8th Amendment

Loafing Oaf

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I also doubt that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists used that moronically loaded term "direct abortion" in their statement.

And he didn't say 'direct abortion' in the line I quoted anyway...

conorh91

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But your whole argument is that definition of 'abortion' adopted by the signatories of the Dublin Declaration should take precedence over that of ACOG

No it isn't. I called their point semantic.

I see ACOG's position and the Dublin declaration as achieving the same end result. I don't particularly care whether it's called abortion or direct abortion, or whatever. I accept that there are situations where a medical intervention to save the life of a woman will result in the death of the unborn, but i don't think a purposeful abortion (or direct abortion, if you prefer) is necessary.

I don't think you understand this point, because it has already been made. i don't know what else to say to you.

Delirium

conorh91 wrote: »

I don't believe it contradicts the Dublin declaration, some of whose adherents are members of the ACOG. The Dublin declaration distinguishes between purposeful abortions and medical intervention to save a mother's life: for example, they do not consider removing the unborn during an ectoptic pregnancy to be an abortion. It's rather a semantic point perhaps.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the ACOG does not cite suicidal ideation as an sound clinical reason for abortion.

why would they when they advocate for abortion on request prior to foetal viability? The scenario they support would mean that women wouldn't have to be suicidal before being allowed an abortion.

PDF of their statement on abortion as per Nov 2014.

Loafing Oaf

conorh91 wrote: »

No it isn't. I called their point semantic.

I see ACOG's position and the Dublin declaration as achieving the same end result. I don't particularly care whether it's called abortion or direct abortion, or whatever.

Then I can't see why you're bringing up the Dublin declaration. Like you say we'll have to leave it there I guess...

K-9

conorh91 wrote: »

Unless one is of the opinion that suicide is a wise or rational response to a pregnancy, then one has to seriously consider the possibility that a woman who responds to pregnancy in that way is perhaps suffering from some underlying condition to which she is perhaps predisposed.

That's a pretty text book example of depression and suicide from my experience of it, often some event triggers underlying depression. Basically the depression was always there, with good and bad times, often it's only when people take stock and look back at their lives that episodes of depression stand out. They just wouldn't have been aware at the time that these were bouts of depression. Its a clever little beast at hiding itself like that!

K-9

Looking at it practically, does it really matter if somebody had a predisposition to depression and suicide?

A pregnancy making a woman suicidal means she is going to require medium to long term care, and often relapses occur in recovery. I'm not sure what the woman is supposed to do in the interim, some of time which she'll be heavily pregnant! Again, are we suggesting a suicidal pregnant woman should be forced to carry through with the birth because she might be well in 2 or 3 years time?

PopePalpatine

I can't believe no-one's brought up (at least explicitly) the effect of a crisis pregnancy on a woman's mental health. IIRC a psychiatrist took issue with the Legatus cronies using their research to claim that abortion damages a woman's mental health, rather than the crisis pregnancy that she aborted.

Black Menorca

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Here's a bit more background info. Surprise, surprise, Youth Defence's Eoghan de Faoite organised it. :rolleyes:

Fair play to him.

Black Menorca

oscarBravo wrote: »

No? Well, I'm sure there's some other equally patronising reason that a man can explain to a woman as to why she's suicidal.

What has gender got to do with suicide claims from men or women?

Black Menorca

traprunner wrote: »

She can stab herself in the stomach if she wishes. Better keep the knives hidden.

Hence the reason full time supervision needs to be considered in some cases.

Black Menorca

oscarBravo wrote: »

You introduced this straw man to the conversation: Nobody - nobody - has ever tried to make the case that there's a mental health benefit to abortion.

The whole question of leveraging suicide into the suite of risks to the life of the mother in order to work around the restrictions of the 8th amendment would be moot if we could keep the conversation focused on the core question, which is whether a woman has a right to choose not to be pregnant. All the red herrings of describing a blastocyst as a baby, or talking about abortion as a treatment for mental illness - these are "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" tactics.

Should a woman have the right to not be pregnant, or is pregnancy a duty that overrides her fundamental right to bodily integrity? That's the question.

