Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm. Are you talking about a referendum that prevented the State from using the right to life of the unborn to prevent people from traveling? That would certainly make Cabaals proposition a tad tricky, but lets not discount his solution before he even outlines it, eh?

Eh no YOU asked for an example of the State stopping someone from travelling to have an abortion. One was given to you. You ignored it and waffled on about something else.

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not, though I am saying that no law that is impracticable ought to be enacted.

4000 Irish women a year have abortions. How is the 8th amendment protecting the unborns equal right to life? Doesn't seem practical does it?

Making abortion illegal. Sure that's practical. Saying that the unborn has an "equal" right to life which can be dismissed by a woman using her constitutional right to travel for an abortion? Not practical.

Cabaal

Daith wrote: »

Eh no YOU asked for an example of the State stopping someone from travelling to have an abortion. One was given to you. You ignored it and waffled on about something else.
.

That'll be the norm for Absolam, now I remember why I used to have em on ignore. They'd rather dance around everything then actually commit to anything worthwhile.

I guess I hoped for too much when I took them off ignore, back to the old days again I suppose...ignored again
:rolleyes:

Delirium

Seems those involved in the video-campaign against Planned Parenthood have been indicted on criminal charges.

A Harris County grand jury probe into Planned Parenthood of the Gulf Coast ended Monday with the indictments of two anti-abortion activists.


David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt were both indicted for tampering with a governmental record. An additional indictment for prohibition of the purchase and sale of human organs was issued for Daleiden, according to a release from the Harris County District Attorneys Office.



"We were called upon to investigate allegations of criminal conduct by Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast," said Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson. "As I stated at the outset of this investigation, we must go where the evidence leads us. All the evidence uncovered in the course of this investigation was presented to the grand jury. I respect their decision on this difficult case."

Source

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

Eh no YOU asked for an example of the State stopping someone from travelling to have an abortion. One was given to you. You ignored it and waffled on about something else.

Eh no. I asked "how exactly would the Irish State go about banning travel for abortions in Cabaals opinion" You quoted my question in your reply. It certainly wouldn't go about banning travel for abortions in the manner the Attorney General attempted to use to stop Miss X, because the Supreme Court ruled he couldn't, and the electorate amended the Constitution to prevent any similar attempts.

Daith wrote: »

4000 Irish women a year have abortions. How is the 8th amendment protecting the unborns equal right to life? Doesn't seem practical does it?

It undoubtedly practically limits any women having abortions wherever the 8th Amendment has legal standing, doesn't it?

Daith wrote: »

Making abortion illegal. Sure that's practical. Saying that the unborn has an "equal" right to life which can be dismissed by a woman using her constitutional right to travel for an abortion? Not practical.

I don't think the Constitution (or anyone) does actually say that the unborn has an "equal" right to life which can be dismissed by a woman using her constitutional right to travel for an abortion (nor does the Constititution say a woman has a constitutional right to travel for an abortion), so as to the practicalities of combining two untrue statements to arrive at some sort of conclusion... I'm afraid I can't really say.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

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 ..."

I don't think Cabaal was saying "we want to change the law to"... I read his statement as "A person who is pregnant in Ireland does has an opportunity to choose to terminate their pregnancy by destroying the life of their unborn child in Ireland by both legal and illegal means." and "the Irish state doesn't see a fetus as equal to a child, if they did they'd ban travel for abortions", and "the Irish state does stop Irish citizens from traveling to other country's to kill themselves". In fairness, he hasn't put forward any arguments to support the points, but he was kind enough to put some points of view forward on my behalf instead.

I'm sure if he wants to put forward an argument for changing the law he will, and going on current form he'll put forward what he feels the opposing argument is allowed to be as well.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

That'll be the norm for Absolam, now I remember why I used to have em on ignore. They'd rather dance around everything then actually commit to anything worthwhile.

If by 'commit to anything worthwhile' you mean stick with the opinions you've decided I should have, then no thanks, but I appreciate your effort.

As for dancing around everything, it seems whenever I ask you to be specific, like providing a method for how the Irish State could ban travel for abortions, or what legislation Ireland uses to stop Irish citizens from traveling to other countries to kill themselves, or even why your opinion that foetuses are not children flies in the face of jurisprudence, you drop the topic and start telling me what my opinions are instead. I'm not sure why you think that's me dancing around everything...

Cabaal wrote: »

I guess I hoped for too much when I took them off ignore, back to the old days again I suppose...ignored again
:rolleyes:

I'm going to have to come up with my own statements instead of having them provided for me from now on? Oh no... :rolleyes:

Cabaal

Anyone want to be in a fi;m...at the very least its worth applying, just so they know people are interested when the read the emails

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/01/25/we-need-pregnant-women/



First comment on the story sums things up

I’m guessing married lesbians who are expecting need not apply?

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

Eh no. I asked "

No. You asked this "how would the Irish State go about banning travel for abortions in your opinion?"

and I replied. They have already.

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think the Constitution (or anyone) does actually say that the unborn has an "equal" right to life which can be dismissed by a woman using her constitutional right to travel for an abortion (nor does the Constititution say a woman has a constitutional right to travel for an abortion), so as to the practicalities of combining two untrue statements to arrive at some sort of conclusion... I'm afraid I can't really say.

More nonsensical word play from you. We only had a referendum on travel when a woman was (and get this) stopped from travelling to have an abortion (by the State no less!). Are you rewriting the past to suggest Irish people voted for travel in general? They knew exactly what they were voting for. The "Pro-Life" side pointed out how hypocritical it was.

Indeed it is now to a point where we have the Master of the Rotunda saying that they have a good working relationship with clinics in the UK if the mother makes a choice to have an abortion. Where is the 8th amendment coming in to play?

In any case, it's clear that a woman's right to travel trumps the unborn apparent right to life. The 8th amendment does nothing to protect the unborn if the mother can travel.

MrPudding

I wonder would this tosser be quite as keen to appeal if it was his own money he was spending?

MrP

Shrap

Cabaal wrote: »

Anyone want to be in a fi;m...at the very least its worth applying, just so they know people are interested when the read the emails

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/01/25/we-need-pregnant-women/



First comment on the story sums things up

The rest of the comments are great too. I especially like these:

"It’s mind blowingly ironic that their logo is so similar to Ryanair’s."

"Ah now. Secretly masterminding a Pro-Life campaign for the sake of 10 extra plane tickets a day?! Only an immoral crook of the highest calibre would resort to such a thing."

MrPudding

Shrap wrote: »

The rest of the comments are great too. I especially like these:

"It’s mind blowingly ironic that their logo is so similar to Ryanair’s."

"Ah now. Secretly masterminding a Pro-Life campaign for the sake of 10 extra plane tickets a day?! Only an immoral crook of the highest calibre would resort to such a thing."

Even more funny when you consider that Ryanair is, technically, and indirectly, most probably complicit in a large number of the abortions that Irish woman and girls have in the UK. In fact, if anyone from Ryanair in reading this how about this for your next advertising campaign:

"Ryanair, an Irish solution to an Irish problem: making abortions for Irish women and girls more affordable."

You can have that, I won't charge.

MrP

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

No. You asked this "how would the Irish State go about banning travel for abortions in your opinion?" and I replied. They have already.

You seem to have left what I said out of your quote. Twice. How odd. May I fill it in for you?

Absolam wrote: »

Eh no. I asked "how exactly would the Irish State go about banning travel for abortions in Cabaals opinion" You quoted my question in your reply

Isn’t it odd that you’d deny I said what I said and then repeat what I said? Had you left the actual quote in you’d have known you were repeating it too….
Anyhow. That’s what I asked. Now, if I had been asking Cabaal about what the Irish State would have done in the past, I probably would have said “how would the Irish State have gone about banning travel for abortions in your opinion?”. Though that would have been a bit silly; it’s a matter of record so we don’t really need his opinion on what they would have done, we can see what they did, can’t we? But if I had wanted to ask him about it, I probably would have asked “how did the Irish State go about attempting to ban a person from travelling for an abortion?” (because of course, the State didn't actually ban travelling for abortions, and even had they, simply saying they did wouldn't explain how they went about it). To be honest, neither of those were of much interest to me. Cabaal ventured the opinion that

Cabaal wrote: »

the Irish state doesn’t see a fetus as equal to a child, if they did they’d ban travel for abortions

, and I was interested in how exactly would the Irish State go about banning travel for abortions in his opinion (which is why I quoted his statement as a preface when I asked).
I hope that clears up your confusion.

Daith wrote: »

In that case the 8th amendment only decides the location. It in fact does not protect the unborn and give the unborn an "equal right to life".

Well, it doesn’t mention location at all, so no. But you are correct in that the limit of its effect, as with the rest of the Constitution, is the jurisdiction of Ireland. So, it no more gives the unborn an equal right to life than it gives you a right to vote, or a right to an inviolable dwelling.

Daith wrote: »

More nonsensical word play from you. We only had a referendum on travel when a woman was (and get this) stopped from travelling to have an abortion (by the State no less!). Are you rewriting the past to suggest Irish people voted for travel in general? They knew exactly what they were voting for. The "Pro-Life" side pointed out how hypocritical it was.

Well, I would point out that the woman in question wasn't stopped from traveling. So it's not me rewriting the past. Still, how exactly is it nonsensical word play to say I don't think the Constitution does actually say that the unborn has an "equal" right to life which can be dismissed by a woman using her Constitutional right to travel for an abortion? If you do think the Constitution says it, you can find the Constitutional provision that states the unborn has an "equal" right to life which can be dismissed by a woman using her Constitutional right to travel for an abortion, and link it for us. Otherwise, I'll continue to think it says no such thing.

Daith wrote: »

In any case, it's clear that a woman's right to travel trumps the unborn apparent right to life. The 8th amendment does nothing to protect the unborn if the mother can travel.

Well you certainly give the impression that it's clear to you. Given the other things that appear clear to you though I'd suggest that what you think is clear isn't necessarily founded on fact.

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

So it's not me rewriting the past. Still, how exactly is it nonsensical word play to say I don't think the Constitution does actually say that the unborn has an "equal" right to life which can be dismissed by a woman using her Constitutional right to travel for an abortion? If you do think the Constitution says it, you can find the Constitutional provision that states the unborn has an "equal" right to life which can be dismissed by a woman using her Constitutional right to travel for an abortion, and link it for us.

I think if you're taking the Constitution at it's literal you really are on the wrong side.
The Constitution never said that marriage was between a man and a woman either. Did that mean anyone could marry? No.

Absolam wrote: »

Well you certainly give the impression that it's clear to you. Given the other things that appear clear to you though I'd suggest that what you think is clear isn't necessarily founded on fact.

Avoiding answering the question again.

What protection does the 8th amendment give to the unborn if the mother travels?

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

I think if you're taking the Constitution at it's literal you really are on the wrong side.
The Constitution never said that marriage was between a man and a woman either. Did that mean anyone could marry? No.

I think I understand what you mean by 'taking the Constitution at it's literal' but I'm not sure why you think doing so places me on 'the wrong side'. The Constitution didn't limit marriage to marriages between men and women, so recognition of same sex marriage was optional; any government could legislate to allow it, or not. As the government of 2004 did legislate to prohibit persons of the same sex marrying.
Adding this Amendment to the Constitution in 2015; "4 Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex." prevents governments from legislating one way or the other as they may choose. That's taking the Constitution literally... which as far as I know is the way it's meant to be taken, like other legal documents, or it wouldn't be written as it is.

Daith wrote: »

Avoiding answering the question again.

Would you mind pointing out the question in the quote I answered? I'll quote it again to save you missing some of it out:

Daith wrote: »

In any case, it's clear that a woman's right to travel trumps the unborn apparent right to life. The 8th amendment does nothing to protect the unborn if the mother can travel.

I can't see a question in there I'm afraid, sorry.

Daith wrote: »

What protection does the 8th amendment give to the unborn if the mother travels?

If she travels within the jurisdiction of Ireland, it has the full protection of the law. If she travels outside the jurisdiction of Ireland, it has as much protection as an Irish citizen has the right to vote outside the jurisdiction, or has a right to expect the State to protect the inviolability of her dwelling. Did I not make that clear when I said

Absolam wrote: »

you are correct in that the limit of its effect, as with the rest of the Constitution, is the jurisdiction of Ireland. So, it no more gives the unborn an equal right to life than it gives you a right to vote, or a right to an inviolable dwelling.

? Sorry, I thought that was clear. My bad.

The Black Oil

Professor Casey brought defamation proceedings over remarks in the comments section by individuals in July 2013 in relation to articles written by columnist Breda O’Brien and by psychiatrist Prof Brendan Kelly.

As part of the settlement, an apology was read to the court by Cian Ferriter SC on behalf of the newspaper.

It stated: “In the summer of 2013, the Irish Times published on its website a series of articles relating to the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill which, at that stage, was progressing though the Houses of the Oireachtas.

"In the comment section beneath the articles that were published on the Irish Times website, two anonymous members of the public made comments stating that Professor Patricia Casey was an unprofessional psychiatrist who was unfit to treat suicidal pregnant women.

"The comments also asserted that Professor Casey misrepresented psychiatric research in order to promote a Catholic agenda."

"The Irish Times accepts that the comments made about Professor Casey were untrue."

It also recognised she was "a psychiatrist of the highest integrity and professionalism and apologised for the distress caused to her by the comments on the website.

In a statement afterwards, Prof Casey said she was very pleased with the outcome.

"What was said could not be allowed to stand," she said.

She also said it was a great pity it has taken so long to get to this point.

"I believe this is an important case because it will hopefully lead online editions of newspapers and other similar websites to think again about the sort of online comments they allow about people."

"Defamatory comments would not be permitted to appear in the letters pages of newspapers so why should they be allowed to appear in the comments sections of the online editions of those same newspapers?", she said.

Source

All the juicy bits, nasty comments and a Catholic agenda.

robdonn

The Black Oil wrote: »

All the juicy bits, nasty comments and a Catholic agenda.

What a ridiculous suit and an even more ridiculous outcome...

The appropriate edits have been made to her Wiki...

Shrap

The Black Oil wrote: »

All the juicy bits, nasty comments and a Catholic agenda.

Oh dear. Can I call her a wagon with opinions of the most decrepit and banjaxed kind, who's professional "expertise" I would pay good money NOT to ever hear again, on a public forum and not get sued?

If you don't mind Patricia, ta much.

Ps. You can call me a wife-swapping sodomite if you like. I won't sue.

The Randy Riverbeast

Remember guys, its the liberal media that is censoring the like of Iona and friends. It is ok to call the commenters liars though.

Please dont sue me.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

I don't know why you think not being allowed to make one choice necessitates that there ought to be an alternative? 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. Whether they decide they want to make that choice or not, the circumstances of their pregnancy do not change; the pregnancy remains just as it was before they decided they wanted to make that choice. At no point does the potential for alternatives arise.[/QUOTE.

Sorry for the delay in replying. Re your first line, I'd have though the notion of choice implies there is an alternative, eg; path A or path B. Re line two, I'd say the recognition in law and/or guidelines here of the threat of suicidality by pregnant women in respect of unwanted pregnancies goes to prove the opposite, that there is an official recognition that women will decide for themselves what their own future will be. There is also the fact that a suicide would probably terminate the pregnancy, the ultimate result of taking path B after being denied access to path A, an approved medical abortion, not a termination via birth after a full-term pregnancy. Irish women have read our newspapers and are aware of that last (irish) way of solving a problem.

Absolam

I can't say I have a problem with them suing people who make defamatory comments. This thing of suing the medium for the comments (be it the Irish Times or Boards.ie, etc etc) is however more than a little concerning. I understand the logic, but it seems fundamentally wrong to me.

aloyisious

David Quinn has one of his opinion pieces in today's Irish Independent, which is available online, so I won't bother putting up the link. In it he start's by mentioning our financial crash and how those who pointed it out in advance were treated badly. He opines that that was due to groupthink and goes on to say the marriage referendum was won by groupthink and the 38% who voted against it were treated badly. In his piece, David opines that those who are pro-abortion here are also guilty of groupthink and it's opponents are like the people who warned of the risk of a financial bust before the bust. I'd imagine from it that he sees himself and other opponents as prophets not welcome in their own land, warning people of the risk of lemming-like behaviour in a rush for the cliff-edge.

Before any-one goes reading David's opinion-piece, it's worth saying that there are only a few lines on this thread issue in the rather lengthy piece, so don't be disappointed at the small relevant content in the piece.

PlainP

http://www.rabble.ie/2016/01/31/easter-despising/

They're at it again. "Good" Christians harassing young women/girls/mothers outside the abortion referral clinic.

Have these dick*heads nothing better to be doing with their time.

Cabaal

Abortion rules in Zika-affected countries

Some governments in Latin America have advised women not to get pregnant for a matter of months or years, because of the risk of birth defects from the Zika virus.

It is suspected that there is a link between expectant mothers getting Zika, and their babies being born with microcephaly (an abnormally small head). This can be deadly, and some children who survive face intellectual disability, vision problems and development delays.

A group of Brazilian lawyers, activists and scientists have decided to ask the country's supreme court to allow abortions for women who have contracted the virus.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35438404

What has the Vatican said?

Latin America is largely Catholic. The Church opposes all forms of abortion. Contraception is also against Church rules, but this is more regularly flouted by believers across the world.

The BBC asked the Vatican press office on Friday whether teaching would be amended on contraception or abortion. A spokesperson said: "For the moment there is no comment about this."

Typical response from the Vatican then eh?

Are women having abortions in countrys where its illegal in South America? Yes. Researchers at the Guttmacher Foundation said there were 32 abortions per 1,000 women in Latin America in 2008.

Let that settle in for a moment.....
32 likely back street abortions for women that feel they have no other choice but to risk their lives!

Liamario

http://youtu.be/r79EPJp9-CM

This just came up as an advert on YouTube... Talk about tacky.

Who is 'Equality Starts Here'. I could hazard a guess, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

aloyisious

PlainP wrote: »

http://www.rabble.ie/2016/01/31/easter-despising/

They're at it again. "Good" Christians harassing young women/girls/mothers outside the abortion referral clinic.

Have these dick*heads nothing better to be doing with their time.

Despite what they indicate in "The Rabble" report, the prayer-people aren't always outside the Marie Stopes clinic on Berkeley Rd. Thought they number up to 5 at times, it's usually 2, and of different genders. I pass by it regularly enough. They also don't stop at offering "real compassion" to women outside the clinic. They will occasionally follow women leaving the clinic down the road to other nearby streets, trying to engage them in conversation, while the women clearly try to ignore them.

The reference to the clinic in the document as "this place" and "it's abortion mills" and it's clients "women suffering after abortion" show's a rigid point of view, not one accepting the "here and now" situation the women actually face speak's volumes. The premises next to the clinic bought/rented for religious-group purposes doesn't appear to have been in much use, remaining shuttered, the literature and notices in it's facade referring to abortions have disappeared.

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/02/01/the-eighth-debate/

Tonight.

At 7pm in the Davis Theatre at Trinity College Dublin.

Trinity’s student union and its law society will hold a debate about the legal consequences of repealing the 8th amendment.

Speakers will include lecturer in law at the University of Kent Mairead Enright; Professor Fiona de Londras, chair of Global Legal Studies at the University of Birmingham; and Professor William Binchy, former Regius Professor of Laws and a Fellow of Trinity College.

FIGHT!

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/events/949811808401424/

Hotblack Desiato

Binchy was the architect of the eighth amendment, he confidently assured everyone at the time that all of the things which subsequently came to pass could not happen...

Absolam

So, did anyone attend? Looks like it could have been interesting.

aloyisious

Heard about it too late to attend. There's these report-links though.... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjs8vTZ-djKAhUF2BoKHQ2KBAoQFggiMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.universitytimes.ie%2F2016%2F02%2Fdebate-on-legal-consequences-of-repeal-of-eighth-descends-into-exchange-on-morals%2F&usg=AFQjCNHDIg3rzSHPgDPZcIbMMYSiIaP3_A

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjs8vTZ-djKAhUF2BoKHQ2KBAoQFgg0MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrinitynews.ie%2Fprofessors-debate-irelands-8th-amendment-at-lawsoc-event%2F&usg=AFQjCNHK35wimbSDRJXYvchDSO-xza3k_A

Absolam

Interesting, and especially interesting the different ways each reports it. I think I would have enjoyed attending.

Cabaal

Anything good in the The Times today?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/irishnews/article4681477.ece

A mother of two who was pregnant with a baby suffering from a fatal foetal abnormality claims that she was advised to travel to Britain to undergo the first part of a termination before travelling home and faking a miscarriage.

Sarah, whose name has been changed to protect her identity, said she was told to travel to a British hospital to have an injection that would stop her baby’s heart, before returning to Ireland

Business as usual then, exporting our problems instead of providing proper healthcare and support for women in Ireland.

I feel so sorry for the doctors trying to help women in such a situation in the only proper way they can, there hands are tied but a backwards law that hurts women and couples.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Anything good in the The Times today?
Business as usual then, exporting our problems instead of providing proper healthcare and support for women in Ireland.
I feel so sorry for the doctors trying to help women in such a situation in the only proper way they can, there hands are tied but a backwards law that hurts women and couples.

I feel sorry for couples in that position too. I'll admit characterising her situation as 'business as usual' seems a rather mercenary segue-way into co-opting her misfortune to serve an agenda that far outreaches her circumstances, but I suspect that possibility wasn't lost on Ms Coyne either, who managed to make four articles of it.

Shrap

Absolam wrote: »

I feel sorry for couples in that position too. I'll admit characterising her situation as 'business as usual' seems a rather mercenary segue-way into co-opting her misfortune to serve an agenda that far outreaches her circumstances, but I suspect that possibility wasn't lost on Ms Coyne either, who managed to make four articles of it.

Loving how you describe this characterisation as mercenary, rather than the position that put her there in the first place - the necessity of avoidance at all cost of having an abortion on Irish soil. Her misfortune could have been much lessened were it not for that.

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

Loving how you describe this characterisation as mercenary, rather than the position that put her there in the first place - the necessity of avoidance at all cost of having an abortion on Irish soil. Her misfortune could have been much lessened were it not for that.

I'm not sure who benefits from preventing the deaths of the unborn other than the unborn, and I'm dubious that acting to help someone else without gaining any benefit (apart from perhaps the pleasure of their company some time in the future?) can be called mercenary. But I do agree that there's an argument to be made for lessening the misfortune of people in Sarahs circumstance. I think you knew that already though

Shrap

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not sure who benefits from preventing the deaths of the unborn other than the unborn, and I'm dubious that acting to help someone else without gaining any benefit (apart from perhaps the pleasure of their company some time in the future?) can be called mercenary. But I do agree that there's an argument to be made for lessening the misfortune of people in Sarahs circumstance. I think you knew that already though

Certainly haven't picked up on that from you (the smiley face assumes too much).

Nobody has described acting to help someone else without gaining any benefit as mercenary, so that makes no sense whatsoever. And the unborn in this case was not going to be benefited by having its death prevented, was it? In fact, it was possibly a kindness to speed up the process.

Cabaal

I only see Absolam's posts when quoted so hence why I normally won't respond. But the reality is keeping a fetus with a fatal abnormality "alive" is detrimental to the mother's mental well being. She knows its fetal, if she clearly wants to put an end to things early without going to term and giving birth to a fetus that will either be dead when born or dead very very shortly after birth then that is her decision.

To ignore her decision and the reality of the situation ignores the women's mental health and her bodily integrity, in this day and age to simply ignore the mental well being of a person is desperate.

In addition, Absolam claiming you're not sure who benefits from this situation is disingenuous when you know the stresses such a situation puts on a mother. Yet you seem to get some weird kick out of looking to unnecessarily prolonging the mental anguish for a women in this situation and claiming that an abortion benefits nobody. The fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality, it will not benefit from coming to term...unless you think suffering, pain and death after coming to term is a benefit.

Kev W

Cabaal wrote: »

The fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality, it will not benefit from coming to term...unless you think suffering, pain and death after coming to term is a benefit.

Remember, it's about quantity of life, not quality of life.

Cabaal

More on The Times story

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/02/03/i-was-told-to-fake-a-miscarriage/

A mother of two who was pregnant with a baby suffering from a fatal foetal abnormality claims that she was advised to travel to Britain to undergo the first part of a termination before travelling home and faking a miscarriage.

Sarah, whose name has been changed to protect her identity, said she was told to travel to a British hospital to have an injection that would stop her baby’s heart, before returning to Ireland and saying that she believed that she had miscarried.

However, her consultant allegedly declined to confirm that Sarah would be cared for on her return home when contacted by British doctors.

Sarah described her experience as “horrific” and said that she was forced to travel to Britain twice before finally having a termination at almost 24 weeks. She ended up having to smuggle her son’s body home in the back of her car and then became seriously ill with sepsis.

“When I came back to Ireland I was to present myself at [the hospital] with lack of movement. I was not supposed to tell them what I had done. I had to play out this drama; what’s our story? What’s the lie I have to keep up?” Sarah said.

“They were going to scan me, they were going to tell me that they were very sorry, that the baby had passed away. I was not to let on that I had had a feticide injection, and then I was supposed to be induced and deliver.”

“…Three consultant obstetricians have separately confirmed to The Times that they were aware of other Irish hospitals telling women they can go to England for the first half of a termination.”

“One said that consultants who told women about the practice could face legal action if they were seen to be taking part in the second half of an illegal abortion.”

lazygal

Did her consultant tell another medical professional that treatment would be refused to a woman who has availed of a service that is legal in the UK on her return to Ireland? How would such treatment be refused? Am I reading that right, that doctors can refuse to treat a pregnant woman who has availed of termination services elsewhere?

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

Did her consultant tell another medical professional that treatment would be refused to a woman who has availed of a service that is legal in the UK on her return to Ireland? How would such treatment be refused? Am I reading that right, that doctors can refuse to treat a pregnant woman who has availed of termination services elsewhere?

It doesn't say that as far as I can see. I imagine that she wouldn't be refused treatment, but telling consultants about her trip to England for the purposes of abortion and then carrying out the second part of the abortion at home (delivery of dead fetus) would presumably leave her open to prosecution.

lazygal

Shrap wrote: »

It doesn't say that as far as I can see. I imagine that she wouldn't be refused treatment, but telling consultants about her trip to England for the purposes of abortion and then carrying out the second part of the abortion at home (delivery of dead fetus) would presumably leave her open to prosecution.

her consultant allegedly declined to confirm that Sarah would be cared for on her return home when contacted by British doctors

That line would suggest to me that Sarah could be refused care from doctors after travelling home. There's a chilling effect there-the attitude might come across as being supportive of the right to travel while implying that if you do so, don't expect the right to medical treatment on your return. That could put women off seeking medical help.

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

her consultant allegedly declined to confirm that Sarah would be cared for on her return home when contacted by British doctors

That line would suggest to me that Sarah could be refused care from doctors after travelling home. There's a chilling effect there-the attitude might come across as being supportive of the right to travel while implying that if you do so, don't expect the right to medical treatment on your return. That could put women off seeking medical help.

For sure. Mind you, the chilling effect includes the fact that her consultant could hardly ask other consultants to verify she'd be cared for after the event.

lazygal

Shrap wrote: »

For sure. Mind you, the chilling effect includes the fact that her consultant could hardly ask other consultants to verify she'd be cared for after the event.

This is a real gap in information. It is legal to travel and have an abortion elsewhere. Why would a doctor imply that treatment after a legal medical service has been availed of cannot be guaranteed here? If you turn up and admit having taken an abortion pill, would women be refused treatment? Is the attitude or advice that knowing in advance that a woman may need treatment after a termination leads doctors to decline to confirm such treatment would be provided if necessary?

