Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Abortion Discussion, Part Trois
Comments
-
Or the thinking that not intervening to terminate a pregnancy constitutes 'forced pregnancy' needs to stop?
You seem to have garbled your language Absolam. Not like you :rolleyes: One might even suspect obfuscation (I love that word!). Nobody except yourself is suggesting that a forced pregnancy can be defined as "not intervening to terminate a pregnancy" so that thinking does not have to stop as you're the only person offering it as a definition. You could stop thinking it whenever you like. Or keep thinking it, whichever you prefer.
It would however, only be correct to say that a forced pregnancy is one where someone is stopped from intervening to terminate their pregnancy. Lack of intervention does not constitute being forced to remain pregnant. But you knew that really, eh?0 -
I have always seen the pro-life side of being for quantity over quality.
While 30,000 5,000 people march through Dublin to insist that every foetus in existence should be born, I have never seen the same effort put into protecting the quality of life of those that are born.
Fatal-foetal abnormality? Shut up and enjoy your few hours with your gasping dying baby.
Smoking during pregnancy? You shouldn't do that... but a premature birth or low birth weight (and all the complications that go with them) are good enough with us as long as it's born!
Drinking during pregnancy? Is the baby born? Then we won't bother marching to stop Foetal Alcohol Syndrome.0 -
A forced pregnancy is a pregnancy that is not allowed to be terminated if the mother wishes to do so. What else should we call it? A temporary absence of one's bodily integrity? Reduced quality of life in favour of quantity of life?
I think we should call it "The extraordinary withdrawal of the rights of the born human to facilitate the extraordinary belief that the fullness of life of the human embryo outweighs those rights", but that would be too long.
The only debate worth having (to me) is on the sanctity of human life of the pre-sentient embryo relative to the right of the human to bodily integrity.
However, if we are to debate abortion properly in Ireland, we absolutely have to start looking at why so many Irish people believe that an unformed human life is sacrosanct and why this view is so subjective in our nation in particular. The actual wording of the eighth presumes that the right to life of the unborn remains the same from conception to birth. Do we as a nation think this? Have we ever been asked, or did a vested interest come up with what way we were asked?0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »The thinking that forced pregnancy is OK in some situations is what needs to stop.There is no hierarchy of 'good abortions' or 'bad abortions'.
To pretend that all abortions and all reasons for abortions are equal is to lose this debate. The simple fact is that some abortions are more critical than others.
That a failure to obtain an abortion will have worse outcomes in some cases than in others.
I agree that if a woman wants to end a pregnancy within a reasonable timeframe then she should be permitted to do so and the why is none of my business.
But it can't be honestly stated that being forced to carry a fatal abnormality to term, and being forced to carry a healthy child to term have outcomes of equal severity.
Unfortunately it's the latter that gets focussed on. And it's actually in ignoring this hierarchy of importance/hierarchy of severity that the anti-choice crowd win the debate - by pretending that all abortions are equal, elective, and evil.0 -
A forced pregnancy is a pregnancy that is not allowed to be terminated if the mother wishes to do so. What else should we call it? A temporary absence of one's bodily integrity? Reduced quality of life in favour of quantity of life?You seem to have garbled your language Absolam. Not like you :rolleyes: One might even suspect obfuscation (I love that word!).Nobody except yourself is suggesting that a forced pregnancy can be defined as "not intervening to terminate a pregnancy" so that thinking does not have to stop as you're the only person offering it as a definition. You could stop thinking it whenever you like. Or keep thinking it, whichever you prefer.
It would however, only be correct to say that a forced pregnancy is one where someone is stopped from intervening to terminate their pregnancy. Lack of intervention does not constitute being forced to remain pregnant. But you knew that really, eh?[/QUOTE]0 -
-
I would suggest calling an unwanted pregnacy a forced pregnancy is obfuscation... but I guess it depends on what it is you think someone is looking to obscure?No.. but they are suggesting that not permitting intervention to terminate a pregancy should be called forced pregnancy, are they not? So perhaps we should stop that...
