Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

Well that's a way of stating an opinion that there may well be sinister-minded anti-abortion protestors amongst the majority of anti-abortion protestors outside abortion clinics who would have sinister intentions in respect to others attending such clinics.

One thing is that we don't have abortion clinics here. We do have advice centres and a maternity hospital outside which there were anti abortion protests.

Now that you've raised the spectre of there being anti-abortion protesors with sinister intentions here being a fact, what do you intend doing about those anti-abortion protestors and their sinister intentions?

nothing as it's not my job. i'm not a garda or a judge. if you want to know what i think should be done on the other hand, then i think existing laws are able to deal with the problem of protesters who would have sinister motivations.

smacl wrote: »

Did I hear somewhere that she's been called to task on the statement about Leo and he's to be called as a witness? Radio snippet maybe, I'll see if I can find the reference.

Edit: Covered in the IT here

even if she did apologise for her statement, she wouldn't mean it anyway. she would be doing it just to be seen to do it but she wouldn't change her view and she will still believe her statement.

alaimacerc

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The likely source of your lack of understanding of the word is that premeditation is indeed one of the prerequisites of "murder" in many definitions. But it is not the distinction between it and "killing". If you ask google to "define murder" for example it will tell you "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." and "kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation."

Right, that's (more or less) the distinction in common law between "murder" and "manslaughter". So unless the argument is that abortion isn't premeditated and is manslaughter -- neither part of which makes in the least bit of sense, candidly -- it's a non-starter.

Abortions have historically often been illegal, but never deemed to be murder. Or indeed manslaughter, or any offence in the category of homicide at all. Why not? Because in common law, personhood begins at birth. Missing a key element of the offence, it's not remotely possible that it could be considered.

alaimacerc

lazygal wrote: »

The prolife side told us the POLDP Act was too extreme. Then that we'd have liberal abortion laws if we repealed. They can't say anything without contradicting themselves.

They've been saying "too extreme" and "effectively abortion on demand" of numerous different revisions of the law in numerous different jurisdictions. May have shot their bolt on that a few times too many.

lazygal

alaimacerc wrote: »

They've been saying "too extreme" and "effectively abortion on demand" of numerous different revisions of the law in numerous different jurisdictions. May have shot their bolt on that a few times too many.

Now they're reduced to saying people who voted yes voted for what amounts to the status quo. It's no wonder they lost. I just can't believe I was afraid of their lies causing repeal to be defeated. Obviously people didn't believe their lies and spin.

end of the road

lazygal wrote: »

Now they're reduced to saying people who voted yes voted for what amounts to the status quo. It's no wonder they lost. I just can't believe I was afraid of their lies causing repeal to be defeated. Obviously people didn't believe their lies and spin.

except we didn't lost as there was no specific vote on abortion but on repeal of the 8th, which many of us actually supported but for the proposed legislation. as i said before voting to repeal the 8th isn't proof that people didn't believe the information put forward which the opposition found inconvenient, it simply proves most people believe that the 8th needed to go on it's own merrit.

lazygal

end of the road wrote: »

except we didn't lost as there was no specific vote on abortion but on repeal of the 8th, which many of us actually supported but for the proposed legislation. as i said before voting to repeal the 8th isn't proof that people didn't believe the information put forward which the opposition found inconvenient, it simply proves most people believe that the 8th needed to go on it's own merrit.

You have no proof you know why anyone voted to repeal. The proposed legislation was what we knew would be implemented.

alaimacerc

end of the road wrote: »

except we didn't lost as there was no specific vote on abortion but on repeal of the 8th, which many of us actually supported but for the proposed legislation. as i said before voting to repeal the 8th isn't proof that people didn't believe the information put forward which the opposition found inconvenient, it simply proves most people believe that the 8th needed to go on it's own merrit.

It's extremely strong evidence of that, no least because of the "OMG the legislation!" -- or their nonsensical take on it, at least -- campaign the YD types, etc, ran.

