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
1…222223225227228…334

Comments

  • Options
    #6722
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Absolam wrote: »
    how do you think it was rendered unconstitutional by the Amendment?

    A bit like this:

    180px-The_Thinker_Musee_Rodin.jpg


  • Options
    #6723
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Is that a selfie?


  • Options
    #6724
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    lazygal wrote: »
    Is that a selfie?

    No, it's just how I think :pac:


  • Options
    #6725
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    No, it's just how I think :pac:
    Oh.
    I got the impression it was something that gives the appearance of thought, without actually thinking at all.
    My bad.. in hindsight the obvious but untrue answer would have been a better fit!


  • Options
    #6726
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/ng-interactive/2014/oct/01/-sp-abortion-rights-around-world-interactive?CMP=fb_gu


    Interesting graph.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6727
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Godge wrote: »
    http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/ng-interactive/2014/oct/01/-sp-abortion-rights-around-world-interactive?CMP=fb_gu


    Interesting graph.

    They've got Ireland wrong. As the Y case has shown, the law here has been drafted specifically to deny abortions, even if it will save the life of the mother. We should be on the role of shame with Malta and that small square of turf which some consider a country simply because it was willing to get into bed with the Nazis.


  • Options
    #6728
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    They've got Ireland wrong. As the Y case has shown, the law here has been drafted specifically to deny abortions, even if it will save the life of the mother. We should be on the role of shame with Malta and that small square of turf which some consider a country simply because it was willing to get into bed with the Nazis.
    That's not actually true though, is it?
    The Y Case demonstrated that the legislation as drafted specifically permitted abortions, but also allowed for other means to terminate pregnancies, which makes more sense than restricting pregnancy termination to abortion (in the sense of terminating a life rather than a pregnancy) which, if it were the case, could see doctors forced to butcher an eight and a half month foetus. The fact is, even without the new legislation, abortions are carried out where it will save the life of the mother.


  • Options
    #6729
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Absolam wrote: »
    That's not actually true though, is it?
    The Y Case demonstrated that the legislation as drafted specifically permitted abortions, but also allowed for other means to terminate pregnancies, which makes more sense than restricting pregnancy termination to abortion (in the sense of terminating a life rather than a pregnancy) which, if it were the case, could see doctors forced to butcher an eight and a half month foetus. The fact is, even without the new legislation, abortions are carried out where it will save the life of the mother.

    Forced to butcher an eight and a half month foetus you say? What wine should one serve with that?


  • Options
    #6730
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Absolam wrote: »
    That's not actually true though, is it?
    The Y Case demonstrated that the legislation as drafted specifically permitted abortions, but also allowed for other means to terminate pregnancies, which makes more sense than restricting pregnancy termination to abortion (in the sense of terminating a life rather than a pregnancy) which, if it were the case, could see doctors forced to butcher an eight and a half month foetus. The fact is, even without the new legislation, abortions are carried out where it will save the life of the mother.


    Who has said that pregnancy termination should be restricted to abortion?

    Can you show us one person who would advocate this rather than an emergency caesarean? Can you show us one doctor who would allow themselves to be 'forced' into doing this?


  • Options
    #6731
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Forced to butcher an eight and a half month foetus you say? What wine should one serve with that?
    One ought not to drink whilst butchering, a slip can ruin the cut.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6732
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    obplayer wrote: »
    Who has said that pregnancy termination should be restricted to abortion?
    No one at all, BS simply said "the law here has been drafted specifically to deny abortions, even if it will save the life of the mother", the implication of his statement being that providing a caesarean specifically denies an abortion, rather than caesarean and abortion both being legitimate means of termination. If abortion (in the sense of the termination of a foetus, rather than a pregnancy) were the only legitimate means of termination, then the logical (and ridiculous) result would be the potential aborting of a near term foetus to save the life of the mother.
    obplayer wrote: »
    Can you show us one person who would advocate this rather than an emergency caesarean? Can you show us one doctor who would allow themselves to be 'forced' into doing this?
    Well, Miss Y apparently did advocate termination over delivery for herself; she appears to have gone on hunger strike to demonstrate her advocacy. However, I take your point; I would be taken aback by anyone who would advocate killing a foetus rather than delivering it in viable circumstances.
    I should certainly hope no doctor would allow themselves to be 'forced' into doing it (I would hope no one would legislate specifically to deny abortion where it would save the life of the mother), but if a doctor felt the only choice they had was between killing a near term foetus in order to allow the mother to live, or allowing both to die, then my guess is they would feel one death is not as bad as two deaths.


