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
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
I'm surmising that if asked, her solution to a girl like Ms X would be remaining pregnant. She's open about her anti abortion views so I can't see how she could provide appropriate advise to a student.
I'm not sure that this is fair.
People can (and should) be professional at times without referring,mentioning or even considering their own personal thoughts.
We don't know very much about Breda's professionalism, and I don't think we should be commenting.0 -
I'm surmising that if asked, her solution to a girl like Ms X would be remaining pregnant. She's open about her anti abortion views so I can't see how she could provide appropriate advise to a student.
IMO, no teacher (be they pro-choice/pro-life) should be advising a student on their pregnancy either way. It's up to the student and medical professionals (and possibly parents depending on age).If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
That's inappropriate for her to do as a teacher. A teacher should not be telling a student to get (or not) an abortion.
I would imagine Breda would be calling for a teacher to be sacked if they suggested a pregnant student get an abortion.
Indeed. I have a definite recollection of both my sons, in 1992, being given so-called "pro-life" literature by teachers in their primary school, to bring home to their Mum and Dad.
This disgusting tactic, abusing children, was widespread, in schools nominally Catholic, but in reality fully publicly funded by the taxpayers and citizens of this Republic.0 -
irishpancake wrote: »Indeed. I have a definite recollection of both my sons, in 1992, being given so-called "pro-life" literature by teachers in their primary school, to bring home to their Mum and Dad.
This disgusting tactic, abusing children, was widespread, in schools nominally Catholic, but in reality fully publicly funded by the taxpayers and citizens of this Republic.
My memory's a bit fuzzy, but wasn't there a huge furore 3-5 years ago about a principal of a South Dublin school allowing der Jugendschutzstaffel into a primary school?0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26391
IMO, no teacher (be they pro-choice/pro-life) should be advising a student on their pregnancy either way. It's up to the student and medical professionals (and possibly parents depending on age).
True,
But it seems its perfectly legal for a school to refuse to educate a student if she is pregnant.
What a wounderful country we live in!0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 26391
Dr Jessen is tweeting again about our backwards health system when it comes to women and their wombs.
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/08/26/morto/
Of course the tweets are 100% factual, a priest and a nun can stop cancer treatment in this country
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/three-who-stopped-the-cancer-tests-25960150.html
Sometimes our country is a backwards hick of a place,. :mad::mad:0 -
Ah yes - the superior Catholic morality! Where you fail to support a test that could help save millions of lives just so a small handful of people do not use contraceptives for a few months. Bravo!0
-
Of course the tweets are 100% factual, a priest and a nun can stop cancer treatment in this country
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/three-who-stopped-the-cancer-tests-25960150.html
And get a promotion for doing so.0 -
True,
But it seems its perfectly legal for a school to refuse to educate a student if she is pregnant.
What a wounderful country we live in!
And of course it was perfectly OK for Nuns to sack an unmarried, pregnant teacher, citing these so-called ethical norms and complaints from utter hypocrites, who were parents themselves, yet they objected to this decent woman teaching their precious children, a woman who was pregnant by her future husband, and keeping their child.
She was sacked by the Nuns two months after giving birth.
She went on to marry Richie, and they had four more children.
Of course, in Ireland in 1982, she lost her case and all appeals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eileen_FlynnEileen Flynn (1955 – 9 September 2008) was a teacher in New Ross, County Wexford, who was sacked for being pregnant while unmarried.
Eileen Flynn taught English and history at the Holy Faith Convent in New Ross.
In August 1982 she was dismissed from her post.
A letter sent to her by the school claimed that complaints had been made to the school by parents of pupils and said that she had rejected the schools norms of behaviour.
She was living with her partner Richie Roche, the father of her child, who was separated from his wife. (Irish law did not recognise divorce at the time).
Eventually, she married Roche in 1997.
She took unfair dismissal cases to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Circuit Court as well as to the High Court, eventually losing all cases.
The dismissal was controversial at the time, she was featured in the media and was later referred to during Dáil and Seanad debates, including that on the Employment Equality Bill.
