Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

robindch

Mod:

100cent wrote: »

Thats all you're getting. Now will you continue to troll or will you respect my decision?

100cent - it's possible that you didn't see yesterday's friendly warning about referring to other posters as trolls, and their activity on this forum as trolling.

Neither activity is acceptable in A+A.

100cent wrote: »

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

You might also want to read the forum charter before continuing to post here in A+A in order to avoid being at the receiving end of some less friendly moderator action.

pauldla

I think 100cent has already cashed in his/her chips, Rob. No doubt, to return at a later date.

frostyjacks

Interesting to see the reaction in Britain to the attempt to relax their (already) generous abortion laws.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3593847/I-ve-wrong-insists-midwives-chief-abortion-storm-no-idea-members-didn-t-ask-Board-axing-time-limit.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3593911/ISABEL-OAKESHOTT-lost-babies-midwife-boss-wants-abortion-time-fired.html

Full term abortion...basically infanticide. Now that's the reaction in a country that has been living with the horror of abortion for decades. What makes the pro-abortion lobby think there's enough support for holding a referendum on abortion in this country? It will never pass, let's be honest. Nobody with a conscience could cast a vote legalising abortion.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Interesting to see the reaction in Britain to the attempt to relax their (already) generous abortion laws.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3593847/I-ve-wrong-insists-midwives-chief-abortion-storm-no-idea-members-didn-t-ask-Board-axing-time-limit.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3593911/ISABEL-OAKESHOTT-lost-babies-midwife-boss-wants-abortion-time-fired.html

Seriously, links to the Daily Mail?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

What makes the pro-abortion lobby think there's enough support for holding a referendum on abortion in this country? It will never pass, let's be honest

Polls should there is support for it, much like they show there was support for marriage equality and yet the anti side claimed there was no support. But guess what, it passed!

If it will never pass then there's nothing to fear from putting it to a vote, leave the public decide on the matter.
You've nothing to fear unless you fear democracy,

Nobody with a conscience could cast a vote legalising abortion

If you believe so strongly of this then again you have nothing to fear from a vote on the matter, again, unless you fear democracy taking place.

Of course your conscience argument was also used for marriage equality and divorce ref's, so its a silly claim to just thrown about and it ignores the reality of the world.

inocybe

frostyjacks wrote: »

Interesting to see the reaction in Britain to the attempt to relax their (already) generous abortion laws.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3593847/I-ve-wrong-insists-midwives-chief-abortion-storm-no-idea-members-didn-t-ask-Board-axing-time-limit.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3593911/ISABEL-OAKESHOTT-lost-babies-midwife-boss-wants-abortion-time-fired.html

Full term abortion...basically infanticide. Now that's the reaction in a country that has been living with the horror of abortion for decades. What makes the pro-abortion lobby think there's enough support for holding a referendum on abortion in this country? It will never pass, let's be honest. Nobody with a conscience could cast a vote legalising abortion.

https://www.rcm.org.uk/sites/default/files/RCM%20Abortion%20Statement.pdf
There's a better source. What they are actually calling for is the decriminalisation of abortion. It does not change anything else despite the ignorant rantings of the daily mail and the like.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Seriously, links to the Daily Mail?

Seriously, where was that when aloyisius used the Daily Mail for his pro choice punt?

Cabaal wrote: »

Polls should there is support for it, much like they show there was support for marriage equality and yet the anti side claimed there was no support. But guess what, it passed!

Though there's actually no reason whatsoever to imagine that one would have anything to do with the other, is there? Other than wishful thinking, obviously

Cabaal wrote: »

If it will never pass then there's nothing to fear from putting it to a vote, leave the public decide on the matter.
You've nothing to fear unless you fear democracy, If you believe so strongly of this then again you have nothing to fear from a vote on the matter, again, unless you fear democracy taking place.

Though obviously only a fool would put lives at risk just to prove he wasn't worried by someone calling him chicken

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Seriously, where was that when aloyisius used the Daily Mail for his pro choice punt?

Wasn't really reading this thread yesterday, regardless of who posts daily mail links its not a reliable source.

By all means feel free to use the video link I posted if it makes you happy

Though there's actually no reason whatsoever to imagine that one would have anything to do with the other, is there? Other than wishful thinking, obviously

You might want to tell that to David Quinn/Lolek Ltd
He said himself that he saw the marriage equality ref as a "stepping stone" to repeal the 8th.

