The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

PhoenixParker

bertieinexile wrote: »

Her honesty. And I meant it PhoenixParker.
I'll get back to you on your substantial point about the legal grounds in the mental health case.

But on this issue I've a question for yourself, DubInMeath and electro-bitch who have both pitched in on this.
To all three of you separately;
A woman in Canada has a legal right to an abortion at any stage in her pregnancy without any requirement.
Legally the only reason she needs is that she wants it.

To what extent do each of you think doctors in Canada should facilitate this. After what point should a doctor say no.
In your opinion.

For me, after long and deep reflection, bodily autonomy is at the core of the whole thing.

Every woman has the right to say what lives in her body.
Just as you have the right to say no to a blood donation, a woman has the right to say no to a fetus occupying her uterus. I’ve made several posts on the comparison with organ donation, you can look them up. I’ve quoted two below.

A fetus has a right to bodily autonomy when it can be an automnous body, I.e. when it can, with the assistance of medical technology, survive independently of its mother.

Doesn’t mean I have to like the decision or applaud the person who makes it, but I believe she has that right.

I am a human, fully formed, living with a right to life as are you.

Imagine for instance that I need a blood donation. You are the only match. Without your blood I will die. My right to life does not trump your right to bodily autonomy.

It’s a procedure that would take maybe an hour band register as barely more than a scratch but the HSE will not have you hauled in, pinned down and your blood extracted. You can say no. Everyone might think you’re horrible for saying no, curse you, ostracize you whatever, but the courts or medical system wouldn’t force you

A fetus may indeed have a right to life just as much as you or I, but just as I don’t have a right to bits of your body, while fetus needs somebody else’s womb to survive, it is the person whose womb it is who gets to decide if she will carry it.

A fetus’s right to life shouldn’t preclude a woman from having an abortion.

Would you go through an 8 month procedure to donate an organ to a real live human being who won't survive without it?

For the first three months you take a pill that makes you vomit daily, feel exhausted. Your performance at work will be affected but convention is you don't tell anyone.

Then you move to a second set of medication. This results in weight gain of 10-15kg on average, causes frequent urination, difficulty sleeping, difficulty walking. You may get symptoms like not being able to walk for more than ten minutes due to hip pain, high blood pressure, diabetes which could well persist after the operation. You may end up hospitalised for days or weeks but either way you'll have frequent appointments resulting in missing work.

Then you'll go in for the operation. If you're lucky it'll go smoothly and they'll manage it by sticking a thick tube up your penis. It'll probably rip it a little but anaesthetic is discouraged. If that's not suitable you'll have major abdominal surgery and a six week driving ban. The government will pay you €270/week to cover all your expenses while you recover.

Would you do all that (and more) to save the life of a real life, living human being with a family and friends?

More importantly do you believe the government has the right to compel everybody in the country from 13 year olds to single parents struggling with young kids to go through that?

If not, why would you force someone to do it for a foetus?

Picture the italic bit as though the government decided to run a lottery. Every time you kiss someone or they kiss you, you get an entry. Picture yourself winning that lottery at a difficult point in your own life.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Further, if anyone has the typical knee jerk reaction to these proposals I.e. that they're disgusting and horrific etc. (I did myself)
I suggest doing a little reading, particularly about abortion in Canada.

Canada has no limits, they "trust women" and late term abortion is rare and only done for medical reasons.

This is the honesty I was referring to and which you cropped from your original post.

I'll be honest too, when I was younger I was appalled at the idea of abortion.

And then, like PP, I did some reading. And I lived in the real world. And, in all honesty, the more I knew about the issue, the more pro-choice I became.

I encourage anyone who cares about this issue to READ. Read the Oireachtas and Citizens' Assembly Reports and the reasoning behind the proposed legislation, read about what happens in countries with very restrictive abortion laws, read about the history of the pro-life and pro-choice campaigns (I mean mainstream stuff) and see where your conscience brings you when you are fully informed.

January

bertieinexile wrote: »

Her honesty. And I meant it PhoenixParker.
I'll get back to you on your substantial point about the legal grounds in the mental health case.

But on this issue I've a question for yourself, DubInMeath and electro-bitch who have both pitched in on this.
To all three of you separately;
A woman in Canada has a legal right to an abortion at any stage in her pregnancy without any requirement.
Legally the only reason she needs is that she wants it.

