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…255256258260261…334

Comments

  • Options
    #7712
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,023 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Regular periods is actually a fairly recent phenomenon. For most of history women have tended to be pregnant too often to attain monthly periods (except for possibly soon after becoming teens). And you've also got to factor in that stress factors can often disrupt the reproductive cycle, so working as a homocide cop could cause havoc with it.

    The first point is irrelevant, Laure isn't meant to be living in a time when women were constantly pregnant, is she?

    The second one too, really. I'm saying that if she hadn't had her period for three months, when she found blood she would just assume she'd started her period. IMO anyway, that is what most (modern) women would assume.

    So why did she race off to A&E? But it's a minor gripe really. It just seems a little bit of stretching reality to make a good storyline that's all.


  • Options
    #7713
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    lazygal wrote: »
    That's unfortunately a common experience. And the law here doesn't care about a woman's health when she's pregnant, only her life. Unless your life is under threat, you just have to put up with it. There's zero balance of rights if its 'only' your health that is under risk.
    That's not true though is it? The law cares about a womans health when she's pregnant, it just prioritises the right to life of her foetus over her health. You're right that there's no balance of rights; just not right about why. Both rights to life are respected, but the mothers right to life is prioritised over the childs.
    It's hard to imagine how prioritising a womans health over a childs life would be more balanced?
    volchitsa wrote: »
    That's exactly the sort of thing that needs to be brought to people's attention, 2ndrowgirl. In the UK, the woman is the patient, and has the final say in her health care. In Ireland, the fact is that we know that isn't the case.
    Of course it isn't; in Ireland we acknowledge that there are two patients, each with a right to life.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    I think many people just presume (hope?) there's no difference in how they'll be treated in Ireland compared to other countries until they find themselves on the wrong end of the legal situation.
    How many do you think? Personally I'm always reticent about presuming what kind of health care I'll receive in another country; I prefer to avoid countries where I'm not assured of receiving the care I will need.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    I remember reading about Praveen Halapannavar, who said that of course they knew there was no abortion in Ireland - but that they had never thought that could apply to them, because they believed it was about women who didn't want a baby, rather than women whose health was affected by a pregnancy.
    I remember reading that once Savita Halappanavar was diagnosed with life threatening sepsis, Dr Astbury planned an abortion because she believed there was a "real and substantial risk" to the life of Ms Halappanavar.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    But of course when it happens it's too late for the woman concerned.
    Always? Or in one particular incident?
    volchitsa wrote: »
    It may make it less likely that doctors will just presume they are entitled to ignore the woman as though she were too stupid to know what is being done to her.
    Is there any reason (other than polemic) to think that doctors (all? many? some?) will just presume they are entitled to ignore the woman as though she were too stupid to know what is being done to her? It's seems a remarkable slur on the medical profession in general.....


  • Options
    #7714
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Shrap wrote: »
    Actually, just out of interest and given my post above, I wonder can any of you ..em..."pro-life" fellas imagine what it must be like as a girl growing up knowing this, and going on to have children in our country? Of course, the answer is that you can't, but if you're not kidding yourselves beyond the realms of possibility then you must be able to imagine the fear and the disgust at the potential choices the realms of the state will take over you. There are girls growing up now who will become mothers one day. They will look back and remember that the possibility remains that their dead bodies could be desecrated for their baby in this country. Think on that.
    Are you asking "pro-life fellas" to condemn racism in Irish maternity hospitals nearly half a century ago? I doubt any would have a problem saying it was wrong in fairness.
    You'll probably meet more resistance to the idea that an unborn babys life shouldn't be prioritised over a womans health; that would certainly be a sticking point for many "pro-life fellas" I'd imagine.
    And you might get some argument over an unborn babys life being prioritised over a womans life, since no one seems to be arguing this should be the case, and only the "pro-choice fellas" are arguing that it is the case; neither the Constitution nor the legislation supports the position.
    As for dead bodies being 'desecrated for their baby', I may be on my own here (though I strongly suspect I'm not) but I'd desecrate away if there was a chance of saving an innocent life. If someone is prepared to put the life of a child before the health of a woman, why wouldn't they put it before the dignity of a corpse?
    Shrap wrote: »
    So let's break this down a bit into how it relates to 2015. Secondrowgal, you have a fairly typical example of a woman who asked for an early delivery (thinking of the best case scenario for herself and her baby combined presumably, since she is an adult woman knowing her own mind and wanting a safe delivery for her child) because she could not start pain treatment otherwise.
    Are you presuming an adult woman knowing her own mind is better informed about the best case scenario for herself and her baby than an adult, qualified and experienced doctor? If someone were making decisions about my pain medication, I think I know which I'd prefer....
    Shrap wrote: »
    At what point does the mother get to choose - "I can't take this pain any more, even at the expense of the baby"?. We don't get that choice. Doctors are bound by the constitutional imperative to protect the unborn's life, but to what extent? In this country "As far as is practicable" is to the extent that severe painkilling/cancer treating drugs be not given to the mother.
    Actual the Constitutional imperative is not to protect the unborn's life; it's to respect, defend and vindicate the right to life of the unborn equally to that of its mother. As far as is practicable doesn't prohibit or limit the use of severe painkilling/cancer treating drugs being used to save the life of the mother; only to preserve the health of the mother at the expense of the life of the unborn.
    Shrap wrote: »
    At what point does the mother get to choose to start cancer treating drugs at the expense of the baby? At no point. To my knowledge.
    You're right; at no point does a mother get to choose when to take cancer treating drugs. But then again, who does? A doctor (who is eminently more qualified to make that decision) does get to decide (and I really think it's a decision, not a choice) when to start cancer treating drugs at the expense of the baby (in fact, even when there's no baby); a doctor must offer the treatment if the cancer threatens the life of the mother. Of course the mother can choose not to take the drugs. That's a choice.
    Shrap wrote: »
    Please, oh please correct me if I'm wrong. This is, after all, what our daughters are growing up knowing.
    You're not wrong to say that Ireland priorities the life of an unborn child over the health of an expectant mother. You are wrong to say that Ireland prioritises the life of an unborn child over the life of an expectant mother; the Supreme Court has already categorically established the opposite is true. If our daughters are growing up knowing different, then someone is misinforming them....


  • Options
    #7715
    rainbow kirby
    Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 26,928 Mod ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    Absolam wrote: »
    It's hard to imagine how prioritising a womans health over a childs life would be more balanced?
    It should be a decision made between a woman and her doctor as to whether to choose to take chances with the woman's health. It shouldn't be the law - a blunt instrument doesn't get the nuances of this in actual practice. Far too many women are left with serious health complications after the birth of their children because of the Irish attitude of "it's all about the baby, f*ck your health".

    Absolam wrote: »
    How many do you think? Personally I'm always reticent about presuming what kind of health care I'll receive in another country; I prefer to avoid countries where I'm not assured of receiving the care I will need.
    A very good reason to try and stay over here if I became pregnant tbh - I would not be certain of receiving all necessary medical care if I was in Ireland and something happened, thanks to the 8th amendment.


  • Options
    #7716
    secondrowgal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭secondrowgal


    It was torture, pure and simple. This lady was in such extreme pain that she didn't sleep properly for nearly three weeks. She would nod off for an hour, and then turn slightly resulting in the return of excruciating pain, waking her up. The "baby" was 34 weeks when this all started. More than safe to deliver at that stage.

    Her screams could be heard throughout the hospital!

    If I were her mother, I would have bundled her into a car and up to Newry pronto.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7717
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    It should be a decision made between a woman and her doctor as to whether to choose to take chances with the woman's health.
    And since the foetus can't make it's own decisions about it's health it should be the doctors decision. But just like any situation where someone might make a decision that will adversely affect someone elses health (or life) the law obviously has a place in the process.
    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    It shouldn't be the law - a blunt instrument doesn't get the nuances of this in actual practice. Far too many women are left with serious health complications after the birth of their children because of the Irish attitude of "it's all about the baby, f*ck your health".
    The law is only as blunt or as nuanced as it's made to be. I'm all for enhancing the naunces... even though I've never seen any law or policy that says "it's all about the baby", only the ones that say it's about both.
    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    A very good reason to try and stay over here if I became pregnant tbh - I would not be certain of receiving all necessary medical care if I was in Ireland and something happened, thanks to the 8th amendment.
    I think more apt to say you couldn't be certain of receiving the medical care you might wish for; I suspect there are plenty of doctors who'd assure you you'd receive all neccasary medical care.


  • Options
    #7718
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    secondrowgal wrote: »
    It was torture, pure and simple. This lady was in such extreme pain that she didn't sleep properly for nearly three weeks. She would nod off for an hour, and then turn slightly resulting in the return of excruciating pain, waking her up. The "baby" was 34 weeks when this all started. More than safe to deliver at that stage. Her screams could be heard throughout the hospital! If I were her mother, I would have bundled her into a car and up to Newry pronto.
    I don't know; obviously I wasn't there, I haven't reviewed the evidence, and I'm not a doctor, so I couldn't say whether it was more than safe to deliver the baby, or if it was torture, or if there was appropriate medication she could have safely been given. I think to express an opinion on any of that one would need to know a great deal more than you or I do.
    I don't imagine the medical staff were likely to want to torture someone, do you?
    And if they thought (and we've no real reason to imagine they did) that it was all about the baby, and the woman was simply 'just another incubator situation' wouldn't they still want to ensure the baby it was 'all about' was as comfortable as possible, and not being subjected to the trauma of it's mother pain?
    I suspect that there may be a bit more to the story than what you gleaned from a conversation with a lady whose daughter gave birth quite recently and couldn't be given x, y or z drugs because of the "baby". Like... even what x, y or z drugs are.


  • Options
    #7719
    secondrowgal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭secondrowgal


    Absolam wrote: »
    I don't know; obviously I wasn't there, I haven't reviewed the evidence, and I'm not a doctor, so I couldn't say whether it was more than safe to deliver the baby, or if it was torture, or if there was appropriate medication she could have safely been given. I think to express an opinion on any of that one would need to know a great deal more than you or I do.
    I don't imagine the medical staff were likely to want to torture someone, do you?
    And if they thought (and we've no real reason to imagine they did) that it was all about the baby, and the woman was simply 'just another incubator situation' wouldn't they still want to ensure the baby it was 'all about' was as comfortable as possible, and not being subjected to the trauma of it's mother pain?
    I suspect that there may be a bit more to the story than what you gleaned from a conversation with a lady whose daughter gave birth quite recently and couldn't be given x, y or z drugs because of the "baby". Like... even what x, y or z drugs are.

    You're right, you weren't there. Yet you've still managed to twist this your own agenda with a load of "don't imagines" and "suspect" and other meaningless and unback-upable whataboutery.

    You really should be on the stage.

    There's plenty more to the story, which I can't go into, and which I said in my first post, and which, as per unerringly usual, you have ignored.
    You have no idea of my medical qualifications.
    I NEVER said that the medical staff wanted to torture her., and am highly insulted that you would insinuate same.
    I DO know what the drugs were and what they are is irrelevant because they couldn't alleviate her pain.

    I actually feel sorry for you.


  • Options
    #7720
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    secondrowgal wrote: »
    You're right, you weren't there. Yet you've still managed to twist this your own agenda with a load of "don't imagines" and "suspect" and other meaningless and unback-upable whataboutery.
    With all credit to accuracy; pointing out that a third hand account of a story doesn't amount to a first hand review of the actual facts doesn't really amount to 'whataboutery'. You neglected to say 'You're right, I wasn't there either' by the way. As for 'unback-upable'... well it's your account of a conversation with the mother of a woman who gave birth quite recently. Are you planning to present any facts at all to backup your account of what happened in the hospital?
    secondrowgal wrote: »
    You really should be on the stage.
    I'm not the one telling stories in fairness.....
    secondrowgal wrote: »
    There's plenty more to the story, which I can't go into, and which I said in my first post, and which, as per unerringly usual, you have ignored.
    Ah now... if you're not going into it, how can I be ignoring it? As for what you said in your first post:
    1) You had a conversation with a lady whose daughter gave birth quite recently.
    2) You give the impression that the mother said the daughter said that she was in the most horrendous pain for 6 weeks - couldn't sit down, couldn't lie down, couldn't sleep, could barely eat, couldn't be given x, y or z drugs because of the "baby".
    3) You give the impression that the mother said the daughter said that she couldn't be delivered early because of the "baby", and so much more that you couldn't go into here.
    4) You say that the woman you spoke to is is seriously considering making a complaint to the hospital but said that she knows from talking to the doctors that it was all about the needs of the "baby" not the mother.
    5) You say that it happened in a hospital that should be more circumspect based on recent history.
    6) You say that it was just another incubator situation.
    Have I omitted anything salient? It doesn't seem you've said 'plenty more'?
    secondrowgal wrote: »
    You have no idea of my medical qualifications.
    I don't. Are you medically qualified to offer an opinion on patient care from a second hand account of events in a hospital?
    secondrowgal wrote: »
    I NEVER said that the medical staff wanted to torture her., and am highly insulted that you would insinuate same.
    You did say "It was torture, pure and simple". Since your third hand account doesn't relate the presence of anyone else, who was the mystery torturer?
    secondrowgal wrote: »
    I DO know what the drugs were and what they are is irrelevant because they couldn't alleviate her pain.
    Well, you told us she was "in the most horrendous pain for 6 weeks - couldn't sit down, couldn't lie down, couldn't sleep, could barely eat, couldn't be given x, y or z drugs because of the "baby"". If x, y, and z weren't needed to alleviate her pain, were they to help her sit down? To lie down? To sleep? To eat? Perhaps if you had told us what x, y, and z are we'd know why she might want to take them. Of course, that might also mean we'd know just what risk they presented to the "baby" (as you say). For instance, if X were say, Thalidomide to treat her insomnia and eating problems, we might agree it was a good idea for doctors to decide to not to give it to her because of the "baby".
    secondrowgal wrote: »
    I actually feel sorry for you.
    Oh, I wouldn't worry about me. You can probably reserve that boundless sympathy for the daughters of women you have conversations with.


  • Options
    #7721
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,554 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    On RTE's 3 PM news. The N.I. Human Rights Commission is taking a court case in the High Court, Belfast, today about the restrictive abortion law there. The gist of the case mentioned in the article below is this: A case brought by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will be heard as the group argue that terminations should made possible for women who conceive as a result of rape or incest, or where there is “serious malformation of the foetus”. Regardless of whether the legal challenge is successful, merely having the case considered by the court is a huge success for many in the local pro-choice movement. It will be the first major challenge to the status quo in living memory, a once unimaginable point.

    https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCMQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newstatesman.com%2Fpolitics%2F2015%2F02%2Fhave-we-reached-tipping-point-abortion-rights-northern-ireland&ei=v5bPVPXSKe3Y7AaejoCQBw&usg=AFQjCNEnt3Vl9rouJ-tEl3gJ9KXmVBG4qw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7722
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sinn Féin abortion policy compatible with my Catholicism says Martin McGuinness

    I feel like I've come 40 years too late to the game here, but Martin McGuinness is a practising catholic?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-30855440
    BBC wrote:
    Sinn Féin's support for a woman's right to an abortion in certain limited circumstances is not incompatible with Catholicism, Martin McGuinness has said. He was responding to a comment from the leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Archbishop Eamon Martin.

    Archbishop Martin had said any Catholic politician who supported abortion would not be "in communion with the church". The deputy first minister spoke to BBC's Inside Politics on Friday. "I try and be the best Catholic I can be," Mr McGuinness said. "The Catholic Church is made up of people who have different opinions on different issues."

    Mr McGuinness repeated that Sinn Féin is opposed to abortion on demand but said he had been moved by meeting Sarah Ewart, a woman from Northern Ireland who had to travel to England for an abortion because her baby had no chance of survival. He said:"I think, in the context of my responsibility as a government minister and other government ministers who have a duty to pass legislation, when we're faced with the case of Sarah Ewart, we have to deal with that in the most compassionate way possible."

    Northern Ireland's Department of Justice is consulting on whether abortion should be made legal in cases of "lethal foetal abnormality" and pregnancy as a result of rape. On Thursday, Archbishop Martin met Justice Minister David Ford to discuss proposals for amendments to two aspects of Northern Ireland's abortion laws. He said the church remained against any change to the existing laws.

    The deputy first minister said he disagreed with people who believed a change in the laws would lead to an "opening up of the floodgates". He said: "I totally and absolutely contradict those people. I think what we need to do is recognise our responsibilities to support women when they make the choice.

    "This is not about women being forced to do anything, they should be able to make their own choice. I absolutely respect the right of people to do that."


  • Options
    #7723
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    robindch wrote: »
    Sinn Féin abortion policy compatible with my Catholicism says Martin McGuinness

    I feel like I've come 40 years too late to the game here, but Martin McGuinness is a practising catholic?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-30855440

    Anyone else slightly sickened at how he seems to have had difficulty in balancing the notion of the death of a foetus with his faith? Considering, like...


  • Options
    #7724
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    robindch wrote: »
    Martin McGuinness is a practising catholic?
    He knows his electorate ;)
    I'm surprised he is making theological statements though; he should leave that to the men of the cloth.


  • Options
    #7725
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Shrap wrote: »
    Anyone else slightly sickened at how he seems to have had difficulty in balancing the notion of the death of a foetus with his faith? Considering, like...
    Indeed.

    And what about the other side? I don't recall the church exactly falling over itself to excommunicate any members of the IRA, INLA etc.

    But then again, if they didn't excommunicate any serious percentage of the Nazi's, then I suppose our home-grown terrorists aren't going to attract much attention from whoever mans the Vatican's Department of Excommunications.


  • Options
    #7726
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    recedite wrote: »
    He knows his electorate ;)
    I'm surprised he is making theological statements though; he should leave that to the men of the cloth.

    I'm just happy we're not his electorate. He'd have a hard time persuading me with this bullsh1t, plus his well known views on "West Brits". What a winning combination of knuckle dragging and insult. I hope he doesn't do the pro-choice campaign too much damage with his "support".


  • Options
    #7727
    TheLurker
    Registered Users Posts: 230 ✭✭TheLurker


    ""The Catholic Church is made up of people who have different opinions on different issues."

    Er, isn't that why the Catholic have a Pope? To tell all the different people with different opinions on different issues that they are wrong.


  • Options
    #7728
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,554 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    It'll be interesting to see what, and if, the state does anything to Tara... and who comes out to pillory her http://indo.ie/IoqXO


  • Options
    #7729
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    No doubt the travelling roadshow of women who regret their abortions and Cora Sherlock will be along shortly to tell us that there's always a better way, and it involves remaining pregant no matter what.


  • Options
    #7730
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    aloyisious wrote: »
    It'll be interesting to see what, and if, the state does anything to Tara... and who comes out to pillory her http://indo.ie/IoqXO
    Its a poorly written article, but it appears to be about one of many Irish girls who had an abortion in the UK, despite not wanting or perhaps wanting to travel.
    Irish law specifically does not interfere with right to travel, so why would anyone have anything to say about her?


  • Options
    #7731
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    recedite wrote: »
    Its a poorly written article, but it appears to be about one of many Irish girls who had an abortion in the UK, despite not wanting or perhaps wanting to travel.
    Irish law specifically does not interfere with right to travel, so why would anyone have anything to say about her?

    It was poorly written alright. Or maybe she interviewed poorly. I took her to mean that she had planned to travel around the world and then got pregnant by accident. Y'know, one of those reasons for an abortion that isn't "valid".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7732
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Shrap wrote: »
    It was poorly written alright. Or maybe she interviewed poorly. I took her to mean that she had planned to travel around the world and then got pregnant by accident. Y'know, one of those reasons for an abortion that isn't "valid".

    I was surprised the indo didn't use their usual trick of having a photo of a woman nine months pregnant next to the article. I looked at some of the comments too, I should have known better :(


  • Options
    #7733
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,023 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    recedite wrote: »
    Irish law specifically does not interfere with right to travel, so why would anyone have anything to say about her?

    So if I take my 12 year old daughter to the Yemen to have FGM and then to be married off to a 60 year old man, everyone in Ireland will be fine with that will they?

    Only I believe the bride money for white girls is a lot higher than if she were Yemeni. Might be a real earner in these times of austerity. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #7734
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,023 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    swampgas wrote: »
    I was surprised the indo didn't use their usual trick of having a photo of a woman nine months pregnant next to the article. I looked at some of the comments too, I should have known better :(

    I have to say the one by the (apparently) male poster who went from "I'm prochoice" to "it was better when women were coerced into (having their babies and) giving them up for adoption" in about 4 lines made me laugh out loud.


  • Options
    #7735
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So if I take my 12 year old daughter to the Yemen to have FGM and then to be married off to a 60 year old man, everyone in Ireland will be fine with that will they? Only I believe the bride money for white girls is a lot higher than if she were Yemeni. Might be a real earner in these times of austerity. :rolleyes:
    Well that's a bit melodramatic! However, in the case of FGM, whilst you are free to travel, you may be prosecuted for removing or attempting to remove a girl or woman from the State where one of the purposes for the removal is to have an act of female genital mutilation done to her. With regard to Recidites rather more appropriate to the subject point; Tara was entitled to travel without that entitlement being interfered with by the right to life of her foetus, and Ireland does not assert extraterritorial jurisdiction for the crime of the destruction of unborn life, so there's no reason to think (per aloyisious' post) that there is any reason the state would 'do anything' to her.


  • Options
    #7736
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,023 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well that's a bit melodramatic! However, in the case of FGM, whilst you are free to travel, you may be prosecuted for removing or attempting to remove a girl or woman from the State where one of the purposes for the removal is to have an act of female genital mutilation done to her. With regard to Recidites rather more appropriate to the subject point; Tara was entitled to travel without that entitlement being interfered with by the right to life of her foetus, and Ireland does not assert extraterritorial jurisdiction for the crime of the destruction of unborn life, so there's no reason to think (per aloyisious' post) that there is any reason the state would 'do anything' to her.

    If abortion really is killing a person, how could it possibly be acceptable to have a law that allows someone to remove a fetus from the State in order to kill it, but not a child in order to marry her against her will, or to perform FGM on her?

    As for why you think it's melodramatic, I'm puzzled, women leave the state to kill their fetuses all the time. Since the basis of the ban in Ireland is that this is killing a person, how is that less dramatic than marriage or FGM, neither of which involve death?


  • Options
    #7737
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    volchitsa wrote: »
    If abortion really is killing a person, how could it possibly be acceptable to have a law that allows someone to remove a fetus from the State in order to kill it, but not a child in order to marry her against her will, or to perform FGM on her?

    As for why you think it's melodramatic, I'm puzzled, women leave the state to kill their fetuses all the time. Since the basis of the ban in Ireland is that this is killing a person, how is that less dramatic than marriage or FGM, neither of which involve death?
    Apples and oranges , the state doesn't doesn't consider a foetus to be a person. A foetus isn't given a social security number a foetus doesn't need a passport to travel. If a woman has a miscarriage the state doesn't issue a death cert. And I assume if a pregnant woman tried to commit suicide here they wouldn't be convicted of attempted murder of a foetus whereas if the same woman drove off a pier with her kids in the back she might be

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #7738
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,023 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    silverharp wrote: »
    Apples and oranges , the state doesn't doesn't consider a foetus to be a person. A foetus isn't given a social security number a foetus doesn't need a passport to travel. If a woman has a miscarriage the state doesn't issue a death cert. And I assume if a pregnant woman tried to commit suicide here they wouldn't be convicted of attempted murder of a foetus whereas if the same woman drove off a pier with her kids in the back she might be

    I would like to agree with you, but why then can a woman be refused cancer-treatment (Michelle Harte) or other health-preserving treatment because of the fetus' (non) personhood?

    In fact the whole "only to save the mother's life " business is explicitly predicated on the idea that if she dies then so too does the fetus. Not on the fact that she is a person and the fetus isn't. So even if the law hasn't given the fetus a legal identity, it insists that doctors behave as though it has.

    In other words, there's no difficulty for everyone else, since only the woman has to actually pay any price for the state's "beliefs".


  • Options
    #7739
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,848 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I would like to agree with you, but why then can a woman be refused cancer-treatment (Michelle Harte) or other health-preserving treatment because of the fetus' (non) personhood?

    In fact the whole "only to save the mother's life " business is explicitly predicated on the idea that if she dies then so too does the fetus. Not on the fact that she is a person and the fetus isn't. So even if the law hasn't given the fetus a legal identity, it insists that doctors behave as though it has.

    In other words, there's no difficulty for everyone else, since only the woman has to actually pay any price for the state's "beliefs".
    I'm not saying the situation is logical, its religious preferences made law because of the flawed nature of democracy.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #7740
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,023 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    silverharp wrote: »
    I'm not saying the situation is logical, its religious preferences made law because of the flawed nature of democracy.

    Yes,but at the time it was more of a theocracy than a democracy. That's a lot less true now, but there is still a significant level of control of schools etc, so the brainwashing still has some effect.

    Like I say, abortion is a relatively easy one for the church to hang onto, because most people don't think it applies to them. Until it happens to them, or someone close to them, and then they're all horrified at how cruel and illogical the law is. Or someone dies, and it makes the headlines.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7741
    Absolam
    Registered Users Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    volchitsa wrote: »
    If abortion really is killing a person, how could it possibly be acceptable to have a law that allows someone to remove a fetus from the State in order to kill it, but not a child in order to marry her against her will, or to perform FGM on her?
    Well firstly, you don't accept that abortion is killing a person. And of course, the State only accepts that it is killing a person to a very specific degree ie the destruction of unborn life, which means that it is possible to allow someone to leave the state without the intent to engage in that killing interfering with that killing. In the case of marrying children against their will the State asserts the right to prosecute people who traffic children for the purpose of exploitation (though it doesn't expressly prevent them from travelling to do so), and in the case of FGM the State (whilst again not explicitly preventing travelling to do so) asserts the right to prosecute those who commit a sexual offence (such as fgm), if the act is an offense both in Ireland and the State in which it occurs.
    But you know all this, since it has been discussed on the thread already. What you're really asking is why doesn't Ireland extend it's anti-abortion laws to a logically absurd degree so that they become absurd. The answer, of course, is still because that would be absurd.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    As for why you think it's melodramatic, I'm puzzled, women leave the state to kill their fetuses all the time. Since the basis of the ban in Ireland is that this is killing a person, how is that less dramatic than marriage or FGM, neither of which involve death?
    Are you? You don't think it's at all melodramatic to answer the point that there's a perfectly good reason for the State not to 'do anything' to someone who has an abortion in England with a yarn about taking your child to Yemen to be mutilated and married off? I think you're well aware of how melodramatic such a reply is.... But to keep to your argument; if 'the basis of the ban in Ireland is that this is killing a person' as you say, what does that have to do with travelling for the purpose of marriage or fgm?
    volchitsa wrote: »
    I would like to agree with you, but why then can a woman be refused cancer-treatment (Michelle Harte) or other health-preserving treatment because of the fetus' (non) personhood?
    I think I know the answer to this one! I think you do too though.
    It's because the foetus has a right to life equal to that of its mother, except the mothers right has priority when it comes to a choice between the two. So whilst the foetus has a right not to be killed in order to preserve the health of its mother (per Michelle Harte), it doesn't have a right not to be killed in order to preserve the life of its mother.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    In fact the whole "only to save the mother's life " business is explicitly predicated on the idea that if she dies then so too does the fetus.
    Which does rather make sense given the Constitutional equality of the right to life; the only way the mothers life can have priority is if her death would inevitably mean the death of the foetus as well.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    Not on the fact that she is a person and the fetus isn't. So even if the law hasn't given the fetus a legal identity, it insists that doctors behave as though it has.
    I think you're conflating personhood, legal identity, and right to life here, and they're obviously not entirely the same things. The law insists doctors behave as though the foetus has a right to life, not as though it has a legal identity (identity in that regard being pretty irrelevant to doctors), because it does have a right to life (regardless of whether it does or does not have a legal identity).
    volchitsa wrote: »
    In other words, there's no difficulty for everyone else, since only the woman has to actually pay any price for the state's "beliefs".
    Whereas, if the shoe were on the other foot so to speak, only the child would have to pay the price for the states "beliefs". In a much more terminal fashion.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement