Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/940970117592174594

aloyisious

Odhinn wrote: »

You wouldn't happen to have a link, by any chance?

I think the link in question may be on RTE from this morning where David and Colm O'Gorman debated the foreign funding of both debating sides on the abortion issue.

David is upset that Amnesty are not doing what an oversight group wants them to do, return funding to what David believes is a George Soras funded group interfering in the internal politics of Ireland, south of the border, while Amnesty is looking at going legal on the opinion of the oversight group.

Edit: ta Gintonious

Frank Bullitt

And now Ronan Mullen is having a go in the committee as well.

Where the hell do these carnival barkers come from?

aloyisious

Fatal Fetal abnormality has been recommended as grounds for termination of pregnancy. Ta 18 - Nil 3. Ronan disagrees with the use of the word Fatal in conjunction with Fetal Abnormality. Mattie McGrath pointed out that children can live up to 11 years while having said defect. Ronan - because they are more vulnerable, they have less rights.

DickSwiveller

Gintonious wrote: »

And now Ronan Mullen is having a go in the committee as well.

Where the hell do these carnival barkers come from?

You mean you disagree with Ronán Mullen.

Frank Bullitt

DickSwiveller wrote: »

You mean you disagree with Ronán Mullen.

Thankfully, yes.

DickSwiveller

Gintonious wrote: »

Thankfully, yes.

you know you can disagree with somebody without pathologizing them.

aloyisious

Decriminalization of some aspects of abortion seem to be under discussion, re a doctor performing something outside the law as distinct from a woman having an abortion outside current criminal law. Ronan is talkig now, making distinctions between different actions by the above people, subsequent state actions against them and prison terms liable, all in terms of decriminaliztion of abortion [with references to the British legal abortion sitution]. Sometimes I wonder if he's doing it as an nti-brit bias or if there'd be a difference if France was the neighbour in question...... Something I thought might be behind two questions before the committee has been mentioned at last - backstreet abortions. It's being partly answered by another member.

aloyisious

It looks likes Ronan is setting the stage for a personal walkout in protest.....

He's been given a slap-down by another member, not the chair, for insulting them and their work on the committee while he was trying to prevent the chair from closing today's session to allow the back office workers do the paperwork on todays meeting [and clean the room]. Resumes tomorrow at 5PM

Odhinn

aloyisious wrote: »

It looks likes Ronan is setting the stage for a persdonal walkout in protest.....

A tragedy for the level of debate I'm sure.

aloyisious

Odhinn wrote: »

A tragedy for the level of debate I'm sure.

I'm so glad I don't have interactions with him.

Loafing Oaf

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1213/927010-eighth_amendment/
This bit is confusing me:

The Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment has voted by 12 votes to five in favour of a motion to recommend making the termination of pregnancy lawful with no restriction up to 12 weeks.

One of the tighter votes this afternoon was on termination of pregnancy when socio-economic considerations were taken into account.

Members voted by 10-9 against that proposal by the Independent Senator Lynn Ruane.

So some committee members voted in favour of 'abortion on demand' but against abortion on socio-economic grounds.
Was the socio-economic grounds motion intended to be without term limits perhaps?

Odhinn

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm so glad I don't have interactions with him.

Though in a younger age group, he reminds me of people I went to school with (not a good thing at all, at all). This was from back in the day when going out looking for sex was a sin, but the greater evil was actually admitting openly to doing so. Women who had sex were "sluts" and so on. Talk of forgiving sinners was just that.

Frank Bullitt

DickSwiveller wrote: »

you know you can disagree with somebody without pathologizing them.

I am well aware of that. But his conduct and actions throughout this committee has been nothing short of shameful and disgusting. His comments about Savita in particular, what self respecting human would say such a thing?

He is vile to the core, his moral barometer is completely incompatible with day to day living.

I disagree with everything he says, but I also find him to be a poor excuse of a human.

volchitsa

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1213/927010-eighth_amendment/
This bit is confusing me:

So some committee members voted in favour of 'abortion on demand' but against abortion on socio-economic grounds.
Was the socio-economic grounds motion intended to be without term limits perhaps?

They seem to be voting on the Citizens' Assembly's recommendations, and from memory that proposed a separate, later term limit for socio-economic reasons, separate from the main "any reason up to 12 weeks".

it might have been 24 weeks as the UK has (not sure about that).

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1213/927010-eighth_amendment/
This bit is confusing me:





So some committee members voted in favour of 'abortion on demand' but against abortion on socio-economic grounds.
Was the socio-economic grounds motion intended to be without term limits perhaps?

Link: http://www.thejournal.ie/eighth-amendment-committee-9-3748159-Dec2017/

What's below is from the timeline on the committee meeting showing the verbals in print You'll have to scroll down to see/read it. Hopefully it'll be of help. IT's IN THE 3.39 PM SEGMENT... It might refer to financial affordability itself when the morning-after pill is way gone past, say around the mentioned 12th week and maybe even later.


3:32PM
Regarding cases where there is a real and substantial physical risk to the life of the woman, Kate O’Connell is proposing:
That the Committee recommend that termination of pregnancy be lawful, without gestational limit, where the life or health of the woman is at risk and that a distinction should not be drawn between the physical and mental health of the woman.

O’Connell asks the committee to imagine a case where a mother ends up having a stroke and becomes disabled, or where a blood clot becomes a pulmonary embolism. She also says term limits should be defined by best medical practice which should be written in legislation.
Fianna Fáil TD Lisa Chambers wants the motion split in two before it’s voted on.

Catherine Murphy says regulation will be required as well as legislation. Sinn Féin Senator Paul Gavan supports the motion.
Speaking about risks to a woman’s health – and how quickly situations can deteriorate – Fine Gael TD Bernard Durkan says: “In the interest of health and safety it is better that action can be taken sooner than later.”


3:35PM
Rónán Mullen says the ground of mental health risk has led to “widespread” abortion and that there is no evidence to suggest abortion helps a woman’s mental health.
He opposes the amendments.
Jan O’Sullivan disagrees with Mullen, saying she agrees with O’Connell and Murphy.

3:39PM
Fine Gael Senator Jerry Buttimer supports O’Connell’s motion, saying the Eighth Amendment has had a negative impact on medical practice here.

Independent Senator Lynn Ruane says she supports O’Connell’s motion but is concerned it doesn’t include socio-economic grounds as a reason for abortion.

Replying to a query by Mullen, Fine Gael TD Bernard Durkan says he didn’t make his remarks about women being harmed by Irish law lightly, adding that he is aware of cases where this has happened.

O’Connell’s motion has been passed – again the vote was 14 in favour, six against and one abstention (chairperson).

McGrath’s amendment to remove suicidality as a factor is not carried – three in favour, 17 against, one abstention (chair).


3:56PM
Committee backs Citizens’ Assembly (CA) recommendation that terminations should be available in cases where the woman’s mental health is at risk: 16 in favour, four against, one abstention (chairperson).

4:05PM
Lynn Ruane’s below motion has not been passed – nine in favour, 10 against, two abstentions:
That the committee recommend the termination of pregnancy be lawful where there is a risk to the health of the woman and that socio-economic considerations be taken into consideration in this regard.

This vote relates to circumstances where the woman’s physical health is also at risk, a separate vote will later be taken on whether socio-economic grounds should themselves be grounds for an abortion.

DickSwiveller

The religion of selfism has one out; the religion that elevates personal selfishness above everything else. The idiotic slogan 'my body my choice' - as if our personal actions don't affect other people - sums up modern Irish society.

Kiwi in IE

DickSwiveller wrote: »

The religion of selfism has one out; the religion that elevates personal selfishness above everything else. The idiotic slogan 'my body my choice' - as if our personal actions don't affect other people - sums up modern Irish society.

Perhaps you'd prefer 'Womens bodies, my choice'?

Zerbini Blewitt

What a positive milestone this evening, overall.

There’s a long way to go yet (as everyone knows) but the end is in sight for this decades old maternal care national disgrace & dark ages, theocratic, misogynist nightmare.

Frank Bullitt

DickSwiveller wrote: »

The religion of selfism has one out; the religion that elevates personal selfishness above everything else. The idiotic slogan 'my body my choice' - as if our personal actions don't affect other people - sums up modern Irish society.

Selfishness above everything else? How dare women want some sort of control over their bodies.

Horrible selfishness altogether. They should be more considering of complete strangers and their opinions of their bodies.

DickSwiveller

Gintonious wrote: »

Selfishness above everything else? How dare women want some sort of control over their bodies.

Horrible selfishness altogether. They should be more considering of complete strangers and their opinions of their bodies.

You're obsessed with women's bodies. I care about the innocent baby.

Frank Bullitt

DickSwiveller wrote: »

You're obsessed with women's bodies. I care about the innocent baby.

You are the one denying them human rights, you claim to care about them but in reality you don't. How any anyone keep a straight face when they say they are pro-life but not care about the woman in the situations.

Comical.

rainbow kirby

DickSwiveller wrote: »

You're obsessed with women's bodies. I care about the innocent baby.

Actual sentient life outweighs potential life. Women need to be able to protect their lives, their health and the children they already have.

DickSwiveller

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Actual sentient life outweighs potential life. Women need to be able to protect their lives, their health and the children they already have.

Can't they do all that before they get pregnant?

DickSwiveller

Gintonious wrote: »

You are the one denying them human rights, you claim to care about them but in reality you don't. How any anyone keep a straight face when they say they are pro-life but not care about the woman in the situations.

Comical.

I don't know what human rights are. Given that you believe a woman should have full autonomy over her body, and therefore should be able to choose to do with said body whatever she chooses, are you in favour of abortion one week before the baby is due?

eviltwin

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I don't know what human rights are. Given that you believe a woman should have full autonomy over her body, and therefore should be able to choose to do with said body whatever she chooses, are you in favour of abortion one week before the baby is due?

Why have an abortion at 39 weeks when the pregnancy can just be terminated

DickSwiveller

eviltwin wrote: »

Why have an abortion at 39 weeks when the pregnancy can just be terminated

I don't understand.

eviltwin

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I don't understand.

If a woman decided at 39 weeks that she didn't want to be pregnant anymore they could induce labour. The pregnancy is terminated as per her wishes, no need for an abortion.

DickSwiveller

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Can't they do all that before they get pregnant?

So those feckless wimmins deserve their punishment, is that it?

There's a lot of black and white thinking on this issue, but real life is not so simple.

rainbow kirby

Before, during and after. The 8th forces unnecessary risks to be taken even in the case of non-viable pregnancy and risks women's lives and health even in the case of continued pregnancy.