Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)
Comments
-
Firstly, dictionary definition from 1971 isn't a citeable source. Definitions change. When I look up "child definiton", none of the definitions on the first page of results said fetus or infant. You can do the same, you'll get the same result. Really clutching at straws there.pleas advice wrote: »See Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 397 (6th ed. 2007), which's first definition is "A fetus; an infant;...". See also ‘The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary: Complete Text Reproduced Micrographically’, Vol. I (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1971): 396, which defines it as: ‘The unborn or newly born human being; foetus, infant’.
There isn't. A child isn't unborn. A child is a born human being.splinter65 wrote: »I keep dropping in here to see what’s going on and I see this.
No such thing as an unborn child....it’s no wonder the pro life side are winning ...carry on...
So, we are using non-medical dictionaries to define what pregnancy is now? . Pregnancy is a medical condition. So, unless you can find a definition in a medical journal that calls a fetus a child, that won't work well for you.From the OED.
"Definition of pregnant in English:
pregnant
ADJECTIVE
1(of a woman or female animal) having a child or young developing in the uterus.
‘she was heavily pregnant with her second child’
‘she was six months pregnant’".
The link had absolutely no links in it. It was a link to a anti-choice page which contained no links to cite what it was saying.ForestFire wrote: »So can I pull this statement out anytime someone tries to have a reasoned conversation?
Oh and you must have missed this, while you were dismissing the use and meaning of words used.......the link
The Oxford English Dictionary
But what would they know about the use of words
And absolutely. If someone is saying "well, x study" or "Well, x is defined as" and can't prove that's the definition, then you can absolutely dismiss it.
Can't believe I had to take my time to explain all that. Pain in my ass.0 -
ForestFire wrote: »Prostitution is illegal in Ireland, we don't need to check and test every man leaving the country for this? Especially those Amsterdam flights , so don't see why we would need to check every woman leaving.
Because it's not a crime to travel abroad to participate in prostitution, whereas the poster Bann was replying to wants to make it a crime if someone has an abortion abroad.
Do you have other suggestions as to how to enforce this law if it were introduced? And would you be in favour of such a law in the first place?0 -
WhiteRoses wrote: »No it isn’t. And you might want to have a word with the government, because they don’t even issue birth/death certificates for stillbirths before 24 weeks gestation.
Even the government do not recognize it as a life lost.
So would you be happy for your wife or daughter to have her health significantly compromised or even die for the sake of a 10 week gestation pregnancy?
Because that’s what you are asking other people to do.
Even if you don’t think I am, I know I’m more important than a zygote.
I dispair that a small demographic of society believe me and other women to be so expendable, so insignificant as to equte our worth to that of a zygote.
I'm with you on that, I know if my wife or daughter was in grave danger or severe distress because of a pregnancy I wouldn't hesitate to put her life first. But, the critical difference as I see it is that I am not perfect, I wouldn't consider myself to be a model of upstanding morals. However, I expect the state to aim for higher standards than my own flawed selfishness. We need to debate this calmly and with a willingness to accept that neither position has a monopoly on the moral high ground here.
I will vote for repeal, but very reluctantly if it is for unlimited, no questions asked abortion on demand. The reason I am arguing with the repeal side is because so many insist there is no moral question to ponder here, 'its just a clump of cells', 'there's no problem voting on which lives deserve to live or die' etc. To me they are disturbing propositions and people are blinded by their own ideological stance on what the full implications of these statements are. What gives anyone here authority to set the bar on what category of human lives can be disregarded?0 -
uptherebels wrote: »You don't believe that years ago in conservative Catholic Ireland where suicide and unplanned pregnancies were sins that these things may have been under reported?
As for someone who routinely ignores being asked to provide evidence of their claims, I feel this quote is appropriate
May have already been answered, and unsure really to the relavence here, but when as suicide was a criminal act in this country, a coroner would rarely make a finding of suicide. For a time, a coroner was unable to make a finding of suicide, as it implicated a named person (the deceased) in a crime. Even now that it has been decriminalised, it is not always recorded in suicides.
http://www.presscouncil.ie/address-by-patrick-oconnor-to-suicide-and-the-press-meetingIf a doctor refuses medical treatment (including the morning after pill) on conscience grounds for a woman in distress over a possible unplanned pregnancy and she later commits suicide, was the doctor in breach of their oath as a doctor?
No. So long as the doctor has followed medical council guidelines to refer on to another doctor who will provide the service, he has not failed in his duty of care.Some would argue that the doctor could just send the woman to another doctor. But that argument falls apart. Ashers bakery in Northern Ireland were not allowed tell a gay customer to just go to another bakery for their wedding cake.
Once something becomes a "human right", people are forced to go against their conscious.
See above.0 -
ohnonotgmail wrote: »Is that how you consider conjoined twins? as one hosting the other?
No, I was using the words of the previous poster.0 -
Joeytheparrot wrote: »You lashed in some bizarre statements about our marriages being experimental yesterday though. Not very convinced at all.
Anything new is in experimental mode for a while. My statement was not gay specific. It relates to anything new. New vaccines are in experimental mode for a while. New technology, such as driverless cars, are in experimental mode for a while. Two straight men getting married to defraud the tax man would be a pothole many weren't expecting.
I don't believe though the pro-choice side should keep associating this referendum with the same-sex marriage referendum. There is a something cynical about that. There are pro-life LGBT movements such as PLAGAL whose motto is "Human rights start when human life begins."0 -
mrkiscool2 wrote: »Firstly, dictionary definition from 1971 isn't a citeable source. Definitions change. When I look up "child definiton", none of the definitions on the first page of results said fetus or infant. You can do the same, you'll get the same result. Really clutching at straws there.
There isn't. A child isn't unborn. A child is a born human being.
So, we are using non-medical dictionaries to define what pregnancy is now? . Pregnancy is a medical condition. So, unless you can find a definition in a medical journal that calls a fetus a child, that won't work well for you.
The link had absolutely no links in it. It was a link to a anti-choice page which contained no links to cite what it was saying.
And absolutely. If someone is saying "well, x study" or "Well, x is defined as" and can't prove that's the definition, then you can absolutely dismiss it.
Can't believe I had to take my time to explain all that. Pain in my ass.
So your own self righteous opinions are now facts and to be undisputed after a biased 5 minute Google search?0 -
I'd be fully in favour of the fake womb idea but only after every living breathing child that already exists had at least the basics in this country like a place to call home.0
-
-
Advertisement
-
Sweetemotion wrote: »Who do you think would benefit most from the fake womb idea, men or women?
The unborn.0 -
mrkiscool2 wrote: »Firstly, dictionary definition from 1971 isn't a citeable source. Definitions change. When I look up "child definiton", none of the definitions on the first page of results said fetus or infant. You can do the same, you'll get the same result. Really clutching at straws there.
