Abortion Discussion

irishpancake · 28-08-2014 5:52pm

Absolam wrote: »

Quote: irishpancake
Kinda like Binchey with that PLAC Amendment, and the ISC in 1992.

What, you rewrote what she said too?

LoL....

That us the most humorous thing posted by either of us in this series of dour exchanges between us....

Thanx

Alas, poor Maeve, I knew her well!!!

(I wish)....

She was a good and kind sister, but was well aware of Billy's shortcomings.

www.ricorso.net/rx/az-data/authors/b/Binchy_M/life.htm

Just William:

Maeve Binchy gives an account of her relationship with her brother William Binchy, the anti-abortion and anti-divorce campaigner and Regius Law professor at TCD: ‘I love Billy madly but I don’t agree with a word he says. I thought it was a liberal family we grew up in. We were encouraged to think what way we liked. It was the kind of family where all the geese were swans. ... he married young and went away out of the country. I am not trying to take him off the back of the family but maybe it was the people he met on his travels.’ (Profile of William Binchy, in The Irish Times, 17 Oct.1992.)

.

Well said Maeve.....RIP

I just noticed I spell Binch(e)y with an "e"......

Bloody Google

alaimacerc · 28-08-2014 6:18pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

Gotta love your tone again, nice guy to be sure.

Maybe not to be starting to throw ad hom stones, there. Or to be cutting and snipping to repeatedly ask the same question, ignoring the previous answer, then getting complaining about people getting "snippy".

You said what you would do for a start and then that you would have different criteria for different points going on from that. What those points, criteria or your reasoning for them were omitted.

My reasoning is, fundamentally, that almost every other country that's a signatory to the agreements in question is compliant with at least the minimal UN rights standards. So, it's not hard to conclude that I'd prefer "copying those countries" to the status quo. Frankly, everything beyond that is a mere detail in comparison.

Balmed Out · 28-08-2014 6:24pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

Maybe not to be starting to throw ad hom stones, there. Or to be cutting and snipping to repeatedly ask the same question, ignoring the previous answer, then getting complaining about people getting "snippy".

My reasoning is, fundamentally, that almost every other country that's a signatory to the agreements in question is compliant with at least the minimal UN rights standards. So, it's not hard to conclude that I'd prefer "copying those countries" to the status quo. Frankly, everything beyond that is a mere detail in comparison.

I dont think you were the one to say you with copy another countries standards.
So your not going to specifically say when you feel it is ok to abort and when is it not and the specific reasoning behind your belief?

irishpancake · 28-08-2014 6:45pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

I dont think you were the one to say you with copy another countries standards.
So your not going to specifically say when you feel it is ok to abort and when is it not and the specific reasoning behind your belief?

Sorry for butting in here.

But why does it matter so much, if one poster allegedly refuses to play your game?

"Your [you're?] not going to say specifically....specific reasoning....yadda yadda"

What possible difference can it make?

Really?

Balmed Out · 28-08-2014 6:52pm

I do actually, why engage in a debate if your not willing to put your own head above the parapet? Fair enough to disagree with me but have the decency to state your own belief.

alaimacerc · 28-08-2014 7:42pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

I dont think you were the one to say you with copy another countries standards.

I was responding to a comment you made. If I'm decoding your statement here correctly (not a given).

So your not going to specifically say when you feel it is ok to abort and when is it not and the specific reasoning behind your belief?

I believe that "ok" is very much a judgement call, and is ideally best left to the people that it effects most, and are consequently best-placed to make that decision. I believe that what's at issue is rather, a) what should be be legal, and where illegal, how sanctioned; and b) on what basis should access to services be provided. I think I've been fairly clear about my general attitude to these questions. Your "not crisp and specific enough!" objections are noted; see my earlier critique of why your ideas of "crisp" are deeply flawed.

Absolam · 28-08-2014 10:10pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats exactly what happened, the fact we as a population wanted divorce didn't matter...a TD still would have been taking a big chance to stand in support of it as they very well may loose their seat thanks to parish pump politics.

so if we as a population clearly wanted it, how come we weren't saying it at the parish pump?
The local electorate are also we the population, but they obviously weren't telling their rep that this was what they wanted....

Absolam · 28-08-2014 10:15pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

That's a very nice little distinction! Though one that's a little moot if you think the one can have a significant influence over the other. Especially when, as I pointed out earlier, there's a loud and active segment of the electorate who'll lobby hard on this (and similar "values" issues), and give the appearance of it being decisive in their vote, whereas many "liberal" voters will, if asked, tell pollsters they favour liberalisation, but evidently be in little hurry to rank it more important than "pocketbook" issues (or good old-fashioned tribal politics, shameless localism, etc.)

The distinction between those who vote and those who try to tell others how to vote? I think it's worth making. And if those who vote don't think their liberalism will stretch far enough to liberalise the law, then the law will go as far as voters want it to go.

Absolam · 28-08-2014 10:35pm

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think this clearly amounts to no more than a "don't call me late for dinner" objection.

I'd suggest it's more a don't call me at all if you're going to use someone elses's name objection, or at least don't expect me to turn up just to remind you it's not my name.

alaimacerc wrote: »

You're not, as far as I can see, drawing any denotational distinction between these two sets of people; you're just flagging up that they prefer one term with one connotation, to another, with a different one. And if you're not doing so on an equal opportunity basis, this isn't "moderate position and high levels of pedantry", it's merely "covering fire for one side".

Why not do it on an equal opportunity basis? Though I've yet to see anyone say "I'm still waiting on the pro death and anti life athiests to turn up".

aloyisious · 28-08-2014 11:02pm

Until the time that the Vatican changes it's position on what action is legitimate to save a human life as against what is for all purposes a prospective human life, we'll be arguing here on abortion and the value of a woman V that of a fetus until hell freezes over.

It seem's to me that a good part of the debate here is not only about the abortion issue but also the Vatican's view's on it. The Vatican's position is based on dated religious ethics, as distinct from that needed to handle complex modern life. I think it's terrified at the amount of knowledge and power that common man now has to make what it see's as godlike decisions in an everyday manner about life and death outside it's control. Ditto for those who are using the same ethics-base to oppose abortion at every stage, the religious ethics-base of the sanctity of life that man no longer believes in.

PopePalpatine · 28-08-2014 11:11pm

Let's not forget that the RCC canonised a woman who died rather than have an abortion.

Absolam · 29-08-2014 1:32am

aloyisious wrote: »

Until the time that the Vatican changes it's position on what action is legitimate to save a human life as against what is for all purposes a prospective human life, we'll be arguing here on abortion and the value of a woman V that of a fetus until hell freezes over.

Is there anyone here arguing from the Vatcans point of view? I've seen plenty of posts condemning the perspective, but I can't recall how long it is since anyone argued for it?

PopePalpatine · 29-08-2014 1:38am

Well, there was hinault, but the idea of debate got too much for him.

Absolam · 29-08-2014 1:39am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Let's not forget that the RCC canonised a woman who died rather than have an abortion.

Not for dying rather than have an abortion though; for magically interceding to save another pregnant woman's child (in case anyone might be misled into thinking it was some sort of martyrdom deal).

PopePalpatine · 29-08-2014 1:40am

Yeah, somehow I'm a little suspicious of John Paul II's (the Pope who canonised her) motives.

Absolam · 29-08-2014 1:45am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Well, there was hinault, but the idea of debate got too much for him.

That is true.... He seemed pretty RCCs as irishpancake would say.

alaimacerc · 29-08-2014 2:42am

Absolam wrote: »

Not for dying rather than have an abortion though; for magically interceding to save another pregnant woman's child (in case anyone might be misled into thinking it was some sort of martyrdom deal).

Presumably the association is not understood to be entirely coincidental, though.

(In whatever way one can attempt to plot linear regression of unobservable, unverifiable metaphysical properties.)

irishpancake · 29-08-2014 3:30am

Absolam wrote: »

That is true.... He seemed pretty RCCs as irishpancake would say.

Absolam wrote: »

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: »

Sure isn't that what's troubling the minds of some of our RCC fellow-citizens, the RCC telling the faithful and others that the rights of their fellow-citizens are trumped by it's rules, that Rome-rule is the primary law here?

Absolam wrote: »

I doubt it's troubling their minds; if they believe it they believe it. Just as Muslims believe sharia law transcends civil law. Neither is amenable to debate, so what's the point?

My good friend Abslam....

See above.

RCC was your descriptor, which I asked you to clarify, who were you talking about, and who is the Constitution irrelevant to??

You said from "an RCC" point of view, and I simply pointed out that our Legislature and Courts, which are defined within our Constitution as part of our Democratic system of checks and balances, are overwhelmingly Catholic by religion.

I don't think, for even a moment, that what you claim can be stood up in fact, even if you were referring to what is called the "Institutional Church", the Hierarchy and priesthood, let alone the People of God, as defined by the Second Vatican Council, the faithful non clerical believers.

So, stand up and show what you said above is true...or STFU.

"from an RCC point of view the Constitution is irrelevant anyway since civil law does not rise to the level of canon law?"

and also your "Muslims" thing, whether all, few, many or some??

You said "Muslims believe sharia law transcends civil law."

Is that all, few, many or some Muslims, in your view.

When it is not specified, it means all.

There is no quantifier preceding "Muslims".

Shure here is my post again....

Absolam wrote: »

I doubt it's troubling their minds; if they believe it they believe it. Just as Muslims believe sharia law transcends civil law. Neither is amenable to debate, so what's the point?

What you said earlier:

Surely from an RCC point of view the Constitution is irrelevant anyway since civil law does not rise to the level of canon law?

And when alysisous rightly answered:

Sure isn't that what's troubling the minds of some of our RCC fellow-citizens, the RCC telling the faithful and others that the rights of their fellow-citizens are trumped by it's rules, that Rome-rule is the primary law here?

Your reply:

I doubt it's troubling their minds; if they believe it they believe it. Just as Muslims believe sharia law transcends civil law. Neither is amenable to debate, so what's the point?

You have evidence regarding those statements, regarding "Muslims"....[presumably meaning all Muslims]??

All Muslims believe Sharia transcends civil law, and this is not amenable to debate??

No Muslims believe otherwise??

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Support

A 2013 survey based on the opinion of 38,000 individuals by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that support for making sharia the official law of the land varies significantly among Muslims in different countries. In countries across South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East-North Africa region, a majority favours making sharia their country’s official legal code. By contrast, only a minority of Muslims across Central Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe want sharia to be the official law of the land; among the surveyed countries outside of these regions, Lebanon, Chad, Guinea-Bissau and Tanzania also have a majority against the introduction of official sharia.

Since the 1970s, the Islamist movements have become prominent; their goals are the establishment of Islamic states and sharia not just within their own borders; their means are political in nature. The Islamist power base is the millions of poor, particularly urban poor moving into the cities from the countryside. They are not international in nature (one exception being the Muslim Brotherhood). Their rhetoric opposes western culture and western power. Political groups wishing to return to more traditional Islamic values are the source of threat to Turkey's secular government. These movements can be considered neo-Sharism.

Fundamentalists, wishing to return to basic religious values and law, have in some instances imposed harsh sharia punishments for crimes, curtailed civil rights and violated human rights. These movements are most active in areas of the world where there was contact with Western colonial powers.

And yet you hold that "all Muslims" can be compared directly with this RCC priesthood you cite as saying or believing that this "Canon Law" is superior to Civil Law, making our Constitution irrelevant??

By RCC, are you referring to The Church as understood in Vatican II, or just the Hierarchy, Pope, and priesthood.

When aloyisious says " the RCC telling the faithful and others that the rights of their fellow-citizens are trumped by it's rules, that Rome-rule is the primary law here?"

I think he means the RCC as in the Hierarchy/priesthood in Ireland, the faithful are ordinary non-clerical Catholics, who are as important a component part of the inclusive RC Church, the "People of God", united in Baptism, and of course fellow citizens are believers of other Faiths and non-believers in any Faith.

Quite a number of those Catholic People of God do not hold that Canon Law transcends Civil Law, and none of the "others" do either.

Like with Islam, there are fundamentalists who believe that Sharia transcends Civil Law, and there are those, the majority, who do not hold this viewpoint.

There are also RCC fundamentalists who believe likewise for their code of Canon Law, but they too are in a minority.

I do not believe even the Catholic Hierarchy or the priesthood now believe that to be a sustainable position, particularly in the Ireland which has experienced scandal after scandal relating to abuse by clerics who were protected by this Canon Law, and continued under that protection, to repeat and repeat the same abuse wherever they were moved.

There is no appetite any more for "Mental Reservation" as espoused by Connell, the Dublin Arch Bishop as a euphemism for lying through his teeth.

Or indeed the swearing a young abused boy to secrecy in relation to sexual abuse by a monster paedophile, who was allowed to continue abusing for years, due to a now retired Cardinal refusing to obey Civil Law and report the monster to the police.

volchitsa · 29-08-2014 8:00am

Absolam wrote: »

Not for dying rather than have an abortion though; for magically interceding to save another pregnant woman's child (in case anyone might be misled into thinking it was some sort of martyrdom deal).

That was after her death. Why were people praying to her in the first place?

(Ans: because she died rather than have an abortion, ie very much a "martyrdom deal" as you put it)

Delirium · 29-08-2014 8:29am

FG deputy wants abortion article removed from Constitution

Olivia Mitchell, the first Fine Gael deputy to call for the repeal of the amendment, said a vote should not take place in the aftermath of the latest abortion controversy or before the next general election, to avoid a “knee-jerk” reaction.

“The regime we have satisfies nobody’s aspirations and fails those involved again and again. The only way forward that I can see is to take [article 40.3.3] out of the Constitution altogether,” she said. “That would have to be done by way of a referendum but would have to be preceded by a clear indication of what legislation would replace it. That should come about following a really informed debate, calmer than the one we have now.”

Absolam · 29-08-2014 11:06am

irishpancake wrote: »

You said from "an RCC" point of view, and I simply pointed out that our Legislature and Courts, which are defined within our Constitution as part of our Democratic system of checks and balances, are overwhelmingly Catholic by religion.

Actually, you said that I said the Constitution was irrelevant to RCCs, when I didn't say that at all. Anyway, i find your assertion that the Legislature and Courts are 'overwhelmingly Catholic by religion' quite entertaining. Would you like to explain it?

irishpancake wrote: »

I don't think, for even a moment, that what you claim can be stood up in fact, even if you were referring to what is called the "Institutional Church", the Hierarchy and priesthood, let alone the People of God, as defined by the Second Vatican Council, the faithful non clerical believers. So, stand up and show what you said above is true...or STFU.

Well, I didn't say it, you did. Does that mean you have to 'STFU'?

irishpancake wrote: »

and also your "Muslims" thing, whether all, few, many or some?? You said "Muslims believe sharia law transcends civil law." Is that all, few, many or some Muslims, in your view. When it is not specified, it means all. There is no quantifier preceding "Muslims".

That is strange. When I say marbles, I don't mean all marbles. When I say fruit cakes, I don't mean all fruit cakes. So unless there is a peculiar rule for the word Muslim, I don't think your assertion holds water.

irishpancake wrote: »

Shure here is my post again....

it doesn't appear to improve with repetition?

Absolam · 29-08-2014 11:10am

volchitsa wrote: »

That was after her death. Why were people praying to her in the first place?
(Ans: because she died rather than have an abortion, ie very much a "martyrdom deal" as you put it)

Well, yes, you don't get canonised unless you're dead. And whilst I'm not saying that dying rather than have an abortion definitely doesn't grant you magical powers beyond the grave, I will say the church canonised her for her miracle, not her martyrdom.

Absolam · 29-08-2014 11:12am

alaimacerc wrote: »

Presumably the association is not understood to be entirely coincidental, though.
(In whatever way one can attempt to plot linear regression of unobservable, unverifiable metaphysical properties.)

In fairness, in most of the movies I've seen you generally have to have a traumatic event in order to obtain superhuman powers, so it probably wasn't a coincidence, no.

aloyisious · 29-08-2014 12:14pm

I'd like a change to the wording of the present Protection_of_Life_During_Pregnancy_Act_2013 to include a paragraph stating that there is a difference between the words "abortion" and "termination", in that they are two completely different medical procedures (think that's the right term). I would add another para as well stating that there would be legal sanction against any medical practitioner (not just doctor or surgeon) who uses the words in an interchangeable way (in writing and/or speech) that might confuse or mislead other persons. The new sanction itself could be added on to the act in the Para/section which refers to legal sanction against unlawful abortion here.

Re the amendment, if it's deleted by common approval-vote, then it's replacement in constitutional or legislative law must be definite in stating that saving the life of the mother must be given priority over the safe birthing of the fetus from her womb. We have got to get around to accepting that there is a distinct difference between the existing live-person, the woman, and the prospective live-person, the fetus. It's this failure to do so that is behind this debate, the vision of the potential future of the fetus is what some are afraid of losing by allowing pregnant women free choice as to the future of the fetus in her womb.

aloyisious · 29-08-2014 12:23pm

volchitsa wrote: »

That was after her death. Why were people praying to her in the first place?

Faith. Some peoples faith transcends belief-boundaries, including avoiding impending death. A lot of RC-faith persons here swear to the power of Padre Pio's glove when it come's to swaying the balance between life and death in sick/ill persons in Ireland.

aloyisious · 29-08-2014 12:38pm

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/alison-oconnor/citizens-assembly-an-ideal-way-to-take-heat-out-of-abortion-issue-283996.html.

Peculiarly enough, the page of the on-line Examiner has a different photo of the columnist to the photo-image (Ivana Bacik) in the column-piece.

volchitsa · 29-08-2014 1:47pm

Absolam wrote: »

Well, yes, you don't get canonised unless you're dead. And whilst I'm not saying that dying rather than have an abortion definitely doesn't grant you magical powers beyond the grave, I will say the church canonised her for her miracle, not her martyrdom.

Nobody gets canonized until they have a miracle or several to their credit. I'm sure you know that really. She was considered a candidate because she chose to die rather than have an abortion. That is what the nuns told us anyway. And they knew what they were talking about in that domain!

Absolam · 29-08-2014 2:31pm

aloyisious wrote: »

We have got to get around to accepting that there is a distinct difference between the existing live-person, the woman, and the prospective live-person, the fetus. It's this failure to do so that is behind this debate, the vision of the potential future of the fetus is what some are afraid of losing by allowing pregnant women free choice as to the future of the fetus in her womb.

Or, and I'm just throwing it out there, we have got to get around to accepting that there is a distinct difference between the lifestyle of the existing live person, and the life of a prospective live person. It's this failure to do so that is behind this debate, the vision of a lifestyle is what some are afraid of losing by allowing children the opportunity to be born.

Or maybe that's just another point of view........

swampgas · 29-08-2014 2:40pm

Absolam wrote: »

Or, and I'm just throwing it out there, we have got to get around to accepting that there is a distinct difference between the lifestyle of the existing live person, and the life of a prospective live person. It's this failure to do so that is behind this debate, the vision of a lifestyle is what some are afraid of losing by allowing children the opportunity to be born.

Doesn't that sound like contraception? Surely contraception is the same as not allowing children to be born? As is remaining celibate, that could also be described as not allowing children to be born?

I guess the question I find myself asking is why is it so important for children to be born to people who don't want them? What about after the child is born, who is going to provide that child with a loving and supportive home?

I'm all for people having children that they actually want, and fully support IVF and other enabling technology to this end. What I really don't understand is how people can see a first trimester foetus as an independent human that needs the same sort of protection as a child or adult, rather than a potential child. The mother (or mother & father) may be willing to look after that potential child and bring it up as part of their family, or they may not.
.

Vivisectus · 29-08-2014 2:44pm

Or, and I'm just throwing it out there, we have got to get around to accepting that there is a distinct difference between the lifestyle of the existing live person, and the life of a prospective live person. It's this failure to do so that is behind this debate, the vision of a lifestyle is what some are afraid of losing by allowing children the opportunity to be born.

Or maybe that's just another point of view........

"lifestyle"?

That sounds like you are comparing getting pregnant against your will with having to swap to a different brand of cereal or something. Isn't that a little condescending?

Abortion Discussion

Comments