Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
I thought you might. I was hoping you also notice the huge difference in scale between that and your "ombudsman for everything" idea. (IIRC, at one point there was such a committee for all abortions. This was abandoned as it led to unmanageable workload and undue delay.)I agree with the most of your points in that post, and the idea of the Swedish style "central committee" acting as referee is a good one.
You're very quick to tell people how bold people should be with their liberty and career based on fast and loose assessments of the law on your own part. I think most docs would see this possible sequence of events as pretty disastrous well before it gets to the "them being in jail for 14 years" part.When I said it would have been "unlikely" that the DPP would have initiated a prosecution if someone erred low, that in itself would not have constituted a disaster for the doctor. The prosecution would have to succeed, and most of the evidence would come from the medical team that was being accused. They would more or less have to admit that they aborted even when they believed there was little risk of death to the mother, and in doing so disregarded the rights of the foetus.
There is in fact a huge difference now, after the PoLDPA legislation. You and the ECHR would again sharply differ in your assessment.There is not a huge difference in principle now, after the PoLDPA legislation.
This is distinctly muddled. At no point (before or after the PoLDPDA) has "substantial" ever been defined. Earlier I was putting to you what it might have meant, in the context of the 8th and otherwise, but as I expressly said, the whole problem is that one person could have one opinion, another person another, and one of them could go to jail on the basis of that difference. And as the ECHR found, that legal uncertainty had a chilling effect.The way the risk of death to the mother was expressed that time in terms of "percentage threat" (and any resultant mathematical juggling) could now be be replaced with the statement "an opinion was formed in good faith which had regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable" led to the decision to terminate/abort. Then accompany that with some medical evidence showing that the risk was real, and that the abortion was the reasonable way to neutralise the risk. That now constitutes a robust legal defence.The wording of the PoLDPA allows for a medical opinion (or 2 or 3 specialist expert opinions depending on the situation and level of emergency) having due regard to the right to life of the unborn, and "made in good faith" to be an acceptable defence, without necessarily going into percentages.
Now, the person making the decision and the person on the hypothetical jury don't have to agree after the fact on the meaning of "substantial". The second simply has to find that the later's understanding wasn't made in bad faith. That's massively different.
Plus, as the ECHR judgement also criticised, before there was no formal procedure for making the decision: each doc was flying by the seat of their pants, from moment to moment. Now there is.
Together these are sufficient for the closure of the previously-open judgement in C case, which is a large enough difference to be going along with, surely.0 -
Normally the "office of ombudman" contains more than one person; there can be various specialists employed within. I was just hoping you would acknowledge we had that much common ground.alaimacerc wrote: »I thought you might. I was hoping you also notice the huge difference in scale between that and your "ombudsman for everything" idea.
Again, that's more or less what I already said, put into different words, and with a different conclusion.alaimacerc wrote: »Now, the person making the decision and the person on the hypothetical jury don't have to agree after the fact on the meaning of "substantial". The second simply has to find that the later's understanding wasn't made in bad faith. That's massively different.
Its not a "massively different" situation because prior to legislative reform the level of judged medical risk was to be based on a diagnosis made originally by the accused. In the newer situation, it is also the diagnosis of the accused that counts.0 -
The word "committee" very much does. And as I said, it wasn't practical for just abortions, even for a smallish country like Sweden. Much less for your "all medical stuff" thought.Normally the "office of ombudman" contains more than one person; there can be various specialists employed within. I was just hoping you would acknowledge we had that much common ground.
Obviously you can have it in commission, but then you're immediately getting away from the idea of a single decision-making body ensuring some ideal of strict consistency.
The "different words" would be evidence supporting the "different conclusion".Again, that's more or less what I already said, put into different words, and with a different conclusion.
Its not a "massively different" situation because prior to legislative reform the level of judged medical risk was to be based on a diagnosis made originally by the accused. In the newer situation, it is also the diagnosis of the accused that counts.
Previously, if one person thought "substantial" meant 1%, and another thought "substantial" meant 50%, one of them might be going to jail. (Or facing a medical negligence or fitness to practice hearing.) Now, that's entirely obviated.
Previously, the country was found to be in material breach of the European Convention of Human Rights by the highest court making such determinations. Now, we're at least technically compliant. (Say that three times fast before the next case with somewhat different scope comes along, mind you.)
Those seem to be pretty compelling differences, set against your appeals to incidental similarities.0 -
Which disasters is it creating?
You may not think a law which ands up having a suicidal woman made the object of a forced sedation and hydration order and medically unwarranted surgery resulting in a probably disabled child are disasters. I do.
Similarly, you may not think that leaving a fetus inside a rotting corpse because the law is unclear about whether her family's wishes and the medical advice may be followed without risking a prison term. I do.0 -
You may not think a law which ands up having a suicidal woman made the object of a forced sedation and hydration order and medically unwarranted surgery resulting in a probably disabled child are disasters. I do.
Similarly, you may not think that leaving a fetus inside a rotting corpse because the law is unclear about whether her family's wishes and the medical advice may be followed without risking a prison term. I do.
Recedite, recall, doesn't believe those aren't "unfortunate" occurrences. It's just that he thinks they're not caused by the 8th. Rather, they're caused by doctors being lying, incompetent cowards, by families being rash litigants and foolishly not trusting in doctors being infallible, brave, and wise (some moderate compartmentalisation between these required, perhaps), and whatever other rationale is required taking the correctness of the constitution as axiomatic.0 -
Advertisement
-
Don't you think that was caused by someone (allegedly) raping the woman? You did say caused, didn't you? Only I don't think the sequence of events was precipitated by the PoLDPA; just the (quite late in the sequence) part which provided the woman with a termination of her pregnancy. You can't realistically say that the PoLDPA caused the situation, only that it provided a resolution you disagreed with.You may not think a law which ands up having a suicidal woman made the object of a forced sedation and hydration order and medically unwarranted surgery resulting in a probably disabled child are disasters. I do.
Similarly, the PoLDPA didn't cause the situation; it was the mothers illness. We can be pretty certain that without the PoLDPA both mother and child would still have died.Similarly, you may not think that leaving a fetus inside a rotting corpse because the law is unclear about whether her family's wishes and the medical advice may be followed without risking a prison term. I do.
This need to attribute every bad thing to the legislation you so abhor really does nothing for your argument; if these events are why you think the legislation should be opposed, and it quite obviously isn't the cause of the events, then there's a good reason to oppose repealing the legislation.0 -
-
I didn't think the offerings on this thread could get more ridiculous than some of them already are, but Absolam, you've done it with that last post!0
-
You might as well blame the woman for ovulating. Or blame her for being born. How far back do you want to go?
First cause, therefore all g-d's fault!
Software version control "blamemaps", Buddhist primary and secondary conditioning, or the Road Traffic Unit's "last reasonable chance to prevent" would all be more sophisticated analyses. (To put that very mildly indeed.)0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
.0
-
Of course, dismissing your own caricature of an argument isn't quite the same as dismissing the actual argument...alaimacerc wrote: »Recedite, recall, doesn't believe those aren't "unfortunate" occurrences. It's just that he thinks they're not caused by the 8th. Rather, they're caused by doctors being lying, incompetent cowards, by families being rash litigants and foolishly not trusting in doctors being infallible, brave, and wise (some moderate compartmentalisation between these required, perhaps), and whatever other rationale is required taking the correctness of the constitution as axiomatic.0 -
I don't know... but only going back as far as the bit you don't like and claiming it was the cause does seem a little disingenuous. But for the sake of your point, I don't think the fact that she was ovulating caused the (alleged) rape. I don't think most posters will accept the notion that the fact that she was female caused the rape, and many posters would object to the notion to the fact that the alleged perpetrator was male caused him to be a rapist. So I'm open to suggestions as to an acceptable cause of events prior to the alleged rape; I don't see any substantial argument for the PoLDPA being the cause of events. Alaimacercs esoterical ramblings probably need a little fleshing out before we consider them.You might as well blame the woman for ovulating. Or blame her for being born. How far back do you want to go?0 -
I don't know... but only going back as far as the bit you don't like and claiming it was the cause does seem a little disingenuous. But for the sake of your point, I don't think the fact that she was ovulating caused the (alleged) rape. I don't think most posters will accept the notion that the fact that she was female caused the rape, and many posters would object to the notion to the fact that the alleged perpetrator was male caused him to be a rapist. So I'm open to suggestions as to an acceptable cause of events prior to the alleged rape; I don't see any substantial argument for the PoLDPA being the cause of events. Alaimacercs esoterical ramblings probably need a little fleshing out before we consider them.
