Is it still 1971 in Ireland? The contraceptive train still runs - Under another name.

sheesh · 29-10-2014 4:55pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Totally incorrect.

In 1983 the Irish people were not given an option to vote to allow abortion. The law dating from 1861 remained in effect afterwards (right up until the very limited legislation was brought in last year) and would have done, irrespective of the result in that referendum.

Almost nobody under 50 today could have had a vote in that referendum. So almost every woman of reproductive age in Ireland today never even had a vote on the 8th amendment yet they are affected by it.

There were two further referendums in 1992 and 2002. Both were intended to make abortion even less accessible in Ireland than the extremely limited circumstances in which the 8th amendment may permit it. Both were rejected. In other words, the Irish people twice refused to vote against abortion.

The Irish people have never been given a vote in a referendum where allowing abortion to be more available was even an option.

Really?

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/pro-choice-group-shocked-as-irish-women-forced-to-cancel-assisted-suicide-trip-503792.html

Yes the gardai were perfectly entitled to arrest them after they were dead. just not before. I honestly don't know how the guards found out about it either, given that thousands of women go to England for abortions every year leads me to assume that something else was going on here.

Grayson · 29-10-2014 5:00pm

Frito wrote: »

I could be wrong but I think a duty of care exists between relations whereby acts of omission are criminal. I'm not suggesting that a failure to donate constitutes this, it would be more a case of failing to summon help for someone injured/infirm/vulnerable.

It depends on where you are.

I know in the US it's called the good Samaritan law. lets say you see someone dying on the side of a motorway. If you keep driving you aren't breaking the law. If however you stop and don't help you are breaking the law. It's because other people driving past may think the situation is already in hand and therefore they won't do anything.

That doesn't of course include forcing someone to donate a kidney.

OldNotWIse · 29-10-2014 5:07pm

Frito wrote: »

I could be wrong but I think a duty of care exists between relations whereby acts of omission are criminal. I'm not suggesting that a failure to donate constitutes this, it would be more a case of failing to summon help for someone injured/infirm/vulnerable.

We can use necessity principles to argue that abortion does not intend the death of the foetus but is an inevitable consequence of exercising the woman's right to autonomy. A counter argument could be the proportional harm to the foetus is greater than the proportional harm to the woman should she remain pregnant.

I suppose this is where we go round in circles. If the proportional harm done to the potential recipient is greater than the proportional harm done to the reluctant donor then why shouldn't a failure to donate be an act of omission?
edit
/

By donation I am referring to blood or bone marrow, not organs.

Criminal liability by omission only occurs in certain, very specific circumstances such as parent/child (or in loco parentis), or having voluntarily assumed responsibility, or if you have created the danger (Miller Principle - defendant was responsible for creating a fire when he fell asleep holding a cigarette, and instead of raising the alarm, he simply moved beds

) Even under such headings, there is no requirement to risk death or serious injury. Eg if a man sees his son drowning, he is under a duty to shout for help, throw a flotation aid, call an ambulance...but he is not required to jump in or risk seriosuly injuring himself (although I think most parents would anyway!)

Because a criminal conviction is so grave, a liability through omission cannot be easily imposed on someone. Technically, you are completely within your rights to walk on by

Frito · 29-10-2014 5:14pm

Is there not a spousal duty of care also? I think there was a case in UK where husband prosecuted re wife's arthritis which he had not sought help for.

OldNotWIse · 29-10-2014 5:16pm

Frito wrote: »

Is there not a spousal duty of care also? I think there was a case in UK where husband prosecuted re wife's arthritis which he had not sought help for.

Yes you could be right there, thanks

Grayson · 29-10-2014 5:18pm

This has gone a lot off topic from the OP.

One eyed Jack · 29-10-2014 5:27pm

SeanW wrote: »

She is absolving both parties of responsibility, because she is preventing the child from being born. How is this not obvious?

Wouldn't that suit a man who didn't want to take any responsibility for his child?

The child does not just come into existence. A decision must be made to carry it to term.

That decision can only be made by a woman, how is that not obvious?

That is not true.

That's exactly the way it comes across. You're arguing that a man should have an equal say over a woman's body as she does because he impregnated her. You're also arguing that he should have the right to abandon his child.

I never said they were the same. I merely said if one (potential) parent should have the right to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy, so should the other.

But the woman isn't walking away from becoming a parent. That's a rather simplistic view of the many and varied reasons why a woman would choose to have an abortion, one of the more common reasons being that the man who impregnated her does not want to support the child when it's born.

I am not suggesting that anyone should be FORCED to do anything, in fact quite the opposite.

By suggesting that a man should have a say in forcing a woman to give birth against her will, you ARE arguing that she should be forced to do something she does not want to do.

You're also suggesting that a man shouldn't be forced to be responsible for his child. You should make a separate argument for that so you don't confuse people, because the same men that want to abandon their child are hardly the same men that want the woman to keep the child!

SeanW · 29-10-2014 5:46pm

Wouldn't that suit a man who didn't want to take any responsibility for his child?

Yes, it would.

That decision can only be made by a woman, how is that not obvious?

Yes, it's obvious. But that decision impacts 3 lives. Hers, the (potential) fathers, and the childs.

But the woman isn't walking away from becoming a parent.

Yeah, she kinda is.

You're also suggesting that a man shouldn't be forced to be responsible for his child. You should make a separate argument for that so you don't confuse people, because the same men that want to abandon their child are hardly the same men that want the woman to keep the child!

I am not suggesting anyone be forced to do anything. To be clear, there are, as I see it, four possible combinations.

Man wants child, woman does too (e.g. a couple with a planned pregnancy)
Man does not want child, neither does woman.
Man wants child, woman does not.
Man does not want child, woman does.

1 is the best case scenario, 2 not so much but a mutually agreeable solution can often be found, including, where legal, termination-on-demand. 3 not much you can do about that. 4 that's where the idea of a "paper abortion" comes in.

Lapin · 29-10-2014 5:52pm

Grayson wrote: »

This has gone a lot off topic from the OP.

It has a bit.

An meanwhile, amid all the crap about where the fathers are, vulnerable young women continue to make the lonely journey across the Irish sea for terminations, while this country turns a blind eye and sticks its head in the sand.

Frito · 29-10-2014 6:13pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Even under such headings, there is no requirement to risk death or serious injury. Eg if a man sees his son drowning, he is under a duty to shout for help, throw a flotation aid, call an ambulance...but he is not required to jump in or risk seriosuly injuring himself (although I think most parents would anyway!)

But blood donation does not necessarily require us risk death or serious injury. Pregnancy and child birth can though. I will admit I don't have global stats on death due to blood donation vs death due to pregnancy or child birth.

I dont believe donation should be mandatory. If the argument to counter abortion is that i) a parental responsibility (duty of care) exists to the foetus and ii) the proportional harm done to the foetus is greater than the pregnant woman, I find it inconsistent to then argue that where i) a duty of care exists, and ii) where the proportional harm to the recipient is greater than the harm to donor, that donation should be voluntary where pregnancy should not.

One eyed Jack · 29-10-2014 6:13pm

SeanW wrote: »

I am not suggesting anyone be forced to do anything. To be clear, there are, as I see it, four possible combinations.
Man wants child, woman does too (e.g. a couple with a planned pregnancy)

Man does not want child, neither does woman.

Man wants child, woman does not.

Man does not want child, woman does.

1 is the best case scenario, 2 not so much but a mutually agreeable solution can often be found, including, where legal, termination-on-demand. 3 not much you can do about that. 4 that's where the idea of a "paper abortion" comes in.

We could argue back and forth over all the other stuff and still it wouldn't stop a woman seeking an abortion, so really all that's left is the fourth scenario and your suggestion as a solution to that scenario.

So what you're actually putting forward is the suggestion that a man should be able to abandon his child and absolve himself of any responsibility towards his child?

Shouldn't you be campaigning for that then on it's own merits instead of trying to equate it with abortion?

looking_around · 29-10-2014 6:52pm

Celly Smunt wrote: »

And what about the choice of the father? Disregarded?

When the father can take and carry the foetus for nine months, he's welcome to have a say. Until then it's my body.

AlbertSpeer · 29-10-2014 7:16pm

looking_around wrote: »

When the father can take and carry the foetus for nine months, he's welcome to have a say. Until then it's my body.

The foetus isn't your body. If you bring a sentient being into this world the moral obligation is on you to ensure its health and safety.

looking_around · 29-10-2014 7:20pm

AlbertSpeer wrote: »

The foetus isn't your body. If you bring a sentient being into this world the moral obligation is on you to ensure its health and safety.

if it's IN my body, I have the right to have it out. It is my body, I'm not an incubator. And as a foetus, it's far from sentient.

volchitsa · 29-10-2014 7:21pm

Is it a coincidence that two posters with Nazi-themed IDs both espouse "pro-life" views? First Fuhrer and now Albert Speer, who is apparently brand new.

