Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

frag420

fran17 wrote: »

Curious to see why you included pornography in reference to his oppositions.You feel its something that should be promoted and lobbied for?

Probably because Ken Blackwell is against pornography!?

Whats your issue with pornography?

volchitsa

fran17 wrote: »

Curious to see why you included pornography in reference to his oppositions.You feel its something that should be promoted and lobbied for?

The poster didn't say that, as I'm sure you know really. Without wanting pornography to actually be promoted, someone might well just want the government to have other priorities such as child sex abuse?

Speaking for myself, I think that trying to ban consensual adult pornography is not something that a government should be wasting its scant resources on.

fran17

frag420 wrote: »

Probably because Ken Blackwell is against pornography!?

Whats your issue with pornography?

Well the obvious being blindness and hairy palms.But on a serious note,I would struggle to think of a more repressive and damaging "industry" in relation to women's health or how they are viewed and treated in the world.

volchitsa

fran17 wrote: »

Well the obvious being blindness and hairy palms.But on a serious note,I would struggle to think of a more repressive and damaging "industry" in relation to women's health or how they are viewed and treated in the world.

So do you think that Blackwell wants to regulate this so as to protect women, or to ban it completely? Or do you think the approach doesn't matter, that possible unintended consequences to women's health etc from driving it underground would be a price worth paying?

fran17

volchitsa wrote: »

So do you think that Blackwell wants to regulate this so as to protect women, or to ban it completely? Or do you think the approach doesn't matter, that possible unintended consequences to women's health etc from driving it underground would be a price worth paying?

I'm finding it rather odd that in a thread which runs under the guise of advancing women's health,pornography is used in such a manner.Sorry but in the context of how the posting was constructed the insertion of pornography to the list can only be viewed one way.Pornography has been,and is,responsible for untold misery regarding women's mental and physical health for decades.This is another prime example of liberal self harm.In ones blind attempt to free women from wrongly perceived Catholic/male/social etc. repression your doing the opposite.But hey,if you want to portray your fellow woman as a sexual object then go for it.I don't see the benefit though.

volchitsa

fran17 wrote: »

I'm finding it rather odd that in a thread which runs under the guise of advancing women's health,pornography is used in such a manner.Sorry but in the context of how the posting was constructed the insertion of pornography to the list can only be viewed one way.Pornography has been,and is,responsible for untold misery regarding women's mental and physical health for decades.This is another prime example of liberal self harm.In ones blind attempt to free women from wrongly perceived Catholic/male/social etc. repression your doing the opposite.But hey,if you want to portray your fellow woman as a sexual object then go for it.I don't see the benefit though.

I've no idea what your point is here (mine is simply that over-enthusiastic legislation of people's private lives tends to cause more problems than it solves, as Prohibition showed) so can we leave pornography to one side and consider the other points about this Blackwell guy?

Do you have any opinion about the sort of advice a counsellor who is actively against divorce might give President Trump, and how likely he is to stay in place in that case?

Or do you think it's a case of one rule for the little people and quite another for Mr Trump?

And what about all his other views : LGBT rights, SSM, stem cell research etc etc?

robindch

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm waiting to see who Don has in his new Admin, in say the health dept. It seems Don has Ken Blackwell from the "Family research Council in his transition team.

Prominent US cleric, cardinal Burke

http://religionnews.com/2016/11/10/cardinal-raymond-burke-trump-will-defend-human-life-from-conception/

Burke wrote:

I am convinced as he said he will hold the defense of human life from conception … and put in place every action possible to fight abortion [...] I don’t think the new president will be inspired by hatred in his handling of the immigration issue

fran17

volchitsa wrote: »

I've no idea what your point is here (mine is simply that over-enthusiastic legislation of people's private lives tends to cause more problems than it solves, as Prohibition showed) so can we leave pornography to one side and consider the other points about this Blackwell guy?

Do you have any opinion about the sort of advice a counsellor who is actively against divorce might give President Trump, and how likely he is to stay in place in that case?

Or do you think it's a case of one rule for the little people and quite another for Mr Trump?

