Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Hotblack Desiato

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.

Aaaaand we're back to the slut-shaming again.

aloyisious

I listened to Declan Ganly on the Sean O'Rourke show earlier and listened to his explanation on what will be in the legislation re the making of a decision on whether to provide an abortion or not. It seem's Declan think's that anyone with a quack medical certification or with the description of medical practitioner after their name will fit the bill to provide the second opinion needed to give the OK for an abortion..... In his opinion an ambulance driver would fit the bill.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

And the view of the life in the womb is worth nothing to you once it is aborted abroad, or in secret here. Hence you didn't even attempt to address the problem in my statement.
Try again. No deflections, no avoiding it, this is supposedly about stopping babies being murdered. Circa 4000 irish abortions in the UK yearly. Upwards of 1000 abortion pills taken (source - 5650 pills ordered in 6 year period) yearly. That is ~5000 Irish babies murdered each year, despite the lack of the "Dutch model", despite the lack of "pausing to consider consequences" and despite the lack of "societies imprimateur". The 8th doesn't stop these and it never will. All it does is hurt the women in the straightforward cases, in the cases that you admitted are difficult for you. The No side runs from and ignores this problem. Anyone I've spoken to or posted with online runs from and ignores this problem. How do you address this problem?

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/status-of-iona-institute-challenged-in-letter-to-charities-regulator-1.3478329

Status of Iona Institute challenged in letter to Charities Regulator

Atheist Ireland compares regulator stance on repeal mural at Project to Iona campaigns


The status of the socially conservative Iona Institute has been questioned in correspondence sent to the Charities Regulator, which notes it is listed as both a private company and registered as a charity.

A letter from Atheist Ireland points out the Iona Institute is currently “campaigning actively” against repealing the Eighth Amendment.

The letter says the institute is a “private company limited by guarantee” but also “registered as a charity, under the charity category of ‘advancement of religion’.”

Atheist Ireland notes that the Charities Regulator instructed the Project Arts Centre to remove a mural supporting repeal of the Eighth Amendment, by artist Maser, on the grounds that the charity was engaging in political activity that was not directly related to the advancement of the centre’s charitable purpose – the advancement of education.

Political issues

It says the Iona Institute “campaigns regularly on other political issues”. Iona “enjoys these financial benefits of having charitable status under the religion category, while enjoying the political benefits of making mostly secular arguments in this and other political campaigns, and indeed explicitly denying that it is advancing religion”.

The letter asks the regulator if “all of Iona’s political activity directly related only to advancing religion, as required by the charity category under which it is registered”.

It also queried if “all of Iona’s political activity directly related only to advancing the Christian religion, as required by the main object in its memorandum of association”.

It claimed that the Iona Institute “does not meet the criteria of a religion. It often publicly positions itself as a secular think-tank, it makes mostly secular arguments for its political positions, and at times it explicitly denies that it is advancing religion, despite enjoying the financial benefits of being registered as a charity with the specific object of advancing religion”.

Iona Institute director David Quinn described the Atheist Ireland letter as “ridiculous”. He noted how charities such as Barnardos and the ISPCC played an active role in the Children’s Rights campaign while the Vincent de Paul Society campaigned on the budget every year, and homeless charities were involved in ongoing campaigns on the housing issue.

Odhinn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/status-of-iona-institute-challenged-in-letter-to-charities-regulator-1.3478329

Is there any way their status can be challenged in the courts?

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

I listened to Declan Ganly on the Sean O'Rourke show earlier and listened to his explanation on what will be in the legislation re the making of a decision on whether to provide an abortion or not. It seem's Declan think's that anyone with a quack medical certification or with the description of medical practitioner after their name will fit the bill to provide the second opinion needed to give the OK for an abortion..... In his opinion an ambulance driver would fit the bill.

Ganley was correct, although he did not mention the word "quack". The policy paper only specifies "2 medical practitioners" (which could be the surgeon employed by the abortion clinic, plus his/her nurse)
A medical practitioner is anyone with a basic medical related qualification.

It was a good debate, but his opponent Colm O'Gorman showed himself up as being ill informed. When he insisted it was two "doctors" Ganley was able to say "Are you quite sure about that? Because you're wrong".

O'Gorman for his part could only keep repeating the mantra that the No campaign was "based on lies", but lacked the facts to back up his claims.

Pherekydes

recedite wrote: »

The policy paper only specifies "2 medical practitioners"...

The Policy paper calls for "... two appropriate (i.e. appropriate to the clinical circumstances) medical practitioners..."

So it seems you omitted the word "appropriate" for some reason?

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

Ganley was correct, although he did not mention the word "quack". The policy paper only specifies "2 medical practitioners" (which could be the surgeon employed by the abortion clinic, plus his/her nurse)
A medical practitioner is anyone with a basic medical related qualification.

It was a good debate, but his opponent Colm O'Gorman showed himself up as being ill informed. When he insisted it was two "doctors" Ganley was able to say "Are you quite sure about that? Because you're wrong".

O'Gorman for his part could only keep repeating the mantra that the No campaign was "based on lies", but lacked the facts to back up his claims.

It's interesting to watch the pro life lies (and this one is a lie) being parroted by people who don't do any of their own research.

In the general scheme, medical practitioner is defined as someone who is on the Medical Council's Register of Medical Practitioners, in other words, doctors.

What's more, under the Medical Practitioners Act, what you call "a basic medical related qualification" is actually a course that leads to a Bachelor's qualification in Medicine and Surgery. This isn't a case of someone doing a first aid course.

It won't be nurses, paramedics, porters, or porters who say they're nurses, who make the decision; it'll be doctors. And it'll be doctors who are appropriate to the particular clinical situation, eg, oncologists in the case of cancer patients, and so on.

robindch

Gavin Sheridan - who was at the Science Gallery last week discussing newsfeed manipulation and broad problems with facebook/twitter as they operate within democratic societies - has found that various groups based in the USA are targetting Ireland with anti-abortion ads, and ads which attempt to give the impression that they are unbiased:

https://twitter.com/gavinsblog/status/990701496890208256?s=20
https://twitter.com/gavinsblog/status/990582509162418176?s=0

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Try again. No deflections, no avoiding it, this is supposedly about stopping babies being murdered. Circa 4000 irish abortions in the UK yearly. Upwards of 1000 abortion pills taken (source - 5650 pills ordered in 6 year period) yearly. That is ~5000 Irish babies murdered each year, despite the lack of the "Dutch model", despite the lack of "pausing to consider consequences" and despite the lack of "societies imprimateur".

You take a utilitarian view. I start in a different place and look at society as a household

1. Assuming a No vote. This household says the value of the life in the womb is equal to that of the mother. Other households can think what they like, but this is what is thought and applied here.

2. If you are living in this household the the mores of this society will apply. We will do our best to instill these values in you: we will educate and support you in this (even though we don't in practice)

3. If you chose to step outside and live contra to the mores of this household, we won't condone it or support it, but because we love you, we will look after you should your actions require our care.

4. We expect that by upholding these values, despite some members of the household choosing to operate outside them, the household as a whole will continue to live and benefit by these values.

The 8th doesn't stop these and it never will.

Hopefully the above helps illuminate. You cannot stop people going their own path. But that doesn't mean you change your own values.

8th vs no 8th aren't the only options. We could learn from the Dutch, for example. In that case, the argument for repealing the 8th would rely on fractions of those figures.

No one seems very interested in that though.

All it does is hurt the women in the straightforward cases, in the cases that you admitted are difficult for you. The No side runs from and ignores this problem. Anyone I've spoken to or posted with online runs from and ignores this problem. How do you address this problem?

5000 /2.385 million = 0.00209% of the female population of Ireland had an abortion last year

200,000 / 33.2 million =0.00602% of the female population of the UK had an abortion in whatever year I saw the number.

We might suppose that we'd experience a threefold increase in abortion, if on demand.

antiskeptic

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's interesting to watch the pro life lies (and this one is a lie) being parroted by people who don't do any of their own research.

In the general scheme, medical practitioner is defined as someone who is on the Medical Council's Register of Medical Practitioners, in other words, doctors.

What's more, under the Medical Practitioners Act, what you call "a basic medical related qualification" is actually a course that leads to a Bachelor's qualification in Medicine and Surgery. This isn't a case of someone doing a first aid course.

It won't be nurses, paramedics, porters, or porters who say they're nurses, who make the decision; it'll be doctors. And it'll be doctors who are appropriate to the particular clinical situation, eg, oncologists in the case of cancer patients, and so on.

Funny kind of language being used in the "Policy Paper Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy"

Policy 10, Definition of medical practitioner:

"That the definition of appropriate medical practitioners in the General Scheme would include all registered medical practitioners on the Medical Council register."

Including someone doesn't exclude someone else. Hmmm.


Not that I see the Medical Practitioner thing as any kind of hurdle to full fledged abortion on demand.

NuMarvel

antiskeptic wrote: »

Funny kind of language being used in the "Policy Paper Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy"

Policy 10, Definition of medical practitioner:

"That the definition of appropriate medical practitioners in the General Scheme would include all registered medical practitioners on the Medical Council register."

Including someone doesn't exclude someone else. Hmmm.

The General Scheme has been published, so can you point out the section that allows decisions to be made by someone other than a doctor?

antiskeptic

NuMarvel wrote: »

The General Scheme has been published, so can you point out the section that allows decisions to be made by someone other than a doctor?

Had a look. It's fine. Cheers.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

You take a utilitarian view. I start in a different place and look at society as a household

1. Assuming a No vote. This household says the value of the life in the womb is equal to that of the mother. Other households can think what they like, but this is what is thought and applied here.

2. If you are living in this household the the mores of this society will apply. We will do our best to instill these values in you: we will educate and support you in this (even though we don't in practice)

3. If you chose to step outside and live contra to the mores of this household, we won't condone it or support it, but because we love you, we will look after you should your actions require our care.

4. We expect that by upholding these values, despite some members of the household choosing to operate outside them, the household as a whole will continue to live and benefit by these values.


Hopefully the above helps illuminate. You cannot stop people going their own path. But that doesn't mean you change your own values.

8th vs no 8th aren't the only options. We could learn from the Dutch, for example. In that case, the argument for repealing the 8th would rely on fractions of those figures.

No one seems very interested in that though.

So another one to add to the "ignore problem" list. You haven't addressed the problem of 1000s of abortions still happening despite the 8th amendment, you've just admitted that you don't care about abortions once they don't happen "in your house" (or once they happen in secret).
This is supposed to be about saving babies, but instead of looking for ways to save as many as possible (the pragmatic approach), you create little stories to hide some pathetic NIMBYism.

antiskeptic wrote: »

5000 /2.385 million = 0.00209% of the female population of Ireland had an abortion last year

200,000 / 33.2 million =0.00602% of the female population of the UK had an abortion in whatever year I saw the number.

We might suppose that we'd experience a threefold increase in abortion, if on demand.

Why the fixation on the UK? Germany, who has the same allowance up to 12 weeks on demand that is proposed for Ireland, has a rate of 6.1./1000 women aged 18-44. Netherlands, which goes up to 21 weeks, has an abortion rate of 9. That's compared with a rate of ~ 17 in the UK.
(btw, abortions per total number of women is a bad metric as it doesn't take account of different sizes of child-bearing age groups in different populations).

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So another one to add to the "ignore problem" list. You haven't addressed the problem of 1000s of abortions still happening despite the 8th amendment, you've just admitted that you don't care about abortions once they don't happen "in your house" (or once they happen in secret).

Its not that I don't care about them, it's that I can't realistically control an individuals choice, nor should I.

The household analogy recognizes that members can move outside the home. It's not nimbyism to have home values whilst recognising that members of the household might not share them and will seek to live non-household values outside the home.

Else I'd have been allowed to shag my girlfriend on the settee!

This is supposed to be about saving babies, but instead of looking for ways to save as many as possible (the pragmatic approach), you create little stories to hide some pathetic NIMBYism.

I'm not sure I get you? There are ways to save babies (look at the Dutch model which places abortion at the end of the spectrum rather than at the start).

Since abortion won't save babies but will increase the number of babies killed, a starting point is not to introduce abortion. What's not about saving babies in being against the introduction of abortion on demand?

Why the fixation on the UK? Germany, who has the same allowance up to 12 weeks on demand that is proposed for Ireland, has a rate of 6.1./1000 women aged 18-44. Netherlands, which goes up to 21 weeks, has an abortion rate of 9. That's compared with a rate of ~ 17 in the UK.
(btw, abortions per total number of women is a bad metric as it doesn't take account of different sizes of child-bearing age groups in different populations).

I pick England because I think (having lived in England and Holland as well as here) England is culturally similar to here. Holland and Germany are far more sophisticated culturally than we are, for example. They have been wealthy, comparatively well-run, organized nations for a long, long time (okay, wealthy by screwing over others to rob their wealth, nevertheless). England is a mess - a collapsed, impoverished empire with an unhealthy dose empire-hangover entitlement. We're a bit of a post-colonial mess too - but we've sniffed at the alter of modernist self-realisation and liked the taste of it.



The Dutch rates wouldn't be relevant here since we're not at the races culturally, politically and probably, financially. We could embark in that direction but it would take time. Like, sort out our binge culture? That wouldn't be easy! Finance our health/social services to provide education and support (pre and post crisis pregnancy birth)?

That's one of my suspicions: that repeal and abortion on demand makes financial sense. It deals with the problem by way of amputation, not longer drawn out and expensive reconstructive surgery. It has the added bonus of us been seen by the rest of the world as catching up.

Cabaal

I'm curious about this for awhile,

I never get my answer about why pro life groups won't lobby to remove the 13th and 14th but perhaps one of the no voters can answer me this.

If a fetus = same rights as a born baby, why don't you seek to ban pregnant women from drinking alcohol or smoking?

After all, you wouldn't allow a baby to smoke or drink.

Is it just a case that the fetus just needs to live no matter what? , but it doesn't matter what health issues a mother intentionally inflicts on it so is that why pro life groups have no interest?

recedite

It took a long time to ban smoking in public places. Its an indirect line between cause and effect. Even though one person's smoking can affect the health of another person.
Whereas running up to somebody else and putting a knife in their back has always been a big no no. A very direct causation of death there.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

It took a long time to ban smoking in public places. Its an indirect line between cause and effect. Even though one person's smoking can affect the health of another person.
Whereas running up to somebody else and putting a knife in their back has always been a big no no. A very direct causation of death there.

Nice dodge, you're good at that.
The mother is smoking/drinking and as such so is the fetus. Why don't you seek to ban such women from doing so?

Do you think fetal alcohol syndrome is a myth perhaps?

You comparison with the knife is also wrong, as I've said before a woman could take an abortion pill right in front of the media and gardai and nothing will happen to her. In fact women have done so and zip has happened.

If you'd like to try doing your knife thing in the same manner you'll find it's a very different situation.

The gardai and courts simply don't support the pro life claim that abortions = murder. If they did we'd see arrests and charges left, right and center... Even some of the woman that import the pills have been on TV in fairness, I know of one in Waterford. They are far from super secret.

If you really believed it was then why aren't you busy lobbying for massive sentences for import and use of abortion pills? Instead pro life groups remain silent.

recedite

Currently an unborn child has only one right in Ireland; the right to his or her own life.
People like Colm O'Gorman want to take that human right away from them. In a nutshell, that is all this referendum is about. Remove the 8th, and you remove that human right.

I can fully appreciate that many of you are fine with that. After all we can (and do) value human life differently according to the circumstances. If a 90 year old man down the road dies, you are not going to be as upset as if you would if your 10 year old daughter or niece died.

How many died in the last car bomb in Kabul? was it 1, 10 or 100? Do you even care?
We are pre-programmed to care more about the faces we see regularly, not so much about the people we have never met.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Currently an unborn child has only one right in Ireland; the right to his or her own life.
People like Colm O'Gorman want to take that human right away from them. In a nutshell, that is all this referendum is about. Remove the 8th, and you remove that human right.

I can fully appreciate that many of you are fine with that. After all we can (and do) value human life differently according to the circumstances. If a 90 year old man down the road dies, you are not going to be as upset as if you would if your 10 year old daughter or niece died.

How many died in the last car bomb in Kabul? was it 1, 10 or 100? Do you even care?
We are pre-programmed to care more about the faces we see regularly, not so much about the people we have never met.

That may be why you think a husband would usually prefer his wife to live than the unborn baby she is in the process of miscarrying, just because they have not yet "met". I don't agree that it is the same thing at all. The woman is already alive, has plans, friends, relationships other than with him, quite possibly other children who need their mother : no newborn baby can possibly replace that person.

As for the right to life, how many other countries have a constitutional right to life, and does it prevent them from having legal abortion?
Do those countries which don't have any constitutional right to life (the vast majority I believe) find it impossible to restrict or ban abortion?

mickydcork

Or why stop at just banning women from smoking and drinking?

Why not have mandatory screening for pregnancy, then once it's identified, the women has enforced bed rest to absolutely minimise the risk to the zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus?

We're talking about a human life here, equivalent to you and me and all our experiences, loves, desires, fears and living!

It doesn't matter that there is no measurable brain function until at least 20 weeks (conservative).

mickydcork

recedite wrote: »

Currently an unborn child has only one right in Ireland; the right to his or her own life.
People like Colm O'Gorman want to take that human right away from them. In a nutshell, that is all this referendum is about. Remove the 8th, and you remove that human right.

I can fully appreciate that many of you are fine with that. After all we can (and do) value human life differently according to the circumstances. If a 90 year old man down the road dies, you are not going to be as upset as if you would if your 10 year old daughter or niece died.

How many died in the last car bomb in Kabul? was it 1, 10 or 100? Do you even care?
We are pre-programmed to care more about the faces we see regularly, not so much about the people we have never met.

I suppose it's not so much that we value human life differently, it's that we probably have a slightly different definition for what we consider 'human life'.

To me a 12 week old embryo is not a human life.

It has potential. All going well and accepting that the human being who is carrying the embryo wants to continue with carrying what is essentially a foreign body growing in their uterus. Then it could. Could! Become a human life.

For me, somewhere between 20 - 25 weeks the line between life/no life blurs.

Conservatively I would have unlimited abortion to 18 - 19 weeks.

After that I think you should need a medical consultation etc.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

As for the right to life, how many other countries have a constitutional right to life, and does it prevent them from having legal abortion?
Do those countries which don't have any constitutional right to life (the vast majority I believe) find it impossible to restrict or ban abortion?

I think every country aspires to a general "right to life" whether their constitution is written or unwritten.
But every country qualifies that right. Colm O'Gorman ironically would be very familiar through his core business (Amnesty International Ireland) with countries that execute criminals and political prisoners.
Even in Ireland we accept that the defence forces and the Gardai may legitimately have to take a human life in the course of their business.
Or, as only recently established, a person defending themselves in a "home invasion" scenario can do it.

Ireland just happens to be one of the countries that has fewer exceptions than most countries. Or at least, we used to be.

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

Currently an unborn child has only one right in Ireland; the right to his or her own life.
People like Colm O'Gorman want to take that human right away from them. In a nutshell, that is all this referendum is about. Remove the 8th, and you remove that human right.

I can fully appreciate that many of you are fine with that. After all we can (and do) value human life differently according to the circumstances. If a 90 year old man down the road dies, you are not going to be as upset as if you would if your 10 year old daughter or niece died.

How many died in the last car bomb in Kabul? was it 1, 10 or 100? Do you even care?
We are pre-programmed to care more about the faces we see regularly, not so much about the people we have never met.

I see no evidence that No campaigners have genuine concern for the unborn’s human rights. We put the woman’s freedom to travel for an abortion above the unborn’s right to life and nobody has ever even attempted to overturn that. Hundreds of women import and use the abortion pill every year, again with no outcry from No campaigners. In fact some No politicians have said they want this decriminalised, effectively legalising "abortion on demand"!.

On the other hand, our abortion laws mean we are continually breaching the woman’s human rights, including their right to be free of cruel and degrading treatment. Removing the 8th is the only way to remedy that.

Removing the 8th always us to address breaches of human rights. And the unborn will still have protections in legislation, which is a more appropriate place to deal with the matter considering its complexity and the requirement to balance those protections against the woman’s rights too.

Keeping the 8th helps no one, including the unborn. Removing the 8th means we can at least help women and still offer protections in Ireland to the unborn.

recedite

mickydcork wrote: »

I suppose it's not so much that we value human life differently, it's that we probably have a slightly different definition for what we consider 'human life'.

To me a 12 week old embryo is not a human life.

To me it is. But everyone has their own perception.
I don't see much sign of intelligence in a new-born baby either. But I respect the fact that they are human nonetheless, and will one day develop their own personality.
That's why evolution has made them look cute in our eyes; a cute face gives them instant protection, despite all their little annoyances.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

Currently an unborn child has only one right in Ireland; the right to his or her own life.
People like Colm O'Gorman want to take that human right away from them. In a nutshell, that is all this referendum is about. Remove the 8th, and you remove that human right.

I can.... Rant and whatabouttery....

So you're not going to answer any of my questions? Continue to dodge is the order of the day. Nice.

Can you just save everyone some time by not replying with stuff that's not actually answering the question. Thanks

recedite

NuMarvel wrote: »

Keeping the 8th helps no one, including the unborn. Removing the 8th means we can at least help women and still offer protections in Ireland to the unborn.

You'll have to explain that one.
Removing their right to life so that we can protect them?

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

I think every country aspires to a general "right to life" whether their constitution is written or unwritten.
But every country qualifies that right. Colm O'Gorman ironically would be very familiar through his core business (Amnesty International Ireland) with countries that execute criminals and political prisoners.
Even in Ireland we accept that the defence forces and the Gardai may legitimately have to take a human life in the course of their business.
Or, as only recently established, a person defending themselves in a "home invasion" scenario can do it.

Ireland just happens to be one of the countries that has fewer exceptions than most countries. Or at least, we used to be.

So what good reason exists for not qualifying the general right to life to allow for women's bodily integrity, or health or other fundamental rights as other countries have done? What is it about Ireland, Malta, and a handful of other countries that makes us right and the other countries wrong?

And what is with your obsession with Colm O'Gorman? He's married, so maybe get over it and move on.

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

So you're not going to answer any of my questions? Continue to dodge is the order of the day. Nice.

Can you just save everyone some time by not replying with stuff that's not actually answering the question. Thanks

I answered your smoking question. Your questions are whataboutery.
"Whatabout other countries...."
No I don't think pregnant women should be tied down and force fed vitamins.
If they go abroad, they can do whatever is legal in the country they go to, whether that is smoking cannabis or aborting a perfectly healthy unborn baby. That does not mean I should support legalising these things here.

You know that mail order abortion pills are a big problem in England too?
So adopting English style abortion laws is not going to address that particular problem.

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

You'll have to explain that one.
Removing their right to life so that we can protect them?

It's explained earlier in my post. It's a right that's not being enforced, that no one actually wants to enforce, and some who support it want to diminish the effect of it (while also opposing the only means to do that, incidentally).

There is little point keeping a law that doesn't do it's job and nobody wants to do its job, especially when it's having a harmful effect on others.

So like I said, keeping the 8th helps no one, including the unborn. Removing it helps women.