Abortion Discussion

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Weasely words, if we are talking about absolute knowledge.
It may happen at some time in the future that medical technology will become available extending the human lifespan. And old Methy "might" have stumbled across a wormhole in time giving him access to this future science.
Personally, I don't believe it though. I believe his longevity was just a story made up by bronze age goatherds. Storytelling being an artful way of passing the time around the camp fire.

I'd say it's not quite as weasely as taking on the statement "I know that Methusaleh didn't live to be 969" and pretending to refute it by stating "you don't know how long he lived" (and I can't recall anyone saying we were talking about absolute knowledge). Cyrus of Persia might also have been a timetraveller, but science fiction probably isn't the best basis for determining what is and isn't factual.

robindch

Overheal wrote: »

So while short term measures may hiccup funding for Planned Parenthood, the federal government will jump in and rectify the issue.

A Comprehensive Guide To The Deceptively-Edited Videos Used Against Planned Parenthood

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/31/a-comprehensive-guide-to-the-deceptively-edited/205264

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Pope Frank has announced that he's going to decide that, for one year only, abortion is not as unforgivable as it used to be:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/pope-francis-to-allow-priests-to-forgive-abortion-1.2336167

Equally interestingly, Pope Frank has announced plans to make divorce more easily forgivable as well:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34185559

I wonder if we'll also see the Pope lobby the Oxford Dictionary for the definition of the word "Unyielding" (eg - Unyielding moral compass) to be re-written so as to include its antonym (a la 'literally').

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Equally interestingly, Pope Frank has announced plans to make divorce more easily forgivable as well:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34185559

The headline "Pope Francis has unveiled reforms intended to make it easier for Roman Catholics to divorce and remarry within the Church" is wrong.
The plan is actually to make it easier to get an annulment and (re)marry within the Church.

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder if we'll also see the Pope lobby the Oxford Dictionary [...]

I'd prefer to see the RCC stick up a huge poster in Peter's Square and document any rule changes as they occur.

Rule 1 - God's Rules Never Change

could become

Rule 1 - God's Rules Never Change, Except When They Really Need To.

Wasn't there a literary precedent?

robindch

recedite wrote: »

The plan is actually to make it easier to get an annulment and (re)marry within the Church.

The basic problem is the church can't permit divorce, per se, since it believes that "no man can sunder what god has joined". However, the church can retrospectively declare that a marriage wasn't a valid marriage in the first place - hence that the joining never took place.

As you say, what Frank is doing is making it easier for this declaration to be made. Should have been more careful with the word "divorce" - see the previous post

robdonn

robindch wrote: »

However, the church can retrospectively declare that a marriage wasn't a valid marriage in the first place - hence that the joining never took place.

So they've just been living in sin for years?

robindch

robdonn wrote: »

So they've just been living in sin for years?

Good point.

In retrospect, yes, I suppose so. During that time though, they wouldn't have known it though, so technically, I imagine the RCC would hold that they would presumably have been having sex outside of marriage, which is sinful, though remaining sin-free while doing so.

Isn't the Vatican wonderful?

For anybody still keeping score, I reckon this rule is almost as enjoyable as the difference between Latae sententiae and ferendae sententiae - a masterpiece of religious passive aggression

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/event/4th-annual-march-for-choice/

The 4th Annual March for Choice will take place in Dublin on Saturday September 26th marking the Global Day of Action for Access to Safe and Legal Abortion.

The landslide vote for Marriage Equality and the passage of the Gender Recognition Bill earlier this year, demonstrates clearly, the huge appetite for change and progress in this country. This will be the last March for Choice before the next general election, so we must make it clear – securing our vote will mean making a commitment to Repeal the 8th amendment, so that we can take a step closer to securing free, safe and legal access to abortion in Ireland.

The March will kick off at 2 pm in Dublin at the Garden of Remembrance (assembling from 1.30pm), and like last year, we are asking that you bring a wheelie case if possible to make the effort and sound of travel abundantly clear!

Cabaal

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/renua-indicates-party-open-to-referendum-on-abortion-1.2350441

Renua indicates party open to referendum on abortion

The admission by Renua Ireland leader Lucinda Creighton that it would enter coalition with parties committed to an abortion referendum was in line with party policy, a spokesman has said.

Ms Creighton said at the weekend she never feared a referendum on any issue, “because, ultimately, the people will decide’’.

“We believe in freedom of conscience on such issues,’’ he added. “A referendum would allow the people make the ultimate decision.’’’

So my guess is this is how things will go down,
The party will claim a freedom of conscience on the topic, but the unofficial party line will be vote no.

Just like with FF in the ref in May where they officially claimed a yes vote but a large amount of TD's in the party voted no, refused to lobby, refused to stick up posters and were openly known they they would vote no (for example McGunniness and Elward in Co Kilkenny)

Dan_Solo

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The landslide vote for Marriage Equality and the passage of the Gender Recognition Bill earlier this year, demonstrates clearly, the huge appetite for change and progress in this country.

Whether that appetite for change stretches to abortion beyond medical needs I have my doubts. I can't see Ireland voting for elective terminations of any sort for a long, long, time.

robdonn

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Whether that appetite for change stretches to abortion beyond medical needs I have my doubts. I can't see Ireland voting for elective terminations of any sort for a long, long, time.

Unfortunately I agree, I think we give Ireland too much progressive credit.

MrPudding

robdonn wrote: »

Unfortunately I agree, I think we give Ireland too much progressive credit.

It will be interesting to see all right, but abortions for rape and FFA would be a great first step.

MrP

Cabaal

MrPudding wrote: »

It will be interesting to see all right, but abortions for rape and FFA would be a great first step.

MrP

Agree, there needs to be a vote on that,

I think in all honesty there would be no problem in a ref on abortions in cases of rape, incest or FFA passing. The religious groups that would seek a no vote in such instances would be seen as unreasonable and monster like by a majority in Ireland.

eviltwin

Cabaal wrote: »

Agree, there needs to be a vote on that,

I think in all honesty there would be no problem in a ref on abortions in cases of rape, incest or FFA passing. The religious groups that would seek a no vote in such instances would be seen as unreasonable and monster like by a majority in Ireland.

Ah but you know, floodgates. Thats the fear, abortion for ffa today, women having abortions so they can go partying tomorrow

Cabaal

eviltwin wrote: »

Ah but you know, floodgates. Thats the fear, abortion for ffa today, women having abortions so they can go partying tomorrow

As we've heard from the heads of Iona themselves,
The saw the marriage equality ref as a stepping stone for abortions for all!
:rolleyes:

robdonn

Cabaal wrote: »

As we've heard from the heads of Iona themselves,
The saw the marriage equality ref as a stepping stone for abortions for all!
:rolleyes:

I'm sure if it wasn't for their biblical morals and their god watching over them, they'd all be having abortions left, right and centre!

drkpower

Cabaal wrote: »

Agree, there needs to be a vote on that,

I think in all honesty there would be no problem in a ref on abortions in cases of rape, incest or FFA passing. The religious groups that would seek a no vote in such instances would be seen as unreasonable and monster like by a majority in Ireland.

Not so sure on rape/incest.

I've yet to hear of a way in which abortion on that ground can be 'verified', which inevitably means that it will become either abortion on demand or practically impossible to access.

Once a full debate around that issue gets off the ground, I think that these inherent problems will take front and centre, and make it very difficult to pass such a referendum or legislation.

Cabaal

drkpower wrote: »

Not so sure on rape/incest.

I've yet to hear of a way in which abortion on that ground can be 'verified', which inevitably means that it will become either abortion on demand or practically impossible to access.

You don't think rape/incest can be verified?
:eek::rolleyes:

eviltwin

drkpower wrote: »

Not so sure on rape/incest.

I've yet to hear of a way in which abortion on that ground can be 'verified', which inevitably means that it will become either abortion on demand or practically impossible to access.

Once a full debate around that issue gets off the ground, I think that these inherent problems will take front and centre, and make it very difficult to pass such a referendum or legislation.

Underage girls and vulnerable adults should have automatic right to an abortion as they can't consent. Any woman arriving at a garda station or sexual assault unit who at a later time discovered she was pregnant should be granted one. I appreciate it's harder in some situations such as rape by an intimate partner.

Daith

Cabaal wrote: »

You don't think rape/incest can be verified?
:eek::rolleyes:

You can't trust women....Maybe they're lying and just want to head to Ibiza.

Sorry I do realize in cases it can't be 100% determined if rape happened but it does seem to boil down to again not trusting people.

keane2097

Daith wrote: »

You can't trust women....Maybe they're lying and just want to head to Ibiza.

It's usually skiing I think.

Overheal

You can't trust women....Maybe they're lying and just want to head to Ibiza.

Seriously?

Daith

Overheal wrote: »

Seriously?

Not at all.

However there would be other people who would have a different opinion

How do we know she was raped?
How do we know she is suicidal.
Can we trust them?

No! Best keep our abortion laws the way they are.

drkpower

Cabaal wrote: »

You don't think rape/incest can be verified?
:eek::rolleyes:

I haven't heard a way in which it can be verified in the context of abortion access that won't lead to either effectively abortion on demand or incredible injustice. But would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Daith

drkpower wrote: »

I haven't heard a way in which it can be verified in the context of abortion access that won't lead to either effectively abortion on demand or incredible injustice. But would be interested to hear your thoughts.

So essentially women will lie that they've been raped to access abortion services?

PopePalpatine

Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised that if a referendum allowing for abortion in the cases of rape and/or incest, that the government of the day (probably a FG-led one, and worse still with FF as a partner) would make rape/incest victims jump through hoops just like with trying to get an abortion on the grounds of being suicidal.

drkpower

Daith wrote: »

So essentially women will lie that they've been raped to access abortion services?

I'm sure some will.

That is not to criticise. I would lie to access something I felt that I was being unjustly prevented from accessing.

Do you think someone wouldn't lie in that situation, if there was no method of verification (beyond accepting the truth of any assertion)?

Daith

drkpower wrote: »

I'm sure some will.

That is not to criticise. I would lie to access something I felt that I was being unjustly prevented from accessing.

Do you think someone wouldn't lie in that situation, if there was no method of verification (beyond accepting the truth of any assertion)?

Surely it's the same as suicide though? Women will lie to access abortion?

I would think in the case of rape it would need to be between the woman, doctor and Gardaí.

However if people are viewing rape as abortion on demand I think it shows a huge problem with trusting women which a huge amount of issues around abortion generally involves.