Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

It would have given us a more rounded version of events. There was a lot of unanswered questions in that article. Did she seek advice from crisis pregnancy organisations? If not, why not? Has she still not told the father what she did to his baby? Does she ever think about the baby? Why does she think the law doesn't apply to her? Like I said, we only get one side of the story in these media campaigns.

Why do we need that information? Woman does not want to remain pregnant, woman imports abortion pill, woman is no longer pregnant. That's about as rounded as we need it to be.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yes, but the law could not be sure that those women were not pregnant unless they had been tested.

Wouldn't 'the law' need to have reason to think they are pregnant before testing them? I'm pretty sure there needs to be a reason to believe someone is commiting a crime before taking action, rather than a need to demonstrate that someone is not committing a crime to forestall taking action...

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Seeing as it's potentially an act of 'murder', you would at least think the police would investigate? If someone put up a video on YouTube and it looked like there was even a very slim possibility that a real child had been killed, do you think that the authorities would fail to investigate, never mind allow one of the perpetrators to remain as a TD? The 8th Amendment is a joke!

When did it become potentially an act of 'murder'?

Kiwi in IE

frostyjacks wrote: »

It would have given us a more rounded version of events. There was a lot of unanswered questions in that article. Did she seek advice from crisis pregnancy organisations? If not, why not? Has she still not told the father what she did to his baby? Does she ever think about the baby? Why does she think the law doesn't apply to her? Like I said, we only get one side of the story in these media campaigns.

She was pregnant, she didn't want to be, she took an abortion pill. I don't know why anyone would feel they need to know any more than what she chooses to disclose.

I wouldn't take any notice of that law either if I was in a situation where I needed to break it, and it was possible to do so. I should have a right to bodily autonomy, if this state refuses to recognise that, I would have no issue taking it into my own hands if the need arose.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

When did it become potentially an act of 'murder'?

Foetuses have an equal right to life to a born person apparently. Planning and implementing the intentional killing of a born person would be first degree murder! Why would a woman who has an abortion not be charged with same?

If the woman we are talking about who went public about taking an abortion pill, had openly admitted obtaining drugs with the intention of killing a born child, and then administering them to that child (whom her foetus supposedly had an equal right to life to) and the child subsequently died, I don't think the response would be quite the same do you? I wonder why that is? Irish law, which asserts that a foetus has an equal right to life to a born person, doesn't really follow through with that when tested does it? Why? Because a foetus does not and cannot have an equal right to life to born people!

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Foetuses have an equal right to life to a born person apparently. Planning and implementing the intentional killing of a born person would be first degree murder! Why would a woman who has an abortion not be charged with same?

Because having an abortion isn't murder according to the law? Just because a foetus has an equal right to life doesn't make killing it murder; you yourself said planning and implementing the intentional killing of a born person would be first degree murder (though there's no such thing as first degree murder in Ireland), so you can make a distinction. Surely you don't imagine the law can't? Especially since you know from posting on the thread that the intentional destruction of unborn human life is a criminal offense to itself. I think you were just trying to be provocative

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

Because having an abortion isn't murder according to the law? Just because a foetus has an equal right to life doesn't make killing it murder; you yourself said planning and implementing the intentional killing of a born person would be first degree murder (though there's no such thing as first degree murder in Ireland), so you can make a distinction. Surely you don't imagine the law can't? Especially since you know from posting on the thread that the intentional destruction of unborn human life is a criminal offense to itself. I think you were just trying to be provocative

So killing a foetus is a less serious crime than killing a born person? Why? Killing a 4 year old is not a less serious crime than killing a 70 year old, in both cases, if under the same circumstances, say for example intentionally administering a fatal dose of drugs, the perpetrator would be up for the same sentence of whatever the Irish equivalent of First Degree Murder is (assuming there were no factors such as mental health that would reduce the charge). Why would the charges be less serious when it is a foetus that is the victim of the same crime, when the constitution states that a foetus has an equal right to life to a 4 year old and a 70 year old? The charge of murder carries and mandatory life sentence whilst the maximum sentence for killing a foetus is 14 years. The law does not really therefore reflect the constitutional assertion that a foetus has an equal right to life to born people does it? It is a lesser crime to kill a foetus.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So killing a foetus is a less serious crime than killing a born person? Why? Killing a 4 year old is not a less serious crime than killing a 70 year old, in both cases, if under the same circumstances, say for example intentionally administering a fatal dose of drugs, the perpetrator would be up for the same sentence of whatever the Irish equivalent of First Degree Murder is (assuming there were no factors such as mental health that would reduce the charge). Why would the charges be less serious when it is a foetus that is the victim of the same crime, when the constitution states that a foetus has an equal right to life to a 4 year old and a 70 year old? The charge of murder carries and mandatory life sentence whilst the maximum sentence for killing a foetus is 14 years.