This thread is also itself pretty good evidence that there are some people who'll doggedly seize on any pretext for inaction, however flimsy.

ohnonotgmail

aloyisious wrote: »

On one European's view of abortion, it seems that our decision on the 8th amendment referendum vote was discussed in Poland in May and one woman there [Kaja Godek] representing the anti-abortion campaign thinks it is monstrous that Ireland should be defined as a catholic country. Kaja [who describes herself as Pro-life & Pro family] included that as part of her opinion that the Prime Minister [Leo Varadkar] flaunted his bizarre perversion [homosexualty] to the people. Referring to the LGBT rainbow flag, she's upset that it has had the colour blue removed from it as it's the colour of the Virgin Mary.

Why is the opinion of one crank in poland in any way important?

Hotblack Desiato

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Why is the opinion of one crank in poland in any way important?

Having the head of government of a friendly country called a pervert on live TV is kinda newsworthy.

She's being sued by 16 members of the Polish LGBT community over her remarks, and Varadkar has been named as a witness (not that there's a chance in hell he'll appear in court.)

She said "I want to say with strong conviction that Ireland cannot be described as a Catholic country" - to which we say, AMEN, SISTER!!!

It's also relevant as the right in Poland are trying to make their abortion laws (even) more restrictive, at the same time as Ireland is moving in the opposite direction.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

except we didn't lost as there was no specific vote on abortion but on repeal of the 8th, which many of us actually supported but for the proposed legislation. as i said before voting to repeal the 8th isn't proof that people didn't believe the information put forward which the opposition found inconvenient, it simply proves most people believe that the 8th needed to go on it's own merrit.

Ok then, so if you are arguing that you actually won when the majority of people voted in the opposite direction to you...
Please provide evidence that the majority of them were actually voting for pro-life reasons.

Please provide polls or questionnaires or anything to show your opinion isn't in a smaller minority than the cranks who want to reillegalise divorce and gay marriage.

Otherwise, stop making this silly, silly claim. It just looks exactly like you are dreaming it up out of nothing to deny reality.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

except we didn't lost as there was no specific vote on abortion but on repeal of the 8th, which many of us actually supported but for the proposed legislation. as i said before voting to repeal the 8th isn't proof that people didn't believe the information put forward which the opposition found inconvenient, it simply proves most people believe that the 8th needed to go on it's own merrit.

It's kind of amusing to read of some-one who opposes abortion on demand [aka abortion on request by a woman or girl] claiming that many on the anti-abortion campaign side were actually in favour of deletion of the 8th and would have [maybe] voted in favour to delete the 8th but for the legislation that Simon Harris said he would bring bring in to replace the 8th.

You seem to be claiming that except for the fact that the proposed legislation to be brought in after a Yes vote on the issue of deletion of the 8th was and is clearly stated to be about legalizing abortion here, you and many others from the anti-abortion campaign would have voted yes for deletion of the 8th even though a key-cornerstone of the anti-abortion campaign was "save the 8th".

I didn't even know there was a split within the anti-abortion campaign on the issue of the 8th, some wanting to "save the 8th" [as they put it] and some wanting deletion of the 8th, thereby - presumably covertly - aiding the "delete the 8th" pro-choice for abortion campaign. Did you and any of your many stand up to be counted whenever you were at anti-abortion campaign meetings?

I found this part of your post [voting to repeal the 8th isn't proof that people didn't believe the information put forward which the opposition found inconvenient, it simply proves most people believe that the 8th needed to go on it's own merit] misinformation at it's best and gobblydygook at it's worst].

alaimacerc

lazygal wrote: »

You have no proof you know why anyone voted to repeal. The proposed legislation was what we knew would be implemented.

But conversely, he does have proof of why at least one person voted No:

end of the road wrote: »

absolutely. the 12 weeks unrestricted was why i and many others voted no . no other reason.

So, he voted "no" on the basis of the outline legislation, but now seeks to tell us that the "yes" vote is completely unrelated to that.

From an occasional series of posts telling us that abortion is murder, and that abortion isn't murder.

aloyisious

According to a report in today's Irish Indo it seems that pregnant women can be dispensed abortions pills by their GP's and hospital Doctors. It will mean that women who avail of abortion, when the law extending the grounds for termination is in force, will not have to fill a prescription in a pharmacy. It will mean they will have privacy protection and won't have to present a prescription script in public. The report also mention's that medical abortions after 9 weeks [gestation] will be carried out in a maternity hospital.

