Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious

The problem any person dressed in clerical garb would face, when speaking on matters political even as a private citizen, is that the wearing of the clerical garb when speaking on matters political is a clear statement of fact that it is a cleric who is speaking, and not a private citizen. Whatever way you wish to try and get past the wearing of the black when statements on matters political are being addressed by the person concerned, the unavoidable is there for all to see.

IMO, it would belittle the intellect of any person listening to a cleric wearing clerical garb making a statement on matters political for the cleric to turn and say later "you misunderstood where i was coming from when I made my statement, I was speaking in my private capacity, not as a cleric". The average citizen now has a better understanding of the nuances in matters political and personal for any sliding one past him/her.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

The problem any person dressed in clerical garb would face, when speaking on matters political even as a private citizen, is that the wearing of the clerical garb when speaking on matters political is a clear statement of fact that it is a cleric who is speaking, and not a private citizen. Whatever way you wish to try and get past the wearing of the black when statements on matters political are being addressed by the person concerned, the unavoidable is there for all to see.

. I can't see why that's a problem for them at all? I don't think anyone believes a cleric isn't also a private citizen, and it's not as if the clergy have been shy about expressing political opinion in the past, often from the pulpit. A cleric has as much right to a political opinion as any other private citizen. Like I said, I'd be quite wary of anyone wanting to infringe on people's engagement with the democratic process based on their religion... for instance by trying to treat them as less than any other private citizen.

aloyisious wrote: »

IMO, it would belittle the intellect of any person listening to a cleric wearing clerical garb making a statement on matters political for the cleric to turn and say later "you misunderstood where i was coming from when I made my statement, I was speaking in my private capacity, not as a cleric". The average citizen now has a better understanding of the nuances in matters political and personal for any sliding one past him/her.

IMO, it wouldn't seem to make any difference whether they were speaking as a cleric or a private citizen, unless their opinion was at odds with that of their Church, in which case it would be readily apparent that it could only be their opinion as a private citizen they were expressing. The average citizen has a reasonable understanding of the major religions positions on the significant political issues, so I doubt they'd be foolish enough to imagine anyone was trying to get anything past them.

Atlantis50

To repeal supporters on this thread, should this woman have been given an abortion?

According to Montreal’s Le Devoir newspaper, which first reported the story, the woman was 30 weeks pregnant when tests showed malformations with the fetus.

The woman and her partner made the decision to seek an abortion together.

Can you imagine what it’s like for a woman, 30 weeks pregnant, to have to seek a lawyer to end her pregnancy? Awful
“I didn’t want my child to suffer their whole life,” she said.

According to ultrasound tests, the fetus appeared to have physical abnormalities that were not life-threatening to the mother or the baby, said patients’ rights advocate and lawyer Jean-Pierre Ménard.

“She didn’t want her child to suffer the consequences of being physically different,” Ménard said.

The woman, who was being followed at the MUHC, requested to end her pregnancy. When the MUHC refused, Ménard advised her to go to another hospital rather than mount a court case. She was also refused an abortion at Ste-Justine-Hospital for children. Ste-Justine officials would not confirm that when contacted by the Montreal Gazette.

The woman had the abortion at 35 weeks at a third Montreal hospital that Ménard would not name.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/two-hospitals-deny-montreal-woman-an-abortion-after-she-learns-at-30-weeks-her-fetus-is-malformed

This is relevant because the official stance of the "Coalition to Repeal the 8th Amendment" is that Ireland adopt the Canadian model if the 8th is repealed

aloyisious

Atlantis50 wrote: »

To repeal supporters on this thread, should this woman have been given an abortion?



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/two-hospitals-deny-montreal-woman-an-abortion-after-she-learns-at-30-weeks-her-fetus-is-malformed

This is relevant because the official stance of the "Coalition to Repeal the 8th Amendment" is that Ireland adopt the Canadian model if the 8th is repealed

Welcome to the debate. I'm not sure on which side of the debate you stand. It seems - from what you wrote about the canadian model, eg; abortion being legal at all stages - likely that you are not on the repeal side of the debate. The article naturally doesn't mention the specific abnormality other than it was apparently not life-threatening (in pregnancy presumably) to either the woman or the feotus.

