Abortion debate thread

robp · 06-05-2013 06:38PM

Obliq wrote: »

Your comment in bold defies reality. Can it be true that 4,000 women per year (40,000 in the last ten) are being heard? Where are you hearing them robp? Their silence is for a reason. Watch the video, you might learn something.

Your comment in italics IMO indicates that you'd prefer women with stories of their abortions to stay quiet. To me, those testimonies reveal a lot.

??? when did I say that? Where are the voices of the ~ 74,000 who choose not to abort being heard? Are they being silenced?

Obliq wrote: »

It is not disrespectful to state the fact that part of the Irish constitution (the 8th amendment) reflects a morality that is no longer relevant to the majority of people in Ireland. It was pushed for in the first place by Catholic lobby group the PLAC and dissenting voices were silenced at the time. You know this robp, we've had this discussion before on the A&A forum.
"Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines" - it is also not disrespectful to state this fact about the people who lobbied for the 8th amendment.

Its false as there is plenty of non catholic pro life people from all religions and none, today and in back in 1983. Fundamentalism is a horribly loaded word that conveys creationism and indeed in the true academic sense only means this sort of christian. Yet you use it as a weapon. Its the equivalent of calling pro abortion people liberal fascists.

Obliq · 06-05-2013 06:50PM

It is as true now as it was then. Editorial from McGill at the time of the amendment by Vincent Browne http://www.politico.ie/component/content/article/206-justice/5467-editorial-constitutional-amendment-on-abortion.html

"Another persuasive reason for opposing the amenddment campaign is that one is thereby opposing a regressive and somewhat sinister force in Irish society. As stated earlier, many of the people and organisations cammpaigning for the constitution amendment are using the emotive issue of abortion as a symbolic issue for other purposes - they want to row back the liberal tide which has resulted in a relaxation in the laws on contraception and a greater willingness to consider the removal of the constitutional prohibition on divorce. They are thus being less than honest in their promotion of the abortion referenndum. This is a manipulative device, characteristic of the nature of many of the organisations involved in this cammpaign.

Many of these organisations are secret. Some of them are front groups with no independent existence and exist solely for publicity purposes. They refuse to divulge basic inforrmation about themselves, about their membership, financcing, their links with one another etc. Some of them have ties with the Knights of Columbanus, the secret Catholic right wing male dominated organisation which has exerted a great deal of covert power and influence in Irish society. Much of the activities of these organisations - in their secretive, manipulative and infiltrationist character - are fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-social, whatever their charitable works. This is something sinister in Irish society and the consequences of letting these organisations and individuals off the leash could be very unpleasant. We are not stating that this is true of all the individuals or orrganisations involved in the amendment campaign - we ackknowledge that there are among them genuine people who simply believe in the clear-cut issue they are espousing. "

I have no difficulty going off and finding much, much more of the same. This was the shortest and most pointed article that I could find in the last 5 mins.

Ps. IMO means In My Opinion

eviltwin · 06-05-2013 09:07PM

robp wrote: »

[EMAIL="I will take you up on that point."]I will take you up on that point.[/EMAIL]

Forgive my impatience but perhaps you could oblige? Who are these well known people you describe?

Well known to the organisation not public names. I don't know if anyone outside the group would know them but they are genuine which was my point, they are not trolls as has been suggested.

Some I have met in person, they would be activists and involved in Rachels Vineyard. One runs a so called support group for women who have had abortions, I've been to a few meetings, its vicious stuff, the premise being you can heal but only after you acknowledge you are a terrible person who did a bad thing and ask the lord for forgiveness. Vulnerable women don't need that kind of guilt trip.

eviltwin · 06-05-2013 09:14PM

robp wrote: »

I don't mean to belittle personal testimonies but personal observations of them do not reveal a whole lot.

What do you mean by that? What exactly would you like them to reveal?

J C · 06-05-2013 09:21PM

Obliq wrote: »

Those images are not of open mourning (although those women ARE mourning, that's true), this is open shaming.

I've a little video of my own for you to watch JC. It will explain better than I can.
{

I've watched the video ... and its basic thesis is that Shame=silence=ignorance because the person fears being ostracised if they speak out. Could I suggest that the noble women in my linked videos are speaking out (about the hurt they have suffered) from abortion. Therefore based on your linked video they are not silent and therefore not shamed or ashamed as they clearly feel confident enough to speak publicly about their hurt - and the fact that they had an abortion.
The logic of your video suggests an uncomfortable reality for some women within the pro-choice community, who have been hurt by abortion themselves, but who are unable to speak about it for fear of being perceived as 'letting the side down' and their silence is driven by a sense of shame (for not being all 'happy clappy' about it) just like other pro-choice people would have them believe they should be. This is a real example of shame=silence in action.

Obliq wrote: »

Certainly, their lives have not been improved by their abortions. That would depend on the quality of support they had afterwards and whether their ability to cope with having made what they subsequently feel was a mistake has been compromised by others around them.

Given that many of them said they were encouraged to have the abortion by those around them, your thesis is unlikely ... the straightforward explanation, confirmed by the women themselves, is that they simply regret killing their child ... a very understandable and natural regret for any parent, IMO.
They speak of when they hug their born children that they feel a pang of remorse that they cannot hug their aborted child. They often privately mark the anniversary of their abortion or talk to their aborted child, just like some parents do with children that have died in other ways. When they see children of the same age as their aborted child, they start wondering what might have been.
None of this is suggestive of pressure or judgement being brought to bear on these women by anybody other than themselves ... as they regret the day they took the decision to abort. People are often their own harshest judges ... and they need understanding and support to stop judging themselves and start living and loving again. That is the basic message of Christianity ... forgiveness of self and others ... with the eternal hope and Saving power of Jesus Christ.

Obliq · 06-05-2013 09:59PM

J C wrote: »

I've watched the video ... and its basic thesis is that Shame=silence=ignorance because the person fears being ostracised if they speak out. Could I suggest that the noble women in my linked videos are speaking out (about the hurt they have suffered) from abortion. Therefore based on your linked video they are not silent and therefore not shamed or ashamed as they clearly feel confident enough to speak publicly about their hurt - and the fact that they had an abortion.
Could I suggest a more uncomfortable reality for some women within the pro-choice community, who have been hurt by abortion, but who are unable to speak about it for fear of being perceived as 'letting the side down' and their silence is driven by a sense of shame (for not being all 'happy clappy' about it) as the pro-choice people would have us and them believe. This is a real example of shame=silence in action.

Given that this is a whole new JC I'm seeing here, I will take your point. I do feel that many women look back in regret at the circumstances that led them to take such a drastic measure as abortion and regret that things had not been different. The freedom to mourn the child that might have been is not available to them while these 4,000 women per year (regretting and non-regretting) are silenced by our anti-abortion regime. I think that with counselling and support such women can be helped reconcile with their loss. In that support though, much would be made of their decision to abort having been right for them AT THAT TIME and that their own life's potential/potential to go on and have more children at a better time for them was a good decision, and a necessary one in the context of their personal circumstances. That would be the way to help them come to terms.

Since we are finally speaking openly, without recourse to our respective beliefs, I wonder can you find it in yourself to note that NOT ONLY the women who regret their abortions in Ireland are silenced, but so too are those that do not regret them? And where a woman may know in her heart that she did the right thing by herself (and possibly other family members), she also may be unable to approach the subject through fear of shaming?

Given that many of them said they were encouraged to have the abortion by those around them, your thesis is unlikely ... the straightforward explanation, confirmed by the women themselves, is that they simply regret killing their child ... a very understandable and natural regret for any parent, IMO.
They speak of when they hug their born children that they feel a pang of remorse that they cannot hug their aborted child. They often privately mark the anniversary of their abortion or talk to their aborted child, just like some parents do with children that have died in other ways.
None of this is suggestive of pressure or judgement being brought to bear on these women by anybody other than themselves ... as they regret the day they took the decision to abort.

This is a JC that I haven't met before. One who doesn't have to quote large passages from a religious text to make his point, or offer salvation to people who haven't looked for it. I would like to speak more with this version of yourself JC.

On the premise that I'm still speaking to that JC, yes...I totally agree with you here, but hope you'll acknowledge that the image they put forward is regrettable in the light of it's potential to trigger shame in women who may feel compelled to remain silent about their abortions (whether they know it was the right thing for them or not). I would like to see as much understanding from you for women who do not feel bad about having had their embryo killed as you clearly have for those who do feel regret. I understand that your belief in the "sanctity" of human life may lead you to view these women differently, but I do not (because of my beliefs).

J C · 06-05-2013 10:01PM

Obliq wrote: »

Your comment in italics IMO indicates that you'd prefer women with stories of their abortions to stay quiet. To me, those testimonies reveal a lot.

I want as many women as possible to tell their abortion stories ... and I want them to feel that they can do so without judgment.

You're the one claiming that women who are hurt by abortion are somehow being shamed into telling their stories ... when it seems that they want to do so as a warning to other women not to make the same mistake that they made and as an act of public mourning for their child.

J C · 06-05-2013 10:24PM

Obliq wrote: »

Given that this is a whole new JC I'm seeing here, I will take your point. I do feel that many women look back in regret at the circumstances that led them to take such a drastic measure as abortion and regret that things had not been different. The freedom to mourn the child that might have been is not available to them while these 4,000 women per year (regretting and non-regretting) are silenced by our anti-abortion regime. I think that with counselling and support such women can be helped reconcile with their loss. In that support though, much would be made of their decision to abort having been right for them AT THAT TIME and that their own life's potential/potential to go on and have more children at a better time for them was a good decision, and a necessary one in the context of their personal circumstances. That would be the way to help them come to terms.

Since we are finally speaking openly, without recourse to our respective beliefs, I wonder can you find it in yourself to note that NOT ONLY the women who regret their abortions in Ireland are silenced, but so too are those that do not regret them? And where a woman may know in her heart that she did the right thing by herself (and possibly other family members), she also may be unable to approach the subject through fear of shaming?

I don't think that it is ever going to be possible for every woman to speak publicly about her abortion, no more than any other deeply personal issue. Some women (just like some men) are simply too shy to do so.
... but if they are hurting they shouldn't suffer in silence, they should privately seek help from medical professionals.
I don't think that all women will 'buy into' the idea that much should be made of their decision to abort having been right for them AT THAT TIME and that their own life's potential/potential to go on and have more children at a better time for them was a good decision, and a necessary one in the context of their personal circumstances.
Some women come to believe that it was simply wrong in conscience that they had an abortion and no amount of 'feel good' stuff is going to ease that pain. These people can only be helped by coming to terms with what they have done and forgiving themselves for what they have done with the forgiveness of Jesus Christ, in whom all persons who call on Him are born again and made new.

Obliq wrote: »

This is a JC that I haven't met before. One who doesn't have to quote large passages from a religious text to make his point, or offer salvation to people who haven't looked for it. I would like to speak more with this version of yourself JC.

I'm the same J C ... willing to talk scripture or philosophy or science with love and concern as circumstances demand.

Obliq wrote: »

On the premise that I'm still speaking to that JC, yes...I totally agree with you here, but hope you'll acknowledge that the image they put forward is regrettable in the light of it's potential to trigger shame in women who may feel compelled to remain silent about their abortions (whether they know it was the right thing for them or not). I would like to see as much understanding from you for women who do not feel bad about having had their embryo killed as you clearly have for those who do feel regret. I understand that your belief in the "sanctity" of human life may lead you to view these women differently, but I do not (because of my beliefs).

I view both women the same ... they both have had abortions and they both are in need of loving compassion and forgiveness, should they ask for it.
I agree that the image that the women in the video portrays is stark ... but then a woman openly weeping for her unborn aborted child, twenty years later is also pretty stark too ... but I don't think they should be silenced just because the message they bring and the image they portray is stark.

Obliq · 06-05-2013 10:43PM

Oh here we go again. I'm sorry now, but what is the use of trying to have a reasoned debate when you bring everyone's experience (whether regretted or not) back to bible thumping for an answer? I'm sure you'll post many times looking for me to come back to you about the nittygritty's that we could have debated..... if you would only stick to people and not imaginary beings, but I'm done now.

Mod?! Yes, I know this is the Christian forum. Will leave it back to you for a bit, I'm all "jesus forgives you"'d out of it....

J C · 06-05-2013 11:06PM

Obliq wrote: »

Oh here we go again. I'm sorry now, but what is the use of trying to have a reasoned debate when you bring everyone's experience (whether regretted or not) back to bible thumping for an answer? I'm sure you'll post many times looking for me to come back to you about the nittygritty's that we could have debated..... if you would only stick to people and not imaginary beings, but I'm done now.

Mod?! Yes, I know this is the Christian forum. Will leave it back to you for a bit, I'm all "jesus forgives you"'d out of it....

I respect your decision to bow out gracefully, as is your right.
I'm not bible thumping, whatever that may mean ... just telling it like I think it is.
You have made some interesting contributions to the thread and I've learned more about the Pro-choice position from you and for this I thank you.
As a matter of interest, what would you say to a woman who says that she has come to believe that it was simply wrong in conscience that she had an abortion ... and that she is unable to forgive herself for what she has done ?

Morbert · 06-05-2013 11:44PM

So the Catholic church is trying to bully the Irish people. Sometimes I am proud of Enda.

http://www.independent.ie/videos/irish-news/enda-kenny-responds-to-cardinals-abortion-comments-29243569.html

lmaopml · 07-05-2013 12:16AM

Morbert wrote: »

So the Catholic church is trying to bully the Irish people. Sometimes I am proud of Enda.

http://www.independent.ie/videos/irish-news/enda-kenny-responds-to-cardinals-abortion-comments-29243569.html

Irish people are not stupid, we don't follow the crowd always - and don't feel the need to do so, in order to be ultra 'with' it! It works for us. We're not mini Atheists, or Catholics, or anything else - we take our time....

Enda Kenny is not stupid, he might have a nice lego haircut, and a wink that melts the heart..lol... and be ubber polite, but that doesn't mean that he is being harassed by either the Catholics or the Atheists...or bullied??

... and it's really amazing that you believe he is being 'bullied' - that's some kind of imagination.

People will respond how they will because that's what they do - and cries of 'bullying' is really scraping the end of the barrel.

Frito · 07-05-2013 01:32AM

J C wrote: »

when it seems that they want to do so as a warning to other women not to make the same mistake that they made

I wanted to respond to this particular comment as it relates to the TED lecture that Obliq linked earlier.

Abortion is a decision unique to the circumstances of the woman involved, and to the particular pregnancy. One woman will have a unique set of reasons and circumstances compared to another woman, and also a unique set of reasons and circumstances for each abortion she may have. So it is impossible for the woman in your example to warn other women from making the same mistake she did. It was her mistake to make, and hers alone. And the regret is hers, and hers alone.

Whilst your comment has a compassionate context, it is an example of shaming by stealth, and I concede the converse can happen where women are shamed for regretting their abortions. Because of the latter, it would be wrong to ask women who regret abortions to temper or self-censure their regret in public dialogue for the sake of balance. But I think it's important to highlight that when a woman speaks of her abortion experience, be it regret, relief or any other emotion, it is her experience alone. Whilst we can listen to her story it cannot be a warning or encouragement for others. In a way, it's almost counter-intuitive, I should be empathic, yes? But here I am deliberately reminding myself that I should not walk in this woman's shoes 'as if' they are my own. They're not, and never will be.

FISMA · 07-05-2013 01:41AM

lazygal wrote: »

No. But should the entire burden of care lie on a woman who never wanted such a child in the first place?

No. Which is why in the states, you can carry a child to full term, and leave the child with: the firemen, police, church, or hospital. No questions asked.

So why then should we allow partial birth abortions?

Why then should we allow late term abortions?

In addition to birth control and the morning after pill, how much more do you need?

When do you plan on having even trace amounts of responsibility?

Morbert · 07-05-2013 01:56AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Irish people are not stupid, we don't follow the crowd always - and don't feel the need to do so, in order to be ultra 'with' it! It works for us. We're not mini Atheists, or Catholics, or anything else - we take our time....

Enda Kenny is not stupid, he might have a nice lego haircut, and a wink that melts the heart..lol... and be ubber polite, but that doesn't mean that he is being harassed by either the Catholics or the Atheists...or bullied??

... and it's really amazing that you believe he is being 'bullied' - that's some kind of imagination.

People will respond how they will because that's what they do - and cries of 'bullying' is really scraping the end of the barrel.

He is being explicitly threatened with excommunication. That is bullying insofar as it is the attempt to influence a representative of the people by threatening to remove them from communion if they pass legislation. That is an absolute disgrace.

lmaopml · 07-05-2013 02:21AM

Morbert wrote: »

He is being explicitly threatened with excommunication. That is bullying insofar as it is the attempt to influence a representative of the people by threatening to remove them from communion if they pass legislation. That is an absolute disgrace.

Where was he 'excommunicated'? The drama - I guess one has to add it where it doesn't exist!

I think 'Bullying' is being severely undermined as an expression of something that can have a lasting effect on a person, by other persons who cry out like it's the new vogue....The boy who cries wolf comes to mind.

Since when can a Catholic representative, who promotes the value of all life from conception to natural death, and not place some kind of arbitrary 'value' system on people - not say what they mean and mean what they say, and not be called a 'bully' by well...people who come across as bullies? It might sound shocking, but that's how you come across - not you 'personally' but on this particular bit of the web in Ireland I'm afraid that's how it comes across.

I'm beginning to wonder whether I should even celebrate my little boys communion in public, in the community, without some nay sayer having some arbitrary opinion that counts to say I shouldn't do so among friends.

Thank goodness, this is only at the moment an online phenomena, and most particular to this space here allowed most graciously by the website owners. I think it's awful that good people see badness where it is not. Ahh sure I guess that's life.

robp · 07-05-2013 09:44AM

eviltwin wrote: »

What do you mean by that? What exactly would you like them to reveal?

They only reveal once off experiences but tell us nothing about the mass. No statistic power.

Morbert wrote: »

He is being explicitly threatened with excommunication. That is bullying insofar as it is the attempt to influence a representative of the people by threatening to remove them from communion if they pass legislation. That is an absolute disgrace.

I don't mean to be rude here but you really don't know what you are talking about. Brady is a cannon lawyer. Cannon law says that this path will lead to an automatic excommunication. No procedure is required so obviously Brady is not threatening. H didn't even raise the topic until asked. Its not up to Brady to change the rules. The only issue would it be enforced. Anyway excommunication is not banishment or a punishment it is defined as a 'medicinal procedure'.

eviltwin · 07-05-2013 12:26PM

robp wrote: »

They only reveal once off experiences but tell us nothing about the mass. No statistic power.

Same goes for the regret stories. We still need to hear them though.

Fanny Cradock · 07-05-2013 01:11PM

Obliq wrote: »

Oh here we go again. I'm sorry now, but what is the use of trying to have a reasoned debate when you bring everyone's experience (whether regretted or not) back to bible thumping for an answer? I'm sure you'll post many times looking for me to come back to you about the nittygritty's that we could have debated..... if you would only stick to people and not imaginary beings, but I'm done now.

Mod?! Yes, I know this is the Christian forum. Will leave it back to you for a bit, I'm all "jesus forgives you"'d out of it....

I'm sorry you think this way Obliq. But you are simply going to have to come to terms with the fact that many of the people opposed to abortion do so because of particular religious beliefs. More understanding on your part and less of the "imaginary friend" and "Bible thumping" retorts would be appreciated.

Obliq · 07-05-2013 01:25PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm sorry you think this way Obliq. But you are simply going to have to come to terms with the fact that many of the people opposed to abortion do so because of particular religious beliefs. More understanding on your part and less of the "imaginary friend" and "Bible thumping" retorts would be appreciated.

Similarly, more understanding on his part and less recourse to "you can be saved" and "jesus loves and forgives you for the terrible mistake you made" retorts would have furthered the discussion that was between myself and JC.

To answer to your assumption of my ignorance about the issues - I am completely at ease with the fact that many people opposed to abortion do so because of their particular religious beliefs. That is their right, and that is good. What I have a problem with (and you know this - we have been here before) is that those religious beliefs are imposed on my freedom of reproductive choice.

This is not an intelligent conversation if you cannot see how JC effectively stymied the debate with twisting of context and delivering us pro-choicers from evil after/during every point he makes (valid points or not - it was not worth trying to separate his points from the rhetoric - a task that he constantly hands over to anyone attempting to get to the point with him). I believe it is called "obfuscation".

Bannasidhe · 07-05-2013 01:40PM

I would be quite interested to hear what those who oppose legislation for abortion - even in strictly limited circumstances - believe the government should do given that it is subject to a Supreme Court ruling and a referendum which specifically refused to remove the 'suicide clause'.

Not to mention the fact that the ECHR has stated that due to the fact that it has been established that in certain situations abortion is already legal in Ireland but it must be clarified what those circumstances are...

As we are a democracy government have no choice but to introduced legislation to clarify the situation as they were instructed to do by the electorate, the Highest court in the land and the ECHR.

Failure to do so would effectively mean a democratically elected government ignoring the instruction of the electorate, the Supreme Court and The European Court of Human Rights - by any yardstick this would be akin to tearing up the Constitution and staging a coup.

So, is that really what people want?

What other options are available to the government?

Morbert · 07-05-2013 01:52PM

lmaopml wrote: »

Where was he 'excommunicated'? The drama - I guess one has to add it where it doesn't exist!

I think 'Bullying' is being severely undermined as an expression of something that can have a lasting effect on a person, by other persons who cry out like it's the new vogue....The boy who cries wolf comes to mind.

Since when can a Catholic representative, who promotes the value of all life from conception to natural death, and not place some kind of arbitrary 'value' system on people - not say what they mean and mean what they say, and not be called a 'bully' by well...people who come across as bullies? It might sound shocking, but that's how you come across - not you 'personally' but on this particular bit of the web in Ireland I'm afraid that's how it comes across.

I'm beginning to wonder whether I should even celebrate my little boys communion in public, in the community, without some nay sayer having some arbitrary opinion that counts to say I shouldn't do so among friends.

Thank goodness, this is only at the moment an online phenomena, and most particular to this space here allowed most graciously by the website owners. I think it's awful that good people see badness where it is not. Ahh sure I guess that's life.

How would you feel if, upon bringing your boys to receive communion, a priest threatened you with excommunication and, by extension, damnation if you supported the passing of legislation decided by the people?

The problem is not the Church voicing opinion. The problem is the Church attempting to subvert the will of the people by threatening politicians with damnation if they do not obey the Church commands. That is absolutely bullying.

The purpose of the Church is not to influence the state. Instead, it is to witness to the state.

Fanny Cradock · 07-05-2013 01:58PM

Zombrex wrote: »

You don't find it ironic that you say she was asked a direct question but then you ignore her answer? The "rather obvious point" being made was that in the case of a pre-24 week old aborted fetus some how surviving the abortion procedure the decision whether or not to call for emergency medical attention should be left up to the doctor and the mother there at the time.

I don't believe that I've ignored her answer. In fact, I believe that you have done an excellent job of reproducing what my understanding is (highlighted in bold) and what I've already said. It appears that the law does not compel a doctor to protect the life of a child that has survived an abortion attempt - hence the bill.

Zombrex wrote: »

It is routine that doctors and relatives discuss actions to take in the case of an essentially terminally ill child.

But the assumption here is that an child that survives an abortion attempt is terminally ill. This is not the case. Indeed, I've already shown that for a child of 22+ weeks the survival rate can be as high as 35%.

I'm sorry for the loss that your friends suffered but you are not drawing a valid comparison. A child dying of cancer is not the same as a child dying of neglect.

Zombrex wrote: »

The whole anti-abortion argument rests on the myth that across the country abortions are going wrong and perfectly healthy viable babies are being born who are then left to die.

Is this what you honestly think our case rests on this one argument? Or are you misrepresenting what your opponents are actually saying?

For clarity, the abortion debate rests on the status of the unborn and what rights they are granted. I oppose abortion because I think that the unborn is human and that humans have intrinsic values and rights.

Zombrex wrote: »

How about you just interpret her words as she said them, instead of interpreting them as a sneaky way of advocating infanticide?

I've already given a definition of what infanticide means. PP wanted to block a bill that made care to the child mandatory. This inaction would would lead to the death of the child. We can quibble about the abortionist refusing care as opposed to deliberatly harming the child but this is infanticide by definition and I don't see how else we can define it.

Zombrex wrote: »

And while you are at it maybe explain how you would tell the family of a man dying of a heart attack that the next available ambulance is actually on its way out to a Planned Parenthood clinic to "rescure" a 10 week old foetus because the doctor was compelled by this law to call for it, even though the doctor knows the foetus will die within a few minutes of being outside of the woman's body.

Yes, because that is exactly what is going to happen :rolleyes: It's either the life of the heart attack victim or carting the doomed child off to hospital, right? Alternatively, it might be the case that the State of Florida has adequate resources to send an ambulance to both patients - the heart attack victim and the child who finds themselves within the 35%. You seem to be dropping from 18 weeks to 10 weeks while all along ignoring what I've been talking about - 22+ weeks there is a chance that the child survives.

Why are you looking at the worst possible scenario?

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes but not every abortion takes place at the 23 week Fanny. This law applies to all foetus' aborted. The vast vast vast majority of abortions carried out by Planned Parenthood take place in the first trimester, but this law would apply to them as well.

Who said otherwise? I'm interested in those that do stand a chance of survival. If this was 1, 100, or 1000 a year then that is sufficient justification. Incidentally, this bill does not apply to "all fetus's that have been aborted". You should think about that one.

Zombrex wrote: »

Again are you going to explain to a person in a car accident, or having a heart attack, that his ambulance is actually on its way to an abortion clinic to "save" a 10 week foetus?

I've explained this already. How do you know it is an either/ or case? Why do you again repeat the worst possible scenario? What if an ambulance crew were twiddling their thumbs waiting for a call while a child died in a table in abortion clinic. And please note that I've already corrected you on your use of the word fetus to describe a born child. If I am wrong please feel free to correct me. However, If I am correct then I would ask you to use the correct terminology.

Zombrex wrote: »

What is the point of requiring a doctor by law to call for emergency medical attention for a foetus the doctor knows cannot survive?

Accountability. The abortion provider's job is to kill the child. Presumably everybody in the room wants the child dead. They are not the best people to assess the situation, nor are they necessarily qualified to determine the child's chances of survival. Again, the abortion provider's expertise lies in how to kill the unborn, not how to save the born.

Fanny Cradock · 07-05-2013 02:05PM

Obliq wrote: »

Similarly, more understanding on his part and less recourse to "you can be saved" and "jesus loves and forgives you for the terrible mistake you made" retorts would have furthered the discussion that was between myself and JC.

To answer to your assumption of my ignorance about the issues - I am completely at ease with the fact that many people opposed to abortion do so because of their particular religious beliefs. That is their right, and that is good. What I have a problem with (and you know this - we have been here before) is that those religious beliefs are imposed on my freedom of reproductive choice.

This is not an intelligent conversation if you cannot see how JC effectively stymied the debate with twisting of context and delivering us pro-choicers from evil after/during every point he makes (valid points or not - it was not worth trying to separate his points from the rhetoric - a task that he constantly hands over to anyone attempting to get to the point with him). I believe it is called "obfuscation".

I'm not here to defend JC. Nor did I assume any ignorance on your part. What I asked for was a little more understanding on your part. If you think that it's good that people oppose abortion because of their religious beliefs then I suggest that you learn to live with it when they choose to express that opposition in religious terms.

Obliq · 07-05-2013 02:11PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not here to defend JC. Nor did I assume any ignorance on your part. What I asked for was a little more understanding on your part. If you think that it's good that people oppose abortion because of their religious beliefs then I suggest that you learn to live with it when they choose to express that opposition in religious terms.

Well Fanny, that's exactly what you are doing - defending the use of migraine inducing verbiage on JC's part that was entirely intended to derail the discussion we were having by the use of religious obfuscation interwoven into his every point.

I suggest you stop playing the "learn to live with it" card in terms of the laws of our country - I have no difficulty (I repeat) with anyone expressing their religiously derived pposition to abortion, but imposing that opposition on me in the law of the land is a different matter.

Fanny Cradock · 07-05-2013 02:25PM

What do you mean by "imposing that opposition"? And what does that have to do with the last two posts between us?

robp · 07-05-2013 02:46PM

Morbert wrote: »

How would you feel if, upon bringing your boys to receive communion, a priest threatened you with excommunication and, by extension, damnation if you supported the passing of legislation decided by the people?

The problem is not the Church voicing opinion. The problem is the Church attempting to subvert the will of the people by threatening politicians with damnation if they do not obey the Church commands. That is absolutely bullying.

The purpose of the Church is not to influence the state. Instead, it is to witness to the state.

Why did you ignore my post? The church's rules are clear and whether excommunication occurs has nothing to do with what Brady says. Your bending the facts of cannon law to match your pre conceived agenda.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would be quite interested to hear what those who oppose legislation for abortion - even in strictly limited circumstances - believe the government should do given that it is subject to a Supreme Court ruling and a referendum which specifically refused to remove the 'suicide clause'.

Not to mention the fact that the ECHR has stated that due to the fact that it has been established that in certain situations abortion is already legal in Ireland but it must be clarified what those circumstances are...

As we are a democracy government have no choice but to introduced legislation to clarify the situation as they were instructed to do by the electorate, the Highest court in the land and the ECHR.

Failure to do so would effectively mean a democratically elected government ignoring the instruction of the electorate, the Supreme Court and The European Court of Human Rights - by any yardstick this would be akin to tearing up the Constitution and staging a coup.

So, is that really what people want?

What other options are available to the government?

The past referenda results were woefully ambiguous. ABC said nothing about the suicide clause. The ECHR ruling's is not even legally binding. Legislation change is not necessary to meet their ruling but bringing in legislation without the suicide clause would be fine as would be a clear referendum (which has not happened yet). The only thing they asked is to provide a timeline on matching practise with the constitution. The ruling didn't insist the constitution must provide for abortion for certain circumstances such as limited circumstances.

Morbert · 07-05-2013 04:27PM

robp wrote: »

Why did you ignore my post? The church's rules are clear and whether excommunication occurs has nothing to do with what Brady says. Your bending the facts of cannon law to match your pre conceived agenda.

I ignored your post because I did not see your post.

I don't mean to be rude here but you really don't know what you are talking about. Brady is a cannon lawyer. Cannon law says that this path will lead to an automatic excommunication. No procedure is required so obviously Brady is not threatening. H didn't even raise the topic until asked. Its not up to Brady to change the rules. The only issue would it be enforced. Anyway excommunication is not banishment or a punishment it is defined as a 'medicinal procedure'.

I don't mean to be rude here but you really don't know what you are talking about.

"We separate him, together with his accomplices and abettors, from the precious body and blood of the Lord and from the society of all Christians; we exclude him from our Holy Mother, the Church in Heaven, and on earth; we declare him excommunicate and anathema; we judge him damned, with the Devil and his angels and all the reprobate, to eternal fire until he shall recover himself from the toils of the devil and return to amendment and to penitence." -- Excommunication Oath

That the banishment can be temporary and spun as "medicinal" is irrelevant.

Also, more importantly, that latae sententiae excommunication might occur without ceremony is entirely irrelevant. Plenty of Irish Catholics are technically excommunicated in this way (Plenty have no issue with contraception, for example). What is relevant is the Church threatening to actively refuse communion to politicians for acting as representatives of the people. If that is law of the Church, then that is bullying.

However, after doing a little further digging, I will say that it seems to have only been a veiled threat as at the moment, and not an explicit ultimatum, as I had earlier believed. It also seems like Sean Brady was goaded into it by the press. It seems all the Church is doing at the moment is trying to drum up support among the population, which it is entitled to do.

Bannasidhe · 07-05-2013 05:19PM

robp wrote: »

Why did you ignore my post? The church's rules are clear and whether excommunication occurs has nothing to do with what Brady says. Your bending the facts of cannon law to match your pre conceived agenda.

The past referenda results were woefully ambiguous. ABC said nothing about the suicide clause. The ECHR ruling's is not even legally binding. Legislation change is not necessary to meet their ruling but bringing in legislation without the suicide clause would be fine as would be a clear referendum (which has not happened yet). The only thing they asked is to provide a timeline on matching practise with the constitution. The ruling didn't insist the constitution must provide for abortion for certain circumstances such as limited circumstances.

The referenda results were clear, as was the Supreme Court ruling.

As was my post when I asked what alternatives exist given the fact that the electorate voted to retain the suicide clause meaning government has to legislate for it.
What do you want them to do exactly short of staging a coup? Or, indeed, do you wish them to stage a coup?

J C · 07-05-2013 09:01PM

Obliq wrote: »

Well Fanny, that's exactly what you are doing - defending the use of migraine inducing verbiage on JC's part that was entirely intended to derail the discussion we were having by the use of religious obfuscation interwoven into his every point.

I suggest you stop playing the "learn to live with it" card in terms of the laws of our country - I have no difficulty (I repeat) with anyone expressing their religiously derived opposition to abortion, but imposing that opposition on me in the law of the land is a different matter.

Obliq, being pro-life isn't an exclusively Christian or even Judeo-Christian idea ... there are strong scientific and philosophical (as well as Biblical) arguments against procured abortion - and I have told you that I am just as happy discussing the scientific and philospohical arguments, as I am with the Theological arguments.
Indeed you yourself complimented me on being "a JC that I haven't met before. One who doesn't have to quote large passages from a religious text to make his point, or offer salvation to people who haven't looked for it. "

Even Pagans, like the Greek Philosopher Hippocrates believed that chemical abortion was wrong ... and he would undobtedly be appalled at the even more radical surgical abortion.
Here are the relevant sections of the Hippocratic Oath:-

"Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:...

... I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. "

It might suit the pro-choice agenda to dismiss all pro-life people as 'Christian fundamentalists' or 'right-wing Catholics' ... but the reality is that it is an instinctive Human reaction to protect their children ... both born and unborn - and it is a widely held belief amongst people of all religions and none that the taking of innocent Human life is morally wrong except in extremis where it is unavoidable in order to save other Human life, that is being imminently threatened.

BTW, I see you didn't answer my question as to what you would say to a woman who says that she has come to believe that it was wrong in conscience that she had an abortion ... and that she is unable to forgive herself for what she has done ?

Abortion debate thread

Comments