Well I'm not trying to obscure anything. I do indeed suggest that someone stopped from ending an unwanted pregnancy is being forced to remain pregnant. This is not obfuscation. I'm not sure I understand how you think it could be, but I'm picking up that you think pregnancy somehow confers a voluntary handing over of one's own life choices to another authority? Perhaps it does, at a certain point in pregnancy; that is debatable. As is whether pregnancy should or should not confer the handing over of one's life choices.
Which comes back to my last post about whether sanctity of life of the embryo/foetus remains the same throughout pregnancy. What say you on that, out of interest?0 -
-
#tewotrotbhtftebttfolotheotr
Your search - tewotrotbhtftebttfolotheotr - did not match any documents.
Hmm. Not a longer version of "tl;dr" then.... Did I confuse you?!
I thought it was perfectly clear myself! May have been a little Jesuitical though.
Ha ha, oh wait......
Bit slow, sorry0 -
Advertisement
-
Well I'm not trying to obscure anything. I do indeed suggest that someone stopped from ending an unwanted pregnancy is being forced to remain pregnant. This is not obfuscation.
I'm sure you'll consider such a distinction jesuitical, but I'd say it's the reasoning that arrives at the choice of the word 'forced' in the first place that deserves the description....I'm not sure I understand how you think it could be, but I'm picking up that you think pregnancy somehow confers a voluntary handing over of one's own life choices to another authority? Perhaps it does, at a certain point in pregnancy; that is debatable. As is whether pregnancy should or should not confer the handing over of one's life choices.Which comes back to my last post about whether sanctity of life of the embryo/foetus remains the same throughout pregnancy. What say you on that, out of interest?0 -
-
Depends on your point of view I suppose; I'd suggest it's obfuscation to say an unwanted pregnancy is a forced pregnancy; the term 'forced' is ambiguous in the context, giving the impression that an act of agency is being applied to the pregnancy when in fact it is an act of prohibition that is being referred to. It conveys the impression that there is no voluntary component to the pregnancy, which is not necessarily true. I think the term forced is deliberately used to frame the pregnancy in terms of absolute compulsion; but as I said forcing is an act of agency rather than an act of prohibition (something I think is not lost on those who coin the term 'forced pregnancy'). A person in that circumstance is not actively being compelled to be pregnant, they are being prohibited from ending that pregnancy due to the effect it would have on another person. A prohibition that exists on a vast array of actions, without requiring the addition of the term 'forced' to a description of them.
I'm sure you'll consider such a distinction jesuitical, but I'd say it's the reasoning that arrives at the choice of the word 'forced' in the first place that deserves the description....
So yes, "forced" conveys the impression that there is no voluntary component to the pregnancy, because becoming pregnant by accident or other misfortune is not a voluntary act, unless you are next going to stoop as low as the anti-choice argument that claims the act of sex is where a person volunteers to become pregnant.
One might as well claim that the act of hill-walking confers that breaking one's leg has a voluntary component. And to expand on this analogy using your reasoning, the subsequent prohibition for treatment cannot be called being forced to remain with the broken leg as a lack of agency does not confer compulsion. Which would be stupid, and I'm sure the distinction would be as equally lost on the person suffering from a broken leg as it would be on the person suffering from a crisis pregnancy.
