Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

lazygal · 17-10-2019 9:18am

Cabaal wrote: »

Nonsense,
Religious dogma fueled the NO side, pretty much all the no groups had religious funding and/or religious foundations. In many cases, the same people involved previously opposed marriage equality too.

They tried to hide the religious aspect, but the reality is it drove their compaign.

They're not bothering to hide their religion now. Iona and Youth Defence are busy pushing Gript. No secular groups opposed repeal of the 8th.

Igotadose · 17-10-2019 9:20am

Cabaal wrote: »

Nonsense,
Religious dogma fueled the NO side, pretty much all the no groups had religious funding and/or religious foundations. In many cases, the same people involved previously opposed marriage equality too.

They tried to hide the religious aspect, but the reality is it drove their compaign.

You're wasting energy. Truth doesn't matter to pro-life.

smacl · 17-10-2019 9:36am

Cabaal wrote: »

Nonsense,
Religious dogma fueled the NO side, pretty much all the no groups had religious funding and/or religious foundations. In many cases, the same people involved previously opposed marriage equality too.

They tried to hide the religious aspect, but the reality is it drove their compaign.

Yes indeed. Reminded of American religious nutters flying over to exorcise a doctor's clinic which he deemed had demonic possession due to abortions being carried out there.

What worries me most about the pro-life campaign is that it is driven by foreign money from sources unknown trying to unduly influence Irish society. We need much greater transparency on who precisely is trying to pull strings here and why?

17-10-2019 11:19am

lazygal wrote: »

They're not bothering to hide their religion now. Iona and Youth Defence are busy pushing Gript. No secular groups opposed repeal of the 8th.

Have a seen a few posters earlier in the thread point out that Gript and contributors have moved to an anti immigrant stance also.
https://mobile.twitter.com/soundmigration/status/1180451165571633158

LorelaiG · 17-10-2019 11:32am

end of the road wrote: »

only in certain circumstances really. i would suggest that for others such as economic and social reasons, it's more a discretionary allowence/privilage.

No. It's a right. Not a privilage. A right.

Hotblack Desiato · 17-10-2019 11:50am

end of the road wrote: »

correct and for clarity, a constitutional guarantee was my preferred option as i suspect it was for some others. i think i even mentioned it around the time.

But only yesterday you said you would have supported repeal were it not for the legislation.

end of the road wrote: »

it was defended in terms of it saving unborn lives yes . that continued to be the case to the end. but it was accepted that over all it was of itself bad legislation that had to go of it's own merrits. but the proposed legislation meant we could not vote to remove it at that time.

end of the road wrote: »

at that time refers to the 2018 referendum, where we could not vote to remove the 8th because of the legislation the government had outlined to bring, and which they have brought in, which is the proposed legislation i refer to as the reason for keeping the 8th, as it was only proposed legislation at the time before the result was announced.

More flip-flops than a beach in Tenerife.

SusieBlue · 17-10-2019 11:53am

end of the road wrote: »

agreed, but that was only a very small part of the pro-life campaign and many of us ignored it ourselves. not vicious or hateful though.

BS of the highest order, they spread fake news, exploited statistics and used an emotionally manipulative poster campaign designed specifically to guilt, scaremonger and shame people.
Not one single thing they did was honest and they were happy to throw decent, vulnerable people under the bus just so that they could continue living in their fantasty that Ireland is an abortion free country (it isn't and never was).

only in certain circumstances really. i would suggest that for others such as economic and social reasons, it's more a discretionary allowence/privilage.

In your opinion. An opinion which many others do not share.
Your opinion is no more valid or superior than mine or anyone elses, therefore you should not be allowed to force that opinion onto other people who do not share your beliefs.

And has already been explained to you, those behind the NO campaign protested and opposed every single attempted to change that dangerous law from the minute it was voted in back in the 80's.
They wanted to prevent women from traveling abroad, and they wanted prosecute those who managed to escape. They opposed POLDPA.

And you really expect us to believe they would have supported a change to the law to allow for the "hard cases"? (every case is a hard case).
Pull the other one.
They have been dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st centuary and not a minute too soon. Their days of dictacting and pontificating their superiority are over. Everyone sees them for what they are now after their disgraceful, offensive displays in the run up to the referendum.

Hotblack Desiato · 17-10-2019 12:01pm

smacl wrote: »

Yes indeed. Reminded of American religious nutters flying over to exorcise a doctor's clinic which he deemed had demonic possession due to abortions being carried out there.

That's insane.

"Abortion centre" it's a GP's surgery ffs.

The Irish Post can fcuk right off. :mad:

What worries me most about the pro-life campaign is that it is driven by foreign money from sources unknown trying to unduly influence Irish society. We need much greater transparency on who precisely is trying to pull strings here and why?

Yet the same bunch have Soros conspiracy theories as their go-to explanation for anything they don't like.

SusieBlue wrote: »

BS of the highest order, they spread fake news, exploited statistics and used an emotionally manipulative poster campaign designed specifically to guilt, scaremonger and shame people.

They put a particularly explicit and offensive poster right outside my kids' primary school (and in a tidy towns area where all parties have for years agreed to not poster.) Someone ripped it down that night...

Not one single thing they did was honest and they were happy to throw decent, vulnerable people under the bus just so that they could continue living in their fantasty that Ireland is an abortion free country (it isn't and never was).

They went on about "women hurt by abortion" but were happy to scream "murderer" at Yes campaigners in the street, and much more vicious stuff than that online.

aloyisious · 17-10-2019 12:13pm

end of the road wrote: »

agreed, but that was only a very small part of the pro-life campaign and many of us ignored it ourselves. not vicious or hateful though.

only in certain circumstances really. i would suggest that for others such as economic and social reasons, it's more a discretionary allowence/privilage.

The rub in the sentence is that you mean the application of what you call a discretionary allowance/privilege was to be left to the discretion of a person not related to the woman or the foetus in her womb. That sounds like you're equating it with a Dept of Social Affairs decision to deny a person a social payment on discretionary grounds: sorry, your application is being refused as it doesn't fit Dept guidelines.

As for the very small part of the pro-life campaign, did the management even try to control or expel that very small part from the campaign? As we've seen, ignoring a problem minority won't make it go away or behave in a more social manner.

end of the road · 17-10-2019 1:24pm

Screw Attack wrote: »

Small part of the campaign? My ass. This law is still pretty hard on abortion (up to 12 weeks). It's a fertalised lump of cells. There's no brain, and it can be terminated without remorse. It's religious crap, and yet Pro life freaks are against it. Not surprising really.

Sure, fella, sure. You say you'd acquiesce on "certain circumstances" but you're pretty comfortable with it being completely banned in general. You give the game away when you believe a tiny spec of goo is a human being.

it's an unborn, slowly forming human being. we are all only a lump of cells ultimately so that line doesn't work for you.
it's non-religious non-crap, supported by some religious yes, but lots of non-religious, all based on the understanding of humanity and it's formation, and the concistent belief that being able to end that life at one stage, but not at another, doesn't make any concistent sense.
plenty of pro-life people, probably most in reality, are as far from freaks as it gets, and i have never been against a total ban on abortion either.
so, lots of swings and lots of misses by yourself i'm afraid.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But only yesterday you said you would have supported repeal were it not for the legislation. More flip-flops than a beach in Tenerife.

yes i see i did, i should have been clearer.

aloyisious wrote: »

The rub in the sentence is that you mean the application of what you call a discretionary allowance/privilege was to be left to the discretion of a person not related to the woman or the foetus in her womb. That sounds like you're equating it with a Dept of Social Affairs decision to deny a person a social payment on discretionary grounds: sorry, your application is being refused as it doesn't fit Dept guidelines.

As for the very small part of the pro-life campaign, did the management even try to control or expel that very small part from the campaign? As we've seen, ignoring a problem minority won't make it go away or behave in a more social manner.

any management i suspect wouldn't have been able to control or expell that minority from the campaign.
i think really that one can't ultimately stop someone from campaigning under a particular banner such as pro-life or pro-choice, or any other braud campaign.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-10-2019 1:29pm

end of the road wrote: »

it's an unborn, slowly forming human being.

So if it is forming to be one, that means it is not one. You can not be X and be becoming X at the same time.

end of the road wrote: »

being able to end that life at one stage, but not at another, doesn't make any concistent sense.

It does if that attributes to coherently afford it value exist at one stage, but not at the other. Then it is entirely consistent, coherent and valid to claim it is ok to end it at one stage but not the other.

Unfortunately any time I have brought up those attributes specifically you have screamed "irrelevant" and ran away from the conversation entirely, ignoring my posts.

So, lots of swings and lots of misses by yourself i'm afraid.

Hannibal_Smith · 17-10-2019 1:45pm

end of the road wrote: »

agreed, but that was only a very small part of the pro-life campaign and many of us ignored it ourselves. not vicious or hateful though.

What about the demonstrations outside maternity hospitals? That was pretty vicious and hateful.

aloyisious · 17-10-2019 1:59pm

lazygal wrote: »

They're not bothering to hide their religion now. Iona and Youth Defence are busy pushing Gript. No secular groups opposed repeal of the 8th.

Are they behind gript as an advertising agency or means of getting their messages out now? I saw a short video on F/B yesterday about the film being shown in the Omniplex in Galway and noted the headline over the video stated it was funded by and sponsored by gript.

robindch · 17-10-2019 2:05pm

Mod:

Screw Attack wrote: »

[...] My ass [...] Sure, fella, sure [...]

No need for that kind of uncivil rhetoric - keep the tone down, please.

lazygal · 17-10-2019 2:13pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Are they behind gript as an advertising agency or means of getting their messages out now? I saw a short video on F/B yesterday about the film being shown in the Omniplex in Galway and noted the headline over the video stated it was funded by and sponsored by gript.

Iona and Gript are producing content together. Maria Steen is in the videos.

end of the road · 17-10-2019 3:25pm

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

What about the demonstrations outside maternity hospitals? That was pretty vicious and hateful.

what i saw of them were certainly not vicious or hateful, but peaceful protests.
protests are always going to upset, offend, or disrupt some, but that is the price to pay for democracy.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So if it is forming to be one, that means it is not one. You can not be X and be becoming X at the same time.

It does if that attributes to coherently afford it value exist at one stage, but not at the other. Then it is entirely consistent, coherent and valid to claim it is ok to end it at one stage but not the other.

Unfortunately any time I have brought up those attributes specifically you have screamed "irrelevant" and ran away from the conversation entirely, ignoring my posts.

So, lots of swings and lots of misses by yourself i'm afraid.

i never ran away or ignored your points, however given i already answered them originally, then there isn't much more i can say to you.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-10-2019 4:10pm

end of the road wrote: »

i never ran away or ignored your points

You did both. Last time you claimed you didn't I cited examples of both. I can do so again.

end of the road wrote: »

however given i already answered them originally, then there isn't much more i can say to you.

You did not answer them though. As I said you simply shouted "irrelevant" at my points and the ran off. you never once answered them then, and you have not done so now.

Again, you have declared it inconsistent to think it alright to end a life at one stage and not at another. My answer to that is to point out that if the attributes change between the stages, then it is very consistent.

Your response is, as per your usual MO which you use WHILE denying that very MO, is to dodge and ignore the point. You most certainly did not, have not, and I suspect can not answer or rebut it.

Calina · 17-10-2019 4:28pm

And so Stormont may be recalled.

aloyisious · 17-10-2019 6:58pm

Calina wrote: »

And so Stormont may be recalled.

Peregrinus posted on page 105 that the Sec State for N/I has powers to activate the UK Parliaments voted introduction to N/I of the law as it applies in the other part of the UK if there is no local Govt in N/I, as there was before S/F and DUP had their row and ended the sitting of the power-sharing administration there.

If that is the absolute on the matter, then if SF decline to agree to serve with the DUP in any re-opened Stormont there can be NO power-sharing N/I Govt, it seems to me the Sec State can go ahead and activate the Westminster decision.

It seems to me that part of the avoidance route that local abortion legislation would also have to be introduced by a working Govt in N/I in order for the DUP to succeed in stopping the activation of the Westminster vote from becoming the law of the land in N/I.

As I see it now, it's up to the Pro-choice people in N/I to start knocking on doors if they want the laws governing them to be equal to that in the rest of the UK and similar to that in the republic.

However, if the Sec State decides there are more important matters to deal with in the present, he may put the activation on a list of to-do items. No doubt the Westminster Brexit affair will be at the head of the list, esp with the DUP likely to be on the warpath after todays deal between Boris & the EU Admin.

peregrinus post: Delay, certainly. What the just-passed law says is that, if the NI executive and assembly are not back up and running by a certain date, the SoS for NI (who has the power to legislate for NI when the assembly is not operating) must make regulations extending equal marriage and access to abortion to NI. However SFAIK no time limit for making those regulations is specified.

This is not going to be a quick process. The new legislation does not say that NI law on these subjects in NI is to be the same as it is in England and Wales (or Scotland, or Ireland - all three jurisdictions have different legal laws in relation to both matters). It just sets out a broad principle, but leaves the details of how that principle is to be given effect in legislation to be worked out later.

This would normally take a while. There'd be reviews of the current law on marriage and on abortion, to see in what respects they fail to comply with the principles, or meet the standards, set out in the new legislation. There would normally be a consultation process, in which the government issues a paper discussing the issues, suggesting ways in which they might be addressed through legislation, and inviting observations from interested stakeholders. There'd then be draft legislation published, and comments invited. Finally, the legislation could be made. It could take a year or more (or less) and, crucially, how fast the process goes depends in part on how enthusiastically the government approaches it. So if they want to soft-pedal it, there is certainly scope for that.

Igotadose · 17-10-2019 7:01pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Peregrinus posted on page 105 that the Sec State for N/I has powers to activate the UK Parliaments voted introduction to N/I of the law as it applies in the other part of the UK if there is no local Govt in N/I, as there was before S/F and DUP had their row and ended the sitting of the power-sharing administration there.

If that is the absolute on the matter, then if SF decline to agree to serve with the DUP in any re-opened Stormont there can be NO power-sharing N/I Govt, it seems to me the Sec State can go ahead and activate the Westminster decision.

And, if indeed the DUP vote against the Johnson deal, why shouldn't HMG direct the SecState for NI to do exactly that? Not like HMG's being supported by the NI Westminsterans...

aloyisious · 18-10-2019 12:52am

Igotadose wrote: »

And, if indeed the DUP vote against the Johnson deal, why shouldn't HMG direct the SecState for NI to do exactly that? Not like HMG's being supported by the NI Westminsterans...

Face-value effect of being seen as part of the union. He's already distrusted by the DUP, by HRH and his own party [the conservative and unionist party of GB and N/I] and they are not even the official opposition.

Loafing Oaf · 18-10-2019 1:03am

aloyisious wrote: »

Peregrinus posted on page 105 that the Sec State for N/I has powers to activate the UK Parliaments voted introduction to N/I of the law as it applies in the other part of the UK if there is no local Govt in N/I, as there was before S/F and DUP had their row and ended the sitting of the power-sharing administration there.

If that is the absolute on the matter, then if SF decline to agree to serve with the DUP in any re-opened Stormont there can be NO power-sharing N/I Govt, it seems to me the Sec State can go ahead and activate the Westminster decision.

It seems to me that part of the avoidance route that local abortion legislation would also have to be introduced by a working Govt in N/I in order for the DUP to succeed in stopping the activation of the Westminster vote from becoming the law of the land in N/I.

As I see it now, it's up to the Pro-choice people in N/I to start knocking on doors if they want the laws governing them to be equal to that in the rest of the UK and similar to that in the republic.

However, if the Sec State decides there are more important matters to deal with in the present, he may put the activation on a list of to-do items. No doubt the Westminster Brexit affair will be at the head of the list, esp with the DUP likely to be on the warpath after todays deal between Boris & the EU Admin.

peregrinus post: Delay, certainly. What the just-passed law says is that, if the NI executive and assembly are not back up and running by a certain date, the SoS for NI (who has the power to legislate for NI when the assembly is not operating) must make regulations extending equal marriage and access to abortion to NI. However SFAIK no time limit for making those regulations is specified.

This is not going to be a quick process. The new legislation does not say that NI law on these subjects in NI is to be the same as it is in England and Wales (or Scotland, or Ireland - all three jurisdictions have different legal laws in relation to both matters). It just sets out a broad principle, but leaves the details of how that principle is to be given effect in legislation to be worked out later.

This would normally take a while. There'd be reviews of the current law on marriage and on abortion, to see in what respects they fail to comply with the principles, or meet the standards, set out in the new legislation. There would normally be a consultation process, in which the government issues a paper discussing the issues, suggesting ways in which they might be addressed through legislation, and inviting observations from interested stakeholders. There'd then be draft legislation published, and comments invited. Finally, the legislation could be made. It could take a year or more (or less) and, crucially, how fast the process goes depends in part on how enthusiastically the government approaches it. So if they want to soft-pedal it, there is certainly scope for that.

I think the DUP realise this is a fait accompli, and this latest flurry is just about signalling to their supporters that they 'did everything in their power' to stop it.

Hannibal_Smith · 18-10-2019 7:59am

end of the road wrote: »

what i saw of them were certainly not vicious or hateful, but peaceful protests.
protests are always going to upset, offend, or disrupt some, but that is the price to pay for democracy.

I don't know of any other group that stand in front of a hospital holding up pictures of hearts or cancer tumours.

Youre brushing it under the carpet as an 'oh well people got upset that's just the price of democracy'. The people who are upset are the parents going in to avail of health care. Targeting them is pure vicious. Making them pay a price for your democracy is pure hateful.

My own best friend was going through a miscarriage at the time. That's the kind of people you're 'just upsetting'. Have a word with yourself, it's pure vicious targeting people like that.

Bredabe · 18-10-2019 1:54pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I think the DUP realise this is a fait accompli, and this latest flurry is just about signalling to their supporters that they 'did everything in their power' to stop it.

Leitrim ARC along side the local sfmp are certain that everything will go to plan and at midnight on tue, abortion will be legal.

From my reading of the wm ruling, there is NO hope of the dup being able to fulfill it before tue. There is no way they will get a sf candidate for the executive or a cross party agreement on I think, security between now and tue.

If I know it cant be done, then they knew this from the beginning.

aloyisious · 18-10-2019 10:43pm

Bredabe wrote: »

Leitrim ARC along side the local sfmp are certain that everything will go to plan and at midnight on tue, abortion will be legal.

From my reading of the wm ruling, there is NO hope of the dup being able to fulfill it before tue. There is no way they will get a sf candidate for the executive or a cross party agreement on I think, security between now and tue.

If I know it cant be done, then they knew this from the beginning.

As abortion will no longer be illegal in N/I from Tuesday, I hope there are facilities available in N/I for what will come and they are ready for the protestors outside their buildings otherwise the flights will continue to the UK.

Loafing Oaf · 18-10-2019 11:03pm

aloyisious wrote: »

As abortion will no longer be illegal in N/I from Tuesday, I hope there are facilities available in N/I for what will come and they are ready for the protestors outside their buildings otherwise the flights will continue to the UK.

AFAIK 'liberal' abortion is not due to come on stream next week.
https://www.rte.ie/news/uk/2019/1008/1081757-ni-abortion/

The UK Government has published guidelines for medical professionals on abortion law and termination of pregnancy in Northern Ireland.

It relates to the interim period between decriminalisation and new regulations being implemented from April next.

The NIO said there were no plans for abortion services being made routinely available during that time frame.

lazygal · 19-10-2019 8:28am

Shocking findings that contraceptive provision reduces abortion rates. Bit shook tbh.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opinion/abortion-iud-contraception.html#click=https://t.co/55Wv7so2mB

aloyisious · 19-10-2019 11:50am

lazygal wrote: »

Shocking findings that contraceptive provision reduces abortion rates. Bit shook tbh.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/opinion/abortion-iud-contraception.html#click=https://t.co/55Wv7so2mB

Reading from US history that a court there decided some decades back that the right to privacy in the constitution guaranteed women there the right to use IUD's after some-one tried to get them banned from use. Lost the link I saw where 20 odd states had banned/prevented legal use of IUD's. If the present surge against the legality of abortion clinics were to continue, I'd see the Pro-life campaign there going after the IUD's again to ensure there was no interference in what they claim is God's plan for humans, if they don't already "advise" women it was "unsafe" to use IUD's.

Bredabe · 19-10-2019 11:53am

aloyisious wrote: »

As abortion will no longer be illegal in N/I from Tuesday, I hope there are facilities available in N/I for what will come and they are ready for the protestors outside their buildings otherwise the flights will continue to the UK.

Are there not blanket bans on protesting outside of clinics in place in the uk? like those in place in Ealing and I'm told Dundalk/Drogheda?

Bredabe · 19-10-2019 12:01pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

AFAIK 'liberal' abortion is not due to come on stream next week.
https://www.rte.ie/news/uk/2019/1008/1081757-ni-abortion/

From what I hear from Belfast, ppl for now are happy to be able to access pills legally.
Of course some will have to travel but now they dont have to hide it and my colleagues in Belfast while not happy about this, feel its ok for now. Especially as an amount of those people will be able to access procedures in the republic.

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Comments