Health committee hearings on legislating for abortion.

B0jangles

I'm watching right now and the thought that keeps popping into my head is how much today's group is men talking to men to decide about an issue which only directly affects women.

lazygal

I'm getting really insulted by the religious groups. They basically think my uterus should be subject to what their gods believe in, regardless of what's right for me or my family. They think my health should be forced to be compromised if I'm pregnant and I should have to give birth, regardless of any other health implications during or after pregnancy. And I find that horrifying. I also find it even more horrifying that the male dominated parliaments sees fit to invite men holding such views to have a public platform in a State building.

loveisdivine

lazygal wrote: »

I'm getting really insulted by the religious groups. They basically think my uterus should be subject to what their gods believe in, regardless of what's right for me or my family. They think my health should be forced to be compromised if I'm pregnant and I should have to give birth, regardless of any other health implications during or after pregnancy. And I find that horrifying. I also find it even more horrifying that the male dominated parliaments sees fit to invite men holding such views to have a public platform in a State building.

But you're creating magical baybeeees!!! The "miracle" that is human life!

lazygal

loveisdivine wrote: »

But you're creating magical baybeeees!!! The "miracle" that is human life!

I've had a baby. And there was nothing remotely magical about months of morning sickness, complications and a c section. Those men can fup off, the way they dismiss the reality of pregnancy like its nothing to worry about.

krudler

Why are so many religiously biased speakers even on this? As if the RCC are anyone to be talking about the welfare of children. and Youth Defence? ha, if you're a fetus you're more important than a living person, once you're born? don't want to know about you.

Morag

All the abrahmic faiths have reps, Sunni Islam, orthodox Jewish, catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, roman catholic and Methodist and athiest Ireland are there.

No one from the Hindu communities of which Savita was a member or Buddhist or pagan.

rainbow kirby

krudler wrote: »

Why are so many religiously biased speakers even on this? As if the RCC are anyone to be talking about the welfare of children. and Youth Defence? ha, if you're a fetus you're more important than a living person, once you're born? don't want to know about you.

I think that could probably be blamed on FG choosing the speakers so that they can hear what they want to hear.

Absolute disgrace that YD are there, why should an organisation that's almost entirely US-funded get a say here?

seamus

krudler wrote: »

Why are so many religiously biased speakers even on this? As if the RCC are anyone to be talking about the welfare of children. and Youth Defence? ha, if you're a fetus you're more important than a living person, once you're born? don't want to know about you.

To be fair, they have divided the discussion into various "themes", day one being medical, day two being legal. Day 3 is supposed to be "moral", but it's such an emotive and subjective topic that I think it's a complete waste of time.

The committee has been convened in order to best determine how the legislation should be framed. The discussion about whether legislation is required, is over. Legislation is required and is going to be created.

So the time for hearing moral arguments is over, today is a complete waste of time. All you're hearing is opinion from people who have no medical or legal qualifications to assist in drafting this legislation.

There's also a problem that despite day one being the day for professional medical opinions, they allowed unqualified speakers such as Patricia Casey to speak. She should have been asked to speak today. Yesterday was supposed to be legal, but a committee member allowed himself to stray into moral territory when asking questions.

Morag

And the last statement was left to the RC bishop who said it's not an abortion if it's a procedure which saves a woman's life and there is no need to legislate for abortion/

/headdesk.

krudler

Morag wrote: »

And the last statement was left to the RC bishop who said it's not an abortion if it's a procedure which saves a woman's life and there is no need to legislate for abortion/

/headdesk.

Well that's cleared things up, thanks celibate virgin frock man! Silly women thinking they know what's best for themselves.

Morag

And now it's the pro life campaign, youth defense, life institute, mother and family and Iona institute. so many myths and lies and double speak.

krudler

Morag wrote: »

And now it's the pro life campaign, youth defense, life institute, mother and family and Iona institute. so many myths and lies and double speak.

all shady as hell too, US funded fundamentalist scumbags. Wouldnt surprise me if they just arrived on and shouted "baby!" while waving a stock image of a cute kid.

Hotblack Desiato

Didn't YD turn up at some Oireachtas committee meeting a few years ago, insult everyone and walk out?

Here's hoping they make fools of themselves again.

seamus

I wonder if Paddy Power are offering odds on one of these nutters pulling out a weapon and threatening everyone before being dragged outside.

kunst nugget

Morag wrote: »

And the last statement was left to the RC bishop who said it's not an abortion if it's a procedure which saves a woman's life and there is no need to legislate for abortion/

/headdesk.

A funny thing is that Catholic doctrine states that an unborn child cannot be directly aborted but the death of the baby must be an indirect result of an action to save a mother's life. So for instance, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy you can't use something like methotrexate or an incision in the fallopian tubes to remove the embryo as these are considered direct abortions. According to Catholic doctrine the only course of action morally permissible in this instance is to fully remove the fallopian tube as in this instance the death of the embryo is a foreseen but unintended consequence.

krudler

kunst nugget wrote: »

A funny thing is that Catholic doctrine states that an unborn child cannot be directly aborted but the death of the baby must be an indirect result of an action to save a mother's life. So for instance, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy you can't use something like methotrexate or an incision in the fallopian tubes to remove the embryo as these are considered direct abortions. According to Catholic doctrine the only course of action morally permissible in this instance is to fully remove the fallopian tube as in this instance the death of the embryo is a foreseen but unintended consequence.

Methotrexate is a abortifacient? Didn't know that, I take it for arthritis.

kunst nugget

krudler wrote: »

Methotrexate is a abortifacient? Didn't know that, I take it for arthritis.

Aye, it is indeed.

http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/mtxinfo.htm

hollypink

I see that at the hearing, the Bishop of Elphin called for another referendum on abortion to overturn the X case Supreme Court judgement. He is calling for it to give people a chance to reaffirm their views. Society has changed a lot since the last referendum so I wonder what the result of another referendum would be. My mum who is a devoted Catholic, marched with SPUC before the last referendum. But she said to me recently that maybe she has become too liberal because now she doesn't believe she has the right to dictate to anyone, her daughters included, about abortion.

meeeeh

Shouldn't separation of church and state mean that the churches can't influence legaslation?

Morag

It should do and it's been a slow process from the legalization of contraception in the mid 80s, the legislation of homosexuality and the right to divorce in the 90, it's slow hard work trying to undo the influence they have had.

Macha

meeeeh wrote: »

Shouldn't separation of church and state mean that the churches can't influence legaslation?

I think they should be given some status as an lobby group but perceived as that: a lobby group pushing their aims. They certainly shouldn't be given the sort of platform they were given today on this.

Why should they take up half a day out of 3 days of hearings? And Youth Defence, the Life Institute and Iona Institute are all lay arms of the religious groups. I see them as one and the same.

meeeeh

Macha wrote: »

I think they should be given some status as an lobby group but perceived as that: a lobby group pushing their aims. They certainly shouldn't be given the sort of platform they were given today on this.

Why should they take up half a day out of 3 days of hearings? And Youth Defence, the Life Institute and Iona Institute are all lay arms of the religious groups. I see them as one and the same.

I have no problem with looney bin organisations having their say but churches can have their opinion and they shouldn't be able to voice it in parlament unless it's directly about them (policy on schools for example).

sambuka41

Im glad that YD have been confronted about the billboards and their campaigning tactics Not that it will stop them from doing it

CroatoanCat

Yes, it's been depressing stuff. The usual suspects have lived up to their billing with the expected misinformation, hysteria and lack of empathy. Looking at the contributions by the likes of Senators Jim Walsh, Rónán Mullen, Paul Bradford et al, do we need any further impetus for the abolition of the Seanad?! Deputy Terence Flanagan has been a revelation, ranking right at the top surely for wilful hysteria-making and the use of absurdly emotive language.

Senator John Crown, on the other hand, has been extremely impressive. He rightly called Patricia Casey on the ludicrous premise that herc ontributions could be seen in any way as unbiased or worthy of serious consideration. See below:"I have several questions for Professor Casey. I accept her evidence that suicide in pregnancy is rare as extremely credible and entirely within her professional competence. Her statement that there is a lack of evidence that abortion will ever end a suicidal tendency in a pregnant woman and will never save her life is plausible but a little speculative. Does she believe that this set of circumstances has never happened and could never happen? If she believes it could happen even once, would she not, as a doctor, want the legislation in place to make sure womenare protected against that eventuality occurring, being cognisant of the fact that if suicide does occur, there will, according to the two-patient theory, be two deaths?

I apologise if I am being somewhat provocative in making my next point, and I apologise for no tbeing here for the entirety of Professor Casey's oral presentation. Her prepared statement alludes to the argument that there might be a floodgate phenomenon, that is, an abuse of the suicidal ideation clause in any abortion legislation. With great respect, this is entirely without her professional competence. It is not something she should be discussing because it is not something that is within her remit as a psychiatrist. It may bewithin the remit of those who look at sociological trends or of lawyers or forensic analysts of various kinds. It is not, however, something that a psychiatrist should be testifying about. In fact, that level of testimony would perhaps be more appropriately heard at the meeting on Thursday.

I also note that Professor Casey is an affiliate of an organisation which has a non-professional - entirely legitimate but non-professional - argument to advance on this issue."
On being cautioned by the Chairman, he responded: "I respect her opinion on matters related to psychiatry, but she has strayed outside that area of competence to comment on a broader social policy which is more relevant to her other affiliation."

And another beautiful intervention from him this morning:"I would also like each of our esteemed guests in turn to tell me on behalf of their organisations, the Roman Catholic Church,Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Methodism, Sunni Islam and Orthodox Judaism,whether a woman is allowed to rise to the top job in the organisation?"
Well, quite!!

Hotblack Desiato

meeeeh wrote: »

I have no problem with looney bin organisations having their say but churches can have their opinion and they shouldn't be able to voice it in parlament unless it's directly about them (policy on schools for example).

Education is supposed to be about children not churches.

Wibbs

CroatoanCat can we leave posts in the default font and size in future. It tends to interrupt the flow of a thread. Thanks.

CroatoanCat

Wibbs wrote: »

CroatoanCat can we leave posts in the default font and size in future. It tends to interrupt the flow of a thread. Thanks.

Sorry Wibbs, I copied stuff over from Word and it went all awry. Apologies.

B0jangles

Anyone else shocked at how much fewer of the committee are present to hear the statements from the pro-choice witnesses?

meeeeh

ninja900 wrote: »

Education is supposed to be about children not churches.

Ehm yes, thank you for pointing out the obvious. But I would also assume that everybody knows that most of the schools in this country are under patronage of churches and even if you want to take that away (which I do btw) the administrative issues should be talked trough with those that run schools - religious orders etc. Speaking of irrelevant stuff, what has who is in charge in the church to do with abortion debate. The whole third day waffle could be skipped.

Macha

Umm...I haven't watched the whole presentation by the pro-choice groups but I think they're coming across as too aggressive and confrontational. I know they're getting the most ridiculous response from some members of the Committee but this isn't about point-scoring, it's about changing people's minds.