As to the effect ending a pregnancy would have on another person, you feel implantation confers personhood, but thousands of women every year clearly do not, alongside a yet to be determined percentage of the Irish population. That is what we should be asked about, as per my previous post. Is the life of the non-sentient embryo equally as sacrosanct as the life of the sentient one?0 -
-
Yes, I consider the distinction jesuitical to the point of farce. What else would you call an unwanted pregnancy that someone is not allowed to end then? You were asked this before....So yes, "forced" conveys the impression that there is no voluntary component to the pregnancy, because becoming pregnant by accident or other misfortune is not a voluntary act, unless you are next going to stoop as low as the anti-choice argument that claims the act of sex is where a person volunteers to become pregnant.One might as well claim that the act of hill-walking confers that breaking one's leg has a voluntary component. And to expand on this analogy using your reasoning, the subsequent prohibition for treatment cannot be called being forced to remain with the broken leg as a lack of agency does not confer compulsion. Which would be stupid, and I'm sure the distinction would be as equally lost on the person suffering from a broken leg as it would be on the person suffering from a crisis pregnancy.As to the effect ending a pregnancy would have on another person, you feel implantation confers personhood, but thousands of women every year clearly do not, alongside a yet to be determined percentage of the Irish population. That is what we should be asked about, as per my previous post. Is the life of the non-sentient embryo equally as sacrosanct as the life of the sentient one?0
-
-
Advertisement
-
Sure, I'll agree with the first two and disagree with the third, for the reasons I've given above.
All unwanted pregnancies are pregnancies, but not all pregnancies are unwanted pregnancies.
All forced pregnancies are unwanted pregnancies*, but not all unwanted pregnancies are forced pregnancies.
Forced pregnancies are a subset defined by making the choice to end the pregnancy but not being allowed to carry it out.
Whether you agree with the right of a woman to make that choice or not, you must recognise that this group of people exist.
* There is also the group of wanted pregnancies that choose to terminate due to FFA or other similar situations, but they would still fall under the above definition.0 -
In which case you'd agree it's farcical to offer the distinction and unwanted pregnancy is sufficient? As for what I was asked, I did answer at the time. I said "How about a pregnancy that is not allowed to be terminated if a mother wishes to do so?" Though I think unwanted pregnancy is amply accurate, if pushed.No but the act of sex is (usually) a voluntary one, which is by far the most usual way to become pregnant. Surely if we can exclude an actual act that forms part of pregnancy in considering its description, it's a bit of a about-face to then use an act that's prohibited from being part of the pregnancy in considering it's description?Not the best of similes I'd say, but still.... We mightn't say he had a forced broken leg from hill walking.... he wasn't forced, either by the hillwalking or any other agency to have a broken leg. And if he were prohibited from treating the broken leg, he still wouldn't have a forced broken leg. No one forced it to stay broken, it was going to do that on it's own anyway. Though he'd probably have an unwanted broken leg.As for whether the life of the non-sentient embryo is equally as sacrosanct as the life of the sentient one, I did already say; I'm not a fan of the notion of sanctity. If I don't agree with the concept, I can hardly judge who it should and shouldn't apply to can I?0
-
All forced pregnancies are unwanted pregnancies*, but not all unwanted pregnancies are forced pregnancies.Whether you agree with the right of a woman to make that choice or not, you must recognise that this group of people exist.0
-
No, the unwanted pregnancy is only accurate up to the point that one is compelled (any better?) to continue with the unwanted pregnancy. Thereafter, it needs a term to convey the further lack of choice or agency in the matter.I see what you mean (just about!), but by the same regard there would be no need for the term "forced pregnancy" if it weren't for the notion that an unwanted pregnancy has been voluntarily entered into.Ok, not the best of similes, but you got and took my point. And then garbled it. How does having been prohibited from treating the broken leg mean that he only has an unwanted broken leg? He already had an unwanted broken leg but the act of prohibiting treatment confers a forced component on it remaining broken. He has been forced to remain with a broken leg.But you're happy enough with the fact that this sanctity of life of an implanted embryo is enshrined in our constitution? That already is making a judgement. I'm not asking you to agree with me on the subject, I'm asking you to debate it with me. Instead, you rather obliquely are dismissing the concept at the same time as wishing to let it stand.0
-
A pregnant woman on a desert island where there are no abortion facilities doesn't have a forced pregnancy, though she may have an unwanted one.
She does have a forced pregnancy, it just happens to be forced by circumstance rather than law.
I would say the term forced pregnancy does not come from a need to use a pergorative term but rather it comes from a need to adequately and accurately describe the circumstances some women find themselves in where laws prevent them from exercising control over their own reproductive function. That some people feel it is a pergorative speaks more to them than the term.
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
So a pregnancy that is unwanted, but which a prospective mother does not wish to end (despite not wanting it) is simply an unwanted pregnancy. You're then contending an unwanted pregnancy becomes a forced pregnancy solely by virtue of the prospective mother's desire to end it? You'll have to admit, that choice comes before whether or not the facility to do so is available. The pregnancy is not forced; the facility to terminate the pregnancy is not made available. A pregnant woman on a desert island where there are no abortion facilities doesn't have a forced pregnancy, though she may have an unwanted one. To claim someone is forced into something because someone else doesn't give them something they want is at best a misleading characterisation. But I have to say in this context I think it's a deliberately dishonest one; it's an attempt to over broadly re-interpret a concept purely in order to derive a negative connotation.
That some women who are pregnant and wish to terminate their pregnancy exist? Of course. That women who wish to terminate thier pregnancies but are not given the facility to do so exist? Of course. That women whose pregnancies are forced exist? Not as you've set out, no.
Sorry, I should probably clarify more. A forced pregnancy is not a pregnancy that was forced upon someone to begin with (although I'm sure there are probably some horrible situations out there.) A forced pregnancy is when someone is denied the right to end the pregnancy.
An unwanted pregnancy is when someone (who is pregnant) does not want to be pregnant. Some still continue with it while others choose to end it. When someone decides to end it but is refused the right to do so ("the facility to terminate the pregnancy is not made available"), that is the moment it becomes a forced pregnancy. The only option then is to either remain pregnant against their will, or break the law (or travel to where the law does not apply).
So the term "forced pregnancy" does not refer to forcing someone to become pregnant, but forcing them to remain pregnant.
It would be somewhat equivalent to you going to a restaurant and ordering a meal. You begin eating but you don't like the meal so you have 2 choices, keep eating it in silent (or not so silent) suffering or stop eating it. You choose to stop eating it but the staff don't let you. They use whatever techniques are at the disposal of the nefarious restaurant industry to make you eat the meal until it is finished.
You chose to go to the restaurant. You chose the meal from the menu. You chose to start eating the meal. Should you therefore lose the right to choose to stop eating it? Even if you knowingly went to a Russian roulette themed restaurant where you get served a random meal from the menu and you happened to get the 1 meal out of 100 that you absolutely despise, should you have the right to not eat it?
(I may have gone overboard with the restaurant analogy... :P )0 -
She does have a forced pregnancy, it just happens to be forced by circumstance rather than law.I would say the term forced pregnancy does not come from a need to use a pergorative term but rather it comes from a need to adequately and accurately describe the circumstances some women find themselves in where laws prevent them from exercising control over their own reproductive function. That some people feel it is a pergorative speaks more to them than the term.0
-
Sorry, I should probably clarify more. A forced pregnancy is not a pregnancy that was forced upon someone to begin with (although I'm sure there are probably some horrible situations out there.) A forced pregnancy is when someone is denied the right to end the pregnancy.An unwanted pregnancy is when someone (who is pregnant) does not want to be pregnant. Some still continue with it while others choose to end it. When someone decides to end it but is refused the right to do so ("the facility to terminate the pregnancy is not made available"), that is the moment it becomes a forced pregnancy. The only option then is to either remain pregnant against their will, or break the law (or travel to where the law does not apply).So the term "forced pregnancy" does not refer to forcing someone to become pregnant, but forcing them to remain pregnant.
There is no law that demands a pregnancy must continue.
There is no legal penalty for a pregnancy that does not continue.
There is no compulsion on a woman to remain pregnant.