The part about the woman being followed in the MUHC definitely piques one's interest (despite the relevancy to the specific case in the news report) so it's probably irrelevant and a red herring thrown into the pool by the paper or the lawyer.

volchitsa

Atlantis50 wrote: »

To repeal supporters on this thread, should this woman have been given an abortion?



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/two-hospitals-deny-montreal-woman-an-abortion-after-she-learns-at-30-weeks-her-fetus-is-malformed

This is relevant because the official stance of the "Coalition to Repeal the 8th Amendment" is that Ireland adopt the Canadian model if the 8th is repealed

I've seen a lot of prolife claims that what is being planned is closer to the UK model. Do you have a link so we can find out one way or the other?

On the case itself, I read on another site that most Canadian women requiring late abortions are generally referred to USA clinics, but that this woman for some reason couldn't travel. If that's correct, the Canadian model seems a lot stricter than the American one, and it's actually rather like the Miss Y case here, where the woman was being refused what are her legal rights simply because doctors don't wish to carry out the abortion.

So prolife activists should actually prefer the Canadian set up to the American one.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

The part about the woman being followed in the MUHC definitely piques one's interest (despite the relevancy to the specific case in the news report) so it's probably irrelevant and a red herring thrown into the pool by the paper or the lawyer.

Perhaps less a red herring thrown into the pool by the paper or the lawyer ( which is a tad on the conspiracy theory side), and maybe more a poor translation?
The linked article puts it rather more clearly;

The McGill University Health Centre says it did not block a woman’s request for an abortion late in her pregnancy by sending the case to its ethics committee for evaluation. “It was not an ethics committee — it was a committee of doctors, with an ethics representative,” MUHC spokesperson Ian Popple said, about a Montreal woman who consulted a lawyer earlier this year after the hospital refused her demand for an abortion in her third trimester. Popple would not specify why the hospital refused the woman’s request for an abortion, which is a right that is enshrined by federal law, but said the MUHC committee was following the Quebec College of Physicians’ guidelines for late abortions.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

it's actually rather like the Miss Y case here, where the woman was being refused what are her legal rights simply because doctors don't wish to carry out the abortion.

That's entirely untrue though, and you know it because you've discussed the facts of the case on this thread.
What kind of argument do you have if you know you need to base it on a lie?

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

The part about the woman being followed in the MUHC definitely piques one's interest..

I'm guessing the term "followed" in this context is Canadian English for "registered with" or "being monitored and cared for by" .

“She didn’t want her child to suffer the consequences of being physically different,” Ménard said.
The woman, who was being followed at the MUHC, requested to end her pregnancy.

I find that other quote by her lawyer Ménard to be bizarre. Its like something you would imagine the anti-abortion side would say. Killed for being different.

The system in Canada seems to be that there are no legal restrictions on late term abortions. But neither can you force a doctor to perform one.
So in reality they are harder to obtain than in the USA, where in theory there are at least some restrictions.

The logical outcome of this is easy enough to predict. Doctors with less moral scruples than the average Canadian doctor will migrate to Canada, and set up clinics, while suing local govt. to obtain public funding for their activities.

222233

You know I just realised how INFURIATED I am at the situation of so called **abortion laws** in this country. I don't understand what is so difficult to fathom about the fact that people have differing views on the matter. Why vote ? Why make comittees ?? Why not do the logical thing and put the decision od whether or not a woman should/ can or will have an abortion into her own hands ?

I am clearly pro-choice but I don't understand why it matters what the pro-life people think about legislation, no one will force them to have an abortionb and they have no need to concern themselves in the decision making of women who inevitabely WILL End up having an abortion either way.

