J C wrote: » Quotes from Wikpeadia on late abortion:-"The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstericss states that abortions "after 22 weeks [gestation] must be preceded by feticide." If medical staff observe signs of life, they may be required to provide care: emergency medical care if the child has a good chance of survival and palliative care if not."
Markgc wrote: » In a given year in Ireland how many women's lives or physical health is at risk?
recedite wrote: » interesting to see the stats there for late term abortion from the kind of "western liberal" countries that are being held up as shining examples of what we should aspire to be. The leader there appears to be Canada, with a shocking 2% of abortions occurring after 21 weeks. At that age, the "choice" is between feticide or putting them in an incubator. Canada a country that decided to go ultra-liberal on the whole issue, get rid of all legal protection for the unborn, and hand it entirely over to "medical ethics". [/URL].
recedite wrote: » Define "health".
Katie Full Leak wrote: » You don't have a crystal ball but you "know" it won't happen. Do tell us how you know? It's snowing outside so I've time on my hands to await your response.:)
david75 wrote: » Throw all the sand up in the air you like. It would never happen here The posts here suggest that women can walk in up to the moment of birth and demand abortion That Will Never Happen.
Katie Full Leak wrote: » There have been lots of things which people said would never happen. Man walking on the moon Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons. The atomic bomb Gay Marriage!
Markgc wrote: » I currently do not possess any real knowledge on the arguments for and against but with a potential referendum on the way there is obvious need to accustom ourselves with the issue in the coming weeks. There are difficult questions. My first query is two part: In a given year in Ireland how many women's lives or physical health is at risk?; If the 8th is repelled it will probably be here to stay; how many children will be killed in, let's say, the following decade, taking into account people who want an abortion because the pregnancy is a mistake or interferes with their lifestyle?
Markgc wrote: » This wasn't rhetorical per se. I didn't know the answer. It was/is an exercise to expand my understanding of the ongoing debate. It’s not known how many legal abortions are performed in the Republic of Ireland where there the woman’s life is threatened by her pregnancy. Master of the National Maternity Hospital Dr Rhona Mahony’s estimate is ten to 20 per year; Master of the Rotunda Hospital Dr Sam Coulter Smith reckons 20 to 30 terminations are performed.www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2016/08/07/8-myths/ Taking a country of similar population to Ireland, 5million approx, Denmark in the single 2014 year had fifteen thousand abortions (15,000)http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-denmark.html Norway fourteen thousand abortions in 2015(14,000)http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-norway.html There is disparity between the figures.
Markgc wrote: » As I am just beginning to explore this very sensitive I may or msy not have made an error in the wording above. In this case, health for me is theoverall wellbeing of the woman and her ability to continue with the pregnancy. With regard to 'risk to physical health' , I was refering to a deterioration of wellbeing, due to systematic infection for example.
uptherebels wrote: » Good thing you read the report then:rolleyes: you missed the start of the sentence "Termination of pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis after 22 weeks, must be preceded by a foeticide " From the same report "In countries where it is an accepted medical practice, whenever a severe untreatable foetal disease or malformation, incompatible with a normal life, is diagnosed by prenatal diagnosis" not exactly what you were trying to make it out to be;)
Markgc wrote: » This wasn't rhetorical per se. I didn't know the answer. It was/is an exercise to expand my understanding of the ongoing debate. It’s not known how many legal abortions are performed in the Republic of Ireland where there the woman’s life is threatened by her pregnancy. Master of the National Maternity Hospital Dr Rhona Mahony’s estimate is ten to 20 per year; Master of the Rotunda Hospital Dr Sam Coulter Smith reckons 20 to 30 terminations are performed.www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2016/08/07/8-myths/
uptherebels wrote: » Of course there is disparity when you compare estimates for one reason for abortion against a figure including all reasons for abortion. Were you expecting them to be equal?
Markgc wrote: » No. Not at all. Let's say 30 is also the average number per year in Demmark and Norway for abortions due to life threatening complications to the mother. That leaves approx. 13970 terminations that are not. A 465 fold greater amount; due to what? Mistakes? Results of a carnal fumble? Down syndrome?(totally gorgeous non-egotisical humans) or something as innocent as a cleft lip? These are mind boggling, mind numbing figures. Soul numbing. It's not justifiable.
volchitsa wrote: » But the tens of thousands of abortions that Irish women have procured over the years thanks to the 13th amendment are acceptable, right?
volchitsa wrote: » If you want to ensure that only life saving abortions take place you must work towards closing down the gaping loophole that is the 13th. Anything else is NIMBYism, not prolife at all.
volchitsa wrote: » Secondly, since it's extremely difficult to identify the exact point when a woman's life becomes at risk, many women will be permanently injured and from time to time one will die. As we have seen.
volchitsa wrote: » Again, it's hard to see how that can be justified given the thousands of legal abortions Irishwomen currently procure under our (ineffective) "ban" on abortion.
volchitsa wrote: » So I would say if you want to reduce numbers of abortions, proven measures like proper sex education and free contraception would do a lot more than a ban on abortion with loopholes you could drive a coachand horses through.
Bredabe wrote: » If abortion is "murder" as it's against a commandment, then how come killing in war isn't(according to my PP) Both are "killing" so why is one ok in the religious community and the other isn't? Wouldn't that impact on the Christian vote?
david75 wrote: » There is a weird element at play in which certain factions believe that if they push the most hysterical worst possible option as fact and as what’s going to happen, people will believe it. And presumably vote against repeal. It’s totally self defeating as this type of scare tactics and fear monger it simply doesn’t work and Ireland won’t ever adopt the position being proposed in these claims and statements. It doesn’t help anyone or the debate. We aren’t having that debate. Come back and try to be reasonable and clear minded, folks. It’s almost bad baseless tabloid nonsense you’re engaging in and you lose people with even half a brain by doing it. It’s so flimsy and transparent.
volchitsa wrote: » But the tens of thousands of abortions that Irish women have procured over the years thanks to the 13th amendment are acceptable, right? If you want to ensure that only life saving abortions take place you must work towards closing down the gaping loophole that is the 13th. Anything else is NIMBYism, not prolife at all. Secondly, since it's extremely difficult to identify the exact point when a woman's life becomes at risk, many women will be permanently injured and from time to time one will die. As we have seen. Again, it's hard to see how that can be justified given the thousands of legal abortions Irishwomen currently procure under our (ineffective) "ban" on abortion. So I woudl say if you want to reduce numbers of abortions, proven measures like proper sex education and free contraception would do a lot more than a ban on abortion with loopholes you could drive a coachand horses through.
end of the road wrote: » we can only deal with acts commited within our state, or acts that are illegal abroad commited by citizens of our state. we cannot do anything about people traveling to other countries to do something that is legal there, even if it is murdering the unborn.
end of the road wrote: » modern medicine does have quite an idea of when a woman's life will be at risk.
end of the road wrote: » proper sex education and free contraception + a bann on abortion in ireland bar medical necessity is the best way to reduce abortions as having to travel and fund one's abortion themselves is quite likely to be a deterrent to some.
volchitsa wrote: » Well that is quite simply untrue. The UK and the US both have laws (on child sex abuse or FGM iirc) which explicitly apply to their citizens anywhere in the world, regardless of what the law in the country where the act takes place says. Ireland seems to have something similar concerning assisted suicide, going by the fact that a woman was denounced by a travel agent for trying to book a ticket to Switzerland for herself and her dying friend. She was tried and the jury took hours before acquitting her, so there was clearly a case to answer, ie it is illegal, even though they were going to a country where assisted suicide is legal. So that claim is no more than a lie and a cop out. Try telling that to Savita Hallapanavar's family. I'm sure it will be a great comfort to them. The evidence shows that a ban on abortion has little to no effect on numbers of women having abortions, and instead merely causes women to be harmed by unsafe abortions. So how many women a year would you be prepared to see being harmed in exchange for this alleged reduction in abortions? Personally speaking I think even one woman seriously harmed is too high a price to pay, seeing as the right to travel takes priority over thousands of abortions every year.
J C wrote: » This has been addressed innumerable times on this thread ... most of these abortions are not acceptable ... but they are within the law in England ... and thus aren't illegal in Ireland, with or without the 13th. There is no 'gaping hole' in the 13th ... and even if it was repealed, women, pregnant or otherwise, would be quite entitled to travel to England, or anywhere else ... and if they availed of lawful services, including abortion, while abroad, there would be nothing that could (or should) be done about it.
J C wrote: » Like I have said previously, a man can go to Spain and legally engage in bull fighting there ... and his partner can have an abortion there ... and they will face no legal consequences upon their return to Ireland ... provided they don't start bull fighting or aborting in Ireland.
J C wrote: » This is now addressed by the PLDPA.
J C wrote: » Quote (Irish Times):-The (maternal death) rate increased from 8.6 per 100,000 maternities in the period 2009-2011 to 10.5 in 2010-2012. However, the report says this increase is not statistically significant and the Irish rate is similar to the UK rate of 10.1. There was no evidence of clustering in any one maternity hospital. Women born outside Ireland were over-represented in reported deaths, pointing to an increased risk for migrant ethnic minorities. Almost 39 per cent of deaths were among women born outside Ireland, while this group represented 24 per cent of all women giving birth. “This raises issues as to how these women engage with Irish maternity services and the importance of the availability of interpretative services. A particular concern was the issue of engagement with the services by non-national patients in receipt of alternative medical advice from outside the country.” So, basically getting non-national women to engage with medical services is the key to lowering maternal death rates in Ireland (back to lower than the current British rate, where they were historically) ... and not abortion ... except in very exceptional circumstances. Every year about 10 women regrettably die while pregnant, with a wanted pregnancy ... but then about 30,000 people die in Ireland every year ... many unexpectedly. Such is life ... death is an ever-present risk for everyone who is alive ... and it makes no sense to go around aborting women ... on the highly unlikely chance that they might die while pregnant. ... and abortion doesn't alleviate that risk anyway ... except in a very small number of cases, and the PLDPA is there for these cases.
J C wrote: » Looking at England and Wales, for example, 23 abortions to save the mothers life were performed in 2015 ... against total abortions of 190,000. Our abortion 'ban' is no more or less effective than our 'ban' on bull fighting ... or the 'ban' on fox hunting in England. The fact that there is a campaign to repeal the 8th, to facilitate the introduction of abortion on demand up to 12 weeks ... and abortion for specified reasons up to 9 months, proves that the 8th is indeed effective at saving unborn childrens lives, in Ireland, with full regard for the lives of pregnant women as well.
J C wrote: » Education is indeed important in reducing abortion ... as well as a comprehensive suite of state-supported options, other than killing the child, being made available to women with 'crisis' pregnancies. I would think that one of the biggest reasons for on-demand abortion is because the woman cannot countenance rearing the child, because of her particular circumstances ... and the availability of properly regulated adoption and fosterage could be the single greatest thing for winning over the hearts and minds of pregnant women, contemplating abortion.
Katie Full Leak wrote: » I assume you can provide links to reliable data sources?
volchitsa wrote: » So having an abortion is not a form of killing people and is closer to animal cruelty? In that case I think the ECJ will find that women are always entitled to prioritize their health over the unborn's right to life, because there is no way an animal has equivalent rights to a person under our laws or the ECHR.
Not many men would allow their health to be dismissed in that way.
volchitsa wrote: » Let's at least be honest about this.
J C wrote: » Abortion is the killing of an innocent Human Being ... and thus is against the 6th Commandment ... and indeed it is repugnant to ordinary Human compassion and our collective humanity. When it comes to war, some Christians are pacifists, for example the Quakers, ... and they refuse to kill in any war. However, killing in war is morally justified in self defense ... or the defense of other people, when there is no alternative option available. If an enemy attacks your country, it has the moral right to kill in self-defense. However, it must be strictly in self defense and with no alternative option available. This means, for example, that it would be immoral, to kill defenseless civilians or to execute enemy prisoners of war who have surrendered themselves and their weapons.
