Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

I misread this as meaning a photo of two married nuns coming out of a polling station :eek:

Yes, well: going off topic slightly. If you're old enough/or of a certain vintage, the memory exists of reference being made to nuns as being brides of Christ when it came to their non-marital status, and that the mention came from the nuns/church quarter when the question was asked about marriage "we/they are wed to Christ", so you might not have been far out....

ohnonotgmail

aloyisious wrote: »

Yes, well: going off topic slightly. If you're old enough/or of a certain vintage, the memory exists of reference being made to nuns as being brides of Christ when it came to their non-marital status, and that the mention came from the nuns/church quarter when the question was asked about marriage "we/they are wed to Christ", so you might not have been far out....

nuns go through what is essentially a marriage rite (white dress and all) as the final step of becoming a nun.

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I meant to reply to this a few days ago.

Those 'little old ladies' control multi-billion-euro private heathcare and property empires, built upon the donations and bequests of gullible fools and the unwilling taxes of everyone else.

Yeah I'm well aware of that, I was just pointing out how the Catholic Church in its pomp built up structures of control over health, education, and other aspects of Irish society that could (almost) survive its death as a human institution. So vocations to the nuns dried up decades ago, even more catastrophically than those to the priesthood, yet the remaining 2 or 3 octogenarians (to exaggerate slightly), still control substantial levers of power, even if they are physically barely capable of manipulating them...

Hotblack Desiato

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nuns go through what is essentially a marriage rite (white dress and all) as the final step of becoming a nun.

As seen in The Nun's Story with Audrey Hepburn.

Hotblack Desiato

NuMarvel wrote: »

He seems to have a rose tinted view of the 8th though. Take his closing paragraph:

"Terminations required to save a woman’s life are legal in Ireland. They have been legal since 1983. The amendment does not inhibit our ability to treat a woman."

This is just typical of the gobshitery, revisionism and outright lies of the anti-choice side.

The 8th protects the lives of women? The Supreme Court X Case judgment in 1992 was seen as somewhat of a surprise at the time. Certainly the so-called "pro-lifers" expected abortion to remain illegal under all circumstances up to and including maternal death. They never got over this ruling and tried and failed, not once but twice, to have it overturned by referendum. Rather disingenuous of them to say the least to now claim that the 8th protects women and they were perfectly fine all along with abortions to save the lives of women.

They are claiming that with the availability of contraception and the morning after pill, there should be no need for abortion. Except these are the very same people who opposed contraception for decades and who not five years ago were claiming that the morning after pill was an abortifacient and should be outlawed.

If in the future there is ever a move to permit abortion on request at later than 12 weeks, I fully expect the same crowd to claim that they were fine with 12 weeks all along, but anything more would be an abomination. Etc. etc.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is just typical of the gobshitery, revisionism and outright lies of the anti-choice side.

The 8th protects the lives of women? The Supreme Court X Case judgment in 1992 was seen as somewhat of a surprise at the time. Certainly the so-called "pro-lifers" expected abortion to remain illegal under all circumstances up to and including maternal death. They never got over this ruling and tried and failed, not once but twice, to have it overturned by referendum. Rather disingenuous of them to say the least to now claim that the 8th protects women and they were perfectly fine all along with abortions to save the lives of women.

They are claiming that with the availability of contraception and the morning after pill, there should be no need for abortion. Except these are the very same people who opposed contraception for decades and who not five years ago were claiming that the morning after pill was an abortifacient and should be outlawed.

If in the future there is ever a move to permit abortion on request at later than 12 weeks, I fully expect the same crowd to claim that they were fine with 12 weeks all along, but anything more would be an abomination. Etc. etc.

With this being part of the Prof's piece in the paper [The truth is that the Government proposes to legalise terminations through to the sixth month gestation, on the same basis as in Britain, in cases of a risk to the physical or mental health of the woman. In Britain, 98 per cent of all terminations are performed on these grounds.] it's entirely possible you are right...

I'm not sure if the Prof actually meant 98 per cent of terminations as he defined termination early in his piece in reference to how he say's it's allowed under the 8th, as he seem's to have in mind an alternative form of termination [abortion] as practiced in BRITAIN which he apparently believes the Govt have in mind. If I'm understanding that mention of 98 per cent correctly, then the Prof is using the word termination in a duplicitous manner in it, changing it to suit his article and message. He must be aware that the Govt does not mean termination as defined by him in other parts of his article, but abortion when it come to the legislation he sees it bringing in. He has personally defined himself, at the end of his article, as the advisor to the Save the 8th campaign. It's fairly obvious what particular expertise he is using to offer advice to that campaign.


Maybe I'm wrong [but I don't think so] and the 98 per cent of terminations he mentioned in Britain, on the grounds of risk to the physical and mental health of pregnant women, is not an actual reference to abortion but the live delivery of the unborn through surgery, outside the usual natural way of delivering the unborn. In that case, the 98 per cent must be small in comparison to what the No campaign claims the figures for abortion are in Britain. EDIT: It'd be unusual [IMO] for some-one from the No campaign side of the debate to be of the opinion that Britain was actually pursuing a policy similar to the 8th when it came to terminations in the way the Prof sees terminations happening here under the 8th and state that to be a fact.

Hotblack Desiato

I should have included this in my previous post.

Casey, Fidelma, Mattie, John Paul Phelan, Danny Healy-Rae and the usual gang are now promoting adoption.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/website-promotes-adoption-as-an-option-in-crisis-pregnancies-1.3443565

But three years ago we were being told that every child deserved their natural father and mother???

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I should have included this in my previous post.

Casey, Fidelma, Mattie, John Paul Phelan, Danny Healy-Rae and the usual gang are now promoting adoption.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/website-promotes-adoption-as-an-option-in-crisis-pregnancies-1.3443565

But three years ago we were being told that every child deserved their natural father and mother???

Their eyes are now being opened to the resultant births caused by their denials. Given that they are [mostly] deputies, one must assume all such adaptions will be above board and fully compliant with our laws.

smokingman

For the first time ever, I got a Google notification of the following news story on my phone. WTF?
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/medical-myths-about-eighth-amendment-must-be-challenged-1.3451748?mode=amp

aloyisious

smokingman wrote: »

For the first time ever, I got a Google notification of the following news story on my phone. WTF?
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/medical-myths-about-eighth-amendment-must-be-challenged-1.3451748?mode=amp

Media and Internet Co's selling on access to customers info to marketeers, who use it to "Ad-target" the customers???? That's the opinion-piece I posted about on the previous page. https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/m...nged-1.3451748

JimiTime

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I should have included this in my previous post.

Casey, Fidelma, Mattie, John Paul Phelan, Danny Healy-Rae and the usual gang are now promoting adoption.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/website-promotes-adoption-as-an-option-in-crisis-pregnancies-1.3443565

But three years ago we were being told that every child deserved their natural father and mother???

Let me baby step you through your confusion:

The context of adoption arose 3 years ago in relation to the argument that where a child is in a position where they are denied their biological parents, a suitable adoptive mom and dad should be found rather than purposely denying them a mom or dad by sacrificing their well-being for the sake of political shenanigans demanding that 2 men or 2 women should be as entitled to adopt them, even when a suitable nuclear household is available.

Moving to the context of abortion.....

In the event that the choice is, put the child up for adoption, or kill them. Well, continuing with the child centric approach, this 'usual gang', are espousing the idea that its in the childs interest not to be, you know, dead. In such a scenario, adoption is a much better option for the child, seeing how the alternative is, you know, being killed, and the death, and the medical waste basket with the dying and the end of their lives, and did I mention the dying.

So yeah, to sum up with this chart in order of preferable outcome for baby:

At Number one, and a shoe in. Its...............Be born into a stable nuclear family with the natural love of his/her mammy and daddy.

At Number 2............Be born, but be adopted to a stable suitable nuclear family if ones biological parents are not 'available' for whatever reason.

And Last.........Be executed. You just chillin' there in your amniotic safe haven when WHOAH, what the hell is going on here?? And its lights out!

Hope I squared that circle for yee!

*flies off into the sunset, cape swishing*

aloyisious

JimiTime wrote: »

Let me baby step you through your confusion:

The context of adoption arose 3 years ago in relation to the argument that where a child is in a position where they are denied their biological parents, a suitable adoptive mom and dad should be found rather than purposely denying them a mom or dad by sacrificing their well-being for the sake of political shenanigans demanding that 2 men or 2 women should be as entitled to adopt them, even when a suitable nuclear household is available.

Moving to the context of abortion.....

In the event that the choice is, put the child up for adoption, or kill them. Well, continuing with the child centric approach, this 'usual gang', are espousing the idea that its in the childs interest not to be, you know, dead. In such a scenario, adoption is a much better option for the child, seeing how the alternative is, you know, being killed, and the death, and the medical waste basket with the dying and the end of their lives, and did I mention the dying.

So yeah, to sum up with this chart in order of preferable outcome for baby:

At Number one, and a shoe in. Its...............Be born into a stable nuclear family with the natural love of his/her mammy and daddy.

At Number 2............Be born, but be adopted to a stable suitable nuclear family if ones biological parents are not 'available' for whatever reason.

And Last.........Be executed. You just chillin' there in your amniotic safe haven when WHOAH, what the hell is going on here?? And its lights out!

Hope I squared that circle for yee!

*flies off into the sunset, cape swishing*

Seeing as you didn't enter your third given - And last.............Be executed - At Number 3, but as an At Last, can I take it that you haven't ruled out a chance that Be born but be adapted to a stable suitable nuclear family by two men or two women could be a Number 3?

Of course options 1, 2 and 3 above are only available if the pregnant woman is persuaded to either go full term with her pregnancy or get a termination of the type preferred by some of the anti-abortion campaign.

BTW, a stable nuclear family is defined as two parents and their children as distinct to a single-parent family. I'm sure that if the adaption board thought my option 3 was as suitable as your options 1 and 2, that would mean it took into account it's stability, don't you think?

Cabaal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

In Kilkenny atm and thankfully nothing to be seen here - although I'm not sure if lamppost political posters are permitted in the city?

They certainly are up in Kilkenny, mainly on some of the roundabouts on the ring road around the city.

Hand full up in Waterford City too.

I expect them to plaster the country like they did in 2015...likely even more so as they push every penny that got given to them from outside of Ireland into this forced birth compaign.

Cabaal

Here's a question no pro lifer seems to answer me on.

If every child deserves their biological mother and father as stated back in 2015 and if pro life people think a raped woman should be forced to goto term if she's pregnant.

Do they also think the rapist should have visitation rights to their child?

What about ensuring the father has a say in upbringing? Communion, what school the child goes to etc?

Should the father have a say on weather the rape victim can leave Ireland for holidays with the child or even get a passport?

Surely once the rapist has served his small jail sentence he is perfectly entitled to emotional torture his victim by requesting visitation rights to his child?

volchitsa

Cabaal wrote: »

Here's a question no pro lifer seems to answer me on.

If every child deserves their biological mother and father as stated back in 2015 and if pro life people think a raped woman should be forced to goto term if she's pregnant.

Do they also think the rapist should have visitation rights to their child?

What about ensuring the father has a say in upbringing? Communion, what school the child goes to etc?

Should the father have a say on weather the rape victim can leave Ireland for holidays with the child or even get a passport?

Surely once the rapist has served his small jail sentence he is perfectly entitled to emotional torture his victim by requesting visitation rights to his child?

You may be thinking of cases like this :
Michigan judge gives convicted rapist parental rights for his victim's son

ProfessorPlum

volchitsa wrote: »

You may be thinking of cases like this :
Michigan judge gives convicted rapist parental rights for his victim's son

You mean this case?


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/judge-rescinds-order-granting-rapist-joint-legal-custody-of-victims-child/

“Sanilac County Judge Gregory Ross ruled Tuesday that 27-year-old Christopher Mirasolo won't have any parental rights in connection to the 8-year-old boy. But he's still on the hook for child support.

Michigan Supreme Court spokesman John Nevin told The Associated Press last week that Ross didn't know 27-year-old Christopher Mirasolo had two criminal sexual conduct convictions, including one concerning the woman.”

So yes to child support but no to access.

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I wonder are they going to deploy their usual trick of using unflattering photos of 'pro-abortion' politicians to make them look sinister and authoritarian. Difficult to pull that one off with Simon 'in-betweener' Harris...

Well Longord pro-life are giving it their best shot

https://www.facebook.com/clifford.dunlea.7/posts/1894318003934721

Amazing what you can do with a bit of photoshopped eyeliner...

robindch

donspeekinglesh wrote: »

And here's one of our local TDs explaining why it's more democratic not to have have the referendum.

Can see the headlines now - "Representative Politician Rejects Basis For Representative Politics"

For the most part, referendums represent the application of blunderbuss solutions to walnut-sized problems and this referendum no different from most other ones. Nor indeed is it different from most abortion debates I've seen - namely, that the majority of people on both sides of the topic are choosing to speak past each other confidently and all sides are failing to make any significant effort to seek out, then discuss, then agree upon common ground.

It's a triumph of conviction over dialog.

smacl

Interesting piece by Patrick McCabe in the Guardian on how the anti-choice side might be gaining ground by virtue of 'No' being an anti-establishment vote in much the same way as it was for Brexit and Trump.

aloyisious

donspeekinglesh wrote: »

And here's one of our local TDs explaining why it's more democratic not to have have the referendum.

If I got the gist of the article right, he's against abortion, but that he's OK with terminations under POLDPA - even if they are really abortions - presumably on the grounds that they are certified as necessary for the pregnant woman by doctors.

He's apparently against abortion when it comes to rape victims because he's heard from women who've had abortions after being raped and they told him of the doubling-up on the trauma-effect they have from the rape. The other side of the coin is the non-mention in the article of the countless other stories he's presumably heard from rape victims where they don't mention double trauma, not any mention of the trauma victims of rape would undergo every time, under his rule, they wake up and see the living proof of the criminal rape trauma they suffered.

Mainly he's against the referendum to allow us decide to [or not to] allow politicians decide on abortion issue legislation because he doesn't like the wording of the bill allowing for the referendum BUT he might have voted for the bill if the wording had been different. He say's that it's anti-democratic, that the wording allow's for politicians of the right. left and middle to legislate on abortion without any input from the public.

So basically he means the surety the 8th allowing him to sleep soundly at night is gone should WE democratically decide to delete it 35 years after WE used the same process to put it into OUR constitution under the WORDING given us to vote on by poiticians of the right, left and middle, regardless of the trauma uncounted pregnant women undergo while it's in our constitution. The fact that politicians legislated for POLDPA seem's to have escaped his notice.

Hotblack Desiato

JimiTime wrote: »

Let me baby step you through your confusion:

Oh, I'm not confused. At all.

Patronising guff like your post won't win this vote for your side.

aloyisious

RTE Drive-time news is covering the finding of both campaigns. A spokeperson for one group in the yES side has just said they've been given 170,000 so far in donations. A figure of 1 and a half million has been mentioned for the YES campaign while the Pro-life camapign, Cora Sherlock, said their funding is coming from the grassroots and that they are aware of the foreign funding rules. A prof from UCD whose expertise is in referendum law say's the two bodies who are supposed to be in control of matters related to referendums claim they do not have the law necessary for their requirements.

Meanwhile a Northern Ireland resident, Ms Morelli, is taking a case to the high court seeking a ruling that N/I residents have the right, under the N/I peace agreement, to vote in referendums in the south. The judge has agreed to the application to hear the case. What the RTE report has said on this is that it is unsure yet whether the case will be heard before the referendum or afterwards, and if the case is won AFTER the referendum, whether another application might then be made to set aside the result of the referendum. The SC for the state, Conor Power, claimed Ms Morelli had significantly delayed bringing her challenge....

Link to court case application..... https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/legal-bid-to-allow-irish-citizens-in-north-to-vote-in-abortion-poll-1.3455869

robindch

John Oliver looks into the behaviour of so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers, outlets in the USA which pretend to be abortion clinics, but, in fact, are anything but:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NNpkv3Us1I

God must have repealed that rule about not bearing false witness.

pleas advice

interesting, but what's it got to do with the situation in ireland?

aloyisious

Mary O'Rourke on Claire Byrne Live now [by way of either a link or a pre-recorded video] saying she is undecided on the matter and giving her [marriage] life story re children. I gather from what she saying [she doesn't know why people wouldn't want a child] that she is more on one side than the other. The show has two guests on it, one from either side, to debate the referendum on the 8th.

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

interesting, but what's it got to do with the situation in ireland?

Pre-emptive warning about what will be attempted here should the referendum get a YES and new legislation ias brought in to legalize abortion outside the limits of the present law here. It doesn't take a genius to guess that the Iona Institute and the anti-abortion campaign will have contingency plans set out for the future should the referendum be passed and new legislation brought in allowing for abortion. They are not brainless.

Marie Stopes has/had a clinic on Berkeley Rd, Dublin and a second organisation [which has a completely opposite view to that of the Marie Stopes organisation on the matter of handling women with crisis pregnancy and abortion advice] set up shop in the adjacent premises, with small prayer groups in session outside the premises besetting women leaving the Stopes building asking the women who they were and why they were there, offering advice to the women.

If there is a YES in the referendum, then any legislation brought in should also include a law preventing false-flag operations linked to those in other countries and continents from being set up here for the purpose of hoodwinking women in crisis pregnancy.

robindch

pleas advice wrote: »

interesting, but what's it got to do with the situation in ireland?

It's interesting since it's what's happening in the US and the US anti-abortion movement is influencing, and likely funding parts of, the anti-abortion movement here in Ireland.

Consequently, it seems wise to be prepared should anti-abortion advocates here deploy similar underhanded tactics or engage in deceit generally.

seamus

aloyisious wrote: »

If there is a YES in the referendum, then any legislation brought in should also include a law preventing false-flag operations linked to those in other countries and continents from being set up here for the purpose of hoodwinking women in crisis pregnancy.

I would also go as far as putting exclusion zones into law which made it illegal to set up protests or advertisements within 100m of any public or private medical business (providing care to patients), or to otherwise interfere with the passage or privacy of patients coming and going.

Thankfully we don't have the same level of hysteria about free speech and it can be regulated as reasonably necessary for the public good.

Delirium

pleas advice wrote: »

interesting, but what's it got to do with the situation in ireland?

Quite relevant to current crop of crisis pregnancy agengies in Ireland tbh....

Two unregulated crisis pregnancy agencies with connections to Irish pro-life groups have been caught giving misleading “advice” about the consequences of abortion, having sex and using contraception.


A new undercover investigation by The Times has secretly recorded counsellors at the Ask Majella crisis pregnancy agency claiming that abortion causes breast cancer and can increase a woman’s chances of losing all of her reproductive organs. They also said that contraception was dangerous and women could “die” from having sex.


Source

ROGUE CRISIS PREGNANCY agencies which give misinformation about abortion to women have been operating in Ireland for more than a decade without any regulation.
The agencies – which advertise as offering advice on all options available to pregnant women but which focus on anti-abortion information – are in the spotlight following an investigation into one clinic which was published today.


In a report for The Times (Ireland edition), reporters Ellen Coyne and Catherine Sanz secretly recorded a consultation in a clinic in Dublin’s north inner city between a staff member and a woman seeking advice on a crisis pregnancy. The staff member advised the woman that abortion increases a woman’s risk of breast cancer, and told her that abortion can turn women into child abusers in later life.


The report found that the clinic’s website is one of the first addresses to be shown in a search for advice on how to access an abortion. The clinic claims that it offers impartial and objective advice on crisis pregnancies.


Source

Mark Hamill

What are the hard questions for the No Side? The ones they don't seem to have any answer for at all?

A few that come to my mind from posting and reading this thread:

If human life begins at conception-
- Why do you think this in the first place?
- Shouldn't all miscarriages be investigated like any other sudden death?
- We would try to stop someone travelling to kill their toddler so shouldn't we try to stop someone from travelling for abortion, even if we might not expect our attempts to stop them to work?


Not against contraception in general but abortion as contraception is bad because a foetus is a potential baby, only limited by time-
- A sperm and an egg are potential foetus in much the same way, so why aren't you against all contraception?


Given that there are still 1000s of abortions yearly for Irish women -
- Is the 8th Amendment really the best way to stop abortions? Why aren't you campaigning to improve it?


Any more?