Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122270862#Comment_122270862

You're right, it was @ohnonotgmail. So apologies for saying you had previously wrongly accused me of making a strawman BS argument, but no apology for saying that your own post was a strawman argument, because it was.

I've never said or suggested that accurate use of language around pregnancy would solve the issue of access to abortion. I said nothing of the sort.

martingriff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122270781#Comment_122270781

Your interpretation is it dimishes it. However you go on to say it does diminish the role of women which is a statement of fact. That is what I have the issue with.

Some may say it dimishes there role and that it something they should talk about with there partner and those around who say that. 99.9999999% of people say it as if they are having a baby mean no offence and will not do so again

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122270865#Comment_122270865

Biologically they're women. Otherwise they could not be pregnant.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122270889#Comment_122270889

As I said, I know people don't generally mean any harm by it. That really isn't my point.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122270893#Comment_122270893

so nobody has said a man can get pregnant, then? make your mind up.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122270893#Comment_122270893

And there's the problem when it comes to terminology. Trans people have the hard fought for legal right to be referred to by their preferred gender. While you might not like this idea, to deny it is in breach of their human rights hence 'pregnant people'. This doesn't have to come into conflict with feminism, though for some feminists it clearly does.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122270920#Comment_122270920

I quoted where someone had said exactly that, and someone else agreed with them. Didn't you see it??

martingriff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122270912#Comment_122270912

No your point is going by your second paragraph of your last post to me is it does diminish it and just like the women her were against the vote are not bothered by it are wrong

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122270938#Comment_122270938

It does come into conflict though. Because it's not really about trans men being pregnant (any danger there, IMO, is for the pregnant, or potentially pregnant, trans man who is claiming to be a man when needing medical treatment that is aimed at woman, rather than for women in general).

But the reality is that this is actually about trans women wanting to be considered as women, to the extent of having women renamed as "cervix-owners", "vagina-owners" and other deeply offensive terms. Because women are not just our genitals.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122270969#Comment_122270969

Not sure what you mean: maybe women weren't wrong to be against female suffrage?

Or that other women, who wanted female suffrage, were mean (and possibly wrong) to say this?

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122270951#Comment_122270951

they said trans man. you said a trans man is a woman. so nobody has said a man (as per your definition) can get pregnant.

martingriff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122270981#Comment_122270981

Those who were against the vote were wrong just like those who think it does not dimish the women's role.

Anyway I think we are done

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122270986#Comment_122270986

They literally said "He is being perfectly accurate when he says men can be pregnant. "

The fact that I disagree with that sentiment is hardly the point here. You said "nobody" says that. You were wrong, and should have stopped digging pages ago.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122270977#Comment_122270977

You have a very unusual argument here. On the one hand you seem to be saying that women aren't just their genitalia and on the other saying that it is their reproductive organs that define them as women. Yet I'm sure you'd agree that a woman who has had a hysterectomy remains a woman. Like many older fogeys of my generation, I find many issues surrounding trans rights complex and often counter intuitive but am strongly of the opinion that we should afford dignity and respect as a basic principle and starting point. I don't for a moment believe trans rights compromise women's rights.

While this is very much off topic on this thread, subjects such as bodily autonomy, freedom of choice and the right to human dignity are also major issues for the trans community,

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122271050#Comment_122271050

So you query my argument while telling me my response will be off topic. OK. FWIW, the definition of male and female is biological, because we're mammals. There's really not much we can do about that. But just as someone losing a limb - or indeed being born with a hand missing, does not make them less human, it's not necessary for each individual person to possess a full working set of intact genitalia to "be" that sex. However humans are not clownfish, and nor does a dog with only two legs become a human just because humans are bipedal.

More to the point though, I'm puzzled by your unevidenced assertion that trans rights do not "for a moment" compromise women's rights - but I think that really is too far off topic to discuss here. Perhaps you'd care to provide some evidence for such an astonishing claim on one of the trans threads? Or is it just something you choose to believe because it's much more comfortable for you to do so? Again, something that might be better being discussed on a relevant thread. Or you could start one, if you think the existing ones are not suitable.

aloyisious

Would I be right in understanding from your posts that you believe women's rights are being reduced by those people who have transed from M to F [and maybe also F to M] and are recognized in law as having changed gender?

I know that there are women who argue that trans persons are not the gender that they claim to be. Likewise, humans being humans, I assume that there are men who hold similar opinions on persons who have transed legally to the opposite gender. I have seen lamp-posted labels making reference to TERF's and assume TERM's exist as well, as well, as personally-held opinions go.

To me that position is not relevant to a debate about abortion, whatever about your view that it is and I remain to be persuaded that it could have relevance.

Sometime peoples can drive themselves into a blind alley from which there seems to be no way out or of losing the understanding that one's opinion is absolute above all else. Debating helps that happen.

robindch

[volchitsa] I would not hold back now. And TBH if I heard a woman saying it, I would point out, gently but firmly, that she was minimising her role in order to "big up" her partner's. I suspect it's from fear of the partner feeling left out of the whole event. But IMO such men just need to grow up.

Personally, I've always found it wisest to avoid saying anything too specific in these situations beyond friendly expressions of best wishes for the health of the baby, the mother and everybody else concerned. One is never privy to the full reasons, motivations, difficulties, discussions and activities which precede a pregnancy, despite how obvious they might all appear from a cursory look from the distant outside. Deciding that a specific viewpoint is true, then choosing to make presumptuous comments based upon it, can create problems which can be difficult to resolve.

Candlel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122253482#Comment_122253482

It's not people who give birth, it's women. Taking away the word woman devalues the fact that it's only woman who can get pregnant, give birth or have abortions. Though so far I've not seen anyone change the words for abortion to imply that it's people and not woman who have abortions .

It's not about being woke. It's about being factual. About biology. And when the likes of the HSE decide to remove the word woman from advice on pregnancy or cervical cancer it matters.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122271354#Comment_122271354

Would I be right in understanding from your posts that you believe women's rights are being reduced by those people who have transed from M to F [and maybe also F to M] and are recognized in law as having changed gender?

Not necessarily.

As long as there remained a distinction between sex and gender, so that where relevant women could still have sex-specific rights, I have no problem with how people wish to live their lives.

So for example, putting men like "Barbie Kardashian" into the women's estate in Limerick prison was a removal of the rights of female prisoners not to be kept locked in their cells for longer than normal because it was simply too dangerous for them to have them come in contact with "Barbie" and the other two MtF prisoners who were also being held there. Not to mention the problems in some US prisons where women have been raped by so-called trans woman prisoners, or the woman raped in an NHS hospital in England who was told she couldn't have been raped as there were no men on the ward. Despite there being CCTV footage of the assault by a TW patient in the (female) ward.

Would you not agree that those are instances where trans rights do conflict with women's rights?

To me that position is not relevant to a debate about abortion, whatever about your view that it is and I remain to be persuaded that it could have relevance.

No, what happened was that I joined in when it was being claimed that anyone who objected to the term "pregnant people" was by definition trying to "sneak" religion into it, as the only alternative point of view on the matter was "science". My point is that "women's rights" provides another approach to the question, neither strictly scientific nor religious, but perfectly valid all the same.

Sometime peoples can drive themselves into a blind alley from which there seems to be no way out or of losing the understanding that one's opinion is absolute above all else. Debating helps that happen.

I don't know who/what exactly you're referring to here.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122271917#Comment_122271917

Thanks for the input on the Irish Prison policy of placing M-to-F transed or trans-ing convicted persons in female prisons in order for it to be operating within the law, and then following standard lockdown policy for the safety and protection of its prisoners and staff while ensuring that good order is kept in the prison.

I don't have knowledge of DOJ, Prison Service or Limerick Prison governor's policy on such matters. Where the physical safety of all is concerned, some persons are likely to lose exercise and free-association time within the confines of the prison/s. That is inevitable and not restricted to possible or likely anti-social behaviour by any specific member of the prison population. I might inquire myself as to what happens to F-to-M transed or transing convicted persons in male prisons as it is likely they also may face hazards within the prisons.

As the above [IMO] references something outside the specific boundary of women's right to access abortion services, I will not be responding, within this abortion-rights debate, to posts not specific to those rights. Thanks again for the input you provided me with.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122278547#Comment_122278547

Well you did ask. I merely replied. If you think it's off topic, perhaps you shouldn't have put words into my mouth in the first place?

Thanks for the input on the Irish Prison policy of placing M-to-F transed or trans-ing convicted persons in female prisons in order for it to be operating within the law, and then following standard lockdown policy for the safety and protection of its prisoners and staff while ensuring that good order is kept in the prison.

Right, but you asked whether I thought women's rights could be adversely affected by people being recognised in law as having changed gender. I gave you an example. The fact that the current law enables/requires that to happen doesn't stop it being a reduction of women's rights.

I don't have knowledge of DOJ, Prison Service or Limerick Prison governor's policy on such matters. Where the physical safety of all is concerned, some persons are likely to lose exercise and free-association time within the confines of the prison/s. That is inevitable and not restricted to possible or likely anti-social behaviour by any specific member of the prison population.

Prisoners may reasonably have their freedom reduced when their behaviour is deemed dangerous to others. These woman are ALL kept locked up because a couple of trans prisoners are deemed a danger to them.

Keeping a prisoner locked up because another prisoner is a danger to them is a more complicated rights issue. Sex offenders are such a case, being kept apart from other prisoners because their crime puts them at risk from other prisoners - but they are not just locked up more: they are put in a special section together so as to allow them as much freedom as possible. The equivalent here of course would be to have a section where all biological women are kept apart from the trans women - which is exactly what is not being done! And it is not done because the trans women want to be in prison with biological women. While being a danger to them.

I might inquire myself as to what happens to F-to-M transed or transing convicted persons in male prisons as it is likely they also may face hazards within the prisons.

It's hard to find many instances of F-to-M prisoners anywhere, but I've come across one or two in the US who were in female prisons for their own safety, either immediately or were moved there.

I presume though that it's the same logic as with F-to-M athletes, who tend to choose to remain in the female sections. Even more so than in sport, since the problem of violence tends to be a male issue. You'd expect the trans activists to object to trans men continuing to participate in female domains, but they never seem very interested in trans men (F-to-M transitions) at all.

I've not heard of any in Ireland. I would hope that they would be allowed to be in the female section if they wished to be.

As the above [IMO] references something outside the specific boundary of women's right to access abortion services, I will not be responding, within this abortion-rights debate, to posts not specific to those rights. Thanks again for the input you provided me with.

And you are entitled to do that, of course.

I just explained why I joined in - because other posters were arguing about whether objecting to the phrase "pregnant people" was necessarily a way of sneaking religion into the debatre. My argument is that it isn't, that any erosion of the existence of women as a distinct category is also important for women's rights around abortion and pregnancy. For example, if the law says that it is not only women who can be pregnant, then the idea that abortion and pregnancy are women's rights issues is weakened, and men can claim that they should have a say in whether abortion should be allowed or not. Since "men can also be pregnant".

But you're entitled of course not to be concerned about that.

Hotblack Desiato

And yet another thread on Boards gets dragged down the transphobia rabbit hole.

Meanwhile:

https://www.irishtimes.com/world/europe/2024/06/19/poland-clamps-down-on-hospitals-refusing-to-perform-abortions/

Polish authorities have imposed a significant fine on a hospital for denying an abortion to a woman whose pregnancy may have endangered her life, marking a shift in a country with some of the strictest termination rules in Europe.

Poland's previous nationalist government introduced a near-total ban on abortion in 2021 and embedded conservative social values in law during its eight-year rule.

The 41-year-old woman, who was 14 weeks pregnant, sought an abortion at Pabianice Medical Centre.

“The woman presented a certificate from a psychiatrist, which clearly stated that continuing this pregnancy was a threat to her health or life,” Antonina Lewandowska of Federa, the Foundation for Women and Family Planning said.

Despite this, the hospital requested additional documentation and refused to perform the abortion. She ended up getting it at a different hospital.

The National Health Fund deemed the refusal unlawful and fined the hospital 550,000 zlotys (€127,000). The medical centre plans to appeal the decision.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122279933#Comment_122279933

So has this thread just become a noticeboard for random incidents from around the world of difficulties accessing abortion?

I mean, do you have a question or a comment about that event? The woman won her case - naturally, because EU law says EU countries must have a procedure in place by which women who need abortion for their health can access one, and she not only seems to have fulfilled the criteria even on the face of it, but was given one elsewhere, which confirms that.

So… what, exactly? Poland still has a religious tradition that abhorrs abortion? Well colour me surprised! I was there about 10 years ago, and the church near where I was staying was full to the brim for Saturday evening mass, and on the Monday when I was in the post office buying stamps there was a priest in the queue in front of me depositing a large amount of cash, presumably the collection from his weekend masses. So, like Italy, you're going to have a subset of people in the hospitals trying to prevent women from getting abortions. These are generally isolated cases, though. And like I say, she won.

So if you think there's a lesson for us in Ireland, you'd need to explain what. That any woman wrongly refused an abortion in Ireland will win any subsequent court case? That's what I see there. Which is a very good thing, by the way.

I just think men telling women that we're wrong to have other concerns around women's issues and gynecology/abortion and caliming that objecting to attempts to erase women from these discussions altogether is going "down a rabbithole", no less is… well, it's pretty misogynistic TBH.

Refusing to acknowledge that pregnancy is a woman's issue, not a "people" issue, is the sort of "male feminism" I've become quite suspicious of, seeing where it has led us recently.

In fact it's the same sort of misogyny that we have a long tradition of in Ireland when men were telling us that we shouldn't worry our little heads about not having abortions. And the men talking down to women, telling them they're being led down a rabbit hole (by other men!) are doing much the same, except they fondly believe themselves to be progressive as well. But guess what? Women can think for ourselves.

Hotblack Desiato

The troll has 100% succeeded

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122281910#Comment_122281910

Why? What did you need to say about the Polish case that you haven't been able to? It seems to me that there is very little to say about it - and that I said it, rather than you. You just posted it up there.

I took a very active part in the pro Repeal campaign. I don't think I have any lessons to take from you on support for abortion rights. But I notice that the instant you find yourself on a slightly different position from a woman on women's rights, you immediately reach for the "poor stupid woman being led astray by a (male) troll" card. You have no doubt that you understand the issues better than I do. But you know what? You don't. I have more personal experience of pregnancy and abortion than you do - and I'm also well able to recognise when a man is resorting to the old "male trumps female" arguments. The anti choicers did it, and now you're doing it. And I equally have no doubt that you will be congenitally unable to stand back and question yourself enough to see that you're doing it.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122271124#Comment_122271124

So you query my argument while telling me my response will be off topic.

Nope, I was apologizing in advance for my own comments being somewhat off-topic.

lumphammer2

I think babers are the most despicable and fanatic type of far right agitators going …. they are only rivalled by the anti-mark/vax brigade and the anti-migrant brigade …. the latter 2 pass as the years go by but the babers remain ….

Babers tend to be anti-gay anti trans anti abortion …. anti anyone who decides not to have children …. babers speak of a non-existent fertility crisis …. and state it is the duty of everyone to have children …. they are religious nutters too and are pro-Trump/MAGA …. babers are made famous in so-called fiction by The Handmaid's Tale ….

Yet for all their supposed love of children babers are very happy sending them out to get killed in wars ….. the babers' ultimate dream is the war Trump will declare on Iran ….. it appears the only reason babers want to greater, well, babies is to make soldiers to fight their dreams …. wars with Iran and then some more countries …..

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122281764#Comment_122281764

There is no other thread in A&A more suitable to post news about abortion from Poland or other countries. There are no developments in Ireland at the moment (any legislative change seems further off than ever) so there's nothing to post about on that front.

I wouldn't agree with "naturally she won" because EU law was of no practical help in protecting the lives of Irish women before 2013, never mind their health. In any case the story was about the Polish government fining a clinic, not a woman taking a case and not about the EU either. According to the story she didn't (thankfully) need to take any legal action, she went to another clinic, she shouldn't have had to and the government have fined the clinic that refused her, this certainly would not have happened under the previous government.

I haven't said anything (never mind told you anything) about other concerns, but those other concerns are not relevant to this thread imho. I avoid the endless trans "debates" on Boards, it's one of the things ruining this site.

Hotblack Desiato

Irish Times publised a massive whinge from Breda O'Brien about abortion figures in a rather mean-spirited article on the occasion of Simon Coveney's retirement from politics. Clearly he was Iona's great hope in the early stages of the No campaign and will never be forgiven for coming out in support of repeal.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2024/07/14/will-simon-coveney-ever-be-asked-about-his-role-in-passing-the-referendum-that-led-to-a-rise-in-abortions/

A good letter in riposte from Peter Boylan.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/2024/07/15/abortion-numbers-are-in-line-with-predictions/

Sir, – Breda O’Brien’s claim that there has been an “astonishing rise” in abortion services accessed by women in the Republic of Ireland since the repeal of the Eighth Amendment is misplaced (“In Ireland, you can tell people abortion figures won’t rise and still be unaccountable when they double”, Opinion & Analysis, July 13th).

The statistic of 3,019 women from the Republic accessing abortion in England and Wales in 2017 refers only to the number of women who gave addresses in the Republic. Many others provided the UK addresses of family, friends or supporters. This practice was well-identified over many years when abortion was illegal here. Similarly, the number of women who used abortion pills prior to repeal cannot be accurately determined.

When I was appointed in October 2018 by then-minister for health Simon Harris to coordinate the implementation of abortion services after the vote to repeal the Eighth Amendment, I estimated that we should plan for 10,000 terminations annually before 12 weeks, with 80 per cent of those before nine weeks once the service was embedded. This was based on the figures in Scotland and Norway, two neighbouring countries with populations similar to Ireland in size and distribution, with numbers adjusted for the Irish population. The Department of Health and the HSE agreed with these figures and planned accordingly.

In 2019, 6,666 women accessed abortion services in the State. UK Government statistics show that 375 women giving Republic of Ireland addresses sought abortion services in England and Wales in the same year, and a further unknown number gave a UK address. At the time, patchy provision of services across the country and lingering stigma were identified as factors in women continuing to travel outside the State. The 2019 figures, therefore, also understate the true position.

As was the case globally, fewer women sought abortion services in 2020 and 2021 during the Covid-19 pandemic for a variety of reasons including a decline in the pregnancy rate, travel and financial barriers, fear of infection, and privacy concerns. The effects of the pandemic lingered into 2022, reducing the numbers accessing services in that year also.

As abortion services in the Republic of Ireland have become established over the past five years, we see that the figure for 10,033 abortions in 2023 is exactly in line with what was predicted in 2018, or rather less considering the 8 per cent growth in population from 4,885,000 to 5,281,000 during those years. The 2023 figures represent a rate of 18.3 per 10,000 population.

Meanwhile, there were 18,207 abortions in Scotland in 2023 in a population of 5,463,000, a rate of 33 per 10,000.

Norway recorded 12,814 abortions in 2023 in a population of 5,474,000, a rate of 23 per 10,000.

Far from abortion numbers in Ireland being in any way astonishing, they are in line with, or slightly below, the numbers that were expected after repeal of the Eighth Amendment, and less than the numbers in comparator countries. This is exactly what was predicted and planned for in 2018. – Yours, etc,

Dr PETER BOYLAN,

Former chair,

Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists,

Dublin 6.

volchitsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122391179#Comment_122391179

Thanks for that. I'm always somewhat torn these days between not giving anti choicers the oxygen of publicity or getting back down into the whole argument again, and generally I tend more towards the former, but this is such a clear, accurate response to O'Brien's nonsense that it's definitely worth posting up.