Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious

The Pro-choice protests around the country, not just at the GPO, at 6 PM this Friday may tell how lively the campaign is going to be. https://www.facebook.com/events/1699638853616224/

The Black Oil

Check out the #3wisemen

https://twitter.com/AshlingOBrien2/status/687729828385144833

https://twitter.com/AshlingOBrien2/status/687727859369152512

https://twitter.com/AshlingOBrien2/status/687727358825099265

The Randy Riverbeast

Why would screening matter? Nobody in Ireland gets abortions ( ), making a parent aware of changes in preparation that would need to be made is hardly a bad thing.

lazygal

If I have another pregnancy I'll get screened for everything possible. I want information to make decisions. Even if that means seeking medical treatment abroad.

aloyisious

The troika of David Quinn, Margaret Hickey (speakers) and Paddy Manning (chair) are in The Silver Springs Hotel at 7.30 PM Tuesday 19th, Regency Suite 2 on how to protect the 8th amendment.

PopePalpatine

I wondered who Margaret Hickey is, so here's Twitter to the rescue! She seems like a typical Legatus Lackey with a bit of neo-conservatism (particularly man-made climate change denial) thrown in.

lazygal

aloyisious wrote: »

The troika of David Quinn, Margaret Hickey (speakers) and Paddy Manning (chair) are in The Silver Springs Hotel at 7.30 PM Tuesday 19th, Regency Suite 2 on how to protect the 8th amendment.

Managed to find a woman this time.

Delirium

aloyisious wrote: »

The troika of David Quinn, Margaret Hickey (speakers) and Paddy Manning (chair) are in The Silver Springs Hotel at 7.30 PM Tuesday 19th, Regency Suite 2 on how to protect the 8th amendment.

clearly saw some of the tweeting from the previous event seeing as they now have a woman on the team :pac:

The Randy Riverbeast

First they got a token gay person, now they are getting a token women. At this rate they'll have collected the entire token avengers.

MrPudding

This could be useful, though the downside is it might give NI's politicians and excuse not to act, if a change were to be made.

MRP

Delirium

Some tweets of results of a poll carried out by Red C regarding 8th amendment.
https://twitter.com/NewstalkFM/status/690112135381262338
https://twitter.com/ElectionNT/status/690119206994468864
https://twitter.com/ElectionNT/status/690136301585207296

Cabaal

One of the responses to one of the tweets

Need proper abortion debate describing how baby is killed, the baby's reaction throughout, disposal&selling of body parts

So do need to have a discussion on exactly whats involved in a scoliosis treatment when we discuss other medial issues like availability of treatment of scoliosis? http://www.thejournal.ie/scoliosis-waiting-lists-joan-burton-2560119-Jan2016/

Cabaal

One of the responses to one of the tweets

Need proper abortion debate describing how baby is killed, the baby's reaction throughout, disposal&selling of body parts

So do need to have a discussion on exactly whats involved in a scoliosis treatment when we discuss other medial issues like availability of treatment of scoliosis? http://www.thejournal.ie/scoliosis-waiting-lists-joan-burton-2560119-Jan2016/

seamus

Only 60% in favour of it for non-fatal abnormalities and suicide, the latter being a very disappointing stat.

It's not good enough, it won't win a referendum. Fatal abnormalities and rape are the most important reasons to allow abortion, but the anti-choice crowd will frame the debate to focus on other scenarios and pretend that they're the bigger issue.

Unless very comprehensive legislation is presented with the proposed referendum, or they propose to replace the 8th with something slightly more permissive (which would be a terrible, terrible, idea), a straightforward repeal referendum will fail. Irish people are still easily swayed by the "abortion on demand" bogeyman and would rather vote to keep the status quo if the choice is presented as a binary one.

And that's how the anti-choice crowd will frame the debate - as a binary choice between "abortions where necessary" -v- "abortions on demand", even though the former doesn't even exist at present.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

Only 60% in favour of it for non-fatal abnormalities and suicide, the latter being a very disappointing stat..

Well, to be fair, "non-fatal abnormalities" is a bit vague. It could mean anything from having ginger hair to Down's syndrome. I'm not surprised people are less enthusiastic about it.
As for "feelings of suicide," is suicidal ideation not already considered to be grounds for a legal abortion? Maybe people have forgotten, or maybe the other 40% polled oppose the existing law (as having gone too far already)?

Hotblack Desiato

seamus wrote: »

Fatal abnormalities and rape are the most important reasons to allow abortion

The thinking that forced pregnancy is OK in some situations is what needs to stop.
There is no hierarchy of 'good abortions' or 'bad abortions'. In each case there is a woman in crisis who is pregnant when she doesn't want to be, we don't have the right to judge her or her reasons. The fact that 41% of those surveyed recognise this is actually massive progress.

We shouldn't accept any stop-gap that will continue to judge women and take control away from them, and subject them to yet more lawyers and judges making decisions about what should be between a woman and her doctor and nobody else.

A straight repeal will pass if argued well. The anti-SSM nonsense did religious conservatives a huge amount of damage in the public eye, between that and their hysteria over PLDP (Lucinda "floodgates" Creighton, et al) can anyone who isn't already a religious conservative take them remotely seriously?

robdonn

Cabaal wrote: »

One of the responses to one of the tweets

https://twitter.com/DR_EIMEAR/status/690139658852921344

I had a (short) chat with that girl, it didn't go well...

https://twitter.com/rwjd/status/690176709409251329

https://twitter.com/DR_EIMEAR/status/690216858021163012

https://twitter.com/rwjd/status/690219877001465856

https://twitter.com/DR_EIMEAR/status/690221664173424640

https://twitter.com/rwjd/status/690224149638287361

She stopped responding after that... :P

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The thinking that forced pregnancy is OK in some situations is what needs to stop.

Or the thinking that not intervening to terminate a pregnancy constitutes 'forced pregnancy' needs to stop?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There is no hierarchy of 'good abortions' or 'bad abortions'. In each case there is a woman in crisis who is pregnant when she doesn't want to be, we don't have the right to judge her or her reasons. The fact that 41% of those surveyed recognise this is actually massive progress.

Why exactly don't we have the right? In every other circumstance where someone endangers (never mind ends!) someone else's life we're very inclined to judge them and their reasons. Even when they do things that don't directly impact others (like public nudity, or not having a tv licence) we judge them, and in the interests of justice, we consider their reasons too. I don't see why society should exclude itself from asserting authority over an act so much more significant than not cleaning up after your dog. If something so insignificant is subject to the rule of law, how much more so this?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We shouldn't accept any stop-gap that will continue to judge women and take control away from them, and subject them to yet more lawyers and judges making decisions about what should be between a woman and her doctor and nobody else.

We shouldn't accept arguments that attempt to remove society from a discussion that affects all of society; whether or not people should be allowed to take the lives of others.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A straight repeal will pass if argued well. The anti-SSM nonsense did religious conservatives a huge amount of damage in the public eye, between that and their hysteria over PLDP (Lucinda "floodgates" Creighton, et al) can anyone who isn't already a religious conservative take them remotely seriously?

I very much doubt it. You don't have to be a religious conservative to not favour abortion on demand. And a straight repeal would be pilloried as abortion on demand.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Or the thinking that not intervening to terminate a pregnancy constitutes 'forced pregnancy' needs to stop?

A forced pregnancy is a pregnancy that is not allowed to be terminated if the mother wishes to do so. What else should we call it? A temporary absence of one's bodily integrity? Reduced quality of life in favour of quantity of life?

PopePalpatine

robdonn wrote: »

A forced pregnancy is a pregnancy that is not allowed to be terminated if the mother wishes to do so. What else should we call it? A temporary absence of one's bodily integrity? Reduced quality of life in favour of quantity of life?

Nah, not Jesuitical enough.

Shrap

Absolam wrote: »

Or the thinking that not intervening to terminate a pregnancy constitutes 'forced pregnancy' needs to stop?

You seem to have garbled your language Absolam. Not like you :rolleyes: One might even suspect obfuscation (I love that word!). Nobody except yourself is suggesting that a forced pregnancy can be defined as "not intervening to terminate a pregnancy" so that thinking does not have to stop as you're the only person offering it as a definition. You could stop thinking it whenever you like. Or keep thinking it, whichever you prefer.

It would however, only be correct to say that a forced pregnancy is one where someone is stopped from intervening to terminate their pregnancy. Lack of intervention does not constitute being forced to remain pregnant. But you knew that really, eh?

robdonn

I have always seen the pro-life side of being for quantity over quality.

While 30,000 5,000 people march through Dublin to insist that every foetus in existence should be born, I have never seen the same effort put into protecting the quality of life of those that are born.

Fatal-foetal abnormality? Shut up and enjoy your few hours with your gasping dying baby.
Smoking during pregnancy? You shouldn't do that... but a premature birth or low birth weight (and all the complications that go with them) are good enough with us as long as it's born!
Drinking during pregnancy? Is the baby born? Then we won't bother marching to stop Foetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Shrap

robdonn wrote: »

A forced pregnancy is a pregnancy that is not allowed to be terminated if the mother wishes to do so. What else should we call it? A temporary absence of one's bodily integrity? Reduced quality of life in favour of quantity of life?

I think we should call it "The extraordinary withdrawal of the rights of the born human to facilitate the extraordinary belief that the fullness of life of the human embryo outweighs those rights", but that would be too long.

The only debate worth having (to me) is on the sanctity of human life of the pre-sentient embryo relative to the right of the human to bodily integrity.

However, if we are to debate abortion properly in Ireland, we absolutely have to start looking at why so many Irish people believe that an unformed human life is sacrosanct and why this view is so subjective in our nation in particular. The actual wording of the eighth presumes that the right to life of the unborn remains the same from conception to birth. Do we as a nation think this? Have we ever been asked, or did a vested interest come up with what way we were asked?

seamus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The thinking that forced pregnancy is OK in some situations is what needs to stop.

So I agree with this.

There is no hierarchy of 'good abortions' or 'bad abortions'.

But not with this.
To pretend that all abortions and all reasons for abortions are equal is to lose this debate. The simple fact is that some abortions are more critical than others.
That a failure to obtain an abortion will have worse outcomes in some cases than in others.

I agree that if a woman wants to end a pregnancy within a reasonable timeframe then she should be permitted to do so and the why is none of my business.

But it can't be honestly stated that being forced to carry a fatal abnormality to term, and being forced to carry a healthy child to term have outcomes of equal severity.

Unfortunately it's the latter that gets focussed on. And it's actually in ignoring this hierarchy of importance/hierarchy of severity that the anti-choice crowd win the debate - by pretending that all abortions are equal, elective, and evil.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

A forced pregnancy is a pregnancy that is not allowed to be terminated if the mother wishes to do so. What else should we call it? A temporary absence of one's bodily integrity? Reduced quality of life in favour of quantity of life?

How about a pregnancy that is not allowed to be terminated if a mother wishes to do so? It would be just like a life that is not allowed to be terminated if another person wishes to do so. So... a pregnancy. Or a life. I don't see that either needs qualification by what cannot be done with it? We don't call a car a car that cannot be driven by an unlicensed person, we just call it a car.

Shrap wrote: »

You seem to have garbled your language Absolam. Not like you :rolleyes: One might even suspect obfuscation (I love that word!).

I would suggest calling an unwanted pregnacy a forced pregnancy is obfuscation... but I guess it depends on what it is you think someone is looking to obscure?

Shrap wrote: »

Nobody except yourself is suggesting that a forced pregnancy can be defined as "not intervening to terminate a pregnancy" so that thinking does not have to stop as you're the only person offering it as a definition. You could stop thinking it whenever you like. Or keep thinking it, whichever you prefer.

No.. but they are suggesting that not permitting intervention to terminate a pregancy should be called forced pregnancy, are they not? So perhaps we should stop that... if we're going to be suggesting stopping people thinking things, as Hotblack is.

It would however, only be correct to say that a forced pregnancy is one where someone is stopped from intervening to terminate their pregnancy. Lack of intervention does not constitute being forced to remain pregnant. But you knew that really, eh?[/QUOTE]

robdonn

Shrap wrote: »

I think we should call it "The extraordinary withdrawal of the rights of the born human to facilitate the extraordinary belief that the fullness of life of the human embryo outweighs those rights", but that would be too long.

#tewotrotbhtftebttfolotheotr

Shrap

Absolam wrote: »

I would suggest calling an unwanted pregnacy a forced pregnancy is obfuscation... but I guess it depends on what it is you think someone is looking to obscure?

No.. but they are suggesting that not permitting intervention to terminate a pregancy should be called forced pregnancy, are they not? So perhaps we should stop that...

Well I'm not trying to obscure anything. I do indeed suggest that someone stopped from ending an unwanted pregnancy is being forced to remain pregnant. This is not obfuscation. I'm not sure I understand how you think it could be, but I'm picking up that you think pregnancy somehow confers a voluntary handing over of one's own life choices to another authority? Perhaps it does, at a certain point in pregnancy; that is debatable. As is whether pregnancy should or should not confer the handing over of one's life choices.

Which comes back to my last post about whether sanctity of life of the embryo/foetus remains the same throughout pregnancy. What say you on that, out of interest?

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

We don't call a car a car that cannot be driven by an unlicensed person, we just call it a car.

And we also just call a plane a plane... until it's a hijacked plane.

Shrap

robdonn wrote: »

#tewotrotbhtftebttfolotheotr

Your search - tewotrotbhtftebttfolotheotr - did not match any documents.

Hmm. Not a longer version of "tl;dr" then.... Did I confuse you?!

I thought it was perfectly clear myself! May have been a little Jesuitical though.

Ha ha, oh wait......



Bit slow, sorry

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

Well I'm not trying to obscure anything. I do indeed suggest that someone stopped from ending an unwanted pregnancy is being forced to remain pregnant. This is not obfuscation.

Depends on your point of view I suppose; I'd suggest it's obfuscation to say an unwanted pregnancy is a forced pregnancy; the term 'forced' is ambiguous in the context, giving the impression that an act of agency is being applied to the pregnancy when in fact it is an act of prohibition that is being referred to. It conveys the impression that there is no voluntary component to the pregnancy, which is not necessarily true. I think the term forced is deliberately used to frame the pregnancy in terms of absolute compulsion; but as I said forcing is an act of agency rather than an act of prohibition (something I think is not lost on those who coin the term 'forced pregnancy'). A person in that circumstance is not actively being compelled to be pregnant, they are being prohibited from ending that pregnancy due to the effect it would have on another person. A prohibition that exists on a vast array of actions, without requiring the addition of the term 'forced' to a description of them.
I'm sure you'll consider such a distinction jesuitical, but I'd say it's the reasoning that arrives at the choice of the word 'forced' in the first place that deserves the description....

Shrap wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand how you think it could be, but I'm picking up that you think pregnancy somehow confers a voluntary handing over of one's own life choices to another authority? Perhaps it does, at a certain point in pregnancy; that is debatable. As is whether pregnancy should or should not confer the handing over of one's life choices.

I don't think pregnancy somehow confers a voluntary handing over of one's own life choices to another authority; I think pregnancy is another circumstance where our choices are circumscribed by the effect they have on others. Our life choices are always subject to the authority of the State, like it or not.

Shrap wrote: »

Which comes back to my last post about whether sanctity of life of the embryo/foetus remains the same throughout pregnancy. What say you on that, out of interest?

I'd say I'm not a fan of the notion of sanctity, but I am a fan of the notion of rights being conferred by society. We currently confer the right to life from the point of implantation, which seems reasonably sensible to me. How far that right may be interfered with or when it must be set aside, either before or after birth, is also something societies have to decide.