it.

pmasterson95

Atlantis50 wrote: »

It was caused by a wrong decision by the doctors concerned, because, as Kearns makes clear:



Therefore, the 8th Amendment did not apply.

A referendum to get rid of the 8th will be defeated. And rightly so.

And what stopped the doctors turning off the machines immediately?

volchitsa

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

I'm not 100% in agreement with the wording of the 8th.
However if it's removed now it will bring in abortion on demand eventually so we must make do with what we have.

So you think there was abortion on demand in 1982, do you?

In fact it was the 8th amendment that brought in abortion. Via the X case.

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

If you remember, a lot of anti abortion groups were against the 8th before it passed

Umm, yeah - that was because they warned that this sort of thing would result from it, and they were blown off by Professor Casey and the like.

pmasterson95

Atlantis50 wrote: »

It was caused by a wrong decision by the doctors concerned, because, as Kearns makes clear:



Therefore, the 8th Amendment did not apply.

A referendum to get rid of the 8th will be defeated. And rightly so.

Erm it wont. It will go. And you wont be able to force a woman to have children. Or perhaps women are only baby holders.

No Voter And Proud

pmasterson95 wrote: »

And what stopped the doctors turning off the machines immediately?

Have you read the link?
The 8th didnt apply

No Voter And Proud

volchitsa wrote: »

So you think there was abortion on demand in 1982, do you?

In fact it was the 8th amendment that brought in abortion. Via the X case.


Umm, yeah - that was because they warned that this sort of thing would result from it, and they were blown off by Professor Casey and the like.

No there was no abortion on demand.
But we are a different country now. More "progressive"