Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

recedite

SusieBlue wrote: »

There was the woman on the Prime Time debate whose daughter had an FFA, I frankly found her insufferable and she was extremely rude and condescending towards the other mother who had chose to give birth to her FFA baby in the UK.
One crucial element that woman forgot to recognise was that even with a Yes vote, she would still have been allowed to carry her baby to term here should she wish, that choice won't be taken from her.
Yet here she is, on national telly, advocating the choice be removed from a woman in her exact circumstances. It was horrible to watch.

Is this the woman you want EOTR to condemn?
I think she had a baby, which survived, is that correct?
In which case one of her points was that a FFA diagnosis is not always technically correct. If she had a live daughter, then the condition was not a fatal foetal abnormality. She was not being rude or condescending in saying that.

SusieBlue wrote: »

We then had the various women who had abortions and regretted them - but at least they had the CHOICE. A choice they didn't want other women to have.

They don't have the choice to bring their aborted babies back to life, do they? They were entitled to make that point too.

SusieBlue wrote: »

And we also had the woman on Claire Byrne who claimed her 12 week old baby miscarried and came out full size, perfectly formed, with her head in her hands smiling.
I'm sorry - and I know this won't be popular - but that simply is NOT possible.

I don't think she ever said "fully formed". Many times on this thread it has been pointed out by pro-choice posters that a 12 week old foetus "looks" more advanced than it actually is. That it has a recognisable baby shape but that (allegedly) its brain is "not working".
This woman saw the dead foetus, and instinctively recognising the humanity of it, had an emotional maternal reaction to that sight. Don't try to take that away from her, or try to criticise her for behaving with humanity. It only reflects badly on you.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Then there were the various doctors, who were more concerned with their own personal beliefs being upheld than they were about their patients welfare. I couldn't believe the own goal they scored when their Doctor admitted that he would REFUSE to refer a patient elsewhere for an abortion should the referendum pass.

Again, they were entitled to say they wanted no hand act or part in abortion. A patient is free to go elsewhere if they want a referral.
It remains to be seen how the new laws will handle this issue, but regardless, medics should have been consulted in advance if the law will require pro-life doctors to provide referrals to the newly established abortion clinics.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

it's a valid point to make in relation to abortion in general, yes. whether such could happen in ireland or not, it's probably likely it couldn't. but i would never 100% rule it out long term.

So didn't strike you as dishonest racist scaremongering at all?

Did you 100% rule out that foreigners might want to keep the 8th so that more babies were born, thus have more babies to eat?

Overheal

King Mob wrote: »

So didn't strike you as dishonest racist scaremongering at all?

Did you 100% rule out that foreigners might want to keep the 8th so that more babies were born, thus have more babies to eat?

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

So didn't strike you as dishonest racist scaremongering at all?

not at all no . i don't believe it is as such.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

not at all no . i don't believe it is as such.

Can you at least understand why it might look a bit like that to others?

Do you have any evidence to support such a baseless racist accusation?
What's the difference between that claim and mine that the dastardly foreigners might eat babies?

aloyisious

Simon Harris, Ailbhe Smythe, Mary Lou McDonald are on Claire Byrne Live now on RTE TV1 with other guests, incl David Quinn

Loafing Oaf

Mary Lou suggesting carol Nolan and Peadar toibin will be shown the door if they don’t toe the line.

RabbleRouser2k

aloyisious wrote: »

Simon Harris, Ailbhe Smythe, Mary Lou McDonald are on Claire Byrne Live now on RTE TV1 with other guests, incl David Quinn

It's reeking of the simiilar issues that plagued her abortion debate.
People shouting over one another. Someone press the Pat Kenny button...

Allison O'Connor using the murder of two girls/ young women as a reason people voting Yes is disgusting in my eyes-one could argue it would have made people vote No too. (I'm a yes voter, btw).

She of course ignores the death of two young men over the weekend too.
Cos guys are expendable.

I admire Larissa Nolan, she's articulating why she voted No but accepting of the result. David Quinn is annoying. I don't know what Fintan O'Toole was on about-started well, then went a bit mad.

