Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

rainbow kirby wrote: »

The 8th overrides your right to informed consent. As soon as you become pregnant in Ireland medical professionals can state that what they are doing is in the best interests of the foetus and they do not have to take your wishes into account at all.

Can you point to an actual hospital document that actually says that, or are you simply making it up based on your opposition to the 8th? Given that patients as far as I know don't have a right to informed consent in the first place; I think it's actually a general rule that medical or surgical procedures may not be carried out without the informed consent of the patient. That rule is based on the fact that if a person carries out medical or surgical procedures without consent, he/she could be charged with the crime of assault; a crime which the right to life of a foetus doesn't obviate.
"Good medical practice in seeking informed consent to treatment" is a good document from the Irish medical council which describes best practice on the subject if you're interested?
I think though, that you may be confusing a right to informed consent with a facility to make medical decisions on your own behalf, which is a trickier subject, since obviously those decisions could harm someone else; the foetus your're carrying. And medical practitioners have to care for both. Like any other decision (like driving drunk) such a decision to wilfully act in a manner causing harm to someone else is going to be one constrained by society.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Also knowing that international standards of care for certain complications may not be followed because they might be considered "abortion". Knowing that you could have your treatment for other conditions stopped because it may affect the foetus, regardless of your choice. Knowing that in a fatal abnormality case that you'll either have to be a walking coffin until the end or pay thousands to leave your country to have a mid-late 2nd trimester termination procedure.
Safety in pregnancy is a hell of a lot more than whether you come out of it alive or not.

I'll agree, internationally standards vary according to whether countries have liberal or restrictive abortion legislation, and terminating the life of the unborn child to preserve the health rather than the life of the mother would be a standard option in countries that allow it, true. Mortality is a common measurement across countries regardless of abortion legislation though, and whether or not one is likely to die I think is a pretty good indicator of safety; I rank it pretty high when I consider the risk in things I do anyway. Is there another standardised indicator of safety in childbearing that you think we should use to judge instead? An objective one, obviously

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not getting haughty nor uppity at all, and haven't done at any stage of this discussion

Except the many places where you have, or you have stormed off and retreated. I can give examples to anyone who wants to contact me off thread that more than prove the point. More. Than. Prove. It.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can point out that the terminology matters

Yes terminology does matter. Because the wrong terminology can give the wrong impression. And emotive terminology can be used to try and manufacture a point where no real point actually exists. Which is why many people against abortion get so upset by the CORRECT use of the term "fetus". Because correct terminology undermines their attempts to humanize the fetus far beyond the level it deserves.

You constantly moan about people calling a fetus when it is a fetus. What your issue is with CORRECT use of terminology does not appear to be clear at all. Not to me and, I quite often suspect, not even to you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not that I'm dodging or running away from anything, but yes, I do ignore your posts for the most part because you

And once again you justify your dodges by personal (and entirely false and manufactured) attacks on the person you are dodging, in a crass but transparent attempt to make it look like your retreat is their issue, not yours.

But the fact is your retreats REALLY have only one cause and that is.....

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then when I come to read something I think might actually be worth discussing, it's so ridiculous an "argument"

.... that you are incapable of actually rebutting a single thing I have said. You just CALL it ridiculous and then toddle off. As if calling it ridiculous actually makes it ridiculous. But it does not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody should have to deal with that level of stupid that tries to argue over "location of the foetus" ffs. It's quite simple:

Yes, making arguments about the location of the fetus IS a very deep level of stupid. But that is EXACTLY my point. Because when people think mere "birth" is a philosophically valid moment to distinguish between "has rights" and "has not rights" then mere location IS all they are differentiating on. You are making my point for me. Ta for that. It is, as you said, just stupid.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your position gives very little regard to the life and welfare of the woman in your "pro-choice" scenario

Nice of you to misrepresent my position so crassly. The reality is however that I give EVERY concern I can to the welfare of women. Just because I do not give the SAME ones as you do, does not mean I give them "little regard".