Do you believe a woman should have access throughout the pregnancy?

No Voter And Proud

Black Menorca wrote: »

Do you believe a woman should have access throughout the pregnancy?

At 23 weeks is acceptable according to some earlier in the thread.:mad:

inocybe

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

At 23 weeks is acceptable according to some earlier in the thread.:mad:

so is abortion at 23 weeks worse than at say 5 weeks. You certainly seem to be implying that, makes you sound a bit pro-choicey...

pmasterson95

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

At 23 weeks is acceptable according to some earlier in the thread.:mad:

So you think before 23 is acceptable? I'm proud of you learning to change. Well done!

PopePalpatine

Black Menorca wrote: »

Hence the reason full time supervision needs to be considered in some cases.

And how do you plan on carrying out this "full time supervision"?

PopePalpatine

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

At 23 weeks is acceptable according to some earlier in the thread.:mad:

You do realise that at that point in the pregnancy, it's almost always aborted due to a serious threat to the mother's health?

pmasterson95

Black Menorca wrote: »

Hence the reason full time supervision needs to be considered in some cases.

Would be happy to fund this? Would it be like house arrest or sent to jail or do you propose the pregnant woman be sent on a puppyfarm-esque "baby farm"?

PopePalpatine

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Would be happy to fund this? Would it be like house arrest or will the pregnant woman be sent on a puppyfarm-esque "baby farm"?

I'm sure a certain pizza magnate would be willing to fund an ultramontanist terrorist group to take over Ireland these maximum-security maternity hospitals.

am946745

conorh91 wrote: »

Have you ever wondered why the Irish Times, and other media, never publish polls on repealing the 8th amendment in its entirety?

They always publish polls which show that 60-70% of people agree with abortion where the unborn has a fatal abnormality, for example, but nothing about liberalizing abortion law in ordinary cases?

Ever wonder why that is?

Because it wouldn't pass.

Good points on your posts. Another point to make is there is no Agreed international standard for abortion. Pro-Choice does not even know what they want want. Pro-Choice can be anything depending on the country or state. You get into a conversation with a person on abortion and you will never get the same answer in a pro-choice debate.. 8 week, 12 weeks, 38 weeks if the baby is disabled. etc.. Ok to abort a girl or not ok.. What standards.. There are none, humanity is subjective to societies changing mood.

Black Menorca

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And how do you plan on carrying out this "full time supervision"?

Any person who is a potential danger to themselves can be detained, under psychiatric supervision in purpose built surroundings. were you not aware of this?

Black Menorca

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Would be happy to fund this? Would it be like house arrest or sent to jail or do you propose the pregnant woman be sent on a puppyfarm-esque "baby farm"?

We already pay for the secure supervision of the small minority of men and women who, in the view of the psychiatric community, are a direct threat to themselves.

Of course I'm happy to fund this.

conorh91

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Would be happy to fund this? Would it be like house arrest or sent to jail or do you propose the pregnant woman be sent on a puppyfarm-esque "baby farm"?

Just answer this honestly, please.

Do you think a person who is intent on taking their life is in a suitable state of mind to make major, possibly life-changing decisions?

I thought it was normal to operate on the general assumption that a person who intends to commit suicide is in need of psychiatric help, because suicide is not a rational response to a stress in the life of an otherwise healthy individual.

If someone is facing financial difficulty, and suddenly intends to commits suicide, we don't simply write their debts off. We say, 'what you are feeling is not a rational response to your situation.. please get counselling'.

volchitsa

conorh91 wrote: »

If someone is facing financial difficulty, and suddenly intends to commits suicide, we don't simply write their debts off. We say, 'what you are feeling is not a rational response to your situation.. please get counselling'.

This is quite simply not true. If someone is overwhelmed by their debt, no way do they get sent for psychiatric counselling, never mind getting locked up as Black Whatever said - they get financial counselling which may include getting various forms of help with rescheduling etc - and in some cases they are advised to walk away from the debt, ie bankruptcy.


We don't wait until they attempt suicide before doing something about it. And they aren't required to prove that they are actually siucidal before being able to get help.

volchitsa

conorh91 wrote: »

Just answer this honestly, please.

Do you think a person who is intent on taking their life is in a suitable state of mind to make major, possibly life-changing decisions?

That's a fault in Irish law that makes women wait until their crisis pregnancy has made them suicidal - and then you would say "Oh but wait, now you're suicidal, you're not in the right state of mind to take such a decision"! :mad:

We're not talking about someone who had previously been happy to be pregnant - we're talking about women like Miss Y who wanted an abortion right from the start, and only gradually did their distress cause their mental health to deteriorate to the point where suicide seemed like the only way out - because of the continuing pregnancy. That's a totally different situation from the one you're implying, where the woman only wanted the abortion after becoming suicidal.

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

This is quite simply not true. If someone is overwhelmed by their debt, no way do they get sent for psychiatric counselling, never mind getting locked up as Black Whatever said - they get financial counselling which may include getting various forms of help with rescheduling etc - and in some cases they are advised to walk away from the debt, ie bankruptcy.


We don't wait until they attempt suicide before doing something about it. And they aren't required to prove that they are actually siucidal before being able to get help.

Whatever?

You can do better.

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

That's a fault in Irish law that makes women wait until their crisis pregnancy has made them suicidal - and then you would say "Oh but wait, now you're suicidal, you're not in the right state of mind to take such a decision"! :mad:

We're not talking about someone who had previously been happy to be pregnant - we're talking about women like Miss Y who wanted an abortion right from the start, and only gradually did their distress cause their mental health to deteriorate to the point where suicide seemed like the only way out - because of the continuing pregnancy. That's a totally different situation from the one you're implying, where the woman only wanted the abortion after becoming suicidal.

Do you believe abortion should be available throughout a pregnancy?

conorh91

volchitsa wrote: »

This is quite simply not true. If someone is overwhelmed by their debt, no way do they get sent for psychiatric counselling, never mind getting locked up as Black Whatever said - they get financial counselling

I'm not talking about being overwhelmed by debt and going to a PIP or a solicitor.

I'm talking about feelings of suicidal ideation in response to financial stress. If you go to your GP and say "Doctor, my turnover is down, I'm struggling to pay creditors, and I feel like I want to kill myself", he's not going to take out his pen and have your petition in the chancery list in the High Court next Monday morning. That may come, and the Court may or may not allow you to proceed, regardless of your psychiatric state of mind.

Instead, what the doctor will do is refer you for counselling or drugs, because you are obviously not reacting to this stress in the way a healthy individual would react.

Do you see the distinction I am drawing? When a person reacts to any stress by threatening suicide, the correct approach is not to delete the stress, it's to help them cope with it and work toward a resolution.

volchitsa

Black Menorca wrote: »

Do you believe abortion should be available throughout a pregnancy?

Depends on the reason. Late abortions, near viability, should be for serious medical etc reason only I think.

What difference does that make - you seem to be suggesting early abortions are less bad than late ones - in which case we agree. Are you suddenly becoming pro-choice too?

eire4

Gael23 wrote: »

Will we ever see a referendum to repeal this?

I would say yes we will and can see it happening within the lifetime of the next government if said government proves stable enough.

volchitsa

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm not talking about being overwhelmed by debt and going to a PIP or a solicitor.

I'm talking about feelings of suicidal ideation in response to financial stress. If you go to your GP and say "Doctor, my turnover is down, I'm struggling to pay creditors, and I feel like I want to kill myself", he's not going to take out his pen and have your petition in the chancery list in the High Court next Monday morning. That may come, and you may or may not be able to proceed, regardless of your psychiatric state of mind.

Instead, what the doctor will do is refer you for counselling or drugs, because you are obviously not reacting to this stress in the way a healthy individual would react.

Do you see the distinction I am drawing? When a person reacts to any stress by threatening suicide, the correct approach is not to delete the stress, it's to help them cope with it and work toward a resolution.

No I don't. The "distinction" you are trying to make is one where the person has gone for help to someone who can't help with the cause of the problem. Like going to a financial adviser for your arthritis.

But what a doctor would do is treat the stress, whatever the cause, and advise you (he can't send you) to get financial help, which, importantly, is available without going to the doctor. The fact of choosing to go to the doctor instead of straight to financial advisors is significant, and that's why he can't just leave it to the financiers to sort out. You involved him by consulting.

But the psychiatric help offered is not, and is not intended to be, a replacement for getting rid of your debt. Which is what you're claiming.

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

Depends on the reason. Late abortions, near viability, should be for serious medical etc reason only I think.

What difference does that make - you seem to be suggesting early abortions are less bad than late ones - in which case we agree. Are you suddenly becoming pro-choice too?

So, you'd deny women their right to bodily integrity in some circumstances?

volchitsa

Black Menorca wrote: »

So, you'd deny women their right to bodily integrity in some circumstances?

Personally? Never. I leave those decisions to the people capable of taking them, doctors and their patients. But I do think the doctor can and should take into account if a fetus is now viable and could potentially live outside its mother's womb.

Have I ever said any different?

And why do you ask? Do you see a distinction between an early termination and a late one? I thought you thought they were all equally evil?

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

Personally? Never. I leave those decisions to the people capable of taking them, doctors and their patients. But I do think the doctor can and should take into account if a fetus is now viable and could potentially live outside its mother's womb.

Have I ever said any different?

And why do you ask? Do you see a distinction between an early termination and a late one? I thought you thought they were all equally evil?

I'm confused now.

First you said it 'depends on the reason'. Then you say you'd never prevent an abortion. But in the same post state consideration should be given to viability.

Would you deny a woman an abortion at 34 weeks gestation if she decided she wanted it?

conorh91

volchitsa wrote: »

No I don't. The "distinction" you are trying to make is one where the person has gone for help to someone who can't help with the cause of the problem. Like going to a financial adviser for your arthritis.

OK, lets pursue this approach then.

So our suicidal friend walks into the High Court and makes a petition for bankruptcy, and is asked to pay the fee of €650 to the Official Assignee for costs and outlays. Our friend shrugs and says 'I can't pay, nor am I in a state of mind to complete the petition, but you must make me bankrupt, or I will kill myself'.

What happens next? Should the Court assume this person is acting rationally, and suspend the procedures? No, someone should compassionately take the man aside and advise him to get professional help from a psychiatrist or counsellor.

Of course, this is not a comparison with pregnancy, just an illustration that the logical response to a major stress is not to threaten suicide. A threat or intention to kill oneself should not be regarded as a rational response to a pregnancy, especially where that individual has already been raped, and is suffering a complex series of presumably harrowing emotions.

I don't see how you can have been raped, be threatening suicide, and still be considered compos mentis. Run that one by me, would you...

inocybe

Black Menorca wrote: »

I'm confused now.

First you said it 'depends on the reason'. Then you say you'd never prevent an abortion. But in the same post state consideration should be given to viability.

Would you deny a woman an abortion at 34 weeks gestation if she decided she wanted it?

The fact that you are asking this shows that you know that a 34 weeks foetus should be considered as more than a 10 week one. Otherwise why would you keep pushing the late abortion questions?

volchitsa

Black Menorca wrote: »

I'm confused now.

First you said it 'depends on the reason'. Then you say you'd never prevent an abortion. But in the same post state consideration should be given to viability.

Would you deny a woman an abortion at 34 weeks gestation if she decided she wanted it?

No, I'd neither grant it nor refuse it - I'm not qualified to decide that sort of thing. Same as if you were asking in what circumstances I would operate on someone's heart problems.

But I'm glad to learn you agree that if a woman is going to have an abortion she should have it as early as possible.

Black Menorca

inocybe wrote: »

The fact that you are asking this shows that you know that a 34 weeks foetus should be considered as more than a 10 week one. Otherwise why would you keep pushing the late abortion questions?

Would you like to tackle the question?

Would you deny a women bodily integrity for any reason at 34 weeks gestation, or not? If she stated her wish to abort her baby?

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

No, I'm not qualified to decide that sort of thing. But I'm glad to learn you agree that if a woman is going to have an abortion she should have it as early as possible.

So at 34 weeks you'd condone an abortion when the baby could be delivered alive and healthy?

volchitsa

Black Menorca wrote: »

So at 34 weeks you'd condone an abortion when the baby could be delivered alive and healthy?

I don't understand your quesiton - babies are often born at 34 weeks - it's called birth. How would that be an abortion?

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't understand your quesiton - babies are often born at 34 weeks - it's called birth. How would that be an abortion?

Apologies for confusing you.

Let me be very clear in my question.

If a mother, at 34 weeks gestation, sought an abortion, resulting in the intentional death of her unborn. You could foresee yourself condoning such an action, over delivering the baby girl, alive and well?

Penny Tration

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't understand your quesiton - babies are often born at 34 weeks - it's called birth. How would that be an abortion?

She's saying that you condone a viable fortus/baby being killed/terminated (choose your own terms) at 34 weeks, INSTEAD of being 'aborted' safe and sound by caesarean or other means.

PopePalpatine

At that stage abortions are only sought (with very few exceptions) because of a fatal foetal abnormality, a severe handicap or a serious threat to the mother's health. I'm OK with that.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

So at 34 weeks you'd condone an abortion when the baby could be delivered alive and healthy?

can you give any examples where a healthy child was aborted at 34 weeks given that most counties don't allow it past 24 weeks?

Black Menorca

PopePalpatine wrote: »

At that stage abortions are only sought (with very few exceptions) because of a fatal foetal abnormality, a severe handicap or a serious threat to the mother's health. I'm OK with that.

What if the baby is healthy? Would you deny a woman an abortion, entailing the intentional taking of the baby's life?

Therefore denying her bodily integrity.

inocybe

Black Menorca wrote: »

Apologies for confusing you.

Let me be very clear in my question.

If a mother, at 34 weeks gestation, sought an abortion, resulting in the intentional death of her unborn. You could foresee yourself condoning such an action, over delivering the baby girl, alive and well?

Well if she'd had the abortion she asked for, when she asked for it, you wouldn't need to be asking this question. Still you ask about late abortions constantly, you acknowledge implicitly that early abortions are preferable.

PopePalpatine

Black Menorca wrote: »

What if the baby is healthy? Would you deny a woman an abortion, entailing the intentional taking of the baby's life?

Therefore denying her bodily integrity.

It doesn't matter, I'd prioritise the woman's health.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

What if the baby is healthy? Would you deny a woman an abortion, entailing the intentional taking of the baby's life?

Therefore denying her bodily integrity.

you realise that's nonsense you're talking.

How is delivering the child by caesaran denying the woman her bodily integrity? She's no longer pregnant!

volchitsa

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

She's saying that you condone a viable fortus/baby being killed/terminated (choose your own terms) at 34 weeks, INSTEAD of being 'aborted' safe and sound by caesarean or other means.

I don't believe that happens, nor is it necessary - late term abortions, as popepalatine just said are always for serious problems of some sort, and I don't see how a layperson could list all possible serious complications, which is why I said I'm happy to leave that to doctors to decide.

But if the question is whether I'd also be happy for a doctor to refuse to kill a healthy 34 week fetus in the absence of any major health issues for the mother,then yes, if the doctor was happy that medically there was no need for the baby not to be saved, then I'd be fine with that.

But IME women who have carried a pregnancy to 34 weeks are desperate to save it, not to terminate it. It's a silly question, especially from someone who claims that 8 weeks terminations are just the same as 34 week ones.

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

can you give any examples where a healthy child was aborted at 34 weeks given that most counties don't allow it past 24 weeks?

http://www.latetermabortion.net/late-term-abortion-in-the-United-States.html

Black Menorca

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It doesn't matter, I'd prioritise the woman's health.

You guys are struggling with this one, bigtime.


You'd allow the abortion at 34 weeks, yes?