The rape caused her pregnancy.
The Irish constitution caused the rest.
Proof : if she'd claimed asylum in the UK she'd have had an abortion. Or if she'd been one of our resident pro-lifers' daughters she'd no doubt have decided that being pregnant was just sitting around for a few months, so she'd have continued the pregnancy. But the rapists' actions would still have been the same.
OK?0 -
So in short... the rape caused the disaster. Unless you imagine that the disaster was simply that she didn't get to have an abortion (a rather narrow view, but nonetheless..), which is of course a different thing entirely.The rape caused her pregnancy. The Irish constitution caused the rest. Proof : if she'd claimed asylum in the UK she'd have had an abortion. Or if she'd been one of our resident pro-lifers' daughters she'd no doubt have decided that being pregnant was just sitting around for a few months, so she'd have continued the pregnancy. But the rapists' actions would still have been the same. OK?0 -
So in short... the rape caused the disaster. Unless you imagine that the disaster was simply that she didn't get to have an abortion (a rather narrow view, but nonetheless..), which is of course a different thing entirely.
Separate question, we aren't responsible for the things we have no control over. All our country could do was take the situation as we found it, and try to help.
Instead our laws made it infinitely worse for her. She wasn't suicidal after the rape, not even the minute she discovered she was pregnant, she became suicidal because of what happened to her after that. And the rapists didn't do any of that.0 -
I don't think it can reasonably be said that we (as a country) didn't try to help, only that the help this country offers in this situation is not the help she wanted.Separate question, we aren't responsible for the things we have no control over. All our country could do was take the situation as we found it, and try to help.
She did, didn't she? She became suicidal when she discovered that the only was to obtain the specific help she wanted was to be suicidal. It wasn't the help she was offered that made her suicidal, it wasn't the PoLDPA that made her suicidal; it was the fact that being suicidal was the only route to the solution she wanted that made her suicidal. That wasn't caused by the PoLDPA; if anything the PoLDPA became a means to her end (even if it still didn't work out the way she wanted).Instead our laws made it infinitely worse for her. She wasn't suicidal after the rape, not even the minute she discovered she was pregnant, she became suicidal because of what happened to her after that. And the rapists didn't do any of that.
Anyway, the case has been well rehearsed on the thread; it certainly didn't begin with the PoLDPA so you can't really claim it was one of the disasters 'caused' by the PoLDPA.0 -
You need to read what you are reduced to implying about a victim of rape, it is disgusting. I've cut out the worst of it before replying.I don't think it can reasonably be said that we (as a country) didn't try to help, only that the help this country offers in this situation is not the help she wanted.
I've also reported it.0 -
As you say; there's nothing I've said (and I implied nothing at all) that wasn't already recited in the facts about the case. The young woman was clear from the outset about what she wanted.You need to read what you are reduced to implying about a victim of rape, it is disgusting. I've cut out the worst of it before replying. I've also reported it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why don't you lay off your "disgusting" accusations; they are not constructive.You need to read what you are reduced to implying about a victim of rape, it is disgusting. I've cut out the worst of it before replying.
I've also reported it.
And reporting other posters because they have a different opinion about a topic to yours is pointless. Freedom of speech is a big thing thing in this forum.0 -
-
And yet had she been free to travel she would have been encouraged to go to the UK and have an abortion there. (In fact I think she did travel but was refused entry.) Ireland simply doesn't want abortions performed here, we are perfectly happy, it seems, to allow abortions as along as you travel a short distance.I don't think it can reasonably be said that we (as a country) didn't try to help, only that the help this country offers in this situation is not the help she wanted.She did, didn't she? She became suicidal when she discovered that the only was to obtain the specific help she wanted was to be suicidal. It wasn't the help she was offered that made her suicidal, it wasn't the PoLDPA that made her suicidal; it was the fact that being suicidal was the only route to the solution she wanted that made her suicidal. That wasn't caused by the PoLDPA; if anything the PoLDPA became a means to her end (even if it still didn't work out the way she wanted).
Anyway, the case has been well rehearsed on the thread; it certainly didn't begin with the PoLDPA so you can't really claim it was one of the disasters 'caused' by the PoLDPA.
And your solution is, as always, to continue the pregnancy, regardless of the effect on the mental and physical well-being of the woman. It's this attitude to women that is the real cause of the problem, IMO.0 -
That's a pretty tired argument at this stage, however, it seems to me that those who would encourage her to travel to the UK for an abortion are those who would want her to be able to have an abortion here as well. Pro choice rhetoric aside, I haven't noticed too many people who oppose abortion in Ireland encouraging people to have abortions in the UK.And yet had she been free to travel she would have been encouraged to go to the UK and have an abortion there. (In fact I think she did travel but was refused entry.) Ireland simply doesn't want abortions performed here, we are perfectly happy, it seems, to allow abortions as along as you travel a short distance.
Gosh no. I never even suggested, never mind said, that that was my 'solution'. As I've pointed out to Lazygal, I don't see any obligation to provide a 'solution' for people who don't want to be pregnant. I do see an obligation to provide appropriate medical care for people with medical problems, which is a different matter, but it's nice to know that you disagree with Volchista and don't think it's the PoLDPA that's the real cause of the problem.And your solution is, as always, to continue the pregnancy, regardless of the effect on the mental and physical well-being of the woman. It's this attitude to women that is the real cause of the problem, IMO.0 -
That's a pretty tired argument at this stage, however, it seems to me that those who would encourage her to travel to the UK for an abortion are those who would want her to be able to have an abortion here as well.
Tired it may be, but it's never been adequately refuted either. It illustrates the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the legal position which is causing so many problems.Pro choice rhetoric aside, I haven't noticed too many people who oppose abortion in Ireland encouraging people to have abortions in the UK.
But nor do they jump up and down demanding it should be illegal to travel either, do they? It's far too convenient in case they ever need an abortion themselves.Gosh no. I never even suggested, never mind said, that that was my 'solution'. As I've pointed out to Lazygal, I don't see any obligation to provide a 'solution' for people who don't want to be pregnant. I do see an obligation to provide appropriate medical care for people with medical problems, which is a different matter, but it's nice to know that you disagree with Volchista and don't think it's the PoLDPA that's the real cause of the problem.
Actually, what I was implying, is that the continue-the-pregnancy-at-all-costs attititude is a root cause: it's the reason we have section 40.3.3, it's the reason the PoLDPA is unfit for purpose, it's the reason we're having this debate in the first place. Some people refuse to accept that abortion can be a normal medical procedure in a modern civilised country.0 -
Probably because it has never actually been adequately made? Of course, it has been repeated over and over like a religious mantra, but it's not like one person has come forward to say 'Yes, I want no abortion where I live but I'd like it nearby where sufficiently wealthy people can access it, and that's how I voted'. It's still just a comforting fiction for the pro abortion crowd to justify an entire country not voting how they wanted; the entire country must be pathological hypocrites. Apart from those who voted against the 8th. Who were in a minority.Tired it may be, but it's never been adequately refuted either. It illustrates the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the legal position which is causing so many problems.
And we've been there over and over again as well. Nobody has to demand we make travel illegal in order to agree we shoudl keep abortion illegal; it's as nonsensical an extrapolation as if you want abortion, you must want to abort all babies. I know it's hard to imagine that someone you disagree with can actually hold a slightly more complicated point of view than the one you want them to, but it's a lot more than likely than they are all pathological hypocrites dedicated to making abortion easy for the wealthy.But nor do they jump up and down demanding it should be illegal to travel either, do they? It's far too convenient in case they ever need an abortion themselves.
A root cause of what exactly? If it's the disasters caused by the PoLDPA as Volchista is asserting, then you can't really have it both ways; either the PoLDPA is the cause, or the nebulous continue the pregnancy at all costs attitude (are you assuming that all your putative hypocrites have this attitude, or just a select and powerful few?) is the cause.Actually, what I was implying, is that the continue-the-pregnancy-at-all-costs attititude is a root cause: it's the reason we have section 40.3.3, it's the reason the PoLDPA is unfit for purpose, it's the reason we're having this debate in the first place. Some people refuse to accept that abortion can be a normal medical procedure in a modern civilised country.
Anyway, I don't think it's the reason we have the 8th Amendment; I'm pretty sure we have that because we all agreed we wanted the protection of the life of the born placed beyond amendment by legislation.
I don't think it's why we have the PoLDPA; we have that because the government got around to putting proper legislation defining obligations under the 8th in place as demanded by the European Courts (and everyone else, in fairness, probably even the hypocrites with attitudes). Legislation which determines when abortion can be a normal medical procedure in this modern civilised country, and so far it does seem quite fit for purpose. At least no court has struck it down yet.0 -
[...]it's not like one person has come forward to say 'Yes, I want no abortion where I live but I'd like it nearby where sufficiently wealthy people can access it, and that's how I voted'.
Of course not. But the current constitution is the result of a bizarre tug-of-war caused by referenda results reflecting changing opinions on abortion.
The constitution aims to make all abortion impossible except in extremely limited circumstances, based on the 8th amendment. However later we got constitutional protection not just for travel to abort, but for information on how to do so. Maybe we can't control laws in other jurisdictions, but we could easily ban information on abortion, and we could also (if we were really so anti-abortion) make it a crime to have an abortion overseas, with possible legal sanctions back in Ireland. But we don't. We don't want to.
There are many thousands of Irish women having "on demand" abortions abroad every year. I have yet to hear any mainstream group demand that these women should be criminalised, in fact the opposite would appear to be the case.
So yes, legally, Ireland has a hypocritical and inconsistent attitude to abortion.It's still just a comforting fiction for the pro abortion crowd to justify an entire country not voting how they wanted; the entire country must be pathological hypocrites. Apart from those who voted against the 8th. Who were in a minority.
The 8th passed by 67%. I'm pretty convinced that were the same referendum to be offered to the people today, it would definitely be defeated. Let's not confuse the will of the people in 1983 with the will of the people today.And we've been there over and over again as well. Nobody has to demand we make travel illegal in order to agree we should keep abortion illegal; it's as nonsensical an extrapolation as if you want abortion, you must want to abort all babies. I know it's hard to imagine that someone you disagree with can actually hold a slightly more complicated point of view than the one you want them to, but it's a lot more than likely than they are all pathological hypocrites dedicated to making abortion easy for the wealthy.
It's nonsensical to enshrine constitutional protection for the unborn yet also enshrine constitutional protection for a legal loophole that allows those same abortions to go ahead, a few miles away. Pretending to have a more sophisticated and complex way of looking at it doesn't make it any less crazy.
Why abortion abroad is really such a non-issue, when abortion within the country is such a big deal, is simply one of those questions that keeps coming up because it is such a glaring inconsistency for those who pretend that it's all about protecting the unborn.A root cause of what exactly? If it's the disasters caused by the PoLDPA as Volchista is asserting, then you can't really have it both ways; either the PoLDPA is the cause, or the nebulous continue the pregnancy at all costs attitude (are you assuming that all your putative hypocrites have this attitude, or just a select and powerful few?) is the cause.
I don't think you understand the concept of root cause, or else you are willfully pretending not to.Anyway, I don't think it's the reason we have the 8th Amendment; I'm pretty sure we have that because we all agreed we wanted the protection of the life of the born placed beyond amendment by legislation.
Agreed, that was the intention, but I disagree strongly that we all wanted that. One in three people voted against it. In 1983. What do you think the numbers today would be?I don't think it's why we have the PoLDPA; we have that because the government got around to putting proper legislation defining obligations under the 8th in place as demanded by the European Courts (and everyone else, in fairness, probably even the hypocrites with attitudes). Legislation which determines when abortion can be a normal medical procedure in this modern civilised country, and so far it does seem quite fit for purpose. At least no court has struck it down yet.
The government could have drafted the PoLDPA in a number of ways, they chose the most limited and restrictive options available to them. Partly because they are still trying to prevent any abortions at all ever happening, rather than actually dealing with what would really be medical best practice.
The only sense in which the PoLDPA is fit for purpose is from the perspective of hardcore pro-lifers.
Never mind the fact that women themselves seem to be excluded from huge and important decisions about their own bodies.
Nowhere in the current constitution or legislation does the woman involved ever get a say as to what happens. Decisions with massive impact on her life and health are made by doctors, lawyers, judges, but never by the women themselves. That is another reason why this birth-at-all-costs attitude is anti-woman, it really is (to use another tired but true cliché) treating women as incubators, incubators who cannot be trusted to make their own decisions.0 -
...somebody isn't getting enough attention.
"Archbishop Eamon Martin has said that Stormont has excluded pro-life arguments in its consultation on abortion law changes.
Northern Ireland's Justice Minister David Ford has recommended that abortions should be allowed where the foetus has a lethal abnormality,
The department has begun a public consultation on amending the criminal law on abortion.
"Archbishop Eamon Martin said: "I want to bring to your attention a consultation document which proposes that totally innocent and terminally ill babies in the womb will no longer have an absolute right to life, nor the right to all the care and medical support that we would expect and wish for any child or adult who is terminally ill."
......................................................................
"Mr Ford said he was making a strong recommendation for legislation to allow an abortion in circumstances where there is no prospect of the foetus being delivered and having a viable life."
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0111/671840-archbishop-claims-ni-pro-life-views-excluded/0 -
You are incorrect on 2 (well, one and a half at least) of your points there;Actually, what I was implying, is that the continue-the-pregnancy-at-all-costs attititude is a root cause: it's the reason we have section 40.3.3, it's the reason the PoLDPA is unfit for purpose, it's the reason we're having this debate in the first place. Some people refuse to accept that abortion can be a normal medical procedure in a modern civilised country.
1. The situation with this particular girl is that she wanted an abortion on suicide grounds, and indeed genuine suicidal ideation was identified by 2 psychiatrists, as per the legislation. Therefore it was decided the pregnancy should be terminated which was fully in accordance with the law. If it had been the case that aborting was the only way to save save the girl, an abortion would have been carried out. But the 3rd specialist opinion, the obstetrician, said the pregnancy could be terminated by delivering the baby early, and that's what happened.
2. If she had been let into the UK, there is no guarantee she would have got an abortion there, because a late term abortion is not a normal medical procedure in a modern civilised country. Even in the UK abortion after 24 weeks is very restricted, and this baby was delivered alive and well AFAIK in Ireland at 25 weeks.
As you only said "abortion is normal.." and not "late-term abortion is normal.." we'll count that as being half right.0 -
Advertisement
-
What's bizarre about holding a referendum to ascertain the changing opinion of the people? Is that not democracy?But the current constitution is the result of a bizarre tug-of-war caused by referenda results reflecting changing opinions on abortion.
Two referendums were held since the x case which tried to roll back the threat of suicide being used as a reason for abortion, and both were defeated. So the govt. was required to legislate for the x-case judgement, and there was very little choice for the legislation other than in the details.The government could have drafted the PoLDPA in a number of ways, they chose the most limited and restrictive options available to them. Partly because they are still trying to prevent any abortions at all ever happening, rather than actually dealing with what would really be medical best practice.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement