Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious

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.

Maybe the father does know, though I don't know why you think the doctors should know. If you want to ask the modern intelligent women the "why" question, maybe you should go to one of these events listed under UPCOMING EVENTS in the following link...... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiI-fWE48HSAhXECMAKHQ4DCRYQFggkMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fabortionrightscampaign%2F&usg=AFQjCNHcHozVeY_KVHMkMh3iuWHhp3IxJA

Wednesdays one is at a popular location on Kildare St and at locations nationwide.

Re getting pregnant, it sound's like you're promoting the "morning-after" pill.

smacl

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not unreasonable to ask of these modern, intelligent women who suddenly have an opinion on literally everything.

You might want to hop back into that TARDIS and make your way back to the 1950s before someone notices you're gone. I don't think this new fangled future Ireland is going to play well with you.

Samuel T. Cogley

While it's the Daily Fail and the OP has a rather skewed view IMHO, it's far from certain the majority favour abortion under similar circumstances to the UK.

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

There problem there of course is that you merely CALLING it "evil" does not magically make it so. Doctors do not need to know solely because YOU think it to be evil. You need a more coherent basis for the requirement than that.

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not her body to decide on. If she didn't want to get pregnant, then don't get pregnant.

And if sports people do not want to get injured, they should simply not get injured. Right? Yet out here in the real world the reality does not always match the ideals in your happy slappy fairy land. People do get pregnant. People do get injured. And they do seek medical solutions to these situations that no one, least of all you, has coherently explained why they should not be given access to.

Were I to hear a more coherent argument than merely screeching "evil" at them.......I may change that position however. But so for I have not. Least of all, as I said, from you.

Qs

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.

Well if the father didn't want an abortion happening without him know I guess he just shouldn't get a woman pregnant. It's not unreasonable to ask of these men who've had an opinion on literally everything for ages.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's not her body to decide on.

I think you'll find a women has control over her body, she can do with it what she wishes just like you can do what you wish.. except for an abortion all because some people think they know better and deny her this control over her own body.

If a women decides to drink like a fish when she's pregnant she can do so and she won't be jailed for it. Of course if the pro-life side really cared about a fetus they'd want to put restrictions on that happening but they don't so they won't.

If she didn't want to get pregnant, then don't get pregnant.

In cases of rape or incest their body will just stop them getting pregnant will it?
:rolleyes:

If a women is pregnant from a rape or incest should the "father" still know?, should he have a say?

If she's forced to go to term should the rape victim be forced to have visitation rights setup with their rapist?

eviltwin

I do think it needs to be an informed decision and one that should not be undertaken without counselling. I'm not saying that in order to make it hard for women or to judge them but it's a decision the woman can't undo and doctors have a duty of care to make sure she's not doing it under pressure or coercion. I'm very much pro choice and believe every woman who wants an abortion should have access to it.

smacl

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

While it's the Daily Fail and the OP has a rather skewed view IMHO, it's far from certain the majority favour abortion under similar circumstances to the UK.

They probably don't, but the reason for this is that they can have an abortion on demand in the UK on the Q.T. whenever it suits while still wringing their hands about the evils of abortion. It really is the height of hypocrisy.

eviltwin

smacl wrote: »

They probably don't, but the reason for this is that they can have an abortion on demand in the UK on the Q.T. whenever it suits while still wringing their hands about the evils of abortion. It really is the height of hypocrisy.

Isn't the Daily Fail the same paper that regularly has articles demonising single mothers and the welfare state? Total hypocrisy on their behalf. Abortion is wrong but have the baby and claiming benefits is wrong too.

frag420

@frostyjacks...

What if like Mary in the bible a woman had an immaculate conception that she didn't ask for?

Her pregnancy was forced upon her and she had no say how her body was to be abused and used....same as how rape occurs I guess!?

Seeing as she had no choice in getting pregnant surely she should be afforded the opportunity to cease being pregnant no?

Or do you feel we should force women in this situation to continue being pregnant so we can then through the child into a sewer under some convent?

Cabaal

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2017/03/06/pro-life-group-not-all-that-interested-in-children-once-theyre-born/?utm_source=WWN_Facebook_Page&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=Social_Link&utm_content=Article

Pro Life Group Not All That Interested In Children Once They’re Born

Once again hitting the nail on the head, no mention on the Youth Defense facebook page about how outraged there were over Tuam. Same goes for Iona. You could argue it wouldn't be suitable for Youth Defense to comment on the matter but there is no excuse for Iona.

222233

Cabaal wrote: »

Once again hitting the nail on the head, no mention on the Youth Defense facebook page about how outraged there were over Tuam. Same goes for Iona. You could argue it wouldn't be suitable for Youth Defense to comment on the matter but there is no excuse for Iona.

isn't that ironic, I must admit it was a humorous read but very very interesting indeed.

I personally believe a lot of pro-life propaganda comes from the ethos of having power, would seem reciprocal of some certain institutions who had power in the past. Women must under no circumstances have control over their own wombs.

Samuel T. Cogley

smacl wrote: »

They probably don't, but the reason for this is that they can have an abortion on demand in the UK on the Q.T. whenever it suits while still wringing their hands about the evils of abortion. It really is the height of hypocrisy.

Well pretty much on demand, but it's not the only thing that's illegal here and legal there. Sex with 16 year olds and prostitution are legal in the UK but we don't necessarily inform our laws from what's 30 minutes on a plane away.

I take your point though. Would people still have the same opinion if the option wasn't available 'in an emergency' in the UK? I have to admit I'm not so sure it would be.

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Well pretty much on demand, but it's not the only thing that's illegal here and legal there. Sex with 16 year olds and prostitution are legal in the UK but we don't necessarily inform our laws from what's 30 minutes on a plane away.

No, but it's a lot more than that, we had a referendum to decide whether or not we would allow women to do so.

If we'd done the same for underage or homosexual sex, while keeping it illegal here, you may be sure the hypocrisy would not have gone unremarked. In fact I feel sure it would have led to Irish law being aligned with it in short order.

I take your point though. Would people still have the same opinion if the option wasn't available 'in an emergency' in the UK? I have to admit I'm not so sure it would be.

It's not impossible that we may have reason to test that, with Brexit.
If that did happen, and I hope it won't, the first death of a woman from an illegal abortion here would certainly make the country sit up and think about things.

Samuel T. Cogley

volchitsa wrote: »

No, but it's a lot more than that, we had a referendum to decide whether or not we would allow women to do so.

If we'd done the same for underage or homosexual sex, while keeping it illegal here, you may be sure the hypocrisy would not have gone unremarked. In fact I feel sure it would have led to Irish law being aligned with it in short order.

Sorry I didn't really catch the point there. We've had rather different opinions from the Brits (16) and some of the EU countries (14) but rather similar (and very odd) views on homosexual sex.

volchitsa wrote: »

It's not impossible that we may have reason to test that, with Brexit.
If that did happen, and I hope it won't, the first death of a woman from an illegal abortion here would certainly make the country sit up and think about things.

Free movement will remain due to the treaties prior to both states being EU members but who knows I suppose.

smacl

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Well pretty much on demand, but it's not the only thing that's illegal here and legal there. Sex with 16 year olds and prostitution are legal in the UK but we don't necessarily inform our laws from what's 30 minutes on a plane away.

I think most legislation surrounding sexual health and wellbeing, including age of consent, abortion and prostitution, really needs to be considered primarily around minimising risk and seeking best outcomes for those involved, as opposed to an archaic morality largely informed by religious dogma. Put another way, our laws should reflect who we are and how we actually behave, as opposed to how the Catholic church would like us to behave. So for example, the same Catholic church that vehemently opposes abortion in all cases, similarly opposes contraception and considers use of the morning after pill to constitute abortion. As such, their dogma contributes to unwanted pregnancy leading to abortion. As a caring society, we should be looking at what is best for members of our society irrespective of what a Church that has got it wrong so many times considers right or wrong.

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sorry I didn't really catch the point there. We've had rather different opinions from the Brits (16) and some of the EU countries (14) but rather similar (and very odd) views on homosexual sex.

The point was not what anyone thinks of aligning laws with those elsewhere, but rather that our situation ref abortion is unique in that we have actually developed our abortion law based on it being a service that is in fact available to Irish women abroad.

That is not only specified in the constitution, the availability of abortion abroad is often given as a justification for not needing to allow it here, including on this site, iirc.

Can you imagine the outcry if we banned cancer treatment or perhaps university education for one section of the community, but we thought that was ok because we'd put in a clause allowing people to travel to the UK for those services?

Free movement will remain due to the treaties prior to both states being EU members but who knows I suppose.

Is there free travel to help a friend commit suicide in Switzerland? The Gail O'Rorke case suggests not.

If anyone really thinks abortion is killing babies, why is there no attempt to stop women from leaving to kill those same "babies"? Does anyone think you could openly take a ten year old Irish girl to Yemen and marry her and come back married and everyone would just go "Meh"?

Samuel T. Cogley

I have to say I think there's a meassure on conflation going on there. I suppose its fair to say - I started it so fair enough.

On the Constitutional point though - we're a Constitutional Republic if people want to vote on the basis you suggest that's there preogative. I would agree it's hypiticrital. Perhaps another reason to remove it from the (relatively) directly democratic process and hand it to the legislature.

Sorry at work, ref spelling, no spell check.

volchitsa

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I have to say I think there's a meassure on conflation going on there. I suppose its fair to say - I started it so fair enough.

On the Constitutional point though - we're a Constitutional Republic if people want to vote on the basis you suggest that's there preogative. I would agree it's hypiticrital. Perhaps another reason to remove it from the (relatively) directly democratic process and hand it to the legislature.

Sorry at work, ref spelling, no spell check.

Sorry, my turn not to know what you mean about conflation.

As for "relatively direct democratic process", assuming you mean the referendum process, "relatively" is an understatement.

Pretty much no-one of child bearing age now had a vote when there last was a possibility not to have a constitutional ban. These are women whose health is officially declared an irrelevant factor in medical decisions even when the fetus is known to be dying. I don't think that's very democratic at all.

Hotblack Desiato

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

On the Constitutional point though - we're a Constitutional Republic if people want to vote on the basis you suggest that's there preogative.

Only if a majority in the Dail permits them to do so.

We have a massive problem in that our politicians of all parties are 30 years behind the electorate.

Nobody under 50 voted for the current situation. Few under 50 would vote for the current situation, but as usual politicians are terrified of the coffin dodgers whose uteruses (if they had one) seized up 40 years ago.

Yes, I'm angry. My wife is angry too. We're angry at what the reproductive laws of this society force upon women, that their life is equal to a zygote. We both know by experience (three times) that nobody actually cares about the right to life of an early foetus, it's a miscarriage, a clump of medical waste to be disposed of in an incinerator somewhere.

The oh so precious foetus. Contrast that to the real experience of having a miscarriage. Nobody cares. You feel loss for the foetus you hoped would develop into a baby, but nobody in the maternity hospital (it's not all happy bundles of joy coming out the door) gives half a sh*t really. They shrug and say it's one of natures mistakes, try again you'll be grand. That wears thin after three in a row. But it makes abundantly clear the true position of Irish society. The utter hypocrisy of Irish society.

stinkle

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Only if a majority in the Dail permits them to do so.

We have a massive problem in that our politicians of all parties are 30 years behind the electorate.

Nobody under 50 voted for the current situation. Few under 50 would vote for the current situation, but as usual politicians are terrified of the coffin dodgers whose uteruses (if they had one) seized up 40 years ago.

Yes, I'm angry. My wife is angry too. We're angry at what the reproductive laws of this society force upon women, that their life is equal to a zygote. We both know by experience (three times) that nobody actually cares about the right to life of an early foetus, it's a miscarriage, a clump of medical waste to be disposed of in an incinerator somewhere.

The oh so precious foetus. Contrast that to the real experience of having a miscarriage. Nobody cares. You feel loss for the foetus you hoped would develop into a baby, but nobody in the maternity hospital (it's not all happy bundles of joy coming out the door) gives half a sh*t really. They shrug and say it's one of natures mistakes, try again you'll be grand. That wears thin after three in a row. But it makes abundantly clear the true position of Irish society. The utter hypocrisy of Irish society.

I'm so sorry for your loss. My parents had similar experiences in the 70s and 80s. Due to having several miscarriages in a row, including losing twins over a period of weeks, my mother was advised to give her body a rest before trying again. As she had been taking fertility drugs and would need to if they tried again, condoms were the best option rather than hormonal contraception.

Parents had to go to a specific clinic, together, with their marriage cert, to obtain condoms. Her GP wasn't legally able to dispense them and mam wouldnt have been entertained on her own, my father had to be there. They had to run the gamut of Holy Joes protesting outside. No one cared about her or her body, or that they were following good medical advice for both their mental and her physical health. The protesters would have wrongly assumed that they were selfish, sex-obsessed child haters. Not comprehending that they desperately wanted to be parents, but common sense dictated that maybe, just maybe, they wait till her body had recovered. IN their eyes she was just a vessel, with no right to choose when to get pregnant or to space out pregnancies. Women's bodies are still public property in Ireland, in that respect we haven't moved much since 1979, when this story happened. Women aren't trusted to do what's best for them.

The ****ty attitudes to contraception that prevailed back then have gotten us into this mess. It's well known that better acces to education and contraception lowers abortion rates in countries with abortion AND progressive attitudes to sex ed. The protesters in '79 would have been out voting in '83, so their backward attitudes to sex and sex ed have led to a terrible insertion in our Constitution that we are still suffering under. Their ignorance has led women to die (Savita), be butchered (Ms Y), be allowed rot away on life support and treated a statutory rape victim (Miss X) like a criminal. Not to mention the heartless attitudes to parents from TFMR. Yet women who have suffered miscarriages are treated like taboo. It's not consistent and is purely pro-birth, pro-foetus. Not pro-life and definitely not pro-woman.

I hope it's good news for you both soon. Stay strong.

Hotblack Desiato

Thanks Stinkle. We'd always had in mind two kids, the first one was as if we snapped our fingers, then we had three misses, then our second, then we decided we were old enough to stop

We can wonder what pregnancies 2, 3 or 4 might have been like, but we have no.5 and he's a mini-me and I wouldn't change him if any of the others had worked out then he wouldn't be here. So in the end, we wouldn't change anything, we got what we hoped for, but we didn't know that at the time, and it wasn't all fun to get here. Mother nature is a bit of a b*tch sometimes. That doesn't change the view of either of us that the decision to proceed with a pregnancy is the decision of the woman concerned and no-one else.

stinkle

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Thanks Stinkle. We'd always had in mind two kids, the first one was as if we snapped our fingers, then we had three misses, then our second, then we decided we were old enough to stop

We can wonder what pregnancies 2, 3 or 4 might have been like, but we have no.5 and he's a mini-me and I wouldn't change him if any of the others had worked out then he wouldn't be here. So in the end, we wouldn't change anything, we got what we hoped for, but we didn't know that at the time, and it wasn't all fun to get here. Mother nature is a bit of a b*tch sometimes. That doesn't change the view of either of us that the decision to proceed with a pregnancy is the decision of the woman concerned and no-one else.

Ah that's lovely. Congratulations. That's just what my parents say too, that maybe my siblings and I wouldn't be here and they're happy how things worked out despite the heartache that still can upset them.

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Only if a majority in the Dail permits them to do so.

We have a massive problem in that our politicians of all parties are 30 years behind the electorate.

All parties? Even AAA/PBP (soon to be renamed 'Solidarity' apparently...)

rainbow kirby

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes, I'm angry. My wife is angry too. We're angry at what the reproductive laws of this society force upon women, that their life is equal to a zygote. We both know by experience (three times) that nobody actually cares about the right to life of an early foetus, it's a miscarriage, a clump of medical waste to be disposed of in an incinerator somewhere.

The oh so precious foetus. Contrast that to the real experience of having a miscarriage. Nobody cares. You feel loss for the foetus you hoped would develop into a baby, but nobody in the maternity hospital (it's not all happy bundles of joy coming out the door) gives half a sh*t really. They shrug and say it's one of natures mistakes, try again you'll be grand. That wears thin after three in a row. But it makes abundantly clear the true position of Irish society. The utter hypocrisy of Irish society.

Nailed it.

Samuel T. Cogley

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Only if a majority in the Dail permits them to do so.

Then one needs to vote in the right correct TDs.

At the end of the day there are no (AFAIK) direct democracies in the world. Even if their were I'm doubtful individual rights would be properly respected.

I'm all for change, but it needs to be brought about within the existing framework. Posting on boards and sharing opinions is great but one needs to get out and protest, support TDs that represent your opinions with votes and any other way you can.

jameorahiely

seamus wrote: »

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.

You wouldn't call throwing abortion remains in open bins and having the cqc having to intervene to stop a disabled woman who didn't know what was happening to her from having an abortion performed on her legally or ethically wrong?

Read the most recent cqc report (dec 2016) on marie stopes before you go defending this organisation. Unless you agree with their actions.

Hotblack Desiato

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

All parties? Even AAA/PBP (soon to be renamed 'Solidarity' apparently...)

Parties of perpetual opposition not willing to be part of a government don't count.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

At the end of the day there are no (AFAIK) direct democracies in the world. Even if their were I'm doubtful individual rights would be properly respected.

Switzerland for one. I'm sure there are others too, where a petition of the people can lead to a referendum. We're hamstrung here because we're stuck with a decidedly Roman Catholic constitution and we are only allowed to change it if our political establishment, educated in all the best fee-paying Roman Catholic schools agree that we are allowed.

Yay, we voted for marriage equality. We should be appalled that it needed a referendum in the first place. In Ireland, human rights only exist if you can convince a majority of the electorate to agree with you (after you convince a majority of TDs to allow a vote.) Minorities who can't get a majority behind them will never get their rights. That's the main reason we're stuck with an appalling, sexist, sectarian, educational system.

smacl

jameorahiely wrote: »

You wouldn't call throwing abortion remains in open bins and having the cqc having to intervene to stop a disabled woman who didn't know what was happening to her from having an abortion performed on her legally or ethically wrong?

Read the most recent cqc report (dec 2016) on marie stopes before you go defending this organisation. Unless you agree with their actions.

I'm assuming you're referring to this report. Certainly there are issues but from my reading the service has improved since the previous report in April. That said, it is difficult to be critical of the quality of service provided abroad and used by Irish women in the UK when we totally fail to provide any such service here. If we look at HIQA reports for a variety of local public and private medical and caring services here in Ireland, we see a similar number of concerns raised.

jameorahiely

smacl wrote: »

I'm assuming you're referring to this report. Certainly there are issues but from my reading the service has improved since the previous report in April. That said, it is difficult to be critical of the quality of service provided abroad and used by Irish women in the UK when we totally fail to provide any such service here. If we look at HIQA reports for a variety of local public and private medical and caring services here in Ireland, we see a similar number of concerns raised.

If it has improved since April, it was a very strange decision to suspend services in August.