Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

Yes, I'm simply disproving the claim, or at least the expectation, that you can walk into a vasectomy clinic and have your vasectomy immediately.

I'm sure you could if you wanted to if you had enough money.

Igotadose

Clare_Culchie wrote: »

Well, if they decide in those three days of consideration against having an abortion, hasn't that stopped at least one deadly act of violence?

The answer is Yes.

Only in your trollish dreams.

Abortion is legal in Ireland and not categorized as either deadly, or an act of violence.

robindch

eviltwin wrote: »

And wouldn’t the best way to cut down on abortion be to have better sex Ed, access to contraception etc ?

Couldn't agree more. However, better sex-ed doesn't win many votes with conservative voters who appear to believe that keeping people in the dark about sex is a good policy. The same voters often appear to believe, for example, that it's good to deny teenagers the HPV vaccine, since they believe that the fear of casual sex is also good.

Again, just for the avoidance of any doubt, I think this kind of ignorant behaviour is horrendous - but I am pointing out what a substantial portion of the population appears to believe.

robindch

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm sure you could if you wanted to if you had enough money.

I agree, you probably could. And I wouldn't much doubt that in places where legally-mandated delays to abortion procedures exist, unjust and asymmetric as they are, the same may well apply to women seeking abortions.

lazygal

Less than 33% going on the referendum. And we can't assume all of them want people to have to wait 3 days. Some will have changed their minds since 2018.

Clare_Culchie

lazygal wrote: »

Abortion is not a deadly act though. Its an induced miscarriage.

What a ridiculous misuse of a phrase. Medically induced miscarriages are where there is medical intervention to assist the body to expel the body of a foetus (baby) that has died naturally in the womb.

Abortion is not this. {mod snip - inflammatory language} (foetus).

mod

As this is an emotive topic the charter is clear that inflammatory language such as 'murder', 'killing' is to be avoided. Therefore I have snipped the part of this post that infringes the charter.

lazygal

Clare_Culchie wrote: »

What a ridiculous misuse of a phrase. Medically induced miscarriages are where there is medical intervention to assist the body to expel the body of a foetus (baby) that has died naturally in the womb.

Abortion is not this. It is the direct and intentional killing of an unborn baby (foetus).

Can't believe the anti choice campaign still think this kind of silly rhetoric works. No wonder they lost the campaign so badly.

robindch

lazygal wrote: »

So its not about reducing abortion any more than their pain relief amendments were about babies. The anti choice moment are just using any possible reason to make it difficult to access abortion.

Yes, I believe that's right.

In my own opinion, the anti-abortion side are less interested in babies, children, adults, human rights, laws etc, as they are in the idea of births, ideally births where there is a likelihood that the baby will become a member of the religion which forced the birth. Essentially, it seems to me that they frequently behave as though humans should exist in order to create the conditions whereby the religion can propagate successfully and will create whatever religious and secular laws and customs in order to make this happen.

robindch

Mod:

Igotadose wrote: »

Only in your trollish dreams.

A+A charter prohibits posters from referring to other posters as trolls.

Clare_Culchie wrote: »

Abortion is [...] the direct and intentional killing of an unborn baby (foetus).

This is a question which is central to the debate about abortion. The "pro-choice" side believe abortion is does not amount to killing while the "pro-life" side believe it does. Discussion will proceed much more peaceably if you do not refer to abortion as the killing of a baby.

Thank you.

Igotadose

So, we've gone around a bit on the topic of the 3 day waiting period. The Dail is set to look at legislation sometime soonish I believe. Should we agitate with our TD's to vote to remove the 3 day waiting period as ineffective and oppressive? Seems straightforward enough choice to me.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

A quick google indicates a waiting period of at least several months for public-funded vasectomies in Ireland:

https://www.imt.ie/news/annual-vasectomy-budget-spent-24-05-2018/

A call to one of the private providers and I learn that a waiting time of two to three weeks is normal. In NI, there seems to be a waiting period of over two years for public-funded procedures.

But that wait is not enshrined in legislation so it's not the same at all.

Is there any other medical procedure where there is a piece of legislation that specifically mandates a set waiting period?
Because that would be the only fair comparison.

volchitsa

robindch wrote: »

A quick google indicates a waiting period of at least several months for public-funded vasectomies in Ireland:

https://www.imt.ie/news/annual-vasectomy-budget-spent-24-05-2018/

A call to one of the private providers and I learn that a waiting time of two to three weeks is normal. In NI, there seems to be a waiting period of over two years for public-funded procedures.

Totally different issue though. There is no law saying the man has to go home and think it over for X length of time.

And getting a vasectomy is less of an urgency than getting an abortion, so the one that could really do without a legally-mandated delay is the abortion.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But that wait is not enshrined in legislation so it's not the same at all.

volchitsa wrote: »

There is no law saying the man has to go home and think it over for X length of time.

Nor should there be any law saying such a thing, as there should be no law requiring women to go home and "have a think" either. As above, clinicians should be free to recommend and carry out whatever medical advice and procedures which she/he feels are appropriate to the circumstances in which the patient finds himself/herself.

The point I'm making, once again, is that I believe the delays are legislated-for not because one group thinks that another group are "silly" as claimed, but because the legislators believe that they'll cut down on something they disapprove of. In this, I suspect their belief may have some substance, at least in places where there are small numbers of service providers - and I've a vague memory that conservative-leaning US states, for example, have been known to enact rules + laws + licensing regimes intended to restrict the number of service providers too. The GOP's restrictive activities aren't just limited to cutting back on voting stations in Democrat-leaning areas.

That's aside from a discussion - from the "pro-life" perspective - whether there's actually any point in legislating for mandatory delays to start with, given that queuing, and consequent delays, are an inherent feature in most medical systems, and for most medical procedures, to start with.

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

Nor should there be any law saying such a thing, as there should be no law requiring women to go home and "have a think" either. As above, clinicians should be free to recommend and carry out whatever medical advice and procedures which she/he feels are appropriate to the circumstances in which the patient finds himself/herself.

The point I'm making, once again, is that I believe the delays are legislated-for not because one group thinks that another group are "silly" as claimed, but because the legislators believe that they'll cut down on something they disapprove of. In this, I suspect their belief may have some substance, at least in places where there are small numbers of service providers - and I've a vague memory that conservative-leaning US states, for example, have been known to enact rules + laws + licensing regimes intended to restrict the number of service providers too. The GOP's restrictive activities aren't just limited to cutting back on voting stations in Democrat-leaning areas.

That's aside from a discussion - from the "pro-life" perspective - whether there's actually any point in legislating for mandatory delays to start with, given that queuing, and consequent delays, are an inherent feature in most medical systems, and for most medical procedures, to start with.

there is no delay with a GP providing an abortion in their surgery. It is administering a couple of pills. it is not a surgical so again you have made a point that is irrelevant. the experience in the US is also irrelevant. the 3 day waiting period is simply there as a barrier. there is no other reason for it.

Mark Hamill

Clare_Culchie wrote: »

Well, if they decide in those three days of consideration against having an abortion, hasn't that stopped at least one deadly act of violence?

The answer is Yes.

Do you think any women looking for an abortion will not already thought about it? What is it about the three days waiting period that allows for some special thoughts on it?

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

The point I'm making, once again, is that I believe the delays are legislated-for not because one group thinks that another group are "silly" as claimed, but because the legislators believe that they'll cut down on something they disapprove of.

And why do they believe it will cut down on pregnancies though?

Some of it may be because they believe that the 3 day wait will push abortions abroad (most people don't know they are pregnant they day they get pregnant, it can be 5 or more weeks until they realise and there may not be much of the 12 week limit left).

Much is because they think many women are silly and prone to flights of emotion and the 3 days gives them time to be scared away from abortions. It's the same mentality as the "abortion will become a form contraception" and "abortion regret" arguments.

eviltwin

robindch wrote: »

Nor should there be any law saying such a thing, as there should be no law requiring women to go home and "have a think" either. As above, clinicians should be free to recommend and carry out whatever medical advice and procedures which she/he feels are appropriate to the circumstances in which the patient finds himself/herself.

The point I'm making, once again, is that I believe the delays are legislated-for not because one group thinks that another group are "silly" as claimed, but because the legislators believe that they'll cut down on something they disapprove of. In this, I suspect their belief may have some substance, at least in places where there are small numbers of service providers - and I've a vague memory that conservative-leaning US states, for example, have been known to enact rules + laws + licensing regimes intended to restrict the number of service providers too. The GOP's restrictive activities aren't just limited to cutting back on voting stations in Democrat-leaning areas.

That's aside from a discussion - from the "pro-life" perspective - whether there's actually any point in legislating for mandatory delays to start with, given that queuing, and consequent delays, are an inherent feature in most medical systems, and for most medical procedures, to start with.

All that does is cut down on abortion and does nothing to address the bigger issue of unwanted pregnancy. If you force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want by putting so many obstacles in her way what have you achieved really? There is less abortion and pro-births can pat themselves on the back about that but it ignores the impact continuing with that pregnancy will have on the people involved and society as a whole. Is that really a better outcome than letting her have the abortion in the first place? I suppose for those groups that claim to love both the impact on the woman and her family isn't really all that important cause they know better what's right for her in the long run.

Again it comes down to attitudes about women. Easy access to abortion is always seen as "opening the floodgates", make it easy and women will be having abortions all the time! Prevent them from having one and sure, they'll probably come to realise having the baby was the right decision after all :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

eviltwin wrote: »

Is that really a better outcome than letting her have the abortion in the first place? I suppose for those groups that claim to love both the impact on the woman and her family isn't really all that important cause they know better what's right for her in the long run.

Evidence indicates that in countries with access to contraception, abortion doesn't change the number of children a woman gives birth to - it changes WHEN she gives birth and, perhaps, who the father is, but really - does anyone actually think that a woman who is 35 and happily married and economicallly secure will not have a third child because of that abortion she had as a penniless 19 year old student?

So - no abortion = kids brought up poorer in more difficult family circumstances. Not fewer kids, they'll have to direct their ire at contraception for that one...

Again it comes down to attitudes about women. Easy access to abortion is always seen as "opening the floodgates", make it easy and women will be having abortions all the time! Prevent them from having one and sure, they'll probably come to realise having the baby was the right decision after all :rolleyes:

Well, quite.

We saw plenty on this site of attitudes which could be summed up as "they should have kept their knees together and it serves them right" "they'll be having an abortion to fit into their bikini" etc. I mean ffs

Now if the posters of such mysogynistic nonsense were by choice life-long celibates it would be less hypocritical - not so much if they want women to keep their legs shut except when their studly presence is around, :pac:

lazygal

One member of the Evangelical Alliance who posts on here, or did in the past, claimed he knew a woman who had an abortion at 24 weeks to fit into a bridesmaid dress. Absolutely fascinating insight into how he viewed women and their reproductive choices.

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

One member of the Evangelical Alliance who posts on here, or did in the past, claimed he knew a woman who had an abortion at 24 weeks to fit into a bridesmaid dress. Absolutely fascinating insight into how he viewed women and their reproductive choices.

Also fascinating that a woman will go tell everyone such a thing, what are the odds?

I mean, it's like it's made up.

Bannasidhe

Cabaal wrote: »

Also fascinating that a woman will go tell everyone such a thing, what are the odds?

I mean, it's like it's made up.

I wonder if she was holding two pints as she was telling the story?

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

Also fascinating that a woman will go tell everyone such a thing, what are the odds?

I mean, it's like it's made up.

Equally fascinating that these women tell anti abortion folks about their abortions and that somehow these choices are a reason to deny choice to all.

Hotblack Desiato

lazygal wrote: »

One member of the Evangelical Alliance who posts on here, or did in the past, claimed he knew a woman who had an abortion at 24 weeks to fit into a bridesmaid dress. Absolutely fascinating insight into how he viewed women and their reproductive choices.

I found the example I think you're talking about but it was more of a hypothetical:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100326837&postcount=3104

(although a quick perusal of the thread indicates he doubled down)

Several years earlier a then mod of the other place posted similar - althouogh notably without the 24-week claim: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79323780&postcount=1489

I don't know where these stories come from but there is a very strong bang off them of the process which generates urban legends. Especially as how an anecdote about one woman having a late abortion on one ground (perhaps serious health issues) becomes conflated with another woman having an earlier abortion on a ground which they think is less defensible.

Generally the people who circulate these are convinced they are true but there is never any corroborating evidence to be found.

Igotadose

Igotadose wrote: »

Argentina's lower house of Government passes abortion legalization. Abortion will be legal until the 14th week.

This is a big deal for them, a very conservative, predominantly Catholic country, almost there to legalizing abortion. Still needs to be passed by the Argentine Senate.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/argentina-abortion-lower-house-vote-b1769959.html

And, it just passed in Argentina. Way to go. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/30/americas/argentina-abortion-senate-vote-intl/index.html

Details here

No 3 day waiting period like in Ireland. Establishes Sex Education in schools too.

lazygal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I found the example I think you're talking about but it was more of a hypothetical:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100326837&postcount=3104

(although a quick perusal of the thread indicates he doubled down)

Several years earlier a then mod of the other place posted similar - althouogh notably without the 24-week claim: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79323780&postcount=1489

I don't know where these stories come from but there is a very strong bang off them of the process which generates urban legends. Especially as how an anecdote about one woman having a late abortion on one ground (perhaps serious health issues) becomes conflated with another woman having an earlier abortion on a ground which they think is less defensible.

Generally the people who circulate these are convinced they are true but there is never any corroborating evidence to be found.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin//showthread.php?t=2057462323&page=237
Here's the bit where it went from a hypothetical to something he claimed happened.

nozzferrahhtoo

Always fun when people try to add weight to clearly fabricated anecdotes by claiming the anecdotes are "personal". Even funnier when, as above, having done so.... someone else steals the same anecdotes years later and claims it was "personal" too.

Anecdote is worthless at the best of times. Dubious, likely fabricated, previously used, and entirely unverifiable anecdote even more so. Reminds me of a certain poster who, no matter what the subject that comes up, always seems to know not one but MANY people who are A) relevant to the discussion and entirely consistent with his own opinion on the subject. The sheer number of teachers, politicians, sex workers, doctors, charity workers, priests and much more the guy knows is astounding

Good to hear of some progress in at least one area of the world. Especially a place like argentina. Now if only we could lock their politicians in a room with poland politicians for a few hours, they might get some work done.

Clare_Culchie wrote: »

Well, if they decide in those three days of consideration against having an abortion, hasn't that stopped at least one deadly act of violence?

The answer is Yes.

You appear to be re-defininig words for your own agenda here. Termination of a fetus is no more a "deadly act of violence" than culling cattle for meat, eliminating bacteria or viruses, or chopping down trees for wood and paper.

Misusing emotive terminology is one of the things I believe lost you the referendum, and lost it bad. Do you not think learning from such mistakes might progress your cause any?

Loafing Oaf

Wheels in motion on the review of the legislation, apparently

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/abortion-legislation-review-to-begin-donnelly-tells-cabinet-1.4502605

ohnonotgmail

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Wheels in motion on the review of the legislation, apparently

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/abortion-legislation-review-to-begin-donnelly-tells-cabinet-1.4502605

the review was planned in the original legislation.

Loafing Oaf

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the review was planned in the original legislation.

I know, but I wasn't aware it would be happening in the summer. Thought it might be left till late in the year given current circumstances.

Hotblack Desiato

The legislation wasn't passed until very late in 2018 and came into effect on 1 January 2019 so I would have expected the review to start at the end of this year or January next year. It said three years and as of now, three years ago the 8th amendment was still in place!

Donnelly isn't interested in exclusion zones it seems.

The anti-abortion Oireachtas group are slowly working their way predictably through the US anti-abortion legislators' playbook. Hopefully they will be repeatedly and roundly defeated if they ever manage to force votes, but I expect them to tie up Dail committees with nonsense as much as they possibly can.