I was just reading the current legislation, wow I MUST SAY what a complete and utter disgrace this country is. If suicidal intent is the reason that a women should be issued a medical abortion in Ireland than thay decision rests on the good faith of THREE medical professionals. So apperantly when it comes to irish abortion law being suicidal due to pregnancy is only a sufficient enough risk to warrant an abortion if 3 other people say so. So apperantely being suicidal isnt enough you have to be suicidal in the eyes of others to satisfy the demands of this backwards system In a country that *wants to talk about mental health* well that there is really something else....

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

what is so difficult to fathom about the fact that people have differing views on the matter?

Peregrinus

222233 wrote: »

You know I just realised how INFURIATED I am at the situation of so called **abortion laws** in this country. I don't understand what is so difficult to fathom about the fact that people have differing views on the matter. Why vote ? Why make comittees ?? Why not do the logical thing and put the decision od whether or not a woman should/ can or will have an abortion into her own hands ?

Because that’s only the “logical thing” if you start from certain assumptions that not everyone starts from.

Basically, your argument here is designed to appeal only to people who already agree with you. And, given that you acknowledge that there are people who don’t agree with you, as a way of short-circuiting disagreement it’s going nowhere. Fundamentally, you’re saying (a) there are different beliefs about abortion, but (b) laws about abortion should reflect the beliefs that you happen to hold, and not the beliefs that other people happen to hold. If you’re truly looking for something that will transcend the disgreements, you need to offer other people a reason that will appeal to them as to why abortion laws should be framed without regard to their beliefs about abortion.

222233 wrote: »

I am clearly pro-choice but I don't understand why it matters what the pro-life people think about legislation, no one will force them to have an abortionb and they have no need to concern themselves in the decision making of women who inevitabely WILL End up having an abortion either way.

You could apply that argument to almost any act that is criminalised. And, when you do, you’ll see how silly it is. Murder, for example, or drink-driving; nobody is forced to murder. Nobody is forced to drink-drive. So why do people need to concern themselves about the decisions of others to murder or to drink and drive?

The answer, of course, is that the purpose of the criminal law is not to protect me from having to do things I choose not to do. It’s to protect others from having injurious things done to them. You can only make this argument sound rational, when applied to abortion, if you assume that the foetus is not an entity deserving of any kind of societal respect, attention or protection, and that the criminal law has no business protecting foetuses from injury. Which, as already stated, and as you acknowledge yourself, is not an assumption that enjoys universal acceptance.

volchitsa

Atlantis50 wrote: »

To repeal supporters on this thread, should this woman have been given an abortion?



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/two-hospitals-deny-montreal-woman-an-abortion-after-she-learns-at-30-weeks-her-fetus-is-malformed

This is relevant because the official stance of the "Coalition to Repeal the 8th Amendment" is that Ireland adopt the Canadian model if the 8th is repealed

Has there been any more information about what was wrong? I haven't seen anything, and IMO it's impossible to answer the question without knowing.
For instance if baby was going to have no arms or legs - I'd want to have an abortion, for the sake of the child. Same thing if it was affected by me having had Zika. Basically I don't think it's doing the child a favour to allow it to be born if it's going to suffer all its life, so without any information about the problem I can't possibly have a view here.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

Has there been any more information about what was wrong? I haven't seen anything, and IMO it's impossible to answer the question without knowing.

I agree. However I think its worth noting that being "different" is now given as a reason for abortion, whereas in the past it would have been that the foetus was severely "handicapped" - not a pc word nowadays I know.
One way or another, it seems to be a lowering of the bar.

222233

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

what is so difficult to fathom about the fact that people have differing views on the matter?

Its difficult to fathom that a personal medical procedures legality can be impacted upon by others. This has nothing to do with *views* thats whats so frustrating, it's a medical procedure the outcome of which affects no one but the patient - how is that open to views? I don't see what is so hard for irish people to grasp if you dont agree with it dont get the procedure. Simple as it's like plastic surgery if you don't want it don't get it, but other people getting it will have quite literally no affect on you.