To what extent do each of you think doctors in Canada should facilitate this. After what point should a doctor say no.
In your opinion.

She has a legal right to an abortion an abortion does not automatically mean the foetus dies. It means the pregnancy is terminated. If the foetus is viable it will be born living unless it has a fatal abnormality.

RobertKK

Excluding Quebec which is the region with the most abortions in Canada, 587 abortions were 21 weeks plus in 2015.
Of the 23,561 abortions in hospitals excluding Quebec, 23,060 had no complications.
So at least some of those abortions were simple late abortions with no complications. Trust women...

Water John

Canadian law doesn't apply here, never will. No similar provision, is ever remotely likely to be proposed and passed, in this country.

PhoenixParker

RobertKK wrote: »

Excluding Quebec which is the region with the most abortions in Canada, 587 abortions were 21 weeks plus in 2015.
Of the 23,561 abortions in hospitals excluding Quebec, 23,060 had no complications.
So at least some of those abortions were simple late abortions with no complications. Trust women...

Way to massively skew the facts.

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf

100,000 abortion’s of which 587 were at greater than 21 weeks duration.
Complications refers to things like haemorrage and post procedure infection not ffa or health implications to the mother.

The number is comparable with the uk rate where late stage abortion is restricted.

So yes, trust women.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

RobertKK

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Way to massively skew the facts.

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf

100,000 abortion’s of which 587 were at greater than 21 weeks duration.
Complications refers to things like haemorrage and post procedure infection not ffa or health implications to the mother.

The number is comparable with the uk rate where late stage abortion is restricted.

So yes, trust women.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

The hospital figures have a disparity.

RobertKK

Water John wrote: »

Canadian law doesn't apply here, never will. No similar provision, is ever remotely likely to be proposed and passed, in this country.

Are you psychic?
I mean would people have said the leaders of both FG and FF would be supporting abortion, lets say 10 years ago?

PhoenixParker

RobertKK wrote: »

The hospital figures have a disparity.

If you read the report you will see that non-hospital locations do not perform abortions past 20 weeks (22weeks lmp)

gctest50

RobertKK wrote: »

The hospital figures have a disparity.

Curious - are you doing this for yer post count or something ? tis odd

anyway - where is this disparity ?

Water John

Gosh Robert, that retort is revealing. You and I know the chances of similar law in Ireland is infinetly close, to zero.

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

The hospital figures have a disparity.

Then would your original post not have been even more inaccurate?

RobertKK

Water John wrote: »

Gosh Robert, that retort is revealing. You and I know the chances of similar law in Ireland is infinetly close, to zero.

Can you see the future though, what will abortions laws be in 20 years time?

BabysCoffee

RobertKK wrote: »

Can you see the future though, what will abortions laws be in 20 years time?

Can you?

RobertKK

BabysCoffee wrote: »

Can you?

No and that is the point.

RobertKK

https://www.google.ie/amp/nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-killing-reignites-emotional-debate-can-an-unborn-fetus-be-a-murder-victim/amp

So in Canada last year they had the debate if the killing of the unborn could be classified as murder if a mother lost her unborn through a violent act.

bertieinexile

I thought the question I asked was straightforward but maybe not.
I can repeat it

To what extent do each of you think doctors in Canada should facilitate [ a Canadian woman's right to an abortion at any stage in her pregnancy]. After what point should a doctor say no.

If I understand what she has written correctly I think only PhoenixParker has attempted to answer the question.
And I think, and am open to correction, that your answer PhoenixParker is 'up to viability'.

I don't know if in practice that means 22 weeks, 23 weeks or the usual legal nicety of 24 weeks.

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Every woman has the right to say what lives in her body.
... a woman has the right to say no to a fetus occupying her uterus....

A fetus has a right to bodily autonomy when it can be an automnous body, I.e. when it can, with the assistance of medical technology, survive independently of its mother.

Doesn’t mean I have to like the decision or applaud the person who makes it, but I believe she has that right.

Again thanks for being upfront PhoenixParker and I'd very much like to hear an answer from DubInMeath and electro-bitch

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Up to the point where their conscience and their medical training dictates it should be based on the individual case, bearing in mind the fact that apparently needs a lot of repeating: a late termination of pregnancy doesn't necessarily mean ending the life of the unborn.

I'll repeat my question to you, do you admire the honesty in PP's post, that education on a matter to which they reflexively reacted negatively changed that reaction?

bertie, how about instead of asking questions that don't apply here, you answer some questions that have been put to you?

PhoenixParker

Water John wrote: »

Gosh Robert, that retort is revealing. You and I know the chances of similar law in Ireland is infinetly close, to zero.

The point I'm trying to make is that whether you have a restricted system like in the U.K. or an unrestricted system like Canada, the rate of abortion, particularly late term abortion, is broadly similar.

Indeed, as we know, abortion restrictions in Ireland do not actually prevent abortion, they simply drive it underground. Several studies have found that abortion rates are not related to abortions legal status internationally, things like access to reliable contraception are more influential by far.

We may not have Canada's laws, but if we did, there is a significant chance our abortion statistics would be exactly as they currently are with the 8th amendment, possibly better in some respects because there'd be fewer cost delays with accessing early termination.

The horror and terror at the idea of trusting women is unfounded and not borne out in reality. Women who wish to end a pregnancy do so early and quickly using whatever means are available. Women who end a pregnancy late do so because of some extreme factor like FFA or a health crisis not because they decide to put it off for a bit.

Martina1991

RobertKK wrote:

Can you see the future though, what will abortions laws be in 20 years time?

Why are you so concerned about the distant future.

We have to do what's best for Irish women NOW.

I'll check in with you in 20 years time to discuss the then current protests, referendums, legislation can be discussed.

Water John

Parker I understand where you are looking but I won't get involved, as I believe it's largely, running down a rabbit hole, to suit others with a diff agenda.

bertieinexile

bertieinexile wrote: »

I thought the question I asked was straightforward but maybe not.
I can repeat it

To what extent do each of you think doctors in Canada should facilitate [ a Canadian woman's right to an abortion at any stage in her pregnancy]. After what point should a doctor say no.

If I understand what she has written correctly I think only PhoenixParker has attempted to answer the question.
And I think, and am open to correction, that your answer PhoenixParker is 'up to viability'.

I don't know if in practice that means 22 weeks, 23 weeks or the usual legal nicety of 24 weeks.




Again thanks for being upfront PhoenixParker and I'd very much like to hear an answer from DubInMeath and electro-bitch

We're not Canada, but as I understand the situation of all estimated abortions carried out 0.59% were over 21 weeks gestation and nearly all for medical reasons while over 90% are before 12 weeks, it doesn't appear to be open season on foetuses

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf

Apart from that if with in the law of the land then yes, women have the right to seek a termination.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Water John wrote: »

Parker I understand where you are looking but I won't get involved, as I believe it's largely, running down a rabbit hole, to suit others with a diff agenda.

I'd say you're probably right but I think it's best to address points and highly constructed questions like that. This is still all to play for and while I'm sure plenty of pro-life posters are coming in this thread with a game plan, there are also people who may not be familiar with the debate and the tactics reading, people who haven't decided how to vote.

Pro-life operates by throwing out rhetorical questions or trying to corner people into giving a response which they basically pre-word for them, in order to confuse, simplify, demonise etc. Pro-choice can operate by countering this with actual facts, actual experience. Pro-life needs to lie, scaremonger and "oh I'm just saying" to keep the 8th, pro-choice just needs to keep highlighting the things that do happen and have happened to repeal it.

I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of an undecided voter reading this thread who hasn't been following the debate and is coming in with an open mind and "ugh, I'm not answering that because I know what you're at" (which again, I'd say you're right) probably isn't going to be much good to them.

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-killing-reignites-emotional-debate-can-an-unborn-fetus-be-a-murder-victim/amp

So in Canada last year they had the debate if the killing of the unborn could be classified as murder if a mother lost her unborn through a violent act.

Because the baby died after it was born and only then is given legal status under Canadian law

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/sofiane-ghazi-trial-stabbing-fetus-in-utero-1.4569336

bertieinexile

Misael Echoing Horse wrote:

This is the honesty I was referring to and which you cropped from your original post.

I'll be honest too, when I was younger I was appalled at the idea of abortion.

And then, like PP, I did some reading. And I lived in the real world. And, in all honesty, the more I knew about the issue, the more pro-choice I became.

I encourage anyone who cares about this issue to READ. Read the Oireachtas and Citizens' Assembly Reports and the reasoning behind the proposed legislation, read about what happens in countries with very restrictive abortion laws, read about the history of the pro-life and pro-choice campaigns (I mean mainstream stuff) and see where your conscience brings you when you are fully informed.

Misael Echoing Horse wrote: »

Up to the point where their conscience and their medical training dictates it should be based on the individual case, bearing in mind the fact that apparently needs a lot of repeating: a late termination of pregnancy doesn't necessarily mean ending the life of the unborn.

I'll repeat my question to you, do you admire the honesty in PP's post, that education on a matter to which they reflexively reacted negatively changed that reaction?

I'm trying to understand, Misael Echoing Horse. (And there's a sentence I thought I would never write.)

You talk about your own gut reaction

I'll be honest too, when I was younger I was appalled at the idea of abortion.

And then you talk about reading and educating yourself which obviously gave you a different attitude.
Initially I was perplexed by why you were applying the word honesty to what sounded like a process of rationalisation.
It seemed an odd choice.
After thinking about it my guess though is that you mean the journey hasn't just been rational. The honesty refers to the fact that you are now emotionally invested in your new(er) view of this question. No doubt a deep and difficult journey

And yet. (And I might already be miles off course here)
When I asked for a cutoff point for the Canadian woman, unlike PhoenixParker, you didn't give a date or a developmental stage or a principle related to the woman's rights.
Your answer was that you would leave it in the hands of the doctors. And if some wanted to perform an abortion and if some decided her pregnancy was too advanced and wanted to send her to the states instead and if some just refused, then you say (presumably) that's up to them.

Forgive me if I'm way off the mark now, but it seems that there is something of a distancing yourself from the question.
That, to bring it back to your emotional involvement, there is still something troubling at stake here for you at least when we get up to 20 weeks and after.

I don't expect you for a minute to answer something so personal on a forum like this. I'm just giving you my impression. And I'm more than likely miles off.


PS Just saw your last post there. Hope I'm not guilty of whatever that is.

bertieinexile

DubInMeath wrote: »

We're not Canada, but as I understand the situation of all estimated abortions carried out 0.59% were over 21 weeks gestation and nearly all for medical reasons while over 90% are before 12 weeks, it doesn't appear to be open season on foetuses

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/backrounders/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf

Apart from that if with in the law of the land then yes, women have the right to seek a termination.

Well the way I would read that, and I'm not pinning you down, I'm open for clarification, is that you wouldn't recognize any limit on when she could choose to have an abortion.
It may not arise very often but (I hear you saying) you have no objection in principle to an abortion at any stage and for any reason.

bertieinexile

bertieinexile wrote: »

Well the way I would read that, and I'm not pinning you down, I'm open for clarification, is that you wouldn't recognize any limit on when she could choose to have an abortion.
It may not arise very often but (I hear you saying) you have no objection in principle to an abortion at any stage and for any reason.

Nope your hanging onto the late termination straw, without recognising/admitting to the facts for why they occur in Canada are due to medical issues and trying to state that women can't be trusted.

I said in Canada as by the law of the land then yes women are entitled to request a termination.

As stated we're not in Canada but In Ireland where we are voting for repeal of the 8th and then the government to legislates as to what access will be provided, with 12 weeks unrestricted access to a termination being the stated figure and no higher. if repeal is successful and the goverment legislate and it becomes Irish law, yes I'll support a woman's decision to not avail of a termination or to avail of a termination based on their own free will.

Free will being something the PLC seem to have an issue with based on their own press releases and attempts to divert from what we are actually voting for, similar to your above question and refusal to answer questions directed to you from other posters, and quoting posters out of context

It wasnt me123

We don't care about random bits of info from Canada, UK or anywhere else.

This is Ireland. Its the Irish Constitution we are looking to amend with a repeal of the 8th.

We don't care about other countries abortion laws, or the lack thereof.

We dont care.

This is Ireland, repeal all the way

applehunter

Something people seem to forget.

We are not Britain.

We are a sovereign nation with our own constitution and we should not change that constitution lightly.