And what about all his other views : LGBT rights, SSM, stem cell research etc etc?

Well fair enough then,its copied word for word from a wiki page but I don't get the pornography reference in the context of this debate.
I'm sure the kind of advise Ken Blackwell would give to President Trump would be in line with his beliefs and President Trumps agenda and vision for America.The Trump presidency being conservative,republican majorities in the house and senate and the supreme court positions,I can possibly see a strong challenge to the Roe vs Wade ruling.Clintons claim in the third debate that abortion should be available up until the ninth month abhorred me and obviously millions of morally upstanding Americans also.
Who are the little people your speaking about?

Hotblack Desiato

fran17 wrote: »

Well the obvious being blindness and hairy palms.But on a serious note,I would struggle to think of a more repressive and damaging "industry" in relation to women's health or how they are viewed and treated in the world.

Women's health and how they are viewed and treated in the world is adversely affected by religion far above all else.

aloyisious

fran17 wrote: »

Curious to see why you included pornography in reference to his oppositions.You feel its something that should be promoted and lobbied for?

Umm, mis-referencing and side-tracking. I'm curious as to why you chose pornography from the FRC list of things they are opposed to instead of two other things on the FRC list, divorce and abortion, seeing as how the first is seen as destructive to marriage and the family, and the 2nd is seen as being destructive to women and the family, both of equal importance to be opposed according to the FRC.

aloyisious

These articles in the Irish Times and the Irish Examiner are worth keeping in mind and we shouldn't feel too comfortable in our numbers in the Pro-choice side of the debate here in Ireland. We have ways to go yet to ensure a successful legal win via the voter as against that campaigned for by those opposed to legal abortion of any form.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/repeal-campaign-making-the-same-mistake-as-hillary-clinton-1.2870909

http://www.irishexaminer.com/examviral/real-life/a-father-is-for-life-not-just-conception-fathers4justice-launch-eighth-amendment-campaign-431036.html

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

we shouldn't feel too comfortable in our numbers in the Pro-choice side of the debate here in Ireland. We have ways to go yet to ensure a successful legal win via the voter as against that campaigned for by those opposed to legal abortion of any form.

I agree... in fact it seems the odds are so stacked against you that overcoming the objections to your plan may well be insurmountable, so you might as well give up now

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/repeal-campaign-making-the-same-mistake-as-hillary-clinton-1.2870909

Written by a maker of anti-abortion so-called "documentaries". A few weeks back they published a less subtle propaganda piece from his wife.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/examviral/real-life/a-father-is-for-life-not-just-conception-fathers4justice-launch-eighth-amendment-campaign-431036.html

Change it to what? "A woman's right to choose - if a man says it's OK?" :rolleyes:

volchitsa

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Change it to what? "A woman's right to choose - if a man says it's OK?" :rolleyes:

Presumably this would have to include rapists, after all, a rapist is a dad too.
Or would a rapist's child have its "right to life" removed because of its father's crime? :rolleyes:

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Change it to what? "A woman's right to choose - if a man says it's OK?" :rolleyes:

Parents right to choose maybe?

volchitsa wrote: »

Presumably this would have to include rapists, after all, a rapist is a dad too. Or would a rapist's child have its "right to life" removed because of its father's crime? :rolleyes:

Presumably it would have to alright... do rapists lose any other parental rights? If not then it would follow they shouldn't lose that one either. If it were to be given to parents.

aloyisious

One of the anti-abortion groups posted a facebook item a few days ago about how action should be taken against rogue pregnancy agencies offering bad advice to pregnant women. I was thinking then that it was part of the ongoing propaganda campaign between both sides.

I opened the Irish Indo today and on page 22 saw the two items below...

aloyisious

I saw a post on F/B yesterday from what seemed to be an Anti-Abortion group titled "Get The Truth Out" which included what that group claimed was a "video" of an IFPA staffer telling a woman who was allegedly feeling unwell, passing blood, and who'd allegedly had an abortion not to tell her doctor she'd had an abortion, but a miscarriage. The "video" did not include any footage of the "advisor", just a voice, and there was absolutely no sight nor sound of the woman who was allegedly been given the "advice". The post responses were mostly disgust with the alleged IFPA staffer for telling the woman to lie to her doctor, one going as far as to refer to a double murder should the woman die as a result of the alleged IFPA staffer's advice.

Below is the message and video link from the F/B page


Get the Truth Out
November 17 at 7:27pm ·
It’s a full-blown scandal that Health Minister Simon Harris won’t condemn the shocking abuses at IFPA-run pro-abortion counselling centres. He never misses an opportunity though to undermine the pro-life side. Everyone should agree that no woman should be given false information in a crisis pregnancy. But the glaring double standards exhibited by Minister Harris are nothing short of obscene. Listen below to the IFPA’s reckless and dangerous advice to women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjmYdF4nIl4

Today's responses include one from a woman who stated she believed the alleged IFPA video was a fake and reported the post video as such. The post is still up on F/B. Should anyone have seen the post, or see it in the next while please check it out and report it if you believe it contains false information.

Hotblack Desiato

If they want women to feel comfortable about telling the truth they could always campaign for the removal of the 14-year sentence for procuring an abortion.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If they want women to feel comfortable about telling the truth they could always campaign for the removal of the 14-year sentence for procuring an abortion.

There is no 14 year sentence for procuring an abortion? The law against procuring abortions has been removed already; there is now an up to 14 year sentence for intentionally destroying unborn human life.

I very much doubt a pro life group will place the comfort of people telling the truth above the lives of other people... so I suspect your advice may fall on deaf ears, well intentioned as it no doubt is.

aloyisious

Something tell's me this reported decision of Pope Francis will go down like a lead balloon with groups like Get The Truth Out, who's fan base includes people who believe women who've had abortions are murderers.... While the Irish Times report is an analysis by Patsy McGarry of what Pope Francis has done, Patsy is no simpleton and generally get's the message sent out by the speaker. Pope Francis seem's to be of the mindset that if God chooses to forgive the sinner who repents, then Christians must accept God's decision on the matter. The last three paragraphs of Patsy's report are quite probably correct.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/analysis-pope-francis-consistent-over-absolution-for-abortion-1.2877084

The Irish RC hierarchy approve of his letter.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irish-catholic-bishops-approve-popes-letter-to-forgive-abortion-431729.html

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Something tell's me this reported decision of Pope Francis will go down like a lead balloon with groups like Get The Truth Out, who's fan base includes people who believe women who've had abortions are murderers.... While the Irish Times report is an analysis by Patsy McGarry of what Pope Francis has done, Patsy is no simpleton and generally get's the message sent out by the speaker. Pope Francis seem's to be of the mindset that if God chooses to forgive the sinner who repents, then Christians must accept God's decision on the matter. The last three paragraphs of Patsy's report are quite probably correct.
The Irish RC hierarchy approve of his letter.

I don't know why you think it's likely to be a problem. It was always the case that the sin could be absolved, and such absolution was the province of Bishops. Last year the Pope announced the facility would be extended to Priests during the Jubilee Year... now he's allowing Priests to retain the facility. Anyone who has a truly Christian perspective on the subject will welcome the possibility of more souls being saved as a result, surely.

aloyisious

RTE has reported that the state is to appeal the ruling made by Judge Humphrys some months ago on the rights of the unborn under the 8th amendment and under common law, apparently to the High Court. There are apparently differing and conflicting high court judgments on the rights of the unborn, which are grounds for an appeal to see which should stand or fall. It possibly could be heard by a divisional court sitting of the High Court, at a three judge sitting, BUT I'm not sure that is possible under court jurisdiction rules.

Mention was also made in the RTE news report from its court reporter that the Govt has been given permission to make a direct route appeal to the Supreme Court on the matter should it wish to do so.

The Irish Times reported that the state is SEEKING permission to appeal a significant High Court judgment which found the word “unborn” in the Constitution means an unborn “child” with rights beyond the right to life.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/state-seeks-to-appeal-significant-ruling-on-rights-of-unborn-1.2882060

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

The Irish Times reported that the state is SEEKING permission to appeal a significant High Court judgment which found the word “unborn” in the Constitution means an unborn “child” with rights beyond the right to life.

Though the Times itself actually put it as
The State is seeking to appeal a key High Court finding that the word “unborn” in the Constitution means an “unborn child” entitled to a range of rights extending “well beyond” the right to life.
obviously electing not to put unborn with "child" in quotes on it's own, preferring the rather less prejudicial "unborn child", which is at least, an actual quote.

Nor is the State seeking to to appeal a ruling on the rights of the unborn under the 8th amendment; that (single) right wasn't ruled on. The State is seeking to appeal the ruling that the unborn enjoys “significant” rights and legal position at common law, by statute, and under the Constitution, “going well beyond the right to life alone”. Which is pretty sensible, since there is not indication of what those rights and positions might be.

It's not a nonsensical situation; it has been shown that the unborn in many jurisdictions do have rights such as inheritence etc which are present but cannot be be effected until the child is born, so potentially, there could be rights, or obligations on the State, which can be effected before birth too. So it makes sense for the State to determine what they might be.

aloyisious

The live coverage of the Peoples Assembly today should be interesting to watch. RTE reported yesterday that 11 members had been given the OK to leave for family/personal reasons by the judge and had been replaced from the pool of spare nominees, all having been given briefing papers covering what the assembly had dealt-with/discussed to date.

Absolam

The Citizens' Assembly website is certainly making comprehensive coverage of what's being discussed readily available. It seems that Justice Laffoys comments about openness and transparency were well founded, so far anyways?

Hotblack Desiato

Ross questions timing of pope’s visit before possible abortion vote

Minister for Tourism Shane Ross says it is “wonderful” that Pope Francis will be coming to Ireland, but questioned the timing of the pontiff’s visit ahead of a possible vote on abortion in 2018.

The Pope’s visit may well coincide with the run-up to a referendum on the Eighth Amendment, which deals with the right to life of the unborn, after the Government said any such ballot will not be held until 2018 at the earliest.

When asked about the potential overlap, Mr Ross responded that there may be “better times” for Pope Francis to visit should that scenario occur.

“I simply think that maybe there are better times to come than in the middle of a controversial political matter in which he might get embroiled,” he remarked.

Crafty bunch the RCC

aloyisious

I'll wait til the date of referendum (if there is to be one) is announced before using the C-word. If it's Aug 2018, then the Govt can be called out on its decision for suddenly choosing to worry about the average Irish family.

Absolam

Nice to know our Minister for Tourism doesn't know whether the visit will be of any benefit to tourism, but does know that it might not be a good time for a visit, given the Popes opinions are at odds with his own personal opinions
Luckily, Mr Ross addressed questions about his dedication to the tourism portfolio, describing suggestions that he has not paid enough attention to that part of his ministerial brief as “utter nonsense”.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Crafty bunch the RCC

Not just crafty... soothsayers!
Cabaal broke the news of a Papal visit hereabouts last May, and the Govt. made their statement about a potential ballot being 2018 at the earliest in October, a full five months later.

That's some good auguring there by the Pope...either that or Cabaal is a witch, take your pick.

Or maybe the Govt was waiting to see when the Pope would visit before deciding on a date for the referendum? Because, you know, conspiracies and such.

learn_more

Absolam wrote: »

Or maybe the Govt was waiting to see when the Pope would visit before deciding on a date for the referendum? Because, you know, conspiracies and such.

I think so. Unfair advantage for the pro-choice side.

It's like Tony Blair arguing against Brexit

aloyisious

Originally Posted by Absolam View Post
Or maybe the Govt was waiting to see when the Pope would visit before deciding on a date for the referendum? Because, you know, conspiracies and such.

I'm shocked that anyone thinks this Govt is actually able to work up a conspiracy. For C, read PJ Mara-style coincidences of the political type - eg; there might just happen to be money and a blank date on the political calendar for a referendum or Govt decision around the time the Pope was on a family-get-together visit :-)