222233

Peregrinus wrote: »

You could apply that argument to almost any act
The answer, of course, is that the purpose of the criminal law is not to protect me from having to do things I choose not to do. It’s to protect others from having injurious things done to them. You can only make this argument sound rational, when applied to abortion, if you assume that the foetus is not an entity deserving of any kind of societal respect, attention or protection, and that the criminal law has no business protecting foetuses from injury. Which, as already stated, and as you acknowledge yourself, is not an assumption that enjoys universal acceptance.

Its ironic that this particular law appears to slide nicely along with the beliefs of certain groups of irish people.i don't think the UK suddenly has an influx of issues pertaining to protecting the foetus? Abortion is legal over there perhaps I'm wrong but it seems to be working out fine for them. Plus the law is mute either way when people will just travel abroad - it's not really protecting anythimg is it.

Absolam

222233 wrote: »

Its difficult to fathom that a personal medical procedures legality can be impacted upon by others. This has nothing to do with *views* thats whats so frustrating, it's a medical procedure the outcome of which affects no one but the patient - how is that open to views? I don't see what is so hard for irish people to grasp if you dont agree with it dont get the procedure. Simple as it's like plastic surgery if you don't want it don't get it, but other people getting it will have quite literally no affect on you.

It also affects the person who is aborted; they die. Now, I understand you almost certainly don't think it's a person that dies, but as Peregrinus has already pointed out, those who agree with you in that regard already agree with you on abortion, and you're not going to convince anyone who disagrees with you if you ignore the fundamental basis of their opinion.

222233

Absolam wrote: »

It also affects the person who is aborted; they die. Now, I understand you almost certainly don't think it's a person that dies, but as Peregrinus has already pointed out, those who agree with you in that regard already agree with you on abortion, and you're not going to convince anyone who disagrees with you if you ignore the fundamental basis of their opinion.

I have no intention of convincing anyone, I respect people's views irrespective of where they are coming from. I do not however think ANYONES views should dictate the right of a women to have a medical procedure in her home country that she can ultimately have abroad in a more progressive country anyway. As I have already said a law that permits abortion does not force anyone who disagrees with abortion to have one, nor does it force them to agree with it - it simply gives dignity and fair access to the thousands of women faced into a difficult situation every year, without the added stress of needing to travel abroad.

It is a medical procedure, and the medications used in a medical abortion are listed as essential medications by the world health organisation. I think we need to change the way we understand the term abortion and what exactly an abortion entails, an abortion is a medical procedure.I don't particularly agree with tax paid surgeries for obesity, but it's a medical procedure therefore I understand it is a necessity as abortion can be in some circumstances.

I think a lot of the argument comes from a place where people literally just want to argue, at the end of the day the only people affected are the women (and or their partners) who have to travel abroad or can't go abroad and are forced to live without the option to have the procedure. These are the people that should be debating on the matter, the people who it has or potentially will affect, not some bunch of suits with clipboards

Peregrinus

222233 wrote: »

Its ironic that this particular law appears to slide nicely along with the beliefs of certain groups of irish people.

There’s nothing remotely ironic - or indeed surprising - about it, and also nothing uniquely Irish. In any society, you expect a fair degree of alignment between laws and beliefs. You think the fact that murder is a crime is wholly unconnected with the fact that we generally consider murder to be unethical?

Many people in Ireland - possibly including yourself - believe that a woman has a right to choose abortion if she wishes. If the law were to change to reflect that position, would you consider that to be “ironic”? Or is the alignment of law and belief only ironic if it happens to be a belief not shared by you?

222233 wrote: »

i don't think the UK suddenly has an influx of issues pertaining to protecting the foetus? Abortion is legal over there perhaps I'm wrong but it seems to be working out fine for them. Plus the law is mute either way when people will just travel abroad - it's not really protecting anything is it.