There is however a law that prohibits the intentional destruction of unborn human life. You might argue that such a prohibition places such a means of terminating a pregnancy outside a womans reach, and since in the vast majority of circumstaces it is the only way of doing so, places any means of terminating the pregnancy outside her reach. You might argue that by not making that means available, a woman cannot exercise the choice she wishes to make, and by not being offered the opportunity to make a choice a woman must continue on the course she is already on. You might argue that not being offered a choice effectively forces a woman to continue with what she is already doing; I would say, as Shrap would have it, that such an argument is jesuitical to the point of farce.It would be somewhat equivalent to you going to a restaurant and ordering a meal. You begin eating but you don't like the meal so you have 2 choices, keep eating it in silent (or not so silent) suffering or stop eating it. You choose to stop eating it but the staff don't let you. They use whatever techniques are at the disposal of the nefarious restaurant industry to make you eat the meal until it is finished.
You chose to go to the restaurant. You chose the meal from the menu. You chose to start eating the meal. Should you therefore lose the right to choose to stop eating it? Even if you knowingly went to a Russian roulette themed restaurant where you get served a random meal from the menu and you happened to get the 1 meal out of 100 that you absolutely despise, should you have the right to not eat it?
(I may have gone overboard with the restaurant analogy... :P )0 -
If one person is denying another person the means to an end, that is a denial. That is the situation with regard to abortion here in the 26 county republic we live in. Any reasonable person looking at the laws and guidelines here cannot say it is otherwise at the moment.
I think the discussion about dining is rather a red herring, regardless of how tasty fish in tomato sauce tastes.0 -
If one person is denying another person the means to an end, that is a denial. That is the situation with regard to abortion here in the 26 county republic we live in. Any reasonable person looking at the laws and guidelines here cannot say it is otherwise at the moment.
I think the discussion about dining is rather a red herring, regardless of how tasty fish in tomato sauce tastes.0 -
aloyisious wrote: »If one person is denying another person the means to an end, that is a denial. That is the situation with regard to abortion here in the 26 county republic we live in. Any reasonable person looking at the laws and guidelines here cannot say it is otherwise at the moment.
I think the discussion about dining is rather a red herring, regardless of how tasty fish in tomato sauce tastes.
I've never liked tomato sauce on fish. Except fish fingers. It's good on fish fingers. Well.... ketchup is. I have low tastes.0 -
Could you point out what other alternative a pregnant woman - who has requested an abortion and is denied it - actually has, other than to proceed with the pregnancy? I am omitting the obvious and crude alternatives of self-induced termination or simple suicide for obvious reasons.
Re posters advertising points of view on this issue, we're used to strange and quite emotional ones thought fitting by Ad/PR firms and advisors here.0 -
aloyisious wrote: »Could you point out what other alternative a pregnant woman - who has requested an abortion and is denied it - actually has, other than to proceed with the pregnancy? I am omitting the obvious and crude alternatives of self-induced termination or simple suicide for obvious reasons.aloyisious wrote: »Re posters advertising points of view on this issue, we're used to strange and quite emotional ones thought fitting by Ad/PR firms and advisors here.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 26436
A person who is pregnant in Ireland does not have an opportunity to choose to terminate their pregnancy by destroying the life of their unborn child.
Actually they do, both by legal means and illegal means.
They can travel unsupported to the England and have an abortion thus making youth defense eternally happy so they can claim Ireland is "abortion free". Meanwhile women in cases of rape, incest, fetal fetal abnormalities etc continue to travel unsupported and failed by the Irish state.
Or they can acquire tablets over the internet to terminate the fetus in the early stages, as we know Irish customs "might" catch them in the post but they sure as hell won't arrest any women who happens to travel down on a train with a box of them. The also won't stop or arrest any women who may hold or take these tablets even in the middle of the main street of our capital city.
So the tablets are illegal by law but clearly the state aren't pushed about ownership of them and use of them other then customs catching them now and then.0 -
Actually they do, both by legal means and illegal means. They can travel unsupported to the England and have an abortion thus making youth defense eternally happy so they can claim Ireland is "abortion free". Meanwhile women in cases of rape, incest, fetal fetal abnormalities etc continue to travel unsupported and failed by the Irish state.Or they can acquire tablets over the internet to terminate the fetus in the early stages, as we know Irish customs "might" catch them in the post but they sure as hell won't arrest any women who happens to travel down on a train with a box of them.So the tablets are illegal by law but clearly the state aren't pushed about ownership of them and use of them other then customs catching them now and then.