But I see a big picture where your view is only limited. I see not just the woman. I see another entity who is deserving of rights and protections. And so I am forced to mediate my concern for one, by my concerns for the other. Because I, unlike you, am not blind to the big picture. The well being of one does not 100% trump the well being of another in my world. It is always contextual and inter dependent. I would not want to live in a world where the concern of one can 100% over ride the concern of another such as the abhorrent world you portray. In such a world there would be little reason to not eviscerate one healthy human full of healthy organs to save the life of 10 other people who are in terminal need of those organs.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

which appears to be anything but pro-choice

Only because of your misunderstanding of basic english and the meanings of the word "choice". Because in your massively erroneous understanding of the word "choice" it appears you think that if you put ANY limitation on a choice at all.... then you are not offering a choice at all. Thankfully those of us who actually can use english properly can see past that canard.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

, and more pro-your-choice. As I have always understood the term "pro-choice", it is the position that advocates for a woman's right to have an abortion.

As do I. But I understand it has limitations too. Just like when I am pro free speech, I realize free speech has limitations too. That you can not understand that after it being explained to you numerous times, says a lot.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Using your "location" argument

Take your words out of my mouth thanks. It is not MY location argument. It is the location argument of OTHERS I am rebutting and rubbishing. Because once again the only real difference between a child just before birth and just after birth IS location. I have asked you numerous times what other differences you might be aware of that I have been missing. Guess what? You ran off every time. Every. Time.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

I't hard to imagine that it could be debatable that there actually are any abortions performed on Irish women, given that there are statistics for abortions performed on Irish women, both in Ireland under the POLDPA, and in the UK. What do you think is debatable about it?
You haven't actually said what they've said about Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions, so it's hard to say [/QUOT

Maybe your first question could be answered by you as you have mentioned there are statistics for abortions performed on Irish women, both in Ireland under the POLDPA, and in the UK. As you knew there were statistics available on abortions performed on Irish women - Ireland V UK - I find it debatable as to why you would then seek abortion ratio information Ireland V UK. You did recently tell me that anything posted here was open for debate.

Nice one on trying to slip in POLDPA when you didn't mention it in your original Ireland V UK abortion-ratio question.

Re your; You haven't actually said what they've said about Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions, so it's hard to say, - it's hard to tell if that is a question or a statement from you as there's no ? symbol after it. Can you tell which it is please?.

If you're really curious about what the Iona Institute say's about Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions, here's the official Iona link for you to find the answer....

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiylov0ytbMAhWBqR4KHZ3RDVMQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ionainstitute.ie%2F&usg=AFQjCNEFlP6WKZkcC1XT3pU5_jpAnKvGmA

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Maybe your first question could be answered by you as you have mentioned there are statistics for abortions performed on Irish women, both in Ireland under the POLDPA, and in the UK. As you knew there were statistics available on abortions performed on Irish women - Ireland V UK - I find it debatable as to why you would then seek abortion ratio information Ireland V UK. You did recently tell me that anything posted here was open for debate.

Sorry... I honestly can't answer my first question for you. How can I know what you think is debatable about it if you don't say?

aloyisious wrote: »

Nice one on trying to slip in POLDPA when you didn't mention it in your original Ireland V UK abortion-ratio question.

I think I did....

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your; You haven't actually said what they've said about Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions, so it's hard to say, - it's hard to tell if that is a question or a statement from you as there's no ? symbol after it. Can you tell which it is please?.

It's a statement; you haven't actually said what the Iona Institute have said about Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions, so it's hard to say if they're wrong.

aloyisious wrote: »

If you're really curious about what the Iona Institute say's about Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions, here's the official Iona link for you to find the answer....

Personally I'm not at all, so since you introduced it, can you tell us which bit you're asking whether they're wrong about? And maybe tell us why you can't see for yourself?

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Sorry... I honestly can't answer my first question for you. How can I know what you think is debatable about it if you don't say?

I think I did....
It's a statement; you haven't actually said what the Iona Institute have said about Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions, so it's hard to say if they're wrong.

Personally I'm not at all, so since you introduced it, can you tell us which bit you're asking whether they're wrong about? And maybe tell us why you can't see for yourself?

Re your first question to me,

Re mention of POLDPA, due to edits you made to your post, I regret my inability to know what was in your post when you first posted it.

As for your "so it's hard to say if they're wrong" God forbid that I would ever think that David Quinn and the other people in the Iona Institute could be wrong. :eek:

Re your question "can you tell us which bit you're asking about whether they're wrong about", nice try to insinuate that I think the Institute might be wrong in anything but.....

Seeing as how you're not at all curious about what the Iona Institute say's about Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions , I won't waste your time on it.

Re your request - And maybe tell us why you can't see for yourself? - regretfully I decline to read what the Iona Institute issue, delicate stomach, you know.....

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes terminology does matter. Because the wrong terminology can give the wrong impression. And emotive terminology can be used to try and manufacture a point where no real point actually exists. Which is why many people against abortion get so upset by the CORRECT use of the term "fetus". Because correct terminology undermines their attempts to humanize the fetus far beyond the level it deserves.

You constantly moan about people calling a fetus when it is a fetus. What your issue is with CORRECT use of terminology does not appear to be clear at all. Not to me and, I quite often suspect, not even to you.

Right. So you say all of the above... and then you come out with this:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is the location argument of OTHERS I am rebutting and rubbishing. Because once again the only real difference between a child just before birth and just after birth IS location. I have asked you numerous times what other differences you might be aware of that I have been missing.

So you know exactly what you're doing by calling a foetus a child. That's my issue with your switching terminology on the fly. If you're going to use the term foetus, then the term applies up to the moment before the foetus emerges from the womb. That is the correct terminology in a medical and scientific context.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes, making arguments about the location of the fetus IS a very deep level of stupid. But that is EXACTLY my point. Because when people think mere "birth" is a philosophically valid moment to distinguish between "has rights" and "has not rights" then mere location IS all they are differentiating on. You are making my point for me. Ta for that. It is, as you said, just stupid.

What do you mean by mere "birth"? Of course it's a philosophically valid point upon which to argue whether a foetus has rights that are recognised in law, because that is the arena in which human rights are determined and recognised and conferred - in law, through legally recognised privileges and obligations applicable to human life when it emerges from the womb.

Affording rights and protections to a foetus which means that the rights of the woman carrying the foetus are undermined, is what I object to. That's not just differentiating on location, it's differentiating based upon the rights and protections we afford to human life. The idea of the rights and protections of the foetus being equal to, or even over-riding the rights and protections of the woman who is pregnant with the foetus, makes a mockery of the concept of human rights IMO.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But I see a big picture where your view is only limited. I see not just the woman. I see another entity who is deserving of rights and protections. And so I am forced to mediate my concern for one, by my concerns for the other. Because I, unlike you, am not blind to the big picture. The well being of one does not 100% trump the well being of another in my world. It is always contextual and inter dependent.

You're switching terminology again. Now the foetus is an entity. Now you see it as deserving of rights and protections. I understand that for you that's around the 12-16 week mark, and that's what works for you, grand. But that limit on other women's choices with regard to their reproductive rights, is exactly the antithesis of personal choice.

What works for you in your world suits you, but don't try and pretend you're supporting women who want the right to make personal choices for themselves, when the reality is that you're making choices for them by restricting their reproductive choices with terms and conditions based upon your agreement that the foetus has rights which are protected by the laws of the State.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your first question to me,

Sure; perhaps you'd like to quote what it is you're trying to talk about?

aloyisious wrote: »

Re mention of POLDPA, due to edits you made to your post, I regret my inability to know what was in your post when you first posted it.

You seemed to think you knew what was in it when you posted; a full 30 hours after I edited it. What happened to your memory in the following 3 hours?

aloyisious wrote: »

As for your "so it's hard to say if they're wrong" God forbid that I would ever think that David Quinn and the other people in the Iona Institute could be wrong. :eek:

It's hard to say if anything anybody's said is wrong if you refuse to tell anyone what it was they said that you were referring to. Are you trying to tell us that you assume anything the Iona says is wrong without reading it, simply on principle?

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your question "can you tell us which bit you're asking about whether they're wrong about", nice try to insinuate that I think the Institute might be wrong in anything but.....

Why would I need to insinuate anything? You clearly asked "Can the Iona Institute have got it wrong about Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions?" What exactly do you believe is being insinuated by pointing out that you haven't actually said what the Iona Institute have said about Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions and asking can you tell us which bit of what they say you're asking whether they're wrong about? Especially given that you've now said:

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your request - And maybe tell us why you can't see for yourself? - regretfully I decline to read what the Iona Institute issue, delicate stomach, you know.....

Which seems to indicate that you haven't read what they've said at all, so it's pretty amazing that you're asking other people whether they're wrong about what they've said, when you don't actually yourself know what they've said?

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

Sure; perhaps you'd like to quote what it is you're trying to talk about?
You seemed to think you knew what was in it when you posted; a full 30 hours after I edited it. What happened to your memory in the following 3 hours?
It's hard to say if anything anybody's said is wrong if you refuse to tell anyone what it was they said that you were referring to. Are you trying to tell us that you assume anything the Iona says is wrong without reading it, simply on principle?

Why would I need to insinuate anything? You clearly asked "Can the Iona Institute have got it wrong about Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions?" What exactly do you believe is being insinuated by pointing out that you haven't actually said what the Iona Institute have said about Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions and asking can you tell us which bit of what they say you're asking whether they're wrong about? Especially given that you've now said:

Which seems to indicate that you haven't read what they've said at all, so it's pretty amazing that you're asking other people whether they're wrong about what they've said, when you don't actually yourself know what they've said?

I'm not going to continue this "you said I said" routine with you. I've just realized that it is wasting the page-length of this thread, which is limited. You can continue it at your leisure and pleasure.

aloyisious

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/the-presidency-must-stay-above-the-fray-otherwise-you-rob-it-of-prestige-34710622.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/alison-oconnor/i-agree-with-what-sabina-higgins-said-but-she-shouldnt-have-said-it-399221.html

Two slightly differing opinion-pieces on Sabina expressing her point of view on Irish Women and abortion. Alison agrees with Sabina on the issue but believes she shouldn't have said what she said, as she is the Presidents spouse. David believes Sabina should not have got involved in order for the presidency to stay above the fray, otherwise the presidency would lose it's prestige and become politicized, because she is not merely a private citizen, but the president's wife.

robdonn

aloyisious wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/the-presidency-must-stay-above-the-fray-otherwise-you-rob-it-of-prestige-34710622.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/alison-oconnor/i-agree-with-what-sabina-higgins-said-but-she-shouldnt-have-said-it-399221.html

Two slightly differing opinion-pieces on Sabina expressing her point of view on Irish Women and abortion. Alison agrees with Sabina on the issue but believes she shouldn't have said what she said, as she is the Presidents spouse. David believes Sabina should not have got involved in order for the presidency to stay above the fray, otherwise the presidency would lose it's prestige and become politicized, because she is not merely a private citizen, but the president's wife.

God forbid that my partner ever becomes president, I'd apparently be forced to leave any semblance of individuality at the doorstep of an Arás.

PopePalpatine

aloyisious wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/the-presidency-must-stay-above-the-fray-otherwise-you-rob-it-of-prestige-34710622.html
David believes Sabina should not have got involved in order for the presidency to stay above the fray, otherwise the presidency would lose it's prestige and become politicized, because she is not merely a private citizen, but the president's wife.

That's probably the sticking point for David, seeing as he had no problem with Martin McAleese's whitewash of the Magdalenekazetten.

Cabaal

10 country's in the UN are today formally calling for Ireland to allow abortions in cases of rape, incest and cases of fetal fetal abnormalities.

Can't find link yet, but just on Today FM news

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

10 country's in the UN are today formally calling for Ireland to allow abortions in cases of rape, incest and cases of fetal fetal abnormalities.

Can't find link yet, but just on Today FM news

Given that the UN consists of 193 Member States, I can't see Ireland quaking in their boots any time soon tbh.

robdonn

Cabaal wrote: »

10 country's in the UN are today formally calling for Ireland to allow abortions in cases of rape, incest and cases of fetal fetal abnormalities.

Can't find link yet, but just on Today FM news

Yeah, I'm sure the Irish government will give 2 ****s... 2015

Loafing Oaf

Cabaal wrote: »

10 country's in the UN are today formally calling for Ireland to allow abortions in cases of rape, incest and cases of fetal fetal abnormalities.

Can't find link yet, but just on Today FM news

Here's the link on the Today website:
http://www.todayfm.com/UN-council-calls-for-abortion-rights-in-Ireland

robdonn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Given that the UN consists of 193 Member States, I can't see Ireland quaking in their boots any time soon tbh.

But the UN Human Rights Council is only made of 47 nations... :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

10 country's in the UN are today formally calling for Ireland to allow abortions in cases of rape, incest and cases of fetal fetal abnormalities.

Can't find link yet, but just on Today FM news

robdonn wrote: »

But the UN Human Rights Council is only made of 47 nations... :rolleyes:

Spot the distinction?

Yeah, it helps.



Anyhow at least we're both agreed that it won't make any difference to Ireland's position on abortion. The UN, and even the UNHRC can condemn Ireland all they like, but ultimately it's simply populist posturing.

Atlantis50

The UN Human Rights Council, chaired by Saudi Arabia and including such illustrious members as Qatar, Cuba, Russia and China want Ireland to repeal the 8th Amendment?

How could that grouping have any shred of credibility?

Good cartoon that captures this absurd situation circulating on Twiitter:

The Black Oil

No guilt here at all.

https://twitter.com/AoifeNicUidhir/status/731180856480571393

aloyisious

The Black Oil wrote: »

No guilt here at all.

https://twitter.com/AoifeNicUidhir/status/731180856480571393

Departure lounge area?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm not going to continue this "you said I said" routine with you. I've just realized that it is wasting the page-length of this thread, which is limited. You can continue it at your leisure and pleasure.

Yes, I can understand you saying that's why you'd want to abandon your somewhat abortive foray

Absolam

The Black Oil wrote: »

No guilt here at all. https://twitter.com/AoifeNicUidhir/status/731180856480571393

I wonder if anyone not campaigning to repeal the eight ever found one.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

But the UN Human Rights Council is only made of 47 nations... :rolleyes:

And the Universal Periodic Review is a unique cooperative State driven process, as the UN points out. So not much of a reason for quaking, in fairness. There's no implication in the questions I've seen that Ireland isn't performing it's obligations under the treaties, only that representatives of other States (who oddly enough have less restrictive abortion regimes) would like to see Ireland moving towards a less restrictive abortion regime....

Dick phelan

In fairness the UN shouldn't be listened to it has no credibility with Saudi Arabia sitting on Human Rights Council. today's news has zero implications for the possibility of a referendum being held nor should it even though of course one should be called it shouldn't be because the UN says so.

100cent

The UN has nailed its colours to the culture of death, the abortion agenda has successfully engendered in Western society elites.

However the People of Ireland are still sovereign on this matter, thankfully.

lazygal

100cent wrote: »

The UN has nailed its colours to the culture of death, the abortion agenda has successfully engendered in Western society elites.

However the People of Ireland are still sovereign on this matter, thankfully.

Is the abortion agenda day one, get all fertile females pregnant, day two kill all the unborn?

100cent

lazygal wrote: »

Is the abortion agenda day one, get all fertile females pregnant, day two kill all the unborn?

What are you talking about?

lazygal

100cent wrote: »

What are you talking about?

Just wanted to check if I'm part of the abortion agenda. In case I need to get pregnant so I can have an abortion. I think the tenth one is free?

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

The UN has nailed its colours to the culture of death, the abortion agenda has successfully engendered in Western society elites.

However the People of Ireland are still sovereign on this matter, thankfully.

Yeah, what exactly is the "abortion agenda"?

Lurkio

100cent wrote: »

The UN has nailed its colours to the culture of death, ..............

We really, really need "Culture of Death" as a t-shirt.