Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

alaimacerc

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well, reform and abolition are rather different things here. Adding rape/health etc. to the list of allowed abortions only would shut out on demand for a good 30 years more.

They are indeed different. But the same people will be filibustering (and just plain blustering) on both. "Not the right time or the right climate for such a debate", and other such Sherlockisms.

Not sure how you just "add to the list of allowed abortions", though. There being no such "list" in the text of the constitution. Anyone proposing to "tweak" the wording and get it just right this time is bound to be met with considerable skepticism.

The "conservative reform" wing of FG might just instead say "abolish the 8th entirely, but keep the PoLDPA and our 'restrictive abortion regime' essentially as-is". In that context you can simply "add to the list", much more straightforwardly.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

I woudn't know; I think I'd like to know a little more about the people before I leap to any judgements about them.
I'd agree that a person who kills another person does a worse thing than a person who rapes another person though; which, to forestall the leap, does not mean that raping a person is not a bad thing.

What of a person who kills a fetus specifically?

In your opinion killing a fetus [fetus specifically - (not simply the general 'another person')] worse than rape?

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Amusing, but I don't Cabaal was asking if they want to lobby for laws, he was telling them they should, which goes a little further than leading the witness...
Well with any luck the conscience of our elected representatives will lead them to represent the views of those who elect them. Since logically, their future as politicians should depend on their electorate. If their electorate is consistent, I suppose.

I think they should lobby for laws to stop women traveling for abortions because it'll completely undermine their entire campaign...but then thats the reason why they won't lobby.

If they got their way we'd end up with back street abortions and women being arrested and charged for attempting to travel.

This would finally break the camels back and the 8th would have to then change as they're be public outcry.....I know this, you know this and Youth Defense & Co know this.

Thats why they won't lobby,

They are content with allowing Ireland to export its problem, whilst all the time claiming they look after fetuses and Ireland is abortion free. Its really rather pathetic.
:rolleyes:

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

I think they should lobby for laws to stop women traveling for abortions because it'll completely undermine their entire campaign...but then thats the reason why they won't lobby.

Yes it's a notable argument from those who are pro-abortion; those who are anti-abortion are afraid to offer the arguments we say they should offer because it would make them look silly. Which is pretty... silly.

Cabaal wrote: »

If they got their way we'd end up with back street abortions and women being arrested and charged for attempting to travel. This would finally break the camels back and the 8th would have to then change as they're be public outcry.....I know this, you know this and Youth Defense & Co know this.

You mean if they got your way... since it's not an argument they're putting forward?

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats why they won't lobby, They are content with allowing Ireland to export its problem, whilst all the time claiming they look after fetuses and Ireland is abortion free. Its really rather pathetic.:rolleyes:

Or, they won't lobby because it's your argument, not theirs? In fairness, begrudging the fact that they won't put forward the argument you've constructed for them in order to make them look silly is itself fairly pathetic....

robindch

A pregnant woman in the USA wanted her tubes tied. Her hospital was controlled by catholics who said "Nope".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/a-pregnant-woman-wanted-her-tubes-tied-her-catholic-hospital-said-no/2015/09/13/bd2038ca-57ef-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

What of a person who kills a fetus specifically?
In your opinion killing a fetus [fetus specifically - (not simply the general 'another person')] worse than rape?

In my opinion killing a foetus specifically is the same as killing any other person specifically; killing any person is worse than raping any person.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Oddly, I got the idea that Kylith wasn't proposing that I should actually go out out and do one thing or the other.
My objection was to the notion that being presented with a choice between the two options, that I would choose either one.

But you worded it in such a way to suggest that there was something wrong with her for even suggesting it...

Absolam wrote: »

And that's the thing; I mustn't. I can choose not to participate, whether it's a real choice, or a hypothetical choice.

Quite. The 'you must choose one' assumes a willingness to actually engage in the process rather than avoid engaging with the process at all costs. Your response is exactly what I, and I am sure everyone else, thought it would be.

Absolam wrote: »

I think in this case I'm going to wrest the machine gun from the nearest guard, deftly execute the evil commandant whilst quipping merrily in a 1940s heroic style in order to distract the combatants until my doughty family and friends overpower them, and get everyone back to blighty in time for tea and buns. Along the way we'll discover the trauma has excised the memory of rape from the mind of the 12 year old on the left and she has a vague but pleasantly hopeful notion that she is about to be the mother of a new religion of world peace, whilst the girl on the right is contemplating a lucrative career in the construction of alternative bed furniture.

Yeah, whatever. Whilst the narrative uses slightly more imagination this is just typical of your fairly standard avoidance of actually answering anything.

Absolam wrote: »

I'm happy to agree that you can construct a novel hypothetical in which you do your utmost to minimise the apparent effect of killing a foetus compared to the effect of raping a child, for instance by presenting it as simply administering a tablet rather than perhaps cutting the child (desperate to create something positive from her horrific rape by becoming the best mother a child could have) open with a blunt rusty blade, and on eventually locating the foetus scooping it out with your fingers, all in all endeavouring to make it appear that killing a foetus is a less heinous act that raping a child.

I thought it most sensible to present this option as it would be most likely to happen. Remember it is a thought experiment designed to get prompt a particular choice in a particular set of circumstances. Having the abortion choice read like something form a Saw movie would kind of defeat the purpose, wouldn't you think?

Absolam wrote: »

Nevertheless, as I said, I think killing someone is worse than raping someone.

Killing your definition of someone that is...

So what are your thoughts on the case a few years ago where the 9 year old rape victim pregnant with twins was given an abortion. Do you think she should have been forced to continue the pregnancy which would undoubtedly have had serious consequences for her health, assuming she even survived?

I guess you will not give a straight answer for this either, which really is getting quite tiresome.

MrP

Bandana boy

Lads there is already a thread for this Abortion discussion
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056990082&page=672

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Or, they won't lobby because it's your argument, not theirs? In fairness, begrudging the fact that they won't put forward the argument you've constructed for them in order to make them look silly is itself fairly pathetic....

Why would I lobby?
I'm all for choice,

They are the people that want rape victims to give birth to rapists baby's, they are the one's that claim every fetus is equal to the mothers life and they celebrate Ireland being abortion free.
:rolleyes:

The end of the day they can claim all they want but they are just happy to export Ireland's problems rather then deal with them in Ireland, utterly pathetic.

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

A pregnant woman in the USA wanted her tubes tied. Her hospital was controlled by catholics who said "Nope".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/a-pregnant-woman-wanted-her-tubes-tied-her-catholic-hospital-said-no/2015/09/13/bd2038ca-57ef-11e5-8bb1-b488d231bba2_story.html

Course we're not much better, Irish hospital refused to do a certain type of cancer treatment for women because they'd have to take birth control...all on religious grounds.
Scary this women's reason for doing this was to increase her chances of living,

The catholic church sure does love to hate women,

Hotblack Desiato

Approaching 10,100 posts :eek:

alaimacerc

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Approaching 10,100 posts :eek:

Oh dear. If we're about to get Megathreaded, does that mean post quality will trend towards that of the "Irish Water" and "Sinn Fein" same?

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

Yes it's a notable argument from those who are pro-abortion; those who are anti-abortion are afraid to offer the arguments we say they should offer because it would make them look silly. Which is pretty... silly.

It's a pretty straightfoward exercise in case analysis. If someone is very keen on the criminalisation of abortion, it's reasonable to ask how they feel about the rather notable profusion of "outsourcing" of Irish abortions. Especially as the law on the topic has swung far enough from the "theocratic" to the "muddled if not outright hypocritical" that not only must there be no law of extraterritorial or inchoate offences on the subject, the constitution has to go out of its way to preclude such. You might once have been surprised that people find this remarkable, but I'd have thought you'd had a good while to get used to it by now.

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

But you worded it in such a way to suggest that there was something wrong with her for even suggesting it...

I don't think so; Kyliths question was worded in such as way as to suggest (well.. state in fact, not suggest) that it was inhuman to consider killing someone as worse than raping someone. My reply was not that there was anything wrong with suggesting it, but that someone who is prepared to choose to either perform an abortion at 12 weeks or rape a 12 year old is closer to inhuman than someone who won't.

MrPudding wrote: »

Quite. The 'you must choose one' assumes a willingness to actually engage in the process rather than avoid engaging with the process at all costs. Your response is exactly what I, and I am sure everyone else, thought it would be.

Well, it assumes a willingness to engage with your hypothetical certainly... I'm not so sure about 'the process'. I don't recall actually offering to entertain your fantasies, but if you already thought I wasn't going to, you probably simply shouldn't have made the effort?

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah, whatever. Whilst the narrative uses slightly more imagination this is just typical of your fairly standard avoidance of actually answering anything.

That's a rather churlish response to my effort to help your story along. As for actually answering anything... meh (in counter to your 'whatever'). You can review my posts anytime you like.

MrPudding wrote: »

I thought it most sensible to present this option as it would be most likely to happen. Remember it is a thought experiment designed to get prompt a particular choice in a particular set of circumstances. Having the abortion choice read like something form a Saw movie would kind of defeat the purpose, wouldn't you think?

I'm fairly sure the scenario you described is not terribly likely to happen to me. I'm fairly sure it's not likely to happen to you or anyone you or I know, either. If I'm mistaken, I'll let you know when it happens.

MrPudding wrote: »

Killing your definition of someone that is...

To be fair (and notwithstanding your notions of standard avoidance of actually answering anything) I said early on that those who advocate liberalising Paraguays abortion regime don't consider abortion to be killing anyone; my inclination is to think that many in Paraguay probably do, hence the existing legislation.

MrPudding wrote: »

So what are your thoughts on the case a few years ago where the 9 year old rape victim pregnant with twins was given an abortion. Do you think she should have been forced to continue the pregnancy which would undoubtedly have had serious consequences for her health, assuming she even survived?

I think had her life not been at risk her children should not have been aborted. I think you probably know that already, but to save you the effort of salaciously throwing up lots of instances where someone is suffering truly dreadful circumstances and our hearts break for their various plights; I don't think any dreadful circumstance justifies the taking of another persons life (unless that person has deliberately chosen to cause that dreadful circumstance, which is not a provisio likely to apply to a foetus).

MrPudding wrote: »

I guess you will not give a straight answer for this either, which really is getting quite tiresome.

In fairness, I never said I was here to be interrogated. I'm altogether happy to participate in the discussion, but please don't imagine I feel in some way obligated to leap through hypothetical hoops just so you can feel you've made some point.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Why would I lobby? I'm all for choice,

Why would they lobby? They've never suggested they're interested in doing so.

Cabaal wrote: »

They are the people that want rape victims to give birth to rapists baby's, they are the one's that claim every fetus is equal to the mothers life and they celebrate Ireland being abortion free. :rolleyes:

Sooo.... not their idea still?

Cabaal wrote: »

The end of the day they can claim all they want but they are just happy to export Ireland's problems rather then deal with them in Ireland, utterly pathetic.

And... still not their idea?

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's a pretty straightfoward exercise in case analysis. If someone is very keen on the criminalisation of abortion, it's reasonable to ask how they feel about the rather notable profusion of "outsourcing" of Irish abortions.

Notwithstanding the notions of someones who are 'very keen on the criminalisation of abortion' (as opposed to someones who are very keen on preserving the lives of others) I did ask if anyone was aware of these organisations offering this argument; but the general opinion seems to be they're not. That they're not because they're afraid they won't be entertained seems rather unlikely; they're aware they're equally unlikely to be entertained on other subjects but they proceed anyway. That they're not because they realise it's ridiculous seems equally unlikely; if they realise it's ridiculous they wouldn't want to offer the argument in the first place. Because they'd find it to be a ridiculous argument.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Especially as the law on the topic has swung far enough from the "theocratic" to the "muddled if not outright hypocritical" that not only must there be no law of extraterritorial or inchoate offences on the subject, the constitution has to go out of its way to preclude such. You might once have been surprised that people find this remarkable, but I'd have thought you'd had a good while to get used to it by now.

Well, I'm not so sure the law has really swung at all; we've updated the Constitution to ensure one persons right to life can't infringe another's right to travel, and that was a fairly pragmatic amendment.
There can be no doubt that asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction to attempt to extend the States Constitutional obligation beyond the borders of the State ( a dubious notion itself, there's no basis for thinking that the State is obliged by the Constitution to defend and vindicate the right to life of every unborn person in the world) would result in impracticable legislation; ditto the notion of determining inchoate offenses. Perhaps if one day the rest of Europe takes the same view of abortion as it does of murder a workable framework could be created, but it doesn't.

No, what I find remarkable is the fact that those who are pro-choice are still putting forward nonsensical arguments on behalf of those who are pro-life, and then attempting to deride their lack of commitment in following through on the nonsense.

Dan_Solo

alaimacerc wrote: »

And wrong. As I already pointed out.

Here, have a link.

The problem with your link is that it doesn't mention anything that's said in the amendment. The amendment doesn't say anything at all about exemption from prosecution for an extraterritorial abortion. It says you have freedom to travel, not that you are exempt from prosecution if you do.
Not that I can find any record of an extraterrorial abortion prosecution in Ireland anyway, which I presume is why they either forgot or didn't bother to mention it at all in the amendment (but yes, definitely should have if that's what they meant).

kylith

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think so; Kyliths question was worded in such as way as to suggest (well.. state in fact, not suggest) that it was inhuman to consider killing someone as worse than raping someone. My reply was not that there was anything wrong with suggesting it, but that someone who is prepared to choose to either perform an abortion at 12 weeks or rape a 12 year old is closer to inhuman than someone who won't.

My question was worded to suggest that a foetus at 12 weeks gestation, which does not have a functioning brain, nervous system, eyes, ears, lungs, or anything that would be necessary to consider it a 'person' other than human DNA is not a person. And also worded to suggest that terminating said brainless, nerveless, earless, eyeless, lungless foetus, is nowhere near as bad as raping an actual, living, functioning, independently viable human female with a brain, thoughts, emotions, and experiences.

That fact that you can equate a human female with a foetus is shocking to me. As is the fact that someone could ever consider the termination of an insensible foetus as worse than the brutal rape of a woman.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

There can be no doubt that asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction to attempt to extend the States Constitutional obligation beyond the borders of the State ( a dubious notion itself, there's no basis for thinking that the State is obliged by the Constitution to defend and vindicate the right to life of every unborn person in the world)

It doesn't claim that though, only extraterritorial jurisdiction on Irish citizens. Almost equally unworkable yes, but seldom invoked in any case it appears.

robindch

New thread created, posts moved over. The universe continues, unabated.

.

Dan_Solo

Daith wrote: »

Does the fetus have less rights now that the mother is in the UK?

It gives women a constitutional right to travel with the full knowledge they are availing of services which are illegal in Ireland.

But as I stated above, it does not indemnify them from prosecution. Therefore it technically doesn't alter the status of the foetus at all, as extraterritorial prosecution is still applicable, though never enacted apparently.

Edit: sorry there, I'm not sure if I responded to something you've retracted or we have some weirdness to to the thread moving.

Dan_Solo

robindch wrote: »

(placeholder)

May I ask why trois? Ou est part deux?

lazygal

Dan_Solo wrote: »

May I why trois? Ou est part deux?

The other thread was part deux.

robindch

Dan_Solo wrote: »

May I why trois? Ou est part deux?

Un, deux, trois sont ici:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056738261
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056990082
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057495102

Mr. CooL ICE

Last thread was aborted.



14 years for robindch

Nodin

Dan_Solo wrote: »

May I why trois? Ou est part deux?

I knew it'd happen once they let the Syrians in....we're speakin the Arab now.

Nicolas Cage

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Last thread was aborted.
14 years for robindch

robindch was out of the country at the time so it's grand.

Absolam

kylith wrote: »

My question was worded to suggest that a foetus at 12 weeks gestation, which does not have a functioning brain, nervous system, eyes, ears, lungs, or anything that would be necessary to consider it a 'person' other than human DNA is not a person. .

Can you point out which words suggested that?

kylith wrote: »

And also worded to suggest that terminating said brainless, nerveless, earless, eyeless, lungless foetus, is nowhere near as bad as raping an actual, living, functioning, independently viable human female with a brain, thoughts, emotions, and experiences.

I think I got where you said that prefering to rape a 12 year old over performing an abortion at 12 weeks is inhuman. I think you must have left out the words you intended to suggest the hyperbole?

kylith wrote: »

That fact that you can equate a human female with a foetus is shocking to me. As is the fact that someone could ever consider the termination of an insensible foetus as worse than the brutal rape of a woman.

The fact that you would choose to either rape someone or to kill someone is shocking to me. I guess we all have different point of view.

Kev W

Dan_Solo wrote: »

May I why trois? Ou est part deux?

Such a missed opportunity not calling it "Third Trimester".

robdonn

Kev W wrote: »

Such a missed opportunity not calling it "Third Trimester".

If we did that then we would be legally obliged to continue unless the thread became a threat to our lives.

wench

Kev W wrote: »

Such a missed opportunity not calling it "Third Trimester".

That would imply we could reach a conclusion in the next 10,000 posts!

robdonn

wench wrote: »

That would imply we could reach a conclusion in the next 10,000 posts!

After the next 10,000 posts the next thread will have to be called "Abortion Discussion, 40+"

robindch

A bunch of posts have been moved over from the Hazards of Belief thread.

#busyaroundheretoday

The Black Oil

Did a double take when I saw this. Jump into the timeline to read more.

https://twitter.com/carolmhunt/status/643914451691937792

https://twitter.com/carolmhunt/status/644449228434108416

Dan_Solo

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us/planned-parenthood-government-funding.html?_r=0
HFS. Moronic.

Hotblack Desiato

Paywall link. ah, viewable if you let it set a cookie.

WASHINGTON — House Republicans vented their rage against Planned Parenthood on Friday, voting to block all federal financing for the organization, which they accused of profiting from the sale of aborted fetuses for medical research. It was unclear, however, if the vote would mollify conservative lawmakers who have threatened to force a government shutdown over the abortion issue.

:rolleyes:

Neither the Planned Parenthood bill, which passed 241 to 187, nor a second anti-abortion measure approved on Friday has any chance of becoming law because of opposition from Senate Democrats and President Obama.

Just like trying to repeal Obamacare, they are wasting their time on pointless crap instead of governing their country. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Nodin

Once again, the can of worms bobs to the surface.....

"Ms Y, the asylum seeker who last year unsuccessfully sought an abortion after arriving in Ireland pregnant as a result of an alleged rape, will issue personal injury proceeding against 11 named respondents “in coming weeks”.
Miss Y’s solicitor, Caoimhe Haughey, has also been invited to comment on a draft of the independent review of the HSE’s July 2014 decision, to seek a High Court order to forcibly hydrate Miss Y, who was on hunger and thirst strike at the time.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ms-y-to-sue-11-respondents-over-abortion-refusal-1.2357456

There's a new Breda O'Brien article on there somewhere about abortion as well. Can't face it meself tbh.

Cabaal

Can't say I blame her for taking a case, hope she wins it

222233

Nodin wrote: »

Once again, the can of worms bobs to the surface.....

"Ms Y, the asylum seeker who last year unsuccessfully sought an abortion after arriving in Ireland pregnant as a result of an alleged rape, will issue personal injury proceeding against 11 named respondents “in coming weeks”.
Miss Y’s solicitor, Caoimhe Haughey, has also been invited to comment on a draft of the independent review of the HSE’s July 2014 decision, to seek a High Court order to forcibly hydrate Miss Y, who was on hunger and thirst strike at the time.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ms-y-to-sue-11-respondents-over-abortion-refusal-1.2357456

There's a new Breda O'Brien article on there somewhere about abortion as well. Can't face it meself tbh.

Although this will never compensate or make up for what this girl went through in our "lovely" country I hope she gets the winning end of this one.

lazygal

Here's a handy and concise summary of Breda yesterday: I know best. Women talk to me about abortion which is fierce useful for my anecdotes as data approach to my columns. References to dead refugee child for some reason. Abortion always murder. I know best, so just follow my lead.

Nodin

lazygal wrote: »

Here's a handy and concise summary of Breda yesterday: I know best. Women talk to me about abortion which is fierce useful for my anecdotes as data approach to my columns. References to dead refugee child for some reason. Abortion always murder. I know best, so just follow my lead.

Thank you for suffering on my behalf. I hope you didn't puke on anything that's difficult to clean.

lazygal

Nodin wrote: »

Thank you for suffering on my behalf. I hope you didn't puke on anything that's difficult to clean.

My eyes did feel a little sore from rolling so much.

Nodin

Cabaal wrote: »

Can't say I blame her for taking a case, hope she wins it

There is always the possibility - overall - that where decency and compassion fail, fear of a feckin huge payout will triumph. Sad, but there ye go.

lazygal

Will the people and organizations involved in her "care" be named?

PopePalpatine

I'd hazard a guess "womenhurt.ie" is one of them.

MrPudding

lazygal wrote: »

Will the people and organizations involved in her "care" be named?

They should be a matter of public record. Justice must be done and be seen to be done, after all.

MrP

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Will the people and organizations involved in her "care" be named?

MrPudding wrote: »

They should be a matter of public record. Justice must be done and be seen to be done, after all.

Aren't the organisations already a matter of public record? As for people... perhaps it would be prudent to see if there's any evidence of wrongdoing by anyone before they're subjected to a witch hunt?

krankykitty

lazygal wrote: »

Here's a handy and concise summary of Breda yesterday: I know best. Women talk to me about abortion which is fierce useful for my anecdotes as data approach to my columns. References to dead refugee child for some reason. Abortion always murder. I know best, so just follow my lead.

What woman in her right mind would talk to Breda about her abortion.. Why would you :eek:
Its like right, I had an abortion and want to talk about it, lets find the most judgemental person on the topic I can

Dan_Solo

Though deemed entitled to an abortion under the terms of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, she did not receive one.

If she didn't receive the appropriate medical care mandated by Irish law then that's definite malpractice. Maybe when doctors start to lose their jobs (which will be never) they might take notice.

The question over whether it was appropriate to seek an order to forcibly hydrate her when she was not mentally impaired was raised subsequently.

Not sure how this works. She was diagnosed as suicidal but not mentally impaired? That's admitting that being suicidal is an appropriate response to the "care" she received from the HSE!

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If she didn't receive the appropriate medical care mandated by Irish law then that's definite malpractice.

You'd expect, wouldn't you?
Remember all that fuss at the time about whether she'd had a termination of pregnancy or not, as per the act? The Act doesn't actually say the word abortion, but otoh, it doesn't say termination either.
IIRC it says a medical procedure (ending in) the death of the baby. Which is not what happened.

So I'd say the HSE are quite likely hoist on their own petard there. But they are so brazen about rigging investigations that it's hard to be sure there won't be some carpet around to sweep it all under all the same.

Not sure how this works. She was diagnosed as suicidal but not mentally impaired? That's admitting that being suicidal is an appropriate response to the "care" she received from the HSE!

That seems to be about the height of it, doesn't it?

Again, a problem of their own making that's swung round and hit them square in the face, because she had to be mentally competent for her "consent" for the C-section to have any value. So they can't also claim that she was on hunger/thirst strike because the balance of her mind was disturbed (the usual justification for force feeding anorexics for example).

But then, anorexics don't actually want to die, they just don't believe they will. Whereas Miss Y did, or at least, had chosen death as preferable to remaining pregnant. Which IMO is a valid choice in the circumstances.

I don't see how they have a leg to stand on, to be perfectly frank.