Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

On the issue of the MAP, and how some people claim it to be an abortifacient, I'm wondering if attempts are being made (by way of false claims that the MAP is an abortifacient) to persuade other people to deny women and girls the present legal access they have to the MAP.

I'm wondering if the "MAP is an abortifacient" claims are also being made as a distraction from the fight to allow women and girls access to abortion as a matter of their choice.

MrPudding

infogiver wrote: »

No, he picked Westboro as the most extreme example of extreme right wing lunacy in a direct comparison to Iona.
He could have picked any other right wing organisation in between but Westboro was his choice and he cited no examples of comparable incidents.
There's still no examples either.

My apolgises for not apparently responding quick enough for you, though Delirium has summed things up nicely. I will add a little more, however.

I don't need to give comparable incidents, as you seem to be demanding. The common factor is that both Iona and WBC are "just exercising their right to free speech." The similarity (which is the only one I need to show and is also incontrovertible) is that both groups are exercising that right.

You are the one that said you could not understand why anyone would show animosity towards Iona as they were just exercising their right to free speech. The implication of that, the particular wording you used, is that where a person or organisation is simply exercising their right to free speech people should not get annoyed. This is backed up by your later comments, like:

infogiver wrote:

Who said it comes with responsibility?
Responsibility to who or what?
Sorry, no, if your feelings are hurt by my opinion then that's your problem and not mine.
Free speech doesn't have to be "appropriate ". "Appropriate" to what?
Appropriate means different things to different people.
What I think is appropriate you might find offensive and vis versa.
Nobody gets to dictate appropriate based on hurt feelings.
The Left have to constantly have it pointed out to them that free speech also extends to people who don't agree with them, and people have got fed up with this fascist nonsense and that's why Trump was elected.

Given what you have said above, I am not sure what you objection to my using WBC as a comparative is. If free speech is, as you seem to be suggesting, a right even where someone is offended, then why does it matter what the content of the speech is? Iona exercise their right to freedom of speech and it annoys and offends some people. WBC exercise their right to freedom of speech and it annoys and offends some people. What they are saying is irrelevant the common factor is the fact that they are exercising their right to free speech.

Remember, this stems from your statement:

infogiver wrote: »

I genuinely would like to know why you display such animosity towards Iona Institute when they are just exercising their right to free speech.

Can you tell me why your statement is any different from this one?

wrote:

I genuinely would like to know why you display such animosity towards WBC when they are just exercising their right to free speech.

Are you now saying that some free speech is ok and some isn't? Perhaps free speech that you agree with, or you don't find offensive is ok, but other stuff isn't?

Also, you seem to be trying to suggest that free speech is some kind of inviolable or unqualified right. It isn't, not even in the USA.

MrP

aloyisious wrote: »

On the issue of the MAP, and how some people claim it to be an abortifacient, I'm wondering if attempts are being made (by way of false claims that the MAP is an abortifacient) to persuade other people to deny women and girls the present legal access they have to the MAP.

Well, obviously the claim that they're false claims would be pretty dubious, given the evidence for either opinion, but I'd imagine the more likely thrust of any argument based on the point would be that, given the MAP is readily available, there are those who might be persuaded not to use it based on their own position regarding contraception and abortion. So not so much persuading people to deny anyone access as pointing out that it's use may not align with those women and girls moral views. I suspect we might hear about it if what you're suggesting was actually happening.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm wondering if the "MAP is an abortifacient" claims are also being made as a distraction from the fight to allow women and girls access to abortion as a matter of their choice.

Interesting thought, and worth exploring. Are you aware of anyone being distracted from their fight to allow women and girls access to abortion as a matter of their choice by such a claim? Possibly, being pro abortion anyway, it doesn't really make much difference to such 'fighters' whether the MAP is considered a contraceptive or an abortifacient as they favour the availability of both anyway?

Personally I think it's more likely to be a subject of discussion for those who feel contraception is acceptable but abortion is not. Knowing there is a possibility that the MAP can act as an abortifacient such a person would be likely to avoid using it, don't you think? Or, like I said, they might lean towards the thinking that it's not so that they do not feel morally compromised when they feel they have a need to use it.

Delirium wrote: »

Seems like someone in Texas heard you
Texas anti-masturbation bill moves closer to becoming law
She's being satirical as there are parts of the bill that are clearly mocking/satirising some of the laws regulating women and some of the nonsense they've to go through to get an abortion.

Had Rep Farrar brought her Bill forward in Alabama, it might even pass..... though I suppose as a Democrat she might not have had the opportunity to even get this far.

stefanovich

Delirium wrote: »

Seems like someone in Texas heard you

Texas anti-masturbation bill moves closer to becoming law

She's being satirical as there are parts of the bill that are clearly mocking/satirising some of the laws regulating women and some of the nonsense they've to go through to get an abortion.

looksee wrote: »

Lol, good woman!

Surprising to me how many women think so little of human life, they make a mockery of it.

looksee

stefanovich wrote: »

Surprising to me how many women think so little of human life, they make a mockery of it.

Some aspects of this discussion are not about abortion specifically. I have very mixed feelings on the subject and I am still not sure where I stand.

However the US bill in question is commenting on male attitudes where men feel that they can dictate what a woman can or should do or accept about her body. Men are not in that position of being dictated to about how their body can be used, this is an attempt to demonstrate that difference.

The comparison of masturbation is probably not a very good example but the situation really isn't comparable. That this has to be explained shows how wide the gulf can be between the two sexes.

looksee wrote: »

men feel that they can dictate what a woman can or should do or accept about her body. Men are not in that position of being dictated to about how their body can be used, this is an attempt to demonstrate that difference.

Its probably unhelpful to reduce it to a men V women issue.
Compared to say drink driving laws, where it would also be unhelpful to reduce that issue to being a drinker V non-drinker issue, with nondrinkers supposedly attempting to impose their beliefs on drinkers.

Despite the fact that in both cases, only one group really feels the effect of the laws.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Its probably unhelpful to reduce it to a men V women issue.
Compared to say drink driving laws, where it would also be unhelpful to reduce that issue to being a drinker V non-drinker issue, with nondrinkers supposedly attempting to impose their beliefs on drinkers.

Despite the fact that in both cases, only one group really feels the effect of the laws.

But that isn't true, everyone feels the effects of large numbers of drink drivers, not only directly in the form of higher risks of accidents, but indirectly through insurance rates going up. And nobody's life or health is ever endangered through them not being allowed to drive while drunk.

Whereas the "effect" of allowing abortion on the rest of society is, at most, a reduced birth rate. That argument could as easily be made about contraception.
And the effects on pregnant women of not allowing abortion are enormous, rim their life chances being seriously harmed right through to death.

How is that in any way comparable to not allowing people to drive while drunk?

volchitsa wrote: »

Whereas the "effect" of allowing abortion on the rest of society is, at most, a reduced birth rate. That argument could as easily be made about contraception.

Hardly at most; it also has the effect of terminating the lives of a portion of the future contributors to that society. At most, you can only say contraception reduces the possibility of them existing in the first place.

volchitsa wrote: »

How is that in any way comparable to not allowing people to drive while drunk?

Well, you could say (well, one could say, probably more accurate) that prohibiting abortion and prohibiting drink driving are both attempts to keep people from killing other people, and one could say the legislation has in both both cases reduced the number of fatalities in Ireland from both causes.

looksee wrote: »

Some aspects of this discussion are not about abortion specifically. I have very mixed feelings on the subject and I am still not sure where I stand.

However the US bill in question is commenting on male attitudes where men feel that they can dictate what a woman can or should do or accept about her body. Men are not in that position of being dictated to about how their body can be used, this is an attempt to demonstrate that difference.

The comparison of masturbation is probably not a very good example but the situation really isn't comparable. That this has to be explained shows how wide the gulf can be between the two sexes.

Yup. it's more so a telling comment on what she sees as the absurdity of the situation whereby one gender (male) in a majority in the house are passing laws which do not affect how they carry on their lives but do so for those of the other gender (women) whether or not the women agree with it.

That said, we all know that men and women do not hold Pro and Con positions based just on their personal gender.

@Volchitsa: I reckon the argument will be that the laws on abortion and drink-driving are life-saving in both examples. Some, quite probably a minority now, will - without irony - say (sotto voce) C'est la vie in respect of abortion law.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

Hardly at most; it also has the effect of terminating the lives of a portion of the future contributors to that society. At most, you can only say contraception reduces the possibility of them existing in the first place.

Well, you could say (well, one could say, probably more accurate) that prohibiting abortion and prohibiting drink driving are both attempts to keep people from killing other people, and one could say the legislation has in both both cases reduced the number of fatalities in Ireland from both causes.

Apart from the fact that drink driving kills demonstrably kills people and abortion demonstrably doesn't. Apart from that you almost have a point.

MrP

aloyisious wrote: »

@Volchitsa: I reckon the argument will be that the laws on abortion and drink-driving are life-saving in both examples. Some, quite probably a minority now, will - without irony - say (sotto voce) C'est la vie in respect of abortion law.

And a somewhat larger number may say somewhat louder "Il en est ainsi, et il devrait rester". Well... those inclined to French philosophy anyways. I'm not sure those who are politically apathetic are a dwindling minority though.. Young people tend to be those most disengaged and likely to say 'thats just life' and they're obviously the growing demographic...

MrPudding wrote: »

Apart from the fact that drink driving kills demonstrably kills people and abortion demonstrably doesn't. Apart from that you almost have a point.
MrP

I think that's more a point of view than a point, if you're honest. My point of view (obviously) is that a person is killed when someone aborts an unborn human life. Your point of view is that one isn't. I'm glad (and my future fellow citizens are lucky) that my point of view is supported by our Constitution and our legislation; as long as that state of affairs persists my point of view will enjoy the distinction of being a factual one at least in Ireland, unlike your own.

It is entirely possible for a man to have no empathy for women in an unwanted pregnancy situation. But it would be wrong to say that only men or all men think like that. And it would be completely wrong to say that laws are decided mainly by men, and its because they think like that.

A similar situation occurs with drink driving. It is entirely possible for a non-drinker to have no sympathy for a person leaving a pub having consumed one or two pints, with car keys in hand. But it would be wrong to say that only non-drinkers or all non-drinkers think like that. And it would be completely wrong to say that laws are decided mainly by non-drinkers, and its because they think only of themselves.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

It is entirely possible for a man to have no empathy for women in an unwanted pregnancy situation. But it would be wrong to say that only men or all men think like that. And it would be completely wrong to say that laws are decided mainly by men, and its because they think like that.

A similar situation occurs with drink driving. It is entirely possible for a non-drinker to have no sympathy for a person leaving a pub having consumed one or two pints, with car keys in hand. But it would be wrong to say that only non-drinkers or all non-drinkers think like that. And it would be completely wrong to say that laws are decided mainly by non-drinkers, and its because they think only of themselves.

What's with this determination to compare pregnancy and drink driving?

They're just not comparable, and some of your examples above illustrate just how poor a comparison it is : men can never be pregnant, and have known that since they first learned the facts of life, women have known they could find themselves pregnant, willingly or not, for much the same time span. Nobody knows for sure at 10 or 12 that they won't ever be able to drive while drunk even if they wanted to.

Moreover, in what circumstances would someone ever need to get drunk and drive around to protect their health or life? So any empathy or lack of it for the two situations are entirely different.

In fact the only reason I can think of for this comparison is precisely because not many people feel much sympathy for someone who kills someone while drunk.

Which says a lot about your (lack of) understanding of pregnancy and its risks.
But nothing meaningful about crisis pregnancy.

volchitsa wrote: »

What's with this determination to compare pregnancy and drink driving?

They're just not comparable

. You asked how they could be compared; it can't be that surprising that someone would offer a comapison, can it? Since comparisons have been made and you haven't refuted them, it's hard to put any credence behind your statement that they're not comparable (particularly when you also claim the comparisons are poor)... However, I think we can all agree that apart from those comparisons, there are also a vast number of ways in which both crimes are incredibly different from each other. Gender politics and empathy issues aside, each has its own nuances and associated societal issues and each needs to considered in its own context. I don't think anyone could disagree with that?

looksee

Mod: Can we move on from the comparison with drink driving please?

I see on other public-access internet sites and on RTE that the Sisters of Mercy ownership of St Vincent's Hospital and the re-location of the National Maternity Hospital to St Vincent's is getting a lot of attention. I'm listening to the debate on RTE 1 now and notice the silence on the Maternity hospital's current operational position on abortion when it comes to the move.

Edit... I see a video (RTE - views dressed up as news) from hearbothsides.ie is showing on facebook portraying the media as biased against the Pro-Life movement. RTE being accused of attacking the 8th for 81 minutes in one recent month, giving the Pro-life movement just 04 minutes of airtime during the same period. The Irish Times is coming in for some stick as well, as being biased to pro-choice. No other Irish media source is mentioned in the hearbothsides video.

Mention is made on it of a Dr in the UK being struck off by its general medical register for almost killing an Irish woman as a result of a "botched"abortion in a London Marie Stopes Clinic while a year later a woman died immediately after an abortion, also at a Marie Stopes clinic (Jan 2012). It mentions the master of a Dublin Maternity Hospital as saying that women's lives were being put at risk as a result of the pregnancy counselling advice provided by leading campaigners for abortion, the IFPA, RTE not reporting on it.

I am slightly amused at the title of the video issuing group; hearbothsides.ie.

The hospitals position on abortion probably isn't all that relevant to the move to be fair, which may explain the silence. Though as far as I'm aware, the Master of the National Maternity Hospital has publicly stated that doctors under her charge will not hesitate to terminate a pregnancy if it will save a woman's life. So it sounds like they're legally compliant?

Holles St. was traditionally seen as a catholic hospital anyway, to some extent. His Grace the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin and the parish priest of Westland Row are ex officio board members. Unlike the Rotunda which had more of a protestant influence, and never had a problem with educating clients about contraception or sterilisation.

However its well past the time for all state-funded hospitals to sever historical links with religions. The move of the "national" maternity hospital to (St.) Vincents with yet another massive taxpayer cash injection into that property (which is still owned by a religious order) runs counter to the separation of church and state.

recedite wrote: »

Holles St. was traditionally seen as a catholic hospital anyway, to some extent. His Grace the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin and the parish priest of Westland Row are ex officio board members. Unlike the Rotunda which had more of a protestant influence, and never had a problem with educating clients about contraception or sterilisation.

However its well past the time for all state-funded hospitals to sever historical links with religions. The move of the "national" maternity hospital to (St.) Vincents with yet another massive taxpayer cash injection into that property (which is still owned by a religious order) runs counter to the separation of church and state.

I'm not sure any of that has a lot to do with abortion; whether or not a hospital is traditionally Catholic or Protestant they are still required to be legally compliant
The rest well... It's being discussed elsewhere anyways. Maybe we should just be focusing hospitals more on treating patients rather than 'advising client's' ?

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not sure any of that has a lot to do with abortion; whether or not a hospital is traditionally Catholic or Protestant they are still required to be legally compliant.

But whether to be reluctantly compliant, or enthusiastically compliant with a particular law. And which side to err in the "interpretation" of any given law.
And what to do when the law makes no prohibition one way or the other.
Its a question of focus, or perhaps I should say, ethos.

Simon Harris on RTE TV news now saying he will be seeking guarantees that the hospital will be secure from interference.

This morning two of the Holles St management were saying the former master's fears were groundless, and one was surprised that he only got short notice on what the former master was going to say on RTE.

At this stage of the planning, that's not good enough from Simon and a little late if he's referring to some-one with ethos not working in the planned hospital at it's new location interfering with the operations, said operations being carried out in compliance with Irish Law at Holles St.

Apparently abortions were not the only operations being referred to, the other being sterilizations. Those operations mentioned on RTE this morning were referred to as being against the RC ethos of the Sisters of Charity.

Edit.... IMO, that ownership of the actual building (to be built for use as the new maternity hospital) is to be given to the Nuns is stupid in the extreme. Any deal struck should have been solely to the unencumbered benefit of the maternity hospital.

2nd edit.... I know several debaters might differ in opinion with me in regard to the position of the nuns and the RC ethos I've written about above. However I reckon that the nuns would be duty bound to follow what they see as their ethos when it come to some of the operations carried out in Holles St at present and that legal medical practice likely to be continue at the new hospital. I might well be wrong but I can't really see the Sisters of Charity nuns at St Vincent's doing a volte-face on RC ethos.

recedite wrote: »

But whether to be reluctantly compliant, or enthusiastically compliant with a particular law. And which side to err in the "interpretation" of any given law.
And what to do when the law makes no prohibition one way or the other.
Its a question of focus, or perhaps I should say, ethos.

I'm not sure a hospital can be reluctant or enthusiastic; that sounds like a thing people do. But compliance is compliance when it comes to the law; either a hospital fulfils its legal obligations or it doesn't. And where there is no legal obligation, there can be no legal judgement, regardless of focus or ethos.

So far, it's clear the new hospital will carry out abortions in accordance with the law; the Master has said so, so it will be compliant just as the existing maternity hospitals are. What more is there to say?