The reality is the marriage ref showed people are far less concerned with the stance of religious organisation then they were years ago. Thats a hard reality for religious people to face.

Though obviously only a fool would put lives at risk just to prove he wasn't worried by someone calling him chicken

We do just that right now, women's life's and health at risk every single day.

It does certainly show a complete disregard for women, but I guess thats ok right?

nozzferrahhtoo

Apologies all for the delays in replies. It was a long weekend here and I decided to make it a media free, family weekend. No computers or televisions. But probably for the best anyway given my reply would have been lost in the subsequent sea of posts from 100cent.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Right. So you say all of the above... and then you come out with this: So you know exactly what you're doing by calling a foetus a child.

Except I am doing nothing at all by it. The difference is that people are using terminology to manufacture a point where none exists. I was doing no such thing in my text as I was focusing solely on asking what the RELEVANT difference is between 5 minutes before birth and 5 minutes after birth. A question you are still entirely unable to answer. Dropping context out of peoples posts in order to rubbish their words is a common MO with you, but it is a transparent as it is crass.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

You are, once again, making my point for me. That terminology is irrelevant to the points some people are making, and you are running away from constantly. Some people try to use terms to be emotive where they otherwise have no points to make.... and I am happy to highlight this tactic when they do it..... but the points I am making are independent of terminology. And that is the difference you are so desperate to ignore.

The terminology is IRRELEVANT to the question I am asking. A question you have consistently avoided actually providing a coherent answer to. So I repeat it. In the context of sound and coherent reasons for assigning rights to any entity, how is mere location a useful point to mediate this? What is the actual relevant difference between moments before birth and moments after birth upon which it makes philosophical sense to hang rights off it?

Or will you simply be dodging / ignoring the question. Again.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course it's a philosophically valid point upon which to argue whether a foetus has rights that are recognised in law

Another dodge that does not actually answer the question asked of you. I am aware already of what the laws are thanks. That is not what I am asking, as well you know.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

And yet we do it, and even argue for it, all the time in multiple other contexts. The more the rights of one entity impact on another, the more we mediate for both. I am struggling to think of many, even any, other situations where we allow anyone 100% rights to do whatever the hell they want at the expense of the safety or rights of another. That is the issue you are simply ignoring in your diatribes. And I gave two examples of this already, such as the limitations on free speech and the right to walk down the street swinging your arms wildly. In both cases I would also argue for your 100% right to do what you want..... until that right impacts negatively on the rights and/or safety of others.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Except it is quite the contrary. And in fact it is the idea that the ideal of presenting 100% rights without limitations to one person at the expense of the rights and safety of another that is making a mockery of human rights.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're switching terminology again. Now the foetus is an entity.

And once again, despite your MO of ignoring it, context is monumentally important in all things I say. The difference, once again, is in whether the terminology itself is being used to carry the point, or is merely the words used while making the point. I am doing the latter, and in that context it really does not matter what I call it. The issue I had is with people moaning about CORRECT use of terms (as you do) and people using terms or terminology to illicit emotional responses where they otherwise have no point to actually make.

The difference being you can take all the points I just made and substitute in whatever term you want. Fetus. Child. Entity. Blob. The points I made remain EXACTLY the same. If you want to remain in this state of being uppity and hyper sensitive to terminology as you tend to be, then at least attempt to do so only where changing the terms used would actually change the point I was making. Clue: This is not one of those times, but do keep trying.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now you see it as deserving of rights and protections. I understand that for you that's around the 12-16 week mark

Then you do not understand at all, despite typing the words "I understand". Because I never said any such thing. What I DID say is that 12-16 weeks is a strong example of a time period where I see, at this time, NO valid or useful basis for affording any moral or ethical concerns towards the fetus/child/baby/blob/entity what-so-ever.

But this is not something I can say about it, say, 2 weeks before birth. And that is my issue with term-free abortion on demand. At SOME point in the process between conception and leaving the hospital born the entity gains rights. The discussion I am having is when that should be and why. I have in the past offered, whether someone agrees with them or not, at least a set of coherent and defensible reasoning on when and why I think it is. Those people saying "birth" should be that moment however have offered no basis for why they think so, regardless of how politely or impolitely I ask. So I simply find myself remaining in a position where I have no idea what their/your thinking is on the matter. The only two replies I have received from YOU personally on it are either A) Silence and Retreat or a re-statement of the problem without answering the question by pointing out that that is what the current law does/says.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But that limit on other women's choices with regard to their reproductive rights, is exactly the antithesis of personal choice.

Only, as I keep saying again and again, because you have this imaginary nonsense idea going on in your head that "choice" is only "choice" if there are absolutely NO limited on that choice. However I have argued..........without rebuttal from you so much as mere ignore and re-state.......... that this simply is not the case. And I have argued this both with and without examples. Again, offering choice does not mean offering ANY choice without ANY conditions. Personal choice always has limitations, especially proportional to how much those choices impact another.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

I do not need to pretend to do it when I am ACTUALLY doing it. So your advice not to "pretend" is entirely meaningless and superfluous. I simply do not subscribe to your nonsense that choice with limitation is no choice at all. Nor do I subscribe to your nonsense that we live in a world where this is not so in just about every other context too. I have given many arguments, with examples, of how there is commonly limitation on choices and even some of the most liberal people in the world will argue for conditions and caveats in many cases..... usually on the basis of how much exercise of a given freedom will impact another.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Wasn't really reading this thread yesterday, regardless of who posts daily mail links its not a reliable source. By all means feel free to use the video link I posted if it makes you happy

Thanks, I'm sure you'll be pleased that in your absence I expressed the dubiousness you yourself would have no doubt offered, without resorting to argument by youtube.

Cabaal wrote: »

You might want to tell that to David Quinn/Lolek Ltd He said himself that he saw the marriage equality ref as a "stepping stone" to repeal the 8th.

Sure, if he appears on the thread. If I'm not about I'm sure you'll do it for me

Cabaal wrote: »

We do just that right now, women's life's and health at risk every single day. It does certainly show a complete disregard for women, but I guess thats ok right?

I very much doubt you'll find a doctor who agrees they're showing a complete disregard for women, but I imagine a couple will agree that less unborn children die as a result of what we do right now. So I guess that's ok. right?

Cabaal wrote: »

The reality is the marriage ref showed people are far less concerned with the stance of religious organisation then they were years ago. Thats a hard reality for religious people to face.

Maybe so... but if they are less concerned with the stance of religious organisation, then it's probably not that hard a reality for them to face, eh?

frostyjacks

Cabaal wrote: »

Seriously, links to the Daily Mail?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

Polls should there is support for it, much like they show there was support for marriage equality and yet the anti side claimed there was no support. But guess what, it passed!

If it will never pass then there's nothing to fear from putting it to a vote, leave the public decide on the matter.
You've nothing to fear unless you fear democracy,



If you believe so strongly of this then again you have nothing to fear from a vote on the matter, again, unless you fear democracy taking place.

Of course your conscience argument was also used for marriage equality and divorce ref's, so its a silly claim to just thrown about and it ignores the reality of the world.

Is it worth kicking the hornet's nest just so some women can feel less ashamed of themselves? I saw the hate and venom directed at the pro-life people when they had a dignified march recently. It'll be that x1000 if there's a referendum.

robdonn

frostyjacks wrote: »

Is it worth kicking the hornet's nest just so some women can feel less ashamed of themselves?

You think that these women feel ashamed of themselves? Or do you just feel they should?

Cabaal

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-irish-women-uk-travelling-2773671-May2016/

More than 3,400 Irish women travelled to UK for abortions in 2015

By far Irish women account for the largest number of non-UK nationals travelling to have abortions in the country.

Of the women travelling from Ireland to the UK for abortions, the largest numbers came from Dublin (1,311), Cork (280), Galway (156) and Meath (141).

aloyisious

Originally Posted by Absolom: Seriously, where was that when aloyisius used the Daily Mail for his pro choice punt?
.................................................................................................................................................

Seriously, me a Daily Mail reader? ROFL. Flip's over to Sky News midnight review of what's in the papers.

Lurkio

frostyjacks wrote: »

Is it worth kicking the hornet's nest just so some women can feel less ashamed of themselves? ........

Jaysus no. Its more shame and self-hate they want. That'll keep them from their wanton ways.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Originally Posted by Absolom: Seriously, where was that when aloyisius used the Daily Mail for his pro choice punt?
.................................................................................................................................................

Seriously, me a Daily Mail reader? ROFL. Flip's over to Sky News midnight review of what's in the papers.

Denigrating your own sources? Fair enough

aloyisious

RTE radio 1 1PM news reporting the release of figures of Irish Women travelling to England and Wales for abortions. Interview with Helen Deasy, HSE Crisis Pregnancy agency, that there's a slight decline in the numbers of women travelling to England and Wales (compared to 2014) for abortions, lowering to 9 women each day. There doesn't seem to be figures available yet about women travelling to other countries for abortions. Helen said there is a 27% reduction in teenagers travelling for abortions and said this may be down to better sex education, the use of contraceptives and the use of morning-after pill. Helen also said the majority of women travelling to England and Wales were women between the age of 20 and 40 + who were in relationships, making up a larger percentage of the figure.

I don't why Scotland was not mentioned at all, given it's geographical position to Ireland North and South and the fact that the same law on abortion covering England and Wales cover's it as well. Scots-women's groups are reported to be pushing for a change in the law on abortion there. Link below.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjVrrPjkuHMAhVlIcAKHRzlCu8QFgg4MAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2015%2Fnov%2F09%2Fdevolving-abortion-a-chance-to-reframe-scottish-law-campaigners-say&usg=AFQjCNGNpAwtkcjFDubF_2jki6XHE7p7Zg

Partial lift from the link above (para's 1 to 5) .... Women’s groups in Scotland believe devolving abortion law could be a chance to “completely reframe” the legislation north of the border, despite concerns about the way Westminster is rushing through the transfer of such a contested power.

When the Scottish secretary, David Mundell, announced the move as part of the Scotland bill, which reached its final stage in the Commons on Monday, Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister, said the SNP government had no plans to amend the current law, which allows for terminations in certain circumstances up to 24 weeks.

But many pro-choice campaigners say privately that there is an opportunity for “permanent and progressive” change, including the removal of the requirement for two doctors’ signatures before a termination and, potentially, complete decriminalisation.

They are also keen to counter assumptions that Scottish social attitudes, influenced by strong religious traditions, are more anti-choice than elsewhere in the UK.

Naomi McAuliffe, Scotland director for Amnesty International, pointed to recent opinion polling for her organisation which found that attitudes towards abortion in Scotland were no more repressive, and sometimes more progressive, than in England and Wales.

frostyjacks

Daily Mail no good? How about the paper of record.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/nine-women-from-ireland-had-abortion-in-uk-every-day-last-year-1.2650651

"The report showed there has been a 48 per cent decline in the numbers travelling to terminate a pregnancy since 2001."

Where's this invisible army of women making the trip then?

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Daily Mail no good? How about the paper of record.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/nine-women-from-ireland-had-abortion-in-uk-every-day-last-year-1.2650651

"The report showed there has been a 48 per cent decline in the numbers travelling to terminate a pregnancy since 2001."

Where's this invisible army of women making the trip then?

Gosh I don't know. Maybe we need to start making sure we know why every woman or girl who's able to get pregnant is leaving the country. Like the List Of Women Who've Had Abortions you proposed?

robdonn

frostyjacks wrote: »

Daily Mail no good? How about the paper of record.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/nine-women-from-ireland-had-abortion-in-uk-every-day-last-year-1.2650651

"The report showed there has been a 48 per cent decline in the numbers travelling to terminate a pregnancy since 2001."

Where's this invisible army of women making the trip then?

3,451 women not a sufficient number? And that's just the ones going to the UK.

lazygal

robdonn wrote: »

3,451 women not a sufficient number? And that's just the ones going to the UK.

And probably not counting the ones taking a chance on importing the abortion pill.

robdonn

lazygal wrote: »

And probably not counting the ones taking a chance on importing the abortion pill.

That's true, a lot more home remedies are now available online.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

Daily Mail no good? How about the paper of record.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/nine-women-from-ireland-had-abortion-in-uk-every-day-last-year-1.2650651

"The report showed there has been a 48 per cent decline in the numbers travelling to terminate a pregnancy since 2001."

Where's this invisible army of women making the trip then?

It's great to see the numbers reducing, what did you think, that we would be sorry to see them dropping?

It's still a huge number though and as already pointed out its just a portion of the overall numbers of abortions Irish women have each year. Each number represents a real woman, a real family and a real set of difficult circumstances that led to that journey.

nozzferrahhtoo

frostyjacks wrote: »

Where's this invisible army of women making the trip then?

Not sure what your point is. Is it the word "army" that bothers you? What number constitutes an army for you if not around 3500 people per year???

I just checked wiki for the Irish Army. It claims there is currently 7500 people serving in that full time.

And the figures you quote show a decline since 2001. Even if we ignore the decline and stick with the lower number of 3500..... that is 3500 * 15 = 52,500 people.

If that is not an army..... and the 7500 people serving in the ACTUAL army is..... then perhaps you could explain what your issue is here? Is it linguistics? Mathematics? What?

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

Daily Mail no good? How about the paper of record.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/nine-women-from-ireland-had-abortion-in-uk-every-day-last-year-1.2650651

"The report showed there has been a 48 per cent decline in the numbers travelling to terminate a pregnancy since 2001."

Where's this invisible army of women making the trip then?

I'm not sure if this is meant for me. Re the Daily Mail, it came up from a Sky midnight news panel discussion I listened-to several days ago on what was in the papers, incl the daily Mail. Another person here seem's to be fixated on my mention of the panel's reference to the Daily Mail, regularly referencing it and me together. I don't understand his fixation, it's almost like it has him in a troll-like grasp.

Ta for the Irish Times (2014) link. I'm glad you are able to "google-for" and reference a separate set of figures from another Irish source of record. It's circa the figures mentioned by Helen from the HSE.

Re the invisible army of women, I wondered what those opposed to women having abortions are worried about if it's existence is so dubious. Looking at the figure of 9 women a day and allowing for 7 Clinic closed-for-holidays days a year, I totted up a figure of approx 3,535 women each year, a large enough figure indeed, and close to the Irish Times figure.

Re Nozzferrahhtoo's Defence Forces figure above, it make's the figure of 3535 approx the size of a decent army brigade force in military terms. Of course, if you were to use the understanding of Pro-life people in respect of pregnancy, it would actually be a figure of 7070, two brigades strength, not far off Nozz's full figure for the army.

lazygal

An Army Of Abortions has a nice ring to it. It could be the new collective noun for abortions.

PopePalpatine

lazygal wrote: »

An Army Of Abortions has a nice ring to it. It could be the new collective noun for abortions.

It sounds like a great name for a metal band. :pac:

lazygal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It sounds like a great name for a metal band. :pac:

Stop stealing my good ideas.

frostyjacks

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure what your point is. Is it the word "army" that bothers you? What number constitutes an army for you if not around 3500 people per year???

I just checked wiki for the Irish Army. It claims there is currently 7500 people serving in that full time.

And the figures you quote show a decline since 2001. Even if we ignore the decline and stick with the lower number of 3500..... that is 3500 * 15 = 52,500 people.

If that is not an army..... and the 7500 people serving in the ACTUAL army is..... then perhaps you could explain what your issue is here? Is it linguistics? Mathematics? What?

My point is the numbers are on a downward trend. And of the women who do travel, you wouldn't bet against there being a sizeable portion of repeat offenders in there, year after year. So why try and introduce something in this country when the stats show it's on the way out. Seems a pointless exercise.

inocybe

frostyjacks wrote: »

My point is the numbers are on a downward trend. And of the women who do travel, you wouldn't bet against there being a sizeable portion of repeat offenders in there, year after year. So why try and introduce something in this country when the stats show it's on the way out. Seems a pointless exercise.

I don't believe that's true, I think the reduction in women travelling is due to greater awareness of the abortion pill and how to get it into the country. It would certainly be the choice I would make.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

My point is the numbers are on a downward trend. And of the women who do travel, you wouldn't bet against there being a sizeable portion of repeat offenders in there, year after year.

wow, just wow,
You honestly believe there are a sizable amount of the same women that on a yearly basis have an abortion each year. That just says so so much about your viewpoint on women.
WOW.

Numbers are down due greater sex education (no thanks to catholic church), better access to condoms (no thanks to catholic church) and more availability to the morning after pill etc (again, no thanks to catholic church).

As sex education improves, numbers go down. If ignorance grows so do unplanned pregnancy's, this is supported by the many states in the USA who don't have proper sex ed programs in schools. (don't have sex is not a valid sex ed program!)

Now the drop in numbers is very much a good thing for everyone, it puts less stress on women and couples, our health care and social system. That however does not mean that better access in Ireland to abortion services should not be granted.

At the end of the day we continue to fail women in a number of different situations, this can't be ignored and if you choose to ignore this they it shows a lack of care for the health and well being of women and couples in general.