So, we are using non-medical dictionaries to define what pregnancy is now? . Pregnancy is a medical condition. So, unless you can find a definition in a medical journal that calls a fetus a child, that won't work well for you.
special pleading / moving the goalposts, but anyway
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/cite.aspx?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com%2FUnborn%2BChild&word=Unborn%20Child&sources=MillerKeane,wkMed,dorland,hm_med,mosbyMD,MGH_Med,wkHP,hcMed,gem,evPod,wkDen,mosby,vet,iMedix0 -
JupiterKid wrote: »It’s funny, isn’t it? Teenage pregnancies here in Ireland have seen huge drops in recent years as proper sex education has finally made its way to all schools, despite fierce and bitter resistance from religious right wing types. In every country where sex education has been implemented and enhanced, teen pregnancy rates have dropped.
Doesn’t tally with the so called “pro-life” brigade who rally against sex education and easily available contraception as it will turn virginal pure young girls into shameless hussies who will murder their unborn babies at the first opportunity.
Utterly distorted, self-defeatist thinking.
I think you'll find that the teenage pregnancies rate has dropped as in addition to education, they no longer get automatically pushed to the top of the council housing lists.0 -
Obvious bots aside
The appalling outdated and redundant stupidity on show in this thread and in Ireland itself, is depressing.
We know the referendum will pass. These fugnots are just here to make it ugly. Ignore them.0 -
-
How was my google search biased? I literally told you I typed in "child definition" and went through each of the first page's results, one of which was the Oxford Dictionaries definition of child. And facts are facts. Usually, when you follow them, you are right. Maybe try that?Sweetemotion wrote: »So your own self righteous opinions are now facts and to be undisputed after a biased 5 minute Google search?
Erm, you do know that when you click on the links, they don't mention child? It goes to fetus. And none of them call the fetus an unborn child. So, you still haven't provided proper evidence that pregnancy (which, I'm sorry, is a medical condition. So medical definitions matter more here. Goalposts aren't moved. Same way if someone had a weird definition of something related to science that wasn't the scientific definition) has an "unborn child".pleas advice wrote: »special pleading / moving the goalposts, but anyway
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/cite.aspx?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com%2FUnborn%2BChild&word=Unborn%20Child&sources=MillerKeane,wkMed,dorland,hm_med,mosbyMD,MGH_Med,wkHP,hcMed,gem,evPod,wkDen,mosby,vet,iMedix
Look, I'm happy to continue to be on the side of facts and be right here. Keep 'em coming.0 -
Advertisement
-
Andrew Beef wrote: »do we want to cherish life or do we wish to let women’s misguided attempts to be “free” destroy the fabric of our society?
A gem that deffo needed reposting for your consideration, ladies and gentlemen - every word dripping with the smarminess and the misogyny of times gone by. Stand back and admire.
Oh those upstart women and their silly notions, tsk tsk.0 -
A gem that deffo needed reposting for your consideration, ladies and gentlemen - every word dripping with the smarminess and the misogyny of times gone by. Stand back and admire.
Oh those upstart women and their silly notions, tsk tsk.
In 2016 there were 2,407,437 women in Ireland. In 2016, 3,265 women and girls gave Irish addresses at UK abortion services.
(This number is an underestimation for various reasons and does not include abortion pill packages.)
This represents 0.14% of women in the country, hardly a socialtial fabric changing number in either mindset, or changing what is actuality happening.0 -
fetus Obstetrismrkiscool2 wrote: »How was my google search biased? I literally told you I typed in "child definition" and went through each of the first page's results, one of which was the Oxford Dictionaries definition of child. And facts are facts. Usually, when you follow them, you are right. Maybe try that?
Erm, you do know that when you click on the links, they don't mention child? It goes to fetus. And none of them call the fetus an unborn child. So, you still haven't provided proper evidence that pregnancy (which, I'm sorry, is a medical condition. So medical definitions matter more here. Goalposts aren't moved. Same way if someone had a weird definition of something related to science that wasn't the scientific definition) has an "unborn child".
Look, I'm happy to continue to be on the side of facts and be right here. Keep 'em coming.
1. The unborn child developing in the uterus–after the embryonic stage, circa age 7 to 8 wks to birth.
2. The product of conception from the time of implantation until delivery; if the delivered or expelled fetus is viable, it is designated an infant. See Harlequin fetus, Nonviable fetus. Cf Embryo.
McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.0 -
Yeah...2002....let's not mention the fact there have been numerous new editions since then (from a quick search, 2006 and 2010). Again, definitions change and one definition that mentions child vs the numerous that don't mention child says it all really.pleas advice wrote: »fetus Obstetris
1. The unborn child developing in the uterus–after the embryonic stage, circa age 7 to 8 wks to birth.
2. The product of conception from the time of implantation until delivery; if the delivered or expelled fetus is viable, it is designated an infant. See Harlequin fetus, Nonviable fetus. Cf Embryo.
McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
mrkiscool2 wrote: »Yeah...2002....let's not mention the fact there have been numerous new editions since then (from a quick search, 2006 and 2010). Again, definitions change and one definition that mentions child vs the numerous that don't mention child says it all really.
That's the very problem. Before abortion on demand entered the world, it was always an unborn child. Then when abortion on demand came in, people decided to redefine the unborn child into a "foetus" in order to dehumanize the baby in order to make themselves feel easier about killing the unborn in an abortion.
On a completely unrelated topic, Hitler refused to acknowledge the Jews as human beings. Instead he used the term "Untermensch" to describe them, which is german for "sub-human". So Hitler didn't gas a single human being, they were all Untermensch.0 -
-
Things certainly weren't perfect in Ireland in the past. They were better than what we have today?Zubeneschamali wrote: »When one study contradicts "conventional wisdom", meaning lots and lots of studies, you should not bet the farm on it.
Here is a response citing some of those studies.
Its not just one study:
Sharp rise in sexually transmitted diseases in Ireland in past decade
The number of people with common sexually transmitted infections in Ireland has risen sharply over the past decade, a new Europe-wide report shows. The incidence of gonorrhoea in Ireland increased fourfold while the rate of infection with syphilis and chlamydia doubled, according to the report from the European Centre for Disease Control.
(Source: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/sharp-rise-in-sexually-transmitted-diseases-in-ireland-in-past-decade-1.2360741 )
Rise in STIs because it’s easier to get sex now
The incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in Ireland rose again in 2017, with hundreds more cases of gonorrhea, herpes and chlamydia, according to the HSE’s health protection surveillance centre.
(Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rise-in-stis-because-its-easier-to-get-sex-now-3mnk9r0z3 )
While things weren't perfect in Ireland in the past, all in all they were better than what we have today with contraception and sex ed being thrown at young people sexualizing them more than they want to be. More teen pregnancies, more STIs. We have more of these NOW, not less than in the past.The Ombudsman’s third criticism was that a number of women whom the department accepts were forced to work in Magdalene Laundries as children have been excluded from the scheme. The nuns registered these girls on the rolls of educational institutions in the convent grounds instead of on the Magdalene books, and departmental officials have therefore decided that the women were not “admitted to” the laundries despite being present and working in them daily.
According to the Ombudsman, “young and teenage girls could be moved around different sections or institutions within the confines of the convent to which they were admitted without this being officially recorded or reflected in the records”. Through his investigative work, Conall Ó Fátharta of this newspaper has offered crucial corroboration of the women’s testimony in this regard.
[font=PT Sans, sans-serif]The Ombudsman is not the only one to have criticised the lack of restorative justice in the Magdalene scheme over the past five years. Since the then taoiseach’s apology, the UN Committee Against Torture, UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, UN Human Rights Committee, and UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have all stated their grave concern at the denial of justice and redress to survivors of Ireland’s Magdalene Laundries. Last year, the first two of these committees gave Ireland a one-year deadline to comply with our human rights obligations towards the women, such was their recognition of the urgency.[/font]
[font=PT Sans, sans-serif]https://irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/magdalene-laundry-survivors-have-waited-too-long-for-redress-828997.html
If that's not enough for you, read this one:
[/font]https://irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/bessborough-mother-and-baby-home-we-cant-blame-the-past-for-this-latest-shame-828840.html
Ireland's past record of treating women who had sex outside of marriage and became pregnant, and Ireland's past record of treating the children they gave birth to, is one of the darkest stains on Ireland's record, a sad litany of abuse, false imprisonment and shame. Turn the clock back to that? Get out of it boy, only a few bead-rattling fanatics want those days back.0 -
Andrew Beef wrote: »do we want to cherish life or do we wish to let women’s misguided attempts to be “free” destroy the fabric of our society?
I thought it was legalizing gayness that would destroy the fabric of society. Or was it divorce? Contraception? Unmarried mothers? Gays marrying cats and dogs?
The fabric of society must be looking pretty threadbare if you are a pre-vatican II Roman Catholic dinosaur.0 -
No it wasn't. You clearly have no idea of historical attitudes to abortion.mrkiscool2 wrote: »Yeah...2002....let's not mention the fact there have been numerous new editions since then (from a quick search, 2006 and 2010). Again, definitions change and one definition that mentions child vs the numerous that don't mention child says it all really.
That's the very problem. Before abortion on demand entered the world, it was always an unborn child.
For centuries, it was widely accepted that a foetus prior to the 'quickening' was not a human being, either because it did not have a soul, or because it was deemed to be not fully alive, and therefore outside the law.
[font=sl-Apres, helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/05/the_quickening_the_momentous_pregnancy_event_that_became_a_relic.html[font=sl-Apres, helvetica, sans-serif]Historically speaking, my experience was an anomaly. For thousands of years, the quickening was arguably the most significant turning point in the average woman’s pregnancy. It had both philosophical and practical significance for women, and for centuries it also marked the legal and moral dividing line for when an abortion could be performed. Today, the quickening is noticed in passing, if at all. But it’s worth remembering this now-antiquated milestone, and celebrating it for what it can still mean.[/font]
[font=sl-Apres, helvetica, sans-serif]The term quickening comes from the root word quick, an archaic synonym for “living.” (Think “the quick and the dead.” )The concept goes back at least to Aristotle, who believed that male fetuses take on human characteristics after 40 days in the womb, and female fetuses after about 80 days. For Aristotle, the quickening represented the moment when those fetuses became “animated.” At that point, the fetus becomes its own being—it achieves “ensoulment,” to invoke another archaic term. [/font]
[font=sl-Apres, helvetica, sans-serif]For everyday women, those first movements were not just a philosophical landmark but a practical one. In the days before blood tests and First Response kits, the quickening often provided the first reliable sign of a woman’s pregnancy. Yes, a missed period has always been a clue, but it’s not foolproof: Many women have irregular cycles, and some bleed lightly in the first months of pregnancy. The confirmation had emotional resonance, too. The 18th-century feminist writer Mary Wollstonecraft wrote tenderly to her husband that her unborn child “took it into his head to frisk a little at being informed of your remembrance. I begin to love this little creature, and to anticipate his birth as a fresh twist to a knot, which I do not wish to untie.”
For centuries the quickening also had important legal ramifications. British common law, eventually imported to Colonial America, outlawed abortion only if it took place after the quickening. Likewise, a pregnant woman could not be executed post-quickening. The English jurist William Blackstone wrote in 1770, “To be saved from the gallows a woman must be quick with child—for barely with child, unless he be alive in the womb, is not sufficient.” In other words, a fetus whose movements could not yet be detected was not yet fully alive. An 1812 Massachusetts court case, Commonwealth v. Bangs, confirmed that pre-quickening abortions “would remain beyond the scope of the law.” Even though states began to pass criminal abortion statutes in the 1820s, courts before 1850 rarely heard cases involving pre-quickening abortion.[/font]
[/font]
If you're going to make arguments based on what has happened in the past, it might be useful to know what actually happened in the past as opposed to your ill-informed fantasy version of the past.0 -
efore abortion on demand entered the world, it was always an unborn child.
This is not true at all.
There was lots of debate throughout history about when a child becomes a child. In Christianity, this was a debate about "ensoulment", when a soul appears, and the debate was between conception and "quickening", when the woman feels movement. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both cited the point of quickening as the moment at which the life in the womb becomes human.
Eventually, the "at conception" side won the debate withing the church, which is why the Catholic Church is against IVF, morning after pills etc.
The pro-life crew lost this battle in court, and now pretend that they always believed implantation is key, but this is in fact a stupid line based on nothing but the stupid wording of the stupid 8th which its stupid authors did not understand themselves.0 -
It may be you that has no idea about the Catholic church's historical attitudes to abortion, sondagefaux. They roundly condemned it right from the get-go. This, along with the condemnation of the practice of exposing unwanted infants, is one of the earliest distinctive Christian ethical positions that we know of. The conemnation of abortion long predates the realisation that life is present at all times from conception, which is something that only arrived with the invention of the microscope, and does not depend upon it.sondagefaux wrote: »No it wasn't. You clearly have no idea of the Catholic Church's historical attitudes to abortion, or attitudes in pre-Christian Europe.
For centuries, it was widely accepted that a first trimester foetus (prior to the foetus becoming 'quick') was not a human being, because it did not have a soul.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/05/the_quickening_the_momentous_pregnancy_event_that_became_a_relic.html0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »It may be you that has no idea about the Catholic church's historical attitudes to abortion, sondagefaux. They roundly condemned it right from the get-go.
Yes, but many drew a distinction between the severity of early term and late term abortion based on ensoulment - actual life vs. potential life.0 -
No they did not.Peregrinus wrote: »
It may be you that has no idea about the Catholic church's historical attitudes to abortion, sondagefaux. They roundly condemned it right from the get-go. This, along with the condemnation of the practice of exposing unwanted infants, is one of the earliest distinctive Christian ethical positions that we know of. The conemnation of abortion long predates the realisation that life is present at all times from conception, which is something that only arrived with the invention of the microscope, and does not depend upon it.sondagefaux wrote: »No it wasn't. You clearly have no idea of the Catholic Church's historical attitudes to abortion, or attitudes in pre-Christian Europe.
For centuries, it was widely accepted that a first trimester foetus (prior to the foetus becoming 'quick') was not a human being, because it did not have a soul.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/05/the_quickening_the_momentous_pregnancy_event_that_became_a_relic.htmlWhile Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor held that human life already began at conception,[12] Augustine of Hippo affirmed Aristotle's concepts of ensoulment occurring some time after conception, after which point abortion was to be considered homicide,[13]while still maintaining the condemnation of abortion at any time from conception onward.[14]
Thomas Aquinas reiterated Aristotle's views of successive souls: vegetative, animal, and rational. This would be the Catholic Church's position until 1869, when the limitation of automatic excommunication to abortion of a formed fetus was removed, a change that has been interpreted as an implicit declaration that conception was the moment of ensoulment.[8] Most early penitentials imposed equal penances for abortion whether early-term or late-term, but later penitentials in the Middle Ages normally distinguished between the two, imposing heavier penances for late-term abortions and a less severe penance was imposed for the sin of abortion "before [the foetus] has life".[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_thought_on_abortion0 -
Yes, they did.
Your own cite tells us that Augustine of Hippo denied that pre-quickening abortion was homicide, while “still [maintaining] the condemnation of abortion at any time from conception onward”. That tells you that even before Augustine (354-430 CE) the church condemned abortion at any time, and Augustine affirmed this position. And the second paragraph of your site tells us that the early penitentials imposed the same penance for abortion at all stages, while the medievals imposed a lesser penance for pre-quickening abortion and a heavier penance for post-quickening abortion. Again, this confirms what I said; the Catholic church has always condemned abortion at all stages of pregnancy. There was never a time when it regarded pre-quickening abortion as ethically acceptable.0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote: »Yes, they did.
Your own cite tells us that Augustine of Hippo denied that pre-quickening abortion was homicide, while “still [maintaining] the condemnation of abortion at any time from conception onward”. That tells you that even before Augustine (354-430 CE) the church condemned abortion at any time, and Augustine affirmed this position. And the second paragraph of your site tells us that the early penitentials imposed the same penance for abortion at all stages, while the medievals imposed a lesser penance for pre-quickening abortion and a heavier penance for post-quickening abortion. Again, this confirms what I said; the Catholic church has always condemned abortion at all stages of pregnancy. There was never a time when it regarded pre-quickening abortion as ethically acceptable.
And yet, pre-quickening abortions were carried out and only punished or condemned by having to say a few prayers?Peregrinus wrote: »Yes, they did.
Your own cite tells us that Augustine of Hippo denied that pre-quickening abortion was homicide, while “still [maintaining] the condemnation of abortion at any time from conception onward”. That tells you that even before Augustine (354-430 CE) the church condemned abortion at any time, and Augustine affirmed this position. And the second paragraph of your site tells us that the early penitentials imposed the same penance for abortion at all stages, while the medievals imposed a lesser penance for pre-quickening abortion and a heavier penance for post-quickening abortion. Again, this confirms what I said; the Catholic church has always condemned abortion at all stages of pregnancy. There was never a time when it regarded pre-quickening abortion as ethically acceptable.
Hmmm, somehow I don't think that most people would regard that as much of a punishment.
As to your claim that the Catholic Church is on the moral high ground when it comes to the treatment of infants ("This, along with the condemnation of the practice of exposing unwanted infants, is one of the earliest distinctive Christian ethical positions that we know of."), we both know that the reality of its treatment of 'unwanted infants' and their mothers is morally repugnant.
Apart from Ireland, where hundreds of 'unwanted infants' died of 'marasmus' (aka malnutrition) under the tender care of Catholic institutions (and where yet more were likely sold to wealthy childless couples), there is Spain, where children born to socialists and other people imprisoned or killed by the Franco regime, were taken away by Catholic orders and given to more 'suitable' couples'; similar practices were followed in Argentina.
Abuse and crimes against unmarried mothers and their children were widespread in practice in Ireland and other Catholic-majority countries up to a few decades ago.
You're barking up an entire forest of wrong trees if you think you can get away with claiming some sort of morally superior position for Christianity or Catholicism when it comes to the treatment of 'unwanted infants'.The Tuam babies scandal recalled a more callous Ireland we thought we had left far behind, but as late as 1990 children from the Bessborough Mother and Baby Home were still being buried in unmarked graves, writes Conall Ó Fátharta
When the Tuam babies scandal broke in 2014, it immediately became a story about Ireland’s past. Babies died and were left forgotten in a mass grave in a different Ireland, a crueler Ireland. An Ireland that we have long left behind. A memory.
However, an Irish Examiner investigation has discovered that children from the Bessborough Mother and Baby Home who died as late as 1990 are buried in unmarked graves in a Cork city cemetery.
Three grave plots in St Finbarr’s cemetery in Cork city were found to contain the remains of at least 21 children. Two of the three plots are completely unmarked. The third records just one name despite 16 children being buried in the grave.
Buried in this plot are three girls and one boy who all died in early infancy. Their deaths occurred in 1979, 1983, 1988 and 1990. The death certificate for the last child buried in the plot in 1990 reveals that, although she died in St Finbarr’s Hospital, she was in the care of the nuns at the Bessborough Home. A birth certificate could not be located for the child in this name.
Just a stone’s throw from this plot is a marked plot belonging to the former St Patrick’s Orphanage run by the Mercy Sisters. It operated a nursery for St Anne’s Adoption Society where children were kept until the society could arrange for an adoption to be contracted.
A total of 16 children are buried in this plot from between 1957 and 1978. Although the grave is marked, it does not have a headstone and just one name — that of the final child buried in the plot — is recorded on a small brass plaque attached to a small wooden cross.
...
The Irish Examiner investigation comes as the Mother and Baby Homes Commission has made a public appeal for information on burials of the “large number” of children who died at Bessborough between 1922 and 1998.
It stated: “The Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation is tasked with investigating and reporting on the burial arrangements of children and mothers who died while resident in the institutions within our remit.
“We are currently investigating the burials of a large number of children who died while resident in Bessboro Mother and Baby Home in Cork between 1922 and 1998. The Commission would like to hear from anyone who has personal knowledge, documentation or any other information concerning the burial arrangements and/or burial places of children who died in Bessboro in this time period.”
In 2015, the Irish Examiner revealed that 470 infants and 10 women were recorded as having died at Bessborough between 1934 and 1953.
