Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I couldn't be sure whether this particular woman has or she hasn't, but the idea of posting her account on social media and the way it's written, simply comes across to me like a propaganda piece.

The same claim was made about the two women tweeting their journey to the UK for one of them to have an abortion, and yet we know that an average of 10 women make such a journey every single day.

Why exactly do you find it so hard to believe that among all those journeys, even one or two would be prepared to discuss it on social media, where many people do in fact report pretty much every aspect of their lives nowadays?

People tweet or post on Reddit about their cancer treatment. Why wouldn't some do the same about their abortion?

Loafing Oaf

Delirium wrote: »

A woman posted over on Reddit that is was taking the abortion pill in Dublin.

She potentially faces 14 years in prison if the authorities track her down and confirm that she took the abortion pill.

But haven't Ruth Coppinger and other women been publicly taking the pills and suffering no consequences. Is the difference here that this woman may have actually terminated a pregnancy?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

The same claim was made about the two women tweeting their journey to the UK for one of them to have an abortion, and yet we know that an average of 10 women make such a journey every single day.

Why exactly do you find it so hard to believe that among all those journeys, even one or two would be prepared to discuss it on social media, where many people do in fact report pretty much every aspect of their lives nowadays?

The question of it being propaganda isn't whether I believe it or not, it's whether it was published with a specific intent, and clearly to me at least it was published on reddit with a specific intent - to gain support for broadening our abortion laws in this country. The only thing about posting it on reddit is the equivalent of posting about it on here - preaching to the converted already.

People tweet or post on Reddit about their cancer treatment. Why wouldn't some do the same about their abortion?

I never suggested anyone should or shouldn't post about anything they want to post about. I can choose to take it seriously, or not, and in the case Delirium posted, I'm not going to take it seriously or give it any credibility whatsoever.

It's an anonymous post on reddit, assuming your next question is 'Why?'

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The question of it being propaganda isn't whether I believe it or not, it's whether it was published with a specific intent

The intent is clear,
It's to show its happening and its real and not just news report with figures. It was to give the problem more of a face so that this country is forced to provide support for women that want abortions instead of exporting them to the UK.

These women can be your sister, cousin, daughter, neighbour etc. But people find that notion uncomfortable, but that is the cold hard reality of the situation.

Some women will keep such things a secret because they just like their privacy or whatever reason, others will speak out as its their right to do so if they wish. Of course if these women gave their actual names they'd have youth defense nutbags outside their homes and they'll likely get death threats in the post.

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

The intent is clear,
It's to show its happening and its real and not just news report with figures. It was to give the problem more of a face so that this country is forced to provide support for women that want abortions instead of exporting them to the UK.

These women can be your sister, cousin, daughter, neighbour etc. But people find that notion uncomfortable, but that is the cold hard reality of the situation.

Some women will keep such things a secret because they just like their privacy or whatever reason, others will speak out as its their right to do so if they wish. Of course if these women gave their actual names they'd have youth defense nutbags outside their homes and they'll likely get death threats in the post.

So it's giving some anonymous 30 something woman who claims to have had a medical abortion at 5 weeks in her home in Dublin where she is relatively close to James's hospital (with her friend who's a nurse beside her), more of a face, on a website where she could feel validated by her anonymous peers.

Yep, fierce cold, hard reality there alright.

Delirium

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But haven't Ruth Coppinger and other women been publicly taking the pills and suffering no consequences. Is the difference here that this woman may have actually terminated a pregnancy?

Pretty sure that's it.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So it's giving some anonymous 30 something woman who claims to have had a medical abortion at 5 weeks in her home in Dublin where she is relatively close to James's hospital (with her friend who's a nurse beside her), more of a face, on a website where she could feel validated by her anonymous peers.

Yep, fierce cold, hard reality there alright.

You're forgetting the potential 14-year prison sentence, not to mention threats of violence from extremists like Youth Defence.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

You're forgetting the potential 14-year prison sentence, not to mention threats of violence from extremists like Youth Defence.

There's that word again, which makes me wonder do you even bother to read the posts in between yours, because I addressed the point about arguing the potential of anything happening already - it's been summarily dismissed throughout this thread on the basis that just because something has the potential to happen, it does not follow that it should be afforded consideration on that basis.

I'm not forgetting the possible consequences of a conviction either btw, and that's the maximum term upon conviction after being found guilty by a jury of her peers. As for YD getting their knickers in a twist, I'm not sure they'd be bothered about an anonymous account on reddit tbh.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's that word again, which makes me wonder do you even bother to read the posts in between yours, because I addressed the point about arguing the potential of anything happening already - it's been summarily dismissed throughout this thread on the basis that just because something has the potential to happen, it does not follow that it should be afforded consideration on that basis.

I'm not forgetting the possible consequences of a conviction either btw, and that's the maximum term upon conviction after being found guilty by a jury of her peers. As for YD getting their knickers in a twist, I'm not sure they'd be bothered about an anonymous account on reddit tbh.

Potential 14 years prison sentence....I think we all know it would be highly unlikely if any woman who had an abortion here was sentenced to any time in prison. Even the most hard line pro life voices have said they don't want to see women jailed.

However, its still a crime and as we saw with the case of the young lady in the North you don't need to spend any time in prison in order to have a sentence made against you that you will carry with you for the rest of your life.

There are so many implications of having the conviction before you even get to the impact of a possible jail sentence. Do you think any woman or girl who is acting out of desperation should have that follow her around for the rest of her life?

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Potential 14 years prison sentence....I think we all know it would be highly unlikely if any woman who had an abortion here was sentenced to any time in prison. Even the most hard line pro life voices have said they don't want to see women jailed.

However, its still a crime and as we saw with the case of the young lady in the North you don't need to spend any time in prison in order to have a sentence made against you that you will carry with you for the rest of your life.

There are so many implications of having the conviction before you even get to the impact of a possible jail sentence. Do you think any woman or girl who is acting out of desperation should have that follow her around for the rest of her life?

I don't, which is why I don't believe it should ever be used as a scare tactic against anyone either. I think the post that Delirium linked to is entirely disingenuous with regard to the idea of an abortion, in that while legally it's still considered the unborn, it's not even a foetus. The account given on that reddit post isn't comparable IMO with a woman who has to travel abroad for a surgical termination of her pregnancy. Her account of her termination isn't unique either, as there are plenty of videos up on YouTube of women having medical terminations.

PopePalpatine

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not forgetting the possible consequences of a conviction either btw, and that's the maximum term upon conviction after being found guilty by a jury of her peers. As for YD getting their knickers in a twist, I'm not sure they'd be bothered about an anonymous account on reddit tbh.

I'd be worried about Jugendschutz if they have some of the "weaponised autism" of the new breed of Internet-savvy neo-Nazis at their disposal.

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not forgetting the possible consequences of a conviction either btw, and that's the maximum term upon conviction after being found guilty by a jury of her peers.

Why should any women have to risk ending up with this conviction though?

Even if she only gets 1 month in jail, she still ends up with a conviction. No women should have to fear this. With this hanging over a women's head you can't blame a women for not publishing her name

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's that word again, which makes me wonder do you even bother to read the posts in between yours, because I addressed the point about arguing the potential of anything happening already - it's been summarily dismissed throughout this thread on the basis that just because something has the potential to happen, it does not follow that it should be afforded consideration on that basis.

Context is all, though, and what you are saying here is that we can never expect there to be any deterrent effect from a sentence.

Apart from being a bizarre approach to sentencing policy in general, it very much begs the question of why you think there is a named sentence in the POLDP act at all.

Nobody is proposing to use it, and now you're saying potential sentences have no deterrent effect anyway. So why is it there? More virtue signaling?

I'm not forgetting the possible consequences of a conviction either btw, and that's the maximum term upon conviction after being found guilty by a jury of her peers. As for YD getting their knickers in a twist, I'm not sure they'd be bothered about an anonymous account on reddit tbh.

No idea what you're saying here, since you clearly are dismissing it as not being relevant because only "potential".

Also, we were discussing why she might feel the need to remain anonymous, so possible reactions to her anonymous account are not what we're discussing. It's what she fears may happen were her name to become known that is relevant here.

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't, which is why I don't believe it should ever be used as a scare tactic against anyone either.

So then why keep it? If you don't want it to serve as either a punishment or a deterrent what purpose does it serve or what benefit does it provide?

How does this purpose or benefit outweigh the fact that it is used as a deterrent, something you say that you don't want?

What would be detrimental about removing it entirely?

stefanovich

King Mob wrote: »

So then why keep it? If you don't want it to serve as either a punishment or a deterrent what purpose does it serve or what benefit does it provide?

How does this purpose or benefit outweigh the fact that it is used as a deterrent, something you say that you don't want?

What would be detrimental about removing it entirely?

Keep the deterrent, enforce it and also prosecute those who travel abroad for procedures.

aloyisious

stefanovich wrote: »

Keep the deterrent, enforce it and also prosecute those who travel abroad for procedures.

Do you think Irish law, as it stands regarding declaring abortion outside POLDPA as criminal, is a successful deterrent at any level?

looksee

stefanovich wrote: »

Keep the deterrent, enforce it and also prosecute those who travel abroad for procedures.

Then when the child is born, do a dna test and prosecute the father, with a consequence of a lengthy prison sentence... That would round out your solution nicely.

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

Why should any women have to risk ending up with this conviction though?

Even if she only gets 1 month in jail, she still ends up with a conviction. No women should have to fear this. With this hanging over a women's head you can't blame a women for not publishing her name

volchitsa wrote: »

Context is all, though, and what you are saying here is that we can never expect there to be any deterrent effect from a sentence.

Apart from being a bizarre approach to sentencing policy in general, it very much begs the question of why you think there is a named sentence in the POLDP act at all.

Nobody is proposing to use it, and now you're saying potential sentences have no deterrent effect anyway. So why is it there? More virtue signaling?


No idea what you're saying here, since you clearly are dismissing it as not being relevant because only "potential".

Also, we were discussing why she might feel the need to remain anonymous, so possible reactions to her anonymous account are not what we're discussing. It's what she fears may happen were her name to become known that is relevant here.

King Mob wrote: »

So then why keep it? If you don't want it to serve as either a punishment or a deterrent what purpose does it serve or what benefit does it provide?

How does this purpose or benefit outweigh the fact that it is used as a deterrent, something you say that you don't want?

What would be detrimental about removing it entirely?

Taking these three together as they're pretty much asking the same question. I understood this at the time to mean that the woman could face a criminal conviction if she was found guilty of procuring an illegal abortion in this country. It was later explained to me that the statute was included to prosecute the people who performed illegal abortions, not the women who sought an illegal abortion. That's why I would be in favour of keeping it there.

As for the woman in the story, well I don't agree with the importation of these pills which can be ordered on the internet as they are unsafe and having your friend who's a nurse beside you really isn't the same thing as safe medical supervision, so if a complaint were made against her, the DPP could still decide to seek a prosecution under the misuse of drugs acts.

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was later explained to me that the statute was included to prosecute the people who performed illegal abortions, not the women who sought an illegal abortion. That's why I would be in favour of keeping it there.

So why not change it so that it does not cover the women who receive the abortion, but rather focus on the person who performs the illegal abortion?

Or how about allowing abortion in the first place so no one needs to be punished at all?
Your reasoning is bizarre frankly.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As for the woman in the story, well I don't agree with the importation of these pills which can be ordered on the internet as they are unsafe and having your friend who's a nurse beside you really isn't the same thing as safe medical supervision, so if a complaint were made against her, the DPP could still decide to seek a prosecution under the misuse of drugs acts.

But this just seems a bit unfair since she does not have any recourse to receive the drugs legally and safely. The law is forcing her to break the law.
Her other option is to not have an abortion, which would mean she was intimidated out of having one, which you say you didn't want.
If you are concerned about people importing risky pills from the internet, then you should be in favour of legalising them. I cannot understand why you would not be.

aloyisious

Are the pills referred to above those called the morning-after pill, and not another abortifacient drug?

While on Dublin's O'Connell St last (Friday) night I passed a chemists shop and saw a notice in its window that the morning-after pill could be got there without prescription. If that's correct, there would seem to be no need to get them via the internet.

One eyed Jack

King Mob wrote: »

So why not change it so that it does not cover the women who receive the abortion, but rather focus on the person who performs the illegal abortion?

I'd personally prefer to leave the decision as to whether or not to prosecute in the hands of the DPP as they would be in the best position to determine the circumstances of each case -

Destruction of unborn human life

22. (1) It shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life.
(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, or both.
(3) A prosecution for an offence under this section may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Offence by body corporate

23. (1) Where an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate and it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance, or was attributable to any wilful neglect, of a person who was a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, or a person purporting to act in that capacity, that person, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of an offence and may be proceeded against and punished as if he or she were guilty of the first-mentioned offence.
(2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his or her functions of management as if he or she were a director or manager of the body corporate.


Source: Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013

King Mob wrote: »

Or how about allowing abortion in the first place so no one needs to be punished at all?
Your reasoning is bizarre frankly.

Couldn't agree to that now tbh. I understand that you think my reasoning is bizarre, but having researched the issue quite thoroughly and the effect that broadening our laws regarding abortion would likely have on Irish society having looked at the issue in how it affects other societies and cultures around the world, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience support broadening our abortion laws in this country. Of course my reasoning may sound bizarre, but that's probably because I would have previously supported broadening our abortion laws in this country.

King Mob wrote: »

But this just seems a bit unfair since she does not have any recourse to receive the drugs legally and safely. The law is forcing her to break the law.

Nope, couldn't agree with that conclusion either. She has a choice whether to adhere to the law as it applies to every citizen of this country, or choose to flout the law as though she is somehow above the law or thinks that the law shouldn't apply to her. She can't then choose immunity from any possible consequences.

King Mob wrote: »

Her other option is to not have an abortion, which would mean she was intimidated out of having one, which you say you didn't want.

She also had the option to travel to another jurisdiction to procure a termination of her pregnancy. She has plenty of options, she just chose the one which was most convenient for her in her circumstances. I wouldn't want her to be intimidated out of having an abortion to end the life of the unborn if that's what she has chosen for herself, but I'm not going to suggest she should be given a free pass for thinking the law shouldn't apply to her either.

King Mob wrote: »

If you are concerned about people importing risky pills from the internet, then you should be in favour of legalising them. I cannot understand why you would not be.

I never said I wasn't in favour of legalising them and putting procedures in place so that women would have access to them under proper medical supervision.

aloyisious

King Mob wrote: »

So why not change it so that it does not cover the women who receive the abortion, but rather focus on the person who performs the illegal abortion?

POLDPA covers illegal abortions. They were originally covered under the 1861 offences against the person act brought in under the Westminster Parliament and taken unto the Republic's own law books after independence.

There was a change of heart here after Mary (mamie) Cadden was sentenced to death for causing the death of one woman as a result of her "back street" abortion operations. It was Mary Anne's second conviction in relation to them here, and the sentence was commuted to a term in prison.

rainbow kirby

aloyisious wrote: »

Are the pills referred to above those called the morning-after pill, and not another abortifacient drug?

While on Dublin's O'Connell St last (Friday) night I passed a chemists shop and saw a notice in its window that the morning-after pill could be got there without prescription. If that's correct, there would seem to be no need to get them via the internet.

The above posts are referring to the pills for a medical abortion (mifepristone and misoprostol) and not emergency contraception (levonorgesterel or ullipristal acetate (EllaOne)).

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Taking these three together as they're pretty much asking the same question. I understood this at the time to mean that the woman could face a criminal conviction if she was found guilty of procuring an illegal abortion in this country. It was later explained to me that the statute was included to prosecute the people who performed illegal abortions, not the women who sought an illegal abortion. That's why I would be in favour of keeping it there.

It's unclear to me what your basis for banning abortion in the first place is then.

If you think it's killing a baby, then why should the woman get a free pass? Isn't she an adult?, and responsible for her actions?

Whereas if you think, as you seem to say above, that you think it's a social ill, like divorce for instance, then how is it any more of your business than whether a couple get divorced? Or do you want to ban divorce again too?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As for the woman in the story, well I don't agree with the importation of these pills which can be ordered on the internet as they are unsafe and having your friend who's a nurse beside you really isn't the same thing as safe medical supervision, so if a complaint were made against her, the DPP could still decide to seek a prosecution under the misuse of drugs acts.

But if the woman's safety was your real concern, given that abortion is more than ten times safer than normal pregnancy and childbirth, any woman with any health issue would be positively encouraged to consider abortion as an option, to avoid possible complications.

Instead of which she is not allowed to have one unless her life and not just her health is already at risk, and even then doctors are still under threat of a long prison sentence if a judge decides later that her life was not sufficiently at risk.

Those are the reasons your views seem bizarre and inconsistent to me. Not because you may have changed your mind, which is fair enough. I just think one should be able to explain one's thinking with a minimum of logic and consistency.

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Couldn't agree to that now tbh. I understand that you think my reasoning is bizarre, but having researched the issue quite thoroughly and the effect that broadening our laws regarding abortion would likely have on Irish society having looked at the issue in how it affects other societies and cultures around the world, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience support broadening our abortion laws in this country.

Effects such as...?

Please be specific and back up your claims with something more solid than your own research.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, couldn't agree with that conclusion either. She has a choice whether to adhere to the law as it applies to every citizen of this country, or choose to flout the law as though she is somehow above the law or thinks that the law shouldn't apply to her. She can't then choose immunity from any possible consequences.

So her choice was to be intimidated out of having an abortion or breaking the law?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She also had the option to travel to another jurisdiction to procure a termination of her pregnancy. She has plenty of options, she just chose the one which was most convenient for her in her circumstances.

But this is also illegal under Irish law.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn't want her to be intimidated out of having an abortion to end the life of the unborn if that's what she has chosen for herself, but I'm not going to suggest she should be given a free pass for thinking the law shouldn't apply to her either.

This is why your position is so bizarre, it's self contradictory. If this is what you believe, then the law should be changed, especially as you have been claiming it's not preventing many abortions in the first place.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said I wasn't in favour of legalising them and putting procedures in place so that women would have access to them under proper medical supervision.

What kind of procedures should be put in place that would satisfy your strange requirements?

recedite

rainbow kirby wrote: »

The above posts are referring to the pills for a medical abortion (mifepristone and misoprostol) and not emergency contraception (levonorgesterel or ullipristal acetate (EllaOne)).

Is the difference here primarily one of either preventing implantation of the fertilised egg, versus killing off the zygote post implantation?
If that is so, then technically neither is "contraception".

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

Is the difference here primarily one of either preventing implantation of the fertilised egg, versus killing off the zygote post implantation?
If that is so, then technically neither is "contraception".

For what it's worth, and not meaning to come across as a grammar-cop, the word contraception speaks for itself when it comes to what it means and does in actuality. Contraception. a means to prevent inception and pregnancy, making it different to abortion. It probably should be written/read as a hyphenated word: contra-ception

Dictionary,com references contraction and contraceptive.

volchitsa

I think the MAP is now believed to work by preventing ovulation rather than implantation. I know there was some doubt over its mechanism initially, but afaiaa that's pretty much sorted now. In which case it would definitely be contraception anyway.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

For what it's worth, and not meaning to come across as a grammar-cop, the word contraception speaks for itself..

I know what the word means.
I was suggesting (politely) that rainbowkirby's stated category of "emergency contraception" is not in fact "contraception" at all, if its action is to prevent implantion of an already fertilised embryo.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

I know what the word means.
I was suggesting (politely) that rainbowkirby's stated category of "emergency contraception" is not in fact "contraception" at all, if its action is to prevent implantion of an already fertilised embryo.

I think "emergency contraception" is not something made up by rainbowkirby, it's the accepted term.

Presumably if it didn't prevent conception it would be a form of abortion.
Are Iona and the rest of those nice people also protesting for the MAP to be brought within the remit of the 8th? If not, do you mean perhaps they should?