nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

recedite

KKkitty wrote: »

I'm a mother of 3 kids. I've had a miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy. My mother was illegitimate but her grandmother made out she was pregnant with my mother so my mother was raised by her biological family. My mother went on to become pregnant herself before marriage in the early 70's. My mother had no one to turn to. God fearing Catholic relations of hers forced her into a mother and baby home. I have a brother out there I've never seen or even know how he is. I'm going through my experiences with becoming pregnant with babies I wanted dying inside me. This week was 6 years almost to the day I was told I was having an ectopic pregnancy. 7 months later I'd be told that after weekly scans because of the ectopic pregnancy that yet another baby didn't make it. All that happened to me and my mother and I have to stand with other women and vote yes. No more vilifying women women, no more telling women or young teenage girls to go on boats or planes. Let abortions happen here in Ireland. It's the right thing to do. Progression not regression.

Sometimes I get the feeling that Repeal is seen as a way of undoing past injustices. Stick it to the church and the gombeen politicians. Join the "right on" crusade for feminism, womens rights, workers rights...
No, its just about killing the "not yet born" child. The 8th amendment ensures it only happens when necessary. Like when you had that ectopic pregnancy.
It seems like you are advocating that most of your own family should have been wiped out before birth, including yourself. Bringing in easy access abortion will not change the past, and the future holds a different set of problems for society anyway.

Yes, life can be hard sometimes. And unfairly hard for some people. But you need to look elsewhere for answers.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

the same as abortion on demand.

So you don't know. Thought as much.

pleas advice wrote: »

abortion on request, abortion on demand, unrestricted (as to reason) abortion, no reasons asked or given... elective, voluntary, it is what it is. Do you have an objection to the term 'elective'?

Having worked in a hospital for a number of years, I'm amused at how certain posters throw it around without knowing what the phrase means in a clinical setting.

Overheal

pleas advice wrote: »

abortion on request, abortion on demand, unrestricted (as to reason) abortion, no reasons asked or given... elective, voluntary, it is what it is. Do you have an objection to the term 'elective'?

So there’s no waiting period? No sign-off? Just “I want it out” “ok hop on the gurney” ?

Do you think that’s what happens?

pleas advice

aloyisious wrote: »

Well, that's good to hear as some people on the NO side of the debate here are of the opinion that abortion on demand up to six months will be the norm for pregnant women if abortion is legalized here.

I can see the point being made, but I presume and I hope it won't be the case.

Thing is elective means chosen ... requests from pregnant women to teams of doctors for APPROVAL to have abortions under legal careful medical clinical supervision to ensure all is above board and that such abortion requests are elective, and all within the law of the land if approved by said doctors.

IF approved? Unless its clear that the girl / woman is being coerced into having an abortion, I don't see how there would be an 'if' at all

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

after 12 weeks no elective abortions will be allowed, I presume Outlaw Pete was referring to before 12 weeks

Well, that's good to hear as some people on the NO side of the debate here are of the opinion that abortion on demand up to six months will be the norm for pregnant women if abortion is legalized here.

Thing is elective means chosen. Women at the moment, as I'm sure youi're aware, do not have any right of choice when it come's to abortion here. I'm sure that those opposing abortion being legalized here know that what they describe as abortion on demand will be requests from pregnant women to teams of doctors for APPROVAL to have abortions under legal careful medical clinical supervision to ensure all is above board and that such abortion requests are elective, and all within the law of the land if approved by said doctors.

No pregnant women are being "dragooned" into abortion decisions as far as I know. I'm sure the NO campaigners would be letting us know if that was the case.

KKkitty

I'm a mother of 3 kids. I've had a miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy. My mother was illegitimate but her grandmother made out she was pregnant with my mother so my mother was raised by her biological family. My mother went on to become pregnant herself before marriage in the early 70's. My mother had no one to turn to. God fearing Catholic relations of hers forced her into a mother and baby home. I have a brother out there I've never seen or even know how he is. I'm going through my experiences with becoming pregnant with babies I wanted dying inside me. This week was 6 years almost to the day I was told I was having an ectopic pregnancy. 7 months later I'd be told that after weekly scans because of the ectopic pregnancy that yet another baby didn't make it. All that happened to me and my mother and I have to stand with other women and vote yes. No more vilifying women women, no more telling women or young teenage girls to go on boats or planes. Let abortions happen here in Ireland. It's the right thing to do. Progression not regression.

