woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Piliger · 24-08-2014 2:33am

Godge wrote: »

Not relevant.

There is a difference between wanting to kill oneself as a result of something that happens to you and wanting to kill oneself all of a sudden because one of two twins inside you has been killed and you want to get rid of the other.

One, as in the example you have given is realistic, the other as put forward by conorh is unrealistic.

I disagree. But there you are.

irishpancake · 24-08-2014 3:10am

conorh91 wrote: »

If you must know, I had in mind the death of the "victim" who was known as "Baby Doherty", who was killed in the Dublin Monaghan Bombings.

Although my example was obviously amended.

It is relevant to ask whether foetuses can be victims, because it follows logically that is a foetus can be a victim, then a fortiori, a foetus is entitled to certain rights.

Would you mind relating to us just how this can be, in any way, legally enforceable, even if your leap from legal nonsense to alleged legal fact were true, or relevant, as you claim?

What are these "certain rights" which an non-viable fetus, incapable of independent existence, possesses by way of entitlement.

More-so, what legal "certain rights" can extend to this "unborn" entity whose potential life is now extinguished and can never be capable of viability.

This is just legal nonsense.

if a foetus can be a victim, then a fortiori, a foetus is entitled to certain rights.

conorh91 · 24-08-2014 4:24am

irishpancake wrote: »

Would you mind relating to us just how this can be, in any way, legally enforceable, even if your leap from legal nonsense to alleged legal fact were true, or relevant, as you claim?

I said it can be followed logically that, if a foetus can be a victim, then a fortiori, a foetus is entitled to certain rights.

I do not claim that this logical statement has application in law.

It may, incidentally, have application in law, but that it not a claim that I am making here.

More-so, what legal "certain rights" can extend to this "unborn" entity whose potential life is now extinguished and can never be capable of viability.

This is just legal nonsense.

I don't believe in personalizing these issues, but maybe you can rephrase this in the morning when things will be clearer….

irishpancake · 24-08-2014 12:56pm

conorh91 wrote: »

I said it can be followed logically that, if a foetus can be a victim, then a fortiori, a foetus is entitled to certain rights.

I do not claim that this logical statement has application in law.

It may, incidentally, have application in law, but that it not a claim that I am making here.

I don't believe in personalizing these issues, but maybe you can rephrase this in the morning when things will be clearer….

What personalising?

Things are clear enough to me, but I will not be offended by anything you say to me, I respect your point of view, and I don't claim any particular legal knowledge, beyond the man in the street.

And I may have a faulty understanding of the legal basis for your argument, so I am interested in reading your argument and will be respectful towards that, and anything else you say.

I don't wish to be offensive and I am sorry if appear to have been personally so in my comments here.

Godge · 24-08-2014 1:14pm

conorh91 wrote: »

I said it can be followed logically that, if a foetus can be a victim, then a fortiori, a foetus is entitled to certain rights.

I do not claim that this logical statement has application in law.

It may, incidentally, have application in law, but that it not a claim that I am making here.

I don't believe in personalizing these issues, but maybe you can rephrase this in the morning when things will be clearer….

What rights do victims have, by virtue of being victims? Every lamb eaten at a Sunday roast today is a victim, what rights do they have?

What rights can you have that do not have application in law?

irishpancake · 24-08-2014 2:11pm

Godge wrote: »

What rights do victims have, by virtue of being victims? Every lamb eaten at a Sunday roast today is a victim, what rights do they have?

What rights can you have that do not have application in law?

I am interested in finding out just what legal rights attach to a "victim fetus", presumably expired?

I am asking about legal rights, under whatever law or constitutional provision?

I accept that that is not exactly what was said here:

if a foetus can be a victim, then a fortiori, a foetus is entitled to certain rights.

What certain rights, in the circumstances of a fetus which is a victim, presumably a dead fetus, in plain language?

Is it that this victim fetus may in fact be alive, and having the "potential" of surviving to viability?

So, the "fetal victim-hood" in these circumstances, would need further explanation and exploration.

I don't actually think the "Sunday roast" analogy is helpful, particularly in a discussion about potential human beings.

I think it will generate more heat than light, to the detriment of proper debate.

But I respect your right to make such analogy.

puppieperson · 24-08-2014 3:00pm

qdawg86 wrote: »

Look at the mess we have gotten ourselves into now.

Instead of allowing women to have early abortions, we have ended up with some crack pot legislation where women can potentially look for an abortion late in the 2nd -3rd trimester.

How is this progress ????!!!!

LITTLE OLD IRELAND HAS ALWAYS BEEN A 'PUPPY FARM' FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ,breed lots of little catholics have 12 have 20 so what if you die you are only a woman, nothing has changed, except we have contraception so we can control a little but not all!
You can procure an abortion 12 miles from Vatican City in Rome ironic or what? Roman Catholic ireland is a breeding trap for the impoverished, an educated woman of means can take a flight and be home in 48 hours hand back to work in 2 days. Poverty trap keep the poor breeding what else can they do. !

Nodin · 24-08-2014 3:30pm

More revelations have emerged -

The two State agencies charged with the care of the pregnant young asylum seeker at the centre of the latest abortion controversy were warned she was suicidal when she was 16 weeks pregnant, the Sunday Independent can reveal.
Spirasi, a group that supports victims of torture, wrote to the Department of Justice, which was responsible for the young woman, and the Health Service Executive, which provided her medical care, highlighting her condition after she was referred to them for a medical and legal assessment in June. -

The revelation raises troubling questions as to why the young woman had to wait a further two months before she was finally referred to a psychiatrist to be assessed for an abortion under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act legislation. -
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-30531662.html

In Lonesome Dove · 24-08-2014 4:09pm

I read on the journal just now may well be putting limits on aborations for Irish women in the uk.

My sister is on daily medication for migraines and when she was first prescribed the doctor warned her not to get pregnant because the medication causes abnormalities. If my sister was to find herself unexpectedly pregnant, well she's fùcked. Obviously if she did find herself pregnant she would stop taking the meds but there would be a few weeks before she would discover a possible prenancy due to a missed period and during those weeks she'd be taking that medicine. Under Irish law she'd have to carry the pregnancy to term and knowing at the end the child born would have abnormalities.

volchitsa · 24-08-2014 4:26pm

In Lonesome Dove wrote: »

I read on the journal just now may well be putting limits on aborations for Irish women in the uk.

My sister is on daily medication for migraines and when she was first prescribed the doctor warned her not to get pregnant because the medication causes abnormalities. If my sister was to find herself unexpectedly pregnant, well she's fùcked. Obviously if she did find herself pregnant she would stop taking the meds but there would be a few weeks before she would discover a possible prenancy due to a missed period and during those weeks she'd be taking that medicine. Under Irish law she'd have to carry the pregnancy to term and knowing at the end the child born would have abnormalities.

Yeah, there's a similar problem with women on Roaccutane (for acne - and yes, adults can have acne too). It can be the only treatment that prevents spots with scarring for some people, but it is a disaster for the future child if the woman gets pregnant.

But apparently some people here think that is a minor problem. As long as it's not their problem, I suspect.

Piliger · 24-08-2014 4:30pm

Nodin wrote: »

More revelations have emerged -

The two State agencies charged with the care of the pregnant young asylum seeker at the centre of the latest abortion controversy were warned she was suicidal when she was 16 weeks pregnant, the Sunday Independent can reveal.
Spirasi, a group that supports victims of torture, wrote to the Department of Justice, which was responsible for the young woman, and the Health Service Executive, which provided her medical care, highlighting her condition after she was referred to them for a medical and legal assessment in June. -

The revelation raises troubling questions as to why the young woman had to wait a further two months before she was finally referred to a psychiatrist to be assessed for an abortion under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act legislation. -
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-30531662.html

I prefer to wait for the actual facts, not some indo journalists version with goodness knows what agenda. But maybe that's just me.

PucaMama · 24-08-2014 4:30pm

In Lonesome Dove wrote: »

I read on the journal just now may well be putting limits on aborations for Irish women in the uk.

My sister is on daily medication for migraines and when she was first prescribed the doctor warned her not to get pregnant because the medication causes abnormalities. If my sister was to find herself unexpectedly pregnant, well she's fùcked. Obviously if she did find herself pregnant she would stop taking the meds but there would be a few weeks before she would discover a possible prenancy due to a missed period and during those weeks she'd be taking that medicine. Under Irish law she'd have to carry the pregnancy to term and knowing at the end the child born would have abnormalities.

plenty of children born every year with "abnormalities". an "abnormality" doesnt make the baby any less deserving of the right to life.

Piliger · 24-08-2014 4:31pm

In Lonesome Dove wrote: »

I read on the journal just now may well be putting limits on aborations for Irish women in the uk.

Who what where ?

Piliger · 24-08-2014 4:32pm

puppieperson wrote: »

LITTLE OLD IRELAND HAS ALWAYS BEEN A 'PUPPY FARM' FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ,breed lots of little catholics have 12 have 20 so what if you die you are only a woman, nothing has changed, except we have contraception so we can control a little but not all!
/QUOTE]

Like fifty - eighty years ago. Duh.

Little CuChulainn · 24-08-2014 5:09pm

swampgas wrote: »

And yet Ireland's position on abortion has it being criticised for not meeting the human rights of pregnant women.

I don't think an embryo or foetus has equal rights to a woman. I think a rape victim 8 weeks pregnant has a much greater right to not be pregnant than an 8-week entity which, while "alive" in a technical sense, is much more (IMO) a potential person than an actual one.

If you are prepared to take context into account (fatal foetal abnormalities, for example), then you are tacitly accepting that the right to life of the foetus should not be absolute. Perhaps you might consider, as a context for an abortion at 8 weeks, the impact of a continued pregnancy on a vulnerable rape victim?

The right to life is not absolute. Like I said, the vast majority of basic rights are balanced. And on balance, I would not put the right to not be pregnant above the right to life.

volchitsa wrote: »

That's not what a strawman argument is.
And in some aspects, it certainly is relevant, such as here, where you are arguing that any law is acceptable so long as it is based on the majority opinion of the people who passed the law. In which case racist laws enforcing segregation in the US were just as acceptable as any other - some your point was that all laws are based on opinion.

How is it a strawman argument to point out that this in itself doesn't make a law fair or just?

Because it's a completely ancillary point designed only to make my position comparable to that of a racist.

irishpancake · 24-08-2014 5:15pm

Piliger wrote: »

Who what where ?

But when people give you links, you say this:

I prefer to wait for the actual facts, not some indo journalists version with goodness knows what agenda. But maybe that's just me.

But here anyway:

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-uk-ireland-hospital-1635834-Aug2014/

swampgas · 24-08-2014 5:17pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The right to life is not absolute. Like I said, the vast majority of basic rights are balanced. And on balance, I would not put the right to not be pregnant above the right to life.

Well, it depends what you mean by life, and by balance, doesn't it?

Considering just how subjective this whole area seems to be - everyone seems to have their own personal definition of when life might start, and when it has value, and how much value, and how much autonomy a woman should have when pregnant ... do you feel confident that your personal evaluation of what "on balance" is should be the legal yardstick for everyone else?

volchitsa · 24-08-2014 5:36pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Because it's a completely ancillary point designed only to make my position comparable to that of a racist.

So, first, not a strawman argument, as you claimed. Right?

Second, it's not "designed" to make your position comparable to racists in states where racism was considered normal, your position is comparable to those racists, and I can't help that.

Your claim is that it's perfectly reasonable to impose your opinion on the choices someone else is entitled to make over her life and even her own body, not because you can prove that you are correct, but because all laws are "just opinion-based" anyway.
So how is that very different to a good ol' boy from Mississippi voting to keep those niggras in their place?

Roastlamb · 24-08-2014 5:41pm

volchitsa wrote: »

So, first, not a strawman argument, as you claimed. Right?

Second, it's not "designed" to make your position comparable to racists in states where racism was considered normal, your position is comparable to those racists, and I can't help that.

Your claim is that it's perfectly reasonable to impose your opinion on the choices someone else is entitled to make over her life and even her own body, not because you can prove that you are correct, but because all laws are "just opinion-based" anyway.
So how is that very different to a good ol' boy from Mississippi voting to keep those niggras in their place?

It's very different because there are the rights of the unborn child to consider which is not the property of it's Mother.

volchitsa · 24-08-2014 5:46pm

Roastlamb wrote: »

It's very different because there are the rights of the unborn child to consider which is not the property of it's Mother.

So just to be quite clear where you are coming from here, are you saying that a woman pregnant through rape, possibly tortured in a war situation, and now suicidal because of this pregnancy, should be forced to carry her rapist's child to term, no matter what?

Even if she asks for the termination at 8 weeks into the pregnancy?

Roastlamb · 24-08-2014 5:53pm

volchitsa wrote: »

So just to be quite clear where you are coming from here, are you saying that a woman pregnant through rape, possibly tortured in a war situation, and now suicidal because of this pregnancy, should be forced to carry her rapist's child to term, no matter what?

Even if she asks for the termination at 8 weeks into the pregnancy?

I think the first trimester is ok to abort for whatever reason.

Piliger · 24-08-2014 6:01pm

Roastlamb wrote: »

It's very different because there are the rights of the unborn child to consider which is not the property of it's Mother.

Yet the mother's body is her property. She has a right over her body and the right to have something removed from it that she doesn't want in it.

Roastlamb · 24-08-2014 6:03pm

Piliger wrote: »

Yet the mother's body is her property. She has a right over her body and the right to have something removed from it that she doesn't want in it.

Well that's a matter of opinion, if you declare an unborn child has the right not to be killed or terminated then the mother does not have the right.

volchitsa · 24-08-2014 6:09pm

Roastlamb wrote: »

Well that's a matter of opinion, if you declare an unborn child has the right not to be killed or terminated then the mother does not have the right.

Except it's not all just "a matter of opinion" is it? It's a fact that the woman exists, and has the same human rights as any other person. It's not that clear at what point the fetus gains those right, as you have acknowledged.

So since you admit that the fetus' rights are not absolute, why should your opinion be sufficient to justify removing any rights at all from an existing woman? The person "declaring" the fetus' new-found rights thereby limits the woman's control over her body. So they have to prove that the fetus at that point has greater rights. "Because I say so" isn't good enough.

Mountainsandh · 24-08-2014 6:21pm

Roastlamb wrote: »

It's very different because there are the rights of the unborn child to consider which is not the property of it's Mother.

I think this is an outrageous statement to make.

The unborn fetus is indeed the property of the mother, in fact, at the early stages it is more of an appendix than a separate being.

The unborn fetus is a part of the mother until such time as it is viable.

If you start declaring that the fetus is not a woman's property (what an awful phrase anyway), it's opening the door to all sorts of claims such as : "I am the father, she smokes and she drinks, I want the fetus taken out an put in an incubator", or "we are the State, we think this woman is not fit to have this baby, we will take the fetus and place it in an incubator".
Or even the opposite to what anti-abortion people are asking : "We are the State, we think this woman is not fit to be a mother, it's our responsibility to abort it".

The fetus belongs to the woman, it is a part of the woman, that progressively, over a number of weeks, becomes more independent, until finally it reaches viability outside the womb.

Statements like the one you gave there just frighten me for the future, it's like the premise of a dystopia where women's reproductive function would be utilized and regimented by Big Brother. Brrrr...

Little CuChulainn · 24-08-2014 6:40pm

volchitsa wrote: »

So, first, not a strawman argument, as you claimed. Right?

Second, it's not "designed" to make your position comparable to racists in states where racism was considered normal, your position is comparable to those racists, and I can't help that.

Your claim is that it's perfectly reasonable to impose your opinion on the choices someone else is entitled to make over her life and even her own body, not because you can prove that you are correct, but because all laws are "just opinion-based" anyway.
So how is that very different to a good ol' boy from Mississippi voting to keep those niggras in their place?

It is a strawman. Quite clearly. All laws are based on opinion. This is a fact. Society believes something is wrong so it is made illegal. This includes old laws on slavery or in fact any that are sexist, racist or homophobic. Someone believes something is wrong and it is made illegal. This also includes laws on murder, theft, fraud, public order, liquor licencing. All laws. No exception. Your argument is that opinion should not be forced on others. I'm telling you that is the whole basis of a legal system.

To try and compare the opinion of someone who does not believe in abortion to a racist is just pathetic. It has absolutely no grounding or reasonable logic. You are using the argument against what is the basis of every legal system to trying to superimpose it over the argument on abortion in some nonsensical way.

marienbad · 24-08-2014 6:58pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It is a strawman. Quite clearly. All laws are based on opinion. This is a fact. Society believes something is wrong so it is made illegal. This includes old laws on slavery or in fact any that are sexist, racist or homophobic. Someone believes something is wrong and it is made illegal. This also includes laws on murder, theft, fraud, public order, liquor licencing. All laws. No exception. Your argument is that opinion should not be forced on others. I'm telling you that is the whole basis of a legal system.

To try and compare the opinion of someone who does not believe in abortion to a racist is just pathetic. It has absolutely no grounding or reasonable logic. You are using the argument against what is the basis of every legal system to trying to superimpose it over the argument on abortion in some nonsensical way.

Not really, very few if any laws are based on individual opinion . They are based on public opinion, precedent,historical experience and a whole host of other factors .

irishpancake · 24-08-2014 7:06pm

Roastlamb wrote: »

I think the first trimester is ok to abort for whatever reason.

So, you are Pro choice, within the first trimester, 13 weeks, regardless.

You are in favour of a woman's right to decide whether or not to continue with a pregnancy within that limit, 13 weeks.

Would you allow for any exceptions to the outlawing of termination, say due to the mothers life being endangered by continuing with the pregnancy, even after that 13 week limit for unconditional abortion rights?

Or, say in the event of Fatal Fetal Abnormalities being discovered, indicating that the fetus has no chance of being delivered alive, after the 1st trimester??

myshirt · 24-08-2014 7:15pm

I wonder has one person managed to successfully convert another to their view via this thread?

irishpancake · 24-08-2014 7:33pm

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I think this is an outrageous statement to make.

The unborn fetus is indeed the property of the mother, in fact, at the early stages it is more of an appendix than a separate being.

The unborn fetus is a part of the mother until such time as it is viable.

If you start declaring that the fetus is not a woman's property (what an awful phrase anyway), it's opening the door to all sorts of claims such as : "I am the father, she smokes and she drinks, I want the fetus taken out an put in an incubator", or "we are the State, we think this woman is not fit to have this baby, we will take the fetus and place it in an incubator".
Or even the opposite to what anti-abortion people are asking : "We are the State, we think this woman is not fit to be a mother, it's our responsibility to abort it".

The fetus belongs to the woman, it is a part of the woman, that progressively, over a number of weeks, becomes more independent, until finally it reaches viability outside the womb.

Statements like the one you gave there just frighten me for the future, it's like the premise of a dystopia where women's reproductive function would be utilized and regimented by Big Brother. Brrrr...

Agreed, just a small thing....

these "Anti abortion" people are not just "anti abortion", it also appears that quite a number are Anti-choice, which is slightly different.

Just as I could be described as Pro life, which I most definitely am, but also Pro choice, for the right of a woman to exercise choice, within the limitation of a term of 20 weeks, and thereafter up to 24 weeks, so-called late-term abortions, only in the case of FFA, or a threat to the woman's life or health, by continuing the pregnancy to full term.

Under any other circumstances, procuring an abortion would be a criminal offence.

woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Comments