Andrew Beef wrote: » So why do we need to permit abortion in this country if so few women are choosing to travel with a view to ending the life of their unborn child?
Former Holles Street master: 'Eighth Amendment has caused death of women' The Eighth Amendment has caused “grave harm to women including death” according to former master of Holles Street hospital, Professor Peter Boylan. He was speaking before the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment today, where he also said Ireland’s abortion legislation has an effect on the decision-making abilities of clinicians, resulting in the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar who died of sepsis at Galway University Hospital. “She died as a consequence of the Eighth Amendment”, Professor Boylan told the committee following questions from Deputy Mattie McGrath. Mr McGrath went on to argue that there are “lots of differing opinions” about the cause of death of Savita Halappanavar, to which Professor Boylan said he had “the advantage of reviewing her notes forensically”. The fifth anniversary of Ms Halappanavar’s death is next week. Also present at the Committee was Dr Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran president-elect of International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology who also investigated the death of Savita Halappanavar. He said the difficulty in the Irish legislation where a clear and present threat to a woman’s life must exist before an abortion can occur creates a serious ongoing risk, “some cases accelerate steeply and you miss the boat”, he said. For example, there is up to 60pc chance of maternal mortality with sepsis fever but because the [foetal] heartbeat is there and you start dilly-dallying and that’s it.” All witnesses at the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment today called on Ireland to repeal the Eighth Amendment and replace with legislation along the lines of what was called for by the Citizens Assembly earlier in the year. The Citizens’ Assembly members voted on their recommendations for access to abortion for certain medical and other conditions and voted overwhelmingly to remove the 8th amendment from the constitution. Read more: Fianna Fáil delegates reject calls to change the Constitution on abortion 64pc of the Members’ recommended that the termination of pregnancy without restriction should be lawful. During today’s meeting, expert witness Professor Peter Boylan former Master of Holles Street Hospital said Ireland could look at other EU countries to as possible legal models when shaping any new abortion legislation, not just the UK, where most Irish women have an abortion. Mr Boylan said 99pc of women in the EU have access to termination in the first trimester. The Oireachtas Committee is considering a range of options in the event of next year’s referendum on the Eighth Amendment passing, one of which is to insert limited legislation which allows for abortion in cases of rape or incest. Professor Boylan pointed out the difficulties that will emerge when a burden of proof will lie with a woman to prove she has been raped in order to obtain an abortion. There is no “test to confirm rape” and any woman who has "undergone the trauma of rape should not be forced to ‘prove’ rape if she chooses to terminate a resulting pregnancy", he said. Women should be "taken at their word, hardly a revolutionary concept", he added.
Andrew Beef wrote: » I absolutely care about the unborn child; if it were up to me, I would criminalise women who travel overseas for abortions.
Andrew Beef wrote: » Abortion in medical cases and FFA cases should be allowed in Ireland.
Edward M wrote: » Of course it was. The fetus in a human body is a human creation, its a human, no question of that in my mind anyway. There's no need to dehumanise it to gain support.
Andrew Beef wrote: » blanch152, I have never heard such a case of semantics in all my life. You claim that no person’s right can trump another person’s right, but on occasion one person’s right can supercede another person’s right! Incredible!
Oldtree wrote: » In 2016 there were 2,407,437 women in Ireland. In 2016, 3,265 women and girls gave Irish addresses at UK abortion services. (This number is an underestimation for various reasons and does not include abortion pill packages.) This represents 0.14% of women in the country, hardly a socialtial fabric changing number in either mindset, or changing what is actuality happening.
Edward M wrote: » nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » You are running around the pitch with the goal posts here though in a concerted and contrived and willful campaign of topic hoping. The post before this one you were trying, and failing, to correlate teen pregnancies with sex education..... suggesting a rise in one is linked to a rise in the other, and vice versa. You then dodge from that to STI, and then dodge from that to something entirely off topic about comments about Islam and then dodge once again to the topic of media pressures on children to start having sex. You are taking the "slippery fish" approach to discussion here, leaping out of each topic into the next in an attempt not to be pinned down to the mat on any one. When that post on education position was roundly rebutted you shifted to another narrative about a rise in STI. A completely different position to a rise in pregnancies. And NEITHER of your links correlates this with sex education at all. So yes it IS "just one study" on the subject you addressed, a subject you have run away from in favor of another now. The "just one study" you presented to support your narrative about sex education however is one that even the authors themselves say should be interpreted very cautiously. Which you might have noticed if you had more of a tendency to read the original studies, rather than news paper spin articles ABOUT studies. It is more comical than I have words to describe that you moan about people who "only follow the Medias propaganda" yet every link you provide is TO MEDIA ARTICLES and never to the actual studies themselves. And not just any media articles, but highly biases ones from sources like "Breitbart". You might also notice that one of the authors you cite is remarkably biased on the subject, having spent a decade or more writing against strategies educating teens on sex. It gets even funnier when you moan things are not "news worthy" while citing NEWS articles about them. The conspiracy theories are strong in this one. In other words, the one entirely and wholly reliant on media propaganda here is you. You. Just you. Only you. And, of course, you. Moaning about the media while pretty much exclusively ONLY using media links is remarkably comical even by your usual standards of misdirection. Try reading, understanding and citing the actual research in future, and leave the media out of it entirely. The first thing you need to notice after this is that correlation does not imply causation. The effects of sexual education do not stop the moment you cut funding to sex education. The cuts come at precisely the time when we expect to see the beneficial effects of the sex education the government HAD been funding. So it is a leap of pure narrative and spin to try and correlate the variance in pregnancies NOW with the cut in funding NOW. The former is more likely to be causally linked to what happened BEFORE the latter. Studies worldwide CONSISTENTLY show the benefits of earlier, more comprehensive, and more extensive sexual education. One opinion piece that fails entirely to understand the link before correlation and causation is not going to make all that go away for you. And as one of your own links points out, the issue is less likely to be anything to do with contraception and sex education and more likely to do with mass changes in sexual culture such as afforded to us by dating apps and the like. If you want to support the narrative that an increase in funding to sexual education results in an increase in pregnancies and STIs then you have a LOT more work to do to attain that, as you have presented nothing at all supporting such a concept thus far. If the two were event remotely mutually exclusive you might have the semblance of a point here. But since they are not, you do not. I am perfectly capable of, and in fact very much active in, campaigning to have abortion by choice in my home country while also campaigning for a multiple approach set of initiatives in reducing the number of people who ever seek one. The concept that we should focus on one or the other, especially to the exclusion of one or the other, is a harmful narrative supported by nothing at all that you have presented to date. Or to put less of a contrived spin on your attempts at historical revisionism..... people are generally happy to use terms freely until such a time as being specific is required. It was "Unborn child" before "abortion on demand" because the use of the term "unborn child" did not bring implications that were relevant at the time. Now that abortion IS a question in our world we have to be more specific, and not allow unwarranted implications to be smuggled in through mere mis-use of language. What is happening therefore is NOT the "dehumanization of the baby" as you simply pretend in your agenda driven narrative. Rather we are now in a position to examine whether "humanization of the fetus" was ever warranted in the first place. Clue: It wasn't. Of course it was. The fetus in a human body is a human creation, its a human, no question of that in my mind anyway. There's no need to dehumanise it to gain support.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » You are running around the pitch with the goal posts here though in a concerted and contrived and willful campaign of topic hoping. The post before this one you were trying, and failing, to correlate teen pregnancies with sex education..... suggesting a rise in one is linked to a rise in the other, and vice versa. You then dodge from that to STI, and then dodge from that to something entirely off topic about comments about Islam and then dodge once again to the topic of media pressures on children to start having sex. You are taking the "slippery fish" approach to discussion here, leaping out of each topic into the next in an attempt not to be pinned down to the mat on any one. When that post on education position was roundly rebutted you shifted to another narrative about a rise in STI. A completely different position to a rise in pregnancies. And NEITHER of your links correlates this with sex education at all. So yes it IS "just one study" on the subject you addressed, a subject you have run away from in favor of another now. The "just one study" you presented to support your narrative about sex education however is one that even the authors themselves say should be interpreted very cautiously. Which you might have noticed if you had more of a tendency to read the original studies, rather than news paper spin articles ABOUT studies. It is more comical than I have words to describe that you moan about people who "only follow the Medias propaganda" yet every link you provide is TO MEDIA ARTICLES and never to the actual studies themselves. And not just any media articles, but highly biases ones from sources like "Breitbart". You might also notice that one of the authors you cite is remarkably biased on the subject, having spent a decade or more writing against strategies educating teens on sex. It gets even funnier when you moan things are not "news worthy" while citing NEWS articles about them. The conspiracy theories are strong in this one. In other words, the one entirely and wholly reliant on media propaganda here is you. You. Just you. Only you. And, of course, you. Moaning about the media while pretty much exclusively ONLY using media links is remarkably comical even by your usual standards of misdirection. Try reading, understanding and citing the actual research in future, and leave the media out of it entirely. The first thing you need to notice after this is that correlation does not imply causation. The effects of sexual education do not stop the moment you cut funding to sex education. The cuts come at precisely the time when we expect to see the beneficial effects of the sex education the government HAD been funding. So it is a leap of pure narrative and spin to try and correlate the variance in pregnancies NOW with the cut in funding NOW. The former is more likely to be causally linked to what happened BEFORE the latter. Studies worldwide CONSISTENTLY show the benefits of earlier, more comprehensive, and more extensive sexual education. One opinion piece that fails entirely to understand the link before correlation and causation is not going to make all that go away for you. And as one of your own links points out, the issue is less likely to be anything to do with contraception and sex education and more likely to do with mass changes in sexual culture such as afforded to us by dating apps and the like. If you want to support the narrative that an increase in funding to sexual education results in an increase in pregnancies and STIs then you have a LOT more work to do to attain that, as you have presented nothing at all supporting such a concept thus far. If the two were event remotely mutually exclusive you might have the semblance of a point here. But since they are not, you do not. I am perfectly capable of, and in fact very much active in, campaigning to have abortion by choice in my home country while also campaigning for a multiple approach set of initiatives in reducing the number of people who ever seek one. The concept that we should focus on one or the other, especially to the exclusion of one or the other, is a harmful narrative supported by nothing at all that you have presented to date. Or to put less of a contrived spin on your attempts at historical revisionism..... people are generally happy to use terms freely until such a time as being specific is required. It was "Unborn child" before "abortion on demand" because the use of the term "unborn child" did not bring implications that were relevant at the time. Now that abortion IS a question in our world we have to be more specific, and not allow unwarranted implications to be smuggled in through mere mis-use of language. What is happening therefore is NOT the "dehumanization of the baby" as you simply pretend in your agenda driven narrative. Rather we are now in a position to examine whether "humanization of the fetus" was ever warranted in the first place. Clue: It wasn't.
Orion wrote: » Andrew Beef wrote: » Abortion in medical cases and FFA cases should be allowed in Ireland. So you support repealing the 8th Amendment then because it prevents abortion in those cases.
Peregrinus wrote: » sondagefaux wrote: » And yet, pre-quickening abortions were carried out and only punished or condemned by having to say a few prayers? Hmmm, somehow I don't think that most people would regard that as much of a punishment. I don't know whether the "punishment" was "a few prayers" or not. I made no claims about punishment. If you want to make claims about punishment, go right ahead. I may respond if what you say is interesting. It won't be interesting, though, if your claim is that the "punishment" was "only a few prayers", but it turns out that you have no evidence for this. sondagefaux wrote: » As to your claim that the Catholic Church is on the moral high ground when it comes to the treatment of infants . . . I made no such claim; nor would I. If you're having to make up claims, ascribe them to me, and then post multi-paragraph screeds to refute the claims you have made up, I'll take it that as an attempt to distract attention from the fact that you're unable to defend your own claims about an entirely different matter in an entirely different era.
sondagefaux wrote: » And yet, pre-quickening abortions were carried out and only punished or condemned by having to say a few prayers? Hmmm, somehow I don't think that most people would regard that as much of a punishment.
sondagefaux wrote: » As to your claim that the Catholic Church is on the moral high ground when it comes to the treatment of infants . . .
This, along with the condemnation of the practice of exposing unwanted infants, is one of the earliest distinctive Christian ethical positions that we know of.
Andrew Beef wrote: » Yes, I do. I support abortion in certain circumstances; medical cases (e.g. the Savita case), rape cases, and incest cases. And to answer another poster’s question, I support abortion in cases of rape and incest because I believe that the woman’s right to bodily integrity trumps the unborn child’s right to life in such circumstances. As previously stated, I oppose abortion in “plain vanilla” circumstances and believe that women who procure abortions either at home or abroad should be criminalised. My “Rape Committee” solution of a senior Garda, a GP, and clinical psychologist for rape/incest cases has already been put forward. My thought process is therefore clear and I have done my best to address the incessant and repetitive questioning from the pro-abortion lobby. Beyond that, I have nothing further to say, other than to express hope that the debate, both here and further afield, can remain civil.
sondagefaux wrote: » The hair on a human body is a human creation, it's human, no question of that...
Andrew Beef wrote: » My “Rape Committee” solution of a senior Garda, a GP, and clinical psychologist for rape/incest cases has already been put forward.
pleas advice wrote: » sondagefaux wrote: » The hair on a human body is a human creation, it's human, no question of that... Your logical fallacy is Composition/division
Andrew Beef wrote: I support abortion in certain circumstances; medical cases (e.g. the Savita case), rape cases, and incest cases. And to answer another poster’s question, I support abortion in cases of rape and incest because I believe that the woman’s right to bodily integrity trumps the unborn child’s right to life in such circumstances. As previously stated, I oppose abortion in “plain vanilla†circumstances and believe that women who procure abortions either at home or abroad should be criminalised.
NuMarvel wrote: » Do you think women should be criminalised for having an abortion abroad?
Edward M wrote: » There's no doubt in my mind that, from conception till death, a baby, child, adult, call it what you like, is human.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » The stint in my Granddad's heart is in a human body and is a human creation, by your logic it's also human.
Edward M wrote: » There's no doubt in my mind that, from conception till death, a baby, child, adult, call it what you like, is human. It might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it i. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.
pleas advice wrote: » Appeal to ridicule, it's like fallacy bingo in here...
mrkiscool2 wrote: » And you have every right to believe that. I don't agree with you and I can show you why that belief is wrong, but ultimately it is your right to believe what you want and I will always defend it. However, your rights end where another's begin. By refusing to change the law because of your (and others) beliefs, we are stopping women from having the right to bodily autonomy. Your right to believe a 12 week old fetus is a human being falls below the woman's right to bodily autonomy as your right is directly impacting others rights, therefore is no longer important. Just to clarify my point. You have a right to freedom. You then kill someone. As you infringed on someone else's rights, your right to freedom is diminished and you go to jail. In short, you can belief a fetus is human but you don't get to stop women from having access to abortion because you believe something to be true that isn't.
blanch152 wrote: » There is no doubt in my mind that the earth is flat, it might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it is. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that. See, it is easy to keep things as simple as that.
Edward M wrote: » In the context of what we speak of that's pretty ignorant really. But fair play for lying, I tell the truth as I see it, not make condescending remarks about others real beliefs. My father used to say if you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all.
Edward M wrote: » My father used to say if you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