Seriously? In post 3940 you’re describing Irish law as a disgrace because it requires three doctors to agree that the legal requirement is satisfied, but now you’re commending to us the UK law which requires two doctors to agree that the legal requirement is satisfied? The rankly hypocritical UK law which requires women and their doctors to pretend that every choice to abort is driven by medical concerns, regardless of what the actual motivation is?

If you want irony, 222233, I suggest you can find it simply by comparing what you say in post 3940 with what you say in post 3946.

Absolam

222233 wrote: »

I have no intention of convincing anyone, I respect people's views irrespective of where they are coming from. I do not however think ANYONES views should dictate the right of a women to have a medical procedure in her home country that she can ultimately have abroad in a more progressive country anyway.

What about one she can have in a more regressive country, like an abortion, for example? Anyways, regardless of one's opinion of the country, the rights of anyone will always be dictated by the views of the rulers. In Ireland, the rulers are the people, who have dictated a man or a woman, generally, has no right to do anything which results in the death of another person.

222233 wrote: »

As I have already said a law that permits abortion does not force anyone who disagrees with abortion to have one, nor does it force them to agree with it - it simply gives dignity and fair access to the thousands of women faced into a difficult situation every year, without the added stress of needing to travel abroad.

No one claimed it forced anyone who disagrees with abortion to have one though? Only that what you call giving dignity and fair access to women faced into a difficult situation also involves killing a person, which is where people generally balk.

222233 wrote: »

It is a medical procedure, and the medications used in a medical abortion are listed as essential medications by the world health organisation. I think we need to change the way we understand the term abortion and what exactly an abortion entails, an abortion is a medical procedure.I don't particularly agree with tax paid surgeries for obesity, but it's a medical procedure therefore I understand it is a necessity as abortion can be in some circumstances.

An abortion entails the death of a person. It can be performed medically, using essential medications, and it will still result in the death of a person. You may want to change the fact that people understand that, but simply repeating that it's a medical procedure probably won't convince anyone that an abortion's object and result is a death.

222233 wrote: »

I think a lot of the argument comes from a place where people literally just want to argue, at the end of the day the only people affected are the women (and or their partners) who have to travel abroad or can't go abroad and are forced to live without the option to have the procedure. These are the people that should be debating on the matter, the people who it has or potentially will affect, not some bunch of suits with clipboards

Well, like I said, the people that are killed are also affected. Everyone involved (as well as everyone else) should certainly have a voice in what we as a society decide, but I don't think excluding people from participating in a democracy is the answer, even if they do have suits and clipboards.

aloyisious

222233 wrote: »

Its difficult to fathom that a personal medical procedures legality can be impacted upon by others. This has nothing to do with *views* thats whats so frustrating, it's a medical procedure the outcome of which affects no one but the patient - how is that open to views? I don't see what is so hard for irish people to grasp if you dont agree with it dont get the procedure. Simple as it's like plastic surgery if you don't want it don't get it, but other people getting it will have quite literally no affect on you.

I'm not arguing the point of view put forward by anti-abortionists, just stating that they apparently believe that the feotus in the womb is worthy of the same rights as the woman, or in fact any living breathing human being presently outside the womb, that is; protection of its existence in law. That's the basis for the 8th which the anti-abortion side wish to keep intact in law, and which they apparently believe ethical. The fact that that ethical point of view will result in some irish woman killing herself and - as a result - the feotus in her womb seem's to be something the anti-abortion side either don't take into their singular or group considerations when stating their wish to keep the 8th in law and prevent the legalisation of abortion outside the limits of POLDPA, which they oppose anyway, or they don't consider the life of the woman in their ethical decision-making.

The peculiarity, as you've pointed out, is that it takes three medics to state a woman who's stated she'll take her own life in order to end her pregnancy if not allowed an abortion under Ireland's current (POLDPA) law should be allowed an abortion as they believe she is genuine in her statement. The woman has to be driven to the limit of having considered the ultimate step of suicide- and decided to take it - before the state, via the three medics, takes her seriously and considers her fate more important in law than the feotus in her womb. It's almost like the decision of the medics is predicated on the assumption that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", which is possibly the medical ethical thing to do anyway, saving an actual independent ly-living walking talking life.

Sometimes I wonder if the anti-abortion side would prefer it to be a lawful fact that any pregnant irish woman who asked for an abortion here would be taken into state custody until such time as the feotus in her womb came to term and was born, but can't bring themselves to speak such in public in fear of the further loss in support for their marginalized point of view. Saying that, I don't take the strength of their numerical voters power lightly. There is a hell of a long way to go before the 8th is dead and deleted from legal standing.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm not arguing the point of view put forward by anti-abortionists, just stating that they apparently believe that the feotus in the womb is worthy of the same rights as the woman, or in fact any living breathing human being presently outside the womb, that is; protection of its existence in law. That's the basis for the 8th which the anti-abortion side wish to keep intact in law, and which they apparently believe ethical.

Well, certainly one of the same rights as everyone else; the right to life. Though I would suggest that such a right would generally be considered a moral one, and it's defense to be ethical.

aloyisious wrote: »

The fact that that ethical point of view will result in some irish woman killing herself and - as a result - the feotus in her womb seem's to be something the anti-abortion side either don't take into their singular or group considerations when stating their wish to keep the 8th in law and prevent the legalisation of abortion outside the limits of POLDPA, which they oppose anyway, or they don't consider the life of the woman in their ethical decision-making.

I think that's a rather disingenuous tarring there; they don't oppose the POLDPA, like the anti-life side, some of them oppose the POLDPA. I suspect you'll find a minority of pro-life proponents at odds with it, whilst a majority of pro-choice proponents take issue with it. If this thread is anything to go by anyways... And of course, both the POLDPA and the Constitution (specifically the 8th) allow action to be taken to prevent 'some irish woman killing herself and - as a result - the feotus in her womb', up to and including abortion if necessary. I very much doubt many pro-life advocates don't consider the life of the woman in their ethical decision-making, though I can see why opponents might attempt to vilify them in such a fashion.

aloyisious wrote: »

The peculiarity, as you've pointed out, is that it takes three medics to state a woman who's stated she'll take her own life in order to end her pregnancy if not allowed an abortion under Ireland's current (POLDPA) law should be allowed an abortion as they believe she is genuine in her statement. The woman has to be driven to the limit of having considered the ultimate step of suicide- and decided to take it - before the state, via the three medics, takes her seriously and considers her fate more important in law than the feotus in her womb. It's almost like the decision of the medics is predicated on the assumption that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", which is possibly the medical ethical thing to do anyway, saving an actual independent ly-living walking talking life.

I don't think there's any reason at all to think the medical professional's function is to 'believe she is genuine in her statement'; the legislation itself actually specifies that they are to determine whether there there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of
suicide, and in their reasonable opinion that risk can only be averted by carrying out the required procedure (which may be an abortion). The decision is certainly is predicated on the assumption that it is better to save one life than lose two... regardless of whether any of them are 'actual independent ly-living walking talking'.

aloyisious wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder if the anti-abortion side would prefer it to be a lawful fact that any pregnant irish woman who asked for an abortion here would be taken into state custody until such time as the feotus in her womb came to term and was born, but can't bring themselves to speak such in public in fear of the further loss in support for their marginalized point of view.

I think offering a position on behalf of your opponent is what is known as a strawman

aloyisious wrote: »

Saying that, I don't take the strength of their numerical voters power lightly. There is a hell of a long way to go before the 8th is dead and deleted from legal standing.

So.. it's marginalised but not to be taken lightly? Sounds like you think it may not be as marginal as you claim it is then.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder if the anti-abortion side would prefer it to be a lawful fact that any pregnant irish woman who asked for an abortion here would be taken into state custody until such time as the feotus in her womb came to term and was born, but can't bring themselves to speak such in public in fear of the further loss in support for their marginalized point of view.

You mean like Miss Y ?

222233

aloyisious wrote: »

Sometimes I wonder if the anti-abortion side would prefer it to be a lawful fact that any pregnant irish woman who asked for an abortion here would be taken into state custody until such time as the feotus in her womb came to term and was born, but can't bring themselves to speak such in public in fear of the further loss in support for their marginalized point of view. Saying that, I don't take the strength of their numerical voters power lightly.

I think you may be correct. Although this is quite a rash and slightly excessive comparison if we consider the laundries, the manner in which pregnant women were treated in medical facilities and the duty of women to become pregnant many years ago, their was a certain point where women lost their rights in this country once they become pregnant or for lack of becoming pregnant.

I believe this archaic attitude is not too far removed from the view of many today, that the child is the ultimate gift and the mother merely a carrier.

I respect the rights of a foetus but I also respect the right of a woman to choose. What infuriates me is when people say "it doesn't matter if she was raped, it's still a child", those same people would say "if she didn't want a child she shouldn't have had sex" in other circumstances. I genuinely believe that this country holds more compassion for the ideation of pregnancy and the "mother" than the woman.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You mean like Miss Y ?

It seems doubtful; the feotus in her womb didn't come to term and be born, did it? As I recall, it was delivered prematurely by c section, much to the horror of some posters who thought it should have been killed instead.

222233

Absolam wrote: »

In Ireland, the rulers are the people, who have dictated a man or a woman, generally, has no right to do anything which results in the death of another person.

So you say, sadly we will never know how many women or men for that matter have died at the expense of saving the other life. But as you say "no right to do anything which results in death of another person"....

Absolam wrote: »

Only that what you call giving dignity and fair access to women faced into a difficult situation also involves killing a person, which is where people generally balk.

Are you opposed to the coil and the morning after pill (the morning after pill I won't name but the one that works up to 5 days after unprotected sex)

Absolam wrote: »

Well, like I said, the people that are killed are also affected. Everyone involved (as well as everyone else) should certainly have a voice in what we as a society decide, but I don't think excluding people from participating in a democracy is the answer, even if they do have suits and clipboards.

What is the fear of a referendum then? If it's a democracy and many people want a referendum. Let the people speak - my generation from where I stand are very pro-choice, I think similar to the same sex marriage referendum many people would come out and have a say.

Absolam

222233 wrote: »

I think you may be correct. Although this is quite a rash and slightly excessive comparison if we consider the laundries, the manner in which pregnant women were treated in medical facilities and the duty of women to become pregnant many years ago, their was a certain point where women lost their rights in this country once they become pregnant or for lack of becoming pregnant.

It certainly is a rash comparison, but nevertheless, complaining about a position not put forward by the opposing side of the discussion but by your own side in order to vilify it, seems a bit self indulgent.

222233 wrote: »

I believe this archaic attitude is not too far removed from the view of many today, that the child is the ultimate gift and the mother merely a carrier.

I wonder if you could find a single poster (never mind many) who has ever expressed that opinion on boards? If not, might I suggest it's another strawman in the vein of aloyisious' post?

222233 wrote: »

I respect the rights of a foetus but I also respect the right of a woman to choose. What infuriates me is when people say "it doesn't matter if she was raped, it's still a child", those same people would say "if she didn't want a child she shouldn't have had sex" in other circumstances. I genuinely believe that this country holds more compassion for the ideation of pregnancy and the "mother" than the woman.

And yet again, I think you'll find it difficult to show anyone is saying that, though feel free to quote their posts if they have. Absent the (third) strawman, I think you'll find people saying "It's terrible that she was raped, but that's no justification for killing an innocent person", which is somewhat different. I genuinely believe you're mistaking (deliberately or no) the compassion people in this country have for children both born and unborn, for a compassion for the ideation of pregnancy and the "mother".

Absolam

222233 wrote: »

So you say, sadly we will never know how many women or men for that matter have died at the expense of saving the other life. But as you say "no right to do anything which results in death of another person"....

Why won't we? Have hospitals started burning their records or something? And I did say "generally, has no right to do anything which results in the death of another person", which is a rather different statement...