More than half of these children died between 1938 and 1944. The cause of death in around 20% of the deaths is listed as ‘marasmus’, or malnutrition.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/bessborough-children-were-buried-in-unmarked-graves-as-late-as-1990-828680.htmlSpanish society has been shaken by allegations of the theft and trafficking of thousands of babies by nuns, priests and doctors, which started under Franco and continued up to the 1990s.[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I first met Manoli Pagador in Getafe, in a working-class suburb of Madrid. She was attending a meeting for people affected by the scandal Spaniards call "ninos robados" - stolen children.[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]She has three daughters and lots of grandchildren, but she has never got over the loss of her first-born - a son - nearly 40 years ago.[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]She had come to think she was crazy for believing he was alive, instead of dead and buried as hospital doctors had told her.[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"Now," she said, gripping my hand tightly. "Look around the room at the other women here. All like me. The same background. The same experience. I'm not mad and my family finally believes me."[/font]
Spain's stolen babies
- How many? More than 900 cases are being investigated, but new cases are still coming to light - lawyers say the total could reach 300,000
- How long? Over a period of 40-50 years, beginning under Franco, up to the 1990s
- Who benefited? Initially the Fascists by bringing up the children of their enemies - later children were taken from parents judged to be morally or economically deficient and placed with approved Catholic, often childless, families
- Why did it take so long to expose? The Church and medical profession are highly respected, and Spanish law does not require the biological mother's name on the birth certificate
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]In 1971 Manoli, who was 23 at the time and not long married, gave birth to what she was told was a healthy baby boy, but he was immediately taken away for what were called routine tests.[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Nine interminable hours passed. "Then, a nun, who was also a nurse, coldly informed me that my baby had died," she says.[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]They would not let her have her son's body, nor would they tell her when the funeral would be.[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Did she not think to question the hospital staff?[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"Doctors, nuns?" she says, almost in horror. "I couldn't accuse them of lying. This was Franco's Spain. A dictatorship. Even now we Spaniards tend not to question authority."[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The scale of the baby trafficking was unknown until this year, when two men - Antonio Barroso and Juan Luis Moreno, childhood friends from a seaside town near Barcelona - discovered that they had been bought from a nun. Their parents weren't their real parents, and their life had been built on a lie.[/font]
...
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]'Approved families'[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]After months of requests from the BBC, the Spanish government finally put forward Angel Nunez from the justice ministry to talk to me about Spain's stolen children.[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Asked if babies were stolen, Mr Nunez replied: "Without a doubt".[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"How many?" I asked.[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"I don't dare to come up with figures," he answered carefully. "But from the volume of official investigations I dare to say there were many."[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Lawyers believe that up to 300,000 babies were taken.[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The practice of removing children from parents deemed "undesirable" and placing them with "approved" families, began in the 1930s under the dictator General Francisco Franco.[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]At that time, the motivation may have been ideological. But years later, it seemed to change - babies began to be taken from parents considered morally - or economically - deficient. It became a money-spinner, too.[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The scandal is closely linked to the Catholic Church, which under Franco assumed a prominent role in Spain's social services including hospitals, schools and children's homes.[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Nuns and priests compiled waiting lists of would-be adoptive parents, while doctors were said to have lied to mothers about the fate of their children.[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15335899[/font][font=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif]High-ranking officials of the Argentine Catholic Church were implicated in the appropriation of babies from detainees who were held in Cordoba province’s La Perla clandestine concentration camp during the last military dictatorship, journalist and writer Horacio Verbitsky, the head of the CELS human rights group, testified.[/font]
[font=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif]Speaking at the massive trial that is examining the dictatorship-era crimes that took place at one of Argentina's most emblematic illegal detention centers, Verbitsky accused late former bishop Raul Primatesta of giving consent to military officials to drop off babies snatched from detainees in a Córdoba foster home.[/font]
[font=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif]Verbitsky gave his testimony from Buenos Aires City via video-conference following a request by the head of the Córdoba chapter of the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo, Sonia Torres. The CELS president and journalist explained the nuns managing the orphanage were in charge of the victims’ babies and would help find families to adopt them, all with the knowledge of Primatesta.[/font]
[font=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif]...[/font]
[font=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif]Verbitsky highlighted that one of the nuns working at the orphanage, Monserrat Trigo, was involved in the kidnapping of Torres’ grandchild, as she had registered his birth in a document that was later seized in the foster home raid. When Trigo was scheduled to give testimony about what happened to Parodi’s son, the Catholic Church transferred her out of the country.[/font]
[font=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif]“This is a common practice that the Church follows when someone’s complicity is about to be proven,” Verbitsky said.[/font]
[font=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif]The CELS president also pointed a finger at Córdoba’s judicial system, saying the province’s federal court, which was then presided over by judge Adolfo Zamboni Ledesma, was aware of the baby snatchings that took place during the dictatorship.[/font]
[font=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif]In another part of Verbitsky’s testimony, he referred to the complicity of bishop Adolfo Servando Tortolo, who was the military vicar and confessor of the late dictator Jorge Rafael Videla. He also mentioned French catholic group “Cité Catholique” as playing a key role in supporting the military repression in the country.[/font]
[font=Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif]The La Perla detention centre was one of the largest illegal concentration camps that operated in Argentina during the last military dictatorship (1976-1983). An estimated 3,000 people were illegally detained in the centre between 1975 and 1979.[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]http://en.mercopress.com/2015/08/28/argentine-catholic-church-in-the-dock-over-snatching-of-babies-during-military-dictatorship[/font][font=CNN, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, Utkal, sans-serif]An Argentinian court Thursday found two former dictatators guilty of stealing dozens of babies during the country's dirty war.[/font]
[font=CNN, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, Utkal, sans-serif]Jorge Rafael Videla, who ruled as a dictator between 1976 to 1981, was sentenced to 50 years in prison.[/font]
[font=CNN, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, Utkal, sans-serif]Gen. Reynaldo Benito Bignone, who ruled the country from June 1982 until the nation's return to democracy in December 1983, was sentenced to 15 years in prison.[/font]
[font=CNN, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, Utkal, sans-serif]They were the two most high-profile defendants found guilty Thursday of systematically stealing babies from political prisoners and giving them new identities.[/font]
[font=CNN, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, Utkal, sans-serif]Baby-stealing trial in Argentina[/font]
[font=CNN, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, Utkal, sans-serif]"It was the worst, the most perverse of the dictatorship, I think, what they did with us," said Francisco Madariaga Quintela, 35, one of the stolen babies who was reunited with his father in 2010. "It was a torture prolonged through time, for the grandmothers searching, for family members, everyone."[/font]
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]https://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/05/world/americas/argentina-baby-theft-trial/index.html[/font]It took 26 years for Jorgelina Molina Planas to reclaim her lost identity. She had grown up in Argentina as Carolina María Sala, named by her adoptive parents, who had adopted her after her father was shot dead and her mother disappeared in 1977.
Jorgelina is one of an estimated 500 children of 30,000 “disappeared” people to have been kidnapped by the government or born in detention during the military dictatorship that ran the country from 1976 to 1983.
Most of the children were given to military families, who would raise them to be upstanding, law-abiding citizens. These “appropriations” were partly to solve a practical problem: if the real identities of the children were known, there would have to be an explanation for what had happened to their parents.
Since 1977, an organisation called Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo has been searching for the children stolen and illegally adopted during Argentina’s so-called dirty war, so they can be reunited with their surviving biological families.
[font=Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/27/child-argentinas-disappeared-new-family-identity[/font]0 -
A gem that deffo needed reposting for your consideration, ladies and gentlemen - every word dripping with the smarminess and the misogyny of times gone by. Stand back and admire.
Oh those upstart women and their silly notions, tsk tsk.
In 2016 there were 2,407,437 women in Ireland. In 2016, 3,265 women and girls gave Irish addresses at UK abortion services.
(This number is an underestimation for various reasons and does not include abortion pill packages.)
This represents 0.14% of women in the country, hardly a socialtial fabric changing number in either mindset, or changing what is actuality happening.
So why do we need to permit abortion in this country if so few women are choosing to travel with a view to ending the life of their unborn child?0 -
I don't know whether the "punishment" was "a few prayers" or not. I made no claims about punishment. If you want to make claims about punishment, go right ahead. I may respond if what you say is interesting. It won't be interesting, though, if your claim is that the "punishment" was "only a few prayers", but it turns out that you have no evidence for this.sondagefaux wrote: »And yet, pre-quickening abortions were carried out and only punished or condemned by having to say a few prayers?
Hmmm, somehow I don't think that most people would regard that as much of a punishment.
I made no such claim; nor would I. If you're having to make up claims, ascribe them to me, and then post multi-paragraph screeds to refute the claims you have made up, I'll take it that as an attempt to distract attention from the fact that you're unable to defend your own claims about an entirely different matter in an entirely different era.sondagefaux wrote: »As to your claim that the Catholic Church is on the moral high ground when it comes to the treatment of infants . . .0 -
Andrew Beef wrote: »So why do we need to permit abortion in this country if so few women are choosing to travel with a view to ending the life of their unborn child?
If even one woman benefits from not having to travel & make an already difficult journey more difficult, then it's worth having here.
How do you stand on FFA?0 -
you mean their foetus?Andrew Beef wrote: »So why do we need to permit abortion in this country if so few women are choosing to travel with a view to ending the life of their unborn child?0 -
You mean their unborn child?nice_guy80 wrote: »you mean their foetus?
I'm pro-choice, nice guy, but if you think you're going to win this argument, or persuade anyone to change their minds, by quibbling about terminology, I have some disappointing news for you.0 -
ForestFire wrote: »So they do not know when it begins?
What happens in 2 years time if they discovery it begins at 10 weeks?
Do we update legislation to 10 weeks?
What happens if they discover it happens at 5 weeks?
Would you still be happy with abortion on request until 12 weeks or would you change your views?
I would change my views. Instantly without apology, embarrassment or reservation. The problem for you here however is that this is remarkably unlikely to happen.
Why?
Because I think you are massively missing the difference between "Do not know when it begins" and "Know when it is absent". A difference that is, you will notice, not small.
Let us start with an analogy. Do you think you could look at a rainbow and be able to point to "red" on it for me? I suggest if you have the capabilities of even a 5 year old child you can do this. You will also be able to find "orange" for me. You will be as sure as sure gets that red is red and orange is orange. Will you be able to find the point on the rainbow where red STOP beings red and starts being orange however? I sincerely and wholly doubt you will.
The point? While we do not know the "moment" (and in fact there is a multitude of reasons to think there IS a moment, rather than a slow transition) sentience and consciousness arises in human development we are still very much informed on our ability to know when it is not there. While we can not say "Sentience begins at time X" we ARE capable of saying "100% of absolutely every we know on the subject tells us that it is certainly NOT there at 12/16 weeks".
It is not just that we think sentience and consciousness are absent at 16 weeks. Many of the pre-requisities are absent too. It is like worrying about radio waves not only when there is no detection of radio waves, but the broadcasting tower that produces them has not even been built yet either.0 -
Andrew Beef wrote: »What’s the consensus regarding when human life truly begins? Because that clearly informs the analysis.
You have to be clear what you mean by "human life" to get an answer to that question that will mean anything. If you purely mean biological human life then it "begins" at conception. Or, given life is a CYCLE it never really "begins" at any point and it is always there.
If however you mean "Human life" in the terms of individuality and personhood then there is no reason AT ALL to think it begins up until 20 weeks of gestation and in fact there is little good reason to think it begins until even much later than that.
So the answer to your question unfortunately requires you be remarkably clear on what it is you are actually asking.Andrew Beef wrote: »I am concerned at the stories of 10 week old foetuses recoiling from abortion implements.
That is all they are though, stories. There is no "implements" used generally at 10 week abortions. They are done with pills. Perhaps you should check (or if possible cite, for us to help you with) the sources of your stories here.
But let us imagine there are implements used and you are concerns with the fetus "recoiling". Why by concerned though? A simple single cell amoebae will recoil from a needle. Automatic, automated, autonomic responses to stimulus are entirely common in the animal world. We even see elements of it in the world of plants.
We even have one user around here who gets very excited about how the tongue in the fetus flaps around to music.
So the foundation for your concern is worth some level of introspection and exploration I suggest. You might find the concern is actually not just slightly but entirely unwarranted.Andrew Beef wrote: »But my starting point is that a woman’s right to choose does not trump an unborn child’s right to life.
Then your starting point is too late in the process. Your starting point should be to establish the fetus HAS a "right to life" in the first place. Why do you think it does, when do you think it attains it, and most importantly on what basis do you think it attains it.
And trying to paint people as an "Angry mob of angry women" is not going to answer those concerns. Least of all with me given I am neither angry OR a woman.0 -
Anything new is in experimental mode for a while. My statement was not gay specific. It relates to anything new. New vaccines are in experimental mode for a while. New technology, such as driverless cars, are in experimental mode for a while. Two straight men getting married to defraud the tax man would be a pothole many weren't expecting.
I don't believe though the pro-choice side should keep associating this referendum with the same-sex marriage referendum. There is a something cynical about that. There are pro-life LGBT movements such as PLAGAL whose motto is "Human rights start when human life begins."
Yeah no sorry. You tried to get a dig in at our marriages as being experimental and causing ptoblems.
PLAGAL - never heard of them. A lot of the lgbt pro life facebook or twitter pages in Ireland are not serious and are fake. They share stuff from Iona et al.
LGBT people are of course divided on the issue but tend to be more pro choice for various reasons.
Of course you also have the Paddy Manning type extremists who call women who had abortions murderessesIt was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Terry Pratchet
0 -
Advertisement
-
Its not just one study:
You are running around the pitch with the goal posts here though in a concerted and contrived and willful campaign of topic hoping.
The post before this one you were trying, and failing, to correlate teen pregnancies with sex education..... suggesting a rise in one is linked to a rise in the other, and vice versa. You then dodge from that to STI, and then dodge from that to something entirely off topic about comments about Islam and then dodge once again to the topic of media pressures on children to start having sex. You are taking the "slippery fish" approach to discussion here, leaping out of each topic into the next in an attempt not to be pinned down to the mat on any one.
When that post on education position was roundly rebutted you shifted to another narrative about a rise in STI. A completely different position to a rise in pregnancies. And NEITHER of your links correlates this with sex education at all. So yes it IS "just one study" on the subject you addressed, a subject you have run away from in favor of another now.
The "just one study" you presented to support your narrative about sex education however is one that even the authors themselves say should be interpreted very cautiously. Which you might have noticed if you had more of a tendency to read the original studies, rather than news paper spin articles ABOUT studies.
It is more comical than I have words to describe that you moan about people who "only follow the Medias propaganda" yet every link you provide is TO MEDIA ARTICLES and never to the actual studies themselves. And not just any media articles, but highly biases ones from sources like "Breitbart". You might also notice that one of the authors you cite is remarkably biased on the subject, having spent a decade or more writing against strategies educating teens on sex. It gets even funnier when you moan things are not "news worthy" while citing NEWS articles about them. The conspiracy theories are strong in this one.
In other words, the one entirely and wholly reliant on media propaganda here is you. You. Just you. Only you. And, of course, you. Moaning about the media while pretty much exclusively ONLY using media links is remarkably comical even by your usual standards of misdirection. Try reading, understanding and citing the actual research in future, and leave the media out of it entirely.
The first thing you need to notice after this is that correlation does not imply causation. The effects of sexual education do not stop the moment you cut funding to sex education. The cuts come at precisely the time when we expect to see the beneficial effects of the sex education the government HAD been funding. So it is a leap of pure narrative and spin to try and correlate the variance in pregnancies NOW with the cut in funding NOW. The former is more likely to be causally linked to what happened BEFORE the latter.
Studies worldwide CONSISTENTLY show the benefits of earlier, more comprehensive, and more extensive sexual education. One opinion piece that fails entirely to understand the link before correlation and causation is not going to make all that go away for you. And as one of your own links points out, the issue is less likely to be anything to do with contraception and sex education and more likely to do with mass changes in sexual culture such as afforded to us by dating apps and the like.
If you want to support the narrative that an increase in funding to sexual education results in an increase in pregnancies and STIs then you have a LOT more work to do to attain that, as you have presented nothing at all supporting such a concept thus far.I agree. I think we should all be able to agree on that point. That's where the focus should be, not on bringing in abortion.
If the two were event remotely mutually exclusive you might have the semblance of a point here. But since they are not, you do not.
I am perfectly capable of, and in fact very much active in, campaigning to have abortion by choice in my home country while also campaigning for a multiple approach set of initiatives in reducing the number of people who ever seek one.
The concept that we should focus on one or the other, especially to the exclusion of one or the other, is a harmful narrative supported by nothing at all that you have presented to date.That's the very problem. Before abortion on demand entered the world, it was always an unborn child. Then when abortion on demand came in, people decided to redefine the unborn child into a "foetus" in order to dehumanize the baby in order to make themselves feel easier about killing the unborn in an abortion.
Or to put less of a contrived spin on your attempts at historical revisionism..... people are generally happy to use terms freely until such a time as being specific is required.
It was "Unborn child" before "abortion on demand" because the use of the term "unborn child" did not bring implications that were relevant at the time. Now that abortion IS a question in our world we have to be more specific, and not allow unwarranted implications to be smuggled in through mere mis-use of language.
What is happening therefore is NOT the "dehumanization of the baby" as you simply pretend in your agenda driven narrative. Rather we are now in a position to examine whether "humanization of the fetus" was ever warranted in the first place.
Clue: It wasn't.0 -
Andrew Beef wrote: »So why do we need to permit abortion in this country if so few women are choosing to travel with a view to ending the life of their unborn child?
Because a woman whose child has been diagnosed with a fatal foetal abnormality has enough on her plate without a bunch of hypocritical busybodies telling her she can't get medical treatment from her own doctors here in Ireland, away with her to godless England and strange doctors in a foreign country.
Seriously, fúck that for a game of cowboys.0 -
Andrew Beef wrote: »So why do we need to permit abortion in this country if so few women are choosing to travel with a view to ending the life of their unborn child?
Because as we heard from the Master of the Rotunda at one of the Committee's hearings, the lack of continuity of care between her doctors here and the doctors overseas puts women's health and even lives at risk.[Fergal Malone] described one of the main concerns of splitting such care across jurisdictions as being “the potential risks to the physical health of the mother when travelling”
“Risks associated with travelling for pregnancy termination include infection or haemorrhage which has tragically resulted in the death of one of our patients when travelling to the United Kingdom.”
He said, that in the case of women who choose to terminate their pregnancy, the hospital cannot make direct referrals.
“Patients who choose this course of action are supported to within the limits of Irish legislation,” he said.
Malone continued to say that a journey abroad for a termination in such circumstances is “clearly associated with significant additional challenges for patients, including travelling for healthcare to an unfamiliar city with no family support, significant financial costs, typically €800 to €1500, not including travel costs”, together with the “significant distress associated with leaving their baby’s remains in another country”.
Source
If the outcome is going to be the same for the unborn anyway, why needlessly increase the risks to a woman's health or life?0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »You are running around the pitch with the goal posts here though in a concerted and contrived and willful campaign of topic hoping.
The post before this one you were trying, and failing, to correlate teen pregnancies with sex education..... suggesting a rise in one is linked to a rise in the other, and vice versa. You then dodge from that to STI, and then dodge from that to something entirely off topic about comments about Islam and then dodge once again to the topic of media pressures on children to start having sex. You are taking the "slippery fish" approach to discussion here, leaping out of each topic into the next in an attempt not to be pinned down to the mat on any one.
When that post on education position was roundly rebutted you shifted to another narrative about a rise in STI. A completely different position to a rise in pregnancies. And NEITHER of your links correlates this with sex education at all. So yes it IS "just one study" on the subject you addressed, a subject you have run away from in favor of another now.
The "just one study" you presented to support your narrative about sex education however is one that even the authors themselves say should be interpreted very cautiously. Which you might have noticed if you had more of a tendency to read the original studies, rather than news paper spin articles ABOUT studies.
It is more comical than I have words to describe that you moan about people who "only follow the Medias propaganda" yet every link you provide is TO MEDIA ARTICLES and never to the actual studies themselves. And not just any media articles, but highly biases ones from sources like "Breitbart". You might also notice that one of the authors you cite is remarkably biased on the subject, having spent a decade or more writing against strategies educating teens on sex. It gets even funnier when you moan things are not "news worthy" while citing NEWS articles about them. The conspiracy theories are strong in this one.
In other words, the one entirely and wholly reliant on media propaganda here is you. You. Just you. Only you. And, of course, you. Moaning about the media while pretty much exclusively ONLY using media links is remarkably comical even by your usual standards of misdirection. Try reading, understanding and citing the actual research in future, and leave the media out of it entirely.
The first thing you need to notice after this is that correlation does not imply causation. The effects of sexual education do not stop the moment you cut funding to sex education. The cuts come at precisely the time when we expect to see the beneficial effects of the sex education the government HAD been funding. So it is a leap of pure narrative and spin to try and correlate the variance in pregnancies NOW with the cut in funding NOW. The former is more likely to be causally linked to what happened BEFORE the latter.
Studies worldwide CONSISTENTLY show the benefits of earlier, more comprehensive, and more extensive sexual education. One opinion piece that fails entirely to understand the link before correlation and causation is not going to make all that go away for you. And as one of your own links points out, the issue is less likely to be anything to do with contraception and sex education and more likely to do with mass changes in sexual culture such as afforded to us by dating apps and the like.
If you want to support the narrative that an increase in funding to sexual education results in an increase in pregnancies and STIs then you have a LOT more work to do to attain that, as you have presented nothing at all supporting such a concept thus far.
If the two were event remotely mutually exclusive you might have the semblance of a point here. But since they are not, you do not.
I am perfectly capable of, and in fact very much active in, campaigning to have abortion by choice in my home country while also campaigning for a multiple approach set of initiatives in reducing the number of people who ever seek one.
The concept that we should focus on one or the other, especially to the exclusion of one or the other, is a harmful narrative supported by nothing at all that you have presented to date.
Or to put less of a contrived spin on your attempts at historical revisionism..... people are generally happy to use terms freely until such a time as being specific is required.
It was "Unborn child" before "abortion on demand" because the use of the term "unborn child" did not bring implications that were relevant at the time. Now that abortion IS a question in our world we have to be more specific, and not allow unwarranted implications to be smuggled in through mere mis-use of language.
What is happening therefore is NOT the "dehumanization of the baby" as you simply pretend in your agenda driven narrative. Rather we are now in a position to examine whether "humanization of the fetus" was ever warranted in the first place.
Clue: It wasn't.
Of course it was. The fetus in a human body is a human creation, its a human, no question of that in my mind anyway.
There's no need to dehumanise it to gain support.0 -
Andrew Beef wrote: »So why do we need to permit abortion in this country if so few women are choosing to travel with a view to ending the life of their unborn child?
Because we should handle our own problems 'in house' and not expect other nations to do what we could actually do here and won't because of religious reasons. Do you not see the hypocrisy of this ?
More importantly we need to protect the lives of the mothers and this ain't happening because of the 8th - perhaps you should read this - https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/former-holles-street-master-eighth-amendment-has-caused-death-of-women-36240277.htmlFormer Holles Street master: 'Eighth Amendment has caused death of women'
The Eighth Amendment has caused “grave harm to women including death” according to former master of Holles Street hospital, Professor Peter Boylan.
He was speaking before the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment today, where he also said Ireland’s abortion legislation has an effect on the decision-making abilities of clinicians, resulting in the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar who died of sepsis at Galway University Hospital.
“She died as a consequence of the Eighth Amendment”, Professor Boylan told the committee following questions from Deputy Mattie McGrath.
Mr McGrath went on to argue that there are “lots of differing opinions” about the cause of death of Savita Halappanavar, to which Professor Boylan said he had “the advantage of reviewing her notes forensically”.
The fifth anniversary of Ms Halappanavar’s death is next week.
Also present at the Committee was Dr Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran president-elect of International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology who also investigated the death of Savita Halappanavar.
He said the difficulty in the Irish legislation where a clear and present threat to a woman’s life must exist before an abortion can occur creates a serious ongoing risk, “some cases accelerate steeply and you miss the boat”, he said. For example, there is up to 60pc chance of maternal mortality with sepsis fever but because the [foetal] heartbeat is there and you start dilly-dallying and that’s it.”
All witnesses at the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment today called on Ireland to repeal the Eighth Amendment and replace with legislation along the lines of what was called for by the Citizens Assembly earlier in the year.
The Citizens’ Assembly members voted on their recommendations for access to abortion for certain medical and other conditions and voted overwhelmingly to remove the 8th amendment from the constitution.
Read more: Fianna Fáil delegates reject calls to change the Constitution on abortion
64pc of the Members’ recommended that the termination of pregnancy without restriction should be lawful.
During today’s meeting, expert witness Professor Peter Boylan former Master of Holles Street Hospital said Ireland could look at other EU countries to as possible legal models when shaping any new abortion legislation, not just the UK, where most Irish women have an abortion.
Mr Boylan said 99pc of women in the EU have access to termination in the first trimester.
The Oireachtas Committee is considering a range of options in the event of next year’s referendum on the Eighth Amendment passing, one of which is to insert limited legislation which allows for abortion in cases of rape or incest.
Professor Boylan pointed out the difficulties that will emerge when a burden of proof will lie with a woman to prove she has been raped in order to obtain an abortion.
There is no “test to confirm rape” and any woman who has "undergone the trauma of rape should not be forced to ‘prove’ rape if she chooses to terminate a resulting pregnancy", he said.
Women should be "taken at their word, hardly a revolutionary concept", he added.0 -
Andrew Beef wrote: »I absolutely care about the unborn child; if it were up to me, I would criminalise women who travel overseas for abortions.
Question for pro lifers and anti-repealers; How many of you agree with this sentiment? Do you think women should be criminalised for having an abortion abroad?0 -
Advertisement
-
Abortion in medical cases and FFA cases should be allowed in Ireland.0
-
Andrew Beef wrote: »Abortion in medical cases and FFA cases should be allowed in Ireland.
So you support repealing the 8th Amendment then because it prevents abortion in those cases.0 -
Of course it was. The fetus in a human body is a human creation, its a human, no question of that in my mind anyway.
There's no need to dehumanise it to gain support.
I am talking about Humanization of it in terms of the narratives and attributes we think of in individual personhood. I think I was pretty clear that I am not talking at all about Taxonomy here and identifying it as "Human" in that sense.
The user is talking about the dehumanization inherent in calling it a "fetus" rather than a "baby" or "unborn child". And it is the "human" attributes inherent in the narratives behind the word "baby" and "child" that are not warranted, and never have been, in their application to the fetus.
So when we call it a fetus, rather than a "baby" this is not dehumanizing it. Rather, it is not pre-humanizing it before it's due.0 -
Andrew Beef wrote: »So why do we need to permit abortion in this country if so few women are choosing to travel with a view to ending the life of their unborn child?
Because we are a compassionate society and we do not want our wives, daughters, girlfriends and other close friends to suffer needlessly.Andrew Beef wrote: »blanch152, I have never heard such a case of semantics in all my life.
You claim that no person’s right can trump another person’s right, but on occasion one person’s right can supercede another person’s right!
Incredible!
Not at all, you just didn't understand my point.
If a right "trumps" another right, it is superior in all circumstances. That just isn't true and no right is completely superior to all other rights.
As I have repeatedly explained, there are competing rights, the right to life of the unborn on one side, and the rights of a woman to bodily integrity, to choose, to health and to medical treatment on the other. At different points and under different circumstances, the balance of all of those rights sometimes would allow abortion and sometimes it would not. As a mature society, we need to consider that appropriate balance. Hence I support abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks as proposed by the Dail Committee (I could go to 15 or be persuaded by medical experts to 18, but 12 is acceptable) and only after that for specific reasons e.g. FFA, a threat to the life of the woman etc. On the other hand, if a woman at 30 weeks pregnant wanted to abort an otherwise healthy baby, that shouldn't be allowed as the right to life of the unborn at that stage takes precedence.
If we frame the debate in those terms - what is the appropriate balance between the competing rights? - we take it away from the extremists on either side who foam at the mouth and repeat insane absolutisms. Be careful that you don't become one of those.0 -
Of course it was. The fetus in a human body is a human creation, its a human, no question of that in my mind anyway.
There's no need to dehumanise it to gain support.
I use both terms.
When I am talking about a 30-week pregnancy, I refer to an unborn baby. When I am talking about a 6-week pregnancy, I refer to a fetus.
Why? Because there is a difference between the two.0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement