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 the Fourth

robindch

...continuing on from previous threads on abortion (abortion part 1, part 2 and part 3).

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like, given a snipers rifle and a clear view of Hitler, would you?

Yes.

As for the actual article, if God exist they should have better pr people.

Hotblack Desiato

Abortion is not, was not and never has been, in the history of this state at least, considered to be murder.

Refer to the 1861 Offences Against The Person Act for further details.

Penalty for murder - death
Penalty for abortion - life

Those damn liberal Victorians...

Oh and infanticide wasn't considered murder either.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Assuming, for a moment, that abortion is considered murder by the protagonists which particular activity would you describe as not pretty?

Like, given a snipers rifle and a clear view of Hitler, would you?

Mod: antiskeptic carded for trolling and reference to abortion as murder

Igotadose

No abortions statistics yet (due in 2020), but some web site and phone usage numbers just came out:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/1231/1103681-unplanned-pregnancy-freephone/

12,080 phone calls
331,000 website hits.

Excellent news.

aloyisious

Igotadose wrote: »

No abortions statistics yet (due in 2020), but some web site and phone usage numbers just came out:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/1231/1103681-unplanned-pregnancy-freephone/

12,080 phone calls
331,000 website hits.

Excellent news.

The master of The Rotunda gave some figures for his establishment for the past year on RTE news when being interviewed. I can't recall the exact figure so wont post a random until I see what Patsy McGarry has in the Irish Times later today.

Hotblack Desiato

approximately two patients a week with a fatal foetal abnormality.

He said a termination for medical illness, where the mother's life is in danger is rarer, occuring once every week or two.

Hmmm remember when the anti-repeal side said (in not quite as many words) that these issues were so rare as to be not worthy of consideration? Oh and Ireland was supposedly the safest place in the world to give birth, too (until it was disclosed that many maternal deaths were not being counted correctly.)

Igotadose

Seems like some movement happening on exclusion zones. Of course, it's just a twitter convo and an article on RTE, but perhaps we'll see them soon. All good.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/0101/1103876-health-ireland/

aloyisious

Igotadose wrote: »

Seems like some movement happening on exclusion zones. Of course, it's just a twitter convo and an article on RTE, but perhaps we'll see them soon. All good.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/0101/1103876-health-ireland/

Listening to RTE, it seems that the filmed scene was a 1st anniversary event explaining the large number of persons there, while there seems to have been a small regular Sunday presence outside the NMH. I don't know if the presence has been replicated outside the Rotunda.

Hotblack Desiato

We should turn every future January 1st into a celebration of the anniversary of the right of Irish women to access legal abortion in their own country.

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We should turn every future January 1st into a celebration of the anniversary of the right of Irish women to access legal abortion in their own country.

Not generally the way we do things in Ireland though. Once these freedoms have been achieved, they are generally taken for granted and barely mentioned again. A case of letting auld abortion laws be forgot and never brought to mind, perhaps...

Loafing Oaf

Do any of you have a good understanding of how the review of the legislation is likely to pan out? Has to be done by the start of 2022 AFAIK.

Will the parties tell us what position they are likely to take ahead of the GE? Or is this sort of thing supposed to be done 'with an open mind'?

lazygal

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Do any of you have a good understanding of how the review of the legislation is likely to pan out? Has to be done by the start of 2022 AFAIK.

Will the parties tell us what position they are likely to take ahead of the GE? Or is this sort of thing supposed to be done 'with an open mind'?

I don't know about anyone else but abortion is something I'll be raising with any general election candidates I encounter. Already raised it with them during the local and European elections.

Peregrinus

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Do any of you have a good understanding of how the review of the legislation is likely to pan out? Has to be done by the start of 2022 AFAIK.

Will the parties tell us what position they are likely to take ahead of the GE? Or is this sort of thing supposed to be done 'with an open mind'?

The point of these reviews are that they are supposed to be reviews of how new legislation has worked out in practice, vis-a-vis what was expected or forseen when the legislation was enacted. So (if you're taking the review seriously) you can't say in advance what the review should find; you have to wait until you have evidence of how the legislation has worked in practice before you can draw any conclusions from that evidence.

The other point is that the review is not supposed to be a partisan or political matter. It's organised by the minister but conducted by public servants, talking to the people actually involved in/affected by the legislation. So a review of the abortion legislation, say, will talk to doctors, hospitals, patient advocates.

It might also receive (whether it seeks them or not) submissions from advocacy groups, pro-life or pro-choice or both, but to carry any weight those submissions themselves will have to be grounded in evidence of how the legislation was worked in practice. It will be perfectly fine to do that and then to suggest that how it has worked out does (or does not) represent a good outcome from a public policy point of view or that it does (or does not) bear out the predictions/promised made when the legislation was enacted, but the review itself will likely note such views, rather than endorsing or rejecting them.

The point of the review is not to conlude that the legislation has worked well or badly; it is to conclude whether it has worked as intended/expected. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, and whether it means that any further legislation is required, are political decisions. So the report will likely be tabled in the Dail, and (if there is political interest) a debate will ensue about whether the legislation needs amendment.

smacl

lazygal wrote: »

I don't know about anyone else but abortion is something I'll be raising with any general election candidates I encounter. Already raised it with them during the local and European elections.

In what sense, whether they're broadly pro-life or pro-choice or do you have any more specific questions in mind?

lazygal

smacl wrote: »

In what sense, whether they're broadly pro-life or pro-choice or do you have any more specific questions in mind?

I'm in Dublin City Council/Dublin Bay North. Asked the local candidates their views on exclusion zones and how they would deal with them on a local level if there's no national legislation. One of them left FG in 2013 to set up Renua so you bet your ass I was asking him why he's back in the fold and if he's changed his views. When the GE campaign starts I'll be raising issues like the review of the legislation, especially the 3 day wait and the fact that women still have to travel for abortions after 12 weeks and in cases of non fatal disabilities, I want access to abortion to be much wider.

Loafing Oaf

Peregrinus wrote: »

The point of the review is not to conlude that the legislation has worked well or badly; it is to conclude whether it has worked as intended/expected. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, and whether it means that any further legislation is required, are political decisions. So the report will likely be tabled in the Dail, and (if there is political interest) a debate will ensue about whether the legislation needs amendment.

So there would be nothing inappropriate or 'jumping the gun' if a political party were to set out what changes it would like to see to the legislation in advance of the review and indeed of the general election? If a TD thinks the three-day waiting period is a bad thing and should be removed from the legislation, it wouldn't be contrary to 'political etiquette' for them to come out and say that now?

Hotblack Desiato

Absolutely not.

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

It might also receive (whether it seeks them or not) submissions from advocacy groups, pro-life or pro-choice or both, but to carry any weight those submissions themselves will have to be grounded in evidence of how the legislation was worked in practice.

The prospect of the actuality of the Pro-Life groups being able to provide any coherent reliable evidential submissions as to the working of the legislation in the locations it pertains to is probably slim [due to their opposition to the operations being performed] though the groups would be entitled to make submissions and accepting them would block any claims they weren't allowed a seat at the table: ala the Citizens Assembly hearings. But that's for the day the review submissions etc are given the necessary readings.

Peregrinus

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

So there would be nothing inappropriate or 'jumping the gun' if a political party were to set out what changes it would like to see to the legislation in advance of the review and indeed of the general election? If a TD thinks the three-day waiting period is a bad thing and should be removed from the legislation, it wouldn't be contrary to 'political etiquette' for them to come out and say that now?

No, that kind of thing would be fine. Just don't expect the review itself to be coming up with conclusions like these; that's not its function.

Having said that there would be nothing wrong with a party or an individual politician taking stance like this, my guess is that most will avoid doing so. The politics of abortion are pretty toxic; almost any distinctive position a politician might take risks repelling people more than it attracts them, so most politicians are highly motivated not to take a stand. And the review will provide at least a temporary justification for doing so - "It would be premature to make any decisions about this in advance of the forthcoming review, yadda, yadda, yadda".

wench

Interesting article on the German abortion situation, where long dormant anti abortion laws are being dragged back into use by pro-lifers
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/08/abortion-law-germany-nazis-women

The closing quote underlining the complete reversal of the situation here

Let’s hope Hänel wins her case so that one day we won’t have to go to Ireland if we need an abortion.

lazygal

I disagree that the politics of abortion are toxic. This is what the prolife campaigns want. But the citizens assembly and subsequent campaign weren't toxic. People were able to talk for the first time openly and politicians realised they were way behind the public on this. It's now normal health care. And will be treated as such by the vast majority of the electorate. The only people who wanted to keep it toxic were the youth defence nutjobs.

Timberrrrrrrr

lazygal wrote: »

I disagree that the politics of abortion are toxic. This is what the prolife campaigns want. But the citizens assembly and subsequent campaign weren't toxic. People were able to talk for the first time openly and politicians realised they were way behind the public on this. It's now normal health care. And will be treated as such by the vast majority of the electorate. The only people who wanted to keep it toxic were the youth defence nutjobs.

I loved the way the pro choice campaign was handled, Calm, cool, collected using facts, figures and science to get their point across in a civil fashion. The closer to the day of the referendum the more toxic the pro life campaign got which seemed to spur the pro choice campaign even further.

lazygal

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I loved the way the pro choice campaign was handled, Calm, cool, collected using facts, figures and science to get their point across in a civil fashion. The closer to the day of the referendum the more toxic the pro life campaign got which seemed to spur the pro choice campaign even further.

The anti repeal campaign was so rigid and lacking in any compassion that its no wonder they were roundly rejected. And the base they have is shrinking, as they acknowledge in their private social media groups. We cannot continue to allow this tiny minority of extremists to frame all discussions on normal health care.

Salary Negotiator

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I loved the way the pro choice campaign was handled, Calm, cool, collected using facts, figures and science to get their point across in a civil fashion. The closer to the day of the referendum the more toxic the pro life campaign got which seemed to spur the pro choice campaign even further.

I don't think that the pro-choice campaign being cool, calm and collected made much difference.

We've seen in the UK and US that when faced with catchy slogans, populism and falsehoods voters are happy to ignore facts and figures. We saw the same in the Nice and Lisbon treaty referendums.

I think most people had their mind's made before the campaign officially started and Yes were always going to win, that the Yes campaign carried themselves so well and the No campaign didn't was just an added bonus.

volchitsa

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

I don't think that the pro-choice campaign being cool, calm and collected made much difference.

We've seen in the UK and US that when faced with catchy slogans, populism and falsehoods voters are happy to ignore facts and figures. We saw the same in the Nice and Lisbon treaty referendums.

I think most people had their mind's made before the campaign officially started and Yes were always going to win, that the Yes campaign carried themselves so well and the No campaign didn't was just an added bonus.

In hindsight you're correct, but I think that ignores the fact that both referendum campaigns were the reflection of their views, and that the No side's screaming hysteria didn't just start when the official campaign kicked off. People's minds were made up because of how the Repeal side had behaved and argued for years, and - maybe even more - how prolife acted too.

That it took decades of that constant wearing down of extremism doesn't make it any less of a victory when you think where we started from. It wasn't possible to even be pro choice in 1983 - that put you right on the extreme margins of society. Most people voting against the 8th amendment back then could only frame it in terms of saving women's lives.

Hotblack Desiato

What's toxic for me and a hell of a lot of other voters now is any candidate with the slightest whiff of pro-life off them.

We can't afford to forget that a right which is legislated for, can be legislated against.

Repeal campaign lanced the boil of the toxicity surrounding abortion once and for all. The "pro-life silent majority" was shown up to be an illusion, conservative rural Ireland was shown up to be an illusion, even conservative over-65s was largely shown up to be an illusion. Only fringe candidates can win votes by appealing to this lobby now.

Salary Negotiator

volchitsa wrote: »

In hindsight you're correct, but I think that ignores the fact that both referendum campaigns were the reflection of their views, and that the No side's screaming hysteria didn't just start when the official campaign kicked off. People's minds were made up because of how the Repeal side had behaved and argued for years, and - maybe even more - how prolife acted too.

That it took decades of that constant wearing down of extremism doesn't make it any less of a victory when you think where we started from. It wasn't possible to even be pro choice in 1983 - that put you right on the extreme margins of society. Most people voting against the 8th amendment back then could only frame it in terms of saving women's lives.

All very fair points and I'd agree with all you say. It's why I added "officially started" instead of started because it was such a long fought campaign. I also wasn't trying to downplay the work and effort of the Yes/Pro-Choice campaigns down the years.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What's toxic for me and a hell of a lot of other voters now is any candidate with the slightest whiff of pro-life off them

Agreed, kind of why I asked lazygal the question. Our lot here in South Dublin would basically lie through their teeth and tell you whatever they thought you wanted to hear if they thought it might get a vote. Thinking of questions to ask that don't give away my own position to get some notion of how they actually think.

I find it a bit worrying that the important decisions in this country only ever seem to be arrived at following a people's vote. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in any of the political parties in office ability to deliver democracy. What's the last government that you can remember where you could hand on heart say "Jaysus, they did a fantastic job". Seems more the case these days that the best we can hope for is "I hope they don't make as big a fúck up of things as the last lot".

Hotblack Desiato

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

I think most people had their mind's made before the campaign officially started and Yes were always going to win, that the Yes campaign carried themselves so well and the No campaign didn't was just an added bonus.

I really don't think so (and my wife was a T4Y canvasser) - a lot of people in the middle ground had doubts about why "on demand" :rolleyes: and at least 12 weeks were necessary

In Her Shoes, knocking on doors, media coverage, and getting people talking about their experiences with FFA, miscarriage and yes abortion were absolutely necessary.

Just a few years ago when POLDPA was being brought in (a huge fuss over nothing) many political commentators were saying that they couldn't envisage the 8th being repealed, "middle Ireland" would never vote for it etc etc

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What's toxic for me and a hell of a lot of other voters now is any candidate with the slightest whiff of pro-life off them.

We can't afford to forget that a right which is legislated for, can be legislated against.

Well in theory a future government could seek to re-outlaw divorce or contraception, but I don't I think anybody is genuinely concerned that that is going to happen.