SusieBlue

recedite wrote: »

Is this the woman you want EOTR to condemn?
I think she had a baby, which survived, is that correct?
In which case one of her points was that a FFA diagnosis is not always technically correct. If she had a live daughter, then the condition was not a fatal foetal abnormality. She was not being rude or condescending in saying that..

No, her daughter unfortunately also passed away.
She lived for just a few minutes. I believe she also had a condition which is incompatible with life.
I would like EOTR to back up his statement in reply to my post where he said other people having an abortion did have an effect on those voting No in the audience of PrimeTime.
If he can't, that's fair enough, but he should at least be clear about that.

They don't have the choice to bring their aborted babies back to life, do they? They were entitled to make that point too.

One person regretting a choice is not a legitimate reason to take choice away from everyone else. Another woman having an abortion would have no effect on those women's lives.

I don't think she ever said "fully formed". Many times on this thread it has been pointed out by pro-choice posters that a 12 week old foetus "looks" more advanced than it actually is. That it has a recognisable baby shape but that (allegedly) its brain is "not working".
This woman saw the dead foetus, and instinctively recognising the humanity of it, had an emotional maternal reaction to that sight. Don't try to take that away from her, or try to criticise her for behaving with humanity. It only reflects badly on you.

I absolutely love how you selectively quoted me there, chopping off the bit where I acknowledged her loss and appreciated she was grieving in her own way.
My point remains. She was incorrect. Her baby did not come out with its chin in its hands, smiling. If she needs to believe that to rationalise her loss I have no problem with it.
Using that to manipulate other women into not seeking terminations, under the guise of the fact that the baby is "fully formed", is not ok and extremely dishonest.

Again, they were entitled to say they wanted no hand act or part in abortion. A patient is free to go elsewhere if they want a referral.
It remains to be seen how the new laws will handle this issue, but regardless, medics should have been consulted in advance if the law will require pro-life doctors to provide referrals to the newly established abortion clinics

Well firstly, there won't be abortion clinics.
This will be a GP led service.
If a GP is unwilling to prescribe the two tablets required to induce a miscarriage, due to contentious objections, they are obliged to refer the patient to a GP that will.
That's what the issue is here. They will have a legal obligation to do this.
Its their height of self interest and selfishness for them to put their own beliefs and morals before the care of a patient.
Currently, when a pharmacist refuses to dispense the morning after pill, they are obliged to refer the customer to a pharmacy that will.
This should be the exact same.
Two thirds of the country has agreed that this is the way forward, it can't be denied that its a massive own goal that the doctor in question admitted on national telly that he'll be refusing to refer patients.

Mark Hamill

end of the road wrote: »

abortion takes the life of another human being. it doesn't need to effect me personally but it will have effects on society. the same as someone killing anyone i don't know, it won't effect me personally but it doesn't mean it isn't wrong and that society should say no to allowing it.

Why didn't this apply in our discussions about women who could afford to travel for abortions? Liverpool is closer to Dublin than Cork, but for some reason Irish babies being aborted there didn't seem to effect Irish society enough for you to be calling for exported abortions to be banned.

Mark Hamill

King Mob wrote: »

What's the difference between that claim and mine that the dastardly foreigners might eat babies?

Your claim implies that they allow the babies to born, so at least there isn't any abortions involved :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Most of them are never going to live in Ireland again, and have been out of the country for way longer than the 18 months threshold.

That which is asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.

How is it "correcting me" when you concede the point? But thanks anyway for the unpology.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. Each EU state controls its own borders unless and until they decide otherwise. Some states (along with some non-EU states) have chosen to join the common Schengen system, but that's a choice for each nation state to make and Schengen was initially an initiative outside the framework of the EU.

Similarly Ireland and the UK have a Common Travel Agreement. If it were not for the Irish border, it would make much more sense for us to leave the CTA and join Schengen instead.

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Mary Lou suggesting carol Nolan and Peadar toibin will be shown the door if they don’t toe the line.

Anyone catch Peadar's interview on SOR or PK this morning? I wonder has he been 'on a journey' since the referendum.

recedite

SusieBlue wrote: »

I absolutely love how you selectively quoted me there, chopping off ...
My point remains. She was incorrect. Her baby did not come out with its chin in its hands, smiling. If she needs to believe that to rationalise her loss I have no problem with it.
Using that to manipulate other women into not seeking terminations, under the guise of the fact that the baby is "fully formed", is not ok and extremely dishonest.

How do you know how it came out? Were you there? I don't particularly like the term "fully formed" myself, because IMO the human body is in a constant state of change from conception right through to old age and death. Also i'm not convinced the woman in question even said "fully formed".

However in this context, if we take that to mean "a recognisable human" possessing all the usual human organs etc.. then according to the British NHS...

Week 11 of pregnancy The baby grows quickly and the placenta is rapidly developing – it'll be fully formed at about 12 weeks.

Feel free to discredit the NHS with a link to an alternative viewpoint, if you can find one.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Well firstly, there won't be abortion clinics.
This will be a GP led service.
If a GP is unwilling to prescribe the two tablets required to induce a miscarriage, due to contentious objections, they are obliged to refer the patient to a GP that will.

Pills only work in the early stages. I'd be very surprised if private abortion clinics don't set up here. Somebody like Peter Boylan is now in a prime position to make a financial killing by setting up his own clinic and calling it "the gold standard in abortion".


Lists of GPs are easily available. The idea that a woman would go to a known pro-life GP just so she could get a referral to a pro-choice GP down the road is a bit strange. The only way I could see it happening would be for vexatious reasons. Similar to the guy who went to Ashers bakery demanding a cake with a gay slogan on it.


Its more likely they'll be looking for a referral to an abortion clinic, in which case they should go to a pro-choice GP in the first place.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

How do you know how it came out? Were you there? I don't particularly like the term "fully formed" myself, because IMO the human body is in a constant state of change from conception right through to old age and death. Also i'm not convinced the woman in question even said "fully formed".

However in this context, if we take that to mean "a recognisable human" possessing all the usual human organs etc.. then according to the British NHS...Feel free to discredit the NHS with a link to an alternative viewpoint, if you can find one.
Pills only work in the early stages. I'd be very surprised if private abortion clinics don't set up here. Somebody like Peter Boylan is now in a prime position to make a financial killing by setting up his own clinic and calling it "the gold standard in abortion".


Lists of GPs are easily available. The idea that a woman would go to a known pro-life GP just so she could get a referral to a pro-choice GP down the road is a bit strange. The only way I could see it happening would be for vexatious reasons. Similar to the guy who went to Ashers bakery demanding a cake with a gay slogan on it.


Its more likely they'll be looking for a referral to an abortion clinic, in which case they should go to a pro-choice GP in the first place.

The baby grows quickly and the placenta is rapidly developing – it'll be fully formed at about 12 weeks.

I am open to correction on this but when i read the above i quote i read it as saying the PLACENTA is fully formed not the BABY.

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

So didn't strike you as dishonest racist scaremongering at all?

Did you 100% rule out that foreigners might want to keep the 8th so that more babies were born, thus have more babies to eat?

Not this old trick again. Dismissing all debate by calling the other person a racist.
Sex selection abortions already happen in the UK.

In the UK, it has reduced the female population by between 1,500 and 4,700...gender-based abortions are happening within the South Asian population in Britain. The practice has been seen amongst British Indians and Pakistanis who believe sons will continue on the family line, and are economically preferable as they do not require dowries.

A political decision has been made to "bring abortion home". If Irish women are not to travel to England for abortion, then we must expect that abortion laws here will eventually be harmonised, more or less, with those in England.
Therefore the presumption, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that sex selective abortions will also happen here.
They won't be recorded as such, because those seeking them will not be required to give any reason for their "choice".


Technology and testing is advancing all the time. It is already possible to test for eye color and various racial characteristics at a very early stage for "in vitro" fertility treatment pregnancies.

Note this is not about "choosing" the desired characteristics from a colour chart. Its about culling all the undesirables, until only the desirables are left.

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Anyone catch Peadar's interview on SOR or PK this morning? I wonder has he been 'on a journey' since the referendum.

https://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!

Listening back to the interview it sounds like he's sticking to his guns, although he's reserving judgement until he sees the legislation. Will be a big loss to SF if he is forced out.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I am open to correction on this but when i read the above i quote i read it as saying the PLACENTA is fully formed not the BABY.

How would the foetus get to 12 weeks without a placenta?

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

How would the foetus get to 12 weeks without a placenta?

fully formed placenta. The english shouldn't be that hard for you to understand. It seems i was right about the placenta not magically coming into existence fully formed. You might want to read the rest of that page. You seem to be underinformed on what is involved in a pregnancy.


https://www.msdmanuals.com/home/women-s-health-issues/normal-pregnancy/stages-of-development-of-the-fetus

As the placenta develops, it extends tiny hairlike projections (villi) into the wall of the uterus. The projections branch and rebranch in a complicated treelike arrangement. This arrangement greatly increases the area of contact between the wall of the uterus and the placenta, so that more nutrients and waste materials can be exchanged. The placenta is fully formed by 18 to 20 weeks but continues to grow throughout pregnancy. At delivery, it weighs about 1 pound.

SusieBlue

recedite wrote: »

How do you know how it came out? Were you there? I don't particularly like the term "fully formed" myself, because IMO the human body is in a constant state of change from conception right through to old age and death. Also i'm not convinced the woman in question even said "fully formed".

However in this context, if we take that to mean "a recognisable human" possessing all the usual human organs etc.. then according to the British NHS...Feel free to discredit the NHS with a link to an alternative viewpoint, if you can find one.

I don't give a monkeys how it came out.
I care if she's using how it ALLEGEDLY came out as means to manipulate women into not having abortions.
You can nitpick at the specifics all you want, but if what you were saying is true, pregnancy would last 12 weeks and not 40.
My brother was born at 36 weeks, just 4 weeks early, and he was in an incubator, on a ventilator and steroids because he couldn't breathe for himself.
Why couldn't be breathe for himself?
Because his lungs weren't mature enough. He was "fully formed" but still couldn't breathe on his own.

Pills only work in the early stages. I'd be very surprised if private abortion clinics don't set up here. Somebody like Peter Boylan is now in a prime position to make a financial killing by setting up his own clinic and calling it "the gold standard in abortion".

Pure speculation. We have no reason to believe this won't be a GP leg service.

Lists of GPs are easily available. The idea that a woman would go to a known pro-life GP just so she could get a referral to a pro-choice GP down the road is a bit strange. The only way I could see it happening would be for vexatious reasons. Similar to the guy who went to Ashers bakery demanding a cake with a gay slogan on it.

Its more likely they'll be looking for a referral to an abortion clinic, in which case they should go to a pro-choice GP in the first place.

It doesn't matter. He is legally obliged to provide a referral and he has gone on national television stating he'll refuse.
I have no other option than to believe he feels his own opinions on the matter are more important than both his legal obligations and his patients welfare.

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

Not this old trick again. Dismissing all debate by calling the other person a racist.
Sex selection abortions already happen in the UK.

A political decision has been made to "bring abortion home". If Irish women are not to travel to England for abortion, then we must expect that abortion laws here will eventually be harmonised, more or less, with those in England.
Therefore the presumption, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that sex selective abortions will also happen here.
They won't be recorded as such, because those seeking them will not be required to give any reason for their "choice".


Technology and testing is advancing all the time. It is already possible to test for eye color and various racial characteristics at a very early stage for "in vitro" fertility treatment pregnancies.

Note this is not about "choosing" the desired characteristics from a colour chart. Its about culling all the undesirables, until only the desirables are left.

So we should have voted No to prevent those dastardly foreigners from having gender selective abortions then?

Yes. That is a racist argument. If you don't like people pointing out it's a bit racist, don't use it.

It's arguments like the above that cost your team this referendum.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

fully formed placenta. The english shouldn't be that hard for you to understand.
https://www.msdmanuals.com/home/women-s-health-issues/normal-pregnancy/stages-of-development-of-the-fetus

Well, lets say the NHS text I quoted is ambiguous. But the next paragraph in the same link is not.

Just 12 weeks after your last period, the foetus is fully formed. All the organs, muscles, limbs and bones are in place, and the sex organs are well developed. From now on, the baby has to grow and mature.

It makes sense that the foetus and the placenta develop in tandem, so when one is "fully formed" so is the other. But as I said "fully formed" would not be my choice of words.


Incidentally, your link there shows an image of a foetus at 8 weeks, with head in hands, and is that a sort of smiley face I see?

And we also had the woman on Claire Byrne who claimed her 12 week old baby miscarried and came out full size, perfectly formed, with her head in her hands smiling.
I'm sorry - and I know this won't be popular - but that simply is NOT possible.

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

So we should have voted No to prevent those dastardly foreigners from having gender selective abortions then?

Yes. That is a racist argument. If you don't like people pointing out it's a bit racist, don't use it.

It's arguments like the above that cost your team this referendum.

Same old strawmanning and calling others racist. But too cowardly to put forward your own argument.
I said "beyond a reasonable doubt" sex selective abortions will happen, and I explained my reasons for thinking that.

Will you now deny that, and tell me they won't happen? And give reasons for why you think that?
If not, just GTFO.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Well, lets say the NHS text I quoted is ambiguous. But the next paragraph in the same link is not.



It makes sense that the foetus and the placenta develop in tandem, so when one is "fully formed" so is the other. But as I said "fully formed" would not be my choice of words.

fully formed would not be my choice for a fetus at 12 weeks either. It lacks a functioning brain and lungs. pretty vital components i would have thought.

recedite wrote: »

Incidentally, your link there shows an image of a foetus at 8 weeks, with head in hands, and is that a sort of smiley face I see?

there are drawings of fetuses in my link. If you see anything in those you are projecting.

And we also had the woman on Claire Byrne who claimed her 12 week old baby miscarried and came out full size, perfectly formed, with her head in her hands smiling.
I'm sorry - and I know this won't be popular - but that simply is NOT possible.

the original post you responded to said perfectly formed and full size. We can argue over perfectly formed but a 12 week old fetus is not full size.

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

Same old strawmanning and calling others racist. But too cowardly to put forward your own argument.
I said "beyond a reasonable doubt" sex selective abortions will happen, and I explained my reasons for thinking that.

Will you now deny that, and tell me they won't happen? And give reasons for why you think that?
If not, just GTFO.

It's a racist argument. Pure and simple.
You are arguing that we should not allow abortions based on the presumed actions of some foreigners.
This is regardless of whether or not these groups actually engage in this behavior.

Note also, that the first person to use this argument refused to identify which group he was accusing, nevermind any evidence, instead pretending that he "just wanted to know if that group existed". So we also have the fact that this is dishonest.

And because it's an attempt to stoke fear and emotion, we can describe it as fearmongering and propaganda.

Hence, dishonest, racist, propaganda.
And such propaganda is rampant in your side, hence why people aren't willing to accept your arguments.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Pills only work in the early stages. I'd be very surprised if private abortion clinics don't set up here. Somebody like Peter Boylan is now in a prime position to make a financial killing by setting up his own clinic and calling it "the gold standard in abortion".

A despicable, potentially libellous slur on the professionalism and motivations of Prof Boylan.

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A despicable, potentially libellous slur on the professionalism and motivations of Prof Boylan.

The headbangers on politics.ie have been making these kinds of slurs against the good doctor for years. If he was motivated by the concerns they suggest, all he would need to do to make the said 'killing' would be get on the phone to his lawyer...

alaimacerc

SusieBlue wrote: »

Ok, please explain, coherently to me, how the No FFA mother who saw through her pregnancy in the comfortable care of Ireland was affected by the Yes FFA mother travelling to the UK to have her pregnancy induced?
Please explain the effects it would have had on that woman. I'm all ears.

Cliona Johnson (of One Day More, PLC, Love Both, and however many other hats she wears) was on any number of the debates, and on at least one of them she'd a bash at answering that. Her take was on the lines of how terribly hurtful and unfair it would be if she were in the same hospital where terminations were being performed, or if she were to even be offered such an option herself.

Her delicate feels, versus the bodily autonomy and health of thousands of others. Tough call, eh.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the original post you responded to said perfectly formed and full size. We can argue over perfectly formed but a 12 week old fetus is not full size.

Of course it isn't full size. But then I can't vouch for the veracity of that post. Remember, there are loads of "lying liars who lie" around here.
I very much doubt that the woman on the TV ever said that.

King Mob wrote: »

It's a racist argument. Pure and simple.
You are arguing that we should not allow abortions based on the presumed actions of some foreigners.
This is regardless of whether or not these groups actually engage in this behavior.
Note also, that the first person to use this argument refused to identify which group he was accusing, nevermind any evidence, instead pretending that he "just wanted to know if that group existed". So we also have the fact that this is dishonest.
And because it's an attempt to stoke fear and emotion, we can describe it as fearmongering and propaganda.

No it is not propaganda. And no I did not say "we should not allow abortions based on the presumed actions of some foreigners".
You insinuated that such a thing would never happen, and anyone suggesting it must be a racist.
Heres the link again.
Article by a respected British Asian journalist. Is she a racist too?


Yours is the lazy, ignorant tactic of stifling a debate you don't like by shouting "racist". Its the same kind of mentality that allowed the muslim rape gangs to flourish in Rotherham and other cities in the UK. Authorities and social workers reluctant to intervene for fear of being labelled racists.

The failure to address the abuse was attributed to a combination of factors revolving around race, class and gender—contemptuous and sexist attitudes toward the mostly working-class victims; fear that the perpetrators' ethnicity would trigger allegations of racism and damage community relations; the Labour council's reluctance to challenge a Labour-voting ethnic minority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal


Not only that, but you ignore the only genuine racist angle to this. The whole concept that people in future will be able to selectively abort foetuses based on racial characteristics such as eye colour or skin colour.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Not only that, but you ignore the only genuine racist angle to this. The whole concept that people in future will be able to selectively abort foetuses based on racial characteristics such as eye colour or skin colour.

That is not parsing for me on two levels.

The first is that an ability can not be racist. My likely ability, given my training, to kill you is not itself a murderous ability. I would actually have to kill you before it was murder. The ability itself is not. The ability to identify a racial trait and decide to terminate the fetus on that basis is similarly not itself a racist ability.

What people are ABLE to do and what people ACTUALLY do are two very different things.

The second however is on the basis of relevance. We have failed to find, much less on this thread, a single moral or ethical argument indicting the morality of terminating a 10 week old fetus. As such the REASON a person has for doing so is pretty much irrelevant. You can of course judge peoples reasons for doing it, but that says nothing about their right to do it, or the morality of doing it. Indicting one with the other is a false move.

I also believe in your right to eat fattening and unhealthy foods. If I found out you were eating lots of it with the intention of getting disability benefits in some way I could of course judge your reasons for eating that food..... and maybe we should even legally prosecute you for fraud of a benefits scheme........ But that would be VERY different to judging your right to eat it. The motivation and the act itself are two distinct things.

Another example is I believe in your right to go and sit on the beach. If you were a pedophile and you were going there to look at under age girls then that might bother me, but so the hell what? Your motivation for going there, assuming you do not commit any actual crime (and being a pedophile is quite rightly not a crime) then you have every right to go there.

Some sensible line in the sand has to exist between the right to an action, and the motivation for taking that action. Even when and where it makes us uncomfortable.

Sorry that for rhetorical purposes I had to envision you as dead, then an obese benefits fraudster, and finally a paedophile Nothing untoward intended by any of that