222233 wrote: »

Are you opposed to the coil and the morning after pill (the morning after pill I won't name but the one that works up to 5 days after unprotected sex)

Is there a particular reason you ask? Only those particular arguments have been well rehearsed on the thread, before re-engaging with them it would be worth knowing if you're bringing anything new to the table.

222233 wrote: »

What is the fear of a referendum then? If it's a democracy and many people want a referendum. Let the people speak - my generation from where I stand are very pro-choice, I think similar to the same sex marriage referendum many people would come out and have a say.

Are you suggesting that we should place the frequent exercise of democracy above the lives of others? That argument has also been well discussed on the thread.

222233

Absolam wrote: »

It certainly is a rash comparison, but nevertheless, complaining about a position not put forward by the opposing side of the discussion but by your own side in order to vilify it, seems a bit self indulgent.

Self indulgent, really. As a woman I find it "self indulgent" that nobody seems to really care what I think about my body.

Absolam wrote: »

I wonder if you could find a single poster (never mind many) who has ever expressed that opinion on boards? If not, might I suggest it's another strawman in the vein of aloyisious' post?

I have no idea what any of that means, sorry that my "argument" or my opinion is not authentic enough for you. Perhaps the similarity should suggest to you that many people want change.

Absolam wrote: »

And yet again, I think you'll find it difficult to show anyone is saying that, though feel free to quote their posts if they have. Absent the (third) strawman, I think you'll find people saying "It's terrible that she was raped, but that's no justification for killing an innocent person", which is somewhat different. I genuinely believe you're mistaking (deliberately or no) the compassion people in this country have for children both born and unborn, for a compassion for the ideation of pregnancy and the "mother".

Difficult to show anyone is saying that? If I were in that very horrific position, THIS country and THIS COUNTRY'S law would force me to continue with that pregnancy UNLESS.. there was a real risk to my life, which if it were suicide would require me to be at the point of needing three professionals to verify that I'm suicidal. That speaks louder than anything in this thread to me.
I advise you ignore my posts if you feel they are reciprocal of posts you have already read.

222233

Absolam wrote: »

Only those particular arguments have been well rehearsed on the thread, before re-engaging with them it would be worth knowing if you're bringing anything new to the table.

That argument has also been well discussed on the thread.

Again, I apologise that my beliefs are not original enough for you. I am going to unfollow this thread, I believe in freedom of speech, I don't care how many times it's been said - Listen to the people... it's an abortion debate.

Absolam

222233 wrote: »

Self indulgent, really. As a woman I find it "self indulgent" that nobody seems to really care what I think about my body.

Do you? Most people would find that seemingly uncaring, but if it helps, whilst I don't really care what you think about your body, I would encourage you to think positively about it all the same. I would also discourage you from finding ways to use it to kill people unless absolutely necessary.

222233 wrote: »

I have no idea what any of that means, sorry that my "argument" or my opinion is not authentic enough for you. Perhaps the similarity should suggest to you that many people want change.

Oh I'm sure it's authentic; just authentically yours and not that of 'many today' as you're saying.

222233 wrote: »

Difficult to show anyone is saying that? If I were in that very horrific position, THIS country and THIS COUNTRY'S law would force me to continue with that pregnancy UNLESS.. there was a real risk to my life, which if it were suicide would require me to be at the point of needing three professionals to verify that I'm suicidal. That speaks louder than anything in this thread to me.

I've no doubt that's your opinion of what you would have to do, but that's not at all the same as "people say "it doesn't matter if she was raped, it's still a child""; it's your opinion, not theirs. You understand that your own feeling aggrieved doesn't entitle you to just make stuff up and attribute it to to others, don't you?

222233 wrote: »

I advise you ignore my posts if you feel they are reciprocal of posts you have already read.

They don't seem to be reciprocal, they seem to be repetitious. And since you asked me the questions I think it's only common courtesy that I should reply rather than ignore you.