pleas advice

after 12 weeks no elective abortions will be allowed, I presume Outlaw Pete was referring to before 12 weeks

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

up to 12 weeks, yes. there will be no reasons asked for, there may be some counseling, to make sure its what she wants, but i don't see it proposed that this would have any effect on the provision of the actual abortion

I'm not sure in what context it was brought into this thread

Not sure if you mean "elective" as used by Outlaw Pete and taken up by End Of The Road, or something else. If you're referring to the routine the pregnant women will have to go through to get a possible go-ahead, or a refusal, from the two doctors examing her, check out the material available on what might be in legislation, or check out the routine pregnant women have to ge through under POLDPA. Sorry about the typo on refusal, I didn't mean defusal.

meeeeh

pleas advice wrote: »

would anyone dispute that the the situation in England and Wales is effectively unrestricted abortion, available on request, up to 24 weeks?

Uk law itself. Technically UK does not have abortion available on request and it always has to be signed of by two doctors. Anyway I don't think UK law is a good law and the version suggested in Ireland is not modelled on UK laws or practices.

pleas advice

aloyisious wrote: »

So are we to take it that the doctors examining the pregnant women are going to go along with "no reason asked or given" abortions here, in defiance of what ever laws are brought in to regulate abortion? You know full well that your version of what unrestricted mean's in reality is as false as your phrase "no reasons asked or given".

up to 12 weeks, yes. there will be no reasons asked for, there may be some counseling, to make sure its what she wants, but i don't see it proposed that this would have any effect on the provision of the actual abortion

I'm not sure in what context it was brought into this thread

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

abortion on request, abortion on demand, unrestricted (as to reason) abortion, no reasons asked or given... elective, voluntary, it is what it is. Do you have an objection to the term 'elective'?

So are we to take it that the doctors examining the pregnant women are going to go along with "no reason asked or given" non-medical abortions here, in defiance of what ever laws are brought in to regulate abortion? You know full well that your version of what unrestricted mean's in reality is as false as your phrase "no reasons asked or given". As for your chosen use of the word elective per one Wiki definition, I've made clear my opinion of it's use by NO campaigners, it's a buzzword to them, nothing more.

pleas advice

would anyone dispute that the the situation in England and Wales is effectively unrestricted abortion, available on request, up to 24 weeks?

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

All we are still hearing about is the rare cases, the hard cases, as a reasoning for why it is that the public should vote Yes to make it legal for healthy women to be able to kill their healthy developing babies up to 12 weeks, but one has nothing to do with the other.

Is the last part of your's above presumptive in respect of the public vote making it legal for healthy women to be able to kill their healthy developing babies and just another tactic of the NO campaign or do you have actual proof of healthy pregnant Irish wonen lining up already to lie their way past the doctors they will have to face individually for examination as to their state of health?

You're quite right that the hard cases you mentioned have nothing to do with your "the healthy mothers killing their healthy developing babies" as that latter piece is foretelling on your part while the former "hard cases" do exist.

I believe that the hard cases are a good enough reason to permit abortion when the legal requirements of examination by two doctors are met and they recognize and accept the genuineness of the hard case and sign off on the abortion as necessary for the health of the woman. I won't vote in a way that would allow pregnant womens health to deteriorate to the point of emergency operations being necessary to save their lives on the basis of foretelling and speculation from the NO campaign.

pleas advice

Wikipedia wrote:

An abortion is referred to as an elective or voluntary abortion when it is performed at the request of the woman for non-medical reasons.

abortion on request, abortion on demand, unrestricted (as to reason) abortion, no reasons asked or given... elective, voluntary, it is what it is. Do you have an objection to the term 'elective'?

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

And what does the word elective mean to you in a clinical context?

the same as abortion on demand.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

i can't speak for outlaw pete but my use of elective certainly isn't a replacement for the term abortion on demand. i still happily use that term as i believe it to be a legitimate term and a reality.

And what does the word elective mean to you in a clinical context?

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

@Outlaw Pete: I agree with you about the noisy teenagers talking rubbish. I saw 3 teenagers greeting a group of "Yes" canvassers near my home with shouts of "murderers".

You want a third option added to the voting paper to the effect that elective abortions will not be allowed? I can't say I've heard use of the term "elective" in respect of abortion operations in this, or in the general debate, so far. The NO campaign indicated legalizing abortion was so the pregnant women could continue to have a convenient social life. Is the use of "elective" by you and end of the road an sign that it's the new buzzword of the NO campaign now? Is it a replacement fot the term "abortion on demand" because the use of that term has been debunked?

i can't speak for outlaw pete but my use of elective certainly isn't a replacement for the term abortion on demand. i still happily use that term as i believe it to be a legitimate term and a reality.

aloyisious

@Outlaw Pete: I agree with you about the noisy teenagers talking rubbish. I saw 3 teenagers greeting a group of "Yes" canvassers near my home with shouts of "murderers".

You want a third option added to the voting paper to the effect that elective abortions will not be allowed? I can't say I've heard use of the term "elective" in respect of abortion operations in this, or in the general debate, so far. The NO campaign indicated legalizing abortion was so the pregnant women could continue to have a convenient social life. Is the use of "elective" by you and end of the road a sign that it's the new buzzword of the NO campaign now? Is it a replacement for the term "abortion on demand" because the use of that term has been debunked?

Hitman3000

I wonder did Pete29 accept Robindch's offer to post here? Haven't found any comment from him.

Loafing Oaf

i'm banned from the referendum thread but I thought it was worth pointing out that the odds on a yes vote with Coral and Ladbrokes have tightened today to 1/5, which is Obama on the eve of his second presidential election territory. If the IT/MRBI poll is the reason for this I'm a bit surprised as I thought that was no better than solid for the repeal cause. Maybe punters have a benchmark that says if polls are saying its x+% for yes a week out from the referendum, then it's a done deal...

nozzferrahhtoo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You seem to have confused the words debunked and dismissed.

Yeah I have to say I do not feel particularly "debunked" personally by any user who has a multiple ongoing MO of literally running away from my posts. The difference between debunked and dismissed is wide indeed, and the latter appears to be all that has occurred in this case.

Loafing Oaf

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

All we are still hearing about is the rare cases, the hard cases, as a reasoning for why it is that the public should vote Yes to make it legal for healthy women to be able to kill their healthy developing babies up to 12 weeks, but one has nothing to do with the other.

Welcome to the world of realpolitik. This is how arguments are conducted in the public sphere: everyone focuses on those aspects of the issue in question that strengthen their own case. Groups campaigning against the closure of a hospital in their area will naturally highlight cancer services, A&E etc. rather than the aforementioned ingrown toenails. It's up to the No campaigners to focus on the 12 weeks unrestricted part of the proposals, bring it up in tv/radio debates even if it hasn't been specifically asked about and so on.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

i think that the reason the yes campaign won't bring the elective abortion argument to the front is because the arguments that have been put forward for elective abortions have been debunked quite easily and quickly and have been shown to be invalid because of similar laws and those people's stances in relation to other human beings among many other reasons.

You seem to have confused the words debunked and dismissed.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

i think that the reason the yes campaign won't bring the elective abortion argument to the front is because the arguments that have been put forward for elective abortions have been debunked quite easily and quickly and have been shown to be invalid because of similar laws and those people's stances in relation to other human beings among many other reasons.

Are you talking about the time you "debunked" the fact that a mother of 3 living in poverty might need an abortion by advising that she "contact a charity" and "offer to work more hours" if her reason for needing an abortion was financial difficulties?

Because I wouldn't say you debunked that at all.

end of the road

i think that the reason the yes campaign won't bring the elective abortion argument to the front is because the arguments that have been put forward for elective abortions have been debunked quite easily and quickly and have been shown to be invalid because of similar laws and those people's stances in relation to other human beings among many other reasons.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

All we are still hearing about is the rare cases, the hard cases, as a reasoning for why it is that the public should vote Yes

Given I am hearing LOTS of other arguments as to why we should vote yes, and in fact I have offered many of my own, it appears you are basically contriving to only hear what you WANT to hear.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

At least 90% of this debate should be about elective abortions and just why it is that people should vote to make them legal, even when both mother and baby are healthy.

You appear to have plucked "90%" out of thin air really. I think choice based abortion should very much be a large part of the discourse here, but far from the near total majority of it.

Further if you want the discourse to be about something in particular, then just talk about that thing in particular. People will reply to you, and that is how discussion starts. Strolling into a room declaring what people in the room should be talking about...... not so much.

YOU want to talk about that then YOU can make the first move. You will find me more than equipped to have that discussion with you. Especially given you have not yet over multiple threads and posts given a single coherent reason why the termination of a 10/12/16 week old fetus should be considered morally or ethically problematic. Rather you simply keep talking at people with something about toes and fingers and tongues.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I believe the Vote will be Yes

I have been predicting a No for quite some time and I have something of a many year streak going on of calling the results of public votes correctly. I would be more than happy to admit "I was wrong and you were right" and end my streak though if it comes to pass.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Finally, very interesting that one of top oncologists over the years once wrote:

I am not seeing what is interesting about that exactly? It seems based on the ludicrous assumption that every doctor sees every case. You have an N of 1 here, which is not "Interesting" in the slightest.

Funny I had a doctor who was quite old. I went to him for advice in my college years about an ingrowing toenail. He told me that despite working as a doctor for nearly 35 years I was actually his first ingrowing toenail case.

I suppose since he went 35 years without seeing one, that means it doesn't happen????

That one doctor did not see something in particular says NOTHING about that thing in particular. At all. Even a little bit.

Outlaw Pete

All we are still hearing about is the rare cases, the hard cases, as a reasoning for why it is that the public should vote Yes to make it legal for healthy women to be able to kill their healthy developing babies up to 12 weeks, but one has nothing to do with the other.

It's akin to someone collecting money for a homeless charity and then as they walk off with your cash inform you that only 3% of the people that will benefit from your donation will actually be homeless.

At least 90% of this debate should be about elective abortions and just why it is that people should vote to make them legal, even when both mother and baby are healthy.

This referendum should not have been put to the public with only two options. There should have been a third option to repeal but not also allow elective abortions. I have no problem trusting doctors to perform abortions in the context of illness and I think a lot of those that will Vote No don't either. Giving only two options: No to remain as we are or Yes and allow abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, and perhaps worse, is a referendum of extremes and the Irish people deserved better.

I believe the Vote will be Yes, but only because this referendum is more about voting in a fashionable right on way for a lot of people. I seen a debate taking place yesterday on Grafton St and some of the stuff being shouted out by young girls in black Repeal jumpers was ridiculous. 'Women are dying every day, it needs to stop' and 'A baby doesn't have a heartbeat at 12 weeks, it's just a clump of cells!!!" Whoops and cheers in response. Lots of camera phones were out and so hopefully someone uploads some of that nonsense.

Finally, very interesting that one of top oncologists over the years once wrote:

https://twitter.com/ProfJohnCrown/status/172100435090489346

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

i would oppose it and support it being breached. nobody would be harmed by breaching it unlike the provision of the abortion where the unborn will lose it's life.

i would disagree. an abortion ends the life of an unborn human being. some doctors do not want anything to do with that killing in any way. so there is nothing hypocritical.

So much for being somebody who supports the rule of law. more hypocrisy.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So you would not oppose a law that forced a GP to provide abortion services if the vote is passed?

i would oppose it and support it being breached. nobody would be harmed by breaching it unlike the provision of the abortion where the unborn will lose it's life.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

women who are pregnant now and need an abortion just have to "suck it up" so it is pretty hypocritical of you to say that is ok for one group but not another.

i would disagree. an abortion ends the life of an unborn human being. some doctors do not want anything to do with that killing in any way. so there is nothing hypocritical.

aloyisious

Originally Posted by seamus
In the event that a pro-life doctor found themselves in an emergency situation where abortion was the most appropriate course of action, they would be obliged to do it or find a doctor who will. They cannot choose a poorer treatment just because they oppose abortion.

And if someone has a problem with that, they shouldn't be a doctor.

recedite wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly how it is now, under the 8th amendment.

If that is, as you say, the situation now under the 8th amendment for the doctor, then any new legislation 6 months away won't change the situation despite your earlier claim that the legislation would then oblige doctors to refer pregnant women on to another medical practitioner, against their principles. I'd have thought that you would want the 8th itself then changed to allow for doctors principles.