Why do you think it's a less serious crime? All crimes are serious, but they carry different penalties. There's no reason to think that when a murderer convicted of capital murder gets a sentence of life imprisonment (minimum 40 years) and a murderer convicted of murder gets a sentence of life imprisonment (average of 12 years) that their victim had a greater right to life is there? No more than when one person receives a sentence for involuntary manslaughter, and another receives a greater sentence for infanticide. The infant doesn't have a greater right to life than a person killed by involuntary manslaughter, but the crime will carry a different penalty.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The law does not really therefore reflect the constitutional assertion that a foetus has an equal right to life to born people does it? It is a lesser crime to kill a foetus.

By the same token it's a greater crime to kill a Garda than a regular citizen, but that doesn't mean a Garda has a greater right to life does it? So the crimes and punishments don't actually need to be the same in order for the law to reflect the Constitutional assertion that a foetus has an equal right to life to born people; the law just needs to defend and vindicate those rights, which it does. Which I think quite readily shows why a woman who procures an abortion (or commits infanticide, or murders a prison officer) should not be charged with murder, but with the offense she actually committed.

Kiwi in IE

Foetuses do not have an equal right to life whether the Irish constitution says so or not. It is a case of the Irish constitution being wrong. Irish law contradicts that assertion in many ways. The destruction of frozen embryos in fertility clinics being a glaringly obvious one. Foetuses do not have an equal right to life to born people, you know it, I know it! The fact there is no pursuit or inquiry when a woman admits in a public forum to intentionally destroying 'unborn life', is clear proof that the constitutional statement is a farcical pretence to placate the RCC, who ruled the country at the time of its insertion into the constitution. There is no pursuit or enquiry when people publicly admit such activities because law makers and 'pro lifers' both know that if there is, the whole house of cards will fall straight down.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

Why do you think it's a less serious crime? All crimes are serious, but they carry different penalties. There's no reason to think that when a murderer convicted of capital murder gets a sentence of life imprisonment (minimum 40 years) and a murderer convicted of murder gets a sentence of life imprisonment (average of 12 years) that their victim had a greater right to life is there? No more than when one person receives a sentence for involuntary manslaughter, and another receives a greater sentence for infanticide. The infant doesn't have a greater right to life than a person killed by involuntary manslaughter, but the crime will carry a different penalty.
By the same token it's a greater crime to kill a Garda than a regular citizen, but that doesn't mean a Garda has a greater right to life does it? So the crimes and punishments don't actually need to be the same in order for the law to reflect the Constitutional assertion that a foetus has an equal right to life to born people; the law just needs to defend and vindicate those rights, which it does. Which I think quite readily shows why a woman who procures an abortion (or commits infanticide, or murders a prison officer) should not be charged with murder, but with the offense she actually committed.

I ask you this Absolam, if I contacted the press to say that I had ordered cyanide online with the intention of killing my neighbour, and I had recieved the cyanide, administered it to the neighbour in a cup of tea, and they were now dead, what would the response be?

You mention infanticide. What would the response be to the above scenario if the neighbour and the tea, were replaced with baby and bottle?

Also the maximum sentence for killing a born person is life, any born person. The maximum penalty for 'killing unborn life' is 14 years.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

It would have given us a more rounded version of events. There was a lot of unanswered questions in that article. Did she seek advice from crisis pregnancy organisations? If not, why not? Has she still not told the father what she did to his baby? Does she ever think about the baby? Why does she think the law doesn't apply to her? Like I said, we only get one side of the story in these media campaigns.

Is it just the intimate details of this particular woman you think you're entitled to or would you want it for every Irish resident having an abortion? Seriously, what business is it of yours what she does or why she did it, you wouldn't have any compassion for her no matter what her circumstances so why even ask? But then you are the person who once suggested we have a list of women who have had abortions aren't you? You're are just a busybody...would you want to know who in society has had an affair or used a prostitute or tried drugs?

inocybe

eviltwin wrote: »

Is it just the intimate details of this particular woman you think you're entitled to or would you want it for every Irish resident having an abortion? Seriously, what business is it of yours what she does or why she did it, you wouldn't have any compassion for her no matter what her circumstances so why even ask? But then you are the person who once suggested we have a list of women who have had abortions aren't you? You're are just a busybody...would you want to know who in society has had an affair or used a prostitute or tried drugs?

This really annoys me. Surely if you truly believe that abortion is murder the circumstances are completely irrelevant. So why want to even know the reasons. It's all about teaching those loose women a lesson isn't it?

eviltwin

inocybe wrote: »

This really annoys me. Surely if you truly believe that abortion is murder the circumstances are completely irrelevant. So why want to even know the reasons. It's all about teaching those loose women a lesson isn't it?

Its all about power and control, you tell me the reason you want an abortion and I will decide if you can have one. Of course what I won't tell you is that no reason will be good enough but I will still get to stand over you in judgement and shame you before I send you on your way. That's basically it in a nutshell.

Lurkio

frostyjacks wrote: »

It would have given us a more rounded version of events. There was a lot of unanswered questions in that article. Did she seek advice from crisis pregnancy organisations? If not, why not? Has she still not told the father what she did to his baby? Does she ever think about the baby? Why does she think the law doesn't apply to her? Like I said, we only get one side of the story in these media campaigns.

If you'd be as good....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99771152&postcount=2546

frostyjacks

Lurkio wrote: »

Yes, but why do you think its "on the way out"?

I'm not sure. Maybe people are opening their eyes to the sanctity of life. Maybe stories in the press about women suffering mental health issues after abortions are giving people second thoughts. Could be any number of reasons.

aloyisious

Cabaal wrote: »

No women has ever been convicted for using abortion pills in Republic Of Ireland, unless you know something the Department of Justice doesn't know?

Also, you and I know that this will never ever go to court, even the pro life groups would be against that happening.

Hopefully a judge would ask for forensic evidence from the "crime-scene", some form of physical proof of the alleged crime, to prove there had been an abortion against the law, rather than rely on mere spoken or written word from the prosecution.

frostyjacks

eviltwin wrote: »

Is it just the intimate details of this particular woman you think you're entitled to or would you want it for every Irish resident having an abortion? Seriously, what business is it of yours what she does or why she did it, you wouldn't have any compassion for her no matter what her circumstances so why even ask? But then you are the person who once suggested we have a list of women who have had abortions aren't you? You're are just a busybody...would you want to know who in society has had an affair or used a prostitute or tried drugs?

She put her story out there in the national media. Why would she do that if she didn't want it discussed? She broke the law, but paints herself as the victim. It's bizarre. I can't imagine a rapist confessing to a sex crime and expecting a similar level of sympathy as this girl got.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm not sure. Maybe people are opening their eyes to the sanctity of life. Maybe stories in the press about women suffering mental health issues after abortions are giving people second thoughts. Could be any number of reasons.

What is the sanctity of life?

Kiwi in IE

frostyjacks wrote: »

She put her story out there in the national media. Why would she do that if she didn't want it discussed? She broke the law, but paints herself as the victim. It's bizarre. I can't imagine a rapist confessing to a sex crime and expecting a similar level of sympathy as this girl got.

Why? Because foetuses cannot have an equal right to life to born people whether the Irish constitution says they do or not! As I asked in a previous post, if I had obtained and administered cyanide with the intention to kill my neighbour, had achieved my goal, and then gone public about it, what do you think the response would be? Are foetuses not supposed to have an equal right to life to my neighbour? They don't really though do they, because that woman won't be charged! Even most 'pro lifers' wouldn't want her charged because it will be hugely damaging to their cause and be the catalyst that finally gets rid of the 8th.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

She put her story out there in the national media. Why would she do that if she didn't want it discussed? She broke the law, but paints herself as the victim. It's bizarre. I can't imagine a rapist confessing to a sex crime and expecting a similar level of sympathy as this girl got.

You don't agree with abortion in any circumstances, what difference would it make if she told every detail or none at all? Your opinion won't change. Besides this woman doesn't need to justify her actions to anyone.

Cabaal

eviltwin wrote: »

You don't agree with abortion in any circumstances, what difference would it make if she told every detail or none at all? Your opinion won't change. Besides this woman doesn't need to justify her actions to anyone.

This is the thing that doesn't make sense about frostyjacks
Regardless of if its FFA, rape, incest or just not wanting to be pregnant frosty doesn't care, so why care about the details?

They details clearly don't matter to him, yet here he us throwing mad claims around about why a women did it and what type of evil person she is. It's just tragic

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm not sure. Maybe people are opening their eyes to the sanctity of life. Maybe stories in the press about women suffering mental health issues after abortions are giving people second thoughts. Could be any number of reasons.

Might be something to do with people referring to them as murderers, criminals etc.

Studies certainly suggest it's not a result of having an abortion.

In 1990, the American Psychological Association (APA) found that "severe negative reactions [after abortion] are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses."[8] The APA updated its findings in August 2008 to account for new evidence, and again concluded that a woman's first termination of an unplanned pregnancy in the first trimester did not increase the risk of mental-health problems.[3][9] A 2008 systematic review of the medical literature on abortion and mental health found that high-quality studies consistently showed few or no mental-health consequences of abortion, while poor-quality studies were more likely to report negative consequences.[10] In December 2011, the U.K. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health published a systematic review of available evidence, similarly concluding that first-time abortion in the first trimester does not increase the risk of mental-health problems compared with bringing the pregnancy to term.[4][11]


Despite the weight of medical opinion that first-time abortions in the first trimester (the majority of abortions[12]) do not result in increased risk of mental health issues when compared with live birth, some anti-abortion advocacy groups have continued to allege a link between abortion and mental-health problems.[13] Some anti-abortion groups have used the term "post-abortion syndrome" to refer to negative psychological effects which they attribute to abortion. However, "post-abortion syndrome" is not recognized as an actual syndrome by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association,[14] or the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists;[15] physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that the effort to popularize the idea of a "post-abortion syndrome" is a tactic used by anti-abortion advocates for political purposes.[1][13][16][17] Some U.S. state legislatures have mandated that patients be told that abortion increases their risk of depression and suicide, despite the fact that such risks are not acknowledged by the major mental health organizations or the higher-quality science publications on the issue.[10][18]

Source

Lurkio

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm not sure. Maybe people are opening their eyes to the sanctity of life. Maybe stories in the press about women suffering mental health issues after abortions are giving people second thoughts. Could be any number of reasons.

'I've no idea' you mean. Far more likely is increased awareness of contraception and the use of medication purchased over the internet, as well as the social acceptability of single parenthood.

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

She put her story out there in the national media. Why would she do that if she didn't want it discussed? She broke the law, but paints herself as the victim. It's bizarre. I can't imagine a rapist confessing to a sex crime and expecting a similar level of sympathy as this girl got.

I suppose your last sentence is some sort of allegory.

Comparing a woman who didn't want an unwanted very short in existence pregnancy in her womb to continue to grow to a rapist who (by definition of that word) had attacked another walking talking human and had sex with her against her will does't seem comparable.

Re the girl expecting sympathy, I doubt if she thought everyone would be in agreement with the action she took, when she decided to go public on it. I expect she knew she would face some negative responses, which is probably why the media outlet declined her offer to reveal her identity. As for painting herself as a victim, she told the truth of what she did in order that her story, and the story of other Irish women faced with pregnancies they do not want, would be part of the public debate on abortion and repealing the 8th amendment not merely on boards.ie, but in public generally.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

lazygal wrote: »

What is the sanctity of life?

what is Truth?

aloyisious

Originally Posted by lazygal View Post
What is the sanctity of life?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

what is Truth?

Edit: Both ARE what the laws of our land say they ARE, THAT FACT WON'T BE LIKED BY SOME OR MOST OF US.

Currently abortion is allowed for in law here to a limited degree, so the sanctity of life isn't recognized totally within state law. It's a matter of necessity really, often left to a judgement call by some-one who know's she/he will be called out on it by a hind-sighter not there at the time.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Foetuses do not have an equal right to life whether the Irish constitution says so or not. It is a case of the Irish constitution being wrong.

Not a case of your opinion being wrong? The right to life of an unborn child is enforceable in Ireland; your assertion that a foetus doesn't have an equal right to life is splitting hairs rather finely would you not say, and frankly doesn't quite carry the weight of law. If it helps, it's evident that your opinion is that a foetus shouldn't have an equal right to life, despite your opinion being largely contrary to the Constitution.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Irish law contradicts that assertion in many ways. The destruction of frozen embryos in fertility clinics being a glaringly obvious one.

But... jurisprudence says that frozen embryos in fertility clinics don't have a right to life? Now, you may be lumping frozen embryos in with foetuses generally, unlike Irish law, which distinguishes them from unborn human life. But that's you fudging the issue to create your own contradiction rather than observing the facts of Irish law, so it's pretty disingenous to say Irish law contradicts the assertion; you created your assertion to be contrary to Irish law. You're using the broad term foetus to cover a stage of human development which is not included in the term 'unborn' in Irish law, along with all the stages that are. That's a fairly extravagant exercise to try and give the impression that something is the case which you know is not true simply by engaging in the exercise.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Foetuses do not have an equal right to life to born people, you know it, I know it!

I'm afraid not. You wish it, and I oppose it ever becoming the case. But in Ireland, in law, the unborn have a right to life (lest we fall into the error of characterising everything as a foetus, probably best to stick to the specific terminology of the law). The unborn have a right to life, equal to the right of their mother, and it is a criminal offense to intentionally destroy that life.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The fact there is no pursuit or inquiry when a woman admits in a public forum to intentionally destroying 'unborn life', is clear proof that the constitutional statement is a farcical pretence to placate the RCC, who ruled the country at the time of its insertion into the constitution.

Well... it's clear proof that we don't live in a police state where every anonymous statement which may or may not be true is tracked to it's origin and the perpetrator interrogated. I's suggest turning up at a Garda station with actual evidence of the deliberate destruction of unborn human life in the jurisdiction by a specific person is more likely to result in some inquiry if you want to test your theory though.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

There is no pursuit or enquiry when people publicly admit such activities because law makers and 'pro lifers' both know that if there is, the whole house of cards will fall straight down.

Or, such pursuits and enquiries only occur when there is actual evidence of the commission of a crime... just as is the case with other crimes. I'd suggest my theory has an advantage in that it doesn't require the entire criminal justice system and political establishment do be engaged in a conspiracy to maintain a fictional 'house of cards' with regard to abortion when they have so many other real things to be doing....

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I ask you this Absolam, if I contacted the press to say that I had ordered cyanide online with the intention of killing my neighbour, and I had recieved the cyanide, administered it to the neighbour in a cup of tea, and they were now dead, what would the response be?

I think it would depend on the member of the press you contacted, but I have a feeling no small number of them would dismiss it as a crank call unless they had been provided with information about a death from cyanide poisoning from another source, and even then they'd probably be wary. I very much doubt the majority would leap into action and contact the Gardai to have the story immediately investigated by the authorities. Do you think they would?

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

You mention infanticide. What would the response be to the above scenario if the neighbour and the tea, were replaced with baby and bottle?

Probably pretty similar... though in the unlikely event you were taken seriously and you actually ended up being convicted of both crimes, the former would be a conviction for murder, and the latter (depending on the age of the child) a conviction for infanticide, which would result in different prison terms (the former being greater than the latter).

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Also the maximum sentence for killing a born person is life, any born person. The maximum penalty for 'killing unborn life' is 14 years.

And yet the sentences vary. A life sentence for capital murder lasts a minimum forty years; a life sentence for murder on average lasts about eighteen. Involuntary manslaughter results in a sentence less than voluntary manslaughter; infanticide is deliberately excluded from murder and carries the same penalties as manslaughter, even when it includes all of the elements that would raise the offense of manslaughter to murder, to ensure a mother who kills her (born) child cannot receive the same sentence as a murderer.
Generally, the average term served in Ireland for manslaughter is 12 years (a life sentence is obviously considerably less than 'life'); 2 years less than the maximum for the intentional destruction of unborn human life. So there's not, in fact, a great deal of difference between the penalties....

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Originally Posted by lazygal View Post
What is the sanctity of life?
Edit: Both ARE what the laws of our land say they ARE, THAT FACT WON'T BE LIKED BY SOME OR MOST OF US.
Currently abortion is allowed for in law here to a limited degree, so the sanctity of life isn't recognized totally within state law. It's a matter of necessity really, often left to a judgement call by some-one who know's she/he will be called out on it by a hind-sighter not there at the time.

What does the law of the land have to say about 'sanctity of life'? Specifically?

Absolam

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

what is Truth?

Truth is beauty.

Cabaal

http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/examiner-9.jpg

Social Democrats member dropped as Mass reader over abortion stance

The Church trying to use people's faith to blackmail them again, its like 2013 all over again.

pauldla

Cabaal wrote: »

http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/examiner-9.jpg



The Church trying to use people's faith to blackmail them again, its like 2013 all over again.

Maybe it's what society wants, Cabaal. We live in a democracy, after all (well, you do. I don't).