Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Cabaal

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's the sort of thing that happens when women are denied better options.

The single strongest argument in favour of making abortions freely, safely and legally available is that women who are desperate to end a pregnancy will find a way to do so. As scary as the prospect of buying drugs on the Internet may be, it's somewhat better than a coathanger.

Indeed,
I believe this is why abortion laws changed in the UK, deaths caused by desperate women using back street abortions.

We've seen that when it comes to abortions it appears to be only the death of women that causes the issue to be properly debated, up until then too many people are happy to put a fetus above the life of a women.

volchitsa

MrPudding wrote: »

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I am not sure I agree with your analysis. The link you have given is interesting, but I am not sure it is 100% applicable to what we are talking about. That particular case, of the guy driving over the policeman's foot, is generally used to explain the temporal connection between actus reus and mens rea. It is saying that thinking about murdering someone, having the guilty mind is not sufficient to make one guilty of murder, without the actus reus. That particular page is in an introduction to criminal law and is simply explaining, in basic and introductory terms, that for most criminal acts actus reus and mens rea are both required for there to be an offence.

Inchoate offence are different. I believe it is generally accepted that acts that are "more than merely preparatory" are what is required for there to be an offence. I think "close to completion" sets the bar a little too high. Now, what more than merely preparatory is suitably vague, and of course there is little guidance as to what was meant. I think it is fair to say that things are suitably vague to suggest that it is not beyond the realms of possibility to make out a reasonable case for attempted murder when a person has researched the requirements, booked and paid for the murder, made the required travel plans, all of which could be said to be merely preparatory, and then attempted to get on the plane. Getting on the plane could be argued to be more than merely preparatory, to use the phrase from Osborn in 1919, they are "on the job".

Do I think it is a guaranteed conviction? No. But I do believe there is a argument to be made. Yes. Of course, I don't actually believe abortion is murder, either morally or legally. The point I am making in all this is that there are plenty of people that believe abortion is murder and it should be stopped. I believe, if abortion is considered to be murder*, that there is an argument to be made for travelling for an abortion to be considered attempted murder. Clearly you disagree, surely the courts would have to decide? And the point is this, why aren't those who are trying to stop abortions calling for abortions to be considered murder and to prevent women from travelling, possibly by stopping them and charging them with attempted murder?

Come on, we are talking about the live of innocent children here... Even if it is unlikely to work should it not be attempted?


* Clearly it would require a redefinition of murder as, which you point out yourself, abortion is not legally murder. I also find this interesting. You appear to consider that a foetus is a human, yet you seem to have no issue with them being killed not being classified as murder.

Ref travelling to commit a crime, the woman who was shopped to the police by the travel agent with whom she tried to book a trip to Switzerland to accompany her friend to die there certainly seemed to have been considered as having planned a crime. She didn't even travel in the end, and yet was still tried in court for her attempt.

Cabaal

volchitsa wrote: »

Ref travelling to commit a crime, the woman who was shopped to the police by the travel agent with whom she tried to book a trip to Switzerland to accompany her friend to die there certainly seemed to have been considered as having planned a crime. She didn't even travel in the end, and yet was still tried in court for her attempt.

and that case has been discussed in the past but yet its ignored when it comes to the suggestion that if abortion is so wrong why are the "pro-life" groups not asking for travel for abortion to be banned.

There is of course only one reason,
They know it will back fire seriously bad for them, they know it will ultimately result in the issue coming to a head and things changing.

So for now they are happy to claim Ireland is abortion free (its not) and be totally ok with women traveling for abortion.

frostyjacks

Lingua Franca wrote: »

What would you have done to the women who leave their miscarriages in the toilet or a bin, out of curiosity?

I'd name and shame them. Publish a list each week of women who've ordered these pills or travelled to England for an abortion, with their reasons for doing so. Mary had a one night stand, Sinead wants to focus on her career, Aimee wanted a girl instead of a boy etc. A suspended sentence is a joke.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'd name and shame them. Publish a list each week of women who've ordered these pills or travelled to England for an abortion, with their reasons for doing so. Mary had a one night stand, Sinead wants to focus on her career, Aimee wanted a girl instead of a boy etc. A suspended sentence is a joke.

Maybe those on The List could do some sort of community service to atone for their crimes. Like laundry.

Mary was raped, Sinead has two children with special needs and can't cope with more, Aimee has hypermesis and her health is at risk. Sure who cares why a woman has an abortion, the main thing is criminalising them.

oldrnwisr

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'd name and shame them. Publish a list each week of women who've ordered these pills or travelled to England for an abortion, with their reasons for doing so. Mary had a one night stand, Sinead wants to focus on her career, Aimee wanted a girl instead of a boy etc. A suspended sentence is a joke.

