Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

Rayne Wooney

kneemos wrote: »

Don't think what they say is incorrect,if the mothers life is at risk there can't be a time limit.

But isn't that the whole point of this? To stop what happened to Savita happening again?

I could be wrong.

pharmaton

kneemos wrote: »

Don't think what they say is incorrect,if the mothers life is at risk there can't be a time limit.

The way I read it is if birth is full term but the mothers life is at risk a medical abortion can be performed and if the fetus is viable it remains alive. (a onus to care)
If the child hasn't survived and is endangering the mothers life to carry full term then the above applies and the child would be stillborn anyway.

smileyj1987

Religion and Politics never go together well .

pharmaton

Ah and cop on don't really go well together

Swan Curry

Women's health and the patriarchy don't go well together either.

Eramen

Swan Curry wrote: »

Women's health and the patriarchy don't go well together either.

Logic and political feminism are polar opposites.

Sarky

Eramen wrote: »

Logic and political feminism are polar opposites.

Quoting this because, well, if you don't change it soon I'm going to have an interesting day's reading tomorrow.

krudler

smileyj1987 wrote: »

Religion and Politics never go together well .

No they got on too well over the years, thats the problem.

Swan Curry

Eramen wrote: »

Logic and political feminism are polar opposites.

Go on then buddy,please do tell me what's so illogical about feminism?

Laneyh

kneemos wrote: »

Don't think what they say is incorrect,if the mothers life is at risk there can't be a time limit.

I have only skim read a draft of the bill. Whilst it is true that if there is significant evidence that the woman's life is at risk a medical termination can be carried out this is obviously the extreme circumstance.

The posters and some of the statements by the pro-life camp make it sound like a bungee jump where you can change your mind up until the last minute no questions asked.

That is what I mean by misinformation -they are deliberately being sensationalist , emotive and oversimplifying the details of the bill.

jill_valentine

Laneyh wrote: »

I have only skim read a draft of the bill. Whilst it is true that if there is significant evidence that the woman's life is at risk a medical termination can be carried out this is obviously the extreme circumstance.

The posters and some of the statements by the pro-life camp make it sound like a bungee jump where you can change your mind up until the last minute no questions asked.

That is what I mean by misinformation -they are deliberately being sensationalist , emotive and oversimplifying the details of the bill.

Quiet you. Something something Kermit Gosnell something something!

Laneyh

jill_valentine wrote: »

Quiet you. Something something Kermit Gosnell something something!

http://youtu.be/8ngGlPoI1vw

pharmaton

*applies to become a fapstronaut

Swan Curry

Eramen wrote: »

One can only wonder in what ways you will manage to break new ground in blaming religion for all of life's problems on the 'morrow, but I don't doubt that you will succeed.

Yet I've no interest in debating of how empowering a small clique of radical political feminists and their ideology, at the expense of the rest of society, is somehow fair or sensible.

Right,so you can't explain why feminism is apparently illogical,but don't worry mate,I'll just take your word for it.

By the way,nobody's trying to blame religion for all life's problems,we're just hoping that one day they'll take responsibility for the multitudes of problems that are their fault.I don't see why they're afraid to take responsibility,God will forgive them no matter what they did,and surely that's all that matters,right?

who is this

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

But isn't that the whole point of this? To stop what happened to Savita happening again?

I could be wrong.

Unfortunately it won't.

It is a step in the right direction, but doesn't address what happened.

As she was miscarrying for all those hours, she was at risk of infection (for obvious reasons which I won't go into detail on). However, risk of infection ≠ risk to life (what this bill addresses).

The problem is that once sepsis sets in, there is a substantial risk to the life of the mother, but an abortion will no longer save her, since she has already become infected.

The fact that risk to health is not sufficient (constitutionally) is hugely problematic, since, as with Savita's case, once it became a risk to her life, the abortion was no longer of any use. Whereas had it been carried out while it was only a risk to her health, it is very possible she would not have become septic in the first place.

If they included a provision for the termination of a pregnancy already in miscarriage, that would help. I don't know that it would be constitutional, but the State would have a decent argument: you cannot protect the life of the "unborn" in such a case, because a miscarriage has already begun, and the mother's right to life should therefore include protection of health since the foetus is already no longer viable. On balance, protecting the foetus in such instances serves no legitimate purpose, even in the context of its constitutional "right to life", because its potential for life is already forlorn.

Not saying that argument would fly legally, but it is logically sound.

But they'd want to put it in a separate bill (as they would if they were to try to provide for fatal abnormalities) in case it's struck down.

For as much misinformation as the "pro-life" campaign propagate, they are (IMO) correct in saying the bill would not have saved Ms. Halappanavar, but not for the reasons they claim.

Carlos Orange

Sarky wrote: »

Quoting this because, well, if you don't change it soon I'm going to have an interesting day's reading tomorrow.

Seems unlikely. Probably just a thread full of the patriarchy,mansplaining and whataboutery.

Eramen

pharmaton wrote: »

*applies to become a fapstronaut

Thus begins a great journey!

*Salutations and success*

Mrs W

As a woman who has lost 2 babies and now has a 5 month old I'm concerned about the time limits.
I can live with abortion in cases where lives are at risk, I have a friend who carried her baby to 8 months knowing that it would never live and I have another one who travelled because she couldn't bear to stay pregnant any longer, the baby she had longed for, for so long wasn't going to be hers.

I had the delight of seeing my baby's heartbeat at 6+4 and I don't mean to be sexist but men just can't possibly understand what it is to go through losing a baby

who is this

Mrs W wrote: »

I had the delight of seeing my baby's heartbeat at 6+4 and I don't mean to be sexist but men just can't possibly understand what it is to go through losing a baby

That is sexist.

To suggest that a man cannot understand what it is like to lose a baby, only makes sense if you mean to say a man cannot lose a baby.

A man cannot miscarry. A man can lose a baby.

Laneyh

Mrs W wrote: »

As a woman who has lost 2 babies and now has a 5 month old I'm concerned about the time limits.
I can live with abortion in cases where lives are at risk, I have a friend who carried her baby to 8 months knowing that it would never live and I have another one who travelled because she couldn't bear to stay pregnant any longer, the baby she had longed for, for so long wasn't going to be hers.

I had the delight of seeing my baby's heartbeat at 6+4 and I don't mean to be sexist but men just can't possibly understand what it is to go through losing a baby

I wouldn't worry about being sexist nobody else does. Congratulations on your baby joy.

From what I can see this bill is primarily to offer an option in a fairly defined set of circumstances. I don't see that it will result in lots of late term abortions by women who simply don't wish to go through with their pregnancy.

There are bound to still be grey areas and I think the Government are only going as far as they need to - not doing anything groundbreaking.

It would be great if it could be discussed and assessed reasonably and in consultation with women such as yourself and your friends. Instead, extremes on both sides hijack the debate and turn it into hysterical mud flinging

When agreeing more general terms for abortion it is absolutely vital to understand the stages of development from foetus to tiny human.

However, having the option there in cases where the baby isn't viable or the mother is at grave risk doesn't seem like a threat to me - more of a necessity.

I dislike the depiction of women as unthinking emotional wrecks at best and cold blooded murderers at worst that this debate and surrounding campaigns seems to conjure up.

pharmaton

who is this wrote: »

To suggest that a man cannot understand what it is like to lose a baby, only makes sense if you mean to say a man cannot lose a baby.

thanks for clarifying that for us.

errlloyd

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/06/27/opposite-the-dublin-rape-crisis-centre/?fb_source

Has anyone got an ad truck I can borrow, need to place some pictures of men kissing outside the IONA institute.

SEPT 23 1989

they really are dangerous headcases

kneemos

I don't get they're ad campaigne it's not up to the public it's purely a political decision.

rainbow kirby

Absolute scum.

Celly Smunt

They remind me of Dana.

iDave

Before you know it they'll be waving 'God Hates Ireland' placards and picketing soldiers funerals.

Celly Smunt

iDave wrote: »

picketing soldiers funerals.

We have an army?

Anyone

pmcmahon wrote: »

We have an army?

More than one!

RiverOfLove

errlloyd wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/06/27/opposite-the-dublin-rape-crisis-centre/?fb_source

Has anyone got an ad truck I can borrow, need to place some pictures of men kissing outside the IONA institute.

What happened here? I can't read that page because I'm on an old mobile.