Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious wrote: »

So you reckon that more women here, beyond those who are travelling abroad for abortions at the moment, will opt for abortion here if the 8th is removed? Does that mean you think x amount of the women here who, at the moment, opt to go full term with the pregnancy, will change their minds and opt for abortion instead?

Taking into consideration that any women who can't afford the cost of going abroad for an abortion operation can take the imported pill or try the POLDPA route to end their pregnancies, not withstanding your reference to consumerism, I'm wondering where else you get your increased figures from?

Would some women worry about the risk of unsupervised abortion medication (assuming they weren't at the most frantic end of the spectrum for wanting one?) Would some woman be influenced by a societal view that held the the life in her womb a life?

mickydcork wrote: »

The mother forgoes her bodily autonomy

Got it. There's no need to bring in stupid handgun analogies.

Which is a convenient way to side step the argument.

What about rape victims?

I prefer to deal with the middle section of the normally distributed curve as to why crisis pregnancies arise - not the vanishingly thin pointy bits to the sides.

I know latter cases are the YES focus - and for good reason they focus thus since irresponsibility, carelessness and selfishness don't arise there to the same degree in those cases.

You don't swing public hearts and minds when you introduce a healthy dose of own responsibility into the equation.

mickydcork

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which is a convenient way to side step the argument.

I prefer to deal with the middle section of the normally distributed curve as to why crisis pregnancies arise - not the vanishingly thin pointy bits to the sides.

I know latter cases are the YES focus - and for good reason they focus thus since irresponsibility, carelessness and selfishness don't arise there to the same degree in those cases.

You don't swing public hearts and minds when you introduce a healthy dose of own responsibility into the equation.

Okay clearly state your position on why women who get pregnant through unprotected sex or a failure of contraception lose their bodily autonomy, without using analogies.

frag420

antiskeptic wrote: »

You do realise that repealing the 8th will increase abortion. Ease of access, safety, cost of access, society imprimateur for having an abortion. Remove the barriers to consumption of something desired and consumption will increase

Eh no it wont. There will still be the same amount of abortions happening as there is now its just that they will be legal and safe and in Ireland.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You realise too that we aren't at the races when it comes to preventing crisis pregancies.

Abortion is the lazy option for Ireland. I am inclined to suspect that it's a financially attractive one for government - given the costs of prevention through education / tackling binge culture and the like would be profound.

You didn't seem to notice the last part of my post or perhaps you could not answer, either way here it is again for you in case it was the former and you do indeed have a reply to both.

frag420 wrote: »

And if we are pre-programmed to care more about the faces we see regularly, not so much about the people we have never met then please tell me why you go to so much effort to pretend to care about the thousands of women across Ireland that you have never see nor ever will who may or may not need access to an abortion, how does any of that affect you?

You do realise that maintaining the 8th wont stop abortions. The very next day after the referendum 12 women/girls are taking a journey to the UK. The following day the exact same and so on and so forth....

I have a question, how far would you go to stop a woman procuring an abortion in Ireland. Say you found out your sisters friend had ordered abortion pills following a one night stand. What would you do in this instance?

mickydcork wrote: »

Okay clearly state your position on why women who get pregnant through unprotected sex or a failure of contraception lose their bodily autonomy, without using analogies.

Choices bring consequences. The choice to engage in creation activity means you bear (literally) the consequence of the creation activity.

Now, we often manage to evade the consequences of our choices. And that's fine.

But if we are talking about it costing another their life, then that's not really on.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would some women worry about the risk of unsupervised abortion medication (assuming they weren't at the most frantic end of the spectrum for wanting one?) Would some woman be influenced by a societal view that held the the life in her womb a life?

Not withstanding the fact your responses are NOT answers to my questions, the answer in respect of your response-question 1 seem's to be a resounding NO [and that's not a pun] and a mix of YES and NO in respect of your response-question 2, but I am sure you are already aware that those are societal facts of life here.

recedite

frag420 wrote: »

Why make the 90yr old a stranger and the two kids family members eh? What if the 90yr old was the well loved and caring grandfather of your niece or daughter? Do you thin he should be mourned less if he died?

It is less tragic IMO, when somebody who has lived a full life dies.
Of course they would be mourned, but we accept that its the natural order of things. Ripping an unborn life out of its mother's womb can't be considered part of the natural order.

frag420 wrote: »

And if we are pre-programmed to care more about the faces we see regularly, not so much about the people we have never met then please tell me why you go to so much effort to pretend to care about the thousands of women across Ireland that you have never see nor ever will who may or may not need access to an abortion, how does any of that affect you?

I can care about the well being of both pregnant women and their unborn children, even though I have never met either.

frag420 wrote: »

You do realise that maintaining the 8th wont stop abortions.

Yes.

frag420 wrote: »

I have a question, how far would you go to stop a woman procuring an abortion in Ireland. Say you found out your sisters friend had ordered abortion pills following a one night stand. What would you do in this instance?

I wouldn't do anything. I'm not the law. Its also illegal to buy mail order abortion in England BTW, but lots of people still do it.

frag420

recedite wrote: »

It is less tragic IMO, when somebody who has lived a full life dies.
Of course they would be mourned, but we accept that its the natural order of things. Ripping an unborn life out of its mother's womb can't be considered part of the natural order.

You are in a burning hospital. You are escaping and you see a tray of petry dishes with thousands of potentials lives there(loads of fertilised eggs waiting for loving parents to be implanted into) and on the floor you see the 65 yr old scientist who is taking care of those fertilised eggs. You cant save both...so do you grab the tray and save thousands of potential lives or save the doctor!?

recedite wrote: »

I can care about the well being of both pregnant women and their unborn children, even though I have never met either.

You forgot to answer the last part though, how does someone you don't know who has an abortion affect you? Think back to yesterday, 12 Irish women travelled over and had an abortion here in the UK. Can you think of anything that happened to you yesterday that you can link to these women (that you don't know) that got in the way of your day, that affected you in any way? Did you get dizzy twelve times yesterday or perhaps felt yourself get emotional out of the blue, tears welling up and said to your self...there goes another one, if only I could stop this happening? Or did you not notice and you went about your day as normal?

recedite wrote: »

Yes.

So you want to maintain the status quo and thus cannot not be by any standard Pro Life in any meaning or sense of the term!?

recedite wrote: »

I wouldn't do anything. I'm not the law. Its also illegal to buy mail order abortion in England BTW, but lots of people still do it.

Whats with the fascination with England? What if they order from Holland or some other country!?

So why would you not stop her murdering the unborn, why allow her to stop the beating heart of a 12 week old fetus? Are you really that cold that you would let her do this, murder the innocent unborn!?

Say you heard that she was thinking of suffocating her 1 yr old as she could not cope anymore, would you have the same attitude as you do above, they are equal in your eyes after all!?

frag420 wrote: »

Eh no it wont.

I'm afraid that doesn't make sense. Someone who can't afford to go to England and who isn't prepared to take a medical risk would have those barriers removed.

Are you suggesting that everyone can afford to go to England and that people, who might be borderline decisions regarding an abortion) wouldn't be put off by medical risk?

You didn't seem to notice the last part of my post or perhaps you could not answer, either way here it is again for you in case it was the former and you do indeed have a reply to both.

1. I don't agree with your pre-progamming theory. The existence of charities which receive donations to the tune of billions demonstrates problems with that theory.

2. I gave the framework earlier for how I see this (to deal with the whole nimbyism device). Ireland as a household and maintaining it's values at home, irrespective of members of that household choosing to act contra those values when outside the home. I cannot fully legislate for people acting contra home values: I'm not going to stop them walking out the door.

frag420

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm afraid that doesn't make sense. Someone who can't afford to go to England and who isn't prepared to take a medical risk would have those barriers removed.

Are you suggesting that everyone can afford to go to England and that people, who might be borderline decisions regarding an abortion) wouldn't be put off by medical risk?

1. I don't agree with your pre-progamming theory. The existence of charities which receive donations to the tune of billions demonstrates problems with that theory.

2. I gave the framework earlier for how I see this (to deal with the whole nimbyism device). Ireland as a household and maintaining it's values at home, irrespective of members of that household choosing to act contra those values when outside the home. I cannot fully legislate for people acting contra home values: I'm not going to stop them walking out the door.

It was not my theory, read up!! That theory was spat out by one of your pro birth chums...

So you are all bark and no bite, weak and cuckolded by your beliefs...its pathetic and shameful!

SusieBlue

antiskeptic wrote: »

Choices bring consequences. The choice to engage in creation activity means you bear (literally) the consequence of the creation activity.

Now, we often manage to evade the consequences of our choices. And that's fine.

But if we are talking about it costing another their life, then that's not really on.

Still weaponising children into "consequences" and punishments for their "careless" parents, I see. Doesn't sound like you have much respect for life if you'd bestow an innocent child onto an unwilling woman as a "consequence".

You can't trust them to take a pill. Can't trust them to make an informed choice about their own life. But they can be trusted with the responsibility and burden of rearing another human being for 18+ years.
Right, gotcha. :rolleyes:

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

We don't have that here. We will have abortion as a first resort.

Errr yes we do, we have crisis pregnancy support services, we do however lack a modern sex education system that properly teaches responsible sex with contraceptives but that's hard to do when over 90% of state funded schools are run by a crowd that think condoms are wrong.

You have an awful twisted view of women if you think abortions are their first choice. Only a fool thinks somebody opts easily for an abortion.

You also have a very narrow view of the harm the 8th causes if you think crisis pregnancy's are the only thing effected by the 8th, medical care is one extremely important thing that people forget!.... Including you.

recedite wrote: »

Firstly, SIPO are authorised to give the definitive position, which they did.

No, they can't, they're not a court of law so any decision they make can be subjected to judicial review.

Secondly, when O'Gorman loses the case he is likely to say the money can't be returned because its all gone. He'll say he can't pay a fine or pay the costs because that would require taking money from other "charity" works.

Great crystal ball you have there.
Seeing as though you like speculation, I speculate they will either pay it back from their reasonably ample resources or have a crowdfunding campaign to cover it, I'd gladly throw in a few quid.

Actually I think they should have already returned it, just so the conspiracists can shut up with all the Soros nonsense.

BUT there should be an immediate full investigation by SIPO and the Charities Regulator into the activities of the No campaign, including churches with charitable status - too late for this vote but it might prevent interference with future ones.

If I don't pay a parking ticket, and instead claim I'm waiting "until a definitive legal position is reached", how is that going to work out for me?

Private and public car park operators have appeal procedures, but failing that there is always the High Court.

recedite

frag420 wrote: »

You are in a burning hospital. You are escaping and you see a tray of petry dishes with thousands of potentials lives there(loads of fertilised eggs waiting for loving parents to be implanted into) and on the floor you see the 65 yr old scientist who is taking care of those fertilised eggs. You cant save both...so do you grab the tray and save thousands of potential lives or save the doctor!?

I'd save the doctor. He still has a life to live, for a good few years. The embryos are human, but barely developed at all.

Now here's one for you...
Your child is due to be born tomorrow.
A 90 year old in Kabul with terminal cancer needs hospital treatment for a bacterial infection.
You can only afford to pay medical costs for one of them, which do you choose? (theoretical analogy only, so ignore the practicalities of this)

frag420 wrote: »

You forgot to answer the last part though, how does someone you don't know who has an abortion affect you?...

It does not affect me. And as I said it is not up to me to take any action to stop it. I can still disagree with it though.

frag420 wrote: »

So you want to maintain the status quo and thus cannot not be by any standard Pro Life in any meaning or sense of the term!?

That conclusion does not follow. Its alogic fail, a non sequitur.

frag420 wrote: »

Whats with the fascination with England? What if they order from Holland or some other country!?

I think you misunderstood. Its not where the pills are sourced that matters. There is a problem in England with English people buying abortion pills online. Its cheaper, and more discreet, and less hassle for some people than going to doctors.
So, we can assume that we will continue to have that issue here whether the 8th is repealed or not.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

recedite wrote:

Firstly, SIPO are authorised to give the definitive position, which they did.

No, they can't, they're not a court of law so any decision they make can be subjected to judicial review.

Straying off topic with this, but I'll just say that a court would only be deciding whether the fair and proper procedures had been followed.
Sipo would still be regarded as the competent authority in the original matter.

mickydcork

antiskeptic wrote: »

Choices bring consequences. The choice to engage in creation activity means you bear (literally) the consequence of the creation activity.

Now, we often manage to evade the consequences of our choices. And that's fine.

But if we are talking about it costing another their life, then that's not really on.

Okay. Got it. The women loses her bodily autonomy when engaging in 'creation acts'.

Allied to the position (that I granted you) that at conception a blastocyst is equivalent to human life.

This position is problematic.

You would have moral imperatives to take measures to 'save' human life.

The woman has lost her bodily autonomy so you take this to ridiculous places.

Why stop at the woman? The man engaged in 'creation acts'. Why should he not lose his bodily autonomy.

His pregnant lover needs a kidney? No problem just take it from him.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm afraid that doesn't make sense. Someone who can't afford to go to England and who isn't prepared to take a medical risk would have those barriers removed.

Are you suggesting that everyone can afford to go to England and that people, who might be borderline decisions regarding an abortion) wouldn't be put off by medical risk?

1. I don't agree with your pre-progamming theory. The existence of charities which receive donations to the tune of billions demonstrates problems with that theory.

2. I gave the framework earlier for how I see this (to deal with the whole nimbyism device). Ireland as a household and maintaining it's values at home, irrespective of members of that household choosing to act contra those values when outside the home. I cannot fully legislate for people acting contra home values: I'm not going to stop them walking out the door.

Re your last, do you wish for a change in the section in the constitution on the citizens right to travel to enable the bringing-in legisltion preventing pregnant women from leaving the country in case they just might have it in their minds to have an abortion while abroad? Would that be within your household framework rules? Would I be correct in thinking your theoretical household is the 26 counties of our republic over which our constitution holds sway? If a woman in your household was made pregnant by you while you were together on your settee/sofa, would you throw her out if she chose-to have/had an abortion?

A first for me in the run-up, met a serious-faced 12 + group of NO canvassers on the Boghall Rd earlier, kept cycling on by.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but we don't know that Hobby Lobby's plan doesn't include these ethically-screened investment funds. [...] This is an attempt to try and paint HL as hypocrites. They may well be hypocrites, but this particular matter doesn't show that they are.

Apologies for dragging up an old post, but Hobby Lobby has finally agreed to return, today, around 4,000 artifacts from Iraq which it purchased via a range of means, almost all of which were "fraught with red flags" - a euphemism for "corrupt, but not easily provably so". Officials said that the returned artifacts are likely to be displayed in Iraq's National Museum.

In a statement released last year, Hobby Lobby says that the problems were caused by other people who "did not understand the correct way to document and ship" artifacts potentially thousands of years old. Hobby Lobby did not immediately reply over the last day or two to requests for comment from NPR.

Hobby Lobby's CEO, David Green, is a fundamentalist christian and HL donates 50% of its pretax earnings to a range of fundamentalist christian organizations. Mr Green is on record as saying that the business runs "on Christian principles."

recedite wrote: »

Straying off topic with this, but I'll just say that a court would only be deciding whether the fair and proper procedures had been followed.
Sipo would still be regarded as the competent authority in the original matter.

And Amnesty maintain that SIPO's interpretation of the legislation is flawed, which is why they're appealing it, as is their right - and which you call "O'Gorman cynically thumbing his nose" which frankly says a lot more about you and your biases than it does about O'Gorman or Amnesty.

If you want cynicism then Save the 8th and McGuirk can't be beat.

robindch wrote: »

Mr Green is on record as saying that the business runs "on Christian principles."

In other words being the biggest asshole possible :cool:

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The household can't control the fact that members of the household will chose to step outside the values of the household and act contra those values.

That was the context.

Which brings us back to NIMBYism. You are perfectly happy to control choice when it is on this Ireland, but just throw up your arms when the person leaves. If you found out that someone was travelling tomorrow abroad to kill their 2 year old toddler, would you just throw up your arms and say nothing can be done because you can't realistically control their choice?

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is can't beat em join em territory.

Actually, this is pragmatic "do the least harm" territory. It's far better than your "out of sight out of mind" territory.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Given abortion rates can only be expected to increase in the event of a yes, there are practical benefits to holding the line in a save the baby context.

Indeed. We could do worse than the uk

Do you think teen pregnancy here is monitored as in the uk where everything is up from and legal? Or is it a case that Irish teen pregnancies form a portion of this 5000 irish abortions you speak of - an as such, might not enter the figures?

Your talking very small numbers of teen pregnancies compared to the amount of abortions here.

Isnt it the case that the uk abortions occur sub 12 weeks. To the tune of a percentage in the 90's pr summit? I don't see impact of 12+ weeks on things.

One thing is certain: remove obstacles to consumption of something desirable and consumption will increase. Societal stigma, safety, price, certainty, ease of availibility

More scaremongering. Teen pregnancies are counted the same way in Ireland and the UK - by births to teen mothers. So if we don't count those who get abortions here and neither does the UK, then the teen pregnancy numbers I provided can be directly compared.
Look, we can still factor them in and it won't change anything:
Ireland female population aged 15-19: 137196
Irish Abortions in UK for under 19 and under: 240
rate=1.75/1000
So even factoring in Irish teens who travel for abortion in Irish teen pregnancies numbers we get 9.55/1000. Even without doing the same for UK numbers that is still less than half the UK's rate.
Maybe next time you make stuff up to scaremonger, actually look up some numbers to see if you are even in the same neighbourhood as accurate?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Financial sense versus alternative ways of reducing crisis pregnancies that end up on abortion, I meant.

Thats expensive.

That still doesn't make any financial sense. Financially, the best thing to do is nothing, keep letting women travel and them/UK take the bill.
Do you have any sources or numbers to this financial claim, or is this something else pulled from the air?

The Association for Catholic Priests [ACP] has asked that the churches not be used by the Anti-abortion camapign to deliver promotional addresses during mass. John McGuirk of the Save The 8th group has opposed the request claiming they were invited into the churches and put's the request down to hysteria. The story is covered in all 3 national brodsheet newspapers.

Why am I supposed to care about abortion rates?

I mean really, why? Why am I supposed to give a shit? It's none of my business. I maintain it's none of anyone else's business, either.

Every decision is an individual decision. If she aborts she has her reasons and frankly it's none of mine nor anyone else's damn business.

I accept the right of every pregnant person to choose to continue or abort a pregnancy under any circumstances without having to justify their decision to me or anyone else. The point of counting these individual decisions is... pretty meaningless as far as I can see.