The report continued with mention that retired obstetrician Peter Boylan has been appointed to oversee the clinical guidelines which are necessary for doctors to ensure that proper uniform and safe protocols are in place. The issue of getting ultrasound scans in order to date the pregnancy may have to be done privately, This will be paid for by the state which is to provide abortions free of charge. The report said that some consultants are currently undergoing training in terminations.

Given that this last part of the newspaper report includes a reference to guidelines, something which I believe is outside the legal capability of the minister to set, I'm reading that to mean the professional bodies concerned will be allowed to set or amend their own self-regulatory guidelines in respect to abortions within the new legislation bounds [when it becomes law] and that such guidelines will be LESSER IN AUTHORITY to the law, regardless to how members of the medical & medicine professional bodies might choose to see where the boundaries of their professional guidelines interact with their own personal abortion consciences.

Edit. I'm not sure what the time-limit [as in medical abortions after 9 weeks] mentioned means in terms of that type of abortion. The word gestation in brackets used is an inclusion by me and not in the original wording of the report. I'm unsure how the choice of Peter Boylan to fill the position of overseer of the clinical guidelines for the medical professions will be taken-to by them.

Hotblack Desiato

Call for referendum on taxpayers’ funding abortion services

Independent TD Carol Nolan has called for a second abortion referendum to test whether taxpayers want to fund terminations of pregnancy.

Speaking during the debate on the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Bill, Ms Nolan said “we face a serious violation of the civil rights of the unborn”.

She added that this was “ nothing short of an insult to the men and women of 1916 and it greatly undermines the values of the 1916 proclamation which makes reference to cherishing all the children of the national equally”.

Ms Nolan said taxpayers did not vote to fund abortion and that included many who voted to repeal the Eighth Amendment. She said a survey had found that 60 per cent of people were not in favour of taxpayers’ funding abortion and called for a second referendum.

“Party leaders are adept at voting twice on the same issue and Nice and Lisbon come to mind.”

How pig-ignorant can you get.

The voters knew what they were voting for, Carol Nolan is refusing to accept a democratic decision and is insulting the intelligence of the electorate.

She can vote against it in the Dail if she wants, as if that'll make a difference.


Meanwhile...

Fianna Fail TD ‘struggling with his conscience’ cannot support Abortion Bill

During the debate, Fianna F TD Marc MacSharry said that after the referendum result he had said he would support the legislation but “sadly I have been struggling with my conscience on this issue and I am not sure that I can do so”.

His change of heart came “out of fear, quite frankly”.

The Sligo-Leitrim TD said “I fear that this will become the contraceptive of choice for people down the line; not today, next week or even next year, but in time.

“Abortion will become something that is the norm rather than for the hard cases. That is a concern for me.”

But the Minister said “unfortunately some people talking about the issue in this House are using language that gives an insight to a mindset that is worrying”.

Such talk showed a “lack of understanding of the very difficult decision-making process a woman goes through before accessing termination.

“To equate in any way termination to contraception shows a fundamental lack of respect for women. It also shows a fundamental lack of understanding about termination and contraception.”

Fear of the Yes voters kicking him out in the next election, more like.

end of the road

the voters only voted to repeal the 8th. after that, anything else is a defacto vote. we were not specifically asked on the ballot paper whether we wanted abortion or whether we wanted to fund it.
Carol Nolan is not insulting the intelligence of the electorate and her call for a vote as to whether we should have to fund abortions is not going against any democratic decisian. in fact, her call for a referendum on that specific issue is very democratic IMO.
i think realistically the vast majority of the yes and no voters won't be making abortion an election issue. tax cuts, public services as a whole and local issues will be the main stay. if politicians focus on those, then even if some of them do vote no, they will mostly be fine.

King Mob

End, any chance you'll actually back up your notion that the majority of people who voted against you actually agree with you?

If it's not obvious, no one believes you or your work, so gonna need something more substantial.

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Fear of the Yes voters kicking him out in the next election, more like.

He's switching from support for to opposition to the legislation out of fear of Yes voters?

Peregrinus

end of the road wrote: »

the voters only voted to repeal the 8th. after that, anything else is a defacto vote. we were not specifically asked on the ballot paper whether we wanted abortion or whether we wanted to fund it.
Carol Nolan is not insulting the intelligence of the electorate and her call for a vote as to whether we should have to fund abortions is not going against any democratic decisian. in fact, her call for a referendum on that specific issue is very democratic IMO.

In this country we only have referendums to amend the constitution. Whatever about the political, ideological and policy arguments about the public funding of abortions, there's no constitutional bar to doing so, nor any constitutional requirement to do so. So the democratic process we use for making this decision is not a referendum; its public advocacy of the policy we want, voting for TDs who will implement that policy and, if desired, standing as candidates on a platform of implementing that policy.

Calling for a referendum on the subject looks just like posturing. There doesn't need to be a referendum on the question and there certainly won't be, so this looks like a course chosen to register objections without making any practical difference to outcomes.

lazygal

Taxpayers already fund all legal abortions in Ireland. Nolan must not be aware of this fact.

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

Taxpayers already fund all legal abortions in Ireland. Nolan must not be aware of this fact.

I'd hazard a guess is that she is aware of it, and that she objects to it.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

the voters only voted to repeal the 8th. after that, anything else is a defacto vote. we were not specifically asked on the ballot paper whether we wanted abortion or whether we wanted to fund it.
Carol Nolan is not insulting the intelligence of the electorate and her call for a vote as to whether we should have to fund abortions is not going against any democratic decisian. in fact, her call for a referendum on that specific issue is very democratic IMO.
i think realistically the vast majority of the yes and no voters won't be making abortion an election issue. tax cuts, public services as a whole and local issues will be the main stay. if politicians focus on those, then even if some of them do vote no, they will mostly be fine.

A yes or no answer to this one will do:

Did you or did you not vote No because you disagreed with the proposed legislation and thought it to be too extreme?

Did you or did you not state several times that were it not for the "extreme" proposals, you would in fact vote Yes?

And is it not safe to assume, that if you voted No because you were against the proposed legislation, that those who voted Yes did so because they were in favour of the proposed legislation?????

I have looked back on your posts and a quick search revealed at least 5 posts where you confirm you would have voted Yes if not for the proposals.

Hotblack Desiato

lazygal wrote: »

Taxpayers already fund all legal abortions in Ireland. Nolan must not be aware of this fact.

HSE funds some women in care to go to the UK for abortions, too. None of this is any secret.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

He's switching from support for to opposition to the legislation out of fear of Yes voters?

No, he never supported it. He's afraid his inability to at least abstain is going to have electoral repercussions for him, and it probably will.
His "fears" about what other people may or may not do after abortion law comes in are complete guff.

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

HSE funds some women in care to go to the UK for abortions, too. None of this is any secret.




No, he never supported it.

During the debate, Fianna F TD Marc MacSharry said that after the referendum result he had said he would support the legislation

Anyway, I don't believe any TD's position on abortion will have any electoral repercussions for them. By the time the next election rolls around, the whole issue will be done and dusted, an no-one will remember or care what any TD said or did around the referendum and legislation.

Hotblack Desiato

He said he would vote for it (or gave a wishy-washy reply which was reported as such) but as soon as it hits the Dail he has "fears". He doesn't support it and never did. He may have believed he would not obstruct it, but that's not the same as supporting it. Supporting something is more than just voting a particular way, btw. It's sloppy journalistic shorthand.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Anyway, I don't believe any TD's position on abortion will have any electoral repercussions for them. By the time the next election rolls around, the whole issue will be done and dusted, an no-one will remember or care what any TD said or did around the referendum and legislation.

A lot of nasty things were said by No side politicians and they will not be forgotten. The ones that stayed silent and failed to support Irish women will not be forgotten either.

seamus

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Anyway, I don't believe any TD's position on abortion will have any electoral repercussions for them. By the time the next election rolls around, the whole issue will be done and dusted, an no-one will remember or care what any TD said or did around the referendum and legislation.

Kind of, IMO. If it were to emerge that any TD was needlessly frustrating the legislative process, I think they'd be savaged at the polls.
In hindsight the Yes campaign became a steamroller, a result born out of the release of a pent-up anger. I feel that anger hasn't gone away and won't go away until the legislation is done and dusted. So TDs won't get any kudos for using it as a football.

Even if an anti-abortion TD was to go quiet and just let it through, they would be better served than making a song and dance about it. If McGrath and Healy-Rae become the poster children for resisting this legislation, even their own constituencies will not thank them for it.

Of course, time is important too. If the legislation is through by 1st January and this Dail manages to sit for two more years, then there should be enough distance.

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

He said he would vote for it (or gave a wishy-washy reply which was reported as such) but as soon as it hits the Dail he has "fears". He doesn't support it and never did. He may have believed he would not obstruct it, but that's not the same as supporting it. Supporting something is more than just voting a particular way, btw. It's sloppy journalistic shorthand.




A lot of nasty things were said by No side politicians and they will not be forgotten. The ones that stayed silent and failed to support Irish women will not be forgotten eithre.

I think you're vastly overstating the relevance of abortion and other social issues, especially 'historic' ones, to people's choices at general elections. The issue will have no more bearing on the upcoming election than divorce did on the 1997 general election.

Hotblack Desiato

We'll see. Hasn't worked out well for Renua anyway.

Loafing Oaf

seamus wrote: »

Kind of, IMO. If it were to emerge that any TD was needlessly frustrating the legislative process, I think they'd be savaged at the polls.
In hindsight the Yes campaign became a steamroller, a result born out of the release of a pent-up anger. I feel that anger hasn't gone away and won't go away until the legislation is done and dusted. So TDs won't get any kudos for using it as a football.

Even if an anti-abortion TD was to go quiet and just let it through, they would be better served than making a song and dance about it. If McGrath and Healy-Rae become the poster children for resisting this legislation, even their own constituencies will not thank them for it.

Of course, time is important too. If the legislation is through by 1st January and this Dail manages to sit for two more years, then there should be enough distance.

But McGrath and Healy-Rea both represent 5-seat, largely rural constituencies where over 40% of people voted no to repeal. Even if they went out of their way to obstruct the legislation, I'm sure they would have no concerns about the consequences of any notional 'pro-choice backlash' for their Dail seats.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

A yes or no answer to this one will do:

Did you or did you not vote No because you disagreed with the proposed legislation and thought it to be too extreme?

Did you or did you not state several times that were it not for the "extreme" proposals, you would in fact vote Yes?

And is it not safe to assume, that if you voted No because you were against the proposed legislation, that those who voted Yes did so because they were in favour of the proposed legislation?????

I have looked back on your posts and a quick search revealed at least 5 posts where you confirm you would have voted Yes if not for the proposals.

some will have been in favour, others won't but will have believed that the 8th needed to be removed on it's own merrit. either way, we still weren't technically asked if we wanted abortion. it was only a defacto vote, and defacto is not an actual.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

HSE funds some women in care to go to the UK for abortions, too. None of this is any secret.




No, he never supported it. He's afraid his inability to at least abstain is going to have electoral repercussions for him, and it probably will.
His "fears" about what other people may or may not do after abortion law comes in are complete guff.

i'd think that his fears most certainly aren't guff but quite likely.
i'd also be surprised if he really will have very much electoral repercussions, because as i said, it's likely that this won't ultimately become an electoral issue.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

He said he would vote for it (or gave a wishy-washy reply which was reported as such) but as soon as it hits the Dail he has "fears". He doesn't support it and never did. He may have believed he would not obstruct it, but that's not the same as supporting it. Supporting something is more than just voting a particular way, btw. It's sloppy journalistic shorthand.




A lot of nasty things were said by No side politicians and they will not be forgotten. The ones that stayed silent and failed to support Irish women will not be forgotten either.

i think they will. tax cuts, pot holes, public services as a whole, social wellfare increases. those are the main thing politicians run for election on and that is what they get voted in on in most cases. nobody is saying that some people won't use everything around abortion and the debates and whatever way politicians voted to decide their vote, but realistically i think it's going to be a small number. people genuinely do have important things to worry about. housing and it's affordibility, whether renting or wanting to buy i think will be the main issue come next election.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We'll see. Hasn't worked out well for Renua anyway.

renua didn't really have credible or viable policies. whether they supported abortion or not, few would have voted for them. they just aren't a credible viable option.