  • Options
    #6733
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Absolam wrote: »
    No one at all, BS simply said "the law here has been drafted specifically to deny abortions, even if it will save the life of the mother", the implication of his statement being that providing a caesarean specifically denies an abortion, rather than caesarean and abortion both being legitimate means of termination. If abortion (in the sense of the termination of a foetus, rather than a pregnancy) were the only legitimate means of termination, then the logical (and ridiculous) result would be the potential aborting of a near term foetus to save the life of the mother.

    Well, Miss Y apparently did advocate termination over delivery for herself; she appears to have gone on hunger strike to demonstrate her advocacy. However, I take your point; I would be taken aback by anyone who would advocate killing a foetus rather than delivering it in viable circumstances.
    I should certainly hope no doctor would allow themselves to be 'forced' into doing it (I would hope no one would legislate specifically to deny abortion where it would save the life of the mother), but if a doctor felt the only choice they had was between killing a near term foetus in order to allow the mother to live, or allowing both to die, then my guess is they would feel one death is not as bad as two deaths.

    My guess is that they would be right.


  • Options
    #6734
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    obplayer wrote: »
    My guess is that they would be right.
    And do you guess that in those circumstances they might then feel 'forced' to make that choice?


  • Options
    #6735
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Absolam wrote: »
    And do you guess that in those circumstances they might then feel 'forced' to make that choice?

    Only by their own conscience and understanding of true morality.


  • Options
    #6736
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    obplayer wrote: »
    Only by their own conscience and understanding of true morality.
    Then I guess you've answered your own question.


  • Options
    #6737
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Absolam wrote: »
    Then I guess you've answered your own question.

    So are you saying that it is better to allow two deaths than one? A straight answer please.


  • Options
    #6738
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    obplayer wrote: »
    So are you saying that it is better to allow two deaths than one? A straight answer please.
    Of course not. Nor can I imagine how you could reach such a startling conclusion from anything I've said.


  • Options
    #6739
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,027 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Absolam wrote: »
    And do you guess that in those circumstances they might then feel 'forced' to make that choice?

    But would the doctors in this case simply be forced to act (making choices as part of their work) or would they be forced to take a course of action when they themselves would have chosen a different course, had they had the choice?


  • Options
    #6740
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,556 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/womens-right-group-slap-knickers-up-on-taoiseachs-plate-at-fg-fundraiser-in-london-hotel-30637465.html. Good pro-active video in this.


  • Options
    #6741
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users Posts: 16,077 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    aloyisious wrote: »
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/womens-right-group-slap-knickers-up-on-taoiseachs-plate-at-fg-fundraiser-in-london-hotel-30637465.html. Good pro-active video in this.

    Anyone get the particular point of the knickers, other than to embarrass Enda (not that that's an ignoble objective)...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6742
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    volchitsa wrote: »
    But would the doctors in this case simply be forced to act (making choices as part of their work) or would they be forced to take a course of action when they themselves would have chosen a different course, had they had the choice?
    Obplayer says they would be forced to act by their own conscience and understanding of true morality.


  • Options
    #6743
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Absolam wrote: »
    Obplayer says they would be forced to act by their own conscience and understanding of true morality.

    Indeed, as opposed to an outside force like the RCC.


  • Options
    #6744
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    obplayer wrote: »
    Indeed, as opposed to an outside force like the RCC.
    Good to know... you think the RCC wouldn't force doctors to butcher an eight and a half month foetus. They'd probably agree, so now you've got some common ground on the subject.


  • Options
    #6745
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Absolam wrote: »
    Good to know... you think the RCC wouldn't force doctors to butcher an eight and a half month foetus. They'd probably agree, so now you've got some common ground on the subject.

    We appear to be going round in circles here. Who would force doctors to butcher an eight and a half month foetus?

    Back to your post which started this.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92453971&postcount=6728
    Absolam wrote: »
    That's not actually true though, is it?
    The Y Case demonstrated that the legislation as drafted specifically permitted abortions, but also allowed for other means to terminate pregnancies, which makes more sense than restricting pregnancy termination to abortion (in the sense of terminating a life rather than a pregnancy) which, if it were the case, could see doctors forced to butcher an eight and a half month foetus. The fact is, even without the new legislation, abortions are carried out where it will save the life of the mother.

    Where does anyone propose this? Why do you bring it up as possible? Show me where anyone proposes new legislation which suggests this.


  • Options
    #6746
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    obplayer wrote: »
    We appear to be going round in circles here. Who would force doctors to butcher an eight and a half month foetus? Where does anyone propose this? Why do you bring it up as possible? Show me where anyone proposes new legislation which suggests this.
    We're not not really going round in circles; I actually answered your question; No one at all, BS simply said "the law here has been drafted specifically to deny abortions, even if it will save the life of the mother", the implication of his statement being that providing a caesarean specifically denies an abortion, rather than caesarean and abortion both being legitimate means of termination. If abortion (in the sense of the termination of a foetus, rather than a pregnancy) were the only legitimate means of termination, then the logical (and ridiculous) result would be the potential aborting of a near term foetus to save the life of the mother.

    You just decided to ignore the answer and focus instead on my statement that I should certainly hope no doctor would allow themselves to be 'forced' into doing it (I would hope no one would legislate specifically to deny abortion where it would save the life of the mother), but if a doctor felt the only choice they had was between killing a near term foetus in order to allow the mother to live, or allowing both to die, then my guess is they would feel one death is not as bad as two deaths., which is what led you in circles.


  • Options
    #6747
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Absolam wrote: »
    We're not not really going round in circles; I actually answered your question; No one at all, BS simply said "the law here has been drafted specifically to deny abortions, even if it will save the life of the mother", the implication of his statement being that providing a caesarean specifically denies an abortion, rather than caesarean and abortion both being legitimate means of termination. If abortion (in the sense of the termination of a foetus, rather than a pregnancy) were the only legitimate means of termination, then the logical (and ridiculous) result would be the potential aborting of a near term foetus to save the life of the mother.

    You just decided to ignore the answer and focus instead on my statement that I should certainly hope no doctor would allow themselves to be 'forced' into doing it (I would hope no one would legislate specifically to deny abortion where it would save the life of the mother), but if a doctor felt the only choice they had was between killing a near term foetus in order to allow the mother to live, or allowing both to die, then my guess is they would feel one death is not as bad as two deaths., which is what led you in circles.

    Brian Shanahan's statement implies nothing of the sort. He at no time suggests that if a caesarean would save the life of the mother we should ignore that and resort to abortion.


  • Options
    #6748
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    obplayer wrote: »
    Brian Shanahan's statement implies nothing of the sort. He at no time suggests that if a caesarean would save the life of the mother we should ignore that and resort to abortion.
    Really? In what way then does the Y case show that the law here has been drafted specifically to deny abortions, even if it will save the life of the mother?


  • Options
    #6749
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,027 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Absolam wrote: »
    Really? In what way then does the Y case show that the law here has been drafted specifically to deny abortions, even if it will save the life of the mother?
    Well, because she was denied an abortion, although her life was acknowledged to be at risk.
    In a briefing note for the department, he (an official writing to the Minster for Justice two days before the c-section) wrote that "a case had been initiated regarding the refusal of a hospital in ... to provide an abortion..."

    - See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/justice-minister-told-of-ms-y-two-days-before-she-gave-birth-30638781.html#sthash.yfBOgpfD.dpuf

    The caesarean was the "solution" to that refusal, and moreover premature delivery was, at that time, explicitly outside the terms of the draft guidelines.

    The published guidelines have since had that line removed, so that they simply don't say whether or not a c-section could fall within them, but at the time the Ms Y was in their "care", the HSE themselves did not believe they were carrying out a c-section under the terms of the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act. They believed the opposite, because that is what the law available to them at the time said.


  • Options
    #6750
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Well, because she was denied an abortion, although her life was acknowledged to be at risk.
    That doesn't actually mean that the law was drafted to specifically deny abortions though, only that an alternative to abortion was used. Unless you're saying that making an alternative available specifically denies abortions? In which case that implies that providing a caesarian specifically denies an abortion, which is what I said BS was implying.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    The caesarean was the "solution" to that refusal, and moreover premature delivery was, at that time, explicitly outside the terms of the draft guidelines.
    I'm sorry, you're going to have to be very specific here, since confusing your timelines could be very misleading don't you think? The caesarian was the 'solution' to what refusal exactly?
    Are you attempting to say that the panel of doctors elected to give Miss Y a caesarian as a solution to the hospital refusing to give her an abortion (something which has not been reported so far), rather than as a solution to her suicidal ideation, as has been reported?
    volchitsa wrote: »
    The published guidelines have since had that line removed, so that they simply don't say whether or not a c-section could fall within them, but at the time the Ms Y was in their "care", the HSE themselves did not believe they were carrying out a c-section under the terms of the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act. They believed the opposite, because that is what the law available to them at the time said.
    Do you think they should have been acting in accordance with draft guidelines (which by virtue of being drafts, weren't actually guidelines at all)? And if they didn't follow draft guidelines at the time, ought they to be held at fault in some way? Don't you think someone in the HSE might have pointed out that they oughtn't to believe that the draft guidelines were the law available to them at the time, because they were draft guidelines (not laws)? I have a feeling even now that the HSE legal teams are quite aware that the guidelines (which are no longer drafts) are guidelines (and not even clinical guidelines, at that), rather than the law. Anyway, the HSE themselves (or, more realistically, the panel of doctors) assuredly did believe they were carrying out a c-section under the terms of the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act, since the law was in effect then; they were convened as a panel, which was something not done before the law came into effect. The fact that guidance on how to follow the law simply came later doesn't really make a difference to the fact that they had to act under the law as it stood.
    None of which really bears on whether the law here has been drafted specifically to deny abortions even if it will save the life of the mother, but probably interesting all the same.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6751
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,027 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Absolam wrote: »
    That doesn't actually mean that the law was drafted to specifically deny abortions though, only that an alternative to abortion was used. Unless you're saying that making an alternative available specifically denies abortions? In which case that implies that providing a caesarian specifically denies an abortion, which is what I said BS was implying.

    I'm sorry, you're going to have to be very specific here, since confusing your timelines could be very misleading don't you think? The caesarian was the 'solution' to what refusal exactly?
    Are you attempting to say that the panel of doctors elected to give Miss Y a caesarian as a solution to the hospital refusing to give her an abortion (something which has not been reported so far), rather than as a solution to her suicidal ideation, as has been reported?
    Do you think they should have been acting in accordance with draft guidelines (which by virtue of being drafts, weren't actually guidelines at all)? And if they didn't follow draft guidelines at the time, ought they to be held at fault in some way? Don't you think someone in the HSE might have pointed out that they oughtn't to believe that the draft guidelines were the law available to them at the time, because they were draft guidelines (not laws)? I have a feeling even now that the HSE legal teams are quite aware that the guidelines (which are no longer drafts) are guidelines (and not even clinical guidelines, at that), rather than the law. Anyway, the HSE themselves (or, more realistically, the panel of doctors) assuredly did believe they were carrying out a c-section under the terms of the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act, since the law was in effect then; they were convened as a panel, which was something not done before the law came into effect. The fact that guidance on how to follow the law simply came later doesn't really make a difference to the fact that they had to act under the law as it stood.
    None of which really bears on whether the law here has been drafted specifically to deny abortions even if it will save the life of the mother, but probably interesting all the same.
    But they did follow the law as it was at the time. Did you miss the quoted correspondence among officials on the days before the premature delivery of the baby? The official said that she had been denied an abortion. At the time, that meant that she was not given the treatment covered by the POLDP Act, that was an explicit mention on the rules at that point.

    So even then she was suicidal, the POLDP Act was not triggered. Well, it was partially triggered, she was by psychiatrists and certified suicidal, but then it was blocked by administrators who refused an abortion, apparently because in their minds the UK law on time limits for abortion has some value in Ireland. I don't think that is the case, do you?

    So the solution to their partial triggering of the Act but unwillingness to act on it, was to wing it. The invented a new sub clause, which was nowhere to be seen , which said that if the UK date limits were passed, a premature delivery could be done instead.

    But that isn't explicitly stated in the law. So either the HSE personnel are making it up as they go along, or the law is not intended to do what it says, provide an abortion for a suicidal woman. Because the termination of pregnancy that she got was NOT performed under the terms of the POLDP Act.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement