A vote for Labour is a vote for Abortion - Iona Institute

Sharrow

Sharrow wrote: »

The implanon goes in a woman's arm :rolleyes:

The implanon also prevents implantation by altering the endometrium in the womb. Like the IUD and even the Pill, it can cause the death of the zygote/blastocyst by preventing it from implanting in the uterus as normal.

No need for the eye-roll, by the way - I knew of those devices but I didn't know the exact name for it.

Dr. Baltar

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Besides, better for them to have abortions in a safe environment than in the back of an alley.

Better still for a change in how unplanned pregnancies are treated and for the mother to be supported through her pregnancy - and thus for the abortion not to go ahead at all. If only the money given to Marie Stopes, etc. were put to use to help women during pregnancy...

Hasschu

it is really irrevelant whether any, all or no Irish political party supports or does not support abortion. The boat to Liverpool was always available and in recent years Ryanair was added to the choices. Irish women are lucky enough to have a choice. I am no supporter of abortion. Neither will I stand in judgement with the holier than thou attitude so common in Ireland. Hypocrisy it is us.

wow sierra

I would imagine all the parties are open to introducing some form of limited abortion in the next year or so. It seems strange to be targeting Labour.

This campaign will have no impact on voting intentions in my opinion. I was handed one of these leaflets at mass and it just reminded me of the worst excesses of the Prolife movement in the past. The new law in relation to the Morning after pill will hopefully have some impact in reducing the abortion rate. I doubt the prolife movement are in favour of that either.

wow sierra

wow sierra wrote: »

The new law in relation to the Morning after pill will hopefully have some impact in reducing the abortion rate. I doubt the prolife movement are in favour of that either.

Generally speaking, I don't believe they are since the morning-after pill prevents implantation. It's considered an abortifacient, as are IUDs, Implanon, and even the Pill. I say abortifacient even though the present definition of pregnancy doesn't consider the zygote. Personally, I can't see the rationale of defining pregancy as the time between implanation and birth (or otherwise miscarriage or abortion). Does it not infer that a woman can have a new human life inside her and yet not be considered as pregnant? I'm being sincere in asking this - can someone explain?

Morag

Deleted User wrote: »

Generally speaking, I don't believe they are since the morning-after pill prevents implantation. It's considered an abortifacient, as are IUDs, Implanon, and even the Pill. I say abortifacient even though the present definition of pregnancy doesn't consider the zygote. Personally, I can't see the rationale of defining pregancy as the time between implanation and birth (or otherwise miscarriage or abortion). Does it not infer that a woman can have a new human life inside her and yet not be considered as pregnant? I'm being sincere in asking this - can someone explain?

Medically and Legally they do not cause an abortion as a woman is not considered to be pregnant until the zygote as implanted. What ever your spiritual/religious personal beliefs are that is the medical and legal stance in this country.

When the zygote implants then it causes changes to the woman's physiology (specifically the generation of the HGC hormone) and then she is pregnant. Many women ovulate and conception occurs and the body rejects the zygote and those women are not at any stage considered to be pregnant.

You are wrong medically and legally to be referring to the oral contraceptive pill, the morning after pill, the IUS, implannon, contraceptive patch, contraceptive injection and the nuvaring as abortifacients when they are not.

As it stands a woman only miscarries up until 22 weeks, it is only after that it is considered a still birth and a birth and death cert issued and a woman can then go on maternity leave. So it is not the loss of a human being recognised by the state until 22 weeks of pregnancy.

Morag

Deleted User wrote: »

Better still for a change in how unplanned pregnancies are treated and for the mother to be supported through her pregnancy - and thus for the abortion not to go ahead at all. If only the money given to Marie Stopes, etc. were put to use to help women during pregnancy...

You mean somewhere for them to stay and be give bed and board?
Like the Magdalene laundries?

The Volt

Can this thread be closed please? It wholly misrepresents Labour's stance on abortion. Can we draw the line on the fact that party policy is to legislate for the ruling of the X-Case. A ruling that the elected government cannot leave lying on the shelf anymore.

Godge

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to speak up on this one: most pro-lifers I know (myself included) would not rather that the mother died over the preborn if it came down to life and death.

In any situation where both lives are at stake, the greatest care needs to be given to both mother and baby. I've read that if it ultimately comes to a decision where greater care must be given to one over the other (and where, if this decision was not made, it is certain that both would die), care must be given to the mother. However, the final decision is usually reserved for the mother in such cases.

As an example:
Say the mother has an ectopic pregnancy. The baby is obviously going to die since no means exist to sustain infants of such a tiny size and at such an early (st)age in gestation. The mother will die if the fallopian tube holding the embryo is not removed. So the doctors remove the tube with the key intent being to save her life and the embryo dies.
This is not direct abortion and yet the mother's life is saved.

Another instance might be where the mother has uterine cancer and will die unless surgery to remove the tumour goes ahead. Say there are only two kinds of surgery that could go ahead: the first one being less effective in stopping the cancer but keeping the baby alive; the second being more effective in getting rid of the cancer but indirectly causing the death of the baby. The final decision is left with the mother, she chooses the more thorough surgery, and the baby dies.
Again, in such a case, no one is directly to blame for the baby's death and the mother's life is saved.

One case where the mother decided not to have the surgery that would indirectly result in her daughter's death is that of the Italian Gianna Molla, canonised by the Church in 2004. She died in the early sixties. I'm sure there are secular websites which mention her too.

All in all, indirect abortion is not the same as direct/deliberate abortion because the Principle of Double Effect comes into play in the former case.

(Man...how long have I spent typing this?!)

In the second example you gave, the mother would have died by the time she got permission from the courts to make a choice as our governments have failed to put the necessary legislation in place.

Godge

Deleted User wrote: »

No-one should have to go through that alone, especially if it's unplanned. There needs to be more support for women in such a situation. Perhaps a readjustment of funding would make it more bearable. (Though, yeah, I know, like the government is going to help out these women in these times...) Nonetheless, we are talking about another human life plus mother. Both ought to be protected.

Although going through nine months of pregnancy and labour may be a psychological burden for many women, there are also plenty of women in distress thanks to abortion. Granted, some women may not think much of hopping across the pond and having someone terminate the life of their embryos/foetuses. Maybe they'll regret it, maybe they won't. But many do. See Rachel's Vineyard and Silent No More.

I won't talk too much about what actually happens during an abortion in this post: you probably know that it's a living horror-movie of a procedure. In that sense, women might get some relief/solace from going through labour as opposed to an abortion, since labour gives something where abortion takes it away for good.

Nothing that I've written is intended to belittle labour or be condescending to any woman who has had an abortion. I believe women need help one way or the other, whether going through pregnancy or after an abortion.

Personally, I oppose abortion.

However, I do not believe that I or others can dictate to women what they can or cannot choose. Yes, women need support if they become pregnant in a vulnerable situation (very young, as a result of rape, in an abusive relationship) but that help should come with options. Those options include adoption, keeping the child and regrettably abortion. It is not for me or anyone else to judge those who choose abortions. For those who do make that choice, it is not a matter of "hopping across the pond".

Nine months of pregnancy can be more than a psychological burden, it can scar young children (12-year old girls are children) for life. If they choose a path with a lesser psychological burden for them, so be it.

I take it from your posts that you are male like me, or at the very least have not experienced pregnancy as a mother or a father. I have children and I know what could be lost but I also know that a pregnancy is not something to be taken lightly. Termination can be the right thing for a woman/girl at the right time. Even if it is not something I would be in favour of.

Min

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Adulthood only exists because of childhood. Does that give children all the rights of adults?

It shows you can't disregard certain life because it is at a different stage of development.

Jackovarian

Labour - Abortion...

Kind of opposites I would imagine

Sharrow

Sharrow wrote: »

Like the Magdalene laundries?

No. Women with unplanned pregnacies should be supported wherever they are presently - though if they need to get out of there (e.g., an abusive home), they should be given a safe place to stay. If that means bed and board, fine. As long as it's a world apart from the Magdalene laundries.

Sharrow

Sharrow wrote: »

Medically and Legally they do not cause an abortion as a woman is not considered to be pregnant until the zygote as implanted. What ever your spiritual/religious personal beliefs are that is the medical and legal stance in this country.

When the zygote implants then it causes changes to the woman's physiology (specifically the generation of the HGC hormone) and then she is pregnant. Many women ovulate and conception occurs and the body rejects the zygote and those women are not at any stage considered to be pregnant.

You are wrong medically and legally to be referring to the oral contraceptive pill, the morning after pill, the IUS, implannon, contraceptive patch, contraceptive injection and the nuvaring as abortifacients when they are not.

As it stands a woman only miscarries up until 22 weeks, it is only after that it is considered a still birth and a birth and death cert issued and a woman can then go on maternity leave. So it is not the loss of a human being recognised by the state until 22 weeks of pregnancy.

Thank you for writing. I still do find it very odd that pregnancy is medically defined as commencing when implantation occurs when a new life has already come into being days earlier. Not only a new life, but an entire blueprint for the baby's sex, skin/hair/eye colour, fingerprints... My faith aside, it just doesn't make sense to me.

Morag

A seed is not a tree.

Deleted User wrote: »

No. Women with unplanned pregnacies should be supported wherever they are presently - though if they need to get out of there (e.g., an abusive home), they should be given a safe place to stay. If that means bed and board, fine. As long as it's a world apart from the Magdalene laundries.

And what if they do not wish to endure the rigours of pregnancy?
What if they develop a life threatening condition like pre clampoisa?

annascott

Why all the fuss? Anyone would think that Labour were going to sanction mandatory terminations.

Termination is a necessary service for those who may need it. No one goes through it if they can avoid it. Research shows that it is psychologically damaging and can be painful too.

In the 'X' case, that poor child was put through undeniable horror by the state and press. Had her mother been brighter and more considerate of her daughters mental state and dignity, she would have taken her daughter to England, had the procedure done and allowed the little girl to recover and get on with the rest of her life without anyone knowing about it. Instead, she let the catholic church intervene.

I hope to never have the decision to make, but I know that if I had a young daughter or niece who needed help, I would encourage them to terminate and get on with their studies and careers before choosing to have a child at the right time. If Labour make it easier for a young girl to get herself out of trouble, so be it.

What do you want to do next? Ban the morning after pill perhaps?

AS

MalteseBarry

I suppose the really interesting observation is why anyone should be interested in anything these people at the grand sound "Iona Institute" have to say about anything. Yet, in here, it has already led to over 400 posts.

The best response to these sorts of people is to simply ignore them.

Ash.J.Williams

labour doing well, could be a FG Labour government....wahay abortions for all!

theg81der

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

labour doing well, could be a FG Labour government....wahay abortions for all!

Wow classy....

Nodin

theg81der wrote: »

Wow classy....

Yep - far better than the Free cheese, you have to admit.

K-9

theg81der wrote: »

Wow classy....

Whoosh!

theg81der

I`m sorry I had to check the top there for a minute...must be something worng with my netbook says this is GE not AH must be some mistake

K-9

theg81der wrote: »

I`m sorry I had to check the top there for a minute...must be something worng with my netbook says this is GE not AH must be some mistake

Sense of humour is an option in Politics!