Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Frank Bullitt

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Anyone hear her on Newstalk just now? Basically unchallenged on most/all of her claims. They pointed out that the 4 other Sabbatical Officers were against her, but didn't have any of them on to defend their side.

Open letter from Barry Murphy on Monday 23rd, one of those sabbatical officers who supposedly bullied Matie Ascough is here (pretty long so I'm just posting the facebook link, but it seems to be publicly viewable without logging in).

Some interesting parts:




So it seems that she decided that she couldn't morally stand over what was in the book (despite promising not to even look at it) and then brought up the "suddenly aware of legal advice" excuse to remove it, despite all officers necessarily being aware of the advice twice over at that stage.


She said on Newstalk that the page now has phone numbers for various support groups including the SU itself and the SU will give out the same information over the phone that was originally printed there. She claims that this protects the SU from the possibility of legal action, that giving the information by request avoids the issue of printing the information for anyone to see. That seems like a bizarre loophole, does anyone know if it is true? I'm presuming it's not and it's why her approved page isn't really legal either.


So much for claims of delegation :rolleyes:.

You really have to post this in the After Hours thread.

aloyisious

As of 15 miutes ago people in the SU were still getting and reading the letter. It seems to hve met with a majority + audience.

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

She said on Newstalk that the page now has phone numbers for various support groups including the SU itself and the SU will give out the same information over the phone that was originally printed there. She claims that this protects the SU from the possibility of legal action, that giving the information by request avoids the issue of printing the information for anyone to see.

In that scenario, it would be up to the individual answering the phone what they said on the phone, therefore not necessarily the opinion of the SU and/or its president.
Also it would be more in the nature of a private conversation between two individuals, as opposed to the public dissemination of info on illegal acts by the SU.

There is a curious quote from the guy there...

Last year the book included information on abortion. We gloated throughout the book that we were doing this illegal thing. Last year's sabbats were all proud of distributing the information. No case was brought against them

Miss Ass Cough's basic point is that if he is willing to do something illegal, then it should be on his head only. But it is wrong to force others to participate in an illegal act against their will. Its a fair point IMO.

If this guy wants to man the phones, let him give out whatever advice he wants, legal or illegal. At least then it is arguable that he is doing it in a private capacity.

Hotblack Desiato

If she was unhappy with the actions the SU was taking, in accordance with its mandate, she always had the option of resigning.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

In that scenario, it would be up to the individual answering the phone what they said on the phone, therefore not necessarily the opinion of the SU and/or its president.
Also it would be more in the nature of a private conversation between two individuals, as opposed to the public dissemination of info on illegal acts by the SU.

There is a curious quote from the guy there...
Miss Ass Cough's basic point is that if he is willing to do something illegal, then it should be on his head only. But it is wrong to force others to participate in an illegal act against their will. Its a fair point IMO.

If this guy wants to man the phones, let him give out whatever advice he wants, legal or illegal. At least then it is arguable that he is doing it in a private capacity.

Re Ms Ascough's basic point above, it seems to be the sabath's point that Ms Ascough ran for the presidents office for the sole reason of using that office to prevent the SU board issuing abortion advice via the SU booklet. She [in their opinion] was not interested in protecting the SU from what she claimed to be an illegal act, just blocking the printing and publication of the booklet by the SU board.

Blocking any other option [except that of taking phonecalls from people looking for the info] to the board would be advantageous to her in splitting the board and preventing them from having a freely entered-into joint responsibility, said resposibility they seem to be in favour of. The same can be said to be her motive in regard to the general membership of the SU as well.

There would also be the follow-up that parties opposed to abortion could use the phone-numbers to make nuisance, baiting and fake calls with ill-intent towards the SU. I doubt if the content of any such private coversation would remain private for very long seeig as how the phone numbers would be available to the public to call for advice.

The splitting the board and the SU point is emphaised by her claiming to have been bullied by four males, a parting shot of being a victim of sexist acts, something which I have no doubt is against the SU rulebook and constitution.

Edit..... On an [very important date] aside today is also the 5th anniversary of Savita Halappanavar's death. Vigils are taking place today worldwide incl cities and towns here. RIP Savita.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/debate-on-the-8th-your-views-on-irelands-most-devisive-topic-461861.html

(copied from the Tuam thread)

I see the old '50:50 = balance' fallacy is in action - half the letters published are demanding the full retention of the 8th even though public opinion is overwhelmingly against this and has been for quite some time, pre-dating the citizens' assembly.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

(copied from the Tuam thread)

I see the old '50:50 = balance' fallacy is in action - half the letters published are demanding the full retention of the 8th even though public opinion is overwhelmingly against this and has been for quite some time, pre-dating the citizens' assembly.

Ta... meant the Examiner piece for here....

gctest50

.

aloyisious

I'll mention this in passing. As of two nights ago, there was a piece of white artwork/graffiti on the black boarding adjacent to the former Bermuda nightclub on the Liffey quays by the boardwalk. The image is similar in appearance to a former head of state wearing a white skullcap, with a lower caption [also in white] referring to touching children and #fetus's. There is another word lower again blacked out, relevant to the 8th amendment debate. The artwork is undoubtably provocative. I'm of mixed mind on it [60 nay/40 yea] because of it's chosen sihouette. I am supposing the wording refers to two recent separate historical events in our history, as history goes. I passed on the opportunity to photo it reckoning on it being provocative enough to appear elsewhere on public media.

Hotblack Desiato

If ever 'pics or GTFO' was appropriate...

smacl

I notice from an article in the IT today that the latest Red C Poll that 60% of people favour allowing abortion on demand. Looks very much like the pro-life brigade are fighting a losing battle.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If ever 'pics or GTFO' was appropriate...

Today in sunlight. Other day's viewing was late PM with no camera. My description of the script location in relation to the artpiece was wrong. I didn't see the robe outline then either. The blacking out of the word repeal was in pink. Some-one else [for whatever reason] objected to the word being used in relation to the image etc....

recedite

That grafitti is a bit too Artsy for me to comprehend
Someone will have to explain it.

Hotblack Desiato

Someone added the writing later and someone painted over the Repeal jumper too.

It started out as a pope-like person wearing a repeal jumper.

Not surprised the word 'repeal' got painted over, someone is going around Dublin city centre scratching out the word 'repeal' on any stickers they can find.

#silenced eh?

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Someone added the writing later and someone painted over the Repeal jumper too.

It started out as a pope-like person wearing a repeal jumper.

Not surprised the word 'repeal' got painted over, someone is going around Dublin city centre scratching out the word 'repeal' on any stickers they can find.

#silenced eh?

Silenced, no, not by a long shot. I assume the balloon was put in after the deletion of "repeal", as it must be more offensive than repeal to the faithful. It'll probably be covered over by the building owner, like the visual comment on the bankers was.

aloyisious

Is this a new change in SF's position on legalisation of abortion in the republic, given that it's Gerry Adams being quoted, or does it have two minds on legalization of abortion depending on which part of Ireland he is referring to? Has the outcome of deliberations within the Citizens Assembly changed his and SF's opinion south of the border to suit party needs?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/adams-believes-women-should-have-right-to-abortion-1.3280549

Hotblack Desiato

SF are not to be trusted on abortion (as if they're to be trusted on anything) but they're a catholic party don't forget.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

SF are not to be trusted on abortion (as if they're to be trusted on anything) but they're a catholic party don't forget.

I have a hankering for Mary Lou McDonald to take over from Gerry as she's a Dub [though she had a catholic education] thinking [hoping maybe] that as a woman from the south and a former MEP she mignt not have a doctrine POV on personal issues that affect women [as in pregnancy and abortion] directly in a way no man can be affected. I'm probably wrong in my wishes regarding her POV, will have to browse on her stated position there. Gerry's had the job for 34 years now.

Hotblack Desiato

Mary Lou will let you know her opinion as soon as the army council tell her what it is.

Nick Park

aloyisious wrote: »

thinking [hoping maybe] that as a woman from the south and a former MEP she mignt not have a doctrine POV on personal issues that affect women [as in pregnancy and abortion] directly in a way no man can be affected.

Interestingly, there is a body of evidence suggesting that men are more likely than women to support abortion.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2014/apr/30/why-are-women-more-opposed-to-abortion


https://spectator.org/30346_do-men-and-women-view-abortion-differently/

Odhinn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

SF are not to be trusted on abortion (as if they're to be trusted on anything) but they're a catholic party don't forget.

They've a catholic base, but its generally catholic with a small "c".

gctest50

Happy day

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-41879520

Women from Northern Ireland can now have free abortions through the NHS in Scotland.

recedite

Already free in England, I'm not sure about Wales.

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

Is this a new change in SF's position on legalisation of abortion in the republic, given that it's Gerry Adams being quoted, or does it have two minds on legalization of abortion depending on which part of Ireland he is referring to? Has the outcome of deliberations within the Citizens Assembly changed his and SF's opinion south of the border to suit party needs?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/adams-believes-women-should-have-right-to-abortion-1.3280549

This is interesting, although it's not entirely clear that he favours full liberalisation of the law. If that's the case that's certainly a departure from his previous position, and the logical corollary is that he should be calling for the extension of British abortion law to NI. My impression had been that the younger republic-based SF favoured a more radical position on abortion but were being held back by Adams and the late Martin McGuinness but seemingly that's no longer the case...

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

Already free in England, I'm not sure about Wales.

Wales, while a princedom, is part of England and both countries are one legal jurisdiction. Abortion law in Wales is the overall UK abortion law of 1967, covering England and Scotland as well.

recedite

Well, I wouldn't say Wales is quite the same country, and there is this.
But maybe they haven't bothered diverging from the English position on this issue, and therefore just default to the same laws?

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

Well, I wouldn't say Wales is quite the same country

As I didn't say that, no quibbling on that.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_and_Wales.... Para 3. Just note some of the para refers to Ireland two centuries ago and isn't legally valid. I don't think that the devolved Welsh Governmemt has power to change/supercede the 1967 abortion act with one of its own.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

Wales, while a princedom, is part of England

Wales is not part of England! :rolleyes:

and both countries are one legal jurisdiction.

Yes, called England and Wales, not England.

Odhinn

Depressing state of affairs

The State has paid €30,000 in compensation to a woman who had to travel to the UK for an abortion after a fatal foetal abnormality diagnosis.

Earlier this year the UN Human Rights Committee concluded Ms Whelan was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in 2010 after a scan revealed her unborn son had holoprosencephaly, a congenital brain malformation occurring in one in 250 pregnancies during early embryo development, and 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 20,000 at term.
The condition meant the foetus would likely die in her womb and if carried to term the baby would probably die during labour or soon after.

But Ms Whelan was prohibited from having a medical termination in Ireland.
She was offered little or no information on her options and was told by her obstetrician to attend ante-natal classes as normal and wait for nature to take its course.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/state-pays-30k-in-compensation-to-woman-denied-abortion-in-ireland-36298487.html

recedite

That's two separate women who have received €30,000 compo after traveling to England for FFA abortions. So the govt. must have decided that €30,000 is the going rate.
I find it hard to understand. If FFA abortion is currently illegal in this state, then why pay compo for not providing it?
Is this intended as compensation for the law being wrong?
If the govt agrees with the U.N. Human Rights Committee that Ireland's abortion laws are cruel and inhumane, then it should start changing the laws instead of paying compo.