Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

100cent

lazygal wrote: »

Is a crime being committed if a woman imports abortion drugs from a legal source and takes them in Ireland?

I would have thought so, yes.

eviltwin

100cent wrote: »

I'm not feeding your trolling, despite your continued attempts.

I've told you what I've experienced at close quarters.

A Google search brings up no such hospice. Why are you lying? If it exists and is so wonderful why don't you promote it?

Kiwi in IE

100cent wrote: »

Anything that saves the life of one baby in the womb is to be welcomed.

I have no authority to change laws in other countries.

We must tend to our own shores and do our best to ensure that babies in the womb and their mothers are safe from the evils of abortion on Irish soil.

But foetuses are not safe, because women can go to the country next door and get an abortion.

lazygal

100cent wrote: »

I'm not feeding your trolling, despite your continued attempts.

I've told you what I've experienced at close quarters.

It is not trolling to ask you to back up your claims. I know you'll tell me to search, and I have. There are no perinatal hospices in Ireland. There are the usual maternity services and extra supports for women who have difficulties or experience a bereavement, such as the provision of cold cots. If you want me to believe your claims, all you have to do is tell me what hospital in Ireland provides perinatal hospices or perinatal hospice services. If you're telling me to search myself, then the information should be out there already, so it's public and not a state secret.

lazygal

100cent wrote: »

Anything that saves the life of one baby in the womb is to be welcomed.

I have no authority to change laws in other countries.

We must tend to our own shores and do our best to ensure that babies in the womb and their mothers are safe from the evils of abortion on Irish soil.

So how far should the state go to prevent women having an abortion? Do you think all women would remain pregnant if they weren't able to travel for abortions?

100cent

eviltwin wrote: »

A Google search brings up no such hospice. Why are you lying? If it exists and is so wonderful why don't you promote it?

The hospice service is available within Maternity hospitals. There is no separate stand alone Hospice.

But here I go feeding the troll.

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

The right to life is equal.

Where there is a threat to the mother's life a termination is permissable, even if an unintended consequence is the sad death of the baby.

An unintended consequence? Is a murder victim the unintended consequence of shooting them? That's some amazing mental gymnastics you've got going on there!

100cent

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But foetuses are not safe, because women can go to the country next door and get an abortion.

Tragic, isn't it.

100cent

lazygal wrote: »

So how far should the state go to prevent women having an abortion? Do you think all women would remain pregnant if they weren't able to travel for abortions?

Of course.

aloyisious

Re a doctor seeing a feotus as a threat to a pregnant woman's life, I suspect no case of a doctor deciding to go to the courts here to get an abortion operation enforcement order to save her life, instead of shrugging his shoulders in a "it's her decision" mode, should she decide to continue with the pregnancy against best medical advice, has happened here yet. I'm thinking along the lines of life-saving blood-transfusions ordered by the courts to doctors against the patient's wishes and/or beliefs as precedents. It would probably cause a storm here.

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

An unintended consequence? Is a murder victim the unintended consequence of shooting them? That's some amazing mental gymnastics you've got going on there!

Its all about the intention of the act.

The intent of some terminations is to save the mother's life. The unintended consequence can sometimes be the death of the baby.

Kiwi in IE

100cent wrote: »

Tragic, isn't it.

What is?

lazygal

100cent wrote: »

The hospice service is available within Maternity hospitals. There is no separate stand alone Hospice.

But here I go feeding the troll.

It isn't a hospice service. No matter how much you want to call it that. That's why groups opposing abortion want hospice services, because they don't exist in maternity hospitals.
Women who have been diagnosed with FFA have said they were given no extra care during pregnancy, beyond perhaps extra scans to see if the heartbeat had stopped. There's additional services like bereavement support and cold cots but there is no defined perinatal hospice service in any maternity hospital in Ireland.

You claimed you availed of something that doesn't exist. What did God say about bearing false witness?

eviltwin

100cent wrote: »

The hospice service is available within Maternity hospitals. There is no separate stand alone Hospice.

But here I go feeding the troll.

You won't answer because you are lying. There is no peri natal hospice in Ireland. Why are you lying? Isn't that a sin or something?

lazygal

100cent wrote: »

Its all about the intention of the act.

The intent of some terminations is to save the mother's life. The unintended consequence can sometimes be the death of the baby.

If you're removing a 12 week old foetus to save my life, how is that not intentionally killing a child? I can't take my born children's blood or organs to save my life, but doctors can kill my unborn children to save me.

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

Its all about the intention of the act.

The intent of some terminations is to save the mother's life. The unintended consequence can sometimes be the death of the baby.

The intention to save the mother involves the action of ending the pregnancy and, in every case below 21 weeks, killing the foetus. There is nothing unintended about it, any allusion to it being an unintended consequence is just dishonesty.

100cent

lazygal wrote: »

It isn't a hospice service. No matter how much you want to call it that. That's why groups opposing abortion want hospice services, because they don't exist in maternity hospitals.
Women who have been diagnosed with FFA have said they were given no extra care during pregnancy, beyond perhaps extra scans to see if the heartbeat had stopped. There's additional services like bereavement support and cold cots but there is no defined perinatal hospice service in any maternity hospital in Ireland.

You claimed you availed of something that doesn't exist. What did God say about bearing false witness?

...........

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

...........

Finally! A list of the perinatal hospice services in Irish maternity hospitals. :P

100cent

lazygal wrote: »

If you're removing a 12 week old foetus to save my life, how is that not intentionally killing a child? I can't take my born children's blood or organs to save my life, but doctors can kill my unborn children to save me.

Te intention of the termination is to save your life, not kill the baby.

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

The intention to save the mother involves the action of ending the pregnancy and, in every case below 21 weeks, killing the foetus. There is nothing unintended about it, any allusion to it being an unintended consequence is just dishonesty.

Of course it is unintended.

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

Finally! A list of the perinatal hospice services in Irish maternity hospitals. :P

My nephew was alive for 16 hours, he was sedated, felt no pain and his parents were given the privacy they required by the hospital.

That is the central tent of the Hospice movement, dying with dignity and free from pain.

You can do what you like with you sneering smileys.

eviltwin

100cent wrote: »

My nephew was alive for 16 hours, he was sedated, felt no pain and his parents were given the privacy they required by the hospital.

That is the central tent of the Hospice movement, dying with dignity and free from pain.

You can do what you like with you sneering smileys.

That is tragic and I'm sincerely sorry for your family's loss. The care you describe is not hospice care. There is currently no dedicated hospice for infants. There should be.

Kiwi in IE

100cent wrote: »

Of course it is unintended.

No it's not! The procedure is done in the full knowledge that it will kill the foetus. Why is the woman's life considered to be worth more than that of the foetus? If she is going to die, should they not put her on life support to keep her organs going until the feotus reaches viability instead of killing the foetus? The foetus has a equal right to life after all!

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

Of course it is unintended.

Repeating your point does not make it any more valid.

Your argument is ridiculous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS9pAAvsa_A

100cent

eviltwin wrote: »

That is tragic and I'm sincerely sorry for your family's loss. The care you describe is not hospice care. There is currently no dedicated hospice for infants. There should be.

Such sincerity.

You've sneered your way through the past few pages with your condescending bile.

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

You can do what you like with you sneering smileys.

It's a tongue-sticking-out smiley, not a sneering smiley, and is very obviously not aimed at your experience.

eviltwin

100cent wrote: »

Such sincerity.

You've sneered your way through the past few pages with your condescending bile.

Take it how you want, my intentions are genuine.

Kiwi in IE

100cent wrote: »

Such sincerity.

You've sneered your way through the past few pages with your condescending bile.

You had no need to share personal information if you didn't want to, you were only asked which hospital in Ireland contains a perenatal hospice. Your refusal to answer, insistence that we look it up ourselves, and then your continued refusal to engage sensibly (calling regular posters 'trolls') when it was pointed out that there is no such information available, is why you reviewed the responses you complain of.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

While I agree with you that the position of the Catholic Church probably has little influence over Yes voters, 87% of people do want abortion services to be expanded to cover at least some health grounds, a liberal abortion regime in respect to our current system.

Sure... a more liberal abortion regime in respect to our current system, though I'd say the numbers have been carefully presented. 87% of the 1,004 respondants didn't give a single answer to the question; there were six possible answers allowed in the poll, and the 87% figure is actually arrived at by combining three of them:
1) I am in favour of allowing abortion in Ireland only where the women’s life is at risk or where there is a fatal foetal abnormality (7%)
2) I am in favour of allowing abortion in Ireland only where woman’s lifeis at risk, where there is diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality, where the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, or wherethe woman’s health is at risk (42%)
3) I am in favour of allowing all women access to abortion in Ireland as they choose (38%).

Given that the same poll found 55% of those polled believe abortion is not a criminal offense, and 52% believe that the only way in which the penalty of 14 years imprisonment (which only 9% believe is the penalty) for an unlawful abortion in Ireland can be removed is if the 8th Amendment is removed from the Constitution, not to mention that 68% believe that the only way women can be allowed greater access to abortion in Ireland, is if the 8th amendment is removed from the Constitution. 55% agreed strongly that under international human rights law, women have a human right to access abortion in Ireland where the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, where their health is at risk or where there is a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality. Despite the vaunted 87% number, only 71% believe the government should decriminalise abortion (also despite only 45% believing it's a criminal offense). Again despite the 87% number, only 59% said they would would vote yes in a referendum to remove the 8th amendment from the Constitution, yet 52% said they believed they do not know enough about the 8th amendment to know how they would vote!!!

That's not a poll that paints a picture of a well informed, thoughtful, or decisive 1,004 people I have to say....

robdonn wrote: »

I think we could both agree that the 13% opposed to expanding abortion services is not entirely made up out of people who voted Yes in the Marriage Equality referendum, but even if by some strange fluke it is, that would still leave ~80% of Yes voters in support.

Well no. The poll only covered 1,004 people; that number is so tiny that every single one of them could have voted yes, or could have voted no, or could even have abstained in the equality referendum. Any correlation is totally speculative since they weren't asked how they voted, and the poll only sampled at best 0.05% of those who voted, or 0.03% of those who could have voted. Or even 0.08% of those who didn't vote yes or no, but abstained. All in all, less that a tenth of one per cent of people who might one way or another have expressed an opinion in the equality referendum, so not exactly indicative...

robdonn wrote: »

So while you are right that probably not everyone who supports Marriage Equality are in support of liberal abortion, at least ~80% of them are (minimum), as well as a very significant number from the other side.

I'm afraid not; that's simply wildly optimistic speculation... of the sort that I was saying Una was engaged in

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you think the present practice in our republic of Irish women going abroad for abortions denied them here is being used by our lawmakers as a convenient way to avoid the Pro-life and Pro-choice groups demands on the Irish abortion legislation front?

If it helps I think it is used by pregnant women as a convenient way to avoid Irish legislation.

robdonn wrote: »

What about the crime of the woman being forced to use her body to sustain another life against her will, breaking a number of her rights including her right to bodily autonomy?

I'm pretty sure it's not a crime to force a woman to use her body to sustain the life of her unborn child against her will? I don't think it breaks any of her rights either; given the level of advocacy activity in Ireland someone would have tried to get that before a Supreme Court before now, yet they haven't... why do you think that is?
If it helps you along, the 'found' Constitutional right of bodily integrity (derived from the Christian and Democratic nature of the State, you'll be pleased to hear), according to the SC is understood to mean that "no mutilation of the body or any of its members may be carried out on any citizen under authority of the law except for the good of the whole body and that no process which is or may, as a matter of probability, be dangerous or harmful to the life or health of the citizens or any of them may be imposed (in the sense of being made compulsory) by an Act of the Oireachtas." It doesn't prevent the State imprisoning or detaining people, or oblige the State to allow them to undergo a procedure that might give them greater bodily integrity (ie an abortion) than they currently have.