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

Certainly haven't picked up on that from you (the smiley face assumes too much).

Really? Perhaps you were on hiatus at the time. Anyways, you got to know me a little better today.

Shrap wrote: »

Nobody has described acting to help someone else without gaining any benefit as mercenary, so that makes no sense whatsoever. And the unborn in this case was not going to be benefited by having its death prevented, was it? In fact, it was possibly a kindness to speed up the process.

You described the position that put Sarah there in the first place as mercenary; and the position that put her there is the Constititutional position preventing the deliberate destruction of unborn life. I don't see how that position can be described as mercenary; as I said the position only provides a benefit to those who don't die as a result.
Arguably, yes it can be considered a kindness to speed the death of any person with a terminal, possibly painful condition, and the 8th in this case was almost certainly not going to save the life of Sarahs child.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

I only see Absolam's posts when quoted so hence why I normally won't respond. But the reality is keeping a fetus with a fatal abnormality "alive" is detrimental to the mother's mental well being. She knows its fetal, if she clearly wants to put an end to things early without going to term and giving birth to a fetus that will either be dead when born or dead very very shortly after birth then that is her decision. To ignore her decision and the reality of the situation ignores the women's mental health and her bodily integrity, in this day and age to simply ignore the mental well being of a person is desperate.

True; forcing a potential mother to bring a fatally abnormal/ill foetus to term seems entirely senseless.

Cabaal wrote: »

In addition, Absolam claiming you're not sure who benefits from this situation is disingenuous when you know the stresses such a situation puts on a mother. Yet you seem to get some weird kick out of looking to unnecessarily prolonging the mental anguish for a women in this situation and claiming that an abortion benefits nobody. The fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality, it will not benefit from coming to term...unless you think suffering, pain and death after coming to term is a benefit.

I guess that's where trying to reply to a post you haven't seen lets you down; I didn't say anything about not being sure who benefits from this situation. People who want to use this case to advocate for abortion in circumstances other than those described by characterising her situation as 'business as usual' certainly try to benefit from it.

As for the weird kicks you imagine I appear to get.... they're all in your head I'm afraid. How you can deliberately choose to believe without any evidence that someone gets pleasure from mental anguish, suffering, pain and death I don't know, but I'd suggest it's not me engaging in weird kicks....

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

More on The Times story
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/02/03/i-was-told-to-fake-a-miscarriage/

If it helps they ran four stories, all by the same author. The Broadsheet isn't more on the same, it is the same. By the same author.

oscarBravo

Bloody hell:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-abortion-opponents-secretly-bought-a-virginia-abortion-clinic/2016/02/04/08a3b1c4-c4f5-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_dvorak-1130am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

eviltwin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bloody hell:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-abortion-opponents-secretly-bought-a-virginia-abortion-clinic/2016/02/04/08a3b1c4-c4f5-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_dvorak-1130am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

A bit like Gianna Care setting up shop beside Marie Stopes in Dublin.

The Black Oil

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bloody hell:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-abortion-opponents-secretly-bought-a-virginia-abortion-clinic/2016/02/04/08a3b1c4-c4f5-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_dvorak-1130am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

“We had an 11-year-old girl come in with her parents. They thought she was pregnant,” Lohman said. “Turns out she wasn’t. But we gave them all the information.”

Did they consider reporting a sexually active 11-year-old to authorities?

“Oh no, we don’t do that. We’re not doctors, so we don’t have to,” Lohman said.

They tell women that condoms can be porous and unreliable.

They tell women they’ll have a hard time getting pregnant again after an abortion.

Nice.

aloyisious

I've found the "legal discussion" page listed in the "society and culture" section, and moved my question there. I've named the new thread as "8th amendment to the constitution".

@Absolom and Volchitsa: if you're interested in the thread, can you transfer your posts below to it please. I don't want to derail this thread any further than I did by posting the Q here. To access Society and Culture, see in TOPICS at the head of this page.