As for now and then, Galway Pro Choice claims in 2009 alone, 1,216 illegal packets of abortion inducing drugs were seized by Irish Customs. Sounds like a little more than now and then?0 -
Advertisement
-
If you prefer I can rephrase as "A person who is pregnant in Ireland does not have an opportunity to choose to terminate their pregnancy by destroying the life of their unborn child in Ireland", but I think you understood what I meant; you probably know I'm aware the choice is available in States outside the jurisdiction of Ireland.
Why should Ireland get to maintain its religiously-inspired delusion that there is not such thing as an Irish abortion? Time to grow the hell up and actually start looking after its women.0 -
rainbow kirby wrote: »Why should Ireland get to maintain its religiously-inspired delusion that there is not such thing as an Irish abortion? Time to grow the hell up and actually start looking after its women.
Given the amount of campaigning that goes on, you'd imagine most of Ireland at this point is aware of the abortions that occur in Ireland. If they're not, it's hardly due to a lack of coverage.
Maybe it's time to grow up and realise Ireland actually attempts to look after not just its women, but its children as well.0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 26436
Maybe it's time to grow up and realise Ireland actually attempts to look after not just its women, but its children as well.
So a fetus is now the same as a child now? I think you'll find this is certainly not the case.Perhaps it's a delusion to think Ireland maintains a religiously-inspired delusion
Far from delusional, the constitutions includes the 8th amendment. The same constitutions that gives a special place to a god. Including the 8th was heavily lobbied by religions groups.
The block to allowing proper support for women in Ireland is without a question religiously inspired its laughable that you will try and claim otherwise.
It has no place in modern Ireland, much the same as the block to gay couples and marriage had no place in Ireland and the same religious groups against choice for abortions lobbied heavily against marriage equality.you'd imagine most of Ireland at this point is aware of the abortions that occur in Ireland. If they're not, it's hardly due to a lack of coverage.
Youth Defense continue to claim Ireland is abortion free, perhaps they are simply in denial?
Many women use pills for abortions, but I doubt many women also feel the need to shout it from the rooftops at the same time...especially given the stigma from a bunch of backwards people it will get them and the potential legal issues it would bring them.
Even if the state didn't go after them in certain situations they could land themselves in a negative situation with their employer, for example a teacher could be sacked from a catholic ethos school for going against the ethos.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Maybe it's time to grow up and realise Ireland actually attempts to look after not just its women, but its children as well.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 26436
The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »Unless you leave the country while pregnant, then Ireland just pretends nothing is going on. Some country that allows people to travel to kill their "children".
Funny that isn't it,
But clearly the Irish state doesn't see a fetus as equal to a child, if they did they'd ban travel for abortions,
Meanwhile the Irish state does stop Irish citizens from traveling to other country's to kill themselves,0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,567 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 17275
Cora, torture, Amnesty, torture, something something.
https://twitter.com/CoraSherlock/status/690509324951625728
Kitty Holland has written about the Halappanavar case again.
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/kitty-holland-now-is-the-time-to-tackle-the-lies-told-about-the-savita-case-1.2506782#.VqUYPxMzM4s.twitterIn the aftermath of the tragedy, there were three inquiries: an inquest in Galway, conducted by Dr Ciaran MacLoughlin, in April 2013; a Health Service Executive investigation chaired by the British obstetrician Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, its report published in June 2013; and an inquiry by the Health Information and Quality Authority (Hiqa), published in October 2013.
Repeatedly since, anti-abortion campaigners have seized selectively on their findings, saying all three “proved” Halappanavar’s death was a result of medical mismanagement and not of her request to have her unviable pregnancy terminated being ignored.
In the context where, as a pregnant woman wanting a termination Halappanavar had no input into her care (the only other groups similarly denied input into their care are minors and the mentally impaired), the added medical mismanagement did indeed lead to her death.
~
It is worth noting that neither the inquest nor Hiqa had within their remits the right to comment or make recommendations on the Constitution. To infer from their silence on this an endorsement of article 40.3.3 is disingenuous in the extreme.
Unlike any anti-abortion advocate, I was at all eight days of the inquest. In his summing-up to the jury before it retired to consider its verdict, Dr MacLoughlin pushed the boundaries probably as far as any coroner could in alluding to the constitutional confinement on women and doctors.
“The coroner’s court is a creature of statute. It is not for the court to advise the Oireachtas on the law or amendments to the law. The Oireachtas may take cognisance of these proceedings.”
Three months later, the HSE report noted: “International best practice includes expediting delivery [ie termination] in this clinical situation of an inevitable miscarriage at 17 weeks . . . and infection in the uterus because of the risk to the mother.”
Prof Arulkumaran went further, asking just how much injury to a woman as a result of a health- threatening pregnancy Ireland was prepared to accept before an abortion would be acceptable: “If you have infection, by the time it comes to sepsis and severe sepsis, Fallopian tubes might be injured, she might become sub- fertile, she might come later on [with an] ectopic pregnancy . . . I mean, how much are you prepared to take before you start considering termination of pregnancy?”
Expect some letters tomorrow, no doubt.Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.
CMod: Entertainment
0 -
rainbow kirby wrote: »Don't make me laugh. Read some of the stories here and then come back and tell me that Irish hospitals give a damn about women.0
-
Advertisement
-
So a fetus is now the same as a child now? I think you'll find this is certainly not the case.Far from delusional, the constitutions includes the 8th amendment. The same constitutions that gives a special place to a god. Including the 8th was heavily lobbied by religions groups.The block to allowing proper support for women in Ireland is without a question religiously inspired its laughable that you will try and claim otherwise.It has no place in modern Ireland, much the same as the block to gay couples and marriage had no place in Ireland and the same religious groups against choice for abortions lobbied heavily against marriage equality.Youth Defense continue to claim Ireland is abortion free, perhaps they are simply in denial?Many women use pills for abortions, but I doubt many women also feel the need to shout it from the rooftops at the same time...especially given the stigma from a bunch of backwards people it will get them and the potential legal issues it would bring them.Even if the state didn't go after them in certain situations they could land themselves in a negative situation with their employer, for example a teacher could be sacked from a catholic ethos school for going against the ethos.0
-
The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »Unless you leave the country while pregnant, then Ireland just pretends nothing is going on. Some country that allows people to travel to kill their "children".Funny that isn't it, But clearly the Irish state doesn't see a fetus as equal to a child, if they did they'd ban travel for abortions,Meanwhile the Irish state does stop Irish citizens from traveling to other country's to kill themselves,
To be honest, I don't think the Irish State does stop Irish citizens from travelling to another country to kill themselves. It penalises people who aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide or attempted suicide of another person, which might dissuade people from travelling to assist someone doing so (as in the case of Marie Fleming's husband), but even in that particular case, which being in the Supreme Court you'd imagine would attract the interest of any State agency with a mandate to prevent Ms Fleming from travelling, no action was taken to stop her traveling to another country to kill herself. Was there? Given that committing suicide isn't illegal in Ireland, I don't know why travelling to do so would be, but perhaps you could link the legislation that stops Irish citizens from travelling to another country to kill themselves for us?0 -
Though it's fair to say, Ireland can't really aspire to look after women and children in other jurisdictions, can it? Especially jurisdictions which permit their killing.
Ah sure as long as it is outside of Ireland it's grand. Mary came back from somewhere foreign last Monday. Said she had a great time, sunny, 30+ degrees, got the youngest dismembered. I was a bit shocked at first and thought that really shouldn't be allowed but then she reminded me she didn't do it here so it's grand. Sarah is getting the husband done next month.0 -
The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »Ah sure as long as it is outside of Ireland it's grand. Mary came back from somewhere foreign last Monday. Said she had a great time, sunny, 30+ degrees, got the youngest dismembered. I was a bit shocked at first and thought that really shouldn't be allowed but then she reminded me she didn't do it here so it's grand. Sarah is getting the husband done next month.0
-
Leaving aside the fact that the Courts frequently characterise a foetus as an unborn child (since it's obviously uncomfortable reality for you), how exactly would the Irish State go about banning travel for abortions in your opinion?
What on Earth are you talking about? I mean the Irish State did stop a woman from travelling to have an abortion. We had a referendum on the issue you know?
Are you suggesting that just because something is impractical then it shouldn't be done? In which case lets remove the 8th amendment because it's impractical to say that the unborn has an equal right to life to that of the mother. Why is it impractical? The right of the mother to travel to a another country and have an abortion trumps the right of the unborn. The 8th only works when the mother can't afford or is to ill for travel.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 26436
how exactly would the Irish State go about banning travel for abortions in your opinion?
Utter nonsense,
The state can put checks into place if it wanted to stop the "child murdering" :rolleyes: , until then you can claim you care about "children" but its evidence you don't give a monkeys as you see no problem with exporting abortions.
At least have the decency to stand up for the lives you claim to care so much about and demand that Ireland stops exporting abortions,
Instead you're just going to be like pretty much all "pro-lifers", claim to care about a fetus but you have no interest once the women gets on a plane or boat.
I don't like children being sexually abused and married off at a young age,
I hate this happening regardless of what country they may live in or what laws may make it legal in these country's for a 9 year old to be married off.. I think all that can be done should be done to stop a child being abused in this manner.
I think the Irish state should for example block any 9 year old from traveling to such a country if the intention is to marry them off in such a backwards and disgusting manner.
I can stand by this, but you can't even stand by the idea of stopping women traveling to have an abortion. Yet you still claim to care about fetuses....its evident you don't.0 -
Advertisement
-
What on Earth are you talking about? I mean the Irish State did stop a woman from travelling to have an abortion. We had a referendum on the issue you know?Are you suggesting that just because something is impractical then it shouldn't be done? In which case lets remove the 8th amendment because it's impractical to say that the unborn has an equal right to life to that of the mother. Why is it impractical? The right of the mother to travel to a another country and have an abortion trumps the right of the unborn. The 8th only works when the mother can't afford or is to ill for travel.0
-
What on Earth are you talking about? I mean the Irish State did stop a woman from travelling to have an abortion. We had a referendum on the issue you know?
Are you suggesting that just because something is impractical then it shouldn't be done? In which case lets remove the 8th amendment because it's impractical to say that the unborn has an equal right to life to that of the mother. Why is it impractical? The right of the mother to travel to a another country and have an abortion trumps the right of the unborn. The 8th only works when the mother can't afford or is to ill for travel.0 -
Utter nonsense,
The state can put checks into place if it wanted to stop the "child murdering" :rolleyes: , until then you can claim you care about "children" but its evidence you don't give a monkeys as you see no problem with exporting abortions.At least have the decency to stand up for the lives you claim to care so much about and demand that Ireland stops exporting abortions,Instead you're just going to be like pretty much all "pro-lifers", claim to care about a fetus but you have no interest once the women gets on a plane or boat.I don't like children being sexually abused and married off at a young age, I hate this happening regardless of what country they may live in or what laws may make it legal in these country's for a 9 year old to be married off.. I think all that can be done should be done to stop a child being abused in this manner.I think the Irish state should for example block any 9 year old from traveling to such a country if the intention is to marry them off in such a backwards and disgusting manner.I can stand by this, but you can't even stand by the idea of stopping women traveling to have an abortion. Yet you still claim to care about fetuses....its evident you don't.0 -
OK, so this argument is pretty much:
A - "We want to change the law to ..."
B - "But the current law is ..."
A - "But we want to change the law to ..."
B - "But the current law is ..."0 -
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement