Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

volchitsa

No. It's up to you to "characterize" what you claim I've said with quotes from me. And full posts for context. Because at the moment you're ignoring what I've said and claiming I said something entirely different.

So there's no point in me repeating yet again what I've already said several times when you ignore it repeatedly. You'll only ignore it again.

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

No. It's up to you to "characterize" what you claim I've said with quotes from me. And full posts for context. Because at the moment you're ignoring what I've said and claiming I said something entirely different.

So there's no point in me repeating yet again what I've already said several times when you ignore it repeatedly. You'll only ignore it again.

Really there's no point it's all been said above. I see it as a competing rights model. You initially asserted it was an absolute right of the mother model. I challenged that and you've said what you've said, I've said what I've said. It is written as it where. :pac:

I'll leave you with the last word on this, if you wish to take it.

volchitsa

Yes sure. You're lying. What else is there to say?
I certainly didn't talk about absolute rights, and that's just one of your lies.

If you want to tell yourself that's a discussion, fine, but when your argument requires that you lie and misrepresent other people's views, you've already lost.

It's a pity, I had hoped that for once we might have someone who was able to put the anti choice view across coherently.

But clearly not. Someone who declares themselves prochoice who advocates physically restraining and force feeding women who miss the legal deadline for termination. It would be funny if the HSE hadn't actually tried to do that to someone..

Samuel T. Cogley

robindch wrote: »

The US, or at least the blue bits of it, are continuing their rollback of abortion with increasing energy.

If passed, a new law in Oklahoma will require the written permission of the foetus' father before an abortion could go ahead:

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/oklahoma-abortion-law-wants-women-to-get-the-fathers-written-permission-35436832.html

There's some merit to this, legally speaking at least, in that reproductive rights need to be properly considered. I'm not referring there to the RR of the man, I'm talking about a wholesale legal and political examination of RR in general.

aloyisious

robindch wrote: »

The US, or at least the blue bits of it, are continuing their rollback of abortion with increasing energy.

If passed, a new law in Oklahoma will require the written permission of the foetus' father before an abortion could go ahead:

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/oklahoma-abortion-law-wants-women-to-get-the-fathers-written-permission-35436832.html

It's even taking the concept of a law controlling abortion operations a stage further with this bit in it: quote; If the identified man argues that he is not the father, he can legally demand a paternity test, which could delay the abortion procedure by at least three days: unquote.....The law is not just pursuing the pregnant woman seeking an abortion, it's basically pursuing any man stated to be responsible for the pregnancy and making him, under state law, take a paternity test to prove he IS NOT the man responsible. What happens if the man named does NOT want or refuses to take a paternity test, and claims that to force it on him is an infringement of his rights? The follow-on effect will be to deny the woman (any woman) an abortion as an argument could be made in court by anti-abortion people/group that the law had not been fully complied with. I don't imagine there would be a delay in any such move by anti-abortionists, even a speculative lawsuit.

It'd be interesting as to whom can make a statement that so and so is the man responsible for the pregnancy; eg: just the woman or some other party not involved at all in the actual pregnancy do so. Note the use of the word "father" in the law: basically "you are the daddy until and unless you take a paternity test to disprove that claim". That's akin to a double-jeopardy law and obviously designed to lengthen the amount of time it'll take to give the nod, or not, for any abortion. Hopefully that inclusion will be cause enough to strike the law down as including a person not involved in the pregnancy and infringing his personal liberty.

EDIT..... Ta, eviltwin. I missed the obvious.

eviltwin

How do you even perform a paternity test on a very early pregnancy There must be major risks associated with it.

aloyisious

eviltwin wrote: »

How do you even perform a paternity test on a very early pregnancy There must be major risks associated with it.

The link below: seems to have the answers to the important question you raised. It lists the probable risks to getting a sample directly from the womb and shows the alternative ways; via a blood-test on the pregnant woman as, it seems, there is a transfer of DNA from the feotus to the woman's blood, said feotal DNA apparently containing some paternal DNA in it See Para 2 in the link....

Just one thing though - the link is basically an Ad for a Genetics Centre so the info may have to be checked for its verity by googling for other links on the topic of that type of blood testing.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjKjsayqZfSAhWHB8AKHYvoDYoQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prenatalgeneticscenter.com%2Fservices%2Fprenatal-dna-paternity-test%2F&usg=AFQjCNHP5ERCbDpVU9gItF2ewRCrOfXWGQ

aloyisious

I'm unable to provide a direct link to this video but it's on the right-side of the front page of the Washington Post in this link with a precis of the public life history of a (as it says) complicated woman, Norma McCorvey the plaintiff in the Roe v Wade case before the USSC in 1973...... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwilna-AzZ7SAhUWOsAKHU93COUQFggZMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNETSDsQaKbctlDIXhQmMKDbJ-6GyQ

Zerbini Blewitt

Another cabal of extremist pro-life ideologues were on Pat Kenny (TV3) again last night: Maria Steen plus a couple more in the audience.

They all avoided answering clearly why they believe it is a great thing (and not cruel & degrading treatment) that women are coerced against their will to give birth here to fetuses without a brain or without a kidney so they can then watch it die within minutes or an hour. The best they came up with was “we need to look at this holistically”

Maybe, an IONA apparatchik like Maria will only agree to go on such shows if they are allowed a soft ball on the core issues. Grrr.

jameorahiely

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Another cabal of extremist pro-life ideologues were on Pat Kenny (TV3) again last night: Maria Steen plus a couple more in the audience.

They all avoided answering clearly why they believe it is a great thing (and not cruel & degrading treatment) that women are coerced against their will to give birth here to fetuses without a brain or without a kidney so they can then watch it die within minutes or an hour. The best they came up with was “we need to look at this holistically”

Maybe, an IONA apparatchik like Maria will only agree to go on such shows if they are allowed a soft ball on the core issues. Grrr.

You must have been watching a different pat kenny show I was. Clare Daly got annilated and the doctor couldn't answer why he was prepared to kill a child after he admitted they were 2 different people.

Clare also spoke in terms of the baby being the womans possession. Maria was the only coherant one on the panel.

Zerbini Blewitt

Maybe can you explain (if you believe it to be so) why it is a great thing (and not cruel & degrading treatment) that women are coerced against their will here to give birth to foetuses without a brain or without a kidney so they can then watch it die within minutes or an hour.

Samuel T. Cogley

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Maybe can you explain (if you believe it to be so) why it is a great thing (and not cruel & degrading treatment) that women are coerced against their will here to give birth to foetuses without a brain or without a kidney so they can then watch it die within minutes or an hour.

Would you be prepared to explain why someone should be allowed to terminate a perfectly healthy fetus, which has began to undergo significant brain development in our neighbouring jurisdiction?

The problem with taking the very worst case scenarios is they're not very helpful in clarifying a position. Apologies if you were referring to a particular point raided on the show, I don't watch much Irish TV.

Zerbini Blewitt

In recent surveys, people like Maria who hold extreme pro-life views such as - no exceptions even for foetuses without a brain- are a small minority, 7% I think.

FFA & similar cases do exist and I disagree that looking at these cases is not helpful.

If one agrees with Maria’s extremism, then we need to get the question (I asked) answered, clearly.

If one is somewhat pro-life but makes an allowance for rape, incest, FFA then that needs forensic analysis for undecideds in any possible upcoming vote.

So I’d prefer to deal with this specific aspect of the issue first and I’ll happily answer your question then.

Samuel T. Cogley

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

In recent surveys, people like Maria who hold extreme pro-life views such as - no exceptions even for foetuses without a brain- are a small minority, 7% I think.

FFA & similar cases do exist and I disagree that looking at these cases is not helpful.

If one agrees with Maria’s extremism, then we need to get the question (I asked) answered, clearly.

If one is somewhat pro-life but makes an allowance for rape, incest, FFA then that needs forensic analysis for undecideds in any possible upcoming vote.

So I’d prefer to deal with this specific aspect of the issue first and I’ll happily answer your question then.

You didn't really ask me :pac: but I completely agree. I also think our current position is completely ridiculous. I don't want to see that position replaced with abortion on demand with no restrictions or consideration to how late it's let go.

oldrnwisr

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Would you be prepared to explain why someone should be allowed to terminate a perfectly healthy fetus, which has began to undergo significant brain development in our neighbouring jurisdiction?

The problem with taking the very worst case scenarios is they're not very helpful in clarifying a position. Apologies if you were referring to a particular point raided on the show, I don't watch much Irish TV.

Well, if you're looking for clarification then perhaps you might define what you mean by significant brain development.

I agree that taking worst case scenarios is not very helpful to the overall debate but then talking about terminating a "perfectly healthy fetus, which has began to undergo significant brain development in our neighbouring jurisdiction" is exactly the kind of worst case scenario you're railing against. You see, 92% of all abortions are performed on or after 12 weeks at which point there is no significant brain development. At this point there is no motor function, no thalamic connections to detect pain or stimuli, no detectable brainwave activity, no major brain function. In fact (and I'm being generous to your point of view here) all the terminations of what could be termed as "a healthy foetus undergoing significant brain development" adds up to just 7% of all terminations. IMO, that's just as much of a worst case scenario as the one you're decrying.

Samuel T. Cogley

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, if you're looking for clarification then perhaps you might define what you mean by significant brain development.

I agree that taking worst case scenarios is not very helpful to the overall debate but then talking about terminating a "perfectly healthy fetus, which has began to undergo significant brain development in our neighbouring jurisdiction" is exactly the kind of worst case scenario you're railing against. You see, 92% of all abortions are performed on or after 12 weeks at which point there is no significant brain development. At this point there is no motor function, no thalamic connections to detect pain or stimuli, no detectable brainwave activity, no major brain function. In fact (and I'm being generous to your point of view here) all the terminations of what could be termed as "a healthy foetus undergoing significant brain development" adds up to just 7% of all terminations. IMO, that's just as much of a worst case scenario as the one you're decrying.

More making a point rather than railing against it. I'm more than happy to move the discussion to more reasonable ground but the OP (for the purposes of this) wanted a specific scenario addressed.

In regard to a 12 week limit on purely a purely statistical analysis, I'd have no issues with that being a legal limit if the current state of medical science backs up what you have described, I take it at face value that it does.

I also have no issue with later abortions on a case by case basis assessed against the rights of the mother. I also see absolutely no point in seeing pregnancies to term which will result in a very short life (less than a year).

aloyisious

I have't got the Irish Times yet to give it's latest poll a reading-through but the broadcasted - o RTE's "what it says in the papers" sounds like the yes to change side are not getting all they want.

I'm actually surprised that the I/T (as a independent public-opinion-forming publication) published the poll on the day before the Sat (tomorrow) meeting of the assembly where women who have had abortions will give their testimony on how they feel the abortion operations did (or did not) affect them subsequently given the chance that the published poll might affect how the assembly members receive and perceive it and the women's testimony and thus affect how the members form opinions on the testimony in relation to their advice to be the basis of the assembly report to the Oireachtas. However that is just how I see the poll might affect any advice thought up tomorrow by the assembly members after reading it and hearing the testimony and I might be seeing shadows where there are none.

smacl

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Would you be prepared to explain why someone should be allowed to terminate a perfectly healthy fetus, which has began to undergo significant brain development in our neighbouring jurisdiction?

Because they can't currently do it here.

smacl

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm not really surprised that the I/T (as a independent public-opinion-forming publication in the business of selling newspapers) published the poll on the day before the Sat (tomorrow) meeting of the assembly

FYP

seamus

aloyisious wrote: »

I have't got the Irish Times yet to give it's latest poll a reading-through but the broadcasted - o RTE's "what it says in the papers" sounds like the yes to change side are not getting all they want.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll

Tbh, the results seem pretty consistent with the attitudes on the ground. People are strongly in favour of legalising abortion for rape, FFAs, severe abnormalities, threat to the mother's health or life, and threat of suicide.

Strong opposition to abortion for being "unable to cope" and virtually no support for late-term abortions.

People do want a repeal of the eighth and a replacement with something better, but the kicker is that I don't believe it's possible to craft any constitutional amendment that will satisfy the desire for "everything except abortion on demand". You could come up with a long and complicated new article, which will then spawn challenge after challenge on its meaning and implications and not only leave our laws in a crazy state, but in a constitutional tangle that's even more difficult to correct than the one we have now.

The only sensible way to be able to control access to abortion in a way that's uncomplicated is realistically to repeal the eighth and do it in legislation.

smacl

seamus wrote: »

The only sensible way to be able to control access to abortion in a way that's uncomplicated is realistically to repeal the eighth and do it in legislation.

The only way to you could actually control access to abortion would be to deny pregnant women the right to travel, which of course is never going to happen. So really what we're actually talking about is controlling access to abortion for those that don't have the means to travel, which comes down to those who are too sick, too poor, underage, or otherwise restricted. As I see it, any legislation is essentially there to protect the sensibilities of those who oppose abortion for whatever reason while only really affecting this very vulnerable section of society.

In this day and age where we have the morning after pill available over the counter as an effective emergency contraceptive that will work for up to 5 days after intercourse, the need for abortion on demand should be minimised through education about birth control to a much larger extent. Yes, there will be exceptions where it doesn't work or a woman changes her mind for whatever reason later on, but really these should be the exceptions.

aloyisious

I foresee that the anti-side will probably prefer the legislation route, rather than the constitutional section, as any attempt to go the legislative route in the Oireachtas could be tied up there in arguments (fake and otherwise) and filibustering for years, and on the outside in court actions on constitutional grounds.

PopePalpatine

Not to mention that they can use the "abortion on demand" boogeyman to swing voters if there's a referendum on totally repealing the 8th.

Samuel T. Cogley

Interesting thing I stumbled across during Con Law revision. Under Art 27 an ordinary legislative provision can be referred to the people for referendum. It's never been used. I wonder if we'll see it being used in any abortion legislation. For all it's faults there's occasionally some real foresight in Ireland's Constitution.

I'll punt this over into Legal discussions if people don't want to discuss it here.

frostyjacks

A 22 second phone call to a non-medically trained call centre worker is all it takes to end a life. Shocking.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4284290/Marie-Stopes-abortions-signed-just-phonecall.html

Even if the mother doesn't give sufficient reasons for wanting to kill her baby, the clinic will just make stuff up. Not in our country, thank you very much.

smacl

frostyjacks wrote: »

Not in our country, thank you very much.

Our country, where women travel abroad to get the abortions they want or need while smug and indignant self righteous types congratulate themselves on job well done? Rather reminiscent of the single mothers ending up in Tuam don't you think? Out of sight, out of mind. :rolleyes:

seamus

frostyjacks wrote: »

A 22 second phone call to a non-medically trained call centre worker is all it takes to end a life. Shocking.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4284290/Marie-Stopes-abortions-signed-just-phonecall.html

Even if the mother doesn't give sufficient reasons for wanting to kill her baby, the clinic will just make stuff up. Not in our country, thank you very much.

Ah the Daily Mail.
It's written right there in the article that Marie Stopes have done nothing legally or ethically wrong yet the Daily Mail has decided the evil abortionists are champing at the bit to murder some babies.

rainbow kirby

frostyjacks wrote: »

Even if the mother doesn't give sufficient reasons for wanting to kill her baby, the clinic will just make stuff up. Not in our country, thank you very much.

It's absolutely none of anyone's business but their own why someone may not want to be pregnant.

frostyjacks

rainbow kirby wrote: »

It's absolutely none of anyone's business but their own why someone may not want to be pregnant.

You're wrong. The father needs to know. Doctors need to know. We all need to know why a woman would do such an evil act.

It's not her body to decide on. If she didn't want to get pregnant, then don't get pregnant. It's not unreasonable to ask of these modern, intelligent women who suddenly have an opinion on literally everything.

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

You're wrong. The father needs to know. Doctors need to know. We all need to know why a woman would do such an evil act.

It's not her body to decide on. If she didn't want to get pregnant, then don't get pregnant. It's not unreasonable to ask of these modern, intelligent women who suddenly have an opinion on literally everything.

You do realise women who have abortions aren't deliberately getting pregnant to have abortions?