Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

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

Which is why I've no objection to the term unwanted pregnancy

Shrap

Absolam wrote: »

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....

Yes, I consider the distinction jesuitical to the point of farce. What else would you call an unwanted pregnancy that someone is not allowed to end then? You were asked this before....

So yes, "forced" conveys the impression that there is no voluntary component to the pregnancy, because becoming pregnant by accident or other misfortune is not a voluntary act, unless you are next going to stoop as low as the anti-choice argument that claims the act of sex is where a person volunteers to become pregnant.

One might as well claim that the act of hill-walking confers that breaking one's leg has a voluntary component. And to expand on this analogy using your reasoning, the subsequent prohibition for treatment cannot be called being forced to remain with the broken leg as a lack of agency does not confer compulsion. Which would be stupid, and I'm sure the distinction would be as equally lost on the person suffering from a broken leg as it would be on the person suffering from a crisis pregnancy.

As to the effect ending a pregnancy would have on another person, you feel implantation confers personhood, but thousands of women every year clearly do not, alongside a yet to be determined percentage of the Irish population. That is what we should be asked about, as per my previous post. Is the life of the non-sentient embryo equally as sacrosanct as the life of the sentient one?

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Which is why I've no objection to the term unwanted pregnancy

Good.

A pregnancy is a pregnancy.

A pregnancy that is not wanted is an unwanted pregnancy.

A pregnancy that is not allowed to be terminated is a forced pregnancy.

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

Yes, I consider the distinction jesuitical to the point of farce. What else would you call an unwanted pregnancy that someone is not allowed to end then? You were asked this before....

In which case you'd agree it's farcical to offer the distinction and unwanted pregnancy is sufficient? As for what I was asked, I did answer at the time. I said "How about a pregnancy that is not allowed to be terminated if a mother wishes to do so?" Though I think unwanted pregnancy is amply accurate, if pushed.

Shrap wrote: »

So yes, "forced" conveys the impression that there is no voluntary component to the pregnancy, because becoming pregnant by accident or other misfortune is not a voluntary act, unless you are next going to stoop as low as the anti-choice argument that claims the act of sex is where a person volunteers to become pregnant.

No but the act of sex is (usually) a voluntary one, which is by far the most usual way to become pregnant. Surely if we can exclude an actual act that forms part of pregnancy in considering its description, it's a bit of a about-face to then use an act that's prohibited from being part of the pregnancy in considering it's description?

Shrap wrote: »

One might as well claim that the act of hill-walking confers that breaking one's leg has a voluntary component. And to expand on this analogy using your reasoning, the subsequent prohibition for treatment cannot be called being forced to remain with the broken leg as a lack of agency does not confer compulsion. Which would be stupid, and I'm sure the distinction would be as equally lost on the person suffering from a broken leg as it would be on the person suffering from a crisis pregnancy.

Well, breaking ones leg as result of hillwalking certainly has the voluntary component of hillwalking, though you have the added complications of so many others ways to breaks ones leg, and the fact that an unwanted broken leg cannot be removed by treatment. Not the best of similes I'd say, but still.... We mightn't say he had a forced broken leg from hill walking.... he wasn't forced, either by the hillwalking or any other agency to have a broken leg. And if he were prohibited from treating the broken leg, he still wouldn't have a forced broken leg. No one forced it to stay broken, it was going to do that on it's own anyway. Though he'd probably have an unwanted broken leg.

Shrap wrote: »

As to the effect ending a pregnancy would have on another person, you feel implantation confers personhood, but thousands of women every year clearly do not, alongside a yet to be determined percentage of the Irish population. That is what we should be asked about, as per my previous post. Is the life of the non-sentient embryo equally as sacrosanct as the life of the sentient one?

Actually I feel implantation is a reasonable point at which to confer the right to life. You may or may not think that a right and personhood are necessarily intertwined, though it seems reasonable to put both together to me. And I acknowledge that there are plenty of people who disagree with me, though I don't think that in itself is any reason to change my opinion. As for whether the life of the non-sentient embryo is equally as sacrosanct as the life of the sentient one, I did already say; I'm not a fan of the notion of sanctity. If I don't agree with the concept, I can hardly judge who it should and shouldn't apply to can I?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Good.
A pregnancy is a pregnancy.
A pregnancy that is not wanted is an unwanted pregnancy.
A pregnancy that is not allowed to be terminated is a forced pregnancy.

Sure, I'll agree with the first two and disagree with the third, for the reasons I've given above.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Sure, I'll agree with the first two and disagree with the third, for the reasons I've given above.

All unwanted pregnancies are pregnancies, but not all pregnancies are unwanted pregnancies.

All forced pregnancies are unwanted pregnancies*, but not all unwanted pregnancies are forced pregnancies.

Forced pregnancies are a subset defined by making the choice to end the pregnancy but not being allowed to carry it out.

Whether you agree with the right of a woman to make that choice or not, you must recognise that this group of people exist.

* There is also the group of wanted pregnancies that choose to terminate due to FFA or other similar situations, but they would still fall under the above definition.

Shrap

Absolam wrote: »

In which case you'd agree it's farcical to offer the distinction and unwanted pregnancy is sufficient? As for what I was asked, I did answer at the time. I said "How about a pregnancy that is not allowed to be terminated if a mother wishes to do so?" Though I think unwanted pregnancy is amply accurate, if pushed.

No, the unwanted pregnancy is only accurate up to the point that one is compelled (any better?) to continue with the unwanted pregnancy. Thereafter, it needs a term to convey the further lack of choice or agency in the matter.

No but the act of sex is (usually) a voluntary one, which is by far the most usual way to become pregnant. Surely if we can exclude an actual act that forms part of pregnancy in considering its description, it's a bit of a about-face to then use an act that's prohibited from being part of the pregnancy in considering it's description?

I see what you mean (just about!), but by the same regard there would be no need for the term "forced pregnancy" if it weren't for the notion that an unwanted pregnancy has been voluntarily entered into.

Not the best of similes I'd say, but still.... We mightn't say he had a forced broken leg from hill walking.... he wasn't forced, either by the hillwalking or any other agency to have a broken leg. And if he were prohibited from treating the broken leg, he still wouldn't have a forced broken leg. No one forced it to stay broken, it was going to do that on it's own anyway. Though he'd probably have an unwanted broken leg.

Ok, not the best of similes, but you got and took my point. And then garbled it. How does having been prohibited from treating the broken leg mean that he only has an unwanted broken leg? He already had an unwanted broken leg but the act of prohibiting treatment confers a forced component on it remaining broken. He has been forced to remain with a broken leg.

As for whether the life of the non-sentient embryo is equally as sacrosanct as the life of the sentient one, I did already say; I'm not a fan of the notion of sanctity. If I don't agree with the concept, I can hardly judge who it should and shouldn't apply to can I?

But you're happy enough with the fact that this sanctity of life of an implanted embryo is enshrined in our constitution? That already is making a judgement. I'm not asking you to agree with me on the subject, I'm asking you to debate it with me. Instead, you rather obliquely are dismissing the concept at the same time as wishing to let it stand.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

All forced pregnancies are unwanted pregnancies*, but not all unwanted pregnancies are forced pregnancies.

So a pregnancy that is unwanted, but which a prospective mother does not wish to end (despite not wanting it) is simply an unwanted pregnancy. You're then contending an unwanted pregnancy becomes a forced pregnancy solely by virtue of the prospective mother's desire to end it? You'll have to admit, that choice comes before whether or not the facility to do so is available. The pregnancy is not forced; the facility to terminate the pregnancy is not made available. A pregnant woman on a desert island where there are no abortion facilities doesn't have a forced pregnancy, though she may have an unwanted one. To claim someone is forced into something because someone else doesn't give them something they want is at best a misleading characterisation. But I have to say in this context I think it's a deliberately dishonest one; it's an attempt to over broadly re-interpret a concept purely in order to derive a negative connotation.

robdonn wrote: »

Whether you agree with the right of a woman to make that choice or not, you must recognise that this group of people exist.

That some women who are pregnant and wish to terminate their pregnancy exist? Of course. That women who wish to terminate thier pregnancies but are not given the facility to do so exist? Of course. That women whose pregnancies are forced exist? Not as you've set out, no.

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

No, the unwanted pregnancy is only accurate up to the point that one is compelled (any better?) to continue with the unwanted pregnancy. Thereafter, it needs a term to convey the further lack of choice or agency in the matter.

Not really no; not compelled to continue with the pregnancy, rather prohibited from taking the life of the foetus in order to terminate the pregnancy. If you want to slice fine distinctions, you have to admit there is no direction or compulsion to be pregnant; all of the compulsion is directed at the destruction of the unborn life, not the pregnancy.

Shrap wrote: »

I see what you mean (just about!), but by the same regard there would be no need for the term "forced pregnancy" if it weren't for the notion that an unwanted pregnancy has been voluntarily entered into.

I'd say the need for the term arises more from a desire to have a perjoritive term in the abortion discussion than a need to accurately describe a particular state to be honest, especially when on inspection it's clearly a deliberately inaccurate term!

Shrap wrote: »

Ok, not the best of similes, but you got and took my point. And then garbled it. How does having been prohibited from treating the broken leg mean that he only has an unwanted broken leg? He already had an unwanted broken leg but the act of prohibiting treatment confers a forced component on it remaining broken. He has been forced to remain with a broken leg.

Well, like I said, it's a poor simile. No amount of treatment will result in an unbroken leg. Prohibiting treatment won't result in a forced broken leg, it will (probably) result in a less well healed one.

Shrap wrote: »

But you're happy enough with the fact that this sanctity of life of an implanted embryo is enshrined in our constitution? That already is making a judgement. I'm not asking you to agree with me on the subject, I'm asking you to debate it with me. Instead, you rather obliquely are dismissing the concept at the same time as wishing to let it stand.

Well no; the Constitution doesn't mention the sanctity of life of an implanted embryo, never mind enshrine it. It doesn't mention sanctity at all. The Constitution says "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." As I said when you originally asked; I'm not a fan of the notion of sanctity, but I am a fan of the notion of rights being conferred by society.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

A pregnant woman on a desert island where there are no abortion facilities doesn't have a forced pregnancy, though she may have an unwanted one.

She does have a forced pregnancy, it just happens to be forced by circumstance rather than law.

I would say the term forced pregnancy does not come from a need to use a pergorative term but rather it comes from a need to adequately and accurately describe the circumstances some women find themselves in where laws prevent them from exercising control over their own reproductive function. That some people feel it is a pergorative speaks more to them than the term.

MrP

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

So a pregnancy that is unwanted, but which a prospective mother does not wish to end (despite not wanting it) is simply an unwanted pregnancy. You're then contending an unwanted pregnancy becomes a forced pregnancy solely by virtue of the prospective mother's desire to end it? You'll have to admit, that choice comes before whether or not the facility to do so is available. The pregnancy is not forced; the facility to terminate the pregnancy is not made available. A pregnant woman on a desert island where there are no abortion facilities doesn't have a forced pregnancy, though she may have an unwanted one. To claim someone is forced into something because someone else doesn't give them something they want is at best a misleading characterisation. But I have to say in this context I think it's a deliberately dishonest one; it's an attempt to over broadly re-interpret a concept purely in order to derive a negative connotation.

That some women who are pregnant and wish to terminate their pregnancy exist? Of course. That women who wish to terminate thier pregnancies but are not given the facility to do so exist? Of course. That women whose pregnancies are forced exist? Not as you've set out, no.

Sorry, I should probably clarify more. A forced pregnancy is not a pregnancy that was forced upon someone to begin with (although I'm sure there are probably some horrible situations out there.) A forced pregnancy is when someone is denied the right to end the pregnancy.

An unwanted pregnancy is when someone (who is pregnant) does not want to be pregnant. Some still continue with it while others choose to end it. When someone decides to end it but is refused the right to do so ("the facility to terminate the pregnancy is not made available"), that is the moment it becomes a forced pregnancy. The only option then is to either remain pregnant against their will, or break the law (or travel to where the law does not apply).

So the term "forced pregnancy" does not refer to forcing someone to become pregnant, but forcing them to remain pregnant.

It would be somewhat equivalent to you going to a restaurant and ordering a meal. You begin eating but you don't like the meal so you have 2 choices, keep eating it in silent (or not so silent) suffering or stop eating it. You choose to stop eating it but the staff don't let you. They use whatever techniques are at the disposal of the nefarious restaurant industry to make you eat the meal until it is finished.

You chose to go to the restaurant. You chose the meal from the menu. You chose to start eating the meal. Should you therefore lose the right to choose to stop eating it? Even if you knowingly went to a Russian roulette themed restaurant where you get served a random meal from the menu and you happened to get the 1 meal out of 100 that you absolutely despise, should you have the right to not eat it?

(I may have gone overboard with the restaurant analogy... :P )

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

She does have a forced pregnancy, it just happens to be forced by circumstance rather than law.

I disagree; it's no more forced than if the means to have an abortion simply didn't exist.

MrPudding wrote: »

I would say the term forced pregnancy does not come from a need to use a pergorative term but rather it comes from a need to adequately and accurately describe the circumstances some women find themselves in where laws prevent them from exercising control over their own reproductive function. That some people feel it is a pergorative speaks more to them than the term.

And I suspect that's more because of the point of view you approach the term from than an analysis of the concept.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Sorry, I should probably clarify more. A forced pregnancy is not a pregnancy that was forced upon someone to begin with (although I'm sure there are probably some horrible situations out there.) A forced pregnancy is when someone is denied the right to end the pregnancy.

And whilst you may want to use term to describe the circumstance, that doesn't make it correct; the pregnancy is not forced if there is no action taken on it by someone else.

robdonn wrote: »

An unwanted pregnancy is when someone (who is pregnant) does not want to be pregnant. Some still continue with it while others choose to end it. When someone decides to end it but is refused the right to do so ("the facility to terminate the pregnancy is not made available"), that is the moment it becomes a forced pregnancy. The only option then is to either remain pregnant against their will, or break the law (or travel to where the law does not apply).

How can someone choose to do something when the choice is not available to them in the first place? How can someone be refused the right to something they don't have a right to in the first place? There isn't a moment where the facility to terminate the pregnancy is not made available; there was never an opportunity to destroy the life of the foetus which would have thereby terminate the pregnancy.

robdonn wrote: »

So the term "forced pregnancy" does not refer to forcing someone to become pregnant, but forcing them to remain pregnant.

Which woould be apt for someone who ws forced to remain pregnant, but in the circumstances you describe they are not.
There is no law that demands a pregnancy must continue.
There is no legal penalty for a pregnancy that does not continue.
There is no compulsion on a woman to remain pregnant.
There is however a law that prohibits the intentional destruction of unborn human life. You might argue that such a prohibition places such a means of terminating a pregnancy outside a womans reach, and since in the vast majority of circumstaces it is the only way of doing so, places any means of terminating the pregnancy outside her reach. You might argue that by not making that means available, a woman cannot exercise the choice she wishes to make, and by not being offered the opportunity to make a choice a woman must continue on the course she is already on. You might argue that not being offered a choice effectively forces a woman to continue with what she is already doing; I would say, as Shrap would have it, that such an argument is jesuitical to the point of farce.

robdonn wrote: »

It would be somewhat equivalent to you going to a restaurant and ordering a meal. You begin eating but you don't like the meal so you have 2 choices, keep eating it in silent (or not so silent) suffering or stop eating it. You choose to stop eating it but the staff don't let you. They use whatever techniques are at the disposal of the nefarious restaurant industry to make you eat the meal until it is finished.
You chose to go to the restaurant. You chose the meal from the menu. You chose to start eating the meal. Should you therefore lose the right to choose to stop eating it? Even if you knowingly went to a Russian roulette themed restaurant where you get served a random meal from the menu and you happened to get the 1 meal out of 100 that you absolutely despise, should you have the right to not eat it?
(I may have gone overboard with the restaurant analogy... :P )

You may have. If I feel that I can't stop eating a meal because no one is offering me a means that I feel is the right way to stop eating it, I really can't say that anyone is forcing me to eat it. Only that I feel I can't stop eating it on the terms I want to. And of course I haven't lost the right to stop eating it if I never had the right in the first place....

aloyisious

If one person is denying another person the means to an end, that is a denial. That is the situation with regard to abortion here in the 26 county republic we live in. Any reasonable person looking at the laws and guidelines here cannot say it is otherwise at the moment.

I think the discussion about dining is rather a red herring, regardless of how tasty fish in tomato sauce tastes.

aloyisious

If one person is denying another person the means to an end, that is a denial. That is the situation with regard to abortion here in the 26 county republic we live in. Any reasonable person looking at the laws and guidelines here cannot say it is otherwise at the moment.

I think the discussion about dining is rather a red herring, regardless of how tasty fish in tomato sauce tastes.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

If one person is denying another person the means to an end, that is a denial. That is the situation with regard to abortion here in the 26 county republic we live in. Any reasonable person looking at the laws and guidelines here cannot say it is otherwise at the moment.

I think the discussion about dining is rather a red herring, regardless of how tasty fish in tomato sauce tastes.

Sure. But denying someone the opportunity to do something is not forcing them to do something else; someone might stretch to claim that from a point of view it effectively forces them, but I suspect 'sort of effectively forced pregnancy' doesn't carry enough emotional weight to be worth sticking on a poster.....

I've never liked tomato sauce on fish. Except fish fingers. It's good on fish fingers. Well.... ketchup is. I have low tastes.

aloyisious

Could you point out what other alternative a pregnant woman - who has requested an abortion and is denied it - actually has, other than to proceed with the pregnancy? I am omitting the obvious and crude alternatives of self-induced termination or simple suicide for obvious reasons.

Re posters advertising points of view on this issue, we're used to strange and quite emotional ones thought fitting by Ad/PR firms and advisors here.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Could you point out what other alternative a pregnant woman - who has requested an abortion and is denied it - actually has, other than to proceed with the pregnancy? I am omitting the obvious and crude alternatives of self-induced termination or simple suicide for obvious reasons.

I don't know why you think not being allowed to make one choice necessitates that there ought to be an alternative? A person who is pregnant in Ireland does not have an opportunity to choose to terminate their pregnancy by destroying the life of their unborn child in Ireland. Whether they decide they want to make that choice or not, the circumstances of their pregnancy do not change; the pregnancy remains just as it was before they decided they wanted to make that choice. At no point does the potential for alternatives arise.

aloyisious wrote: »

Re posters advertising points of view on this issue, we're used to strange and quite emotional ones thought fitting by Ad/PR firms and advisors here.

We are indeed. And I'm sure those in opposing camps to the firms and advisers rail equally against the use of deliberately misleading terms.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

A person who is pregnant in Ireland does not have an opportunity to choose to terminate their pregnancy by destroying the life of their unborn child.

Actually they do, both by legal means and illegal means.

They can travel unsupported to the England and have an abortion thus making youth defense eternally happy so they can claim Ireland is "abortion free". Meanwhile women in cases of rape, incest, fetal fetal abnormalities etc continue to travel unsupported and failed by the Irish state.

Or they can acquire tablets over the internet to terminate the fetus in the early stages, as we know Irish customs "might" catch them in the post but they sure as hell won't arrest any women who happens to travel down on a train with a box of them. The also won't stop or arrest any women who may hold or take these tablets even in the middle of the main street of our capital city.

So the tablets are illegal by law but clearly the state aren't pushed about ownership of them and use of them other then customs catching them now and then.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Actually they do, both by legal means and illegal means. They can travel unsupported to the England and have an abortion thus making youth defense eternally happy so they can claim Ireland is "abortion free". Meanwhile women in cases of rape, incest, fetal fetal abnormalities etc continue to travel unsupported and failed by the Irish state.

If you prefer I can rephrase as "A person who is pregnant in Ireland does not have an opportunity to choose to terminate their pregnancy by destroying the life of their unborn child in Ireland", but I think you understood what I meant; you probably know I'm aware the choice is available in States outside the jurisdiction of Ireland. At least it gave you an opportunity to soapbox though, eh?

Cabaal wrote: »

Or they can acquire tablets over the internet to terminate the fetus in the early stages, as we know Irish customs "might" catch them in the post but they sure as hell won't arrest any women who happens to travel down on a train with a box of them.

I'm pretty sure that still doesn't constitute the State offering women the choice though, does it? Nor does the State condone people importing illegal drugs, but if you're not convinced, why not get on train with a box of them and let the Gardai know you're doing it. I'd certainly be interested in their response.

Cabaal wrote: »

So the tablets are illegal by law but clearly the state aren't pushed about ownership of them and use of them other then customs catching them now and then.

Well, owning them isn't illegal, is it? Using them to destroy the life of an unborn child (except in specific circumstances) is. And the improper supply of them, of course.
As for now and then, Galway Pro Choice claims in 2009 alone, 1,216 illegal packets of abortion inducing drugs were seized by Irish Customs. Sounds like a little more than now and then?

rainbow kirby

Absolam wrote: »

If you prefer I can rephrase as "A person who is pregnant in Ireland does not have an opportunity to choose to terminate their pregnancy by destroying the life of their unborn child in Ireland", but I think you understood what I meant; you probably know I'm aware the choice is available in States outside the jurisdiction of Ireland.

Why should Ireland get to maintain its religiously-inspired delusion that there is not such thing as an Irish abortion? Time to grow the hell up and actually start looking after its women.

Absolam

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Why should Ireland get to maintain its religiously-inspired delusion that there is not such thing as an Irish abortion? Time to grow the hell up and actually start looking after its women.

Perhaps it's a delusion to think Ireland maintains a religiously-inspired delusion that there is not such thing as an Irish abortion?
Given the amount of campaigning that goes on, you'd imagine most of Ireland at this point is aware of the abortions that occur in Ireland. If they're not, it's hardly due to a lack of coverage.
Maybe it's time to grow up and realise Ireland actually attempts to look after not just its women, but its children as well.

rainbow kirby

Absolam wrote: »

Maybe it's time to grow up and realise Ireland actually attempts to look after not just its women, but its children as well.

Don't make me laugh. Read some of the stories here and then come back and tell me that Irish hospitals give a damn about women.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Maybe it's time to grow up and realise Ireland actually attempts to look after not just its women, but its children as well.

So a fetus is now the same as a child now? I think you'll find this is certainly not the case.

Perhaps it's a delusion to think Ireland maintains a religiously-inspired delusion

Far from delusional, the constitutions includes the 8th amendment. The same constitutions that gives a special place to a god. Including the 8th was heavily lobbied by religions groups.

The block to allowing proper support for women in Ireland is without a question religiously inspired its laughable that you will try and claim otherwise.

It has no place in modern Ireland, much the same as the block to gay couples and marriage had no place in Ireland and the same religious groups against choice for abortions lobbied heavily against marriage equality.

you'd imagine most of Ireland at this point is aware of the abortions that occur in Ireland. If they're not, it's hardly due to a lack of coverage.

Youth Defense continue to claim Ireland is abortion free, perhaps they are simply in denial?

Many women use pills for abortions, but I doubt many women also feel the need to shout it from the rooftops at the same time...especially given the stigma from a bunch of backwards people it will get them and the potential legal issues it would bring them.

Even if the state didn't go after them in certain situations they could land themselves in a negative situation with their employer, for example a teacher could be sacked from a catholic ethos school for going against the ethos.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

The Randy Riverbeast

Absolam wrote: »

Maybe it's time to grow up and realise Ireland actually attempts to look after not just its women, but its children as well.

Unless you leave the country while pregnant, then Ireland just pretends nothing is going on. Some country that allows people to travel to kill their "children".

Cabaal

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Unless you leave the country while pregnant, then Ireland just pretends nothing is going on. Some country that allows people to travel to kill their "children".

Funny that isn't it,
But clearly the Irish state doesn't see a fetus as equal to a child, if they did they'd ban travel for abortions,

Meanwhile the Irish state does stop Irish citizens from traveling to other country's to kill themselves,

The Black Oil

Cora, torture, Amnesty, torture, something something.

https://twitter.com/CoraSherlock/status/690509324951625728

Kitty Holland has written about the Halappanavar case again.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/kitty-holland-now-is-the-time-to-tackle-the-lies-told-about-the-savita-case-1.2506782#.VqUYPxMzM4s.twitter

In the aftermath of the tragedy, there were three inquiries: an inquest in Galway, conducted by Dr Ciaran MacLoughlin, in April 2013; a Health Service Executive investigation chaired by the British obstetrician Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, its report published in June 2013; and an inquiry by the Health Information and Quality Authority (Hiqa), published in October 2013.

Repeatedly since, anti-abortion campaigners have seized selectively on their findings, saying all three “proved” Halappanavar’s death was a result of medical mismanagement and not of her request to have her unviable pregnancy terminated being ignored.

In the context where, as a pregnant woman wanting a termination Halappanavar had no input into her care (the only other groups similarly denied input into their care are minors and the mentally impaired), the added medical mismanagement did indeed lead to her death.

~

It is worth noting that neither the inquest nor Hiqa had within their remits the right to comment or make recommendations on the Constitution. To infer from their silence on this an endorsement of article 40.3.3 is disingenuous in the extreme.

Unlike any anti-abortion advocate, I was at all eight days of the inquest. In his summing-up to the jury before it retired to consider its verdict, Dr MacLoughlin pushed the boundaries probably as far as any coroner could in alluding to the constitutional confinement on women and doctors.

“The coroner’s court is a creature of statute. It is not for the court to advise the Oireachtas on the law or amendments to the law. The Oireachtas may take cognisance of these proceedings.”
Three months later, the HSE report noted: “International best practice includes expediting delivery [ie termination] in this clinical situation of an inevitable miscarriage at 17 weeks . . . and infection in the uterus because of the risk to the mother.”

Prof Arulkumaran went further, asking just how much injury to a woman as a result of a health- threatening pregnancy Ireland was prepared to accept before an abortion would be acceptable: “If you have infection, by the time it comes to sepsis and severe sepsis, Fallopian tubes might be injured, she might become sub- fertile, she might come later on [with an] ectopic pregnancy . . . I mean, how much are you prepared to take before you start considering termination of pregnancy?”

Expect some letters tomorrow, no doubt.

Absolam

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Don't make me laugh. Read some of the stories here and then come back and tell me that Irish hospitals give a damn about women.

I'll certainly tell you you won't find anyone in those hospitals who claims not to give a damn about women.... But I don't think that'll make you laugh either.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

So a fetus is now the same as a child now? I think you'll find this is certainly not the case.

I think we've covered this ground before, but anyways; the Irish Courts make a substantial number of references to the rights of unborn children in their judgements. If they're not talking about foetuses, there's something extremely odd going on.....

Cabaal wrote: »

Far from delusional, the constitutions includes the 8th amendment. The same constitutions that gives a special place to a god. Including the 8th was heavily lobbied by religions groups.

So is the 8th Amendment a delusion? It seems pretty real to me.

Cabaal wrote: »

The block to allowing proper support for women in Ireland is without a question religiously inspired its laughable that you will try and claim otherwise.

You haven't mentioned a block to allowing proper support to women; only a block to people taking the lives of unborn children. Whether it was religious inspiration that led Irish voters to put that block in place was really up to them to decide, but the decision was their own nonetheless.

Cabaal wrote: »

It has no place in modern Ireland, much the same as the block to gay couples and marriage had no place in Ireland and the same religious groups against choice for abortions lobbied heavily against marriage equality.

Obviously a matter of opinion; and there are plenty with the opposite view. Unlike the situation with the block to gay couples and marriage, where there weren't plenty with the opposite view

Cabaal wrote: »

Youth Defense continue to claim Ireland is abortion free, perhaps they are simply in denial?

Or perhaps they're engaging in the same sort of attempted misdirection to garner emotional support as Hotblack Desiato was with his 'forced pregnancy' line? Personally, I wouldn't be surprised. It's certainly more likely than that they are all collectively 'in denial', don't you think?

Cabaal wrote: »

Many women use pills for abortions, but I doubt many women also feel the need to shout it from the rooftops at the same time...especially given the stigma from a bunch of backwards people it will get them and the potential legal issues it would bring them.

So what you're saying is, you agree; a person who is pregnant in Ireland does not have an opportunity to choose to terminate their pregnancy by destroying the life of their unborn child in Ireland? Or are you saying the State isn't assiduous enough in denying that opportunity, since it only prosecutes people who use abortion pills to illegally destroy unborn human lives? What more do you think it ought to do to qualify as denying the opportunity? Sieze the pills when they're being illegally imported perhaps? Anything else?

Cabaal wrote: »

Even if the state didn't go after them in certain situations they could land themselves in a negative situation with their employer, for example a teacher could be sacked from a catholic ethos school for going against the ethos.

Sounds like you're climbing back up on that soapbox again.... but you can't really expect the State to 'go after them in certain situations' when they're not doing anything illegal. Can you?