Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

clocks

oscarBravo wrote: »

Here's a crazy thought: the two aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe we should aim to reduce child rape, while also ensuring that victims of child rape don't have the trauma compounded by unwanted pregnancy.

Too rational?

Teenage mothers almost never report trauma and love their children deeply throughout their lives. Radical idea: How about not punishing an innocent child's life for the crime of a third party ?

lazygal

clocks wrote: »

Teenage mothers almost never report trauma and love their children deeply throughout their lives. Radical idea: How about not punishing an innocent child's life for the crime of a third party ?

Radical idea: how about trusting women like me with their own reproductive rights and the ability to make their own decisions?

ETA: In myriad circumstances, having an abortion would be my only choice and no amount of 'supports' or anecdotes about abortion hurting women who regret their abortions or talk about innocent children would sway me. I'm able to afford an abortion, and can access one with not a great amount of inconvenience. Nothing those who want abortion banned can say would stop the wealthy like me accessing abortion.

Absolam

frag420 wrote: »

Just came across this......Russian women who decide to sell their babies instead of having an abortion will receive $3,700 under a proposed new law. Officials are hoping the measure, which was put forward by a MP for the country's nationalist party, will boost the country's birth rate and give children 'a chance to live'. Those of you who are anti choice/abortion, what are your thoughts? Would you be happy if the Irish government were to implement something similar?

The Irish government already pays mothers; they don't even have to sell the babies, they only have to keep them and they get the money

volchitsa

clocks wrote: »

Teenage mothers almost never report trauma and love their children deeply throughout their lives. Radical idea: How about not punishing an innocent child's life for the crime of a third party ?

How about the pregnant child? Does she get the right not to be further punished for the crime against her, or is she no longer innocent, once she's been defiled by having had sex, albeit involuntarily?

The Randy Riverbeast

In May to deny children their parents and to sell them was wrong, now its a great idea.

inocybe

Absolam wrote: »

The Irish government already pays mothers; they don't even have to sell the babies, they only have to keep them and they get the money

please do tell us the name of the payment payable to mothers

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

It must be soul-destroying for them to read about women flaunting their abortions.

Women flaunting their abortions.... pray tell, how do they do this?

Absolam

inocybe wrote: »

please do tell us the name of the payment payable to mothers

It's called Child Benefit; Child Benefit (previously known as Children's Allowance) is payable to the parents or guardians (whilst a mother will always be a parent, a father may not necessarily always be registered as a parent, or guardian) of children under 16 years of age, or under 18 years of age if the child is in full-time education. Or as the Operational Guidelines on Welfare.ie say "Child Benefit is a payment to parents (usually the mother) for the support of their children. It is paid monthly in respect of each qualified child. There are no PRSI conditions and it is not means tested or taxable."

Since I didn't say it's payable to mothers, but paid to mothers, I'm quite happy to stipulate it may be paid to fathers (or chosen nominitive of guardian) too... and happy to note discrimination against fathers isn't quite as bad as it used to be either . But in the absence of statistics to the contrary, I think by and large those who are paid Child Benefit are in fact mothers...

Cabaal

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

In May to deny children their parents and to sell them was wrong, now its a great idea.

Funny though is that currently gay couples in Ireland can't buy babies but yet here we have frosty supporting the idea of gay couples being able to buy babies in Ireland.

Frosty is happy to turn babies into a commodity that can be bought and sold. We did that previously in Ireland and look how that turned out.....although the church did make a nice amount of money out of it.

Lingua Franca

frag420 wrote: »

Just came across this......


Russian women who decide to sell their babies instead of having an abortion will receive $3,700 under a proposed new law.
Officials are hoping the measure, which was put forward by a MP for the country's nationalist party, will boost the country's birth rate and give children 'a chance to live'.

Doesn't Russia have a huge problem with orphans and homeless youth already? I remember when they banned outside adoptions (after Americans were sending them back unaccompanied) hearing that there were literally hundreds of thousands of children in Russian state care, most of whom have living parents who just didn't want them.

I wonder where all the "plenty of prospective parents" are right now.

robindch

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Doesn't Russia have a huge problem with orphans and homeless youth already?

Russia is beset with problems almost beyond number - homeless and orphaned kids being one of them, though the problem is less serious than it used to be fifteen/twenty years back when one could see drug-addicted kids on the major streets of major cities. State-supplied statistics are unreliable on most topics which are understood to reflect upon national prestige.

Ukraine has a similar problem and while it was getting better up to two years ago, it's deteriorated since Russia invaded and pushed something between one and two million people from the east of the country into a peculiar half-life as hidden migrants within their own borders. There are rumours in Ukraine that kids in orphanages are at risk of sale or rent, and since the 50% collapse of the value of the Russian rouble, it's likely that kids in orphanages are at similar risk in Putin's Russia. Estimates for the number of kids in Russian orphanages range from 85,000 (Russian Education and Science Ministry), 165,000 (CNN), 300,000 (BBC) to 600,000 (RFERL) - these figures may or may not include estimates for itinerant kids who are outside the official orphanage system, which for the most part, is a fairly grim place.

The Russian ban on adoptions from orphanages into the US was instituted in 2013 and it's known as the Dima Yakovlev Law, named for a kid who died after his adoptive US parents left him in an unventilated car. The DYL was also instituted in response to the US's passing of the Magnitsky Act which provided for US sanctions against nominated individuals whom the US held responsible for the death of Sergei Magnitsky, an anti-corruption lawyer working for Bill Browder, a US citizen who ran Russia's most successful investment agency up until the point when the Kremlin deemed him a "threat to national security" and denied him entry to the country and attempted to sequester the assets which he held in the country. Browder's book on his involvement in Eastern Europe and Russia specifically, leading up to Magnitsky's death, Red Notice is reported to be an excellent read.

PopePalpatine

Maria Steen of the Ionanists says she favours prosecution of women who have abortions in some (undetermined) circumstances: http://www.thejournal.ie/iona-abortion-2709435-Apr2016/

Cabaal

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/rt%C3%A9-told-us-our-abortion-film-lacked-balance-1.2602308

‘RTÉ told us our abortion film lacked balance’
The maker of a 1994 documentary about three Irish women’s abortion stories says some in RTÉ were worried that the women ‘didn’t show enough remorse’

Interesting reading, really shows how they didn't wish to put a face and name to the women who wanted/had abortions. This changed after Halappanavar's death.

aloyisious

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Maria Steen of the Ionanists says she favours prosecution of women who have abortions in some (undetermined) circumstances: http://www.thejournal.ie/iona-abortion-2709435-Apr2016/

Maria may be right on the bit about no prosecution of women having abortions, not so in the case of persons doing the deed though. Our court records list Mamie Cadden as sentenced to death in 1957 for carrying out an abortion.

Lingua Franca

Last month Dr Ruth Cullen, a spokesperson for the Pro-Life Campaign, told us:
Pro-life supporters have always sought to ensure that the abortionist, not the woman having the abortion, be pursued over illegal abortions.

She should have a word with Bernie Smyth of Precious Life, then, who has written to the DPP in an attempt to get this woman resentenced to life. Her social media pages are full of her supporters baying to have a young mother sent to jail for 14 years.

This, by the way, is some recent social media postings from Bernadette Smyth's second in command in Precious Life, and who has convictions for harrassing and assaulting women.

http://imgur.com/Z6hc8gy

PopePalpatine

Lingua Franca wrote: »

She should have a word with Bernie Smyth of Precious Life, then, who has written to the DPP in an attempt to get this woman resentenced to life. Her social media pages are full of her supporters baying to have a young mother sent to jail for 14 years.

This, by the way, is some recent social media postings from Bernadette Smyth's second in command in Precious Life, and who has convictions for harrassing and assaulting women.

Your link was broken.

Lingua Franca

Thanks Pope Palpatine! What had gone wrong? I couldn't figure it out myself.

Also, my mistake in saying that they're recent postings. I only saw the screenshot recently myself.

PopePalpatine

Just right click on the image you want to post and select "Copy image address" in the drop-down menu that appears. If the page shows anything other than the image you want, don't copy the URL in the address bar.

Lingua Franca

I downloaded the image from where I found it and uploaded it to imgur myself and then took the url from there. I've done this many times before, this is the first time I've had a problem with it. (Sorry for going off topic, everyone)

aloyisious

Quite a extra-ordinary document. The psychic powers of these alleged satanic wizards must be strong. I suppose Alicia's entry onto the nominal rolls of the Catholic Church may be a sign that the church has advanced in thinking, no more middle-ages handling of wizards.

aloyisious

I saw this on a F/B page and thought it was a wind-up, but double-checked by googling on it.. It seem's to be genuine. https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi8pZmMvozMAhXDjw8KHSEFDcAQqQIIIjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishlegal.com%2F4015%2Fgreens-to-propose-offence-for-sex-partners-of-women-who-procure-abortions%2F&usg=AFQjCNFetken7q4M4dc0eCQMFypi6zNxUA&bvm=bv.119408272,d.ZWU

One eyed Jack

aloyisious wrote: »

I saw this on a F/B page and thought it was a wind-up, but double-checked by googling on it.. It seem's to be genuine. https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi8pZmMvozMAhXDjw8KHSEFDcAQqQIIIjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishlegal.com%2F4015%2Fgreens-to-propose-offence-for-sex-partners-of-women-who-procure-abortions%2F&usg=AFQjCNFetken7q4M4dc0eCQMFypi6zNxUA&bvm=bv.119408272,d.ZWU

Methinks you've been Poe'd aloysius:

Ms Bailey described the proposed offence as follows:

“Any male who impregnates a female knowing that any pregnancy that may result is unwanted or being reckless as to whether any such pregnancy may result, and the woman chooses to seek to end the pregnancy, shall be guilty of felony and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be imprisoned for life [or to be fined or both].”

She added: “We need to seriously address the issue of abortion. It isn’t going to go away. If other parties continue to block legislative reform, then this alternative approach would bring about equality between men and women, making men equally responsible.

“Northern Ireland has a duty under section 75 to address equality and current legislation directly discriminates against the woman only. This proposal is a way of focusing minds around the issue.

“There is nothing inherently wrong in requiring dual responsibility and if people think this is unfair then the current law is unfair too and should be changed.

“The Offences Against the Persons Act, as currently drafted, effectively means that unless a woman wants to actually get pregnant (ie a wanted pregnancy) then she should exercise appropriate contraceptive choices. This proposed law just means men should do the same.

The whole article should've given it away really. She's trying to draw attention to the issue of abortion with a proposal so bizarre that people would sit up and take notice. Seems to have worked!


Her actual stance:


http://www.greenpartyni.org/sensationalist-reporting-over-abortion-needs-to-stop-now/

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Methinks you've been Poe'd aloysius:


The whole article should've given it away really. She's trying to draw attention to the issue of abortion with a proposal so bizarre that people would sit up and take notice. Seems to have worked!

Her actual stance:

http://www.greenpartyni.org/sensationalist-reporting-over-abortion-needs-to-stop-now/

So was the satanic wizard one a wind-up too? (TBF, I'd never heard that one either, and I suspected it might be a fake but haven't looked it up)

If it isn't a wind-up, then a proposed joint responsibility law would be fairly mundane and believable alongside "all abortions are dedicated to Satan" craziness!

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The whole article should've given it away really. She's trying to draw attention to the issue of abortion with a proposal so bizarre that people would sit up and take notice. Seems to have worked!

Her actual stance:

http://www.greenpartyni.org/sensationalist-reporting-over-abortion-needs-to-stop-now/

Indeed, its clearly evident what the plan is.
Still, I'd support such a change, just because it would force the abortion issue to be properly dealt with because men won't want to be charged.

As they say, if men could get pregnant abortions would be legal in Ireland tomorrow.

At the end of the day if you are going to hold a women responsible for her body and what she does with it, men should be held responsible to.

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

Indeed, its clearly evident what the plan is.
Still, I'd support such a change, just because it would force the abortion issue to be properly dealt with because men won't want to be charged.

As they say, if men could get pregnant abortions would be legal in Ireland tomorrow.

At the end of the day if you are going to hold a women responsible for her body and what she does with it, men should be held responsible to.

I've been trying to think how to put this, because the proposal itself is so bizarre that I think Ms. Bailey knows all too well it could never become a reality. What would actually be likely to happen if anyone were to take this proposal seriously, is that we wouldn't be talking about abortion any more, we'd be talking about allowing men to abdicate their responsibility towards their children.

This publicity stunt could have backfired spectacularly, and I don't think it's a good idea to argue that men should be constrained in an effort to achieve 'gender equality' because women are denied abortion.

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've been trying to think how to put this, because the proposal itself is so bizarre that I think Ms. Bailey knows all too well it could never become a reality. What would actually be likely to happen if anyone were to take this proposal seriously, is that we wouldn't be talking about abortion any more, we'd be talking about allowing men to abdicate their responsibility towards their children.

This publicity stunt could have backfired spectacularly, and I don't think it's a good idea to argue that men should be constrained in an effort to achieve 'gender equality' because women are denied abortion.

To be fair you know, I know and the Greens know it would never be taken seriously and has zip chances of getting passed into law.

The idea was clearly only to create a talking point and show the up the current issues in addition to the recent to the silly charges against women.

If you are going to hold women responsible for carrying through on a pregnancy its only right you also hold the co-creator of the pregnancy. Of course this won't happen as they'd be uproar if a man was held responsible.

In addition, the housemates of the women charges in the North should also be charged as they failed to report a crime they knew would happen. (in this case in the eyes of pro-life people...a murder).

Loafing Oaf

It'll be interesting how 'mainstream' pro-life groups respond if the woman accused of obtaining abortion pills for her daughter is convicted. Their line has always been "we don't want to see women jailed for inducing their own abortions, it's those facilitating it we're after". Now surely the accused mother falls into the latter category, but I doubt the idea of jailing her would go down any better with the average joe in NI than jailing the woman in the 'housemates' case would have...

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

To be fair you know, I know and the Greens know it would never be taken seriously and has zip chances of getting passed into law.

The idea was clearly only to create a talking point and show the up the current issues in addition to the recent to the silly charges against women.

If you are going to hold women responsible for carrying through on a pregnancy its only right you also hold the co-creator of the pregnancy. Of course this won't happen as they'd be uproar if a man was held responsible.

That's why I say it could have backfired, because then men would be entitled to rights over the foetus within the woman as they would be charged with the same responsibility for the creation of the pregnancy. There would be less likely to be any rollback on abortion, and more likely to introduce the bizarre law (and they'd succeed too if your earlier support is anything to go by!).

In addition, the housemates of the women charges in the North should also be charged as they failed to report a crime they knew would happen. (in this case in the eyes of pro-life people...a murder).

Sounds very thought crimey, I'm not sure there's anything on the books that they could be charged with? (that's even if we were to view inducing a miscarriage as murder!).

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's why I say it could have backfired,

Except it never would have,
Claiming it "could" have backfired is like claiming I "could" be president of the USA.
There was is zero chance of it happening and was always the case, your suggestions of otherwise are pretty funny as nobody would want to see men being charged with anything...especially the majority male government/party's..

Sounds very thought crimey, I'm not sure there's anything on the books that they could be charged with? (that's even if we were to view inducing a miscarriage as murder!).

So if you knew somebody planned on murdering someone you wouldn't report it or even think about reporting it?

How is the "murder" of a fetus any different? If you claim the fetus is equal to that of a women in life then a murder is a murder regardless of size of it surely?

In the case of the flatmates, they not only knew the "murder" happened but waited a further 7 days before reporting it to the police.

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

Except it never would have,
Claiming it "could" have backfired is like claiming I "could" be president of the USA.
There was is zero chance of it happening and was always the case, your suggestions of otherwise are pretty funny as nobody would want to see men being charged with anything...especially the majority male government/party's..

While there are numerous reasons to suggest that you may never become President of the USA, there really aren't that many to suggest that there is zero chance of Ms. Baileys proposal gaining popular support among political circles. Even myself I was thinking that there would be unlikely to be all that much public uproar from men as we don't appear to support each other in the same way as women do. Among the majority male governments for example, using your logic, one would think they would have furthered the various issues that affect men, but they've done squat really. If you look back on the history of for example what was known as the tender years doctrine, even though it was done away with in principle, it's still very much in practice today. Zero chance? I wouldn't be too sure.

So if you knew somebody planned on murdering someone you wouldn't report it or even think about reporting it?

How is the "murder" of a fetus any different? If you claim the fetus is equal to that of a women in life then a murder is a murder regardless of size of it surely?

Of course I'd think about it, and it would depend upon the circumstances, but if we were talking about a woman seeking an abortion, my first thought has always been "we'll be having that out of there asap!". Of course I wouldn't report it.

I also support an amendment to the Constitution that would repeal the 8th and would allow the introduction of legislation to allow for abortion without any term limits btw.

In the case of the flatmates, they not only knew the "murder" happened but waited a further 7 days before reporting it to the police.

And they were under no legal obligation to report their suspicion of a crime having been committed. Morally, well, that's a different thing entirely, and would have been down to their own morals as to whether or not to report their suspicions of a crime having been committed to the police.