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

Does anyone feel insulted by the abortion proposals?

lazygal

I don't know where to post. Its a bit of a ranting and raving post but I can't put it there. I feel so, so, so belittled as a woman by the suggestion that a woman seeking abortion on grounds of suicide would face some sort of tribunal of inquiry. The fact it was even bandied about as a proposal at all annoys me. I'm pregnant right now and I feel like my husband and daughter will be put in a position where they might have to face life without me, because even if my health is in serious danger right now, unless I might die I won't receive treatment.

I know this is a rambling, incoherent mess of a post but I'm just so angry and upset and insulted by the current bandying about of the difficulties the state wants women to face in the abortion debate.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Amirani

lilmissprincess wrote: »

This is disgusting behaviour. Ashamed to say he supposedly represents my area at home.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/the-air-froze-in-the-chamber-walsh-s-input-was-disgusting-1.1465774

Absolutely shocking stuff.

I have no comprehension how he comes up with the idea that "the Bill...is “anti-woman” and “disempowers women”. I presume he shares this warped "forced abortion" standpoint that anti-choicers seem to be fond of. It's unbelievably irrational.

I don't necessarily have an issue with graphic description of abortion, if it's somewhat necessary. Here though, he's using it purely to upset and provoke emotions in a way that isn't conducive to proper parliamentary debate.

I won't even start on Terry Leyden's; “leaving a baby dying on a table in some hospital". :rolleyes:

lazygal

If I was to describe the csection I had, or the episiotomies many pregnant women have, or the manual removal of the placenta, or a forceps delivery, to Jim Walsh, he probably wouldn't find them too pleasant. Just because a medical procedure might sound gruesome doesn't mean it shouldn't be carried out. I'd be squeemish at footage of open heart surgery or skin grafting, but I don't see that as a reason to speak out against it.

jaja321

lazygal wrote: »

If I was to describe the csection I had, or the episiotomies many pregnant women have, or the manual removal of the placenta, or a forceps delivery, to Jim Walsh, he probably wouldn't find them too pleasant. Just because a medical procedure might sound gruesome doesn't mean it shouldn't be carried out. I'd be squeemish at footage of open heart surgery or skin grafting, but I don't see that as a reason to speak out against it.

According to his Wiki page he has claimed that women working outside the home is a major cause of depression in young people, and also expressed annoyance that he couldn't call gay people "fairies". He resigned the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party whip, in protest at the Civil Partnership bill.

The man's a complete moron.

FouxDaFaFa

“Colleagues, that is what you are being asked to vote for,” stated Walsh, before finishing with a poem about an aborted baby crying on its way to the incinerator.

You have got to be fcuking kidding me.

Das Kitty

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

You have got to be fcuking kidding me.

Ooh a poet!

(Is it wrong that I want to hear that poem?)

FouxDaFaFa

I googled to see if I could find it, naively thinking that poetry from the perspective if an aborted foetus was a narrow niche.

It is not.

Highlights include: "Hear my Cry", "Mama, please don't kill me" and "Remorse is Forever".

I might go sit in the dark for a while.

kylith

I remember one of my old religion teachers reading us some story like that "Oh, I wonder what my room is like. Do I have a crib yet? Oh no, I'm being murdered". Sorry if I sound crass, but I bloody hate anthropomorphisation.

Das Kitty

kylith wrote: »

I remember one of my old religion teachers reading us some story like that "Oh, I wonder what my room is like. Do I have a crib yet? Oh no, I'm being murdered". Sorry if I sound crass, but I bloody hate anthropomorphisation.

If a 3 month old infant can't even fathom that things not in their field of vision exist, I would be dubious of your religion teacher's claims that an embryo or foetus can wonder about their crib. :pac: And the concept of murder. Wow advanced!

Someone could be breeding some sort of super soldiers somewhere I suppose.

Amirani

Das Kitty wrote: »

If a 3 month old infant can't even fathom that things not in their field of vision exist, I would be dubious of your religion teacher's claims that an embryo or foetus can wonder about their crib. :pac: And the concept of murder. Wow advanced!

Someone could be breeding some sort of super soldiers somewhere I suppose.

A child isn't even able to recognise its own reflection in a mirror until it's between 18 and 24 months old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

kylith

NiallSparky wrote: »

A child isn't even able to recognise its own reflection in a mirror until it's between 18 and 24 months old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

How can they then claim personhood from conception?

Morag

kylith wrote: »

How can they then claim personhood from conception?

Cos they declare that 'ensoulment' happens at conception.
That from that point there is a soul and it's a unique combination of DNA which will make a unique person.

Amirani

kylith wrote: »

How can they then claim personhood from conception?

They make a lot of claims. Not very many of them make any sense.

Das Kitty

Morag wrote: »

Cos they declare that 'ensoulment' happens at conception.
That from that point there is a soul and it's a unique combination of DNA which will make a unique person.

This reasoning I can understand (even though I disagree with it). It's when someone is atheist and pro life that I can't wrap my head around.

YumCha

I'd be interested to know what their definition of conception is - given that not all fertilised eggs actually proceed to implantation...

Have been stuck at home all week I've been an absolute masochist and tuning into the various debates - can't remember who was talking today, but on the cases of rape and incest he actually said something along the lines of how his concern was for the unborn, and who was going to stand up for that poor innocent victim... I kid you not.

Inbetween that, the guy who couldn't tell the difference between fatal foetal abnormalities and disabilities, and Fidelma Healy Eames going on about the women who hadn't terminated being more joyous than women who had (oh and their kids being able to feel the wind in their hair) I was downright disgusted that this is what passes for 'debate' in our government.

FouxDaFaFa

I'm listening to Jim Walsh's full speech and it's even worse than I thought. He mentioned the case study of a woman who had an abortion at 18 and wh now, at 35, is cutting herself. He describes this self-harm as a "symbolic act of atonement".

The accepted psychology behind self-harm is an inability to cope with one's feelings. Her feelings may be related to this abortion but his insinuation that people self-harm as some kind of penance is ridiculous.

His argument hinges on anecdotes from women who voluntarily had abortions when their lives were not in danger and who were not suicidal, completely irrelevant to this particular legislation.

He reads a speech containing phrases that make him look like a puppet for american pro-life groups, using the word "automobile" instead of "car" or "vehicle", as would be most common in Ireland.

Frito

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

I'm listening to Jim Walsh's full speech and it's even worse than I thought. He mentioned the case study of a woman who had an abortion at 18 and wh now, at 35, is cutting herself. He describes this self-harm as a "symbolic act of atonement".

This frustrates me so much! To restrict an option for everyone because some people have regretted a choice!

If he's that concerned about her self-harm, he might want to ask the question why the "ring-fenced" budget for mental health that minister Lynch announced has been used to curb the deficit in global health spending. If he was that concerned...

The Black Oil

I'm sure the likes of Pieta House might have a few words to say about that idiotic description of self-harm.

Frito

Well it may be valid in that particular woman's case, and it may not be valid. Why on earth this can be extrapolated to every woman who has or wants an abortion is beyond me.

Frito

And reminding that valid does not equal reliable.

eviltwin

I don't know why someone hasn't pulled TD's and senators up on the regret issue. There is an implication in what they say that regret is normal, that its something that ruins your life, that women are in some way deserving of it too.

I'm sure that the average person out there with no experience of abortion can be forgiven for taking these people at face value and believing them. And I'm sure many of them are anti abortion out of some misguided desire to protect women from future mental health issues.

TD's and senators know like the rest of us that our lack of access to abortion doesn't stop abortion. So if people in power really do worry about regret and are really concerned for women why is the support for women post abortion not being brought up, why aren't they putting money towards counselling, why is there no attempt made to open up the conversation and get these women talking as we've been told about depression in general?

I don't think Jim Walsh gives a toss about what happens to women tbh, I think a depressed woman is just a handy illustration that he can manipulate to keep things as he wants them and that really angers me.

lazygal

There's heaps of things I regret. People can be suicidal with regret over a poor choice of partner in life, or taking out a mortgage they can no longer afford, or moving to another country. That doesn't mean the majority can live with the regret and get on with things.

Plenty of people regret getting married, but I don't see why the reactions of others should dictate access to marriage.

kylith

Morag wrote: »

Cos they declare that 'ensoulment' happens at conception.
That from that point there is a soul and it's a unique combination of DNA which will make a unique person.

That doesn't even tie in with the bible. Biblically ensoulment occurs when the foetus starts to kick. The biblical penalty for causing a miscarriage is a fine.

Fecking Christians, can't even follow their own holy book.

Sleepy

I feel more dismayed by the current legislation than anything else tbh.

It's really disappointing that, were a referendum held today where voting options were presented as a multiple select(as a check box for each circumstances in which one finds it acceptable to legalise), I think we'd almost certainly see it legalise abortion for fatal fetal abnormalities, risk to life of the mother, cases of rape/incest etc. and wouldn't be surprised to see economic circumstances or straight-forward "on-demand up to X weeks" passed.

I've no polling to prove that but looking around me, I can't help but feel the scales have tipped in favour of the Pro-Choice side of the debate and yet our politicians being, for the most part, of an older, more conservative (and anti-abortion) generation than those who'd post on these forums and won't even entertain the notion of holding such a referendum.

So vote for someone else, I hear you say? Who? The only parties that are socially progressive enough to bring forward such a motion are also so daft on economic issues that they seem to think money grows on trees and that leaves many of us (well me at least) in the position where my views on such topics as abortion, gender equality, gay rights etc. aren't reflected in my voting as I'm too concerned about the economic survival of our state to vote in anyway I perceive damaging to it.

Morag

the Irish Family Planning Assoc tracks the various polls which get published on the issue

http://ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/Public-Opinion

Morag

kylith wrote: »

That doesn't even tie in with the bible. Biblically ensoulment occurs when the foetus starts to kick. The biblical penalty for causing a miscarriage is a fine.

Fecking Christians, can't even follow their own holy book.

A papal bull changed that in the 1880.

Neyite

Words fail me.

Brian Ó Domhnaill A Fianna Fáil senator has been accused of reaching a new low after he said allowing abortions in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities would be “depriving future Special Olympics athletes of being born”.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/07/18/never-go-full-td/

kylith

Morag wrote: »

A papal bull changed that in the 1880.

Thanks for the information. Funny how they can just decide to change the received wisdom of their god so easily.

lazygal

Its bull alright.

Amirani

Sleepy wrote: »

I feel more dismayed by the current legislation than anything else tbh.

The thing is that had the current legislation went further than including suicide, it very well could've been ruled unconstitutional in a later challenge in the Supreme Court. Omitting including other clauses, while not being the right thing to do morally, it was the correct thing to do politically.

There will be a future opportunity to vote on and legislate for other cases, one would hope that that comes sooner rather than later. There's certainly a lot of public appetite for it as you say.

Das Kitty

Neyite wrote: »

Words fail me.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/07/18/never-go-full-td/

I guess he didn't understand the "fatal" part in the phrase. I think he needs to meet some of the people who have been either forced to carry a baby to term knowing that it was going to die, or have been forced to leave their own country and pretty much smuggle their baby's body back in so that they can bury them at home.

//as an aside though, lol at broadsheet's url.//