Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

222233 wrote: »

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.

m not saying they're not original enough; I'm asking whether you've anything to add to what was said before. Once you say, then I'll know if it's original enough for me. I too believe you should be free to speak.

aloyisious

Todays meeting of the peoples assembly should be interesting as the abortion issue is for debate there. On the issue of identifying by name or descriptive term what a pregnant woman is carrying in her womb, according to RTE radio news both the RC church and the anti-abortion side are objecting to the use of the word feotus by the assembly to describe what's in the woman's womb. I have no doubt that others would prefer another word, like person, be used instead of feotus.

As for what the people dictate about generally not killing another person (the wording used by Absolam, presumably in reference to the 8th amendment and the bar on abortion), given that that was freely decided and chosen by referendum, I have no problem with the people making another decision on the same issue which, POSSIBLY, might reverse that original decision by and of the people. That is what the debate both here and later today, in the assembly, is all about.

Edit..... Looking back at other recent posts between other debaters here, I'm happy to see that what Absolam referred to as a strawman argument by me (presumably in reference to me writing about anti-abortion siders liking the idea of pregnant women who've asked for abortions being taken into state (proxy) custody until such time as the pregnancy came full term and birth) is being debunked as strawman by a dedicated anti-abortion protestor and that the notion of a return to the state's status-quo ante position when it came to pregnant Irish girls and women with undesired/unwanted pregnancies is not at all in the mind of anyone on the anti-abortion side of the debate.

Correction..... It's not the word feotus that is a bone of contention for some at the assembly, it's the words Fatal Fetal Abnormality that are causing upset. They want other words used instead. It seems that new neo-natal screenings are also a cause for ethical concern to some. Todays meeting was told by one doctor that (Irish Indo - 40, Irish examiner - 30) women had abortions due to Downs Syndrome showing on screening of feotus in wombs.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Todays meeting of the peoples assembly should be interesting as the abortion issue is for debate there. On the issue of identifying by name or descriptive term what a pregnant woman is carrying in her womb, according to RTE radio news both the RC church and the anti-abortion side are objecting to the use of the word feotus by the assembly to describe what's in the woman's womb. I have no doubt that others would prefer another word, like person, be used instead of feotus.

It's the Citizens' Assembly that's meeting; the peoples assembly is a rather different bunch. And my understanding is that the Irish Catholic Bishops and the Pro-Life Campaign (to give the protaganists a more accurate description) were not criticising the use of the term 'foetus', but the use of the term "fatal foetal abnormalities" on the basis that it implies that death is both an imminent and inevitable outcome of certain medical conditions. The Pro-Life Campaign prefers the term "life-limiting conditions".
Now I wouldn't want to accuse you of deliberately twisting what RTE reported to suit your own agenda, but RTE's website tends to agree with my rendition....

aloyisious wrote: »

As for what the people dictate about generally not killing another person (the wording used by Absolam, presumably in reference to the 8th amendment and the bar on abortion), given that that was freely decided and chosen by referendum, I have no problem with the people making another decision on the same issue which, POSSIBLY, might reverse that original decision by and of the people. That is what the debate both here and later today, in the assembly, is all about.

Pretty sure no one dictated anything about generally not killing another person; certainly with regard to killing an unborn person it was a referendum so about as far from dictating as you can get.
I rather suspect that if people made the same decision again on the same issue, you just might have a problem with it though. Or would you accept that the people having spoken, abortion must remain illegal in Ireland and that's the end of it?

PopePalpatine

The BBC recently released a radio documentary on the "Black Protests" which swept across Poland last year as in response to their government's authoritarian policies, in particular their proposed ban on abortion.

aloyisious

I saw a taxi in Dublin city centre on Sat with the taxi logo in Irish on its passenger door. There was also a sign with Polish writing and a cross along the side of the car about the christian faith. I took it to mean the driver was of the christian faith and thought no more of it til I heard about the latest sitting of the assembly, then got to realising that not all Irish citizens able or likely to vote in a referendum on a choice for or against the 8th and abortion here would be Irish born and, not having had the recent re-education we got on what the christian churches did to the faithful here and how much or little belief could be placed in their pronouncements, may well vote in line with the religious faith they brought with them from their country of birth. They may well feel themselves besieged by hearing what the Irish-born say about the churches as a result, believing totally in the teaching they got at home.

Listening to the Beeb report above, I realised how much power the RC church there was taking away from the people by cozying up to the government party and depriving, by duplicity, the people of power to rule their own future, the same way the RC church did here with a willing political establishment, all allegedly for the good of the people. I think there is a chance that the RC church and other christian churches here are trying the same thing again here of telling the people "you don't know what's best for you, we do, shut up and obey us". I hope the scepticism of Ireland in respect of blind adherence to the word of the churches leaks across to the newcomers here and they wake up to reality about church-speak here.

Absolam

That sounds suspiciously like "If people vote down a repeal of the 8th it'll be because they just don't know enough to have the right opinions". Are you preparing an argument for a further referendum already?

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

then got to realising that not all Irish citizens able or likely to vote in a referendum on a choice for or against the 8th and abortion here would be Irish born

Same happened in the SSM referendum, but not enough to swing the outcome. Its not just the RCC either. Eastern orthodox, African pentecostal and Islamic groups all generally took the conservative line.

robindch

DJT has resurrected a Reagan-era ban on the US government providing any funding any national or international organization which either performs abortion or provides information on abortion:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38729364

In previous years, DJT stated that he was in favour of abortion. These days, he's against it.

Hardly worth pointing out that the there were no women in the Oval Office when the order was signed. Some of the white males seem pleased.

pauldla

robindch wrote: »

DJT has resurrected a Reagan-era ban on the US government providing any funding any national or international organization which either performs abortion or provides information on abortion:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38729364

In previous years, DJT stated that he was in favour of abortion. These days, he's against it.

Hardly worth pointing out that the there were no women in the Oval Office when the order was signed. Some of the white males seem pleased.

It's been said before, but I'll say it again: why does Mike Pence look like the bad guy from an X-Men movie?

Scurrilous gossip gleaned from the internet: Pence is gay, and has undergone conversation therapy. There are a few skeletons in that closet, it is said. Can I pass this off as 'alternative facts', or is it 'fake news'?

frostyjacks

robindch wrote: »

DJT has resurrected a Reagan-era ban on the US government providing any funding any national or international organization which either performs abortion or provides information on abortion:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38729364

In previous years, DJT stated that he was in favour of abortion. These days, he's against it.

Hardly worth pointing out that the there were no women in the Oval Office when the order was signed. Some of the white males seem pleased.

This is excellent news for women and babies around the globe. The push-back against the Soros-funded abortion lobby begins.

frag420

frostyjacks wrote: »

This is excellent news for women and babies around the globe. The push-back against the Soros-funded abortion lobby begins.

You do realise this will do more harm to women's health globally!

But hey dont let women's health get in the way of your agenda!?

seamus

frostyjacks wrote: »

This is excellent news for women and babies around the globe. The push-back against the Soros-funded abortion lobby begins.

Because this is used as a football by U.S. politicians, we've had a pretty unique opportunity to directly observe the effects of banning and unbanning (and banning) this funding.

The data has shown that this ban results in more women seeking abortions.

This is because the NGOs affected aren't just abortion clinics. Like 99.9999% of organisations which provide abortions, the bulk of their services involve family planning and crisis pregnancy services.

When you cut funding to these services, more women have unwanted pregnancies and choose abortion for those pregnancies.

When you fund these organisations, less women have unwanted pregnancies and those that do are less likely to choose abortion.

Well done Republicans, you've just increased the number of abortions that will occur in the US. Jesus would be proud.

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

This is excellent news for women and babies around the globe. The push-back against the Soros-funded abortion lobby begins.

So you're okay with the funding being cut for HIV/cancer treatment or screenings for mere mention of abortion services?

pauldla

frag420 wrote: »

You do realise this will do more harm to women's health globally!

But hey dont let women's health get in the way of your agenda!?

Nein, es ist wunderbar....Sorry, I mean, it is great news! Now babies will never again have to have abortions....right, frosty?

oldrnwisr

seamus wrote: »

Because this is used as a football by U.S. politicians, we've had a pretty unique opportunity to directly observe the effects of banning and unbanning (and banning) this funding.

The data has shown that this ban results in more women seeking abortions.

This is because the NGOs affected aren't just abortion clinics. Like 99.9999% of organisations which provide abortions, the bulk of their services involve family planning and crisis pregnancy services.

When you cut funding to these services, more women have unwanted pregnancies and choose abortion for those pregnancies.

When you fund these organisations, less women have unwanted pregnancies and those that do are less likely to choose abortion.

Well done Republicans, you've just increased the number of abortions that will occur in the US. Jesus would be proud.

Just to add to this point, this ban is not only likely to more women seeking abortions but those abortions themselves are more likely to be performed in backstreet clinics and in unsafe conditions, thus putting women and the foetuses they carry in more danger.

We know, from studies carried out by the WHO, that unsafe abortions are a significant cause of maternal death accounting for approximately 13% of maternal deaths.

Guttmacher Institute - Facts on Induced abortion worldwide

Further, since DJT seems to regard himself as a shrewd businessman he ought to have thought twice about this ban since it is likely to cost the US government an extra $500 million dollars in treating women for the consequences of unsafe abortion.

volchitsa

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Just to add to this point, this ban is not only likely to more women seeking abortions but those abortions themselves are more likely to be performed in backstreet clinics and in unsafe conditions, thus putting women and the foetuses they carry in more danger.

We know, from studies carried out by the WHO, that unsafe abortions are a significant cause of maternal death accounting for approximately 13% of maternal deaths.

Guttmacher Institute - Facts on Induced abortion worldwide

Further, since DJT seems to regard himself as a shrewd businessman he ought to have thought twice about this ban since it is likely to cost the US government an extra $500 million dollars in treating women for the consequences of unsafe abortion.

Very true, sadly, except for one quibble, which is that unless I've picked it up wrong, this won't actually cost the US government, because it's aimed at NGOs providing pregnancy care services in poor and developing countries.

Trump is probably a happy bunny over this, because he gets to make a "big" gesture that pleases his conservative allies, while not causing him the problems a higher rate of illegal abortions would/will do.

I suspect the real fun may only start when VP Pence and other stalwarts start wanting to apply their theological beliefs in the US as well. And we know they will.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

Because this is used as a football by U.S. politicians, we've had a pretty unique opportunity to directly observe the effects of banning and unbanning (and banning) this funding.

The data has shown that this ban results in more women seeking abortions.

This is because the NGOs affected aren't just abortion clinics. Like 99.9999% of organisations which provide abortions, the bulk of their services involve family planning and crisis pregnancy services.

When you cut funding to these services, more women have unwanted pregnancies and choose abortion for those pregnancies.

When you fund these organisations, less women have unwanted pregnancies and those that do are less likely to choose abortion.

Well done Republicans, you've just increased the number of abortions that will occur in the US. Jesus would be proud.

While I agree the above is true, I'd suggest that the undesirable outcome is because the policy has been used as a political football, and not necessarily because it is flawed. In other words, if the democrats had not kept unravelling it, it might be working by now.

The policy requires non-governmental organisations receiving federal funding to agree to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations".

But it would take a couple of years for NGO's to evolve, or new ones to emerge, which would replace those on the ground who do not comply with the policy. In the meantime, those who are active on the ground supplying both contraception and abortion find their funding has been cut, hence more unwanted pregnancies occur.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

While I agree the above is true, I'd suggest that the undesirable outcome is because the policy has been used as a political football, and not necessarily because it is flawed. In other words, if the democrats had not kept unravelling it, it might be working by now.

The policy requires non-governmental organisations receiving federal funding to agree to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations".

But it would take a couple of years for NGO's to evolve, or new ones to emerge, which would replace those on the ground who do not comply with the policy. In the meantime, those who are active on the ground supplying both contraception and abortion find their funding has been cut, hence more unwanted pregnancies occur.

What on earth makes you think that its proponents would be satisfied with a ban on abortion only? Contraception is clearly the next step for these people. In fact they already managed in 2001 to get various forms of artificial contraception added.

Any degree of compromise with religious extremists rarely leads to a satisfactory outcome. That's because they're sure they're right and better than you.

From Wikipedia:

The policy originally enacted from 1984-1993 spoke to abortion only, not family planning in general. However, in 2001, the policy was re-implemented and expanded to cover all voluntary family planning activities, and critics began to refer to it as the "global gag rule."

These critics argue that the policy not only reduces the overall funding provided to particular NGOs, it closes off their access to USAID-supplied condoms and other forms of contraception. This, they argue, negatively impacts the ability of these NGOs to distribute birth control, leading to a downturn in contraceptive use and from there to an increase in the rates of unintended pregnancies and abortion. A study of nations in sub-Saharan Africa suggests that unintended pregnancies increased and abortions approximately doubled while the policy was in effect.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

What on earth makes you think that its proponents would be satisfied with a ban on abortion only?

NY Times.

Mr. Trump’s pick for ambassador to the United Nations, Gov. Nikki R. Haley of South Carolina, made clear in her confirmation hearing last week that she opposed abortion, but said she supported funding for contraceptive services in foreign aid programs.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

NY Times.

One person. And she's not the president. The ban was already extended to contraception in 2001 - do you think that happened by accident or something? A lot of those who are most against legal abortion are equally against artificial contraception.

Not to mention that your original claim was that if the Democrats and NGOs had accepted the "compromise" they would now be up and running providing contraception - but the version of the Gag rule that Obama rescinded actually covered contraception - so how do you work out that they could have been providing contraception when that too was banned?

The ban on abortion is only a start. Some Republicans aren't too comfortable with that, but many are totally upfront about it.

oldrnwisr

volchitsa wrote: »

Very true, sadly, except for one quibble, which is that unless I've picked it up wrong, this won't actually cost the US government, because it's aimed at NGOs providing pregnancy care services in poor and developing countries.

Trump is probably a happy bunny over this, because he gets to make a "big" gesture that pleases his conservative allies, while not causing him the problems a higher rate of illegal abortions would/will do.

I suspect the real fun may only start when VP Pence and other stalwarts start wanting to apply their theological beliefs in the US as well. And we know they will.

No, you're absolutely right, thanks for the correction. I misread the article at first as applying to national as well as international organisations. It is stated however that the ban only has relevance outside US borders. Which does of course mean that this increased cost to public health will have to be shouldered by countries which probably can't afford it in the first place.

robindch

pauldla wrote: »

Scurrilous gossip gleaned from the internet: Pence is gay, and has undergone conversation therapy. There are a few skeletons in that closet, it is said. Can I pass this off as 'alternative facts', or is it 'fake news'?

The NY Times has this article which suggests that Pence supported conversion therapy and he certainly has a strong record of attempts to deny LGBT people their constitutional rights.

Three are no reputable reports of him having undergone "conversion therapy" himself, though there are a number of scientific reports which suggest that the homophobes may well be gay themselves.

All of that said, DJT has repeatedly referred to media outlets which report accurately upon his outbursts as "dishonest" and as purveyors of "fake news". As the NY Times has reported accurately on DJT, I'd say - yes, to DJT and his hardline supporters, this is just more fake news intended to demean the Anointed Leader.

frostyjacks

Delirium wrote: »

So you're okay with the funding being cut for HIV/cancer treatment or screenings for mere mention of abortion services?

Absolutely. Why on earth would a healthcare provider jeopardise funding by offering needless abortion services? It's dangerous.

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

Absolutely. Why on earth would a healthcare provider jeopardise funding by offering needless abortion services? It's dangerous.

If they were needless, no one would be looking for them.

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

Absolutely. Why on earth would a healthcare provider jeopardise funding by offering needless abortion services? It's dangerous.

I said 'mention', not 'provide'.

Are you okay with a health provider (who doesn't provide abortions) being defunded if it should mention abortion when discussing an issue with a patient?

frostyjacks

aloyisious wrote: »

If they were needless, no one would be looking for them.

I think you're confusing need with want. Some women may want an abortion, but they don't actually need it.

I would happily defund a health provider if it mentioned or even hinted at abortion with it's patients. Punish evil and promote goodness and life; that is the purpose of the act.

Delirium

Dutch government wants to counter Trump with abortion funds

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The Dutch government says it wants an international fund to finance access to birth control, abortion and education for women in developing countries.

Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation Lilianne Ploumen announced the plan Tuesday in reaction to an executive memorandum U.S. President Donald Trump signed a day earlier. It reinstituted a ban on U.S. funding to international groups that perform abortions or provide information about abortions.

Ploumen wants to launch a new fund that could be supported by governments, businesses and social organizations to “compensate this financial setback as much as possible.”

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think you're confusing need with want. Some women may want an abortion, but they don't actually need it.

If a woman doesn't wish to carry a pregnancy to term, then yeah, she does need an abortion.

I would happily defund a health provider if it mentioned or even hinted at abortion with it's patients. Punish evil and promote goodness and life; that is the purpose of the act.

How exactly is cutting funding to life-saving medical treatments, e.g cancer treatment, doing that (merely for abortion being mentioned in any context)?

oldrnwisr

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think you're confusing need with want. Some women may want an abortion, but they don't actually need it.

I would happily defund a health provider if it mentioned or even hinted at abortion with it's patients. Punish evil and promote goodness and life; that is the purpose of the act.

Except that's not really true. In fact, it's not at all true. There are in fact several medical conditions where abortion is medically necessary such as HELLP syndrome, Eisenmenger's syndrome, molar pregancy, ectopic pregnancy etc.

For example,

"Ectopic pregnancies is a life-threatening condition. The pregnancy cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother's life."

[Source]


or

"Therefore we think that preeclamptic pregnancies must be followed up very closely and if HELLP syndrome develops, termination of the pregnancy would be proper as soon as possible."

[Source]


or even

"Pregnancy is contraindicated in patients with ES (Eisenmenger's syndrome). Abortion is the treatment of choice, once pregnancy has occurred."

[Source]

thee glitz

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Except that's not really true. In fact, it's not at all true.

What you have said equates to all women seeking abortions medically requiring them, which is not true.