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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Abortion Discussion

1…141142144146147…201

Comments

  • #7152
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,385 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Absolam wrote: »
    Oh, I doubt she's crazy. She just doesn't agree with you.

    You mean she thinks travelling to the UK is not an option? That would be crazy, surely?

    Or do you mean she thinks that that information should not be given out freely - ie should be suppressed in some way?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #7153
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Absolam wrote: »
    Oh, I doubt she's crazy. She just doesn't agree with you.

    If she thinks it shouldn't be an option, she disagrees with me.

    If, as you stated above, she doesn't believe it is an option, she's in la-la land.


  • #7154
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Does anyone know what is the law in relation to these abortion pills? Let's say I use them and something goes wrong and I require medical attention. If I present at a hospital are the gardai called? Am I at risk of prosecution? How does that compare to a person who is taken to hospital for a drugs overdose?


  • #7155
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,385 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Does anyone know what is the law in relation to these abortion pills? Let's say I use them and something goes wrong and I require medical attention. If I present at a hospital are the gardai called? Am I at risk of prosecution? How does that compare to a person who is taken to hospital for a drugs overdose?
    Good question. This is only speculation, but my understanding is that since it is illegal to take the pills on Irish soil, theoretically at least you could be liable for the 14 year prison term.

    But if a doctor didn't report you, he is not (I think) complicit of aiding the abortion itself, so I don't know. He could pretend to believe you had gone to England for the day, I imagine. Would it come under patient confidentiality or would it be the luck of the draw whether or not you consulted a pro-life doctor?

    I'd be interested to hear from someone who has some knowledge of the law.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #7156
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Is it an offence to take the pill? More usually, when it comes to drugs, the offence is in supplying the drug, or in supplying it without a prescription. By way of analogy, if I turn up in hospital suffering from an overdose of heroin or methadone, I don't get prosecuted, because there is no evidence that I have committed an offence. Nor, typically, do I get reported to the guards - medical ethics, client confidentiality, etc. If the guards get to hear about it, they may interview me, but mainly to find out where I got the stuff, and from whom. If they do prosecute somebody for supplying the stuff to me, in theory I could be prosecuted for aiding and abetting the supply - he couldn't sell it to me if I wouldn't buy it - but in practice they don't.

    I'm open to correction, but SFAIK the law on the this drug fits into this model. It's an offence to import, supply, etc, but not to take.


  • #7157
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Does anyone know what is the law in relation to these abortion pills? Let's say I use them and something goes wrong and I require medical attention. If I present at a hospital are the gardai called? Am I at risk of prosecution? How does that compare to a person who is taken to hospital for a drugs overdose?

    Okay the chances of something going wrong is 1% of cases.
    Same as the chance of getting pregnant on the pill is 1% of cases.

    If you go to hospital after self administrating the abortion pills, there is no medical test which will show that you have taken them.

    Your condition presents as complications during a miscarriage and is treated the exact same way, there is no different in treatment needed.

    No medical professional will be able to tell by examination or blood work that you have taken the pills.

    If you disclose to any medical professional that you have taken them, the treatment will still be the same.

    Medical professionals are not required by law to inform the garda that you have admitted to a self administered abortion.

    If they do tell the garda the garda would have no evidence and your statement alone would not be enough to convict you.


  • #7158
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Is it an offence to take the pill?

    It is an offense to induce an abortion, which carries up to 14 years in jail.

    Peregrinus wrote: »
    More usually, when it comes to drugs, the offence is in supplying the drug, or in supplying it without a prescription.

    Yes both and it is an offence to import it into the country with out a licence.

    Also it is 2 types of pills, one is restricted to hospital use only and the other to prescription only.


  • #7159
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think, in fairness, I'd be inclined to ask why the Master of the Rotunda thinks there is a risk of perforation before I dismiss his statement out of hand; he probably has a degree of medical experience in the field most of us lack.

    If a woman has had a c section, or uterine scaring then there is a risk of that rupturing, causing a haemorrhage. The abortion pills are not suitable for everyone woman, same way the contraceptive pill is not suitable for every woman.
    Absolam wrote: »
    The fact that doing one illegal thing isn't as risky as doing another illegal thing doesn't really address the fact that both are risky and illegal though, nor does it justify them.
    It most assuredly does not make it unreasonable to point out that the less risky of the two undertakings is risky nonetheless. Or do you think Prime Time had a duty to point out that taking prescription medication without a doctors supervision may be risky, but may be less risky than assaulting yourself with a wire hanger or a knitting needle?

    It is way less risky then introducing an implement to the womb, as for the risks of what is considered perscription medication here, but which is OTC in other countries that's complex.

    Absolam wrote: »
    Wow! So what relevant information do you have access to that I can't find on the internet?

    I have taken part in an information workshop about the pills with a memeber of women on web.

    Absolam wrote: »
    Yes, there is an Abortion Information Act which regulates how information about abortion may be disseminated. That doesn't answer my question though; who exactly has suppressed information about abortion pills?

    Seriously? we have a law which suppresses information about abortion and has fines and you can't think who is supressing information about the abortion pills?

    Absolam wrote: »
    I don't think prosecuting someone for intentionally destroying an unborn human life is the same as suppressing information about abortion pills, sorry. Not least because you can't prosecute someone for destroying an unborn human life until they've done it, and if they've done it then any dissemination of information about abortion pills that may have been a part of the events obviously wasn't suppressed or it wouldn't have happened.
    But the above information is also quite readily available on the internet, is it not?

    if you know what to look for and what is a reputable site, over the last 2 years I have again and again been asked to explain about the pill and how they work, this information has not been common cultural knowledge but that is changing.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Well firstly, people hearing about a new method of abortion recently and informally is not even nearly the same thing as a rife suppression of information, and secondly, what ban on information about abortion?

    1995 law on abortion information.


  • #7160
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Morag wrote: »
    Okay the chances of something going wrong is 1% of cases.
    Same as the chance of getting pregnant on the pill is 1% of cases.

    If you go to hospital after self administrating the abortion pills, there is no medical test which will show that you have taken them.

    Your condition presents as complications during a miscarriage and is treated the exact same way, there is no different in treatment needed.

    No medical professional will be able to tell by examination or blood work that you have taken the pills.

    If you disclose to any medical professional that you have taken them, the treatment will still be the same.

    Medical professionals are not required by law to inform the garda that you have admitted to a self administered abortion.

    If they do tell the garda the garda would have no evidence and your statement alone would not be enough to convict you.

    That's good to know. I must admit my own knowledge of this was pretty bad :o, I assumed the medical treatment would be able to show up if you had taken the meds and then you would be at the mercy of your doctor. I didn't realise it was impossible to tell. I wonder do many women know that. A miscarriage always needs follow up medical treatment, I wonder how many women who take these pills get that aftercare. That's the thing really, the pill itself is quite safe but I'd imagine the risks to the woman come from an incomplete miscarriage/abortion. If women are understandably scared of what might happen if they go to a doctor then its our laws that are the cause of any potential health issues, not the medication itself.


  • #7161
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,813 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Is it an offence to take the pill?

    Some of these ladies could find themselves in trouble if it is:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/pro-choice-activists-swallow-abortion-pills-after-rail-journey-1.1979576


  • Advertisement
  • #7162
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,385 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    Some of these ladies could find themselves in trouble if it is:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/pro-choice-activists-swallow-abortion-pills-after-rail-journey-1.1979576

    Not if they weren't pregnant, presumably? :)

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #7163
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Not if they weren't pregnant, presumably? :)

    They could be still done for having them with out a prescription and for importing with out a licence.


  • #7164
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    I don't think having a prescription drug without a prescription is an offence. The offence lies in supplying it without a prescription.

    Importing the drugs without a licence is an offence, but a conviction might be difficult, given that they have swallowed the evidence. How are you going to prove that what they brought back from Belfast and swallowed at Connolly was really this drug, and not something they merely claimed was this drug?

    Worth pointing out that, so far as I remember, none of the participants in the 1971 contraceptive train were ever charged with offences.


  • #7165
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    volchitsa wrote: »
    You mean she thinks travelling to the UK is not an option? That would be crazy, surely?
    No, I think she probably would not consider having an abortion to be an option, but I'd say she probably does travel to the UK from time to time, though she probably doesn't imagine travelling to the UK in itself is one of the options that necessarily should be considered by mothers to be. Unless you you're talking about flying at a point when flying is inadvisable I suppose..
    volchitsa wrote: »
    Or do you mean she thinks that that information should not be given out freely - ie should be suppressed in some way?
    I can't imagine how you leapt to that conclusion, but strangely no, I didn't mean that either. Is there anything that she has said that would lead you to believe that she thinks information should be suppressed?
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    If she thinks it shouldn't be an option, she disagrees with me.
    Well, if she thinks it shouldn't be an option, her opinion is probably based on an ethical stance.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    If, as you stated above, she doesn't believe it is an option, she's in la-la land.
    But if she believes it isn't an option, her opinion may well be based on a religious or moral stance. Whether or not holding a religious conviction means 'she's in la-la land' is just a matter of opinion.
    Anyway, given that she didn't actually say whether she believes abortion is, or should be considered to be, an option, I don't think I'd opine on her position relative to la-la land until I hear her actual opinion.


  • #7166
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,385 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Absolam wrote: »
    No, I think she probably would not consider having an abortion to be an option, but I'd say she probably does travel to the UK from time to time, though she probably doesn't imagine travelling to the UK in itself is one of the options that necessarily should be considered by mothers to be. Unless you you're talking about flying at a point when flying is inadvisable I suppose..

    I can't imagine how you leapt to that conclusion, but strangely no, I didn't mean that either. Is there anything that she has said that would lead you to believe that she thinks information should be suppressed?
    Well, if she thinks it shouldn't be an option, her opinion is probably based on an ethical stance.
    But if she believes it isn't an option, her opinion may well be based on a religious or moral stance. Whether or not holding a religious conviction means 'she's in la-la land' is just a matter of opinion.
    Anyway, given that she didn't actually say whether she believes abortion is, or should be considered to be, an option, I don't think I'd opine on her position relative to la-la land until I hear her actual opinion.
    You are tied up in knots here, you are making no sense at all.

    Also, you began by opining over several posts on what she probably thought - it's a bit late now to suddenly realize that you have tied Ms Sherlock up in knots along with you! :rolleyes:

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #7167
    Taajsgpm
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 65 ✭✭Taajsgpm


    Dont like abortion? dont get one Dont like gays? Dont be one? Dont like carrots? Dont eat them. Let me do what I want and mind your own damn business . You think youre the judge of all things? Let God take care of it if thats not too much to ask, some peoples closed minds make me sick


  • #7168
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Morag wrote: »
    If a woman has had a c section, or uterine scaring then there is a risk of that rupturing, causing a haemorrhage. The abortion pills are not suitable for everyone woman, same way the contraceptive pill is not suitable for every woman.
    So.. would that suggest neither he nor the programme were scaremongering?
    Morag wrote: »
    It is way less risky then introducing an implement to the womb, as for the risks of what is considered perscription medication here, but which is OTC in other countries that's complex.
    So both are risky and illegal. That still does not make it unreasonable to point out that the less risky of the two undertakings is risky.
    Morag wrote: »
    I have taken part in an information workshop about the pills with a memeber of women on web.
    Yes, but what I asked you was what relevant information do you have access to that I can't find on the internet?
    Morag wrote: »
    Seriously? we have a law which suppresses information about abortion and has fines and you can't think who is supressing information about the abortion pills?
    Seriously, we have a law which regulates how information about abortion may be disseminated. That doesn't amount to suppression (the information is still readily available), nor does it answer the question: who exactly has suppressed information about abortion pills?
    Morag wrote: »
    if you know what to look for and what is a reputable site, over the last 2 years I have again and again been asked to explain about the pill and how they work, this information has not been common cultural knowledge but that is changing.
    Well I don't really know what you mean by 'common cultural knowledge' so I wouldn't want to comment on it. My question was whether this information was readily available on the internet, which you agree it is. Since that is the case, I don't see how you can claim it is suppressed; it's there for anyone who wants to look.
    Morag wrote: »
    1995 law on abortion information.
    The one which regulates the dissemination of information about abortion?
    Specifically, what information about abortion does it ban?


  • #7169
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    volchitsa wrote: »
    You are tied up in knots here, you are making no sense at all.
    Sorry if you're finding it difficult to follow. In point format:
    1) My opinion is that Ms Sherlock does not consider abortion to be an option for pregnant women. This does not mean it is Ms Sherlocks opinion; simply that that is how I perceive her opinion. Speculations about her sanity based on my opinion of her opinion would seem fruitless.
    2) Your opinion that Ms Sherlock may think travelling to the UK is not an option for pregnant women does not mean it is Ms Sherlocks opinion either, though you actually (in my opinion) seem to be attempting to imply that she is in some way suggesting that it is not possible for pregnant women to fly to the UK. I doubt she is suggesting this.
    3) Your opinion that my doubt as to the questionableness of Ms Sherlocks sanity and her likely disagreement with Zubeneschamalis opinion could be translated as Ms Sherlock thinking that information should not be given out freely - ie should be suppressed, appears to have no foundation in the statement I made. I invite you to point out anything that she has (or I have) said that would lead you to believe that she thinks information should be suppressed (as opposed to simply not volunteered by her).

    Does that help you with your knots at all?
    volchitsa wrote: »
    Also, you began by opining over several posts on what she probably thought - it's a bit late now to suddenly realize that you have tied Ms Sherlock up in knots along with you! :rolleyes:
    How so? I doubt she's aware of the conversation, what I think her opinion might be, or Zubeneschamalis opinion of her mental health. I doubt she'd imagine either of us are tied up in knots to be honest.


  • #7170
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Absolam wrote: »
    But if she believes it isn't an option, her opinion may well be based on a religious or moral stance.

    Thousands of women choose this option every year. If Cora thinks it is not an option, she is denying reality.

    But actually, I think you just misspoke: Cora thinks nothing of the sort, and you are just tying yourself in knots rather than admit it.


  • Advertisement
  • #7171
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,385 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Absolam wrote: »
    Sorry if you're finding it difficult to follow. In point format:
    1) My opinion is that Ms Sherlock does not consider abortion to be an option for pregnant women. This does not mean it is Ms Sherlocks opinion; simply that that is how I perceive her opinion. Speculations about her sanity based on my opinion of her opinion would seem fruitless.
    2) Your opinion that Ms Sherlock may think travelling to the UK is not an option for pregnant women does not mean it is Ms Sherlocks opinion either, though you actually (in my opinion) seem to be attempting to imply that she is in some way suggesting that it is not possible for pregnant women to fly to the UK. I doubt she is suggesting this.
    3) Your opinion that my doubt as to the questionableness of Ms Sherlocks sanity and her likely disagreement with Zubeneschamalis opinion could be translated as Ms Sherlock thinking that information should not be given out freely - ie should be suppressed, appears to have no foundation in the statement I made. I invite you to point out anything that she has (or I have) said that would lead you to believe that she thinks information should be suppressed (as opposed to simply not volunteered by her).

    Does that help you with your knots at all?

    How so? I doubt she's aware of the conversation, what I think her opinion might be, or Zubeneschamalis opinion of her mental health. I doubt she'd imagine either of us are tied up in knots to be honest.

    I love this post, you are getting ever more twisted up in those twisty knots you have got yourself entangled in!

    Just to reply to one bit for instance, the bolded part : whereas multiple speculations by you about her opinions are not fruitless? :cool:

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • #7172
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Thousands of women choose this option every year. If Cora thinks it is not an option, she is denying reality.
    That's certainly one way of looking at it. Just one I don't think everyone shares.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    But actually, I think you just misspoke: Cora thinks nothing of the sort, and you are just tying yourself in knots rather than admit it.
    Well, I haven't asked her, so I wouldn't speak so certainly on her behalf. But it doesn't take any knots to say so.


  • #7173
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I love this post, you are getting ever more twisted up in those twisty knots you have got yourself entangled in!
    I did try to make it easier for you to follow....
    volchitsa wrote: »
    Just to reply to one bit for instance, the bolded part : whereas multiple speculations by you about her opinions are not fruitless? :cool:
    And I guess if that's the one bit you felt able to reply to, I think I managed :D


  • #7174
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Absolam wrote: »
    That's certainly one way of looking at it. Just one I don't think everyone shares.

    If thousands of people are choosing an option, and you say Cora thinks it is not an option, you are simply wrong.

    Unless she is completely mad.

    And it seems a bit uncharitable to suppose she is mad just to avoid saying that you wrote something silly.


  • #7175
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    If thousands of people are choosing an option, and you say Cora thinks it is not an option, you are simply wrong.
    Well, no. If Ms Sherlock thinks it is an option, then I'm wrong.
    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Unless she is completely mad. And it seems a bit uncharitable to suppose she is mad just to avoid saying that you wrote something silly.
    In fairness, I'm not the one drawing the conclusion she is mad; you are.


  • #7176
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,385 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Absolam wrote: »
    I did try to make it easier for you to follow....
    And I guess if that's the one bit you felt able to reply to, I think I managed :D

    Well if you think you have made some sort of point, I'm delighted for you. I suspect it is completely incomprehensible to everyone else though!

    You think she thinks something, but it would be fruitless to speculate on what someone else might think of what you think about what she thinks!

    Yeah, good one that!

    (And it would be easy, if time consuming, to reply in much the same way to the rest of your crazy nonsense - but I prefer to protect my will to live!)

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Advertisement
  • #7177
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Well if you think you have made some sort of point, I'm delighted for you. I suspect it is completely incomprehensible to everyone else though!
    I'm sure everyone can ask if they want...
    volchitsa wrote: »
    You think she thinks something, but it would be fruitless to speculate on what someone else might think of what you think about what she thinks! Yeah, good one that!
    Or they can go with how you comprehend it...
    volchitsa wrote: »
    (And it would be easy, if time consuming, to reply in much the same way to the rest of your crazy nonsense - but I prefer to protect my will to live!)
    And I've no doubt you could continue to reply in much the same way if you wanted... and it's your will to live that prevents you.


  • #7178
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    "The Health Service Executive has "paused" its inquiry into the treatment of Ms Y after a medical report found she was not well enough to participate."

    "The development is another setback for the HSE, which has been criticised over its handling of the Ms Y case, which is now the subject of two reviews. As well as the review of her care, a second review is under way into the "reasonableness or otherwise" of the "legal approach" taken by the health authority."
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/ms-y-too-fragile-to-help-inquiry-into-her-treatment-30710561.html

    Not the best situation in the world, but if shes not up to it, shes not up to it.


  • #7179
    Frito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Frito


    Not sure if many consider this relevant to abortion discussion but I thought I'd post this as it's relevant to my opinion on the autonomy of pregnant women (which informs my position on abortion) - I'm still considering the effect on my position.
    Essentially a seven year old girl in the UK is suing her birth mother for injuries she sustained in utero (foetal alcohol syndrome). The court will make a decision later this month.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29614413

    I think the point of the suit is to allow the girl to petition the state for compensation for her injuries (as a victim of crime I assume) rather than send the birth mother to prison.
    edit
    The case is with the Court of Appeal, I vaguely remember this case making the news a while ago.
    Some articles state the girl is six.
    According to The Independent, the UK govt ceased granting compensation to children with FAS in Nov 2012.


  • #7180
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Frito wrote: »
    Not sure if many consider this relevant to abortion discussion but I thought I'd post this as it's relevant to my opinion on the autonomy of pregnant women (which informs my position on abortion) - I'm still considering the effect on my position. Essentially a seven year old girl in the UK is suing her birth mother for injuries she sustained in utero (foetal alcohol syndrome). The court will make a decision later this month. I think the point of the suit is to allow the girl to petition the state for compensation for her injuries (as a victim of crime I assume) rather than send the birth mother to prison.
    That'll be an tricky judgement; it seems to me that to acknowledge the plaintiff as a victim of crime would be to acknowledge that they are as a foetus a legal person, or at least to some degree a legal person to whom a duty of care is owed. So as not to interfere with current legislation, which is not compatible with a foetus being owed a duty of care prior to 24 weeks, it would need to be shown that the damage was done post 24 weeks. Or is there another way of looking at it?


  • #7181
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Absolam wrote: »
    That'll be an tricky judgement; it seems to me that to acknowledge the plaintiff as a victim of crime would be to acknowledge that they are as a foetus a legal person, or at least to some degree a legal person to whom a duty of care is owed. So as not to interfere with current legislation, which is not compatible with a foetus being owed a duty of care prior to 24 weeks, it would need to be shown that the damage was done post 24 weeks. Or is there another way of looking at it?

    Yes there is. Simply, if you are intending to give this collection of cells in your body the chance to become a person then you owe a degree of care to the person they might become. This does not preclude the right of a woman to say that this non-sentient blob of cells should be expelled from her body.


  • Advertisement
  • #7182
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    obplayer wrote: »
    Yes there is. Simply, if you are intending to give this collection of cells in your body the chance to become a person then you owe a degree of care to the person they might become. This does not preclude the right of a woman to say that this non-sentient blob of cells should be expelled from her body.
    Blobs and sentience aside though, would it really be reasonable to have a Court determine a duty of care based on an original intention asserted after the fact ?

    For instance, in the given case, would the mother declaring she never intended at the time she was drinking to proceed with the pregnancy absolve her of the duty of care she would have had if she had intended to proceed with the pregnancy?


  • #7183
    Frito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Frito


    Absolam wrote: »
    That'll be an tricky judgement; it seems to me that to acknowledge the plaintiff as a victim of crime would be to acknowledge that they are as a foetus a legal person, or at least to some degree a legal person to whom a duty of care is owed. So as not to interfere with current legislation, which is not compatible with a foetus being owed a duty of care prior to 24 weeks, it would need to be shown that the damage was done post 24 weeks. Or is there another way of looking at it?

    I agree, and my (lay) understanding is that the damage starts early and is ongoing. If affected children or adults could sue for damage caused in the first trimester, or if action could be taken by a third party on behalf of an at-risk foetus in the first trimester then theoretically there could be implications for abortion.
    I don't foresee it will get that far, it's more of a thought exercise for me.


  • #7184
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    Frito wrote: »
    If affected children or adults could sue for damage caused in the first trimester, or if action could be taken by a third party on behalf of an at-risk foetus in the first trimester then theoretically there could be implications for abortion.I don't foresee it will get that far, it's more of a thought exercise for me.
    It is interesting; since there's no constitutional imperative in the UK, the existing situation is based on the fact that abortion is legal where it obviates a threat to the health of the mother, and continuing any pregnancy past the first trimester poses a greater threat to the mothers health than terminating it, allowing de facto abortion at will.
    A legal requirement to consider the health of the foetus as well could potentially alter the landscape significantly, which makes me think it's unlikely there will be any straightforward finding of a duty of care.


  • #7185
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Absolam wrote: »
    Blobs and sentience aside though, would it really be reasonable to have a Court determine a duty of care based on an original intention asserted after the fact ?

    For instance, in the given case, would the mother declaring she never intended at the time she was drinking to proceed with the pregnancy absolve her of the duty of care she would have had if she had intended to proceed with the pregnancy?

    First of all I should make clear that my thoughts on this are based around abortion being available to the woman. That said, if she brings a foetus to term and introduces a new life to the world when she had the option of abortion but did not use it, then she is responsible for any gross misbehaviour on her part which affects that new being's subsequent life. Perhaps something along the lines of the American crime of reckless endargement would cover it. Other than that I cannot see how a woman's behaviour once she is pregnant should have any bearing on her right to an abortion. If anything heavy drinking habits should make an abortion more sensible.


  • #7186
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    obplayer wrote: »
    First of all I should make clear that my thoughts on this are based around abortion being available to the woman. That said, if she brings a foetus to term and introduces a new life to the world when she had the option of abortion but did not use it, then she is responsible for any gross misbehaviour on her part which affects that new being's subsequent life. Perhaps something along the lines of the American crime of reckless endargement would cover it. Other than that I cannot see how a woman's behaviour once she is pregnant should have any bearing on her right to an abortion. If anything heavy drinking habits should make an abortion more sensible.
    I think the point is that abortion is available to women in the UK, but due to the nature of the legislation that permits it, the circumstances under which abortion is available in the UK could change as a result of a ruling in this case.
    If a duty of care during the first trimester is established, how can it not have a bearing on a womans right to an abortion? And if a duty of care is found not to exist in the first trimester, how is the damage done during that period excluded from the reckless endangerment of the balance?


  • #7187
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Absolam wrote: »
    I think the point is that abortion is available to women in the UK, but due to the nature of the legislation that permits it, the circumstances under which abortion is available in the UK could change as a result of a ruling in this case.
    If a duty of care during the first trimester is established, how can it not have a bearing on a womans right to an abortion? And if a duty of care is found not to exist in the first trimester, how is the damage done during that period excluded from the reckless endangerment of the balance?

    The duty of care only exists if the woman intends or allows the zygote / foetus to come to full term. If she does not want this collection of cells to progress further then she has a perfect right to an abortion. Again, if she chooses or allows the collection of cells to become a human being then, and only then, does she owe it a duty of care.


  • #7188
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    obplayer wrote: »
    The duty of care only exists if the woman intends or allows the zygote / foetus to come to full term. If she does not want this collection of cells to progress further then she has a perfect right to an abortion. Again, if she chooses or allows the collection of cells to become a human being then, and only then, does she owe it a duty of care.
    I'm guessing you mean the duty of care should only exist, since a determination hasn't taken place yet. But that comes back to the idea of intent I was asking you about; how is it reasonable to have a Court determine a duty of care based on an original intent which is not asserted until after the fact?
    For instance, in the given case, would the mother declaring she never intended at the time she was drinking to proceed with the pregnancy absolve her of the duty of care she would have had if she had intended to proceed with the pregnancy?


  • #7189
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Absolam wrote: »
    I'm guessing you mean the duty of care should only exist, since a determination hasn't taken place yet. But that comes back to the idea of intent I was asking you about; how is it reasonable to have a Court determine a duty of care based on an original intent which is not asserted until after the fact?
    For instance, in the given case, would the mother declaring she never intended at the time she was drinking to proceed with the pregnancy absolve her of the duty of care she would have had if she had intended to proceed with the pregnancy?

    Read my posts please. "if the woman intends or allows the zygote / foetus to come to full term". What I am saying is if she does not make use of her right to abortion then she can be held to account for the consequences, if only for being reckless. This does not in any way impact on her right to abortion. I don't see any way I can make it clearer.


  • #7190
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    obplayer wrote: »
    Read my posts please. "if the woman intends or allows the zygote / foetus to come to full term". What I am saying is if she does not make use of her right to abortion then she can be held to account for the consequences, if only for being reckless. This does not in any way impact on her right to abortion. I don't see any way I can make it clearer.
    Well, the point is there's a difference between intending and allowing, and that's what I was asking about.
    If a woman allows a foetus to come to term, and when prosecuted for failing in her duty of care to that foetus claims that she didn't intend to allow it to come to term, are you suggesting that her claimed intent ought to be accepted as exculpatory? Or is the fact that the foetus was allowed to come to term sufficient to demonstrate that there was no intent not to allow it to come to term, and a duty of care existed?
    If it is established that a duty of care can exist, does a duty of care exist in the first trimester? If it does, then that seems likely to impact a womans right to abort. If not, it seems likely to impact a decision on liability for what occurs in the last two trimesters.
    What if a woman drank heavily during the first trimester, intending all along to have an abortion (on the basis that continuing the pregnancy would be injurious to her health), failed to have the abortion, so didn't drink at all during the second two trimesters, and the child was born with FASD. She could not be said to have failed in a duty of care during the second two trimesters, yet there could be no doubt that she was the cause of the childs disorder.


  • #7191
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, the point is there's a difference between intending and allowing, and that's what I was asking about.
    If a woman allows a foetus to come to term, and when prosecuted for failing in her duty of care to that foetus claims that she didn't intend to allow it to come to term, are you suggesting that her claimed intent ought to be accepted as exculpatory? Or is the fact that the foetus was allowed to come to term sufficient to demonstrate that there was no intent not to allow it to come to term, and a duty of care existed?
    If it is established that a duty of care can exist, does a duty of care exist in the first trimester? If it does, then that seems likely to impact a womans right to abort. If not, it seems likely to impact a decision on liability for what occurs in the last two trimesters.
    What if a woman drank heavily during the first trimester, intending all along to have an abortion (on the basis that continuing the pregnancy would be injurious to her health), failed to have the abortion, so didn't drink at all during the second two trimesters, and the child was born with FASD. She could not be said to have failed in a duty of care during the second two trimesters, yet there could be no doubt that she was the cause of the childs disorder.

    If you have not grasped what I have been saying then I cannot help you any more. I have explained several times in several ways. My final explanation is that the woman in your example was reckless for what she did in the first trimester but still entitled to an abortion. One last time, and I do mean the last time: there is no duty of care to a zygote / foetus. None. None at all. If you hope / intend / or just allow it to be given the chance to become a human being then there is a duty of care to that potential human being.


  • Advertisement
  • #7192
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    obplayer wrote: »
    My final explanation is that the woman in your example was reckless for what she did in the first trimester but still entitled to an abortion.
    I never questioned whether she was entitled to an abortion, what I was talking about was if it were established that she had a duty of care to the foetus, depending on how that duty of care might be expressed, how that could impact her entitlement to an abortion.
    obplayer wrote: »
    One last time, and I do mean the last time: there is no duty of care to a zygote / foetus. None. None at all. If you hope / intend / or just allow it to be given the chance to become a human being then there is a duty of care to that potential human being.
    Yes. I think you're really missing the point, which is that this case could establish a duty of care to a foetus.


  • #7193
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, the point is there's a difference between intending and allowing, and that's what I was asking about.
    If a woman allows a foetus to come to term, and when prosecuted for failing in her duty of care to that foetus claims that she didn't intend to allow it to come to term, are you suggesting that her claimed intent ought to be accepted as exculpatory?
    But surely this, like many other questions of intent that are resolved every single day in courts of law, is merely an evidential matter...? The court could look at the evidence present to see if there was any indication that the woman did not intend to continue with the pregnancy.

    Even if we ignore the evidential side of it, UK law has a handy little thing called oblique intention. That covers situation where the person did not specifically intend a particular consequence, but that consequence was a virtual certainty in light of the person's actions, to lack of them. Applied to this case, the woman did not intend to to continue the pregnancy but she took not actions to end the pregnancy. By not taking any actions to end the pregnancy (though perhaps it might be argued that the excessive drinking was an act to end the pregnancy, but she would likely have to adduce some evidence to support that)the pregnancy was virtually certain to continue, therefore she intended the pregnancy to continue.
    Absolam wrote: »
    Or is the fact that the foetus was allowed to come to term sufficient to demonstrate that there was no intent not to allow it to come to term, and a duty of care existed?
    As I explained above, it could be if the court used oblique intention. This could be rebutted by producing evidence to show that attempts were made to terminate the pregnancy, but these attempts were unsuccessful through no fault of the mother.

    Absolam wrote: »
    If it is established that a duty of care can exist, does a duty of care exist in the first trimester? If it does, then that seems likely to impact a womans right to abort. If not, it seems likely to impact a decision on liability for what occurs in the last two trimesters.
    This is tricky. If it can be shown that the intention was to continue with the pregnancy, whether that is direct or oblique intention, then it is possible that a duty of care could be held to exist in the first trimester, but I am not sure this would, necessarily effect a woman's right to an abortion. The duty of care in the first trimester would only exist, if it existed at all, because of the intention to continue with the pregnancy. If there was no intention to continue with the pregnancy then there would be no first trimester duty of care.

    Absolam wrote: »
    What if a woman drank heavily during the first trimester, intending all along to have an abortion (on the basis that continuing the pregnancy would be injurious to her health), failed to have the abortion, so didn't drink at all during the second two trimesters, and the child was born with FASD. She could not be said to have failed in a duty of care during the second two trimesters, yet there could be no doubt that she was the cause of the childs disorder.
    The law has difficulties with outlying cases, of which I think this is one. In theory, I think this would be an evidential matter. A tricky one all right.

    MrP


  • #7194
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Absolam wrote: »
    I never questioned whether she was entitled to an abortion, what I was talking about was if it were established that she had a duty of care to the foetus, depending on how that duty of care might be expressed, how that could impact her entitlement to an abortion.

    Yes. I think you're really missing the point, which is that this case could establish a duty of care to a foetus.

    You hope of course. I fully understand that you are looking for anything you can use to bolster your belief that all abortion is wrong and that your view should be backed up by law, that is why I have worded my posts the way I have. If you like you could place 'in a sane world' in front of posts I have made such as
    The duty of care only exists if the woman intends or allows the zygote / foetus to come to full term. If she does not want this collection of cells to progress further then she has a perfect right to an abortion. Again, if she chooses or allows the collection of cells to become a human being then, and only
    then    , does she owe it a duty of care.


  • #7195
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    obplayer wrote: »
    You hope of course.
    Well, no not really. I don't live in the UK; it's up to the people that live there to decide what rules they want.
    obplayer wrote: »
    I fully understand that you are looking for anything you can use to bolster your belief that all abortion is wrong and that your view should be backed up by law, that is why I have worded my posts the way I have. If you like you could place 'in a sane world' in front of posts I have made such as
    That's not a belief I've ever expressed; in fact I have quite specifically pointed out where I think abortion is right. Interesting that you appear to think a sane world is one where everyone conforms to your notions though.


  • #7196
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Absolam wrote: »
    Well, no not really. I don't live in the UK; it's up to the people that live there to decide what rules they want.

    That's not a belief I've ever expressed; in fact I have quite specifically pointed out where I think abortion is right. Interesting that you appear to think a sane world is one where everyone conforms to your notions though.

    Ok, let me ask a question. Do you believe that abortion in the first trimester should be available on demand? You should understand that I am asking for a yes or no answer to a simple question in order to try and pin down your views. For information purposes my answer to "Do you believe that abortion in the first trimester should be available on demand?" is yes. What is yours please?


  • #7197
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    obplayer wrote: »
    Ok, let me ask a question. Do you believe that abortion in the first trimester should be available on demand? You should understand that I am asking for a yes or no answer to a simple question in order to try and pin down your views. For information purposes my answer to "Do you believe that abortion in the first trimester should be available on demand?" is yes. What is yours please?
    Sure. Can I ask a question first?
    In what way is my opinion on the conditions of availability of abortion in the first trimester (under any or all legislative regimes?) relevant to a discussion of the merits and potential consequences of the current suit in the UK?
    It's just that, if you're engaging in a discussion of that subject purely to proselytise your opinions on the general desirability of abortion on demand, it would be nice to know upfront that you're not interested in discussing the actual subject.
    You should understand, I think your simple yes or no question to try and pin down my views rather than reading the more expansive posts I've made on the subject in the past, appears to be an attempt to divert the discussion from the point in hand to your own agenda. Which is fine as far as it goes, I'm just wondering if that's the case.


  • #7198
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    Absolam wrote: »
    Sure. Can I ask a question first?
    In what way is my opinion on the conditions of availability of abortion in the first trimester (under any or all legislative regimes?) relevant to a discussion of the merits and potential consequences of the current suit in the UK?
    It's just that, if you're engaging in a discussion of that subject purely to proselytise your opinions on the general desirability of abortion on demand, it would be nice to know upfront that you're not interested in discussing the actual subject.
    You should understand, I think your simple yes or no question to try and pin down my views rather than reading the more expansive posts I've made on the subject in the past, appears to be an attempt to divert the discussion from the point in hand to your own agenda. Which is fine as far as it goes, I'm just wondering if that's the case.
    This thread is called 'Abortion Discussion'. How have I diverted the discussion from that? On the basis of the original thread please answer "Do you believe that abortion in the first trimester should be available on demand?" If you are not willing to answer such a simple question, directly and obviously relevant to the thread, then how can anyone debate with you? Answer the question please.


  • #7199
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    obplayer wrote: »
    This thread is called 'Abortion Discussion'. How have I diverted the discussion from that? On the basis of the original thread please answer "Do you believe that abortion in the first trimester should be available on demand?" If you are not willing to answer such a simple question, directly and obviously relevant to the thread, then how can anyone debate with you? Answer the question please.
    Ah, I think you mistook what I was saying. I was saying that you seem to be diverting from the subject introduced by Frito,
    and I think your simple yes or no question to try and pin down my views rather than reading the more expansive posts I've made on the subject in the past, appears to be an attempt to divert the discussion from the point in hand to your own agenda. Which, as I said, is fine as far as it goes, I was just wondering if that was the case.
    If you are desiring to abandon Fritos topic and return to the more general Abortion Discussion, then I wholeheartedly recommend you read my posts in the thread. If nothing else, it will help you to not make the mistake of telling me I believe something I don't, and will bring the added benefit of some insight into the answers to the questions you're asking.


  • #7200
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,385 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Absolam wrote: »
    Ah, I think you mistook what I was saying. I was saying that you seem to be diverting from the subject introduced by Frito,
    and I think your simple yes or no question to try and pin down my views rather than reading the more expansive posts I've made on the subject in the past, appears to be an attempt to divert the discussion from the point in hand to your own agenda. Which, as I said, is fine as far as it goes, I was just wondering if that was the case.
    If you are desiring to abandon Fritos topic and return to the more general Abortion Discussion, then I wholeheartedly recommend you read my posts in the thread. If nothing else, it will help you to not make the mistake of telling me I believe something I don't, and will bring the added benefit of some insight into the answers to the questions you're asking.
    Of course another way of achieving the same thing would be to answer yes or not.

    You do seem oddly reluctant to do so.

    And no, it's not true that that would be abandoning Frito's sub-topic. All of us are arguing here from our own point of view, which of course doesn't exclude simply not being sure about certain aspects. It certainly can be very relevant to know where a particular poster is situated on the spectrum, when considering his/her posts. Not all the time, but on such a polarized issue, I'd say it usually is.

    And secondly, independently of that, the fact that someone feels unable to state their views honestly is, itself, relevant to how honest they are being, or rather, not about their own views. For example, a refusal to give a simple yes/no may be so as to allow the poster to say something completely contradictory in the future to the views he is putting forward now.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Advertisement
  • #7201
    Absolam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,913 ✭✭✭Absolam


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Of course another way of achieving the same thing would be to answer yes or not. You do seem oddly reluctant to do so.
    Of course it would, but I suspect I'll be more entertained by the pigeon hole my odd reluctance supposedly places me in.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    And no, it's not true that that would be abandoning Frito's sub-topic.
    Ah, so you can tell us what obplayer thinks the relevance is then?
    volchitsa wrote: »
    All of us are arguing here from our own point of view, which of course doesn't exclude simply not being sure about certain aspects. It certainly can be very relevant to know where a particular poster is situated on the spectrum, when considering his/her posts. Not all the time, but on such a polarized issue, I'd say it usually is.
    That sounds like a plea for pigeon holing, but I suppose there's no harm in asking.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    And secondly, independently of that, the fact that someone feels unable to state their views honestly is, itself, relevant to how honest they are being, or rather, not about their own views.
    But if they don't feel unable to state their views honestly, we needn't worry? That's grand so.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    For example, a refusal to give a simple yes/no may be so as to allow the poster to say something completely contradictory in the future to the views he is putting forward now.
    That indeed may be the case. Which obviously also means it may not be the case, so it doesn't actually get us anywhere, but I suppose participating is important :)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement