Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

smokingman

recedite wrote: »

She needs to ask who did it, and why.

She told me she was going into the council today to get answers. I'll update thread when I know more

smokingman

Looks like it'll be tomorrow...she spent all day in Ulster bank wondering where her money went.

Akrasia

Jim Jefferies takes on our Justin Barratt on abortion

https://youtu.be/S4Pk1d0ob1w

aloyisious

Akrasia wrote: »

Jim Jefferies takes on our Justin Barratt on abortion

https://youtu.be/S4Pk1d0ob1w

Execute the doctors cos thy're murderers? Sound's like Justin has been reading up on US Anti-abortion activists leaflets and guidlines.

Aharddecision

I've given a lot of thought to the abortion debate. More so than any other subject we get to vote on. I've been torn between what I've seen friends go through and the morality of it all. It’s such a hard choice. I do not want to make a mistake and regret my vote.

I've looked at several factors:

The physical & mental trauma caused by it being illegal here
The amount of women it has affected yearly (those who travelled to UK & Netherlands)
The support offered after the fact
The pros and cons of each side of the debate

I was still conflicted.

Until I read the doctors for life statement on eighth amendment - the Citizens' Assembly. You'll have to look it up as I can't post a link.

I would recommend you read it if you are still on the fence, as it helped me decide.

This whole debate has been wrongly submitted by both sides in my opinion as there alternative ways to resolve the awful situation.

I would suggest you read the document before you vote, even if you disagree with it, to ensure you have all the facts.

I'd welcome any feedback if you have any.

gctest50

Aharddecision wrote: »

Until I read the doctors for life statement on eighth amendment - the Citizens' Assembly.,..

Did you read anything else ?

You should look for possible bias and source before you read something and sign-up to boards.ie just to post it up



In your post there seems to be a bit of a hint in the name

Aharddecision wrote: »

the doctors for life statement on eighth

That's a bit like posting up Jimmy Savilles guide to childcare

Aharddecision wrote: »

I would suggest you read the document before you vote......

I'd suggest you read up on bias, logical fallacies


And whatever "thinking people are thick as pig sh!t and are going to fall for that post" comes under





Abortion threads are great for www.boards.ie - new members every day

aloyisious

Aharddecision wrote: »

I've given a lot of thought to the abortion debate. More so than any other subject we get to vote on. I've been torn between what I've seen friends go through and the morality of it all. It’s such a hard choice. I do not want to make a mistake and regret my vote.

I've looked at several factors:

The physical & mental trauma caused by it being illegal here
The amount of women it has affected yearly (those who travelled to UK & Netherlands)
The support offered after the fact
The pros and cons of each side of the debate

I was still conflicted.

Until I read the doctors for life statement on eighth amendment - the Citizens' Assembly. You'll have to look it up as I can't post a link.

I would recommend you read it if you are still on the fence, as it helped me decide.

This whole debate has been wrongly submitted by both sides in my opinion as there alternative ways to resolve the awful situation.

I would suggest you read the document before you vote, even if you disagree with it, to ensure you have all the facts.

I'd welcome any feedback if you have any.

Could you provide details of the alternative ways you have in mind?

Maybe I'm wrong on the issue of abortion V termination - the differing points beween Yes and NO sides of the debate on ways of ending a pregnancy - but I've never heard anyone, not even people heading an organization, from the NO side offering to actually become the parent of a baby delivered through termination aka Cesarean operation, thus taking the responsibility away from the birth mother by way of of fostering or adaption or offering to pay for the welfare and sustinance of the mother through the long 9 month human gestation period. I can't think, at the moment, of a third or alternative way to end a pregnancy.

recedite

Aharddecision wrote: »

I would suggest you read the document before you vote, even if you disagree with it, to ensure you have all the facts.
I'd welcome any feedback if you have any.

Here's the link. Then key "doctors for life" into the search box.
Yes its a good document, fairly short and to the point. Also mentions the infamous Halappanavar case.

On abortion, the basic underlying fact...

a decision is made that some unborn children (i.e. those targeted for abortion) do not have the same dignity, worth and rights as other unborn children

On risks to the mother from pregnancy...

Where there is a real medical threat to the life of the mother, she should be afforded all necessary medical care, even if this unintentionally compromises the life of the unborn child, provided that every effort is made to preserve the life of that child.
Therefore, Doctors for Life Ireland holds that introducing abortion even on restrictive grounds is not necessary to protect the life of pregnant women in Ireland. Rather what is needed is for the appropriate training bodies to produce clinical guidelines on the management of high risk pregnancies that keep up to date with current medical evidence and support good obstetric practice.

recedite

gctest50 wrote: »

Did you read anything else ?
That's a bit like posting up Jimmy Savilles guide to childcare

Look up the difference between paediatrician and paedophile

Hotblack Desiato

On the Late Late Show last night, did anyone else notice the contrived way the main No speakers were talking?

It Was Like Every Word Began With A Capital Letter, And They Tried To Sound Like They Were On The Verge Of Tears The Whole Time. So fake and contrived.

Empty appeal to emotion, just like their lamppost posters. It'll appeal to already decided No voters but I can't imagine too many undecided buying into it. Based on recent polls, they'll need at least three quarters of the undecided to swing No to have a chance. Of course what usually happens is that the undecided mostly don't vote at all.

kylith

Can anyone on the No side please explain to me where the compassion is here?

https://www.facebook.com/RepealTheEighth/posts/160910714583354:0

Hotblack Desiato

Can you screenshot it?

smokingman

kylith wrote: »

Can anyone on the No side please explain to me where the compassion is here?

https://www.facebook.com/RepealTheEighth/posts/160910714583354:0

Read that when it went up. Absolutely horrific and I don't know how I'd cope in that situation.

donspeekinglesh

Got this through the door earlier. Can't even manage to spell "civilised" consistently.

aloyisious

Going through the Irish online papers, I came across the Irish Examiner USA. http://irishexaminerusa.com/digital/index.html

Flipping it's pages, I noted it's up to date on Ireland's current topics. Page 10 mentions a report from a N/I study group set up to examine N/I's abortion laws recommending changes to the law to allow terminations in instances of FFA. The study group was set up by both the then Health and Justice Ministers a few years ago before the N/I Govt deal broke down and is related to the experiences of a young N/I woman, Sarah Ewart, who went public in 2013 on them.

To get the paper, click the link. When you get to page 10 using the guide-arrows, double-LEFT-click to zoom in on the page's abortion-law article. The page also has a photo of Danny Healy Rae related to our drink-drive laws.

I wasn't able to copy the page itself for reposting here.

recedite

donspeekinglesh wrote: »

Got this through the door earlier. Can't even manage to spell "civilised" consistently.

The spelling hops frequently from one side of the Atlantic to the other, probably much like the pastor of River Valley Baptist Church.

antiskeptic

kylith wrote: »

Can anyone on the No side please explain to me where the compassion is here?

https://www.facebook.com/RepealTheEighth/posts/160910714583354:0

Can anyone on the Yes side tell me why on earth they think concentrating on what has come to be known as "the difficult cases" ought cause someone to vote for abortion on demand?

I didn't chose the terms of the referendum but faced with the option presented me, the difficult cases can't win out.

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can anyone on the Yes side tell me why on earth they think concentrating on what has come to be known as "the difficult cases" ought cause someone to vote for abortion on demand?

I didn't chose the terms of the referendum but faced with the option presented me, the difficult cases can't win out.

Why not? The difficult cases need to be dealt with, and as long as the 12th and 13th amendments remain in place, the "easy cases" are currently happening anyway, just in a different location.

Why punish the people with hard cases for no reason?

Loafing Oaf

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can anyone on the Yes side tell me why on earth they think concentrating on what has come to be known as "the difficult cases" ought cause someone to vote for abortion on demand?

From a purely pragmatic perspective, is the answer not obvious? They are clearly the cases that touch people's heartstrings, make them feel that change is necessary.

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can anyone on the Yes side tell me why on earth they think concentrating on what has come to be known as "the difficult cases" ought cause someone to vote for abortion on demand?

I didn't chose the terms of the referendum but faced with the option presented me, the difficult cases can't win out.

One thing that will not come into practice will be abortion on demand. Those last three words together are being used as a moral-blackmail weapon by those oppsed to abortion for any reason to prevent the difficult cases you talk about from being solved. They know what they are doing when and by employing the three words together.

The women seeking the abortion option, as against the 9 month gestation option or the cesarean option favoured by the anti-abortion campaign, will be submitting a request, not a demand, for interview and consideration for an abortion, which will be decided on by medical doctors.

A refusal is still an option for the doctors when it comes to their medical opinion and decision on the request. Simon Harris has stated several times that termination is in the proposed legislation. It seem's that the cesarean-operation option is favoured by those promoting the legislation whereby birth, not death, is the preferred option.

As for the Pro-choice side concentrating, as you describe it, on the difficult cases to promote abortion on demand, again the use of the three words is an abuse of process by the Anti-abortion side. No one is demanding the right to abortion on demand, rather the right to make a decision on OPTING, or NOT OPTING, for an abortion beyond the constriction placed on her by others who have no interest in her pregnancy outside their limited vision and interference in her personal affairs. I don't see the Pro-choice side taking it's eye off the aim of allowing pregnant women as a group having the right to ask for an abortion so I don't know what lead's you to that conclusion.

It's simply asking anyone with a sense of compassion to use it and their thinking process to see what is right and what is wrong and do the right thing where it comes to removing the 8th from the constitution. IMO, to do otherwise is throwing the "difficult cases" out and continuing to export them to other countries NIMBY-style, to avoid facing up to the difficult decision cases. Compassion has no part in that last process, it's simply iooking the pregnant women in the face and telling them to go away to the UK. Voting NO will not stop that process.

aloyisious

I'm not sure if the Sunday Times is rehashing/merging previously relesed printed stories in today's issue. It has a report on the new SVHG Co founded for the merging of ST Vincents Hospital and Holles St NMH to form the new NMH in the grounds of St Vincents.

The report includes a few lines from a Vincent Twomey [described as Emeritus Professor of theology at Maynooth] to the effect that as there is a catholic ethos in operation at St Vincents in line with the committment of Mary Aikenhead, the founder of the nuns order, that that means catholic ethics would have to apply at the new SVHG maternity hospital. The report also includes the requirements contained within the proposed agreement at the base of the SVHG that the catholic ethos would NOT be allowed to interfere with medical decisions made at the new NMH.

The coincidental approach of May the 25th has me curious as to the release of the story.

It seem's I missed an article in yesterday's Irish Independent by Katie Byrne titled Abortion in Ireland: how would it work. MSN on the net has the article in full for anyone choosing to read it. It's very informative.

antiskeptic

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

From a purely pragmatic perspective, is the answer not obvious? They are clearly the cases that touch people's heartstrings, make them feel that change is necessary.

That's half of it. The other half is that if delving into pregnancies arising out of carelessness, irresponsibility and ignorance then people might have reason to pause.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can anyone on the Yes side tell me why on earth they think concentrating on what has come to be known as "the difficult cases" ought cause someone to vote for abortion on demand?

I didn't chose the terms of the referendum but faced with the option presented me, the difficult cases can't win out.

Because to us they are not the difficult cases, they are the most straightforward cases for the availability of abortion in Ireland.

What may be the difficult cases for the Yes side, are the other abortions, the contraceptive ones or the non-fatal foetal abnormality ones. The thing is, regardless of how difficult those cases may be to you, the reality is that even with the 8th amendment, they still happen by the 1000s every year, just exported to the UK or even here, with illegally imported pills. There is no denying that. To me, no matter how difficult those cases are for you, the idea of still keeping the completely ineffective 8th Amendment just to punish the women in those cases, whilst ignoring the women in the straightforward cases, is monstrously petty and betrays the lie in those who claim to "love both".

Loafing Oaf

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's half of it. The other half is that if delving into pregnancies arising out of carelessness, irresponsibility and ignorance then people might have reason to pause.

Why are you asking a question if you already think you know the answer?

antiskeptic

aloyisious wrote: »

One thing that will not come into practice will be abortion on demand. Those last three words together are being used as a moral-blackmail weapon by those oppsed to abortion for any reason to prevent the difficult cases you talk about from being solved. They know what they are doing when and by employing the three words together.

The women seeking the abortion option, as against the 9 month gestation option or the cesarean option favoured by the anti-abortion campaign, will be submitting a request, not a demand, for interview and consideration for an abortion, which will be decided on by medical doctors.

We are considering what would effectively be the case rather than how the case is packaged. In the UK doctors sign off on abortion requests - you don't just walk into a clinic and get one.

It is no coincidence that nigh on 100% of the boxes ticked by doctors granting an abortion there involves mental rather than physical danger. The latter is objectively verifiable, the former not.

A refusal is still an option for the doctors when it comes to their medical opinion and decision on the request.

If they are pro-choice? If they have professional indemnity insurance to consider? Can you see inside someone's mind?

Simon Harris has stated several times that termination is in the proposed legislation. It seem's that the cesarean-operation option is favoured by those promoting the legislation whereby birth, not death, is the preferred option.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Cesarean-option leading to what?

As for the Pro-choice side concentrating, as you describe it, on the difficult cases to promote abortion on demand, again the use of the three words is an abuse of process by the Anti-abortion side. No one is demanding the right to abortion on demand, rather the right to make a decision on OPTING, or NOT OPTING, for an abortion beyond the constriction placed on her by others who have no interest in her pregnancy outside their limited vision and interference in her personal affairs. I don't see the Pro-choice side taking it's eye off the aim of allowing pregnant women as a group having the right to ask for an abortion so I don't know what lead's you to that conclusion.

a. I have the right to ask for an abortion

b. there is no practical way for the doctors to refuse me an abortion.

What about that doesn't mean abortion on demand?

As for interference in her pregnancy. That is resolved merely by holding the view that she is not the only interested party here.

It's simply asking anyone with a sense of compassion to use it and their thinking process to see what is right and what is wrong and do the right thing where it comes to removing the 8th from the constitution. IMO, to do otherwise is throwing the "difficult cases" out and continuing to export them to other countries NIMBY-style, to avoid facing up to the difficult decision cases. Compassion has no part in that last process, it's simply iooking the pregnant women in the face and telling them to go away to the UK. Voting NO will not stop that process.

Unfortunately we weren't offered alternatives. The Dutch manage to place abortion as an option of last resort. We don't bother to investigate how we can bring about same but just go for the nuclear, U.K./U.S. option.

All boils down ultimately, to how you view the life in the womb. Your compassionate-based view rests on the rendering of that life somehow sub-life. Which is fair enough for you, presumably. But doesn't strike as very compassionate to me.

antiskeptic

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Why are you asking a question if you already think you know the answer?

I wasn't supposing kylith to be asking other than a rhetorical question when I responded in kind.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What may be the difficult cases for the Yes side, are the other abortions, the contraceptive ones or the non-fatal foetal abnormality ones.

Which I would suppose to make up the vast bulk of abortions. Nothing said for good reason: people sitting on the fence would have a far harder time reconciling something in them which sees some value in the life in the womb and the carelessness/irresponsibility/ignorance of the folk who created that life.

The thing is, regardless of how difficult those cases may be to you, the reality is that even with the 8th amendment, they still happen by the 1000s every year, just exported to the UK or even here, with illegally imported pills. There is no denying that. To me, no matter how difficult those cases are for you, the idea of still keeping the completely ineffective 8th Amendment just to punish the women in those cases, whilst ignoring the women in the straightforward cases, is monstrously petty and betrays the lie in those who claim to "love both".

As ever, this boils down to a view of life in the womb.

It's worth less to you than fighting tooth and nail for the Dutch model - which prevents the problem to a large degree.

It's worth less to you than pausing to consider that consequences attach to actions. Sometimes unpleasant consequences.

It's worth less to you than easing the path into abortion by giving it societies imprimateur. Easing the path tends to increase consumption of the commodity in question.

volchitsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which I would suppose to make up the vast bulk of abortions. Nothing said for good reason: people sitting on the fence would have a far harder time reconciling something in them which sees some value in the life in the womb and the carelessness/irresponsibility/ignorance of the folk who created that life.

As ever, this boils down to a view of life in the womb.

It's worth less to you than fighting tooth and nail for the Dutch model - which prevents the problem to a large degree.

It's worth less to you than pausing to consider that consequences attach to actions. Sometimes unpleasant consequences.

It's worth less to you than easing the path into abortion by giving it societies imprimateur. Easing the path tends to increase consumption of the commodity in question.

So in practice, the fact that at least 12 Irish women will have an abortion today, and another 12 tomorrow and 12 the day after is not so much of an issue for you as the idea of "easing the path" for them?

It's sort of okay for them to have those abortions as long as they know that society disapproves of them - would that be a fair summing up of your opinion?

NuMarvel

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's worth less to you than fighting tooth and nail for the Dutch model.

Where in the name of heck are you getting this from? The Dutch model is based in large part on addressing social inequalities, improving sex education, and increasing access to contraceptives.

If you look at campaigners on the Yes and No sides, you'll find it's Yes campaigners that a track record in calling for these kinds of things, not the No side. In fact some No campaigners are opposed to changes in areas like education and access.

Absolutely nobody on the Yes side is complaining about the Committee's ancillary recommendations. But the 8th is by far the biggest obstacle to anything resembling the Dutch model, which is why it has the lion's share of the current attention. If the referendum is passed, you can be sure that groups like Amnesty, the NCWI and the IFPA will want to see measures taken that will reduce the number of crisis pregnancies in the first place.

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

We are considering what would effectively be the case rather than how the case is packaged. In the UK doctors sign off on abortion requests - you don't just walk into a clinic and get one.

It is no coincidence that nigh on 100% of the boxes ticked by doctors granting an abortion there involves mental rather than physical danger. The latter is objectively verifiable, the former not.




If they are pro-choice? If they have professional indemnity insurance to consider? Can you see inside someone's mind?






I'm not sure what you're saying here. Cesarean-option leading to what?



a. I have the right to ask for an abortion

b. there is no practical way for the doctors to refuse me an abortion.

What about that doesn't mean abortion on demand?

As for interference in her pregnancy. That is resolved merely by holding the view that she is not the only interested party here.








Unfortunately we weren't offered alternatives. The Dutch manage to place abortion as an option of last resort. We don't bother to investigate how we can bring about same but just go for the nuclear, U.K./U.S. option.

All boils down ultimately, to how you view the life in the womb. Your compassionate-based view rests on the rendering of that life somehow sub-life. Which is fair enough for you, presumably. But doesn't strike as very compassionate to me.

Your's: I'm not sure what you're saying here. Cesarean-option leading to what?

Mine: The cesarean option leading to a live birth. What other outcome usually comes from such termination operations except a live birth? What is it about that that you don't understand? Do you believe that Simon Harris has some alternative meaning?

..........................................................................................................................................................................................

Your's: a. I have the right to ask for an abortion

b. there is no practical way for the doctors to refuse me an abortion.

What about that doesn't mean abortion on demand?

Mine: Refusal by the two medical practitioners to give the go-ahead for an abortion on the grounds that, in their necessary opinion needed for an abortion, there is no need to provide an abortion to the woman. You seem very sure as to what is in the doctors minds.

......................................................................................................................................................................................


From reading your overall response to my reply to your question, I'm left with the impression that you were not interested in getting replies at all, that you are not of doubting mind at all on whether you should vote YES or NO.