Wow. Seriously?

Of course these women are only choosing abortion because it's inconvenient. It would never be that they're choosing abortion because they were raped, because there is a fatal foetal abnormality, because they're underage, because the pregnancy would endanger their ongoing health etc.

I really do hope that this is an attempt at trolling. I shudder to think that I occupy the same planet as someone who sincerely holds views like these. It's a very dark and unfounded view of women.

nozzferrahhtoo

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'd name and shame them. Publish a list each week of women who've ordered these pills or travelled to England for an abortion, with their reasons for doing so. Mary had a one night stand, Sinead wants to focus on her career, Aimee wanted a girl instead of a boy etc. A suspended sentence is a joke.

As others have pointed out your list of motivations for obtaining abortions is likely as inaccurate as it is simply crass.

That said however I would add to their replies to point out that you have failed to even ATTEMPT to establish anything morally wrong with abortion. So what peoples reasons are for having one are irrelevant until you can do that.

Just because YOU might not like a persons reason for doing X, that does not mean X is bad or morally wrong. This is a distinction you would do well to learn.

Either you can argue that abortion is wrong.... therefore the reasons anyone have them becomes irrelevant.... or you can not (and it really seems you can not) in which case the reasons they have them is also irrelevant.

So other than an attempt to get a reaction out of people, it is unclear why the reasons matter or why you bring them up.

Lingua Franca

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'd name and shame them. Publish a list each week of women who've ordered these pills or travelled to England for an abortion, with their reasons for doing so. Mary had a one night stand, Sinead wants to focus on her career, Aimee wanted a girl instead of a boy etc. A suspended sentence is a joke.

I asked about the women who dispose of their miscarriages in toilets and bins. My sister's recent miscarriage mostly went into the bathroom bin on tissues and pads, for example. Would you like to reframe your answer?

frostyjacks

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I asked about the women who dispose of their miscarriages in toilets and bins. My sister's recent miscarriage mostly went into the bathroom bin on tissues and pads, for example. Would you like to reframe your answer?

This is a thread on abortion, not miscarriages.

Lingua Franca

It's discussion around abortion (which these days are mostly forced miscarriages) and it's certainly on topic.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Throwing a baby in a bin like it was a piece of trash; that speaks volumes about the values of the pro-choice people.

What of miscarrying women who don't carefully save the remains to have them disposed of to your liking?

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

This is a thread on abortion, not miscarriages.

Should all miscarriages be investgated to make sure they aren't actually abortions? Should women who fail to report a miscarriage so it can be investigated face being on The List?

PopePalpatine

Came across this on my Twitter feed - William Binchy's aim for the 8th Amendment:

lazygal

We must have the same feed.

I travelled to the UK when I was six weeks' pregnant because I was required to do so by work. I hadn't told anyone apart from my doctor and husband I was pregnant, but at security I was sick and told the personnel there I was pregnant and had jelly with me for hydration (recommended by doctor as it was all I could keep down) and I had to avoid the scanners. Binchy would want a women like me prevented from travelling because while over in the UK I could have had an abortion, or he'd want me to have to travel with some sort of 'proof' I wasn't going to have an abortion, never mind my right to privacy. A scary, scary man.

Neyite

lazygal wrote: »

Should all miscarriages be investgated to make sure they aren't actually abortions? Should women who fail to report a miscarriage so it can be investigated face being on The List?

Probably best. I mean, in most cases, doctors cant confirm what causes a miscarriage, but its probably best to just assume that they were abortions instead. Just in case we miss any.

Can I accuse my neighbour of being a witch having an abortion when it may have been a miscarriage? She seemed to be fine afterwards when I met her in Lidl, no weeping or anything. And I never really liked her anyway.

The Randy Riverbeast

frostyjacks wrote: »

This is a thread on abortion, not miscarriages.

What about spontaneous abortions?

seamus

lazygal wrote: »

Binchy would want a women like me prevented from travelling because while over in the UK I could have had an abortion, or he'd want me to have to travel with some sort of 'proof' I wasn't going to have an abortion, never mind my right to privacy. A scary, scary man.

Don't worry, you'd have no reason to be in the UK anyway, I doubt Binchy would look favourably on a married woman engaging in work outside the home. Preposterous!

lazygal

seamus wrote: »

Don't worry, you'd have no reason to be in the UK anyway, I doubt Binchy would look favourably on a married woman engaging in work outside the home. Preposterous!

True. I'm taking a job a married man could use to support his family.

inocybe

Lingua Franca wrote: »

It's discussion around abortion (which these days are mostly forced miscarriages) and it's certainly on topic.



What of miscarrying women who don't carefully save the remains to have them disposed of to your liking?

+1 I'm one of those women. It's all very well to manipulate people with language like 'throwing the baby in the bin'. What do people think happens to foetal remains in the real world?

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'd name and shame them. Publish a list each week of women who've ordered these pills or travelled to England for an abortion, with their reasons for doing so. Mary had a one night stand, Sinead wants to focus on her career, Aimee wanted a girl instead of a boy etc. A suspended sentence is a joke.

Name and shame them? You are assuming it's something to be ashamed of. I don't care if Mary or Sinead has had an abortion or their reasons why no more than I care what they had for breakfast. What would letting the world know their business achieve. If you find out someone you know had an abortion what difference would that make to you?

Lingua Franca

inocybe wrote: »

+1 I'm one of those women. It's all very well to manipulate people with language like 'throwing the baby in the bin'. What do people think happens to foetal remains in the real world?

I'm also one of those women, but I am pro choice. My sister is not pro choice and yet disposed of her miscarriage in the same way I did. I'm very curious as to what frostyjack thinks of women who aren't pro choice and yet are "Throwing a baby in a bin like it was a piece of trash", because apparently it speaks volumes about them. Surely they too should be on the name and shame list, with speculation about the causes.

ProfessorPlum

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'd name and shame them. Publish a list each week of women who've ordered these pills or travelled to England for an abortion, with their reasons for doing so. Mary had a one night stand, Sinead wants to focus on her career, Aimee wanted a girl instead of a boy etc. A suspended sentence is a joke.

Yourself and that Bernadette Smyth nutjob aren't doing a whole lot to help that 'Love them both' line the pro lifers like to push.

Captain Flaps

Name and shame? To what end? Do you get off on making others miserable?

Cabaal

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/woman-who-reported-housemate-for-buying-abortion-drugs-defends-actions-1.2600585

Woman who reported housemate for buying abortion drugs defends actions

The housemate who reported the woman to police insisted people had to live by the law in Northern Ireland, whether they agreed with it or not.

“I know people may say it’s stupid (the law) and things like that, but it’s still the law, you have to abide by the law that’s here until that changes,” said the woman, who wished to remain anonymous.

“If this (case) even makes it change then fair enough, but if you break the law you have to be punished . . . At the minute it’s the law and if you break the law you have to be punished.”

“A week went by and the guilt of a baby in the bin was eating us up,” she said. “I did want justice for the baby because obviously it wasn’t the wee baby’s fault.”

Cabaal

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Name and shame? To what end? Do you get off on making others miserable?

Yes of course,
Sure don't you know women are filthy shameful creatures when they do stuff you don't agree with and they should be made suffer, thats the viewpoint that many people had for decades in Ireland its the viewpoint frosty continues to share.

No doubt he'd be saying we should be sending them to do laundry if we were in the 1950's

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

You're sounding a bit desperate here yourself, OEJ.

"Let's assume the worst of the woman having had the abortion, despite the fact that she was 19 and had tried and failed to get funds to travel for an abortion, and let's assume the best of the 38 year old woman who reported her to the police because the 19 year-old wasn't upset enough for her liking, and most of all let's not discuss any real life case where we might end up feeling sorry for the woman having the abortion - that would never do at all at all."

That about sums up your post there, afaict. Am I wrong?

Well, yes, completely wrong. This was the first post I made on this particular case when I read the thread in After Hours:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm actually not sure which, or who is worse - the housemates that reported the woman a week later for having induced an abortion, or the clinic that "advised" (and I use that term loosely) her on where to get the pills over the internet to induce an abortion without any kind of medical supervision and support. The actions of whoever advised her were irresponsible, and the actions of her housemates were reprehensible.

I do hope for this woman's sake that she is able to rebuild her life and her anonymity is respected and protected, rather than leaked on social media.

This was the first post I made in this thread about the case (edited):

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not clear at all that they weren't overly concerned, as the article mentions that they agonised over what to do for a week before they went to police. I'm not suggesting what they did was right, but then we have the advantage of hindsight. If I had found the remains in the bin, knowing what had happened, I would likely have a crisis of conscience about what the best thing to do in that situation would be too.

I probably wouldn't go to the police, but then if I were the girl I wouldn't dispose of the remains in a household bin either (I say that now, but at 19 I wasn't thinking like I do now either).

Her flatmates according to the article suggest that she was "blase" about having just had an abortion (and they had discovered the remains in the bin the next day), which contradicts Cabaal's earlier assertion that she was likely in a distressed state. So, if Cabaal can assume that, why would it be unreasonable for her flatmates to expect that she would be in a distressed state, and yet she didn't appear to be in a distressed state?

The fact that she wasn't, coupled with the discovery of the remains in the bin... I'm not sure I'd have been thinking rationally about the right course of action under those circumstances either, and the article doesn't say what age her flatmates are, but since we're all assuming stuff here, it's also reasonable to assume her flatmates were around the same age as she was at the time, and they may have thought they were doing the right thing and made some bad decisions too.

Her flatmates made a bad call IMO, but having thought about it, I condemned their actions on first hearing about the case. Now, I'm not so sure.

Not once, ever, have I ever condemned any woman who has had an abortion, ever! I don't care for her reasons, because I don't believe a woman should ever have to justify herself to anyone else, for any reasons.

I'm also not going to judge her housemates too harshly after having thought about their actions. I think it was a very unfortunate case for all concerned, and I can see where her flatmates were coming from. They made a bad call, they too will have to live with their decision, and the consequences of their decision. I genuinely don't think they should be condemned on social media for their actions either. They're just as human as anyone else, and I can understand their position too. I may not have done what they did under the circumstances, but I can understand now why they did what they did.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not at all. There is a reason we do it. The opinions of the masses can, and many times have been, swayed by a single example case or situation. It gets to people deeper.

People can relate to that better than arguing at a larger or meta scale. Kind of similar to how many people will read a news story of how some old man in inner city dublin tripped over and broke his legs on a pavement.... and feel like this is horrific.... but then on the next news item hear how 1000s of people died in some bloody conflict in the east and act like "meh".

Single examples and single cases can be more accessibly to people, and can provide a useful platform to example and argue a specific argument.

So evidence, reason and data, when it suits you, and anecdotes when it doesn't?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But, unlike your own horrific views of abortion where it should be accessible without any terms, including aborting children a week before birth under the mangled use of the term "Euthanasia"........ many people do have well thought out cut offs about when and how abortions should be performed.... and at some point in the process therefore there is a point where it stops being an entirely private matter.

So how does that square with this then -

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Just because YOU might not like a persons reason for doing X, that does not mean X is bad or morally wrong. This is a distinction you would do well to learn.

Either you can argue that abortion is wrong.... therefore the reasons anyone have them becomes irrelevant.... or you can not (and it really seems you can not) in which case the reasons they have them is also irrelevant.

Contradicting yourself all over the place.


I'm not the only person that holds that view btw, it's a view held by many people, including Hillary Clinton.

MrPudding

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

What about spontaneous abortions?

I think the best bet would be to install networked pregnancy test devices in all toilets. Then, when a pregnancy is detected the police can come, collect the woman, or any females that house (just to be sure), and take them to the pregnancy facility. Once there they could be secured to a bed and supplied with fluids and neutriants intravenously. Of course they would not be allowed any visitors.

Then we just keep them there, for the baby's protection, you understand, until delivery or miscarriage, whichever comes first. If there was a miscarriage we could be reasonably sure it was spontaneous and the woman, unless she was a slut, could be allowed to go home, although it might be necessary for her to maybe do some laundry to pay off her room and board... I'd say we could probably get a religious order to manage the whole thing.



Simples.

MrP

frostyjacks

Lingua Franca wrote: »

It's discussion around abortion (which these days are mostly forced miscarriages) and it's certainly on topic.



What of miscarrying women who don't carefully save the remains to have them disposed of to your liking?

A miscarriage is natural. Abortion is not. What this girl did was grotesque, and I'm surprised the judge didn't send her off for psychiatric evaluation. You'd want to have some kind of mental imbalance to do what she did.

Lingua Franca

You took issue with the means of disposal. "Throwing a baby in a bin like it was a piece of trash; that speaks volumes about the values of the pro-choice people." Most women miscarry at home and dispose of the remains by the same or similar "grotesque" means. Sad but true.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

A miscarriage is natural. Abortion is not. What this girl did was grotesque, and I'm surprised the judge didn't send her off for psychiatric evaluation. You'd want to have some kind of mental imbalance to do what she did.

C sections are not natural and pregnant women regularly have them.