I know the Nazis were anti abortion, but I wouldn't have thought many people would choose them as role models all the same.

One eyed Jack · 29-10-2014 7:27pm

AlbertSpeer wrote: »

The foetus isn't your body. If you bring a sentient being into this world the moral obligation is on you to ensure its health and safety.

Abortion prevents a sentient being from being brought into the world?

The unborn child is still in the woman's body until she gives birth, bringing the child into the world.

volchitsa · 29-10-2014 7:34pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Abortion prevents a sentient being from being brought into the world?

So does contraception. Is that an argument against that too? (I know it used to be.)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The unborn child is still in the woman's body until she gives birth, bringing the child into the world.

So what? No-one thinks anything else. The question is whether first the embryo and then the fetus, have the same right to life as a born human being, and if so, from what point and based on what reasoning?

Pumpkinseeds · 29-10-2014 7:38pm

A woman's body is her body. It doesn't belong to a foetus or a man. A woman should have the right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy or to terminate it. It isn't all that long ago that women didn't even have the right to prescription contraception like the pill, and it was at a doctors discretion to prescribe or not.

People who are pro-life will argue that they care about the welfare of the mother, they don't, they never have and they never will. Nobody, male or female, should be in a position to dictate that any woman should be forced against her will to give birth to a child that they don't want. I'm pro-choice up to 12 weeks and I always will be.

One eyed Jack · 29-10-2014 7:43pm

volchitsa wrote: »

So does contraception. Is that an argument against that too? (I know it used to be.)

I think you may be taking me up wrong. I was replying to Albert's assertions.

So what? No-one thinks anything else. The question is whether first the embryo and then the fetus, have the same right to life as a born human being, and if so, from what point and based on what reasoning?

Albert seems to be unable to tell the difference between an unborn child, and a child that exists outside the woman's body once she has given birth, if she chooses to give birth. That's where I would see the distinction anyway.

volchitsa · 29-10-2014 7:46pm

Yes sorry, Jack, I didn't read back to see whether you were asking if the other poster believed that, or were asking for agreement that this was in fact the case.

In fact we are making the same point, to some extent.

One eyed Jack · 29-10-2014 8:26pm

Mr Rommel wrote: »

Jack seems unable to realise that just because a baby is still in the womb doesn't mean it can't suffer or that it doesn't deserve a rght to life.

I never said anything that even sounded like that so I'm not sure where you're getting that from? It was Albert who suggested that people have a duty when they bring a sentient being into the world you have a duty towards that child to ensure it's health and safety -

AlbertSpeer wrote: »

The foetus isn't your body. If you bring a sentient being into this world the moral obligation is on you to ensure its health and safety.

I completely agree with that sentiment. Abortion, as I said, prevents a sentient being from being born into the world. I never said an unborn child doesn't suffer, nor did I say it didn't have a right to life, but if you need my position clarified - while it is inside a woman, the woman's rights take precedence over the human being she hasn't yet given birth to.

DarkyHughes · 29-10-2014 8:31pm

Well this is what happens when you wish to have your country ruled from Rome.

Demonique · 29-10-2014 8:38pm

AlbertSpeer wrote: »

The foetus isn't your body. If you bring a sentient being into this world the moral obligation is on you to ensure its health and safety.

Yes but it would be in MY body and I wouldn't want it there, I have the right to get rid of it

29-10-2014 8:59pm

volchitsa wrote: »

You either misunderstand or misrepresent what I am saying. It was an essential part of the treatment she needed. I never said it was enough on its own.

Do you think that an abortion could actually have been avoided altogether?

Yes, if she had been treated empirically on 22nd of October. Another poster questioned my credentials and I would say I know more about antibiotics than most doctors bar micro specialists. I'm a hospital pharmacist.

29-10-2014 9:03pm

eviltwin wrote: »

She didn't take the abortion pill. She took medication for arthritis in a large dose to induce a miscarriage. Its not the same as the abortion pill which was designed for that specific purpose.

Would still cause Uterine contractions

PopePalpatine · 29-10-2014 9:45pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Is it a coincidence that two posters with Nazi-themed IDs both espouse "pro-life" views? First Fuhrer and now Albert Speer, who is apparently brand new.

I know the Nazis were anti abortion, but I wouldn't have thought many people would choose them as role models all the same.

More like three, because I'm certain that "Mr Rommel" didn't just pick their username out of a hat.

I already mentioned in this thread the links between Youth Defence and Irish neo-Nazis. IIRC about a year ago a self-proclaimed Anonymous member hacked Youth Defence's homepage detailing the more unsavoury parts of their history, here's a mirror site.

RDM_83 again · 29-10-2014 10:03pm

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

A woman's body is her body. It doesn't belong to a foetus or a man. A woman should have the right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy or to terminate it. It isn't all that long ago that women didn't even have the right to prescription contraception like the pill, and it was at a doctors discretion to prescribe or not.

People who are pro-life will argue that they care about the welfare of the mother, they don't, they never have and they never will. Nobody, male or female, should be in a position to dictate that any woman should be forced against her will to give birth to a child that they don't want. I'm pro-choice up to 12 weeks and I always will be.

See this bit confuses me, I probably come across as pretty pro-life in these sorts of threads, but thats actually a pretty restrictive regime and would probably be a slightly earlier cut off point than I would really consider wise if we actually got a choice to vote on what regime we want rather than a simple yes or no (because I'm sure some woman might miss signs of pregnancy or some other issue for the first 3 months and would just travel to England anyway).

In short yipeee I am now Pro-choice and no longer an mysogenistic Nazi pro-lifer

Fuhrer · 29-10-2014 10:08pm

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

A woman's body is her body. It doesn't belong to a foetus or a man. A woman should have the right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy or to terminate it. It isn't all that long ago that women didn't even have the right to prescription contraception like the pill, and it was at a doctors discretion to prescribe or not.

People who are pro-life will argue that they care about the welfare of the mother, they don't, they never have and they never will. Nobody, male or female, should be in a position to dictate that any woman should be forced against her will to give birth to a child that they don't want. I'm pro-choice up to 12 weeks and I always will be.

This is such a strange position that so many people take.

You say that its always a womans right to choose what to do with her body but you limit your abortions to 12 weeks.

Why 12 weeks? Why the cut off? If you believe that no one should force a woman to not abort a baby, what magical thing happens after 12 weeks that stops you from holding that position?

Fuhrer · 29-10-2014 10:14pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Is it a coincidence that two posters with Nazi-themed IDs both espouse "pro-life" views? First Fuhrer and now Albert Speer, who is apparently brand new.

I know the Nazis were anti abortion, but I wouldn't have thought many people would choose them as role models all the same.

Your general ignorance is nothing new for this thread, inventing arguments and positions in order to suit whatever deranged position you happen to be holding at the time.

I didnt support any pro life or pro choice position, I asked someone who said they should be allowed to have an abortion to clarify their position and asked them a series of questions on what they thought was an appropriate reason or length of time to abort at.

Needless to say they werent able to answer the question with anything meaningful and the drones like you swarmed around with your utterly redundant slogan-erring and empty rhetoric, adding nothing to the conversation other than to drive away anyone who might have an interest in discussing the issue.

Thanks for that, you killed the debate but you got some mindless followers to give you a few thanks on your posts. This must be a big day for you.

volchitsa · 29-10-2014 10:51pm

Fuhrer wrote: »

Your general ignorance is nothing new for this thread, inventing arguments and positions in order to suit whatever deranged position you happen to be holding at the time.

I didnt support any pro life or pro choice position, I asked someone who said they should be allowed to have an abortion to clarify their position and asked them a series of questions on what they thought was an appropriate reason or length of time to abort at.

Needless to say they werent able to answer the question with anything meaningful and the drones like you swarmed around with your utterly redundant slogan-erring and empty rhetoric, adding nothing to the conversation other than to drive away anyone who might have an interest in discussing the issue.

Thanks for that, you killed the debate but you got some mindless followers to give you a few thanks on your posts. This must be a big day for you.

What a strange rant.

Not only do you completely ignore the content of my post (it is strange, IMO, to have posters choosing Nazi names for themselves, and since you're one of them, perhaps you could explain) but you also ignore my earlier post where I had already gone back to see which question you were complaining that someone hadn't answered, and I gave you my answer to it (post 285).

Yet you ignored that, and instead went off on one about me "killing the discussion". How does that work then? I reply to your question, you ignore the reply, I move on to something else that strikes me as odd and frankly a little sinister, and you throw a strop.

Riiight.

Is it still 1971 in Ireland? The contraceptive train still runs - Under another name.

Comments