anyone else fed up hearing about abortion already

jameorahiely

jameorahiely wrote: »

Who is this "we" you speak of?

We say it, We are not "pro" abortions in and of themselves AT ALL. In the same way as We are not "pro" heart bypass.

We want people who want and need them to have access to them at the appropriate times..... but We ALSO want to strive towards the ideal of no one ever having them. By supporting initiatives that prevent unwanted pregnancies, and support initiatives that support people who are pregnant who want to continue with the pregnancy.



Why do you strive to lower the abortion rates? What's wrong with abortion? If there is nothing wrong with it, what does it matter what the rates are?

There is nothing wrong with it. But it's still a medical intervention, and it is always more desirable to prevent someone needing a medical procedure. For the women who don't want children it would be obviously better if they were assisted with better sex ed and contraception access so they can avoid becoming pregnant and needing an often painful and uncomfortable procedure. And for the women who would like to have a child but don't feel capable of supporting one in their current social/financial situation it would be desirable that supports exist to give them the option to continue their pregnancy if they wish.

But at the end of the day abortions will always be needed and therefore should be legal and accessible.

gctest50

jameorahiely wrote: »

....

Why do you strive to lower the abortion rates? What's wrong with abortion? If there is nothing wrong with it, what does it matter what the rates are?

.

Why do you strive to lower the cancer treatments? What's wrong with cancer treatment? If there is nothing wrong with it, what does it matter what the rates are?

Zubeneschamali

Grayson wrote: »

You have made no argument in favour of your position.

In fact, like the SSM amendment, the trolling, bad faith arguments and illogical nonsense from the pro-life side makes that side looks worse.

volchitsa

jameorahiely wrote: »

Doctors in London are also capable of ignoring patients symptoms...

All completely irrelevant again. Is there any chance you could reply to the actual question about what you said, rather than trawl the net for examples of medical negligence?

Here's what the actual question was :

volchitsa wrote: »

jameorahiely wrote: »

I agree, every medical proceedure, including Savitas has risks.

That's assuming the procedure carried out is the correct one according to current medical evidence, and that it is carried out correctly.

Anything else is negligence or worse.

What medical procedure was carried out on Savita? And was it the right one, by which I mean the same treatment she'd have had in any good maternity hospital around the world?

If you meant that medical negligence occurs elsewhere, fine, I agree, but that isn't what I'm asking you. You made a point about the medical procedure that Savita Halappanavar underwent and you gave us detailed medical information about what went wrong.

So asking you to name the treatment she got, and to compare it to what is standard in the rest of the developed world shouldn't be beyond your capacities.

Unless of course you can't because you know full well that she needed an abortion, and didn't get one when she asked for it because of a religious law that people were fooled into putting in the constitution back when most people actually believed that the Catholic Church had something to teach us about good and bad.

jameorahiely

Grayson wrote: »

This thread is a trainwreck and it's down to one person.
jameorahiely, you are using the dumbest rhetoric I've ever seen in a thread. You'll focus on one word and think that by doing do you'll win the argument. You'll ignore the point of a post and just focus on some tiny detail. I think in your head you have an imaginary scoreboard and that you think your winning. Thing is that you've added nothing substantive to the debate. You have made no argument in favour of your position.

Focus on one word?

Like this

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Or like this?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's very odd you decided not to pick these posters up on focusing on one word, yet you pretend I did it. Have you some sort of imaginary senario playing out in your head. I'm sure you think your post contributes substantially to the discussion, but it doesn't.

.......

This post has been deleted.

keano_afc

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In fact, like the SSM amendment, the trolling, bad faith arguments and illogical nonsense from the pro-life side makes that side looks worse.

Anyone would think you were trying to absolve the pro-choice side of the exact same faults.

Zubeneschamali

keano_afc wrote: »

Anyone would think you were trying to absolve the pro-choice side of the exact same faults.

Why would anyone think that when it does not follow from anything I said?

jameorahiely

Why do you strive to lower the cancer treatments? What's wrong with cancer treatment? If there is nothing wrong with it, what does it matter what the rates are?

What a bizarre comparison gctest, I think you know this is bizarre, that's why you put it in quotes. Do I really need to spell out why cancer is not the same as being pregnant?

jameorahiely

volchitsa wrote: »

All completely irrelevant again. Is there any chance you could reply to the actual question about what you said, rather than trawl the net for examples of medical negligence?

Here's what the actual question was :


If you meant that medical negligence occurs elsewhere, fine, I agree, but that isn't what I'm asking you. You made a point about the medical procedure that Savita Halappanavar underwent and you gave us detailed medical information about what went wrong.

So asking you to name the treatment she got, and to compare it to what is standard in the rest of the developed world shouldn't be beyond your capacities.

Unless of course you can't because you know full well that she needed an abortion, and didn't get one when she asked for it because of a religious law that people were fooled into putting in the constitution back when most people actually believed that the Catholic Church had something to teach us about good and bad.

Firstly she got bloods taken which the results weren't checked until a day later. One of the recommendations made was The jury also endorsed recommendations that blood samples should always be followed up to guard against errors". Safe to say the standard in the rest of the world woukd be to check the blood test

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod:

Thread reopened....

gctest50 and frag420, using a poster's posts from another forum is a dick move and against the charter. It doesn't matter if it is DRP for an AH post, it is still a dick move. Don't do it again.

jameorahiely, you are guilty of misrepresenting other poster's posts, begging the question and deflection. It doesn't do you any favours and only serves to wind up other posters. If you don't want to attract so much derision, you can discuss/debate properly by or don't post in this thread at all. Your call.

For everyone else, play nice. It's a tough ask for such a divisive topic, but it's a topic that will continue to garner huge discussion in the coming months and will inevitably feature a lot in After Hours. We don't want to start banning abortion-related threads, so don't make us.

volchitsa

jameorahiely wrote: »

Firstly she got bloods taken which the results weren't checked until a day later. One of the recommendations made was The jury also endorsed recommendations that blood samples should always be followed up to guard against errors". Safe to say the standard in the rest of the world woukd be to check the blood test

Wait, are you saying that the usual treatment for a woman presenting at 17 weeks with an open cervix and back pain is just to do bloods?

Anyway, doing bloods on someone isn't risky. What was the procedure involving risk that you said she was taking?

jameorahiely

volchitsa wrote: »

Wait, are you saying that the usual treatment for a woman presenting at 17 weeks with an open cervix and back pain is just to do bloods?

Anyway, doing bloods on someone isn't risky. What was the procedure involving risk that you said she was taking?

No I didn't say that the treatment was just to do bloods. Firstly "doing bloods" is not a treatment. It's an investigation. Drawimg the blood is a medical proceedure. They did not read the results in a timely manner, they did not complete the investigation in a timely manner.



The medical profession would disagree with you that taking bloods isn't risky. They practice infection control techniques, to help prevent the spread of infection. Taking bloods can result in the patient suffering from compressed nerve injuries and /or complex regional pain syndrome.

Do you think they should start doing operations on people before investigating and determining what the problem is?

volchitsa

jameorahiely wrote: »

No I didn't say that the treatment was just to do bloods. Firstly "doing bloods" is not a treatment. It's an investigation. Drawimg the blood is a medical proceedure. They did not read the results in a timely manner, they did not complete the investigation in a timely manner.



The medical profession would disagree with you that taking bloods isn't risky. They practice infection control techniques, to help prevent the spread of infection. Taking bloods can result in the patient suffering from compressed nerve injuries and /or complex regional pain syndrome.

Come to that, having a bath can be risky, but that is really not the same level of risk.

So I'm still intrigued by your claim that the procedure that Savita underwent was also risky - were you really referring to taking bloods?

nozzferrahhtoo

jameorahiely wrote: »

Who is this "we" you speak of?

It would be a lot easier to proceed a conversation if you read the posts you hit REPLY on. I already answered this question, directly.

jameorahiely wrote: »

Why do you strive to lower the abortion rates? What's wrong with abortion? If there is nothing wrong with it, what does it matter what the rates are?

There is nothing "wrong" with heart bypass either. There is nothing "wrong" with dental work. There is nothing "wrong" with getting treatment after a car crash or a sports injury.

But we still try to reduce instances of these things. Invasive surgery or intervention medicine of any kind involves money, resources, risk, emotional turmoil and much more.

Further there are probably people who get abortions who do not actually want to, but feel for one reason or another it is their best option. Single mothers who simply can not afford the time and money to raise a child for example. I certainly do not want to live in a society where women who do not WANT to have an abortion feel compelled to.... and so I support initiatives that help them not get pregnant in the first place, or be able to deal with the pregnancy and child if they do.

There is a reason people say "Prevention is better than cure" you know.

So while it is good that such options are THERE for people who need them, it is also good to work on reducing cases of people ever needing them. And I think if you actually take the time to listen to most pro-choice people, as I do not think you come across as someone who is really listening here, you will find the majority of them feel that way too.

Absolam

Reducing the number of people needing abortions is definitely a laudable ambition, one that should be supported and encouraged.
Reducing the number of people aborted is even more laudable, and even more deserving of support and encouragement.

A substantive Constitutional prohibition combined with comprehensive legislation, a world class health care system, and an education system providing solid moral grounding from an early age would seem to be an eminent attempt at achieving both.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

A substantive Constitutional prohibition combined with comprehensive legislation, a world class health care system, and an education system providing solid moral grounding from an early age would seem to be an eminent attempt at achieving both.

But we don't have a Constitutional prohibition - we have the opposite, a Constitution guarantee of access to abortion on demand, validated by referendum.

You just have to book an appointment in the UK and a Ryanair flight to avail of it, which creates some issues, but doesn't in any way provide a "solid moral grounding" for anything, being just a big hypocritical "not under my roof" clause.

Absolam

It certainly sets out what can be done in this country alright, which is about as much as I suppose you can expect a country's Constitution to do. I'm sure when Ryanair extend our legislative influence over the UK we can debate how the Constitution will cover them too. In the meantime, I think it's fair to say you are incorrect though; we do have an effective Constitutional prohibition, by and large. At least until someone can abort a pregnancy without killing the unborn.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

It certainly sets out what can be done in this country alright, which is about as much as I suppose you can expect a country's Constitution to do.

Our Constitution had a more solid substantive Constitutional prohibition which barred travel for abortion and information about it until we changed it to allow travel for abortion and information.

So our Constitution did more than you suppose I can expect.

Our "pro-life" campaigners pretend that they are cool with that situation now, but at the time they opposed that change, and wanted to keep that travel ban, and lost.

jameorahiely

HR 490 the heartbeat protection bill is going before congress soon. If it passes abortion after a heartbeat has been detected will not be permitted nationwide in the usa. 17 states have already passed it.

Zubeneschamali

jameorahiely wrote: »

HR 490 the heartbeat protection bill is going before congress soon.

Thank you for that update from the Colonies.

frag420

jameorahiely wrote: »

HR 490 the heartbeat protection bill is going before congress soon. If it passes abortion after a heartbeat has been detected will not be permitted nationwide in the usa. 17 states have already passed it.

But you are not in 'Merica are you? You are in Ireland so I fail to see what that has to do with anything being discussed here?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Our Constitution had a more solid substantive Constitutional prohibition which barred travel for abortion and information about it until we changed it to allow travel for abortion and information. So our Constitution did more than you suppose I can expect. Our "pro-life" campaigners pretend that they are cool with that situation now, but at the time they opposed that change, and wanted to keep that travel ban, and lost.

Well, that's not really true, is it? There was no Constitutional prohibition which barred travel for abortion and information about it. At all. The AG certainly had the power to attempt to prevent people travelling for abortion, even if he never succeeded in preventing anyone from travelling, but that's a rather different thing.

We added text to the existing Article, which prevented the effective prohibition on abortion in the State from being used to limit freedom to travel (regardless of the reason for travel) or freedom to obtain or make available information relating to services (regardless of the services) available in another state (subject to legal conditions). We certainly didn't remove any Constitutional prohibition.

Insofar as the Constitution could do more than I expect, I'm open to being surprised, but I sincerely doubt it will ever be found it asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction beyond the scope of the old Free State, so I suppose in that regard setting out what can be done in this country is about as much as you can expect of it, like I said. Or do you have an argument for us that sets a Constitutional obligation to prosecute those who kill the unborn in other countries?

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

We added text to the existing Article, which prevented the effective prohibition on abortion in the State from being used to limit freedom to travel

We added text to alllow travel for abortion because the Supreme Court ruled that travel for abortion was not permitted under the 8th as originally written.

So yes, it is really true that there was a Constututional prohibition on travel for abortion, except where the life of the mother was in danger, in which case abortion was legal here and travel was unnecessary.

And to repeat - the pro life campaign opposed the addition of that text because they liked the fact that travel for abortion on demand was illegal. It would be illegal still if that text had not been added.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

Insofar as the Constitution could do more than I expect, I'm open to being surprised, but I sincerely doubt it will ever be found it asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction beyond the scope of the old Free State

It took me 5 seconds with Google to find the article below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction_in_Irish_law

Ireland has universal jurisdiction for murder and manslaughter committed by its citizens.[1] This dates from at least 1829,[2] retained by the Offences against the Person Act 1861, as adapted in 1973.[3]

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We added text to alllow travel for abortion because the Supreme Court ruled that travel for abortion was not permitted under the 8th as originally written. So yes, it is really true that there was a Constututional prohibition on travel for abortion, except where the life of the mother was in danger, in which case abortion was legal here and travel was unnecessary.

Nope, they didn't. The SC stated that the true test to be applied to the reconciliation of the right to life of the unborn and the light to life of the mother identified and guaranteed under the Constitution made it unnecessary for the purpose of deciding the appeal to reach any conclusion on the further issues which were raised, including the issue of travel. The opinion expressed by the Chief Justice was that notwithstanding the very fundamental nature of the right to travel and its particular importance in relation to the characteristics of a free society, if there were a stark conflict between the right of a mother of an unborn child to travel and the right to life of the unborn child, the right to life would necessarily have to take precedence over the right to travel, and concluded that the submission made that the mother of the unborn child had an absolute light to travel which could not be qualified or restricted, even by the vindication or defence of the right to life of the unborn, is not a valid or sustainable submission in law. Which is a bit different..... again.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And to repeat - the pro life campaign opposed the addition of that text because they liked the fact that travel for abortion on demand was illegal. It would be illegal still if that text had not been added.

Your opinion doesn't really seem have any bearing on what we can expect from the Constitution, but you seem to be pleased about it, so I suppose we can agree that you're happy that what you think others thought was frustrated?

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It took me 5 seconds with Google to find the article below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction_in_Irish_law

Ireland has universal jurisdiction for murder and manslaughter committed by its citizens.[1] This dates from at least 1829,[2] retained by the Offences against the Person Act 1861, as adapted in 1973.[3]

Had you spent another five seconds do you think you would have noticed this is not a Constitutional assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction beyond the scope of the old Free State?

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

Had you spent another five seconds do you think you would have noticed this is not a Constitutional assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction beyond the scope of the old Free State?

So the Free State asserted extraterritorial jurisdiction to protect the life of born citizens, and the new Republic Constitution asserted extraterritorial jurisdiction to protect the life of its born citizens, but you would be surprised if it asserted extraterritorial jurisdiction to protect the unborn.

I would not.

The original 8th asserts that the right to life of the unborn is equal to that of the mother. If we hadn't passed the right to travel exception, I believe that the State would have been obliged to pass legislation to make foreign abortions illegal with criminal sanctions, and to prevent travel where there is a threat of abortion, and assert universal jurisdiction in these cases.

If we had not passed the right to information, then people publishing abortion information would have to be treated like people advertising murder for hire.

Of course, the right to travel and information clauses are basically admissions that we do not believe what it said in the original 8th - the unborn do not have a right to life equal to the mothers, and we all know it, and we like it that way.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So the Free State asserted extraterritorial jurisdiction to protect the life of born citizens, and the new Republic Constitution asserted extraterritorial jurisdiction to protect the life of its born citizens, but you would be surprised if it asserted extraterritorial jurisdiction to protect the unborn. I would not.

Again, they didn't (sorry this seems to be becoming a refrain); there is no mention of protecting the life of born citizens, and the jurisdiction extends to citizens accused of committing murder, not citizens who are murdered. I assume we can take from your 'So' that you're now abandoning the contention that there is a Constitutional assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction beyond the scope of the old Free State and moving on to your new argument, so...
Nothing in the claim to extraterritorial jurisdiction protects life, it simply asserts the right of the State to jurisdiction over a citizen accused of committing murder outside of the State, giving it a notional entitlement to repatriate and try the citizen in an Irish Court. Whilst you might not be surprised if the new Republic Constitution asserted extraterritorial jurisdiction to protect the unborn, I'm certain you can't find either a Constitutional Article or a Supreme Court judgement that shows it does, so I guess your reaction won't ever be tested.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The original 8th asserts that the right to life of the unborn is equal to that of the mother. If we hadn't passed the right to travel exception, I believe that the State would have been obliged to pass legislation to make foreign abortions illegal with criminal sanctions, and to prevent travel where there is a threat of abortion, and assert universal jurisdiction in these cases. If we had not passed the right to information, then people publishing abortion information would have to be treated like people advertising murder for hire.

What you believe would have been the case is entirely speculative though. It hardly merits mention, since it manifestly was not the case.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course, the right to travel and information clauses are basically admissions that we do not believe what it said in the original 8th - the unborn do not have a right to life equal to the mothers, and we all know it, and we like it that way.

That seems rather an extravagant 'Of course' since there's no reason to imagine there's any truth in your speculation other than your own wishful thinking. Not least given that the unborn's equal right to life is protected and vindicated in legislation effective throughout the jurisdiction of the State, so whether or not you don't believe it, the legislature and law enforcement authorities certainly do, and anyone arguing for a repeal of the 8th would seem to as well, or they wouldn't want it repealed, would they?

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

Whilst you might not be surprised if the new Republic Constitution asserted extraterritorial jurisdiction to protect the unborn, I'm certain you can't find either a Constitutional Article or a Supreme Court judgement that shows it does, so I guess your reaction won't ever be tested.

It won't now, because we passed the travel and information clauses expressly to prevent that sort of legal judgement.

If there was no extraterritorial jurisdiction from the 8th, the State would have no business preventing travel for abortion - travel is not a crime here and abortion is not a crime in the UK. The only way the SC could opine that travel would be restricted (although not in the specific case of X because of suicidality) would be if the State's duty to vindicate the right to life of the unborn gave the State extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It won't now, because we passed the travel and information clauses expressly to prevent that sort of legal judgement.

And yet you say you wouldn't be surprised if the Constititution asserted extraterritorial jurisdiction to protect the unborn. How very odd.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If there was no extraterritorial jurisdiction from the 8th, the State would have no business preventing travel for abortion - travel is not a crime here and abortion is not a crime in the UK. The only way the SC could opine that travel would be restricted (although not in the specific case of X because of suicidality) would be if the State's duty to vindicate the right to life of the unborn gave the State extraterritorial jurisdiction.

What if? There has never been any extraterritorial jurisdiction in the 8th, and no one has ever asserted there could be. In the X Case the AG successfully argued that in this jurisdiction he had a duty to act in restraining a person from interfering with the right to life of the unborn, and obtained an order from the Court which forbade the girl and her parents from travelling outside the jurisdiction whilst they could interfere with that right. The SC never opined on what could be done outside the jurisdiction.