She died suddenly on 9 September 2008 and her funeral was held on 12 September 2008.
Marguerite Bolger claims that such a case is still possible.
Eileen Flynn herself was referred to in the Seanad debates as saying that it would still be possible to dismiss her under the legislation being debated in 1997.
The case has been mentioned in discussion of church-state relations.When Eileen Flynn was sacked from her job at the Holy Faith convent school 24 years ago, a Jesuit priest pronounced:
"Ms Flynn's pregnancy is significant only as being incontrovertible evidence that her relations with the man in whose house she resided were immoral.
Had her immorality remained genuinely private, it might have been overlooked."
- See more at: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/should-we-lose-faith-26397880.html#sthash.8CPmUuZK.dpuf
Such was, and is, the the condition of arrogance and the willingness to be hypocritical relating to "immorality", which existed and exists, and which of course is exactly the policy this Catholic Church pursued in relation to it's willingness to hide and cover-up and swear to secrecy young abused victims, by the scandalous activities of it's perverted servants in this Priesthood.....
The case of Eileen Flynn [RIP] should be remembered by all right-thinking people who want to bring this State into the 21st Century.0 -
Advertisement
-
Glad this has come up again. I would like a referendum with a number of questions to cover the cases for rape, fetal abnormality which means the baby would die. No problem there. But here's what gets me. If Science can play the roll of the baby from week 26 on - what happens when science can do the same after week 1?0
-
I don't agree. The entire genome, the DNA is there right from the moment of inception. The code that makes you is all there (after that it's just nurture, the nature has been done). The only difference between pre birth and post birth is that pre birth requires a womb to help the cells to grow to a certain stage.Vivisectus wrote: »Myself, I am pro-choice. As a male it is not a choice I will ever have to make, but will only ever be periphally involved in. Fortunately, mrs Sectus and I have the same point of view on this one: we strongly believe that this should be a woman's choice. That a termination in the first trimester should be fairly quick, and focused on not making an already very stressful situation worse. That later terminations must be possible, but should require more involvement from healthcare providers and a clear case of distress, danger or some other compelling factor, as the more developed state of the fetus starts to give it rights of it's own.
I feel this way because pretending that a small clump of cells is a person is idiotic in my view: it is something that under the right circumstances could develop into a person. I see no difference between stopping it from developing and preventing this development from starting in the first place. A sperm and an egg are not a person: sperm, egg, the right circumstances and time can lead to a person. A match is not a forest fire.
I find the way some of the anti-choice camp equate fetuses to babies foolish: before significant development has taken place, they are potential babies - there is no qualitative difference between preventing the development of a baby before or after fertilization. The moment that we call "conception" is an arbitrary stage in the human reproductive cycle, unless you invoke something supernatural.
Once enough development takes place for us to be able to imagine it experiencing anything, I think we should start affording it a bit more protection. But I would never forbid termination entirely: human beings are not things, women are not incubators. I would just make sure there are procedures in place to give us the best chance of making the right call for the sake of all involved.
That said, our own choice is actually pro-life. That is to say it would be mine if it ever came to it, which it obviously cannot, and in our conversations on the subject, Mrs Sectus always said this was her position too. This is because we are not in favor of abortions at all: that is like saying you are in favor of amputations. It is just that we feel that it would be barbaric to force our choice on other people. We simply do not have the right to make those kind of decisions about other people's bodies.
Abortion legislation must always primarily be about compassion, about limiting, if possible, the amount of suffering caused by an already painful and distressing situation. Since a first trimester fetus without much nerve development cannot conceivably suffer and has never been aware, I feel that a woman should be able to decide if she wants to carry it or not.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »I don't agree. The entire genome, the DNA is there right from the moment of inception.
And in every cell of your body. Doesn't make exfoliating an act of mass murder.⛥ ̸̱̼̞͛̀̓̈́͘#C̶̼̭͕̎̿͝R̶̦̮̜̃̓͌O̶̬͙̓͝W̸̜̥͈̐̾͐Ṋ̵̲͔̫̽̎̚͠ͅT̸͓͒͐H̵͔͠È̶̖̳̘͍͓̂W̴̢̋̈͒͛̋I̶͕͑͠T̵̻͈̜͂̇Č̵̤̟̑̾̂̽H̸̰̺̏̓ ̴̜̗̝̱̹͛́̊̒͝⛥
0 -
-
Tim Robbins wrote: »And who was claiming it was?
You in your previous post, at the moment of conception there are two cells. You destroy more when you exfoliate.0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »Glad this has come up again. I would like a referendum with a number of questions to cover the cases for rape, fetal abnormality which means the baby would die. No problem there. But here's what gets me. If Science can play the roll of the baby from week 26 on - what happens when science can do the same after week 1?
Can I ask Tim, why do we need any Referendum other than the one which will rescind and repeal the PLAC sponsored Amendmendment, 40.3.3.....
Binchey "crafted" an Amendment which resulted in the legal right to Abortion, when tested and interpreted in the Supreme Court, in case which was about the right to life of a suicidal pregnant child, a mother-to-be carrying her rapists embryo/fetus, her life in danger due to her suicide ideation.
Her life was deemed to have a superior right to exist, as it was not practicable to defend and vindicate the "equal" but inferior right to life of an "unborn" embryo or fetus, in the circumstances of the "X" appeal and Judgement.
We all know the circumstances whereby this insidious piece of legal nonsense came about.
We all know it is nonsense, as the attempt to assert and vindicate equal rights for both parties, is impossible without infringing on these rights of either party in situations such as X, the recent case, and the Savita case.
It does not serve the attempt by PLAC to ensure there would never be a legislated right to abortion in this State, and nor does it serve the aims of Pro choice supporters, as the choices available are severly limited and would not permit abortion in the cases of rape and FFA you specify.
A Constitution is no place to attempt to resolve complicated moral and legal issues.
The elected legislature is the place to make law, in fact it is the only place permitted to so do, under our Constitution.
And using the Constitution to attempt to ban or allow in some circumstances, procedures which are readily available and legal in neighbouring Countries, and now in restricted form here.0 -
Brian Shanahan wrote: »You in your previous post, at the moment of conception there are two cells. You destroy more when you exfoliate.
And male masturbation/ejaculation??
Anti-choice males don't masturbate??0 -
irishpancake wrote: »And male masturbation/ejaculation??
Anti-choice males don't masturbate??
That's just condemning them to a longer, more lingering death, anyway... Though I suppose a more "natural" one.
Precise details on their take on this presumably depend on whether one is a an anti-choice hardcore Catholic, an anti-choice fundamentalist Protestant, or one of those strange beasts that seems to not exist on any actual RL demo, but on every internet discussion, the strictly secular anti-choice atheist (hrrrrm).0 -
alaimacerc wrote: »That's just condemning them to a longer, more lingering death, anyway... Though I suppose a more "natural" one.
Precise details on their take on this presumably depend on whether one is a an anti-choice hardcore Catholic, an anti-choice fundamentalist Protestant, or one of those strange beasts that seems to not exist on any actual RL demo, but on every internet discussion, the strictly secular anti-choice atheist (hrrrrm).
And each enumerated group [nice buzz word being used lately] contains it's fair share of....guess what??0 -
Tim Robbins wrote: »But here's what gets me. If Science can play the roll of the baby from week 26 on - what happens when science can do the same after week 1?
Play the roll of the baby? Do you mean by any chance "role of the womb"? (If not, can't make head or tail of, sorry.)
Once we're in that "Brave New World", bodily integrity is no longer a concern, and whether a particular embryo gets "homesteaded" becomes much more broadly a societal question. In fact it's not unlike the present situation with "unwanted" IVF embyros (or those with donor consent issues, and so forth). If they have a right to life, in what form must it be vindicated? If someone "steals" your DNA (as either parent, or even for cloning purposes) in such a case, should you have any recourse to prevent it from being brought to term?0 -
Advertisement
-
I think for most people the debate is when they think a foetus is a person. I hate the labels no one is pro death or anti choice0
-
Tim Robbins wrote: »The entire genome, the DNA is there right from the moment of inception. The code that makes you is all there (after that it's just nurture, the nature has been done).
Surely, the distinction would be in the case of exfoliation, you're killing some of your own cells, but in the case of abortion you're killing all of someone else's? Or something else's depending on your point of view...And in every cell of your body. Doesn't make exfoliating an act of mass murder.
And the same distinction would exist in this case?irishpancake wrote: »And male masturbation/ejaculation??
Which goes back to what I think was Tims real point; if medical science advances to the point that once conception has occurred medical intervention can ensure the viability of a zygote through to 'birth', should this be done when terminating a pregnancy rather than terminating the nascent life? I suspect many people would say not (for perhaps varying reasons), so taking that technology as a given, at what point should medical intervention be permitted to save the unborn life if possible? At what point, if any, should it be mandated despite the wishes of a potential mother?alaimacerc wrote: »That's just condemning them to a longer, more lingering death, anyway... Though I suppose a more "natural" one. Precise details on their take on this presumably depend on whether one is a an anti-choice hardcore Catholic, an anti-choice fundamentalist Protestant, or one of those strange beasts that seems to not exist on any actual RL demo, but on every internet discussion, the strictly secular anti-choice atheist (hrrrrm).0 -
Because some people may wish to further liberalise abortion without removing the enumerated Constitutional right to life of the unborn?irishpancake wrote: »Can I ask Tim, why do we need any Referendum other than the one which will rescind and repeal the PLAC sponsored Amendmendment, 40.3.3.....
It would seem to be the perfect place to enshrine the will of the people beyond legislative change though?irishpancake wrote: »A Constitution is no place to attempt to resolve complicated moral and legal issues.
So the Constitution would be the perfect place to determine what we as a nation will and will not permit the legislature to determine on our behalf?irishpancake wrote: »The elected legislature is the place to make law, in fact it is the only place permitted to so do, under our Constitution.0 -
0
-
Because some people may wish to further liberalise abortion without removing the enumerated Constitutional right to life of the unborn?
It would seem to be the perfect place to enshrine the will of the people beyond legislative change though?
So the Constitution would be the perfect place to determine what we as a nation will and will note permit the legislature to determine on our behalf?Because some people may wish to further liberalise abortion without removing the enumerated Constitutional right to life of the unborn?
A right which is acknowledged in the Constitution, guaranteed, defended and vindicated with "due regard" to the "equal right to life of the mother", but only "as far as is practicable"?? Which the SC ruled permitted abortion to save a mothers life, including from a threat due to suicide ideation, and which could lead to the unborn not surviving, due to non viability, in certain cases.It would seem to be the perfect place to enshrine the will of the people beyond legislative change though?
Not such a perfect place, as we have found out, when the so-called "perfect" PLAC solution, 40.3.3, turned out to be deeply flawed and contrary to the meaning which was intended by those in PLAC, who insisted that it was the only acceptable text in 1983.
A very imperfect and inappropriate place in which to enshrine the "will of the people" on a flawed proposition, as in the case of the PLAC Amendment, where that will can be interpreted in a way other than that which the proponents intended.
So, enshrining "the will of the people beyond legislative change" which is ascertained by proposing an Amendment capable of being interpreted by our SC in a way the proponents from PLAC never intended, and which those voting could have variously intended, as we cannot ascertain the individual mindsets of each and every "Yes" voter........
is certainly not indicative of the "perfect place" you have proposed.So the Constitution would be the perfect place to determine what we as a nation will and will note permit the legislature to determine on our behalf?
What do you mean by "we as a nation"...
we, if you are referring to RoI, are Citizens of a State.
Others, who would wish to be considered as part of "the nation" are in a different State on this Island, and would not have a vote, not being on the Electoral Register.
And of course, there are many in other countries who would consider themselves as part of "the nation".
And then there are many "New Irish Citizens" here, which I heartily approve of, who would not be included in "we as a nation", in regards to Nationality, but would have right to a vote in Referenda.0 -
Yes, that one, unless there's another enumerated Constitutional right to life of the unborn in the Constitution?irishpancake wrote: »A right which is acknowledged in the Constitution, guaranteed, defended and vindicated with "due regard" to the "equal right to life of the mother", but only "as far as is practicable"??
Well, that's not in the Constitution, so I'm pretty sure no one is going to have a referendum to remove it from the Constitution? Though we could have a referendum to enshrine it in the Constitution, or to render it repugnant to the Constitution. Until that happens, there is no prohibition on the Supreme Court making a new decision which alters or overturns the original decision that I'm aware of. Since other posters have shown a strong interest in the legal aspect, I'd be interested in hearing other opinions on it.irishpancake wrote: »Which the SC ruled permitted abortion to save a mothers life, including from a threat due to suicide ideation, and which could lead to the unborn not surviving, due to non viability, in certain cases.
I'm sure your opinion on whether PLAC (whoever you think that is) thought the amendment was a perfect solution (to whatever you imagine it was a solution to) is beyond question, and even your feeling that it is deeply flawed and contrary to whatever meaning you think those in PLAC intended it to be must be beyond argument. But my point was that the Constitution is a perfect place to enshrine the will of the people beyond legislative change. Leaving aside your opinions on the vagaries of PLAC, are you contending there's a better place?irishpancake wrote: »Not such a perfect place, as we have found out, when the so-called "perfect" PLAC solution, 40.3.3, turned out to be deeply flawed and contrary to the meaning which was intended by those in PLAC, who insisted that it was the only acceptable text in 1983.
So, what place do you think would be more perfect and appropriate?irishpancake wrote: »A very imperfect and inappropriate place in which to enshrine the "will of the people" on a flawed proposition, as in the case of the PLAC Amendment, where that will can be interpreted in a way other than that which the proponents intended.
So, with all credit to multiple redundancy, where is, in your opinion?irishpancake wrote: »So, enshrining "the will of the people beyond legislative change" which is ascertained by proposing an Amendment capable of being interpreted by our SC in a way the proponents from PLAC never intended, and which those voting could have variously intended, as we cannot ascertain the individual mindsets of each and every "Yes" voter is certainly not indicative of the "perfect place" you have proposed.
Well, it seems fairly obvious that anyone who cannot vote cannot participate in a referendum, but for the purpose of the avoidance of your confusion, in this instance I intend the meaning of 'we as a nation' to be those enfranchised by the State of Ireland and being in a position to exercise that franchise at the time of a relevant referendum, since anyone else would not be in a position to determine what would be placed in the Constitution.irishpancake wrote: »What do you mean by "we as a nation"<...> Referenda.0 -
Well, quite. Depending, and risking assuming that which requires proof. How many cells of an early-stage embryo could you hypothetically kill on this basis? Do it early enough (before differentiation being the key point) , and you can lose quite a few and still have a fully totipotent entity. Let's suppose you can kill half, and still be OK. But instead... What if you instead artificially cleave such an embryo, and implant the products? Have you just committed an anti-abortion? I won't even get into the "ensoulment" implication; just think of the ship-of-theseus-paradox ones.Surely, the distinction would be in the case of exfoliation, you're killing some of your own cells, but in the case of abortion you're killing all of someone else's? Or something else's depending on your point of view...Which goes back to what I think was Tims real point; if medical science advances to the point that once conception has occurred medical intervention can ensure the viability of a zygote through to 'birth', should this be done when terminating a pregnancy rather than terminating the nascent life? I suspect many people would say not (for perhaps varying reasons), so taking that technology as a given, at what point should medical intervention be permitted to save the unborn life if possible? At what point, if any, should it be mandated despite the wishes of a potential mother?
Right, as I said, this is essentially the BNW/"nurse, fetch me my foetal teleporter!" scenario. Or the Libjectivist "evictionist" theory, rendered more-or-less completely "benign". Clearly this removes the bodily integrity conflict entirely. At least if we ignore the nature of whatever the procedure itself is, but we're assuming consent to that, clearly. Unless we posit cases such as where a woman is about to miscarry, someone else wants to "homestead" the foetus, and the woman refuses, for some reason.
I don't think that resolves all such cases at a stroke, but it makes them "broader matters". What "rights" to you have to the products of your own genome? Is there now any material distinction between maternal and paternal rights? If the tech requires a surrogate mother, what are their rights in such a situation? How on earth to handle embryonic custody?0 -
What would be the purpose of a partial abortion? If you leave a surviving genetic entity in situ, surely you're not aborting the pregnancy?alaimacerc wrote: »Well, quite. Depending, and risking assuming that which requires proof. How many cells of an early-stage embryo could you hypothetically kill on this basis? Do it early enough (before differentiation being the key point) , and you can lose quite a few and still have a fully totipotent entity. Let's suppose you can kill half, and still be OK.
Rather than a negative of a negative, wouldn't you just be committing a multiplication?alaimacerc wrote: »But instead... What if you instead artificially cleave such an embryo, and implant the products? Have you just committed an anti-abortion?
I think the Christian ones would have to share a soul since they seem to get theirs at conception, but if they're Jewish or Muslim and you make the splits before 40 days the entities seem to have a pretty good chance of getting one each, so there's at least a chance of ensuring your kids are all souled up when you decide to engage in Godlike tinkering, if you take the right steps..alaimacerc wrote: »I won't even get into the "ensoulment" implication; just think of the ship-of-theseus-paradox ones.0 -
irishpancake wrote: »And each enumerated group [nice buzz word being used lately] contains it's fair share of....guess what??
Now get with it. The latest buzz word is proportionality... drop the fair share.
Re abortion and the equality of life, as seen from the anti-abortion RCC faithful's angle; it's merely the old Roman Catholic Church position on abortion being reiterated. That position make's it plain, that in the eyes of the RC Church, there is no equality between the woman's life and that of the unborn, any prospective baby get's the benefit of the final decision. This one --- https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholic.net%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Ddedestaca%26id%3D177&ei=QYH9U7D8DueI7Ab27YCIAw&usg=AFQjCNGC3flcSaKO13GM3r0Ep39Q5Yqo-A --- state's the RCC position is clear, that abortion is murder. However, I add the rider that it's author, Patrick Henry Reardon is an RC Priest and is speaking from that position. It doesn't mention that in his piece but I googled his name to see if the piece was by a living author or a historical piece.
This case in the US in 2010, reiterates that position... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Frhrealitycheck.org%2Farticle%2F2010%2F12%2F16%2Fcatholic-bishop-arizona-hospital-stop-providing-lifesaving-abortions%2F&ei=QYH9U7D8DueI7Ab27YCIAw&usg=AFQjCNGoAeEqrk8tXKsWCkAsrl9CXAJUzw
In the final analysis, the RC Church position mean's that (de facto) it does not recognize what is included in our constitution with regard to recognition of the equal right to life of both the mother and the unborn, the mother is given second position in any race for life.0 -
Advertisement
-
Surely from an RCC point of view the Constitution is irrelevant anyway since civil law does not rise to the level of canon law?aloyisious wrote: »Re abortion and the equality of life, as seen from the anti-abortion RCC faithful's angle; it's merely the old Roman Catholic Church position on abortion being reiterated. That position make's it plain, that in the eyes of the RC Church, there is no equality between the woman's life and that of the unborn, any prospective baby get's the benefit of the final decision. This one state's the RCC position is clear, that abortion is murder. However, I add the rider that it's author, Patrick Henry Reardon is an RC Priest and is speaking from that position. It doesn't mention that in his piece but I googled his name to see if the piece was by a living author or a historical piece. This case in the US in 2010, reiterates that position. In the final analysis, the RC Church position mean's that (de facto) it does not recognize what is included in our constitution with regard to recognition of the equal right to life of both the mother and the unborn, the mother is given second position in any race for life.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement