The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

horseburger

Martina1991 wrote: »

But 12 weeks is over the unrestricted limit anyway. So no one can have an unrestricted abortion based on a down's syndrome diagnosis.

There is nothing definite that the legislation will be limited to up to 12 weeks, if there is a majority vote to repeal.

Ave Sodalis

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

We have gone over the whole "don't trust the government with legislation" thing many many times already...

It seems to be a common statement with a lot of the prolife posters on here; Are they unable to trust politicians to legislate in other areas such as road safety?

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

There is nothing definite that the legislation will be limited to up to 12 weeks, if there is a majority vote to repeal.

Sorry but this is just rinse and repeat at this stage.

Ave Sodalis

DubInMeath wrote: »

It seems to be a common statement with a lot of the prolife posters on here; Are unable to trust politicians to legislate in other areas such as road safety?

The unknown is an easy cop out. Somehow the government are going to go from one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, to one of the most liberal.

captbarnacles

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

We have gone over the whole "don't trust the government with legislation" thing many many times already.


The first test is at 12 weeks, it's not diagnosed until about 22 weeks...

It's been a few years but certainly it used to be you could not diagnose it at 12 weeks. They would give you a percentage chance based on the measurements.

Ave Sodalis

captbarnacles wrote: »

It's been a few years but certainly it used to be you could not diagnose it at 12 weeks. They would give you a percentage chance based on the measurements.

That's exactly what is it. 12 weeks is the first screening test.

miocicmma

Personally I will vote Yes. But I feel that the public will vote to retain the Eighth amendment. There are too many people who will vote from the grey vote, The religious right, and the anti choice crowd in general.

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

It is natural to ask questions, but I think it's a bit pointless at this stage to pretend that's what you're doing...

Nice little personal dig in there too.

My comment is a reference to how you are coming across.

Earlier in the thread, you contended that BPAS were welcome to address the Citizens Assembly and Oireachta Committee as long as it didn't advocate a position on whether abortion should be available in Ireland.

I showed you an item from the Abortion Rights Campaign from 2013, that indicated that BPAS very much did give a position on the issue as to whether abortion should be available in Ireland.

No response from you.

I showed you how BPAS has registered the www.abortion.ie site that links to www.bpas.co.uk.

No response from you.

It seems clear to me that BPAS is not an impartial observer on this issue, yet you claimed that because they didn't - in your view - give opinions on laws on abortion in Ireland, that it was welcome, in 2017, to address both the Citizens' Assembly and Oireachtas Committee.

https://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2013/11/15/bpas-serves-notice-to-the-irish-government/

http://glykosymoritis.blogspot.ie/2013/11/ireland-bpas-serves-notice-to-irish.html#!/2013/11/ireland-bpas-serves-notice-to-irish.html

pleas advice

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Pop goes the irony detector.
The point wasn't to do with legality, or even the morality of action versus inaction. It was to do with bodily autonomy and the fact that we respect it even for bodies of the dead, despite the stakes being the life of another living and innocent person.

I thought the point was to counter the following:

LimeGreenBean wrote: »

MkaylaK wrote:

I cannot justify destroying innocent human life.

I guess this is the crux of the pro-life movement ... in response to this argument:

Ave Sodalis

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

The unknown is an easy cop out. Somehow the government are going to go from one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, to one of the most liberal.

Don't get me wrong I can understand where mistrust of politicians can come from, but the statements in relation to repeal show nothing in relation to the surposed abortion on demand up to 24 weeks and till just before birth is just scaremongering.

What is also ignored by them is the fact that if the country was to shift politically to the far right for example, politicians could then legislate to make abortion illegal in all cases. It's an unlikely situation to be sure (hopefully) but its about as likely as what they are saying could happen in the future once the 8th is repealed.

Annasopra

horseburger wrote: »

With reference to the fact that numerous TDs and Senators would like no restriction on availability of abortion, and that there are a number of items which state that there is nothing certain that the legislation enacted in the event of a majority vote to repeal, will be limited to abortion for only up to 12 weeks, it should be noted that Down's Syndrome can be detected at 12 weeks.

Sally Phillips, in her documentary A World Without Down's Syndrome?, states that Down's Syndrome can be diagnosed at 12 weeks.

She says at the three minute mark in the video.

"I've come to Kings College Hospital in London to meet some women who are having their 12 week scan. Today's the day when mother's find out when their babies are due and whether they're growing normally. It's also the day when doctors first test your baby for Down's Syndrome".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas-committee-on-eighth-amendment-publishes-40-page-report-1.3333670.

This Irish Times item by Sarah Bardon includes the following:

"Members of the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment have insisted they cannot compel the Government to accept their recommendations".

Which TDs want no restrictions?

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

My comment is a reference to how you are coming across.

Earlier in the thread, you contended that BPAS were welcome to address the Citizens Assembly and Oireachta Committee as long as it didn't advocate a position on whether abortion should be available in Ireland.

I showed you an item from the Abortion Rights Campain from 2013, that indicated that BPAS very much did give a position on the issue as to whether abortion should be available in Ireland.

No response from you.

I showed you how BPAS has registered the www.abortion.ie site that links to www.bpas.co.uk.

No response from you.

It seems clear to me that BPAS is not an impartial observer on this issue, yet you claimed that because they didn't - in your view - give opinions on laws on abortion in Ireland, that it was welcome to address both the Citizens' Assembly and Oireachtas Committee.

https://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2013/11/15/bpas-serves-notice-to-the-irish-government/

http://glykosymoritis.blogspot.ie/2013/11/ireland-bpas-serves-notice-to-irish.html#!/2013/11/ireland-bpas-serves-notice-to-irish.html

I did respond. I told you repeatedly that you misread what I had wrote to the point you were saying I had wrote the complete opposite to what I did (P.S. you've done it again in this post). I repeatedly told you how you misread it, and repeatedly told what I did say. I'm not sure how telling you that over and over and you still ignoring it is considered arrogance on my part.

Larbre34

Apropos of nothing, I've been surprised by the lack of opinion polls on the issue since the date was fixed for the ref. I couldn't see even one in the media over the weekend and I can't recall one in recent weeks. Odd considering we are in the teeth of the campaigns now.

applehunter

DubInMeath wrote: »

It seems to be a common statement with a lot of the prolife posters on here; Are they unable to trust politicians to legislate in other areas such as road safety?

Do you trust politicians?

Put that to a poll.

:pac:

Yer Da sells Avon

miocicmma wrote: »

Personally I will vote Yes. But I feel that the public will vote to retain the Eighth amendment. There are too many people who will vote from the grey vote, The religious right, and the anti choice crowd in general.

You underestimate the intentions of the grey vote. The majority of those who voted against the 8th Amendment in the first place are now 'the grey vote'.

horseburger

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Which TDs want no restrictions?

Clare Daly has stated the following to The Journal

"My views on abortion are well-known so, yes we should change our laws to provide access to safe legal abortion in Ireland as part of the health service in order to protect women’s health and be human rights compliant."

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-committee-members-3591836-Sep2017/

People Before Profit advocate an unrestrctive policy on abortion.

PBP includes Richard Boyd Barrett, Gino Kenny, Bríd Smith.

The People Before Profit position is stated as follows:

"supports a woman’s right to make her own decisions regarding reproduction, including the right to free, safe, and legal abortion"

https://richardboydbarrett.ie/policies/abortion-policy/

Below is a link to some advice from PBP for canvassers advocating repeal.

I don't like the way it suggests that people who might vote no in this referendum - or at the very least have concerns about the fundamental issue of abortion - might have been the same people who voted no in the 2015 marriage referendum.

I don't much like the way it makes the abortion question a religious issue:

"Either we will continue on the course set by the Marriage Equality referendum towards a freer, more enlightened and more equal society or we will take a major step backwards towards the dark ages of repression, abuse and religious bigotry from which we have only recently emerged".

I don't like the way it somewhat dismisses a concern I have on this referendum, about trusting politicians to legislate on this issue.

"It fits perfectly with what needs to be another key theme in the campaign , the need to ‘Trust Women’. The anti-choicer campaign will try to play the populist ‘dont leave it to the politicians’. They will say you can’t trust the politicians and this will have a resonance with a number of working class people. We have to counter with ‘We are NOT saying trust the politicians, we are saying “trust women”, it must be the woman’s choice".

http://www.pbp.ie/how-to-win-on-25-may/

I have a concern on that issue with regard to how public representatives very often vote on legislation, with regard to the survival of their own political career, rather than the issue they are voting on.

As an example the the then Fine Gael TD Michelle Mulherin, now Fine Gael Senator, voting in 2013 on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, to avoid being "booted out of the party, my party".

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2013071000041#N6

Did Michelle Mulherin vote to abolish the Seanad? If so, it is not hypocritical to now occupy a Seanad seat, if she campaigned to abolish the room in which that seat is located?

Even is you dislike Lucinda Creighton's politics and viewpoints, it is interesting to consider, that Lucinda Creighton would very likely be a government Minister now, if she had voted as per the government line in 2013.

Michelle Mulherin didn't approve of the 2013 Protection of Lie During Pregnancy Bill, but voted for it to retain her position and profile in Fine Gael.

I have mentioned Aodhan O'Riordain a few times with regard to his attitude that he thought the Seanad wasn't worthy of his presence.

How could anyone trust Regina Doherty to vote on any issue like this, when she is saying something now, that is the opposite of what she said in 2014, when she pretty much stated 'if women don't want to get pregnant they have contraceptives available to them'.

What didn't she know, in 2014, about abortion statistics and numbers of women travelling abroad for abortions, that she only recently became aware of?

I could well imagine that any voter who isn't sure what way to vote on 25th May - because of concerns about abortion while at the same time understanding the perspectives of those who call for abortion - wouldn't have made flippant comments like that, at any stage over the last 35 years since the 1983 referendum.

Yet she claimed recently that she was ignorant on this issue in 2014.

This item in The Irish Times from 2014, written by Mary Minihane, makes reference to an interview Regina Doherty did with Michael Reade on LMFM:

The item includes the following lines.

"Ms Doherty said she also disagreed with the pro-choice view that women in Ireland did not have determination over their own bodies".

“I genuinely and firmly believe that women already have the determination over their own bodies and that’s called contraceptives, so make the decisions before you find yourself in a position where you’re using an abortion as a form of a contraceptive afterwards.”".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fine-gael-td-backs-colleague-s-call-for-abortion-referendum-1.1912286


She stated recently that her 2014 views were born out of "ignorance"

The February 2018 Irish Times item below states:

"Regina Doherty says her previous opposition to legalisation of abortion was ‘born out of ignorance’"

This is despite her stating in 2014, that she "genuinely and firmly" believed what she said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/repeal-campaigners-will-not-accept-a-no-vote-says-minister-1.3430112

Solidarity (Socialist Party) includes Mick Barry, Ruth Coppinger and Paul Murphy. They argue for abortion in less restrictive circumstances than just for up to 12 weeks.

It's campaigns on changing abortion laws in Ireland is detailed here:

http://socialistparty.ie/2018/03/international-womens-day-2018-fight-abortion-rights-ireland/

In this item below, Ruth Coppinger states:

"We’d have to say the recommendations are historic, if you consider only four years ago the same parties voted for criminal sanctions against people having abortions. The hope was the Dáil Committee would water down the unexpected recommendations of the Assembly. This was the media commentary at the time. And it did row back on later term abortions, which is a cop-out. But the 12 weeks on request is hugely significant and would cater for 92% of abortions. I think the pressure of events forced the Committee members to deal with the reality of abortion for the first time. There was nowhere left to hide"

http://socialistparty.ie/2018/01/socialist-pro-choice-td-speaks-interview-ruth-coppinger/

horseburger

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I did respond. I told you repeatedly that you misread what I had wrote to the point you were saying I had wrote the complete opposite to what I did (P.S. you've done it again in this post). I repeatedly told you how you misread it, and repeatedly told what I did say. I'm not sure how telling you that over and over and you still ignoring it is considered arrogance on my part.

You are now denying that you said that it was fine for BPAS to address the Citizens' Assembly and Oireachtas Committee in 2017, despite the fact that it advocated a stance as far back as 2013

Below are your posts where you said it was fine for BPAS to address both the Assembly and Committee as long as it didn't advocate a stance, despite BPAS having advocated a stance in 2013.

You also seem to be suggesting - when you stated "I said nobody outside of the country should be meddling in the referendum of that country, unless they can bring something to the table that nobody in the country can", - that BPAS can provide some form of abortion and healthcare advice that Irish doctors wouldn't be able to provide.

Then you contradict yourself by saying that BPAS can address the 2017 Citizens' Assembly and 2017 Oireachtas Committee - despite BPAS having given a stated position on abortion laws in Ireland, as far back as 2013. BPAS criticized the Irish government for not providing abortion services.

Here are the two items I referenced.

https://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2013/11/15/bpas-serves-notice-to-the-irish-government/

https://glykosymoritis.blogspot.ie/2013/11/ireland-bpas-serves-notice-to-irish.html#!/2013/11/ireland-bpas-serves-notice-to-irish.html

You stated of BPAS - where you were clearly unaware that in 2013 BPAS had indicated a stance on the laws in Ireland - with reference to the attendance of BPAS representatives at the 2017 Citizens' Assembly and 2017 Oireachtas Committee, that "They are perfectly allowed to have and state their opinions but I don't believe those opinions should have anything to do with a referendum at an official level".

horseburger wrote: »

You said that BPAS could speak at the Citizens' Assembly and the Oireachtas Committee on the Eight Amendment, as long as it didn't take a position with regard to the laws on abortion in another country.

BPAS made criticisms of the Irish government in 2013, with regard to abortion laws in Ireland.

Considering it has made criticisms of abortion laws in Ireland, one can well assume that BPAS would be taking a definite position on the upcoming referendum.

https://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2013/11/15/bpas-serves-notice-to-the-irish-government/

If BPAS isn't taking an interest in the upcoming referendum, why has it registered the website www.abortion.ie that diverts to the official BPAS website?

The Abortion Rights Campaign item above includes the following text:

"For many of our followers the BPAS notice was an act of solidarity with women in Ireland who have travelled, or who will be obliged to travel to one of their clinics to access abortion services. For other supporters BPAS were directly calling our Government to action, questioning it’s ability to care for women in Ireland by saying – ‘We’ll care for your women until your government does’".

"Those who hold opposing anti-choice views were naturally outraged by the BPAS Notice. They questioned its legality, given Ireland’s strict abortion laws, and in particular – those laws governing access to information on Abortion services. They demanded to know what gave BPAS the right to comment on Irish abortion laws? They declared that the only possible motive for BPAS’ involvement in the Irish abortion debate was financial gain".

"With regards the legality – the BPAS notice was perfectly legal. As the notice did not contain a phone number, an invitation to donate money or details about the services it provides – it is not what the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland (ASAI) would class as an advertisement nor does it break any laws by providing information on abortion services.
As to BPAS’ right to comment – many of the 4,000 women a year who travel to the UK to have an abortion do so in a BPAS clinic. BPAS are a registered charity in the UK which provides reproductive health services".

"These services include – contraception advice and vasectomy, pregnancy testing and counselling and abortion treatments. The staff in BPAS clinics meet women who have travelled from Ireland every day, and are thus uniquely positioned to comment on situation. They have an insight into the extra burden of stress travelling places on those coming from Ireland compared to the ‘normal’ stresses faced by those who access abortion services from within the UK".

"BPAS have stated publicly that they would prefer it if people in Ireland who want to access abortion services could do so in Ireland. They see the hardship travelling to the UK inflicts on those in their care and they hear first hand the extraordinary logistical difficulties people are required to navigate in order to travel. Be it accessing money; time off work or organising child-care – the stresses heaped on people in an already stressful situation are exacerbated by having to travel from Ireland . BPAS are also acutely aware that many will face difficulty accessing the follow up medical care they need".

You stated:

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I said the complete opposite. I said nobody outside of the country should be meddling in the referendum of that country, unless they can bring something to the table that nobody in the country can. They are perfectly allowed to have and state their opinions but I don't believe those opinions should have anything to do with a referendum at an official level.

How on earth did you come to the conclusion you did?

You stated:

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

What point did I ignore?



Yes exactly


They can have whatever opinions they want. Just not as a side on the referendum



Good for you? I didn't say they couldn't have opinions. In fact, I specifically said they had a freedom of speech. Just not on an official level on a referendum that has nothing to do with their country.

The organization BPAS has commented on Irish laws on abortion:



Yes actually, I do.



Actually, no. I don't believe she should.


Now, can you please answer the rest of my questions? Nice pulling it off topic in order not to answer by the way

horseburger wrote: »

How can you state that BPAS has not stated anything regarding advocating for the provision of abortion services in Ireland.

It criticized the Irish government in 2013.

It recently registered the www.abortion.ie web address.

You seem to be now suggesting that BPAS can provide abortion services in Ireland, that doctors here would be unable to provide, if there is a yes vote.

BPAS criticized the Irish government in 2013 regarding abortion provision in Ireland.

Is that not getting involved in the debate?

This item is titled BPAS serves notice to the Irish Government

https://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2013/11/15/bpas-serves-notice-to-the-irish-government/

horseburger

blanch152 wrote: »

They are all propaganda videos, not independently produced.

I am perfectly aware that each side are adversaries in this debate on abortion and that very often one side will not entertain the other side's viewpoints.

That doesn't mean that I can't consider the arguments being made by each side and watch and listen to the content they produce.

There are very few actual independent media outlets, so there is no harm in looking at press statements and documents and videos of each group involved in this debate, or other groups elsewhere who engage in discussion about abortion.

Very often, radio and TV stations and newspapers and websites, only include, in their news reports, parts of items like press releases, and parts of statements that are supplied to media outlets, from different advocacy groups.

And quite often the reporters in newspapers and tv and radio, give coverage to one side more than the other.

I would have found a debate on the news today about this issue, of more interest, than the frequent reports of Donald Trump's sexual relations.

horseburger

DubInMeath wrote: »

Ok then I'm going to have to ask what a severely disabled pregnancy is.

You know what was meant in the post.

You might like to deal with the issue that was sincerely highlighted by the writer Donal Lynch, who spoke of use of euphemisms - by those who advocate repealing the Eighth Amendment - to avoid dealing with describing abortion and what it involves, than trying to avoid the point being made by pleas advice.

You don't seem to understand that the approach taken in the arguments made by people like Donal Lynch, will sway people a lot more, to the perspective of a call for repeal, than your approach.

Zubeneschamali

horseburger wrote: »

If my decision was based on the attitude of some of the posters, my decision would be a lot more definitive.

The gays are in my face again!

Zubeneschamali

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Hell they event tapped it into PULSE.

horseburger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The gays are in my face again!

Could you think of a slogan or a euphemism so that I might interpret, whatever it is you are actually saying?

Annasopra

applehunter wrote: »

Do you trust politicians?

Put that to a poll.

:pac:

Its kind of ironic that Pro life is building this mantra. They did the opposite in 1983; they exploited the publics trust in 1983 and they are trying to exploit thebpiblis non trust now.

Annasopra

horseburger wrote: »

Clare Daly has stated the following to The Journal

"My views on abortion are well-known so, yes we should change our laws to provide access to safe legal abortion in Ireland as part of the health service in order to protect women’s health and be human rights compliant."

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-committee-members-3591836-Sep2017/

People Before Profit advocate an unrestrctive policy on abortion.

PBP includes Richard Boyd Barrett, Gino Kenny, BrSmith.

The People Before Profit position is stated as follows:

"supports a woman’s right to make her own decisions regarding reproduction, including the right to free, safe, and legal abortion"

https://richardboydbarrett.ie/policies/abortion-policy/

Below is a link to some advice from PBP for canvassers advocating repeal.

I don't like the way it suggests that people who might vote no in this referendum - or at the very least have concerns about the fundamental issue of abortion - might have been the same people who voted no in the 2015 marriage referendum.

I don't much like the way it makes the abortion question a religious issue:

"Either we will continue on the course set by the Marriage Equality referendum towards a freer, more enlightened and more equal society or we will take a major step backwards towards the dark ages of repression, abuse and religious bigotry from which we have only recently emerged".

I don't like the way it somewhat dismisses a concern I have on this referendum, about trusting politicians to legislate on this issue.

"It fits perfectly with what needs to be another key theme in the campaign , the need to ‘Trust Women’. The anti-choicer campaign will try to play the populist ‘dont leave it to the politicians’. They will say you can’t trust the politicians and this will have a resonance with a number of working class people. We have to counter with ‘We are NOT saying trust the politicians, we are saying “trust women”, it must be the woman’s choice".

http://www.pbp.ie/how-to-win-on-25-may/

I have a concern on that issue with regard to how public representatives very often vote on legislation, with regard to the survival of their own political career, rather than the issue they are voting on.

As an example the the then Fine Gael TD Michelle Mulherin, now Fine Gael Senator, voting in 2013 on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, to avoid being "booted out of the party, my party".

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2013071000041#N6

Did Michelle Mulherin vote to abolish the Seanad? If so, it is not hypocritical to now occupy a Seanad seat, if she campaigned to abolish the room in which that seat is located?

Even is you dislike Lucinda Creighton's politics and viewpoints, it is interesting to consider, that Lucinda Creighton would very likely be a government Minister now, if she had voted as per the government line in 2013.

Michelle Mulherin didn't approve of the 2013 Protection of Lie During Pregnancy Bill, but voted for it to retain her position and profile in Fine Gael.

I have mentioned Aodhan O'Riordain a few times with regard to his attitude that he thought the Seanad wasn't worthy of his presence.

How could anyone trust Regina Doherty to vote on any issue like this, when she is saying something now, that is the opposite of what she said in 2014, when she pretty much stated 'if women don't want to get pregnant they have contraceptives available to them'.

What didn't she know, in 2014, about abortion statistics and numbers of women travelling abroad for abortions, that she only recently became aware of?

I could well imagine that any voter who isn't sure what way to vote on 25th May - because of concerns about abortion while at the same time understanding the perspectives of those who call for abortion - wouldn't have made flippant comments like that, at any stage over the last 35 years since the 1983 referendum.

Yet she claimed recently that she was ignorant on this issue in 2014.

This item in The Irish Times from 2014, written by Mary Minihane, makes reference to an interview Regina Doherty did with Michael Reade on LMFM:

The item includes the following lines.

"Ms Doherty said she also disagreed with the pro-choice view that women in Ireland did not have determination over their own bodies".

“I genuinely and firmly believe that women already have the determination over their own bodies and that’s called contraceptives, so make the decisions before you find yourself in a position where you’re using an abortion as a form of a contraceptive afterwards.”".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fine-gael-td-backs-colleague-s-call-for-abortion-referendum-1.1912286


She stated recently that her 2014 views were born out of "ignorance"

The February 2018 Irish Times item below states:

"Regina Doherty says her previous opposition to legalisation of abortion was ‘born out of ignorance’"

This is despite her stating in 2014, that she "genuinely and firmly" believed what she said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/repeal-campaigners-will-not-accept-a-no-vote-says-minister-1.3430112

Solidarity (Socialist Party) includes Mick Barry, Ruth Coppinger and Paul Murphy. They argue for abortion in less restrictive circumstances than just for up to 12 weeks.

It's campaigns on changing abortion laws in Ireland is detailed here:

http://socialistparty.ie/2018/03/international-womens-day-2018-fight-abortion-rights-ireland/

In this item below, Ruth Coppinger states:

"We’d have to say the recommendations are historic, if you consider only four years ago the same parties voted for criminal sanctions against people having abortions. The hope was the D Committee would water down the unexpected recommendations of the Assembly. This was the media commentary at the time. And it did row back on later term abortions, which is a cop-out. But the 12 weeks on request is hugely significant and would cater for 92% of abortions. I think the pressure of events forced the Committee members to deal with the reality of abortion for the first time. There was nowhere left to hide"

http://socialistparty.ie/2018/01/socialist-pro-choice-td-speaks-interview-ruth-coppinger/

None of them argued for no restrictions!!!

pitifulgod

applehunter wrote: »

Do you trust politicians?

Put that to a poll.

:pac:

Here's another one, do you think the constitution is the place for legislation? To date, we've been given plenty of evidence that it is not. Literally endangered lives.

Annasopra

pitifulgod wrote: »

Here's another one, do you think the constitution is the place for legislation? To date, we've been given plenty of evidence that it is not. Literally endangered lives.

No. Of course it isnt.

nice_guy80

I trust politicians because we actually elect them every few years.
Outside of a few headcases they seem to represent the general population fairly well - slow to make decisions, they like spending money, like the sound of their own voices.

If there is a huge groundswell of opinion against abortion in the future, then the public will make legislating to stop abortions as a big election issue.

so in the future it could actually be voted off the statute books again.

Politicians - a great bunch of lads

NuMarvel

applehunter wrote: »

Do you trust politicians?

Put that to a poll.

:pac:

I absolutely trust politicians not to change abortion laws willy nilly. That's the experience internationally, and that's definitely our experience here.

But if you don't trust our legislators with abortion laws, who do you trust? Not judges or the courts I'm presuming; we only have the 8th because we were told they might find a constitutional right to abortion (which they did, but only because of the 8th). Not women or their doctors either I'd guess, based on opposition to the 2013 legislation, when we were told we women just had to "threaten" suicide and they'd be able to get an abortion up to birth.

So who is it we can trust? What body or institution of the state can we point to and say they're the ones we can trust to make the right decisions on this matter?

horseburger

bertieinexile wrote: »

Delighted to have a chance to post a pared down version of the argument that what is proposed is abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. It gives me a chance to incorporate the argument about the legal language in Australia. But most of all we are going to get the critical faculties of robarmstrong applied to the issue.



POLITICAL SITUATION

In the event of a Yes vote the proposed legislation outlined in the published General Scheme
http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/General-Scheme-for-Publication.pdf
would be passed.

How do we know?
The Irish Times has very helpfully determined, as far as it could, how each TD would vote on abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/referendum-tracker

A Dail majority is 79. The Irish times has 67 in favour of abortion on demand/request up to 12 weeks plus 13 SF currently recorded as undeclared plus however many more of the other 22 undeclared TDs.
Plus every party leader is in favour.
Plus it would be getting voted on in the context of a successful referendum.
Can anyone argue that the scheme would not be adopted in the case of a yes vote?

For further analysis of the political realities see here
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106618836&postcount=3036

The published schedule would be approved.




MENTAL HEALTH GROUNDS (UK v IRELAND)

The most used grounds for abortion in england concern the mental health of the mother. (97% of cases)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf page 15 sections 2.14, 2.15

The only difference in the proposed mental health grounds for abortion here from 12 weeks to viability and the english grounds up to 24 weeks, is that our proposed law talks about
"risk...of serious harm to the (physical or mental) health of the woman"
and the english one talks about
"greater risk than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman"
And on that distinction rests all claims that there would not be abortion on demand/request up to ~24 weeks.





MARIE STOPES CLINICS WILL INTERPRET ANY "DIFFERENCE" IN THESE MENTAL HEALTH GROUNDS

The distinction between "risk of injury" and "threat of serious harm" could keep a few of our learned friends on Ormond Quay in business for ever.
But what matters is whether that distinction is going to make any difference to doctors signing certs in a Marie Stopes clinic.
The government could have written any language they liked in to this legislation but it is the staff in these clinics who will be interpreting it.

Here's what they are like

Marie Stopes was subject to 2600 complaints in 2016.


Here is how they deal with the mental health grounds

Doctors were signing off up to 60 consent forms at a time when they were meant to be making a thorough assessment. One filled in up to 26 in two minutes.


and as you can see from this link nothing has changed.

Abortions signed off after just a phonecall: How Marie Stopes doctors approve abortions for women they've never met


Here's another link

Doctors are routinely bending the law to allow women to have abortions on questionable mental-health grounds, the head of Britain’s biggest abortion provider has said.



The point that really matters - the thing that makes abortion on these grounds up to 24 weeks a crazy proposal for most of us - is that this distinction between "risk of injury" and "threat of serious harm" won't matter a damn to Marie Stopes.


Objection on grounds that Marie Stopes wouldn't have an interest in coming here
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...postcount=3541

Objection on grounds that it wouldn't make financial sense for Marie Stopes to come here.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...postcount=3753





AUSTRALIA HAD MENTAL HEALTH GROUNDS WORDING STRONGER THAN OURS

It has also been claimed that doctors would take that difference in language so seriously, and know exactly what that distinction came down to in practice, that abortion here from 12 to 24 weeks would be very restrictive.

With language like Harris proposes you certainly wouldn't get abortion on demand. No way. Not with that kind of language. "Serious Harm". It's that language that ensures there's nothing to worry about.

If you think about it, Harris and his advisers wouldn't have come up with this language out of the blue.
Surely, if we look, there must be some other country out there which has tried this kind of language before.
Somewhere we could get to see how it worked out.
And yes there is! ...Australia .
I'll see your "threat of serious harm" to the mental health of the mother and I'll raise you a threat of "a serious DANGER" to the mental health of the mother. How's that for restrictive?
And so now we have a chance to see if this language works!
Does it severely restrict the number of abortions that can be carried out.
Does it? Does it?!!!
Does it F**k!
In Australia, when almost every abortion was carried out on this legal ground of serious danger to the mental health of the mother, they had abortion rates among the highest in the developed world.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28294293

---

Australian abortion laws vary by state. In Victoria and Queensland between 1969 and 2008 almost all abortions were carried out on the grounds described above following the Menhennitt ruling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Davidson
Australian abortion statistics are much less reliable than in the UK. It might be argued that the true rate in those states was closer to the UKs 20% rather than being among the highest rates in the developed world. But the reality is unavoidable.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...-aust-vic.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...-aust-qld.html




If you want to vote Yes you must be comfortable with abortion on demand/request up to 24 weeks. Otherwise it's a No.

Have you seen these items that examine if there are risks to mental health following abortion.

The first item is a 2008 study about risks to mental health, as a result of abortion.

It is titled "Abortion and mental health disorders: evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study",

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abortion-and-mental-health-disorders-evidence-from-a-30year-longitudinal-study/59A90CBF3A58C58B342CBCFFBBFEBD2E

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19043144

Here are some brief details from the page below:

It states it is by "Corresponding Author Professor David M. Fergusson, Christchurch Health nd Development Study, University of Otago, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, PO Box 4345, Christchurch, New Zealand. Email: dm.fergusson@otago.ac.nz."

Professor David M. Fergusson, Christchurch Health nd Development Study, University of Otago, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, PO Box 4345, Christchurch, New Zealand. Email: dm.fergusson@otago.ac.nz

"Background"
"Research on the links between abortion and mental health has been limited by design problems and relatively weak evidence".

"Aims"
"To examine the links between pregnancy outcomes and mental health outcomes".


"Method"
"Data were gathered on the pregnancy and mental health history of a birth cohort of over 500 women studied to the age of 30".


"Results"
"After adjustment for confounding, abortion was associated with a small increase in the risk of mental disorders; women who had had abortions had rates of mental disorder that were about 30% higher. There were no consistent associations between other pregnancy outcomes and mental health. Estimates of attributable risk indicated that exposure to abortion accounted for 1.5% to 5.5% of the overall rate of mental disorders".


"Conclusions"
"The evidence is consistent with the view that abortion may be associated with a small increase in risk of mental disorders. Other pregnancy outcomes were not related to increased risk of mental health problems".

There is a list of references to other studies, on the page, and there is a page with commentaries about the report.



https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abortion-and-mental-health-disorders-evidence-from-a-30year-longitudinal-study/59A90CBF3A58C58B342CBCFFBBFEBD2E

https://www.forofamilia.org/documentos/VIDA%20-%20Aborto%20y%20salud%20mental%20Comentarios.%20Ingles.pdf

Here is another report, titled APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion


http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/mental-health.pdf

This item includes the following:

"TFMHA emphasized the studies it judged to be most methodologically rigorous to arrive at its conclusions.
The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy. The evidence regarding the relative mental health risks associated with multiple abortions is more equivocal. Positive associations observed between multiple abortions and poorer mental health may be linked to co-occurring risks that predispose a woman to both multiple unwanted pregnancies
and mental health problems".

"The few published studies that examined women’s responses following an induced abortion due to fetal abnormality suggest that terminating a wanted pregnancy late in pregnancy due to fetal abnormality appears to be associated with negative psychological reactions equivalent to those experienced by women who miscarry a wanted pregnancy or who experience a stillbirth or
death of a newborn, but less than those who deliver a child with life-threatening abnormalities".

"The differing patterns of psychological experiences observed among women who terminate an unplanned pregnancy versus those who terminate a planned and wanted pregnancy highlight the importance of taking pregnancy intendedness and wantedness into account when seeking to understand psychological reactions to abortion".

"None of the literature reviewed adequately addressed the prevalence of mental health problems among women in the United States who have had an abortion".

"In general, however, the prevalence of mental health problems observed among women in the United States who had a single, legal, first-trimester abortion for nontherapeutic reasons was consistent with normative rates of comparable mental health problems in the general population of women in the United States".

"Nonetheless, it is clear that some women do experience sadness, grief, and feelings of loss following termination of a pregnancy, and some experience clinically significant disorders, including depression and anxiety. However, the TFMHA reviewed no evidence sufficient to support the claim that an observed association between abortion history and mental health was caused by the abortion per se, as opposed to other factors".

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/article_files/advisory-abortion-mental-health.pdf

Here's an item on the Guttmacher Institute page titled An Overview of Abortion Laws

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/overview-abortion-laws

Mr. CooL ICE

And it's been said time and time again. Do you trust politicians not to change the age of consent form 17 down to something like 12?