aloyisious wrote: » The problem any person dressed in clerical garb would face, when speaking on matters political even as a private citizen, is that the wearing of the clerical garb when speaking on matters political is a clear statement of fact that it is a cleric who is speaking, and not a private citizen. Whatever way you wish to try and get past the wearing of the black when statements on matters political are being addressed by the person concerned, the unavoidable is there for all to see.
aloyisious wrote: » IMO, it would belittle the intellect of any person listening to a cleric wearing clerical garb making a statement on matters political for the cleric to turn and say later "you misunderstood where i was coming from when I made my statement, I was speaking in my private capacity, not as a cleric". The average citizen now has a better understanding of the nuances in matters political and personal for any sliding one past him/her.
According to Montreal’s Le Devoir newspaper, which first reported the story, the woman was 30 weeks pregnant when tests showed malformations with the fetus. The woman and her partner made the decision to seek an abortion together. Can you imagine what it’s like for a woman, 30 weeks pregnant, to have to seek a lawyer to end her pregnancy? Awful “I didn’t want my child to suffer their whole life,” she said. According to ultrasound tests, the fetus appeared to have physical abnormalities that were not life-threatening to the mother or the baby, said patients’ rights advocate and lawyer Jean-Pierre Ménard. “She didn’t want her child to suffer the consequences of being physically different,” Ménard said. The woman, who was being followed at the MUHC, requested to end her pregnancy. When the MUHC refused, Ménard advised her to go to another hospital rather than mount a court case. She was also refused an abortion at Ste-Justine-Hospital for children. Ste-Justine officials would not confirm that when contacted by the Montreal Gazette. The woman had the abortion at 35 weeks at a third Montreal hospital that Ménard would not name.
Atlantis50 wrote: » To repeal supporters on this thread, should this woman have been given an abortion?http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/two-hospitals-deny-montreal-woman-an-abortion-after-she-learns-at-30-weeks-her-fetus-is-malformed This is relevant because the official stance of the "Coalition to Repeal the 8th Amendment" is that Ireland adopt the Canadian model if the 8th is repealed
aloyisious wrote: » The part about the woman being followed in the MUHC definitely piques one's interest (despite the relevancy to the specific case in the news report) so it's probably irrelevant and a red herring thrown into the pool by the paper or the lawyer.
volchitsa wrote: » it's actually rather like the Miss Y case here, where the woman was being refused what are her legal rights simply because doctors don't wish to carry out the abortion.
aloyisious wrote: » The part about the woman being followed in the MUHC definitely piques one's interest..
“She didn’t want her child to suffer the consequences of being physically different,” Ménard said. The woman, who was being followed at the MUHC, requested to end her pregnancy.
222233 wrote: » You know I just realised how INFURIATED I am at the situation of so called **abortion laws** in this country. I don't understand what is so difficult to fathom about the fact that people have differing views on the matter. Why vote ? Why make comittees ?? Why not do the logical thing and put the decision od whether or not a woman should/ can or will have an abortion into her own hands ?
222233 wrote: » I am clearly pro-choice but I don't understand why it matters what the pro-life people think about legislation, no one will force them to have an abortionb and they have no need to concern themselves in the decision making of women who inevitabely WILL End up having an abortion either way.
volchitsa wrote: » Has there been any more information about what was wrong? I haven't seen anything, and IMO it's impossible to answer the question without knowing.
Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: » what is so difficult to fathom about the fact that people have differing views on the matter?
Peregrinus wrote: » You could apply that argument to almost any act The answer, of course, is that the purpose of the criminal law is not to protect me from having to do things I choose not to do. It’s to protect others from having injurious things done to them. You can only make this argument sound rational, when applied to abortion, if you assume that the foetus is not an entity deserving of any kind of societal respect, attention or protection, and that the criminal law has no business protecting foetuses from injury. Which, as already stated, and as you acknowledge yourself, is not an assumption that enjoys universal acceptance.
222233 wrote: » Its difficult to fathom that a personal medical procedures legality can be impacted upon by others. This has nothing to do with *views* thats whats so frustrating, it's a medical procedure the outcome of which affects no one but the patient - how is that open to views? I don't see what is so hard for irish people to grasp if you dont agree with it dont get the procedure. Simple as it's like plastic surgery if you don't want it don't get it, but other people getting it will have quite literally no affect on you.
Absolam wrote: » It also affects the person who is aborted; they die. Now, I understand you almost certainly don't think it's a person that dies, but as Peregrinus has already pointed out, those who agree with you in that regard already agree with you on abortion, and you're not going to convince anyone who disagrees with you if you ignore the fundamental basis of their opinion.
222233 wrote: » Its ironic that this particular law appears to slide nicely along with the beliefs of certain groups of irish people.
222233 wrote: » i don't think the UK suddenly has an influx of issues pertaining to protecting the foetus? Abortion is legal over there perhaps I'm wrong but it seems to be working out fine for them. Plus the law is mute either way when people will just travel abroad - it's not really protecting anything is it.
222233 wrote: » I have no intention of convincing anyone, I respect people's views irrespective of where they are coming from. I do not however think ANYONES views should dictate the right of a women to have a medical procedure in her home country that she can ultimately have abroad in a more progressive country anyway.
222233 wrote: » As I have already said a law that permits abortion does not force anyone who disagrees with abortion to have one, nor does it force them to agree with it - it simply gives dignity and fair access to the thousands of women faced into a difficult situation every year, without the added stress of needing to travel abroad.
222233 wrote: » It is a medical procedure, and the medications used in a medical abortion are listed as essential medications by the world health organisation. I think we need to change the way we understand the term abortion and what exactly an abortion entails, an abortion is a medical procedure.I don't particularly agree with tax paid surgeries for obesity, but it's a medical procedure therefore I understand it is a necessity as abortion can be in some circumstances.
222233 wrote: » I think a lot of the argument comes from a place where people literally just want to argue, at the end of the day the only people affected are the women (and or their partners) who have to travel abroad or can't go abroad and are forced to live without the option to have the procedure. These are the people that should be debating on the matter, the people who it has or potentially will affect, not some bunch of suits with clipboards
aloyisious wrote: » I'm not arguing the point of view put forward by anti-abortionists, just stating that they apparently believe that the feotus in the womb is worthy of the same rights as the woman, or in fact any living breathing human being presently outside the womb, that is; protection of its existence in law. That's the basis for the 8th which the anti-abortion side wish to keep intact in law, and which they apparently believe ethical.
aloyisious wrote: » The fact that that ethical point of view will result in some irish woman killing herself and - as a result - the feotus in her womb seem's to be something the anti-abortion side either don't take into their singular or group considerations when stating their wish to keep the 8th in law and prevent the legalisation of abortion outside the limits of POLDPA, which they oppose anyway, or they don't consider the life of the woman in their ethical decision-making.
aloyisious wrote: » The peculiarity, as you've pointed out, is that it takes three medics to state a woman who's stated she'll take her own life in order to end her pregnancy if not allowed an abortion under Ireland's current (POLDPA) law should be allowed an abortion as they believe she is genuine in her statement. The woman has to be driven to the limit of having considered the ultimate step of suicide- and decided to take it - before the state, via the three medics, takes her seriously and considers her fate more important in law than the feotus in her womb. It's almost like the decision of the medics is predicated on the assumption that "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", which is possibly the medical ethical thing to do anyway, saving an actual independent ly-living walking talking life.
aloyisious wrote: » Sometimes I wonder if the anti-abortion side would prefer it to be a lawful fact that any pregnant irish woman who asked for an abortion here would be taken into state custody until such time as the feotus in her womb came to term and was born, but can't bring themselves to speak such in public in fear of the further loss in support for their marginalized point of view.
aloyisious wrote: » Saying that, I don't take the strength of their numerical voters power lightly. There is a hell of a long way to go before the 8th is dead and deleted from legal standing.
aloyisious wrote: » Sometimes I wonder if the anti-abortion side would prefer it to be a lawful fact that any pregnant irish woman who asked for an abortion here would be taken into state custody until such time as the feotus in her womb came to term and was born, but can't bring themselves to speak such in public in fear of the further loss in support for their marginalized point of view. Saying that, I don't take the strength of their numerical voters power lightly.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » You mean like Miss Y ?
Absolam wrote: » In Ireland, the rulers are the people, who have dictated a man or a woman, generally, has no right to do anything which results in the death of another person.
Absolam wrote: » Only that what you call giving dignity and fair access to women faced into a difficult situation also involves killing a person, which is where people generally balk.
Absolam wrote: » Well, like I said, the people that are killed are also affected. Everyone involved (as well as everyone else) should certainly have a voice in what we as a society decide, but I don't think excluding people from participating in a democracy is the answer, even if they do have suits and clipboards.
222233 wrote: » I think you may be correct. Although this is quite a rash and slightly excessive comparison if we consider the laundries, the manner in which pregnant women were treated in medical facilities and the duty of women to become pregnant many years ago, their was a certain point where women lost their rights in this country once they become pregnant or for lack of becoming pregnant.
222233 wrote: » I believe this archaic attitude is not too far removed from the view of many today, that the child is the ultimate gift and the mother merely a carrier.
222233 wrote: » I respect the rights of a foetus but I also respect the right of a woman to choose. What infuriates me is when people say "it doesn't matter if she was raped, it's still a child", those same people would say "if she didn't want a child she shouldn't have had sex" in other circumstances. I genuinely believe that this country holds more compassion for the ideation of pregnancy and the "mother" than the woman.
222233 wrote: » So you say, sadly we will never know how many women or men for that matter have died at the expense of saving the other life. But as you say "no right to do anything which results in death of another person"....
222233 wrote: » Are you opposed to the coil and the morning after pill (the morning after pill I won't name but the one that works up to 5 days after unprotected sex)
222233 wrote: » What is the fear of a referendum then? If it's a democracy and many people want a referendum. Let the people speak - my generation from where I stand are very pro-choice, I think similar to the same sex marriage referendum many people would come out and have a say.
Absolam wrote: » It certainly is a rash comparison, but nevertheless, complaining about a position not put forward by the opposing side of the discussion but by your own side in order to vilify it, seems a bit self indulgent.
Absolam wrote: » I wonder if you could find a single poster (never mind many) who has ever expressed that opinion on boards? If not, might I suggest it's another strawman in the vein of aloyisious' post?
Absolam wrote: » And yet again, I think you'll find it difficult to show anyone is saying that, though feel free to quote their posts if they have. Absent the (third) strawman, I think you'll find people saying "It's terrible that she was raped, but that's no justification for killing an innocent person", which is somewhat different. I genuinely believe you're mistaking (deliberately or no) the compassion people in this country have for children both born and unborn, for a compassion for the ideation of pregnancy and the "mother".
Absolam wrote: » Only those particular arguments have been well rehearsed on the thread, before re-engaging with them it would be worth knowing if you're bringing anything new to the table. That argument has also been well discussed on the thread.
222233 wrote: » Self indulgent, really. As a woman I find it "self indulgent" that nobody seems to really care what I think about my body.
222233 wrote: » I have no idea what any of that means, sorry that my "argument" or my opinion is not authentic enough for you. Perhaps the similarity should suggest to you that many people want change.
222233 wrote: » Difficult to show anyone is saying that? If I were in that very horrific position, THIS country and THIS COUNTRY'S law would force me to continue with that pregnancy UNLESS.. there was a real risk to my life, which if it were suicide would require me to be at the point of needing three professionals to verify that I'm suicidal. That speaks louder than anything in this thread to me.
222233 wrote: » I advise you ignore my posts if you feel they are reciprocal of posts you have already read.
