Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

nozzferrahhtoo

robindch wrote: »

Instead, the "pro-life" stakes a claim to life itself as the guiding principle, while "pro-choice" stakes a claim to the idea of control as the guiding principle.

Which is exactly my problem with the pro life term. Because life itself IS one of my guiding principles as a pro choice person. So the implication that it is not, is problematic.

The fact is that some life is more important to me than other life, which is why I am pro choice, but in essence life itself is important also and guides much of my principles.

robindch wrote: »

I've suggested a few times inthread where common ground exists

As have I. To the point I think people get sick in their mouth a little when they see me do it again But for me there is really only one piece of "Common ground" that unites most people on most sides of the abortion issue.

And that common ground is that we pretty much ALL want to work towards an ideal of a society where no abortions actually ever happen.

That common ground unites us, and if we let it unites us strongly. It is a goal few..... let us not rush to mention the anti natalists..... can speak much against.

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I honestly can't think of any basic fact that is already defacto agreed on by both sides that would actually change the discussion if it was more openly pointed out. Can you give an example of some important common ground that is being ignored, as I missed/can't remember your in-thread examples?

I think that by considering the argument exclusively from the entrenched positions on either side you run the risk of neglecting the middle ground, which is the position occupied by very many people. Many members of the oireachtas committee for example changed their position with respect to repeal based on expert evidence. Common ground here is that both sides agree that as a society we have a duty of care to look after the best interests of pregnant women. The pro-life side would give equal or greater weight to the right to life of the unborn, where the pro-choice side would not. The pro-choice argument also places a strong emphasis on the rights of the individual where the unborn is not yet an individual. The discussion started around the common ground of duty of care to pregnant women and in my opinion this was where the argument to repeal was essentially won.

uptherebels

smacl wrote: »

Common ground here is that both sides agree that as a society we have a duty of care to look after the best interests of pregnant women.

Except that isn't even close to being true!

smacl

uptherebels wrote: »

Except that isn't even close to being true!

Firstly, while that might very much be the case for the extremes of the pro-life side, I don't think it is the case for very many people who are against abortion but at the same time place a higher priority on the well being and personal freedoms on the women in question. Secondly, it doesn't really matter, as the more extreme elements of the pro-life brigade have to at least pretend to care about the well being of pregnant women to have any modicum of credibility. The broad suspicion that this was in fact no more than a pretense is what lost them so much of the middle ground.

.......

smacl wrote: »

Common ground here is that both sides agree that as a society we have a duty of care to look after the best interests of pregnant women.

I dont believe that this is remotely true. But if we were to pretend it was.

Pro-choice folk believe a woman is capable of deciding what her best interests are for herself while the pro-life side believe that other people should be the ones to decide what the best interests of pregnant women are.

smacl

....... wrote: »

I dont believe that this is remotely true.

Nor do I for those campaigning for pro-life at grass roots level, but that the pro-life side are at least pretending that this is the case is evidenced by the 'Love both' marketing slogan. My personal opinion is that, at a grass roots level, the pro-life movement is primarily motivated by empowering religious conservatives to prop up a now defunct status quo that is deeply misogynistic and really only cares for itself. That said, I also think they should be given the same space as everyone else to voice their arguments and prove me wrong.

Mark Hamill

smacl wrote: »

I think that by considering the argument exclusively from the entrenched positions on either side you run the risk of neglecting the middle ground, which is the position occupied by very many people. Many members of the oireachtas committee for example changed their position with respect to repeal based on expert evidence. Common ground here is that both sides agree that as a society we have a duty of care to look after the best interests of pregnant women. The pro-life side would give equal or greater weight to the right to life of the unborn, where the pro-choice side would not. The pro-choice argument also places a strong emphasis on the rights of the individual where the unborn is not yet an individual. The discussion started around the common ground of duty of care to pregnant women and in my opinion this was where the argument to repeal was essentially won.

But how is the "duty of care to pregnant woman" common ground being ignored by either side in the abortion threads (as per robindch's claim)?
The pro-choice side argued that this duty includes abortion (for reasons like personal control over your own medical care and medical necessity etc.). The pro-life side argued it doesn't (because of reasons like competing duty to the life of the unborn etc.). It's not for nothing that so much of the debate about abortion centres around the possible medical necessity for abortions and the safety of abortion procedures.

The argument to repeal was won, but by 67% to 33%, and some of those 33% still argue in the abortion threads. That they haven't come to a consensus with the 66% doesn't mean the common ground wasn't discussed.

Kidchameleon

If we don't have abortion clinics then what is the problem exactly? People can protest about whatever they want surely? So long as no one is getting harassed then who cares...

aloyisious

In northern Ireland later this year [Nov], a woman who sourced medication in 2013 for her 15 year old daughter to have an abortion faces trial on charges directly related to her action. I think most people debating the issue accept this is now an all-Ireland island issue [seeing as how irish and UK citizens protestors engaged in abortion-related protest rallies on both sides of our common border] and will hold opinions on what the outcome of the trial will/should be.

Personally I hope the outcome will end with the legal availability of the medication on sale in N/I Chemists shops alongside other contraceptive items [even if it's within law-prescribed age-limits] in the same way they can be obtained legally in the republic and mainland Britain.

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fwoman-faces-ni-trial-in-november-for-procuring-abortion-pills-1.3937157%3Fmode%3Damp%26fbclid%3DIwAR27rwvDcsfnHYkmcIaBABrBQPb14Q9X00s3GhW97qRho0XiyTf-31FPtfE&h=AT3bw_HR4UvtPi1G7nD-xqpdKLB0u8QqHv9OlYI3gQLR6d516hn-B6mX1OEgfuki56e6fvq94UGZJv8PgFI5yCY5zYGGYZqkq4FJfWmdO0hu083OPwSQ4HRZ9squw6XZYIDCw6nYEfTn0X92xEsJTvCmE4DrhlM4H83dapdJ5PU6g5dpQfO9ahK4s7If-g5XJt7WJohkDNgDi58FOiLbxh8bzgh3j5Z6hncaGzG8T145A7-s9vR1ZEYx67LpDy-KLK7Gjx7vmFgLljrPZaLGNhewvXxqdLkN36athe6mVnnFgrLW0HfLiaal-DqVzaMII61a1CGybuMWLYL7EURh9A90UjlgmH9_Bw40No7l9hKZRiK9sQnNrkfcghx-DFNw35P8nYHhue-xyQjCfFtl26BlnKbk-3GsmrIwFsW2WEDCjYIgzoVNrNYWJOZIiKsh2PNMUfEhKMjABnSDfzXfQzmzIdmjT-VZVCiR3nrMuvt_Su__NQn8vr0oBufAhYwZiB-zwWFE6itFp2QG36AsN1oGUty5WxYHzuDto_5lETPlCvQL2Hh-tpj4ZFMwSl4FJj6rYWSG9Z3v3Pfjkhj5fOnavgY4G6q4ofDAFmu_K3QBwnyjZ2ECBaRZJVuBFAp27uiSy35MKaSwI8iJv4gMdn7QrllsA1_WE7wnA29DtU7Mef8GomyAgNRL67KJq18JnQXo0ZIkMAls0MRD0ZxGELI_2VszXUPBglQaVQjKttphmAY0NSIvJC5SUi3UjR4H7xKSl65EzE5PSQFmZvQ8oXsJP2u0WeCqaZ5z1rRx23Zl3ljfg3iivYKXG05_J-feWQ3mtNKD-xz3TImfUoDJ3BehgVWaWdzinCbQmfoLBgK8XgXcfYD4lFqDzGM

Edit: Having googled for more info on this case, I'm a mite bit concerned that the I/Times report link above given on the F/B page I read and lifted it from might be an error as there was a trial in Nov last year which involved a woman obtaining medication for her daughter of a similar age. Hopefully they are two completely separate trials and not one being [unfortunately] relisted in a news report as a new trial. Can some-one set my mind at rest at the coincidence of the offence listed along with the other similarities?

The F/B page carrying the report seems to have lifted it from a group titling itself: In Her Shoes - Women Of The Eighth.

Igotadose

The actress who plays a Nun on Derry Girls (FD: I think I've seen a couple minutes of this show once), has helped launch a new guide to accessing abortion services in Ireland. Cool.

https://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/108382/derry-girls-sister-michael-helps-launch-new-galway-booklet-on-abortion-services

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If we don't have abortion clinics then what is the problem exactly? People can protest about whatever they want surely? So long as no one is getting harassed then who cares...

Sure. People protesting about abortion to anyone seeking medical attention outside their GPs is clearly harassment however and should be banned and punishable on that basis. Foreign religious nuts attempting to exorcise GPs practices should be arrested, fined and promptly deported.

Bredabe

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If we don't have abortion clinics then what is the problem exactly? People can protest about whatever they want surely? So long as no one is getting harassed then who cares...

They deliberately position themselves in the way of the average punter on the way to the shops/parks in the area.
This forces ppl with limited mobility onto the road and crowds anyone who will not walk on the road to get passed them.
This puts many people at eye line with the signs they are carrying, I have a relative who find this very distressing and has to change her route when they are there.

Igotadose

Some nims called The Life Institute are planning something for 6 July. Unfortunately, my Irish isn't that good, and I saw the announcement in an Irish-language only Facebook page (where, from what little I can gather, the other members of the group were VERY unhappy that someone shared this post to the group.) Anyway, this might explain the activity seen around with the aborting priest showing up and some folks saying they've seen signs here and there. I think the Life Institute is associated with the revolting Youth Defense league?

Igotadose

Igotadose wrote: »

Some nims called The Life Institute are planning something for 6 July. Unfortunately, my Irish isn't that good, and I saw the announcement in an Irish-language only Facebook page (where, from what little I can gather, the other members of the group were VERY unhappy that someone shared this post to the group.) Anyway, this might explain the activity seen around with the aborting priest showing up and some folks saying they've seen signs here and there. I think the Life Institute is associated with the revolting Youth Defense league?

In a rush so just giving the link with a full comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niamh_U%C3%AD_Bhriain

And this reported example of their rationale

https://www.buzz.ie/news/life-institute-yes-side-didnt-win-referendum-media-298503

aloyisious

I think there's an anti-abortion rally in early July in Dublin City Centre. Saw mention of it somewhere on F/B on a Pro-Life website.

With ref to the peculiarities of its meanings, I'm using the term Pro-Life advisedly as some from that quarter, despite their publicly saying they are OK with abortions in certain medical needs, don't want to follow through when the eventuality arises and the pregnant woman or girl is the one who may be called upon to pay the price for another persons personal belief that the unborn [in terms of life] has priority over the woman or girl. It seems to me that the use by them of the term Pro-Life is rather inadequate to explain away such a rationale.

Hotblack Desiato

DubInMeath wrote: »

And this reported example of their rationale

https://www.buzz.ie/news/life-institute-yes-side-didnt-win-referendum-media-298503

A 13-page document published by the Life Institute contains headers such as 'Why the referendum was lost', 'The Yes campaign did not win the vote - the media did' and 'The role of the church in re-establishing a culture of life'.

Ahh. Keep crying those delicious salty, salty tears

Cabaal

Igotadose wrote: »

The actress who plays a Nun on Derry Girls (FD: I think I've seen a couple minutes of this show once), has helped launch a new guide to accessing abortion services in Ireland. Cool.

https://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/108382/derry-girls-sister-michael-helps-launch-new-galway-booklet-on-abortion-services

The religious types will just love this!

Cabaal

This is a non-story, Google was stopping foreign influence from both pro-life and pro-choice sides.

I find it amusing that a US based christian funded organization (Project Veritas) is so very much concerned about the democratic process in Ireland.

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2019/06/27/the-algorithm-method/

“On Monday Project Veritas released a viral investigation that raised questions of Google’s interference in American elections. This new document shows their subsidiary, YouTube, appeared to have attempted to influence elections in Ireland.”

A YouTube spokesperson said:

“… In the midst of the Irish referendum on abortion, our systems brought authoritative content to the top of our search results for abortion-related queries. This happened for both pro-choice and pro-life queries, there was no distinction.”

So who's involved with Project Veritas?
None other then James O'Keefe, so whats he done?

Attempt to solicit voter fraud (2014)

In October 2014 O'Keefe and his two colleagues attempted to bait staffers for Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) and then-U.S. Senator Mark Udall, as well as independent expenditure organizations, into approving voter fraud, according to several staffers who interacted with O'Keefe and his colleagues. Staffers began photographing O'Keefe's crew and advising them that what they were advocating was illegal; one nonprofit said they contacted police

Failed attempt to sting The Washington Post (2017)

Starting in July 2017, Project Veritas operative Jaime Phillips attempted to infiltrate The Washington Post and other media outlets by joining networking groups related to journalism and left-leaning politics. She and a male companion attended events related to the Post, and their conversations with journalists were sometimes covertly recorded.[157] ..............

.......Jonathan Chait of New York magazine said that O'Keefe, having set out prove that the Post was fake news, ended up disproving it. O'Keefe's plot collapsed because it was premised on a ludicrously false worldview, wrote Chait. "The Washington Post does not, in fact, publish unverified accusations just because they're against Republicans." O'Keefe's attempts to prove rampant voter fraud have failed "because voter fraud is not rampant."[169]

eviltwin

The Rally for Life is on the same day as the Trans Pride march. Should make for an interesting day in the city centre!

realitykeeper

volchitsa wrote: »

We don't normally ban a medical procedure on the grounds that there has been a misdiagnosis or even medical negligence. The usual response is to improve procedures so as to reduce the risk of the misdiagnosis happening again.
That seems to me to be the right approach here too.

True but irrelevant.


Mod: Realitykeeper has been yellow carded for backseat modding. It is not your place to decide what is and it not relevant. You can leave that to your friendly mods.
Do not discuss this warning in thread. If you wish to discuss it do so via PM. Thanking you.

robindch

Need a hand here folks - is this for real?

Story seems to be that, in December last year, a pregnant woman started a fight with a second woman over some issue related to the alleged father-to-be. The second woman defended herself by shooting the first woman, leading to the loss of the foetus. Charges have been dropped against the second woman, the one who fired the shot, but the once-pregnant woman has been indicted for manslaughter since she initiated the confrontation which lead to the loss of the foetus.

The BBC says that it's unclear at this time whether Alabama's anti-abortion laws, according to which a foetus seems to have the full rights accorded to an adult, have been used to prosecute this case.

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/06/woman-indicted-in-shooting-death-of-her-unborn-child-charges-against-shooter-dismissed.html

aloyisious

robindch wrote: »

Need a hand here folks - is this for real?

Story seems to be that, in December last year, a pregnant woman started a fight with a second woman over some issue related to the alleged father-to-be. The second woman defended herself by shooting the first woman, leading to the loss of the foetus. Charges have been dropped against the second woman, the one who fired the shot, but the once-pregnant woman has been indicted for manslaughter since she initiated the confrontation which lead to the loss of the foetus.

The BBC says that it's unclear at this time whether Alabama's anti-abortion laws, according to which a foetus seems to have the full rights accorded to an adult, have been used to prosecute this case.

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/06/woman-indicted-in-shooting-death-of-her-unborn-child-charges-against-shooter-dismissed.html

From a standing-start, yes it can be for real. It's possible the charge relates to an act of culpable homicide, which includes manslaughter, the chosen charge indicating there may have been no intent to kill. The fight-starter did not foresee the consequences of her act but as she initiated the fight.....

Google provided me with some pieces of wisdom: 1. Culpable homicide is a form of criminal homicide that can either indicate that there was or was not intent to kill a person, depending on the country it is used in.

2. There are three types of culpable homicide: murder , manslaughter and infanticide . Killings classified as not culpable are justifiable killings ; thus the term is used to define the criminal intent or mens rea of a killing. Non-culpable homicide includes those committed in self-defence.

It all depends on the law/s of the state in which the act took place, which is probable where your question came into play. I'll pose a different unintended charges scenario example [not for part of this debate] Pregnant woman driver - car - alcohol - crash - consequences unintended but foreseeable.

Kidchameleon

Check out the unborn victims of violence act 2004 (US) and the term "foeticide" for more context on that case

splinter65

robindch wrote: »

Need a hand here folks - is this for real?

Story seems to be that, in December last year, a pregnant woman started a fight with a second woman over some issue related to the alleged father-to-be. The second woman defended herself by shooting the first woman, leading to the loss of the foetus. Charges have been dropped against the second woman, the one who fired the shot, but the once-pregnant woman has been indicted for manslaughter since she initiated the confrontation which lead to the loss of the foetus.

The BBC says that it's unclear at this time whether Alabama's anti-abortion laws, according to which a foetus seems to have the full rights accorded to an adult, have been used to prosecute this case.

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2019/06/woman-indicted-in-shooting-death-of-her-unborn-child-charges-against-shooter-dismissed.html

Apparently the woman who fired the shot acted in self defense so no charges there.
The woman she shot apparently instigated the aggression and pursued the shooter with reckless disregard for her unborn baby.
There’s no winners here.

gctest50

splinter65 wrote: »

............

There’s no winners here.

Darwin, rough but true

Follow someone who has a gun, you are going to get shot

Cabaal

gctest50 wrote: »

Darwin, rough but true

Follow someone who has a gun, you are going to get shot

But the person with the gun killed the third party, accordingly it would make sense to charge them with something at least

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

But the person with the gun killed the third party, accordingly it would make sense to charge them with something at least

Sense doesn't come into the picture with the law.

Alabama also made sex toys illegal as they are a danger to the public, yet like the rest of America people can buy military grade firearms.
Now I am open to correction, but I haven't yet heard a news report stating x number killed and wounded by a perpetrator armed with an automatic dildo.

Kidchameleon

DubInMeath wrote: »

x number killed and wounded by a perpetrator armed with an automatic dildo.

Waterford Whispers is that way >>>

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

But the person with the gun killed the third party, accordingly it would make sense to charge them with something at least

Foeticide?

Or, since it's Alabama, perhaps the foetus should have been carrying a gun.

aloyisious

Cabaal wrote: »

But the person with the gun killed the third party, accordingly it would make sense to charge them with something at least

A criminal charge might not have been applicable here. There also is the position of the [elected ?] DA in the law area involved to consider when it comes to a death of the unborn....

feticide
[ˈfiːtɪsʌɪd]

NOUN
foeticide (noun) · foeticide (plural noun)
destruction or abortion of a fetus.
synonyms:
termination · miscarriage · feticide.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/0614/1055371-podcast-voices-of-the-8th-one-year-on/

Finally got around to listening to the first episode of this.

Jeez, Cora Sherlock is delusional. "This law is only on loan to the pro-choicers", "the debate is not over", "many yes voters are regretting their vote". Complete and utter BS. Got the impression she'd rather live in a fantasy land of her own creation because she simply can't face up to reality and the scale of their defeat.

She even complained that the government supported the amendment which they proposed! FFS like. :rolleyes:

Bredabe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Finally got around to listening to the first episode of this.

Jeez, Cora Sherlock is delusional. "This law is only on loan to the pro-choicers", "the debate is not over", "many yes voters are regretting their vote". Complete and utter BS. Got the impression she'd rather live in a fantasy land of her own creation because she simply can't face up to reality and the scale of their defeat.

She even complained that the government supported the amendment which they proposed! FFS like. :rolleyes:

I think they are hoping that if they repeat this stuff enough that some ppl will start to think they are true and change their vote in case of another ref in the distance future.

Hotblack Desiato

There will never be another eighth amendment. Ever.

Thing is, they don't need a referendum to completely ban abortion. It'd be political suicide, but all they need to do is pass a law. Which is why it is essential that all pro-choice voters only ever vote for pro-choice candidates.

As Ailbhe Smyth said in the podcast, rights which have been granted can so easily be taken away.

uptherebels

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"many yes voters are regretting their vote"

She makes that claim alot on social media, ignores all requests for evidence of this, but that is expected.

lazygal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/0614/1055371-podcast-voices-of-the-8th-one-year-on/

Finally got around to listening to the first episode of this.

Jeez, Cora Sherlock is delusional. "This law is only on loan to the pro-choicers", "the debate is not over", "many yes voters are regretting their vote". Complete and utter BS. Got the impression she'd rather live in a fantasy land of her own creation because she simply can't face up to reality and the scale of their defeat.

She even complained that the government supported the amendment which they proposed! FFS like. :rolleyes:

Still whining about repeal shield on twitter too. No wonder she wasn't allowed on the Rte debate.

lazygal

lazygal wrote: »

Still whining about repeal shield on twitter too. No wonder she wasn't allowed on the Rte debate.

So are some members of this site.

The irony is that they also complain that anyone arguing against them and showing where they said x or y regarding specific cases are bullying them and that said bullies are being put on their ignore list.

Igotadose

DubInMeath wrote: »

So are some members of this site.

The irony is that they also complain that anyone arguing against them and showing where they said x or y regarding specific cases are bullying them and that said bullies are being put on their ignore list.

More right-wing snowflakery. Soon as it goes against them, 'you're so mean! whine whine whine.' SAD.

Cabaal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Jeez, Cora Sherlock is delusional. "This law is only on loan to the pro-choicers", "the debate is not over", "many yes voters are regretting their vote". Complete and utter BS.

Reminds me of before the ref when the claim from the pro life side was the "silent majority" of no voters
:rolleyes:

aloyisious

Touchy one this, even with the touchiness the topic already has. I saw from last week that on 06th July the anti-abortion campaign has a rally in Dublin, the same day the Trans-Pride march is on in Dublin. I was worried about the chance that supporters of both might meet but took it as a taken that the GS would ensure there would be hours between both events. Seems there will be at least - EDIT: 2 hours -between them as both start from Parnell Square GoR. I see on facebook today that ARC will be at the Trans Pride event so hope there will be no carry-over directly between both planned events.

On a related matter, I saw yesterday the posters for the anti-abortion campaign event are ended with a .Com and not a .IE net address. Does the difference between both net addresses indicates anything specific as to the .Com address location on the globe?

smacl

aloyisious wrote: »

On a related matter, I saw yesterday the posters for the anti-abortion campaign event are ended with a .Com and not a .IE net address. Does the difference between both net addresses indicates anything specific as to the .Com address location on the globe?

Not particularly. While i use .ie myself there are plenty of Irish companies using .com and plenty of international companies selling into Ireland using a .ie website to give the impression of being Irish. All just marketing really.

Hotblack Desiato

Answer to your question aloyisious - No.

It's a lot easier to get an .ie than it used to be - I'm not sure if having a business establishment in Ireland is still a requirement to get an .ie but that would be no barrier to the pro-life side who have many established companies - mostly at the same address and would be no barrier to having it funded from overseas either, if they wanted.

Cheaper to get a .com - but I expect the reports on Sunday to mention the usual free buses from around the country and lots of professionally printed placards, funding has never been an issue for them...

robindch

An Alabama district attorney has dropped manslaughter charges against Marshae Jones, 28, the pregnant woman whose unborn child died after she was shot in the stomach:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48849040

Igotadose

Here's something the pro-life and pro-choice sides can agree upon. Free contraception funding, the best way to prevent abortion:
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/free-contraception-funding-budget-ireland-17371293


I even have a candidate line item in the budget to take from - the ring-fenced funding for the greyhound industry!

volchitsa

Igotadose wrote: »

Here's something the pro-life and pro-choice sides can agree upon. Free contraception funding, the best way to prevent abortion:
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/free-contraception-funding-budget-ireland-17371293

You would think, wouldn't you? Many prolifers don't agree with "artificial" contraception - though I'm sure it's sheer coincidence that this is also the catholic church's stance - and I don't see any thing in that article that suggests they are going to change their minds on that soon, unfortunately.

smacl

volchitsa wrote: »

You would think, wouldn't you? Many prolifers don't agree with "artificial" contraception - though I'm sure it's sheer coincidence that this is also the catholic church's stance - and I don't see any thing in that article that suggests they are going to change their minds on that soon, unfortunately.

One could argue that a significant number of abortions relating to unwanted pregnancy in the past were due to lack of access to contraception for many, which in turn was due in no small part to the Catholic church.

aloyisious

smacl wrote: »

One could argue that a significant number of abortions relating to unwanted pregnancy in the past were due to lack of access to contraception for many, which in turn was due in no small part to the Catholic church.

Re artificial contraception, one may understand its directly related to the stance the Christian church says God has on sex, pregnancy and offspring and it being a sacred thing. Nothing about sex outside marriage which Genesis has God approving of, looking at Onan, his duty to his brother and his brothers wife and getting allmightilu annoyed when said duty was not performed, and a certain other sinful act.

Hotblack Desiato

Dept of Health public consultation on access to contraception is here:

https://health.gov.ie/consultations/

Closing date for submissions is 5th August.

Public consultation on access to contraception – have your say!

The Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution has recommended:

“The introduction of a scheme for the provision of the most effective method of contraception, free of charge and having regard to personal circumstances, to all people who wish to avail of them within the State.”

The Working Group on Access to Contraception was set up in 2019 to decide how best to implement this recommendation. The Working Group is made up of officials from the Department of Health. Its work involves:

• Doing research and gathering evidence
• Considering legal and regulatory issues
• Consulting stakeholders like you

The Working Group are asking stakeholders and members of the public to share their views on this issue by filling in the consultation questionnaire. Everyone is welcome to take part.

volchitsa

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Dept of Health public consultation on access to contraception is here:

https://health.gov.ie/consultations/

Closing date for submissions is 5th August.

Can't help feeling many prolifers are hoist on their own petard here - I don't suppose that promoting free contraception for hussies is something they ever saw as a goal, never mind becoming their last stand against abortion.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

Can't help feeling many prolifers are hoist on their own petard here - I don't suppose that promoting free contraception for hussies is something they ever saw as a goal, never mind becoming their last stand against abortion.

Given pharmacists can still refuse to dispense the morning after pill due to personal religious beliefs, to the best of my knowledge, would this change anything in relation to this?

Igotadose

DubInMeath wrote: »

Given pharmacists can still refuse to dispense the morning after pill due to personal religious beliefs, to the best of my knowledge, would this change anything in relation to this?

Yes. Anything that improves women's access to contraception is good. Removing the Church-decreed double standard in healthcare is still critical. Repealing the 8th was just the first step.